Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 1st, 2017

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for being with us today.

Mr. Hutchinson, you mentioned that we really should be focused on the mistreatment of people rather than on the consideration of the religions. I think that's been the concern of most of us right from the beginning. That was one of the reasons we made the amendment in the House that we did.

I want to come back to your written submission. You mention Islamophobia, and basically, because this was a central issue around the motion, I would just like to have a comment on what you said. “I set aside comment on the use of the etymologically uncertain and self-applicationally expansive, and thus not properly definable, term Islamophobia”.

I'm just wondering if you could explain that a little bit more. Fill that in a little more for us. What were you saying when you said that?

[Don Hutchinson]

The expression deals with the use of the term “Islamophobia”. It's defined differently by different groups and by different individuals. Usually when it's presented, the definition in the mind of the presenter may not align with the definition in the mind of the recipient. It's become a hugely problematic word that deals with a fear of a religious community. If you look at it etymologically, it has somehow been twisted into dealing with a race when, as I've said, Muslims are from a variety of races, as are people in other religious communities.

That's the great concern with the etymology of the word. I think substituting “anti-Muslim behaviour” or “anti-religious behaviour directed towards Muslims”, would be a more appropriate term of reference.

Even in regard to the Jewish community, anti-Semitism has come to mean both religious and racial discrimination, but it would be much better to talk about anti-Semitism racially, as it's most often used, and anti-Judaism in the religious context.

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

We have not had a lot of testimony about Bill C-51 and clause 14. Now, you reference that.

Can you just give us a little more information about what you're talking about there? Bill C-51 has come before the House. I think it's at the justice committee right now.

Could you just reference your concerns about what's going on there?

[Don Hutchinson]

Over the last half a century plus, the Supreme Court of Canada has given a definition to clergy that is broad and expansive. It includes imams, rabbis, and people in religious traditions that do not have titles for their leadership, such as the Brethren. It started actually with the Jehovah’s Witnesses challenging conscription during the Second World War. The men were recognized as religious leaders, and then they had elders. The Supreme Court of Canada has developed this broad and expansive definition.

In the Gruenke case, clergy-parishioner communications were redefined to be religious communications, so that it could apply in religious communities. In the reference re same-sex marriage, the concept used by the Supreme Court of Canada was religious officials and religious officiants. Amending section 176 to “religious officials”, or “religious officiants” would solve the problem, as would leaving it as is and working with the fact that the courts have already defined “clergy” to be more broad.

The reality is that the other sections of the Criminal Code that were referenced in an email I received from a member of cabinet don't fully cover the disruption of religious rights and ceremonies. Some of the penalties are quite strong and really should not be exercised as an indictable offence except in indictable situations. I'll stop there.

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

One other thing you mentioned that we haven't heard much about was the Office of Religious Freedom. You were involved with its establishment. Why do you think it needs to be re-established? What is the importance of that?

[Don Hutchinson]

The global arena engages both what I refer to as religious literacy—understanding the religion of leaders in another country—and political theology, in that a number of countries are majority communities of one religion; Myanmar is majority Buddhist, and Iran is majority Muslim. The religious community has a significant influence on the governance structure of the nation.

I participated in briefings with the former ambassador of the office with members from the Department of Foreign Affairs, and I will say that I was shocked at the disinterest in understanding the religious realities of the world we live in, and the ideological realities of dealing, for example, with Communist China, or with Russia or North Korea. The ideologies are themselves a religiously structured mechanism for oversight and control in those nations.

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

You're saying we need an office like that in order to understand that.

[Don Hutchinson]

A dedicated office rather than an office that has multiple responsibilities would serve better, because the current office has responsibilities that overlap and are at times in contradiction with one another. I would go a step further and suggest that in addition to an office of religious freedom, the primary concerns of any government in regard to human rights matters should be to have independent offices, staffed with people who specialize in those areas, to inform our department of Global Affairs.

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

I want to ask you one more question, because I think that's all we have time for. I would like you to summarize the thesis of your book—I know you have it here—and just tell us a little about where you see religious freedom going in the future in Canada.

[Don Hutchinson]

The book is Under Siege: Religious Freedom and the Church in Canada at 150 (1867-2017), and I know several members of Parliament have copies—somewhere in the neighbourhood of four to six dozen. I have some with me. They're for sale because everybody else already bought theirs. I'd give them to you for free, but I like to treat people equally.

The premise of the book is to take a look at where we've come from and where we can head. We need to understand that we actually have great religious freedom in this country, but what's missing is the promotion component. The media's not interested in telling us good news about our freedoms. Parliament and the legislatures are in the ideal position to give greater promotion to our freedoms as parliamentarians engage with the public and with religious bodies.

I was really excited today to see in the Prime Minister's announcement in regard to matching funds for Myanmar, that we're back to where we were until about 18 months ago, where World Relief and World Vision are back included with the group that includes the Red Cross and others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I think we've gone well over time, 38 seconds over seven minutes.

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

Would you ask the gentleman if he could give us a copy of the book to be considered as testimony for our deliberations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Hutchinson, could you give a copy of the book to the clerk for the committee to use as testimony?

[Don Hutchinson]

I certainly can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

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

I apologize, Madam Chair. I have a point of order.

It's just this. I don't know if Mr. Hutchinson gave us a written copy of his presentation. He made references to several court cases, some of which would be hard to follow. I'm wondering if he could give our analyst the names, if he hasn't done so.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think he sent it. He said he had sent it.

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

Thanks.

[Don Hutchinson]

The Whatcott case is actually in footnote number 30.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We are moving well into other people's time.

Next is Ms. Hardcastle for the New Democrats.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I am privileged to be here today.

Mr. Roach, I was really intrigued when you were discussing the ideal that in order for us to move forward with a meaningful plan for truth and reconciliation, we have to face the truth. There is a direct relationship in collecting data in order to face the truth.

You talked a bit about a protocol that you have in your work environment and how it includes the police. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on how we should be moving forward with data collection. We've heard witnesses address data collection, and I know in having discussions, and even dealing with truth and reconciliation aspects, that we have some shortcomings in how we deal with data collection. I'd like to hear a little about your experience on that.

Basically, if you feel like your brain is exploding and you want to take up all of my time, go ahead.

[Cecil Roach]

As far as hate crimes and hate acts are concerned, I think data collection is critically important. Currently, the onus is on our law enforcement agencies to collect the data, and most of the data we have actually comes from law enforcement.

In dealing with our indigenous student population, the whole issue of data collection is a bit of an interesting one. In school boards in Ontario, we ask them to self-identify, but we know what self-identification has meant for them historically. We also have to recognize that this is the reality. Having indigenous Canadians identify themselves as who they are is going to take some time, and I think part of the time is for us to actually face the truth of the history of our relationship with them.

I know that many boards are afraid of collecting so-called race-based data—I call it demographic data—but boards are now moving to that. In fact, the Government of Ontario is requiring school boards to collect demographic data. We are one board that's in the process of collecting such data. We had started down that path, but unfortunately that was somewhat held in abeyance for a while.

We need to know how we are doing. We need to know how identifiable groups of students are doing. I know folks like to say that all students are the same, but we know that the benefits the students are getting from the education system are not the same. Until we can actually say that, it doesn't make sense for us to say that all students are the same.

I always find it interesting, for example, when we talk about the data of religious freedom and so on, and I consider Don a good friend because I was his daughter's principal.

Does freedom, for example, exclude LGBTQ folks from the kinds of services that we know they are legally entitled to as Canadians? What does that actually mean? I would just worry and hope that this is not the path we're heading down.

To summarize, I think data is the way to go. We need as much data as possible, data that's disaggregated and that we can look to in order to determine how we are doing, what kinds of services we need to offer, where our resources need to be allocated, and so on.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Do you think we should be tapping into NGOs to provide this, or is there some kind of direction we should be changing in how we do things at government levels as well to mandate it?

[Cecil Roach]

I would recommend that we work with our law enforcement agencies. Folks have obligations to report these things to law enforcement agencies. We also know that there are a lot of hate crimes that are unreported. Just from my experience in working with colleagues, they tell me about things they didn't bother to report. They just figure out strategies for their kids to manage it.

Let's work with our law enforcement agencies to figure out how we can collect data, particularly in the area of hate crimes, religious discrimination incidents, and so on.

[Cheryl Hardcastle, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Roach, you know that in 2005 we had a national action plan against racism, and it reached the end of its mandate in 2005. I'm not sure how familiar you are with that and if you have any thoughts on—