Evidence of meeting #141 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 rights.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Johnstone, I have a short period of time, but I want to ask two questions.
Do you currently think that our hate speech laws are sufficient? About seven years ago, our gender identity and expression laws were changed to add protected grounds under the Canadian Human Rights Act, which means that gender identity and expression are no longer legal reasons to discriminate against folks. Do you think that limiting someone else's ability to spout hate speech has improved your rights?
Executive Director, Queer Momentum
The passage of Bill C-16 was an incredible moment that was celebrated by queer and trans people across this country. I think that we have seen improvements in terms of acceptance, inclusion and equality since that change.
When it comes to hate speech laws, I would say that I am not a lawyer, and I'm not going to imagine that I have the legal expertise to assess what does or doesn't constitute hate speech. What I would say, rather, is that I think there is dangerous speech in our social and political environment and that this is becoming more normalized. That's harder to manage when it's not a politician, a public figure or a far-right figurehead explicitly engaging in hate but when they're creating a culture where that hate is more normalized, where the environment is poisoned against members of certain communities.
That is the space where we need moral leadership from our politicians, from our political party leaders, to actually choose to unite Canadians, to protect these fundamental rights and to understand that what's at stake here isn't just one community. I'm here to support the rights of trans and queer people, but I also fundamentally believe that Canada is a better place when we respect our neighbours and see their humanity, even if their lives and families look different from ours. I think that's fundamentally what's at stake here.
Yes, there might be some space to strengthen hate speech laws, but it's the moral leadership that we need in this moment from our members of Parliament.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
There was some confusion with regard to what two of the witnesses said in terms of Bill 21.
Ms. Al-Azem, you talked about women wearing the hijab being fired, yet there was a contradiction there. I just want to clarify that a little bit. Could you clarify that in terms of what you said?
Director of Legal Affairs, National Council of Canadian Muslims
Thank you very much for the opportunity. I do think there was a misrepresentation here that made it seem like a hijab-wearing woman would be grandfathered in, and it was therefore not a problem.
To be clear, they would be grandfathered into their particular role only if they were hired before the passage of the bill, meaning that nobody had an opportunity to enter that labour market since the passage of the bill and there was no opportunity for growth in their position since the passage of the bill. You could not be promoted. You could not be moved laterally. You could not decide suddenly about your career that you had more skills in XYZ. There was no movement. It was strictly the position you had at the time of the bill's passage.
I think there was a little bit of misrepresentation there that made it seem like there very much was opportunity. To be clear, the facts on the ground are that indeed it did impact the vocational aspirations and abilities of Muslim women and other minorities. That's why a lot of minorities in Quebec have started to leave Quebec, in fact, in order to at least create some kind of economic security for their families and their children.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify about that grandfathering piece.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
We'll begin the next round with Damien Kurek from the Conservatives.
Damien, you have five minutes, please.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I certainly appreciate the opportunity to have what is a wide-ranging discussion. There has been a showcase of what freedom of expression is in Canada by the fact that those with divergent opinions, in some cases, can sit around the table and discuss civilly these very important issues.
Madam Chair, I will move a motion here in a moment. First, I'd like to follow up on the discussion we had at the committee meeting this morning about the situation with the CBC and the fact that in the last fiscal year, the CBC awarded more than $18 million in bonuses to executives, managers and other out-of-scope employees at that organization. It's unbelievable, at a time when Canadians are suffering, that this would be the attitude we heard this morning, with no regret put forward and no offers of dealing with that in a way that would acknowledge the challenges.
With that, I hope we can deal with this expeditiously and simply make a clear statement when it comes to Ms. Tait and the bonuses she may get along with the severance package which it sounds like is forthcoming for her. I would like to move the motion that was put on notice on Monday, November 18, as follows:
That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Liberal government’s Privy Council Office to not approve any bonuses, performance pay, or severance package for the outgoing President and CEO of the CBC, Catherine Tait.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much.
It's a straightforward motion. It highlights how it is unbelievable that even today Ms. Tait refuses to rule out accepting bonuses, calls her tenure as CEO of the national broadcaster a success and refuses to take responsibility for so many of that organization's failures. I think this committee has an opportunity to show Canadians that this sort of abuse of tax dollars is simply not acceptable.
With that, I would suggest that this is pure and simple common sense. Failure should not be rewarded with big bonuses. Therefore, the motion simply expresses that opinion to the House in a straightforward manner.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Anna Gainey Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC
I'm wondering if we could suspend for a moment on this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I will suspend for a minute so that you can discuss this amongst yourselves.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We are back.
Is there any discussion on the motion?
Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed.
November 25th, 2024 / 5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Whatever our views of Madam Tait may or may not be, there are a couple of things that are important to note. One is that she's ending her term at a normal juncture for appointments. There's no exit package. There's no severance. This is a matter of public record.
We also heard and discussed time and again the importance of an independent CBC and board. To put this committee in a situation in which all of a sudden we are dictating the terms of compensation and directing the Privy Council Office on the terms of compensation for an independent Crown corporation sets a very dangerous precedent. Whether or not we like the performance of Madam Tait or of the CBC, whatever the story may be, we have a role as parliamentarians and running the Crown corporation is definitely not it, and certainly, deciding the compensation of any Crown corporation, however we may feel about it, is not it.
While I appreciate what Mr. Kurek is seeking to do, I will certainly be voting against this motion because of the very dangerous precedent that it seeks to set in terms of parliamentary committees determining, dictating and instructing independent Crown corporations on compensation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Noormohamed.
Is there any other person wishing to debate this?
Go ahead, Michael.
Liberal
Michael Coteau Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I agree with my colleague. We've all taken a position on this committee that the CEO should reconsider the so-called bonus packages. We had five meetings with the CEO. I expressed my specific concern, I think what I said back then was that it doesn't sit well with Canadians to issue a bonus structure when so many people are struggling. We were very clear about that, but to ask a committee to intervene specifically on a compensation package for the CBC doesn't seem like the right step for a committee to take because, in the long term, this just sets us off in a direction, and politicians are going to be entering a space where, clearly, this is the role of the bureaucracy, the folks within it and, of course, the minister responsible.
I will be voting against the motion, but I need to be on the record saying that I do think that CBC should reconsider their entire compensation package when it comes to those bonuses.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
Seeing no other hands up, I call the vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 6, yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I think we are supposed to end this meeting at 35 minutes after the hour because we started late.
Go ahead, Martin.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Madam Chair, since we easily spent 10 or 15 minutes discussing Mr. Kurek's motion in camera before starting the meeting with the witnesses, I would like us to make sure we have a full two hours with them. Do we have the resources to extend the meeting, and does everyone agree?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I was going to suggest a two-minute round for everybody. That would eat up the time until 5:35, but we'll check.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you, Mr. Coteau, for that input.
We can check to see if we have time, but in case we're told no, I would like to go to a two-minute round for everybody.
That would start with.... Who would go? The Conservatives...?
Well, you had Damien, so it would be Mr. Noormohamed.