Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 20th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would like to ask committee members to sit down. Everybody should tell us every time they will be sharing time because otherwise, we don't know. Don't just do it in between and let me know, because it really throws off our timing.

Now we are on the second part, which will end at 5:30. We have with us the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Government of Ontario for less than an hour because we are starting late.

I want to welcome the witnesses. Thank you for being here. You have 10 minutes per group, not per person, to present. You can make a decision, for instance, Ms. Mandhane or Mr. Azmi, as to who will speak or if you want to split the 10 minutes and then we will go to a question and answer session. Similarly with Mr. Khenti, Mr. Erry, and Mr. Williams, you will make a decision who will present.

I want to begin now with the Ontario Human Rights Commission for 10 minutes.

[Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission]

Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to speak today.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we're on the traditional territory of the Algonquins of Ontario and by recognizing the long history of first nations, Métis, and Inuit people in Canada.

Every day, people tell me about their experiences of discrimination. For them the existence of racism isn't an idea to be debated; it's a lived reality. In our recent consultation on racial profiling in Ontario, one black man said, “Out shopping, I am the probable shoplifter. Taking a walk, I am the probable wife snatcher or burglar.”

Over 50 years ago, the government created the Ontario Human Rights Commission to address anti-black racism and anti-Semitism, and unfortunately we're still in business today and still uncovering forms of discrimination that have been hidden from public scrutiny for too long.

Up until recently, many Canadians, including me, knew very little about the history of colonialism and the ongoing impact of intergenerational trauma on indigenous people and families. For example, one woman told us, “I work as a midwife, primarily with aboriginal women, and have lost track of how many racist assumptions and mistreatments I've observed based on race.”

The Ontario Human Rights Commission works to challenge, expose, and ultimately end entrenched and widespread structures and systems of discrimination through education, policy development, public inquiries, and litigation. We have detailed policies on discrimination based on race and creed.

Since 9/11, we've seen a rise in discrimination against Muslim people or people who are perceived to be Muslim. We have heard concern that the term “lslamophobia" is vague or that it could be interpreted to include any criticism of the Muslim faith. In our policy on creed, we defined “lslamophobia” as “racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general”.

We’ve used this definition for many years without controversy. It’s a straightforward definition that is completely in line with other terms we routinely use in human rights law, terms like anti-black racism, anti-Semitism, or transphobia.

There’s growing evidence that discrimination and harassment, and even criminal activity against people who are Muslim, is on the rise. Earlier this year, Statistics Canada reported that the number of police-reported hate crimes against Muslims jumped 60% in one year. Muslim people were the second-most targeted group, after Jewish people.

Beyond individual acts of intolerance, lslamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic, and societal level. For example, another woman who often works in the Middle East told us, “It usually goes like this: After check-in at the airport, I go to the security area. My carry-on will pass through the security belt, and I will pass through the scanner, both without a hitch. Even so, almost every time, I'll be told, 'You've been randomly selected for additional screenings.' It's only a few extra seconds or minutes, but I've started to feel like replying back, 'It's not random when it's every single time.'”

Stereotypes of Muslims as a threat to security or Canadian values have been particularly pronounced and have contributed to a hybrid of racial and religious profiling.

From the commission's perspective, it is vital for our leaders to recognize the ideological foundations of hate and discrimination, and to name this in a clear fashion. That's why it is important to call out lslamophobia, anti-black racism, anti-Semitism, and anti-indigenous racism.

The adoption of motion M-103 is a good example of the Government of Canada playing a leadership role in terms of both calling out racism and calling for action. This motion is similar to motion M-630, which condemned the rise in anti-Semitism and was unanimously adopted in 2015. There has been a lot of discussion about the potential for motions like M-103 to limit free speech, which is a fundamental freedom under the charter.

M-103 does not limit expression. It does not prohibit any conduct whatsoever. It does not prevent people from saying what they think. It's a starting point for dealing with a problem that can quickly escalate and cause deadly harm like we saw in the shootings at the Quebec City mosque.

Most Canadians accept that the charter protects speech that may be offensive so long as it doesn't rise to the level of a hate crime or constitute harassment under human rights law, but the guarantee of free speech certainly cannot mean that the government's hands are tied in terms of addressing the very real harms caused by racism, whether it is mistrust of public institutions, physical or mental harm to individuals, or long-term damage to a community's collective well-being.

In the face of these harms, the government can and must lead by calling out racism and putting policies and programs in place to send a strong, consistent message that racism and Islamophobia are damaging to individuals, communities, and ultimately to all of us who wish to live in peace and harmony.

We need to send a collective message that while the Constitution protects freedom of expression, it also guarantees equality, regardless of race and religion. The government has the power to take action to protect people who are harmed by racism and Islamophobia, and we call on it to boldly do so.

There is considerable scope for the government to develop positions, policies, and programs that promote inclusion and respect, especially for racial and religious minorities. These types of actions are consistent with the values of Canadians and with the charter. Indeed, the Government of Ontario has recently taken steps to do this by establishing an anti-racism directorate to apply an anti-racism lens in developing, implementing, and evaluating government policies, programs, and services.

Ontario has also introduced legislation that makes it possible to require the collection of human rights-based data in key areas like policing, education, and child welfare. If the government follows through and mandates this collection, data like this will help to identify systemic discrimination that is often hidden, and to chart progress against eradicating it.

We call on the Government of Canada to take similar steps. First, the government must continue to unequivocally call out Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-black racism, and anti-indigenous racism.

Second, it needs to establish and appropriately fund anti-hate and anti-racism initiatives in programs. There are many options for doing this, such as adding an anti-racism stream to the Canadian Heritage grants program, or updating the government's action plan on racism and reporting on progress against it.

Third, the government must take concrete steps to identify and eliminate systemic discrimination, including mandating the collection of human rights-based data across government services. For over 20 years, the government has required federal departments to conduct gender-based impact assessments. Our final recommendation is to require impact analysis based on race.

Just over a year ago while visiting Ottawa, then president Obama proclaimed, “The world needs more Canada.” There is much work to be done before we can rightfully hold ourselves up as this model for other nations to emulate. Let's give the world more of the Canada that we all aspire to, one where everyone's human rights are a lived reality, and let us not be hobbled in our efforts by those who are more concerned with defining racism than ending it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Now I will go to the Government of Ontario.

Mr. Erry, please begin. You have 10 minutes.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members. Thank you for the invitation to present today. I'm honoured to be here before the committee to talk about the leadership role Ontario is taking to address systemic racism and advance social inclusion.

My name is Sam Erry, and I'm the associate deputy minister for the inclusion, diversity and anti-racism division in the cabinet office in the Ontario public service. I'm joined on my right by Akwatu Khenti, who is the assistant deputy minister of the anti-racism directorate, and Chris Williams, who is a senior research adviser in our organization. Our division is strategically situated in Ontario's cabinet office to accord it high priority and lend strength to its whole-of-government approach.

Members, we've heard for decades from community partners about the socio-economic disparities that exist for indigenous, black, and racialized people in Ontario. This is all the more important because, by 2031, an estimated 40% of Ontario's population will be racialized.

Ontario is also home to the largest population of indigenous people in the country, and indigenous youth are the province's fastest-growing population.

The available research tells an emotional and compelling story. From child welfare, educational achievement, criminal justice, and corrections through to employment and political representation, the patterns confirm inequity in the distribution of socio-economic benefits. Here are some examples.

A York University study of the Toronto District School Board revealed that black students are twice as likely to be enrolled in applied courses instead of academic ones, compared to students from other racial backgrounds. The same study found that black students are more than twice as likely as white students to have been suspended at least once during high school.

We also see this in the child welfare sector. At least 25% of children in care in Ontario at any given time are indigenous, yet only 3% of Ontario's child population is indigenous.

Systemic racism is often caused by conscious or unconscious biases in policies, practices, and procedures that privilege or disadvantage particular groups of people based on perceptions of race. It's not always intentional, but whether or not it's intentional has little bearing on the inequitable outcomes indigenous and racialized people experience.

We also know that many racialized people are facing racism due to their religion. We've seen horrible incidents of hate and violence that remind us that issues such as Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are real and unacceptable. It goes without saying that there is no place for religious discrimination or any form of systemic racism, not just in Ontario, but across Canada.

Tackling the systemic institutional barriers that prevent indigenous and racialized people from achieving their full potential is not only a moral imperative, it's also an economic imperative.

I want to share with you why anti-racism is the best approach to truly ameliorate the harms of systemic racism. As you know, there are a range of approaches out there, and there are evidence-based reasons for choosing anti-racism.

As Canadians, we are well socialized in the concept of multiculturalism. When we think about diversity, we're celebrating people's individual differences and perspectives. Building a diverse society and focusing on raising awareness about diversity are good and necessary things to do, but they are not sufficient to change the deeply entrenched inequities for indigenous and racialized people, and other groups. The diversity approach has failed to change the power imbalances that result in privilege for some groups and disadvantage for others.

The anti-racism approach acknowledges and addresses the fact that indigenous youth are more likely to end up in the child welfare system or jail, and the fact that many racialized youth, particularly young black men, are more likely than white kids to drop out of high school and empirically less likely to be represented amongst the ranks of our CEOs and senior leaders.

Anti-racism is not diversity. When the Ontario government launched the anti-racism directorate, it was clear that it had to target the root causes that are leading to these inequitable outcomes experienced by indigenous and racialized people.

Anti-racism is a proactive process of change. That means we don't just avoid being racist, we take active steps to transform institutional structures, including public policies, programs, and services, that sustain racial inequity.

Anti-racism starts by acknowledging racism and recognizing that racism creates privilege for members of the dominant group and disadvantages for others as a result of histories of slavery, colonization, and other forms of oppression and hatred. This means we honour the Ontario government's commitment to reconciliation with first nations, Métis, and Inuit people.

For the directorate, it also means we fully acknowledge intersectionality. This is important, because racism is experienced differently by various racialized groups and within groups along intersectional lines, including gender identity, creed, class, sexual orientation, history of colonization, or other personal attributes.

When the anti-racism directorate was launched in February 2016, we were not starting from scratch. Our work builds on decades of research and reports such as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report, “The Review of the Roots of Youth Violence” report, and the “Stephen Lewis Report on Race Relations in Ontario”. Our work also relies heavily on community collaboration. The community's passion for and commitment to racial justice pushed systemic racism into the spotlight.

The mandate of the anti-racism directorate began by hearing directly from indigenous and racialized people through 10 open public meetings across Ontario, from Windsor to Thunder Bay to Ottawa. The Ontario government followed that up in March 2017 by launching a three-year anti-racism strategic plan, called “A Better Way Forward”, which targets systemic racism by building a foundational anti-racism approach in the way government develops policies, programs, and services.

The directorate is now working across government to ensure that anti-racism is embedded in everything we do, because an evidence-based, whole-of-government approach is a highly effective way to address systemic barriers and advance racial equity. Our strategic plan is our road map and plan for action.

Another important mechanism to ensure Ontario's anti-racism work is sustainable and accountable to the public over the long run is the Anti-Racism Act, which was passed in the legislature on June 1, 2017. The act is unprecedented nationally. It establishes the anti-racism directorate in legislation. It requires the government to maintain an anti-racism strategy and mandates community engagement through multi-year plans.

It requires the development of an anti-racism impact assessment framework, which is a tool to better understand the root causes of systemic barriers and propose solutions to address these barriers. It requires the establishment of race-based data standards and guidelines. We know that data collection is a critical first step, because without data we can't identify the core problem and where the change needs to be made.

We are currently developing a race data standard for the collection, use, analysis, disclosure, and public reporting of this aggregated race-based data across government and its institutions. This framework will ensure that data is collected and used consistently and that there are privacy protections in place to prevent the misuse of personal information.

Through the development process we've been actively engaging our ministry and community partners, as well as the Ontario Human Rights Commission and the Information and Privacy Commissioner, for their feedback and advice.

As you know, there has been a growing tide of anti-Muslim rhetoric and sentiments in a post-9/11 era. A Statistics Canada report released earlier this year showed that from 2014 to 2015 there was a 61% increase in anti-Muslim hate. This is also mirrored in public opinion. A 2017 Angus Reid poll shows that 60% of Canadians agree that Canadian Muslims face a lot of discrimination in their daily lives.

We saw a tragic example of Islamophobia earlier this year when six people were killed and 19 injured during a shooting rampage at the Quebec City Islamic centre.

All roads lead to the conclusion that Islamophobia is a serious and urgent problem. The anti-racism strategic plan includes initiatives to address lslamophobia head-on. One of our strategic imperatives is to work collaboratively with the community and Muslim leaders both to respond to and to prevent further increases in lslamophobia.

We believe that greater public awareness and understanding of Islamophobia will serve to curb current positive trends in this regard. In addition to public awareness, we work with the Ministry of Education and school boards to strengthen and promote educational resources for kindergarten to grade 12 students that aim to address Islamophobia.

The Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services is also working to explore the collection and publication of data from police services on reported lslamophobia.

The Honourable Michael Coteau, the Minister Responsible for Anti-Racism, has acknowledged that lslamophobia is real and has devastating impacts. He also knows how important it is to demonstrate visible, inclusive leadership within the community. Therefore, Minister Coteau has recently established a minister's consultation group on anti-racism, including a subcommittee that focuses exclusively on lslamophobia. The lslamophobia subcommittee provides an important community perspective on supporting and implementing our strategic plan. The group also provides input on the causes and impacts of lslamophobia, and supports public awareness initiatives on the topic.

As I said earlier, we're taking a whole-of-government approach, and this is just some of what's happening across Ontario.

In conclusion, members, through “A Better Way Forward”, Ontario has a focused plan of action to address systemic racism and advance racial equity. I'm pleased to inform you that in August of this year I had the privilege of presenting at the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, and the committee acknowledged Ontario's leadership in developing a comprehensive strategic plan and a legislative framework.

Members, these are early days for us, but we continue to collaborate with our committee partners and, through a whole-of-government approach, to effect change in government and its public institutions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Erry.

Now we're going to the question-and-answer period, but I'd like to warn the committee that simple mathematics says that if we only have one round, it's a seven-minute round. I would also like to ask the committee members, if you're going to share your time with anyone, please let us know right away.

Also, I'm going to ask the committee to stay for two minutes at the end of this meeting, because we have some in camera work to do.

We begin with Ms. Dabrusin from the Liberals, for seven minutes, please.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

My questions are for the Government of Ontario representatives.

I want to thank both of you. I think it's important to hear all that you are doing in Ontario. I'm from Ontario myself. I'm really impressed to see what's being done.

Mr. Erry, I want to focus on what you were talking about. You were talking about the evidence-based strategy and data collection. As my first point, I was looking at the mandate letter for Minister Coteau, which refers to a racial equity impact assessment tool. Could you tell me what that is?

[Sam Erry]

Thank you for the question.

The racial equity impact assessment tool is a tool that was pioneered in the United States. There are certain progressive jurisdictions in the United States that have already implemented this tool in policy-making and in program and budget decisions. These are jurisdictions such as Washington state, the City of Portland, Minneapolis.

We took a hard look at this tool, since it has already been road-tested and has had success and there is empirical evidence to demonstrate so. We've looked at that tool and have tried to customize it in an Ontario context.

The tool has a couple of key elements. First of all, we all carry bias as individuals; as professionals we carry bias, given the model that we're socialized into, in the context of the work we do. One thing this tool does is it helps you better understand your bias as you employ the tool.

If you think about a piece of legislation or policy that the government would be interested in reviewing or developing, you would apply this tool at the front end. For those who are policy practitioners, this is not an add-on; it fits very nicely into the policy cycle that most public services execute in this country. The tool allows you to understand that bias.

It also allows you to understand the bias that we respectively carry relative to stakeholder engagement. Many people have much to say on many issues, but because we generally tend to deal with a certain group of stakeholders, those voices aren't coming to the table; the process doesn't allow for it. There are thus open government engagement tools built into the tool to allow for muted or marginalized voices to come to the table and have their say concerning the impact of a particular policy or program.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Do you have anything in writing that describes this tool or sets out how it works, and would you be able to provide that information to us?

[Sam Erry]

Yes, absolutely.

In Ontario, because we have to be different, we're going to call it the anti-racism impact assessment.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Wonderful.

I was looking at your strategic plan. You refer to the data points that you were talking about. I guess most of this is still in its development stage. I saw here that to address racial inequities we need better race-based, disaggregated data, and you were talking about the collection process. Is it already in place? Is the data already being collected, or is it still being put together?

[Sam Erry]

As I mentioned, for most of this work it's early days for us. No data, no problem, no solution. We want to have an evidence-based conversation so that policy-makers and decision-makers such as yourselves have a clear sense of where exactly the problem lies and how to diagnose it properly and therefore put the right investments and solutions against it.

We are developing a race-based data standard that unpacks many of the categories StatsCan currently has. For example, if you're black, you tick off black right now, but that doesn't say whether you're continental African black, Caribbean black.... We're going to unpack those categories so that we can better understand the demographics and then say, “Okay, the problem is over here.”

To answer your question directly, we're developing the standard right now. We're piloting it with our partner ministries in health, the justice sector, children and youth services, and education. Once that pilot is complete, we'll come back and give our best advice to Minister Coteau and the government.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Are there any guidelines that you can provide to us on what that pilot is based on so we can have an idea of how you're collecting that information?

[Sam Erry]

Sure.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

That would be great.

You mentioned intersectionality. When you're collecting data, how are you tracking intersectionality as part of this research? Are you tracking that as part of your general disaggregated data selection?

[Sam Erry]

Yes. The way the categories are constituted, we're making sure that all the dimensions of race are covered, or as many as possible. Race is a complex thing and it's a social construct, so we also need to look at identity-based data. Our Ministry of Children and Youth Services is developing an identity-based framework as well. The two will complement each other, and we can be reasonably comfortable that we've covered as much as possible..

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Can you share the identity-based framework as well? I would love a copy of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If you submit that to the chair, we will distribute it to everyone. Thank you.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I know that my friend Mr. Vandal had a question as well. He has about a minute and a half.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you, Julie.

Renu Mandhane, I note that you referenced the origins of M-103, and I note that you referenced some of the discussions around M-103. I know the originator of the motion had many people calling her, threatening her. I had people calling me thinking that their freedom of speech was somehow on the line.

Where does this come from? Why were people so shaken up or so concerned that freedom of speech was on the line and that sharia law was coming? Can you comment on that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 40 seconds to do so, Ms. Mandhane.

[Renu Mandhane]

Somehow any time you talk about Islamophobia or anti-Muslim racism, you quickly get into conversations about whether this limits legitimate criticism of religion. I think it's really important that we maintain that marketplace of ideas and that we do have space to criticize religion and develop our own Canadian identity. Often these are red herrings that distract from our main goal, which is to move forward and to adopt the kinds of policies and programs that Ontario has.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I would like to reiterate, please let me know if you're sharing time. It never works out and we always go over, and then it kills our timelines here because we have to leave at a certain time.

Thank you.

Now I'll go to David Anderson, for the Conservatives.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Chair, I'm going to share time with both my colleagues, so we'll see how this works out. I'm going to ask some fairly quick questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

If you divide by three, you can get two minutes.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

Ms. Mandhane, our motion is dealing with systemic racism and religious discrimination. You had a short definition, but I notice in your longer definition you talk about “a contemporary and emerging form of racism in Canada has been termed Islamophobia”. Do you use racism and religious discrimination interchangeably? Do we assume both things are included in that?