Honourable senators, I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Motion No. 75.

I want to thank the Honourable Senator McPhedran for tabling this motion and bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. It’s an issue that has to do with human rights. It’s an issue specific to Senator Leila de Lima, a well-known person and human rights activist, who, unfortunately over the last few years, has been facing the wrath of an authoritarian regime — a regime that is not respectful of the rule of law.

We have here again another case of a parliamentarian who is being stomped on with a boot to the throat when she’s simply trying to stand up for justice, trying to fight corruption in her country, trying to fight a drug cartel and trying to fight an insidious group of individuals that are trying to profit for themselves at the expense of society.

Of course, we’ve now seen too many cases over the last few years, instances where democracy and freedom is ignored, where parliamentarians who stand up to authoritarian regimes that are always in pursuit of more power, and the saying is that power corrupts, but ultimate and complete power corrupts completely. We’ve seen instances, in some cases even in modern Western democracies, where governments become too ambitious in their pursuits of power, and the executive branch oversteps their bounds.

Senator de Lima is a lawyer and a staunch human rights activist. She has served as a human rights commissioner, and in a previous administration of her country, as justice minister. Senator de Lima has been highly visible and a harsh critic of her current government, which all parliamentarians should have the right to be without fear of repercussion. She stood up, when she was a minister, against drug trafficking and against a drug cartel. She stood up against corruption. And of course, the price she has paid is to have the Duterte administration in the Philippines press trumped-up charges against her. The injustice in this particular case has been well documented and beautifully highlighted in the speech of Senator McPhedran. It has been such an egregious injustice that we’ve seen Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International speak out against this.

We’ve seen a number of parliaments around the world, including, of course, a joint resolution passed by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States Senate, calling for her release. We’ve seen all opposition parties in the Philippines calling for her release. We’ve seen, as recently as 2019 at the Paris World Human Rights Conference, that conference calling for her release. In 2018, she was honoured by Amnesty International as the human rights activist of the year.

I don’t want to go on. Senator McPhedran more than appropriately highlighted the importance of this motion. I believe we have to speak as one voice and that it is incumbent on Canada, which I believe is one of those great democracies. Of course, we’ve seen over the last little while that even Canada isn’t perfect, but at least in our democracy we accept the atrocities of our past, we accept mistakes that are done and we try to correct them. That is imperative. However, we should never, ever turn a blind eye to egregious behaviour toward minorities. We should never turn a blind eye when a government anywhere in the world, here in Canada or around the world, tramples on democracy and freedoms, ignores the rule of law, ignores justice and, more fundamentally, ignores fundamental human rights to which all human beings are entitled.

Colleagues, I think this motion is worthy of our support. On behalf of our caucus, I would like to call the question and I hope this will get the consideration and unanimous support that it deserves. Thank you, colleagues.

Honourable senators, I sense a clamour for a vote on this motion, and so I have written a speech in a hurry to add my voice before we get to the decision point.

This motion draws on a bill that we passed in April 2017, which became law a few months later. I supported that bill, but I don’t support this motion. In fact, colleagues, I don’t support any motion in this chamber that seeks to call on the government to impose Magnitsky sanctions on any foreign national. We passed one such motion last week and, in addition to this one, there are a few more Magnitsky motions still on our Order Paper.

How is it, colleagues, that I support the Magnitsky bill but do not support motions to impose Magnitsky sanctions on specific targets? Well, the answer is that the original bill was adopted on the understanding that we give the responsibility and the power of ascertaining when to impose Magnitsky sanctions, and on whom, to the executive.

As I said in my question to the sponsor of the bill, former Senator Andreychuk, after her third reading speech, the Magnitsky Act was designed to be, “not too blunt an instrument and not too sharp a tool as to bind the hands of the minister” in applying sanctions.

At the time, former Senator Andreychuk responded to me and said in her third reading speech a number of things that confirmed my suggestion to her that this tool not be too blunt or too sharp, and that it should be used at the discretion of the government. She said:

. . . Bill S-226 would place a discretionary tool immediately at the Canadian government’s disposal in the pursuit of its foreign policy goals. This tool would become readily available, giving our government the means to respond to evolving international crises in a timely manner.

She goes on to say:

It will be controlled under Article 4 to determine what internationally recognized violations of human rights are. It is discretionary for them, to be available for them immediately, but not necessarily used if, in fact, other issues of foreign policy deem it to be more important. The discretion remains in the hands of the government. It is meant to be a tool. . . . it allows the government the flexibility and the discretion to use it when and how it deems appropriate in the best interests of Canada.

I’ve been quoting former Senator Andreychuk and you will have noticed her extensive use of the words “discretion” and “discretionary.”

Colleagues, this motion and all other Magnitsky motions do not give discretion. This motion does not say, look at all the factors pertaining to the issue, weigh the pros and cons of Magnitsky sanctions in the context of Canada’s foreign relations with the affected country. This motion doesn’t say any of this because that is already what the bill says. And to repeat, these same injunctions would defeat the purpose of a motion that is intended to direct the government to impose sanctions on the targeted individual or individuals rather than to recognize the need for — here’s the word again — discretionary action.

Colleagues, Magnitsky sanctions are a tool in a toolbox of many implements, in a government’s foreign policy workshop. We should encourage the government to consider the use of all of its tools for the job at hand, rather than insisting that the government pull out a hacksaw to shave an uneven log or a sledgehammer to mount a picture frame.

What’s more, colleagues, this tool of Magnitsky sanctions belongs to the government. It does not belong to individual parliamentarians. The point is, on matters of foreign policy, we have only this tool. We, as parliamentarians, have only this tool and do not have access to the larger toolbox of diplomacy and foreign policy to which the government has access. That is why we should almost never use this tool.

Now, colleagues, I have not commented on the reason for this particular motion because it is not germane to my argument. Again, I stress that I’m against this and all other motions of this sort. I do not know much about Senator Leila de Lima and I doubt many of you did either prior to the introduction of this motion. I have no reason, however, to doubt the information which Senator McPhedran has provided to us, and I agree with her that the situation which Senator de Lima is facing seems very dire indeed, but that is not enough for me to support this motion or any motion directing the government to impose Magnitsky sanctions.

Colleagues, I hope you will join me in voting against this motion, not as a rejection of the Magnitsky sanctions bill that we were instrumental in this chamber in creating, but as a validation of and in respect for the intent of that bill. Thank you.

Senator McPhedran, did you have a question?

I do, Your Honour. I wonder if Senator Woo would take a question?

Yes, of course.

Senator Woo, I noticed you substituted the word “direct” for what is actually in the motion. Subsection (c) of the motion that I put to the chamber was to call on the Government of Canada to invoke sanctions.

My question to you is whether you then think that the Senate should never call on the Government of Canada to interpret and implement a certain law, because that is the wording in my motion.

I think it has the same intent — the call and the direction. The more general point, of course, is that any motion calling on or directing Magnitsky sanctions on a particular individual or set of individuals is very narrow in its scope. That is, by definition, the type of motion that comes to this chamber. The nature of Magnitsky sanctions, as we recognized throughout the study of the Magnitsky Act and in the debate around it, is that these issues are always embedded in a much broader and more complicated context, which the government has the ability to assess, because it has all the tools that I talked about in its toolbox in the foreign policy workshop it occupies.

We have passed a bill allowing them, empowering them and encouraging them to use all tools, including Magnitsky. We should therefore stand back and let them use the tools at their disposal.

Senator Woo, I really do need to ask for greater clarification of part of my earlier question. That is, are you saying that as parliamentarians and senators, we should never be calling on our government to interpret and implement an existing law of this nature?

To respond to your follow-up question, there is a big difference — I think as we all recognize — between calling on our government to implement laws that pertain to domestic issues and calling on the government to do things that are in the domain of foreign policy. We have had many senators here before, reminding us about the Royal Prerogative in matters of foreign policy, which belongs to the executive. It’s a well-known tradition, one which unfortunately we seem to be traversing with much more frequency.

I think there is a fair distinction to be made between domestic and foreign policy issues. Particularly in a case where we already have a bill that gives the government the ability to impose Magnitsky sanctions as part of a suite of measures, we should be doubly careful about giving them direction.

Senator Housakos, you wish to ask a question?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Senator Woo, would you take a question?

Yes, of course.

Senator Woo, I very much appreciate your perspective, but I do have to highlight that in the Westminster model of Parliament, parliamentarians have the right to speak on behalf of their constituents and the people of Canada. I think you have gone to a painstaking degree to point out that we shouldn’t infringe on the territorial rights of the executive branch, but as we all know, in our system of government, the executive has more than enough tools in order to take unilateral action against egregious behaviour of human rights violators. Also, Parliament has the right to express itself and manifest itself on behalf of Canadians.

The question for you, Senator Woo is: If the Magnitsky Act shouldn’t be implemented right now against the Philippine officials, would you agree it should be implemented against the Chinese regime when it comes to the trampling of the democracy movement in Hong Kong, and their egregious behaviour in interning Muslim minorities right now in concentration camps in China? Would you agree that in these two instances the Magnitsky Act should be called upon by Parliament for implementation by our government?

On your first question about whether or not parliamentarians have the right to express themselves, the answer is bien sûr, you do have the right to express yourself. That’s why we have a motion like this one on our Order Paper. That’s why we have three or four other motions calling for Magnitsky sanctions.

What I’m calling for is judicious judgment. I’m calling for discretion. I’m calling for curbing one’s enthusiasm in the context of the bigger picture of foreign policy and in the context of the Magnitsky Act that already exists, which gives the government that very power.

Senator Housakos, I’m not curbing anyone’s rights. If anyone wants to continue to put forward Magnitsky sanctions motions, that is entirely within their rights. You can, of course, also express yourself through statements and inquiries. This is all within your purview. However, I’m expressing my view that this is an inappropriate use of that tool precisely because of the bill we created here and passed into law.

On your other questions, if you wait a few minutes after the vote or adjournment, I will be happy to answer them in a longer speech.

Senator Woo, my question to you is simple. You seem to want us to curb our enthusiasm for defending human rights. At which point do you think you should encourage some enthusiasm in pursuit of defending human rights in the Philippines, China, Hong Kong, Iran and so many other places around the world?

Honourable senators, I was very clear that this intervention of mine has nothing to do with the specific content of the motion. I mentioned that I’m against all Magnitsky motions because of the principle that they not only infringe on the Royal Prerogative for the executive, they are, in a way, redundant and self-contradictory because of the act that we actually passed leading up to these kinds of motions. There is no need to comment on any specific case, but as I say, if you give me the chance to move on to the next motion, I may be able to answer some of the other questions.

I would like to move the adjournment of the debate.

Moved by Senator Dalphond, seconded by the Honourable Senator Duncan, that further debate be adjourned to the next sitting of the Senate. If you’re opposed to the motion, please say no.

No.

Those in favour of the motion who are in the Senate Chamber will please say yea.

Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

In my opinion, the nays have it.

I see two senators rising. Do we have an agreement on a bell?

Now.

Is there leave from the senators in the chamber for the agreed length of bell; in other words, for the vote to take place now?

Again, not that it makes any difference to the vote, but I’m simply going to say this as a point of order.

I saw Senator Dawson with his photograph on the screen and not him. I don’t think that is the way we’re supposed to be conducting ourselves when we’re on Zoom calls. I think we are supposed to be visible and we’re supposed to be holding up our cards.

I guess the right thing would be not to register his vote, even though it makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of the vote. That is not the way we’re supposed to conduct ourselves.

I agree with Senator Plett. That is why I abstained. I was having technical difficulties, so I decided to abstain.

It wasn’t because I wanted to vote without permission. My camera wasn’t on, so I abstained.

I think in this case, Senator Plett, Senator Dawson just explained that he had a technical difficulty with his camera. We could hear his voice and subsequently we saw his face, so I think his vote will count in these circumstances.