Evidence of meeting #99 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was online.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Rob Moore Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair. We've had this motion before us for quite some time, and I think it should be a concern for all Canadians and all parliamentarians.
I'll speak briefly on, as Mr. Housefather was mentioning, the lawlessness around some of these protests and the fear that that's instilling in many Canadians. I can't imagine the fear that it would instill in Canada's Jewish community. Every Canadian, every person, should feel safe in Canada, and there's no place in Canada or anywhere in the world for anti-Semitism.
I think this motion is timely and important. I certainly support Mr. Housefather's motion.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
9:30 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to begin by thanking Mr. Housefather for moving his motion. I think it expresses a concern that many of us share, more or less everywhere throughout Quebec and Canada.
Each and every person should be able to live out their religious beliefs in peace and freedom. I don't think that religious or moral beliefs, apostolic or otherwise, should divide people. Whatever the religion, it should be a set of values that brings people together, not divides them.
I have a great deal of respect, fondness and sympathy for members of the Jewish community, given what they're going through at the moment. I don't want to stray too far from the debate, but Quebec has a state secularism law. I've had discussions with many friends of the Jewish faith, as well as some of the Muslim faith. There are extremists in all faiths, but I would say that 99% of people agree that the state should be secular and that everyone should be able to practice their religion in peace, respect and solidarity.
I don't have anything to add to the debate, but I would like to say that I agree with what Mr. Housefather and Mr. Mendicino have said. These things are important.
You can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois on these issues.
9:35 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, would like to commend Mr. Housefather for his tireless work against anti-Semitism and bringing the attention of this committee and all of Parliament to the rise of anti-Semitism. I have seen the evidence of this in my own constituency and again on campus at two educational institutions that I've been long associated with in my community. Jewish students have approached me saying they no longer feel safe just being on campus, not in doing anything on campus, and I have an extreme level of concern about this. I am completely supportive of this study.
However, I take very seriously what Mr. Housefather said about leadership, and a necessity for providing leadership, so I am going to propose an amendment to his motion, not to diminish in any way the study of anti-Semitism, but for our committee to provide the same leadership with the parallel rise of Islamophobia in this country.
On my proposed amendment, I have a text in both official languages. I will read the technical...and we have a version as it would read. I think my staff will give it to the clerk at this point.
March 21st, 2024 / 9:35 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
The proposal would expand the number of sessions from three to six, so that we can devote an equal amount of time to the rise of Islamophobia in Canada and provide leadership on opposing all forms of religious-based hatred in this country.
The technical amendment has five parts. It would add “and Islamophobia” after each mention of anti-Semitism on line two. It would add “and” before “additional measures” on line three. It would replace the text on line four with “Canada's Jewish and Muslim communities.” It would add “and Islamophobia” after “antisemitism” on line five. Finally, it would replace the number of meetings from “three” to “six” on line seven.
We have the final version as it would read. I think that's easier for people to deal with. It's really only adding the parallel study of Islamophobia to the study of anti-Semitism.
With that, I move my amendment, Madam Chair.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
We're going to suspend the meeting for two or three minutes. That seems to be the best move, while everyone's reading it and taking a look at it.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I call the meeting back to order.
We're now speaking on the amendment.
Mr. Housefather, I will commence with you.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate Mr. Garrison's amendment. Of course, Islamophobia is also a very important form of hate, but they are two very distinct and separate forms of hate, so I want to make sure that it is clear that the meetings that we're going to have on one versus the other and the report that we're going to do are going to be clear that we're doing something on anti-Semitism and something on Islamophobia and that they're not two tropes that are together. Too many times, people feel that one is equal to the other, and when an act of anti-Semitism occurs, they feel necessary to mention Islamophobia in the same breath and vice versa. In the same way, anti-Black racism is not the same as anti-gay racism. They are all different tropes, so my proposal would be to subamend Mr. Garrison's amendment to add the following words.
It would now read, in line two, “Undertake a study on the issue of anti-Semitism and”, and add the words, “a study on the issue of Islamophobia”. I'm adding the words “a study on the issue of” after the end of line two.
In line five at the beginning of the second paragraph, we would replace the word “study”, the third word, with “independent studies”. Then, on line seven at the beginning of the third paragraph, instead of saying “that the study”, it should say “that each study”. Then, instead of “that it should be at least six meetings”, it would be “that each study should be at least two meetings”. I've heard from colleagues that six meetings means that we're not studying anything else for a prolonged period of time, so instead of three meetings each, it would be two meetings each: two meetings on anti-Semitism and two meetings on Islamophobia.
Then, “that the committee report its findings on both studies”. So, after the word “findings”, it would be “on both studies to the House”.
Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Clerk.
Mr. Fortin, I apologize for not having drafted this in French, but I can give you the—
9:50 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Does anyone on the committee need to have it reread, or did you follow that?
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
It might be a good idea to reread the text, please.
Could you read it again, Mr. Clerk, to make sure we're all working from the same version?
9:50 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Jean-François Lafleur
Yes, of course, Mr. Fortin.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll read it first in English, because that's the original language in which the amendment was drafted. I'll then try to read it in French.
9:50 a.m.
The Clerk
The subamendment would therefore apply at the end of the second line.
At the end of line two, if I start after the comma, “the committee undertake a study on the issue of antisemitism and”, and we introduce the subamendment here, “a study on the issue of Islamophobia”. Then we continue the text.
The second amendment is on line five. It says, “that the independent studies include but not be limited”. That's the second part of the subamendment. The rest of the second paragraph reads as is.
The third part of the subamendment—
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I just want to make sure I understand the fifth line correctly.
It's “That the independent study include”, correct?
9:50 a.m.
The Clerk
It simply adds the word “independent” before “study”, and changes “study” to the plural. That's what this does.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Okay, but it appears a little further on in the same sentence.
Is it “include but not be limited to the issue of antisemitism and independent study on Islamophobia”?
Are there any changes to the second time it's mentioned?