Evidence of meeting #95 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Yes. That's an excellent point.
I am nevertheless going to ask Mr. Shields to tell us whether he wants to speak to the motion.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Okay.
Mr. Bélisle, we thank you kindly for having attended, for your patience and for generously responding to all our questions. Feel free to leave now, and we look forward to crossing paths with you at the National Gallery of Canada.
12:10 p.m.
NDP
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
It is very regrettable that this is being cut off again.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Have you finished, Mr. Shields?
We're going to suspend the meeting for two minutes.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
We're reconvening the meeting now.
We need to debate Mr. Shields' motion.
Mrs. Thomas, you have the floor.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Mr. Shields, on behalf of the interpreters, I'd like to request that you speak a little closer to your microphone. There are moments when the interpreters can't hear you clearly enough.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
I'll move it closer.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think this is an important issue. We dealt with it some time ago in the belief that there could be the result that needed to happen, which we asked for. It's the media that has pointed this out and has brought it up again. That's why, when the media is paying attention to something that we did back some time ago....
They brought up the story about how this hasn't been followed through on, and the challenge it's creating for us in the sense of what Mr. Marouf has done, what he did so wrong and the grant that was given to him to continue that kind of work. The request for the return of that money is critical, by any means.
That is the only penalty we can place on him as a committee, and I think that's something that has to be done because what was done and the granting of it was wrong. We, as a committee, made a decision to force the return of that grant. I think it is important for Canadians to understand that we're following up on that.
It didn't happen, and we're taking a position again to follow up on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:15 p.m.
Bloc
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marouf was given almost $130,000 to do what the government called “anti-racism training”. We're not entirely sure what was accomplished with that $130,000.
What we do know is that his entire social media feed is filled with anti-Semitic comments, images and things he has also said with regard to the French language, the French people and very much—I would say even vehemently—against their language and culture. Of course, it should concern us, as Canadians, that there would be an individual who functions like this in the public realm and is then being paid almost $130,000 to run anti-racism training. Almost $130,000 was given to Mr. Marouf in order for him to run anti-racism training, yet his Twitter feed is full of these images, full of these statements that are unquestionably anti-Semitic. It's disgusting, absolutely disgusting, yet this government approved this individual to receive nearly $130,000 to run anti-racism training. I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
This committee then looked at that and came to the conclusion that this was wrong. Then it put forward a motion asking that the money be paid back. It has been more than eight months—eight months—and not a single dollar has been repaid. In fact, the government has spent a fair bit of money trying to get a collection agency to go after Mr. Marouf, but without success.
The question, then, is this: Why hasn't Mr. Marouf paid back the money? Why is Mr. Marouf still allowed to hold this $130,000, and what's he doing with that money? Some of the reasons that this question is all that much more important right now are the war that's taking place in Gaza, the heightened tensions and the heightened anti-Semitic behaviour and comments that are being made in this country. Meanwhile, 130,000 taxpayer dollars still remain in the hands of a verified anti-Semite. That's extremely dangerous and problematic.
We are asking that the committee:
a) Demand the immediate return of all government grant funding awarded to Laith Marouf;
b) Call on the Government of Canada to collect the revoked grant funds by any means necessary, including legal action;
c) Hear testimony from the Minister of Heritage on this matter within one week of this motion being adopted;
d) Report this to the House.
The reason the Minister of Canadian Heritage needs to come and answer is that, ultimately, it is her responsibility to make sure that this money is brought back into the government coffers. It was given to an anti-Semite. It has been demanded that he pay it back, and he needs to make good on that. It is within the mandate of this committee to ensure that's the case.
If the members of this committee vote against this motion, they will be saying that it is okay for Laith Marouf to hold this money and continue to perpetuate his anti-Semitic behaviour. They are saying that it is okay for the government to turn a blind eye. They are saying that it is okay for the heritage minister to not have to answer for this, and they are saying that there is no accountability to the House.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
A point was made earlier by Mrs. Thomas, and I want to remind her—through you, Mr. Chair—of what she said. Her point was to not presume, to not assume and to not put words in the mouths of members of this committee. We have all now sat through several moments of her doing precisely that. Perhaps she might consider her own advice.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
For my honourable colleague across the way, through you, Chair, for his benefit, I was simply reading the points of this motion and, if the members opposite were to vote no, I'm not sure why that's so offensive to him, unless, of course, his conscience is bothering him today.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this is now the second time that Mrs. Thomas has made specific comments with respect to me, and I am now beginning to see a trend.
I don't want to assume what her intentions are, but it seems awfully convenient that the two times we have been discussing issues related to anti-Semitism, the two times that we have discussed issues related to people saying abhorrent things about the Jewish community, her comments were made directly to me, and I'm now really beginning to take offence to this.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
I'm sorry, but I have to be able to come to this committee and contend for a motion like this, where I am calling to account someone who is a raging anti-Semite. I have to be able to talk about that issue without being attacked from across the way.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
The Vice-Chair Bloc Martin Champoux
Mrs. Thomas, I agree with you, but we are getting into a debate. Do continue to express yourself, but you should pay attention to occasional insinuations about the possible voting intentions of your committee colleagues.
Having said that, you are correct. You are perfectly entitled to come here today and speak to a motion that has been moved. You have the floor.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
When my colleague across the way puts words in my mouth and makes accusations, he is gaslighting me, which is inappropriate conduct at this committee.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, my request was simply, after having sat through Mrs. Thomas saying what it meant or what our words were if we didn't vote a certain way, I was simply asking her to afford us the same courtesy that she sought for herself, which was to not assume the intentions of other members.
If that's what she wishes to do, I am sure others in this committee would be more than willing to do that, but I think that, in the interest of productivity in this room and in this committee, we should stick to the substance of the motion.
I think the point has been well made what this motion is about, and if we're interested in having a debate rather than another filibuster, perhaps we should move on to that.
12:20 p.m.
Bloc
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Again, I'm being gaslit by the member opposite simply because what I am reading into the record is each statement that is within this motion and then what it would mean if you were to vote no. If you don't vote yes, then you vote no. If you vote no, then it means the opposite of what the motion reads. That's just logic.
For the member opposite to ascribe my motivation or to attack me or my character is absolutely deplorable.
We have to have the safety to come to this committee and have these robust discussions and, yes, sometimes tensions get high in this place, but for me to be gaslit by the member across the way is absolutely inappropriate. In fact, I'd give him the opportunity to apologize.
