Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2024

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

I have a point of order.

Madam Chair, with all respect, I've had my hand up for a while.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Oh, I'm sorry, Niki. You are in the lineup. You are coming after Mr. Lawrence. It's you, then Mrs. Thomas and then Ms. Lattanzio.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I know you're there. I've seen you.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I'm sorry. I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

A very good question was posed by Monsieur Champoux about whether or not this would be admissible with respect to the question that he has just asked.

I'm sure there are a lot of folks on all sides who would like to weigh in on this important conversation. Perhaps we might consider suspending and getting the answer to the question so that we can inform the conversation in the right way. If it's not for this committee, ultimately you will be the arbiter of that. Perhaps we could make that determination once we have the answer to this very important question that Mr. Champoux has raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That is one solution, Mr. Noormohamed, that we can pursue. However, as I said, I asked the clerk if she had the answer, and she didn't, and I certainly don't.

Instead of perhaps debating a motion that may or may not be inadmissible, I have a request to suspend until we get the answer. Is there any objection to suspending?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Yes. A motion cannot be moved on a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I beg your pardon, Ms. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Noormohamed cannot move a motion to suspend when he himself is on a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't understand your question at all. Why is he on a point of order?

I didn't hear him say “point of order”.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Chair, the floor belonged to my colleague Mr. Lawrence, so how else did Mr. Noormohamed get the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

He did not say “point of order”, but he was making a suggestion.

We can go ahead and be absolute about these things or we can try to find a response. Nobody's disagreeing with the motion, Mrs. Thomas. Everybody's just wondering who funded this—

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

—and whether this is the appropriate place.

Go ahead, Philip.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

I don't want to talk over you, but I think we can come to a reasonable—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Philip.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

—resolution to this.

I'm going to make a couple of quick comments, and then I think it would be advisable to move to suspend, if the committee thinks that is fair.

I would like to put this briefly on the record: We are in a precarious time, a time I have never seen in my 45 years on this earth and in Canada. We have forces of anti-Semitism—and I might say as well Islamophobia—that are really ripping at the very fabric of our country right now. We have a government that is putting out legislation that professes to fight this hatred but that in reality, regardless of whether we're talking about Canadian Heritage or otherwise, is funding this hatred.

I think it behooves all of us—not just as members of the Liberals or Conservatives or Bloc or NDP, but as Canadians—to get to the bottom of this. This is not a resolution about condemning but about exploring, so I think it's very reasonable to study this in order to understand this situation, and I think we should do it promptly, because we don't have much time. As a committee and as a country, we need to show that we are fervently against anti-Semitism in all of its forms.

With that, I would move to suspend so that we can move forward, hopefully in a quick way, to begin this study and to get to the bottom of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there any objection to this motion? It's a reasonable one. It's trying to get to the business and to make sure it's done properly.

I suspend this meeting.

[The meeting was suspended at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, February 27]

[The meeting was resumed at 4:11 p.m., Tuesday, March 19]

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I want to apologize. My asthma seems to be acting up today, and then I ran, which I shouldn't have done, so I'm having trouble breathing.

We are resuming meeting number 112 of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, suspended on February 27.

I would like to acknowledge that this meeting is taking place on the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe people.

I'm going to go through the usual stuff about the fact that the public health authorities do not mandate masks, but please wear one because they are excellent tools for preventing you from getting respiratory diseases and from giving it to others.

I remind you that you are not allowed to take screenshots or shots of any kind of the meeting. You can get the proceedings on the House of Commons website.

I remind you about the audio and the sensitivity of audio. If you have any devices, keep them as far away as possible from the mics when you are speaking. Also, keep yourself as far away as possible from your next door neighbour's mic.

We're resuming where we left off, because the meeting had been suspended. We have on the floor a motion from Mrs. Thomas. We are going to resume debate on the motion.

Before we do, at the last meeting, if you recall, we decided not to go forward until we had some information about the motion itself—who gave what to whom, etc., and whether this motion was in order.

I asked the analysts to check the information, and they did. From what they told me, I'm going to have to rule this motion inadmissible, mainly because in this motion we are asking the Minister of Canadian Heritage to come and speak about giving money to a conference that was a racist conference. While the Department of Canadian Heritage did give money to SSHRC, it gave money specifically, and only in the last two years in the year mentioned, for sports activities and in relation to research on sport. They cannot answer questions on this particular fund because they were not responsible for it. Another department did it.

One may want to consider if one can deal with that department in an admissible motion.

I'm going to have to rule this motion inadmissible because while the issue of racism falls under the mandate of this committee, the actual grant falls under the mandate of the committee on industry and technology.

The main intent of the motion focuses on this study, and it's one of the core responsibilities under the Department of Canadian Heritage's framework. At the same time, this grant was not given for this conference by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I did not research it myself, just in case you were wondering about the credibility of it. I had asked my analysts to do this, and they reported back to me on this issue.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I would highlight that I actually have a copy of what is posted on the government's website. It shows that in fact nearly $25,000 was given to this conference. It's not true that it just goes toward sport organizations. That's just not true, based on the document that I have in front of me.

I challenge the chair's ruling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I am telling you that I did not research and come up with this. The analysts, who are very impartial and have always done good work for us, told us that no money was diverted for anything other than sport and that the grant for SSHRC specifically for this particular conference actually came from another department.

By the way, I should tell you that SSHRC, which is an arm's-length research body, does not have anything to do with departments. The money is given, and they make a decision about what they're going to research.

I just want to put that on the table with regard to research bodies, which are not parts of departments but are stand-alone research bodies that get grants for doing work, and they decide who they are going to give the grants to when they look at it. That's basically the explanation.

Martin, you have your hand up.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Chair, my colleague indicated that she was challenging your ruling, if I'm not mistaken. At this point, there's no room for debate, and we have to go straight to the vote. After the vote, I would speak on another matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay. Thank you.

Clerk, please call the vote.

[The Clerk]

The vote is on the question of whether the chair's decision should be sustained.

To clarify, if you vote yea, you sustain the chair's ruling and the motion is deemed inadmissible. If you vote nay, you overrule the chair's decision, and we continue with the debate on the motion.

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I see Mr. Noormohamed's hand up, but Mr. Champoux had the floor.

Go ahead, Martin, and then Taleeb.