Public Safety Committee on May 10th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

I would now invite Ms. Larouche to begin her six minutes of questioning.

The floor is yours.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I thank all three witnesses for being with us today.

My first questions are for Mr. Aziz.

You spoke a great deal about the importance of rebuilding trust to encourage victims to report online crime. We know that it is important to raise awareness throughout the entire system about these issues.

What do you think the federal government should do? What steps should it take to restore the confidence of communities and people who want to report these crimes to the police?

[Navaid Aziz]

Thank you so much for your question, and thank you to the interpreter for facilitating that.

Trust needs to stem from a place of non-heightened emotion. Oftentimes, engagement with law enforcement comes at a time of heightened emotions. My approach to this is to recommend that there should be community advisory boards with law enforcement at all times—when emotions are heightened and when they are not—to guide them and facilitate their conversation with communities. That is the first thing to do.

The second thing is reconciling and apologizing for mistakes that have been made. We have to understand that communities are constituted of human beings with human emotions. If people are hurt, progress cannot be made. Mistakes that have been made need to be recognized, and apologies should be issued for that.

The third thing is education. It's very easy to say, “This is what you need to do in order to report a hate crime,” but in terms of the actual process, people need to be guided through that. Training sessions for community members and community leaders on how to report hate crimes should be there.

The fourth thing is the soft bedside manner that is needed. Oftentimes, people who have gone through a traumatic experience are unable to articulate what they have gone through, or they may forget what actually happened. Police officers need to remember that. You're dealing with someone who's just been through a traumatic experience, or they may not remember all the details right away. Try your utmost not to treat them like the perpetrator. Treat them, rather, like the victim. Oftentimes, because people feel as if they are the perpetrator when they are the victim, they shy away from reporting. The way they're treated goes a very long way.

Those are some of the recommendations I would make regarding the law enforcement question. Thank you so much.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

My next question is for you again, Mr. Aziz.

As well as awareness, it is likely that increased surveillance is needed. Beyond these four recommendations, how should federal police services reinforce their surveillance? Do you have a bit more advice on this?

[Navaid Aziz]

Thank you so much.

With regard to surveillance, there are two points to keep in mind over here. Number one is the high cost of surveillance. Surveillance is very cost-ineffective. It's very expensive. We have to look at other avenues in order to get information when needed.

Number two, the basis of a relationship, if information is shared both ways and support is provided both ways, is that, naturally, information that may be imperative for law enforcement will be provided. Communities will recognize that it is in their best interests to provide information to law enforcement and to agencies. It will only serve their interests and their own protection. That information needs to come from a place of safety and from a place of equal platform.

One of the examples I like to give in my presentations is of a bus being driven. In a pre-criminal space, the community leads the bus and drives the bus. Law enforcement takes the back seat and just supports the Muslim community, or rather communities in general. In a post-criminal space, or when criminality has taken place, then law enforcement leads the way. They drive the bus. The community is there in a supportive role of what is needed.

That collaborative approach, where everyone is equal and on the same page, is very important, but that can only be done with relationships being built on an equal platform. The key over here is the collection of information and not so much the focus on surveillance itself.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

To conclude this first round, I'll turn to Mr. Hashim.

You spoke a great deal about the research you've done. I'd like to know what you've learned from that research, especially how Canadians feel about the spread of online hate speech and radicalization. Do you have any data on manifestations of racism connected to extremism?

[Mohammed Hashim]

Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, we've done a number of surveys in regard to online hate, in particular whether or not Canadians are in favour of supporting online hate legislation and their experiences of facing online hate. I think some of the more striking numbers that come to bear from that research are around who the victims are. The number one victims of online hate, according to the research that we have, are women, women of colour and youth between 18 and 30 years old. Those are the number one targets of online hate. They experience more hateful content, more misogynistic comments and more racist comments than anybody across the spectrum.

There's also a tremendous sense of disappointment in terms of what our communities expect the online experience to look like and what they are experiencing. There's a lack of confidence that a safe space can be provided. However, there is significant support to see greater legislation in this environment, because people want that space to become safer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Mr. MacGregor, I will now turn the floor over to you for six minutes of questions.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for helping guide our committee through this study.

Mr. Aziz, I would like to turn to you for my first question, if I can. I was present as a member of Parliament in the 42nd Parliament, and I remember the furor over the debate involving motion 103, which was using the term “Islamophobia” and calling it out for what it is. It always struck me as very strange that we have a general acceptance of what the term “anti-Semitism” means, but the word “Islamophobia” created just such an uproar and furor.

I guess what I want to know from you, sir, is what the legacy has been of that very charged debate on Islamophobia for the Muslim community. Where are we at now in the years that have passed since that debate?

[Navaid Aziz]

Thank you so much for your question.

I think it's important to highlight the different perspectives with regard to this debate. One perspective of this debate is that we need to call it out for what it is, which is anti-Muslim hatred. It's not this fear that people have. It's clearly targeted against the Muslim community and it should be called anti-Muslim hate. Another perspective of this is that there is a fear that if we start deeming things to be Islamophobic, then one cannot criticize the religion or criticize the religious texts, which is a right that people have.

That being said, I believe this debate is ongoing. I don't see a resolution coming any time soon. That is at a theoretical level. On a practical level, what I think needs to be understood is that all citizens and all human beings deserve those equal rights. They deserve the rights and freedoms that everyone has.

What we label it in particular is not as relevant. What are we doing to keep everyone safe, to keep everyone included and to make sure that everyone has the opportunity and freedom that everyone is afforded? That's what needs to be looked at.

Unfortunately, I don't have the good news of sharing that there's a resolution to this debate any time soon.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you. I appreciate your mentioning the term “anti-Muslim hate” as, I think in your words, a more preferential term. Am I getting you right on that?

[Navaid Aziz]

I am undecided. I think, depending on the context, both terms, Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred, may be relevant and pertinent.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

In your opening remarks, you were talking about the need for sustainable funding and, really, for those community-based ones. We have certainly heard testimony in a previous study about the very real value in funding intervention programs for youth who may be susceptible to joining violent criminal gangs and the incredible success that has been there. I want to ensure that this committee comes forward with very sincere recommendations that honour what you and others have presented to our committee.

Are there any specifics that you would like to see our committee mention in a recommendation to the federal government with respect to that sustainable funding part?

[Navaid Aziz]

The Canada centre for community engagement and prevention of violence has funded many programs across the country, particularly a few in each province. Number one is that there needs to be a deeper study in terms of what the results of this funding have been, how many people were part of the programs, and then based on that, decide which programs need to continue and which programs need to be shut down because they're irrelevant and are not providing the results for the money being put forth. That is, I would say, the biggest thing that needs to be looked at.

Number two is in terms of expanding these programs to remote areas. That has always been the challenge. A lot of these individuals who go down this path of violent extremism will live in remote areas, and they do not have access to these programs. How do we make those programs more accessible in these remote areas and not just in the metropolitan cities or in the larger urban areas?

Those are the two biggest things that I would suggest on that front.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I appreciate that. Thank you very much for your answers on that.

I'd like to turn to MediaSmarts and Dr. Brisson-Boivin.

I have your printout here, the recommendations for platforms. You mentioned that creating and implementing rules that help to set the values of a community can change how people behave, and that if platforms don't set clear rules and standards, the norms of the community will be set by users.

Throughout this study we found that there's this conflict. Of course, social media platforms make a lot of their money through advertising revenue, which is really pushed by user-generated content, and the more exciting or extreme it can be, the more engagement you get. There's this conflict. Social media companies say that they have clearly written terms and conditions, but it didn't stop people like Pat King from basically using Facebook to livestream on his way to the occupation of Ottawa.

I don't have a lot of time. I guess my question to you is this: What's the federal government's clear role here in helping accountability and transparency to be set by these companies for those clear rules and standards?

[Dr. Kara Brisson-Boivin]

Thank you very much for the question.

Yes, I think there is a role for both government and platforms to work in tandem here, for example, to set forth some of those recommendations we made. There needs to be regulatory or legislative structure or law put in place such that it holds platforms accountable for setting those community standards. I think the other thing that's equally as important is some kind of metric whereby we can see that the standards are actually enforced.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you very much.

We now move into our second round of questions. The leadoff questioner will be Mr. Van Popta.

Sir, you have five minutes. The floor is yours.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to all the witnesses for spending time with us here today and for sharing their wisdom and knowledge with us as we seek to develop a report around ideologically motivated violent extremism.

I'm going to start with Dr. Brisson-Boivin.

Thank you for the very important work that your organization MediaSmarts is undertaking.

I'm reading from a publication by your organization called “From Access to Engagement”. There's a great working definition, which I'm going to read into the record. It says, “Digital media literacy is the ability to critically, effectively and responsibly access, use, understand and engage with media of all kinds.”

To narrow it down a bit, this is a study about the rise of violent extremism. Your work is particularly with young people and to bring MediaSmarts into their lives. Perhaps you could tie those two together: your research and the rise of violent extremism in our communities.

[Dr. Kara Brisson-Boivin]

Thank you very much for that question.

I would say that the two are related insofar as we see digital media literacy being the crux, or oftentimes a measure that is sometimes thought of as an afterthought or a response. We really do see it as a preventative harm reduction approach for both young people and the trusted adults in their lives.

The report you're referencing is focusing in particular on how Canada needs to take a stance around digital media literacy, on in which we view it as a lifelong learning process. We are talking about supports from pre-K through to seniors facilities.

Many jurisdictions across the world are in the process of developing strategies for digital media literacy. These strategies include some of those key critical thinking skills I was mentioning around authenticating and verifying information, and recognizing online hate in terms of the cultures of prejudice and some of the ideologies and tactics of hate, including the use of misinformation and disinformation.

The strategy report you're referencing is one in which we are advocating for the federal government to come together to support Canadians in their digital media literacy journey, which is a lifelong journey.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you.

It's a lifelong journey, not just for young people. I think adults as well could benefit a lot from MediaSmarts education.

You said in your testimony that we can't regulate our way out of dangers on the Internet. The Internet is a great gift, but it's also full of dangers. I'll use the example I've used with my children. We expect our police to keep our streets safe, but at the same time we don't walk down dark alleys on our own because it's dangerous.

I am looking for your expert opinion on the allocation of responsibilities among schools, educators, parents, communities, government and the individuals themselves.

[Dr. Kara Brisson-Boivin]

Thank you very much for the question.

I think this is one of those big questions. It's the big messy challenge we are facing today. How do we create that whole-of-society response that I was mentioning?

First and foremost, we need leadership at the federal level where the federal government takes ownership in building a strategy that will impact other government departments in setting budgets, for example, that would include digital media literacy as a key budget objective.

We also need to map the field of digital media literacy in Canada. That has yet to be done. There are hundreds of organizations doing this work on the ground, including MediaSmarts. We need to better understand what those are, what they are doing and how we can work together.

That also informs my comment about budget. We need to create funding for this work that doesn't pit these civil society organizations in competition with one another, but allows us to work together in synergy to combat these various issues, which include the variety of online harms that we've all been talking about as well as ideologically motivated violent extremism.

We see the education sector as being a player in that but not the only player. We see regulation as being very pivotal and important but not the only solution. It is the same for platform responsibilities and for technological design in that as well. That is part of the solution here but not the only approach.

Thank you very much.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'll give the time back to the chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

Thank you.

I appreciate the 10 seconds because it gives me a chance, on everybody's behalf, to congratulate Mr. Noormohamed on the birth of his boy.

[Voices]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Liberal, Jim Carr]

I think he is three weeks old. Do I have that right?