Evidence of meeting #72 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was right.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Tarek Fatah  Founder, Muslim Canadian Congress
Michel Juneau-Katsuya  President and Chief Executive Officer, The Northgate Group Corp.
Renu Mandhane  Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission
Sam Erry  Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Michael MacPherson

5:05 p.m.

Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Renu Mandhane

I think that racism and religious discrimination are distinct concepts for some people, but I think when you're talking Islamophobia, often the manifestation of race is what people react to. I've faced Islamophobia. I'm not Muslim, but people are reacting to my race. I think that's why these terms get considered together. But I'd caution against parsing experiences, because most racialized people experience discrimination in an intersectional way, because they're a woman or because they're young or old, etc., and it's not helpful to try to parse these different forms because ultimately all the things we're suggesting need to happen would address both of them.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

I would disagree, because I think we found out from the debate that it was important that these things be defined so that Canadians understand what we're talking about in the legislature.

How do you deal with competing rights? We're dealing with that more and more in our society, secular faith issues, but what principles do you use?

5:05 p.m.

Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Renu Mandhane

We actually have a 50-page policy on it. I'd be happy to share that with the chair, because we have developed a protocol for how to assess the different rights and try to come to a compromise solution.

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Okay, I'd like to see that.

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

You've actually done the two minutes.

Mr. Sweet, go ahead.

September 20th, 2017 / 5:05 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Thank you for your testimony.

The data collection aspect I'm really excited about. It was actually a recommendation from the committee, the coalition to combat anti-Semitism, back in 2011. There are some very good models out there, people who are already collecting data on universities and co-operating with law enforcement.

You were talking about a tool “for muted or marginalized voices”. The concluding comment from the commissioner was that we don't want to be hobbled in our efforts because we get sidetracked in defining words and racism. I think one of the muted or marginalized voices here may be Muslims Against M-103, and we had somebody testify just before you. Are they not a legitimate voice that should be heard in this?

5:10 p.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario

Sam Erry

Thank you for the question.

I just want to clarify the context in which I made that comment. I was talking about the power of the tool called the anti-racism impact assessment. The tool speaks to how you engage with communities, and it ranges from information sharing to empowerment, and everything in between. Ontario has developed an open engagement framework. The context is that, if you want everyone in society to contribute to a conversation, there are different ways of employing that tool.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

This is a minority within a minority. They feel like they are being sidelined right now because their voices are not being heard. Are they a legitimate group to be listened to?

5:10 p.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario

Sam Erry

I think everyone is a legitimate group to be listened to. The tool will allow for that. It will allow for those who would not—

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

If they have a concern about the definition, that “Islamophobia” could be used against them, as well as protect some, then shouldn't we listen to that? Is that something that's going to be delaying us inordinately? Shouldn't we get it right, if we're talking about racism?

5:10 p.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario

Sam Erry

This tool is about being inclusive and bringing as many perspectives to the table as possible. That is the purpose of that, when we develop policy, programming, or services. This tool is not designed to be exclusive. It helps us in the policy development process, to bring all those voices together and understand the different perspectives.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

Having everybody understand the term is important, then.

5:10 p.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario

Sam Erry

We're not absolute experts, but, respectfully, I think semantics can take us in many directions. I think what we're talking about is anti-Muslim hate and so on.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

David Sweet Conservative Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON

I agree. I think that term is very safe and does not have anywhere near the lightning rods that “Islamophobia” has from the other community that's within the Muslim community here in Canada.

5:10 p.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Mr. Reid, you have two minutes.

5:10 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you.

I have a feeling that I am intruding on a response, Mr. Erry, that you were going to give, so if you find a way of working it into the question I'm asking on a different subject, please feel free.

My question relates to the concept of racialization. Racialization, as a term, is based on the assumption that race is a social construction, which I think modern genetics has demonstrated to be the case. That might not have been evident before they understood how genes work. This raises a question. When you are trying to collect measurable data, you have to have some kind of objective framework. If you are trying to measure how many people are above or below a certain height, for example, there is an objective measure to work with. Here, we are dealing with something that is subjective, whether it's considered from the point of view of self-identity or from someone else's projection onto a third party. How do you square that circle?

5:10 p.m.

Associate Deputy Minister, Cabinet Office, Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division, Government of Ontario

Sam Erry

Thanks for that very good question.

We have employed three professors from York University who are experts in this and who have helped us put together this race-based standard. They've looked at it cross-jurisdictionally, internationally, and otherwise as to what is the best way to slice and dice and to have this conversation. We've come up with a draft standard that has a series of categories, which frankly are bringing us more into the 21st century, versus our 19th century nomenclature that we're all stuck with. That's the first thing.

To that, we're adding things like intersectionality. We're adding things like the identity-based information as well. All of this is tied to.... Because the standard is not just about collecting, but about what you do with the information and how you analyze this information, one of the things we're looking at, for example, relative to the black community in our anti-black racism strategy is, how do we reduce disparities?

There are, and I don't want to get too theoretical here, mathematical models and formulas that say given this kind of dataset and given what you're seeing here, if you want to solve this problem, there are disparity indices and so on. There is a science behind this. This is not soft stuff. There are people who are practising this. There's a lot of good evidence in those jurisdictions in the U.S. that I pointed to.

It's not a perfect science. All we're saying is that we need to bring in a new methodology and a framework that recognizes our society today. We then look at these disparities and ask how we remove these disparities. Then there's a very calculated way in which you approach that. The data then adds to your programming, your investments, and so on, and then you reduce those disparities.

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry

Thank you, Mr. Erry.

We've gone over time on this one, so now I'm going to go to Jenny Kwan, please, for seven minutes.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

I would like to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

Commissioner, I particularly enjoyed your presentation. In regard to your recommendations, you mentioned that it is time now for us to come forward with a lens across all government departments, a lens on race, or on anti-racism, if you will. I wonder if you could expand on that to see how governments can implement this recommendation.

5:15 p.m.

Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Renu Mandhane

I think what's interesting is that gender impact analysis is a very common analysis both in Canada and internationally. The idea, as others have discussed, is to start to look at policies and start to project the disparate impact that they may have on different communities at the front end, rather than waiting for that to materialize.

How do you do that? I think the first thing is that you have to be engaged with communities. You have to understand what their concerns are and what they want to see in the future. If we're talking about child welfare and over-apprehension, the data will tell you about over-apprehension, but it doesn't really tell you why, so it's about having those conversations to understand what communities' concerns are and then developing a tool that allows you to assess policies and programs against the concern and the disparity you're seeing.

Again, as Sam mentioned, these tools are very technical. There are people who develop these tools. That's what they do. Our recommendation is that we start to move to that evidence-based approach where we actually take out the rhetoric and start to really look at how to reduce the disparities that definitely exist.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

To build on that, because we have various reports and information that already have been provided to show, for example, the disparity in terms of this impact financially and economically, particularly for the immigrant community, I wonder whether or not you can share with us your thoughts about it. One of the real issues is that these kinds of impacts are long term, not just short term. Most recently, I had a constituent tell me that it's not just the hurt feelings, it's intergenerational in terms of the impacts and the economic outcomes for them. I wonder if you could expand on that for me.

5:15 p.m.

Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Renu Mandhane

Yes. I think the TRC report has really given us an opportunity and a greater understanding as Canadians of intergenerational trauma and what the outcomes of that are. I think we're starting to understand what the intergenerational trauma of slavery has been in the United States and in Canada as well.

It is really important to understand that there are discrete measurable harms associated with racism. This isn't just about hurt feelings. The harms are social exclusion and economic exclusion, but there are even studies that show there are psychological and physical harms associated with sustained exposure to racism. We need to move past these hurt feelings—or, on the flip side, that it's a few bad apples—and start to acknowledge that this is harmful for all of us. It impacts our economy and it impacts people's feelings of belonging, which are ultimately essential for all of our safety and security.

5:15 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Just to get at recommendations, we had a Canada action plan against racism. It is now sunsetted. There was an evaluation on it and then not much has been done with respect to it. In your recommendation, you touched on it just briefly. Would you recommend that the government renew and refresh the Canada action plan against racism and then resource it? We can have all these plans we want, but if we don't resource them to implement them, they don't amount to a pile of beans.

5:15 p.m.

Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission

Renu Mandhane

The last plan was in 2005, so certainly I think it's due for a refreshing. I think what's really important in these plans is that the government set out benchmarks for how it's going to report publicly on progress against the plan, because we see a lot of plans that, quite frankly, look wonderful but without resources and without a commitment to be transparent about how you're going to measure progress against the plan, it's very hard for the public to understand the value of the plan and how we're moving forward. There needs to be a longer-term initiative.