Canadian Heritage Committee on Nov. 6th, 2017

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Welcome, everybody.

I'm Peter Van Loan. I'm not normally the chair of this committee; however, Hedy Fry, the chair, is not here, so as vice-chair, I will be sitting in.

Due to the earlier proceedings in the House, we will be somewhat abbreviated, starting now at four o'clock instead of 3:30. That gives us an hour and a half, so we will go through two 45-minute segments. The witnesses will have 10 minutes, and then we'll go through the rounds of questions.

We'll get right into it. In our first panel we have, from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Bruce Clemenger and Julia Beazley.

From the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, we have Frank Huang.

I will start with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.

Go ahead, please.

[Bruce Clemenger, President, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to participate in this study on systemic racism and religious discrimination.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada is a national association of evangelical Christians, which was established in 1964 to provide a national forum for leaders of churches and institutions for Canada's four million evangelicals and to be a constructive voice for biblical principles and life in society.

Evangelicals are one of the most ethnically diverse religious communities in Canada, and while some of our community members experience the intersection of racism and religious discrimination, our submission to the committee will focus on religious discrimination.

Rarely does a parliamentary committee address issues of religion, and we suggest there should be more opportunity to engage in such conversations. This committee's study is particularly significant for this reason, and because all freedoms thrive when religious freedom thrives and is respected and protected, this study is important.

Canada is a nation of deep religious pluralism and of deep differences. This is a strength and a challenge, so part of the importance of the study is to examine how we foster a society of tolerance and respect, and work together to build a society in which freedom and justice flourish. This study is also critical in light of an increasing anti-religious climate in Canada. This climate includes a devaluing, misunderstanding, and increasing fear of religion and a belief that religion should be privatized and kept out of the public square.

Anti-religious sentiment, misinformation, and misunderstanding lead to marginalization and discrimination. This discrimination is manifest in disturbing attacks and incidents directed at religious communities, such as the horrific attack against Muslims earlier this year, in the rising percentage of hate crimes motivated by hatred of religion, and also in more subtle ways that marginalize and discriminate. Given the rise in hate crimes against the Muslim community, it's appropriate that a special focus be given to the protection of this community.

In Canada evangelicals are less often the target of hate crimes than are other religious groups. This may be in part because evangelicals don't tend to be visibly distinctive. Our faith and our practice do not mandate the wearing of particular religious symbols or clothing, yet evangelicals are more supportive of the wearing of religious symbols and clothing than are most Canadians. We do, however, experience anti-religious sentiment and underlying religious discrimination in response to our beliefs and practices.

I, as an evangelical, know that my beliefs are blasphemy or heresy to some and utter nonsense to others. When others denigrate my beliefs or swear using the name of Jesus, who is my Lord, it hurts, yet I'm also commanded to turn the other cheek, to love my enemies, and to go the extra mile. Love includes rebuke, but only if done with love and not hate.

There is, however, a vulnerability if power and influence are tied to the ability to shame and belittle. Whatever the nature of the marginalization, the discrimination, or the motivations of hatred, how the government responds to this trend and the tone it sets is important.

More detailed comments can be found in our brief. We'd like to spend our remaining time here outlining some of our recommendations. We have four high-level recommendations, each with several sub-recommendations.

[Julia Beazley, Director, Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada]

Our first recommendation for a whole-of-government approach is to take religious differences seriously. There are a number of ways to do this.

Study systemic racism and religious discrimination independently, and study their intersectionality. Race, religion, and culture are distinct, and yet they overlap. It is important to understand them discretely as well as how they intersect.

The government should make a sustained and transparent commitment to freedom of religion and to upholding it specifically rather than letting it be subsumed under the more general category of human rights.

Allow religious groups and religious adherents to hold their beliefs and to practise their faith without marginalization or penalty for doing so. This is a charter guarantee, but it is fleshed out in legislation, regulations, and policy. There will be pressure for governments to withhold services or benefits from individuals or organizations who dissent from common beliefs or who are out of step with mainstream attitudes. The government's task is to ensure that all are treated fairly and equitably. We need to have a robust conversation in Canada about whether government or government agencies should penalize individuals or institutions for beliefs or practices that are otherwise legal. Examples would include the ongoing debate over accreditation of Trinity Western's law school and over the wearing of the niqab in Quebec.

We shouldn't minimize differences of religious belief, because significant differences do exist. When we work together as multi-faith groups on issues of common concern, we each approach the initiative out of our own religious perspective. We find consensus for collaborative action drawn from the resources of our respective faiths. Tolerance and respect, for example, for evangelicals are not secular values. They are principles taught by our faith. This is true of other faiths as well.

Allow faith groups to bring their perspective to bear in public debate. This is an important part of what it means to be a free and democratic society. Government should not compel or coerce Canadians to act against their beliefs or to celebrate beliefs that are counter to their faith. We recommend that robust conscience protection be legislated so that no one is forced to act against their conscience or deeply held beliefs.

Pursue legislation that protects religious belief and practice. One example of legislation that provides this kind of protection is section 176 of the Criminal Code. This section should not be deleted, as Bill C-51 proposes, but rather maintained and amended to clearly protect all faith groups.

Second, a whole-of-government approach means engaging with religious groups directly. We encourage you, as parliamentarians, to make an effort to engage with faith communities directly and to listen to their perspective. You will find many points of consensus, and on many issues you will find them to be co-labourers. Consider establishing a forum for dialogue and co-operation to help foster relationships, improve co-operation, and dispel the stereotypes that cause misunderstandings. This might take the form of an annual dialogue between parliamentarians, ministers, and faith leaders, or establishing a multi-faith advisory group or council.

Encourage departments and ministers to seek advice and input on areas that intersect with religious beliefs in Canada from the faith groups who are involved in the policy arena. Recognize the breadth of these overlapping spheres of engagement, for example, caring for seniors, child and youth advocacy, refugee settlement, and caring for those experiencing poverty or homelessness, just to name a few. People who regularly attend religious services tend to be more generous in time and money to charitable causes. Regular worship service attendees are the backbone of charitable service. One task of a multi-faith council could be to advise on a range of issues.

Party leaders and representatives of government must model and promote respect. It is inappropriate to belittle or deride the beliefs of others. They should regularly meet with representatives of faith communities to help foster greater understanding and respect.

[Bruce Clemenger]

Third, a whole-of-government approach protects free and informed dialogue. Parliament should find ways to initiate a sustained conversation on differences and accommodation in a pluralist society. Parliament should affirm a robust commitment to freedom of speech. Deep pluralism can be messy. It challenges each of us, and we need to find ways to foster and model civility.

Don't silence critique. You have already heard significant concerns that the term “Islamophobia” moves beyond the protection of people to preclude critique of the teaching of religious doctrine and ideas. Religious freedom in Canada protects the freedom of individuals and groups to believe and to express those beliefs. It does not protect the beliefs themselves. You have heard of some jurisdictions that use the language of anti-indigenous hate, anti-black hate, and anti-Semitism. We recommend that you use the language of anti-Muslim hatred to address incidents against people of Muslim faith.

Given the use of the term Islamophobia in M-103 and in public discourse, the committee should define it clearly and narrowly, but we do not recommend its use for the whole of government. We reference in our brief some examples of clear and careful definitions of anti-Semitism.

Finally, collect data consistently and uniformly. Develop uniform national standards on collecting, categorizing, and reporting hate crime data to help ensure consistency across the country. This would provide a consistent body of information to inform dialogue and policy-making. Statistics Canada and other government departments should consult with faith communities in developing data collection. Likewise, faith communities need to be more aware of definitions and reporting protocols.

Recognize the benefits and relevance of religion to public life. Study its impact. Do not treat religions as irrelevant to or separable from public life. Collect data on the impact of religion and the social participation of those who are religious.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Thank you very much.

We will now turn to the National Congress of Chinese Canadians.

Mr. Huang, you have 10 minutes.

[Frank Huang, National Secretary-General, National Congress of Chinese Canadians]

Honourable Chair and all members of the committee, good afternoon. Thank you so much for inviting me to appear before the committee.

My name is Frank Huang. I'm the national secretary-general of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians. I have been working in ethnic media since I immigrated to Canada in 2001. I used to work with Radio Canada International as a correspondent. I worked with the Global Chinese Press as an editor-in-chief, and I was a founder of New Leaf Media Inc. and the Canada Today Media Group. I'm also a commentator for Fairchild TV, OMNI TV, and Fairchild Radio. In 2005 I was one of the recipients of the Jack Webster Awards. I'm now the principal of D & H College as well as director for the Asian Art Museum of Greater Vancouver.

Thanks to the Canadian multicultural policy, as an immigrant I'm proud of our heritage in Canada. In our new home, we can feel free to speak our mother tongue even before the committee here in the House of Commons.

Next, I would like to speak in Mandarin, as a witness in the committee.

[Witness speaks in Mandarin with Interpretation, as follows:]

Mr. Chair, all members of the committee, today the topic of discussion is systemic racism and religious discrimination. Although Canada is one of the strongest countries in the world in pursuing racial harmony and religious equality, in reality there are many cases of racism and religious discrimination. Some of them are explicit, but more are implicit. I believe one root cause is that people of different religions lack understanding and awareness of other religions, so they have prejudices and biases deep in their hearts. I would like to give a few examples based on my own experience.

First is my own example. Many years ago, when I was studying in Europe, one day I saw a black guy and a white girl kissing in a Paris subway. At that time I felt really uncomfortable. I had always believed in racial equality and I don't think I have any discrimination for any people, but why did I feel so uncomfortable? After some soul searching, I found that actually deep in my heart I had some implicit discrimination against certain races. Maybe I wasn't even aware of that, but I think the reason is that I didn't know much about people of African origin. I never had the opportunity to interact with them. Later on, in my college there were lots of black people, so I had the opportunity to work with them and do projects with them, and I got to know them much better. Now when I see such a situation, I don't feel any discomfort anymore.

The second example is in Vancouver. At D & H College where I work, there is a TESOL certificate course for training English teachers. Last year we trained a batch of Chinese teachers. For their internship we arranged for them to teach basic English to Syrian refugees arriving in Canada. In the beginning, the Chinese teachers and staff at the college had some reservations and hesitations. In the first few days they felt very scared, particularly some of the young female teachers, when facing Muslim adults on their own. However, as the course went on, the Chinese teachers and Syrian refugees quickly got to know more about each other, and some of them even became friends. In the classroom there was no tension anymore, but lots of joy and laughter. Quickly, the Chinese teachers and the Muslim students became a tight group. Even upon graduation, some of them felt that they didn't want to leave each other.

This example told us that in the Chinese community there are indeed some sentiments of terror toward the Muslim community, but this kind of sentiment is due to a lack of understanding. Once they get to know each other, it's gone. So the two sides can actually learn from each other and coexist in harmony.

Of course, in the Chinese community there is indeed implicit discrimination at a deeper level against certain races. Nowadays, with the rapid development of social media, some incorrect and irresponsible information even fuels this kind of discrimination.

My third example was actually from last month. In the Chinese online community, there was sensational news. A social media WeChat account with the name T*T TD Canada Trust posted the following information: “I received at least 20 refugees to open bank accounts today. I just learned that the government gave each of them $800 every month and this family has four adults and six children, that means $8,000 per month and they don't even need to pay tax. So after tax, $8,000 a month means $200,000 per year.” This was posted by somebody who says that he's a TD Bank staff member working in Montreal. This news triggered intense responses in the Chinese community and was re-posted many times. It triggered backlash and outcry against the Chinese government and even the prime minister. These kinds of irresponsible words incite hostile sentiments towards refugees.

Personally, I believe this kind of discrimination is due to a lack of understanding and deep-rooted prejudice. To get over this kind of discrimination, we need to strengthen communication and education.

Therefore, I would like to propose, first, that we resume the ministry of multiculturalism of the federal government. Therefore, the government can take the lead to coordinate and push forward the construction of multiculturalism.

Second, led by the federal government, they should also push for the provincial and municipal governments to check whether there is racism or religious discrimination in their laws and regulations, in which case they should abolish them immediately.

Third, we should have a hotline service to accept the reports and complaints of all nationalities against this racism or religious discrimination.

Fourth, we should have special working groups to pay attention to social media, particularly to irresponsible and misleading comments, in which case we should have in-time correction.

Fifth, there should be more funds allocated to sponsor and encourage communities to have more dialogue and communication among different nationalities.

Finally, we should also have positive education and information sharing among the media, the universities, and the communities so that the national citizens may better understand the importance of multiculturalism to Canada.

That's what I would like to share with you. I thank you for this opportunity to share my understanding with you.

Thank you to all the committee members here.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Thank you very much Mr. Huang.

We will now go to rounds of questions and answers for seven minutes, and each round is allocated to a party.

We will start with the Liberal Party and Mr. Vandal.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you very much to both groups for very interesting presentations.

First, I want to be clear as to what we are studying. It's a motion from MP Iqra Khalid, and I just want to read what the motion actually says:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and—

Further on, the motion states that the government should:

—develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination—

Those were the words that were voted on in the House of Commons. The sponsors of this motion have received all sorts of threats in response, pending this motion. They've received insults. They've been intimidated, both in their parliamentary offices and in their home offices in their ridings.

My own riding has received calls saying that this is the thin edge of the wedge to a reduction of freedom of speech and to the bringing in of sharia law. Let me say, as one member of this Liberal caucus, that we would never vote for or endorse anything that reduces freedom of speech.

I'll start my questions with Mr. Clemenger and Julia Beazley.

Where do you think this all originates? Why was there such a negative reaction to the words I've just spoken? The words are clearly innocuous, and yet there was a huge negative reaction. I'll ask both of you, and maybe you can begin, Mr. Clemenger.

[Bruce Clemenger]

In many ways, I think the motion has, and I hate to use the analogy, picked a scab. Again, we're a deeply pluralistic society, so we have deep religious differences and people of faith and no faith. I think part of it is that some Canadians were concerned. Would the government be playing favourites? Would the government be focusing on one faith group rather than others? As I said in our comments, given the significant increases in hate crimes against Muslims, I think it's legitimate to single out Islam or Muslims in the conversation. Again, the motion does extend to others. I think that's part of it.

I think the term “Islamophobia” raised a lot of concerns. As I said in my comments, usually we use the language of anti-black, anti-indigenous, anti-Semitism, yet Islamophobia is different. Many people understand it to be much broader. In Canada, under protection of religious freedom under the charter, the charter protects the beliefs and expression of people, not the beliefs themselves. Therefore, there's a concern that using the term “Islamophobia” would extend the protection beyond what the charter protects and that you're extending a broader range of protection to people of the Muslim faith than to Christians, Sikhs, etc. I think part of it might be that.

Also, I think it goes back to the point underlying our submission. We need to have more conversation about this less. I've been doing this a long time and I don't recall another time that a committee has actually dealt with issues of religious discrimination or even religion. It's very rare. This is the house of the people, so it is a place to have those conversations. Perhaps if it was more regular, then people would not be so surprised or anxious that the issue has surfaced.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Okay.

Mr. Huang, would you like to comment?

[Frank Huang]

Just like I mentioned, maybe people show their opposition against this motion. I know some Canadian Chinese that were against the root of it because they don't know much about Islam and about Muslims. They don't have an understanding at all. They don't know what they advocate, but they realize that this culture is different from theirs. They have different races and they have different dress codes.... They are hot.... They are against that.

I think the key is to let people understand each other. People should have an opportunity to get to know each other. Only in this way can they get rid of this fright. That is to say that the government, the NGOs, and the media should work together to promote communication among different cultures. It's just like what I experienced. Once you know each other, you don't feel frightened and you don't feel scared. Currently, people don't know each other very well. Against that kind of a circumstance, we have this obsession. We are against each other.

Thank you.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB]

Thank you very much.

Julia Beazley, would you like to add something?

[Julia Beazley]

I think part of what happened from the get-go was that there was some very irresponsible reporting on the motion, such as mis-characterizing what it was, what it could do, and what it set out to do, so we actually spent a great deal of time and energy educating and informing our constituency about what it was. What is this motion? What does this motion seek to do? It's not legislation. Here's what it can and can't do.

Again, as Bruce said, our one concern with the motion was the use of the term “Islamophobia”, but not at all with identifying that we need to, in an unqualified way, condemn hatred and discrimination towards Muslims, but that we need to be very careful with the language we use. For example, you said that there was a motion on anti-Semitism passed in Parliament a number of years ago. That was very clear because we are talking about discrimination and hatred towards Jewish people. It is not about preventing criticism of Israel or....

Sorry. My time's up.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

All right, we're on to the next round, which is the Conservatives. I believe it's Mr. Anderson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank our guests for being with us today.

I just want to follow up on that discussion of Islamophobia. Do you use the definition or do you use the term? If you do, what do you use?

[Bruce Clemenger]

No. We're again recommending that the committee use the terms “anti-Muslim hatred”, “anti-Muslim discrimination”, “anti-Muslim hatred, discrimination”. Again, we caution you that you may need to define it for the purposes of the report since the term is out there, but not recommend its use to the whole of government, and that the government use explicit language of “anti-Muslim hatred”.

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

I guess one of our problems is that we've received so many different suggestions, all the way from it should cover hurt feelings through to it doesn't matter how we define it, that somebody else outside is going to define it their way in another country and use it anyway. I don't know if you have any comments on that.

[Bruce Clemenger]

That's why you may want to define it, but again recommend that it not be used, and that the government be very explicit if it's dealing with anti-Muslim discrimination or hatred, then use the term.

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

Okay, I don't have much time. In Bill C-51, the provisions in section 176, you said you'd like to see them left in the legislation. Is that all you need to say about that?

[Bruce Clemenger]

Yes, we think it's fair to amend it, when it talks about clergy, just to make it clear. I think it's understood that clergy refers to rabbis, imams, and so on, but if it would help to make it clearer that that's what it means, then replace the language.

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

Okay, thank you.

I want to touch on something else. You talked about leadership or whatever in our country. Last week the speech that our Governor General gave came to the public, and I don't know how you say anything other than she jeopardized her neutrality in a number of areas. I don't think you can take it any other way than basically attacking and mocking a huge number of Canadians with whom she disagrees. Part of that group are people of faith. Many people were deeply offended. I heard about that at home this weekend, so I'm wondering, do we need to restrict that type of speech?

[Bruce Clemenger]

Restricting it, I'm not sure how you'd do that. I think it's important for public office holders, for people who represent the broader Canadian population, just as you as MPs represent your constituents, to be very judicious in their language. I think it was inappropriate, very troubling language. Hopefully, as she grows into her job, she will realize that when she makes comments, she is speaking to Canadians and she is to represent all Canadians.

The irony is that she formally is a representative of the Queen in Canada, and the Queen herself is head of the Church of England, which very much believes in the doctrine of creation. Actually, we wrote a letter to her and our suggestion, kind of falling on the tenor of our brief, was to propose a conversation. Perhaps she doesn't know us or other Canadians who, we think again, she was kind of mocking in her tone. We suggested that since we have a number of Ph.Ds in various sciences who teach in institutions that belong to EFC, that we know across Canada, people with EFC's mainstream universities, that it really would be good to have a conversation and talk with her, talk scientist to scientist, about some of the issues she was talking about.

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

I just want you to touch on this. Does it doubly concern you when leaders of our country use those types of words coming out of their mouths? Does the threat increase when it's being taken up by leaders, or should we treat it the same as everyone else's conversation?

[Bruce Clemenger]

No, not at all. Again, it's a matter of being an office holder and the comments that marginalize. You think, when she represents Canada, does she actually represent me? I'm not part of whoever she's speaking on behalf of, or representing, and that's part of the marginalization. That hurts and it has a tendency to exclude, not include. Again, I think it's not appropriate from someone in her position.

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

At what point, then, does that start to become systemic? If leaders are going to be that way, how careful do we need to be to avoid that from becoming systemic? At what point does it become systemic?