Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue No. 3 - Evidence - Meeting of March 10, 2016
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 10, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study foreign relations and international trade generally (topic: Argentina: political, economic and international prospects).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is meeting this morning, authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally. Under this mandate, the committee will hear today from a witness on the topic of Argentina: political, economic and international prospects.
The committee, to this point, has held meetings on this topic in the last number of weeks, and we've heard from academics, experts and government officials.
Today, I am pleased to welcome, on behalf of the committee, Ms. Andrea Tunney, Regional Vice-President for the Americas, Export Development Canada. The committee is looking forward to learning more on EDC's perspective regarding the general business climate in Argentina, especially with the recent changes in Argentina. and the potential for business opportunities and obstacles to trade and investments in the country as you see them.
Ms. Tunney, you know that we like questions in committees here, so we look forward to your presentation and some time for questions and answers.
Welcome to the committee.
Andrea Tunney, Regional Vice-President for the Americas, Export Development Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair and honourable senators, for inviting Export Development Canada to appear before this committee. We appreciate your interest in EDC's approach to supporting Canadian trade and its perspective on Argentina.
Argentina is the second largest economy in South America, with a GDP of more than US$600 billion. The country is rich in natural resources, and its extensive agriculture and livestock industries have made it a major food producer. In recent years, Argentina's economy has seen a number of adverse developments, which have raised real barriers for Canadian exporters and investors. Consequently, EDC has taken a reactive approach to supporting Canadian interests in the Argentine market. However, EDC is attentively watching current political developments with great interest and remains cautiously optimistic about the country's future.
Understandably, activity by Canadian exporters has been limited, as evidenced by the modest export trade numbers. According to Statistics Canada, over the last five years, Canada's merchandise export to Argentina averaged C$289 million per year, a negligible amount compared to the C$5.9 billion per year, on average, of Canadian merchandise exports to South America as a whole during the same period.
Canadian exporters most active in Argentina at the present time are principally from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Alberta, accounting for over 90 per cent of the total merchandise exports in Canada in 2015.
In contrast, Canadian investors have maintained a consistent presence in Argentina. They hold about 3 per cent of Argentina's total FDI stock and, as of 2014, have invested approximately C$3.45 billion in the country. Forty-four per cent of that investment is concentrated in the mining sector.
As the Government of Canada's export credit agency, EDC's mandate is to support and develop Canada's trade and build capacity of Canadian companies to participate in and respond to international business opportunities. We provide insurance and financing to Canadian exporters and investors and their international buyers.
Despite the challenges faced by Canadian companies, in 2015 EDC supported almost 100 companies with their business activities in this market. Over the last five years, EDC support to Canadian exporters in Argentina has totalled C$820 million. The most active sectors have been mining, oil and gas, and resources including agriculture, as well as information and communications technologies, accounting for 60 per cent of our total support since 2011.
In the right circumstances, EDC believes that Argentina could prove to be an attractive market for both Canadian exporters and investors as a result of its abundant natural resources and infrastructure needs. EDC has done a preliminary examination of Argentina's needs and assessed them in relation to Canadian capabilities and interests in order to determine areas of convergence. We have identified four main sectors: mining, oil and gas, power, and agri- food.
In the mining sector, it is estimated that Argentina has US$14.5 billion in mining projects awaiting more favourable business conditions and higher commodity prices to be developed.
The new Argentinian government has addressed or is in the process of addressing many of the impediments identified by mining companies in order to promote growth in the industry and open the door to more investment and development. These include: removing and/or reducing import and export restrictions; addressing prohibitions on repatriation of profits; foreign currency controls; and eliminating export duties.
In the oil and gas sector, it is estimated that Argentina will require investment of approximately US$200 billion if it wants to achieve its objective of becoming self-sufficient by 2024.
Argentina has the second largest technically recoverable shale gas reserves and the fourth largest technically recoverable shale oil reserves in the world. Canada has multiple capabilities in both upstream and midstream value chain, potentially representing interesting opportunities for the domestic industry.
In the power sector, EDC has been able to identify an existing portfolio of power projects totalling more than US $24 billion. The energy sector in Argentina is one of the largest in Latin America. Even with the anticipated slower economic growth limiting electricity consumption, the power consumption growth rate is expected to be 2 per cent over the next few years.
In the agri-food sector, agriculture represents about 10 per cent of the Argentine GDP and accounts for 56 per cent of the country's total exports.
Canada has strong capabilities and a good international reputation for providing high-quality agricultural equipment and is world renowned for genetics and related training and consulting services.
In conclusion, EDC expects that should Argentina continue to deploy more business-friendly policies and bring more economic stability to the market, the country may be able to attract much-needed investment required to bridge the gap that has isolated it from the rest of the world. EDC remains cautiously optimistic about the future of Argentina as well as the potential for Canadian exporters and investors to play a general role in this market.
Thank you again for this opportunity to present today. I would welcome any questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. You've given us a good overview, which gives us an insight into the country and also what EDC has done.
With respect to the potential — and that's what we read about all the time and what witnesses have told us — should the changes in governance to a more business-friendly, international standards approach continue in Argentina, will you change anything within EDC? Are you looking at it? Are you looking at the potential? Are you shifting what you're doing in any way, or are you still in a wait and see mode?
Ms. Tunney: We are certainly very actively engaged in Argentina right now or in what's happening in Argentina. We're watching it very closely. Our position at this time is restricted, so we are not marketing EDC's products in Argentina. However, with the changes that are under way now, and particularly the review that is going on with respect to the holdout bondholders, we're watching it very closely.
We are active in the market. We are supporting 100 clients at this time, and any clients that did come to us right now we would definitely have appropriate discussions with.
Senator Downe: I'm just wondering what resources you have on the ground in Argentina currently.
Ms. Tunney: EDC has a slightly different model from our counterparts at Global Affairs Canada. Global Affairs Canada has, I believe, around 160 offices throughout the world, where EDC takes a more modest approach. Globally, we have 17 offices. Within the Americas, I have seven offices, with 16 people. Argentina, in particular, is served by my two offices in Brazil. So I have four people from Brazil who are engaged in supporting people on the ground.
We also have people here at head office who will support the Canadian companies who are looking at Argentina, and we work very closely with the Trade Commissioner Service in Buenos Aires.
Senator Downe: So Argentina is currently serviced from Brazil or Ottawa.
Ms. Tunney: Correct.
Senator Downe: Tell me what has happened in the last number of years, given the political instability and uncertainty in the region. Has our investment plateaued, increased or decreased through the EDC?
Ms. Tunney: The investment in Canada?
Senator Downe: No, the investment of Canadians in Argentina.
Ms. Tunney: The investment of Canadians in Argentina has remained strong. It peaked in the late 1990s and early 2000, mainly in the mining sector and somewhat in the agriculture sector, but it has continued to be strong. The growth rate isn't as strong as it was in previous years, but Canada is certainly still present in the market.
Senator Downe: What is the growth rate, roughly, for the last number of years?
Ms. Tunney: I don't believe I've seen that data. I can try to get that for you.
Senator Downe: If you could send that to us.
Ms. Tunney: Sure.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: A few weeks ago, we heard another expert such as yourself. He explained the situation in Argentina to us, and I used a Government of Canada information sheet that discusses the economy in Argentina. I was surprised to see that the unemployment rate there was lower than in Canada. However, we were told that within a few months, things had changed because the new Macri government, even though it governs with a minority coalition, had laid off 25,000 or 50,000 public servants, and in the days that followed, there were chaotic demonstrations. In the current context, do you think that the Macri government will be able to stabilize the situation, or are they heading toward chaos such as Argentina experienced for more than a decade?
The situation was very good in 2014, but we are in 2016. Are there any major changes? We spoke, among other things, of the devaluation of the peso, of the sovereign debt and of galloping inflation.
[English]
Ms. Tunney: I'm not able to give you concrete numbers. I would say, yes, the layoffs that the Macri government did were very difficult. I think that President Macri and his administration have a number of difficult policies to implement going forward. How that will unfold and whether they will go back to where they were in 2014 is very hard to say. Particularly with the government being a coalition government, getting those policies through will be very difficult.
If you think about employment, one of the angles that the President spoke about was reducing salaries. He recently renegotiated union salaries for the teachers. I'm not exactly certain of the percentage, but I believe the increase was in line with inflation.
So it's going to be a tough administration for President Macri. I believe he is well aware that this is the case, and I know the market is well aware of that.
Senator Poirier: Thank you for the presentation. On the first page, at the bottom, you mentioned that Canadian exporters most active in Argentina at the present time are principally from four provinces in Canada, that, in 2015, 90 per cent of the total merchandise exported came from there. Are there any plans, or do you foresee any possibility for the other provinces in Canada to have an opportunity for more exporting to Argentina?
Ms. Tunney: If I look at the Argentinian economy, it is a very diverse economy. It is very similar to Canada. So I would say that there is potential across Canada.
The export business is certainly more heavily weighted in oil and gas and mining. If you look at it on a dollar basis, those dollars are usually significant and, proportionally, percentage-wise, take a big chunk of that 90 per cent.
If you look at the number of transactions and the number of exporters, there are active exporters from all of the provinces, but I would venture to guess that given the great infrastructure needs and the agriculture needs that Argentina has, it would continue to be more heavily weighted in those four provinces.
Senator Poirier: I was thinking more on the agriculture side, if there was the possibility of more —
Ms. Tunney: There are seafood connections with our Eastern provinces. The dollar value and the quantity of them are not as big.
Senator Poirier: But is there some being done right now in all provinces?
Ms. Tunney: Yes.
Senator Oh: Do the Canadian companies obtain financing through venture capital, and, if so, is it difficult? If not, how do they finance their exports, and how does this situation compare to that in other countries after the new situation of the economy now in Argentina?
Ms. Tunney: Unfortunately I'm not able to speak to the venture capital fund. We have some connections, but I wouldn't be able to speak to it well enough to speak on behalf of the Canadian economy.
I will talk, in general, about what EDC has seen. We have seen that a number of exporting companies are providing open account terms. Their terms are going from anything from an LC to, let's say, a net 60-day open account term. So we are seeing some financing in that respect.
As for longer-term financing from an export credit agency perspective, it is very limited. A number of ECAs are closed or highly restricted in what they'll support. Ex-Im, for example, up until recently, was not able to entertain financing of products to Argentina. So, for U.S. dollar or euro financing, it has been very challenging.
Senator Oh: So, for Canadian companies, is it easy to get financing in Argentina, or do they have to get financing from EDC or back here in Canada?
Ms. Tunney: I'm not 100 per cent certain, but I would venture to guess that they get it from here in Canada.
The Chair: It's difficult to do business in Argentina because of the political climate. It's not so much the economic climate. They have gone through so many reiterations of it. Are you monitoring to see whether the businesses, for example, from Spain and Europe are moving back in? Are they optimistic?
EDC plays the role of helping when Canadian companies can't find financing elsewhere. Let's be blunt about that. So you take a managed risk.
In comparison to Brazil at the moment, would you be pointing people to Argentina or Brazil if people wanted to work in that area?
Ms. Tunney: Let me start with your first question, which was: What are competitors to Canadian companies from other foreign jurisdictions doing? We do keep a close eye on that. We have strong relationships with many of our Argentinian counterparts. For example, the SACE ECA is in Argentina at this time, doing some due diligence on what they think of the market and possibilities for them. So we are keeping a general sense of what other ECAs are doing.
When it comes to managing risk and comparing to Brazil, the risks are very different between the two markets, or, in my perspective, they are very different. I would say that, in my opinion, the story about Argentina is about its potential, that if it can manage to get more business-friendly policies and reduce government intervention, the country has a lot to offer and is significantly underdeveloped.
I saw a statistic that said that over the past three years their average investment was 19 per cent of their GDP versus the average in Latin America, which I believe was 23 per cent of GDP — significant underinvestment. If Argentina can get over the hurdle of the litigation with the bond holdouts and if they can get some of those policies moving forward, it is all about their potential and keeping the momentum going.
With Brazil, on the other hand, there is a lot going on there. It's changing every day. The corruption issues are extensive. The impact that it's now having on the economy is significant. The political leadership is definitely struggling.
So would I pick one over the other? I guess my answer would be that each company needs to assess the two and the risks in each market. We can help to provide them with information on those markets, but they need to make the choice to determine which fits their business model better.
The Chair: I'm not clear in Argentina, but in Brazil, if you're going to assess the country, you're going to assess the national climate, but you're also going to determine what the states are doing there, the state-provincial component of it where a lot of action is and perhaps a lot of the corruption is but also a lot of the opportunities.
In Argentina, is the central government key, or do you go to the state of Mendoza, et cetera, and make an assessment there?
Ms. Tunney: Our assessment would be done at both levels; both are very important. Mining is a great example. This week, there was the PDAC meeting, which is the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. It's one of the biggest events, globally, for the sector. There was a big contingent there from Argentina, which had federal as well as provincial participants, and they specifically said that they are working together, in the best interests of the country, knowing that it is so important to investor confidence.
So I don't think you can look at one versus the other. I think we need to assess both together because both have an impact on what can happen for Canadian companies.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentation this morning.
How does Argentina rank in terms of a priority market for EDC clients and in what sectors?
Ms. Tunney: We don't have a number ranking, but I would say that, to date, the interest in the market has been limited. We support a hundred companies, so relative to the 8,300 companies that we support in a year, the number of clients that we have supported is relatively small. That is primarily a result of the significant risks in the market. But we have observed recently, with a number of trends, that there are a number of inquiries coming in, and the inquiries are coming in the mining sector, the oil and gas sector, and the agriculture sector.
Senator Ataullahjan: Previous witnesses said that Argentina should be a priority for Canada or Canadians wanting to do business. Given the history of political unrest and constant demonstrations, would you agree with that?
Ms. Tunney: I'm sorry, I missed the first part of your question. Would you mind repeating?
Senator Ataullahjan: Previous witnesses to the committee said that Argentina should be a priority market for Canadians.
Ms. Tunney: From EDC's mandate perspective, we will go where our clients feel that they have the best business, and we will help them in the best way that we can.
Will it become a priority market? Our clients would deem whether it would become a priority market, and we are going to help them as much as we can to enter that market. I would say that right now it is not a priority market, but I think a lot of Canadian companies are seeing the potential in the market and are very interested in what is transpiring at this time.
Senator D. Smith: Can you identify what you think the two or three market areas with the most potential could be for Canadians in Argentina? I've heard a few things, but I'm just curious as to what you think are the two or three best areas for potential exports.
Ms. Tunney: Let me start with agriculture. Clearly, it is a really important sector for Argentina, and it has an interesting match for Canada.
If I look at the agriculture sector, one of your previous speakers said that the countries competed. It is true that we have a lot of similarities. If I look at the crops we grow — for example, corn and soy — that is very similar, but what that leads to is that we have similar crops. Interestingly enough, our average field size is about the same as the field size in Argentina. That allows for our agriculture equipment, for example, to be very well-suited to the market, and Canada is very well-known for our agriculture equipment. So there is a really good fit there. A number of exporting companies are already active in the business there and have dealers on the ground and have been active over the past number years.
Senator D. Smith: Do they import potash?
Ms. Tunney: I'm not certain. I probably could find that statistic out for you.
Senator D. Smith: I'm thinking of Saskatchewan, chair. That's something worth looking at.
Ms. Tunney: For other areas in agriculture, Canada is very well-known for our livestock genetics. Canada is the second biggest exporter of genetics to Argentina, which is key. If you think of the herd, I believe that they have approximately 52 million head of cattle that they need to be constantly regenerating to keep the quality at a high standard. So, again, it's a very good match for Canadian capabilities.
Senator D. Smith: Yes, we have a lot of bulls here.
Ms. Tunney: Other areas of interest are definitely mining and oil and gas. If I look at the mining sector, this is where Canada has had a great interest. It's 44 per cent of the FDI invest.
If I look at exploration, the challenges are finding high-grade reserves without disturbing the land and the environment. Canada has great technologies there, like GPS surveying and 3-D mapping, that allow them to get that high-quality reserve in a more user-friendly, productive and cost-effective manner.
If I look again at mining and exploration, they're looking at remote equipment and automated equipment for cost efficiency, productivity and also for safety of their employees. So remote drilling and things like that are very key. They're also looking at environmental solutions.
With regard to environmental solutions, EDC has identified about 150 small- or medium-sized enterprises, which is key to Canada, in the environmental solutions sector. So that would be environmental waste management. Energy conservation techniques are relevant in the mining sector. Those companies would be potential candidates that could go down to Argentina.
Senator D. Smith: We heard this week about this mining conference that they have in Toronto every year, and it's the biggest mining conference in the world. I've attended it on several occasions. It's absolutely huge, and the statistics of Canada and global mining are incredible. Do you know if, by any chance, Argentina had a group up for the mining conference in Toronto?
Ms. Tunney: They did. They actually had quite a large contingency. A number of individuals from our team, from our markets, were at the conference, and they met with a number of them.
What was interesting is that when they had a panel on Argentina, the federal and the provincial ministers presented a united front on the concept that we need and want foreign investment in this market. They know the importance of those two levels working together and the impact it has on international investors.
Senator D. Smith: It's good to get that on the record. I've gone to that conference for years but wasn't able to go this year. It shows Canada's strength in mining.
Ms. Tunney: I'd be happy to provide you with the names of the participants from Argentina.
Senator D. Smith: Provide it to the committee. Thank you.
The Chair: There are perhaps two other areas to touch on. At EDC, with the change in government, have you been asked to review your policies, directions and objectives in any way, or are you continuing on the road that you're on now?
Ms. Tunney: I don't believe we've been asked, at least not to my knowledge, so we are continuing to proceed with our mandate. It is business as usual.
The Chair: With the recent economic situation both internationally and Canadian-wise, are you reflecting on any changes internally in your potential?
Ms. Tunney: Certainly the economy is struggling. A number of economies are struggling, and we are seeing certain industries that are very important to Canada having a more difficult time, such as oil and gas.
Our plans are to continue to say "status quo.'' We are financially self-sustaining. We are looking to support commercially viable transactions, so we will continue to do that. I think in times where the economy is struggling more, EDC's role becomes that much more important. It's more important for us to be there and support as many Canadian companies as we can.
The Chair: In some previous studies, one of the concerns was for the capability of small- and medium-sized businesses in navigating EDC's process, and even being aware of EDC as a support system. Could you give us a status on your reflections on assistance across Canada for small- and medium-sized businesses? In particular, women entrepreneurs was one of the issues raised.
Ms. Tunney: That one is close to my heart. Fortunately, I do recall having a session on our small- and medium-sized support. I won't be able to give you a status update because I'm not familiar enough with what was reported there to say how much we've progressed, but I'd be happy to provide you with a statement on how things are unfolding in that respect.
I can certainly say that the spirit within the corporation is that small- and medium-sized companies are of utmost priority. They are the backbone of Canada. In particular, women's issues are very important to me and many EDCers, so I will provide you with an update on that.
The Chair: We've touched on Brazil and Argentina. Chile is a country that Canada has had dealings with, particularly in mining and elsewhere. Again, there was a lot of focus and attention both in our media and in businesses. I don't hear as much about it now. What are our prospects in Chile? Is it business as usual there?
Ms. Tunney: Our prospects in Chile continue to be strong. It is definitely business as usual. In fact, I will be down there next week meeting with a number of our key clients.
Canadian companies continue to do very well. A lot of our activity in that market is paying off very well for Canadian companies, and we're seeing an increase in the interest of Canadian companies in Chile. I look at the region as one of the success stories from an economic perspective.
The Chair: On that high note, thank you for coming and providing us with this information update on Argentina and other areas of the EDC. Thank you very much.
Ms. Tunney: It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you.
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see our next panel of witnesses is before us. In this session, under our general mandate, the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is authorized to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally. Under this mandate, the committee can receive testimony on various matters of interest.
The hearing this morning follows on the motion that was adopted by the Senate in May 2015, which called upon the Government of Canada to take action against foreign nationals implicated in Sergeï Magnitski's death and uninvestigated human rights violations in a foreign country.
My colleagues may remember what was said at that time in the chamber. This is an opportunity to learn more on what was raised then and to receive an update on the situation and other human rights issues.
On behalf of the committee, I welcome William Browder, Head of the International Justice Campaign for Sergeï Magnitski, and author of the book Red Notice. He is accompanied today by Zhanna Nemtsova, Deutsche Welle Correspondent and Founder of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom; and Vladimir Kara-Murza, Coordinator of Open Russia and Deputy Leader of the People's Freedom Party.
I will not introduce the guests any further. We have received background information. In the cause of hearing more from you than talking to you, I'm going to turn the floor over to our speakers to make some opening statements. As usual, we then like to go to questions.
Ms. Nemtsova, I think you're going to start today. Welcome to the committee.
Zhanna Nemtsova, Deutsche Welle Correspondent and Founder of the Boris Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom, as an individual: Thank you very much. Good morning.
I'm here today as a journalist. I work as a reporter for Deutsche Welle, but I'm also the eldest daughter of Boris Nemtsov and I speak on his behalf.
He last visited Canada in 2012 and campaigned for the Magnitsky Act. In his article in the National Post — it was entitled "Standing up for Freedom in Russia" and was co-authored by Vladimir Kara-Murza, by the way — he wrote:
While the current regime is in power, Russian citizens can only defend themselves through international mechanisms.
That is absolutely true. To prove this statement, I would like to say that since 2013, Russia has been the leader in terms of the number of applications filed to the European Court of Human Rights.
When my father was assassinated, I had almost no hope his murder would be solved within Russia. Unfortunately, my expectations so far have proven to be true. I started to look into international mechanisms of at least control over the investigation of my father, and I found that few of these mechanisms exist in the world. Even those that can be used, such as a special rapporteur within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe — this is a mechanism of control — it's very difficult to apply this mechanism. It's called realpolitik when politicians are reluctant to act even on such issues as human rights abuses in Russia.
That's why this enables the Russian government to block the most high-profile assassination in modern Russia and provide impunity for those who might be involved in this crime and, moreover, to encourage this criminal behaviour.
I am, as a person, dedicated to a thorough investigation into my father's assassination. I strongly believe that more international mechanisms to bring justice and accountability to Russian authorities are needed in the world. Otherwise, these gross violations of human rights in Russia will persist. I'm speaking today only not about political prisoners — according to the memorial, we have 53 political prisoners — but I'm also speaking about assassinations. If there is no resistance on all levels, the situation in Russia will get even worse.
Thank you.
Vladimir Kara-Murza, Coordinator, Open Russia and Deputy Leader of People's Freedom Party, as an individual: Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you today.
Twenty-five years ago the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, of which both Russia and Canada are full members, adopted the Moscow Document, which upheld that human rights are not an internal affair but are subject to international obligations by member states. Under Vladimir Putin, the Russian government has made a mockery of these international obligations in fundamental areas of the human dimension.
Elections in our country have become a meaningless ritual for confirming the incumbents. Opposition candidates are routinely disqualified from the ballot. The voting process itself is characterized by administrative intimidation, overwhelming media bias and pervasive fraud. For instance, in the most recent parliamentary election of 2011, according to independent estimates, up to 14 million votes were stolen in favour of Vladimir Putin's party.
For more than a decade, the Russian Parliament has been a decorative body devoid of any real opposition — "not a place for discussion,'' in the unforgettable words of its own former Speaker.
The same, today, applies to Russia's largest media outlets. After independent television networks were shut down and taken over by the government in the early years of Putin's rule, Russia's airwaves have been used by the Kremlin propaganda machine to rail against so-called external enemies, mostly Western countries and, more recently, Ukraine, as well as against his political opponents at home, us, who they refer to as "traitors'' and "foreign agents.''
Many of the regime's opponents today are actually behind bars. As Zhanna mentioned, according to the Russian Human Rights Centre Memorial, there are currently 53 political prisoners in our country. This is according to the high standard as defined by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution 1900. They include opposition supporters jailed under the infamous Bolotnaya case for protesting against Putin's inauguration in May 2012. They include Oleg Navalny, the brother of anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny, who is basically being held as a hostage; Alexei Pichugin, the remaining hostage of the Yukos case; the leftist politician Sergei Udaltsov; and Ildar Dadin, a democracy activist in Moscow, who was recently sentenced to three years in prison for staging one-man street demonstrations. There's a new law that targets these types of protests, and he was the first one sentenced under it.
Of course, disqualification from the ballot, slander in state-run media and even prison are not the biggest dangers that face those who dare to oppose Vladimir Putin's regime.
Of course, as you know very well, on February 27 of last year, the leader of Russia's pro-democracy opposition, former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, was gunned down just 200 yards away from the Kremlin wall as he walked home over the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge, in what is probably one of the most well-guarded and surveilled districts not just in Moscow but in the whole of Europe.
Boris Nemtsov was the strongest, most prominent and most effective opponent of the Putin regime. His assassination left an enormous void in the entire democratic movement in Russia. The tens of thousands of people who marched through central Moscow two Saturdays ago in remembrance of Boris Nemtsov are testimony to that.
I myself am very fortunate and very happy to be here and to be speaking to you today. In May of last year, I slipped into a coma as a result of severe poisoning of unidentified origins that led to multiple organ failures. Medical tests showed an abnormally high concentration of several heavy metals in the blood, and medical experts told my wife that my chances of survival were 5 per cent. So I'm certainly very happy to be here with you today. I have little doubt that this was deliberate poisoning intended to kill and motivated by my political activities, likely including participation in a global campaign in support of the Magnitsky Act.
As you know, that law, which was passed in the United States in 2012, laid a groundbreaking precedent by introducing, for the first time, personal accountability for human rights abuses. These are not sanctions against a country or a government. These are sanctions against specific individuals responsible for corruption and human rights abuses. That particular law imposed targeted visa sanctions and asset freezes on the people involved in the arrest, torture and death of Moscow lawyer Sergeï Magnitski, about whom Bill Browder will speak in more detail in minute, and who uncovered a massive tax fraud scheme that involved state officials. Those same officials arrested him and caused his death.
This law also targets people involved in other gross human rights abuses in the Russian Federation. It is an honourable law and a very pro-Russian law that targets those who abuse the rights of Russian citizens and plunder the resources of Russian taxpayers through official corruption.
It's also a very effective law because for the many similarities that we can discuss between the Soviet regime and what we have today in Russia with Vladimir Putin — and there are many similarities, like political prisoners, election fraud, media propaganda and censorship — there is also one major difference: While they were silencing dissent and persecuting their opponents, members of the Soviet politburo did not store their money, educate their children or buy real estate in the countries of the democratic West. People in the current regime do that, both state officials and Kremlin- connected oligarchs. This double standard must be stopped. Those people who trample on the most basic norms of the civilized world should not enjoy the privileges that the civilized world has to offer.
In December 2012, Boris Nemtsov and I published an op-ed in Canada's National Post that Zhanna just referenced. It was entitled "Standing up for Freedom in Russia,'' and it called on the Canadian Parliament to adopt its own version of the Magnitsky law. It read:
Canada has an opportunity to lead — just as it has led on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — by adopting the Magnitsky legislation. . . .
. . . The task of democratic change in our country is ours and ours alone. But if Canada wants to show solidarity with the Russian people and stand for the universal values of human dignity, the greatest help it could give is to tell Kremlin crooks and abusers that they are no longer welcome.
This is a message I would like to reiterate here before you today. I hope that our friends and our OSCE partners here in Canada will act to end the impunity for those crooks and abusers, and will support this legislation in memory of Sergeï Magnitski, and now in memory of Boris Nemtsov.
Thank you very much once again. I look forward to any questions you may have.
William Browder, Head of the International Justice Campaign for Sergeï Magnitski and Author of Red Notice, as an individual: Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you very much for keeping this issue alive. I've been working to get justice for Sergeï Magnitski for six and a half years, ever since he was killed in a Moscow prison. I'm very grateful for the involvement of the Canadian Senate in my efforts to do that.
We've already gone over the horrors of what happened to Sergeï, so I'm not going to repeat them today. My colleagues have updated you on how the situation in Russia has gotten no better and is now much worse. Whatever arguments there were for the Magnitsky Act before, they are only stronger and more compelling today.
During the previous government, I came here in March 2015. With Irwin Cotler and various others, we got the Senate and the House of Commons to put forward and pass a resolution on a non-partisan, cross-party basis calling upon the government to impose Magnitsky sanctions such as asset freezes, visa bans and public naming of the people who were involved in Sergeï Magnitski's murder and other human rights abuses in Russia.
The outcome of that was that the previous government committed to us that they would put forth amendments to the current Magnitsky legislation. The mechanism they offered was an amendment to the Special Economic Measures Act, SEMA, which would include provisions to sanction, along the lines I just mentioned, gross human rights abusers, because the current legislation doesn't allow that to happen. I had meetings inside the foreign ministry where we discussed details of that. Everything was going along fine, but then unfortunately the mandate of the government ended, so they couldn't complete this legislation.
My colleagues in Canada who support the Magnitsky Act and I went to each of the political parties in the last election and asked them what their position would be should they form the new government and what they would do about the Magnitsky Act. Each political party — the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP — committed to implementing the Magnitsky Act if they formed the government,
The election came and went, and the Liberals, as you know, now form the government. So I've come back to Canada to ask the new government to fulfill their promise. I've had a lot of experience working with many governments around the world, and people sometimes behave differently in government than they do in campaigns.
One of my big hopes is that our presence here today will remind everybody of that promise. I would ask that the Senate, whose role is not as political as the House of Commons, to assist us and the Russians to ensure that the promised Magnitsky legislation becomes a reality.
I don't think we even need to argue any longer about the merits of it because it was all agreed. It's now just a question of how we get it done. I hope that the people here today will help me and help us make that happen.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Browder.
I have some questions, but I'll wait until the end.
One comment, Mr. Browder: At your last visit with the Senate, you learned that the process in the House of Commons is different than it is in the Senate. As you know, we have different rules and procedures, although we have the same objective: to scrutinize legislation and bring forward issues of concern. We have the mechanisms to proceed as the house, but our rules and process are somewhat different because we're a house of continuity more than anything.
I appreciate we've had a motion, and I will address some of that at the end of this meeting. In the meantime, I'm going to turn to the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Downe, who has some questions.
Senator Downe: Before I start, I'd like to recognize the presence in the room of Irwin Cotler, former minister and well-known human rights campaigner in Canada and around the world. Thank you for your presence here today, Irwin.
The witnesses may be aware that the chair, at least until recently, is not allowed to go to Russia, which she wears as a bit of a badge of honour, I might add.
Mr. Browder, I know you are in London. To the other witnesses: Are you allowed to go back to Russia at all, not that you're likely safe there? Are you allowed to go?
Mr. Kara-Murza: I live and work in Moscow.
Ms. Nemtsova: I'm allowed to go, but I live in Germany. I am a Russian citizen. I am not persecuted in Russia. I have no criminal charges, so I can go.
Senator Downe: Obviously, I support the proposed legislation.
I read your book, Mr. Browder, which was not only excellent but also very disturbing. You indicate how much worse it's getting in Russia. First, what is the end point we're looking at, in your view, for progress in that country?
Second, I appreciate what you're trying to do in Canada, and I am supportive, as I said, but Canada is a small fish in all of this. How are you making out with the Europeans? How is your progress there? I assume most Russians would have their assets in European countries.
Mr. Browder: The situation in Europe is complicated. There are 28 countries that make up the European Union. Some of the countries have a strong shared sentiment with us, while some of them, for different reasons, don't. In Europe it's more complicated to get the Magnitsky Act passed.
I don't think that Canada is a small fish. Canada actually has an interesting role in this whole exercise. The Americans were the first country to pass the Magnitsky Act, and they did so boldly and in a very effective way. With the Magnitsky Act, all victims of human rights abuse can go to Washington now and tell their stories. There is a possibility that their persecutors will be added to the Magnitsky list.
However, there are some people in Europe that don't like to do anything that the Americans do, for different reasons. This is where Canada comes in. Anti-Americanism exists in the world but there is no anti-Canadianism. Canada has this very powerful, symbolic role which, in my opinion, could create the necessary momentum to make this thing happen around the world.
Canada is blessed geographically and business wise. The Russians don't have a tremendous amount of leverage over you in that they can't cut off your gas and there is not much trade between the two countries. The cost of taking this step is not that great, but the symbolic moral benefit is dramatic. That's why I was here 10 days ago, why I'm here now and why I'm ready to come back as many times as necessary to tell the story and convince lawmakers here to make this happen.
I'll address one last point: your question about it getting worse. In the previous situation with Putin, he had a deal with everybody in Russia, which was that as oil prices were above $100 a barrel, people could have a good standard of living if they kept their noses out of human rights issues, politics, Chechnya and other areas of his political interest. People were ready to accept that deal. But now that oil is at $30 and $40, he no longer can give them money in exchange for their silence. His only other option is repression. The level of repression that we've seen in Russia, from every different standpoint, has just gone exponential. If there was a need for the Magnitsky Act before as protection, as one bit of outside leverage against human rights abuses, if we had a need for that in 2012, that has dramatically multiplied in 2016.
The Chair: I have a long list, so I'm going to encourage short questions and perhaps more efficient answers so that we can get everyone in.
Senator Ataullahjan: I thank you for your presentation and your courage in keeping this issue alive.
I read your opinion piece this morning in one of our national newspapers, Vladimir Kara-Murza, and I know that you're the coordinator of Open Russia, which promotes Russian civil society and pro-democracy activists. What role does civil society play, and is there a sense of discouragement? Are they getting discouraged, considering that the situation is getting worse for them and nobody feels safe? Is that discouraging to them, or are they still willing to come out onto the streets and support their cause?
Mr. Kara-Murza: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
I travel a lot around Russia. I'm based in Moscow, but I go to all sorts of different regions and cities and meet a lot of people. Despite the massive propaganda, despite the repression, despite the intimidation from the authorities, many people in Russia today are unhappy with the direction this regime has taken our country in. That, in my view, is a direction to a dead end in terms of international isolation, economic downturn and political authoritarianism. There are a great number of people in Russia who understand that and who want change.
Yes, of course, there is certain discouragement, and the authorities are doing everything they can to foster that discouragement and to foster apathy. They would be happy if we all packed up and left because there would be fewer troublemakers, from their point of view, left in the country.
The assassination of Boris Nemtsov was intended, among other things, to send that message to people. If they can do that to the leader of the opposition, outside of the Kremlin walls, they can do anything to anybody. That was the message.
But we're not going to follow that message. We're not going to pack up. We're not going to leave. We're not going to give up because it is our country, and if our country is to have any prospects, if our country is to have a normal European democratic future, we have to continue doing what we're doing, and we will.
I always like to remember the words that famous Soviet-era dissident Vladimir Bukovsky once said. He said perhaps the most surprising thing about Russia is that at every period in our history, however harsh the repressions, however bad the pressure on the situation, there are always people in Russia who are ready to stand up for our dignity, for our honour, for our rights and for our freedom. This remains true today, and I think this is where the best hope for our country lies.
Senator D. Smith: I might take one minute and mention that I first went there in 1969. I've been there six or seven times since on a couple of causes, one of which we were successful in. I won't get into it, but it was in the early 1980s when we got the Soviets to agree that under the Helsinki Accord they had to allow Jewish people who lived in Russia to immigrate directly to Israel. Abba Eban had this huge conference a few months later, with me as the keynote speaker. So we did succeed on that one.
Some of you live in Russia. To what extent is public opinion aware of this? Do you read about this stuff in the media, or is there much awareness? Do you have rallies? Do people get arrested if they are protesting? What are you doing in Russia to try to get this message out to Russians, and how is public opinion reacting? Do you have some sympathy in terms of public opinion?
Mr. Kara-Murza: Thanks a lot for this very important question.
Yes, people do know about this, and that's part of the intention from the regime. They want people to know about this. They want people to know that if you go out and demonstrate and protest and get involved in civic life and political life, you get punished.
Again, there is nothing that could be more demonstrative and stronger in terms of message than the assassination of the leader of the opposition in the place where he was assassinated, and it goes on in all the levels down. It goes to cases of imprisonment and slander in the state media, day in and day out. It is a message they want to send, that if you stick your neck out, you will have to pay for this.
But, I think despite this, a lot of people in Russia are not happy with this and are prepared to stick their necks out.
Even with the current atmosphere of intimidation, of, in many ways, apathy and cynicism, two Saturdays ago, we had a big rally in Moscow in memory of Boris Nemtsov but also in support of a free and democratic Russia, which was his vision, which was the idea he gave his life for. There were tens of thousands of people who came out despite everything.
We walked from — you've been to Moscow, so you know these places — Pushkin Square, down the Boulevard Ring and up again to Sakharov Avenue. There is a vantage point, as you go down and begin walking up again, where you can stop and turn around. You can see the Boulevard Ring goes down and then up again, and you can see if there are many people or not. This was actually the spot where Boris Nemtsov himself always liked to tell everyone to stop for a minute and look back and see if there are many of us.
The last time I took that route was in September 2014 for the peace march, which was the march against Putin's war against Ukraine, when tens of thousands of Russian citizens came. I remember he stopped at that place. He asked us to look back, and there was just a sea of faces.
We did the same on February 27. We stopped at that same place. We looked back, and there was just a sea of people all the way down, all the way up, despite the repression, despite the slander, despite the intimidation.
Ms. Nemtsova: I'm sorry to intervene. I would like to provide some figures.
People in Russia know in what country they live. For example, according to a recent poll, people were asked whether they believed in the fact that the assassination of my father would be fully solved, and over 50 per cent said no. People understand in Russia that there is no justice in Russia.
Secondly, about the political situation, another poll was recently conducted by the Levada Center, one of the most trusted organizations. They asked people whether they were afraid to openly or publicly express their views on the current political situation in Russia, and 26 per cent said, "Yes, we are frightened to openly say what we think.'' That means that you cannot understand what's going on in Russian society because almost a third of people are afraid to speak.
Senator D. Smith: I have to say I'm very impressed that you're here. You'll be going back to Russia, where you live. When you get back, will a message somehow be conveyed to you that if you keep this up, you're going to pay for it, or do you do this without fear? I really respect that, but I'm curious as to how comfortable you are in terms of preaching the message and whether or not, at some point, they're going to do something.
Mr. Kara-Murza: Well, they did convey that message to me last year, and I wasn't supposed to even be here according to their design.
Senator D. Smith: I'm glad you are here.
Mr. Kara-Murza: But I am here, and I'm not going anywhere. Many of my friends and colleagues who are in the democratic opposition movement in Russia are also not going anywhere. This is what they would like us to do, to stop doing what we're doing, to give up and let them do whatever they want to do, but we're not going to give them that pleasure.
We know it is a risky and dangerous vocation to be in opposition to Mr. Putin's regime. We have lost too many of our friends already. Literally, I mean; they lost their lives. We have dozens of people in prison. We know it's dangerous, but we also know our country has no future if we don't do it, so we will continue doing it.
Senator D. Smith: I commend you for your courage, and anything we can do to help I am supportive of.
Senator Dawson: Well, anything we can do to help. I think it's a very good example. An MP from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons was here a few minutes ago, Michael Levitt. I think he is humbly trying to walk in Irwin Cotler's shoes, which is a bit of a challenge.
There is an opportunity because I think there is bipartisan and bicameral support for you. I think that an informal unification of our foreign affairs committees on an issue like this could have some media impact much better than just our committee making that effort or their committee making that effort or, with all the respect I have for Irwin, Irwin walking around the Hill trying to support you. I think there might be some kind of informal meeting that we could have. It's more of a statement than a question. I used to be in caucus with Irwin Cotler years ago. I've been thrown out of better places, but we were thrown out of that caucus, so we don't have a formal relationship with the other caucus nationally.
As you know, they have a lot issues they're dealing with, some of them across the border today. They have a lot of challenges, so if we're not creative and if we don't do something out of the box, we won't be listened to.
That is not a question. It's more of a reiteration of support, and I hope that that support is as bipartisan as possible in the Senate, but also bicameral by getting both chambers to come out and support you.
That was my question made in a statement.
The Chair: I think you must have been eavesdropping on the steering committee. We'll get to the point of what action we're proposing, but we need to hear everyone have their say first so that we're fair to everyone here.
Senator Ngo: Canada has sanctions against Russia for its recent invasion of Crimea. Do those sanctions, according to you, have an effective impact against Russia?
Mr. Browder: The sanctions that are currently in place are in place for the external activities of the Putin regime in Ukraine, and they have been highly effective. I would say that those sanctions have caused Putin great discomfort, and those sanctions should absolutely be adhered to and kept in place no matter how much pressure Putin is putting on foreign countries to withhold those sanctions.
The sanctions that we're talking about today are the sanctions for Putin's behaviour inside the country. What he's done outside the country, there have now been effective sanctions, and I think, by any measure, that those work.
However, there are no sanctions in place from Canada for terrible things like the murders of Boris Nemtsov and Sergeï Magnitski, for the poisoning of Vladimir Kara-Murza last year or for the unfair hostage taking of Nadia Savchenko inside Russia. There are no sanctions, no consequence for those activities from a Canadian standpoint.
A lot of people ask me, "What can we do in the West, outside of Russia, to help Russian civil society, the Russian opposition and to help democracy?'' There is only one thing they ask for, which is to create consequences for these terrible repressions that go on inside Russia.
When Boris Nemtsov was here, he was here to counter one huge myth that the Russians have created, which is that these Magnitsky sanctions are anti-Russian. Boris Nemtsov came to the West and said, "No, that's not true. These sanctions are pro-Russian. We don't want to have human rights violators to repress the Russian people, get rich and come to American, Canada, France and England.''
I really want to draw the distinction between the sanctions against external activity, which are in place, and the sanctions against internal repressions, which don't exist in Canada. That's what we're going you to do here.
Ms. Nemtsova: I believe that you were talking about broad economic sanctions and technological sanctions. There are two perspectives.
First of all, these sanctions help to prevent further violence in the eastern part of Ukraine. I think in this respect they were effective. Our government saw a very firm reaction and response on the part of the Western countries, so it prevented this large-scale war in the eastern part of Ukraine, though there is still violence there.
Secondly, it has a very profound impact on the Russian economy together with an oil price drop. The second most important factor of the crisis in the Russian economy is, of course, sanctions, and that's why our national leaders — I mean the Prime Minister of Russia — tried to urge Western countries to lift these sanctions.
Of course, it's very bad for Russian citizens because of the economic impact, but at the same time, they stopped the war in the eastern part of Ukraine. That was, in my opinion, the main result.
Senator Ngo: If that's the case, what are your suggestions for Canada and what steps should Canada take?
Mr. Kara-Murza: Well, the main suggestion is to tell those people who engage in murder, torture, human rights abuses and corruption that they're not going to be welcome here, in your country. They're not welcome with their ill- gotten money, they're not welcome in the banking system, and they're not going to receive visas. That's the most important message there can be.
Again, I'll repeat: A ground-breaking precedent was set by this U.S. Magnitsky law that it is personal accountability for human rights abuses. Those people who actually do this have to bear responsibility for it. One day we will have justice for those people in Russia, but for now we don't have rule of law, democratic institutions or a functioning judicial system. We are, however, members of the OSCE, just like you are, and matters of human rights, according to the OSCE regulations, are a matter of international concern. This is why we ask you to tell those people that they're not welcome here. This is the only thing we ask for.
Senator Wells: Thank you for coming and for your long work on this issue.
Mr. Browder, we spoke a couple of weeks ago and in our discussions about the path forward on your quest, you said you had an upcoming meeting with officials or staff from the minister's office at Global Affairs. Do you feel comfortable giving an update on that meeting and where that the part of Canada's Parliament might stand?
Mr. Browder: To give everyone in the room the background, I was here two weeks ago — let me take one further step back.
As soon as the new government was formed, I asked Irwin Cotler whether I should come tomorrow to get everyone to fulfill the promise on the Magnitsky Act, and he said, "No, Bill, let's wait until everyone has their seats, the committees are formed and everyone knows where they are.'' He held me back until two weeks ago when I could wait no longer, and I came and had four days' worth of meetings with many members of the Senate, the House of Commons and the government. What I could summarize is that there was absolute effective unanimity of continued support for the Magnitsky Act in the parliamentary institutions. There was no one in the Senate or the house that had changed their opinion; if anything, the opinions had gotten stronger.
I wouldn't say there wasn't support in Global Affairs and your foreign ministry. It was just that in the meetings I had, they didn't give me any indication of their position. I was expecting them to say, "Here is the game plan and the steps that we're going to take,'' and I didn't hear that. I don't know if that's because they haven't thought them up yet or whether there is somebody or are some people in that organization who don't want to move forward on this.
I'm ready to give everybody the benefit of the doubt, but at this stage of the game, what should happen is that the government should put forth a government bill and a government plan for adopting the Magnitsky amendment to the Special Economic Measures Act, and I didn't hear that being proposed. I didn't hear a game plan and a timeline, and that's what we're hoping to here.
Senator Wells: Mr. Browder, for the group and for the record, could you tell us what the commitment of the current government and the Trudeau campaign was during the election?
Mr. Browder: During the election campaign, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party all committed — if any of them came to form a government — that they would impose the Magnitsky Act, meaning they would put in place amendments to law, or a new law, which would publicly name names, impose visa sanctions against those people and freeze their assets in Canada. That's what was promised by the Liberal Party prior to them forming government.
Senator Cordy: I've spoken to parliamentarians from the Baltic countries. They've expressed many of the concerns that you've expressed because they have Russian media within their countries. They share some of the concerns about the propaganda over their airwaves.
Is Mr. Putin planning on staying for life? Is that his plan? Is he going to follow the process of staying only for a few years and then, as he did last time, sidebar into something else and come back? Has he given any indication? Does he care what anybody thinks?
Mr. Kara-Murza: Thanks for the question.
It's hard to get into the mind of a person who's proven — I don't have a diplomatic way of saying it. The short answer is that yes, he does want to stay for life. There is no question about it because I think he well realizes that he won't have a happy retirement after everything he's done and everything that's happened in our country over the last 16 years. He's been in power for 16 years — that's almost an entire generation we're talking about. He does plan to stay for life, but thankfully it's not up to him. I don't think any dictator in the history of the world ever plans to step down, but so many have been forced to. I think that will happen to Mr. Putin as well, and the sooner it happens, the better it will be for our country and the less damage his regime will have done to our country. He has already done a lot of damage, so we'll have a lot of work in a post-Putin Russian government trying to undo that damage. The sooner he steps away, the better.
The current regime, the Kremlin, likes to accuse us, the opposition, of being "revolutionaries.'' They created a pro- Kremlin movement of pro-Putin thugs that parade through the streets of Moscow. They call it the Anti-Maidan movement. They're trying to say that we, the opposition, are fostering a revolution in Russia. If anyone actually is preparing a revolution in Russia, it's the people who are currently in the Kremlin. Nothing is forever, and Mr. Putin is not forever, either. If you destroy the democratic institutions and elections as a meaningful process and destroy all the legal constitutional ways of changing the government or even expressing protest against the government, then you're the one who is fermenting revolution. I think the biggest revolutionaries in our country today are to be found in the Kremlin.
Senator Cordy: Does the government make any pretense of investigating wrongdoings or killings such as of Mr. Nemtsov? Do they even pretend they're investigating, or do they just dismiss the whole thing?
Ms. Nemtsova: They pretend that they have solved this crime. Right now, five suspects who were most probably the triggermen are being held in custody and are awaiting trial. The investigation is in a deadlock to find those who organized or sponsored or masterminded this crime. Although there are suspects, they don't want to put them on the wanted list or officially convict them and bring them to justice.
Even the investigative team admits that there were organizers and masterminds behind this crime. It's in a complete deadlock.
It's very difficult to put pressure on an investigation, but I use all the legal mechanisms to do this. Even the mechanisms of international control can push forward this investigation very slowly. The idea is just to forget and not to draw public attention to this. What we are doing together with my father's friends and with our lawyers is very difficult for the Russian authorities. It's important to resist. If you don't resist, you will have even more violence.
Mr. Kara-Murza: Just to add a couple of words on the investigations, the official investigative authorities have sent a few pointed messages. First, they continuously refuse to qualify the murder of Boris Nemtsov under Article 277 of the Russian Criminal Code — an attempt on the life of a public figure or statesman. They have refused to do this one time after another, despite repeated requests by Zhanna and her lawyers. Indeed, about four weeks ago, Alexander Bastrykin, head of the investigative committee of the Russian Federation, announced that the murder has been solved. That is indeed what he said.
If we are to believe the official version, which will go to trial soon in the Moscow District Military Court, the assassination of the leader of the Russian opposition under the Kremlin walls was masterminded by a driver. That is the official version that they are submitting to the court. Despite the obvious links between the alleged perpetrators who have been arrested — as Zhanna said, five people — and the Kremlin-appointed leader of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, he has not been formally questioned by investigators throughout the whole of this year. The repeated requests to question him have all been denied, and he continues with impunity to issue public threats against opposition leaders. Just a few weeks ago, he put out a video showing Mikhail Kasyanov, the former Prime Minister of Russia, and me with superimposed crosshairs of a sniper rifle. The comment was, "Those who haven't understood will understand.''
All we hear from the Kremlin are laudatory statements towards Mr. Kadyrov. Mr. Putin thanked him for his effective work a few weeks ago. Sergei Ivanov, Kremlin Chief of Staff, said that the Russian leadership has no questions for Mr. Kadyrov. I think after such statements, there are no questions left for the Russian leadership itself.
Senator Ataullahjan: Is this anti-Putin sentiment, which has been dominating Western media, helpful at all in combatting corruption and abuse? Has it in any way been damaging to or isolating the Kremlin?
Mr. Kara-Murza: What will be helpful is action. They don't care about words; they dismiss them. They just take them as lip service. They're probably not very happy that they have such a reputation, but they don't really care. If you go after their money and visas, that's when they'll start caring. This sentiment should transform into concrete action, and we hope that it will in this country.
Senator Ataullahjan: You're looking for actions with words.
Mr. Kara-Murza: For specific targeted sanctions against human rights abuses, absolutely.
The Chair: Is there anything else you wish to put forward on the table before I comment?
Mr. Browder: I think we're good.
The Chair: I have many questions. I've been following this situation. My deputy chair wanted to know whether I'm still on a certain banned list. Well, I am. Mr. Cotler and I share that honour or that difficulty. I have often said that being blacklisted is not a badge of honour because the link to the Russian people to me is very important. It is what the administration has done.
I regret that the link to Russia is severed for me and for Mr. Cotler. That's not to say that we don't follow or care about the issues of the people — not only the leaders of the opposition but also the average person in Russia. They deserve to know the facts. They deserve to live under international standards, as the rest of us do.
Mr. Browder, we approached the steering committee about a motion. The steering committee decided that we have already put forward a motion, so to iterate another motion at this time may not be the effective action that it should be.
We understand you will be appearing before the House of Commons committee and that you are going to the government. I am proposing to the committee that you give the authority to the steering committee to look into this action after this visit to see what actions we should take.
When we reconvene, the steering committee will propose exactly what steps we feel the Senate could and should take. It may be in the form of a different motion or it may be some other action. It could be what Senator Dawson said about trying to bring together the leadership of the various segments of our Parliament to determine the most effective way.
Our motion still stands. We call on the Government of Canada to move on this issue. It makes no difference to our committee in the Senate whether we are calling on one particular party that was in governance or the new government. I think our motion stands and is firm in that sense.
For the record, you know where the Senate stands, and certainly this committee. We feel that we will see where we can further our own intentions on this and how we can be helpful to the people in Russia who have difficulty gaining their own rights, voice and actions.
Thank you for your courage in coming to our committee but also your courage in the work you do, the message you are conveying and your positions on what is possible for your people in Russia. It's commendable.
On behalf of the committee, I thank all of you for your continued dedication to the cause of international human rights, the rule of law, freedom and democracy.
Senators, do I have your authorization to proceed with the steering committee as I've outlined?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)