Thank you very much. I do appreciate that. I share your disappointment at what transpired.
What I would say, and I'll provide my notes after, is it is not about not sanctioning gross human rights abusers; it's about how we do it.
What I'm arguing for is the consistent approach that Canada always followed in the past. Where there was not a legal jurisdictional connection to Canada, then we would follow international law and multilateral approaches. That stood in stark contrast to the United States, which has generally preferred unilateral approaches and seeking to impose its views on the rest of the world.
The Cuba arms embargo is a very good example of the difference between Canada and the United States during the Cold War. It wasn't that we didn't think there were human rights abuses that were of grave concern, but we thought there was another way to handle it. I referenced the Human Rights Council but also the UN Security Council, because that's really where the sanctions have the most bite if the UN Security Council agrees to those sanctions.
The problem we have is that we have countries at the UN Security Council who have vetos, and they only allow those sanctions against certain countries and not others. That's why I regret so much that Canada has taken this approach. It's hard as parliamentarians, and I know that, to stand against what to the average person just seems like a no-brainer. Of course, we're against human rights abusers. Let's go after them.
I come back to the point of Saudi Arabia. It is consistently listed as among the top 10 worst human rights abusers every single year. Is this committee really going to recommend that Canada's version of the Magnitsky Act be used to go after Saudi Arabian money in Canada? I think not.
The methodology is not a good methodology to be effective, because if you're discriminating some countries and not others, it undermines the entire integrity of the international human rights machinery.
Thank you.