Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 27th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I will have to get the sense that there is unanimous agreement from the committee. If I don't get that, we will have to move as per procedure.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is there anyone who wishes to disagree?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Okay. I will just continue, then, if that's okay.

I have a number of concerns coming out of your testimony, but I want to ask specifically about Islamophobia. You know, the only term I know of for religious persecution is “anti-Semitism”. Anti-Semitism has been around for over 150 years. Would it be a stretch to say....? I'm really asking you to judge my words in the House, whether they're right or wrong. But I think anti-Semitism has had 150 years to stand the test of time of public debate, of academic rigour, and of being pushed and prodded in the public square, and that's why it's generally accepted.

Do you think “Islamophobia” has had that same test upon it, so that it would be an acceptable term to describe, exclusively, only hatred towards Muslims?

Father, maybe I'll start with you.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

Anti-Semitism is a very interesting term, because anti-Semitism is not the same as anti-Judaism. The Semitic races, strictly speaking, include both Jews and Arabs, and Muslims and Jews, but it is true that over quite a long time, the term has acquired a conventional meaning that is widely understood. People don't use “anti-Semitism” to talk about anyone other than Jews, if that is the direction of the offending behaviour.

Islamophobia is a relatively new term. In fact the term—referring to an irrational fear or phobia—already discredits anything that might be negatively construed, or proposes that there might be rational fears, so it is a problematic term.

It could be that 150 years from now everybody will know what it means, in the same way as anti-Semitism is understood. At the moment it's not; therefore, both my fellow witnesses here suggest that it could be misunderstood.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

You mentioned secular fundamentalism. I'm wondering if you might want to comment on the dangers of a hyper-secular fundamentalism as it concerns broader religious freedom in the context of every legitimate religion that's practised in Canada.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

Secular fundamentalism—and it's not my term; it's been used by others—says there's an approach to the public square that says anything that's tainted, to use that view, by religious belief should be driven out. Instead of a robust public square where religious freedoms are exercised by all, you have a preference for a secular fundamentalist view.

Where these things can come together is that if people perceive from one religious group—and in this case we're discussing Islamophobia—something that is troublesome, they might resort to secularist arguments to try to suppress all religious expression. We've seen that in different contexts in different parts of our country.

A reality that is alive in the public debate in Canada is this kind of secularism, or let's call it secular fundamentalism to distinguish it from a healthy pluralism. It's not a far step from somebody saying, “We have a religious problem, or a problem with some religious people, so it would be better if all religious people were somehow pushed to the margins.” That's the danger that could arise.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you, Father.

Finally, Mr. Bhatti, you were actually on the advisory council for the Office of Religious Freedom. Although you made some comments in regard to your grave concerns about Islamophobia, you actually did lots of work with the broader faith communities of really every stripe while you were on that advisory committee.

Would that be a fair statement? Go ahead and expand on that.

[Peter Bhatti]

I just want to add a bit more about our concern about Islamophobia.

When Pakistan was created, the Christians and other religious minorities were told they would be treated equally. But 15 years after it was created, it became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instead of the Democratic Republic of Pakistan. Then slowly, slowly, all the sharia law and other laws were integrated into the constitution of Pakistan.

Our fear is about the way it is going in other parts of the world, and in our country. We have a continued fear that if we sow the seed here, and with what we are seeing in Europe, it will be more dangerous for all of us. It's not what we're facing. We are more concerned about our children and grandchildren, and what they will face when nobody can say anything against violence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Bhatti. We've gone well over time on this one.

The next person is Ms. Jenny Kwan from the NDP.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank all three of the witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Bhatti, let me acknowledge the loss of your brother. I think that under no circumstances is it acceptable that violence be invoked because of a disagreement. I'd like to express my condolences to your family for your loss.

I do want to get to the meat of this motion before us. There is a lot of language around it and from all three witnesses, we're hearing that the way in which the motion was put together, and perhaps the choice of words, is not the best. I think it is fair enough to say that this is not the most elegant motion before us.

I'm an ESL student, so I'm not an expert on any language for that matter, English most definitely, as it's my second language. With that said, I think what we need to get at is the thrust behind it, what the intentions are of the person who moved this motion, what it is she wants to achieve, and therefore, the work of this committee. I think that is critically important.

At the time of debate, since the issue centred around a disagreement around the meaning of the word Islamophobia, it was disappointing to me that the efforts in the House—and I participated in those efforts—failed to bring the government members and the Conservative members to some agreement where we could unanimously support this motion to come together to send a strong message against discrimination of all forms, racism, religious discrimination, and so on, and all stand united with respect to that. Unfortunately, that was not to be, so we are here. It also saddens me that as a result of this situation, we have an environment whereby some people are using this motion to spread more fear, and more hate, and sometimes false information as well. I think that's not really what any of us want to see materialize. Now we're here before us with the work of this committee.

In the spirit in which the MP who moved the motion.... Part of the issue with why Islamophobia was raised was, to my understanding and I think committee members could correct me if they like, the increase of incidents that had been experienced by people from the Muslim community. In fact, we had a presentation from the assistant deputy minister from the Department of Canadian Heritage who cited a recent police hate crime statistics report that there was:

...a 5% increase in reported incidents from 2014 to 2015. While hate crimes targeting black and Jewish populations remain the most common types of hate crimes related to race or ethnicity and religion, hate crimes against those of the Muslim faith increased by 61%, from 99 in 2014 to 159 in 2015.

Those are official statistics. Unofficially, the lived experiences of discrimination and hate for many people are happening in our communities. In fact, I was at an event where that had occurred in Vancouver East, which was extremely disappointing to me, but those things occur.

Within that context and recognizing that this is happening, we need to do something about it. Of course, we also know what happened in Quebec, the terrible incident that had occurred. On the question of trying to de-escalate the fear, and the hate, and the things that we don't want to see materialize in Canada, I want to ask this question about the definition of Islamophobia.

This is from the Ontario Human Rights Commission, and they put forward this definition. In their policy, they define Islamophobia as “racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general.” I wonder if I can get some comments from you around this definition, which the Ontario Human Rights Commission uses as a definition to address human rights violations in this regard.

Perhaps I could start with Father de Souza.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

Thank you.

First of all, even if English is your mother tongue, this motion is both inelegant and confusing. It's just a problem with the motion. I would challenge the definition because it begins with “racism”. Islam is not a race; it's a religion. You have to treat it as a religion if there's a problem of religious bigotry. That's my initial comment.

I would say more broadly to your comments that sometimes when government gets into a delicate matter it actually makes things worse when it stirs things up. Mr. Bhatti was referring to his own work. I was the chairman of that commission that Mr. Sweet referred to, the advisory panel. There's a lot of very good work going on in Canada among members of different religious traditions. It doesn't necessarily need a government charter or plan or program to promote it. It's already going on. I do think that sometimes when you insert a delicate matter like this into a partisan environment, which the House of Commons is, you actually can risk making things worse rather than supporting the work already going on.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you for that.

I think there are moments. Maybe because I am fairly new to the political arena in terms of federal politics, I come to this table with the hope in my heart that there are some things that we can rise above, and that on the issue around partisan politics, even though we're from different parties and different perspectives, the House of Commons doesn't always have to go down that road. On something around fighting hate and discrimination of all forms, we need to rise above it.

From that perspective, in terms of moving towards recommendations, you suggested that racism and religious discrimination need to be separated. I'm hearing from you that maybe government doesn't need to do anything about that. But in the face of increased hate crimes and incidences of lived experiences, where people are experiencing discrimination, whether it be based on religion or race or another form, shouldn't the government be doing something to address that on the whole?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry, your time is up, Ms. Kwan. Seven minutes is not a long time when you think about it. I am sorry about that.

Now we go to Dan Vandal, from the Liberals, for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much. I'm going to be sharing my time with Arif Virani.

Getting away from definitions, I think there is nobody who can question the fact that hate crimes are on the rise for the Muslim community. From 2015 to 2016, they increased by 61%. For the black community, indigenous community, first nations, Métis, Jewish, hate crimes are on the rise. What do we do as government leaders?

I'll go to Mr. Cameron.

[Jay Cameron]

Thank you, sir.

It is no more possible to legislate against hate than it is to legislate for love. Nobody can compel another person to love. Nobody can compel another person not to hate. It's not the role of government. The role of government is to uphold constitutional freedoms to the best of its abilities and create a climate. You can entreat the populace. You can assert—

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

Thank you, Mr. Cameron. We don't have a lot of time, and there are lots of questions.

Mr. Bhatti, do you want to address that for a few seconds?

[Peter Bhatti]

Yes. I personally believe that increasing racism or hate against Muslims, or Islamophobia.... We are limited—

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

Or the black or the Jewish community or the indigenous community....

[Peter Bhatti]

Yes.

As I mentioned before, we don't need another regulation or amendment or motion. We need to strengthen our Canadian charter of human rights. Why is it increasing? In my personal opinion, it's because all over the world, wherever terrorism is taking place, unfortunately an Islamic person is involved, which is having an impact all over. That's why that has increased, but we should take a strong step to stop that. Nobody can hate another.

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

Thank you, Mr. Bhatti.

The question was, what do we do as leaders?

[Peter Bhatti]

We have to put everybody together.

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

Mr. de Souza, go ahead.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

I would say that there is an enormous amount that the Government of Canada already does, through its various departments, to promote multicultural relations and anti-racism education. It's not that, without this motion, nothing is being done. A lot is being done. We have the entire human rights apparatus that was quoted earlier.

The problem with this motion, it seems to me, is that, in its ambiguities, it could quell—to use the word of the motion—some of the necessary dialogue, which has to be frank, honest, and respectful, that already is going on in the country. It's not a question of the government doing nothing. The government does an awful lot already on this file.

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

Am I right to say that you are saying we should not be doing any more than what we are doing now? There's nothing more to do.