Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 25th, 2017

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

Good. Thank you.

Mr. Rousseau, I'm wondering if you can give us your definition of “Islamophobia”. Your organization has spoken out about it fairly often and insisted that we support the motion. Do you have a definition that we can use?

[Larry Rousseau]

I think we should stay away from talking about definitions. Islamophobia is a very simple term. The Greek part is “phobia”. It means fear. Islam...I think everybody gets that. Anything that is against Islam, that is anti-Islam, is Islamophobia. If anybody's using that to justify any kind of action, whether it is against or for policies, etc., then that is what it is. I really think we have a problem when people are going to start saying one thing is Islamophobia, but another doesn't fall under it.

If we were to talk about homophobia, for example, or any discrimination that we have the terms for, it's the people who are impacted by the actions of a majority or of another group who are the ones who know what it is.

As far as coming out with a definition for Islamophobia, I would stay away from that because it should be very wide-ranging and it shouldn't forgive anything.

Look, if you're going to do anything that denigrates—actually oppresses or suppresses a group, namely people who are Muslim—then it is Islamophobia.

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

That's interesting, because we've had witnesses who have said basically that because it means everything to some people, then it doesn't mean anything, and we should throw the term out.

[Larry Rousseau]

Well, I don't think we should really get into that kind of a debate, because who does it profit to say we're going to simply throw it out because it says everything?

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

In this case, it was Muslims who were saying it profits them to throw it out. I don't know what your reaction is to that idea, but that's where it was coming from—people within that community saying this definition just doesn't work. They said we should just throw it out and go with some other things.

[Larry Rousseau]

Well, then, I repeat, you're saying “this definition”. Someone tried to define it, and that's where you're getting into the problem. Stop trying to define what it is, because then you get into a debate in which all of a sudden some people can say it's nothing.

If anyone who is a Muslim finds that an action is against them as a Muslim, that should define or at least characterize what it is. Islamophobia means anything that will hurt, denigrate, etc., just as any other group would see it if it was a different group.

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

You carried it, then, as far as perception, so if someone is perceiving that something's happened, then you would consider that to be Islamophobia as well.

[Larry Rousseau]

Let me talk about harassment and discrimination.

One of the fundamental notions of harassment is this: it is not the person who is doing the harassing, but the person who has been impacted by the harassment. If someone says it's Islamophobia and they feel they have been discriminated against, then that's what you should use.

Otherwise, as soon as you start to get into that, you get into problems.

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

Should people be allowed, then, to hold views that are disagreeable to others? Whether they're religious or not, everyone holds a set of beliefs that are very different. People have reason, they feel, to criticize others and dislike them, or to feel they're different from them. What are you saying in terms of this situation, then? Should people not be allowed to do that, or can we have those deep differences and discuss them and feel that deep difference? How do we deal with this?

It's not just religious communities; it's secular understanding. In reality, various religious communities all have very deep understandings, and they differ.

[Larry Rousseau]

The word is quite simple. It's respect. As long as it's respectful, you can have those debates and those criticisms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Kwan is next, for the NDP.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I thank all of our witnesses for their very thoughtful presentations today for our committee.

Let me direct my first question to Dr. Blackstock, and first say an enormous thank you to you for your lifelong dedication to the important issue of addressing systemic discrimination, and particularly to upholding the rights of indigenous children.

I want to touch on this issue around the systemic impact of discrimination for indigenous children. So often, the issue ties into poverty. People live in poverty because of that trauma over the years, and then there's fallout from that. That's what we're seeing to a large degree—the intergenerational impact.

I wonder if you can elaborate for us on that aspect of it, in terms of direct government actions in addition to the recommendations that you've put forward.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I think one of the things that we need to keep in mind is that these are little kids who at every turn of their lives are getting less of an opportunity to succeed and be healthy. They don't know that people in Ottawa are making a decision that they get less; they just know that life is really hard for them, and when they go on the Internet they see other youth doing quite well.

Then there's the Canadian public, who often don't know any better, and who judge them and their communities as if they get more than everybody else, not less. What happens to these children and these youth is that they start to internalize that and feel they aren't worth it, that they aren't smart, that they'll never go anywhere. That's why we see the high correlation between inequity and youth suicide, why we see the high correlation between inequity and child health issues, inequity and juvenile justice, and the inequity in child welfare.

The symptoms are profound when you disrupt equal opportunity for children. That's why that Spirit Bear plan is so essential. It's because we have to know what all these inequalities are, because in 2017 we cannot be a society that accepts racial discrimination as government policy toward children at any level, yet we are accepting it. Let's make that clear: we are accepting that we are giving first nations kids less funding for education, less funding for child welfare. Once we do that, we normalize it, and it's easy to perpetuate it. We need to say there's no acceptable level of racial discrimination against children, first nations children or any other children, in public policy in the Canadian government.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

For the benefit of this committee, I wonder if you could table the Spirit Bear plan for us in its detail, so we can have that information for our consideration.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

I don't have it with me, but I can certainly submit it.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

That would be fantastic. Thank you.

I'd like to touch on this in terms of child welfare. A very good friend of mine recently told me she was presented with a scenario of a child coming to school looking dishevelled and dirty, and people thought there were some issues. Immediately, child welfare was brought in. The immediate reaction was to say, “We have to apprehend.” My friend then said, “Let's first take a look at the situation and see what's going on.” They investigated the situation and, lo and behold, what did they find? They found that in the home of the child the plumbing system was broken and they did not have the resources to fix it. That's why the child's hair looked dirty, and so on. Then my friend said to her staff, “How can we address this? Can we not provide the resources, as the ministry, to this family to fix the plumbing?” People said, “Oh, no, no, we can't do that.” Then she said, “Yes, we can”, and so she did. They provided $1,000 to fix the plumbing, and all is well. This family got on and no child was apprehended.

I put this out as an example of what is wrong with our child welfare system in addressing the systemic issues, which are intergenerational, but also with our societal issues of where we spend our resources, how we spend our resources to fix the problem, and instead of breaking up a family, how we can actually not do that for the benefit of the family. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that if you follow that trajectory, there will be savings to the taxpayers.

I offer that, and I wonder whether that would be a wise move in terms of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have two minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

—an approach that we should undertake for our child welfare system across this country.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

That's why I was talking about the importance of the Spirit Bear plan in getting at the structural drivers, and just in general in child welfare. I'd like to see that reflection on the definition of “neglect”, because it implies that the parent is the one doing all of the neglecting, when in some cases it's not; it's societal public policy that's neglectful.

I believe in holding caregivers' feet to the fire for things they can change, but it's not fair and it's not just to hold their feet to the fire for things they can't change. Think about all the first nations families out there. One in six first nations is on a boil-water advisory.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

I only have a little time left, so I want to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one minute.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

My colleague, Romeo Saganash, has tabled a bill, Bill C-262, An Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I think people know about this bill. I want a quick answer, yes or no, from everybody around the table as to whether or not the CLC supports it, and also from yourself, Dr. Cindy Blackstock.

[Dr. Cindy Blackstock]

Yes, we support it.

[Larry Rousseau]

We do too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That was quick.

Thank you. You did very well.

Next is Julie Dzerowicz, from the Liberals.