Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 27th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The meeting is called to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this committee is studying systemic racism and religious discrimination.

We have a group of witnesses scheduled in our first hour, which is from 3:30 to 4:30. This means, because we started late, that we may have to go a little beyond 4:30 with the first group. We have, as an individual, Raymond J. de Souza; the International Christian Voice, Peter Bhatti, chairman; and the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, Jay Cameron, barrister and solicitor. Welcome.

Here is how the protocol goes. You will have 10 minutes each to present. Then there will be a round of questions, and we will be able to have a seven-minute round. In this one I don't think we will have time for two rounds; it's just simple math.

I will ask you to begin, starting with Father de Souza for 10 minutes. I'll give you a two-minute warning.

[Father Raymond de Souza, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you for the invitation to address this committee regarding motion number M-103. There are several issues addressed by the motion, and the language is, at least to my ear, sufficiently bureaucratic to make it difficult to understand what exactly is being contemplated. It is difficult therefore to respond with any great degree of specificity, but permit me to make four points that I think are related to the motion.

The first one is that racism and religious discrimination are different things, although this motion appears to treat them as alike. Race, of course, involves characteristics inherited at birth. Religion is a matter of faith and practice, which can change. For example, a Pakistani who decides to become Christian changes not his race or nationality but his religion.

I am honoured today to be in the presence of Peter Bhatti, brother of the martyr Shahbaz Bhatti, who was killed out of hatred for his Catholic faith by people who shared the same race but were of the Islamic faith.

Religions, of course, include many different races. For example, my church, the Catholic church, is by far the most multiracial institution on earth, yet every day Catholics endure persecution, even martyrdom, and it is not because of their race. Anti-racism efforts do not, therefore, address the problem of religious discrimination.

The second point is that the motion condemns all forms of religious discrimination and calls upon the government to advance initiatives to better reflect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I note that freedom of religion and conscience is the first fundamental freedom enumerated in our charter. I welcome a robust embrace of religious freedom, but note that it is often the government, through legislation and regulation, that impinges upon religious freedom. That is true for Jews and Christians as well as for Muslims. To focus therefore on one particular religion would be, I think, unwise.

A renewed culture of religious freedom is to be welcomed, especially in a political culture in which often all religious belief and practice is accorded second-class status. Christians, Muslims, Jews, and other religious believers encounter a sort of secular fundamentalism that is incompatible with Canada's heritage of religious freedom, pluralism, and tolerance. If this motion were to lead to a renewed culture of religious freedom, that would be praiseworthy.

Point three, Islamophobia is a term, I suppose, that is meant to capture hatred of Muslims, which is rather straightforward to deplore. The question is whether Islamophobia includes a critical evaluation of Islamic doctrine in practice. For example, Christians and Muslims have quite different understandings of God. One sees this made clear, for example, in the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem that quote passages of the Quran that deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the foundational doctrine of Christianity.

Doctrinal and moral disagreements can be engaged as we live together with our differences. I don't imagine that the Government of Canada wishes to engage in theological matters, which are outside its competence, but neither should it seek to discourage theological exchange, even critical theological exchange.

My fourth point is that honest and respectful theological exchange is all the more important in the face of religiously inspired violence, regardless of what group it's directed against. I quote, for example, from former president Bill Clinton on the question he was addressing of radical Islamist violence. He asks, “How shall we respond?” and says:

We can try to kill and capture them, but we can't get them all. We can try to persuade them to abandon violence, but if our arguments have no basis in their own experience, we can't fully succeed. Our best chance is to work cooperatively with those in the Muslim world who are trying to reach the same minds as the radicals by preaching a more complete Islam, not a distorted, jagged shard.

That's from Bill Clinton's introduction to a book on religion in foreign policy by Madeleine Albright, his secretary of state. It is extraordinary to hear a statesman speak about the need for better preaching—in this case, of Islam—which is the task of theologians and clergy primarily, not of governments.

However, President Clinton acknowledges what we all know, namely that this better preaching is an urgent task. Canada is perhaps well-situated for this necessary dialogue and exchange to take place, which is primarily theological. We have here in our country an Islamic community that is able to speak freely and to carry out respectful dialogue with other religions. That is not the case everywhere in the Islamic world. Such theological work will be challenging and even provocative, but we have a tradition in Canada that will enable us to undertake it with respect and tolerance. Therefore, concerns about Islamophobia, however understood, ought not prevent that necessary work and that challenging and even provocative dialogue from being done.

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to address you. I pray God's blessings upon your work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Father de Souza.

We now go to Peter Bhatti, who is the chairman of the International Christian Voice, for 10 minutes, please.

[Peter Bhatti, Chairman, International Christian Voice]

Honourable Chair, members of the committee, I would like to thank the heritage committee for giving me the opportunity to address the fears and concerns of my community of Pakistani heritage regarding motion 103.

I come here today as a concerned Canadian citizen and as chairman of the International Christian Voice. My brother, Shahbaz Bhatti, Minister of Minority Affairs, was assassinated in Pakistan in 2011 for protecting the rights of persecuted religious minorities.

Canadians of Pakistani origin have chosen to call Canada their new home because of the religious liberty, freedoms, and democratic system they can enjoy here, which allow them to thrive and prosper. We left our homes to live in a country where we are free to voice our opinions and concerns without fear or hesitation, whether they are religious, social, political, or otherwise. I believe this is an essential part of the framework of our free society in Canada.

M-103 has created great concern regarding the impact it will have on religious freedom and freedom of expression for us, our children, our grandchildren, and the generations to follow. Our main concern lies within the definition of the term “Islamophobia”, which is an unclear and confusing term. We all believe that the discrimination and prejudice against any individual based on their Muslim faith is intolerable and unacceptable. However, the ill-defined precept of Islamophobia can also be used to take away the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians to lawfully and respectfully criticize any Islamic religious idea. The potential result that the motion imposes is the cause of growing anxiety within my community and communities across Canada.

The fears of Pakistani Christian immigrants living in Canada are not imaginary. The consequences of being labelled under M-103 under the garb of Islamophobia can have an indirect effect on our relatives and friends who are still living in Pakistan, a country in which blasphemy laws hold a sentence of life in prison, or death. The blasphemy laws have been misused to settle personal, economic, and political disputes, and have resulted in the assassination or murders of members of my family, friends, and prominent members of our community.

We fear that M-103 will foster similar conditions of suffocation and oppression, while cultivating an environment of division and disharmony in our communities. These are the same situations we came to Canada to escape and avoid forever. I fear that an unclear definition of Islamophobia can be used as a tool by vested Islamist activists to manipulate Canadian law to restrict free speech and criminalize non-Muslims for expressing, celebrating, and defending their respective faiths.

In our community's humble opinion, there was no need to table M-103, singling out Islamophobia. Will it really change attitudes for the better? Why a special focus on one religion? Are the existing laws not sufficient to protect religious freedoms? If not, then why not table a motion restricting prejudice against all religions?

Our community's concern is that the motion will, in some manner, stop valid criticism of Islamist terror and will prevent our children from standing up to defend criticism of their own faith.

My family, friends, and community very strongly believe and urge that Canadian laws should not be diluted to accept regulations imposed on us through international influence. To cite an example, one only has to look at England where the government gave in to the Muslim population who demanded and got a change from the historical common law to sharia law in some of their cities. This has had a devastating effect on the original British inhabitants who have moved out.

In 2011, Britain's Muslims began demanding that sharia replace British common law and it became the only law in towns with large Muslim populations, including Manchester, Liverpool, and several other towns. In one such east London enclave, their streets are plastered with posters declaring that you are entering a sharia-controlled zone. Islamic rules enforced, and Muslim imams now issue death threats to women who refuse to wear the hijab.

Over 100 sharia law courts have been established across the U.K. and these sharia courts have been issuing rulings that contradict British common law. In 2011 British Prime Minister David Cameron said that multiculturalism has been a failure and has promoted Islamic extremism across Europe.

If M-103 is not opposed or altered to include all religious groups in Canada, we feel that this push toward exclusive individual treatment will not stop here. Instead of creating peace and harmony among different faith communities, this motion only moves us in the direction of division and separation.

We, in our community, do not want to see our next generations being led back into what we have faced and escaped from. As a Christian community, we will stand and continue to voice our fears and our concerns so that our children and grandchildren will never again have to go through what their parents and grandparents have been through. We will stand on guard for Canada.

Once again, thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. God bless Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bhatti.

Our third witness in this session is Mr. Jay Cameron, barrister and solicitor from the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

[Jay Cameron, Barrister and Solicitor, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms]

Honourable members of Parliament, thank you for having me here today.

I'm here on behalf of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms. It's a registered charity, non-partisan and non-religious, and it receives no government funding. It's dedicated to upholding the charter freedoms of Canadians, particularly those in section 2.

I'm going to discuss four things today in brief. First will be a brief refresher on the importance of freedom of thought and expression in our democratic society. Second, I'm going to talk about the threatening, inapt, and vague language of the motion itself. Third, I'm going to talk about vagueness and its terms in the motion, particularly in regard to Islamophobia. Fourth, if I have time, I'm going to talk about some of the threatening and alarming talk from witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Canada has stated, “The very lifeblood of democracy is the free exchange of ideas and opinions.” In the case of the Edmonton Journal v. Alberta, Justice Cory stated:

It is difficult to imagine a...right more important to a democratic society than freedom of expression. Indeed a democracy cannot exist without that freedom to express new ideas and put forward opinions about the functioning of public institutions.

The courts have repeatedly held that freedom of expression should only be limited in the clearest of cases. Freedom of expression, however, does not just protect speakers. It also protects listeners. This point is especially relevant because of comments you heard last Wednesday from one of your witnesses in regard to “trash radio”. In Canada, people can have opinions about trash radio and can call it trash radio. It's a free country and you can say that. In Canada, citizens of this country get to determine what is trash, not the government.

In Harper v. Canada, the majority of the court noted, “The right of the people to discuss and debate [new] ideas forms the very foundation of democracy”. In speaking specifically of the need for citizens to hear, the majority of the court stated, “Freedom of expression protects not only the individual who speaks the message, but also the recipient.”, i.e., the recipients of so-called trash radio.

I'll pause to note that calling something “trash” of course dismisses any content of value that it may have. It's just like me referring to a witness before this committee as a trash witness. The appropriate thing to do is to contradict the thoughts that he had and rebut them with more constitutional and more enlightened thoughts.

Freedom of expression and hearing is not a Canadian idiosyncrasy. It is the right to receive information that is enshrined both in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Canada is a signatory to both. American case law, which has been referenced as just as relevant in Canada as it is in the United States, has said, “The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin.” But the coin itself is the process of thought and discussion.

The motion before you states that there is a rising “public climate of hate and fear” in this country which the government needs to “quell”. I don't know how the word “quell” got past the House of Commons, but I can tell you right now that the word “quell” is a concerning word. It is defined as “to thoroughly overwhelm and reduce to submission or passivity” and “to put down forcibly and suppress”. It is language that is frequently used in the context of riots, not in the upholding of constitutional freedoms of Canadians.

The word “quell” in the motion only serves to increase concerns about motion 103. It hints at compulsion, with an implied use of force.

This committee should be exceedingly wary of assuming that there is a rising “public climate of hate and fear” in this country. According to the 2017 global peace index, which was presented at the United Nations this year, Canada is the eighth-safest country out of 163 nations globally. The largely peaceful day-to-day coexistence of millions of people from various races, cultures, and religions in Canada contradicts the assertion that there is a rising climate of hate and fear in this country that requires a forceful legislative response.

Existing laws already place careful limits on conduct between Canadians. I'm referring to the criminal law, human rights laws, tort laws, and defamation laws. Mr. John Stuart Mill noted, “The third, and most cogent, reason for restricting the interference of government, is the great evil of adding unnecessarily to its power.”

It is not the government's role to make everyone love each other. Government's role is to uphold constitutional freedoms.

That brings me to Motion No. 103 and the term “Islamophobia”. The word is not defined in the motion. This committee has been asked to study and put forward its recommendations in regard to the elimination of Islamophobia. I don't know what it is, but, worse, neither do you.

Worst of all, you've been asked to craft a legislative response to it. MP Iqra Khalid proposed that Islamophobia is the irrational fear of Islam. This definition raises more problems than answers, not the least of which is whether Parliament can constitutionally legislate against an irrational fear. If there is an irrational fear of Islam, does that mean that there may be rational fears or concerns that are not Islamophobic? Where would you draw the line between the two?

Canada is one of the safest countries in the world, but other people who live in other nations are not so fortunate. The Middle East and North Africa are ranked by the GPI as the least peaceful nations in the world for the fifth successive year this year. Political instability is rife there. There are wars and internal fighting, and they are fundamentally less safe than this country.

Is it Islamophobic for Canadians to be concerned about how the immigration of persons from these nations may impact the safety of Canada? Is it Islamophobic to conclude that the nations that are ruled by a combination of mosque and state are far less safe than Canada and are repeatedly and consistently ranked among the most dangerous countries in the world? Should it be illegal to express such concerns?

Wadi is a non-government organization operating in the Middle East. The word “wadi” is Arabic for valley. It focuses on women's issues. After gaining the trust of local women in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, they learned that female genital mutilation in that part of the country was common, and that the procedure was reportedly performed with unsterilized instruments or even broken glass, and without anaesthesia, on girls four to 12 years old, with the extent of the mutilation dependent on the experience of the midwife and the luck of the girl.

The cutting of the clitoris is performed according to the sunnat excision, the excision according to the tradition of the prophet. The locals reported that the wound is then treated with ash or mud, with the girls then forced to sit in a bucket of iced water. Many Kurdish girls die, and others suffer chronic pain, infection, and infertility.

In subsequent studies, it was found that 60% of the women in that part of Iraq, which adheres to a variety of Islam, have undergone female genital mutilation. Despite the fact that the United Nations has attempted for decades to stamp out the practice, it is expanding. The clitoris is considered dirty, haram, and women fear they cannot find husbands for their daughters if they have not been mutilated. Many believe that men prefer sex with a mutilated wife.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have two more minutes, Mr. Cameron.

[Jay Cameron]

Thank you.

Interestingly, when the widespread use of female genital mutilation by Iraqi Kurds was reported, some members of influential Islamic and Arabic organizations in the diaspora scandalized the findings. They accused Wadi of trying to insult Islam and spread anti-Islamic propaganda. Members of the Initiative of Muslim Austrians called the data part of an Islamophobic campaign and declared that no female genital mutilation exists in Iraq. They declared it part of an Islamophobic campaign. That is the word that you are tasked with legislating the elimination of. Think about that.

Is it Islamophobic to voice concerns about the safety and security of Muslim women? Is it irrational for a Canadian to be concerned about child female genital mutilation and its continued occurrence in some communities here in Canada, or that there has never been a conviction for female genital mutilation in Canada?

This government is always saying that it stands for women's rights. A customs and border patrol report was released this summer to the federal government that said the practice is occurring here in Canada and that people are coming in to perform it. It is happening here to Canadians, and according to the resources in my paper, Canadians, who have constitutional rights under section 7, have been mutilated against their will. Is it Islamophobic to condemn such a practice?

Saudi Arabia just said that it's going to allow women to drive. Is it Islamophobic to condemn the fact that it took them this long to decide to do that?

Is Mr. Fatah an Islamophobe because he thinks it's repugnant for women to be compelled to wear a burka? He is a Muslim, and he has said that there is a reformation of kind going on in the Islamic faith where he is fighting against these kinds of popes who pretend to infallibility—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Cameron. I think you have gone over time now.

[Jay Cameron]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You may be able to put the rest of that into a response when people ask you questions.

Now we will begin the round of questions. The first round is going to be a seven-minute round, and that includes questions and answers, so I'm going to ask everybody to be very concise. Thank you.

We begin with Julie Dzerowicz, from the Liberals, for seven minutes, please.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thanks so much to the three speakers for your presentations today. I very much appreciate your taking the time to be here and making the time to be part of our deliberations.

I'm new to the committee, and I want to make sure that I am very clear with what our objectives are here today, so I think your comments are very relevant. I'm going to start off by reiterating what we're trying to do here in this committee. The part of the motion that we're focused on right now is the part where it says, “(c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study”, so not legislation, “on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centred focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making”. The second part is, “(ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities”. Then there's a timeline, in which it asks us to do this work and to present it to the House.

I feel it's important for us to reiterate that, just because my questions are going to be very much focused on that. I'm someone who's focused on trying to get to solutions. What we are asked to do, another way of saying it is, how can the Canadian government develop a plan to combat systemic discrimination and racism in Canada? How can we engage community groups in Canada in this plan? How can we ensure that this plan is based on evidence and on data?

When we're talking about the collection of data, how can we collect the data in a way that will allow us to understand the hate crimes that are actually taking place? Once we have this data, how is it that we can conduct a needs assessment on those impacted communities?

Based on what we are trying to do—I've just stated what we're trying to do—I would be very grateful if I can hear from each of you your recommendations. If we were to develop a plan to combat systemic racism and discrimination in Canada, what would be your specific recommendations for that?

Perhaps, Father de Souza, I could start with you, and we can go down the line. Thank you so much.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

Thank you for your kind words of welcome. I'm also new to this environment.

I would say, first of all, separate the two. Racism and anti-religious discrimination are not the same thing. There are people of minority racial groups who belong to majority religious groups, and vice versa, so it's not the same thing. That would be my first suggestion.

It worries me because the language of the motion seems to throw many things together, which indicates that perhaps the motion wasn't very clear about what specifically the danger is to be counteracted. What I fear is that when you have an ambiguous problem to solve, you get very wide-ranging solutions that can go in search of a problem. The problem that concerns me most is that the kind of theological and religious exchange, which can take place in Canada but can't in other countries, might be chilled if an environment where one religion—in this case Islam—were thought to be out of bounds for that kind of discussion.

Actually, my concrete advice is that I think the government should probably not do too much to encourage theological and religious exchanges between various Canadian groups because it's not the competence of the government to get involved in matters which are really not its own competence.

I would separate the two. I think that to the extent that there are attacks on, in this case, Muslims, we can cover them with existing laws, but we ought to encourage exchanges that take place in Canada very commonly—I'm involved in some of them myself—between Muslims and Christians, Christians and Jews, Jews and Muslims, plus all the other religions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Two and half minutes are left for everyone.

[Father Raymond de Souza]

Oh, sorry. I'll stop there. Oh, the whole thing is seven minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Father de Souza. I want to give Mr. Bhatti and Mr. Cameron a chance to respond.

Father de Souza was kind to give me a very specific recommendation: separate both the plan for discrimination versus racism. If you could, kindly give me your specific recommendations, Mr. Bhatti.

[Peter Bhatti]

My recommendation to you is that we don't need extra regulations or motions to combat racism or to protect one religion or another. First of all, we have enough in the charter of human rights to protect all these kinds of things. But if there needs to be more, it needs to be about protecting interfaith harmony and other objectives where we put all the religions together, through seminars and conferences, to chill the hatred of one for the other.

That's my personal suggestion.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I appreciate that.

Mr. Cameron.

[Jay Cameron]

Racism is something you can't legislate against, per se, because it begins in the mind. It exists in the mind. In a multicultural society, where you have a lot of different people, a lot of different religions, and a lot of different perspectives, everybody thinks they are right about what they believe in their own world view.

You can't constitutionally legislate against racism, because it's—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Cameron, I'm sorry to interrupt, but right now we are doing a study. From everything you've said, you would not recommend legislation. But if we were to come up with a plan that would combat systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada, what would you recommend?

[Jay Cameron]

Uphold the rights of the citizens. What is in the best interests of this country is more freedom, not more laws.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

And how would we do that? Would that be through an education program? Would that be through setting some priorities? How would we do that?

[Jay Cameron]

My understanding is that witnesses last week presented in front of the committee about state-funded initiatives to promote multiculturalism in the Jewish and Islamic faith and in the Christian faith. So the government is abundantly making efforts to ensure that people respect each other in the constitution of this nation. The charter specifically is founded on a recognition already of those rights.

What's being proposed is additional legislation to “quell”, so I respectfully take issue with your definition of what the motion is asking you to do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Cameron.

The second set of questions will come from David Sweet from the Conservatives.

David, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you very much for the opportunity.

I want to thank the witnesses. I often talk about full disclosure, so I want to disclose something else as well.

I've had the great honour, for almost the past dozen years, to serve on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights. One of the most compelling and most tragic memories I have is this. We had Shahbaz Bhatti give testimony before our committee, and I had lunch with him shortly after that. He said to me, in these exact words, “David, I will probably pay for this with my blood.” Unfortunately, three weeks later he was gunned down in his driveway in front of his mother's house.

He was your brother, Peter. His photograph is beside my desk to continually remind me that what we do here is extremely important, and people's lives depend on it.

So the seriousness of my questions cannot be doubted by the witnesses.

First, Father de Souza, I agree with you totally that the government has very little competence in regard to religious debate and in regard to legislating in that arena. We did have a forum here until this session. I hope it's picked up by somebody else. I chaired it for five years. We had the all-party interfaith friendship group, and we had Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Baha'is, Muslims, Christians, Jews—just everyone who would participate in trying to create a forum. As I said, I agree with you on the competence, but we were trying to create a forum where we could have that kind of dialogue.

I want to say to you, Mr. Cameron, that it appeared to me that you had a lot more to say, and that you didn't have the capability.

Chair, I would like to be able to get an agreement from the committee that the rest of Mr. Cameron's testimony, even though it's in writing, could be submitted for evidence. Would that be okay?