Foreign Affairs Committee on Dec. 9th, 2014

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you for staying a little bit longer.

I know I have only five minutes. I'm going to try to get a question in for everybody, so feel free to be brief, if it works out that way.

Dr. Farr, you talk about religious freedom as a way of accommodating all. I certainly agree with your thoughts on what you've said so far here today. I think in general terms we could say that Canada and the United States both have freedom of religion. You have a little more difficulty in the United States at the moment, I believe. Your country is based on a separation of church and state, yet there's a creeping blur that is happening along that line.

The United States has been quite successful in terms of dealing with Christian extremists within your own population. I wonder if there's something in your thoughts perhaps that could help us deal with Canada's response to religious violence and persecution.

[Dr. Thomas Farr]

That's a great question. I won't answer it successfully because I want to keep it short, as you asked. Maybe the best way is to just challenge the premise of your question.

The essence of the American system of religious liberty can be misunderstood if you focus on the separation of church and state. That phrase is nowhere, as you probably know, in the American constitution. It is correct insofar as it means an institutional separation of church and state. In other words, they can't be unified; there can't be an establishment of religion in our system.

The genius of our system, in my opinion, is to invite religion into the public square. Religion in politics—Islam in politics, Judaism, Christianity, all the rest—is what is under threat in my country at the moment, and which, in my view, endangers lots of people and lots of views, and includes the issue that we're talking about.

My answer to your question is that Canada and all western democracies should not focus on removing religion from the public square as their definition of “religion” and “religious freedom”, but invite it in within the norms of the society. This is being re-examined in France, as you may know. The whole notion of laïcité is to bring religion back in, to invite religious actors in.

That's my answer. It's not separation of religion from politics. It is separation of church and state, but it's inviting religion into the public square to be involved on the basis of equality with all other voices.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you for that, Dr. Farr.

Bishop Mar-Emmanuel, I have a question for you. It alludes to something you said a little earlier, and I'd like you to expand a little bit on that. What are the particular needs of women and girls who are impacted by this conflict, and what role can Canada play in addressing these needs?

[Emmanuel Joseph Mar-Emmanuel]

The situation is one of crisis in Iraq nowadays, especially what happened through ISIS and the discrimination of women, and how many thousands were being taken captive, especially among the Yazidis and a few Christians. It's a problem with these extremists and how they interpret certain verses within the religion or the Koran.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Is there a role Canada can play in helping to relieve the population, particularly refugee population, of these problems?

[Emmanuel Joseph Mar-Emmanuel]

I think Canada has been involved recently through many visits of its high officials to northern Iraq to encourage this development, especially with winter setting in. Mostly it is about the education of the people, but things are very hard there...how it has been interpreted by the other sides and the opposition.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

So it's education, and I'm also thinking of things like housing and food and health.

[Emmanuel Joseph Mar-Emmanuel]

Exactly.

[John Rafferty, NDP, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

With your knowledge of the situation, would you say that what is there now is inadequate?

[Emmanuel Joseph Mar-Emmanuel]

Yes, exactly, there is an urgent need for that, and many church leaders and even many western organizations such as the Red Cross, Caritas, and others are involved there, but there is more urgency. There are certain caravans, and there is a shortage of electricity and food, problems with the sanitation, and disease. Up until now, many people were occupying schools, parks, or church halls. There are a lot of difficulties in this crisis, and the resources there are very limited.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much, Mr. Rafferty.

Dr. Farr, I just want to take this time to thank you very much for your testimony today. We appreciate your time.

[Dr. Thomas Farr]

I'm delighted to be with you. This is an important subject. Thanks for inviting me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you. Have a great day.

We are now going to move over to Ms. Brown for five minutes.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am very disappointed that Dr. Farr had to leave us because I would like to have asked him about his thoughts on training for our diplomats. He said that the money in the office of religious freedom should be spent on helping our diplomats. I would like to know how, who, and what he thinks would be the things on which they need to be trained, and with what. He used the word “linchpin”. I used that word on Tuesday when we had our witnesses here. Our witness said that the linchpin issue was security, solving the security problem in Iraq. I would love to have had the opportunity to discuss this with him.

Here are my questions for our other witnesses.

Bishop, you talked about the churches that are supporting the creation of a safe zone. I wonder if you could tell us a little bit more about that. Is it respected? Is humanitarian assistance getting in there? Canada has been one of the largest contributors to humanitarian assistance. We have spent something in the neighbourhood of $362 million to date on the situation in Iraq and Syria. We've been generous contributors, but the real question is, is it getting to the people? Are these safe zones being respected?

[Emmanuel Joseph Mar-Emmanuel]

Mr. Chairman, about the safe zone, most of the Christian leaders and other Christian organizations expressed on this that since the people have been deported from the city of Mosul and surrounding regions it's very hard to go back to their homes, even after the liberation. Individuals being interviewed sometimes state—especially the Christians and even the Yazidis—that it's very hard now. There's no fundamental trust there, since many of their homes have been looted. How is it possible for some to go back to their homes and live with their neighbours? It probably needs a generation or more before things will be more refined or reconciliation will be done.

There was even a survey being done there by Nineveh Center for Research and Development, a certain organization back up north. They surveyed about 4,000 individuals. About 56% said they were ready to go to their homes in the city of Mosul, but on the condition that they are supported by the international community. Of those asked, 42% were thinking about immigration just to leave the country when they are done.

That's a problem. The impact that it has on the people is very strong—enormous. It's very hard. Of course, help is coming to the people, but again it's more urgent and many are suffering. Prices are high.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

We have heard over and over again about people really just wanting to go home. They want to return to their homes and their own belongings. That's a message that we've heard loud and clear.

Mr. Halevi, you said something that is a little bit of a breakdown in logic for me. Perhaps you have some thoughts on it. You talked about the Canadian imam who advocates that Canada should remain neutral. Yet the breakdown in logic for me is that he still wants Canada to go in and help those people who are so afflicted, and give humanitarian aid. Does this not seem a breakdown in logic to you? They advocate that Canada should stay neutral and not participate in the coalition with our allies, and yet continue to provide funds and humanitarian assistance to the people who are so desperately in need, many of whom are from the Muslim communities.

Do you have any thoughts on that? To me it just seems like a complete breakdown in logic.

[Jonathan Dahoah Halevi]

Are you quoting from the sermon?

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

No, you were saying—

[Jonathan Dahoah Halevi]

No, what your saying is quoting from the sermon of the imam.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

It was what you said, that the Canadian imam advocates—

[Jonathan Dahoah Halevi]

No, I know that. What he said is not what you said. That's not his argument. His argument is totally different. I recommend that you listen to him and to read exactly what he said. It's not the same logic at all.

He blamed Canada for the situation in Syria and Iraq. He blamed the Canadian foreign policy for that. He was not suggesting such logic as you said. This is exactly the logic for some of the community leaders in the Muslim community. This is their logic in opposing the policy, blaming Canada and the west in general as the cause of the problem of extremism, and not taking any responsibility for their side of creating the problem of extremism, not only here in Canada but in general in the Middle East.

Where is the cause of extremism? Because extremism is not the west. It's not retaliation.

We heard just yesterday what the Ottawa jihadist has said. He said that this is retaliation for the oppression. What oppression? They regard—and I'm quoting, it's their position; it's not my assessment—that when Muslims cannot pursue jihad and cannot spread Islam, they are being oppressed and they are being victimized and then they have the right to launch an attack against the oppressors. The meaning of that is the causes of jihad always exist.

What this imam specifically said is that to be neutral means you should not take any action against the Islamic State. Don't take any action. If you don't take any action against the Islamic State, what's the meaning of that? You give licence to the Islamic State to pursue its policy regarding minorities in Iraq and Syria. I think we should not tolerate that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Schellenberger will start the next round, for five minutes, please.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It's been mentioned that ISIL makes education a top priority.

Do these teachings teach young people to become suicide bombers, etc.? How do we, as Canadians, dissuade the young people from these practices without physically eliminating them?

[Jonathan Dahoah Halevi]

The answer is yes.

You can see the evidence on YouTube of how they organize the youth in mosques, in groups, teaching them the tenet of Islam according to the ideology of the Islamic State. You can see training with guns, with AK-47s and everything. They are prepared and they present them as the new generation of jihadists who will fight the west.

I want to give an example. I have some comments about how Canadian diplomats should work with other governments and the role of Canadian diplomacy. I want to give an example from Afghanistan, which I probed recently.

Canada tried to promote democracy and liberalism in Afghanistan. One of the key partners in Afghanistan, one of the officials—who is also a Canadian citizen, by the way—cooperated with the Canadian government. This specific individual is a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir. He said, in his own voice in Canada, that Islam is incompatible with democracy. As a member of Tahrir, he believes in the caliphate. This is the main issue of Hizb ut-Tahrir. We have to be very careful about, first of all, choosing our partners in promoting democracy, and investing our money in promoting democracy and tolerance to other religions.

I want to add one more thing, which is important, with regard to looking after the money. The money comes to Canada from different sources to promote radicalism, as the imam from Brampton has said. I am quoting him, “They go from Canada to Madinah University, being taught there, coming back here, and spreading hatred, etc.” The money comes from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and other places. The mosque south of Ottawa was also funded by Kuwaiti money.

What is important for Canada, I think, is to first of all look into the sources of money. Second, all these countries do not allow freedom of religion in their own countries. You cannot build a church in Kuwait. You cannot build a church in Saudi Arabia. If we want to convey a message of tolerance towards other religions, we have to adopt a reciprocal policy: if you don't let others preach for other religions in your country, please do not fund other activities in our country.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I know that the Iraqi government is not being very protective to residents of Iraq. I am talking about Camp Liberty, and it used to be Camp Ashraf. These are Iranian citizens who fled Iran when the shah was overthrown. This camp was protected for many years by the Americans. Once the Americans left, the Iraqi government gradually took down any protective barriers around the camp. They indiscriminately shot into the camp, killed many people, shot mortars in. They wouldn't let food shipments go through. The sanitation is terrible.

When we're talking about religion, these people have been taught that all the way. How do we then realistically have a political solution for people who have ingrained in them that you should hate certain people?