Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 23rd, 2023

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

The motion I wish to move is as follows:

Given that, the Department of Canadian Heritage, under the leadership of the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, approved ‘anti-racism’ grants upwards of $130,000 to Laith Marouf of the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC), on October 21, 2022, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez appeared before the Heritage Committee, during which time he was asked by a number of MPs about the date he was made aware of Laith Marouf’s derogatory remarks about Jews and Francophones and the minister reported to the Committee that he was not informed until after August 22, 2022, an article by the Globe and Mail and an Access to Information Request indicate emails circulated from the former Diversity and Inclusion Minister, the Honourable Ahmed Hussein, his former chief of staff, Minister Rodriguez’s former chief of staff, and the deputy minister at Canadian Heritage between August 17th and August 19th, 2022, including one sent to Minister Rodriguez’s personal email account titled “Laith Marouf and antisemitic hate speech,” the Committee invite the former Minister for Canadian Heritage, the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, to appear before the committee as soon as possible for no fewer than two hours to clarify his remarks concerning Laith Marouf, and that the committee report its findings to the House.

To the committee, through you, Chair, the reason why this motion is important is that the members here will recall the former minister of heritage, Mr. Pablo Rodriguez, was brought before this committee and asked questions with regard to Laith Marouf's hiring and as to when the minister was made aware of Laith Marouf's anti-Semitic behaviour and conduct on social media platforms.

The minister told this committee he did not find out until it was announced in the media, but we have an ATIP that actually shows the minister was made aware through an email to his P9 account and that email was sent between August 17 and August 19, before things broke in the media. That email was titled “Laith Marouf and antisemitic hate speech”. That's pretty clear. That's a pretty clear indication to the minister that there's a problem.

The minister either misled this committee or didn't do his job with great competency. I'd like to give him the opportunity to clarify which one it is. In order to give him that opportunity to clarify, he would need to come to this committee to give us the opportunity to ask questions, hence the motion I have put on the table today, which asks for him to come for no fewer than two hours so we would be able to finally—hopefully, I guess—get to the bottom of this and understand what took place here. After all, $130,000 was given by the heritage department to a raging anti-Semite and someone who also rages against francophones, and then that $130,000 was given to him to run anti-racism training. It's insane. It is the definition of insanity.

It is incumbent upon the minister to come to this committee and answer the questions we have with regard to what happened and, further to that, to answer questions with regard to when he knew about Laith Marouf and his horrible conduct and incredibly vile remarks. Further to that, this is an individual who continues to make those remarks and this is an individual who is supposed to pay back the $130,000 now that it's been brought to the government's attention by the official opposition. However, more than nine months have passed since that was demanded of him, and not a single dime has been paid back. That's a problem.

I'm curious as to how the former minister would justify what has happened here. The only way that can be settled is for the minister to have the opportunity to come here to clarify the former remarks he made that now seem to be falsehoods and to clarify why this decision was made with 130,000 Canadian taxpayer dollars.

That is my motion. Consider it moved.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Mr. Martin Champoux.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Obviously, this is an extremely sensitive subject for the Jewish community and for francophones. Laith Marouf is a sinister individual and a contemptible character. I think we have all seen recently, during the conflict between Israel and Hamas, that Mr. Marouf was a loose cannon on social media. He is continuing to say totally unhinged things, things that are, to say the least, intolerably violent and racist. On that point there is no doubt, and the fact that the government has given him money to promote anti-racism makes no sense. We all agree on that.

We held hearings at this committee when this story came to light, at the beginning of the year. We had an opportunity to hear Mr. Hussen and Mr. Rodriguez , who came to answer our questions, particularly regarding how the body responsible for diversity and inclusion in the Department of Canadian Heritage operates. At that time, I was satisfied with the answers given on this subject. Mr. Rodriguez was extremely clear on the fact that the Department of Canadian Heritage was designed in such a way that the ministers have different jobs and do not report to the Minister of Heritage. I too do not find that to be a very sensible way of operating, but I do not think they were the ones who invented it. That is how it works, period.

So in my opinion, the minister who exhibited extreme incompetence in the handling of this matter at the time, to me, was Mr. Hussen. The reason Mr. Rodriguez was alerted, after numerous attempts to communicate, including by our colleague Mr. Housefather, was that there had been no response or reaction from Mr. Hussen. I do not think we can criticize Mr. Rodriguez for being late to the party. I do not think that is useful.

I like to fish. I like to fish for salmon, and I know you do not brag about the little fish you catch. You are happy when you catch a big fish, and I think that is what the Conservatives are trying to do. I do not think it is the thing to do. What we should be doing right now is something other than pointing fingers at somebody, trying to find a guilty party or poking our noses into... I will not finish my sentence, because people who have dogs will understand what I mean. We should be focusing the serious issue: the unacceptable things that Laith Marouf is still saying today on social media. That is what we have to react to.

The serious thing is that up to now, despite what the committee has asked, the measures that have been taken to recover the money that was given to this individual are timid, and I am being polite. One might say they do not want to get the money back and they are pretending to try, by handing it over to a collection agency. There is about as much chance of getting the money back as there is of winning Lotto 6/49 two weeks in a row.

We have to know where we stand in recovering the money. We talked about this again a few weeks ago. We have to clearly hear that serious efforts have been initiated to recover the $130,000. We also have to hear, as we were told when we held hearings on this at the beginning of the year, what measures the government has put in place to ensure that this kind of thing never happens again. These are the things that concern me.

I have no interest in hearing the minister who held the position at the time and who, according to everything we have been told, had nothing to do with the decisions or measures to be taken in this case. If you still want us to hear Mr. Hussen to find out how bad he was at managing this matter, that will not be useful, it will get us nothing concrete, but it would still be more useful than hearing Mr. Rodriguez. We would do better to hear the present Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities, Ms. Khera, and question her, to find out where we stand. That would have made a bit more sense as the basis for discussion.

What I want to know is what is being done to recover that money, which is still in the bank account of an individual who continues to engage in behaviour that is aggressive, anti-Semitic, disgraceful and insulting to an entire community and to the entire population of Quebec and Canada.

I am going to stop here, Madam Chair, but I think this motion is just a political game that has nothing concrete or tangible to contribute and I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Martin.

I will go to Peter Julian.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As you know, I was the first to call for Laith Marouf's contract to be cancelled when this information was revealed. The NDP took it very seriously and called for the contract to be cancelled.

I support what Mr. Champoux said. I think the comments were unacceptable from someone who has a contract to combat racism and anti-Semitism. This person has shown his racism and anti-Semitism repeatedly.

In my opinion, the most important thing is to do everything possible to recover the $130,000. It is extremely important and it has to get done. I know that we will be hearing the Minister of Canadian Heritage next Thursday, November 30. In seven days, we will be able to ask the Minister and department officials these questions. This is extremely important and much anticipated.

Because I was the first to call for the cancellation of the contract because of his despicable racist and anti-Semitic views, I believe it is extremely important that we get that money back. We have the minister coming next Thursday. That is vitally important.

I think it is an issue on which all four parties around this table agree. That money, by every means possible, needs to be taken back for taxpayers. The fact that we have the minister coming next Thursday gives us that opportunity to ask those questions.

I have to say how disappointed I am that, yet again, we have the CRTC before us and yet again, it was cut off. The opportunity to ask questions of the CRTC about the affordability of cellphones or about the broadcasting situation in our country that is in crisis, all of that was cut off by a motion that is, as Mr. Champoux pointed out, simply another motion that, instead of getting to the heart of the matter, which is getting the money back, is intended to go fishing to try to find some other headline.

What our committee should be doing is pressing the minister on the important obligation that this government has to get that money back. I deplore the fact that the money has not been recuperated, and I intend to ask the minister about that at the meeting she will be attending next Thursday.

The motion that has been presented is factually incorrect. It wasn't “a number of MPs”; it was me. I was the one who asked the question about the date.

The answer satisfies me, whether or not there were a few hours between the email and the information. That, to me, is not relevant. What is relevant is getting the money back for taxpayers. What is relevant is ensuring that a notorious anti-Semite—anyone who has expressed anti-Semitic or racist views—never gets a government contract again.

We are seeing a rise in hate. We are seeing a rise in Islamophobia. We are seeing a rise in anti-Semitism. We are seeing a rise in racism and misogyny. We are seeing a rise in homophobia and transphobia. Hate, in all of its appalling toxic forms, is appearing now. That is what this committee should be taking on.

We have a safe sport study that we haven't completed, because at every single meeting, there's another motion from the Conservatives that cuts short our ability to complete the safe sport study. We were not able to complete our questioning of the CRTC today because of another Conservative motion. It's every single time.

Mrs. Thomas said she would make this committee “hell”. She was very public about that. We are seeing how that plays out in real form.

It means the athletes who suffered so much have still been waiting for months and months. In every committee meeting, there's another Conservative motion designed for their internal purposes, I guess. They put it out on TikTok. I don't know. However, they are blocking the safe sport study—

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I have a point of order.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I have a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

They are blocking our ability to ask questions of the CRTC. They're even blocking me from speaking—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs Thomas, I was about to speak. You don't even let me rule on anything. You just keep butting in.

Mr. Shields had his hand up on a point of order. I was about to point to Mr. Shields.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I'm sorry, Madam Chair. Am I allowed to say “point of order” in addition to another member?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, because Mr. Shields said it first.

Mr. Shields, on a point of—

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Only one person can say “point of order”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, you can come after Mr. Shields.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I did come after Mr. Shields.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Shields has not even spoken, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I believe I can say, “point of order” in the mike without being yelled at by you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas, you constantly interrupt the proceedings.

Go ahead, Mr. Shields.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I request that my honourable colleague stop impugning what he believes I might be thinking. I object to the line of thought he's expressing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Okay, Mr. Shields.

Mrs. Thomas, do you have a point of order?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Actually, he did, if you were paying attention.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I did, actually.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Was it you, Kevin? I didn't see your hand up.

Go ahead on a point of order.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Yes, it was up, but that's fine.

Just stick to the topic. There's no sense bashing the Conservatives here and there. What we're dealing with is the motion in front of us.

As for the CRTC, Madam Chair, you know they were only here for one hour. We had not agreed to the CRTC.... They never agreed to stay for two hours. There was no discussion here today. There was down at that end, maybe. They talked to them about two hours. At this end, there was no conversation about, in fact, the CRTC being here for two hours.

If you look at today, the second hour was to be in camera to deal with safe sport, but, Madam Chair, the CRTC was not invited for two hours today. I want to make that clear. They were invited for one hour.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Waugh.

Now, Mr. Julian, you were speaking.