Justice Committee on June 6th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Good morning, everyone.

I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 105 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on March 21, 2024, the committee is continuing its study on Islamophobia.

Before I begin, I want the members and witnesses to please ensure that both your English and French translations are working so that our meeting is not interrupted.

If you're not sure how to use the interpretation, send a message through the clerk, and they will get somebody to call you if you're not here in person. If you're in person, we have resources here in the room to make sure that

Interpretation in English is available when I speak in French.

I want to remind members and participants in the room of the following preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from the microphone at all times. If you do not need them because you are speaking both English and French, keep them unplugged, please.

If you do need them, you plug them in. When they're not in your ear, there's a mark on the table. Please ensure that the earpiece is placed face down on that piece of paper beside you so that there's no disruption.

Consult the card on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. These are in place for safety purposes for everyone. Thank you for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

Connection tests for all witnesses have been done in advance of the meeting.

Today we will have two panels of three witnesses each.

For our first panel, we have with us in person, representing the National Council of Canadian Muslims, Stephen Brown, chief executive officer.

We have virtually, representing the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer and founder.

We have, representing the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians, Ms. Samya Hasan, executive director.

I will now ask each of the three representatives to begin their opening comments for five minutes each.

I will remind everybody—not just our witnesses, but the members—to please be patient. We conduct our meetings here very peacefully and in order. When I raise the 30-second mark, please take a look at that. When your time is up, I will raise that, if need be. If you're a member, I will cut you off, so don't let me do that, please. If the witness needs a few more seconds to answer, I'll be lenient.

Thank you so much to everybody for your co-operation. I notice that a number of members are new to our committee, so welcome.

We need to be voted the most respectful and most collegial committee on the Hill. Thank you so much to everyone. I definitely intend to keep that.

I will now begin with Chief Executive Officer Stephen Brown, who's here in person .

[Stephen Brown, Chief Executive Officer, National Council of Canadian Muslims]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members.

Thank you for the invitation to appear before this committee.

I begin by suggesting that we had originally stated on the record that we were not going to participate in the committee. That's because certain members of the committee who sat here have been complicit in furthering the problem of Islamophobia.

For example, a Liberal member shared content from the past leader of the Jewish Defense League, which is a terrorist organization listed by the FBI and a group linked to the Kahanists, which is a listed terrorist entity here in Canada. This member is well aware that he trafficked this content and has never apologized for doing so. Our hope is that the committee recommendations include, in part, the recognition that some committee members themselves have hurt, not helped, the struggle against Islamophobia.

Indeed, Islamophobia is a dangerous form of hate that has led to the murder of Canadian Muslims. More Muslims have been killed in targeted hate attacks in Canada than in any other G7 country in the past seven years because of Islamophobia. For example, there was the Quebec City mosque attack that took the lives of six worshippers in January 2017.

This month we honour and remember the victims of the London terror attack, in which a terrorist, motivated by hate for Muslims, mowed down with his truck a family on a walk, murdering four beloved community members and leaving a young boy orphaned on June 6, 2021.

In our sacred places of worship and in public spaces, Muslims in Canada are not safe from violent Islamophobia. This is to say nothing of the many recent attacks that have happened across Canada that could have easily resulted in fatalities.

Apart from violent Islamophobia which has terrorized this country for almost a decade now, the Muslim community, specifically in Quebec, faces blatant systemic Islamophobia enshrined in Quebec law.

Let me be clear. Since 2019, the Quebec government has been legislating discrimination. The impact of Bill 21, the state secularism law, has caused psychological distress to countless Muslim women, who must now choose between their faith and living in Quebec, a place many call home.

As noted in the report by the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights on the impact of Bill 21, while the direct consequences of this legislation are troubling, the committee was disturbed to hear that it has also indirectly emboldened racist fringe groups and individuals.

In the last few months, there has been a drastic rise in Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism across Canada. In Q4 of last year, the number of such hate incidents across Canada reported to us increased by 1,300%.

Our communities are experiencing unprecedented levels of hate and violence from every level of society, including but not limited to professionals losing their employment or receiving disciplinary actions after calling for a ceasefire in Gaza, Muslim women with hijabs attacked and harassed in public spaces, children intimidated at school by staff for standing in solidarity for Palestinian human rights, and peaceful protesters labelled as supporters of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the response that the Muslim community in Canada has been receiving for months from our elected leaders has been duplicitous: One says they care about our concerns, and the other immediately turns around, further spreads misinformation and makes a deliberate attempt to villainize an entire community as hateful and intolerant people.

Simply stated, it's time to face the music: Islamophobia is real. It has killed and will continue to kill if this study is not taken seriously.

We believe this committee has the power and capability to adopt these recommendations before the end of the 2024 parliamentary session.

I would like to put forward three key recommendations.

The first is for this committee to call loudly for their colleagues to stand boldly against Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism and reiterate the need to protect civil liberties in the House of Commons, including the ability to critique foreign governments.

The second is for this committee adopt the Senate recommendations on Islamophobia, and the third is for this committee to move swiftly to recommend that this government incorporate an action plan on Islamophobia specifically as an addendum to Canada's anti-racism action program, one that has a timeline on the Senate recommendations on Islamophobia.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

You were well ahead of your schedule.

We will now go to Executive Director Hasan, please, for five minutes.

[Samya Hasan, Executive Director, Council of Agencies Serving South Asians]

Thank you so much for inviting me to speak today.

As mentioned, my name is Samya Hasan. I'm the executive director for an organization called the Council of Agencies Serving South Asians.

I'm joining you this morning from the traditional indigenous territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Haudenosaunee and the territories of the Mississauga, also known as Tsi Tkaronto.

Today is a particularly heavy day, as my colleague Stephen has mentioned. It is the three-year anniversary of the London family terrorist attack, and I'm sure the heaviness of today will be felt throughout the day as others like me make their statements.

I grew up in Toronto during the aftermath of 9/11 in some of Toronto's most diverse neighbourhoods. Being in public schools, I had internalized the news that most Muslim communities were going to be portrayed as the bad guys. I spent my entire school life on the defensive, defending my choice to wear a hijab, defending my family against stereotypes or defending my communities against attacks. What I didn't foresee at that time was that the hateful rhetoric would eventually turn into violence and fatalities.

Our organization is a social justice organization that has been doing anti-hate work and anti-racism work for over three decades. We have been actively engaged in anti-Islamophobia work, particularly over the last five years, because we have seen the exponential increase in Islamophobia during this time.

There are three main points that I want to highlight today, based on the work we have done as an organization. First is the importance of educating young people on anti-Islamophobia, using an anti-oppression lens. Second is protecting our communities from online forms of Islamophobia. Third is incorporating anti-Palestinian racism as part of the strategy to combat Islamophobia.

Over the last five years, we've worked with various different school boards, in Ontario particularly, to create anti-Islamophobia strategies for entire boards in partnership with the NCCM, the National Council of Canadian Muslims. We need all provinces in Canada to mandate such strategies for all school boards across the country. Teaching children to be empathetic is a lot more impactful than teaching adults to unlearn the hate and bias that they've been exposed to all their lives.

I understand that there are jurisdictional considerations over education; however, we know that when the federal government wants the provinces to do something, they have the mechanisms, the pressures and the incentives to make it happen. We need the federal government to commit to this, to encourage and work with all provincial governments to mandate the incorporation of identity-affirming, anti-Islamophobia education for all publicly funded schools in Canada.

Second, we know that the recently introduced online harms bill is welcome legislation, especially for organizations that have been doing anti-hate work and online hate work for a very long time. We know that it's welcome in many Muslim communities as well; however, we want to ensure that there are rigorous oversight measures in place that will prevent racialized and Muslim communities from being unfairly criminalized. We know all too well from the post-9/11 experience what happens when Muslim, Black and brown bodies are over-policed. We want to be convinced that this online harms bill will not be abused to continue the oppression of our communities.

Finally, I know that the third point will come up quite often through the course of this hearing. Over the last eight months, we have seen an exponential increase in Islamophobia and hate crimes towards Muslim communities across the country. We have particularly witnessed visibly Muslim women being exceptionally vulnerable to hateful rhetoric, whether it's online or whether it's in real life.

We have also witnessed an interconnectedness of Islamophobia and anti-Palestinian racism in Canada and across the world. We have seen Muslim communities being targeted with Islamophobia because they support the Palestinian people and Palestinian human rights. We can't hide from this fact any longer, and this government needed to address this yesterday. There are no parts of our anti-racism strategy or anti-hate strategies that address anti-Palestinian racism. These strategies must name, define and address anti-Palestinian racism in Canada. We must stop the further dehumanization of Palestinians caused by ignoring their pleas for protection from abuse, hate and violence.

Muslim communities and allies are outraged and broken by the very graphically broadcast genocide happening in front of our eyes. Protests against this genocide have been widely cited as overwhelmingly peaceful, except for a few times when they've been instigated by police or counterprotests.

To our huge disappointment, we've seen the majority of politicians either mis-characterize or wrongfully smear the legitimate advocacy for Palestinians, or stay deafeningly silent. As recently as last week, we saw the shocking silence of our own Prime Minister when newcomers and immigrants were blamed, without evidence, for criminal activities.

If we're going to combat Islamophobia in all its ugly forms, it's imperative for this government to walk the talk first. Our politicians have alienated Muslim communities at great lengths.

I'll end with my final concluding thought with regard to education: I think our politicians also need the same mandatory education as our young people on anti-Islamophobia.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

We will now go to the chief executive officer and founder of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Mr. Ahmed. The floor is yours.

[Imran Ahmed, Chief Executive Officer and Founder, Center for Countering Digital Hate]

Madam Chair and members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, thank you for the invitation to speak with you all today.

My name is Imran Ahmed. I'm the founder and chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, CCDH.

CCDH researches disinformation and hate speech on social media platforms. Our research has shown time and time again that social media platforms and search engines are irresponsible managers of our digital information ecosystem, because their business models have systemic problems that affect the prevalence of Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ+ and other forms of identity-based hate.

No investigation of the current crisis of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia can be conducted without examination of these platforms' roles. Dealing with one form of hate alone, whether anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, fails to recognize that the systems underpinning the common problem—the rules of these platforms and the poor way in which they're enforced, and their algorithms and their platform design decisions—give advantage to hateful content.

My statement and the accompanying submission is drawn from CCDH's extensive research into Islamophobia and other forms of hate on social media [Technical difficulty—Editor]. One, it finds that social media algorithms promote and spread identity-based hate and Islamophobia. Two, it finds that financial [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Three, it finds that that social media companies fail [Technical difficulty—Editor] hateful—

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Hold on a minute—

[Imran Ahmed]

—and that all online hate has off-line consequences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Mr. Ahmed, can you hear me? Hold on a minute. I've stopped the time here because we're experiencing a few difficulties.

Is there a recommendation from the digital folks in the room?

Just back up to number one and start again. Let's see if I can hear that.

[Imran Ahmed]

One, our research finds that social media algorithms promote and spread identity-based hate like Islamophobia. Two, it finds that financial incentives fuel the production of hateful content. Three, it finds that social media companies fail to act on hateful content when it's reported to them. Four, it finds that online hate has off-line consequences.

Is that okay?

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

It is okay, yes.

[Imran Ahmed]

On one, algorithms and recommender systems are the functions that rank and organize content on social media platforms, and they present it in users' feeds based on how likely each individual is to engage and interact with it. That sounds innocent, but CCDH research has shown a strong relationship between these algorithms and the promotion of hateful content, because the design of these algorithms prioritizes attention and engagement, and incendiary content like identity-based hate is privileged [Technical difficulty—Editor] being broadcast to more people [Technical difficulty—Editor] than content about [Technical difficulty—Editor].

On two, these were commenced to operate alongside. In “Hate Pays", CCDH shows that social media accounts used the Israel-Gaza conflict to grow and profit [Technical difficulty—Editor] engaging hate content by turbocharging their follower growth, visibility and revenues.

Specifically, we found that accounts that began posting hateful anti-Semitism or Islamophobia in the aftermath of the attacks on October 7 grew four times faster, on average, than before the attack. This quantified how bad actors are able to exploit conflict to grow their following, disseminate hateful messages and potentially profit from this hate.

On three, the irony is, of course, that all platforms have rules about hateful content on their platforms, but again and again, CCDH has shown how the platforms failed to act on Islamophobia when it was reported to them. In our 2022 report, “Failure to Protect”, CCDH showed that Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Twitter and YouTube failed to act on 89% of posts containing anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobic content reported to them.

Our researchers used platforms' own reporting tools to flag 530 posts that contained disturbing, bigoted and dehumanizing content that targets Muslim people through racist caricatures, conspiracies and false claims. They've been viewed 25 million times. There were hashtags such as #deathtoislam, #islamiscancer and #raghead. Content spread using the hashtags received at least 1.3 million impressions, and 89% of the time, even when told about it, they did nothing.

Finally, on four, online hate has off-line consequences. Social media companies have failed to act on any of the matters identified by CCDH, and these systemic failures have now been recognized as a factor in hate-motivated attacks around the world, from Christchurch to Pittsburgh. These overt acts of hate in the off-line world materialize social media's failings and highlight the significant stakes.

Toxic communication is not simply an unavoidable occurrence in the digital town square, but rather a product of the social media business model and the financial incentives they create, with fundamental off-line consequences.

To conclude, CCDH supports the standing committee in undertaking this inquiry and believes that any solution to the blight of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish hate in Canada must address social media platforms' role in amplifying and distributing identity-based hate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you much.

We will now begin with our first round of members' questions, for six minutes each.

We will commence with MP Moore.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Thank you Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for joining us this morning for this study and for their testimony.

We also recognize that this is the third anniversary of the tragic taking of four innocent lives. That is not lost on us.

I do want to ask a question that's related to that. I'll ask you, Mr. Brown.

In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada heard an appeal from the Quebec Court of Appeal concerning consecutive periods of parole ineligibility that were to be served by the man who entered the Great Mosque of Quebec in January 2017 and killed six innocent worshippers. That law was in place in Canada. Prior to a change in the law, there was a sentencing discount for mass murderers. In other words, if someone killed one person, they would receive 25 years of parole ineligibility. If someone killed three people, as was the case—the anniversary was this past week—when the individual shot three Mounties in Moncton, they would receive 25 years of parole ineligibility.

When we were in government, we brought in a change to the law that valued each life, so there were consecutive periods of parole ineligibility. For example, the individual in Moncton received three consecutive periods of parole ineligibility, or 75 years. That was challenged in the case of the mosque shooting. We heard from victims' families on what that law meant to them after losing a loved one in such a horrific way. One member told our committee she was able to take solace in the fact that her daughter would not have to attend parole hearings every two years to try to keep the individual behind bars. On May 27, 2022, the Supreme Court struck down consecutive periods of parole ineligibility and returned the law to what it was prior, so that even in a case of mass murder—like what took place in London, like what took place in Moncton, like what took place in Quebec City—an individual can only receive 25 years of parole ineligibility.

I want to get your thoughts on this. The federal government has not responded to the decision in any way or tried to frame any type of response. Obviously, I feel that they should, but I want to get your thoughts on it, on valuing each of those lives.

[Stephen Brown]

Thank you very much, MP Moore.

The Quebec City mosque shooting in 2017 was one of the most difficult times in history for our community. The tragic thing about it was that this was not the first time the mosque had been attacked. Leading up to the terrorist attack that happened in January, there were many, many attacks on Muslims in Quebec City, specifically targeting the mosque. The response from politicians and the media, quite frankly, was shameful.

For example, a dead pig carcass was placed in front of the mosque. The radio shock jocks, one of whom is currently a leader of a party in Quebec, basically said, “What's the problem? There's nothing illegal with putting a pig carcass in front of a mosque.”

The mosque was a victim of hate. There were far-right-wing marches that were organized around the mosque. All of these things were reported to the authorities. The authorities did nothing, and, as a matter of fact, anti-Muslim rhetoric continues to rise in the province.

Then somebody showed up at the mosque and gunned down six people and everybody acted completely surprised. I remember being around at that time and talking to members of the Muslim community and members of the Quebec Muslim community, and the sad thing was that people were not surprised. The mosque had already started looking at how they could improve the security of the mosque because it kept getting attacked.

I remember going to the mosque and seeing a room full of children who were reciting traditions from our religion that talk about how tragedy happens to human beings, but only God, at the end of the day, truly knows the wisdom in those actions. I remember talking to people who still can't go to pray at the mosque because every time the door is behind them, and it's impossible for them to focus on praying because they're terrified that somebody's going to come in the back door. Even to this day when I show up at the mosque in Quebec City, people have to let me in.

To answer your question, the Muslim community was hoping and is still looking forward to this person spending the rest of his years behind bars. That being said, the Supreme Court rendered the decision that, as you've said, made him eligible for parole after 25 years. We respect the decision of the court, but we will be there every two years at his parole hearings to ensure he never leaves prison, and we are against the use of the notwithstanding clause to enforce back-to-back sentences.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

We will now go to member of Parliament Mr. Zuberi, please.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all the witnesses for being here in person and online today. Thank you for joining us. We recognize your strength, courage and advocacy, especially around this three-year mark of the tragedy in London, Ontario, where the Afzaal family was so hurt, the London community also was hurt and lives were lost.

I want to talk about the lessons that we have or haven't learned.

We today are marking three years of the Afzaal family's passing and the impacts that happened to the community there in London, Ontario. We'll fast-forward to today.

Just last week, here in Ottawa, in what isn't necessarily a unique situation, there was an assault that happened. A man was captured on video punching a woman in the face, knocking her to the ground, if I remember correctly. This lady was specifically protesting, from all appearances, what's happening—and her objection to what's happening—within Gaza. Do you have any comments on that situation in terms of that assault and the aftermath of it?

[Stephen Brown]

Yes.

Just days ago, a man physically assaulted a woman, a Muslim wearing her hijab, who was peacefully protesting right here in Ottawa, outside the EY Centre. He walked up to her and struck her to the ground. She was taken to hospital for treatment for her severe injuries.

Quite frankly, it's incidents like these, among others, that are very concerning and are creating space for more blatant Islamophobia to occur.

Another woman had her hijab torn off and was verbally accosted by another woman.

Even at the beginning of this week, at an advocacy event, one of our own board members at NCCM was accosted by a man, close to Queen's Park, because she's a woman who wears hijab.

These sorts of incidents are happening with alarming frequency in Canadian streets. It just goes to show that right now there is a real problem with Islamophobia. For some reason, people feel that it's okay to accost Muslim women in the street who are wearing a hijab.

That's why I go back to our recommendations. It's so important for members of this committee to stand up and clearly denounce Islamophobia. It's really important to look at the recommendations made by the Senate committee and it's important to adopt these so that we can move towards actually making sure that all members of our society, including Muslim women, can safely walk the streets in Canada.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you.

You referred to the Senate committee report more than once. I'd like to know, aside from our adopting all the recommendations, whether there are any you want to highlight in particular.

If not, I have other questions.

[Stephen Brown]

No, I think it would be good to look at all the recommendations. They should all be adopted.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I recognize how that was a very in-depth and extended report that took the Senate the better part of a year to conduct. Our memories are often short. I became an adult in the early 2000s. I became an adult after 2001.

In 2001, I was in university.

This impacted me a lot, from my public engagement and throughout my adulthood until today. I look back at that period and I recognize how that impacted my trajectory, but I didn't realize it at the time. I remember some of the conversations we were having in the decade immediately after 2001, and I remember that you mentioned what's happening in some provinces in the country. That is an important conversation.

I also remember that at the federal level, when the last government, the Conservative government, was running an election, there was gross maligning of Muslims and there were caricatures being put forth. Every other day you would see a niqab-wearing person on the cover of a paper or in some cases being referred to in almost every stump speech by the Conservative Party in the election campaign.

I recognize that people change and grow. I want you to comment, Mr. Brown, on the importance of elected officials' being very mindful of how they talk about minorities. I recognize how, when in 2015 our government came in, we were very careful to make sure we didn't malign communities just to score political points.

Please go ahead, Mr. Brown.

[Stephen Brown]

Yes. I remember being around at that time and watching how those comments negatively impacted society. I mean, my name is Stephen Brown, and I don't look like I'm from South Asia or western Asia, so I heard everything that people had to say about Muslims and Arabs at that time.

However, the fact of the matter is that it wasn't just then. There are issues now as well. For example, Marco Mendicino shared content from Meir Weinstein. This is not a one-party issue; this is a multi-party issue. All elected officials need to take this issue seriously. I suggest that all members of this committee look carefully at our recommendations and adopt them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you.

Mr. Fortin for six minutes.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all the witnesses with us this morning: Mr. Brown and, by video conference, Mr. Ahmed and Ms. Hasan.

Islamophobia is an important and serious issue. I'm proud to be a member of this committee, which has decided to hear witnesses and report on the situation. Like my entire party, the Bloc Québécois, I believe that all forms of hatred should be rejected, that living together in harmony means respecting one another, regardless of religion, race, colour, political, cultural or other opinion, sexual orientation or gender. All that belongs to each and every one of us and we must, in my opinion, live with respect for each other's unique identity. Obviously, we reject all forms of hatred.

That said, I've heard the comments made regarding the issue of online hate. Of course, as you know, we're already looking into that issue, and a bill is currently being drafted.

My party, the Bloc Québécois, has tabled a bill to remove the religious exceptions set out the Criminal Code. In a nutshell, the Criminal Code prohibits the promotion of antisemitism or hatred, but provides for exceptions, two of which state that, if it's based on a religious text, it can be done. I'll spare you the details, but in our opinion, it shouldn't exist.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on that, Mr. Brown. Should we remove the religious exception set out in the section of the Criminal Code prohibiting the promotion of hatred or should we keep that exception?

[Stephen Brown]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Fortin.

First and foremost, any form of hatred is unacceptable. I would say that especially hate that is encouraged by governments is even more unacceptable. For example, Quebec's Bill 21, the state secularism law, is literally a form of hatred that targets minorities and seeks to take away the rights of citizens.

I'll answer your question, but I think it's important to say that many political parties are selective about the type of hatred they condemn. The purpose of these committee meetings is to identify measures to reduce Islamophobia and to pursue a line of questioning that implies that religious discourse itself is the source of hatred.

Frankly, it's not only problematic, but also emblematic of the need to hold these hearings.