By Tryfon Kapsalis
A confidential ethics complaint obtained by Politis alleges that New Democratic Party MP Heather McPherson made “false and fabricated accusations” in Parliament of Canada against billionaire energy investor Igor Makarov during the early months of the Russia-Ukraine war, potentially intensifying scrutiny over how Canada’s sanctions regime has been enforced and politicized since 2022.
The complaint, submitted this May with Canada’s Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by lawyers representing Makarov, accuses the Alberta MP of making demonstrably inaccurate statements in the House of Commons when she claimed that Makarov had been “sanctioned in the United States” and that funds connected to him had been used “to prop up Russia’s war.”
According to the leaked letter, McPherson’s April 28, 2022 remarks were delivered from prepared notes during a parliamentary session, which Makarov’s lawyers argue undermines any suggestion the statements were inadvertent.
At issue is a broader and increasingly contentious debate over Canada’s sanctions policy, particularly whether Ottawa moved more aggressively than its Western allies in targeting individuals with Russian backgrounds who maintained significant investments in Canada’s energy sector.
In the House of Commons, McPherson stated:
“Russian oligarch Igor Makarov, who has been sanctioned in the United States since 2018, was able to get $121 million out of Canada… Instead, that money was used to prop up Russia’s war.”
But multiple reports indicate that Makarov was never sanctioned by the United States or the European Union. Britain, Australia and New Zealand initially imposed sanctions but later removed him from their lists after review processes.
That discrepancy now forms the centerpiece of the ethics complaint.
Makarov’s attorneys argue the allegation regarding U.S. sanctions was “easily verifiable as false” and say no evidence has ever been produced to support the accusation that his Canadian assets financed Russia’s military campaign.
The complaint asks Ethics Commissioner Konrad von Finckenstein to investigate whether McPherson violated parliamentary ethical obligations requiring MPs to perform their duties “with honesty” and avoid conduct creating “real or apparent conflicts of interest.”
The controversy arrives as Makarov escalates a parallel international legal campaign against Canada over sanctions that froze millions of dollars of Mr. Makarov’s assets tied largely to Alberta energy investments, including holdings in Calgary-based Spartan Delta Corp.
In January, Makarov launched a $350 million arbitration claim against Canada before the World Bank-affiliated International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), alleging Ottawa unlawfully expropriated his investments and violated multiple protections under the Canada–Moldova investment treaty.
Legal observers say the parliamentary remarks are significant because they helped shape the public narrative around Makarov during a period of intense political pressure on Ottawa to crack down on Russian-linked wealth following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.
At the time of McPherson’s statement in 2022, opposition parties — including the NDP — were accusing the Liberal government of moving too slowly against Russian oligarchs and offshore assets.
The leaked complaint suggests McPherson’s remarks reflected broader political dynamics rather than independently verified intelligence.
Following Russia’s invasion, Canada adopted one of the world’s most expansive sanctions regimes, adding nearly 3,000 individuals and entities to sanctions schedules under the Special Economic Measures Act.
But critics increasingly argue that sanctions decisions became influenced by domestic political optics as much as by evidentiary standards.
Makarov’s legal team points to several developments they say undermine Canada’s continuing sanctions designation. Makarov renounced his Russian citizenship in 2023 after applying to do so in 2022.
His attorneys emphasize that “after Mr. Makarov formally renounced his Russian citizenship, his sanctioning became illegal in Canada, as such citizenship was a precondition to listing. However, months later, Canada, targeting Mr. Makarov, took the extraordinary measure of delisting him, immediately amending its sanctions framework so it could simply relist him,” which raises serious concerns regarding fairness and consistency.
He publicly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. His representatives say he helped support several thousand Ukrainian refugees and housed some refugees in Italy. The United States and European Union never sanctioned him, while the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand eventually removed him from sanctions lists.
Even so, Canadian courts thus far have sided with Ottawa’s authority to maintain sanctions.
The dispute also touches a politically sensitive fault line in Canadian politics: foreign ownership in Alberta’s oil and gas industry.
Makarov’s lawyers argue Canada effectively targeted him because he represented “one of the few (former) Russian-linked individuals with significant assets in Canada.”
McPherson represents Edmonton Strathcona in Alberta where energy politics remain deeply intertwined with employment and foreign investment concerns.
The ethics complaint implies that portraying Makarov as directly tied to the Kremlin may have carried political advantages during a period when Parliament was competing to demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine and toughness toward Moscow.
The ethics complaint is unlikely on its own to determine whether McPherson faces formal consequences. Parliamentary speech protections are extensive, and ethics investigations involving political speech are rare.
But the matter could intensify broader scrutiny over Canada’s sanctions architecture as Makarov’s international arbitration proceeds.
A March analysis published by Market Screener described the Makarov case as one of the first major attempts by a sanctioned individual to use investor-state arbitration mechanisms against Canada over sanctions enforcement.
The case may ultimately force Canadian authorities to defend not only the legal basis for sanctions decisions, but also the political narratives surrounding them.
For Ottawa, the stakes extend well beyond one billionaire investor.
