Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 27th, 2022

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I think we all make innocent mistakes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Please continue. I will allow you to speak to the motion, but we do not have—as Mr. Julian said—a lot of time to discuss this, so please be to the point and speak to the motion on the floor. Thank you.

Begin, Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome to Ottawa. It's a good place to be.

I wish to speak to the motion with regard to bringing Minister Rodriguez forward on the hiring of an individual who has now been identified as an anti-Semite. This individual was hired by Canadian Heritage in order to provide anti-racism training specifically to the media.

This individual has made numerous posts on social media with regard to Jews and his belief in terms of their value and how they should be treated within Canadian society—and I daresay worldwide. His comments have been grotesque and altogether inappropriate. This individual was hired, contracted and given public funding through multiple avenues in order to pull off this training. It's hard to believe this individual would have gotten through any sort of vetting process, assuming there was one when this hiring decision was made.

As the minister of the heritage department, it is up to Minister Rodriguez to answer for that. I understand Minister Hussen also had something to do with this, in terms of his responsibilities, but, ultimately, it is the head of the department—the minister—who oversees the entire thing. It is his responsibility to answer for this.

Furthermore, it is my understanding that funding came through the CRTC, which the heritage minister directly oversees. It's not up to Minister Hussen to answer for that funding. It is up to the heritage minister, Minister Rodriguez, to answer for that.

For the reasons I have outlined, I believe it would be appropriate and in the best interest of the Canadian public to hear from the Minister of Heritage himself, rather than simply Minister Hussen. For that reason, I believe the motion my colleague Mr. Waugh brought before the committee today carries great weight and should be given due consideration.

I would reiterate that this ultimately comes down to Canadians. Of course, if you simply google it, you will see that there was outrage when Canadians found out, this summer, that money was handed off to this individual, Mr. Marouf, to conduct this training.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Liberal members were silent. I credit Mr. Housefather for speaking out, having a voice on this issue and advocating for justice. I value his voice and his take. I'm particularly disappointed with the Prime Minister, Minister Hussen and, ultimately, Minister Rodriguez, who took more than two weeks to finally offer a comment with regard to this incident. I thought that was altogether inappropriate. More importantly, it's not just me who thought this. Canadians from coast to coast felt that it was super inappropriate and that this government needed to take action far sooner than it did.

Given the mistakes made and their grave impact on a significant portion of the Canadian population.... No, all Canadians were impacted by this, because we should all be held to a high standard in terms of the way we treat one another. That standard should be modelled for us by the government and by anyone the government contracts. All Canadians were done a disservice by this individual being hired. However, one group in particular was at the point of the sword, and that was the Jewish community in Canada. They should never have been put through that—never.

There is only one individual responsible for answering for this decision, and that is Minister Rodriguez. My fellow colleagues from the Liberal side have a choice to make—they can allow this incident to be answered for. They can bring greater clarity to it through the Minister of Heritage, or they can cover for this mistake and not allow light to be shed on it. If so, they're actually—I would argue—participating in the unfortunate incident that took place this summer, because then there's no accountability.

There's actually a shielding of the minister. I do believe that, again, it's in the best interests of Canadians to have him come, and to be able to ask him the questions that Canadians would like answered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll go to Mr. Housefather now.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank my friend, Mrs. Thomas, for her comments. I agree with some of what she said, and not with some of the other parts of what she said.

I agree that it was absolutely outrageous that Laith Marouf and CMAC received any contract from the Government of Canada to perform anti-racism training. The man is an abject anti-Semite, and has made horrible comments about indigenous Canadians, racialized Canadians, French Canadians and many other groups, although the bulk of his comments were directed against Jews. As I said before, the contract should have been immediately terminated.

I think there has been a widespread recognition that the minister has come to, acknowledging this contract should never have happened, and has stated that remedies are needed. There needs to be better training, there needs to be better due diligence, and there need to be revisions to the contract and certification declaration. That is why I believe he's going to come to committee. He should be presenting to us, so that the committee can do its due diligence, and can be satisfied with the changes that are made to this process, so that somebody like Mr. Marouf and CMAC never get a contract from the Government of Canada again.

Where I disagree is that the minister accountable here is Minister Hussen. The anti-racism strategy falls under Minister Hussen. The contract falls under his ministry. I don't want to allot less time to Minister Hussen than he deserves when he comes and presents the changes he is making. Should the committee, after that, feel that other people need to be heard from then the committee can come to that conclusion, but I don't think that's the case. On this point, Minister Rodriguez is not the minister responsible, Minister Hussen is the minister responsible.

As a Jewish MP, I feel that people from all sides need to speak out against this. It shouldn't be Jewish MPs carrying the ball on an issue that directly impacts the Jewish community. We all need to speak out with respect to anti-Semitism and all forms of racism. I think this was a lesson for all of us that when other groups are impacted, we need to speak out even stronger.

I hope we'll all take lessons from this, but I don't think, as I said before, that Minister Rodriguez is the right minister. Minister Hussen is the right minister to come before the committee, and that's the person who should be appearing on Friday. That's what the committee originally had determined.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Housefather.

Mr. Julian, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This issue of the Community Media Advocacy Centre is profoundly disturbing. The anti-Semitism that was expressed was appalling. That's why I called for ending the contract when we became aware of the comments, as you'll recall, Madam Chair.

This is part of a broader trend of increased hate, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Certainly with the convoy occupation earlier this year we saw the most appalling symbols—Nazi symbols—flying on Parliament Hill. We saw blatant anti-Semitism. Anyone who supports the convoy—sadly, we saw some members of Parliament supporting those despicable acts and expressions of hate—are people who should be really examining themselves because that was a low period in Canadian history. Of that there is no doubt.

I support having Minister Hussen before this committee and have expressed that repeatedly. I have asked my colleagues to hold off on the idea that we would move immediately to Minister Rodriguez. I want to hear the responses that Mr. Hussen provides. Following that, depending on whether or not we're satisfied with those answers as a committee, I will certainly be more than willing to entertain this motion.

Quite frankly, I feel disrespected that this motion has been put forward today knowing—the member who moved this knew my position on this—that I wanted to get to the first hearing and, after that first hearing, make a judgment and a decision about whether or not to then convene Minister Rodriguez. The fact that this has been put out today in a way that stopped witness testimony that was so vitally important.... The Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba weekly newspapers gave us a cry today for support. They believe that Bill C-18 needs to be amended so that they will all be included. I support those amendments. All 56 of the Saskatchewan newspapers should be included in the supports that C-18 provides.

I understand that they were Conservative witnesses. When that contradiction between the Conservative position and the weekly newspapers became clear, we then had an immediate stopping of that testimony, so I am not able, as a member, to then question Saskatchewan community newspapers about the important stand that they have taken. It is a stand that is contradictory to the Conservative Party stand on Bill C-18. I feel like, as with Bill C-11, we are again seeing a stopping of witness testimony because it raises uncomfortable truths that some members around this table don't want to face.

I'm quite frankly frustrated that witness testimony was cut off and that we now are facing a motion that we've already discussed. It's a motion that I've already clearly indicated my stand on. The majority of the committee has already communicated its stand on it. Instead of waiting until next week, hearing the testimony from Minister Hussen on this very important subject, and then deciding collectively as a committee where we want to go from there.... That is something that has worked very well in the past, Madam Chair, as you're aware.

I commend Mr. Nater, particularly, because he's always been willing to work together with all parties around this committee so that we can find a consensus. Rather than finding that consensus, we have had witness testimony cut off and we are now dealing again with something that I very clearly indicated I do not want to consider until after I hear from Minister Hussen.

Quite frankly, Madam Chair, I'm frustrated. I'll be voting against this motion if it comes to a vote, but it seems to be more of a filibuster tactic. I deplore that because the witnesses we were hearing today had important testimony and information to relate to us. They were cut off because of the moving of the motion for filibuster purposes rather than any sort of attempt to come to an agreement.

That being said, I will be prepared to look at this motion again after Minister Hussen's testimony. That is when I believe we should be having a discussion about whether or not to convene Minister Rodriguez.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Julian.

Your frustration is duly noted. I think that sometimes when we talk about certain aspects of how our committee functions it should be done on principle and not necessarily on some sort of arbitrary sense of technicality. But here we are. And we're not allowed to speak very much to what went on in the in camera meetings, so I just warn members not to mention that too much. But I do want you to know you have two more minutes left before this meeting comes to an end and I think that—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

That clock is fast, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's fast, all right.

We have two more minutes left and I have two more speakers and we will not be able to come to a vote at all at this meeting if we continue in this vein. I just wanted to give everybody due notice.

The clerk is saying we can go for another two minutes after one o'clock, but that does not give us a lot of time. If everyone is going to want to speak fulsomely to this, we're not going to even come to the vote, and I—

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes, Peter.

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

Madam Chair, I have a commitment at one o'clock and I will not give consent to extend beyond one o'clock.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. Thank you.

I am hearing agreement on the other side of the room with that.

Mr. Nater, I just wanted you to note, did you want to speak or did you want us to go to a vote on this? You don't have a lot of time.

All right, go ahead, John.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I'll be super brief, Madam Chair.

Just very briefly, no one is saying the Minister of Canadian Heritage needs to come tomorrow, or even next week, but we do believe we need to hear from the Minister of Canadian Heritage on this matter. If it's helpful to find that broader consensus, I would note as well we have invited the minister to appear before us to comment on his mandate letter. That was agreed to by the committee. That was done several months—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That is not the gist of this motion.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

No, Madam Chair, but I'm saying this in the context of this motion.

That was done many months ago and we haven't yet heard from the minister on his mandate letter, so this is part of it. If there was an opportunity, in an effort to find consensus, that Minister Rodriguez would agree to appear before this committee in the future—and, again, it doesn't have to be tomorrow or next week, but in the nearish future—to comment on his ministerial mandate letter, which is still an open invitation before this committee, I think there might be consensus to see that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's a totally different issue because we're speaking specifically to the CMAC issue.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm just putting that out there in an effort to find consensus.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I know. I hear you, John. That's fine, but that's not the gist of this motion.

Kevin, did you want to speak to this? I know your name is on my list, but we do not have time. We have 30 seconds left.

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

We're having trouble to get the Minister of Canadian Heritage here at times, and this is a very good motion. I put the motion on notice last week. I just brought it up today. We have other witnesses coming on Bill C-18, including the Alberta Weekly Newspapers Association, so we're going to have time for Mr. Julian to talk about that when they come.

That's it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Ms. Thomas, noting we are now at one o'clock and this meeting should end, do you have something to say you haven't already said, something new to add to this discussion?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Chair, according to my clock it is 10:56 a.m. Mountain Time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Sorry, I'm dealing with the clock in this committee room, please, Ms. Thomas, and not your local clock.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sure, Madam Chair.

I would just highlight for the committee that under the Heritage Canada website, where you can apply for the anti-racism action program, the application is actually submitted to the Department of Canadian Heritage, to the anti-racism action program, again highlighting that it is under the umbrella of Heritage Canada and the minister of that department is, in fact, Mr. Rodriguez. I don't know why there would be any argument as to whether or not this minister should come forward to this committee and be available to answer questions the members here have, again highlighting they're important questions on behalf of Canadians, because, of course, they have many concerns, and those have been highlighted over the months since this story first broke in the summer.