Evidence of meeting #6 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cotler.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
I'm sorry. It should be Mr. Majumdar's second question.
Go ahead, Mr. Majumdar.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
It's a rare opportunity to engage with both these individuals. I appreciate having the second question, Chair.
Veronika, if I could turn to you, your testimony in the last Parliament was moving, to say the least. You have a sense of optimism from Kherson, of all places, which is really quite remarkable. Having you appear here today to encourage you in how you advocate for Ukrainian children was a key part for all parties and all members of this committee.
Let me ask you this. With the platform you have here, if in your mind's eye you could say something to Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin, if there were a message you wanted him to hear loudly and clearly, based on the experiences you've had to endure for years now and on what you'd like to expect for your own future, what would you tell him?
Voices of Children
Thank you for your question.
I hope that I will never see this person in my life, but if I were to address him, I would say there is not enough power in this world and not enough coercion to make everyone like me—who has experienced occupation and who is still there—give up. There will never be a point when everyone is compliant just because there is so much propaganda and so much violence going on.
I feel and I hope that at some point they are going to understand this. Also, it is not only them. The world in general needs to understand that it's not only a matter of time. It's also a matter of the motivation of people, and Ukrainian people have a lot of motivation—honestly.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much to our witnesses for being here.
Veronika, you've empowered women, and you've empowered adults. You've given strength to those who were ready to give up. Thank you for the work you've done. I really pray to God that you keep having this strength and this uplifted spirit to carry on the work you're doing.
If you can, quickly please tell us about the people your age or even anybody who has come to you and talked about how you've helped them move along and empowered them through this struggle.
Voices of Children
I mostly work with education directly when I'm helping. The people with whom I worked have said that they were able to go back to Ukrainian university after leaving the occupied territories, learn in the Ukrainian language, study and have their career.
Also in Ukraine, unfortunately, because of the war and because of natural processes, there is a shortage of teachers. This is also what I'm working with. A lot of teens and young people have talked about the fact that they chose this career because they see its importance and see how they can shape the views of people around them when they share information they feel is worth sharing through the educational system, etc.
This is something that keeps me going and keeps me optimistic about the fact that this is the right direction.
Liberal
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Honourable Mr. Cotler, it's incredible to be sitting here in front of you. You are also one of my role models. Being from Montreal as well, you were one of the motivations for me to go to law school. Thank you for empowering many others who came after you.
I don't want to take up too much time. Your beautiful family is behind you, and often this kind of work puts fear in them, fear for your safety. As you said—and I'm sure you have dozens of other such stories to share with us, but there's a lack of time—you were detained. Thankfully you were sent back, I guess you could say, unlike the Eritrean journalists you spoke about.
From the time you started this work until today, did you expect that things would look as if they're going from bad to worse? Personally, I feel sometimes that despite the Internet, social media, protests and everything going live within seconds, where everyone can gather and there can be public and worldwide outrage, these countries or agencies—whatever you want to call them—continue to commit human rights abuses, detaining people for no reason and abusing freedoms. I personally thought that with the Internet and the ways to expose these things, there would be an element of shame in the hearts of these people the world is watching. I don't know if I'm explaining it well or if you can understand my question.
Do you feel that it doesn't make a difference with all of this technology and these ways to expose people, dictators and abusers? What is your take from the time you started this work until today? Do you feel that things have gone from bad to worse, or do we just have to keep working to fight for the rights of others?
Founder and International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
It cuts in both directions. I remember that when I first started this work, we didn't have the panoply of UN special procedures, the ICC or the whole corpus of international human rights, humanitarian and international criminal law. We have a panoply of remedies we never had before. We also have an information highway we never had before.
As we've learned, while the information highway can transport the best, it can also transport the worst. Also, we're increasingly living in a post-truth, postliterate, misinformation, disinformation arena. You have these competing dynamics.
I think we can take heart from the testimony of courageous young women like Veronika and like Nazanin Boniadi, who's not here today. I take inspiration from these political prisoners, who, as I said, are putting their lives on the line.
Russia, if I can just mention it, is a case study because it's involved in both massive domestic repression and externalized aggression with regard to the aggression in Ukraine.
There are initiatives we can take that we never had before, but we have now. Let me just very quickly, in one-liners, mention them.
First, after we were advocating as part of a high-level working group, in June, we finally established—by way of agreement between the Council of Europe and Ukraine—the Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine. Now that we've established it, we have to operationalize it and implement it effectively. Canada can play a role. We need to appoint special prosecutors. We need to appoint judges. We need to get other state parties from the global south, so it isn't seen as just a Eurocentric tribunal.
This is a very important tribunal to hold Putin and military and political leaders accountable for the crime of aggression. When I've been talking a lot about all the mass violations of human rights, regrettably, they've been accompanied by a culture of impunity. We have to, in fact, begin to initiate accountability. The special tribunal is very important in that regard.
Second, as we meet, Russia's mass atrocities under Putin effectively constitute acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. We have to hold the Putin regime accountable. We have obligations under that convention.
Third—and this is what Veronika has spoken about—I can speak about young Ukrainian children. We are witnessing both the deportation and the indoctrination of Ukrainian children. The ICC—it's available—has issued arrest warrants in that matter, but we have to, in fact, enlarge that advocacy.
Fourth, there is sexual violence against women.
Fifth, there is torture and other forms of inhumane and degrading treatment.
Sixth, there are mass casualty crimes. We talk about missiles and drones; as we meet, there's the criminalization of NGOs in Russia where there are no NGOs left. With respect to these critical mass violations, we can engage in a critical mass of advocacy. Parliamentarians are particularly suited to making representations directly to human rights violators, in what Dr. Andrei Sakharov used to call the “mobilization of shame against the human rights violators”. We can exercise our parliamentary interventions, whether they be take-note debates or S.O. 31s. There are initiatives that we can take internationally, and I mentioned Parliamentarians for Global Action, the IPU and the like. There is the use of UN special procedures, the special international court.
In other words, we have a panoply of remedies at our disposal. We just need to invoke them, utilize them, engage them and create a critical mass of advocacy. I've always looked to parliamentarians and this committee to be at the forefront.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cotler, it's sometimes difficult to strike a balance between public pressure and quiet diplomacy. As parliamentarians, it's not always easy to find that balance when it comes to defending people who are unjustly imprisoned. We must always remember the main objective, which is that the person whose file we are carrying be released.
I don't know how you can help us: How can parliamentarians strike that balance between public and media pressure, and quieter diplomacy, when the time comes to fight for someone who is unjustly imprisoned?
Founder and International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
It's a combination. It's not a question of choosing between a public initiative or a private initiative. It's more a matter of finding the best time and the best means. In my opinion, it starts with private diplomacy, but if that doesn't work, we have to rely on public pressure. In my opinion, we always have to strike a balance between the two; that's how we can succeed. In my experience, in the end, it's almost always necessary to make a public commitment in order to be successful in having political prisoners released.
Liberal
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Thank you very much, Chair.
The long arms of Beijing, the Kremlin and Tehran—as you mentioned earlier, Professor Cotler—have participated in a kind of transnational repression emboldened by technology that I think warrants bit of unpacking, if you have the time, sir.
You've encountered this in your own life, and it has been widely reported here. You are somebody who has been a proponent for human rights in one of those foreign regimes. Your family had to make big adjustments at the time.
Conservative deputy leader Melissa Lantsman also had to endure that. These are two politicians, but we have communities across this country and communities around the world that are subject to the advent of transnational repression.
First, how seminal is this as an issue that this committee could spend some time reflecting on in the future, in terms of how free societies work together to avoid that type of foreign interference? Second, what do you think ought to be some of the key things we should concern ourselves with when looking at issues of transnational repression?
Founder and International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
If we look at what I would say is an inflection moment, and we take the three major proponents of the axis of authoritarianism—Russia, China and Iran—we see they are each and all engaged in massive domestic and transnational repression and, indeed, assassination.
When we speak about the question of transnational repression and assassination, the head of CSIS, Dan Rogers, reported just two weeks ago that the questioning of transnational repression and assassination has now resulted in Iran's targeting of Canadians, not only for transnational repression but also for assassination. This came from our own head of CSIS. It is something that we have been, in fact, reporting upon. I reported last year about IRGC sleeper cells in Canada that get activated and use domestic criminal gangs as proxies to carry out their insidious plots.
For this committee, the issue of transnational repression and assassination would be appropriate subject matter; we should take the necessary initiatives to combat it in that regard. When the Hogue commission was established, if you recall, it was established with regard to foreign electoral interference, but foreign electoral interference was but one component. Ironically enough, when the committee was established and the Raoul Wallenberg Centre came before it, with a young lawyer, Noah Lew, testifying on our behalf, one thing we noted was that, while reference was made to transnational repression by Russia, China and even India, there was no reference made, in the initial framing, to Iran. Iran was perhaps the most insidious in that regard.
What we have to realize is the conflation between the massive domestic repression.... As we meet, I have to say that we are witnessing, to take as a case study, unprecedented mass domestic repression in Iran, with an unprecedented level of executions. I have not seen anything like it in all the years that I have been involved, and the empirical data is there. We see this massive domestic repression, unprecedented externalized aggression, transnational repression and assassination, which make those who stand up, the political prisoners, all the more brave and courageous, whether the political prisoners are in Iran, Russia or China.
In each of these cases—and I close with this—we have what I would call sevenfold threats. With regard to Iran, we have a nuclear theat, a ballistic missile threat, a hegemonic threat—it's the leading state sponsor of terrorism—a genocidal threat and a cybersecurity threat. Of course, as I mentioned, there is the massive repression of political prisoners. It's a critical mass of repression. If you take China as an example,there's the targeting of Uyghurs, with mass atrocities constituting genocide and the dismantling of democracy. One can go on.
In each of these cases, you have sevenfold threats, a critical mass of threats, which warrant a critical mass of advocacy on our behalf, inspired by the political prisoners in each of these countries. However, as I said, transnational repression and assassination have emerged as major threats to the rules-based international order.
It's the conflation of the two. It's the axis of authoritarianism or the axis of evil as a case study, as a looking glass, and it is something that, as the CSIS head has showed, Canada has now become a prime target. In addition to what I would call the critical mass of threat—there is the misinformation, the disinformation and the targeting—you have a critical mass of targets.
I say a critical mass of targets because they target the leaders of diaspora communities here. It could be the Iranian diaspora community or the like. It could be journalists or human rights defenders who are targeted. It's a critical mass of threat, and it's a critical mass of targets. We need a critical mass of advocacy in response.
Conservative
Shuv Majumdar Conservative Calgary Heritage, AB
Forgive me, Mr. Chair. I think I get a second part.
Is it okay if I just share the second part of my time with Madam Kronis?
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Thanks very much for giving me a chance to speak this morning.
Mr. Cotler—Irwin—you were one of the giants of my childhood. With a number of people and a community, you accomplished incredible things, and in many cases, I was privileged to be in the room or to be carrying bags, taking notes and being a small part of it.
What was incredible about that upbringing was that I saw you accomplish things as a group. You fought for Soviet Jewry, for Syrian Jewry and for Ethiopian Jewry, and you achieved the goals. I learned from you and from your compatriots when I was growing up that we could start organizations, fight for things, achieve the goals that we were looking to achieve, disband the organizations and move on to the next thing.
When I became an adult, I took that into fights, such as the fight for equal marriage in this country, a fight in which, again, we were privileged to be able to start organizations, fight for things, achieve our goals and then disband the organizations.
In the world we live in today, this feels harder and harder. It feels increasingly remote. I feel as though we start organizations, and instead of achieving our goals, we look for justice for wrongs that are done. We have an increasingly legal international relations, and we have people who are stuck in places all over the world as hostages or as people who aren't able to get on with their lives, have childhoods, and grow up and do the things we've been able to do.
To some degree, do you think the world has changed? What do you think has changed? Is there any hope that we can go back to advocating for things, achieving our goals and disbanding organizations? It's been a while since I've had the privilege of disbanding an organization because it has achieved its goals.
Founder and International Chair, Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights
Thank you for the question.
I want to say that seeing you here today brings back memories of my close relationship with your dad; it's a blessed memory. We were on different sides of the political spectrum—Liberal and Conservative—but we worked together for a common cause with regard to the struggles you mentioned. This is why I believe in matters of human rights and the pursuit of justice. We have to work together in common cause.
I have my family here, as you mentioned. My wife has always been in the trenches with me—though not always on the same side, I have to acknowledge. For the greater good and the public good, we work together on a common cause. In the last federal election, we had a Liberal sign and a Conservative sign outside because we were advocating for different candidates, but both candidates on whose behalf we were advocating, Liberal and Conservative, were excellent. That's the kind of thing the greater public good can do to bring us together in a common cause.
I'm pleased to have my daughter here as I see you and remember your father. I'm delighted to see that my daughter has taken up the case and cause of human rights and is working as CEO of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre.
All this brings me back to early lessons. It was my late father who taught me, before I understood the profundity of the message I will share with you, that the pursuit of justice is equal to all the other commandments combined. He said that must be my life's mission and must be my legacy. My mother, who would hear my father saying this to me, said that if you want to pursue justice, you have to understand that you have to feel the injustice about you. You have to go in and about your community, feel and combat the injustice. Otherwise, the pursuit of justice remains a theoretical abstraction.
We have to be there in the trenches, pursuing justice by combatting the injustice. That has to be our common cause.
It's easy to get cynical sometimes, when we see the crimes of indifference and the conspiracies of silence around us, but it's our responsibility to shatter walls of indifference, to break apart conspiracies of silence and to see how political prisoners are the torchbearers and the lodestars of the struggle for human rights in our time—and take our inspiration from them.
As it's always said, it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. Let's all try to be the torchbearers for human rights. That's what this committee has always been, and it is how these political prisoners are the real champions of human rights who inspire us.
Conservative
Tamara Kronis Conservative Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
If my father were here, I know one thing he would say is to thank your wife for giving him hope.
I have a very short question for Veronika.
Veronika, if this war ends, what would you like to do with your life?
December 1st, 2025 / 12:30 p.m.
Voices of Children
This is a really philosophical question, and sometimes it doesn't let me sleep.
I am really interested in the intersection between the development of society and education. In my experience of both living through war and now being in an international school that focuses on peace building, I see how much it's not only about knowledge but also about how we build society and what we want from society.
In my life, I would like to create spaces and build them for people to learn how to advocate for their rights, along with the fact that they're receiving information and an understanding of who they are and what their role in society might be.
Also, in Ukraine, there is so much potential, and I really want to work there. When I was in Latvia, I understood that, yes, the European Union is an important place and is doing good stuff, but the only place where I see my future is in Ukraine, building our society and making it better.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Fayçal El-Khoury
Thank you, Veronika.
Our last question goes to Ms. Vandenbeld, please.