Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 3 - Evidence - April 19, 2004 meeting
OTTAWA, Monday, April 19, 2004
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 5:00 p.m. to study the resolution encapsulating the 2002 Berlin OSCE (PA) Resolution.
Senator Shirley Maheu (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Today we begin our study on the resolution encapsulating the 2002 Berlin OSCEPA resolution. In light of the recent, tragic event of the burning of a Jewish school's library in St. Laurent — which is in my backyard, and so I am personally touched by this and other acts of vandalism toward our Canadian Jewish community — it becomes extremely important for us to focus on this issue.
As you all are aware, there has been a continuing rise in anti-Semitic incidents around the world and in Canada. We have noted an increase in the severity of these incidents. Hate propaganda crimes, be they against Jews or any other groups in our society, are simply irresponsible and unacceptable in the eyes of this committee.
At the request of the Senate, and Senator Grafstein, the sponsor of this resolution, the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights intends to study the 2002 Berlin resolution that was passed unanimously by state members and come up with possible solutions to recognize, tackle, condemn and eliminate anti-Semitism in Canada. In doing this, the Senate will be able to ensure that Canada has a clear and strong voice and is fulfilling its role as a member of the OSCE. We have always had a clear and strong voice and this is to reiterate that fact.
Today our committee will start its hearings with a number of witnesses — from the Canadian Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, Statistics Canada, the Department of Canadian Heritage and the Department of Justice.
Before our first witness, Senator Grafstein, I will introduce the members of our committee. We have Senator Ferretti Barth from Quebec; Senator Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia; Senator Plamondon from Quebec; and of course, today, Senator Jerry Grafstein from Toronto.
Welcome to all those who are here with us today as well as those watching us on CPAC and listening on the radio or via the committee's Web site. Transcripts of this meeting will also be available to the public on the parliamentary Web site at www.parl.gc.ca.
Welcome, Senator Grafstein.
Hon. Jerahmiel S. Grafstein: Honourable senators, Madam Chair, I am most honoured and privileged to be here to give evidence before this committee. It is easier being a member of a committee and asking questions than opening up your own thoughts to the scrutiny of your senatorial colleagues, so I proceed modestly and humbly, in the expectation you will not be too rough on me, because I know how capable and astute you all are.
This is the third time that I have appeared before a Senate committee. The first time was in the process of the passage of a private member's bill that I inaugurated, called the Parliamentary Poet Laureate Bill, which was successful after several years and is now bearing fruit. The second time was not as successful. It was for a bill to amend the Food and Drugs Act to add water as a ``food.'' I hope that the issue will come back, perhaps under a different umbrella, so that we can address it again.
Today we are here to deal with an issue that I have followed very carefully, particularly in the last two and a half years. Let me explain why.
Let me review for you briefly the origins of the OSCE resolution, encapsulated in this resolution and unanimously passed by the Senate, directing you to not only study it but come up with a report.
In the last week in May 2002, I received a telephone call from Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey, Chairman of the Helsinki Commission of the American Congress that is responsible for oversight of the Helsinki process, and which ultimately turned into the OSCE, the Organization for Security and cooperation in Europe.
Honourable senators will remember that the Organization for Security and cooperation in Europe Parliamentary Assembly was an outgrowth of the Helsinki Treaty back in 1974 that ignited the so-called ``Helsinki process.'' Its goal was the advancement of human rights, democracy and political rights and economic cooperation throughout the OSCE region.
As Treasurer of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, I am also privileged to serve as the Head of the Liberal Democratic Reform Political Group there.
Therefore, I am a leader of a party group in Europe. It was in my double capacities that I was called upon to assist in this resolution. The OSCE member states now stretch from Vladistock to Vancouver, from Russia to North America. Canada has an active role in Europe in two organizations: The NATO Parliamentary Assembly, the OECD — the economic unit — and the OSCE. Those are the three places where we have a voice, but the two places where we have a parliamentary voice are at NATO and the OSCE.
Those are also the only two organizations in which the United States has an active voice. In that sense, your Canadian delegation has been an active supporter and a member state of that organization for 15 to 20 years.
Canadians are active at all levels of the OSCE. Mr. Clifford Lincoln, MP, head of the Canadian delegation, serves as chair of the OSCE political committee. Svend Robinson is active on that committee as well. He is a reporter to the OSCE political committee.
The original 15 states that signed the Helsinki process back in 1974-76 expanded to 55 states to include all former Soviet satellites when they achieved their independence.
All the member states and their Parliaments have agreed by numerous treaties and resolutions over the years to promote human rights, political rights and economic cooperation within the OSCE space and beyond. The OSCE itself is divided into two parts. The ministerial council is located in Vienna, with ambassadors from each state in regular attendance. Canada has a full-time ambassador there. She serves in that office with great distinction. The parliamentary branch is headquartered in Copenhagen, led by a small, skilled, dynamic professional secretariat. We meet regularly. I travel to Copenhagen on Wednesday night for the next meeting of the expanded bureau.
Parliamentarians meet in assembly annually and the expanded bureau, the parliamentarians and executives of Parliament, meets regularly throughout the year in cities across Europe. We promote the three baskets of the OSCE, economic cooperation, political rights — democracy, essentially — and human rights.
In my capacity as an officer of the parliamentary assembly, an elected position, and as a member of the Canadian delegation, I was asked back in May 2002 to co-sponsor a resolution on anti-Semitism that was drafted by a leading member of the German delegation, Gert Weissenkirchen of the German Parliament, and the American delegation led by Mr. Smith of the American House of Representatives. I was pleased to do that.
In July of that year, at the Berlin annual parliamentary assembly held in the Reichstag, the very place where Hitler promulgated those infamous laws back in 1933, that resolution was passed unanimously after vigorous debates, first in committee and then in the assembly.
It was passed by unanimous agreement of the 55 member states, and that resolution is at the heart of the mandate that you are studying.
Since that time, conferences dealing with anti-Semitism have been held across the entire OSCE space in conjunction with virtually all parliamentary and ministerial meetings. I myself have attended some of these meetings, in Washington, Copenhagen, Vienna, Porto in Portugal, Berlin, Rotterdam, Warsaw and Maastricht. The OSCE ministerial conference has planned a follow-up meeting in Berlin commencing April 28, and is currently working on an action plan for that meeting. The plan will be considered first in Berlin and then again at the next annual parliamentary assembly to be held in Edinburgh in the first week of July.
Each member state has committed to pursuing this activist agenda. Why? Why has this topic so captured the attention of parliamentarians from Russia to the United States, from Finland to Italy, from Germany to France?
Parliamentarians witnessed firsthand the re-emergence of the ugly face of anti-Semitism across Europe, and they do not like it. Parliamentarians have become increasingly uncomfortable with unchallenged anti-Semitism. History reminds them, and should remind us, that anti-Semitism tolerated and unchallenged leads to irrational discrimination and to violence. Hate may start with Jews, but it never ends with Jews.
What can this Senate committee do? Certainly this committee cannot solve the global problem. This committee can only attempt to penetrate, on behalf of Canadians, why this scourge of discrimination still lurks in the minds of Canadians and what, if anything, we can do about it practically.
In my view, a pathology of hate lies at the deepest core of anti-Semitism. Elimination of hate remains the rationale for all repair work in human rights. If we cannot remove hate, we will not be successful in our human rights agenda. Envy, fear, loathing, alienation then hate, followed by violence of ``the other,'' rests at the very heart of any human rights mandate.
This committee can direct the glare of public attention on the enemies of our civic society — these enemies with their intolerance, these promoters of hate. For me, hate is not a natural phenomenon. We are not born to hate. We are born to love. Hate is not naturally part of the human condition. Hate is learned. If hate is learned, who is teaching it and how and why is it taught?
Let us start with questions to each member of this committee. These, honourable senators, are rhetorical questions that I have asked myself over the years, and which are meant to be answered only by yourself.
Have you ever encountered irrational hate — hate of yourself? Have you ever encountered discrimination because of your religion, your name, your language, your look, your ethnic background or race? Have you ever discriminated against Jews in your thoughts, words or deeds? If so, why, and if not, why so? These are simple questions you might address at these historic hearings — and they are, honourable senators, historic hearings. From my examination, this is the first time a committee of Parliament has looked at this question.
This committee can perform some X-rays on the springs of anti-Semitism, on the express or implied teaching that educates innocent children to hate. If so, you will have surfed a long way on the waves to solutions.
Now, you may wish to call not only members of the Jewish community, because I have looked at your list, but leaders of and experts on other religious denominations. You may wish to call upon educators from the academic community — universities, public schools and private schools. You may wish to question the media — what has it to do with all this? You may call leaders of human rights organizations — and I see you have some of them here — the staff of those commissions, both federal and provincial bodies. Both public and private bodies that are interested in the subject might be called to give their analyses and responses.
I believe that the surgical tools you manufacture to probe anti-Semitism in these hearings will serve you well in exploring the other dark, deep corners of discrimination and the recesses of hate that germinate throughout our civic society.
As for the word ``anti-Semitism'' and its meaning, the modern origin of the term, as best I can determine, can be traced back to a German racist named Wilhelm Marr, who apparently coined that word around 1880 as a replacement for the German word, ``Judenhass,'' hatred of Jews.
Honourable senators, the pith and substance of this resolution is an invitation to explore hatred against Jews, no more or less. Mr. Trudeau called for Canada to become a just society. Hate has no place in the just society. Some have argued there is a new anti-Semitism. For me, there is no old or new anti-Semitism, there is just anti-Semitism. There is just hate.
What is different is the modern industrialization of anti-Semitism. Hate and anti-Semitism now proliferate faster and are more pervasive due to the convergence of the media. The medium has become the message, so some attention might be paid to the media, especially the hate Web sites sprouting all over the Internet.
I came across a couple of them, and then I found more and more. There are literally dozens of hate Web sites now on the Internet.
What are we to do about this? We believe in freedom of speech — what are we to do?
You might want to review the effectiveness of our present laws, especially the enforcement of those designed to combat hate and discrimination. You might wish to determine what statistics could usefully be collated to measure this form of discrimination. You might wish to analyze the rights and responsibilities of each citizen in combating hate and discrimination under our laws respecting our current citizen regime.
I consider your deliberations on anti-Semitism, honourable senators, to be a landmark study of historic proportions and a template for future studies to better define the essence of your committee's mandate — human rights.
Senators, I admire the pioneering work in the field of human rights the chairman and members of the committee have done in the past. I look forward to the fruits of your efforts in the future.
Honourable senators, if I may be of further assistance to you in these deliberations, it would be a privilege to do so. I remain ready to answer any questions to the best of my knowledge.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Senator Grafstein.
As I said before, the bombing of the school library was in my backyard. I am probably a little too emotionally involved, knowing many of the families of the children who attended this school.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Grafstein, I want to thank you for the work you are doing. It is not just the work you are doing for Canadian Jewish people, but for all people, since, as you very clearly said, it does not end with Jewish people. I want to commend you for the work you have done, for the work you did to ensure we had a memorial day for the Holocaust, and the work you continue to do.
You have said that you want to bring the results of these Senate deliberations to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly meeting taking place on April 28 of this year. What exactly are you hoping to present to the OSCE at that time?
Senator Grafstein: I do not expect that you will complete your deliberations in the next few weeks. As you know, I tabled this resolution a year or so ago in the Senate, and for a lot of different reasons it did not come to the committee. Now we are confronted with a wind-up meeting in Berlin, but that is not the end of the matter.
The report, whatever takes place in Berlin, will be referred to the parliamentary assembly in July. I would hope that perhaps after the committee has heard some evidence, they might provide us — the Canadian government, the delegation — with some interim thoughts that might be useful. If the committee is not able to do that, I and other members who will be in Berlin will give them the benefit of our views from what we have learned. It would be useful to have some interim ideas.
I do not think you will be able to complete your work fruitfully in the next week or two, and we are confronted with a possible election that might make it even more difficult.
My view is that you can do what you can do. If you can usefully give some interim thoughts, that would be fine. If not, I think the work of this committee requires deeper penetration of the problem, which is much more complex than even I have been led to believe. Therefore, I do not think you will be able to come to some resolutions quickly, but any interim thoughts might be useful.
Anti-Semitism will not go away on April 28. It will be with us still.
I do not want to solve the problems of the world in Canada. I have always said that if I cannot solve the problems in Toronto, how can I hope to solve the problems in Ontario, and if I cannot solve them in Ontario, how can I hope to solve them in Quebec or other places? I would like to find out how to solve problems at home first, before we try preaching to others about how we can solve their problems.
There are serious problems in Canada, and I am certainly prepared to talk about those, if you would like.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, it makes me sad that a very experienced Chair becomes emotional today talking about this issue. We cannot sit in comfort thinking this problem exists in Europe, and maybe you will just share with them views on what is happening there. It is happening in our backyard. That is a bigger concern. Of course, I do not mean to minimize what you are doing in Europe, which I commend, but I believe the bigger problem is, as you clearly said, what is happening in our backyard.
You have worked on this issue for a long time. I would like to take this opportunity to go beyond a discussion of your meetings in April and July and hear from you what practical things we need to do. We have laws, but what practical things can we do to erase anti-Semitism in our country?
Senator Grafstein: Let me start with two things, which are not complicated.
Senators should not quote their own speeches, but if you read the speeches I made in the Senate on this resolution a year and a half ago, or more, one of the things that disturbed me was the number of acts of damage to synagogues across Canada. There was a scorching of a synagogue in Quebec City, where there is a very small Jewish community. It is practically non-existent now. It was once large and thriving. The synagogue of my maternal grandfather was burned. There was a firebomb of some sort. The police still have not gotten to the bottom of it. There was a synagogue scorching in Saskatchewan, and I believe another in Alberta. There were four events, and not one political leader at the time stood up and said that this was not acceptable.
When it happened more recently in Toronto, just a few weeks ago, I was delighted with the response, because there was not a politician of any stripe — the mayor, the provincial premier, the Prime Minister, leaders of the community — who did not speak out. When we are confronted with a hate action, whether it applies to Jews or women or blacks, whenever we see something like that, the first thing we should do is speak out against it and say it is not acceptable. Mayor Miller made an interesting statement when he said the people who conduct these acts of violence have no place in Toronto. That is as strong a statement as you can make, because it makes it socially unacceptable to do this.
The first thing people need, if you will, is a trip wire. Whenever that wire is tripped, whatever the issue, large or small, there has to be a ready response from political leaders saying that this is unacceptable.
Second, yesterday we celebrated, as you pointed out, senator, Yom HaShoah. The Senate passed Bill C-459, which now makes the commemoration of the Holocaust an annual event in Canada, and I have published a little book on that. I think you have a copy of it. The Hansard record is the book. I think it is a civic lesson that should be sent to every church, to every house of faith and to every school across the country. When that day is commemorated, I think there should be a day or an hour spent examining the pathology of hate. If we did just that and nothing more, I think there would be a tremendous reaction.
Let us be candid here. Our attitude to certain things in society has evolved. Our attitude toward homosexuals and gays has evolved. I think our attitude towards women in the workplace has evolved. Our attitude toward smoking has evolved. When issues of undesirable or egregious public conduct that is contrary to the Charter arise, then we should do something about it.
I will conclude with this. I do not mean to go on and on.
Many things disturb me, but some things disturb me deeply. One is that each time I go to my synagogue in Toronto — and I am not a devout person, but I am a minimalist observer of my faith and I do go — I am outraged that I have to enter through the parking lot. Why do I have to do that? Because for the last couple of years, we have had guards at the synagogue on Bathurst Street, which has the largest congregation in Canada. Just up the street is a Roman Catholic cathedral, and there are no guards there. A mile and a half away there is a mosque, and there are no guards there. Around the corner is the memorial church, and there are no guards there. I say to myself: Not only do I have to have guards, but I also have to pay for them. I do not think that is acceptable.
When I went to Berlin for this resolution, I decided to go to a synagogue, but I could not find it, frankly, because there are no markings on the entrance door. They have removed them. There was a police officer walking back and forth. I walked into the synagogue, and I had to tell them who I was, give my name, and it took a long time. My wife was with me. I found there were guards at the door and guards inside, and I said, ``Who pays you?'' They said, ``The federal state pays us.'' Why? Because in Germany, they believe that freedom of religion should be enhanced and protected by the federal state. Maybe that is something at which the committee might want to look.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Grafstein, we pride ourselves on our freedom of religion. If we cannot exercise that freedom, then it does not mean much. You talked about sending messages. After September 11, I clearly remember that when there was some destruction of property at a mosque, the police and our leadership sent a strong message that that was not acceptable behaviour. I believe that stopped any kind of criminal acts against mosques.
We certainly will give some thought to this as a committee, and we would like to invite you back later to see if there are other recommendations that we can make in our report. We certainly will consider whether we should make an interim report. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: I would like to ask you a question, one that I believe my colleague already put to you. You talked about hatred and anti-Semitism. Could you explain to me the origins of this hatred toward Jews? What fuels this hatred toward the Jewish people? Where did it all start? Also, could you give me your definition of anti-Semitism? Was does the word mean to you?
[English]
Senator Grafstein: It is personal experience. I came from a small town. I came from a public school experience. I had to sort of fight my way through that experience because I was the only Jew in the school. I remember that quite well. That was a pretty rough experience for a young person. That was a small town, and the community there was very small. It was London, Ontario, and the school was Governor Simcoe Public School, the oldest public school in the town. I experienced that as a young person. I never let it get me down. Frankly, the more discrimination was directed toward me, the more I hoped later on to try to make a difference so it would not happen again.
When I went to the University of Toronto law school, I decided, because I was very interested in the Catholic Church as a political organization, to study the spiritual exercises of the Jesuits.
I took classes at one of the great institutions of the world, the pontifical institute at the University of Toronto, St. Michael's. When I started reading the catechism and some of the dogma, I was aghast. I felt that the church at that time was probably dealing with this issue, and not in a very favourable way. I want to be as kind as possible.
Since that time, there has been a great evolution in the Roman Catholic Church. I followed the encyclical of Pope John. Certainly, the work of the current Pope has been outstanding. I have been privileged to have a number of audiences with him. I have read every one of his encyclicals. He has made remarkable progress in cleansing the catechism and the dogma in the Roman Catholic Church in terms of Jews.
Most recently, I think the Lutheran Church in Canada has done the same thing. I have not really followed what the Anglicans or some of the other denominations have done, but there has been an evolution in the thinking of the churches.
I remember full well that the greatest difficulties I had as a kid, until I got to high school, was when I played with athletes who were Catholic. My toughest opponents in public school were Catholic kids, who taunted me. That was not really so bad, because I could taunt them back and at that time I was pretty big for my age, but it was a learned experience. It was not something that came naturally to them. Kids like to taunt. However, it is more disturbing when they taunt within a religious context. While they taunted me as a Jew, they were also not very kind to another kid, who was black.
There is an interesting story about Mr. Suzuki, the great ecologist. He was a Japanese kid. He came to my high school, London Central Collegiate Institute. I notice he mentioned in his biography the fact that I befriended him. The reason that I befriended him is that he was the first Japanese kid I had ever met. He was not very well received at our school. However, he and his cousin were great athletes and they sort of broke the mould. There was much going on in schools. I do not know the situation in public schools today, but I can tell you it was an invigorating environment. That is the best I can say.
That is why I came to the conclusion that this was not something that kids learned naturally. It is something that they learned either in school, on the playgrounds, or in their churches or homes. It was a learned experience. That is one of the things we must address. That is why I believe you should hear from leaders of the other faiths, because remarkable progress has been made in Canada on all these fronts. We are evolving, and in the right direction. Maybe we have not worked fast or hard enough.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: Senator Grafstein, how would you define anti-Semitism? Does it reflect a stand taken by specific people against Jews? Is anti-Semitism a sentiment directed at people of various origins?
[English]
Senator Grafstein: Hate is a general thesis. People who hate Jews certainly have other hatreds as well. They are deeply rooted.
Honourable senators, you must ask yourselves that question. I am not a victim of anti-Semitism, quite the contrary. It strengthened me and made me more convinced, as a senator and as a Canadian citizen, which citizenship I cherish, that we have hard work to do.
I have encountered anti-Semitism. When I started practising law in Toronto, I could not get a job in a firm — that is not the case any longer — and I was in the top third of my class. I could not get a job in a large, non-Jewish law firm. I articled, as a matter of fact, for Senator Croll. That is the reason I became interested in the Senate. That situation has changed dramatically. If you look at the legal establishment, the judiciary, medical practice, dentistry, we have made remarkable progress in this country toward integration.
There are things we can do. It would be interesting to ask focus groups in public schools across the country what they think of blacks or Jews. What do they know? We should investigate scientifically what the problems are. There are problems.
I will offer one example. There was a small synagogue in Quebec City that was not very much used and that was burnt. They discovered who started the fire. It turned out that it was someone who was mentally unbalanced. He had a mental disability of some sort. Everyone said, ``You see, it was just someone in Quebec who had a problem, a mental case.'' My question is: Why is it that person chose a synagogue to scorch? What did he know? What was the rationale for his doing that? That is the deeper question.
There is no easy solution. However, it is important that we ask ourselves honestly, ``Is this a problem for me? Is this an individual problem? Is this a collective problem?'' I believe it is.
The most recent events in my city of Toronto are deeply discouraging. I resent the fact that people would choose to pull down tombstones in a cemetery. What makes children, men, or women do that? What compels them to do that? I do not know. It is not good.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: Getting back to the definition of anti-Semitism, you talked about hatred directed at Jews and I agree with that particular definition. Often, Jews equate any criticism of Israel as a criticism of the Jewish people. What is your view on the matter? Is criticizing the Jewish State different from hatred for the Jewish people?
[English]
Senator Grafstein: Both Senator Jaffer and the chairman have answered this question for me. My first problem is: Why is it that people are pulling down tombstones in Toronto? What does that have to do with the State of Israel? Why is it that someone would choose to throw a firebomb into a school library in Montreal? What does that really have to do with the State of Israel? What does the scorching of a downtown Toronto synagogue, which has existed in a multicultural community for 50 or 75 years — never been touched and fully integrated — have to do with the State of Israel? It has nothing to do with the State of Israel. It has everything to do with the fact that people believe that somehow there is a visceral connection. I do not see that as a visceral connection.
We have to find out what the problem is here in Canada. The problem of anti-Semitism in Canada predated the State of Israel. The State of Israel came along and, yes, that might be another rationale for some people to perpetrate certain acts of hatred. I do not like that either. In Canada, we are taught to deal with political disagreements through civic dialogue, not acts of violence. Acts of violence are not acceptable under our Charter. That is contrary to Canadian values. There is absolutely no rationale for that.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: There is no mistake. We agree that acts of violence or acts motivated by hatred have no place in our society. That was not at all the gist of my question.
My question was whether, in your opinion, expressing criticism of Israel could be equated with anti-Semitism?
[English]
Senator Grafstein: There is a means to have a debate about the policies of a state that are apt, useful and helpful. I do not like the demonization or the de-legitimizing of a democratic state as part of this dialogue. It is not an easy question that you ask.
The example is that we are members of the United Nations. Israel is a member of the United Nations. I always ask myself this: If there is a current and appropriate dialogue when it comes to Israel, why is it that resolutions dealing with this organization, which is meant to be fair and balanced, tend to be so focused on one democratic state? Is that fair? Is that balanced? I do not think so. Sometimes it is valid; most times it is not. I do not want people to come to the conclusion that acts of violence have nothing whatsoever to do with the democratic discussion about the validity or lack thereof of Israeli policy.
There is great confusion in people's minds about that. Somehow, people rationalize the one through the other, and I do not think that is acceptable. This resolution here does not once mention the State of Israel. It just mentions anti- Semitic acts across the OSCE states.
There is a very interesting story. There have been many instances of anti-Semitism in France. When parliamentarians there got hold of this resolution, they took it upon themselves to immediately look at their hate laws. There is a big political debate in France about the State of Israel. They were not confused about this. They decided that they had to look at their anti-hate laws. They came to the conclusion they were not strong enough, and they moved quickly last year to improve their anti-hate laws. They were not confused.
The same is happening in Russia. The Russian state is not exactly a supporter of the State of Israel, but Russian parliamentarians felt that they had to address this problem because anti-Semitism there was getting out of hand.
We can have a political debate about the policies of Israel. I have no problem with that, but I do not want people to be confused. There is a problem in Canada that I would hope that we could address, and there are some useful ways to do that.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: Therefore, you would disagree with the article that was recently published in The Gazette according to which there is ``no easy way to distinguish anti-Semites from Israel critics?''
[English]
Senator Grafstein: Take a look, if you will, at the Doha discussions. Where were the Doha discussions a valid criticism of Israel, and where were they anti-Semitic? Where, when and how did it lurch into anti-Semitism? There is no question at all in my mind that it was an international meeting directed towards human rights that ended up in fear- mongering, anti-Semitic rants and so on.
I will give you an example. Egypt now produces on state television The Protocols of Zion, which is an invidious anti- Semitic rant promoted by the Russian government back in the 1880s to get at a particular political problem. It is now on state television in beautiful living colour.
What does that do and what does that say? Is that a legitimate debate about their disagreement with or their attitude towards the State of Israel, or is that an anti-Semitic rant? I believe it is an anti-Semitic rant. People have to be very careful in their own minds to separate valid criticism of a democratic state from promotion of hate and violence in our own society. It is a very delicate question. However, I am not confused.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: In your opinion, how can we distinguish valid criticism of the Israeli State from anti-Semitism?
[English]
Senator Grafstein: You could have a debate in the Senate about that, if you choose. You could lay down an inquiry in the Senate and have a debate. I would be glad to have that debate, but that is not the subject matter of this issue.
Having a debate about valid criticism of Israel has nothing, in my view, to do with getting at hatred of Jews in Canada. People think that it does. That is perhaps why senators are here to disagree and agree.
The Chairman: Senator, I wish we had more time. I do not think an hour is quite enough for you. Could I ask you to return? I know you have a plane to catch at six o'clock, and we have CJC and B'nai Brith coming in later, after the departments. I would like to break for a few minutes so that people could have a sandwich and maybe a coffee upstairs. I wonder if we could invite you back before we close off the hearings? I have a few questions for you myself.
Senator Grafstein: Chairman, I might not be able to be back for your interim decision. As I say, I am off to Europe on Wednesday night and I will be back in about 10 days, but after that I am certainly at your service.
Again, I would like to thank you all, honourable senators, for giving some serious thought to this issue, which, as I say, provokes me more as I read the newspapers.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, senator.
We now welcome Mr. Jones, Director of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada; Ms. Lafontaine, Senior Counsel, and Ms. Connidis, Counsel, from the Department of Justice; Mr. Wilczynski and Ms. Nassrallah, from the Department of Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Roy Jones, Director, Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, Statistics Canada: Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to come here today to present to you some information, our preliminary information at the very least, on hate crimes that we have at Statistics Canada. My remarks will be brief. We do not have an extensive warehouse of information on hate crime in Canada, but we have some important and interesting surveys in the area.
I will begin with a brief overview of the diversity picture in Canada. As you know, Canada's population is becoming increasingly diverse. The results from the 2001 Census indicate that about 13 per cent of Canadians identify themselves as a visible minority. Since 1991, the visible minority population has been growing at six times the rate of the general population and Statistics Canada has begun to look at some of the potential social tensions and self-reported crime through some of our population surveys, such as the 1999 General Social Survey, and the 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey, which was a post-censual collection.
The agency is currently developing a capacity to collect police-reported information on hate crimes. This is in relation to those incidents that come to the attention of the police.
My presentation today will focus on hate-motivated crime using population surveys. It takes, in each of these cases, the wording from the Criminal Code in section 718 for the aggravating factors under the sentencing principles. These identify those factors to include those acts that are motivated by bias, prejudice, hatred, that are based on race, national ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation and any similar factor.
Turning to the first slide in your deck, I begin with the 1999 General Social Survey. This was a random household survey that asked Canadians aged 15 and over about their experiences and fear of crime. The sample size for this collection was about 25,000 respondents.
Those who said they were victims of either a personal or household crime in the 12 months prior to the survey were asked if they believed that crime was hate-motivated, and if so, to specify what the motivation was.
The first time that Statistics Canada collected information on the motivation of criminal incidents was in 1999. We found that, overall, about 4 per cent of the nearly 6.5 million incidents that were self-reported by Canadians in that survey were directly related to a hate motivation. This represents a little over 250,000 incidents in the prior 12 months.
Findings suggest that victims of self-reported personal crime such as assaults and robberies were more likely to indicate that they felt the incident was hate-motivated; and those who reported a property-related incident such as a break and enter, a theft of household property or vandalism, as well as motor vehicle theft, also felt that way. As the slide indicates, victims felt that 6 per cent of personal incidents and 2 per cent of property-related incidents were motivated by hate.
Turning to the second slide, when respondents were asked to specify the motivating factor, they could give multiple responses. According to that 1999 survey, victims gave race and ethnicity as the most common reason that they believed a hate crime had been committed against them. About two in five of these incidents were attributed to this factor.
About one in five victims of the self-reported incidents identified gender as the motivating factor — about 18 per cent — and the vast majority of these were females. Similarly, about one in five victims identified culture as the motivating factor.
I should add, at the end of this slide, some of the hate crime categories did not generate enough responses to produce reliable estimates. We had to combine some of the factors into an omnibus ``other'' category. Nearly two-thirds of the victims reported this other, aggregate category as the motivating factor. In order of frequency, these included age, sexual orientation, religion, language and disability.
As you would expect, there was a fair degree of overlap between the race/ethnicity factor and the culture factor — more than half of those who reported culture also reported race/ethnicity.
One of the interesting findings from the General Social Survey of 1999 relates to the level of reporting of these incidents to the police. According to this survey, hate crimes are more likely to be brought to the attention of police than non-hate-related crimes. The differences are not large but they are statistically significant. About 43 per cent of those incidents that respondents felt were hate motivated were brought to the attention of the police, compared with 37 per cent of all other incidents.
This may be due, in part, to the high incidence of hate crimes that are associated with strangers. We know from past research that you are more likely to report an incident to police if the accused is unknown to you.
On the third slide is some more recent information that focuses on the post-censual Ethnic Diversity Survey, which was conducted between April and July of 2002. Statistics Canada received some funding support for this survey from Canadian Heritage.
This survey was intended to help Canadians understand how people's backgrounds affect their participation in social, economic and cultural life in the country, and to also provide a better understanding of how Canadians of different ethnic backgrounds interpret and report their ethnicity.
The survey sample was again drawn from the population of Canadians over the age of 14 — that is, 15 and older — living in private households in the 10 provinces. There were approximately 42,500 respondents to that survey.
The respondents in this survey were asked if, in the past five years — as opposed to one year — or since arriving in Canada, in the case of recent immigrants, they felt they had been victims of a crime. These crimes could include things such as assaults, frauds, robberies and vandalism.
Those who indicated that they had been victimized in the past five years were also asked whether or not they believed that the crime could be considered a hate crime, and if so, if they believed the motivation was related to hatred of their race, ethnicity, colour of skin, language, accent, religion or other factor. The survey did not include crimes against businesses or institutions.
From this survey, on slide 4, we begin to present some results. These are fairly high-level results, but according to that collection, approximately 3.7 million Canadians indicated that they felt they had been victimized in the past five years. In nearly 1 in 10 cases, or 9 per cent, the victim believed that the incident was motivated by hate. This would represent about 1 per cent of the Canadian population over the age of 15 in 2002.
On the fifth slide, we are looking at reasons cited by victims for the motivation in the incident. Overall, about 60 per cent of the self-reported hate crime victims indicated that the incident was not motivated by race, ethnicity, language, accent or religion in particular. There was some other motivating factor, and these could again include things such as age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or a combination of other factors.
However, among the ethnocultural factors that victims did identify, race or skin colour was the most common — 25 per cent of victims suggested that race or skin colour was a motivating factor. This was followed by ethnicity, at 15 per cent, and language and accent, at 9 per cent. Religion was cited as the motivating factor by 5 per cent of hate crime victims in this survey. This category is a collection of all religions. That 5 per cent is not specific to any one religion.
On slide 6, we are looking at characteristics of these self-reported hate crime victims. We note that the rates were higher for visible minorities than for other individuals. The difference is roughly 2 to 1 — 2 per cent of visible minorities reported versus 1 per cent of non-visible-minorities individuals.
Within the visible-minority category — that is the left-hand part of your chart — those born in Canada reported higher rates than those who were not. The differences here were not large but, again, they were statistically significant, a difference of 3 per cent versus 2 per cent.
A number of explanations have been offered for why there might be a difference between Canadian-born and foreign-born visible minorities. These would include the fact that, generally, recent immigrants tend to be slightly older, on average, than visible minorities people born in this country. Also, those who are relatively new to the country may not be as likely to participate in community or social activities as those who were born in Canada. Third, there may be cultural differences in some circumstances that create hesitancy among some foreign-born visible minorities in identifying experiences of criminal victimization, or in relating them to hate crime.
On the seventh slide, we are looking at responses to specific questions about whether or not respondents were worried about becoming victims of an ethnoculturally motivated hate crime. This again focused on factors of ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent or religion. Overall, about 5 per cent of the Canadian population over the age of 15 is worried about becoming a victim of an ethnoculturally motivated hate crime.
It is also clear that, in general, visible minorities are significantly more worried about ethnoculturally motivated hate crimes than are non-visible-minorities communities.
Among people from various minority groups, the black, South Asian, East and Southeast Asian communities had the highest proportions of people reporting they were either worried or very worried about becoming a victim.
In the eighth slide, we are looking at the same question regarding the level of worry about becoming a victim of an ethnoculturally motivated hate crime by their self-reported religious affiliation. Again, overall, 5 per cent of the Canadian population 15 and over is either worried or very worried about becoming a victim. However, among individuals from various religious groups, Jewish people and Muslims had the largest representation among those who reported worry or a large degree of worry about ethnoculturally motivated hate crimes. On the chart, you can see they are 10 or 11 per cent — about 1 in 10. You can talk about both of them in the same terms, as 1 in 10.
On the last slide, I have included some information that describes some of the recent developmental work we are doing in trying to fill some gaps in understanding the nature and extent of hate crimes at the national level in Canada. I mentioned that we have some information from the 1999 General Social Survey and the 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey, and these have made important contributions to our understanding of who is at risk of being a victim of hate crime and the impacts on Canadians, including their fear of crimes.
To further advance the collection of national hate-crimes statistics, Statistics Canada will continue to collect victim- reported hate crime information through population surveys such as the 2004 version of the General Social Survey. That collection is currently going on.
However, given the well-known limitations of population-based surveys, such as difficulties with insufficient sample size or insufficient numbers reporting certain types of traits, estimates for subgroups of specific interests are difficult to generate from this source. There is also an inability of population surveys or household surveys to collect information on incidents that may involve businesses or institutions.
In 2005, Statistics Canada will begin to collect ongoing, detailed information on hate crimes from police services in Canada. The police surveys are intended to collect incident data on both motivation and the groups being targeted. Again, this information will be classified according to those factors that are listed in the Criminal Code in section 718.
As this is the first time that policing services will be reporting this information to us, this is a new beginning for the collection of this information. Any time we ask official agencies to report information according to a newly adopted national standard, there are adjustments that need to be made to their collection systems, and also training that needs to take place on the part of the policing community to ensure that information is properly classified and reliably reported. I note on the slide that we conducted a pilot test involving 12 policing service jurisdictions. These jurisdictions represent about 43 per cent of the national caseload of crime. I must apologize: On the English version of the slide, Toronto Police Services was omitted. It is there in the French, but not in the English. We did work with Toronto Police Services in this pilot study.
Results from that pilot will be released early this summer. We are looking forward to making that information available, and we are also currently exploring avenues to fund the work required to expedite the implementation of this police service survey across the country.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Jones.
Ms. Lisette Lafontaine, Senior Counsel, Department of Justice: As we have just heard, and as we have seen recently, Canada is not exempt from anti-Semitic and other racist incidents. I will speak of the criminal legislation applying to these incidents.
[Translation]
The recent anti-Semitic incidents are crimes, and they would be crimes even they were not motivated by anti- Semitism. When these acts are motivated by hatred, bias or prejudice based on factors that include race, religion, national or ethnic origin — factors that apply to anti-Semitic incidents —, the Criminal Code provides that such motivation shall be considered as an aggravating factor in sentencing an offender.
This means that the sentence imposed by the judge in such a case will be closer to the maximum than it would have been without this aggravating factor.
The other provisions of the Criminal Code which deal with racism and anti-Semitism are those which relate to hate propaganda. In certain cases, hate speeches constitute a first step towards other hate crimes.
[English]
There are three prohibitions under the hate propaganda provisions. The first one is advocating or promoting genocide against an identifiable group, that is, any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion or ethnic origin; second, inciting hatred against an identifiable group by communicating in a public place statements which are likely to lead to a breach of the peace; and third, communicating statements, other than in private conversation, to wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. Advocating or promoting genocide is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of five year's imprisonment. The other two offences are dual procedure offences punishable by a maximum of two year's of imprisonment when prosecuted by indictment.
The Criminal Code also provides for the seizure and forfeiture of hate propaganda kept for distribution or sale, and for the deletion of hate propaganda that is publicly available on the Internet.
The use of the Internet for distributing hate propaganda presents a new challenge with respect to evidence and jurisdiction. Hate propaganda has become a problem that can be addressed efficiently only by international cooperation.
For this reason, Canada has participated with the Council of Europe in the negotiation of a protocol to the convention on cyber-crime that provides for a common definition of racist offences committed through computer systems, and for international cooperation in the enforcement and prosecution of these offences. The convention and the protocol are not yet in force.
Even though Canada is not exempt from anti-Semitic and other racist incidents, I believe we can say it has strong criminal legislation against hate crimes. My colleague will now speak about human rights legislation.
Ms. Angela Connidis, Counsel, Department of Justice: Madam Chair, I will speak to you about the provisions under the Canadian Human Rights Act that deal with discrimination.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is an important aspect of Canada's policy to combat and remedy discrimination, one form of which is anti-Semitism. This act applies to the federal government and private businesses that fall under federal jurisdiction. The act does not apply to matters falling under provincial jurisdiction. In respect of these matters, each province has its own anti-discrimination legislation.
The Canadian Human Rights Act does not specifically prohibit anti-Semitism; rather, it establishes prohibited grounds of discrimination, including race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion. An anti-Semitic act clearly constitutes discrimination on the basis of these grounds. Where this act results in discrimination in the course of employment or in the provision of services or accommodation, it will be in contravention of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is also an important tool in controlling hate propaganda and complements the criminal prohibition of hate crimes. Section 13 of the act prohibits individuals from communicating telephonically any matter likely to expose a person or a group to hatred or contempt on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination, such as race. This includes communications by means of computers and the Internet.
Consequently, anti-Semitic speech that may not constitute hate crime may fall under the purview of human rights legislation. In some instances, a human rights tribunal may be a more effective forum for addressing hate propaganda or anti-Semitic speech because it requires a less onerous standard of proof than criminal courts and can apply its own rules of evidence, which may be more liberal than those under the Criminal Code.
The provisions on hate propaganda have been successfully used on a number of occasions to remedy anti-Semitic practices. In two of these instances, individuals who were operating telephone services with anti-Semitic telephone messages were found to have engaged in a discriminatory practice contrary to section 13(1) of the act.
Some of the remedies imposed included cease and desist orders. In one case, involving contempt of court when orders were not followed, there were remedies such as a fine against the organization and imprisonment of its leader.
It is important to recognize that the Canadian Human Rights Act is directed toward outward manifestations of hatred and does not address private expressions of hatred by an individual that would be protected by freedom of speech provisions under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I will briefly outline the process under the Canadian Human Rights Act for enforcing those protections. Complaints about discrimination or the spreading of hate messages may be brought by an individual or a group of individuals having reasonable grounds for believing that a person has engaged in a discriminatory practice. The Canadian Human Rights Commission may also initiate a complaint.
Once a complaint is filed, the Canadian Human Rights Commission investigates it, undertakes mediation or conciliation, if appropriate, and ultimately decides whether to refer the complaint to the tribunal for an inquiry and decision. In those cases, the commission will often take carriage of the complaint through its hearing process.
Where there is a finding of discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has a wide range of remedies to choose from, including orders to cease the discriminatory practice, measures to prevent the same or similar practice from occurring in the future, orders to provide the victim with the rights, opportunities or privileges that were denied, compensation for lost wages, compensation of up to $120,000 for pain and suffering and compensation of up to $20,000 if the discriminatory practice was wilful or reckless. In addition, with respect to spreading hate messages, the tribunal can order a penalty of up to $10,000.
These orders are meant to be remedial rather than purely punitive in most of these situations, which is the focus of anti-discrimination acts.
Ms. Christine Nassrallah, Director, Policy and Research, Multiculturalism and Human Rights Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage: Honourable senators, I would also like to thank you and the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. I am here on behalf of the multiculturalism program with Canadian Heritage. My colleague and I will talk to you about our programs concerning the issue at hand.
The issue of anti-Semitism is one of profound importance and of deep concern for Canadians. The events of recent weeks have demonstrated the importance of concerted action at the national level — action that rejects all expressions of racism and hate and aims to promote respect for diversity and strengthen shared citizenship amongst all Canadians.
[Translation]
Vandalism, intimidation and arson against synagogues and schools are repugnant, violent expressions of anti- Semitism. These criminal acts undermine the values of an inclusive society that Canadian embrace. These hate crimes violate the fundamental principle of mutual respect and understanding which is at the heart of multiculturalism.
These acts have caused fear among members of the Jewish community, and among other ethno-cultural community groups across the country. This recent spate of hate crimes clearly shows that despite the significant strides we have made in building a cohesive Canada, we still have a great deal of work to do.
Expressions of hate against any group have no place in Canadian society, as we have just heard. Collective community and governmental responses to hate-motivated activity in Canada are key to effectively combating this problem.
Racist incidents in Canada and around the world underscore the importance of keeping lines of communication open. We must continue to engage in constructive dialogues on cross- cultural understanding and the elimination of all forms of racism, discrimination and hate, including anti-Semitism.
The Government of Canada has a multifaceted approach to combating all forms of racism and discrimination, including on the grounds of religion. We have a comprehensive framework that includes legislation, policies and programs.
I will focus on the activities and role of the Multiculturalism Program at Canadian Heritage in addressing issues of racism and discrimination. Under the mandate of the Program, we are committed to the ongoing priorities that include: fostering cross-cultural understanding; combating racism and discrimination; promoting shared citizenship; and, making Canadian institutions more reflective of Canadian diversity.
Under the mandate of the Multiculturalism Act and policy, the program and other government departments address issues related to racism and discrimination, including anti-Semitism, by focussing on public education, capacity building, institutional change and research initiatives.
[English]
This broad-based approach aims to combat all forms of discrimination and is designed to respond to the diverse demographic reality of Canadian society. It is based on a recognition that many Canadians still face discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion and language, as we just heard from my colleague. The government is responding to this reality.
The results of the recent Ethnic Diversity Survey provided data on the perceived existence of racism in Canada. According to this survey, 23 per cent of Jews in Canada indicate that they have experienced discrimination in the last five years, or since coming to Canada, based on their ethnicity, culture, race, skin colour, language, accent or religion.
As part of our broad-based approach to combat discrimination, the multiculturalism program has worked with many different communities, including the Jewish community, to eliminate racism. More specifically, the department has provided funding to the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith to offer 20 anti-hate train-the-trainer workshops across the country to build community capacity and to prevent racism, hate and bias crime.
The program is also supporting the Canadian Jewish Congress in holding a national symposium on ``Maintaining Civil Discourse in an Atmosphere of Instability'' in the fall of 2004. This symposium will bring together stakeholders to discuss ways of maintaining mutual respect during challenging situations, share lessons learned, and identify strategies to cultivate understanding across sectors.
In March 2004, the program funded a conference entitled ``Racism and Hate in Canada: Seeking Solutions,'' organized by the Indigenous Bar Association. This conference took a collaborative approach to addressing hate crimes and brought together a diversity of groups to better understand hate crimes and share best practices.
We will continue to work with various ethnocultural and faith-based communities to develop public education materials, to challenge myths and stereotypes and to facilitate dialogue.
The responsibility to address issues related to racism, hate and all forms of discrimination is our collective responsibility. Our strategies will continue to evolve and respond to the changing demographics of our country as well as to the changing manifestations of racism and discrimination.
The Department of Canadian Heritage will continue to work in partnership with other departments and agencies, civil society, community-based organizations and other levels of government to combat all forms of racism, discrimination and xenophobia. Our commitment to combat racism and discrimination remains as urgent as ever.
Honourable senators, our department also works at the international level to address these critical issues. I will turn to my colleague, Mr. Wilczynski, to provide an overview of some of our activities at the global level.
[Translation]
Mr. Artur Wilczynski, Acting Director, International Relations and Policy Development, International Affairs Branch, Department of Canadian Heritage: I will be very brief in describing some of the work that the Department of Canadian Heritage undertakes at the international level to combat all forms of racism, discrimination and xenophobia, including anti-Semitism.
Canadian Heritage works in close collaboration with our colleagues at the Department of Foreign Affairs to promote Canadian values internationally. A key element of these activities focuses on the eradication of racism and discrimination.
Over the past number of years, the Department has also worked within a number of international organizations to promote values of inclusion and respect for diversity.
The OSCE, the Organization of American States, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe are just some of the institutions with whom we have partnered. Our work with these international partners has been aimed at sharing anti- racism and anti-discrimination strategies and experiences. The objective of these exchanges are for Canada to promote a greater understanding of the fundamental value of diversity and respect for human rights. These fora are an opportunity for us to learn how other countries address these same issues.
As an example, we participated in the first OSCE conference on anti-Semitism held last year in Vienna. At this conference, Canada was represented by officials from the Departments of Canadian Heritage and Foreign Affairs, representatives of the Jewish community and parliamentarians. This conference was an important opportunity for the Canadian delegation to share their experiences and take stock of the status of anti-Semitism within the OSCE region.
[English]
Madam Chairman, this conference was part of OSCE's broad-based efforts to combat the full spectrum of discrimination and racism. Subsequently, the OSCE held a conference on ``Racism, Xenophobia and Discrimination'' in September 2003 that sought to reinforce the importance of combating all forms of racism. The Hon. Jean Augustine, Minister of State for Multiculturalism and the Status of Women, led the Canadian delegation. At that conference, the minister outlined five elements of Canada's approach to eliminating racism: One, a strong legislative framework; two, accessible judicial system; three, healthy civil society; four, public education and awareness campaigns; and five, recognition of racism as a socio-economic reality. The Department of Canadian Heritage will continue to participate in the work of the OSCE on anti-racism with a view to building comprehensive international approaches to combat all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism. We will continue to inform the debate at various regional and global fora of the importance of combating all forms of racism and building understanding and respect for cultural, linguistic and ethnocultural diversity. These are the key elements of our international activities.
Senator Jaffer: I would like to go to the last intervention, but before I do that, I would like to ask you how you conduct dialogue in a multicultural community. Which groups do you talk to? I do not mean for you to give a list, but how do you carry out dialogues?
Mr. Wilczynski: Is this in the international context?
Senator Jaffer: No, I am sorry.
Ms. Nassrallah: In our program delivery we have partnerships with community groups and community organizations. We work with them closely in order to determine their needs, assist in capacity building and focus on the priorities that combat racism and discrimination in the community at the grassroots level.
Senator Jaffer: Do you have an advisory committee?
Ms. Nassrallah: We do not have an advisory committee, but our regional staff, as well as our program officers, work closely with the community organizations.
Senator Jaffer: Is there a specific committee advising the minister?
Ms. Nassrallah: In the period post-September 11, there was an inter-faith advisory committee that facilitated the dialogue with the community.
Senator Jaffer: Has there not been one since September 11?
Ms. Nassrallah: I am not aware of one.
Senator Jaffer: If you would turn to the second last page of your presentation. Can you please help me understand this? You say that Minister Augustine emphasized that there were five recommendations. What does that mean? What are you doing in terms of a ``strong legislative framework?'' What do you mean by that? Maybe Mr. Wilczynski can answer.
Ms. Nassrallah: Is there a legislative framework?
Senator Jaffer: Yes. Is there a strong legislative framework, and what is it?
Ms. Nassrallah: It is our position that we have a solid legislative framework with the multiculturalism policy, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the Public Service Employment Act and the Immigration Act. All of this constitutes a framework that would legislate the protection of human rights. It would eliminate racism and discrimination and provide equal opportunities to people from all backgrounds.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for setting out all the acts. Is there any reporting mechanism or accountability to the people of Canada to demonstrate that? I know there is a reporting mechanism under the bilingualism act. Is there one for the Multiculturalism Act?
Ms. Nassrallah: Under the Multiculturalism Act, the Minister of State has the responsibility to report to Parliament on an annual basis on activities that support the act.
Senator Jaffer: Are there any targets or goals under the Multiculturalism Act, as there are in the bilingualism act, that the minister has to achieve?
Ms. Nassrallah: There are some requirements on the part of federal departments and agencies to be more supportive of multiculturalism principles as stated in the act.
Senator Jaffer: I ask the Chair if, instead of me asking these questions individually, because I see it is almost seven o'clock, we can get written answers as to how we have achieved all five of the elements on that page? Once we have seen that, we may have to ask you to come back.
The Chairman: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: My question is for Mr. Artur Wilczynski. How does Canada compare to other countries when it comes to combating anti-Semitism?
[English]
Mr. Wilczynski: A comparative assessment should be left to other organizations. For example, the United Nations has a special mechanism whereby it evaluates our efforts to combat racism. The Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance visited Canada in September last year and presented his report to the UN Commission on Human Rights this past spring. Honourable senators, we can make a copy of that report available to you so that you can see an independent evaluation of the status of anti-racism in Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: How is Canada's performance in combating anti-Semitism rated at international gatherings?
[English]
Mr. Wilczynski: I can tell you that Canada consistently participates in various international activities aimed at combating anti-Semitism — for example, the OSCE conference against anti-Semitism that took place last year in Vienna, where we outlined specific measures to counter all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism. However, again, in terms of a comparison, I think that it is most appropriate that independent evaluators tell you how we are doing as opposed to you necessarily hearing that from me.
Senator Jaffer: You talked about the special rapporteur's report and I appreciate that you will make that available. I understood, and perhaps you can correct me if I am wrong, that the rapporteur said that the application of the act was not consistent across the country. What I am interested in is do you have a response to what was said? When you send us the report, we would like your response to what the special rapporteur said.
Mr. Wilczynski: The report was tabled at the Commission on Human Rights about two weeks ago. It is a very comprehensive report that covers a large number of issues that cross jurisdictions. Therefore, we do not have a formal response to it yet. I know that our ambassador from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who was in Geneva, made an intervention at the time of the tabling of the report. I can pass your request on to our colleagues from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Senator Jaffer: Perhaps you could also make a copy of his intervention available to us, please.
[Translation]
Senator Ferretti Barth: Referring to the report on the Multiculturalism Act, you state that other federal programs focus on the issues of racism and discriminations, including anti-Semitism, through the public education process.
How do you intend to educate the public on this matter? Do you plan to set up programs in schools?
Ms. Nassrallah: One of our priorities is to heighten public awareness through projects undertaken, as previously noted, with community groups. These programs target young people. Each year, an anti-racism campaign is held in honour of the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which falls on March 21. This campaign is an extremely effective way of getting the message out to reduce or eradicate racism altogether. The multifaceted approach involves youth education, partnerships with civil society as well as a general public education program.
Senator Ferretti Barth: How do you intend to go about educating the general public? Through conferences and print material?
Ms. Nassrallah: Among other things.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Do you not think a more effective way would be by going directly to schools? That is where the first signs of rivalry, hatred and racism are often glimpsed. Can you explain to me in clear terms the difference between discrimination, racism and anti-Semitism? Basically, what is anti-Semitism? A combination of all three?
Ms. Nassrallah: Our approach to racism and discrimination is very broad. We do not target a specific community, race or religion. Our approach is very comprehensive and includes all components, all sectors, all religions or all ethnic groups.
What distinguishes racism from discrimination? In essence, discrimination is the practice of drawing distinctions between persons on the basis of ethnic or racial origin, age and so forth. Racism is the practice of targeting a particular group or individual on the basis of race. Anti-Semitism is a general practice, without being specific.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I know that the Jewish people always speak of anti-Semitism. What I want to know is this: Are racism and discrimination components of anti-Semitism? Does anti-Semitism target only Jews or is such behaviour directed at other groups that experience discrimination on the basis of religion, race or colour? I am trying to understand this issue. No one is giving me an answer that I consider personally satisfactory.
Could you explain the expression ``shared citizenship'' to me?
Ms. Nassrallah: It refers to a concept whereby each individual citizen is responsible for making a contribution to society, while benefitting at the same time from the rights and privileges of citizenship. It works both ways. Each citizen must contribute to society's development just as he has certain rights and responsibilities to uphold.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Is this concept in vogue? Is it a recent phenomenon? This is the first time that I have seen the expression ``shared citizenship.''
Ms. Nassrallah: It is fairly common in English. The concept is not new. In fact, it has been around for some time.
Senator Ferretti Barth: I have to admit that I am hearing it now for the first time.
Senator Plamondon: Canada has laws aimed at protecting individuals from all forms of discrimination and hate and, as a nation, it complies with international agreements. If Canada adopt measures that specifically target anti-Semitism, would it not in the process be violating international agreements in that it would be favouring one people over another?
Ms. Lafontaine: Canada has enacted no specific measures — at least not in the Criminal Code — respecting anti- Semitism. It has enacted legislation to combat hate propaganda.
Senator Plamondon: I already asked someone else the question in a different context and I was told that in November 1970, Canada ratified that International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and that this Convention covers this practice. Therefore, if we were to adopt a specific measure to address anti-Semitism, would we not be muddying the waters, given that Canada has already ratified this Convention?
Ms. Lafontaine: Some problems could present themselves, in terms of the rules of equality. I do not want to give you an abstract answer. We would need to see the actual proposal and ascertain if it is indeed consistent with the Charter's equality rights and with other principles consigned to Canadian law. Speaking in the abstract, it is difficult to give you answer.
Senator Plamondon: Are you saying that you do not have an answer to my question?
Ms. Lafontaine: We would have to look at the measure that is ultimately proposed to see whether this is possible or not.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: I am not sure how the Race Relations Foundation works. Does it report to Heritage Canada?
Ms. Nassrallah: It is an arm's-length corporation established as a result of our policy on the Japanese redress case.
Senator Jaffer: I know that. I was very much involved in that process. I would like to know now how you work with them and if they are doing any work on anti-Semitism with you?
Ms. Nassrallah: I think this is a question —
Senator Jaffer: Are you doing any work?
Ms. Nassrallah: There are some situations where the dialogue is ongoing between us, to the extent that this is possible.
Senator Jaffer: I do not understand what you mean.
Ms. Nassrallah: They have their mandate. It is a corporation that operates or functions at arm's-length from us. We deal with public education programs on racism. We have capacity building with community organizations and groups, and the CRRF has its own programs.
Senator Jaffer: Madam Chair, the panel has kindly given us a lot of information that we need to digest. I request that once we have done that, they return so we can ask more questions.
The Chairman: Yes, so long as the panel is agreeable.
Senator Jaffer: May I put on record that the minister should also be invited?
The Chairman: We will invite three ministers, and possibly a fourth. Foreign Affairs has asked to appear as well.
Thank you very much for your interventions.
We now welcome Dr. Karen Mock of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation; Dr. Steve Scheinberg, National Chair of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith; and from the Canadian Jewish Congress, Keith Landy, Eric Vernon and Manuel Prutschi.
Mr. Keith Landy, National President, Canadian Jewish Congress: Honourable senators, let me begin by thanking the leaders of both parties in the Senate who have made these hearings possible. Furthermore, allow me to thank you, Madam Chair in particular, and all the members of this committee, for recognizing the pressing concern that is anti- Semitism, both in Canada and the rest of the world, and for holding these hearings.
We very much appreciate the opportunity to contribute our expertise and experience to this truly historic parliamentary review of the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism in Canada.
We also take this opportunity to thank Mr. Clifford Lincoln for his role as one of Canada's parliamentary representatives to the OSCE, as well as his colleague on this organization, Senator Grafstein, whose commitment to the issue of anti-Semitism is perhaps only surpassed by his tenacity in seeing the 2002 OSCE Berlin resolution find its way to this committee.
It is our sincere hope that this committee will recommend that the Senate of Canada endorse the OSCE resolution on anti-Semitism prior to next week's follow-up conference in Berlin. It is our further hope that our testimony here tonight will help you in this important task.
The presence of Jews in Canada dates back to the 18th century. Today, we number approximately 370,000 souls, amounting to 1.1 per cent of the population. Over half of us reside in the country's three largest cities: Toronto, about 180,000; Montreal, about 93,000; and Vancouver, about 22,500. There are many other cities with smaller yet self- sufficient Jewish populations of varying size.
I am proud to say that the Canadian Jewish community is one of the most thriving of the Diaspora. It constitutes an excellent example of a well-adjusted minority in a Western democracy. While retaining our unique identity, we are proud to be Canadian Jews.
As a minority community, we understand there to be a fundamental Canadian social contract that involves the state eschewing a policy of assimilation, while minority communities pursue the path of full integration. Distinctiveness is encouraged, with the understanding that there is an adoption of, and a loyalty to, an overarching Canadianism. ``Canadianism'' means subscribing to values centrally identified with being Canadian.
These values include democratic government, fundamental freedoms, individual liberty, the dignity and security of the person, the rule of law, and opting for civility and compromise in dealing with disputes.
It is in this context, honourable senators, that we approach our examination of anti-Semitism, a scourge that has confronted the Canadian Jewish community from its inception. Its contemporary threatening presence forms part of a continuum, dating back to the community's origins and only temporarily interrupted in the early 1940s when Canada went to war against the Axis Powers.
The Canadian Jewish Congress, since its inception in 1919 as an organization concerned with the rights of all Canadians and especially those of ethnic, religious and other minorities and equality-seeking groups, has had the fight against anti-Semitism as a central preoccupation.
The CJC defines anti-Semitism as the irrational, differential, negative treatment of Jews, individually and as a collectivity, because of their Jewishness, and including the State of Israel, the world's only Jewish state.
Honourable senators, it is crucial to stress that one cannot understand the contemporary or ``new'' anti-Semitism, as it has come to be called, either in Canada or elsewhere, without an appreciation of its international and, particularly, Middle Eastern context.
Zionism, through the State of Israel — its tangible expression — constitutes for the Jewish people the culmination of their striving for liberation from perennial persecution and toward self-determination, self-realization and the fulfilment of their destiny. For the Canadian Jewish community, therefore, Israel is central and the ties with it are strong.
The anti-Semitism of the last three years, the likes of which has not been seen since after the end of the Second World War, is a global phenomenon that transcends borders. It combines traditional anti-Jewishness with anti- Zionism; that is, the denial of Jewish national self-determination in our ancestral home and of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East.
The Jewish community is twice targeted, both as part of their fellow citizenry and as perhaps the only ethno- religious community globally singled out for terrorist violence. Anti-Jewish terror is but an extension of the murderous terrorist campaign directed against the State of Israel in what is an unrelenting, geopolitical war.
Conversely, anti-Semitism, which had been a Diaspora phenomenon, also came to target Israel after the re- establishment in 1948 of the modern Jewish state.
The new anti-Semitism is found among both the left and right on the one hand, and the Arab and Muslim worlds, including the West, with Canada no exception, on the other. It is at the core of Christian and Muslim theologians of hate, and visceral rather than ideological.
The anti-Semitic poison has also overtaken elements of the new age and anti-globalization movements as well as all too many anti-Americans. The new anti-Semitism is the glue that binds these otherwise disparate, if not outright antagonistic, groups.
The Canadian situation is not as bad as in Europe and elsewhere. However, Canada has not been immune. Hatred has been propagated and incited. Synagogues have been desecrated and firebombed. Schools and other property have been vandalized and targeted for arson. Too many tombstones have been violated, and individuals and groups as well as the communities as a whole have been harassed, abused, threatened and assaulted.
From March to April 2004, anti-Semitic outrages in Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland have demonstrated starkly that anti-Semitism is alive and well in Canada. Crimes have included the firebombing of a Montreal school library; vandalism against synagogues in Toronto and St. John's; the overturning of tombstones in four Jewish cemeteries, two in Toronto and one each in Kitchener and Brantford; and the defacement of homes, cars, signs and other property in the Greater Toronto Area.
The impact on the Jewish community is psychological and financial. An apprehensive community is forced to undertake costly security measures at schools, synagogues and other institutions. This very need constitutes an infringement on our rights as Canadians and we encourage governments to consider how to assist us in this process.
At the root of the phenomenon is an attitude that first finds expression in hate propaganda and the teaching of contempt. Words that are recklessly irresponsible, inflammatory and downright evil are the necessary precondition for the execution of evil deeds.
Guy Gavriel Kay, the noted Canadian Jewish novelist and poet, perceptively places the root of current Canadian anti-Semitism in what he identifies as ``the climate of discourse'' and an ``atmosphere today where things can be said in public that are loathsome.''
We must strive to remove the cloak of impunity that many people today feel entitles them to say or do things that are distinctively un-Canadian. The tone of public discourse on the Arab-Israeli issue has certainly degenerated significantly, crossing the line from legitimate vigorous expression of political opinion to anti-Semitism.
The blending of anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism has manifested itself most concretely on Canadian university campuses. Hostility, vilification, confrontation and intimidation, in some cases, have often supplanted the normative, salutary exchange of ideas and intellectual debate.
Ladies, it is a truism that although anti-Semitism begins with the Jews, it never ends with them. While today it has started by threatening the status of Jewish communities and of the world's only Jewish state, its ultimate aim or consequence is the destruction of democratic, open and pluralistic societies, like Canada's, that we have all built together and equally hold dear.
It is in the nature of anti-Semitism, both domestically and internationally, always to attempt a move from the periphery to the centre. While in Europe it may already partially have succeeded in this attempt, in Canada we believe that thus far it has failed to effect this move. It is our responsibility to keep it out of the mainstream or, where the centre has been breached, we must push it back to the margins.
Our recommendations: Actions to counter anti-Semitism must be at once national and international in scope and bear on all necessary aspects of society, including the political, intellectual, cultural, legal, educational and economic. Manifestations of anti-Semitism must be publicly and unequivocally denounced by the political sector at all levels to demonstrate Canada's policy of zero tolerance for such actions.
Today, Canada is a community of communities. Racism can no longer be viewed as an us versus them phenomenon. Members of minority communities are as much prey to the racism temptation and are both part of the problem and part of the solution. Ethnocultural and faith communities, therefore, must recognize the seriousness of anti-Semitism and speak out against it. There has to be a front of human solidarity in society so that no targeted community should ever have to feel isolated in its victimization.
Educational programs are vital in sensitizing people, especially the young, to the unmitigated dangers of anti- Semitism and racism and in teaching universal and enduring lessons on human rights, tolerance and multiculturalism. Anti-Semitism, and all expressions of racism and hate, runs counter to Canadian values, as does a lack of civility and respect for diversity.
The government should promote a values-based approach to citizenship and civil discourse, whereby the maintenance of heritage and identity encouraged by a multicultural society must be accompanied by an acceptance and endorsement of core Canadian values.
We need to restore civil discourse in Canada to engender an atmosphere of trust and respect while Canadianizing debate on contentious geopolitical issues, that is, developing a framework for talking with each other while respecting core Canadian values. As was noted by the witness from the multiculturalism branch, CJC, with the generous support of the Department of Canadian Heritage, is organizing for this fall three conferences on civil discourse, slated for Central, Western and Eastern Canada, to address this very issue.
Over the last half century, Canada has developed an evolving body of human rights jurisprudence to counter hate and bias activity against identifiable groups. Authorities must continue to use this arsenal of legal resources against perpetrators of anti-Semitism, with the important understanding that crimes that appear to be of a ``political nature,'' such as pamphlets with Judeo-phobic themes, allegations of a world Jewish conspiracy and graffiti equating the Star of David with the swastika are in fact anti-Semitic acts. The legal remedies were fully identified by the government witnesses in relation to the Criminal Code and human rights legislation, and in the interests of time I will not go through them.
We would also like to mention the interpretive guidelines of Canada Customs for the enforcement of sections of the customs tariff, regulations of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, other acts in areas of broadcasting, education and immigration, and other relevant provisions. Canada should also use the moral authority we have gained over the years as a nation dedicated to human rights, democracy and security of the person to enhance our leadership role in the international campaign against anti-Semitism. This includes condemning its manifestation at every opportunity in multilateral forums, including the United Nations and the OSCE, and in the context of its global bilateral relations.
Canada has taken a number of important steps in the wake of 9/11 to bolster domestic security and do its share in the war against international terrorism. I will not go into detail on that, again in the interests of time.
We know, honourable senators, that you share our profound concerns over resurgent anti-Semitism. We look to you as parliamentarians who champion decency, civility, pluralism and human rights to take an activist approach to ridding Canada and the world of this scourge.
Ms. Karen Mock, Executive Director, Canadian Race Relations Foundation: Madam Chair, I am very happy to be here with you tonight. I have already provided to the committee our documentation and brochure. I would be very pleased to answer questions about the foundation itself later on, if that would help, but suffice it to say for now that we are a Crown corporation that operates at arm's-length from the government. Unlike other Crown corporations, we do not receive an allocation from the government, but received a one-time endowment as part of the Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement. It was out of the generosity of the Japanese community that the creation of an independent foundation was negotiated, an independent human rights organization that would speak out against all forms of racism, document the history of racism in this country, continue to do research and act as a facilitator, a resource and a clearing house of information.
I sit here wearing two hats. Many of us involved in this work wear many hats, but I sit here not only as the Executive Director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation, a position I have held since October 2001. I was honoured to be appointed, but it came only a few weeks after the Durban world conference against racism, and, of course, a few weeks after September 11. It was very poignant for me to take the position at that time because I am also a Jew, and the foundation's mandate of ``never again,'' to monitor, to be a watchdog, so that human civil rights would never again be violated in this country in the way they were during and after the Second World War was significant for me.
I have provided some documentation but I will not speak to it. Ten minutes is not enough to summarize 30 years of background in working in this field, and also I come at this having spent 12 years of that career as the National Director of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith. As you will hear later, that organization's job is working with the congress and others across the country to actually document the incidence of anti-Semitism and hate activity in this country.
I also come at it as an educator and a psychologist. I will table with the clerk, if that is okay, some historical background documentation that may be helpful as you prepare your report.
If I may be so bold, because we will definitely run out of time, as to say that I would be very pleased to come back at a later time, if I could, through my organization, provide you with some of the background research and some ideas on how we might move forward with the agenda.
I will refer to the conclusion of one of the documents that I provided to you:
At the present time in Canada, there is a clear desire among those who are leaders in the struggle against racism and all forms of discrimination to strengthen that struggle. There has been a concerted effort to lobby the government to implement those measures agreed to in Durban that will create new legislation and strengthen existing legislation against racism, racial discrimination and related intolerance in a domestic action plan. We eagerly await that plan.
However, that term ``related intolerance'' was even coined by the UN as a euphemism for anti-Semitism because it was not possible, given tremendous tension, tremendous dialogue back and forth, and an absolute inability to reach consensus, to include the word ``anti-Semitism'' in some of their materials and documentation.
This was a window for us to also deal with other forms of related intolerance. It remains, however, a challenge, in spite of the long history — one BBC documentary was entitled The Longest Hatred. In particular, it has become even more difficult in the last few years to actually name anti-Semitism as a phenomenon, as a hatred against which all of us must struggle. At the same time, of course, we must struggle against all other forms of discrimination.
I did point out the challenges in that paper. I will turn them into positive recommendations.
One, we need meaningful dialogue, which has come up before. ``Meaningful dialogue'' is really putting oneself in another's shoes and not being afraid to use existing expertise and facilitators to bring people to that table in this country — and indeed internationally, but the foundation's agenda is domestic — and have a true dialogue that is designed to actually solve problems. In a way, you exchange positions.
Two, there must be an understanding of anti-Semitism in all its forms, including systemic anti-Semitism. Many of us here who are in the human rights field, many of us who have come to name racism in all its forms, have difficulty naming anti-Semitism in all those forms as well.
Three, we must recognize the difference between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies, where appropriate — this addresses Senator Plamondon's question — and when that criticism crosses the line into anti- Semitism. There is an actual strategy or training available to tune our antennae when we do this work. In the same way, one can criticize Canada, but when does it become treason? One can certainly criticize the State of Israel and not be anti-Semitic. However, I will give some examples in a few moments of how we might begin to do that.
Fourth is the importance of speaking out, in the same way as we must speak out against all forms of Islam-phobia, against racism, against homophobia, all the discriminations. We must not being afraid to speak out against anti- Semitism. By the way, I have to tell you that today, Jewish people who work in human rights and anti-racism, and even those teaching in these areas, are afraid to speak out. They are being silenced and marginalized, even in institutions where part of the teaching is to create a safe space for people to speak about these issues.
Lastly, the solidarity shown among racial and religious groups is extremely important. That solidarity after the recent incidents was gratifying, but it took a relentless series of firebombs, synagogue defacing, school vandalism and cemetery desecrations for people to speak out. I will not speak about that, you can read it. However, I myself have found, regrettably — and we are working and struggling with it — in this present job that when I convened a summit against racial profiling or stood up in solidarity and spoke very vocally against incidents against Muslims and Arabs after September 11, I am commended for doing my job. However, when I speak out against anti-Semitism, I am often criticized for being biased because I am a Jew. As I have said in other forums, there is a name for that, and it is ``anti- Semitism.''
As we do not have time to go into detail on the definitions, I am offering a document to the clerk, hopefully for reproduction. I am sorry I did not submit it earlier. I probably should have, but I did not want to inundate you with research documents. I did refer in that piece that was circulated to a chapter entitled ``Anti-semitism in Canada: Realities, remedies and implications for anti-racism.''
There is a powerful racist component in anti-Semitism, and it must be on the anti-racist agenda. What is ``anti- Semitism?'' You have heard a couple of definitions. I will offer one from the Anti-Defamation League: Anti-Semitism can be defined most simply as hostility directed at Jews solely because they are Jews. In spite of what anti-Semites profess, anti-Semitism is not caused by the actions or beliefs of Jews — or by the actions or beliefs of the Jewish state, I am adding that as a parenthesis — but rather as a result of attitudes and behaviour that arise regardless of what Jews do or believe. Anti-Semites are antagonistic to Jews for who they are and what they represent, and this antagonism has an ancient history.
Again, I will refer you to that history in a document that I hope you will circulate.
I would like to briefly give some concrete recommendations, and again, we will provide those in a longer document if you wish.
What can governments, what can parliamentarians do to seize on the progress made by NGOs — some of them are sitting at this table — and some of the work that we and others have done to put programs in place that have a meaningful, sustained impact on the ground?
In the 1930s, we as Jews, as well as others, put our faith in civil institutions — government, law enforcement and organized religion — to protect us before the inevitable actually happened, but that faith was misplaced. We learned the ultimate lesson of complacency.
I want to point to some hopeful signs. One of them, of course, was when our Prime Minister said, ``This is not my Canada.'' We seize on those moments. We have had international leaders speak up against anti-Semitism. In just two weeks from now, leaders of the 55 nations of the OSCE will convene in Berlin. However, the reality is that many of those countries would probably rather not be there, and hope that once they have talked about it, they will not have to do so again. Countering anti-Semitism in Canada, even monitoring it or condemning it, as I mentioned earlier, is still considered controversial in the NGO circles — even in government circles.
These are a few of the challenges, with some practical suggestions: one, the importance of building a political will; two, the need for greater monitoring — educated, trained monitoring; three, the conference itself in Berlin and other international fora; four, promising practices. I did not even say ``best practices,'' because we have yet to find some of those. I will just highlight what I mean by those four.
The political will. I would like to quote from Minister Natan Sharansky of Israel on the way that you can differentiate anti-Semitism from other political discourse. He talks about viewing the problem through 3D glasses, but those three Ds are demonization, double standards and delegitimization. If Jews, the Jewish people or the Jewish state are demonized, that is a clue that it is anti-Semitism and not legitimate political discourse. As an example, there was a double standard used against the Jewish delegation at the World Conference against Racism, or the double standard applied in the United Nations, where the Jewish state, with one of the tiniest populations, has faced disproportionate accusations of violations of human rights while gross violations by many other countries in the world were completely ignored. That is what we call, in anti-racism work, ``differential treatment,'' that is, a double standard. If there is extra scrutiny at the border of Muslims or Arabs, it is a double standard, if it really is random. If people are ``driving while black'' and that is their only crime, it is a double standard. The same analysis must be applied. That is another clue that what we are dealing with is anti-Semitism, and then we can push the political will forward.
The delegitimization of an entire state is a clue. In other words, we can criticize Canada for being racist and we can describe what that means, as the special rapporteur has, but it does not mean that Canadians or parliamentarians wear their bedsheets out at night and burn crosses, because we do have the best legal system and legislation in the world for dealing with this. However, we can highlight what systemic racism is, and it does not mean we would turn around and say that therefore the Canadian state should not exist. Anything that we would propose would not delegitimize another state. That is a clue that that would be an anti-Semitic kind of comment.
Yes, it is important to be critical, but, for example, you can look at some of these cartoons I have here. This is a British political cartoon from just a couple of months ago, in which they wanted to criticize Prime Minister Sharon, but it showed him actually devouring the flesh of a Palestinian baby. That picture could have been taken right out of a pre- war — even during the war — German or Nazi publication. That is crossing the line. That is demonization. That is anti-Semitism, not criticizing a political party.
Canada must continue to squarely address the nature and the source of the problem. Canada must secure condemnation of what is called the ``new'' anti-Semitism — but the new and the old anti-Semitism — in forums like the UN, the EU and OSCE. I do not have a lot of time to elaborate on these other issues such as the need for greater monitoring. We heard something about data collection earlier, but we need training for police services on how to actually do that. We have the skills to do that, and by the way, I will again offer the services of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation to assist. Senator Grafstein is on his way to Berlin. I would hope that Canada's position would be to push for the adoption of comprehensive hate-crime data collection laws for all nations and provision of training for appropriate law enforcement professionals in how to identify, report and respond to hate crimes. We need to fund national assessments of hate violence.
I will conclude with a discussion of the promising practices. The foundation itself does honour best practices in anti- racism work. However, in the same way as we funded a study, with Canadian Heritage, of best practices nationally and internationally in racial profiling, there needs to be a similar report done on best practices in anti-bias and anti-racist education. Holocaust education is definitely part of that and should be implemented, along with law enforcement training, working with religious institutions, responding to racism, anti-Semitism and hate crimes in the Armed Forces and other institutions, and certainly showcasing nationally and internationally the best practices that exist.
I am sorry that I have taken as much time as I have, but as you can see, I very much feel that if this country cannot do it, no country can.
Dr. Steve Scheinberg, National Chair of the League for Human Rights, B'nai Brith Canada: I was a professor of history at Concordia University for 41 years until my retirement last June. I am currently the National Chair of the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith, the senior Jewish organization in Canada. We have been around for almost 130 years, having been founded in 1875. In the 1960s, we started doing human rights work through the League for Human Rights, so we are also one of the senior human rights organizations in Canada, and for the 12 years that Karen Mock worked in the leadership of the league, we had a strong profile, not only in working against anti-Semitism, but in working against hatred anywhere it appeared and joining hands with all minorities to try to build a better Canada.
My own work has been as a historian and scholar in the research on anti-Semitism, in terms of survey data, of compiling our annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents, and also as co-editor and author of a volume on The Extreme Right: Freedom and Security at Risk, published in 1997.
At this time I would like to introduce my colleague, Joseph Ben-Ami, our director of government relations.
I said that we do two forms of research. One is survey data. About 15 years ago, we started taking various surveys, not just on anti-Semitism but on racism in Canada, and we used various control groups in an attempt to show the attitudes of Canadians. Back then, 10 or 12 years ago, we were showing levels of prejudice across Canada at about the 20 to 25 per cent level. These prejudices were varied and from mild to strong. In British Columbia, the targets might have been Sikhs.
In Toronto, it might have been more East Asians and Chinese, and in Quebec, more Jews, but attitudinal prejudice, not active incidents.
The other thing we have done over the years is to compile the ``Audit of Antisemitic Incidents,'' issued every year. I hope that has been made available to members of the committee. This audit is probably the best source for charting anti-Semitic incidents over time. We compile this data not only from reports to our own hate crimes and anti-Semitism hotline, but also, toward the end of the year, we start going out to synagogues, other Jewish organizations across the country, police forces and the like, to try to bolster our data and see where we may have messed up, where we have insufficient numbers or too many as compared to the police and so on. This audit has been saluted by various agencies of the Canadian government as one of the best sources for charting anti-Semitism.
One of the jobs of this committee, I presume, is to see if there is a rise in anti-Semitism. If so, what is the cause?
As an anecdote, a couple of years ago one of our colleagues in the League for Human Rights, our national counsel, Marvin Kurz, based in Toronto, wrote in an article for The Globe and Mail that anti-Semitism is no longer a big problem among Canadians. We asked why was the lead counsel saying that when the data in our audit shows something rather different? What is the contradiction? Maybe it is the same contradiction we have today.
I have a survey that was recently done by Dr. Conrad Winn, of the COMPAS organization, that has not been published yet. Again, it shows progress among Canadians in the area of race relations and prejudice. There is less prejudice today than ever. Before World War II, American surveys — we do not have Canadian surveys for that period — showed about a 50 per cent level of anti-Semitism in the population. We assume that was true in Canada, too.
Today, we are talking about figures across the country of 15 to 20 per cent, mild to very hard-line anti-Semitism. It is not a big problem in terms of Canadian attitudes.
If we target all Canadians in our drive to deal with anti-Semitism, we might be making a big mistake. Yet the audit of anti-Semitic incidents shows the highest figures we have ever had: 585 incidents, 27 per cent higher than in 2002 and twice as many as in 2001. That is an alarming level.
We think the reports of incidents we get are the tip of the iceberg. They are indicative and may be only 10 per cent of the real number. How do we reconcile these two kinds of findings, first, that Canadians in general are less prejudiced than ever; but second, there are more anti-Semitic incidents? That is a big problem, and a problem for you, too.
I have studied the extreme right in Canada and the United States. I can tell you that at this moment we are looking at an extreme right in Canada that is still a problem, but it does not compare to what we had five or ten years ago, when every other day we could read about skinhead organizations, the Heritage Front, about Mr. Zundel, who is now incarcerated and will hopefully be finally deported back to his native land of Germany.
What do we say about this? What does the European Union say about it? The European Union has done a very careful study, which is available on the Web. We can make it available to you if you do not have it. That study shows alarming rates of growth of anti-Semitism. In the European Union, they say there are attacks on synagogues, Jewish institutions, tombstones, et cetera. These we attribute mostly to the extreme right.
The second part of their analysis was suppressed by the European Union for months. The scholars who produced the report, by the way, were based in Berlin. They are non-Jewish German scholars at the institute for anti-Semitism at the Technical University of Berlin. What they said was — and here is the difficult part for you as well as for us — that in many cases, young, alienated Muslims were to blame for these attacks on Jewish persons and properties. You can look at that report.
My conclusions are that Canada is much the same. If an extreme right is not present to any great extent any more, there are always freelance racists and anti-Semites out there. Still, our audit identified 35 perpetrators as probably young Arabs. I do not use the word ``Muslim''; they were identified as young Arabs. Identification is suspect. The figure is 35 out of 585. However, most perpetrators of anti-Semitic incidents are never seen. They strike in the middle of the night. We do not know who most of them are. However, many those who were visible, and committed acts of harassment and so forth, were, unfortunately, young Muslims.
We must ask about the context for the rise of anti-Semitic incidents in Canada. We are facing a real problem that this committee must address. I was at the Talmud Torah School the morning after it was firebombed. I saw that school and I saw the note that had been written in the name of Sheik Yassin, saying that when Sharon stops they will stop. That does not mean it is a Muslim or an Arab, by the way. I cannot describe the perpetrator. Anyone else could have hidden behind those words and committed the act. Yet there is a context. What is it? It has been referred to here before, at this table. That is, the context of the kinds of demonstrations of incivility that we have seen time and time again, of the signs at demonstrations saying, ``Zionism equals racism.'' What is Zionism? It is the national movement of the Jewish people. Why use Zionism? Why not criticize Israel? If you want to criticize it, criticize it directly rather than invoke some kind of worldwide conspiracy called ``Zionism.''
Why hold up a sign saying that the Jewish star equals the swastika? What does that do to young people? Why use the hyperbole of genocide and another Holocaust?
Every one of us in this room regrets that some 4,000-plus people have died during the three years of the intifada. Whatever the causes of it and however we see it, those 4,000 do not measure up to 1,000 people a week being killed in the Sudan under the auspices or support of the Sudanese Arab government. That is the double standard that Ms. Mock spoke about in relation to Israel.
What does that do to young people like the young man who threw a Molotov cocktail at the synagogue in Edmonton? He was caught. He was a young Arab gentleman who said he was frustrated and angry and threw this Molotov cocktail at the Jews, not at Israel — he did not go there — but at Jews, for hatred of Jews.
What are the answers here? What kind of recommendations can I offer? Some of them have been alluded to. The kind of general anti-racist programs that Ms. Mock and Mr. Landy spoke about and civil discourse are all well and good.
At Concordia University, they introduced programs in conflict resolution following the riots there, which was fine for the people who attended, but I assure you the people who needed those seminars were not there.
Part of this problem is not only people in the crowds but legitimate bodies that are stirring up anti-Semitism. I want to quote not from some fringe group in the Arab community but from the Vice-President of the Canadian Islamic Congress. This is up on their Web site. You can see it now.
Senator Jaffer: Point of order.
Dr. Scheinberg: She says in an article —
The Chairman: Dr. Scheinberg, we have a point of order on the table.
[Translation]
Senator Plamondon: I am sorry, but we are straying from the subject matter of today's meeting, namely anti- Semitism in Canada. We should get back to the subject at hand.
[English]
Dr. Scheinberg: I quite agree with that remark. I do not want to talk about what Arabs have done. I am talking about Canada. I want to talk about what is furthering the climate of anti-Semitism here in Canada. Just permit me to quote from this document.
The Chairman: I am sorry, it is already 8:15 and our senators would like to ask a few questions, Dr. Scheinberg.
Dr. Scheinberg: Can I conclude in one minute with this quotation?
The author is talking about the record of Islam on being blind to race. That is fine and good, but then she says: Most notably, the Koran rejects the Jewish concept...
The Chairman: I am sorry, Dr. Scheinberg, that is not at all what we are discussing. Could I ask you to terminate this, please?
Mr. Joseph Ben-Ami, Director of Communications, B'nai Brith Canada: Madam Chair, if I could intervene for a second, I would like to respectfully ask how the Chair could possibly make a judgment on the propriety of a quote without having heard it in the first place.
The Chairman: I have already had two objections from two senators at the table.
Mr. Ben-Ami: I understand. As a procedural question, does the Chair not have to hear the quote first to determine if it is out of order?
Dr. Scheinberg: May I tell you the context of the quote once again?
The Chairman: We are here to ask questions, not answer them.
Dr. Scheinberg: The context of this quotation is in saying what is establishing the context for anti-Semitism, if you are interested —
The Chairman: In the opinion of the writer.
Dr. Scheinberg: In the context of anti-Semitism and its rise in this country, one of the things you will have to deal with is whether there is anti-Semitism and prejudice in one community directed against another that is inspiring some of these incidents. May I just conclude with this quotation?
The Chairman: All right, go ahead, doctor.
Dr. Scheinberg: Most notably, she says the Koran rejects the Jewish concept of racial superiority. That is, their status as a chosen people. She says that this concept is not only racist but directly contradicts the Koranic worldview of racial equalities. Unfortunately, she concludes, the Jewish idea of being chosen not only institutionalized racism but also set a terrible precedent for human history in general where racial superiority claims became the norm.
A responsible officer of the Islamic Congress is blaming the Jewish people here for the doctrine of racial superiority. We are not talking about kids at Concordia carrying signs out on the streets; we are talking about legitimate groups in Canadian society using illegitimate means to further their ideas.
The Chairman: Senator, do you have any questions or comments?
Senator Plamondon: No.
The Chairman: I would like to thank you for your presentation and I am sorry that it finished on this particular note.
The committee adjourned.