Evidence of meeting #119 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Josh Dehaas  Counsel, Canadian Constitution Foundation
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Geneviève Desjardins
François Côté  Attorney and Doctor of Law, Droits collectifs Québec
Geoffrey Sigalet  Assistant Professor, As an Individual
Humera Jabir  Staff Lawyer, West Coast Legal Education and Action Fund

5:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Will you continue? You have the floor. Please go ahead.

May 9th, 2024 / 5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Chair, the point is this: There's a motion on the floor asking to study far right extremism in Canada.

The Liberals and the NDP are choosing to move this motion because they simply desire to instigate a political fight. Both the Liberal and the NDP members have come forward and used this as an opportunity to attack the leader of the official opposition. Those statements have been made loud and clear.

This amendment that has been brought forward by Ms. Ashton from the NDP makes it abundantly clear that this motion is not really about gaining a better understanding as to what is going on in Canada with regard to extremism and its impact on people—the people who have elected us to represent them.

That is not what this motion is about. Instead, Ms. Ashton, through her amendment, is making it abundantly clear that the desire is simply to attack the leader of the official opposition. That would be the intent of this motion. It's to go after him because he stopped on the side of the road and had a conversation with someone. It was then learned that the individual comes from a group that has said some pretty disgusting things.

Of course we don't stand with those things.

For Ms. Ashton to turn this motion into that type of game is exactly what my Bloc colleague has said. It turns this committee into a joke, where we can score cheap political points by just throwing these accusations against one another. In this case, it's against Conservatives.

For what? Is it for a quick tweet that she just put out a few minutes ago? Congratulations. That's something to be proud of.

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

I have a point of order.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

This is an individual who ran for leadership of the NDP, for crying out loud—

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

I have a point of order, Mrs. Thomas.

Yes, Ms. Ashton.

5:50 p.m.

NDP

Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB

Thank you, Mrs. Thomas, for sharing my life story. I look forward to hearing more.

I just want to say that I appreciate you questioning, frankly, everybody's motives. I do think it's very serious that your leader met with people who support Diagolon. I think that has an impact on Canadians who are targeted by the far right and that's exactly what this study is about.

I would prefer it if my motives stood for themselves, based on the words that I shared earlier, rather than your analysis and, frankly, your dismissal of how dangerous it is to associate with supporters of Diagolon.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

This is definitely not a point of order. This is debate.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Go ahead, Mrs. Thomas.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Turning this into cheap, political gamesmanship is absolutely inappropriate. It's disgusting. It's a waste of committee resources. To the Bloc member's point, it turns this committee into a joke.

For all of the reasons I just listed, there's just no way I could support the amendment that has been brought forward by the member.

I would move a motion to adjourn the committee.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

I will call the question on adjourning, although it is now actually the exact time the meeting is meant to end, as I was told by the clerk, so I will actually suspend the meeting.

5:50 p.m.

An hon. member

What?

5:50 p.m.

An hon. member

Why are you suspending?

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Because we have a motion on the floor that's not finished. However, if you wish to vote against the suspension or for the adjournment, I will ask the clerk—

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

Madam Chair, you can't suspend unilaterally.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

We have a vote to adjourn.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON

You need consensus.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

It's not debatable. We'll have a vote.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

Madam Chair, on a point of order, I moved a motion. You have to go immediately to a vote on the motion that I moved.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

I am just about to ask the clerk to do that, Mrs. Thomas.

5:50 p.m.

Conservative

Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB

No, Madam Chair. You just suspended.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Go ahead.

As it was pointed out to the chair earlier on, when I am speaking, a red light goes on and all the sound coming through my earpiece is completely lost. This was on, and I did not hear what you said, so I moved to suspend.

Thank you. I'm sorry about that. I was looking at the clock as well.

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Now we'll vote on the adjournment.

5:50 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Chair—

5:50 p.m.

The Clerk

To confirm, the meeting has risen.