---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, November 21, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:18 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.

Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: I am Salma Ataullahjan, senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting. We have, to my left, Senator Gerba, from Quebec and Senator Hartling from New Brunswick; to my right, we have Senator Omidvar from Ontario.

Our committee is studying Islamophobia under the general order of reference. Our study will cover, among other matters, the role of Islamophobia with respect to online and offline violence against Muslims, gender discrimination and discrimination in employment, including Islamophobia in the federal public service.

Our study will also examine the sources of Islamophobia, its impact on individuals — including mental health and physical safety — and possible solutions and government responses.

After holding two meetings in June in Ottawa, our committee held public meetings in September in Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec City and Toronto. In addition, we visited mosques in those cities. We are now continuing our public meetings in Ottawa.

Let me provide some details about our meetings today. This afternoon, we shall have two one-hour panels with a number of witnesses who have been invited followed by a third panel of 45 minutes with one last witness. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses and then the senators will have a question‑and‑answer session.

Now I will introduce our first panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses. We’re hoping to be joined by our second witness shortly. We’ll hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.

I wish to welcome our first witness, Husein Panju, Chair of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association. I now invite Mr. Panju to make his presentation.

Husein Panju, Chair, Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association: Honourable senators and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, thank you for inviting me to speak to you at today’s session on behalf of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, also known as CMLA.

By way of introduction, the CMLA is a not-for-profit association dedicated to promoting the objectives and advocating on behalf of self-identifying Muslim members of the legal profession. Our organization consists of five provincial chapters, which includes over 250 members across the country, and many of us have a demonstrated background in human rights law and an awareness of our country’s legal and cultural landscape.

In 2018, the CMLA launched a legal clinic known as the Muslim Legal Support Centre, which seeks to promote fair treatment and access to justice for Muslims of limited means. The CMLA is regularly granted leave to intervene in various appellate cases and we’re also invited to provide legal input in government consultations, similar to today’s Senate study.

In terms of workplace discrimination, the CMLA is pleased that this committee is specifically examining the role of Islamophobia in the work context. As you know, for many Canadians, the workplace is the area where most of us spend the majority of our day. It’s more than just a means to generate an income. The interactions we have at work have a fundamental role in shaping our identity and our world view.

Yet, unsurprisingly, various members of minority communities, including Muslims, face a disproportionate amount of workplace discrimination in spite of human rights legislation and policies. As our members have confirmed, workplace discrimination can have serious effects on individuals’ feelings of psychological safety and belonging and also their ability to do their best work.

From an Islamophobia lens, workplace discrimination can and does occur in all parts of the workplace, including in the federal public service. During our consultations, we heard numerous accounts of discriminatory hiring practices, failure to provide basic religious accommodations and toxic workplace environments that make Muslim employees feel unwanted or unsafe. There have also been well-documented lawsuits that have been filed against the federal government based on allegations of racist or Islamophobic treatment in the workplace.

In preparing for today’s Senate committee hearing, we actively consulted with our members from across the country, including prominent employment lawyers. We also solicited input from clients of our legal clinic who have encountered employment discrimination themselves. While our members have provided our board with plenty of input, I want to conclude my introductory comments by focusing on two themes which repeatedly arose. I’m happy to go into more detail during the balance of today’s session.

The first theme that arose was the issue of direct access to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. This theme relates to access to a justice barrier that relates to a human rights remedy.

Currently, federal employees who are seeking redress from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal must first file their claim with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This commission has the discretion to determine whether or not this claim gets to proceed to be heard by the tribunal itself. From the experience of our members and various other equity-seeking groups, this gatekeeping function has a deterrent effect that prevents legitimate claimants from even seeking a remedy through the human rights system.

One of our recommendations is for this committee to consider removing this gatekeeping role from this commission.

The other theme I’d like to speak about is the role of systemic and intersectional discrimination in the workplace context. As our members have identified, Islamophobia in the workplace is a systemic issue rather than the result of just a few bad apples. It’s necessary to consider workplace discrimination through a lens of intersectionality. What I mean by that, this is the concept that various forms of discrimination — such as racism, sexism and Islamophobia — often coexist or intersect for certain people based on their own identities. The result of these multiple forms of discrimination has a compounding effect that is often larger than the sum of its parts.

To the extent the federal government is seeking to introduce new policies or frameworks to address Islamophobia and the issues that Muslims experience in the workplace, it is not just helpful but necessary to take a systemic approach when factoring in the role that other types of discrimination play as well.

I’ll leave my comments there, but happy to address questions about these themes or any other questions this committee may have.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to take this opportunity to welcome our witness from the Muslim Association of Canada, Nabil Sultan, Director of Communications & Community Engagement. Welcome to the Human Rights Committee of the Senate. We will turn to Mr. Nabil Sultan for his testimony, and then we will follow with questions.

Nabil Sultan, Director of Communications & Community Engagement, Muslim Association of Canada: Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Nabil Sultan. I am an educator and a physician. I serve as the Director of Communications & Community Engagement for the Muslim Association of Canada. I was also the former chair of the board of MAC. MAC’s mission is to promote a moderate, balanced view of Islam in Canada and to educate and motivate Canadian Muslims to put their faith into action for the benefit of all Canadians. MAC understands Islam to be a comprehensive way of life that emphasizes not just belief but also, importantly, service to humanity. MAC currently has over 1,000 employees, several thousand volunteers and serves more than 150,000 members of the Canadian Muslim community with chapters in 14 cities across the country. MAC also operates 22 mosques and community centres and has 30 schools.

MAC is recognized as a leader in Islamic affairs in Canada representing a significant segment of the Canadian Muslim community’s understanding of Islam. Muslim charities have been targeted by the CRA. Independent reports from the Institute of Islamic Studies and the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group confirm the community’s concerns about discrimination and Islamophobia.

The Prime Minister affirmed the issue at the National Summit on Islamophobia, and the ombudsperson is investigating the agency’s practices.

Despite its good work, MAC is currently at risk of having its charitable status revoked by the Review and Analysis Division, RAD, in the CRA. Like many other Muslim charities, the CRA is applying standards to MAC that it does not apply to other faith‑based organizations.

MAC acknowledges that the CRA has the right to audit organizations and that MAC, like any other charity, must comply with the Income Tax Act. But subjecting MAC to different standards than other charities, other faith charities, simply because MAC is a Muslim organization is discriminatory and contrary to the fundamental principles of Canadian democracy and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today, I will discuss the experience of MAC, which is indicative of other Muslim charities. In 2015, the Toronto Sun published Islamophobic articles claiming that MAC was mentioned in an RCMP INSET investigation and that MAC had ties to terrorism. These articles were false, misleading and possibly politically motivated. At the time, MAC denied these allegations but had no recourse as the RCMP would not confirm or deny the allegations.

Soon after this, the CRA initiated an audit of MAC. The audit was not random or routine, it was triggered by these articles and commenced with the specific purpose of investigating possible ties to terrorism or terrorist financing. The audit was conducted by the Review and Analysis Division, RAD, a specialized unit that investigates terrorism financing within the CRA. RAD was on site for that audit for approximately 13 months and conducted interviews and reviewed over 400,000 MAC emails, 1 million financial transactions and over 60,000 additional files.

According to MAC’s lawyers, who have extensive experience with charity audits, this audit was far more extensive than any other audit they’ve witnessed. In the end, as expected, RAD did not find any evidence that MAC is supporting or financing terrorism or extremism of any kind.

In 2020, the Muslim Association of Canada, MAC, contacted the RCMP Commissioner, Brenda Lucki, to seek an explanation for the Toronto Sun articles. MAC received a letter from her confirming that there is no wrongdoing on the part of MAC. Shortly after that, Postmedia retracted the Toronto Sun articles, because they could not be substantiated.

In 2021, the CRA’s Review and Analysis Division, RAD, issued its Administrative Fairness Letter that heavily relied on these now retracted articles as well as a large number of discredited and Islamophobic articles. One of them is Thomas Quiggin, who has published misinformation alleging widespread links between Muslim organizations and terrorism. He is the subject of several defamation lawsuits and was one of the Freedom Convoy organizers. Imagine if the CRA were to audit a Jewish organization and rely on sources written by individuals known for their anti-Semitism; yet, the CRA finds it acceptable conduct in the case of Muslim charities.

There are many examples of Islamophobia in this audit, but one of the clearest examples is that it arbitrarily alleges that several MAC activities are social rather than religious and, therefore, its charitable status should be revoked. For instance, the CRA claims that MAC’s Eid festivals are inadequately religious, because they involve social elements such as carnivals for children, bazaars and food sales. It is difficult to imagine the CRA applying the same standard of not sufficiently religious to a Christmas party put on by a church, a Passover celebration held at a synagogue, or a Diwali celebration held at a Hindu temple. Accepting the CRA and RAD’s self-appointed status as interpreters of Islam should not be allowed. It is for these reasons that MAC has launched a Charter challenge in the Ontario Superior Court that alleges both systemic Islamophobia in CRA practices and the specific infringement of MAC’s Charter rights by the CRA audit.

The AFL or Administrative Fairness Letter CRA claims to delegitimize important charitable activities in Canada to advance religion through unsubstantiated allegations are based on bias and Islamophobic prejudice. This has been the experience of many Muslim charities audited by the CRA. The CRA’s prejudiced approach does not serve the public interest; rather, it both relies upon and feeds into extremist Islamophobic narratives. For many Muslim charities, when the CRA has not been able to identify findings of terrorism, it instead revokes and sanctions Muslim charities based upon technical faults that could be addressed without sanctions if Muslim charities were given a fair opportunity to the education-first approach that the CRA state is its general policy and which it offers to other charities.

These discriminatory practices by the CRA against Muslim charities have had a devastating impact on the services and programs upon which tens of thousands of Canadian Muslims and other beneficiaries rely. Muslim charities have been forced to divert significant human and financial resources from serving their communities to defending themselves against these practices. They have had a chilling effect on the Muslim community, making Muslims wary of supporting Muslim charities and seeking their services, further disenfranchising a community already impacted by Islamophobia.

If allowed to continue, the Government of Canada is signalling that systemic Islamophobia bias is tolerated within its agencies, and it encourages Islamophobia outside of government and undermines the efforts of all who promote tolerance.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much to both the witnesses.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both our witnesses for your presence here and for informing us about your perspectives; they’re extremely valuable.

Let me start with Mr. Panju, because you went first. You’ve given us a bird’s-eye view of discrimination in the workplace — systemic and otherwise — that Muslims face. Can you comment on the discrimination within the legal profession itself that Muslim lawyers may face?

Mr. Panju: Absolutely. Thank you for that question.

I would say that as a practising lawyer myself, I would recognize that there has been some progress made in the last couple of years in terms of greater recognition of equity, diversity and inclusion, but there’s still a lot of room to grow.

Before continuing, Senator Omidvar, would you like me to comment on the legal profession in general or just within the federal public service?

Senator Omidvar: The legal profession in general. We’re studying Islamophobia in general.

Mr. Panju: Absolutely. Thank you.

In terms of Islamophobia within the legal profession, I would say that the issues there are similar to those based on a widespread basis. I’ll give a few examples based on things that we have heard through our research and our consultations.

We recognize that there is a lack of reasonable accommodation that’s been made in the workplace for various reasons. In terms of Muslims seeking time to do their daily prayers or seeking reasonable accommodation in terms of being able to fast during Ramadan, these are issues that are faced by Muslims in the legal profession, certainly, to the point where some Muslims feel uncomfortable self-identifying based on their religious grounds.

As we know, there are issues in the province of Quebec with respect to Bill 21. I’m happy to go into more detail, but I think you’re all familiar with the issues in terms of head coverings in which Muslim prosecutors and those employed by the public service are unable to practise by way of their religious convictions.

Similar to the comments I was making earlier, these issues we have are systemic issues and there is a lack of representation within the legal community by way of various causes that have been perpetuated for many years. It’s quite difficult for people to see themselves in the legal profession without having mentors and role models who are there in place right now.

In terms of meaningfully addressing this issue, there are a few things that can be done. I think law schools, for example, can do a better job at recruiting students from diverse backgrounds by extending their pool of candidates. Law firms and legal departments can do a better job of expanding their review of the talent base to have more diverse candidates included. While they are employed, as I was mentioning, a more intersectional approach is needed to ask questions about why there is so much discrimination impacting the Muslim community. These members need to be involved at the table to ensure we’re taking a systemic approach, including the people who know about these issues the best in order to address them.

Senator Omidvar: What about the legal profession at the federal public service level?

Mr. Panju: We’ve heard some accounts of the issues that have been raised there as well. We’ve heard issues in terms of file assignments. Sometimes when Muslim members of the legal profession in the federal public service have raised legitimate issues about their involvement, sometimes they have not necessarily been terminated from their employment, but they have faced varying file assignments that have almost equated to a demotion.

One of the other issues raised was the issue of security clearances that certain members of the national security departments are required to have. One of the issues we’ve heard from several members is that when entering questioning to get the security clearances, some of our members have faced very inappropriate questions that are not related to the objectives of getting a clearance, like, “Which law school did you go to,” “Why do you wear your hijab,” “How many times do you pray a day?”

Questions like these have been asked through these means, and these questions and the very system of security clearances sometimes have the effect of prolonging the process and even deterring people from entering into positions like these.

These are just a couple of examples that come to mind based on comments we have heard from our membership, and that’s why a system-wide approach is required to consider why these issues are taking place so we can attack and address these issues as a whole rather than on a piecemeal basis.

Senator Omidvar: Mr. Sultan, I’m pretty much in the weeds on the charities’ file, and I appreciate your testimony. Can you tell us what the status is of your Charter challenge?

Mr. Sultan: It’s still in the court system, and we are awaiting a determination, we expect, in late spring or early summer from the Ontario Superior Court.

Senator Omidvar: Do you know that the government has appointed a tax ombudsman partly as a result of the Islamophobia summit? The tax ombudsman is appearing today before us and has launched an investigation around the claims of Islamophobia in the CRA.

To what extent were you consulted as part of this investigation?

Mr. Sultan: I think MAC as an organization was consulted about that, but I know that there has been a feeling in the community that there hasn’t been sufficient consultation. Also there are members of the community that have been wary of engaging in consultation.

The situation at the moment in the Muslim community is that there is a lack of trust with government bureaucracies because of the Islamophobia people have witnessed. There is a hesitancy to fully engage. I can’t speak to how wide the act of consultation has been, but MAC has been approached.

Senator Omidvar: I see. You said that there are different standards applied by the CRA to Muslim charities. When I have raised this matter with CRA officials, they have said to me that they do not look at charities, reviews or audits, based on religion. They couldn’t tell me if Hindu or Jewish organizations had been audited because that’s not the information they gather. What would you say to that?

Mr. Sultan: I would say that it’s a very simple process to try to understand the systemic discrimination that exists. One simple way to do it is to ask how many Muslim charities have been audited under the Review and Analysis Division versus Christian, Jewish, Hindu, et cetera. I think that would be very telling. When you get audited under RAD, it is a very different type of audit than a regular CRA audit. RAD was set up to investigate terrorism financing. Out of all of the Muslim charities that have been audited by RAD, I am not aware of any criminally implicated individuals in those audits. So you get put through these RAD audits, there is no criminal allegations that stick to individuals, but the organizations are either shut down, penalized or crippled to do their work.

This is part of the challenge, I think. We don’t have that information, and the CRA can make claims that are very hard to determine from the outside because we don’t have access to that information. That’s why the community is hoping that the government will act and get to the bottom of this discrimination and bias that definitely exists and remedy it.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: I’d like to think our witnesses for today. Mr. Sultan, I hear you and I understand why you have launched a challenge. I have a better understanding of what you are going through. It’s quite unfortunate.

My question is for Mr. Panju. You mentioned earlier that the government needs to come up with other policies to strengthen the fight against Islamophobia. What policies did you have in mind and what would you recommend that the government do to fight this scourge in our country?

[English]

Mr. Panju: Thank you, Senator Gerba, for that question. I understand the question to be what are the things the government can do to address Islamophobia on a more tangible basis. One of the aspects that I think would be important — I mentioned it earlier — is access to a remedy in terms of Canadian federal human rights complaints.

As I mentioned in my introduction, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear discrimination claims that are filed in the employment context for the federal public service. As far as I know, that is the only substantive remedy that people can attain in terms of a complaint. Again, this jurisdiction includes complaints that are filed for religious grounds.

The issue is that employees who are seeking redress from that tribunal must first file a claim with the commission, which has the discretion to review the claims and identify whether it can advance. This is a gatekeeping role. From a membership standpoint, and for many other groups, this gatekeeping role has numerous tangible effects. This includes a very lengthy review process and an investigative process that can take months if not years to complete, which can be very debilitating for claimants who have already suffered discrimination. There have also been various reports of the conduct of the commission in conducting these reviews. Another issue is that if the commission decides not to advance a claim to be heard by the tribunal itself, the claimants only remedy is to have this matter judicially reviewed by a court, which can be a very daunting task, costing additional time, legal expense and other costs as well. This whole process has a deterrent effect that prevents people from even getting a remedy, if they have been discriminated against in the first place.

This is why one of our recommendations is to have this gatekeeping function removed from the commission itself. We’re not advocating for dismantling this commission in its entirety. We know that they have many important roles in terms of compliance, public education and various other roles. We simply believe that claimants should be able to file their claims directly to the tribunal and expect a decision from the tribunal about their claim. In this manner, claimants can have the confidence that their matter will be decided by an adjudicator who has the cultural competence and legal training to provide them with the requisite procedural fairness.

This claim we are suggesting is not a novel proposal. The concerns that I have been speaking about have been raised by numerous equity-seeking groups for decades. In 2000, as you may know, Justice La Forest published a very well-respected report as part of a review of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and one of the recommendations from this report was to remove the gatekeeping role from the commission. We know that other equity-seeking groups, including the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers and the Canadian Bar Association, have been asking for the same change for quite a while.

We know that counterparts at the provincial level in the provinces of Ontario and British Columbia have also, as a result of this recommendation, removed the gatekeeping roles from their respective commissions. In those provinces, if you want to file a human rights complaint, there is a direct access model that you can go to in those provinces.

I’ll conclude this comment by saying that CMLA is aware of the resource pressures that currently exist at the tribunal. We know that there have been reports of a backlog in decisions and short-staffing of adjudicators. We appreciate that there may be some concerns of potential system overload if this direct-access model was introduced on an immediate basis. In response, CMLA would suggest that the government could phase in this approach to allow the government to fully equip the tribunal to address these claims in terms of adjudicators and resources. We think that addressing this important barrier to getting recourse from a discrimination claim is an essential part of getting to part of the answer.

Senator Gerba: Thank you.

Senator Hartling: Thank you to the witnesses for being here. These are very interesting topics tonight.

There was a report that recently came out of Toronto, Mr. Panju, about the gender-based violence with Muslim women and how they have been spat on and sexually or physically assaulted and that sort of thing. I know that under federally regulated employment, there is Bill C-65, which is supposed to protect people and has a mechanism to help women or others who are affected in that way, but it sounds like that might not be the case because these cases were under-reported to police. It seems to me that it is quite tragic that women can’t go to work and feel safe, and often times people need to work.

I want to know if you can give me insight into what you know about this. I know that federally there are regulated employers and there is that bill, but what about for others? Do you have some insights to share?

Mr. Panju: To be candid, I’m not familiar with the bill you’re speaking about directly, but we’re happy to look into it and produce a response in writing, if that would be helpful.

My understanding is that the venue where you would go for a remedy depends on the type of employer that you are employed by. As you know, under the division of powers, there are certain industries that are within the federal jurisdiction, things like telecommunications and banking, whereas many of the other types of employment are covered by the provinces, which often fall under the property and civil rights umbrella. I imagine that if an individual were suffering discrimination, whether it be violence or otherwise, the first thing they would do would be to identify which bucket or umbrella they fall under, whether it be federal or provincial. They would go to the respective tribunal accordingly.

I would echo the fact that many issues of gender-based violence are under-reported for various reasons. We know that a lot of this violence escalated, unfortunately, as a result of the pandemic. We also recognize that there are certain resource allocation decisions that need to be made by the government in order to protect those who are at the highest risk for any potential grounds. We have also heard from our membership that whether the remedy that is appropriate should come through criminal law might be a consideration, depending on the means by which the violence is expressed. We know there are certain Crown departments that have particular knowledge and fluency in terms of dealing with the victims of domestic violence and gender-based violence. Within the workplace, most of the consultation we heard was about the area of discrimination rather than violence in its true form. But there is a lot of overlap in terms of the causes and the systemic issues in which they come about.

Again, we’re happy to report back and take a closer look at Bill C-65 and see if our members have specific insights in terms of that issue and the under-reporting of the same.

Senator Hartling: Thank you, because I think that bill will maybe help some people know the mechanism they can use, especially in federally regulated employment like banking, trucking and the many others that are covered under that.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much.

Mr. Panju: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Omidvar: I have questions for both of you. Mr. Sultan, as you can well appreciate, good policy rests on solid evidence, and right now, the CRA does not collect data based on religion. We know how many religious charities there are in Canada. We don’t know how many are this religion or that religion. So it’s very hard to compare.

Would you recommend that the CRA start gathering data on religious charities based on registration, audits and revocation, so we finally have some evidence so that we can compare apples with apples with apples?

Mr. Sultan: Absolutely. One data point that I forgot to mention is actually a data point mentioned in the University of Toronto’s report on CRA practices. That report showed that while Muslim charities represented less than 1% of all Canadian charities, they represented 75% of all revoked charities by the Review and Analysis Division, or RAD. So we have that piece of information. But absolutely, just as law enforcement agencies are asked to present race-based data, the CRA needs to be able to produce religious data. It should be able to provide the different data about the different demographics, the different types of charities it audits and the different consequences of those audits. The public should know who gets audited by the RAD division and who gets audited by the regular CRA division as well as what types of charities and how they are being treated.

Absolutely. I think that is an important part of reform that will help keep transparency moving forward and let the public and the government know what is going on.

Senator Omidvar: So would it be sort of a proxy of what we normally call disaggregated data, but in this case, it would be disaggregated data by religion?

Mr. Sultan: That’s right.

Senator Omidvar: Mr. Panju, I am interested in your recommendation about removing the gatekeeping function from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If that is to be implemented, the gatekeeping function would not just apply to Muslim workers but to all workers. So I imagine there would be a flood of applications or complaints, and you have recommended a phased-in approach. Do you know if other Human Rights Commissions — provincial Human Rights Commissions — have had any success with the phased-in approach? You mentioned B.C. has opened its gates. Has that created an avalanche of complaints? How have they managed?

Mr. Panju: Thank you for that question. We know that this specific issue that you have raised about a potential flood of complaints is a concern that has been legitimately raised by many groups. From our orientation standpoint, first of all, we don’t expect there would be a significant increase in the number of claims proper. One issue is that if people feel that a venue would be better equipped to deal with their complaints, there might be an increase in the number of candidates or people who would like to seek a remedy for it. They feel that the process would be fairer.

In terms of a phased-in approach, I’m not familiar with the specific timing of how Ontario and British Columbia introduced their respective bills to create the more direct access model. What I do know is that the La Forest report was produced in 2000 and the respective bills for Ontario and British Columbia came a couple of years later. So I would imagine that in the intervening time, there was a lot of discussion to identify the resource needs and the allocations of those who would be best suited to fill those spots.

Again, I’m not entirely sure whether there would be a significant increase in the number of complaints. What our organization would advocate would be an increase in the fairness or the perceived fairness of this process. If that requires an increase in the amount of resources in terms of staffing and the funds that are required to staff this tribunal, we think that would be well worth the expense in order to have a fairer and more equitable process that is both responsive to the needs of our community and responsive to the needs of other people who feel discriminated against.

Senator Omidvar: We know from the media that individual complaints lodged at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal take a very long time. I guess what I’m hearing you say is to open up the gates, increase resources and phase it in.

Mr. Panju: I’m glad you asked the question. To be clear, we’re not advocating for opening the gates on a wholesale basis. There are requirements in the Canadian Human Rights Act that identify when a human rights claim may advance and when it may not. There are provisions in sections 40 and 41 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that provide some guidance on the parameters in which a claim may be legitimate. We’re not advocating for allowing all claims to simply be accepted by the tribunal. What we’re asking for is that the determination of this gatekeeping role is shifted from the commission to the tribunal — a tribunal member with legal expertise with the cultural competence and ability to assess these claims — making those decisions.

Senator Omidvar: I understand the difference now. The Canadian Human Rights Commission does its work based on the complaints it receives. Is it open to — I’m not sure about this — or does it do systemic reviews? When they see a flood of complaints from one kind of discrimination, are they authorized to do a systemic review?

Mr. Panju: That’s a good question. I’m not sure of the answer. I think there are representatives from the commission testifying immediately after me, is that right? They might be better suited to provide you with an answer. What I can tell you is that there is a lack of statistical data about many of the issues we have been speaking about today and also during the balance of the hearings that you have been convening over.

We have a lot of anecdotal evidence in terms of Islamophobia in the workplace and Islamophobia generally. But in terms of preparing for this consultation and meeting with our members, there is a lack of data that impedes the ability of policy-makers to make informed decisions. I think part of this is based on the lack of intersectionality, which I was talking about before. As you know, in the human rights legislation, four particular groups are focused on in terms of addressing discrimination. One of the groups is women. One of the groups is Indigenous people. There are people with disabilities and then there are persons of colour, which is the last one. First, it’s not a specific area to address Islamophobia. I think that’s captured under the persons of colour ground.

Furthermore, the fact that these four areas are separate results in collected data that is missing, sometimes, the intersectional aspect. There may be information about the discrimination that’s faced by people who are Black and there may be data about people who are women, but there isn’t a lot of added information about Black women who, as I mentioned, is the group that are more discriminated against than the other two groups.

I think a more concerted data collection, whether it’s by the commission, whether it’s by another body, we think that that data is needed in order to make informed policy and laws as well.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: It’s really interesting, what you’re saying. There’s clearly a serious data issue. We need to focus on getting that data to prove and criminalize Islamophobia.

In June 2021, at the London Community Legion, you stated that individual and systemic Islamophobia must be criminalized. Do you feel that Canada’s current laws are not effective against Islamophobia?

[English]

Mr. Panju: Thank you for that question. I believe the question was whether the current legislation that’s in place is sufficient to address Islamophobia. It’s an excellent question.

Again, despite the fact that there hasn’t been as much active data collection in terms of Islamophobia in the workplace or otherwise, I think the anecdotal evidence we’ve heard from numerous reports, not just from our organization, indicates that if there is legislation that’s out there, it’s insufficient.

I think there are many groups out there, certainly not ours, who would even contend with the fact that Islamophobia is in fact a real issue. Even after the tragic London attacks from last year, we heard numerous groups — this question being raised about is Islamophobia a real thing or not. We think this concept of Islamophobia, the despite the fact that it reflects an important systemic issue, we think the definition of Islamophobia is something that should be looked at carefully to ensure it’s capturing the anti-Muslim bigotry that is, in fact, out there. From our organization, that’s a serious issue that’s meant to be addressed.

Sometimes the fact that “phobia” is in the word “Islamophobia” makes people believe this is simply an issue that’s advocated by extremist groups, far-right groups, for example. The reality is — we talk about the workplace I know for today’s focus — sometimes Islamophobia is explicit, oftentimes it’s implicit as well. Sometimes there are comments made in the workplace that are condoned. Sometimes there are policies out there that have disproportionate effects on groups like ours. These are examples of Islamophobia that we’re speaking about.

We think that a more concerted effort to look at Islamophobia from a legal and policy lens is necessary. I think data collection is an important prerequisite to make that something that’s effective.

The Chair: I have a couple of questions. You’ve been through law school. What is it like in law schools for Muslim students? The reason I ask is because I had a daughter who went to the University of Toronto’s law school and I can tell you at times it wasn’t a very pleasant experience.

My other question is about major firms. When they’re hiring and there’s a meet-and-greet, and again, my daughter was a non‑drinker and she was told later that she didn’t get hired because she wasn’t social enough. You know what they’re talking about. And names. What role does that play in the hiring process, if you’re a young Muslim lawyer? Again, Ataullahjan was too long, it should be changed.

Mr. Panju: Thank you for that question. I should note that as part of the CMLA we have various law school associations with many law schools in Ontario who have their own CMLA chapter. Although we did not ask the question directly to them, we have heard echoes of comments throughout our meetings with them. Everyone from our board was also a law student at some point, and I graduated about 10 years ago. I think some of the issues I faced during my law school experience may be there today.

One of the issues is that there is still a lack of diversity within the profession and again a lot of that starts with law school admissions, the criteria that are there in order to even get admitted. While progress has been made, some in the last 10 years, I’m sure in the last few decades, there have been a lot more people of colour and Muslims in the profession as well. There’s still a serious lack of Muslims in law school, which again in terms of a representation aspect has a significant role.

In terms of the hiring process, as you mentioned, Senator Ataullahjan, oftentimes the decisions on whether to hire staff and retain staff are made based on a fit criterion. I’m not sure exactly if there are means to change that from a legislative perspective but what I can say is that expectations to participate in a social function sometimes play into decisions about whether to advance people or not. As you know, alcohol is often present and often expected at these events. For many Muslims, this presents a barrier in terms of actively engaging with their prospective or current co-workers and employers, and that can have an impact as well.

As you mentioned, Senator Ataullahjan, the fact that a lot of individuals have ethnic names that are identifiable, presumably has an aspect in terms of their potential in the workforce as well.

As we all know, in terms of the profession — this is true for the legal profession and other professions as well — there is a lot of networking that is required in order to advance in your career. Not just to get into law school or to get your first job as well, but even afterwards. By virtue of the fact that many employers make the decision based on fit, there’s a tendency — and this is well documented — to hire people who resemble the demographics of those in the hiring committee and those in a firm. Of course, those are people who would fit in with the group given they’re similar to that group.

The issue is when we have systemic racism in the profession, we have employers and whether they be firms or departments that lack diversity, sometimes this has the perpetuating effect that prevents people of colour, including Muslims, from entering the profession by virtue of the fact that this is a cycle that continues on and on. These are some things that come to mind off the top of my head. I’m happy to answer any other questions you may have on this.

The Chair: I’m listening to you. Are Muslims aware of all the resources available to them? It seems like you need almost a law degree to be able to navigate whom to contact, whom to report if you felt you had been discriminated against. I feel that’s one reason Islamophobia is under-reported. Would you agree? If you can give me a quick answer to that.

Mr. Panju: In terms of the awareness of the complaint mechanisms, I’m sure all can do a better job in making their organizations known. I’m sure that’s one aspect in terms of seeking a remedy. But I think what our organization would say would be that even if people have the wherewithal to get to a complaints stage, if there are barriers in terms of getting a remedy, this is a serious problem that has a deterrent effect.

We’ve heard from numerous members who have mentioned that they have taken on clients, either on a paid or pro bono basis, and notifying them of the complaint mechanism, whether it be the tribunal via the commission process or other means. Yet even after engaging a lawyer, after spending the requisite time and funds, to come to the end of that process and still feel like your complaint has been denied and, furthermore, that you’ve been prohibited from getting a fair outcome is a discouraging aspect.

I’m sure there are means through which the government could meaningfully have the complaint mechanisms advertised, but if these mechanisms themselves are not improved to the effect that they have a process that is both fair and seen as fair, that’s a problem that needs to be addressed.

The Chair: Mr. Sultan, I have a brief question for you. We will be hearing from the CRA at some point. What would be the one question you would ask them?

Mr. Sultan: I would ask them is what systems they have in place to ensure that there is no systemic discrimination against Muslims or other minorities.

The Chair: Going back to Senator Omidvar’s question — the two of us had a meeting with the CRA and I raised the issue that out of the eight charities that were audited, six of them were Muslim. They said they don’t specifically audit Muslim charities. I raised the issue that if they know that there’s a charity that’s working in a Muslim country or has “Islamic” in its name, you know it’s a Muslim charity.

Mr. Sultan: Yes, of course. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to make the claim that we don’t have any explicit criteria to audit Muslim charities, yet the reality on the ground is that the processes that lead to triggering an audit by the RAD division, especially, are completely biased against Muslim organizations and charities. That has roots in Islamophobia, in Islamophobic media, in Islamophobic politicians of the past that instilled these programs with that direction in mind. Unless we are ready to call a spade a spade, the Muslim community will continue to face this discrimination. Instead of Muslim charities serving the communities across this country, they will spend extensive human and financial resources to defend themselves against these biases and this discrimination.

It’s really unfair, because you have a community that is already disenfranchised, that is already dealing with systemic Islamophobia in broader society and now has to face it within government bureaucracies. It’s a double burden that is unfair for the Muslim community, and I don’t think the CRA is taking any leadership in identifying this and committing to addressing it.

All I have heard from the CRA, whether through the media or any other means, is denial. It’s really unfortunate that you have such clear evidence, several reports, the practices are very obvious, and there’s no awareness or commitment to do better. Our Prime Minister talked about this importance and that this is a real issue that needs to be addressed. So where is the CRA’s leadership on this? Where are their own self-reflections and assessments? I think that if we’re not seeing that leadership from the CRA, it again means that the government has that responsibility to act and instill reform.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I would like to sincerely thank the witnesses for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance to our study is greatly appreciated.

Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.

Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.

We have the pleasure to welcome to the table, from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Commissioner and Chief Executive Officer; Marcella Daye, Senior Policy Advisor, Policy, Research and International Relations Division; and Brian Smith, Senior Counsel, Legal Services Division.

Joining us by video conference, I also want to welcome, from the Office of the Taxpayer Ombudsperson, François Boileau, Ombudsperson.

I will invite Ms. Landry to make her presentation followed by Mr. Boileau.

[Translation]

Marie-Claude Landry, Chief Comissioner and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Human Rights Commission: Good evening. I’m going to deliver my remarks in French, but I will be able to answer questions in either official language.

Thank you for inviting the Canadian Human Rights Commission to participate in this discussion on Islamophobia. Over the next few minutes, I will focus on three key points. First, Islamophobia is racism. Second, anti-Muslim racism permeates all aspects of society, including workplaces. Third, we must do more to ensure that Muslim people in Canada feel welcome, included and valued in workplaces and society.

We appreciate that the committee has heard a number of views about the term Islamophobia. When we say Islamophobia, we are speaking broadly about both anti-Muslim racism and religious tolerance. The two are intrinsically connected. Anti-Muslim racism and religious intolerance can manifest in a variety of behaviours, including discrimination, harassment, hateful speech, threats and violence.

In order to file a complaint at the commission, an incident must meet some specific requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Our legislation cannot address all situations. However, the commission stands against all forms of anti‑Muslim hate and discrimination. We stand against Islamophobia and we know it is getting worse.

This brings me to my second point: Anti-Muslim racism is permeating all aspects of society, including our workplaces. The commission has received several hundred cases of discrimination in that regard over the last five years. Among other things, Muslim people denounced situations where they were denied time and space to pray: They were profiled as a security risk at work, or insulted or isolated because of their cultural or religious clothing or diet. Many worried they would get punished or fired if they raised concerns. This is unacceptable.

This is why we continue to intervene in the legal challenge to Bill 21 in Quebec. It is our position that Bill 21 is government-imposed workplace discrimination.

Laws in Canada should seek to end discrimination — not promote it or reinforce it. From the bill’s introduction, the commission has been vocal in raising concerns about how such a law would negatively affect religious minorities, especially Muslim women.

This brings me to my third point: We must do more to ensure that Muslim people in Canada feel welcome, included and valued in workplaces and in society. There is now a greater societal awareness of the hate, the threats and violence that Muslim people are experiencing, but these experiences are not new. While we need more research and data, this must not prevent or delay us from taking action. This is urgently needed. We are already behind.

We have repeatedly called for lawmakers and employers to take concrete steps to better protect against hate. We have called for the modernization of the Employment Equity Act, knowing racialized people have not seen the progress they deserve.

We are also looking inward. Over the last few years, we have taken a close look at our own work, and we continue this process of organizational improvement. We’re putting in place tangible measures through our comprehensive anti-racism action plan. We report publicly on our progress. We are committed to being a fierce ally in the fight against racism in Canada. I will say it again, this is urgently needed.

Thank you. My colleagues and I look forward to your questions, in French or in English.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.

François Boileau, Ombudsperson, Office of the Taxpayers’ Ombudsperson: Thank you very much for inviting me. I will alternate my remarks in French and English, but I will answer questions in either French or English.

[Translation]

Thank you very much for this invitation to appear before you today. The theme of your study is of the utmost importance to Canadians.

The Minister of National Revenue, the Honourable Diane Lebouthillier, asked me to conduct a systemic review to investigate the concerns expressed by certain charities led by Muslims and other racialized communities about their treatment by the Canada Revenue Agency.

The minister specifically asked me to pay special attention to the concerns related to the selection of files for audit purposes and the quality of the services provided to these organizations, and lastly, to analyze the CRA’s efforts to make its employees aware of unconscious prejudices.

[English]

Since our investigation is still ongoing, please excuse us for not being able to provide you with too many details today, especially regarding potential conclusions.

[Translation]

We will assess the existing policies and practices related to services. We believe that we will be able to provide objective answers to questions about the CRA’s practices in terms of training employees against unconscious bias. We will also be able to report the information collected by stakeholders, organizations and the CRA. That said, it will unfortunately be impossible for us to validate this information with what is in these organizations’ files by conducting a comparative analysis.

[English]

We understand the overarching principles behind section 241 of the Income Tax Act, namely, to protect the paramount importance of protecting taxpayers’ information privacy. Therefore, we engaged with the CRA and the Department of Justice to explore if there were any viable, alternate options. We tried to find with them new and original avenues that would have allowed us to adequately answer all questions asked by the minister as part of this review.

The CRA indicated that, due to the constraints set out in the Income Tax Act that it could not share certain parts of a charity’s file, even if we obtained the charity’s consent. In addition, it is the CRA’s current practice not to disclose certain information, particularly with regard to risk assessment when selecting a charity for audit purposes. However, these seem to be crucial elements for us to be able to properly answer the questions submitted, particularly the question concerning the criteria for selecting files for audit purposes. The CRA informed us that certain national security information is top secret and that it is communicated only on a need-to-know basis. Our review does not fall under this requirement. All third-party information in a file is also deleted by the CRA.

The role of an ombudsman cannot be limited to listening to only one point of view, but rather to be able to listen to all the parties and then to have access to a real capacity for factual observations. This includes, among other things, the application, in this case, of the selection criteria chosen for an organization’s file to be sent for an audit. It may also include being able to conduct a comparative analysis of various files to give us the ability to detect trends beyond the written rules such as directives, policies and procedures, to see if there is, indeed, more than smoke.

Because, let’s be clear, some of the participants told us that they felt they had been unfairly selected for audit purposes. Some indicated that they sometimes felt intimidated, and many described the process as tedious. However, we cannot verify these alleged facts without having access to a complete taxpayer’s files. I understand that it was not the minister’s intention to ask us to act outside the legislative framework currently in place, of course, but our role as ombudsman is limited.

[Translation]

We also would like to confirm our understanding of the mandates and respective roles of a number of national partner organizations with regard to national security and charity audits. Our goal is to better understand of the relationships between the various partners and the audit process.

Public expectations regarding this review are very high. One of the roles of an ombudsman is to analyze on a factual basis of comparison. I find it important to be as transparent as possible, both with you and with the Canadian public. Although the deadlines are extremely tight, we are working tirelessly to submit a report to the minister in March 2023.

I am ready to answer your questions and listen to your comments with great interest. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you for your presentations.

Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning too close to the microphone or to remove your earpieces when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.

I have one question I would like to ask the Canadian Human Rights Commission. During our previous panel, you must have heard the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association suggest that complainants should have direct access to the human rights tribunal. What would be the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, and how does the direct access model work in other provinces?

Ms. Landry: Thank you for your question. It’s an important one.

For me, access to justice is much more than a day in court. Access to justice is admitting full participation in the system, and works so you understand, and you know the tools you have to navigate through the system. It means having a system that gives people meaningful opportunities and allows them to have a fair outcome, including giving them the support they need to put their case forward and navigate the process, as I mentioned, which could include mediation, conciliation and other forms of support.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission supports any steps designed to increase access to human rights justice in its full meaning, but it is not convinced the evidence from the direct access system of Ontario or B.C. shows they are any improvement over the commission screening model.

I will turn it over, if I can, to my colleague Brian Smith to provide you with more information on that.

Brian Smith, Senior Counsel, Legal Services Division, Canadian Human Rights Commission: Certainly. Thank you, chair, for the question.

As you have heard, there are primarily two different models of complaints processing under human rights systems across the country. One is most commonly called the commission screening model, and that is currently the system that we use in the federal sphere under the Canadian Human Rights Act. The other model that exists and that is used primarily in Ontario and British Columbia is the direct access system.

There are similarities and differences between the two. Obviously, as you have heard, one of the significant differences is that under the commission screening model, complaints are filed first with a human rights commission, which is a separate body from the human rights tribunal or decision maker. The human rights statutes in those jurisdictions assign certain screening functions to the human rights commissions along with other complaints processing functions.

In a direct access system, complaints are filed directly with the human rights tribunal, which is the same body that will ultimately have the authority to hear the merits of a case if it proceeds to that point.

One thing we heard a little bit about from the previous panel was the idea that commissions are doing screening and cases are being dismissed without having a full adjudication on their merits. This is actually a feature that exists in both systems. The key difference is who performs the screening function. The same would be true in a civil court system. Courts also perform functions of screening out cases at early stages, where they don’t meet the requirements necessary to proceed to a full hearing. There are some differences; there are some similarities.

I think as the chief commissioner has said for the federal commission, it’s our belief that access to justice has many components. Timely resolutions are certainly an important piece. Under the screening model federally, the Commission has taken many steps in recent years to modernize and streamline its complaint process and its mediation services, all with a view to ensuring that cases can proceed through intake, mediation and screening in the most efficient way possible so those cases that do need adjudication by a tribunal can get there in a timely way.

We also believe that more than that is needed in order for people to trust a justice system and believe that it will meet their needs and produce fair results. The screening model under the Canadian Human Rights Act does allow the commission to provide litigants with some necessary supports in ways that we think are distinct from what you see in direct access models in Ontario and B.C. Commission intake workers can work with litigants to help frame their issues at early stages in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mediators can work closely with parties to empower them to reach speedy resolutions with respect to disputes, including of their own design. Human rights investigators or officers can assist in identifying the types of information or evidence that will be needed for an adjudicator to evaluate a claim. Lastly, and this is one of the key differences, is that if the commission does send a case to the human rights tribunal, in the commission screening model, the commission has a right to participate before the tribunal as a party in that legal proceeding.

What this means is that when the commission identifies systemic issues, complex issues of law or novel issues of law, the commission can participate and share in performing some of the work that will be needed to allow the tribunal to adjudicate the claim fairly. This lessens the burden on claimants, who are most often without legal representation.

Ultimately, of course, it’s for Parliament to decide what the right model would be in the federal sphere. For the Commission, we would always encourage that if government is going to consider this, that it looks at all the available evidence that exists with respect to the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system.

Certainly, we’re very aware — as you heard in the last panel — there are groups in civil society that call for direct access systems. At the same time, there are groups that have called for the maintenance of more active roles for commissions.

For example, there is a 2019 report from the Alberta Civil Liberties Research Centre, which cautioned that, “. . . direct access has the potential to create as many problems as it cures.”

It is a legitimate policy question, but in our view, there are merits to the commission screening model that ought to be considered as part of any consideration of the debate.

The Chair: If you could provide a really brief answer: How long would this process take, the screening? Typically, how long would that take?

Mr. Smith: I have to apologize. I didn’t bring those statistics with me. This is something that we can certainly track down and provide the committee with information about unless one of my colleagues happens to know current information.

Ms. Landry: I think what is really important, as well, is that sometimes a complainant’s need for time can be affected by a mental issue or other situations — it really depends.

We put in place through our modernization of the complaint system many tools to facilitate and speed up the process in some situations. We acknowledge that all files are important, but they are not as urgent. It’s not every case that has the same emergency.

We put in place a triage process, which allows some cases, when the situation needs immediate attention, to process more quickly. It’s one of the things that we put in place.

We also created a mechanism through an online complaint form, which allows complainants who can navigate with these tools to do so, and it frees up some staff to help and support the ones that need us to support them through the process and walk through the process.

The Chair: That’s done after the screening process? You evaluate who needs help sooner rather than later?

Ms. Landry: Yes, absolutely, through the triage and through some mechanisms that we put online. In fact, we have a flexible approach.

When I was appointed as chief commissioner, one of the main things I have done is going to meet with stakeholders and rights holders to hear from them what they need from the Commission in order to modernize our system, and this is exactly what we have done.

We had a round table of experts, racialized experts, as an example, to hear where the gaps, challenges and biases were. We train the staff at the Commission, including — not including, because commissioners are not staff, but they are commissioners, and the Governor-in-Council appoints them — but we provide training as well to the commissioners, making sure that we can assess complaints in a better way, and commissioners can make decisions that would be informed by training, which is really important.

The Chair: Thank you.

Senator Omidvar: I have so many questions and so little time. I will address my first question to Ms. Landry. Thank you so much for being with us today.

You mentioned in your witness testimony that over the last five years, you have seen several hundred cases of discrimination against Muslims. What percentage of complaints, based on your understanding of Islamophobia, have made it from the commission to the tribunal?

Mr. Smith: I may be best situated to try to answer that question as best I can. We do have some information that we can share with you about complaint numbers and statistics.

I should preface — and forgive me for doing this, I am going to get to your question — my remarks about the statistics with a few words. Partly, it’s to respond to some of the things that we heard in the earlier panel, just clarifying what kinds of cases come to the commission so that you have an understanding of what kinds of statistics I will speak about in a moment.

We do always invite people to bear in mind that the Canadian Human Rights Act is just one of many statutory human rights instruments across the country. There are provincial and territorial human rights regimes which, of course, apply to their own spheres of influence, and all cases about employment and things relating to —

Senator Omidvar: Mr. Smith, I had a pretty direct question.

Mr. Smith: Let me do my best to answer it then.

The Chair: If you can answer the question directly, I think we have 20 minutes and two senators who have questions.

Mr. Smith: Understood.

Senator Omidvar: Time to review —

Mr. Smith: I understand your question is what numbers of cases have gone to the tribunal from the commission.

Senator Omidvar: Yes, because Ms. Landry said there have been hundreds of cases in the last five years.

Mr. Smith: Yes. Let me find it on my page here and do my best to do this as quickly for you as I can. Over the last five years, the commission has received about 8,000 complaints. Now 10% of those complaints received during that time have cited the ground of religion. Of the religion complaints received, roughly 60% have mentioned the key words of “Islam” or “Muslim.” Those are received at the commission —

The Chair: Sixty percent?

Senator Omidvar: Sixty percent of the 10%.

Mr. Smith: That’s correct. Again, we would be happy to provide these to you in writing after the appearance.

Senator Omidvar: We would be curious to know how many actually made it to the tribunal.

Mr. Smith: Let me come to that.

Senator Omidvar: In the meantime, let me ask Ms. Landry a question while you try — because I understand evidence is — so we can get back to you.

Ms. Landry, because you have had hundreds of complaints, or 10% of 60%, still a significant amount, do you have the capacity to go beyond simply standing at the tribunals to actually launch an investigation into the systemic discrimination against Muslim in federally regulated workplaces?

Ms. Landry: This power is in the act. One of the things is the lack of resources that the commission has had for a long time, to launch itself an investigation. Certainly, what we have done over the last many years is working with rights holders but also with the groups that represent the complainants to support them in the launch of complaints.

Senator Omidvar: So you do have the capacity but you have not done so yet in terms of Islamophobia?

Ms. Landry: We haven’t done that.

Senator Omidvar: Mr. Smith, do you have the answer now?

Mr. Smith: Yes, this is the best answer I can give you for today, and then we can always undertake to do more. In the years since January 1, 2017, roughly 25 cases have been sent to the tribunal that cites the ground of religion and also include the key words of “Islam” or “Muslim.” So I don’t have that in exactly the format you’ve described as a percentage, but I have that number. I can tell you that is roughly 8% of the total number of cases referred to the tribunal during that time period, if that helps.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for that information.

Mr. Boileau, am I right in understanding your testimony as follows: You’re trying to do a job with one hand tied behind your back, and therefore, whatever report you put forward will have large gaps because you do not have access to the critical information that you need?

Mr. Boileau: That is correct, senator.

Senator Omidvar: What should this committee recommend then to the CRA or to, in fact, the minister of the CRA to enable you to do maybe a second reinvestigation, because your report is coming out in March?

Mr. Boileau: This is complex, of course. I’ll try to be as brief as I can.

Our lawyers, who are the same as for the CRA by the way, told us that we do not have access to taxpayers’ information which we already knew, of course. That’s paramount. We knew that. The way we proceed when we receive individual complaints, we are able to ask for consent from individual taxpayers, and then we can go and ask relevant questions to the CRA, while accessing the file or the information.

But with this systemic one, this is a kind of a new examination for us. For me, I was hoping from the get-go, knowing that we couldn’t have access to all the taxpayers, so all the charities file, but if we could have been able to pick random files and then have the CRA redact confidential information, I thought that this would have been sufficient for us to have a meaningful access to data on which we can base. Because right now we are in the situation of hearing this from many organizations, many individuals, then we are hearing that from the CRA. We have looked at all the policies, procedures and directives, but we’re not able to apply and to validate all the information when we look into one or many specific files. That, as you have said, is having one hand tied behind our back.

How do we change this? Some will say, well, we need to change the Income Tax Act to give us permission to be considered as officers who are deemed capable of retrieving confidential access information contained in section 241. That would be fairly complicated.

Others would suggest, well maybe another organization such as the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency, or NSIRA, could perhaps do more than we could. Perhaps we can actually work together if that’s such — because we did a lot of groundwork obviously.

I don’t have a magic wand, senator. I wish I could. I thought it was important for me to come here and be transparent about our current situation and the fact that we have come into some sort of an impasse with the CRA. I really hoped that while working collaboratively — and I’m not suggesting the CRA has not worked collaboratively with us — what I’m saying is there was a lack of imagination for us to have access even if we retrieve confidential information right now. From the CRA’s side, they say, well even if we retrieve redacted confidential information, the fact of the matter is that we could guess who the charity in question is. That’s where we are at.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you for your openness with the challenges you are facing. We all look forward to your report, and I trust that there will be recommendations in your report as to the process that future investigations should take.

Mr. Boileau: Duly noted.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses. I will direct my question to Ms. Landry.

You mentioned that we need to do more to be more welcoming and better integrate Muslim communities. I agree with you because Canada is a country of immigration; in addition, we’ve welcomed thousands of Syrian refugees who are mostly Muslims and who are surprised that we don’t properly welcome or integrate Muslims right now.

Do you have any recommendations we can take back to the government and policymakers regarding this study and how best to welcome, integrate and address Islamophobia issues?

Ms. Landry: Thank you for your question, senator.

So, the Canadian Human Rights Commission believes that education and awareness are absolutely essential to achieving that. It’s important to work with communities, governments and various organizations to ensure that people have a better understanding of reality and the impact differences can have, and that they can be better prepared to welcome everyone who comes to Canada to find a home here.

Canada has always been recognized as a country whose values are respect, integrity, acceptance, diversity and inclusion. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more polarization, and we’re seeing things that I never expected to see in my lifetime as a 58-year-old.

Therefore, I feel that we certainly have work to do at the Canadian Human Rights Commission with our various partners and stakeholders, but we also need to go out and meet with people to understand the reality and how to equip them, first of all, so that they know their rights and how to exercise them.

We’re working very closely with our partners, the provincial and territorial human rights commissions, to ensure that we have as consistent and cohesive approach as possible across the country.

Of course, as a national human rights institution, we also report. One of the important things we do at the Canadian Human Rights Commission is report on the human rights situation in Canada. We do this by consulting, once again, with the various partners, stakeholders and provincial, federal and territorial commissions so that we can make recommendations.

Senator Gerba: Thank you very much.

Do you know of any examples of countries that have successfully reduced Islamophobia or implemented effective policies against it? Can we draw inspiration from any other countries?

[English]

Ms. Landry: I will send it over to my colleague.

Marcella Daye, Senior Policy Advisor, Policy, Research and International Relations Division, Canadian Human Rights Commission: Thank you very much for the question. As a national human rights institution, which the commission is in Canada, we do have certain responsibilities and capabilities internationally where we can urge the international community to undertake better practices. We can also, in that role, speak to UN treaty bodies and special rapporteurs and other instruments at the UN to provide information that, hopefully, other countries can use.

We do not have the capacity to specifically critique other countries, and so we don’t have the examples that you’re looking for at our fingertips of who is better and who is worse right now. But I will say that Canada is often looked to as a world leader. We have certainly seen over the last few years that the situation in many countries has become more hostile to immigrants, and we do know that Canada is looking at receiving more immigrants as well.

That doesn’t mean Canada is perfect. We would have to undertake a specific search to find specific examples of good practices that we can follow. We can look for those examples at the UN in their special procedures areas where they have special experts that look at specific issues around human rights. We would be glad to undertake that search. I don’t know what we will find, but we’ll be glad to get back to you.

Senator Gerba: I’m wondering if you have some examples of other countries who are doing well on these subjects of Islamophobia.

Ms. Daye: We do know of countries that have made progress and where Canada is actually following their lead. One of them is Australia, who has taken steps against online hate and has made some innovative inroads in their relationships with news media to stem the tide of negative portrayals and extremism.

I would also say that there is some movement in the EU. There are countries that have some specific regulations in place. I would have to get back to you. I just don’t want to talk out of turn because I don’t want to mistakenly identify one. But Australia comes to mind immediately.

Senator Gerba: Thank you.

The Chair: As a supplementary, you say that Canada is learning and that things are not that bad in Canada. But that’s not what we are hearing from the testimonies we heard over these past few months, especially from Muslims. We’re hearing that things are pretty bad for Canadian Muslims, like the fact that the greatest number of Muslims killed in a G7 country is in Canada. We’re hearing about incidents in schools everywhere — everywhere. Everywhere we have gone, we hear things are really bad.

We also hear that incidents of Islamophobia are under-reported. People don’t want to report. So things are pretty bad over here.

Thank you.

Senator Hartling: Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. I was thinking about what you were talking of earlier regarding the number of complaints increasing. I think you alluded to a lack of resources. I am just wondering — especially since we have had COVID and all these things happening and the numbers of people with complaints — what are some of the current remedies or things you would need to help you in your job as this increases? Are there some things you might suggest to us?

Mr. Smith: I can make an effort to answer that. Yes, certainly — maybe it’s trite to say it — resources help. To the extent that the commission has a complaints processing function, having access to additional resources would help the commission in order to address backlogs or delays that do exist. We don’t want to deny that those concerns are there, and we are continuously working as creatively and as best we can with the tools we have to modernize and streamline the process.

The same would hold true — and I don’t speak for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Certainly, it’s a separate agency. But there have been times when as a regular litigant in front of the tribunal, we would have appreciated having a tribunal that had more adjudicators, which could also speed up adjudication at the human rights tribunal level. These are some of the things the commission has advocated for over the years.

I don’t know if one of my colleagues here has something they would like to add.

Ms. Daye: I can add that we have sought out some amendments to our act — the Canadian Human Rights Act — to expand the grounds that are listed to include a ground like the social condition, which most other provincial human rights codes do include. It can include a word like poverty or [Technical difficulties] income or social condition. But it would allow for a broader type of complaint to arrive at the commission.

We also have, on occasion, come before committees like yours and raised concerns about the limitations on remedies. There is a cap on remedies that can be ordered by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. That cap had not changed, and it’s not really adjusted for inflation. Therefore, we have seen more often over the last few years things like sexual harassment complaints be litigated in the civil courts where they can receive the appropriate degree of remedy that isn’t available at the commission.

The Chair: Thank you.

Three of us want to ask questions, and I think Mr. Payet, the committee clerk, is telling me I have five minutes. So we will be very brief with our questions, and if you could be brief with your answers, we would really appreciate it.

We were aware that the government introduced former Bill C-36 in 2021, which would have enacted a new version of section 13. That bill died on the Order Paper. How successful was the former section 13 at addressing hate speech, including in cases that did not meet the threshold for criminal hate speech?

Ms. Daye: Thank you for the question. I will be as brief as I can.

Section 13 originated when we were working with telephones, and people would call a 1-800 number and receive a hateful message. That was the way hateful communities self-organized.

The world has changed since then. After 9/11, section 13 was amended to include communications over the internet. There have been some really important cases that have developed as a result of that, and they were quite high profile. You will have seen them in the news. It has resulted in some pretty good case law, including at the Supreme Court of Canada, for example, in the Whatcott case. We have good information now on what hate speech means under civil remedies and human rights codes. We have the 11 hallmarks of hate; we can tell what that is. It doesn’t mean that everything that isn’t criminal still meets that bar, it’s still a fairly high bar to reach, but there were some great successes.

I’ll say now that could not be true. Former Bill C-36 and the present Bill C-261 seek to reinstate section 13, which would allow individual complainants to file a complaint based on hate speech on the internet. I personally liken that to providing a fly swatter to fight off a meteor shower. The world is different. We need many more tools and a broad, comprehensive approach to get our feet under this.

One of your previous witnesses talked about a movement of hate, and it’s gaining momentum, not losing it. We need a movement back, which means much more than a simple addition to our act.

Senator Omidvar: My question is for Mr. Boileau. We heard previously from the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association about the strong evidence of Islamophobia in the CRA. They cited the University of Toronto’s report, and the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations put out a report, I think, two years ago citing that six of eight provoked charities audited by RAD were Muslim charities. Yet the CRA, when I have spoken to them, denies any Islamophobic actions, and they also tell me that they do not collect information by type of religion. Everyone is registered as a charity under one of the four heads, and so we know how many charities fall under the head of religion, but we don’t know which religion.

At this point in your investigation, do you believe that the CRA should start gathering data that disaggregates charities by religion at every stage of their experience, registration, audit and revocation, so we can get a comparative analysis of their treatment?

Mr. Boileau: That might be one of the recommendations, senator.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you.

Mr. Boileau: Thank you. Right now, it is only when you register that the CRA enters codes. It could be religion, advancement of religion, education or other types of benefits to the community. The reality is that it’s much more complex than when you register and enter codes. It’s actually the activities of a charity. It’s much more complex than just that. They have not been able to provide us with any statistical data that would show us the whole picture.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: I will direct my question to Mr. Smith.

Some witnesses who have appeared here before you did told us that making a complaint about Islamophobia is a very complex process that’s quite difficult and sometimes daunting for complainants.

Do you agree with that statement? What can be done to improve this much-needed service?

[English]

Mr. Smith: Thank you for the question. This does tie in a little bit to the answer we provided when questioned about the differences between direct access systems and commissioned screening models. Certainly, even under a screening model, this is still a legal proceeding and it can be complex for many of our complainants to come to the commission, want to benefit from the system and indicate their rights through a legal process that is still adversarial. It can be a challenge. To make that process as fair and just as it can be and to promote human rights justice for all, commission staff have made efforts to provide support where necessary to claimants in vulnerable circumstances who are having difficulty navigating the system. Some things commission staff can do at the intake level, in the mediation process and also in the process of screening cases is to interact and engage with claimants in order to provide some of those kinds of supports. It is also still the case that if the commission decides to send a case on to the tribunal for adjudication, that is also an adversarial process. Once they are at the tribunal, the range of supports can vary depending on whether the commission is able to participate in the case alongside the claimant.

The commission does not have the resources to participate in every case that is referred to the tribunal. There are some cases where claimants proceed with respondents and the commission is not present at the case. What happens, though, is that the commission does make its best efforts to appear in all the cases where it appears to the commission that it would be in the public interest to be there. That can include an assessment of the vulnerabilities of the parties and where we participate in the case. That’s a key part of what I do as a lawyer at the commission; we work alongside claimants. We don’t represent them. As a lawyer for the commission, we’re there to represent the commission as a public interest body participating in the case, but we do typically have interests aligned with the claimant in that we’re there to lead evidence and we’re pursuing a ruling from the tribunal that there’s been infringement of the law and we’re pursuing remedies, including systemic remedies where appropriate. In those kinds of cases, we work closely with claimants and are able to provide some of the supports that help them work through the system.

The Chair: I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony. It will help us greatly when we are ready to write our report.

Honourable senators, I shall introduce our last panel and the witness has asked to make an opening statement. We shall hear from the witness and then turn to questions from senators. I have the utmost pleasure to welcome by video conference, Haroon Siddiqui, Journalist and Editor Emeritus at the Toronto Star. I now invite Mr. Siddiqui to make his presentation.

Haroon Siddiqui, Journalist and Editor Emeritus, Toronto Star, as an individual: Thank you, senators. I want to especially thank the clerk of the committee, Mr. Payet, who has been extraordinarily helpful and very kind in these preparations.

I don’t have much to say except the following, and I’ll be open to answering your questions. I’ve described myself as a congenitally optimistic Canadian, which doesn’t mean that I’m being Pollyannish, but I am realistic. I do critique Canada and I do so to improve it, in the same spirit you’re holding these hearings.

I think the context we’re all familiar with is while reasserting that we are here 21 years after 9/11 because of 9/11. On that fateful day, 2,977 innocent Americans were killed, and since then 800,000 Muslims have been killed in the war on terror. Most of them were as innocent as the Americans who died on 9/11. About 38 million Muslims have been displaced in the war on terror. There has been a plethora of torture in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram and at least a dozen other black sites around the world. A total of about $8 trillion has been spent on this war on terror, draining our treasuries, diverting money from other public policy priorities, and in effect distorting our democracies to a great extent.

On a parallel track, this war on terror has unleashed a cultural warfare on Muslims and Islam, which still lingers, which is why we have Islamophobia, which is why you’re dealing with it. Canada has been involved in both, both the war on terror and also cultural warfare on Muslims, including on Canadian Muslims.

I think I’ll stop there and be happy to answer your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much, Mr. Siddiqui, for joining us. We hope to hear a lot more from you as we ask you questions that will shed light on the role of the media, in particular, in Islamophobia. That’s what I’m going to try to focus my questions on.

I host a podcast and I interviewed journalist Supriya Dwivedi who told me that she hosted a radio show, a talk show on radio — and talk shows, we know, are a hub of hate, somehow or the other — and that she left the talk show because the media organization did not protect her, did not act on her behalf.

I want to ask you: How can journalists, whether they’re on social media, on mainstream media, on television or on radio, how can media organizations do more and do better to protect their employees who happen to be Muslims and who then happen to get an inordinate amount of hate mail?

Mr. Siddiqui: I was writing a column for about 15 years or so, between 1999 and 2015, and I must have received about 38,000 to 40,000 emails in that time. A lot of them were very poisonous, very hateful and very threatening, but I must tell you that an overwhelming majority of Canadians were supportive of what I was writing.

We really have in this country a disconnect between what the mainstream media — I will leave the social media aside for a later discussion. The mainstream media has been providing jingoism, not journalism, since 9/11. Most of them have been supportive of the war on Iraq. Most of them have been supportive of the war in Afghanistan; whereas, an overwhelming majority of Canadians have been opposed to the war on Iraq and developed grave doubts about our war in Afghanistan. Yet, the media, with the honourable exception of the Toronto Star — and I don’t say that because that’s where I worked, but that is a fact. There is this disconnect, and those media across the country, including mainstream newspapers from Montreal, to Ottawa, to Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, are mostly in favour of the war and mostly promoting jingoism.

On a parallel track, they have also been fanning Islamophobia, either as a matter of policy or because Islamophobia is a business model in the media. Fox News is the most extreme example of that. We have had versions of that in Canada as well.

I do not know — to specifically answer your question — whether the employees there, either at newspapers or radio stations and so on were properly protected or not. I certainly was protected. My newspaper was giving me, in effect, carte blanche to say what I wanted to say within the rules of journalism, laws of libel and so on and so forth and good taste, so I was lucky. Despite the abuse that I got, the overwhelming majority of Canadians agreed with what I was saying. Number one, lucky. Number two, luckier still, my employer was always behind me.

I do not know the answer to your specific question concerning what other people may have suffered, but I’m sure they did.

Senator Omidvar: The Toronto Star is completely exemplary in the way it treats and discovers the true diversity of Toronto. You wrote in the Literary Review of Canada:

While members of the media have talked incessantly about Muslims since 9/11, they rarely talk to ordinary Muslims.

How can we correct this?

Mr. Siddiqui: Before we come to the second part of it, what I meant by that is really it’s a truism now, not only in the newspapers but across media and even the book publishing industry and so on. The motto really is that people want to hear only two kinds of Muslims, the radicals and the terrorists and the crazies, on the one hand, or Muslims who are pliant and who confirm the broad societal prejudices and so on.

The majority Muslim public opinion is rarely reflected in the newspapers and is rarely reflected in the media, and this has been proven over and over in different studies.

I honestly don’t know the answer to your second question, what we can do to fix it, because what I’m about to say is not very complimentary about my colleagues. They are quite shameless. This thing has been known. Academics have done study after study, from England to Australia to the United States — the Poynter Institute and others — but it doesn’t seem to make any difference. Whereas, journalists are experts at criticizing everyone else, they don’t take criticism easily themselves. They are very thin-skinned.

They continue merrily going about their ways. Of course, there have been improvements, as we can see, because society is changing. There is a greater awareness and a higher consciousness about Islamophobia, but by and large, the right‑wing element of the media has not improved much.

I hope that your committee will be instrumental in giving a clarion call and shame them over what they have done, what you have heard across the country yourselves. You do have a precedent, because it was a Senate committee led by Senator Keith Davey, for example, and then by Mr. Kent who did great studies and warned against the concentration of newspapers and the concentration of ownership in the media in Canada. Neither study got anywhere because of the enormous power of the news media to beat it back.

I do wish you luck, and I do hope that you would mince no words in announcing your conclusions.

I also hope that, in fact, when your report does come out that you will have a separate section on the media and that you would ask for editorial board meetings across the country, to go and speak to the editorial boards. There is a long-standing tradition in this country of editorial boards welcoming committee chairs and so on to go and brief them. If they turn you down, that would also tell us something.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witness for being here today. I’m delighted to have a distinguished journalist like yourself testifying here before us, because previous witnesses have said that it’s journalists who have created a vocabulary that’s used against Muslims today. For example, people associate “Islam” with terrorism, whereas when we say “Zen,” it refers to other cultures.

Do you feel that freedom of expression, a cornerstone of your profession, is respected today? Do you feel that your colleagues who cultivate Islamophobia are concerned about the consequences it could have on society?

[English]

Mr. Siddiqui: Thank you for the question, senator.

Free speech has become a bit of a fraud, because there is no such thing as absolute free speech. Every right is balanced against some other rights. My freedom to swing my arm stops at your cheek.

In a similar fashion, free speech has never been absolute except in the United States. It is balanced by the laws of libel. It is balanced by the laws of defamation. It is balanced by the laws of hate, be it in the Criminal Code or in the human rights code. There are also specific anti-hate laws in Europe. There were in Canada, but they’re not there anymore at the federal level.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights upholds free speech but also requires states to prohibit:

Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination . . . .

The European Commission on Human Rights similarly says the same thing. PEN International, on which I have served, which is the leading free speech group in the world, has 150 centres. It speaks about free speech but also calls on members to foster:

. . . good understanding and mutual respect . . . to dispel race, class, and national hatreds . . . .

The only exception, as I said, is in the United States because of the first amendment, which provides that Congress makes no laws curbing free speech. That itself has deteriorated in that there is a debate developing in the United States. It’s known as the “firstness of the first amendment” — that the first amendment has come to trump other rights also guaranteed by the Constitution, prohibiting discrimination against minorities and so on and so forth. So with this abstract principle of free speech, we in Canada have been inching toward an American version of free speech: everything goes.

But everything does not go. In fact, in practice — in reality — everything does not go. What really happens is the most vulnerable people get rolled over in the name of free speech. No newspaper, television station or radio station can these days knowingly be racist or malign Indigenous peoples. They can no longer be anti-Semitic and cannot be openly racist about Black people and so on. Where the media have changed, they have changed where society has changed. Societal values no longer tolerate us to do those things. But discrimination against Muslims is okay, so the media continues to roll over Muslims. Therefore, the invocation of free speech is used mostly against the most vulnerable people throughout our history. The most vulnerable people these days are Muslims, and so the media takes the most liberties and invokes free speech disproportionately in the case of Muslims. That is a sad reality.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: How can the federal government work with the media to stem or correct this situation without being accused of restricting free speech?

[English]

Mr. Siddiqui: I think the way to do that would be — we used to have some tools. Those tools are also gone. One of the tools used to be that each province had a press council. Quebec still has its provincial press council. The ones in English Canada have all been combined into one. Those press councils have always been complaint-driven, but what really happens before them, because they are voluntary bodies, is that they end up nit-picking about this point and that point and so on and so forth. There is really no mechanism available in the name of free speech beyond shaming our media to stop doing what they are doing.

So ultimately, what am I saying? I’m saying we need to change public opinion. If you change public opinion, then the media will change accordingly, as we have learned. I just gave you a lot of examples, you know? I mean, which newspaper would knowingly be anti-Semitic? Which newspaper, radio station or television station would be knowingly peddling Black racism from its front pages or in the evening newscast? Because public opinion does not allow such expressions of hatred or indignity of people, I think the ultimate aim lies in changing public opinion.

But when it comes to online hate, we still have the CRTC, and the government is toying with the idea of a bill. Of course there is no silver bullet. There are differences of opinion, but the answer is not that we will not do anything.

Senator Hartling: You are enlightening us in many areas. I’m just wondering — it sounds like there is not much hope here. Do we have any hope with young people that will help us in this change? I know in some circles, young people are changing the lens on many issues. Are there any ambassadors that you know of that will help us make changes in this area as we have in the past on other issues?

Mr. Siddiqui: There is no substitute in a democracy to raising public consciousness, obviously. That is how we are beginning to percolate on the issue of Indigenous people, for example. That is how Black Lives Matter changed our perceptions, making us self-aware. It’s Martin Luther King who said the battle against racism and hatred and so on never ends. Muslims happen to be at the lowest end of the ladder at this point, and we just keep going.

In fact, we keep analyzing as to [Technical difficulties]. I apologize for repeating myself. What have the media done in the war on terror, for example, besides cheerleading the wars and so on? They were leading in the laying of collective guilt on Muslims. Any terrorist incident, anywhere, and “what do you have to say about this and that” as though I was responsible — as though ordinary Muslims were responsible. They were maligning mosques and imams, saying there were terrorists in every minaret in Canada. None of them has been proven right. In fact, former Prime Minister Harper, if you recall — no friend of Muslims — in 2014, said that mosques and Muslim institutions have been very helpful to our security agencies. Have the media ever gone back and said sorry that they did nine stories maligning the so-and-so mosque and so-and-so imams? No. The media made unholy alliances with the security forces for example, quoting anonymous sources about this and that, and none of them proved to be right. If you recall the Toronto 23 and Toronto 18 cases, very few of those charges that were belaboured in the media proved to be right. Some did. But did the media go back and say sorry we were wrong on 19 of these cases? No.

As well, terrorism by Muslims was always portrayed to be committed by a faith as though it is something Islamic that people are doing. Then there is disproportionate coverage of violence by Muslims as opposed to violence by non-Muslims. If you recall in 2017 with the Quebec City massacre, it did not make it to the front page of The Globe and Mail the next day, and it was underplayed by the CBC. When the Christchurch massacre took place and 50 people were dead, it did not make it to the front page of The Globe and Mail.

So we have a pattern here. One does not say these people are racist, but obviously, they are in denial or their sensibilities are missing in this case. So we just keep raising the issue. We keep raising our voices, you know? That’s what we need to do.

Senator Hartling: Thank you.

The Chair: I have a few questions. You raised a point just now that when the Quebec massacre was happening, a certain TV station was giving live reports of something very inconsequential from a different country. Journalist, newspapers, print and TV mould public opinion. A lot of times, I will tell people, “don’t believe everything you read.” Because they will come out with something ridiculous, and I say, “don’t believe everything you read.”

If public opinion is formed by the very people who are not friends of Muslims, what can the Muslim community do to change the perception that everyone has of Muslims? I remember an instance where the first thing a young Frenchman said to me when he found out I was Muslim was, “why do you want to kill me?” How do we change that perception?

Mr. Siddiqui: Yes, there are two parts to your question. What the Muslim community should do, we will set aside for a moment. It’s not really just a Muslim issue. It’s an issue for all of Canada. In fact, it’s an issue for the western world because this Islamophobia has shades of the 1930s and so on. It has undermined our democracies, and the kind of hatred that we have seen bears little resemblance to what we have seen of late.

The so-called green threat has been worse than the red menace of the 1950s because it has lasted longer and created many more victims.

If you ask Muslims, what is the number one issue? They talk about the media, and rightly so. There have been academic studies galore that say roughly between 58% and 75%, if memory serves right, of the people polled said their first impression or their only or main knowledge of Islam comes from the media. The media cannot pretend that they are not powerful and we don’t influence people, they do, because that is where most of the information comes from. They have been a source of disinformation and misinformation.

Let’s take a Canadian example — Professor Charles Taylor, who headed the Commission on Reasonable Accommodation with Mr. Bouchard in 2008. The commission took 15 or 20 incidents from the Quebec tabloid news media, which had sensationalized Muslim stories, and hired its own investigators to go and reinvestigate all of those stories. The commission said in its final report that none of it turned out to be true, but it made no difference to the media. In the name of free speech, we go on maligning people, maligning institutions, and get away with it.

This is a serious issue undermining our democracies, from here to Europe, and these are not merely a Muslim issue. Muslims must become better advocates like any other group, like LGBTQ2, Indigenous people and the Jewish community, which continues to face anti-Semitism. That goes without saying. It is really up to government, institutions and people of goodwill in this country and elsewhere to raise their voice, which I hope your committee will play a role in.

The Chair: Thank you. People are writing that go Islamophobia is like a global movement.

Mr. Siddiqui: Very much so. Certainly, in Europe, India and the United States it is, with Donald Trump being the prime example of it.

We talk about Donald Trump and the whole movement of disinformation, falsehood and getting away with lies. Much of it really started with Muslims, if you remember. Muslims were first in line of attack and it has since then moved on to other people. It’s a movement in which Muslims were the first victims and remain main victims, but what is happening is that the erosion of societal values, the crossing of red lines, what is acceptable and not acceptable is ending up hurting our democracies. That is the real big issue here, not just Muslims. As much as Muslims have been great victims here.

The Chair: [Technical difficulties] — the scope of our study because we’re looking at Islamophobia in Canada, but you just something about Islamophobia in India. What does it mean to be a Muslim in India these days?

Mr. Siddiqui: I have not been to India since COVID. We read all the stories that we do, the Hindutva movement is getting stronger. There is a government in power whose prime minister was the chief minister of a state where a pogrom took place. He may or may not have been responsible for it. But with the incidents that are happening, the experts are saying that this is a dangerous situation at this point. Look at parts of Europe, look at France, look at other places in Europe and the United States.

Much of the Islamophobia has been played out against Muslim women. In the language of feminism, in the language of small “l” liberalism and so on, we are all fighting for Muslim women. Muslim women are being discriminated against in Islam, and so on. It really began with Laura Bush and Cherie Blair in Afghanistan, sort of softening the war on Afghanistan by saying that we are in Afghanistan to save Muslim women and to save their rights. Of course, Afghan women may need saving, but we did not invade Afghanistan to save women.

In the same way, that movement sort of spilled over into the western world and into our own democracies. If Afghan men are misogynistic, Canadian Muslim men and European Muslim men may be misogynistic too and we may have to save European and Canadian Muslim women; therefore we should not allow them to wear the hijab. Tell me, what is the difference? The ayatollahs and mullahs have been telling Muslim women for a long time to wear the hijab and niqab. Now we have small “l” liberals and feminists telling Muslim women not to wear the hijab and niqab. The irony is extraordinary. The impulse to control Muslim women is the same in mullahs and elsewhere.

I had written a column at one saying that “Ayatollah Kenney” has given a fatwa that no one can become a citizen while wearing a niqab. In Quebec, “Sheikha Marois” said we’ll fire you and “Mullah Legault” of the current government says we will fire you if you wear a hijab in school. What is the difference between the mullahs and the ayatollahs and our own so-called liberals and leaders in this country?

These are cudgels that we use to beat up on Muslim communities and Muslims. The sharia panic was exactly the same — “sharia is coming.” Excuse me, how is sharia coming? Will the Parliament of Canada say, as of tomorrow morning, Canadian laws are set aside and sharia law will take effect? We have taken leave of our senses. This is against logic and against common sense, which is really the first definition of going bonkers, which is what I was speaking about. The parallels to the 1930s are horrible.

This is a big issue. Media sometimes reflects it, media sometimes leads it, but we have a large, dangerous issue afflicting our western democracies.

The Chair: Thank you. The fear mongering. So many people ask me about sharia, too, and whether I support it. I would be very puzzled as to why they are worrying about sharia.

Mr. Siddiqui: I follow the sharia and it is a plethora of law and rules. I follow the sharia. I say my prayers, I fast in Ramadan. So what are you going to do about it, you know?

The Chair: The summit on Islamophobia that was held a year and a half ago where the current government promised to appoint an envoy specifically on Islamophobia — we’re still waiting. When they do appoint that person, do you think there is too much responsibility on that one person? I can see it now, Mr. Siddiqui, depending on who the person is. Because Muslims are so diverse, and most people don’t realize that. Most Canadians do not realize that. Some Muslims also don’t realize that. There is a certain group that thinks that they are the Muslims, and they don’t want to say there are other Muslims. There are different races, different cultures. You’ll find Muslims from everywhere. We had the case recently of an Indigenous person who was Muslim, and he was told he couldn’t be a Muslim and wasn’t allowed to withdraw cash from his bank account.

Are we putting too much responsibility on this person when they are appointed? Will it solve any of our problems; the Muslim problem?

Mr. Siddiqui: It’s not a Muslim problem, to start with. It’s a Canadian problem.

To answer your question, of course, it would be putting too much on them. We have just outlined the breadth and depth of the issues and the problem. No one office can fix the issue, but he or she can help raise the consciousness of the nation, for sure. The fact that the Muslim community is very diverse need not stop that person from raising his or her voice because, really, the Islamophobia envoy doesn’t — the work is not with the Muslim community. The work that needs to be done is with the non‑Muslim community. That’s where the problem lies. The problem is not within Muslims.

Of course, Muslims are diverse and have differences of opinion. It would be unnatural if it were not. They are more diverse than other people. The Jewish community is diverse. The Hindu community is diverse. It’s a matter of degree. Christians are diverse — a million churches and so on. So that need not detain us or need not become an excuse for not tackling the issue and raising the voice. That’s the way I would answer it.

The Chair: At the end of our study, we’ll make recommendations for the government. What recommendations do you think we should have?

Mr. Siddiqui: I would ask for the reinstatement of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I think it was Ms. Daye who said the world has changed since then. True. But I think it would send a signal that this is serious and we take it seriously. Section 13 was removed not so much in the name of free speech; it was done in the name of free speech for the Islamophobes to continue to malign Muslims and Islam. We know who was lobbying and which government did it. That is one recommendation I would make.

Second, on the online hate issue, the government has been dilly-dallying. This particular government was in awe of high‑tech to start with. They were slow out of the gate. Canada was left behind Europe and Australia. They are still struggling with the issue. Again, there is no silver bullet; nonetheless, we need to be able to say that mega high-tech platforms that allow for such hatred and poison to course through its veins affects millions of people. They ought to be made responsible for their content in the same way we make radio and television people responsible for their content. It’s as simple as that. They can work out the details.

I would highly recommend to the government that they get on with the task of managing online hate and that we need to raise public consciousness. I keep coming back to this point because, ultimately, in a democracy, it’s public opinion that will make the difference.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Siddiqui. In answer to what you said earlier, we did reach out to some media. Some couldn’t come for whatever reason and some refused. We will be reaching out to media again. One thing we heard when we travelled to Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec and Toronto is about the role the media plays in propagating Islamophobia.

Mr. Siddiqui: One of your earlier witnesses spoke about a story in the Toronto Sun, for example, that, in turn, either triggered or was somehow instrumental in the initiation of the CRA testimony. I would invite the editor of the Toronto Sun and say, “We have heard this. Would you like to come and testify?” and let them say no.

I have mentioned The Globe and Mail twice. I would invite the editor of The Globe and Mail to come, and say, “Would you please come and enlighten us, give your side of the story?” I would invite News Media Canada, which represents dailies and weeklies, and say, “We have heard a lot of complaints about you. We want to hear your side of the story. Please come.” If they don’t come, that will also tell us something.

Senator Omidvar: I had questions, but now I’m feeling fairly despondent, Mr. Siddiqui, I must say. I’m a naturally ebullient and optimistic person, but this talk about a global movement of Islamophobia rings true. You and I are both born Indians, and I watch with despair what is happening in India against the Muslim minority there.

Getting back to Canada, I have been around what you have written and said, and I’ve been in conferences and panels with you. I remember one thing you said that has remained with me: There are good people and there are bad people. There are good immigrants and there are bad immigrants. But the rule of law draws a line in the sand, and the rule of law is what we must all obey.

I’m hearing you say that the law is no longer sufficient to address these heinous expressions of Islamophobia. That’s not a question. I’m just making an observation today.

Let me ask you a question. Outside of changing public opinion, which often takes a mountain, and sometimes it happens like that. A picture of a dead child on a beach triggered the response of Canadians to welcome Syrians.

Are we waiting for a moment, which would be a shocking moment? We have had shocking moments in Quebec, and yet public opinion has not shifted.

Mr. Siddiqui: To be fair, public opinion did not change much after Quebec 2017, but it did change after the London massacre because it stirred Canadian conscience to a great deal, to an extent that I had not seen before.

Senator Omidvar: Yes.

Mr. Siddiqui: We are Canadians. We critique Canada. We want to improve it. But Canada does stand as a shining example to the rest of the world in a million ways. I said Canada was complicit in torture, but Canada was also the only country in the world that constituted a commission on Maher Arar, that settled with Omar Khadr. The courts came through for him in a series of court decisions, despite the best efforts and massive expenditure by the Harper government. It was the Honourable Frank Iacobucci whose commission made it right for three Arab Canadians who were tortured in Egypt and Syria. Canada was the only country in the post-9/11 world to have taken those steps, and they are not small steps.

Canada is the only country in the Western world with national consensus in favour of immigration. Do you know of any other country in the world whose citizens say, in answer to the question, “What is your number one most favourite thing?” — “The Constitution, the Charter?” This is the only country where 85% of immigrants become citizens, and become great citizens.

These are great attributes this country has. Canada is the only country, of course — it goes without saying — that is constitutionally multicultural, section 27. These are extraordinary achievements. These things tell us and tell Canadians, and Canadians have accepted it: Ratna Omidvar, born in India, came to Canada by way of Iran, is a Canadian is a Canadian, as Canadian as anybody else. That is not accepted fully in Germany. That is yet to be accepted in Great Britain. It is certainly not accepted in France. It is being rejected even in the United States, the land of immigrants.

Canada has many things going for it. We are the only country that has apologized for our past crimes, from Komagata Maru to the act against Asians and the ship, MS St. Louis, being turned back. We do learn our lessons.

Right-wingers say we are becoming too woke — that Trudeau is too woke. We are grateful that we are woke. We should not apologize for it. Our capacity for self-improvement remains very high. In that sense, I remain very hopeful.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. I want to take this opportunity to thank you for appearing before us and making your presentation. It will help us a great deal when we write our final report.

(The committee adjourned.)