Canadian Heritage Committee on Oct. 30th, 2017

[Robert Kuhn]

It's again a balancing act, but the law is quite definitive in terms of “going too far” being hate speech. However, freedom of speech, as we've heard one of the other witnesses testify, must be protected at a significant level. It's a balancing of those concerns.

My concern relates more to the systemic, where the balancing never takes place because the idea of religious freedom, of religious discrimination, is not taken into account in creating this hierarchy of moral values, be they societal or otherwise—a majoritarian opinion.

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

Mr. Warawa has a question.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

I have a quick question. Thank you, Chair and guests.

President Kuhn, you have some very powerful opposition to the law school you are proposing at Trinity Western. You have the three law societies. You even have CIBC, one of the biggest banks in Canada.

Do you believe that the diversity of Canada should include Trinity, and do you believe it's just Trinity that they are after, or is it basically religious freedom?

[Robert Kuhn]

It's my view that the balancing needs to occur not just at the government level where it's protected to some extent by laws in place.... I mean, legal alternatives are only one way in which society can deal with its conflicts between a religious organization or a religious view and societal standards.

However, there are many other people, including societies or organizations that govern the affairs of religious organizations indirectly or directly, for instance, a bank or other corporate institution, and have the potential to exclude them from the table of pluralism. They have the potential to eliminate their voice, to push to the margins those who have religious views that may be not in accordance with the majority as expressed through a variety of means, such as you mentioned.

We're very much in that direction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Kuhn.

We'll now go to Jenny Kwan, for the New Democrats.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the speakers on the panel today.

I'd like to first start by making a clarification. This comes up almost regularly at these committee meetings, that somehow, because the word “Islamophobia” is mentioned in this motion, all we are dealing with is the issue of Islamophobia. Of course, that is not true. The motion explicitly states “Islamophobia and all forms of...discrimination”.

I want to put that on the record, so that we're clear on what we're talking about and what we're studying here.

I'd like to ask my question to Mr. Mirakian. I appreciated your comments, particularly when you indicated there is an expansion of your organization's work in dealing with issues around human rights for all the different groups. To that end, in this country, we used to have a national action plan with respect to dealing with the issue of racism. We don't have that anymore.

I wonder if you can comment on whether or not, for this study, at this point in our history, it is important for us to bring back such a national plan. If so, what are the components that you would say the government ought to focus on as priorities?

[Shahen Mirakian]

I'm not sure I'm necessarily the authority to speak on behalf of my organization on that specific matter of policy, but I will say that one of the most important ways in which we protect human rights and recognize human rights is when they become priorities for government. When something is not a priority of the government, it's very hard to scream into the void and make your voice heard if you're not getting any response or assistance from the government on these topics.

One of the most fundamental points is that our groups work to try to make things priorities of the government, not because we somehow think that this is important to us particularly, in that we'll somehow achieve a personal benefit from it, but because it benefits all Canadians when the government sets priorities that are important to all Canadians.

For instance, combatting racism, systemic religious discrimination, or any other violation of human rights across the board, these are important things that governments should demonstrate matter to them. Whether or not that involves the large spending of money on national action plans, I can't say, or certainly I can't take an organizational view on—I have my personal views on the topic—but I think that we need to make it a priority for the government, especially at the federal level, that these things matter.

For most Canadians, when something becomes a federal issue—and this is something that can be a federal issue, the charter certainly falls within the federal jurisdiction—it's something that people take as a priority among themselves as well.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you.

You indicate that it is important for the government to take it seriously, and I would agree with that as well. In terms of what kind of action the government should take, I ask this question, just to get a sense from people. How can the government indicate that they are taking this seriously? I would argue that moving forward on a national action plan would be one way, and that would be on both racism and also religious discrimination. In fact, I would argue it should be on all forms of discrimination.

We used to have a minister of multiculturalism in this country, but that is no longer the case. From that perspective, would that be a way for the government to indicate that this is a priority and to address the issue of discrimination that we're seeing today in our communities, by bringing back a ministry of multiculturalism?

[Shahen Mirakian]

It's important that all ministries and all government agencies recognize that Canada is diverse. We recognize, certainly, that we have diversity in gender and things of that sort because it is 2016, or whatever.

Similarly, I think it's important to recognize that Canada is a culturally diverse place that has, not only our founding peoples and the indigenous peoples—our first nations—but also groups that have arrived in Canada, often at the same time as the founding peoples, who have their own cultural backgrounds.

One of the things that I would recommend, and something I can speak to, is that we often hear about red tape reduction acts, where the government goes through a lot of legislation and tries to take out things that are outdated or regulations that are wrong. I think we need to have a multiculturalism or a systemic discrimination reduction act one day. We need to go through all of our legislation and remove those pieces that are leftovers of a different time, or that don't properly recognize cultural communities. I think this is a great first step, rather than waiting for dozens and dozens of charter challenges to try to fix things, or having advocacy organizations knocking on our door.

If we were to set up a committee that were to go through, carefully, some of the legislation and policies that we have in place—and some of the mandates of agencies—and try to address some of the roots of systemic discrimination, we would be proactive in getting ahead of the problem. I think that would make a real difference to people as well. It wouldn't be nearly as expensive.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I think it is important to be sure to look at previous or past legislation through that lens. In fact, in B.C. we did that, or the opposition did that, particularly on the question of discrimination targeted at the Chinese Canadian community in advance of our making the apology. We actually came back with volumes of material indicating discriminatory policies and laws that were enacted in B.C. I would agree with that point.

To bring it further, should the government then be putting all future policy through that lens as well?

[Shahen Mirakian]

Absolutely. I couldn't agree more.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We now go to Arif Virani, for the Liberals.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a few questions for various witnesses. I'll start with Mr. Mirakian.

Thank you very much for your testimony. As a person who previously worked with Minister McCallum on the refugee resettlement, thank you specifically to the Armenian-Canadian community for its extensive efforts in assisting with the refugee resettlement over the past couple of years.

In terms of community capacity building, I want to pick up a bit where Ms. Kwan was with you. We've heard a lot about this in the context of this committee's study. We heard about the fact that Canadian Heritage at one time in the past did actually fund community capacity building, community development, for individual communities unto themselves.

Can you flesh out a bit for the committee why you think this would be useful, specifically for the newer communities and newcomer communities that are less established right now in Canada?

[Shahen Mirakian]

Sure. Again, I don't want to make it seem like funding is the solution to every problem, but certainly government has tools that it can offer to communities to create capacity for those communities to set themselves up and organize themselves as more than just organizations that are organized to preserve their own culture. That is to say, government has to be one of the drivers—whether it's through financial means, through mentorship, or through providing assistance—to create tools for these communities to advocate for their interests with the broader Canadian public and to involve themselves in Canadian society on a multiplicity of issues.

To be honest with you, the Armenian community has been established in Canada for over 100 years, and only recently have we moved on from being able to advocate solely for our own interests to being able to advocate for the interests of the broader Canadian public on a multiplicity of issues. That maturity did not come about overnight. It came about through working on issues, for instance the Canadian Museum for Human Rights and things of that sort, where we were involved and obtained mentorship from other communities, working together with other groups.

I think government can jump-start that process by providing the capacity and the tools to do that. One example I would give is that having a permanent employee for a community—or even a part-time employee—can make all the difference sometimes, as opposed to its being just volunteer-based. That's something that a government grant, for instance, can make a huge change to, if a community is a newcomer community and people are struggling to integrate with Canadian society and don't necessarily have the funding. That's just one suggestion.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Kuhn, I'd like to turn to you. Thank you for being here, and thank you for your testimony.

I'll say this from the perspective of a person who represents a riding in downtown Toronto, Parkdale—High Park. The concerns that get expressed to me about your institution are geared not so much toward religious discrimination as you perceive it, but rather specifically toward the covenant itself. Those concerns were expressed to me by United Church-goers in my riding, who say they are all in favour of Christianity being protected in the same way that any other religion should be protected, but it's the covenant itself and how it connects to the fact that you would be producing law graduates who would be entering the domain, passing the bar in constitutional law or human rights law, and receiving clients of different faiths, backgrounds, and sexual orientation, and how exactly that would work.

That being said, I just want to clarify a couple of things. In your recommendations, you said you believe that, in consultation with religious groups, there needs to be a better understanding of what religious groups are all about and how to accommodate them. Did I get that right?

[Robert Kuhn]

Yes.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Would that apply to all religious groups?

[Robert Kuhn]

Yes.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

We also heard testimony during these committee hearings from different groups talking about the need for interfaith dialogue, particularly when we look at the rise of hate crimes against religious groups, specifically Jews and Muslims right now. Interfaith dialogue could be a way of building up dialogue and understanding among groups. Do you think that makes sense?

[Robert Kuhn]

Yes. I advocate for that in the brief that I submitted.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Okay.

I have about three minutes and 40 seconds, maybe two minutes and 40 seconds, so I'll turn to Mr. Jasser.

Mr. Jasser, like Ms. Kwan, I just wanted to clarify a few things that relate to some of your submissions. Then if we can have a comment at the end, that would be terrific.

I'll again confess to you, as somebody who has sat here for the last eight weeks hearing from witnesses, that it strikes me as a little odd to indicate that this motion and the committee study we're now doing somehow prevents freedom of expression and free speech, when we are entertaining witnesses from all aspects of the spectrum who, themselves, are participating in a wide and robust dialogue here and challenging a lot of the notions we are presenting. From our perspective, the study is encouraging speech rather than chilling it.

You mentioned Ms. Raza as somebody who shares your view of the world, so to speak, in terms of somebody you've collaborated with. Ms. Raza is demonstrated to be somebody who continues to participate in certain social media forums and certain platforms, such as the TheRebel.media, an entity that has been eschewed by the leader of the official opposition, yet she maintains that as a platform. That platform has been identified by other witnesses in this committee as a divisive platform.

You said that you struggle with the idea of what is Islamophobic. I will say to you that I personally feel we spent a lot of time on this issue of the terminology as opposed to addressing the root cause of the problem. We've heard from a number of people—and I say this to you as a Muslim member of Parliament—that no one feels that we should be having a problem with questioning the tenets of a faith, the same way I could question the tenets of the Hindu faith. If people—

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

How much time is left, Madam Chair?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

There are 54 seconds left, Mr. Reid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, I will be giving you the seconds. You have less than one minute left.

I was just about to tell you, but I was interrupted.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

In the same way that people have the ability to question the tenets of the Hindu faith, people have the ability to question the tenets of the Islamic faith, but when it descends into insults, threats, or even violence or a mosque shooting, that is what most people consider to be Islamophobic.

The point you raised about petition e-411 I found particularly offensive—I'll be candid with you—because 70,000 Canadians signed that petition, and you compared it to the theocratic gestures you found in other parts of the world. I think most Canadians would find that quite offensive, sir. The fact that the petition received unanimous consent to be tabled in Parliament means that I think most parliamentarians would find that offensive.

I would reiterate the fact that Ms. Kwan raised on what we are studying here. We are not targeting just one religion, although religions have been targeted in the past with previous motions, such as when we identified the Copts in need of particular protection, anti-Semitism in need of particular identification, and discrimination against the Yazidis.

What we were doing was also studying indigenous, anti-black, and anti-Jewish discrimination, which is, I think, an important part of this study.