The Hon. the Speaker: Thank you, Senator Plett. I will slow down.

The Senate proceeded to consideration of the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on June 8, 2023.

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): When you speak French, half the time we are not getting the translation before you move on. We simply cannot keep up. The other way is going okay, but I want to understand what you’re saying. So we need either for you, Your Honour, to slow down or for them to speed up.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar moved:

That the fifteenth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, entitled Doing What Works: Rethinking the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention, deposited with the Clerk of the Senate on Thursday, June 8, 2023, be adopted and that, pursuant to rule 12-23(1), the Senate request a complete and detailed response from the government, with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions being identified as minister responsible for responding to the report, in consultation with the Minister of Health.

She said: Honourable senators, I know the hour is late, but this is a really important study that shines the light on a particularly dark place — suicide. Before I give you the substance of the findings of our report, please let me take a minute to thank all the witnesses who shared their lived and living experience on suicide with us.

Stigma around suicide and mental health persists, and without discussing these topics, there is little hope for improvement. I would like, in particular, to thank our colleagues Senator Stan Kutcher and Senator Patrick Brazeau for their insight and perspectives on our study.

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology began its study on the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention in September 2022, holding five meetings of testimony and hearing from 23 witnesses. The Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention was published in 2016 after a period of consultation following the adoption, in 2012, of the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention Act.

While the framework establishes an idealistic vision of “a Canada where suicide is prevented and everyone lives with hope and resilience,” the committee heard that there has been little change to the overall Canadian suicide rate since its implementation. In fact, the overall annual rate has remained largely steady for the past two decades, fluctuating between 11 in 100,000 and 12 in 100,000.

The committee asked the question, “Where are we after seven years?” The title of our report is Doing What Works. It could easily have been called Doing What Doesn’t Work because the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is failing by the only metric that really counts — lives saved.

Since the framework was established, the suicide rate in Canada has not meaningfully changed. There was the slightest of decreases in 2020, which witnesses attributed to pandemic‑related supports. It has otherwise remained stubbornly steady, and we wanted to know why.

One cannot fault the framework for not having lofty ideals and aspirations, laudable language and praiseworthy goals. It aims to prevent suicide through partnership, collaboration and innovation. It aims to do so while respecting the diversity of cultures and communities that are touched by this issue. It speaks of building hope and resilience and of leveraging partnerships. All of this is, as we found, heartwarming and inspiring but ultimately ineffectual. The evidence we heard is that fine words have no effect on health outcomes for people in crisis.

The committee makes 10 recommendations, and I will not go through all 10 of them. I will simply highlight four in the hope that you will turn your attention to this report.

First, we need to go where the problem actually is. It is not in the general population but, rather, in specific sections of it, primarily men and boys who are First Nation, Métis and Inuit. Senator Brazeau was particularly compelling as a witness on this point.

Second, we need to invest in programming that works, backed by evidence that it works, not touchy-feely good ideas or best practices. Senator Kutcher has emphasized the need to review the efficacy and impact of revenue-generating programs for suicide prevention.

Third, we need to focus on means intervention, which, in simple words, means that we need to restrict easy access to those methods of suicide which may make it easier to succeed, such as installing barriers to bridges and preventing easy access to medication, et cetera.

Fourth, and significantly, we need to aggressively collect and disaggregate data to follow the evidence. In short, doing what works as opposed to spinning windmills in the air is what is important. This is about lives and saving them, and this report puts out significant recommendations which could do so, particularly in light of the fact that the Federal Framework for Suicide Prevention is due to be reviewed.

Thank you, colleagues.

The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Omidvar, would you take a question?

Senator Omidvar: Of course.

Hon. Denise Batters: Senator Omidvar, I was surprised to see in your report that it seemed to be a revelation to your committee that men’s suicide deaths are 75% of the Canadian total.

Thirteen years ago, in 2010, I produced a TV commercial in memory of my late husband to raise awareness about mental illness and suicide prevention, and among the facts noted in that 2010 ad was that men die by suicide three times as often as women. I and many other mental health advocates in Canada have spoken nationally about this topic for more than a decade.

The short section of your report about boys and men starts with this sentence:

The committee received less testimony regarding boys and men, and recognizes that this population should be considered in further depth in future studies on suicide prevention in Canada.

Senator Omidvar, your committee, as you mentioned, had only five meetings with witnesses on this topic. Why didn’t you have more meetings to receive that type of key evidence about men?

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Senator Batters, and thank you for your continued advocacy on this matter. I have not watched the particular TV ad that you did, but I will undertake to do so.

Our committee has a work plan, and we dedicated five meetings to discuss the report. We felt that even though we recognized the shortcomings of not hearing more witnesses on the suicide rate of boys and men, we did point it out in our study, and our recommendation reflects the findings of the committee.

Thank you.

Hon. David M. Wells: Honourable senators, I note this item is at day 15. I’m not ready to speak at this time. Therefore, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 4-15(3), I move the adjournment of the debate for the balance of my time.

Hon. Victor Oh: Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Inquiry No. 11 on the one hundredth anniversary of the Chinese Exclusion Act — this inquiry was initiated by my colleague Senator Yuen Pau Woo.

First, I would like to share my appreciation for Senator Woo’s initiative in leading this important and timely conversation in the Red Chamber which, as you all know, had a pivotal role in highlighting the profoundly damaging legislation, the Chinese Immigration Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act. Some of our honourable colleagues have already spoken about the Chinese Exclusion Act’s detrimental effects on the Chinese‑Canadian community. I was profoundly touched by the allyship expressed in their speeches regarding this inquiry, such as from Senator Jaffer and Senator McCallum.

Unfortunately, this act’s cruelty is unimaginable to many in this chamber. We know too well that our country’s history is marred with periods of exclusionary and reprehensible actions. Nevertheless, allow me to remind you of the act’s discriminative measures.

In practice, the Chinese Immigration Act prohibited Chinese immigration. As a result, families were torn apart, opportunities were lost and autonomous life was destroyed. Canadians of Chinese descent were also deprived of full citizenship in their home and native land. However, this community never succumbed despite the systemic challenges. Chinese Canadians steadily dismantled and overcame hurdles through incredible resilience and determination.

In 1947, freedom of movement was reclaimed and the right to citizenship was re-established. In 1948, we slowly started to gain the right to vote. In further years, we reconnected with our parents and rebuilt our families. Most importantly, we thrived and contributed to Canada’s economic and social development.

I have no doubt, honourable colleagues, that Canada would not be the great country it is today if not for the resilience of the Chinese-Canadian community and countless other minority communities. Unfortunately, even with all of the time that has passed, lessons can be forgotten and society can regress. Seventy-five years ago, systemic inequality brought about a rise of anti-Chinese racism. Today, following the pandemic and geopolitical issues, the Asian community in Canada finds itself as the target once again.

Over the course of the last three years, an unfortunate sentiment has been shared with me repeatedly. In not so many terms, parallels are felt between our modern day and what took place 100 years ago. Uninvolved individuals of the Asian community feel cornered by politics. They find themselves stranded between their love for their millenary cultural heritage and pointed political language.

I would be remiss if I didn’t caution my parliamentary colleagues, yet again, to take special care to differentiate between our Chinese-Canadian community and those they criticize. Even more distressing is when such critiques are misunderstood by some in the public and taken to an extreme, ultimately being manifested in the form of violence and hate. During the pandemic, for example, we witnessed repeated cases of rhetoric turning into violence in the streets of our great country.

As I have mentioned in the past, I experienced an episode of anti-Asian hate just a few steps outside of Parliament Hill, and I constantly endure hateful comments directed at me in social media channels. That, however, is a sad price that we — parliamentarians — pay for being public figures. Nevertheless, private citizens have not signed up for such harsh criticism and hate. Political critiques are being misinterpreted as judgment toward individuals, and it pains me to hear that many feel personally attacked by the language used by our politicians.

Colleagues, I do believe that we are conscientious by nature here in Canada. Let us remember this great quality and speak accordingly when voicing our political opinion. Just like how our words can be a force for good, they can also be a force for wrong.

The success of Chinese Canadians comes despite the never-ending — and seemingly worsening — anti-Asian racism. Our stories of resilience are many: Take, for example, Lieutenant-Commander William King Lowd Lore who, despite being denied enlistment in the Royal Canadian Navy multiple times, went on to make history as the first officer of Chinese descent in any of the Commonwealth navies.

On another positive note, it is evident that there has been some evolution. I stand here today as an ethnic Chinese senator from Ontario, speaking on an inquiry started by an ethnic Chinese senator from British Columbia, which speaks volumes about how far we have come since 1923.

Indeed, there is still work to be done, and striving for equality and cultural appreciation should be our ceaseless goal. Nevertheless, I am proud to know that despite our past faults, Canada remains a beacon of hope and a haven of multiculturalism and inclusion in today’s world. Thank you, xie xie and meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Clement, debate adjourned.)

On Motion No. 90 by the Honourable Donald Neil Plett:

That the Standing Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade be authorized to examine and report on foreign influence in the electoral process in Canada; and

That the committee submit its final report no later than June 30, 2023.

Hon Senators: Agreed.

(Debate postponed until the next sitting of the Senate.)

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I see that I am at the end of my time on this as well. So with the leave of the Senate I would like to reset the clock for the balance of my time.

Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond, pursuant to notice of June 8, 2023, moved:

That the Senate acknowledge that Russian political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza — recipient of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize, a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and a friend of the Parliament of Canada — is an internationally recognized champion for human rights and democracy, whose wrongful imprisonment for dissenting against the unjust war in Ukraine is emblematic of thousands of political prisoners in Russia and around the world; and

That the Senate resolve to bestow the title “honorary Canadian citizen” on Vladimir Kara-Murza and call for his immediate release.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to co-propose that the Senate join with the House of Commons’ unanimous vote last week to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Russian political prisoner Vladimir Kara-Murza. Thank you to Senators Housakos, Omidvar, Miville-Dechêne and Patterson (Ontario) for your collaborative efforts towards this goal.

As this motion states, Vladimir Kara-Murza is an internationally recognized champion for human rights and democracy. He is a recipient of the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize and a Senior Fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights in Montreal. Mr. Kara-Murza’s wrongful imprisonment for dissenting against the unjust war in Ukraine is emblematic of thousands of political prisoners in Russia and around the world.

After surviving two assassination attempts, Mr. Kara-Murza is currently serving a 25-year sentence in Russia imposed further to a mockery of a trial held after he courageously returned to his homeland last year.

Senators, the Parliament of Canada must stand with such a hero and a friend of Canada. Mr. Kara-Murza visited our Parliament twice. In 2016, he appeared before the Senate Foreign Affairs and International Trade Committee to urge the adoption of the Sergei Magnitsky Law named after another victim of the Putin regime, which became law in 2017.

In 2019, Mr. Kara-Murza assisted the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, alongside the Honourable Irwin Cotler, former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, in relation to the human rights situation in Russia.

Vladimir’s spouse Evgenia Kara-Murza is the Advocacy Coordinator of the Free Russia Foundation. She assisted the same House committee last October in relation to a study of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. She told MPs that 19,335 people have been arbitrarily detained in Russia since February 2022, the beginning of the war in Ukraine.

That same week Ms. Kara-Murza was a guest of this chamber. Many of us had the great honour of speaking with her. This year, senators have spoken of Vladimir Kara-Murza’s situation in this chamber, including Senators Boehm, McPhedran and Gold.

[Translation]

Last April, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Honourable Mélanie Joly, condemned the guilty verdict of Vladimir Kara‑Murza. She stated, and I quote:

Mr. Kara-Murza stands as a symbol of the courageous and principled defence of democratic values and human rights. Russia’s attempts to silence people of conscience only makes their voices more powerful.

At the beginning of the month, Senator Omidvar co-led a press conference with the Honourable Irwin Cotler and a group of parliamentarians, including Senator Miville-Dechêne and myself, to establish the basis for this motion. If Mr. Kara-Murza is aware of our efforts, he must know that his friends, the Honourable Irwin Cotler, Bill Browder, Brandon Silver and many others tirelessly defended his cause until today.

I also want to mention a letter of support for this initiative by the League for Human Rights, an agency of B’nai Brith Canada. I will quote an excerpt from this letter:

Kara-Murza is a beacon of hope for a population that is increasingly oppressed by Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian regime, which seeks to crush any dissidence while continuing its criminal war against its neighbour, Ukraine.

Honourable senators, honorary Canadian citizenship is an honour rarely bestowed by Parliament. It is done through a motion of the House of Commons and the Senate. Among the few who have received this honour in the past are heroes of humanity, such as Raoul Wallenberg, Nelson Mandela and Malala Yousafzai.

[English]

On June 8, last Thursday, Conservative MP Tom Kmiec rose and found unanimous consent of elected members of Parliament to a motion to confer honorary citizenship on Vladimir Kara‑Murza and to call on the Russian Federation to set him free.

By adopting the motion before us, the Senate of Canada will join the other place in showing the world that the Parliament of Canada stands up for our friends and for political prisoners around the world. With this motion, let us speak with a united voice for freedom and justice for Vladimir Kara-Murza. Let us send a powerful message to dissenters against tyranny who are imprisoned worldwide, “In Canada, you are not forgotten.”

Last year, Mr. Kara-Murza’s spouse, Evgenia, received the Václav Havel Human Rights Prize on her husband’s behalf, which was awarded by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. In a statement she read on his behalf, Mr. Kara-Murza dedicated the prize to the many thousands of Russians jailed for speaking out against the war who chose not to remain “. . . silent in the face of this atrocity, even at the cost of personal freedom.”

He added:

. . . I look forward to . . . when a peaceful, democratic and Putin-free Russia returns to this Assembly and to this Council; and when we can finally start building that whole, free and peaceful Europe we all want to see. Even today, in the darkest of hours, I firmly believe that time will come.

Senators, with this motion, let us make those brave words of an honorary Canadian citizen. Let us honour Vladimir Kara-Murza, a star of hope in the Russian sky, and stand with him in the hour of his struggle. I invite senators to adopt this motion. Thank you, meegwetch.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is leave granted, honourable senators?

Hon. Leo Housakos: Honourable senators, I’m also very proud and happy to rise and lend my name and the support of the Conservative caucus to this initiative by Senator Dalphond. I’m very happy to see that we have a renewed sense of enthusiasm for human rights here in the Senate of Canada in a collegial way. I’m pleased to work with Senators Dalphond, Omidvar and Miville-Dechêne, and everyone else who obviously recognizes the plight of Vladimir Kara-Murza.

We all recognize that he is a politician, a journalist, an advocate for democracy and freedom, he is a recipient of The Civil Courage Prize, a fellow of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, and he has been recognized by Amnesty International for his work for human rights and fighting against authoritarianism. More importantly, he is a son, a husband and a father. At the end of the day, he is in prison and his life was put at risk, facing a couple of assassination attempts for the simple fact of doing what we should be doing and are doing here on a regular basis: getting on our feet and calling into question a government when they overreach, calling into question public policy in a democracy, criticizing his government, calling into question an outrageous war, a crisis against humanity and what is being done in Ukraine by this brutal regime and a bully.

Of course, we lend our support in recognition and highlighting the challenges of Vladimir Kara-Murza. It would be an honour for Canada to have this gentleman be bestowed the right of honorary citizenship.

I also want to point out that even though it is noble that we are taking this action — and, of course, the House of Commons has been working at this for a number of months — I ask: Why is it taking so long? I applaud the work of Irwin Cotler, a great former parliamentarian and defender of human rights, and Bill Browder. However, it should not have taken an intervention on the part of Bill Browder and Irwin Cotler to shame our government into recognizing that this should not be taking months. The great parliamentarian who stood up on principle here is member of Parliament Tom Kmiec, who moved this motion in the House of Commons in early April. He moved this motion, seconded by member of Parliament James Bezan, because, at the end of the day, colleagues — and I have said this before — human rights should not be a partisan issue. Human rights should be a core value and principle of what we are all about as a Canadian society. We should stand up for these values on a regular basis because that is what Canada is all about. It’s about freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

Never more than in 2023 is democracy facing precarious times. Democracies are being challenged around the world and many times we are letting this happen at our own peril and our own fault because we’ve become a bit transactional when it comes to our values. Once upon a time, we had Canadians dying on the shores of Europe for freedom and liberty but today we’re willing to sell drones to a country that is murdering people in Artsakh or shutting down corridors in Lachin and not allowing food and medicine to go to people. We’re allowing governments, again for transactional reasons, to abstain from votes in recognizing what is going on with the Uighur people or we are going to turn a blind eye to all of the people in prison and all those fighting for democracy in Cuba because, you know what, there are a couple of companies in Canada sending planeloads of Canadians to beaches for cheap. When we do that for a few million dollars or a few hundreds of millions of dollars, we really trade away who we are as nations.

When Tom Kmiec and James Bezan move a motion to bestow the right of honorary citizenship on Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza in the House of Commons committee and it is supported by the Conservatives, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Québecois, it should be an automatic reflex from the executive branch. They should not be amending it, colleagues, which they did in April, basically suggesting that they put out a message of condemnation and solidarity. Why the backpedalling on such an obvious motion? It’s obvious to all of us in this place. Why is the government vacillating? Why are they hesitating in calling this out, especially after all of the effort we put into supporting the cause in Ukraine?

It took three months. It took the intervention of Irwin Cotler and Bill Browder to step up to the government and say, “This is not a partisan issue, guys. This is an issue about humanity and human rights.”

I applaud them for stepping out and doing it, but we have to be vigilant and ask ourselves why what is going on with Vladimir Kara-Murza is more important than what’s going on with the Uighur people. I remind people in this chamber that this very chamber voted against a motion to recognize what is going with the Uighur people as genocide.

We also have an executive branch of government ignoring motions in the House of Commons calling on the government to list the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, or IRGC, as a terrorist group. Again, in this new-found enthusiasm to support human rights, last week Senator Omidvar had a fantastic motion on behalf of the Senate calling for the IRGC to be listed. We unanimously supported that motion — except for the government. Right? We had the government on division, not supporting the motion.

Will Senator Dalphond, Senator Omidvar, former Minister Cotler and Bill Browder call on the government leader in this chamber to get up and unanimously support this legitimate call for Vladimir Kara-Murza to receive honorary citizenship? At the end of the day, Parliament speaks on behalf of the will of the people, especially the House of Commons because they are elected. The government has to step up and respect the will of the people. So when you have whatever variety of motions as we have seen now, time and again, with the will of Parliament, it does not matter if we’re calling for the listing of the IRGC, or if we’re recognizing what is going on with the Uighur people as a genocide, or if it’s a simple motion calling for a public inquiry; they get majority support in the House of Commons but the government says, “Well, it is not binding on us.”

That calls into question, Senator Dalphond, all of these motions. Why are we doing all of this? We’re not doing it just to be an echo chamber or doing it to put out a communique to say, “Look how noble we are.” That’s great. Nobility is a fantastic thing, but if it isn’t followed with some action and some tangible support from the Crown and from our executive branch, it is all in vain. At the end of the day, when we move these motions, unless we have some kind of certainty that they will be followed up, we now have a tangible motion by MP Kmiec that was unanimously supported a few days ago in the House of Commons. I hope it will be unanimously supported, and not on division, in this chamber. You cannot get a more unanimous parliamentary call. I hope that the government will do this in an expeditious fashion.

Colleagues, it is not the first time that governments have stood up and given honorary citizenship to great human rights activists. It has happened before. Perhaps it hasn’t happened in the last eight years, but it has happened before. It happened in 2014, when Malala Yousafzai was given honorary citizenship; the Aga Khan, in 2010, was given honorary citizenship; the Dalai Lama, in 2006; Nelson Mandela, in 2001, and none other than Raoul Wallenberg in 1985.

I hope that this motion will pass unanimously and I hope that this renewed sense of enthusiasm for human rights is not a one-off. Furthermore, I hope that when it comes to human rights we put our partisan politics aside and work in unison.

Last week, when I was speaking to Benedict Rogers, Executive Director of Hong Kong Watch, he asked me, “What is going on with your country’s action on foreign interference?” By the way, colleagues, Russia is one of the primary culprits when it comes to foreign interference. It is one of the primary culprits when they put into place cyberattacks on our country; when they try to manipulate our social media. Right now, we have oligarchs that we know are running mining operations in my home province of Quebec and our Minister of Foreign Affairs has not taken action to shut them down yet. It was in the news a few months ago. We have asked questions about it in the House. I would like to see some action from our government to go after the Russian regime in a tangible way, put into place Magnitsky sanctions and give honorary citizenship to worthy individuals like Vladimir Kara-Murza but go through the further steps required and ban all the oligarchs coming into Canada and using this place as an ATM. 

The point that I am trying to make is when Benedict Rogers was here last week he said, “Why is it only in Ottawa that issues like the Uighur genocide or foreign interference is a partisan issue? In Washington, London, Paris, Australia and in every other Western democracy, they are trying to deal with foreign interference and trying to find out how Western democracies can find their way back to becoming defenders of human rights in a tangible way rather than being transactional in our foreign policy.” He said, “The only place that I have visited where it seems to be a partisan issue,” — and had I no answer because there is no explanation. There is no way that I can say with a straight face that our government, no matter what stripe it is, is in favour of authoritarian regimes. It is clear to me that they are either trying to be transactional and putting economic interests ahead of human rights or they’re being incompetent or ambivalent. Either way, it has to stop.

Colleagues, I know I’ve gone on a bit too long, given the time, but it’s an issue that’s important for me and I think it’s an important issue for Vladimir Kara-Murza and an important issue for all the political prisoners across this country. It doesn’t matter if they are in Turkey, in China, in Russia or in Iran; we have an obligation to be a voice for what’s just and what’s right. Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: Honourable senators, I rise briefly in support of the motion to grant honorary Canadian citizenship to Vladimir Kara-Murza.

This is, of course, a symbolic gesture. As a pragmatist and former journalist, I cannot help but question these types of initiatives, which often have no real effect. I therefore thought about what this motions means and what significance my support for it would have.

I see two answers.

The first is a desire to publicize Vladimir Kara-Murza’s cause, to make him more visible, to make his courage known, to denounce the injustice he is facing, to increase support for him and to make sure, as much as possible, that he is not forgotten and that his torturers are held to account. Vladimir Kara-Murza has dual Russian-British citizenship. Perhaps our voice will inspire other parliamentarians in London.

As the Washington Post's slogan says, “Democracy dies in darkness.”

Unfortunately, it is already very dark in Russia. This motion is a modest, but legitimate, attempt to bring some light to the darkness and highlight, if only in the history books, that the struggle of this political figure, who is first and foremost a journalist, is just.

The other value of this motion is less about Vladimir Kara-Murza and more about us. The story of his resistance to intimidation, his unfailing courage in the face of those who sought to silence him, his boundless determination to fight for the truth and the public interest, and his fierce independence in the face of power, economic interests and prevailing propaganda should inspire us all.

It goes without saying that our existence as comfortable legislators, living in a peaceful and safe society, is nothing like that of Vladimir Kara-Murza. Our trials and tribulations pale in comparison to his peril. Nevertheless, we can hope that Vladimir Kara-Murza’s heroism will inspire us. The virtues of courage and determination in any quest for truth should not be reserved for Russian dissidents alone. Here, too, the sirens of power and vested interests can compromise our independence and genuine commitment to the public interest.

The exemplary value of Vladimir Kara-Murza extends beyond Russia. Today’s motion should not only draw the attention of Canadians to his fate, but also serve to remind us that we should make his struggle our own. I would like to conclude by quoting the end of this Russian hero’s plea before a kangaroo court, which sentenced him to 25 years in prison.

[English]

This day will come as inevitably as spring follows even the coldest winter. And then our society will open its eyes and be horrified by what terrible crimes were committed on its behalf. From this realization, from this reflection, the long, difficult but vital path toward the recovery and restoration of Russia, its return to the community of civilized countries, will begin.

Even today, even in the darkness surrounding us, even sitting in this cage, I love my country and believe in our people. I believe that we can walk this path.

Hon. Andrew Cardozo: Honourable senators, due to the lateness of the hour, I will not add much other than to say that I totally support this motion. It was, of course, brought to my attention by the great former parliamentarian the Honourable Irwin Cotler. Other members have spoken most articulately about this, and I totally support it. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, stand up for human rights in whatever way we can, and this is one solid way that we can do that. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Honourable senators, as the co-chair of the all-party group for Vladimir Kara-Murza, which I chair with former Attorney General of Canada, human rights champion and chair of the Raoul Wallenberg Centre for Human Rights, Irwin Cotler, I rise today in support of Senator Dalphond’s motion to confer honorary Canadian citizenship on Vladimir Kara-Murza . Members from all parties and all groups across Parliament are members of our group, proving yet again that when a cause is compelling, we can put aside our political differences to come together and do the right thing. Thank you, Senator Dalphond, for helping us to do the right thing in this chamber.

Vladimir Kara-Murza is an opposition leader, human rights champion, former journalist and now a political prisoner in Russia. In a sham trial last year, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. This is the longest sentence given to a political dissident since Stalin’s time in Russia. Think of that, senators: the Russian regime is not going forward to democracy and progress, but is going backwards, indeed, to a dark past.

For many years, Vladimir Kara-Murza risked his life to follow his ideals and to fight for a free Russia. He was a close associate of the late Boris Nemtsov, an opposition politician, and has worked tirelessly to promote democratic reforms in Russia. He has been involved in organizing protests and advocating for political change, often risking facing significant risks and personal threats. For this, he was almost fatally poisoned twice, in 2015 and 2017, because of his advocacy work. Despite these challenges, he continues to be a prominent, loud voice for democracy and human rights in Russia.

Honourable senators, as Senator Dalphond pointed out, he was key — in fact, he was a central player — in bringing Magnitsky sanctions not just to Canada but, indeed, to the rest of the world. He has appeared numerous times in Parliament on the need for the act, and has pushed us to better hold corrupt foreign officials to account.

By bestowing honorary citizenship on Mr. Kara-Murza, we can shine a light on him, his ideals and his journey and, in addition, shine the light on the 400 other political prisoners in Russia.

I hope we can all appreciate that, in the end, only Russians themselves will free Russia. Putin fears no one more than Vladimir Kara-Murza, because he is the voice that Russians are listening to.

By bestowing honorary citizenship on him — and we have done that very seldomly, as Senator Dalphond pointed out. I think, in total, we have conferred honorary citizenship on seven people. We have revoked the citizenship in this chamber of Aung San Suu Kyi, but we have been responsible and acted in bestowing the highest of Canadian honours — because this is not a real citizenship, it is an honorary one — on those who represent our ideals in many ways. It would also help Mr. Kara-Murza, who is in very poor health, to know that he is not alone, that he is cared for in other parts of world and that his actions and bravery are not in vain.

I will close by quoting Vladimir Kara-Murza himself who says: “The night, as you know, is darkest just before the light.” I believe that, by bestowing honorary citizenship, we can provide that light to him and his colleagues in prison in these dark times — for him, for his family and for the citizens of Russia oppressed by this regime. Thank you, colleagues.

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?