BPF reviewing whether it will continue awarding funding to CMAC moving forward
OTTAWA – A month and a half after the federal government announced it was cutting funding it awarded to the Community Media Advocacy Centre (CMAC), the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is trying to figure out why the organization received the funding – to develop an anti-racism strategy – in the first place.
Funding was cut to CMAC’s project after numerous concerns were expressed about antisemitic and other racist tweets posted by Laith Marouf, a senior consultant with the organization.
At a meeting last Friday, committee members, who argued CMAC essentially consists of Marouf and his wife, questioned Ahmed Hussen (above), the minister of housing and diversity and inclusion, about this matter.
“We know that this should not have happened,” Hussen said.
At the same time, the minister was stingy with details, providing little information about exactly how it happened and noting he was not the minister responsible when the funding was awarded.
The funding was awarded to CMAC in August 2021 as part of a larger government initiative to support organizations working to tackle systemic racism and discrimination. Bardish Chagger, the minister of diversity and inclusion and youth at the time, announced $20.4 million in funding, which was allocated to support 92 projects.
CMAC was awarded $133,822 of that funding for a project aiming “to address employment-related barriers facing racialized communities including: Indigenous peoples and religious minorities in Canadian broadcasting and media through a series of engagements across Canada,” according to a government backgrounder.
During last week’s meeting, committee members asked Hussen when he was made aware of Marouf’s racist tweets. After multiple committee members asked multiple times, Hussen finally said Liberal heritage committee member Anthony Housefather brought the matter to his attention around July 19 or 20 – meaning it was a full month before he issued a public statement about it. Hussen, however, told the committee he acted immediately after being approached by Housefather to determine what could be done next and how funding to CMAC could be cut.
Notably, Hussen was the only witness who spoke at the meeting.
Others from the Department of Canadian Heritage including Mala Khanna, associate deputy minister, Charles Slowey, the assistant deputy minister, community and identity and Eric Doiron, chief financial officer, were supposed to appear as well but the time allocated for the committee to hear them speak was used to hear a motion from Conservative committee member Rachael Thomas seeking to have heritage minister Pablo Rodriguez appear before the committee.
Numerous points of order from committee members representing all political parties were heard following the motion being moved and several attempts were made to convince Thomas to cede the floor.
Conservative member Kevin Waugh eventually moved to amend the motion to include calling CRTC chair Ian Scott to appear. (No vote on the motion was held before the online feed of the meeting cut out at the point at which it was scheduled to end.)
The point of bringing Rodriguez and Scott before the committee would be so committee members can ask about CMAC (and Marouf specifically) participating CRTC public proceedings and being awarded funding for doing so.
Patricia Valladao, a spokesperson for the CRTC reportedly told the Globe and Mail the CRTC would not be banning CMAC from participating in future proceedings.
“As an administrative tribunal, the CRTC holds public proceedings. Anybody can participate in them,” she said, adding “It would be inappropriate for the CRTC to establish lists of parties that may or may not participate in its proceedings.”
“We are disappointed by the CRTC’s decision,” said Laura Scaffidi, Rodriguez’s press secretary, in a statement emailed to Cartt.ca. “Funds should never go to an organization that demonstrates xenophobia, racism and antisemitism. Canadians expect this principle to apply to all public and private institutions.”
This statement largely echoes what Hussen told the committee last Friday when asked if he was aware of whether the CRTC is still providing funding to CMAC (Hussen did not answer the specific question he was asked but rather indicated he was “disappointed” in the CRTC’s decision). Housefather later told the committee he “shares the minister’s strong disappointment with the CRTC’s comments that were reported… CMAC and Mr. Marouf should not be funded by anyone, any agency at all.”
Valladao told Cartt.ca in an email the Commission will not comment on the meeting.
While the CRTC statement to the Globe addresses the question of CMAC’s participation in Commission proceedings, the question of the organization being awarded funding for its participation, which was brought up during the committee meeting, is a separate issue that is not entirely up to the CRTC.
Organizations that participate in CRTC proceedings can apply to receive funding for doing so through the Broadcasting Participation Fund (BPF) or, on the telecom side, by applying for cost awards. Both are paid out with private funding.
The BPF is funded by contributions from private companies as required by the CRTC in association with decisions on ownership transactions – for example, the CRTC directed Rogers to include funding for the BPF in a revised tangible benefits package associated with the decision approving its acquisition of Shaw’s broadcasting undertakings.
To receive funding from the BPF, organizations submit applications, which are reviewed by the fund’s cost officer, who makes a recommendation to the fund’s board of directors. Since 2016, CMAC has applied for funding for its participation in 16 consultations and received over $500,000 in total.
When asked about funding being awarded to CMAC in the future, the BPF’s costs officer André Auger told Cartt.ca via email they are currently reviewing the matter.
On the telecom side, CRTC cost awards are paid out by companies that are parties to the relevant proceedings.
While CMAC has mostly been awarded funding for its participation in CRTC proceedings through the BPF, in 2021, Bell was directed to pay CMAC $16,815.10 for its participation in a proceeding on the Accessible Canada Act.
This is a unique example of a CRTC cost award because the Commission previously approved a request from Bell for it to pay out cost awards associated with the proceeding through its deferral account, which was funding to be used for a public purpose.
The CRTC’s decision to award CMAC some of that funding was criticized at the time by telecom consultant, founder of the Canadian Telecom Summit and blogger Mark Goldberg, who posted a screenshot of one of Marouf’s tweets and questioned how the CRTC could have ordered payment for participation to him. (You can read Goldberg’s post here. In it, he also questions why the CRTC did not take comments on CMAC’s application for the funding.)
Goldberg, who played a key role in getting the federal government to act on the issue of CMAC’s government funding, has been following how things have unfolded since – including the committee meeting, which was largely spent on the motion to bring the heritage minister to a future meeting instead of questioning the witnesses present.
“Unfortunately, the Committee squandered an opportunity to ask the senior bureaucrats important questions and begin to find answers for this serious failure in accountability. Hopefully, the Heritage Committee will continue its work on this file,” Goldberg said in an email to Cartt.ca.
“We heard from Minister Hussen that there were failures in screening processes, yet no one is being held responsible,” he added.
Goldberg was also critical of the BPF, which he said lacks transparency, and the CRTC, which regardless of whether the funds used to pay out CMAC were technically public funds or not, has played a role in the organization receiving funding and in determining how much funding it received.
“There are many open questions about the Heritage Canada anti-Racism contract, as well as funding from CRTC and the Broadcast Participation Fund,” he said. “The CRTC needs to answer why it chose to pay CMAC’s founders as “external” consultants, resulting in quadruple the rate of pay, and why the Commission chose not to take comments on CMAC’s cost applications last year.”
