Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2022

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Do you do it in Canada?

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

We have not done that work in Canada, not at this stage.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

When you were given funding from the Canadian government and a mandate to look into this, were you asked to look into left-wing extremism or was it specifically mandated to look into far-right wing extremism?

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

The funding that we received at the time for Canada redirect was specifically to cover far-right extremism and al Qaeda and Daesh inspired terrorism.

There was a previous project that we delivered back in 2017 that was about the digital capacity of prevention practitioners across the country, and that was very much cross-ideological in nature—

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

I only have a minute left. I'm sorry.

When you made the claim that the vast majority of the search engine results are for far-right groups, you were talking about that in the context of Canada. Is that correct?

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

Yes, that's correct.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

If you're not measuring left-wing extremism, how can you make the claim that the majority of extremist search results are right wing, if you don't have a mandate and haven't been looking into any left-wing extremism search results?

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

You're absolutely right, sir. I would encourage research on far-left search activity or any far-left activity in Canada. We would go where the data leads us. That particular project was an investigation into far-right, al Qaeda and Daesh inspired terrorism. Within that context, the vast majority came up far right.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Sturgeon River—Parkland, AB]

Thank you.

I'm not suggesting that it isn't important research, but I think we can get a recommendation to the committee that we need an objective look at extremism across the political spectrum to be funded by the Canadian government.

Would you agree with that?

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

As I mentioned earlier, sir, I believe every prevention capability should be cross-ideological in nature, so yes, I would welcome that study.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Damoff, you will take us to the end of this panel. You have two minutes whenever you're ready.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

For Moonshot again, last week we heard from Tony McAleer who, as you know, is the co-founder of Life After Hate. I understand he is one of your board members.

Is that correct, or are you on his board?

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

I am personally on the board of Life after Hate. That's correct.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

He talked a lot about how we remove people from extremism, and he mentioned that someone's ideology is intertwined with their identity. I'm just wondering if there's any influence you've seen from your work with Mr. McAleer that you can recommend to us moving forward.

[Vidhya Ramalingam]

We tend to find, and some of these findings have been in partnership with Life After Hate over the years, that, while ideology is important, usually when you're delivering interventions, it's most important to get at the underlying drivers, and if you can get at the underlying drivers, the ideology will fall away.

In our digital work when we're engaging with at-risk audiences online, we tend to find the most effective way to reach out to them online is not through countering the ideology or telling them that they're wrong. It's talking about their emotional state. We found that the most effective ad we ran in the United States last year with white supremacist audiences was one that begin with, “Anger and grief can be isolating.”

I would very much support Tony's statements on this that ideology is important, but ideology will fall away if we can get at the underlying drivers here.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Chair, I only have 15 seconds left, so I'll give them back to you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

That gives me a chance to thank them even more robustly.

To the witnesses, thank you so much for the insight. This is fascinating, timely and so important to the country. On behalf of all members of our committee and all parliamentarians, thank you for sharing this last hour with us. It's been very valuable.

Colleagues, this is a reminder that the next meeting is the final meeting of the IMVE study. Departmental officials will appear in the first hour, and only two witnesses will appear in the second hour to allow time for instructions to the analysts on drafting the IMVE report. This portion of the meeting will take place in camera.

Thank you. We will now suspend.

The clerk will do his magic and line up the witnesses for the next panel. I don't think that's going to take anything more than a minute or two. We're almost there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I now call this meeting back to order.

With us on this second round, as an individual, we have Navaid Aziz, imam. From the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, we have Mohammed Hashim, executive director; and from MediaSmarts, Dr. Kara Brisson-Boivin, director of research.

Each of our guests will have up to five minutes to make an opening comment. I will start with Mr. Navaid Aziz.

Please, sir, you have five minutes for an opening comment.

[Navaid Aziz, Imam, As an Individual]

Thank you so much, honourable Chair and members of the committee. I appreciate this opportunity allowing me to share with you today.

As mentioned, my name is Navaid Aziz, and I am a classically trained Muslim scholar. I have served as an imam for over 10 years in Calgary. From 2012 to 2015, we saw a surge of young Muslims travel overseas to join extremist groups and factions, and it was at this time that I began my own personal study of violent extremism to develop an expertise as much as I possibly could.

I have served as an expert witness with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in a terrorism-related case. I have mentored and helped in the rehabilitation of several individuals charged with terrorism offences, and I've published two papers, one on the reintegration and rehabilitation of Canadian and foreign fighters and a second on a brief guide to right-wing extremism in Canada.

I'm hoping that my perspective today will be unique in the sense that it will be primarily focused on a community-focused point of view.

Starting off with 2012 to 2015, an insurmountable amount of pressure was applied to the Muslim community as to why these problems were happening in the Muslim community, why Muslims were not better integrated, and what the Muslim community was doing to solve this problem. A community that is not homogeneous or monolithic was asked to deal with an issue that it was not responsible for. It was not given any further support other than being told what to do, and it had no prior experience in dealing with such issues.

Law enforcement and policy-makers had securitized the relationship with the Muslim community. It infiltrated mosques with informants, which created a sense of distrust. Relationships were built on the basis of collecting information to facilitate the collecting of information for prosecution, and no support was provided when needed. It also created a perception of good Muslims and bad Muslims. Those who co-operated were good, and those who didn't were bad. The average community member was not afforded any neutrality.

Multiple experts have also pointed out throughout the years that there was a disproportionate number of terrorism-related prosecutions on the Muslim community within Canada.

I struggle with this introduction, my dear committee, to point out that, in what we have seen in 2016 onwards in the rise of populism and right-wing extremism, the Muslim community was a primary target. In 2017, we witnessed the Quebec mosque massacre, and in 2021 the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, was murdered in cold blood. May we never forget these people.

We did not see the same questions being posed to other communities. Why was this happening? What are they doing to solve their own problems?

We did not see the securitization of relationships in the sense that informants were proposed and put forth in very high numbers, nor did we see a dichotomy created of people being labelled as good people or bad people. This is not to say that this is the response that should be expected, but this is to point out that we have some serious problems at an institutional level that need to be addressed.

What am I proposing and what do we need to look at? With regard to my proposal, I suggest that when we look at funding, we look at three approaches.

Number one, with regard to the security infrastructure proposal, we need to understand that not all minority groups will be able to access this grant or this bursary because there is very little history in terms of them actually applying for such grants and the support is not provided. It is very difficult for them.

Number two, with regard to sustainable funding for CVE initiatives across Canada, particularly in the province of Alberta, the Organization for the Prevention of Violence saw an influx of numbers come in, particularly in March and April of 2020, after January 6 and after the freedom convoy. Oftentimes we may think that this may increase right-wing radicalization, but it also created an opportunity to be introspective, where people were seeking support for themselves and their family members when they saw them go down a dangerous path. These programs do not have sustainable funding but are dependent on grants and bursaries as well.

My last proposal for funding is with regard to research to look deeply into what the environments are that create such forms of violent extremism, and this needs to be the primary research.

My last proposal in terms of a recommendation is that, when we look at relationships, we need to have a community-focused addition to this so that, as we look at equity, diversity and inclusion, it's not just that at a physical level or the physical representation is increased, but even representation in terms of thoughts and ideas and sources need to be included as we include equity, diversity and inclusion in our infrastructures and in our boards at that level.

That is what I wanted to share with you in my five minutes. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

That was exactly five minutes. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hashim, I now turn to you and invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes, sir.

Go ahead whenever you're ready.

[Mohammed Hashim, Executive Director, Canadian Race Relations Foundation]

Thank you.

Thank you for having me here today. I want to acknowledge that I'm speaking to you from the traditional territories of the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation in Mississauga, Ontario.

My name is Mohammed Hashim. I'm the executive director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. The CRRF was born out of an apology to Japanese Canadians who were wrongfully imprisoned in internment camps during World War II. Part of their redress agreement involved the creation of the CRRF as an independent federal Crown corporation in 1996, which now lives within the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Our organization does research and community engagement, hosts policy discussions, provides funding to community groups and is currently supporting the creation of Canada's renewed anti-racism strategy, new anti-hate strategy and the strategy on combatting online harms with the government.

When we think about the ecosystem around IMVE, what ends in violence isn't always the full story. There was a journey that preceded the violence. We see many actors over time who start by being involved in hate incidents, then move up into hate speech, sometimes go further and commit hate crimes, and even commit violence as part of that journey.

We are not experts on IMVE, but we think the story starts far before the violence, specifically with hate, and that is where our work is primarily focused. It's work we know we can't do alone, and that's why we, along with the RCMP, are co-chairing a national task force on hate crimes. We are bringing together some of the brightest minds across law enforcement to improve training, increase public awareness and build standards for the police and community.

Hate is a growing concern in Canada and globally, and its targets are always changing. Racialized communities have been ringing the alarm bells for years. The night the Quebec City massacre happened, I was speaking to a friend who told me she was not surprised by what had happened because of the ongoing hate that had been targeted at Canadian Muslims and other minorities for years in this country.

The anticipation of violence towards that community was constant and is being felt by many today. There have been consistent failures on the part of institutions to take these harms seriously, which brings us to this moment. While it is crucial that we are here, it is equally important to note that this discussion is long overdue. When we look at hate and the administration of justice, it is hard to have faith that the system will right the wrongs.

For far too long, online platforms have provided safe environments in which hateful rhetoric has been able to spread without recourse. Those spewing such hate feel powerful, above the law or consequences, and those targeted are left feeling helpless and alone. According to the StatsCan survey on victimization, there were over 200,000 hate incidents, almost half of them of a violent nature. Hate incidents reported to the police over the past few years represent only a fraction—probably about 1%—of that number. There is a major gap between what people are saying they're experiencing and what is actually coming to the justice system's attention. There are real impacts on individuals and communities when there is so little faith in the system, even when the system actually works.

There was a recent case presided over by Judge Cidalia Faria. In this case, there was a woman who stepped in to intervene in a situation in which another woman and a child were being mistreated by a man. The man then focused on the intervenor, ripped off her hijab and assaulted her by hitting her in the face while yelling hateful rhetoric. The victim, who was known for being a strong community volunteer, said her voice was taken away from her and that the man said that if she spoke up there would be some horrible consequence for standing up. She is a very outspoken person and she doesn't feel as though she has been herself since then.

I share this with you because I think we failed the victim. I'm not going to question the judge's decision to let the guilty party off with a suspended sentence because of mitigating factors, but I do know that the victim in this case did not receive adequate support to restore her faith in this community.

She isn't alone. Victims of hate are often let down in this country, and, by extension, so are their communities. Canada needs a robust system to support victims of hate. We need this system not only to help individuals recover but also to ensure that communities feel supported through the process—from reporting a hate crime to getting support through a trial and afterwards to finding help to get back on their feet. We know that hate crimes are message crimes. It is time we sent a counter-message to the victims that they are seen and heard and will be supported.

I focused my remarks on victims today because far too often we look at hate crimes and IMVE with a focus solely on the perpetrator, while mostly ignoring victims. We must address prevention, investigation and prosecution as we are doing through our work on the national task force on hate crimes. We must realize what is at stake if we don't address the reverberating harms left on victims. When we leave victims, either individuals or whole communities, without faith that their concerns are being heard, we see people lose faith in democratic systems.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

You have 10 seconds, please.

[Mohammed Hashim]

If we want people to feel like they belong to this country, that their safety and well-being matter, that when they are the victims of hate and IMVE they won't be left to fend for themselves—

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

I would now invite Dr. Brisson-Boivin to take the floor for an opening comment of up to five minutes.

[Dr. Kara Brisson-Boivin, Director of Research, MediaSmarts]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members, and thank you for this opportunity to speak with all of you.

MediaSmarts has been working in the field of online hate for nearly two decades. Our research has consistently found that Canadian youth are frequently exposed to racist and sexist content online and that they feel it is important to do something about it, but also that they are not prepared to critically engage with hate content or to push back when they encounter it.

Our research with youth examined their attitudes and experiences with hate online—specifically, why they do or don’t intervene. We found that what’s more common than overt hate are cultures of hatred, communities in which racism, misogyny and other forms of prejudice are normalized. When hate online goes unchallenged, users may believe that intervention is overreaction. A community's norms are largely set by the most committed 10% of members.

When cultures of hatred are masked as consensus and the behaviour is not seen as harmful, the majority of witnesses may not believe intervention is worth the risk of social exclusion. Youth are particularly vulnerable because they are worried about disrupting social harmony, losing their social capital or status with their peers and drawing unwanted attention to themselves.

Hate groups take advantage of this as well as the digital architecture of online spaces, working to make hate appear more mainstream and acceptable to expand their pools of potential recruits and create an online environment hostile to their targets. Our most recent study with young Canadians shows that 2SLGBTQ+ youth are almost twice as likely to report having been bullied and to have seen racist and sexist content online.

Our study on algorithmic awareness highlights how design, defaults and artificial intelligence are shaping our online spaces. Recommendation algorithms can diminish our capacity to verify whether or not something is true online, as users may perceive content that is delivered algorithmically and curated for them as more trustworthy.

Online hate has the power to change how we know what we say we know about scientific and historical facts, social norms and even our shared reality. As youth overwhelmingly turn to the Internet as a source of information, they run the risk of being misled by hate content. If that misinformation is not challenged and users do not have the critical thinking skills to challenge it, some youth may come to hold dangerously distorted views.

Youth need to be supported in developing the skills and knowledge to be able to recognize online hate. This means learning general critical thinking and digital media literacy skills, as well as the techniques and ideologies of hate. In order to talk about controversial topics and have healthy debate, users need to be able to distinguish between arguments based on facts and those that appeal to dehumanization and fear of the other.

Youth also need clear examples of how they can respond when they encounter hate and prejudice online. Interventions should emphasize that even small efforts to push back against online hate can have profound impacts on motivating others to intervene. They need to feel that their opinions and experiences matter and will be considered by those with decision-making capacity.

Youth believe platforms and technology companies have a responsibility to set clear rules and community standards to make it easier for users to report hate and then respond to those reports through publicized enforcement metrics. They also feel that policy interventions should give youth and the trusted adults in their lives more opportunities to learn digital media literacy in Canadian classrooms, homes and communities.

I'll conclude my comments by expanding on that final point.

The value of an educational approach to online hate cannot be overstated. While governments and online platforms have important roles to play, we cannot legislate, moderate or design our way out of these challenges. We need to ensure that all people in Canada have the tools and critical capacities to safely and positively engage as ethical digital citizens.

In this way, digital media literacy is a preventative measure and a harm reduction approach to ideologically motivated violent extremism. This approach does not let either platforms or regulators off the hook by laying the burden of the challenge on the shoulders of individual users. Rather, what’s needed is a whole-of-society approach that holds platforms and governments accountable, both in their role in combatting online harm as well as in supporting digital media literacy.

MediaSmarts has been advocating for a national digital media literacy strategy for over 15 years, a recommendation consistently endorsed by key stakeholders and community partners and reconfirmed in our report on building a national “Digital Media Literacy Strategy for Canada”, released last month. This strategy would provide experts, advocates and service providers with a unified but flexible approach for preventing and responding to online harm—