Thank you, Madam Chair.
In my opinion, when we propose a study, we generally try—at least if we do the work as I feel it should be done, which may be debatable—it seems to me that it's because we want to hear from witnesses and obtain information.
It also seems to me that one thing we shouldn't do is draw conclusions immediately.
As part of the study proposed in Mr. Noormohamed's motion, perhaps we could have denounced the fact that the leader of the official opposition went to meet with these people. We could have discussed it afterwards. However, stating that fact in the motion itself, through the amendment that was just proposed, is counterproductive.
With the utmost respect, I think that doing so adds a partisan note, even though I entirely agree with my colleague Ms. Ashton as to this behaviour, which has no place in politics.
However, we're now talking about conducting a study at committee that I think my Conservative colleagues might have agreed to—were it not for this amendment—because this is a subject that affects everyone and the opinions of everyone around the table are interesting to hear, even when we really don't share them.
The situation troubles me, because—I repeat—Mr. Noormohamed's motion, which we discussed in the spring, is being injected with a very partisan notion that distorts it. Nonetheless, I think the study is important in and of itself.
I will therefore oppose Ms. Ashton's amendment, without necessarily objecting to the fact that we can have this discussion once the study is under way. We can denounce the fact in question at that time, in the context of a study that has been undertaken in a much more objective manner than what is proposed in this amendment.
I completely agree with the motion's original wording, because it proposes a discussion that we'd like to have and that is somewhat in the wake of the motion adopted for the study on freedom of expression. That is also part of this discussion, because the topics are truly related, very interesting and relevant in the current context. We discussed it with the minister earlier and could also have discussed it with the deputy ministers, but, what can I say, we have an entertaining motion. The proof is that Ms. Cadotte and Ms. Mondou stayed to encourage us.
Having said that, I will vote against the amendment, but without disagreeing with the intention of discussing the issues it addresses as part of the study we will undertake on this subject.