Evidence of meeting #59 for Public Safety and National Security in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was muslims.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Raheel Raza  President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow
Hassan Yussuff  President, Canadian Labour Congress
Brian Hay  Chair, Board of Governors, Mackenzie Institute
Thomas Quiggin  As an Individual
Eric Gottardi  Chair, Criminal Justice Section, Canadian Bar Association
Peter Edelmann  Executive Member, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association
Zuhdi Jasser  President, American Islamic Forum for Democracy

6:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Colleagues, witnesses, ladies, and gentlemen, welcome to meeting 59 of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Monday, February 23, 2015, on Bill C-51, we will be continuing our study and hearing from our witnesses.

I will introduce the first group of witnesses we have before us tonight. From the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, we have Raheel Raza, president. From the Canadian Labour Congress, we have Hassan Yussuff, president, and also David Onyalo, acting director, anti-racism and human rights. From the Mackenzie Institute, we have Andrew Majoran, general manager, and Brian Hay, chair of the board of governors.

Welcome, all. Each group will have an opportunity to make opening remarks for up to 10 minutes. You can divide your own time amongst yourselves if you have multiple representation. We will go ahead and start now. Of course, if you can be more brief, that will give us more opportunity for Q and A from our parliamentary members here today.

We will start off with the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow.

Raheel Raza, you have the floor.

March 25th, 2015 / 6:45 p.m.

Raheel Raza President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the standing committee. Good evening—and I will be brief.

I'm honoured by the privilege of being here tonight as president for the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow.

My organization supports the general drift of Bill C-51, and we thank the government for taking Islamism—political Islam, as we call it—as a clear and present danger in the world and specifically in Canada.

We are also grateful that the government shares our concerns, first, to rationalize the sharing of security information within government, and second, to make sure that air travel is safe for passengers and is not used for terroristic purposes. Third is that the government make an attempt to limit terrorist propaganda, which is embedded in the language of political Islam and is spread through some individuals, some Islamic organizations, and some pulpits. I'm sure you are aware that this has had an extensive impact on Canadian-Muslim communities and especially our youth. Fourth is the fact that the government recognizes the value of disruption in countering terror threats.

As an aside, let me mention that I have just flown in directly from Florida, U.S.A., where I was speaking to some very politically charged Americans about radicalization and terrorism. When I mentioned Bill C-51 and our Prime Minister's stance on recognizing the problem, I was surprised to get a standing ovation. You may know that to the south of us, they can't even use the word “Islamist” and “terrorism” in the same sentence, let alone do something about it.

This is to say that the world has its eyes on Canada, so that we don't become another Europe, where the problem of extremism has exploded in such a way that it seems practically impossible to reverse the tide. When I picked up today's National Post, I was delighted to read the quote from Stephen Harper saying, “Canadians did not invent the threat of jihadi terrorism and we certainly did not invite it, nor...can we protect [our country or] our communities by choosing to ignore it.”

I think that that says a lot for our Prime Minister.

Speaking on a personal note as an immigrant to Canada in December 1988 with my husband and two sons, the only motivation we had to face life, and of course the harsh winters that come with it in Canada, was that we were escaping from the government of General Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, who was slowly shaping the same ideology that today has undone Pakistan. Unfortunately, now we see that same ideology being imported into Canada.

Way back in 2000, I started writing articles warning Canadian Muslims about the dangers of radicalization, especially among the youth, who were confused with nowhere to go between the mosque and the mall for answers to their questions. They had all the prerequisites of fodder for Islamic mercenaries looking for victims to brainwash.

Let me retract there for a second. The word is “Islamist”, and not “Islamic”; I want to keep a very clear distinction between the spiritual Islam and political Islam, which is “Islam” and “Islamism.”

These youth had grievances, both real and imagined, and the burgeoning number of recruiters offered an ideology they could latch on to. If needed, they would doubtless have foreign funding to support their nascent extremist viewpoints. That is when we realized that Wahhabism, Salafism—that ideology—had found its way into Canada.

You may ask, what is that ideology? We, as Muslims loyal to Canada and holding Canadian safety and security as our top priority, are not new to this game and we have been tracking the rise of extremism in Canada for a very long time. Radicalization and extremism are not always overt, and the kind of battle we are waging today is an ideological battle, which means that it can't always be fought with weapons.

It's with this reference that I have an essay that was published by the Mackenzie Institute—it's quite a coincidence that they are here—and written by me about four years ago.

It outlines the rise of Islamist terrorism in Canada as I have seen it unfold in the past 28 years. I think you will find that it covers much of what is being discussed here and our concerns about the scale of the threats—radicalism, extremism, and terrorism in Canada—and this does not even begin to address the current issues posed by ISIS and how it is recruiting our children to its own cause.

I have to apologize, as this is not in the two official languages, but at the time of publication that was not a requirement. I would humbly request that this document be tabled as part of my presentation—I have 12 copies here—because it speaks to why I am here tonight and why, along with some other organizations and individuals, we are dedicating our time and effort to support Bill C-51.

Regarding specifically Bill C-51, I would like to take the liberty of offering that we also see some weaknesses as well as its overarching strengths. I am not a legal expert by a long shot, but my work as a community activist and a basic understanding of the bill suggest this.

The proposed granting to CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, of the power to disrupt is a challenging thing. In defence of the government, it can be said that where such powers would otherwise breach law, CSIS would first have to seek a warrant authorizing the disruption operation. However, I might suggest that the approach to gaining authority to do this might not be sufficient to guarantee appropriate limits on this technique. Therefore, it might be useful to expand the mandate of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, in order to make sure that any new departmental or agency powers have suitable review.

I would also like to point out that all government activity taking place in Canada is subject to the Canadian Constitution, notably including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, we look to the government to tailor review and other mechanisms appropriately, as all government activity will in the end be subject to the ultimate test, which is the Constitution.

Let me also add that we would like to consider Bill C-51 to be a work-in-progress, and that we are therefore confident that appropriate adjustment will be made in the legislation before it eventually becomes law. There is no doubt that our organization and the individuals involved would like to see this bill become the law. I fully understand and appreciate that in the western world, where our democracy is based on civil liberties, such an act may be perceived as encroaching on personal freedoms and values. However, we want to keep away threats to Canada, threats we are all familiar with as we see trial after trial unfolding and look at incidents where loyalty to the land in which we live was never made a priority.

Thank you very much for your time.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much.

I would just note that I would have to have the unanimous consent of the committee if we were to distribute the brief in one language. Does the chair have that?

6:55 p.m.

An hon. member

No.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

No, the chair does not have that, so the chair would request simply that the document be left with the clerk and a translation for an exhibit could take place, based on the will of the committee.

6:55 p.m.

President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

Raheel Raza

Thank you. I will do that.

6:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very kindly.

We will now go to the Canadian Labour Congress and whoever would like the floor.

Mr. Yussuff, go ahead, please.

6:55 p.m.

Hassan Yussuff President, Canadian Labour Congress

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Hassan Yussuff, and that is just one of the reasons I'm opposed to this bill. The other 3.3 million reasons are those unionized workers across this country whose rights are also under threat.

Let me begin by saying that the Canadian Labour Congress understands very well that the government has a responsibility to safeguard our public safety. Many of the workers we represent, those working at borders, for example, do that exactly every day across this country.

This bill is reckless. Its implementation will undermine the very freedom that the government claims it wants to protect. We stand with many Canadians who have concluded that the bill is more about posturing ahead of an election than it is about better protecting our public safety. We stand with those who say that this bill and the rhetoric being used to promote it targets and encourages the targeting of Muslim, Arab, and other racialized communities. For evidence of that, we can only remember how Ihsaan Gardee, the executive director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, was treated when he testified before this very committee just days ago.

We also agree with the many organizations and experts who worry that the bill does nothing to address the urgent need for oversight and review of the many agencies engaged in national security work. We simply can't understand why this government continues to ignore the findings and recommendations that were the result of the painstaking work of so many at the Arar commission, a process that was demanded and paid for by Canadians.

We are also especially concerned that if this bill becomes law it will limit free speech and dissent and advocacy. It is simply too far-reaching to define a threat to national security as “interference”, with, for example, the “economic or financial stability of Canada” or “critical infrastructure”, especially as the bill does not qualify what it means by “interference”. By saying, for example, “attacks” or “disruptions” or “damage”, or even “serious interference”, this bill may exclude lawful advocacy, protest, and dissent.

The term “lawful” is very narrow, as far as we're concerned. It will change the existing Criminal Code, which exempts all advocacy, protest, dissent, or stoppages of work not intended to endanger life or health. That means that labour demonstrations, marches, or rallies without permits would be deemed a threat to national security. Our work stoppages, while peaceful, might be deemed unlawful. If these actions are deemed to be a threat to national security, our members will be subjected to information sharing among the 17 government agencies engaged in national security work and could be subjected to disruption under the new police power granted to CSIS.

Canada has seen, through the case of Maher Arar and many others, how much harm can result from that.

We're also very concerned that this bill will introduce a new criminal offence for advocating or promoting the commission of terrorism acts in general. We think that many individuals who have no connection to terrorism and no intention of fomenting political violence will be caught up in the sweeping nature of this offence. This would impact freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, and academic freedom. The government has failed to justify why these changes are necessary, especially while so many highly publicized, terrorism-related arrests and convictions are proceeding very well under the existing Criminal Code.

I'd like to conclude by saying that it is very troubling that the members of Parliament seated here today are actively working to block the testimony of so many. I urge the committee members to reconsider.

Canadians do not want this bill to be rushed through without adequate and informed debate. I'm very certain that Canadians do want and expect their elected representative to benefit from the expertise of the Privacy Commissioner, special advocates, and others who have asked but been blocked from testifying to date before this committee.

On behalf of the CLC, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Mr. Yussuff.

We will now go to the representation from the Mackenzie Institute with Mr. Majoran or Mr. Hay.

7 p.m.

Brian Hay Chair, Board of Governors, Mackenzie Institute

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As chair of the Mackenzie Institute's board of governors, I am going to deliver the presentation, but our general manager, Andrew Majoran, will be able to respond to questions as well.

The board thanks the chair and the committee for the opportunity to make comments on Bill C-51. As you may know, the Mackenzie Institute is a not-for-profit organization and has worked for more than two decades to make Canadian leaders and the public more aware of the importance of security. For us, truly, security matters.

I am going to skip over our commercial parts as to our background, what we've done, where we've spoken, and in which articles we've appeared. Let me just say that our board of governors is entirely Canadian, with members who have lengthy careers in senior positions in the police, military, corrections, academia, and business. Our advisory board, which is chaired by the recently retired Major-General Lewis MacKenzie, currently has members with senior experience in the security and military sectors in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and India. We tend to be very focused nationally, but our view is also international.

Before commenting directly on Bill C-51, we would like to make several key observations.

First, like many western societies, Canada faces historically unparalleled threats to its physical and social security from economic, ideological, and perhaps perverted religious forces. Strong challenges from any one of these sectors would be sufficient for concern and for policy action. Simultaneous challenges, even if uncoordinated, could be extremely taxing, requiring substantial, integrated, and well-coordinated government action, but as with any government action, care must be taken to ensure that the result of the action is as intended and not just an exercise in job creation or building bureaucracy.

Second, many point to a concern about the impact of governments' actions, and in particular this bill, on the rights of the citizens. This is a valid concern. As a friend of mine likes to say, rights are much like employee benefits; they are much more difficult to reduce and take away than they are to give.

Third, to those who express sincere concern about what appears to be a government invasion of citizens' privacy, one can remark that perhaps that invasion is now about to become at least more transparent. We should all remember that Echelon, an international communications and information sharing protocol and program among Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Australia, has been used by the respective governments to review the communication of the citizens of the other participants and then share it with the government of those citizens. This system actually allowed, for many years, plausible deniability for governments to claim that they did not spy on their own citizens.

Private business and personal communications have been given increasing scrutiny by governments over several decades. Fortunately, much of this scrutiny has prompted greater transparency in business reporting. However, the growth of the Internet and numerous commercially available apps have also allowed greater access to and intrusion upon what was once private information. The basic issue is perhaps not the intrusion on privacy, or the degree thereof, in an information age. Perhaps the greater issue is, as so well stated by others, why the intrusion is made, by whom, and on what authority. How is it done and what recourse does the individual have?

Some may question the need for more and new laws when current laws, well applied, seem to work. Those who would assault our society are being apprehended, such as the Toronto 18 or the more recent train attackers. Yet a member of the Canadian Forces was run down in a parking lot and another was shot and killed on Parliament Hill by lone-wolf attackers. New laws would not have prevented those events from happening. Both individuals who committed these heinous crimes were on one or more watch-lists and had been visited by authorities. The key point, however, is that there was little coordination between these authorities.

When Parliament was assaulted, there appears to have been no coordinated preplanning to deal with such a situation. My goodness, why should Canadian security officials consider Canada an exception to attacks when Canada has been identified as a target by overseas terror organizations?

Perhaps the greater problem is not the lack of law or the need for more laws, but the lack of integrated planning and coordination of enforcement agencies as they have applied the existing law.

For example, I know personally that several years ago a municipal jurisdiction in the Ottawa region issued an RFP for new police radio systems. One of the criteria for the bid was that the system should not use or even carry the same frequencies as those in adjacent or nearby jurisdictions. You might ask why that was. The given rationale—and it was stated to me personally—was that one jurisdiction did not want the other to eavesdrop on their communications or conversations.

Crime and terrorism, like weather, respect no borders and no jurisdictions.

Perhaps it's time to look at developing a coordination mechanism like the fusion centres that have been established by our friends to the south. Government needs to enable the effective and responsible sharing of relevant, national, and local security information across departments and agencies at the operational level and not just at the executive level. Information is still at the discretion of each department, but there need to be strict regulations on information sharing to better identify and address threats.

No system will be perfect, but a system that has various security organizations working together and sharing information on a daily basis might utilize existing capabilities rather than simply adding more laws.

The Mackenzie Institute applauds those provisions of Bill C-51 that promote and fund enhanced coordination and information sharing under appropriate guidelines, but we also share concerns relating to the possible outcomes of other aspects of the bill.

For starters, we believe that even more clarity regarding the differences between the terms “dissent” and “terrorism” should also be sought. Bill C-51 will criminalize the advocacy or promotion of terrorism offences. The government's position is that lawful advocacy, protest, dissent, and artistic expression are fine, but how is “lawful” defined and by who? The language must be clear. Reasonable opposition, even to the point of demonstration, should not be considered terrorism unless and until the demonstration becomes destructive. Even then, one needs to distinguish between a riot, which is handled by conventional means, and a terrorist attack, which requires an unconventional response.

Changes in existing legislation may be needed, but the implications of those changes must be fully thought through.

For example, the CSIS Act as it stands is a good piece of legislation, but as it now stands, it provides CSIS with little authority for direct action. With the current security environment it may be desirable to give CSIS a little more power to act in low-level interventions and threat diminishment activities, for example, to reach out and prevent someone from going down the path of radicalization. Today CSIS isn't even allowed to tell a parent that their child is about to engage in violent jihad activity or to travel offshore.

In the past, the Security Intelligence Review Committee has actually criticized CSIS for taking these steps to diminish threats, partly because doing so is not in their mandate.

This act anticipates that with judicial warrants CSIS could break the law and contravene the charter, according to one commentator who has testified before you. This latter aspect may certainly represent overreaching by both the authorizing judge and CSIS itself in terms of the charter. More balance is needed between desired action and legal reach to get it.

Others have commented on the need for greater independent non-political oversight of how the law is applied. We believe that independent expert non-partisan oversight of our national security agencies is a better model than is political intervention in the process. Australia's inspector-general represents an independent example of how this can be done.

Further, the key powers of the new legislation must be clearly subject to judicial review and legal authorization.

Another area of concern is the potential for misuse of the powers granted on a day-to-day basis under current or new laws. In examples raised in the media and heard recently and known to me personally, existing laws and the powers they convey have been misused through either sloth or poor judgment or even deliberate actions.

Those charged with the responsibility of upholding the law are hopefully not automatons, but every human has weak points, which is at least good reason why there must be a well-defined and accountable approval process for any intrusion on privacy. Even thereafter, there must be an independent, transparent, fair, and expeditious appeal procedure. Thus, while the Mackenzie Institute applauds those provisions of Bill C-51 that promote and fund enhanced coordination and information sharing under appropriate guidelines, we share the concerns of possible outcomes of other aspects of the bill.

To search personal files at home or in the office requires a valid search warrant. To demand a password for a computer at a border crossing seems to be quite a reach of the law. Suspicion is no replacement for probable cause. Curiosity is no substitute for evidence. Permitting a judge to break a law, or to ignore the charter to uphold the law or protect a society that is to be based on law, seems at best contradictory.

Any legislation will be imperfect regardless of its—

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

You're a little over time. Could you wrap up, please?

7:10 p.m.

Chair, Board of Governors, Mackenzie Institute

Brian Hay

Absolutely. Thank you for your indulgence.

Let me just say that while we recognize that all legal rights may be invested in the crown, the action of the crown, as we've heard tonight, is limited by the toleration of the people. The Magna Carta demonstrated this centuries ago.

Thank you.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much to all of our witnesses for their contributions. We will now go to the rounds of questioning.

The first round is seven minutes.

Ms. James, you have the floor.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses who are appearing this evening.

I'm going to hopefully ask a number of questions to the witnesses, but I'm going to start with Ms. Raza.

You mentioned in your opening testimony that the world is looking at Canada right now. You made a reference to Europe, and I think you said something to the effect—I tried to write it down—that extremism exploded in such a way that they may not....

7:10 p.m.

President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

Raheel Raza

That it might not be able to be reversed.

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Could you explain when you think that started to happen in Europe? If Canada does not pay attention now, are we heading in that same direction?

7:10 p.m.

President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

Raheel Raza

I believe that the rise of extremism in Europe began around the same time that the Wahhabi Saudi ideology was being promoted on the backs of billions of petrodollars.

The situation in Europe is different from North America because of colonization, socio-economic situations, where especially in France the immigrant Muslim communities were highly ghettoized. There were large issues of poverty that also played into this. That poverty becomes one of the breeding grounds for extremism, where mercenaries prey on the minds of young people who are disfranchised by their own governments. This has been going on over a period of time.

Today I believe—and I don't have valid proof of this but we have read it—that there are areas in Europe, in Belgium, France, Norway, that are sharia zones where non-Muslims are not allowed to even enter. We have been looking at this for a long time, including in the United Kingdom, where the immigrants who came maybe 60 or 70 years ago did not integrate or adapt to the new land they came to and became subject to the kind of ideology and mercenaries that I have mentioned.

There is a book right now called Radical, by a British author, Maajid Nawaz. It is his personal story of how, born and brought up in England, he was recruited into the jihad. It is an eye-opening book for everyone to read because it tells you how even in western societies this can happen.

We don't want this to happen in Canada because our youth are at risk as well.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you.

We've heard from a number of witnesses who talked about the threat of terrorism, and that it's evolved.

In your opening testimony you said that, since 2000, you've been warning Canadian Muslims, especially youth, about the possibility or the threat of being involved in this and then it escalating to something more severe and more serious.

I go back to my own thoughts. I remember when I heard about the Toronto 18. I'm from Toronto and I had never heard of anything like that before, not in Canada. Now it seems as if every day we turn on the news and hear there are more people who are trying to get over there to fight with ISIL, and also we hear about people who have been charged, and so forth. I think everyone can agree that it's evolved and that we're seeing this becoming more commonplace. I think the threat is definitely more serious.

The question I'm trying to get to is this. On this committee we've heard from law enforcement and from multiple people from all walks of life. But there seems to be a common thread when we talk to any of our people involved in national security or fighting terrorism and crime, and so forth. We've heard pretty much full support for the measures that are in this bill.

When we talk about some of the measures—and you seem to be supportive of them—do you agree that the threat of terrorism has evolved to the point where we need to make sure that our law enforcement or security agencies evolve with it, and make sure they have better tools to really fill in the gaps they've identified?

7:15 p.m.

President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

Raheel Raza

Absolutely, I do believe that is true, because what we see today is unique in the sense that this is also an ideological war, as I said before, so tools are needed to understand where it's coming from.

But our own law enforcement agencies have been quite cognizant of this. Again, I refer you to the document in which I reported that, even as far back as what was happening in Canada before and after 9/11, even in the early 1990s, the Islamist groups in Canada were identified—Hezbollah, Hamas, and several Sunni and Islamic extremist groups with ties to Egypt, Algeria, and Libya.

In 1998 Ward Elcock, the then-director of CSIS, testified that there were more international terrorist organizations active in Canada than in any other country in the world, perhaps with the exception of the United States. When I saw that, that really made Bill C-51 valid.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Thank you.

We've also heard from a number of witnesses that a lot of the radicalization and promotion or bringing people into this whole mindset down the pathway to terrorism really starts with technology, and a lot of it is occurring on the Internet.

We've had witnesses testify that existing sections of the Criminal Code dealing with hate crimes and so forth are not adequate to fight what we're seeing right now with general things on the Internet or people calling out for general attacks against Canada, because part of the legislation in the Criminal Code deals more specifically, pointing out someone, a place, or an event, and things like that.

Do you agree that a lot of the radicalization and promotion of terrorism happens on the Internet, and do you agree with the measures in this bill that are trying to stop that spread, stop the radicalization, and stop people from—

7:15 p.m.

President, Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow

Raheel Raza

Yes, I do.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

Roxanne James Conservative Scarborough Centre, ON

Okay, thank you.

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Daryl Kramp

Thank you very much, Ms. James. That's fine.

Mr. Garrison, you have seven minutes, please.

7:15 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for appearing here this evening.

It's interesting. I sit at the same table as Ms. James and we seem to hear quite different things sometimes, because I heard all the witnesses tonight talking about some portions of this bill being too sweeping, and I heard all the witnesses talking about a need for additional oversight. I know the gap is of a certain size, but it seems to be growing between us on this as we listen to testimony on this bill.

I want to start by asking some questions to the CLC. First of all I want to acknowledge that the CLC represents probably more members than any organization we've had appear before us, with 3.3 million people.

Mr. Yussuff, you certainly represent more people than I do as a member of Parliament.

At the beginning of your presentation you talked about those you believe would be vulnerable to negative impact from this bill. I wonder if you could talk a little bit more about who those people are and how you think they'll be vulnerable if this bill proceeds.

7:20 p.m.

President, Canadian Labour Congress

Hassan Yussuff

I use my name as an example. My name is Hassan Yussuff, and I don't know whether anybody would distinguish who I am versus somebody else they may want to be suspicious of in our country.

We are a unique country with a unique character. I just happened to come back from Germany on Tuesday. I was over there in a forum with the Chancellor of Germany. It was remarkable that somebody noted that the fact that I was the president of the Canadian Labour Congress reflected what they have as a vision of our country. It's a very diverse country where people of many cultures, religions, and languages have come here to speak.

When I travel I wear it on my sleeve. I don't pretend that I'm anybody else. I'm a Canadian and I'm proud of my country. But I think we need to take care to ensure, as we are dealing with threats to our country, that we don't inflame the rhetoric that would ostracize people who have names like mine and more importantly have to go about justifying their existence and their defence of their own country as a Canadian. It's fundamental that we take care.

I speak to many of my colleagues in the field who tell me they're extremely worried about the negative impact all this debate is having on their kids, having to now justify themselves and their religion in their schools, which is unwarranted because I think you as lawmakers but we as Canadians as a whole—my organization specifically—have a responsibility to ensure that we can continue to build the social harmony that exists in this country and ensure that we build a country that respects the diversity of our own nation.