Evidence of meeting #158 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was victims.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Then it would be with respect to Mr. Cooper's remarks to Mr. Suri, and we'll put the right witness groups, the Alberta Muslim Council or whatever.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
It's AMPAC, the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
It would be “That with respect to Mr. Cooper's remarks to Mr. Suri of the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council at committee testimony on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the name of the New Zealand Christchurch attacker as well as any quoted portion of his manifesto in the section of audio pertaining to these comments be struck from the committee's evidence.”
Would that be what you're saying?
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
Mr. Chair, this is really ridiculous. It's character assassination by Mr. Boissonnault.
There were other statements made by Liberal members in this whole thing. That particular manifesto has been banned from being broadcast in New Zealand, not the rest of the world. You have already accomplished more than what you should have in this debate early on. To bring it up at this 23rd hour and expect people to properly debate it I think is just ridiculous, and I think it goes a long way....
We could talk about Mr. Suri being a campaign manager for a Liberal member from Edmonton. We could do all of those things too, but that's not what this is about.
We should not be trying to change what has already happened. It's already in the record. I've been here 15 years, and I've never seen a committee do what Mr. Boissonnault wants to do here, to strike something from Hansard that happened weeks ago.
This is just abhorrent. It is public here now, and I think our comments are going to be spread across a wide spectrum, but I think what we're doing here is totally wrong. We are trying to accomplish something that doesn't need to be done, can't be done and shouldn't be done.
NDP
Tracey Ramsey NDP Essex, ON
I couldn't disagree more with my Conservative colleague. I think we have an obligation to remove this. Given the fact that Mr. Cooper is no longer sitting at this committee, obviously the Conservatives have recognized that this should not have happened at this committee. I don't imagine he was removed for anything but those particular comments and the fallout.
This is an opportunity for the Conservatives to stand and say that we do not support the sharing of a manifesto of someone who murdered Muslim people in New Zealand. That never should have been read into the record. It was completely inappropriate. It was very shocking to have that read into the record in the middle of a study trying to prevent online hate.
Regardless, Mr. MacKenzie, I believe it's beneath you to involve the witness personally and talk about what he personally was doing. If you want to talk about his testimony, I think that's fair, but you're now saying something about his being some sort of campaign manager for a member of Parliament. That has nothing to do with the fact that Mr. Cooper read into the record something he should not have read. I believe your leader has even said so. I believe he has publicly said that it shouldn't have happened, and that's why Mr. Cooper is no longer sitting at this committee.
To sit here and say we shouldn't strike this from the record.... This is extremely serious. Canadians are talking about it. They are paying attention to it. I believe if the Conservative Party of Canada wants to stand up for people, this is your opportunity to do it. If you're going to say you don't want this to be struck from the record, that speaks volumes to Muslims and to Canadians about what you're willing to do in order to create controversy on the backs of vulnerable people.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Mr. Chair, it's clearly a stunt. My understanding is that this is a stunt after the first stunt that was pulled at the last meeting, but I have an agenda for the meeting today. This isn't listed committee business. Are we not entitled to 48 hours' notice before we get it? It's not the business of the day. It's not orders of the day.
We had an agenda item to deal with. We dealt with that agenda item. There were jokes about getting a lecture from the clerk. Now instead we're moving to another motion. The committee has already dealt with this. Mr. Boissonnault didn't get satisfaction in the House, so he's looking to pull a stunt here instead.
Are we entitled to 48 hours' notice? It's not—
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Indeed it is a stunt.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Well, I take issue with your interrupting me, Tracey, but here we are.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
You have a point of order on my point of order. Okay. I would like to call a point of order on her point of order.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I think I can easily put this to bed. This meeting was dealing with the report on online hate. It is part of the study on online hate. This motion relates to a meeting on online hate, which means the 48 hours' notice is not required for the motion because it deals with the meeting we are actually at.
There is no 48 hours' notice required for that motion because it deals with the study that we are now dealing with in this report, which the agenda item for this meeting.
On that issue, no. It's receivable, which is what I had said before. It's a receivable motion.
Conservative
Michael Barrett Conservative Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON
Can we get an opinion from the clerk? Is that correct?
Liberal
The Clerk
No. I give my advice to the Chair, and he's the one who makes the final decision.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
I believe this is exactly what was ruled at the previous meeting when Mr. Boissonnault brought forward a motion. Because it was a meeting on online hate, the 48-hour notice wasn't required. On the agenda this is also a meeting on online hate, so the 48-hour notice is not required.
Now I have three people on the speakers list. I have Mr. McKinnon, Mr. Ehsassi and Ms. Khalid.
Go ahead, Mr. McKinnon.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'd like to underscore Ms. Ramsey's remarks about ad hominem arguments against the witness. That would be totally out of line. It would be just adding more to all the wrong already pertaining to this case.
I'd like to emphasize that this motion really is intended to give effect to a decision that has already been taken by this committee. We already passed a motion that says we want to get rid of these remarks.
We wanted the House to do it, but since we were unable to make the motion in the House, we want to give full force and effect to the intent of the committee as signified some days ago. I believe it was a unanimous decision at that point. Anyway, I support the motion 100%.
Liberal
Ali Ehsassi Liberal Willowdale, ON
I certainly support the motion, but I have to say this is really disturbing. The member who has introduced this motion, out of respect for all members of this committee, decides not to mention Mr. Cooper, and then the opposing side, Mr. Barrett, says, “Well, this is lacking in specificity.” To satisfy that objection, we add all this information, and now you're calling it a publicity stunt. This is really outrageous.
No matter what we do, you guys think there's something terrible happening. I'm offended that you are kicking and screaming just at a very simple suggestion here. The reality, as Ms. Ramsey pointed out, is that your own party has already said that what occurred was unacceptable. Do you now want to contradict your own party by saying none of us are allowed to touch this issue because in your opinion, it represents a stunt?
No, I'll tell you what a stunt is. A stunt is that you could have said, “I think this requires more specificity. It will take me 10 seconds to provide that specificity”, but of course you didn't do so. You said that it lacked specificity, and let's just dismiss it instead of taking 10 seconds to amend it. That's a stunt, in my opinion.