Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 1st, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Good morning, everyone.

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 6 of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the subcommittee is meeting on its study of the recognition of international human rights champions.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

Colleagues, despite her absolute best efforts, due to multiple flight delays, Nazanin Boniadi was unable to join us today. With the agreement of the committee, can we have her opening remarks taken as read and published in today's evidence?

I need your approval, please. Are we all good?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

[See appendix—Remarks by Nazanin Boniadi]

Thank you.

It is now my honour to welcome the witnesses.

From the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, we have the Honourable Irwin Cotler, founder and international chair.

Mr. Cotler, you are very welcome. As you know, your presence always adds value to this subcommittee.

From Voices of Children, we have Veronika Sheldagaieva by video conference.

Now I would like to hear a few words from Mr. Irwin Cotler. Then I will open the floor for discussion, questions and answers.

Mr. Irwin Cotler, the floor is yours. Take your time.

[Irwin Cotler, Founder and International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very happy to be here and to be part of the common cause that brings us together.

I'm delighted to join Nazanin and Veronika, who are warriors for both human rights in Iran and justice for Ukraine, respectively, and I look forward to their testimony.

I would add that I regard this committee, as I said when I was an MP and reaffirm today, as being one of the most important—if not the most important—parliamentary committees involved in the struggle for human rights, the pursuit of justice and the defence of democracy.

Five years ago, I spoke of a resurgent global authoritarianism, backsliding of democracies, assaults on human rights and political prisoners as a looking glass. Today, we meet at a historical inflection moment in which we are witnessing a concerted, intensifying and collaborative axis of authoritarianism, with Russia, China, Iran and their proxies.

We are seeing an increase not only of the backsliding of democracies but also of polarization within and between democracies. The United States, formerly the linchpin of the rules-based international order, has now—under the Trump administration—been upending the transnational alliance and the same rules-based international order. We are witnessing not only assaults on human rights but also an age of mass atrocity. Political prisoners are not only a looking glass into all this but also torchbearers for human rights, defenders of democracy and pursuers of justice. They are the real champions of whom I will speak today.

I will say, parenthetically, that for those of whom I speak, I have been serving as international legal counsel and make representations in that context.

I will summarize briefly the cases and causes of political prisoners from the axis of authoritarianism—Russia, China and Iran—as well as from Eritrea, which has ranked last in the world press freedom index for the last 10 years.

I will begin with the case of Dr. Ahmadreza Djalali, a Swedish Iranian physician now in his 10th year of unjust imprisonment, suffering not only torture in detention but also deprivation of the right to counsel, the right to a fair trial under Iranian law, the right to visitations by family and the right to representations by consular officials on his behalf. His wife, Vida, just days ago received a chilling message from him in Evin prison, in which he spoke of his imminent threat of death by execution or by the absence of any medical treatment for his serious medical conditions.

When I speak of Dr. Ahmadreza Djalali, we are reminded of Canada's taking leadership in 2021, with the “Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations”. His case, like the others I will mention, is a case study in how we can lead in making representations on his behalf. I'll close only by saying that all the UN special procedures have come out and called for the immediate and unconditional release of Dr. Ahmadreza Djalali.

That brings me to the second political prisoner, and that is the heroic Russian dissident, historian and political prizewinner Vladimir Kara-Murza. Vladimir Kara-Murza first came to Canada in 2011 along with the then leader of the democratic Russian opposition, Boris Nemtsov, to support my initial draft legislation on Magnitsky sanctions. Boris Nemtsov was assassinated outside the Kremlin in 2015.

Vladimir Kara-Murza came and testified before our foreign affairs committee in 2015, calling for Magnitsky sanctions and the like. He went back to Russia and was poisoned. He survived. He came back here again in 2017. He testified again. I was with him at the time. He went back to Russia. Once again, he was the target of an assassination attempt. He survived.

In 2022, he was charged with treason for nothing other than advocating for justice within Russia on behalf of political prisoners and justice for Ukraine. He was sentenced to 25 years for treason. He was released a year and a half ago in a prisoner exchange; Canada played an important role in his advocacy. As we meet today, he is being threatened with imprisonment yet again by Russia. As I said, we know of two assassination attempts, followed by his imprisonment for treason.

I would also mention Alexei Gorinov, whom I represent as well, who's been serving.... He became the first Moscow city councillor to be imprisoned for anti-Russian slander, for nothing else but supporting justice for Ukraine.

That brings me to China and its assault on the rules-based order—this committee is familiar with it—the mass atrocities targeting the Muslim Uyghurs that have been held to constitute acts of genocide, its dismantling of the democratic regime in Hong Kong, its persecution of the Falun Gong, its menacing of Taiwan and its repression of Tibet. What is not so well known, which brings me to a particular point here, is that China imprisons more political prisoners than any other country in the world.

I want to mention, in this regard, the case and cause of Jimmy Lai. You've heard about it at this committee, so I need not go into it other than to say that Jimmy Lai is imprisoned for affirming the basic foundational Canadian values of media freedom, democracy and promotion of the rule of law. He is in solitary confinement after five years. Here too we seek immediate and unconditional release, also called for by UN special procedures, as his life is at risk as we meet.

I would be remiss if I did not mention Dr. Wang Bingzhang in this regard. He is a Ph.D. graduate from McGill University who formed the overseas democracy China movement in 2002, when I was an MP. He was abducted back to China. He was convicted on the trumped-up charges of both terrorism and treason and sentenced to life imprisonment in solitary confinement, where he languishes today at the risk of death for these reasons. His daughter, Ti-Anna Wang, has taken up his case and cause, and I have been serving as his international legal counsel.

I will close at this point with regard to political prisoners by mentioning the case of Dawit Isaak, a Swedish Eritrean dual citizen, the longest-imprisoned journalist in the world. Along with his fellow journalists, he established a newspaper, Setit, in Eritrea in 1997. They disbanded in 2001. All of them were imprisoned. Many died in detention. We have reason to believe that Dawit Isaak is still alive. I urge those on this committee, who are apostles for media freedom, to take up this case and cause of a dual citizen in the country with the worst press freedom assaults of any country in the world.

I close, Mr. Chairman, by saying that it is our responsibility—I said this as a member of Parliament, and I repeat it and reaffirm it today—to speak on behalf of those who cannot be heard, to bear witness on behalf of those who cannot testify and to act on behalf of those who are putting not simply their livelihood but also their lives on the line.

At times such as these, qui s'excuse s'accuse: Whoever remains indifferent indicts him or herself.

I look to this committee for its continuing and exemplary leadership and to undertake the necessary action on behalf of these real champions of human rights.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, honourable Mr. Cotler. That was an excellent presentation. It enlightens all the members and puts on our shoulders a great responsibility to act. We promise you that we will act.

I now invite Madame Veronika Sheldagaieva to take the floor, please.

[Veronika Sheldagaieva, Voices of Children]

Hello. My name is Veronika Sheldagaieva.

I am from Ukraine, specifically from the city of Kherson, which has been my home city since the start of my life. Unfortunately, it has been occupied for eight months. It's now a city on the front line.

I'm really proud of the fact that I can speak here today. I am really grateful for this opportunity to be here. Now, more than at any time before, the control of the occupied territories is big and horrifying. Children my age, 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds, are becoming victims of forced militarization. People are becoming controlled by messengers, which they must put...and controlled through phones in occupied territories. The Ukrainian language, Ukrainian media and anything connected to helping people, such as volunteering, are politically forbidden. You could be tortured for this.

At this moment, when people are speaking about occupation as a form of peace and a form of...living occupation that is stopping war in Ukraine, I feel it's so important to speak to an international audience and make them aware of the human rights violations that are happening there and that are directly connected to my own story and my personal experience.

I want to talk to you about the non-violent resistance movement that is happening in the occupied territories. At one point, when I was 13 years old, I was standing with a yellow ribbon, which I had cut from my Ukrainian flag, near my old school. I loved this school so much. Back then, I was not able to speak about how I loved my Kherson, how I loved my Ukraine, how I wanted to help my people and how I wanted to volunteer. Back then, it was my hope that tying the ribbon around the school's door would be a form of resistance that I could have at the time.

I started with myself, because I was really uncertain. I had a lot of fear. At that moment, when I didn't know what to do—as many teens right now are experiencing—I started to erase the colonial narratives I had in my head. Unfortunately, I grew up learning, from propaganda news, about how Russia is good and stuff like this. In reality, we saw, with the control over the lack of products in the shops and the control over the schools, that it is not. It took a lot of time to understand what my thinking was and to understand how people around me acted and how much fear they had. I had a lot of time to think back then, because there was no Internet connection. I was basically left with my thoughts. Non-violence was the only instrument I had in my hands to change anything.

I found really big value in finding the Internet in my old school, where I had tied the ribbon. I connected to volunteering. I connected to Ukrainian communities online. This was also for maintaining my mental health, maintaining connections with the outside world and believing that it could end at some point. Hopelessness is something that basically goes hand in hand with you in occupied territories.

Many people didn't know where I was. There was so much silence. This is something people are experiencing right now. There is silence. There is a ban on words, so much so that you sometimes stop hearing what could be said if you were free, or what other people think, because protests have been abandoned.

At first, a lot of my friends and family came to protests, but when people started to be killed in some protests, they stopped, unfortunately.

Because of the volunteer activity I did, which I tried to keep silent, a woman texted me in the messenger one day, writing that she could see from my Internet activity that I have a pro-Ukrainian position and that I needed to take more safety measures. Of course, I was scared, because a stranger following my contacts somehow knew this. Anyone, then, could do it. I knew what this was leading to, and I was really asking my parents to leave. Fortunately—and yes, it was a dangerous road—we went to Latvia later on, on a one-week trip. This had a lot of parts to it, but that's the reason I am speaking here.

A lot of teens who are still reliant on their parents cannot leave, speak at or join such conferences. I really want to mention the number of them waiting for people to say they exist and that they're not forgotten. This is the thing that makes us keep going and keep believing. There is still so much resistance from teens in the occupied territories, in the schools, to the extent that there are books written by occupational authorities on how to prevent “extremism”. By extremists, they mean those speaking the Ukrainian language or reading anything connected to Ukraine. That's the reason we need to keep going.

Ukraine cares about those people. They are people who are waiting and who have Ukrainian identity, which is really important to them. It's so important to acknowledge this from the outside when we see the news and propaganda coming from Russian sites.

You have a lot more knowledge than I do—I'm a high school student—about human rights conventions, laws and everything serious. For me, human rights are simply those you can feel in your life. You can understand what human rights are once you know how the lack of them can come on fast. It comes on very unexpectedly sometimes. You understand how many rights you had before, how freedom of speech is something that changes you and your personality, and how freedom of expression, association and helping others.... For me, helping others is one thing that keeps me going. You need to understand that it's important but not a given thing, sometimes.

I still have the yellow ribbon. In the place where I am now, I can freely have my Ukrainian flag with me.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Madame Sheldagaieva.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Now the floor is open. If anyone would like to ask questions of Mr. Cotler or Madame Veronika, please feel free.

Madame Vandenbeld.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you so much.

I just have to say that I am feeling incredibly inspired right now, Veronika, by your testimony. I'm sure people have used words like “bravery” and “courage”; I would say “incredible strength of character”. The fact that you've been through what you've been through, and now you're still speaking out for those who still don't have freedom.... There's an incredible amount of wisdom in your words. I will come back to you with a question.

However, I want to start with you, Professor Cotler, because you have been.... This is recognition, of course, of a lifetime of achievement in human rights: If there's anyone who has dedicated his life to human rights, it is you. I have, of course, been inspired by you for many years. One thing that you've done today, but you've been doing since Nelson Mandela...is to speak out for human rights defenders who are imprisoned or who are in danger.

There have been many global networks. Of course, the Raoul Wallenberg Centre, which you founded, does a lot of this work, but we also had global networks such as the World Movement for Democracy, which convened 400 human rights defenders, every two years, in a conference. It was a lifeline. We heard, from Veronika, what one Internet connection and lifeline can be for a human rights defender who is being silenced. However, we also know that part of the secretariat was in the National Endowment for Democracy, and, earlier this year, it was defunded and disbanded.

I wonder if you could talk a bit about what is happening to human rights networks, how vital those lifelines of global networks are for human rights defenders and what the international community should do in order to maintain those connections. Without them, many human rights defenders would disappear, be imprisoned or worse. Could you talk a bit about the impact? Of course, they were defunded in Washington in March. I wonder whether you could talk about the loss of networks like the World Movement for Democracy and what we can do now.

[Irwin Cotler]

You mentioned a really crucial challenge that we are now facing. I just spoke yesterday with Carl Gershman, who headed up the National Endowment for Democracy for 40 years with the joint support of the Senate and the House. He too lamented the undercutting of support.

I mentioned that the United States, which had been the linchpin of the rules-based international order and had been the linchpin, if you will, of the World Movement for Democracy, has in fact been upending the international Community of Democracies—the alliance of the Community of Democracies—through defunding and other measures that it has taken.

I'm pleased to say that, with Carl Gershman and with the Forum 2000 Foundation— the Czech-based convenor of Community of Democracies and the like—we are seeking to revive the World Movement for Democracy. We had, at one point, a declaration for democratic renewal back in 2017, and I was one of the signatories. We are now seeking to mobilize the various signatories, NGOs and democracy organizations that create a critical mass of advocacy for democracy.

This relates to the question of justice for Ukraine. One of the initiatives—as part of this advocacy for, and defence of, democracy—is to set up a coalition with respect to justice for Ukraine. We are working on that together with the core group of countries that helped establish a Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression Against Ukraine.

I can't underscore more the importance of parliamentarians in the World Movement for Democracy, whether it be the Parliamentarians for Global Action or the Inter-Parliamentary Union. We have to engage parliamentarians to be at the forefront of the struggle for the defence and protection of democracy and democrats.

Just the other day in Russia, they disbanded Human Rights Watch. Yet again, this is not just the defunding but the disbanding and criminalization of organizations operating on behalf of democracy and human rights. Here again, parliamentarians can take the lead in our promotion and protection of democracy and democrats.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

May I respond to that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Yes, please go ahead.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'll be short, Mr. Chair.

I thank you very much for informing the committee about some of the work to try to revive the World Movement for Democracy. I wonder if this could perhaps be studied further by our committee, because I think we'd like to know more about it.

Also, this is a consensus committee; these human rights issues are not partisan issues, and I note that the World Movement for Democracy and the National Endowment for Democracy, in the U.S., were always bipartisan. I think some of the members on the committee have experience working in that area, regardless of political stripe.

Thank you so much for that.

I know you chaired this committee. When I chaired the committee in 2018, you told me that it was the most honourable thing you had done in Parliament and that it's the conscience of Parliament. I wonder if you could reflect on what our committee can do to advance some of these files.

[Irwin Cotler]

You're correct in saying that I regarded my involvement on this committee as the most important experience of my 15 years in Parliament, because I saw this committee, as I mentioned, as being at the forefront of the struggle for democracy, justice and human rights. The hearing today with regard to, among other things, the political prisoners, whom I see as champions of human rights, is yet another example of the role this committee can play.

I would support the initiative of having hearings devoted to democracy promotion and protection, as well as the role parliamentarians can play. I think the National Endowment for Democracy is a case study in which the issues of promotion and protection of democracy both domestically and abroad had a bipartisan consensus. Regrettably, that has broken down now under the Trump administration. It is still here in our Canadian Parliament. It is very expressive in this committee.

The committee could undertake at this point, as part of our commitment to the World Movement for Democracy, hearings about how we can best promote and protect democracy and democracy's defenders, and could invite people like Carl Gershman, Larry Diamond at Stanford University and others at the forefront of this to testify before this committee—as well as former political prisoners themselves.

The other two witnesses today are illustrations of that, both Nazanin and Veronika—a very heroic, inspirational figure. To have a young woman like that testify also attests to the resilience of the Ukrainian people, who, as we meet, are yet again under assault from Russian drones and missiles but have this continued resilience, which arises from their commitment to democracy. That's where it all begins with the Ukrainian people. Veronika is really a dramatic but compelling case study of young people's involvement and commitment to democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Cotler.

We'll go to Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our fabulous witnesses today. Unfortunately, Ms. Boniadi cannot be with us, but the three people we recognize today represent three generations. It's great to see, and it gives hope for the future to know that this will always be perpetuated, that there will always be people standing up for international human rights. It warms our hearts and keeps us going.

I want to thank the members of the committee for agreeing to hold this special meeting in which we recognize champions. It was complicated, but everyone finally agreed. I really appreciate that.

I'm also proud to say that you're my mentor, Mr. Cotler. I'm a Quebec separatist and I'm proud to say loud and clear that, when it comes to international human rights, my mentor is a former Liberal minister. I think it's extremely important that I say it. This proves that the issue of international human rights has no political stripes or partisan orientation; it rises above all that. In my opinion, it's important to say it and say it very loudly.

I will address Mr. Cotler first, but I will turn to you right after, Ms. Sheldagaieva.

Mr. Cotler, you talked about the United States. If we look at what's happening in the world right now, we see that a geopolitical upheaval is taking place. Do you have any concerns about Canada's current approach to international human rights?

[Irwin Cotler]

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, I would like to start by saying that I had the pleasure of working with your father, Gilles Duceppe, when he was a member of Parliament. We cared about a common cause; we worked together to fight for human rights.

As I said, we are at a historical inflection moment. Yes, I have concerns. I think it's important, if not urgent, that Parliament and members of Parliament lead the democracy movement.

I have concerns, because I don't see the commitment that's needed right now. We have to realize that this is a crucial moment. We must speak for those who cannot speak and defend those who are unable to protect human rights as they see fit. As I was saying earlier: Whoever remains indifferent indicts himself or herself.

This is an important moment, and it's an opportunity to lead the movement for democracy, the movement for political prisoners and the movement for the pursuit of justice.

I don't believe that the government or the opposition has made it a priority to fight for human rights and justice.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, allow me to ask a question of Ms. Sheldagaieva, to whom I extend very distinguished greetings.

Ms. Sheldagaieva, we are really proud that you are with us today. Your background includes humanitarian support, justice and international advocacy.

In your opinion, what are the most powerful tools that will enable you or already enable you to speak for the children who are survivors of the current conflict in Ukraine? As parliamentarians who are on a continent across the ocean, how could we use these tools to help you, to help your cause?

[Veronika Sheldagaieva]

Thank you for your question.

I guess the most powerful tools actually come from collaboration. For example, when projects are realized by organizations such as Voices of Children, which helped me to basically start communicating with you, and when there is.... Voices of Children was not officially involved with me when I was in the occupied territories, but was factually involved. It is one of the most powerful instruments when you are connected online and when you're talking about how you can...support yourself back here and what you can do to maintain your education, your identity, etc. For now, when I'm talking about the instruments I have to support others, this is also really tied to the NGO sector and my work with educational NGOs to close the educational gaps that, unfortunately, come with war.

When we are talking about a lot of international support for Ukrainian civil society, this is one of the most interesting outcomes of the resilience and effort that Ukrainian people put into volunteering. Volunteering in Ukraine or civil society work is usually much more intense than, for example, what I saw when I was involved with my European colleagues.

This is a huge culture that started a long time ago through our history. It peaked with the revolution of dignity and then grew with the full-scale invasion. This is one of the biggest instruments that exist to solve humanitarian issues, maintain education and help people with their mental health, because mental health is...something that affects every person. It does not depend on whether a person is in occupied territories or is hearing shelling in the night or drones. Support for mental health exists and international support for it is also growing

Some of my friends from abroad are coming here and becoming psychologists for the Ukrainian people, and I'm still really grateful for their understanding and their connection. For me, human communication is also an instrument, because it is, first, how you know others' problems and, second, how you help solve some of them.

I hope this gives you some answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Majumdar, please.

[Shuv Majumdar, Conservative, Calgary Heritage, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor Cotler, Minister Cotler, my friend, I've had the privilege of knowing you for over a decade. I should tell you that Natan Sharansky's The Case for Democracy, which is a book I think you had a significant hand in, was formative in my own career from a very early age.

I commend you, sir, for the work you've done. I recognize that your beautiful family is here as well: your wife, Ariela, and your daughter Gila. It's a family sacrifice to have contributed so much to the cause of human rights, probably sometimes even at the expense of the ruling class in Canada, whether it's Conservative or Liberal. The inconveniences that you present in this cause are respected by all. It's a remarkable achievement that you hold the respect of so many across the House and across so much time.

I thank you for indulging me with a bit of a preamble.

I was thinking, as I was watching you provide your testimony, how much has been shaped in international humanitarian law by institutions like the International Court of Justice and the ICC and how much work has been put in through the special rapporteur's office exposing the kind of repression that authoritarians had been abusing their people with the world over. We see how, particularly in the context of the last decade or so, Russia, China and Iran have all taken advantage of these international institutions to disproportionately position themselves in such a way that they are participating in a real inversion of our values and how we assemble to enhance and expand those values for all human beings. In the last couple of years especially, it's become pronounced.

I wanted to turn to you and ask you this: Given the range of experience you've had with success, from Nelson Mandela onward to Vladimir Kara-Murza, more recently, and all those you championed, like Jimmy Lai, etc., what's your observation about those institutions that you've played such a big part in building?

[Irwin Cotler]

I might give you an illustration of how these institutions can work and where they haven't worked. It is a fascinating example of how Parliament played a role.

This has to do with my taking up the case and cause of Anatoly Sharansky, who was one of the fathers of the Moscow Helsinki Group—we're meeting on the 50th anniversary. A lot of us have forgotten about the Helsinki Final Act. Principle VII of the Helsinki Final Act talks about the right to know and act upon one's rights. We, in Canada, were some of the main architects of the Helsinki Final Act and of advocacy for political prisoners.

Sharansky was arrested in 1977 and was then convicted of treason, anti-Soviet slander and agitation. There was a trial in 1979. I went at the behest of his family, facilitated by the Canadian government, to defend him in a Moscow court. Before I could get there to help defend him, I was arrested and expelled.

He was released years later, in 1986, a year after Gorbachev became the president of the Soviet Union. In 1987, I had an opportunity to be on a panel with Gorbachev. I said to him, “You became president of the Soviet Union in 1985. Sharansky was released in early 1986. What role did you have in that, if I may ask?”

He told me something very fascinating that engages Canada and the Canadian Parliament; it may shine a spotlight on a lot of what we're talking about. He said, “I was the secretary of agriculture in the Soviet Union in 1983. The first overseas trip I made was to Canada to appear before the Canadian parliamentary committee on agriculture. They asked me questions about agriculture. Then, all of a sudden, they started to ask me about this Sharansky. I didn't know anything about what they were talking about. I left the Canadian parliamentary buildings, and there was a massive demonstration for this Sharansky. I spent the weekend with your minister of agriculture. Yes, we spoke about agriculture, but he kept bringing up this Sharansky case. I then became president of the Soviet Union, so I ordered up his file. Yes, he was a troublemaker, but he wasn't a criminal.”

Then came the key point. Gorbachev said, “It was costing us. It was costing us politically. It was costing us economically. It was costing us diplomatically to keep him in prison, so I ordered his release in our self-interest.” That became, for me, a fundamental advocacy principle. The community of the axis of authoritarians—Russia, China and Iran—won't release political prisoners for reasons of justice. Yes, we must point out injustices as reasons, but they will release them when it is in their self-interest. That's the tipping point. This has been my experience of the tipping point.

I might add, parenthetically but not unimportantly, that the political prisoners who were released and with whom I was involved always had a spouse advocating on their behalf. Whether it was Avital Sharansky, who came here and met with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, or Winnie Mandela making the case, spouses play a crucial role. We have to join the spouses, but we also have to join particularly those who may not have a spouse arguing on their behalf in order to bring about the tipping point. I use the Sharansky case as a case study of the role of parliamentarians in this regard.

I'll close by saying that we are right to have these concerns, because we could be at the forefront of advocacy for political prisoners. I don't see us, at this point, at that forefront. I would like to see us at the forefront. It's crucial. It's important with respect to domestic economic policies and the like. However, I don't see us at the forefront of the struggle for human rights, the defence of political prisoners and the defence of democracy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, honourable Mr. Cotler.

Our last question goes to Madame Anju Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair—