Evidence of meeting #131 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 hate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I originally put this amendment forward at the beginning of May, following a meeting of the leader of the official opposition that took place at the end of April, when he stopped at.... In videos posted to social media, the opposition leader was seen thanking and encouraging people who were camped in what was described as a convoy-style protest. In that time, he also met with people who indicated support for Diagolon, which is an organization that, as I pointed out in the amendment, was referred to as a violent extremist organization by Canada's Integrated Terrorism Assessment Centre.
We have to be very clear here. We're not talking about theoretical dog-whistle politics. We are talking about the leader of the official opposition, somebody who clearly aspires to be prime minister. He met with individuals who espouse vile, racist, bigoted and far right views, then turned around and failed to condemn the organization and, obviously, the people who support it.
It's very clear, from the previous hour, that we have a real problem in Canada with the rise of the far right. We have seen an explosion of hate crimes in our country targeting minority communities. We have seen hate crimes targeted at the Chinese community and Asian Canadians. We have seen hate crimes against the Jewish community—horrifying examples of anti-Semitism. We've seen clear, disturbing acts of Islamophobia. Of course, I talked about the ongoing reality of anti-Palestinian racism, which, unfortunately, the Liberals are not taking seriously, either. What's clear to me is that we need to be taking on the rise of the far right in the clearest of terms. That means condemning politicians who, dare I say, play footsie with the far right, who fail to condemn the far right and whose actions, in many cases, fuel the far right, legitimizing and normalizing absolutely abhorrent views that have no place not just in Canada but anywhere in the world.
Canada is going down a dangerous path. We're a country that has often been a leader when it comes to diversity, multiculturalism and inclusion. We've fallen behind on many fronts. There's a lot of work to do. I believe that, at this time, we are facing a crisis when it comes to the rise of the far right. I believe supporting this amendment is a clear example of calling out the mainstream support for it that we see from the Conservative leader, who aspires to be prime minister.
Of course, supporting a study on the rise of the far right is critical. Canadians are concerned. Many Canadians are targets and have been victims of hate crimes and the rise of the far right. This is a timely, critical issue that we in the heritage committee have the responsibility to take on.
However, I believe it begins by condemning the individual who aspires to be prime minister and who has, all too often, been seen to be very close to and supportive of people whose views are deeply disturbing and definitely unacceptable.
I certainly hope members of the committee will join me in supporting this amendment. Of course, I hope we can move forward in supporting this study as soon as possible.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Champoux.
On the amendment, I will go to Mr. Noormohamed, please.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is a really important motion. The amendment that Ms. Ashton has put forward I would love to be able to support; however, here is my challenge. Nothing Ms. Ashton has said about condemning the Leader of the Opposition for visiting a Diagolon camp I disagree with. It must be condemned in the strongest possible terms. Every political leader in this country has an obligation to not hang out with far right, violent, extremist organizations.
What I would say is that this is an important motion without the amendment. Without the amendment, I would challenge my Conservative colleagues to support this. We strip out anything that might be perceived as a partisan attack, rightly or wrongly, and we all get to work on this important work. I cannot see a reasonable-minded Canadian who would not want us to do this work as a committee. My concern is that if we support Madam Ashton's motion, this will end up in a filibuster, which is exactly what happened when we brought this up the last time.
While I agree with the sentiment that Ms. Ashton has put forward—I think there need to be real, serious conversations about where politicians show up and what that means to Canadians—my fear is that this important study will be derailed completely if the amendment is passed, because Conservative colleagues will use that as an opportunity to filibuster.
My request, if Ms. Ashton is willing to withdraw that amendment, is that we do that and hope that Conservatives will join us in supporting and getting this motion passed. If that's not going to happen, then we will see where the votes land. If the amendment is defeated, I would hope that Conservatives would see no problem—no problem at all—in having a meaningful, thoughtful conversation about the impact of far right extremism, about misinformation and about the impact that is having on people's lives.
Liberal
Conservative
Jacques Gourde Conservative Lévis—Lotbinière, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes, I'll speak to the amendment.
I listened to Ms. Ashton's explanation of her amendment. That said, I'm still confused about the wording. The member said that the Leader of the Opposition thanked or encouraged extremists. Was she present? Do we have any evidence that someone heard something? Personally, when I meet a truck driver, no matter where he is, I tend to talk to him about the power of his engine, the number of hours worked per week or what he is going through.
The proposed motion is based on hearsay. However, we don't condemn people on the basis of hearsay. If Ms. Ashton or someone she knows was standing next to the Leader of the Opposition and could confirm that he made comments that led to this type of amendment, I would be prepared to listen to them. It makes no sense. If this kind of amendment can be proposed, we will certainly do some research over the past 150 years in order to propose amendments, because all members have spoken to someone at some point without being sure of the person's background. We might all be guilty of talking to someone about something we shouldn't have mentioned. If Ms. Ashton is sure of those statements, she should provide us with some evidence. As a legislator, I find this type of amendment purely partisan, which I find distressing and sad. What's happening right now is serious, and we're not going to let it happen. We need to pay close attention to that. We are all guilty of talking to someone about something at some point. Does that mean that we're going to propose amendments to comments made by all members of the House over the past 150 years? You would end up with tens of thousands of amendments.
I can assure you that we will.
Liberal
NDP
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB
I think there was a fair bit of media at the end of April talking about the specific meeting in question. I would encourage Mr. Gourde to do a cursory Google search on that front. One of the particular instances that's being referred to, I believe, took place in New Brunswick.
I just want to quote here from a CBC story:
According to RCMP documents tabled at the Emergencies Act inquiry last year, the national police force believes Diagolon
—the group these folks support—
is a militia-like network whose supporters subscribe to an accelerationist ideology—the idea that a civil war or the collapse of western governments is inevitable and ought to be sped up.
I mean, that's deeply concerning. The idea that the leader of the official opposition, who aspires to be prime minister, met with people who support such an entity is also deeply disturbing.
I am disappointed to hear that there doesn't seem to be support for the amendment I've put out condemning the leader of the official opposition for meeting with the supporters of such an organization, a far right organization. I would ask that we go to a vote. I certainly look forward to passing the motion on a study on the rise of the far right in Canada, which I believe is an incredibly important issue.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
There are still people who want to speak.
Mr. Coteau, if there's someone else wishing to speak, I have to allow them to.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
No, I'm sorry. That's not how it works, Mr. Coteau.
Mr. Waugh has the floor, and then Mr. Gourde.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Okay, I'm going to take my time, then, if that's possible.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think it's now 10 minutes. It would seem, from my own perspective, that this is not going to end.
Ms. Cadotte and Ms. Mondou, thank you very much for coming, and for your patience in listening to this. Hopefully we can get to speak to you again some time. Thank you very much for coming and for your time.
Mr. Coteau has the floor.
Mr. Champoux, do you have a point of order?
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Yes, Madam Chair.
I'd like to ask for a clarification. While he had the floor, Mr. Coteau called for a vote to adjourn debate on the amendment and proceed to a vote.
I want to make sure I understand the procedure. It seems to me that asking to adjourn debate in order to proceed to a vote is in order. I may have misunderstood, and that's why I'm asking for clarification on that.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Yesterday, if you saw what went on in the House, the Speaker ruled on the idea that you cannot go to a vote unless there is no one else who wishes to speak at the committee.
I have two names here of people who wish to speak. I'm sorry, but we cannot go to a vote yet, according to the Speaker's ruling.
Mr. Coteau.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
It's sometimes confusing, because in my other committee, we are allowed to do that.
Liberal