Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 9th, 2024

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you.

Minister, I'm going to go quickly, and I may interrupt you here and there. I apologize in advance.

Do you think Amira Elghawaby is doing a good job? Do you endorse Ms. Elghawaby's public statements and positions since her appointment?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Chair, our special representative on combatting Islamophobia does incredibly important work to support Muslim Canadians right across this country, and—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Minister, as I was saying—

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Yes, she has my full support.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Very well.

In 2019, Ms. Elghawaby said that there is widespread anti-Muslim sentiment in Quebec. Would you agree?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I think it's important to recognize, Madam Chair, that Ms. Elghawaby speaks to many Muslim Canadians right across this country, including in Quebec. It's important to recognize the important conversations she has with community members and to make sure we're addressing some of those concerns, as we do with all Canadians.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

So, Minister, you think it's acceptable to generalize by saying that, in Quebec, people are generally anti-Muslim.

In 2021, Ms. Elghawaby responded on Twitter to an op-ed by a philosophy professor at the University of Toronto, Dr. Joseph Heath. He wrote that French Canadians were the largest group in the country to have experienced British colonialism. We can debate that or have an opinion on it, but Ms. Elghawaby's reaction was to say, “I'm going to vomit.”

Recently, she said that universities should hire more Muslim, Palestinian and Arab professors to help people better understand….

Finally, you answered one of my questions in the House some time ago concerning documents, particularly emails, that Ms. Elghawaby was to submit—which she did not submit, despite an access to information request.

Minister, do you maintain that Ms. Elghawaby is a good person to build bridges between communities and foster a calm social climate? Given, as well, the National Assembly's desire to have her removed from her position and to see this position abolished, don't you think that Ms. Elghawaby is doing the opposite of what she was appointed to do?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Chair, through you, if I may, the honourable member talked about universities and colleges. I think it's important to recognize that universities and colleges make decisions about their own hiring practices. They all have their own rules about diversity and inclusion.

Ms. Elghawaby does important work talking to community members in her role as a special envoy on combatting Islamophobia in this country. We know systemic racism is real within our institutions across this country. She plays an important role in talking to community members and makes recommendations to ensure that we're supporting communities on the ground. I think it's important to have those important conversations alongside members. I hope the member from the Bloc will agree that we need to be doing this work.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Minister, we agree that conversations—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Time is up. Thank you.

Now I'm going to go to Niki Ashton for the NDP. You have two and a half minutes, please.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Minister, you've referred a fair bit to the whole-of-government approach that is very important for your department, so I want to just reflect on that for a moment.

Take, for example, the lawyers who represent Canada in court, as they have been this week, fighting first nations like Shamattawa and Tataskweyak Cree Nation in my region in northern Manitoba. In arguments filed with the court and obtained by my office, lawyers hired by the Liberal government argued that first nations don't have a right to clean drinking water, and that seeks to blame first nations for this government's own failures.

I struggle to take this seriously when the same Liberal-hired lawyers say that any proclamation is just context-specific, which, as one lawyer explained to me, is basically just legalese for political theatre. We have the Prime Minister, who has been quoted as saying, “Everyone in Canada should have access to clean water. The Government of Canada continues to work in partnership with First Nations”. However, your government's lawyers deny that there is a partnership. Former minister Marc Miller said, “But one thing has not changed—the right for every individual to have access to potable water.” He said that they were determined to ensure that this right was upheld for everyone. Once again, Liberal lawyers this week argued that this right should not, in fact, be upheld for everyone.

You've come here to talk about your anti-racism strategy that incorporates a significant piece on anti-indigenous racism. You've talked about the importance of a whole-of-government approach, and yet your government is fighting 59 first nations, including some of the poorest first nations in Canada that do not have clean drinking water. You're telling them that your commitments don't actually apply to them, that they are context-specific, that your government does not actually have an obligation to provide clean drinking water. Is that not an example of systemic racism at play? Does that not fly in the face of the commitment to reconciliation your government has made? How can you stand by with a commitment to a whole-of-government approach, with a commitment to anti-indigenous racism and action on that front, when your own government is denying one of the most basic human rights to first nations—the right to clean drinking water?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

I think we all agree that every single person should have access to clean drinking water. That is fundamentally something that we, as a government, after years of underfunding by the Conservative government, have been working on alongside members of our community, our indigenous partners right across this country. We'll continue to do this work until we make sure that there is no one left who cannot have clean drinking water in this country.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We're still on the second round. Mr. Gourde, you are sharing time with Kevin Waugh, are you not? Go ahead.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister, Ms. Mondou and Ms. Cadotte for being here.

My question is rather technical.

Minister, feel free to ask the deputy minister for help, because this concerns the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I was reading an article by Mylène Crête in La Presse on September 24. Here's an excerpt that caught my eye:

The Canadian Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia, Amira Elghawaby, will have to provide about 3,000 pages of documents to La Presse. The Information Commissioner of this country recently issued an order to force the Department of Canadian Heritage, to which Ms. Elghawaby reports, to respond to an access to information request that it chose to ignore.

I understand that and it's incomprehensible. An order from the commissioner is more than an access to information request. Usually, an order is issued following a complaint—correct me if I'm wrong. To my understanding, there was a complaint because the documents were not provided. Was it Ms. Elghawaby's office or the Department of Canadian Heritage—or both—that failed to hand over the documents? Could you explain to me what happened? According to the article, there is a lack of transparency.

Can you walk me through the timeline?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

This is a very important question, and I think it's important to, first and foremost, recognize that we are always committed to an open and transparent government. Because of the scope of the request, I know extension was required, but I will turn to my officials to be able to give you a fulsome answer of the process.

[Isabelle Mondou]

Allow me to provide some details.

First of all, the special representative's office was very small when she started, but she's obviously built her team since then. Then, as a department, we provide services to the special representative, to support her in those efforts. In that context, we should have done a better job.

From now on, notices of orders will be sent directly to my office rather than to the Office of Access to Information and Privacy.

I take personal responsibility for not having been more supportive of our special representative.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

If I understand correctly, you weren't aware that the deadline had passed, but now you will look after it personally.

[Isabelle Mondou]

Absolutely.

In fact, had I known, I would have allocated additional resources to help the special representative, who, as we know, has a very small office.

From now on, the procedure will be different and I can intervene if necessary.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

My last question is simple. Were the documents provided?

[Isabelle Mondou]

They were provided last Friday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That was two minutes and 50 seconds on the dot, Mr. Gourde, and really well done.

Kevin, you may go ahead.

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

Thank you.

Thank you to the department officials and the minister.

According to Canada's new anti-racism strategy, the special envoy on preserving Holocaust remembrance and combatting anti-Semitism has both an “international” and a “domestic” role.

You may be aware, Minister, that I had the original PMB, Bill C-250. It proposed massive penalties for the promotion of anti-Semitism, but in the wisdom of your government, you decided to take my bill.... Bill C‑250 had teeth. It was strong. You have weakened this bill. When I look at what your government has done and not done compared to what my bill would have done, it's night and day.

I'm a little concerned when you start taking bills at budget time, putting them in...and then not following up, because my Bill C-250 had major consequences. I don't see any consequences in the proposed bill, in what you have taken today. I want to know why you haven't followed up on some of my recommendations in Bill C‑250.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Chair, if I may, I'd love to hear from my colleague about some of those recommendations.

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

It was a great bill. Why didn't you follow up on some of the consequences that I had on hate speech, on anti-Semitism or on Holocaust denial? We have more anti-Semitism because of your Liberal government today than we did when I brought in the bill a year and a half ago.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

That is incorrect. I think we all recognize that there have been challenging times, but to imply that there's more anti-Semitism because of one individual or one party is, quite frankly, shameful.