Debates of Feb. 16th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Systemic racism and religious discrimination

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for sharing her personal experience of hate and racism.

The fact of the matter is that both Motion No. 103 and this motion before us ought to stand. They are both good motions. They both speak to fighting against discrimination and hate.

Motion No. 103 specifically highlights Islamophobia. Why? I believe it is the rise in hate towards the Muslim community. This is why racism is used as a specific example. However, the opposition motion does not exclude discrimination of all forms for all people. Let us not get divided on that. Why are we doing that? We should not be doing that.

It is so disheartening to me that this debate is happening the way it is. Why can we not find a way to come together and say that, above all else, we need to stand together united, all of us, to say that discrimination and hate cannot be tolerated anywhere in Canada or abroad?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the Conservative motion today is really a reaction to Motion No. 103. The main distinguishing feature is that the party opposite, the official opposition, does not want to mention Islamophobia specifically in a House of Commons motion. I fail to see why this suddenly has become an issue. On October 26, 2016, the House of Commons unanimously adopted a motion condemning Islamophobia. Other legislatures have done the same. The National Assembly of Quebec unanimously adopted a motion against Islamophobia. Why all of a sudden is it not appropriate to mention Islamophobia in a motion in this House?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I have that motion which was passed unanimously in this House. The motion states:

That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition (e-411) in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.

Motion No. 103 references petition e-411. In that sense, the definition of Islamophobia is included in that, if we go back and look at the petition referred to in the motion that was passed unanimously in the House.

Why are we having this debate? I do not know, but if we look at these two motions separately as stand-alone motions, both are worth supporting. I implore the government side and the Conservative side to come together to find a way to resolve this, so that we can speak with one forceful voice to say that discrimination and hate in any form, anywhere, is not tolerated, and we will do our job to denounce it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a very important time to rise and represent the people in my riding of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, because the horror that took place barely two weeks ago requires all of us to reflect and take stock of ourselves.

We rise in the House, united and stating loud and clear that we reject this hate and this violence. More than ever before, we have a responsibility to denounce, isolate, and combat radicalization in our neighbourhoods. It is our role to ensure that we never have to experience another tragedy like that of January 29, 2017.

If we must emphasize the importance of not letting this attack change what is fundamentally good about Quebec City and Quebec, it is also our duty and great responsibility to reject those who profit from this hate and feed on it. We have to slam the door forever on this type of discourse in the public realm by countering it with love, the desire to get along, and respect for others.

We do not always point it out, but there is respect, love, and a desire to get along in our society.

I think that we need to take the time to look at everything we are doing right. I think we need to work together to do more so that events like the ones that took place in Quebec City never happen again, so that no community is ever again the target of such a hateful attack.

I want to talk today about my responsibilities as a Quebecker and about our collective responsibilities as Quebeckers and Canadians.

There is a need to state the obvious: Canada is seeing a trend toward the stigmatization of Quebeckers and Canadians of the Muslim faith. Obviously, we can no longer deny this reality. Islamophobia is indeed present in our society. We can no longer talk about radicalization as though it were a religious phenomenon. We now need to talk about extreme-right radicalization here in Canada. We can no longer talk about radicalization as though it were someone else's businesses, something that only happens elsewhere. We can also no longer think that radicalization is something that only happens in remote corners of the Internet. The Internet has certainly made it easier to share ideas, for better and for worse. The social climate in which we live and to which we contribute every day, both individually and collectively, has a role to play in countering the indoctrination made all too easy by the Internet. There is no place for hate speech and harassment. It is our responsibility not to turn a blind eye to the vicious indoctrination that can lead to an unspeakable tragedy like the one that occurred in Quebec City.

It is no infringement of freedom of expression to tell your brother who is sinking into racism, fascism, or simple crude prejudice that he is crazy. It is up to our community to call out and say “stop” to this sort of schoolyard bullying that degenerates into unfortunate incidents. Society must stand as a bulwark against all forms of discrimination, whether based on religion, nationality, gender or sexual orientation.

It is up to us to act to ensure that this does not start up again, not in the next few weeks, not in the next few years, not ever. It is up to us as individuals to intervene when we witness discriminatory speech or discriminatory situations. It is up to us as a society to call upon our public authorities to assure us that the rhetoric of propaganda is cast out of the public sphere. It is up to us to single out discourse that fuels ostracism and stigmatization.

As the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I have the opportunity to talk to Canadians who are deeply concerned about tolerance and the need to fight discrimination. In addition to the very open and unifying approach of Mr. Habib Ranni, president of Longueuil’s Muslim community centre, which incidentally held an open house last Sunday, we have people who are tremendously involved in all of our public meetings and family get-togethers. I am thinking of Mr. Noureddine Sedfi, who takes every available opportunity to offer us his delicious tea and whose personal mission is engaging in cultural mediation with residents of Longueuil of all ages and all origins.

I am also thinking of the committee dedicated to making Longueuil a city free of racism and discrimination. I would also note the tireless work of the community agencies that gave rise to that initiative, namely Vision inter-cultures, Carrefour le Moutier, the Centre des femmes de Longueuil, Services et formations aux immigrants en Montérégie, the Riverside school board, and the research chair in law, religion, and secularism at the Université de Sherbrooke.

The committee for a Longueuil free of racism and discrimination is helping to develop measures and take action to combat racism and discrimination based on ethnic origin, culture, and religion. It organizes a variety of events to raise awareness about racism and discrimination. Its members take socio-political action with decision-makers to find solutions together.

I would also cite as an example that in 2013 Longueuil decided to join the Canadian Coalition of Municipalities Against Racism and Discrimination under UNESCO. The municipality subsequently adopted an action plan whose objective is to combat racism and discrimination. The action plan has eight specific objectives. It lays the foundation for an initiative that promotes respect for others and openness, so that one day we can say, all of us together, that this hatred has been eradicated.

To help inspire my colleagues and the proceedings of the House, I will now quote the eight objectives of the action plan:

1. Cultivate people's openness to difference and respect for ethnocultural diversity in order to fight racism and discrimination.

2. Make municipal services more accessible in order to foster inclusion and the active civic participation of ethnocultural, indigenous, and immigrant communities.

3. Monitor and evaluate the impact of the municipal action plan.

4. Partner with community organizations and public sector organizations and institutions that are fighting racism and promoting community well-being.

5. Stay abreast of innovative and effective measures and practices to fight racism and discrimination and promote community well-being.

6. Implement the equal access employment program.

7. Do more to fight racism and discrimination within the police force.

8. Educate municipal employees about racism, discrimination, and ethnocultural diversity.

These eight measures are part of a Longueuil initiative that I believe could serve as inspiration to everyone in the House.

In closing, I have to say that a partisan dispute that exploits events and the values that all Quebeckers and Canadians cherish is a little low. The Liberal government's amendment, which serves the official opposition's interest, results in a kind of unanimity on this very important subject. I am not very proud to see anyone scoring partisan points in connection with such a troubling issue of such great importance to our society.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert for his speech. I have enormous respect for him.

He is entirely right. Every democratic state, especially liberal democracies, must exercise great vigilance toward all hateful or radicalizing trends, but also toward all political agendas of any religion whatsoever.

All the same, I would like to ask him a question. For him, what exactly is Islamophobia? Does he not think that in the Liberal motion it would have been appropriate to clearly define what Islamophobia is, as such?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the word “Islamophobia” contains the word “phobia”. What is the problem with people who are agoraphobic? They are suffering from a fear, an unreasonable fear of being in a public place.

Islamophobia is precisely a fear that has no basis in reality, a fear that is disproportionately magnified, of a religious group, of a belief. This is precisely why this word is so important and at the same time so charged with meaning, a word that for many seems to point to something that should be broader and apply to all beliefs.

As we speak, this Islamophobia has taken root, and it is precisely the role of a parliament to rise above debate, to calm things down, to take positions that bring people together, and certainly not to play petty political games.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage (Multiculturalism)]

Mr. Speaker, when we see the more than doubling of hate crimes against Muslims in this country over the past three-year period and when we see a climate of hatred in this country which has now culminated in the massacre of six men in a mosque simply because they were worshipping, I have one simple question for the member opposite, whom I respect a great deal. Is it not incumbent upon this Parliament now in the context of this motion we are debating today to call out that discrimination by the name Islamophobia?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

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

It is a pity, for as an individual, a citizen and the father of two daughters, I believe that it is my duty to rise above what is currently driving me, namely the desire to deplore all exploitation. For the government to deem it pertinent to celebrate this motion is one thing. It is precisely here that I am going to force myself to rise above my concerns. We do not have to be ashamed of our choices and our virtues, but proclaiming them so loudly may be a bit like blowing our own horn.

It is a pity that the Conservatives are opposing this motion for reasons that seem to me rather opportunistic, once again. However, I want to keep to the high road, and I hope to see the House united in denouncing Islamophobia.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, trying to define that term is what concerns me as an individual with the responsibility in this House to reflect Canadians and also our responsibility to protect them. The term “Islamophobia” is very subjective at this point.

We are aware that Muslims themselves are being attacked where they are working through the dynamics of what they believe and do not believe within their faith. Would that fall into that definition?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important debate, and I am trying to tread cautiously on each of the stones on this road.

What is truly sensitive is not so much the individual nuances and perceptions of each person, but rather the message that we have to send. Although we can praise the merits of the initial motion and question the government’s horn-blowing and the opportunism of the official opposition, I still think that it is our responsibility to define what we consider unacceptable, and that is, quite obviously, all forms of ostracism of any group in our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says,

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This declaration correctly situates conscience and religious rights in the individual, not in the community or the doctrine. A religious community does not have rights apart from the individuals within that group. A religious community does not have the right, for example, to compel someone to join or to remain in that group. A religious doctrine does not have rights either. To hate a person is wrong, and to discriminate against a person is illegal, but to hate a doctrine or an idea, or to treat differently an idea that is different, may be quite reasonable and proper. In any event, it is certainly part of what it means to live in a free society.

As I have said before, religious liberty is the liberty of the individual to choose and practise a faith or no faith. All of our human rights codes invest that freedom in the individual, yet many countries around the world deny that freedom. Sometimes, perversely, they deny it in the name of human rights or religious freedom, but they invest those rights in the community or the doctrine instead of in the individual. In some countries, the very practice of faiths other than the majority faith is prohibited. In some, the state seeks to control religious organizations. In some, conversion from the majority faith to a different faith is prohibited or punishable even by death. In some, insulting religion is prohibited. In some, conversion requires the approval of local authorities. In some, the freedom to worship is protected but the practice of faith in the public sphere is restricted by professional codes or by those who fear offence.

Unfortunately, in every country, religious liberty is compromised by the threat of violence. The attack on the Ste-Foy Islamic Cultural Centre was a terrorist attack, which by all indications, was designed to make Muslims feel unsafe in practising their faith, and therefore impeded. This was an attack on religious liberty.

In the face of this, I hope that the House will come together to clearly and decisively condemn religious discrimination, and while doing so, correctly situate that condemnation. We do not condemn debate about religion. We do not condemn the criticism of religion. We hope that criticism will be respectful and polite, but we recognize that mandating politeness is neither practical nor desirable. To condemn even rude or impolite criticism of religious doctrine would put the state in the position of needing to define or assess what is and is not polite, and that is unacceptable in a free society.

Last night, as I was preparing for this speech, I was thinking about the life and work of the late Christopher Hitchens. Hitchens was anti-Christianity and anti-Islam, yet he did not advocate discrimination or violence on the basis of religion. He was anti-Christianity without being anti-Christian, and he was anti-Islam without being anti-Muslim. He was even, to be fair, somewhat rude from time to time. Still, his speech was very much tolerated by many and also well loved by many. I always found him thought-provoking and entertaining, and even occasionally insightful.

Religious liberty, including criticism of religion, is important. Why? It is because religions are systems of thought that seek to answer all of the most fundamental questions in life. Why are we here? What is our purpose? What will happen to us after we die? What is the nature of morality and of the good life? What is the nature and source of happiness?

Most human beings answer these questions by embracing unifying systems of thought that seek to describe the nature and origin of reality, and we call these systems of thought religions.

If we believe that these things are important, then we should be invested in creating the conditions that allow a free and authentic search for truth, a search that empowers individuals to realize and embrace true answers. The answers that individuals come to with respect to questions of purpose, morality, cosmology, and happiness are most likely to be true if they are come to without coercion, without physical coercion and without intellectual coercion; that is, if they are free from discrimination in all its forms and also free to make, to hear, and to consider opinions that are hostile to their own pre-existing ideas on religious questions. The authentic search for truth requires both. It requires freedom from the coercion that we call discrimination, and it requires the sometimes unwelcome, but always useful, freedom to receive criticism, hopefully polite, but not necessarily. These two freedoms are two sides of a coin of great value, indeed, of ultimate value.

In Dignitatis Humanae, Pope Paul VI wrote the following on the nature and origin of religious liberty:

...the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself....

It is in accordance with their dignity as persons—that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility—that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.

Notably, John Stuart Mill, like Hitchens, an atheist, said something not dissimilar about the search for truth in On Liberty. He states:

...the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

Mill states later:

There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

To be fair, it is not for comfort or for emotional solace that we defend a robust and fully coherent doctrine of religious liberty, at least not for these things alone. Rather, it is for a much higher purpose. Religious liberty is defended today for the highest purpose: for the integrity of the search for the highest truth. The integrity of that search for truth is compromised in many places and by many different forms of coercion. However, those who are sure of the rightness of their cause should understand and embrace the maxim that good ideas win fair and open debates.

I have spoken in this speech about two different kinds of coercion, and in the context of this broader debate, I think, in some sense, we can look at both.

Our friends across the way are opposing our motion today because the word “lslamophobia” is not included. To me, it is the height of absurdity to oppose the motion on the basis of the absence of a word, which in the motion they prefer, is not even defined. They insist on a word for which there is no clear definition, even in their own motion. They talk about the importance of condemning discrimination against Muslims. They should read the motion being proposed, which specifically refers to discrimination against Muslims as well as other groups.

The reality is that Islamophobia is a word with a particular etymology. Islam is the religion of Islam, and phobia refers to fear. It is not surprising, then, that many people regard the use of this word as describing fear of Islam. Some Liberals have said that this word means discrimination against Muslims. However, that is not what the word means etymologically or according to the Oxford English dictionary, which defines lslamophobia as dislike or fear of Islam as opposed to dislike or fear of Muslims.

As someone who believes that religious liberty is an individual freedom, I am concerned about terminology that seeks to condemn dislike or fear of doctrine as opposed to dislike or fear of individuals. One can believe in the freedom of individuals without liking or assenting to their doctrines. To discriminate against individuals on the basis of religion is coercion, which impedes the proper search for truth. Condemning the criticism of religious doctrines, through a motion or through legislation, is also socially coercive, because it seeks to deny religious believers their right to hear contrary ideas and to be challenged by contrary arguments.

Our motion has been characterized as a watering down. Ironically, the government has proposed amendments to our motion, while refusing motions on Motion No. 103 on the basis that they will not water it down. Is it watering down to ask for definitions? Is clarity watering down? I do not think so. I think providing clarity and actually knowing the meaning of the words we are talking about strengthens the motion and does not weaken it.

Our motion is clear. It waters down nothing. It condemns all forms of discrimination. It starts by condemning discrimination against Muslims. I certainly assent to the importance of doing that in the present time and in the present climate. Our motion condemns bigotry and affirms religious freedom in a clear way, in a specific way, in a strong way, and in the right way. It does not trade on ambiguity for the purposes of shameful wedge politics. It says what it means, and I commend it to the consideration of hon. members.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, as I have been listening to this debate, there are a couple of things that are frustrating me and many other people who are watching this.

In October, when the motion came forward to condemn all forms of Islamophobia, the members opposite voted for that. I have also heard that this is not about division on behalf of the members opposite. This is not about fundraising. This is not about appealing to a society that is eager to engage in some of the falsities that are happening on social media and in other media. However, it is not very difficult to find a Conservative leadership candidate whose website now reads that people can make a tax deductible donation to that campaign specifically using this issue. I personally find that offensive, and I would like a comment from the member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Liberal Party never engages in fundraising, ever. We could have a long conversation about the fundraising tactics of the Liberals. I am not here to defend every single leadership candidate. I only feel obliged to defend one, but I do not think the floor of the House of Commons is the proper place to do that.

Let me just say, I think our motion is very clear and very inclusive. It condemns discrimination against a wide variety of different groups and it is inclusive in its language. For the Liberals to oppose it on that basis is not appropriate. They should read the text of the motion and decide whether or not they can support it on that basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion, but I will also be supporting Motion No. 103. I would really hope that the member, in showing real leadership, would support both motions so that we can move forward.

I hope the member can also agree that certain politicians have misled the Canadian public about what Motion No. 103 actually is. That has created more division.

The member talked about clarity in his speech. When we have a spike in a certain type of crime, we hone down and focus on how we will remedy that, how we will create determinants, and how we will fix the problem. When it is the economy, we talk about oil workers out of work, so we have debates and focus on certain parts of our economy.

Right now, we see a significant spike in racism toward people of the Muslim faith. Does he not agree that we should be focusing on dealing with this issue when we have had a spike? That is clarity, clarifying that this is an issue that should be focused on right now in light of what has happened.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that we need to speak clearly, and hopefully can speak in a unified way about the issue of discrimination against Muslims, but I do not think it is leadership to support a motion that does not have a clear definition. I have spoken about the important distinction here between talking about discrimination against Muslims, but also talking about questions of criticism of doctrine.

I am not alone in these considerations. In terms of what other people are saying, Irwin Cotler, former Liberal justice minister, said that he would advise amending the motion to replace the term “Islamophobia” with “anti-Muslim”. A former NDP candidate from Calgary I know, Teale Phelps Bondaroff, wrote on Facebook, “Reading through the motion, I tend to agree with the position that a clear definition of Islamophobia needs to be included”. That is what Liberals are saying; that is what New Democrats are saying.

It is not strong, it is not leading to decide we need to vote for something when we actually have no idea what it means. Leadership is insisting on clarity and then proceeding on that basis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep this brief.

I have a lot of respect for the hon. member. Would he clarify for those watching this debate that Motion No. 103 will not lead to sharia law? Nothing about it will change our respect for the rule of law in this country and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have spoken often on this issue online and I have been very clear about trying to educate those who are following this about what this motion is. It is a motion, not a bill. It does not change any laws, full stop.

I think it is important that when we have an ambiguous motion, we recognize the reality that some people draw the wrong conclusion, and yes, some people torque it up for their own purposes.

We have always been clear in the Conservative Party, though, about the realities here and about what our position is, which is to support the inclusive, unifying language that condemns all forms of discrimination.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in a democratic, pluralistic nation, the role of the state is not to defend the tenets of any particular faith. Rather, its role is to protect the right of the faithful to practise their faith free of fear of reprisal and to ensure that none of us are forced to worship that which we do not. Our responsibility in upholding the protection of this freedom is our submission to an understanding that while we have the right to believe whatever we choose, we do not have the right to act upon beliefs that are not lawful. In Canada, this covenant is formalized in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Parliamentarians are charged with determining what is and is not lawful. Here, while our respective faiths or lack thereof may influence our opinion in this regard, our first duty is to uphold this covenant as it keeps our nation largely free from widespread religious conflict. Given the history of humanity, this is no small feat. Since time immemorial, we have been harming one another at the behest of our governments and leaders in the name of one religious or another.

We now turn to the motion in front of us today. In its first section, this motion asks Parliament to acknowledge that Canada is not immune to a climate of hate and fear. Historically, we only need to look to the residential school system and to the “none is too many” policy for examples of what happens when we let religious doctrine turn to racism and in turn influence government policy. Today, sections 318, 319, and 320 of Canada's Criminal Code forbid hate propaganda. Even so, places of worship of all different flavours are still vandalized, death threats are uttered, and calls to violence in the name of one god or another are still made.

While he was not at a place of worship, Corporal Nathan Cirillo was murdered by someone who asked his god to praise his actions and curse those he was targeting. Since the day Michael Zehaf-Bibeau opened fire in this place, I have lived with a fear I have learned to manage but that I cannot erase. To this, when reports of a gunman opening fire and murdering worshippers at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec emerged, my concern for the well-being of those affected by the shooting came from a place of deep personal understanding, for the families of those who died but also particularly for those who survived and now have to live with scars they now bear, be they of the flesh or of the mind and heart.

Indeed, Canada is not immune to a climate of hate and fear. To prevent the escalation of hate and discrimination, we must first acknowledge this truth and then ask what actions we should take, if any. This is precisely what the latter part of this motion asks for. If this motion passes, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage will undertake a study that will examine incidences of hate crimes and provide Parliament with a non-binding report that will make recommendations on possible ways we can prevent and reduce incidences of these crimes in Canada.

I believe that this is something that Parliament should undertake as Canada is not an unchanging nation. As the context of our nation changes, so should we review the efficacy of our laws and our programs. To wit, Parliament has not conducted a comprehensive review of this particular issue since social media platforms have become our key modalities of communication. Moreover, and in a much more difficult context, we have not reviewed this issue since the Syrian conflict, the Middle Eastern migrant crisis, and the rise of the so-called Islamic State began. All of these events have thrust adherents of Islam, as well as those who kill, torture, rape, and maim in state-sanctioned actions in the name of Islam, to the front of the world's mind.

We now turn to Islamophobia. As opposed to Motion No. 103, the motion before us today asks us to “condemn all forms of systemic racism, religious intolerance, and discrimination of Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious communities”. In using these words, it respects the state's obligation to protect the rights of the faithful to practise their faith because it refers to individual adherence of faith. It does not ask Parliament to condemn the practice of speaking against any particular faith itself. This is why this motion is preferable to Motion No. 103.

There are those who argue that Motion No. 103 does not ask Parliament to condemn the practice of speaking against Islam. They argue that Motion No. 103 simply asks Parliament to condemn acts of racism and discrimination against adherents of the Muslim faith. To validate this argument, we must look to popularized definitions of the term Islamophobia, as Motion No. 103 does not include one. A popularized and promoted definition of this term was given in 2011 by the adviser and special envoy of the secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, or the OIC. The OIC self-describes as the second largest intergovernmental organization after the United Nations, and claims membership of 57 states. This definition of Islamophobia reads:

Islamophobia is a contemporary form of racism and xenophobia motivated by unfounded fear, mistrust, and hatred of Muslims and Islam. Islamophobia is also manifested through intolerance, discrimination and adverse public discourse against Muslims and Islam. Differentiating from classical racism and xenophobia, Islamophobia is mainly based on radicalisation of Islam and its followers.

Given that Motion No. 103 provides no definition of the term “Islamophobia” itself and given that promoted definitions interchange the Islamic faith with individuals who practise it, as opposed to a sole focus on preventing discrimination against Muslims as individuals with individual rights, it is preferable for Parliament to condemn discrimination and racism using the terms set out in the motion before us today because it gives clarity.

Why is this important? The ability to criticize the religious teachings and practices of a faith is a cornerstone of our democracy and our pluralism. Had we not been able to question religious teachings on sexuality, same-sex marriage would not be legal in Canada today. Moreover, the ability to question and speak against the edicts of religious leaders allows us to combat hate and oppression. This is why I will be voting against Motion No. 103 and supporting the motion before us today.

Today's global community has many nations that have enshrined in their laws severe penalties, including death, for the act of speaking against the Islamic faith. This is wrong. If we in Canada claim to have any moral fibre embedded in our foreign policy, we must speak against these laws because they lead to gross human rights violations. In some Islamic nations, LGBTQ are executed in the name of Islam as sanctioned by the state. This is wrong. In some Islamic nations, women have virtually no rights in the name of Islam as sanctioned by the state. This is wrong.

It is also very disturbingly wrong to make the assumption that all Canadian adherents of the Islamic faith share these values. This assumption is egregious and leads to a climate of hate and fear. An lslamist is an advocate or supporter of a political movement that favours reordering government and society in accordance with the laws prescribed by Islam.

To combat the spread of radical Islam and Islamism, while simultaneously protecting Canada's pluralism, all Canadians must seek understanding that there is a difference between someone who practises the Muslim faith and someone who is an adherent of radical Islam or is an Islamist.

All Canadians must also make it abundantly clear that Islamism as well as any movement to enshrine any religious practice into the governance of our state is an unacceptable practice in Canada. This includes having tough, smart conversations about what Canadians find acceptable in terms of religious accommodation and restrictions on our speech that are free from accusations of racism or violating political correctness.

All Canadians must also protect and give every opportunity to those of all faiths who vocally reject radical teachings and movements to impose their beliefs on others through the state in order for their voices to be heard above the fray of extremism.

Moreover, all Canadians must speak to peaceably co-exist with those who do not share their beliefs, but still uphold the laws of our nation. We must look to our legal system to punish those who are not.

Oversimplified and hyperbolic messages on this issue from the extreme ends of all political ideologies have begun to find fertile ground in Canada. Much misinformation coated in political gloss and feigned moral outrage has emerged from all political parties.

We must not be dissuaded from having difficult discussions in the name of political correctness, however, we must equally reject non-fact based arguments made by those who derive income or political power from sensationalism or nationalism. The supply of this garbage will quickly dry up if there is no demand for it.

If we do not do these things, the pluralism upon which our nation is built will fail and the only values that Canadians will be defined by will be arrogance and naïveté, and the false notion of our superiority.

The motion asks a parliamentary committee to conduct a non-binding review of the programs and laws we have in place to prevent acts of hate and punish those who commit them. It asks us to examine whether these laws and programs are adequate. That said, no study, law, or government will ever abdicate us from our individual responsibility to uphold the principles that maintain our free society through our own individual actions.

In this, I encourage my colleagues to support the motion and encourage all Canadians to take a difficult inward look and measure our actions by their ability to uphold our peace rather than to destabilize it. We can all do better.

[Marco Mendicino, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I would echo some of the sentiments the member expressed with respect to inclusivity, pluralism, and diversity, which are part of the bedrock of our nation.

To pick up on the analogy the member drew to the LGBTQ2 community, I wonder whether she would tell this House if she would refuse to support a motion that made reference to homophobia, much in the same way that my hon. colleague's motion makes reference to Islamophobia. By her logic, I think that would be a motion that ought to be supported.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite has committed a logical fallacy as he did not address the rationale that I laid out in my argument, that Motion No. 103 is inadequate, because it does not define the term and relies on popular definitions which do not differentiate between the adherence to the Muslim faith and Islam, which I find inadequate.

Rather than ramping up the rhetoric on this, the member could have provided a reasoned amendment or said that he would talk to his colleague about addressing this issue.

I find this issue a legitimate concern for the reasons that I have laid out in my speech. I stand by my position.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of trying to find a way to come to a resolution on this situation, I wonder if the member would support the concept that was advanced by the member for Mount Royal, which is to support an amendment that defines Islamophobia. His suggestion is to add the words “a hatred or fear of Muslims, known as Islamophobia”, at the end of the motion after the words “Quebec City mosque”. I wonder if that is something the member would support.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the House should, as this motion states, condemn discrimination and racism against Muslims and adherence to the Muslim faith. That language is provided in this motion today.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Calgary Nose Hill is one of the most formidable speakers in this House and I commend her on her speech. A minute ago, the member asked why not propose a reasoned amendment, and I think I did this morning, which is exactly what my colleague from Vancouver East mentioned.

I think all it would take to have unanimity on this motion in the House, and I think it would be a great idea to have unanimity, would be to add at the end of paragraph (a), the words “which speaks to a hatred or fear of Muslims, known as Islamophobia”. The reason people are not supporting the motion as drafted is that word is missing.

I am asking the hon. member, who I know is a reasonable and honourable member, to consider that. Would it not be better to have a motion on this subject with unanimous, all-party support?

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to express my respect for the member across the way. He brings many very thoughtful arguments to the House, and I find him to be very lucid.

Sometimes seeking consensus on an issue is not necessarily the right public policy outcome. In this matter, I feel very strongly, for the reasons I outlined in my speech, that the correct terminology is to condemn discrimination and racism against adherence to a faith, rather than trying to come up with a new term. That is the most expeditious, most clear, and most simple way to address this issue and move forward with this study. That is the reason our party is proposing this motion today, and in doing so, I do believe that we have presented a very reasoned amendment.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the motion we are currently debating talks about Islamophobia. Indeed, we are talking about fighting discrimination against Muslim faiths, like all other religions. I think we need to be able to have this debate as rationally as possible, without letting our emotions take over.

We will not be supporting yesterday's motion, because we believe that it aggravates the problem. There is an increasing public climate of hate and fear. The motion talks about systemic discrimination. We agree that Islamophobia exists and we need to fight it. However, we think we need to do so rationally. We also need to explain that state neutrality and secularism specifically aim to fight religious discrimination.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.