Proceedings of the Special Senate Committee on the
Anti-terrorism Act
Issue 17 - Evidence - Afternoon meeting
[Editor’s Note]
CORRECTIONS
At page 17:43 of the printed Issue, fifth paragraph, the text reads:
There is a small budget.
The text should read:
This is a small budget.
—————
At page 17:46 of the printed Issue, fourth paragraph, the text reads:
I am sure that that decision was made by officials.
The text should read:
I am sure that that decision was not made by officials.
The html and pdf versions appearing on this site have been amended to reflect the corrected wording.
OTTAWA, Monday, October 24, 2005
The Special Senate Committee on the Anti-terrorism Act met this day at 1:35 p.m. to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operation of the Anti-terrorism Act (S.C. 2001, c.41).
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, I call to order this 38th meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Anti- terrorism Act. We have witnesses present.
For our viewers I will explain the purpose of the committee. In October 2001, as a direct response to the terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C, and Pennsylvania, and at the request of the United Nations, the Canadian government introduced Bill C-36, in respect of the Anti-terrorism Act. Given the urgency of the situation then, Parliament was asked to expedite our study of the legislation, and we agreed. The deadline for the passage of the bill was mid-December 2001. However, concerns were expressed that it was difficult to thoroughly assess the potential impact of this legislation in such a short period of time. For that reason, it was agreed that, three years later, Parliament would be asked to examine the provisions of the act and its impact on Canadians with the benefit of hindsight and a less emotionally charged citizenship.
The Canadian studies are part of the work of this special committee, which represents the Senate's efforts to fulfil that obligation. When we have completed our study, we will make a report to the Senate and outline any issue that we believe should be addressed. The results of our work will be presented to the Government of Canada and to all Canadians. The House of Commons is undergoing a similar process at this time.
Thus far, the committee has met with government ministers and officials, international and domestic experts on the threat environment, legal experts, those involved in enforcement and intelligence gathering, and representatives of community groups. Committee members have travelled to Washington for meetings and, in one week or so, the committee will travel to London, England. We have had video conferencing with persons in other countries around the world.
Through the course of our hearings, we have heard considerable concerns about what has been happening under the new process in respect of community groups. There has been much discussion about the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security. We are most anxious to hear from that committee and so today, we are fortunate to be joined by its chair, Dr. Zaheer Lakhani. He is accompanied by Mr. Marc Whittingham, Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Relations and Public Affairs, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
As always, honourable senators, I would ask that questions be as concise as possible and that answers as vigorous as possible.
Dr. Lakhani, please proceed.
Zaheer Lakhani, Chair, Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security: Honourable senators, thank you for this invitation to speak on behalf of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security, CRS, which I have had the pleasure and challenge of chairing since its inception earlier this year. I wish to recognize a classmate of mine from Uganda, from only a handful of years ago — Senator Jaffer. Who, at the time, would have thought that so many years later she would be a Canadian senator and we would be looking up to her as we always did even at school. On my recent travels to Uganda as an external examiner at Makerere University, I discovered that even in Kampala they are talking about Senator Jaffer's good work in Sudan.
The very creation by the Government of Canada of this body of volunteers on our round table, each with connections to a broad base of Canada's diverse communities, reflects a genuine desire by the government to maintain an ongoing dialogue with the broader community. I believe it also reflects a recognition that concerns within our communities, both about terrorism and anti-terrorism measures, potentially can be divisive and create undue anxiety in different segments of our population with disproportionate impact on some groups compared to others. Measures such as the creation of this round table are what make Canada a value-added nation, to borrow a phrase from Mr. Lloyd Axworthy's book.
This sets us apart for others to emulate and constitutes, what some have called, the polite revolution, one that keeps us creative, open-minded and forward-looking as a result of our important discourses.
Fifteen very different individuals make up the CRS. They come to the table with unique and different backgrounds and their lives have been shaped by different life experiences, as can you see from the bio data I have provided to the committee.
My own background is in medicine. I am a clinical professor at the University of Alberta. I have served as president of the Edmonton Multicultural Society. I have been a member and chair of the Edmonton Multicultural Society over a period of five years and I was founding president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards. At that time, we were concerned about issues like racial profiling, employment equity opportunities in police services, diversity training and cultural sensitization. All of these remain as important and relevant today as they were then.
Our members represent different faiths and a majority have come to this country from several parts of the world.
The diversity of opinions at our table and the breadth of discussions reflect the diversity and concerns of all Canadians. We consider, however, that this diversity of opinions constitutes a strength. I know that the representatives from justice, PSEP, multiculturalism, et cetera, benefit from this spectrum of opinions and input at all our meetings.
Although we reflect a spectrum of opinions on some issues, we are completely united in one area, and that is a deep affection for this country and for Canadian values, including the deep respect Canada has for the dignity of human beings and human rights, not only here but elsewhere. Speaking for myself as one who is in Canada as a result of the expulsion of the East Indian community from Uganda when we lost our livelihoods, our homes, our businesses and our sense of identity almost overnight, I share with Canadians who have survived similar types of experiences, a deep respect for fairness, democracy and just government.
In that context, any inkling of perceived threat by government or her institutions to personal liberty or human rights causes us great anxiety because many of us have seen firsthand the consequences of the erosions of these personal freedoms and the downward spirals that can ensue.
However, in light of 9/11, our CRS members also empathize with our lawmakers as they struggle to strike the right balance between societal security measures and interests and our individual rights as Canadian citizens. We welcome this opportunity to work with government, with the greater community, and hope to be able to make a meaningful difference.
The mandate of the round table is clearly stated in the documents that were distributed earlier. I think what best captures the spirit leading to our creation is the statement made by Honourable Anne McLellan to this committee last February when she said:
It has been established under the national security policy, but to meet with representatives from multicultural Canada to hear from them their fears, their aspirations, how things, like this legislation, how the Canadian Border Services Agency, how these things are perceived within their communities and how they believe they are impacted by these things. We want a two-way dialogue to explain why we are doing what we are doing to protect all Canadians including them, but for us to understand perhaps some of the unintended consequences for the communities.
What has been happening since our first meeting in March 7, 2005? As chair, it has been my priority to encourage the members to get to know one another. The round table consists of 15 people, most of whom did not know one another before they joined the group. My priority is to encourage them to gel as a group, to develop mutual respect, trust and a better understanding of where each member is coming from and to chart out a common and shared vision.
In a short space of time, we have already held two formal round table meetings. At the first one in Ottawa in March, through the participation of senior representatives from CSIS, RCMP, the Canadian Border Services, et cetera, we were better informed of the government's security infrastructure, policy and programs and the challenges confronting these groups and agencies.
At the second meeting in Vancouver in May, the focus was on border security. We visited Vancouver international airport in order to better understand the security measures in place and the challenges of protecting Canadians and travellers while facilitating the passage of people and goods.
We have had smaller group meetings in Edmonton and Halifax and a number of subcommittees have already done some work. One such subcommittee is considering practical outreach mechanisms to reach communities across Canada. Another subcommittee is exploring questions of employment equity, recruitment methods, and diversity training in our various agencies.
Through the initiatives of individual members across Canada, meetings have been facilitated between government and local community groups to ensure dialogue takes place, especially with members of the Muslim community who have felt the most impacted by these security measures.
I wish to point out that we are not apologists for government legislation but we can catalyze contact between the community and government. More meetings are scheduled in the coming months as part of our outreach initiative. We do not want to duplicate the work of this committee, and all of us are following closely the work of this committee. We want to engage Canadians on more specific issues. These include seeking the views of various communities on how they can take ownership of security-related matters in their own communities and not just leave these matters to government.
We want to facilitate youth forums to discuss matters of interest to youth, and specifically address conditions leading to home-grown terrorism, the teaching of hate, the aspirations of our young men and women in our different communities, and the role they would like to take in bearing some of the responsibilities for keeping terrorism at bay. We also hope to have some focused discussions with various communities across the country on more specific issues.
At conferences, our members have been invited to speak in their capacity as round table members, suggesting that, slowly, people are coming to know of us as a group. There have been some tangible outcomes. I can speak to some of the issues raised by round table members at our meetings and to those raised by various community groups. Perhaps we can discuss those later.
To keep within the time frame that was suggested, I will conclude by reminding this committee that we have only been in existence for a short period of time, seven months so far. We are most anxious to do things properly and in a well thought out manner. We recognize that this round table will remain part of our Canadian security related landscape for many years to come, long after the term of our present membership has expired. Thus far, we have enjoyed excellent support of government as we have charted out the framework of our mandate. As well, each of our members is deeply committed to playing his or her role to the fullest.
At our next meeting in Ottawa in November, our focus will be twofold: first, to examine the international events that impact and contextualize Canadian security measures; and, second, to discuss Canada's response in the event of a terrorist action in this country. Should such an event occur in Canada, we must have measures in place to support a climate of respect among diverse communities and proactively address backlashes and potential acts of hatred and discrimination that have characteristically followed such events.
Mr. Whittingham and myself will be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Andreychuk: I have read your terms of reference. I am somewhat confused about your role. Perhaps you can tell me how you perceive your role. Is it to be an advocate for those who believe that they may be wrongly profiled and subject to the anti-terrorism legislation, or do you see yourself as facilitators and disseminators of information respecting the whole security climate in Canada? I see these two roles in your terms of reference, but I see them as conflicting roles. How will you handle that?
Dr. Lakhani: As chair, I do not get the sense with the membership that there is a conflict there. Primarily, we want to encourage, as the terms of reference point out, an opportunity for government to interact directly with the community. It has become evident to us that there is a real gap between government and the communities. Some communities are far more impacted by these legislative changes than others, and they want to understand why these measures have been put in place. They want to know the rationale behind imposing these measures. I see ourselves, being from within the communities, as being able to facilitate contact. We can explain the workings of government to people, and we can explain the people's issues to government so that government is sensitized to the concerns of the community. I do not think government fully knows or appreciates those concerns. Government officials need to be appraised of these concerns so that they can be sensitized to them.
Over time, the role of the round table may change. However, the immediate mandate was to explain one to the other and to promote a dialogue between the two groups. One of the things that we enjoy as community members is that all of our members have deep links with various communities and are bringing the concerns of the communities to the table and sensitizing border agencies, government, PSEP, et cetera, about the concerns of the community. It is a question of understanding one another better and, hopefully, laying the groundwork for the development of future legislative changes as and when they may occur. That is my sense.
Senator Andreychuk: You see yourselves as facilitators both ways. My concern is that, in a democracy, the government should speak directly to the people, and particularly to minorities who are affected by legislative changes. I am mindful of some of the after-effects of the subway bombings in London, where the Prime Minister took it upon himself to speak directly to Muslim and Arab leaders to try to get their support for the security agenda, and to reassure them that it was not a question of targeting. Thus, the dialogue was as I thought it should be, that is, between the government of the day and the people affected.
You see yourselves as facilitators. Why do we need that in Canada? Why do people not feel that they can speak directly to the government?
Dr. Lakhani: When you interact with minority groups, you realize they all come from different parts of the world. They have different levels of comfort. They have different levels of literacy. They have different levels of confidence. Some groups are most articulate. They know who to talk to, how to contact individuals and how to deal with particular issues.
However, the majority of these individuals, many of whom are newcomers in this country, feel alienated. The people in Edmonton who felt they had been harassed or intimidated were immigrants who have not been in Canada for a long time. This is a country of new immigrants. Many of these people do not know which way to turn. They do not know to whom they can voice their concerns. Certainly, if one reads the newspapers every day, then one would be pretty well informed. However, many of these people do not have the ability or the time to become better informed.
What you say makes sense. However, as a man who has worked in the area of multiculturalism, including being president of a multicultural organization, I know that many disadvantaged groups in our communities need all the help they can get. Our group is providing that kind of support.
I think government is doing what it can do. I know that the minister is meeting with various groups and various community leaders. Even who constitutes a community leader in some of these communities is sometimes not clear. We have disparate communities and they are not all necessarily represented at every table.
As a round table group with our roots in different communities, we are familiar with many different groups and we try to ensure that, at every opportunity, we listen to them, we interact, we know their feelings, we know their fears and we know their concerns. We try to bring these issues to the table and inform our government representatives of these concerns.
To the extent that we can facilitate or arrange for them to meet with these specific groups, we do that. As I said, we are not apologists for government legislation. Government has to explain its own legislative changes and why it has taken the steps it has. However, we can make sure that all of the groups who need to be talked to have that opportunity. Mr. Whittingham may want to comment further.
Marc Whittingham, Assistant Deputy Minister, Portfolio Relations and Public Affairs, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada: I have been with the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for three months, so I am relatively new to this position. However, I have met the members of the Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security both in Halifax and Edmonton. I have had the opportunity now to meet all 15.
The keyword here is "facilitation'' rather than "substitute.'' There is no doubt in my mind that the Cross-Cultural Roundtable is not a substitute for the government or for officials meeting with all ethnocultural communities across the country. The Cross-Cultural Roundtable gives us another way to help us facilitate that and to ensure that we do not miss something. It will ensure that we will not inadvertently miss a group or a concern. The round table gives us 15 more pairs of eyes and ears and advisers to assist us in our larger outreach initiatives and in the larger programs that we are trying to put in place to facilitate dialogue. It is just another tool that helps us to do that.
At the same time, it gives us a group of people who will, over time, become more informed about what we are doing, and who will be able to give us advice. We can tell them what we propose to do and ask them what they think the reaction will be. We will get immediate feedback so that we will be able to earn trust and be able to establish a rapport.
Senator Andreychuk: As one who has an immigrant background, I thank you for that clarification. Having worked with people in the immigrant community over many decades, I know that, if they are hesitant to meet with or understand government, they are also hesitant about anything created by government. You are both sitting at the table together. That reinforces that image.
Organizations that will reach out to the government will, no doubt, reach out to your round table. My concern lies with those people on the ground who are not organized, and who are dealing with day-to-day issues of survival such as getting a job and educating their children. I am concerned that those people will be profiled, marginalized or targeted in some way. How will you address that? The real need is to ensure that ordinary community members are not being targeted unfairly. That is the pervasive feeling in the less organized echelons of these communities. How will you reach those people?
Dr. Lakhani: I did not know most of the people on the round table before they became members. As I get to know the members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario, I recognize that they are well connected to not only their communities but to other communities. Many of them have a background of working for multicultural organizations. They have been spokespeople for the disadvantaged in our communities. It is one of our responsibilities to be aware of the oppressed and disadvantaged. It is our duty as round table members to apprise government of their concerns. Our members are doing that. Having sat through these two meetings, and having heard from these people at the table, I sincerely feel that our members are sensitive and concerned. I thank you for raising that issue. It is of concern to you; and it is of concern to me.
All my life, I have fought for people who cannot speak for themselves. I believe that somebody must speak for them. Those kinds of people are on the round table and I hope that they are doing their job properly by bringing the issues of those who cannot speak for themselves to us.
Senator Andreychuk: In the time that you have been involved with the round table and met with community leaders and affected members of the community, have you concluded that there is racial profiling in Canada?
Dr. Lakhani: I am not sure if there is, but there is certainly a serious perception that there is racial profiling. I have friends who say that, if your name is Muslim-sounding and you have a beard, you will tend to get stopped at airports. You will tend to be asked more questions. I hear those comments. I also hear the other side of the story, that is, people do not believe that there is racial profiling. Those who repeatedly go through this experience may feel racially profiled.
We are pleased to hear from government and the agencies that there is no profiling, and that they are taking every step to ensure that there is not. We have taken on the responsibility of working with these various agencies. We have committees working with them to talk about recruitment, education and diversity training. We want to see what people in authority are being taught. How do they do their work? The visit to the Vancouver airport and the border agencies was refreshing because, in looking through the mechanisms they use to assess people, they were certainly reassuring that they do not use racial profiling. However, I agree with you that there is a perception of racial profiling out there. For some people in the community, it is very real.
Senator Fraser: We are glad to have you here. We were glad when your group was at last established. We hoped it would come earlier. It always seemed to us that such a body would be an extremely important part of our national response to terrorism.
I would like to deepen my understanding of how things work. To whom are you accountable, Dr. Lakhani? To whom do you report?
Dr. Lakhani: To whom do I report? Our group was appointed by PCEP. Our terms of reference are as stated. We have talked about them. Senior members from government attend out meetings. They listen to the dialogue and they hear our concerns. We speak for the community. We raise the concerns of the community at the round table. We are also being educated on other issues.
A summary of our proceedings is made available to Minister McLellan, Minister Cotler and Minister of State Mr. Chan. A précis of each of our meetings, expressing our concerns, is prepared. That may be the what you would call the accountability mechanism. We are appointed through PSEP so presumably that is the body to whom we report. Certainly, a précis of our discussions is available to them.
Senator Fraser: Do you have the authority to make reports to the public, provide public annual reports, or anything of that nature?
Dr. Lakhani: I do not see why not. I am sure that, as a group, we could choose to do that eventually, once we have a better understanding of what we want to do and the direction in which we want to go. I can see that happening. We have talked about putting out a newsletter. We need to obtain a profile within the community. It is a profile we do not yet have, because we are still new. Imagine 15 people meeting for the first time. We are trying to get to know each other. At the first meeting, it seemed that everyone had different ideas of where we should be going. Now we have come to gel, and are getting a sense of what is the most effective use of our resources and time, and in what way we can provide the maximum benefit to the community and, in turn, to government as well.
One mechanism we have talked about is creating a regular newsletter. We have a website where we could raise some of these issues. In the next year or so, I am quite confident we will be doing more of these kinds of things. We are putting out reports.
Senator Fraser: Who pays for the website? My broader question is: Do you have a budget that you can allocate to a website, a newsletter or to studies you might think need to be done, or do you turn to PSEP and ask them to do those things? I apologize if I sound cynical.
Mr. Whittingham: As part of the creation of the round table, a secretariat within PSEPC, within the department, was created to support the round table. An annual budget of $600,000 goes towards that. It includes three full-time staff, as well as the website and any travel expenses for the members.
This is a small budget. We are trying to find other ways to fund specific outreach initiatives and those things that would go along with those. The accountability is clear. As Dr. Lakhani said, it is to the two ministers who created the round table.
Senator Fraser: I am trying to understand how this works. Administratively, there is a round table whose members are volunteers, and there is a little unit within PSEP that is responsible to PSEP, reports to them and is funded by them, and is part of the PSEP career path.
I will have further questions, but this will be the last one for now. Are two to four meetings a year enough?
Dr. Lakhani: We are busy people in our own lives. We also do other community outreach work. We will all be together at three to four formal meetings, but that does not preclude telephone conferences. We also hold those. It also does not prelude the creation of subcommittees, which subcommittees can meet on their own. The subcommittees consist of three or four people who deal with specific issues. They have met and discussed issues on conference calls. We also have what are called small group meetings where those of us living in the west have a chance to communicate with those in the east. That makes travel a little less demanding, and we can get on with the work that needs to be done. There are many formats.
The round table concept of 15 people sitting around the table has its own place in this process, but it is only one facet of how we propose to proceed. Four meetings, where we all meet face to face, in my opinion are more than enough. We need more small group sessions and more conference calls amongst specific groups. We are moving in that direction as we chart out the direction we want to take. For the time being, I am happy with four meetings a year.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your kind remarks, Dr. Lakhani.
First, I will start with a question to the assistant deputy minister about what the thinking was on the way the committee was formed. Why is it voluntary? Why is the community being asked to work for the government for free?
Second, the members are accountable to the two ministers and not to the community. Have you put in place a mechanism whereby they can meet regularly with the community?
The members of this committee have heard many times that there are no Muslim representatives from Toronto and Montreal.
Dr. Lakhani: I will say a few words, and then Mr. Whittingham can continue.
Senator Jaffer, with regard to being reimbursed, I can tell you, when I was chair of the police commission, and president of the Canadian Association of Police Boards, I was never paid. It was done entirely as a volunteer. Speaking for myself, I would rather not be paid. First, you could not pay many of the members what their input is worth. These are people with busy practices and paying them would involve a major cost. Second, people appreciate the sense of doing these things as Canadians, as volunteers, as one of their voluntary commitments and obligations as citizens. There is one time when being reimbursed becomes an issue. I came across this as well in police commission work.
For instance, when a teacher takes time off, another teacher has to be paid to substitute teach. We certainly do not want to encumber people with those kinds of costs. I would be the first to say that, if anybody is out of pocket by spending two or three days at one of our meetings two or three times a year, then perhaps that person should be reimbursed. I have not had any such request for my group. I think I speak for most of us on the round table in saying that we are quite happy not to be paid. We feel a sense of independence. We do not feel that a payer is calling the tune. Personally, I would not want someone to pay me.
As to accountability to the community, if the community felt that Lakhani or whoever is not doing his or her job right, government officials will be the first people to hear about it. The community will go to Minister McLellan, or their MP, and perhaps say, "We never see this individual. He purports to be a community person, but we do not see him.'' I am sure that feedback will get to you and to those administrators who are responsible for our appointment.
As I understand it, there will be turnover because the appointments are only for a minimum of a year and a maximum of three years. I will not be chairman for more than another year. There is a built-in concept of turnover, and the government does have remedies it can take. As chair, if I got a sense that certain members were not reaching out to the communities and accepting their responsibilities, I would bring it to the attention of those responsible for the next appointments. We want people who are really committed. We need the support of each and every member.
As to accountability, I would say that the community will speak out on the issues.
I would ask Mr. Whittingham to deal with the Toronto situation.
Mr. Whittingham: With respect to the reasoning behind the decision taken, I was not here at the time, so I do not know why that decision was made.
Senator Jaffer: May I ask you as a representative from the department to find out and supply us with the information?
Mr. Whittingham: On the rationale of it, yes. I know that many applicants came through the process. There were over 230 applicants, based on the criteria of a volunteer organization.
As for accountability to the community, the members of the committee, taken as a whole, have a broad, diverse background from across the country. They are there as individuals, not representing a specific group or specific community. They are there to act as individuals. As such, our reasoning is that we are looking at the views of those people and what they bring to the table from their backgrounds and experience.
As for the representatives, I know what community everyone is from, and I thought we had one from Toronto.
Senator Jaffer: He is not from Toronto.
Mr. Whittingham: He is from Hamilton. The names of all the individuals and where they are from were put forward to government. Again, this happened before I took up my appointment. The ministers decided who they would appoint to the committee. I am not sure why there were no individuals from Toronto.
Senator Jaffer: You would agree with me that the largest Muslim communities are located in Toronto and Montreal. Having been on the job for three months I am sure you realize that.
Mr. Whittingham: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: Perhaps you can also inquire and let us know why these two areas were left out.
Mr. Whittingham: I am sure that that decision was not made by officials. I think it was put forward to ministers, and ministers made that decision. That would be the purview of ministers to answer.
Senator Jaffer: Maybe we can pursue that further.
Dr. Lakhani, my colleague Senator Andreychuk asked you a question on racial profiling. You were put in a difficult position, but you told us that officials tell you that there is no racial profiling. We have heard them say that here, too. We have also seen reports from the Kingston police, and now the Ottawa police, who work directly with the communities, which indicate that there is racial profiling. Have you met with the police forces? Have you heard from them, especially the Kingston police, as to what per cent of people are affected by this? They have done extensive work on this issue.
Dr. Lakhani: Senator Jaffer, since I finished with the police association and my work with the Canadian Association of Police Boards, I have had far fewer links, formally, with police services, but I do know a number of senior people in policing, so I have more informal chats with them. In the Edmonton area, they assure me that there is no such thing. Certainly, it is considered a serious matter if anybody is found to be engaging in racial profiling within the police service.
Of course, we have heard other reports. It is a responsibility we must accept as communities and not necessarily a responsibility of this round table alone. Many organizations act as advisers to the RCMP, police services, or their members sit on commissions to ensure that our police services are better educated. It is a matter of educating people, teaching them about racial diversity and the need to be inclusive in the recruitment process. The same can be said of border services, et cetera.
We made the same observations. We have committees working with our border agencies saying that they have to be inclusive in the way they offer people employment opportunities. If a person was not born in this country, but is a Canadian citizen, that person deserves every opportunity to apply and to be given good consideration.
This will not go away. As communities and as organizations in law enforcement, we need to work together. It is a long educational process. Legislation will not get rid of racial profiling. That will not eliminate human prejudices and perceptions. I go through these things at airports myself. Just having a beard and having a Muslim name probably increases my chances of being asked a few more secondary questions. I am confident that, with time, that will change. Certainly, Canada will make the changes.
Senator Jaffer: One situation that is uppermost in our minds, and in fact we are going to London to study this, is the bombings that happened in July in London. For you, who have lived here for a long time, will the events in the U.K. modify your round table approach? Would you say that the situation for Muslims in Canada is very different from the situation of Muslims in England? I know you were educated there.
Dr. Lakhani: The events of London have spurred us on to think a bit differently about issues of security. What is most disturbing to all of us is that people who were born in a particular country, were educated in that culture, are suddenly able to perpetuate crimes against their own fellow citizens. That was extremely disturbing.
I have read about some of the events that led up to this, the disparity and the gaps between the first generation and the second generation. The original immigrants came, worked hard and accepted things as they were. The second generation is so disenchanted. In England, of course, there are employment issues. I studied in Leeds and I worked in Bradford. I know immigrant communities very well. There is a lot of disenchantment. The parents may put up with certain things, but the kids will not. There is no reason to believe that the Canadian situation is different.
At the end of the first round table meeting, we appointed a committee to deal with outreach. How do we reach out to all of the groups? That is exactly the question that was asked earlier. How do we ensure that we reach out to the disadvantaged and those who do not come to us? We need to reach out to youth from different minority groups and ask them about their concerns. For example, we need to know more about this issue of hate teaching. We have heard that in London people used to go to certain mosques and be directed elsewhere. Journalists infiltrated these groups and then wrote about this.
This is not an issue unique to the U.K. We would be naive to think that our youth here are immune from these kinds of things, and we need to better understand their concerns. On that note we to need talk with our British counterparts. When I was there I had an opportunity to have a personal meeting with Imman Zaki Badawi. He is concerned about the education of young Muslims at some of these schools because he feels that many of the teachers who teach them are not brought up in the U.K. or have not attended British institutions for their education. Therefore they are not part of the culture.
Does this also happen in Canada? I presume it does, but I do not know. There may be people who are educating our younger generations in religious schools, totally Muslim schools and other schools as well, who come from different cultures and they do not have a sense of what it is to be Canadian of our values. What unites us around this table? We all come from different parts of the world. It is our values. If you come from a totally different culture and are you educating someone's young child and you do not understand the cultural context, I believe that is a serious problem.
These are the kinds of things we need to now increasingly discuss with the communities. I hope that some of our British counterparts, particularly Muslim leaders who recognize these issues, will come and talk to us at some future meetings or that at some point three or four members of the round table will go and visit and talk to different groups. In medicine we say that it is always good to learn about everyone else's mistakes. If you do not, it is hard on your patients. We want to learn from the British experience.
Senator Jaffer: A number of times you raised the issue of community concerns. I know that you are well established in Edmonton. What are the Edmonton Muslims telling you about the concerns they have with this Anti-terrorism Act?
Dr. Lakhani: I made a list that, initially, I did not want to go over. It is interesting to note that the concerns they raised at the round table are the same concerns they have raised with you. The security certificate is an important issue. They feel intimidated by that kind of legislation. There is the whole question of charity groups. Certain charitable groups that may have perceived links with terrorism cannot be funded and many of Muslim groups who support genuine charities feel that their charities are now being questioned. They feel that is unfair.
The question of racial profiling is always raised. My friend said that if your name is Mahmoud and you have a beard you always get stopped. That is one of their concerns.
With respect to the issue of harassment by CSIS agents, or supposed CSIS agents, Muslims have been approached and people have intimidated them. We have raised this with Mr. Judd of CSIS.
We have told them that a brochure or some sort of document should be available in as many languages as possible. That document should be put in every church, mosque, synagogue, et cetera, so that people are aware of their rights as Canadians. Then, when people at the grassroots level feel that no one cares, no one knows about them, they can at least read this document that will advise them that, if they believe that they have been confronted or accosted, they can phone a certain number and someone will explain what is going on.
These are the kind of issues that people are raising. Many feel alienated and they feel targeted in many different ways.
There is another issue which I do not want to deal with in any detail, but which has been raised when I have been speaking to some of my Muslim friends. Recently I was at an evening Iftar gathering and one young man, who is a lawyer, told me that he came to Canada at the age of five. He told me that got the best education that he could get in Canada. He has many degrees, and he said that he is very grateful to this country. He told me that if he had remained in Lebanon he would be doing manual labour. He said that this country had given him everything. However, he also told me that he wonders why people doubt that he loves Canada. He said that, if he thought there was a terrorist in his community, he would be the first one to draw that to the attention of the authorities. He said that people presume, because he is Muslim and because he came from Lebanon, that is where he grew up. He said that he feels people do not respect him as a Canadian. I was very touched by his comments. We need to listen to people like him.
In regards to this question of outsourcing of torture, people have talked about state terrorism by proxy. Cases that are in the papers right now, involve individuals who have been sent away to countries where torture is practised, and who, rightfully, if there was any concern, should be dealt with here. Although there are not hundreds of such cases — there may be only one or two — these situations affect the whole community. Members of certain communities pretty well all go to the same mosques or the same place of worship, and the word is spread that a certain individual was intimated. Then the sense of feeling a bit unsafe in your own country is perpetuated.
We have a lot of work to do to deal with some of the concerns that are being raised. In reading some of the material that has been presented here, you are dealing with similar situations. This Senate committee has heard people speak about these issues.
Senator Joyal: Dr. Lakhani, I wonder if you have not been put into an impossible situation as chair of the round table. When I was listening to your answer to Senators Andreychuk, Fraser and Jaffer, it seems to me that you are at the same time a focus group for the department, where the department tests some measures on you and you react. Therefore you are a focus group for the department. It also seems to me that you could be seen as a PR group for the department. The fact that you are accompanied by the PR person of the department led me to have that impression, that you are in the milieu to relay the views of the department, policies of the department, and that you are, in the broadest terms, an advocacy group in that you relay what you perceive from the milieu.
You have just described the reaction from the various Muslim or Arab communities, where the main problems centre at this time. Let us not circle the circle. The problem is in the Muslim community in that it feels targeted by the anti-terrorist legislation, the subject we are studying in this committee today. In five or 10 years down the road it might be a different problem but now this is the Arab community. We all know it. We have heard, I do not know, 65 witnesses or so since the beginning, and all the names that pop up are Arab-sounding names. The perception that the community has is that it is targeted.
Representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress appeared before us this morning and, from what they told us, there is no question that targeting is not only happening at airports and at the border, but it is also happening in certain communities generally. You touched on this when you told us that Canadian citizens of Lebanese origin do not feel welcome in their own country, and that is not only occurring when they have to travel by plane or cross a border, it is occurring generally because they happen to be of Arab origin of some sort.
I wonder if you are not in an impossible position to do your work. To me, your real work is to be an essential element in bringing that community that feels targeted into Canada's mainstream. Do you have the independence needed to do that job? Being so close to the department, one must wonder if you have all the freedom and all the means you need to respond to the needs, which is important at this point in relation to the anti-terrorist legislation. I am not sure that you have everything you need to do your job on a part-time basis. You are a person with very important professional responsibilities, but there are only 24 hours in a day and seven days in a week minus a day of rest, so what can you accomplish in whatever time you have available? Did you realize how difficult it would be for you to fulfil the mandate with which the round table would be charged?
Dr. Lakhani: You are right that this is a challenging position. We did not set the mandate. As I said, we are not apologists for what government has decided in terms of the course it wants to follow. However, as Canadian citizens who have deep roots within different communities, we would like to do our best to help modulate, modify and influence the processes that go on. Of course, we are charged with a certain mandate.
I have never felt intimidated by proximity of government. However, most members of the round table have said that, if they ever got the impression that the formation of the group was a public relations exercise, they would gladly not carry on. We are not here as publicity agents for government. We are not here as apologists. There are many things about this legislation that I personally detest, but we are not charged with changing the legislation. That is not our mandate. Our mandate is to ensure that community and government have a chance to dialogue so that government will understand the impact and the implications for the community, some of which may have failed them. The community must also understand why the government is doing what it is doing, and we are facilitating that.
To the extent that we understand the process, we share our thoughts with them, recognizing that nothing is cast in stone. Things may change over time and we want to be able to influence these processes. This early legislation was a knee-jerk reaction after a very nasty event. However, this is Canada, and we need a made-in-Canada approach.
I am not sure what people had in mind before we were created, whether there was going to be another kind of body. I do not know the history. I know that we were invited to contribute and we said that we would love to because we think it is a very important area. We are around the table not only to better understand government's viewpoints but also to ensure that government understands their roles and responsibilities. As I said, every meeting is attended by people from CSIS and the RCMP. They are listening to us. We reflect community concerns.
In terms of changing the legislation and understanding the impact, I think this is the body that will do it. You are hearing from all these different communities on specific issues relating to this legislation. I have a sense that this body is not here only for this particular issue. It will go on and membership will change.
As a matter of interest, one would think that security concerns in the community largely relate to terrorism, which is what I thought. One member says that people in B.C. are worried about avian flu and about flooding in the valley. He asks whether these are not security matters as well. It is a broad mandate, but it does inform government about the anxieties that communities feel.
We do not have the authority to insist that the government carry out our recommendations. We can only give our opinions and share our concerns. With regard to recruiting, hiring and diversity training, already government agencies are contacting the round table and asking for ideas on what they are planning to do. We are a resource for them. The fact that they are approaching us is, in itself, interesting.
It is also interesting to note that there has been a change in culture. Organizations like CSIS have historically had closed and secretive cultures. Suddenly, the government has told them that they have to meet and talk with various people and groups. There is a paradigm shift in culture. These changes will not happen overnight. We are a one-issue organization.
There is a move to reach out to the youth of this community and ask them what the problems are. Having seen what has happened in the U.K., we want to ensure that we are better informed.
We want to investigate what Canada would do in the case of an event here. We want to ensure that communities work with each other and with government to reduce negative impact.
There are many valuable things this body can do, but we would not pretend to be able to influence legislation overnight. We are pleased to do whatever we can do, and we recognize our constraints. The government has been supportive. We prepare our own agendas. We decide who will attend, what discussions we will have and how we will proceed. We are in charge. We say what we like. We have the freedom to meet with the media. We feel relatively independent within that framework.
Senator Joyal: You must decide on the priorities you want to address on a yearly basis since your membership is temporary.
Dr. Lakhani: Membership is for three years.
Senator Joyal: In that time you must learn the complexities of the system and establish initiatives to reach out to the communities, especially the Muslim and Arab communities, which seems to me to be one of the priorities the round table must address. Representatives of the Arab communities attended a meeting here with us. I do not know whether you had the opportunity to read the record of the proceedings. They are unhappy as they have the perception that they have been sidelined by the round table because no one from their community in Toronto and Montreal was included in the group. I got the perception that they are not part of the initiatives. You need to reach out to that group in a special way.
Could we have your corporate plan so that we can see what you intend to do in the next year in relation to that community so that we can decide whether we should make any recommendation in our report that would help you to achieve your objective?
Dr. Lakhani: I am sorry that any group feels that their concerns are not our concerns. We have a number of people from the Muslim communities. We have Ashraf Ghanem from Eastern Canada, although not from Toronto area, who has an Arab background. We did not choose who should sit on the table. If this is a major issue then, as turnover occurs, hopefully there will be representatives from those groups. They know about us; we are accessible. The group I spoke to in Edmonton is an umbrella organization that includes a representative from the Arab community as well. We are agreeable to whatever they want. If they want us to facilitate further meetings, we are happy to do that. Our Ontario members are here and immediately accessible to this group.
Simply because certain individuals are not at the table they should not feel that we do not care about their issues. The issues that they have raised about profiling, feeling intimidated and being harassed have been discussed at the round table. When it is time to decide on future appointees, the government could keep that in mind. That is not something I can do.
As to our plan for the future, as you can imagine, we are getting a better understanding of the issues. The question was whether we should have hearings in only one city or across the country and invite groups to speak. Often the same groups have representation in various fora. Perhaps we need more focus group meetings with the communities. We are certainly working on that now. At our next meeting we will finalize how to go about this.
I can see us in different centres across the country having two, three, four or five of our members spending two or three days in one meeting to discuss specific answers to specific questions. I would prefer that as opposed to saying, "Look, we have heard everything about anti-terrorism legislation. You are dealing with that in an effective way here. There is no point in duplicating what you are doing.'' We would like to hear about how communities can be part of the solution. How do they take ownership of dealing with potential terrorism? How do schools deal with the education of the young?
The whole issue of teaching of hate in certain religious schools is a potentially serious issue, at least having spoken to folks in the U.K. Young children, who are vulnerable, can be easily inflamed. Is that going on here? We need to know if it is going on in these communities. Is there something we need to do? Should the government start funding the education of some of these teachers within the Canadian context? Then there would be a Canadian context to what they teach.
The discussions are already being facilitated by people in our round table in their own communities. Our member in Regina invited interfaith groups and leaders of the Muslim community to meet with Minister McLellan. They asked her all the questions that concern them. In other words, a forum for them to raise the issues is being provided. Yes, it has happened in Regina.
A similar thing is being worked on by our member from Hamilton for certain parts of the Ontario Muslim community. I think this is being repeated across the province.
Part of the strategy is to reach out to the communities to ensure that they have a chance to meet with key people in government, CSIS, RCMP or whatever it is. They want to hear it from government. The divide is big, as you have heard from people who have made presentations to this committee. We hope to bridge that divide and at least give them a chance to talk to one another head on. Government desperately needs that opportunity. These communities want to have that platform as well.
Senator Joyal: Therefore you have not yet defined that plan of action.
Dr. Lakhani: Not every "t'' has been crossed, not every "i'' dotted.
Senator Joyal: Would you say that for a period of time your priority will be to establish a link with all the Muslim and Arab communities in Canada? In that context, you feel that the first approach is to define the priorities and so on, and say that this is what we suggest as being the priority in terms of the perceptions of Canadians generally in regard to racial profiling. Then we could have the perception, at least myself as a member of the committee, that there is something in action which, at one point in time, will produce a result. As you have said yourself, Canada is so vast.
I see from your membership there are many communities from various cultural groups that have participated in your round table. The priority of the round table is in the context of the implication of the anti-terrorist legislation and the way those communities feel about it. In order for us to make recommendations to the minister as to whether more support is needed, that is what we need to know. We need to be satisfied in the coming years that it will be implemented.
What I am trying to get from you is that there is an institution in place which has the right support, the right membership and the right objectives as to what to achieve and that it is not put in an impossible situation because it does not have the necessary means to achieve its desired results. Personally, I have to satisfy myself about those questions when I am listening to you. Otherwise, it is unfair to expect from you something that you cannot deliver because that is beyond the means you have available on a daily basis.
Dr. Lakhani: If you are saying that we have focussed on just one community, we have not. There is community interest out there. Certainly, we realize the Muslim community is the one which feels the most vulnerable. I know that because I talk to these groups all the time in Edmonton. In fact, we are scheduling a formal meeting in Edmonton with Minister McLellan to meet this umbrella group. Down the road, we will bring in people from the RCMP and CSIS to meet with this group as well.
Although we have not outlined it, this is the first group we have to target. It is actually happening. Our Regina member is having a major conference on national security and the Canadian mosaic in November. Key Muslim leaders will speak at the meeting, and Muslim delegates will attend. People from our committee will be there to meet with these leaders in the various committees, to talk to them and to learn from them.
We recognize as a round table that this sort of disproportionate impact is perceived to be largest on the Arab and Muslim communities. They are part and parcel of the Muslim group to whom we will speak. That group is one of the key groups with whom we will be speaking. However, that does not preclude input by other groups as well.
Senator Joyal: I am asking if you have a plan concerning all the other communities that need to be addressed. You have mentioned others, which underlines the reality of Canada which is so diverse. I wanted to satisfy myself that the community that feels the most targeted by the anti-terrorist legislation is addressed so that, within the next two or three years, we will have achieved progress to eliminate that perception and that Canadian citizens of Lebanese extraction will not feel marginalized in their own country. They are honest and law-abiding citizens who want to contribute to the well-being of Canada. You have to reach those people, too. It is more important than anything else to bring all the other communities together.
What I am trying to understand from you is your strategic plan to approach that community which, in my opinion, is the priority community in relation to the anti-terrorist legislation.
Dr. Lakhani: We recognize the impact on that community. As I have said, we have already had a number of meetings. I have had meetings in Edmonton. The minister will now be meeting with this Muslim umbrella group. We had an opportunity in Regina where the minister met with interfaith groups, largely comprised of various Muslim groups as well. Similar things which we are facilitating will occur across the country.
At the moment, we do not have the plan down to the last detail. However, it is certainly in the works. In a year's time we will be able to look back and know how many group we have met with, and we will know how far we got with these different organizations.
Mr. Whittingham: On the other side of the coin, part of my title is "Portfolio Relations and Public Affairs'' which entails a number of things. One is strategic policy and planning for the portfolio. I am responsible for the report on plans and priorities, as well as the departmental performance report for Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada.
I am also responsible for communications. As such, I am responsible for citizen and community outreach and engagement. The priority from the portfolio's perspective is to reach out and engage in discussion across the portfolio, including with the RCMP and the work it is doing on its bias-free policing. This includes discussions with the Canada Border Services Agency and its fairness initiative and CSIS's initiative in working closely with the RCMP in reaching out to Muslim communities. As well, there is the broader community outreach which is being done from the department's position. I think all that fits together.
As you were talking, senator, one of the things that struck me was that, if we did not have a Cross-Cultural Roundtable on Security right now we would probably want to create one. It allows us to share some of the thinking we are doing at the portfolio level about the ministerial level. As well, it enables us to see officials reaching out and understanding the various communities, especially the Muslim community, in today's reality. On the part of the departmental people, whether they are officials with RCMP, CSIS or the department, it allows them an opportunity to understand the concerns of the Muslim people. The two-way exchange is critical right now. We are working on those initiatives.
We are working with the Cross-Cultural Roundtable to help us understand the things we need to build on. This includes, for example, a brochure that would be usable by all communities concerning what the mandate of all these different security agencies is and why they might come into interaction with individuals. We would provide that pamphlet in a number of languages and it would be available to people broadly across the country. It all fits together.
It is not as if the Cross-Cultural Roundtable has a responsibility to deliver everything there is to deliver on outreach. They help us do that by both facilitating and advising us on some of the concerns.
Senator Joyal: Thank you for that explanation. I do not want to play politics here, but the round table was put together in March 2005 and the legislation was adopted in December 2001. It took three years for the department to come forward with the round table. During the debate we had here on the first bill, the round table was expressed as a need. My colleague, Senator Jaffer, was one of the people who expressed that view, and similar views were expressed on the other side. We thought it was important. You happened to join this in the last three months. Welcome aboard.
The department, aside from the plans of the round table, has other plans to address. Some situations are beyond what the round table can do. That is why I thought Dr. Lakhani has been put into an impossible position as far as what we can expect from him.
The department must be responsible for the strategic planning of the overall government goal and the objectives we need to achieve. We are happy to see there is somebody now in command that understands the very serious and I should say sensitive aspect of the performance of the anti-terrorist legislation. Will you come forward with a plan?
Mr. Whittingham: At the moment we are working on exactly that.
The Chairman: As an addendum to the discussion, I thought it might be useful for us to identify some of the witnesses who have mentioned your round table to this committee. Certain people have engaged in one way or another with you and would like to so again.
We had before us the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canadian Arab Federation, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Canadian Islamic Congress, the Coalition of Muslim Organizations, the African Canadian Legal Clinic and the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada. The last two were here one night a week ago.
We assured them that the intent of this round table would be better understood by us when we heard from you, but we were certain it had been created in order to be a positive source in dealing with this very difficult issue. Had we not had this connection and dialogue so far, we were sure the round table would wish to do so in the future.
This has been a major issue in this round of hearings which started last December. It was also a major issue three years ago and, indeed, one that was clearly recognized in the report we made at that time. Certainly last week, the indication from the witnesses was that they were eager to be engaged in what you are doing.
Senator Day: I want to thank you for being here, Dr. Lakhani, and thank you for the explanation of what you perceive being a role for the round table. I suspect that your major role over the next while will be to manage expectations of what you can achieve, given your mandate.
Our mandate here, in a very narrow sense, arises out of the anti-terrorism legislation. We have all agreed we should look at the broader government programs in relation to anti-terrorism. That is why, initially, a lot of our questions related to what you are recommending as a change to the anti-terrorism legislation.
Being established for over a year, the round table has been a matter of considerable concern to us. During the formation, it was mentioned that 238 nominees were nominated and reviewed. Taking that number, 15 were chosen. Could you give us the criterion used to choose those 15? I believe you indicated that it was probably done by the ministers. I do not understand.
We are dancing around this issue concerning there being no representative from the large Muslim communities in Toronto and Montreal, but Dr. Lakhani pointed out there is significant representation of the Muslim community in the 15 members. Why is it that the Muslim communities in Toronto and Montreal do not feel represented on the round table?
Mr. Whittingham: Four criteria were put forward and advertised. First was awareness of security matters as they relate to the community and relevant community dynamics. Second was the knowledge and experience in engaging diverse and pluralistic communities. Third was the ability to facilitate the exchange of information with communities. The fourth was a commitment to building community capacity and safer communities.
When all of that was put together and when 238 applications were received, the applicants were informed that regional gender and linguistic representation would also be a factor in choosing the people.
An interdepartmental committee, including Heritage Canada, the Department of Justice, the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness and the Privy Council office, I believe, went through the 238 applications and produced a grid, in essence. They put forward this grid to ministers saying: "Here is what this represents in terms of the communities they represent, the backgrounds they represent and the regions they represent.'' I do not think anybody specifically mentioned Toronto, but they would have specified the provinces, that is, Ontario, the Maritimes, Quebec and so on. It would have included the number of people of Muslim background or other faiths, like the Sikhs. Two members are Sikhs. The membership was chosen by ministers on that basis.
There are quite a few Muslim representatives in the group of 15, but why there was none from Toronto. I am not sure why that is so.
Senator Day: Will you check into that for us?
Mr. Whittingham: That is beyond my ability. Ministers would have made that choice.
Senator Day: I understand. You can ask the minister and, if he doesn't want to answer your question, we can ask the minister. I read somewhere that, if a potential member were a member of an organization that receives government funding, then that person would have a conflict of interest and could not serve. Are you aware of that? Have any been refused because they were members of organizations that receive government funding? Have any been required to withdraw from a particular organization for that reason?
Mr. Whittingham: I am not sure, but I will get back to you on that, as well as our response on the funding aspect. We have members who are affiliated with an organization in receipt of government funding who would find themselves in conflict if they were to influence the round table in a way that could benefit that organization.
Senator Day: Yes.
Mr. Whittingham: The last few words are important: "...that could benefit that organization.'' I am not sure if anybody was refused membership on the basis of funding, but I will obtain that information for the committee.
Senator Day: My final question is for Dr. Lakhani. I will try to express this in a manner that shows some sensitivity but it arises out of your point about leaders in a particular community educating young people toward hatred. A new clause in the proposed legislation in England states that those leaders, whether they be educators or clerics, can be expelled from the country for an activity that incites hatred. Is part of your mandate in Canada to determine whether this kind of thing is happening? Is part of your mandate to try to encourage counterpoints of view so that there will not be a public formation of an opinion that everyone is reading from or interpreting the Koran, the Bible or other holy book in such a way as to promote intolerance of those who do not follow one particular way of thinking?
Dr. Lakhani: I certainly understand the diversity of Islam because I am Muslim. There are Muslims in every part of the world — from Indonesia, to Saudi Arabia, to Africa, et cetera — and we are all culturally different. I recognize that.
Senator Day: May I interrupt you to say that we are not picking on the Koran only and the diversity in the Muslim community. The same diversity exists in Christian communities, and they might be even more diverse. I do not want to speak to only one holy book on this question.
Dr. Lakhani: One issue that we have to address with different communities is the ability to empower them to recognize within their own communities that certain aspects require attention. In the U.K., it might be a little more extreme. Many people have fled from their native countries because of the threat of persecution due to their strong views. They may have been preaching certain philosophies, et cetera, but these are only the two or three that we hear about. Certainly, everyone can think that anyone who preaches is preaching hate. That is an easy and simplistic conclusion to draw, but people do that.
Our role is one of reaching out to the communities — Muslim and Jewish alike — to ask how we can ensure, particularly after the London episode, that our youth understand what it is to be part of a country and a community while maintaining the ability to practice faith in a country that allows us the freedom to practice our faith. I would like to see the communities solve their own problems. I do not envision our role to be telling people what to do, that is, saying, "This is what you should be doing and this is what is happening.'' Our job is to encourage dialogue and recognize what has happened elsewhere, while ensuring that some of the issues are raised with these communities.
One young Lebanese gentleman told me that, if he thought something was wrong, he would be the first one to say something about it. That is how much these Muslim communities care about and value Canada. In their communities, they need to be part of a dialogue between them and us to address occasional problems and determine how to deal with those problems. I see our role as facilitating inquiry, not as pointing fingers or making rash suggestions.
Senator Day: If that young Lebanese person indicated to you that he would not speak out publicly in the same way that he talks to you because he fears for his life and safety and that of his family, do you have any role with the government to facilitate some protection so that he could speak out, or is that beyond your mandate?
Dr. Lakhani: The most I could do is raise the matter with the authorities so that they are informed. I do not think we have any mandate beyond that.
Senator Day: Would you raise it?
Dr. Lakhani: Yes, certainly I would raise the matter. As a leader, I would consider it my responsibility to do so. If anyone who comes to this country, as I have, feels alienated, potentially persecuted or marginalized, then it is my responsibility to bring that to those who sit at the round table and to others who listen in.
Senator Jaffer: Dr. Lakhani, during the seven months of the round table, has you had an opportunity to speak to the Prime Minister?
Dr. Lakhani: No, I have not met with the Prime Minister.
Senator Jaffer: Have you spoken to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada?
Dr. Lakhani: I had an opportunity to meet Ms. McLellan a few weeks ago to apprise her of what had been happening. I said that, if our committee decided on one particular course of action — for instance a cross-Canada dialogue — I did not want funding to be an issue. I wanted to feel comfortable that funding would be available for our selected course of action, and we were given a free hand.
To give credit to government, it has not told the committee which course it must pursue. As a group, we are trying to determine the best use of the round table's resources, how best to interact with the community, elicit their thoughts and have them deal with their issues.
I told the minister that I did not want to worry that funding would be a constraint. I know that committees, such as this one, are working with the minister and the department to ensure that funding is in place so that money is not an issue.
I also said that said we want people from other countries, such as in Europe, to travel here for dialogue. Perhaps some of my round table colleagues could travel to the U.K. to meet with their counterparts. That is important. We need to share our experiences so that we can learn from one another. Formally, I had that discussion with the minister.
As senators are aware, both Minister McLellan and Minister Cotler attended the first meeting. Everyone in attendance had an opportunity to dialogue with them. A commitment was made that, at minimum, once per year, each of them would attend one of our meetings with the group as a whole. Access to the ministers is in place.
Senator Jaffer: Since the first round table meeting, have the ministers not met with the committee?
Dr. Lakhani: No they have not, as a group. Individuals may have met with the ministers, and I met with Minister McLellan on this.
Senator Jaffer: One other issue has arisen, and that is the outreach policy of the government and the dissatisfaction of the communities with it. Perhaps each of you could address this question. In one meeting of the House of Commons committee, I read about an outreach by CSIS in Toronto where they showed footage of terrorist's acts to impress issues of security on the community. Perhaps Assistant Deputy Minister Whittingham could tell us about the kind of outreach that occurs with communities and what the plans are for further outreach.
Mr. Whittingham: I am not sure I know all of what is happening, because the RCMP is doing some outreach activities on their own as is the Canada Border Services Agency and CSIS. Across the portfolio, we are trying to determine the priorities and then to identify some initiative to start those. We will have a number of events this month and some more in November. We have had a few already with certain communities — some with members of the round table present, and others without members of the round table.
We are trying to put together a proposal to government that would bring all of this together under four main areas: Some research into finding out what works, what does not work, what works with various communities, and what does not work with various communities. We are trying to ensure that events similar to what you just described do not occur so that people understand the impact of their messages.
A second element looks at the type of communications products that we produce. Many of our communications people have been dealing with communications for a number of years and have considered only two or three cultures not a diverse number of cultures. We are examining what that means and how we would change some of the languages in which we distribute information, including what we do on our website to improve that. We are then considering an engagement strategy. How do we actually ensure that we improve our outreach? We are talking about asking Canadians from coast to coast to look at our policies before they are formalized in order to help us develop them with a broader input from a number of different communities.
We are putting together that type of proposal with the funding that would come along with it. We hope to be able to present that to ministers within the next month or so.
Senator Jaffer: What are you priorities respecting outreach?
Mr. Whittingham: This proposal to ministers would outline those priorities. Presently, there is no doubt that some of the things we are doing are done by the RCMP, by CSIS and by the border services agencies, and they have all clearly outlined that Muslim communities are a priority for them. They have taken a number of initiatives. The Prime Minister had his meeting with Imams, and that was a signal to have more such meetings. The minister has had a number of meetings with parliamentary secretaries where certain things were organized.
We cannot say that we have a clear outline of everything that will happen in the next year. We are still putting that together.
Senator Jaffer: Is your outreach twofold? That is, first, to reach out to the community; and, second, to ensure that the community is well represented in CSIS and RCMP, or is that somebody else's job?
Mr. Whittingham: As part of the outreach, we are talking about the whole recruitment and training aspect. The head of each of those agencies is responsible for recruitment. We will not be determining what the RCMP's recruitment policy will be or what its make-up will be. However, through the engagement strategy we could find out what are some of the messages and some of the important elements for the communities and feed that into the overall process that the RCMP, CSIS, and border services agencies conducts.
Senator Jaffer: Dr. Lakhani, is one of the concerns raised by the community Canada's foreign policy?
Dr. Lakhani: I met with the groups in Edmonton. People do not like to speak about this very loudly, but they will say, "Look, it is very well doing all we are doing, but the more aligned we are with policies with our southern neighbours, the more it jeopardizes the perception that people within our own communities have of Canada.'' There is a significant amount of concern.
There are parts of the world where things happen, for example, in Palestine, from which you cannot get away. That is way beyond our mandate, so I cannot talk about it.
Speaking for myself, I think the fact that we did not go to war in Iraq was one of the most outstanding decisions that this country made in standing up for itself.
In talking about some of the challenges we face, that raises the issue of dual citizenship in this country. People have Canadian citizenship and can have citizenship in other countries. There are times when this tests our loyalties. Imagine if you have a citizenship from the Middle East and a citizenship of another country and the countries are at war. Where do your loyalties lie? We are playing with the feelings of people. There is a relative double standard. I do not know if this is correct or not, but if you happen to be of Jewish background and an Israeli who has settled here, and you have an Israeli passport, can you still go and do some service there? Imagine if that included working in Palestine. These are broad questions. They are beyond us as a round table.
What we do abroad in terms of our foreign policy and the decisions we make, does play with the feelings of people. That is part and parcel of the impact of government policy on a multicultural society. Most of our immigrants have been here for one generation. They have not forgotten. Things that happen in Uganda still touch me. I left when I was in my teens, but I have not forgotten. That applies to many other people, wherever they come from. In that respect, we have an interesting challenge.
Senator Fraser: I will try to be brief. I have one comment and one question basically. The comment is for Mr. Whittingham. I am sure you will not wish to respond and I will not ask you to respond. In case there is any doubt in anybody's mind, let me talk about the reason why eyebrows were raised at the absence at the round table of Muslims from Montreal. First, we have thousands — I believe over 100,000 — Muslims in Montreal. There are many Muslims elsewhere. What is different about the ones in Montreal is that the vast majority of them came here from French- speaking countries and are integrated in Canada into the Francophone community, not the English-speaking community. There are significant cultural differences.
Second, we also know, from Mr. Assam and good people like that, that there has been active national security, inimical activity, planning and plotting, in Montreal. It seems most strange to me that, in a program such as this, that would not have been one of the first priorities, namely, to get at least one representative of all those thousands of people on the round table. You need not comment, Mr. Whittingham.
Senator Day: It would be nice if you took a note.
Senator Fraser: Yes, and sent a memo.
Dr. Lakhani, I appreciate that no one organization can do everything, particularly not one composed of volunteers with the limited time and resources that you have outlined to us. Unfortunately, you are in it in the sense that you represent minority communities in the national security context.
The impression I have is that many people in minority communities — principally at the moment they are the Muslim communities, but one can certainly envisage other circumstances — want not just outreach and education, although heaven knows those are important, but they also want a defender in government, that is, someone who will speak for them with strength and authority and someone whom they will know to be doing that and they will have evidence that this is happening. Is that part of the way in which you think your mandate can or should be interpreted?
Dr. Lakhani: I think that is a reasonable way that the mandate should be interpreted. I can tell you that exactly what you are suggesting is happening.
I wish that some of this was kept on tape so that people could hear some of the comments that are being made, particularly by our Muslim members around the table. They are not shy to express their deepest concerns. They are strong spokespeople for the concerns of their constituencies, of the communities they come from.
I thank you for clarifying this issue about the cultural differences of the Muslim communities in Montreal and out east.
Senator Fraser: In Montreal.
Dr. Lakhani: Yes, I appreciate that being brought up.
The other point you are raising is that they need to know this is happening. That is where I think we need to do more, because I can assure you that we consider ourselves advocates for communities' needs.
That does not mean that government is doing everything we want them to do or that they are changing strategy, but these issues are being raised. We are taking organizations like the RCMP and CSIS out of a secrecy culture.
In response to a question that Senator Jaffer was asking earlier, what I would personally like to see — and I am just one member of the round table, I may be chair but there are 14 other voices — is a group in every city meeting with all these Muslim constituencies everywhere to hear their concerns. That would give them a sense that somebody is listening. It is a matter of seeing how we can do that in the context of other things that we also want to do.
To respond to Senator Fraser, we have to let the word out that our people, while they might not be from a specific area, do care about issues in all areas. These are the same issues that are being raised vocally with government. No punches are being pulled. When we had Jim Judd from CSIS before us, some of the questions were very tough. Questions are being asked. Expectations are there. We need to let the community know that we are doing this for them.
The Chairman: That is a critical point. In our hearings, a number of the witnesses expressed an awareness that they do not know what the round table is doing and the kinds of discussions you are having. The communication of that is extremely important.
Senator Andreychuk: I would follow-up on some of the questions that Senator Jaffer put to our witnesses. If I understood you, doctor, you said that the people who have come before you do not wish us to have a close association with the United States. Is that what you said?
Dr. Lakhani: No. Some people are saying that, in determining our foreign policy — and I am not a politician, I just hear different things from different groups —we have to be careful in how we align ourselves to other powers. An example was our response to the war in Iraq. They are Canadians and they are proud to be Canadians. They feel we should be independent in the way we make our decisions and in some of the things that we do in a political context. This was clear in a one-on-one conversation that I had with people representing certain groups.
Senator Andreychuk: In your conversations, did it come up that we should be in close cooperation with the United States for the benefit of our security? Are you saying they are telling you that we should distance ourselves in the area of security? That is what we are here to discuss.
Dr. Lakhani: These conversations were not so much related to security, but they felt that what Canada does globally can have an impact on sentiments locally. We know what is happening with the United States at the moment. You have to be very careful. The war in the Iraq was one of these. Many people said it was a good thing that we did not get involved in that war.
Senator Andreychuk: My question was: Did you hear from any of the people that you spoke to that we should not be cooperating with the United States more closely on security matters?
Dr. Lakhani: I do not think that was a specific comment that I have heard.
Senator Andreychuk: You made some comments about dual citizenship. You expressed some fear that if you have duality of citizenship, you have mixed loyalties. What conclusion do you draw from that? You have left that hanging, and I would like to know what you mean by that.
Dr. Lakhani: These are societal concerns and personal concerns as well. In a world where we have immigrants from all over the world — we take people in from many different countries — when these kinds of events occur globally, certain people might feel strongly about certain issues. It can divide the loyalties of individuals, I feel.
We have to learn that this is our country. We are Canadians first. We hold Canadian values. It is a discussion beyond my expertise. I just share with you some of the concerns of individuals with whom I have talked, the discussions that we have with people. These are the kinds of issues that are raised.
Senator Andreychuk: I am still confused. Are you raising them to say that some people are saying we should not have dual citizenship? Is that what you are saying?
Dr. Lakhani: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you, colleagues. We have come to the end of a most interesting discussion. We have been extremely anxious to meet you, Dr. Lakhani, and to have this discussion. I hope that you will take from the meeting that the engagement of these communities is extremely important in light of this legislation that was the result of a difficult situation. That engagement should be carried out in the most collegial way possible.
Over the months, the committee has heard that there is a sense that people are not engaged and do not understand the exact intention of the round table.
What you have told us today is that you are working hard on this. I think that communication with all of our provinces is important.
We wish you and your committee well. We hope that we will meet again in some other circumstance, perhaps. With your appearance today, you have opened up a door on an issue that we were anxious to know more about, because we were not aware of how the round table was progressing and operating. Thank you very much for coming.
Should you feel, having reflected on the meeting, that there is anything else you would like to share with us, please get in touch with us and we will circulate any information you provide around this table.
Dr. Lakhani: Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity to meet all of you. I have learned a few things that I need to think about and share with my colleagues.
The committee adjourned.