It’s been an interesting week for Jason Kenney.

First, he announced he’d be voting in favour of Stephen Woodworth’s motion to launch a special committee to examine the Criminal Code’s definition of “human” – contrary to the prime minister. This wasn’t really unexpected, but it made news, given his high profile in cabinet. Then there was the story about how a number of LGBT activists received a letter from Kenney’s office, explaining the government’s actions protecting LGBT refugees in Iran, as part of a Conservative party outreach program designed to target minority and special-interest groups. He also took the time to pen an open response to an article he didn’t like from the Guardian.

He was busy, to say the least.

In the House of Commons Thursday afternoon, Kenney was forced into the spotlight yet again, as B.C. MP Jinny Sims accused the government of inviting what she called a ‘racist group’ to testify before the immigration committee.

The group she was referring to is the folks behind the Canadian Immigration Report, or CIReport.ca.

“The group’s website even features a prominent picture and positive statement about the minister of immigration. It also defends white supremacism and includes a section called ‘chinafication’,” she thundered. “Conservatives defended calling this group to committee. Even a cursory look shows the group should not have been invited.”

How, she wondered, could the Conservatives allow such a thing?

“What a fine example of McCarthyite demagoguery from the member opposite,” he said. Then he motioned behind him. “The member for Willowdale is an immigrant to Canada,” he non-sequitured, before explaining that the member – the parliamentary secretary for multiculturalism, Chungsen Leung – had put forth the controversial witnesses in question on the basis of a recommendation from a constituent.

“The moment he found that the witness had expressed totally inappropriate views on the internet, he condemned those views unequivocally, demanded that the witness be withdrawn, and said that if the witness came before the committee he would give them a serious condemnation of their outrageous views,” Kenney went on, before issuing his own guilt-by-association accusation.

“Let’s face it. This is coming from the NDP, whose members hang out with the anarchist group No One Is Illegal that says that Canada is illegal.”

Back to the opposition side, and to Sims, who wasn’t finished.

“We did not invite racists to committee,” she said, before offering a non sequitur of her own. “We did not vote to take away a woman’s right to choose. That was the Conservatives, including the minister for status of women.”

Then she quoted from CIReport.

“This hate on for National Socialism is completely misguided… there is nothing inherently wrong with it at all,” Sims quoted. Why, she wondered again, were the Conservatives “bringing racists to a parliamentary committee?”

• • •

Once again, it’s probably worth going back a bit here and piecing together just what happened at that committee.

Sims raised a point of order immediately after the committee selected a new chair Wednesday afternoon to say that the fact CIReport appeared on the list of witnesses gave her “a great deal of concern.” Sims noted that the site had an article that praised Kenney for being “active” and “fearless” so, she said, “I guess it is no surprise that the government would have put this name forward to appear at this committee on this study.”

But, Sims went on, she wanted to be clear that she “would normally never object to a government witness – after all, differences of opinion are healthy in a democracy.” But, she said, as she “looked through this website, I got more and more concerned – appalled, I think, would be the correct word.”

She went on to quote from the site. She mentioned that in some sections of it, there are interviews with “prominent white supremacists” posted, along with the site’s own thoughts on National Socialism — the quote she read aloud in question period Thursday.

The audio recording of the committee meeting comes to an abrupt end at that point, and not long afterward the meeting went in camera.

CIReport described its perspective of the events online. In a post published Wednesday, it explained to its readers that, “due to apparent interference by Liberal and NDP members of the committee, our scheduled presentation did not happen.” Outside the committee room, it said, journalists informed the CIReport representatives “the topic of our presentation was deemed inappropriate and had several screen captures of our web site on hand.”

The post went on to say this:

It was an honour to be involved in such an admirable democratic process, and a privilege to be among the few private citizens whom were to be permitted to convey their thoughts regarding immigration. However, it seems that the Liberals and NDP did not believe in their immigration policies enough to defend them before us. Along with all the other Canadians we speak for, we were silenced, censored, discarded.

In its prepared remarks, CIReport was set to tell the committee, among other things, that “a growing number of people in this country are extremely frustrated about the risks of commenting on Canada’s immigration policy for fear of prompting a string of overused epithets.”

Immigration, the statement says, “is simply the act of processing applications. It is essentially a matter of who gets a rubber stamp on their passport. Nothing more.” It is not, the site claims, “an immutable chimera that cannot be discussed or debated.”

CIReport has six concerns regarding the current system. Among other things, they are worried about “the loss of social cohesion resulting from an aggressive and artificial increase in ethnic and racial diversity,” and the “inevitable ethos shift from a European-based society to a non-European, nondescript, global-based amalgamation of peoples.”

They also worry that more immigrants will increase Canada’s carbon footprint (“immigrants come to Canada and expect a first-world lifestyle”) and that Canada’s low birthrate will “not be solved by importing child-breeders.” Additionally, they argue, “economists have shown that Canadian immigrants are tax-consumers rather than tax contributors,” that the definition of a “refugee” must be redefined, and that “many of Canada’s immigrants constitute a brain drain from the world’s developing countries. It is inhumane and immoral to tempt these skilled and educated individuals to leave” their homelands.

• • •

Back in question period Thursday, Kenney was up again to respond to Sims’ question – and to offer some judgment of his own.

“Those comments are below the member who just said them,” he said, before adding: “She knows perfectly well that the member who put forward the suggested witness is an immigrant to Canada from Taiwan. Is she really making that kind of ad hominem remark against that member?”

It was perhaps the strangest comment in an already strange exchange.

Kenney went on to finish his response, recounting again that when the Conservative committee members learned of the CIReport’s “outrageous views,” they “insisted that the person not be brought before committee and condemned unequivocally these outrageous remarks.”

For good measure, he again added an accusation of his own.

“However, will the member deny that her predecessor, the immigration critic of the NDP, has gone to rallies for the anarchist organization called No One Is Illegal that says that Canada is illegal?” he asked. “That is outrageous.”

Question period rolled on.