Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 16th, 2017

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm going to build on the area that I was canvassing, which I hope will be solution-oriented and build on recommendations that I think the committee needs to consider.

We talked about the issue of education and training, and I think we have established that it is an important area we need to embark on.

We also in Canada had a Canadian program, a national action plan to address racism. We had it in place, and it has now sort of lapsed. In a previous discussion with other witnesses, I asked a question to see if we should be reinstituting such a national action plan on the question around racism and then relate it to this motion before us on the issue around religious discrimination as well. I'd like to canvass the witnesses around that specific recommendation.

[Laurence Worthen]

My response is that I think it's a very important thing. I think that religious tolerance in this country is being challenged. The group that we represent is very concerned about it, to the point of doctors being worried that they're not going to be able to care for patients. Religious discrimination in general is something that we need to address in Canada.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Emil, would you comment?

[Dr. Sherif Emil]

I don't really have much to add. I agree with what has been said.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Do I have a few more minutes left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have about a minute and a half.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Building further on that, then, when you devise a national action plan, we need to have government resources put into it; otherwise, the plan in and of itself would not build itself to support NGOs' work with provincial and territorial governments, etc., to devise this plan and to implement this plan.

Would you also support the call for the federal government to provide financial resources to implement such a plan?

[Laurence Worthen]

Of course, it's easy for me to recommend the spending of federal government money, but the only caution I would raise is to let the religious leaders dialogue and let the religious leaders advise you on that, because in my view there's a danger of government coming in and imposing some kind of value or secular religion on others.

I think that people will provide you with the expertise you need. I'm a deacon in the Catholic church myself. People will provide you with the expertise that you need, but there needs to be an appropriate respect for where people are coming from and their particular perspectives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Worthen. I think the time is up.

I want to thank the witnesses very much.

Mr. Worthen, I look forward to your sending to the clerk your recommendations, as requested earlier by one of the members.

If I could, please, I would also like to discuss this issue of freedom of conscience. I helped write the Canadian Medical Association ethics guidelines, and it says that any physician cannot be forced to work outside the freedom of his or her conscience.

I would like to know how this is happening and where this is happening, because that is contrary to the charter. It guarantees freedom of conscience. It would be interesting if you could give us some examples, because this is something we haven't heard of. It might be interesting to know what exists.

Thank you very much. I would like to suspend for a couple of minutes while we bring in the new—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I have one tiny thing, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I think out of courtesy we ought to also extend to all witnesses who are coming here, including Dr. Emil, the opportunity to submit recommendations. It didn't occur to me until later that we haven't done it for everybody, and we should, as a group, I think, consistently say to all our witnesses that they should submit any recommendations they have to assist us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

I think it's inherent in whatever witnesses get when they're asked to come that we're hoping that they would submit recommendations when they are here.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I call the meeting to order, please.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this committee is undertaking a study of systemic racism and religious discrimination.

We have three witnesses today. The witnesses will each be given 10 minutes. They are Farzana Hassan, author and columnist; Andrew P.W. Bennett, senior fellow of Cardus; and from the Voice of the Vedas Cultural Sabha, Mr. Doobay.

I will begin with Farzana Hassan for 10 minutes, please. I'll give you a two-minute note so that you can wrap up; I'll have to cut you off if you don't.

Ms. Hassan.

[Farzana Hassan, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair and the honourable committee.

I am grateful to be given the opportunity to discuss some of my concerns about M-103, the anti-Islamophobia motion introduced by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid.

First of all, I would like to inform the committee that I am a Muslim woman and continue to identify as one. I have children, grandchildren, and other relatives living in Canada who also identify as Muslims, and some visibly so. The events of the past two decades have cast aspersions on the Muslim community as a whole and have engendered a degree of anti-Muslim sentiment. We have also witnessed the murder of six Muslim men in a Quebec mosque. It was all very tragic.

It would be a legitimate goal if one were to investigate the causes of hatred and resentment toward Muslims. Many Canadians from both Liberal and Conservative backgrounds would have no objections to investigating the causes, but while I consider anti-Muslim sentiment to be palpable in some situations, I object both to the spirit and wording of M-103.

I originally come from a country where blasphemy is considered a crime against the state. The term “Islamophobia” poses a unique problem in the way it is understood in Islamic nations as well as among the majority of Muslims, some of whom espouse a deeply obscurantist understanding of Islam. This understanding does not allow for any criticism of Islamic precept and practice. It can include criticism of Islam, Islamic culture, practices, and Muslims.

In my view, no ideology is to be regarded as sacrosanct in this manner. In the western world, we are allowed to challenge Christianity, the prevalent religion, and other belief systems, faith traditions, cultures, and practices.

It was my hope that challenges to some of the practices upheld by the Islamic orthodoxy would have come from a greater number of moderate Muslims themselves. They would have been perceived by the general public as wanting to distance themselves from practices like polygamy, jihad, and violence. It was my hope that they would protest acts of terror against non-Muslims as forcefully as they do when Muslims are killed as a result of what is perceived as non-Muslim aggression. They would work hard to embrace Canadian values of pluralism and tolerance.

The committee has a mandate to investigate reasons for growing anti-Muslim sentiment. My own personal reading of the situation is that the causes for such resentment are as plain as day: Muslims are increasingly under suspicion because the Muslim narrative is in the hands of fundamentalists who demand excessive faith accommodations, such as demanding Friday prayer services during school hours that are known to cause disruptions in schools, as well as making demands for something akin to anti-blasphemy laws.

The Muslim narrative is in the hands of those espousing political Islam. It is only because of this group—and not the majority of Muslims, who simply wish to live their lives in peace and harmony—that Muslims as a whole tend to be seen in a negative light. The majority of Muslims who are moderate have not been visible enough to distance themselves from such demands.

Presently, Muslims are disliked primarily, in my opinion, because of this demand for M-103. The hatred many say they are experiencing is, in fact, the direct result of this particular demand. I consider it more of a backlash than entrenched bigotry. These reasons for anti-Muslim sentiment are, in my view, quite obvious.

However, here I am concerned mainly about the word “Islamophobia”.

In this regard, I fail to understand why the House would not agree on a more precise term to combat anti-Muslim sentiment. The term “Islamophobia” is often falsely equated with the term “anti-Semitism”. MP Khalid has also alluded to an equivalence between the two, yet the two are vastly different.

What is the House's reason for adopting a term that has clearly Islamist overtones, is uncomfortably vague, and in fact dilutes the purpose for which it is overtly intended?

A common dictionary meaning of anti-Semitism is “hostility to or prejudice against Jews”.

Islamophobia, on the other hand, also includes criticism of Islam as a religion. The common dictionary meaning is “intense dislike or fear of Islam, esp. as a political force; hostility or prejudice towards Muslims".

Honourable committee members, I have no objections to investigating causes of anti-Muslim bigotry, but I have grave fears about including the word “Islamophobia” in the motion. Allow me to surmise the reasons behind the insistence on the word by what I consider to be some obscurantist forces.

I believe it is part of the Islamist agenda in Canada to include criticism of Islam and Islamic practice in the west rather than simply attributing the causes of anti-Muslim sentiment in the west to anti-Muslim bigotry. Use of the term “Islamophobia” sets a dangerous trend, given the connotations the word has in Islamic countries and in some Muslim circles in the west.

We often hear from M-103 supporters that the motion is not binding and does not affect anyone's entitlement to repudiate anything they object to, including certain orthodox Islamic and fundamentalist practices, yet the vagueness of the word “Islamophobia” tends to make it all-inclusive. It compromises a person's freedom to criticize and challenge, because without a clear definition to apply to M-103, a person would not want to test its limits. In short, the way M-103 is worded is more of a political tool, the way I see it.

I am Muslim, but I'm also a proud Canadian and I do not wish for Canada's cherished values, such as freedom of speech, to be compromised in this fashion, even if it is in the slightest way. In my opinion, M-103 does that, even though there are claims to the contrary, claims that it is not binding. Dare I say that I consider the demand for an endorsement for such a motion an unpatriotic act, as it casts an unfounded and harsh judgment on Canada's laws and society? It is unfortunate that MP Khalid experienced racism at school, but it is also this very country that has given her the opportunity to be a member of Parliament, along with other Muslims.

No system or ideology ought to be beyond reproach and questioning. It is only through questioning that we are able to address the wrongs of the past and move forward toward achieving a better world. The ideology of political Islam should also not be made inviolable, but if the term “Islamophobia” is not eliminated from the motion, it will potentially include jeopardizing any criticism of orthodox Islamic practice , despite MP Khalid's assurances.

In the context of M-103, the term remains ill-defined, and my recommendation is for the House to eliminate it. I also feel that no one has the right to tell me what I should say or think about Islam. I think history has always been on the side of people who do speak out—not the cowards.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Bennett, senior fellow of Cardus, for 10 minutes.

[Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett, Senior Fellow, Cardus]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to appear to offer my thoughts on the issue before the committee: systemic racism and religious discrimination.

My views are informed by my work as senior fellow at Cardus, Canada's faith-based think tank, where I focus on issues around religious freedom and public faith. They are also informed by the extensive work I did with different faith communities, both domestically and abroad, as Canada's Ambassador for Religious Freedom from 2013 to 2016. Finally, they are a reflection of my Catholic faith.

Let me offer six preliminary thoughts on this topic as points of departure for my comments on the need for promoting genuine and deep pluralism in Canada that is respectful of difference.

First, the fact that Canada is a diverse country is self-evident. It is diverse ethnically, socio-economically, religiously, ideologically, and so on, and that is a very good thing.

Second, as a community of human beings in this country, struggling to live a common life, we often get it wrong, and we erect barriers between ourselves that limit genuine engagement and dialogue with one another.

Third, there is racism and religious discrimination in Canada. There has always been, and there will always be this type of racism and religious discrimination in Canada. In our country today, Muslims, Christians, Jews, and others face discrimination variously because of who they are, what they believe, what they wear, and what they value, all of which can be at odds with what secular elites in this country believe to be true.

On the question of Islamophobia, this is a very vague term. I would say it is not the best term to have in the motion, unless it is very clearly bounded and defined.

Let's be clear on what needs to be addressed, as many of your other witnesses have said. We need to address anti-Muslim hatred that exists in this country. This is a hatred that is bred from three specific evils—ignorance, indifference, and fear—all of which must be addressed at the level of our own communities. These selfsame evils manifest themselves in hatred of Jews, hatred of Catholics, hatred of LGBTQ persons, hatred of people who oppose same-sex marriage, hatred of first nations people, hatred of pro-lifers, and the list goes on. We need to combat hatred and discrimination in all these cases. We need to combat hatred and discrimination in our communities and discover anew the dignity we each bear by learning to talk to one another again and learning to respect and champion differences that exist. Government can help to better facilitate this by encouraging greater public expressions of religious faith and different beliefs so that we can hear one another and talk to one another again.

With regard to the subject at hand, the Government of Canada's role is to uphold the Constitution and to guarantee the freedoms we bear as citizens. These freedoms are not the gift of government. They are borne by us as citizens by virtue of our humanity. In upholding freedoms such as freedom of religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, and freedom of association, the government and the courts should have a very broad understanding of these freedoms and allow them to be largely free of restrictions, except where such limits can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This is a society that must be founded upon respect for difference, even when beliefs are so different that they are seen to run counter to the prevailing narrative of the day, whatever that might be. The government should be careful to not be too prescriptive of freedoms. As well, I would say that Parliament should be careful to not be too prescriptive of freedoms either within government institutions or in the broader society, thereby imposing undue limits on freedoms.

Finally, to respect and to champion difference is to promote a deep and genuine pluralism in which disagreement—even deep disagreement—is allowed. In our disagreements with one another we must always exhibit great charity, recognizing the inherent dignity we all bear as human beings.

Let me now speak further about this deep and genuine pluralism.

A common civic life without debate and encounter between us is no civic life at all. Too often in our country these days, we either shy away from engaging our fellow citizens or we engage them in a confrontational way, often via the perceived anonymity of what I would say is the profoundly disconnected world of social media. This is emblematic of an increasingly uncommon life, and it is not sustainable.

As Aristotle asserted in his Nicomachean Ethics, the pursuit of the common good is founded upon human flourishing. This understanding of what is at the core of our social, economic, and political lives has been affirmed by many since Aristotle, including by St. Thomas Aquinas from my own Catholic tradition. I would assert that the common good of human flourishing must be the very heart of our understanding of what pluralism is.

Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, the advancement of human flourishing and the associated commitment to pluralism must be deeply rooted in the championing of human dignity above all else in our common life. I say “above all else” because this dignity comes from God.

In championing human dignity, we must not only recognize but respect that we believe different things and that we hold different views on what is most important in human life. Often these different views and beliefs are profoundly different and can cause us to feel ill at ease, or they might at times even raise our ire. So long as all that we say and do is said and done charitably, in a manner that is respectful of the other and their inherent human dignity, then we can agree to disagree. Even in that disagreement, we can encounter one another.

As a Catholic Christian, my understanding of the dignity of the human person is grounded in my belief that we are all made in the image and likeness of God. I believe that this reality was made present among us when God became man in the person of Jesus Christ, he who is fully human and fully divine, without commixture or confusion in his two natures and his two wills, one in the Holy Trinity, one God in three persons. He is the saviour and redeemer of the world.

Now, many of you here reject this view and affirm a belief that is radically different from my own. Likewise, I would reject what many of you believe, yet here we are, side by side, living in this place we call Canada, our country. Our common life together is enriched by our difference, as well as by our shared goals for this country and, please God, for each other.

In conclusion, to advance a deep and genuine pluralism, we must effect a cultural shift in this country at all levels, from Parliament on down and from local communities on up, to enable all citizens to live their religious faith and beliefs publicly, including in professions, in our universities and our schools, in our cultural institutions, and in our legislatures and public services.

I would urge honourable members of this committee to assert this in Parliament and in your deliberations on this motion. We must further our public faith. That public faith can be based on difference, the freedom to say, “I don't believe that Muhammad is the prophet”, the freedom for a Muslim to say, “I don't believe that Jesus is the son of God”. These are differences that we need to allow to exist within our society in a spirit of charity and a spirit of openness. That's what a free and democratic society is based upon.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Bennett.

I must congratulate this panel. You've all gone well under eight minutes. That's fabulous.

Mr. Doobay is next. You have 10 minutes, please.

[Dr. Budhendranauth Doobay, Chairman, Voice of Vedas Cultural Sabha]

I can take the four minutes.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Dr. Budhendranauth Doobay]

Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing me to express my views as a Hindu.

Racial discrimination and religious intolerance are inherent among all human beings. We all have discrimination. If we feel that by coming here and pretending that we are going to solve it.... We all have it. What I'm trying to say is that we must try to see how best we can work together to understand one another, see the good values of each other, and see that there is only one order. I am not calling it God; it's an order. There's an order in the universe that causes the sun to rise up in the east and go down in the west. You can call it various names. If we see that order, understand that order, we will be living happily. If we keep saying my religion is better than your religion.... All wars have been fought over religion.

In regard to our context here today, as I said, the world is not a perfect place. As an ideal, the pursuit of perfection should not be discouraged, but for practical reasons and in the context of human behaviour, such pursuits must remain in the realms of idealism. Therefore, a major plank of my presentation is that you must not forget that Canada has already advanced very far in the acknowledgement of ethnic and religious diversity and the pursuit of systemic and individual tolerance of such diversities.

Failure to overtly acknowledge the progress made in this context and to push too hard or too quickly for further accommodation risks a boomerang and the deleterious effects of push-back. Already one can see the signs of the latter among our neighbours to the south and our friends across Europe. There will always be fringe elements that will insensitively ignore the iconic Canadian progress in ethnic and religious tolerance, and while failing to be appreciative of their good fortune of being in Canada, will unduly exaggerate imagined or small incidents of intolerance as if they were back in the countries from which they have fled. This is very important.

Attitudinal and behavioural changes cannot be rushed. They stand better chances of success if they are pursued sensitively through education, discussion, and persuasion as opposed to frontal or aggressive systemic or legislative means.

If you go to where our temple is, you see that we try to involve the community. We have the Wall of Peace. If you look at the picture on the screen, besides the horrors on the top part, on the bottom you'll see Mandela. I won't say much about Aung San Suu Kyi today. We have Jesus Christ and the Om symbol from Buddhism. Down at the bottom we have Islam, Judaism, and so forth.

What I'm trying to say is that here is a place where we say that all religions are good. If you're a Muslim, be a good Muslim. If you're a Christian, be a good Christian. Live your life the way you are dictated. To do this, we should involve the community. I am a member, and the Government of Canada representative, on the Global Centre for Pluralism, of which His Highness the Aga Khan is the chairman. This is one of the tenets we are working together on. Most of you know this because of the beautiful museum that has been built here, and the one in Toronto, where he embraces this exact thing.

In terms of my personal experience when I came to Canada, I was offered a job at the University of Toronto as a vascular surgeon. I went to the professor and chair of the department. He asked me, “Did you do your residency here?” I said, “No, I was trained in England. I studied in Jamaica.” This was 30 or 40 years ago; I'm not aging myself.

“He said, “Do you know what? This job is reserved for our boys.” I took it. They told me to write against it; I said no. Then I went to McMaster. I became a professor of cardiovascular surgery there, and I had no discrimination whatsoever.

If you can do your work well, if you are not afraid of anyone, and you can project your image properly.... I'm not saying there is no discrimination. I don't want to be too racial here, but if a policeman stops a nice blonde girl and she smiles at him, most likely he will not give a ticket. All of us notice, but we will not say. If he sees a black guy, you know he'll give him a ticket. Not only that, he might bring him down to the station. All of us notice, but because we are politicians, we have to do what we have to do. These discriminations exist. It's not only Islamophobia; it's lots of phobias. Blackphobia, indigenous people—they're all suffering from the same thing, and it's because we do not reach out to the communities.

What we did was we decided we were going to do a peace garden.

In the peace garden, we have the statue of Mahatma Gandhi. Do you see this monument? This is a monument that we have erected to fallen Canadian soldiers. We bring all of Richmond Hill, all the people around there, and we show them what our ethnicity is and what our culture is. We have the statue of Gandhi, the largest statue of Gandhi in Canada, and we tell them, “This is the way of peace.” I think the way is to try to let people understand what our....

Madam Chairwoman, you'll have to give me extra time, because this thing is not working.

Anyway, we have a peace park, and in the peace park, we tell people to come and see what peace is about. We tell them to come there, learn about peace, and learn about meditation.

The basic tenets of Hinduism, which I belong to, is that you see God in all beings, not only humans, and this is why Hindus are typically vegetarians. Can you imagine all those people who are fighting against the killing of tigers? They're all vegetarians. Here you are; if you are a Christian, be a good Christian. I do not think any religion, such as Islam, promotes violence or intolerance. Therefore, if we all seriously follow our religion and culture, there should be no discrimination in thought or action.

Madam Chairwoman, in conclusion, I would like to say that although I suffered discrimination at the beginning, at this moment in Canada I do not see any discrimination at my level, or in Hinduism. There is no such thing as “Hinduphobia”. Can you imagine? When people speak about religion, they speak about Christianity, or they speak about Judaism, which is about one-thousandth of the number of Hindus, or they speak about Islam, which is a big population, but nobody talks about Hinduism. Do you ever hear Hindus object to it? We say, “Oh well, forget about them. If they don't want to speak about Hindus, then don't speak about us. We are not going to be bothered about that.” We want to assimilate people. We want to teach people together. To that effect, on November 4, we are having a Hindu day to let people come to see what Hinduism is. We invite the community; we invite members of Parliament.

One thing is that our politicians should not pander to sects of people for votes. I think one of the speakers spoke about that much earlier. We do that, and when we do that, we cause lots of intolerance for the people who are from here. If our politicians can work properly and understand that when they come and pander to one religious group, other religious groups get intolerant about this.... That's a very serious fact.

I would like to conclude, Madam Chairwoman and the rest of the committee. Thank you for having me.

I think we should let people understand their religion. We cannot come from a different country and try to enforce all our rules and regulations here. If you come to Canada, you must live like Canadians. I'm not saying we should not know our culture. Of course we should know our culture. We must know our culture and we must know our religion, but we belong to Canada. Observe the Canadian rules, do what Canadian law says, and bring people together. By bringing people together, by having more ecumenical services, by having services between all the religious groups together, which we do at our temple, we help to cement people together.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Doobay.

Go ahead, Ms. Dabrusin.

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

Thank you. Thank you all for coming and presenting your ideas. I found it really interesting.

My first question is for Mr. Bennett. I appreciate that you were coming to this with your experience as a senior fellow and your experience at the Office of Religious Freedom. As part of the study, we're trying to find some concrete recommendations to make. I'm interested in what you identified as a need for deep and genuine pluralism. You said that social media doesn't help and it's not part of the answer, but you also referred to a need to understand pluralism.

I'll put this in context. We've been presented with Ontario's anti-racism strategic plan and we've seen some recommendations from the United Nations following that same route. How do you see those two dovetailing with what you're discussing—a need for deep and genuine pluralism? How would that fit in an anti-racism strategic plan or a national action plan on racism and discrimination?

[Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett]

I'm not familiar with the two documents that you cite. Generally, however, elaborating on the idea of a deep and genuine pluralism, I would say that for a long time in our country we have privatized expressions of religious belief and that this privatization has led to an amnesia whereby we forget that people who are religious live their religion completely. They can't separate it publicly and privately. When you privatize religious belief, it leads some people of deep religious faith to feel that they're not full citizens. We can't have that.

We need to have a pluralism in which people of religious belief can live that belief publicly. That means that there will be some friction, some sharp edges, because people will disagree with one another, but we need to facilitate that disagreement, to a point. If people are openly advocating violence against other people, then that's not acceptable, but we need to ensure that there is a robust discourse within our society at all levels.

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

I'm looking at the recommendations from the United Nations. One recommendation was that Canada develop and launch a new national action plan against racism. I know you're not talking just about racism when you're talking about pluralism. If you were looking at a recommendation for us to put forward to the government, how would government fit into this idea of a deep and genuine pluralism?