The Senate

Honourable senators, I rise very briefly today on Motion No. 13. Let me begin by saying this: Senators may hold very different views on the conflict in the Middle East. They may disagree strongly about the actions of the government of Israel, the actions of Hamas, the conduct of the war in Gaza or the role Canada should play internationally. Those are serious matters, and they deserve serious debate.

But that is not what concerns me most about this motion. What concerns me is the way our colleague Senator Woo appears to be using the floor of this chamber and the prestige of this institution, not merely to hold foreign actors to account but to embarrass Canada.

The motion asks the Senate to call on the Government of Canada to examine the risk that Canada and Canadians are complicit in violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

That is an extraordinary allegation to place before this chamber. It is not a mere procedural matter, nor a debate in terms of where you stand on a very existential international crisis. It is not simply even a call for reflection. It is a motion that lends the Senate’s voice to the suggestion that Canada may be complicit in some of the gravest crimes known to international law.

This is why I find it so troubling that Senator Woo has also given credence to what I can only describe as a kangaroo court: the so-called Palestine Tribunal on Canadian Responsibility. This was not a court of law. It was not a neutral judicial body. It was not an institution with the authority, the balance or the procedural safeguards required to make findings against Canada or Canadians. Yet it was presented as though it had some moral or quasi-legal authority to put this country in the dock.

Honourable senators, this is not serious accountability. It is just political theatre. It is not even troubling when such an exercise is associated with this very institution, the Senate of Canada. This chamber should not be used to legitimize one-sided proceedings that begin with the conclusion that Canada is guilty and then work backwards from there.

We are legislators, we are parliamentarians and, I underline, we are appointed parliamentarians. We are not here to lend institutional credibility to show trials. Canada is not perfect — by no means. No country is. Governments can and should be questioned on foreign policy, arms exports, humanitarian aid, diplomatic decisions and compliance with international obligations — that is all fair game. That is even our job. But I underline as well that we are an appointed body.

When it comes to many of these international issues, the final word stands with the House of Commons. They have the moral authority — which we do not have — as an elected chamber to have the final word on all these issues.

We have the right to question. We have the right to hold to account, but we have to be very diligent when we assert ourselves on the world stage to declare something of this nature.

But there is a difference, honourable colleagues, between holding the government accountable and dragging Canada’s reputation through the mud. There is a difference between serious scrutiny and performative condemnation. There is a difference between debating policy and using the Senate to amplify accusations that Canada is complicit in genocide. Whatever one’s views on Israel and Palestine, I do not believe this chamber should be used as a platform to dump on Canada. We should be careful with our words. We should be careful with the moral authority of this institution. And we should be especially careful before associating the Senate with tribunals or proceedings that lack the impartiality and the legitimacy that we would expect from any body making such grave accusations against our country.

Honourable colleagues, Canada has a long history of being respected around the world as a fighter for human rights and as a peacekeeper. I like to think there is no other country like us in the world. We have also had a long-standing tradition in probably one of the bloodiest and most difficult conflicts that we have seen for centuries going on in the Middle East, and Canada has always taken a temperate approach.

It’s a two-state solution on that very important issue — I don’t always agree with that position, certainly not with the current government, which went as far as to recognize the Palestinian state, and not with my own previous Conservative government, which stood steadfastly on a two-state solution. This, again, merits other debates at another time.

But for all the reasons I have highlighted here, honourable colleagues, I think it would be completely delinquent on the part of this institution to support such a motion that goes as far as discrediting our country from the position of the Senate of Canada. For those reasons, honourable colleagues, I cannot support this motion.

I would if Senator Housakos would take a question.

Sure, yes.

I thank you for your intervention. We actually agree on more than you might assume. It is precisely because Canada has a history of being a peacemaker, an upholder of human rights and a defender of the international rules-based system that we need to ask ourselves each time if we are, in fact, acting in a consistent way and in a way that is true to those principles.

You make the assertion that this motion condemns Canada and accuses Canada of complicity. I ask you to point to me — and to all honourable senators — which part of the motion says that.

Senator Woo, your motion is as clear as can be. On a number of occasions — even in this chamber during Question Period — you have used those very terms in questioning the government leader. So there is nothing about Canada’s complacency and compliance in dealing with and supporting this genocide. These are words you have used right here on the floor of the Senate on a number of occasions.

Senator Woo, as I have said, I have taken a clear, transparent position on why I don’t support the motion. However, you have been waiting for a number of months to call the question, and I think you have had, on a number of occasions, the opportunity to provide a more lengthy debate than I have on this issue. So why we don’t we allow our colleagues to make a decision on this motion and let the chips fall where they may? I don’t have a problem calling the question if you don’t.

I am glad you are willing to have the question called. You haven’t, of course, answered my question by pointing to where the motion declares that Canada is complicit. In fact, I invite all colleagues now to take a look at the motion, which asks the Canadian government to examine the risk of complicity in light of international findings that there have been serious violations of international humanitarian law. These are international findings, not my findings. They are the findings of the UN, the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. So let me ask you this again, Senator Housakos: Can you point to the place in the motion where I condemn Canada for being complicit, as you have accused?

Senator Woo, I will encourage colleagues to take the time, because we will give adequate time to colleagues. We are not going to do a vote now or in 15 minutes; we will give colleagues 30 minutes to read the entirety of your motion. It is in black and white, and they will come to their own judgments. I therefore call the question.

I would.

I will exercise my right to deny taking any more questions.