Debates of Feb. 16th, 2017

Opposition Motion--Systemic racism and religious discrimination

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have to go back very far to find quite outrageous things said by former parliamentarians. I would like to have seen this House in the wake of the tragedy, the murders, in Quebec City. We were quite united. We were clear, as parliamentarians, that we were denouncing the murderous acts against Muslims for the sole reason that they were praying in a mosque.

We should be united around this, and I appreciate that the NDP position is to vote for both motions. I agree, for the record. The motions, side by side, do not create any conflicts, one with the other. They can both be passed. I see nothing wrong with Motion No. 103.

The background context that poisons this debate is what is going on in social media and what is going at rallies, such as the one this weekend in Toronto. There are posters on utility poles around Ottawa this morning that call out what they allege is Christian-phobia and say that Motion No. 103 will bring sharia law.

The backdrop to our reasoned debate as parliamentarians is an unreasonable campaign of disinformation that is unfortunately reaching people across Canada who honestly believe now that the completely reasonable Motion No. 103 will threaten religious freedom or bring sharia law.

That is the problem with our debate here. We are not engaging with the real problem: an anonymous plague of false disinformation.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's reminder of the larger context here. We have recently witnessed a very high-profile American election where a sexist, racist president was chosen with fewer votes than his opponent. Nevertheless, in a broken electoral system in the U.S., that is who will now be setting the tone in the media for the next four years.

We are seeing some of the same echoes in the Conservative leadership campaign, so I absolutely share my fellow member's concern that the tone at the top is very important and that we need to speak out and condemn racism and sexism where we see it.

I certainly hope Conservatives on this side of the House will choose a leader who reflects an approach to a tolerant and diverse country and will not be swept up in some of the fanning of the flames we have seen recently, to great harm.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this motion of the Conservatives, who have chosen one of their rare opposition days to discuss a very important subject, namely systemic racism and discrimination.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives have decided not to specifically include the issue of systemic discrimination and racism toward Muslims in their motion. They deliberately decided to withdraw that element from the motion, obviously in contrast to Motion No. 103, which we all know, and which we debated yesterday evening in the House. We are not going to turn a blind eye today, for this is certainly why the Conservatives have decided to devote an opposition day to this topic as well, to try and short-circuit, if I may use that expression, the initiative of one of our colleagues on the other side of the House, who had very good intentions.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives seem to want to play with words and play politics on this issue. It is too bad, because this sensitive subject is extremely important. It is above all a very real phenomenon. We have seen it in the past, and unfortunately very recently as well.

The motion makes reference to the recent attack at the Quebec City mosque, which all my colleagues in the House are aware of. Following that attack, we all observed a moment of silence in the House in honour of the victims. That is clearly the context in which we are debating this extremely important and very sensitive subject today; this is something that is very real.

As I was also saying, this debate is of course taking place in the context of Motion No. 103, which is virtually identical to today’s motion. The only important distinction to be made is that Motion No. 103 included a certain form of discrimination and racism called “Islamophobia”. That is the only important difference. However, the motion by our Liberal colleague says simply, “including Islamophobia.”

The Conservatives' speeches, however, give the impression that they think that Motion No. 103 deals only with Islamophobia and that it specifies only one form of discrimination based on only one religion. On the contrary, if Motion No. 103 is read as it should be read, it is clear that the subject is systemic religious discrimination and racism, including Islamophobia. All the same, I find it surprising that the Conservatives are in the end opposed to including a certain form of specific discrimination in the study that the committee will be undertaking on this issue.

It is also important to remember the ultimate goal of both motions, because I almost feel as though we are talking about two different issues today, when clearly the two motions are almost identical. That is why I will not be making much of a distinction between the two during my speech.

Nevertheless, this change in the Conservative motion, comparted to the Liberal motion, is being fuelled by a campaign of falsehoods and fearmongering that is taking hold across Canada and that is clearly fuelled by false information. It is a campaign of misinformation, period.

The Conservatives would have people believe, and my Green Party colleague mentioned this earlier, that freedom of expression is suddenly at stake, because someone decided to include Islamophobia in a motion that calls on a parliamentary committee to study the issue of racism and discrimination in order to come up with solutions. I simply do not understand the logic in that.

How can anyone arrive at that conclusion and that twisted logic, namely, that freedom of expression is going to be jeopardized because a committee is being asked to study an issue as important as discrimination and racism, including Islamophobia? Clearly, something is wrong with this picture.

Unfortunately, that is the context in which we are debating this motion. There is a misinformation campaign being fuelled by certain groups in Canada.

After putting today's debate somewhat in context, I would like to talk about a very real phenomenon that I have seen in my community of Sherbrooke. There is systemic discrimination and a form of racism. It is important to use the real words and admit that this exists.

In Sherbrooke, I have received testimonials from people from different religious communities, but especially the Muslim community. People come to tell me their stories and how they feel discriminated against, especially with regard to employment, as well as in other areas and other circumstances.

This discrimination is hard to prove, but it seems to be based on religion. There are some concrete examples, such as the case of a man from the Muslim community who came to see me. He was looking for a job for a long time. I am sure I have colleagues who know what I am talking about because they may have heard the same thing. He told me he had been looking for work for years. He had all the necessary training. If I am not mistaken, he was an engineer from Morocco or one of the countries of the Maghreb. Naturally, he had an arabic-sounding name. An engineer by training, he came to Quebec and took all the courses he needed to be up to date because the professional associations do not necessarily make it easy to bring people in. He did everything required of him to join the Ordre des ingénieurs. He looked for work for years to no avail and then one day, many years later, he finally found something in Montreal. Unfortunately, he had to leave Sherbrooke.

That is something I am all too familiar with and have heard time and time again. Immigrants in Sherbrooke end up having to leave because there is no work.

He told me that once he found work, he tried something to find out if his name was the reason employers turned him down. He changed his name on his résumé and sent it to the same companies that had not called him in for an interview. It did not take long for someone to call him back and offer him a job, or at least an interview.

I hear that kind of story all the time. That is why the issue we are debating is extremely important. I want to emphasize that this issue is very real. I have seen it first-hand, as have some of my colleagues.

That is why we have to adopt this motion and Motion No. 103. We can adopt both of them. I think it would be very useful for a House of Commons committee to study this issue and come up with some solutions. We are here not just to condemn bad situations, but to find solutions. That is what will be expected of the committee. I am heartened by the positive signals I am picking up from both sides of the House. The Conservatives certainly tried to play with words to turn this issue into a political football.

Nevertheless, this initiative is a step in the right direction. We have to examine the issue and focus on finding solutions. That is what the committee will do. It will recommend solutions and actions to the government. Those solutions will enable us to shape a nation that reflects who we are and fulfills our aspirations, a more just and egalitarian nation with opportunities for all of us. Everyone will have the same opportunity no matter where they come from or what their family background is.

I see that my time is up, so I would be very pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.

I urge all my colleagues to support these initiatives to discuss this issue. I will be most pleased to respond to their questions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate hearing my colleague's thoughts on our motion as well as some of the larger context.

Looking at the text of the motion, it says very clearly that we “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities”. Members have talked about the importance of calling out discrimination by name, and our motion very clearly does that. There is no ambiguity in our motion. That is one of the clear differences and one of those things that is particularly important.

Also, the timeline allows us to move forward earlier and more quickly with the committee study. Our motion does not just suggest a committee study; it directs a committee study.

Would the member agree that those are particular strengths of this motion? Would he speak to the value of proceeding with this motion, and also the fact that even if members want to vote in favour of a different motion, that does not mean they should not vote for this motion on its merits?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Indeed, the Conservatives’ motion has considerable merit, and that is why we are going to support it. That does not prevent all of our colleagues from supporting a similar motion that will certainly not hinder the work of the same committee, for even though the two motions are parallel, they give directions to the same committee. Therefore one certainly does not prevent the other.

To answer my colleague’s question, this is indeed a well-drafted motion. That is why we support it, and we urge our colleagues to do the same, for this is an extremely important subject. It is a very real phenomenon that we have to address, as parliamentarians, in order to find solutions.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that this opposition day motion had played with words, and was been playing politics. I would agree with him. The Conservatives have taken a very valuable opportunity, an opposition day motion, and have essentially duplicated a motion that we have presented on this side of the House, save and except for the fact that the word Islamophobia is used. That is really the distinguishing difference, and I think everyone in this chamber has agreed that Islamophobia does exist.

It seems to me that there is a fear of addressing this word. Do we not combat that fear by using the word? Do we not rise to that challenge by voting for the motion? In order to approach and directly confront what is happening here, we need to confront what is out there, which is Islamophobia.

Is the right response to that to vote against this motion in an effort to directly approach Islamophobia head-on, and vote only for the motion that we put forward in an effort to not play politics, to not allow that to happen, but to show Canadians our values, and that this is an important value for which we have to stand up?

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this point.

Indeed, I am not afraid of talking about Islamophobia and mentioning that word, unlike some of our colleagues. That way we have a better understanding of what we are talking about and what that word means. For me, it is clear: it means fear of a religious community. No long search in the dictionary is necessary to find the definition of that word: phobia of Islam.

If we mention the word in the House and we adopt motions that mention it, that will certainly demonstrate that we are very concerned about this phenomenon and that, as I was saying earlier, it is very real.

Furthermore, I do not think that voting for just one or the other of these motions will improve the situation. To think that way is simply to play the same political game, where we want to be the one who succeeded in moving the matter forward. Both motions are moving in the right direction and, fortunately, will make it possible to address an important subject.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable, Rail Transportation; the hon. member for Saskatoon—Grasswood, The Environment; the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, The Environment.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Edmonton Manning for this period of debate on the motion of my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I think it is important for those at home who have just tuned in to remember the purpose of the motion that we are discussing today in the House. I would like to read the motion because I find it to be very complete. This motion accurately reflects what we, as a society, think we should and should not do when it comes to hateful acts. My colleague's motion reads as follows:

That the House: (a) recognize that Canadian society is not immune to the climate of hate and fear exemplified by the recent and senseless violent acts at a Quebec City mosque; (b) condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities; and (c) instruct the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake a study on how the government could...

For those who are not as familiar with the work of the House, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is a committee of parliamentarians from all parties that meet to discuss and debate in greater depth a subject that we often do not have time to debate in the House. Therefore, the motion would ask the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to undertake a study to:

...(i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Despite all the speeches we have heard today, at the reading of this motion and after having heard all of today’s speeches in the House, I would like to make an observation that appears very relevant to me. I cannot understand the attitude of some of my colleagues who refuse to rise above the debate, rise above certain words, and vote on each of the motions before us in turn, based on their own values and according to what we think of it.

Today, the opposition is presenting a good motion that could be unanimous because it brings us all together in terms of our values. When we vote on this motion, we will be voting on the motion before us, not on another motion that we might debate in the House. That is what I find sad. There is a motion before us that could be unanimous among all members of the House, but for a variety of reasons, some members will decide to vote against it.

I invite my colleagues to look at this motion, and to vote on what it is and not what it is not, or what it does not include. As I mentioned, we will soon have an opportunity to vote on this other motion, which is equally strong. Each member of the House will have an opportunity to vote on that motion.

To be clear, I condemn all hateful comments, and all acts of hatred against Muslims. These are unacceptable. I would also like to reiterate my great sorrow in the wake of the tragic events in Québec City. In my opinion, there are no worse crimes than hate crimes against totally innocent people. My thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives or were injured during the attack perpetrated at the Centre culturel Islamique de Québec.

This attack was an affront to the liberty and religious freedoms of Canadians. Places of worship should be havens of peace where people can engage in personal reflection and expression of their faith. Canadians, regardless of religion, race, or origin, must be able to freely express their convictions, and change their beliefs and practices without worry and without fear of coercion or violence of any kind. That is what I believe, and I think all of my colleagues agree with that.

I would say that sometimes, as is the case today, the example does not always come from the top. What is happening today worries me. When we want a consensus and we want to set differences aside to speak with one voice, we must focus on what unites us rather than what divides us, as we are unfortunately doing today.

I would like to talk about an example that did not come from the top, in my community of Thetford Mines. This is about the dream of a priest and singer. I can give you his name; I spoke to him today and he gave me permission to do so. His name is Robert Lebel. He managed to do something that I thought was literally impossible to achieve when I heard about it for the first time.

Mr. Lebel, a priest and singer, created a space of unity and peace in my riding, called Versant-La-Noël. What is Versant-La-Noël? It was created in 1998. It took two years of reflection before finally bringing a certain group of people together, for our priest to successfully implement his project, which has developed over the years.

In 2008, the dream became reality with the construction of an ecumenical and interfaith pavilion. The ecumenical pavilion became and remains to this day a space for unity and peace where interfaith activities are held. What makes this pavilion such an exceptional place? The building’s architecture itself eloquently speaks of the desire to create a universal fraternity, and it does this in two ways.

First, it features the symbols of the three major Abrahamic religions: the cross for Christians, the star for Judaism and the crescent for the Muslim faith. When you arrive at Versant-La-Noël and you see the building and its three symbols, you cannot help but be impressed and awestruck. No one would think that these three symbols could coexist on the same building. However, this is what is happening in my community.

There are also symbols representing all the various Christian denominations, Anglican, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. There are cupolas, gables, and bell towers. In short, room has been made for the expression of all forms of faith and religion.

I firmly believe I should organize a mission to Versant-La-Noël. I would go even further to say that I think the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which will certainly study one of these two motions—one of them will surely be adopted—should hold at least one meeting in this haven for peace and harmony for all religions.

Once people have spent a few hours with Robert Lebel or a few hours in this really special place, they see things and others in a different light.

Today we speak of an inclusive Canada, a Canada that allows everyone to express themselves without fear. When we are able to bring all these people together so they can talk to one another, we can do some real good, without always having to speak of hate and hate crimes.

I will give a few examples of the activities held at Versant-La-Noël. There are awareness-raising sessions with the various Christian faiths in the region. For more than 10 years now, the centre has consolidated interfaith relations, particularly with Muslim immigrant families who come celebrate the festival of sacrifice and the end of Ramadan or to hold international meetings for renewal. People come from all over to visit this place.

In July, I had the pleasure of addressing some sixty members gathered for their session. Another session will be held this July, bringing together Muslims from Quebec, Ontario, France, Morocco, and Algeria.

I want to give the last word to Robert Lebel. I asked him if he believes that Versant-La-Noël can change how people see one another. He told me that it definitely has a positive impact, one he sees year after year. Various political and religious organizations have supported the centre since its inception to help it evolve and become a trusted bulwark against fear and mistrust. There has been a lot of interest in developing friendships with Muslims based on better mutual understanding of both culture and spirituality. It is a meeting place, a place for dialogue, friendship, and interfaith prayer, as surprising as that may seem.

I invite my colleagues to rise above the fray, heed the words of Robert Lebel, and support the motion. This motion has the power to unite us and none at all to divide us.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way likes to talk about the fear of what this will do to free speech. I would say to the member that what he is talking about is fear-mongering against what free speech is all about. There is nothing in this motion that has any impact whatsoever on the ability of individuals to speak freely. Canada's government has always had a history of shining a light on those groups that are targeted by discrimination. The motion that the member is putting, which was introduced to the House on the other side of the floor, is trying to take away that ability to shine that light on a group that is being targeted right now, and that was targeted in Quebec. We need to ensure that we shine that light and that we do not allow his motion to take away from the ability to shine a light on that. Therefore, I would encourage the member on the other side to recognize that this group is being targeted today and that the motion he is trying to introduce is trying to take away from that.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government member should have listened to my speech. I did not talk about freedom of expression or fear. I talked about a concrete example of a community that has managed to take meaningful action to prevent acts of hatred from happening. It is unfortunate that some people are again using talking points.

I think the member talked more about the motion that we are not currently debating than our motion. He certainly did not listen to my speech, which was about unity and fraternity and the fact that different religions can coexist when we make the necessary effort and when we can achieve our dreams. That is what I talked about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with my colleague's question.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's experience and particularly the account of the priest in his community who has managed to bring people together under one roof. They may follow different faiths, but they are driven by the same desire to understand others.

To come back to the member's question, I wonder if my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable could explain how that member could say that we have ignored Islam, when the motion states, and I quote:

...condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities;

How could the member have done such selective reading?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to say that I agree with my colleague. I do not understand the question I was asked because it had absolutely nothing to do with my speech. The comments were inappropriate and I felt as though the member was speaking about a motion that I was unfamiliar with and that just did not exist.

The motion before us is one that we must all support because if we do not, it will be solely for political reasons. There is nothing in this motion that is a drawback for parliamentarians or harmful to any religion.

If we want to show that we are open-minded and put partisanship aside today, members must vote for the motion before us and not for the one that we may have to vote on another day.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I came to Canada from an area of the world where religion is much more at the forefront than it is in our society here. It is an area where wars have been fought for centuries in the name of religion. That gives me a perspective on the issue of religious freedom and its importance that is different from that of someone who was born in this country.

In Canada when we talk about religious freedom, we are talking about an abstract, and in the House we are in agreement that such freedom is a good thing. With today's motion we have an opportunity to show leadership, to admit that our society, as enlightened as it is, is not yet perfect.

In many areas of the world the idea of religious freedom is literally a matter of life and death. There are countries where changing from one faith to another carries with it a death sentence.

What we are discussing today is not an academic exercise. It is not about different political visions. It is about how our society is different in that we do not allow our differences to divide us.

We Canadians are indeed fortunate to live in a country in which democratic freedoms, including the freedom of religion, are taken for granted. We do not face the realities of other countries where religious minorities are regularly persecuted. Many of the Syrian refugees who have come to Canada in the past year have come here to escape religious persecution.

When we talk about religious freedom, we are talking about one of our rights, perhaps the most fundamental. It is an area where we have shown leadership to the world, where we continue to lead, hopefully by example. Canada is known as a place where people are not persecuted for believing differently. Like others in the House, I came here from a different country. I became Canadian because I knew the ideals Canadians held and I wanted to share in those values. This is not a country where being a member of a minority or believing in a religion not shared by the majority inevitably leads to persecution. However, there are times when we fall short of our ideals of respect and tolerance for others. Many of our minority group members could tell so many stories.

We do get some things right. The rule of law is equally applied to all. The state does not just talk about freedoms and minority rights but actively seeks to provide protection. We really do believe in freedom of religion no matter how difficult that may be at times. It is not just polite political posturing.

There are different places in the world where governments give lip service to human rights and religious freedom while doing nothing to protect their minorities. That is not the Canadian way.

As Canadians, we are aware that sometimes we fall short, and today's motion is an effort to live up to our own standards. We know we all have to do a better job at understanding our neighbours, because understanding dispels any uneasiness. People are less likely to be afraid of someone they have shared a meal with, no matter how different that person may outwardly appear.

That fear and unease is perhaps understandable at first. We humans have a tendency to be suspicious, even hostile, to those we do not know. We need to break down some barriers and get to know each other a little better. After all, religious discrimination is not directed at only one group. I am sure my Sikh and Hindu colleagues in the House could tell of how they have been at times met with suspicion, as members of the Jewish and Muslim communities could tell tales of discrimination suffered by their members in all parts of this country.

How widespread is religious discrimination in Canada? Can we as parliamentarians do more than just lead by example? That is what we are asking the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to find out.

Allowing people to believe what they want and to practise that belief is a cornerstone of our society. Here in Canada we treat others with respect. That is the Canadian way. Furthermore, just treatment is enshrined in our laws. We recognize that hate for others is destructive and brings down all society, not just the person who hates. We believe in the freedom of religion. That does not mean we should all join one religion so there is no disagreement. It means we need to be able to have a civilized discussion on matters of religion. Respect for each other means we do not allow our conversation to degenerate into hate speech and violence.

While there are always those who have a fear of others, that is not true for the majority of us. We have seen that only in the past months with the tragic shooting at the Quebec City mosque. While we do not know yet what motivated the shooter, the outpouring of support for the Muslim community from across the country was an example of Canada at its best. There were vigils in all areas of the country, prayers and offers of support for Muslims and mosques, a reminder to the Muslim community that they are not alone. While the shooter may have desired to divide us by his actions, he only brought us closer together.

Conservatives are fully committed to freedom of religion and freedom of speech. The two go hand in hand. That is not always as comfortable as it seems. Sometimes we criticize the actions or theology of a particular group which can possibly cause offence, but free speech is not the same thing as promoting hatred, and we would do well to remember that.

Being a member of a minority group does not make one immune to criticism. Some seem to think that religious intolerance is on the rise in Canada. I would respectfully disagree, but that is only an opinion. Allowing the heritage committee to conduct a study would allow us to work with facts, not speculation. Supporting the motion is the right thing to do. I hope all members in this Parliament unanimously support the motion.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague a very simple question. Why does he oppose the word “Islamophobia”?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I oppose anything that I do not understand. To date, I do not understand what Islamophobia means. Therefore, as a politician I need more details to understand things, to absorb things, because we represent the people, and while we do so, we have to be able to reflect on that understanding before we support or do not support anything that comes our way.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Edmonton Manning cares a lot about this issue. We talk about the word “Islamophobia”. It is a phobia toward people of Islam. We do not need a dictionary to tell us exactly what that word means.

In their motion, the Conservatives identified five religions and they want to work on focusing on any discrimination against those five religions. The Liberals are focused on one religion. I think we should be supporting both motions. It is going to take some strong members on the Conservative benches and Liberal benches to rise up and show solidarity that we need to combat this and put these words aside and do it for the best interests of all people.

There was a swastika painted on the car of a woman in my community, Angela Brown. For her, I hope that we will come together and help support local governments which do not have the tools that we have to fight systemic racism, isolated incidents, and the spike in racism that we are seeing here in our country.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree on the unity all the way, because we are here to be united against any hate and discrimination against others. That is in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is the responsibility of the Liberal government now, because the Liberals initiated the first motion. It is their responsibility to start fixing issues and to start to come around, not to stick to their position and leave others to deal with it and solve their problems for them. When the Liberal government comes across in a decent way to agree on issues that will work for every Canadian, then we will definitely be happy to be united and unanimously support that position.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, hate crimes are declining in Canada, but they have actually doubled against the Muslim community. What does the member have against shining a light on the hate crimes and the rise of hate crimes toward Muslims? Why—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No, it is not. It is not at all. All you are trying to do is take away from a motion that is actually—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I just want to remind the member that he is to address the questions and comments to the Chair. I would ask him to please get to his question so we can have somebody answer it.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question was, what do you have against shining a light—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the members of the official opposition to please allow the member to speak.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

What do you have against shining a light on Islamophobia? What do you have against—