THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, February 13, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:06 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 public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I will take this opportunity to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting. We have Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Cordy from Nova Scotia, Senator Gerba from Quebec, Senator Manning from Newfoundland and Labrador and Senator Omidvar from Ontario.
Today, our committee will continue its study on Islamophobia in Canada under its general order of reference. Our study will cover, among other matters, the role of Islamophobia with respect to online and off-line violence against Muslims, general 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 having held two meetings in June of 2022 in Ottawa followed by public meetings and visits to mosques in September in Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec City and Toronto, we continued our public hearings in Ottawa last fall and had our first meeting of the year on this topic last week.
Let me provide some details about our meeting today. This afternoon, we shall have three panels. In each panel, we will hear from the witnesses and then the senators will have a question and answer session.
I shall introduce our first witness. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witness and then turn to questions from the senators. I wish to welcome our first witness. Joining us by video conference today is Terrance S. Carter, who is a lawyer from Carters Professional Corporation.
I now invite Mr. Carter to make his presentation.
Terrance S. Carter, Lawyer, Carters Professional Corporation, as an individual: Honourable senators and members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, thank you for inviting me to speak today. I understand I have been asked to be a witness with regard to the audit of Muslim charities by the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA. As such, it might be helpful for me to provide a brief explanation of my background.
I’m a charity lawyer as well as managing partner of Carters, a law firm of 15 lawyers with a focus on charity law. I’m also a past member of the Advisory Committee on the Charitable Sector, and I have appeared as a witness on anti-terrorism law and charities before the Air India inquiry and the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.
I have been involved in 10 charity audits by the CRA of Muslim charities over the past 13 years, which have resulted in five revocations, one of which included a suspension of receipting privileges, one financial penalty that was vacated on internal appeal, three compliance agreements and one audit still in progress.
Since the legal work I do for clients is confidential and subject to solicitor-client privilege, I cannot discuss the details of any client files. However, I can provide high-level observations in my personal capacity.
From my experience, the CRA audits of Muslim charities are invariably undertaken by the Review and Analysis Division of the Canada Revenue Agency, or RAD, although not usually identified as such. These audits are unlike any other audits undertaken by the normal Compliance Division of the Charities Directorate, since the focus of RAD is to investigate and disrupt perceived involvement of charities with terrorist financing. This means that RAD audits are extremely detailed and complex, producing audit reports that are voluminous in length, that analyze tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of emails as well as the charity’s online presence.
The audits can extend over lengthy periods of time, sometimes lasting up to five years or more. The audits are very difficult for the charity to respond to because registered charities have the obligation to refute every allegation raised in an audit, including disproving every suggestion and innuendo about alleged involvement with possible terrorist financing. In essence, the charity is presumed to be guilty until it can prove that all of the allegations and suspicions raised by RAD are baseless, which is generally an impossible threshold to meet.
In addition, many Muslim charities are subject to allegations that I rarely see with audits of other faith groups, such as alleging that religious festivals as well as youth, sport and social programs are not sufficiently religious in content.
The reason I believe that these audits are problematic is because RAD is part of a whole-of-government national security approach that is driven by the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force — or FATF — recommendation 8, as reflected in Canada’s 2015 Assessment of Inherent Risks of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing in Canada. This has, in turn, led to the implementation of a risk-based assessment model that has identified 11 groups that apparently pose the greatest threats of terrorist financing in Canada, 9 of which — 82% — are Muslim. This list of 11 groups has not been updated since 2015 and does not reflect more recently listed organizations, such as domestic White supremacist groups, including the Proud Boys.
If there were concerns that a Muslim charity was actually involved in terrorist financing, then RAD should be referring those matters to the RCMP to investigate and prosecute, since terrorist financing is a criminal offence outside the jurisdiction of RAD. Instead, RAD deals with suspicions about terrorism financing by utilizing powerful enforcement tools available to it under the Income Tax Act through conducting a charity audit. By doing so, RAD does not need to utilize the more onerous provisions of deregistration under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act.
Instead, RAD can achieve its objective of investigating and disrupting perceived involvement of Muslim charities with terrorist financing by simply relying on regular CRA compliance tools, such as the charity needing to maintain detailed books and records, as well as direction and control over operations, in addition to ensuring complete, correct and current information in their annual T3010 filings in order to justify revocation of charitable status. This is done on the pretext that RAD is conducting a regular charity compliance audit, when in fact it is attempting to address purported terrorist-financing suspicions without having to prove any of those suspicions.
The reality is that no charity in Canada has been charged, let alone convicted, of terrorist financing, nor has the CRA, to my knowledge, ever used the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act to either deny or revoke charitable status of a charity.
The solution to this systemic, whole-of-government problem does not lie simply with examining how the CRA carries out its audits of Muslim charities, although that is obviously a factor. Instead, it must involve the Department of Finance, since Finance is responsible for establishing and continuing the risk-based approach that is reflected in Canada’s national inherent risk assessment. This assessment needs to be seriously reconsidered given the damage that it has done and continues to do by creating a presumption that the risk of terrorist financing is best addressed by focusing on Muslim charities in Canada.
In addition, the recently created National Security and Intelligence Review Agency should be asked to review the mandate, training and procedures of RAD within the CRA, in particular with regard to its selection and processing of CRA audits of Muslim charities, including both past and present audits, in order to determine whether RAD should continue to exist separate from the normal Compliance Division of the Charities Directorate.
In conclusion, I believe that Canada can and needs to do better in its treatment of Muslim charities. The Muslim community, like so many other vibrant minority groups in our country, is an essential part of the multicultural fabric of Canada and should be celebrated and respected rather than being undermined by our government. I sincerely hope that the work of this Senate committee will help in achieving this goal. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Carter.
Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask committee members and witnesses in the room that for the duration of the meeting to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators. As is our previous practice, I would like to remind each senator that you have five minutes for your question and that includes the answer.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Mr. Carter, for your presence and your testimony.
We have heard from CRA officials who have told us that they follow the legislation and the protocols attached to it. We have heard from the tax ombudsman who was charged by the Minister of National Revenue to do a review of the procedures of the CRA to determine whether Islamophobia exists or not in the CRA. From him we heard that he is unable to do his job. He has to work with one hand tied behind his back because most of the information he receives from RAD and other officials is redacted. And now we hear from you that there is — what I’m hearing you say, I think, Mr. Carter, and I would like you to help me understand if I’m correct, that this goes deeper that possibly Islamophobia; this is a construct of the security anxieties of our country, conflated by the FATF and by the Anti-terrorism Act, which hasn’t been reviewed for god knows how many years, and that CRA and the RAD in particular uses death by a thousand cuts, so to say, by all those compliance letters instead of simply revoking.
I’m trying to find my way out of this, because it’s a fog, in a way. Is there a solution to removing the overwhelming burden that Muslim charities seem to carry under this security agenda?
Mr. Carter: Thank you, senator. I think to answer your question, we need to understand the problem. To be fair to the Charities Directorate, they have already pointed out — I’m not sure whether they consider it to be the problem, but they pointed to the reason that Muslim charities are being audited — and it goes back to the testimony of the assistant commissioner, Mr. Geoff Trueman, as well as the Director General of the Charities Directorate, Ms. Sharmila Khare, explaining that the Canada Revenue Agency, particularly RAD, is focused on complying with the national inherent risk assessment, when it was put in place back in 2015. They have made it clear that their choice of charities to audit has to reflect what is mandated in that particular assessment.
When you go to the assessment — the 2015 national inherent risk assessment — you’ll see there that they focus on trying to create a matchup with the threats and the vulnerabilities. In doing that and identifying the threats, as I mentioned in my opening statement, it really comes down to 11 groups, 9 of which are Muslim. As a result, what the Canada Revenue Agency is supposed to do is go out looking for groups that could be vulnerable, even on a domestic basis, to an association with Muslim terrorist organizations. That seems to provide the rationale as to why Muslim charities are being selected.
When we look at what the FATF has actually set out with regards to the work that should be done, they make it clear that charities that are being audited should be chosen in a way that reflects a careful, proportionate approach, and the actions should be commensurate. There was a report, senator, that came from the FATF in October 2021, which pointed out some of the problems associated with countries that are too aggressive when it comes to imposing the FATF recommendation 8, and it says there are countries that incorrectly implement the standards and implement restrictive measures to non-profit organizations, or NPOs, in the name of FATF compliance, both intentionally, in some cases, and unintentionally in others. They point out an example that there is “forced dissolution, de-registration or expulsion of NPOs.” The conclusion they arrive at is that:
The stocktake’s analysis concludes that the undue targeting of NPOs in the context of purported or real AML/CFT implementation (both legitimate or otherwise) may be related in some cases to poor or negligent implementation of the FATF’s RBA.
I think that’s what’s happening here in Canada. We have a security mentality that is focused on trying to restrict the spectrum of who they are looking at only to organizations that are tied into Muslim terrorist organizations. That’s not appropriate. What that does is marginalizes the greater Muslim community in Canada, who otherwise are living in fear that they may come under the scrutiny of the security apparatus of the government, particularly as exercised by RAD within CRA.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Mr. Carter. I’m not a regular member of this committee, but I have picked a great day to be here. This is a fascinating discussion.
Is there a difference between audits for organizations like Proud Boys or the GoFundMe sites that we saw last February in Ottawa and audits for Muslim charities?
Mr. Carter: Thank you, senator. There is a difference. When the FATF defines a non-profit organization, they are speaking in broader terms about not only registered charities, but also non-profit organizations. Those are organizations that are exempt from tax but don’t have the benefit of issuing charitable receipts for donations. They are not charities. When you talk about the Proud Boys, they would probably fit within the category of being a non-profit organization. They would not be subject to audits by RAD. RAD only has the ability to audit registered charities.
Muslim charities, like all charities in Canada, need the ability to raise funds and be able to issue donation receipts. The focus of RAD is actually narrower than what the FATF has called for, and that was one of the reasons why Canada’s rating with the FATF in 2021 was demoted, because they were not taking a broad enough look. I think your example of the Proud Boys is a very good one. If we are really concerned about threats to Canada, it should have the full spectrum of listed organizations and not just Muslim charities.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for that. That’s very interesting, and I thought that’s what you would answer.
You said that Canada must do a better job in dealing with how Muslim charities are dealt with, and you reiterated that in your answer to me. What’s the first step? What are some of the rules that we should immediately look at? Are they rules, or is it just a built-in bias? Sometimes you can change the rules but it’s not really going to change what happens. Is it changing the rules or looking at the bias, or is it a combination?
Mr. Carter: Yes, I think it’s the government structure issue. This is much bigger than just Canada Revenue Agency, and in some ways just focusing on them as being the problem misses the point. This is a whole-of-government problem. That’s why I said in my recommendations that what we need to do is, first of all, look at the 2015 national inherent risk assessment. It’s out of date; it’s eight years old. Things have changed since then. The selection of 82% Muslim charities is not reflective of the real threats that Canada is facing. That’s number one.
Number two is that the involvement of RAD within Canada Revenue Agency as an extension of the whole-of-government security approach is providing RAD with tools that are conflating the Income Tax Act and national security. This is providing RAD with the ability to go after Muslim charities that they think or have a suspicion might be involved in terrorist activities, but they don’t have to prove that the charity was involved in terrorist activities. They don’t deal with criminal matters. They don’t have to worry about proving something beyond a reasonable doubt. They don’t even have to prove on a civil standard basis of a balance of probabilities. They don’t have to prove anything, because a charity has tremendous benefits, and under the Income Tax Act, it’s the obligation of the charity to prove to the Minister of National Revenue that there is no basis on which to revoke their charitable status. That’s very powerful. So when that is used by an extension of the security apparatus in Canada as being part of the charities directorate, it becomes an extremely powerful tool to which Muslim charities cannot adequately respond. They can’t.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses. Mr. Carter, as a lawyer and adviser to clients who have had to deal with this legislation, you tell us that the current procedures must be changed. If you had a recommendation to make to us, where should we start if we want to change the rules and the criteria for classifying these organizations, which naturally make them fall into the category of at-risk organizations?
[English]
Mr. Carter: Thank you, senator. Let me try to respond by giving you a bit more detail about my recommendations.
First of all, with regard to the review of the national inherent risk management assessment from 2015, one of the things that could be done is to expand the notion of what a non-profit organization is so that it isn’t just limited to registered charities, so if there are, in fact, organizations that are a problem or a threat to Canada, they can be taken into account in relation to the risk assessment.
Second, I’m not sure that there needs to be such a large apparatus within the charities directorate. The last time I checked — or at least when I read some witness statements — there were over 40 employees in RAD, and they have tremendous resources available to them. Again, it’s focused on one particular segment of Canadian society.
The reality is that we don’t have charities in Canada that are being charged with terrorist activities. In fact, I have got a document here put out by Revenue Canada that is called “Checklist for charities on avoiding terrorist abuse.” It is current as of 2021, and it says:
Fortunately, the experience in Canada and elsewhere suggests that terrorist abuse within the charitable sector is rare, but it does happen and there are vulnerabilities.
Well, if it’s so rare, what are we doing having such significant focus on it? When it comes to choosing which groups we’re going to focus on, in 2015 the Department of Finance focused on 9 out of 11 groups. If you take a look at the current list of entities — there are 77 of them — only 72% are Islamic-based, and 7 of them are now neo-Nazis, White supremacist groups, which are not mentioned at all.
There’s another list in Canada, the list under the Regulations Implementing the United Nations Resolutions on the Suppression of Terrorism. There are 36 of them listed there — and it’s determined by the United Nations — and 6 of them are Irish.
I say that with some humour, I suppose, because I’m Irish. That’s my background. I happen to have dual citizenship because my grandmother was Irish, and I’m proud of it. But if we’re going to start to be fair in what we’re doing, then we should be looking at groups other than just Muslims. The work that needs to be done is a strong statement to Finance that they can do better with regards to their outdated 2015 national inherent risk assessment.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Mr. Carter.
According to a 2021 report by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Muslim charities in Canada represented less than half of 1% of charities in 2015, but from 2008 to 2015, 75% of all charities revoked by the RAD were charities that were Muslim. The unfairness of that statistic stands out.
You said that charitable abuse is, in fact, relatively rare. You also indicated that, as far as you’re aware, no criminal charges were laid for any organization being involved in terrorism and connected to a Muslim charity.
You’ve talked about the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a very high standard, and the civil standard of balance of probabilities. You’ve indicated the audits that RAD is doing almost have a reverse onus where it’s assumed or presumed that you’re guilty unless you are able to prove something otherwise.
Should we be doing something about that reverse onus in this model that is currently being used? I understand your recommendation to start by a review of the 2015 national inherent risk assessment, which might be the foundation for some of this apparent unfairness.
Mr. Carter: Thank you, senator. Regarding the reverse onus that I referred to, first, that’s my comment on it. I see it as a reverse onus, but it’s based on the Income Tax Act, specifically paragraph 230(2)(a). In essence, it says that every registered charity has an obligation to maintain books and records in Canada containing:
. . . information in such form as will enable the Minister to determine whether there are any grounds for the revocation of its registration under this Act.
As a result, whether it be a Muslim charity or a non-Muslim charity, when the Canada Revenue Agency comes in to do an audit, they’ll point out the areas of non-compliance that they see, and they’ll send what is called an administrative fairness letter and provide the charity with the opportunity to respond. In that response, it’s then up to the charity to prove that it is compliant with the obligation under the Income Tax Act.
What are those obligations? You’ve got to maintain very detailed books and records. That’s a starting point. You’ve got to make sure that you’re filing your T3010 correctly. You have to be able to exercise direction and control over your operations. There are a number of obligations that take place.
Often, charities will be given a second chance and will be able to enter into a compliance agreement with the Canada Revenue Agency. I have had many successful resolutions to matters, but I don’t find that as much with Muslim charities. I can’t do a comparison. I tried to look at our records, but it wasn’t possible to do that. However, out of the ten audits of Muslim charities, one of them is ongoing — so now we’re looking at nine — and five of the nine are revocations. We got compliance agreements on three of them, so we’re happy about that; and one had a financial penalty, which we were successful in reversing on an internal appeal.
Five out of nine? When I look at the statements that come from the Canada Revenue Agency concerning the approach that they take, I go back to the evidence that was provided back in 2015 and 2016 by the former director general of the Canada Revenue Agency — and I can quote it if you would like me to do so. Basically, when RAD finds an organization that they’re concerned about because they may have some proximity to some type of activity that they consider may be supporting terrorist financing, then they can use the requirements under the Income Tax Act that really pushes charities to be as compliant as they possibly can. They can use those non-compliant matters as a basis to deregister the charity and get rid of the problem without ever having to prove that support of terrorism financing that is taking place. That’s not right.
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, but I have senators who want to ask you questions on the second round.
Mr. Carter: No problem. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Mr. Carter, outside your recommendation that Finance should do a better job in its national inherent risk assessment work, it seems to me that RAD, in and of itself in the CRA, is something we need to understand better because it has been mentioned time and time again. At the National Summit on Islamophobia, the top ask was to deal with Islamophobia in the CRA. The witnesses knew. We all heard about how RAD operates.
It seems like RAD is like an elite group of 40 individuals with little oversight and accountability — at least in the way I look at it. Do you think a solution could be to have independent civilian oversight of RAD so that charities are not issued onerous compliance letters, or revoked and/or that the tax ombudsman who currently reports to the minister of the CRA be truly an independent ombudsman? I’m giving you two proposals, kind of mixed up, all to do with independent civilian oversight.
Mr. Carter: Thank you, senator. I think those are good suggestions. I’m just going to focus on a couple of things that you mentioned.
There’s no question that RAD is a very elite group. When they go in to do an audit — and, this is the testimony that Mr. Alistair Bland gave back in 2016 — they have a number of different individuals that go in to do specialized work, whether it be with regards to security, intelligence or in relation to IT. It’s a very elite group that goes in to do those audits.
The overview should be done by the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency. That was the agency that was formed in 2019 because there was not one body that had oversight over the whole intelligence apparatus in Canada, and there was a real concern about that. There had been a request to have that type of oversight for many years. That would be the body that should be doing the review. They have oversight over Canada Revenue Agency as part of the security apparatus that is in place, and that’s why one of my recommendations is to have them go in to do an investigation of RAD to see how RAD is selecting and processing Muslim charities and then determine whether we need RAD. Can we maybe deal with the compliance issues of Muslim charities like any other group within the charitable sector, through their regular compliance division?
So work needs to be done by the National Security Intelligence Review Agency. I think that’s the body that the Senate should recommend becoming involved.
Senator Omidvar: What do you think about the Taxpayers’ Ombudsman, who is currently appointed by the Minister of the CRA but who is not independent as he’s within the system?
Mr. Carter: He made the recommendation that there should be the involvement of the National Security Intelligence Review Agency. He recommended that in the testimony he gave to your committee. He recognized that he didn’t have the authority to have the oversight. No one has authority on security matters other than the National Security Intelligence Review Agency. Thank goodness we have it in place. That’s whom we should be calling upon.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. They are coming as a witness, soon, so that’s a good heads-up.
Senator Arnot: Mr. Carter, you were involved with 5 revocations out of 10 situations. You seem to be offended by some of the unfairness. It’s almost as if those that are charged, in effect, can’t really defend themselves.
You were giving a detailed explanation of that. Could you amplify that or carry on with the explanation you were giving earlier to my first question?
Mr. Carter: Thank you, senator. I don’t think it’s so much that I’m offended; I’m concerned as a Canadian.
Our country is based upon the concept of the rule of law, and when we have procedures that can have a significant impact, particularly upon a vulnerable segment of our society — and that’s the Muslim community — that is all based upon discretion —
We know a problem when we see it. We know a terrorist when we see one. We know there’s a problem, and then we can bring to bear some tools that can be used with Muslim charities differently than with other charities. That’s a problem.
There are many people I know in CRA. They all try, and I recognize that. But they’re driven by this national inherent risk assessment. They’re probably trying to do their job; they probably think that they’re protecting Canada. But we’ve got the FATF saying that there are countries — they don’t name Canada — but there are countries that are going too far.
Last week, I was speaking at the American Bar Association about updates in Canada. I mentioned I was going to appear today as a witness. The lawyers whom I’ve talked to were absolutely incredulous. “What are you doing talking about the threats from Muslim charities? That’s 15 years ago.” The topics they were talking about were, for example, whether you can make mitigation of climate change into a charitable purpose. That’s a topic they’re looking at.
That’s the existential risk to all of us. It’s not Muslim charities. That’s way behind. They’re just very surprised that this continues to be a topic of discussion.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Carter, I will ask the final question. Our committee has heard about different types of structural biases that are or might be present in CRA, including the bias that it casts Muslims as outsiders and foreigners.
To what extent do you feel the structural bias against Muslims is present in the CRA, and what can the federal government do about it?
Mr. Carter: It’s there. The witnesses you’ve had before your committee have said as much. Specifically, when the Director General of the Charities Directorate appeared, she said on November 28:
. . . When we are looking at risk, it all goes back to the national inherent risk assessment, which is the responsibility of the Department of Finance.
If you look at the list of threat actors, whether we like it or not, the threats may or seem to appear in particular racialized communities.
So they’ve recognized there’s an issue. They’re saying they’re driven because they’re trying to live up to the national inherent risk assessment, to which I would respond that we then have to do something completely different. Finance needs to step up to the plate to say, “This is not 2001. This is not even 2015. This is 2023. We need to do things better and differently.” They need to take the lead in changing the security mentality within the Canadian government so we’re not focused just on Muslim charities. It’s not right, and it’s not fair.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Carter, I’m sorry I arrived late. But from what I’ve heard, I want to ask you to expand upon what you were saying when you were speaking to people in the States and they thought that this was really backward or whatever your words were. Can you expand upon exactly what kinds of things they were saying? What should Canada be doing?
Mr. Carter: The focus of discussion was how tax-exempt organizations down in the States can become involved in investing in the mitigation of climate change in order to improve our whole world. That was the focus.
When I gave the update about Canada and talked to a number of lawyers on a personal basis, they just shook their heads. They didn’t understand it.
The U.S. Department of the Treasury came out with a risk matrix back in 2002 and 2007. They haven’t really focused on it since then, for almost 15 years. In Canada, risk is now a very major focus for the Canada Revenue Agency. I’ll give you an example. They’ve come up with new draft guidance dealing with qualifying disbursements. Instead of trying to make it easier for charities to be able to work with non-registered charities, this guidance has a focus on risk. Risk is the major concern, and they’ve actually come out with a risk matrix that’s similar to the U.S. Treasury.
I give that as an example, senator, that the Canada Revenue Agency seems to be stuck in an approach that the rest of the world has moved on from, and the CRA is still there. They’re back 15 years. We have bigger threats and problems in Canada than to focus on a minority group within our country.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Carter, I’m going to read the whole transcript of what you said, but we focus on the officials and on the Canada Revenue Agency, but there is a minister. Doesn’t a lot of the fault lie with the government and the minister for the leadership they are showing? Shouldn’t some of that blame be on the minister and the government? The government is talking about inclusivity and diversity, and then in the Muslim community, there is such anger. They can’t understand why the charities are pointed at separately. What do you think? Shouldn’t the minister and the Prime Minister be playing a better role?
Mr. Carter: The government could, can and should be stepping up to the plate to do something. We saw this in 2015. When the current government was elected, there was concern about the Canada Revenue Agency having a focus on auditing environmental charities. I don’t know whether you recall that. At that time, the government then imposed a suspension of any further audits of environmental charities because it was considered to be problematic. So if this government — particularly in dealing with Finance, which seems to be in charge of the risk assessment — wants to do something, they can do something, and they need to do something because I don’t think they’re in sync with the rest of the world. I think FATF is moving on and they’re not, and they’re still focused on something that goes back many years.
To answer your question, the government can and should step up to the plate.
Senator Jaffer: I’ve run out of time. Because we’re trying to prepare a report, may I impose on you to tell us what recommendations you think the government should be looking at? I’m going to have to ask you to send them in writing if you can, please.
Mr. Carter: They’re in the transcript, senator. I’ve already given those.
Senator Omidvar: I have a very brief question, since you’ve raised the United States, one of the most security risk-conscious countries in the world. They don’t do this. They don’t do what we do with a sort of elite department that goes around almost playing hide-and-seek, so to speak, from what I’ve heard. They investigate through their investigative arms as opposed to through a division within their charities directorate, whatever they may do. We’re quite unique in that way. Is that right?
Mr. Carter: We’re quite unique. Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Carter. I would like to thank you sincerely for appearing before us today. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
I shall now introduce our second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators. Senators, I just want to remind you that this shall be a one-hour panel.
We have the pleasure to welcome in person at the table, Iqra Khalid, Member of Parliament for Mississauga-Erin Mills, Sameer Zuberi, Member of Parliament for Pierrefonds-Dollard and Naheed Nenshi, former mayor of Calgary. Welcome to all of you.
I invite MP Khalid to make a presentation.
Iqra Khalid, Member of Parliament for Mississauga—Erin Mills: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the senators for having me here today. I’ll start first and foremost by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional and unceded territories of the Anishinaabe Algonquin, who have travelled and inhabited these lands for millennia. We acknowledge the enduring presence of all First Nations, Métis and Inuit people on these lands. I would also like to recognize the presence of my colleague MP Sameer Zuberi, and I look forward to hearing your important perspectives on today’s study.
Canada has and continues to see an alarming increase in racism and hate crimes that target all communities, but especially the Muslim community, in our country. According to Statistics Canada, police-reported hate crimes targeting Muslims were up by 71% in 2021.
Now we can all refer to history and understand that there have been so many deaths in Canada. There have been so many instances of hatred directed towards the Muslim community through active Islamophobia, the Jewish community through acts of anti-Semitism, the Asian community through anti-Asian racism, the Black community through anti-Black racism and so much more.
Today, I’m hoping that I can give you a bit of insight into my world. In December of 2016, I tabled motion number 103 in the House of Commons that tried to combat systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia, in our country. It was based on an e-petition, e-411, that had been circulated across the country and had garnered about 70,000 signatures, asking our government to combat Islamophobia. Its premise was that Muslims are not terrorists. That really struck me in my heart.
In addition, I had done a lot of research. The Globe and Mail had done research that talked about the racism that exists in Canada, how it impacts people and the alarming numbers of people that were impacted from all corners of life — newcomers, people that looked different, people that loved different. All of it really impacted who we are as Canadians and our equality of opportunity.
In December 2016, when I tabled motion 103, I talked about my own experiences as a young Muslim woman, being a newcomer in Canada, having to go through high school with a hijab and having to deal with what my life circumstances were. But in January of 2017, I was shocked and dismayed when six Muslims were gunned down in a masjid in Quebec. I had thought at that time that with my motion, this would be a kumbaya moment for the country to say, “This is hatred. This is something that we should be combatting.” But the reality was far from that. The reality was that I became a target for Islamophobia — the exact thing that I was trying to combat. For months and months I received tens and thousands of emails filled with hatred and death threats. My community, my sisters who wore the hijab, young people, felt targeted and victimized.
Motion 103, which called for a study into the issue of systemic racism and religious discrimination in our country, including Islamophobia, called for a study in the Heritage Committee to look into how we could develop a whole-of-government approach to combat this disease within us, how we could work together to ensure that each and every one of us felt included and protected but, most importantly, had the equality of opportunity to succeed within our country.
The motion did pass with a majority vote in the House of Commons in March of 2017, I believe. It’s been six years now. Since then, our government has taken a serious approach as to how we combat Islamophobia and all types of systemic racism and religious discrimination. I am happy to talk about it in our question and answer session, but I just want to highlight the importance of that equality of opportunity.
Whether it is through our anti-racism strategy, through the Islamophobia summit, through appointing a special representative for Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, through providing $23 million to ensure that vulnerable communities are able to build capacity, ultimately the objective of our government and the objective of this study should be about how we can provide equality of opportunity for each and every Canadian, regardless of whom they worship, what they look like, what colour their skin is or who they love. I think that is the ultimate goal of any government: to ensure that we are all treated as equal.
We all know that there is an economic benefit when we include minorities, when we include women and when we include each and every person who has merit in our economy. We actually do better. We increase our GDP. Most importantly, we raise strong kids for our future. We raise a strong group that is going to lead our country in the future.
With that, Madam Chair, I’ll say thank you for having me here today and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, MP Khalid. I will now turn to MP Zuberi for his statement.
[Translation]
Sameer Zuberi, Member of Parliament for Pierrefonds—Dollard: Thank you all for being here for this important study and for giving us the opportunity to speak with you today.
[English]
This study around Islamophobia is extremely important. It’s a lived reality for many Canadians. It’s something that we, as a society, are seeking to tackle, but we must continue to address. It’s something, as my colleague Iqra Khalid mentioned, that leads to under-representation, underemployment and the lack of full attainment of human potential. It’s something that we, as I said, must address.
[Translation]
I would like to share with you a bit of my background and history. I was born in Montreal.
[English]
My dad immigrated here in the seventies from Pakistan. My mom is from Brockville, Ontario. Her families have been here for several generations. She is mixed Italian-Scottish heritage. I’m the eldest of six children. I was born in 1979, and I came of age after 2001, when I was in my undergrad in university. Up until that point, I was just a normal math student. I wasn’t involved in our work around humanities and social sciences. I was focused on theories, numbers and abstract concepts.
Two things propelled me to do what I do today, 20 years on. One was a series of events that led to me being involved within student life. The second was the context in which we found ourselves after 2001, when discrimination became pronounced and acute towards anybody who is perceived to be Muslim and people who are Muslim. Both those who are perceived to be and were Muslim were on the receiving end of a crystallized form of opinion that led to a lot of misunderstanding and false impressions. I’ll share one example.
I was in CEGEP. In Quebec, we have two years of CEGEP after Grade 11, which leads us to university for three years. I had a close friend in CEGEP — I say “close” because we had several intimate conversations. For me, that is close. When you open up and have an intimate conversation, you are close. We didn’t see each other for about a year or two. A few months after 2001, he greeted me with — and I have small facial hair; I might have had none at the time — “Osama bin Sameer.” That was the first thing that came to his mind. This was somebody that I had shared intimate conversation with. Yes, it might have been a bit of a maladroit remark, but it was on his mind, and it just came out. In some ways, I am happy that it did, because we in Canada are polite, but we also think things. What he said was just something that he thought. He didn’t think I was a nefarious individual, but that thought did cross his mind.
Fast forward to today. I have been involved in community work for the last 20 years in Montreal, touching Ontario, Ottawa, Toronto and other parts of the country. A lot of my work has focused on anti-discrimination in the post-2001 context, addressing issues like the Maher Arar inquiry and the Iacobucci inquiry, where Canadians were rendered to torture because of false notes by our security agencies on them. I worked on those files. I also worked on the files of women who were being discriminated against because of what they wore or people who wanted to practise their faith quietly, but practise their faith still.
I want to highlight, while I have the microphone, a few important accomplishments of our government since 2015. I want to remind those who are watching the context immediately before 2015 that at the time we were having a national conversation around barbaric cultural practices and snitch lines to call on our neighbours because they are a little bit, in our minds, questionable. Fast forward to today. Our government has listed neo-Nazi organizations. We have allocated $85 million over four years to an anti-racism strategy. We have committed almost $90 million over five years to address the targeting of terrorist financing within the CRA. We have committed to creating an oversight body for the Canada Border Services Agency. We have also recently named a special representative to combat Islamophobia, allocating $5.6 million over six years. We have created an archival database of who Muslims are from confederation to today, 4 million over four years. Importantly, we have also said that we will intervene in Bill 21 when it goes to the Supreme Court, and we have also stood firm on Charter rights, saying that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is deeply troubling.
I would like to share one last thing. My heart was warmed in a way by the solidarity after the Quebec City attack, and I was asked to be a spokesperson in the immediate aftermath of that in Montreal. I remember the day after that tragic event occurred, when six men lost their lives, it was bitterly cold in Montreal — almost -30 degrees — and we gathered, as Montrealers, in a public square. As we were standing on the stage, I looked out into the crowd, and I saw the vast majority of people who were there, present in that bitter cold to stand in solidarity with the community, were not part of that community. They were from the majority of society, saying that we, as Quebecers, reject what happened. That was a beautiful moment, and I ask that we think about that, think about those moments, and try to harness that important enthusiasm for goodwill and understanding. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Naheed Nenshi, Former Mayor of Calgary, as an indivual: Good morning, everyone. I am very happy to be here today to discuss this very important subject. I am going to do most of my speech in English today, because we have learned — especially in the last few weeks — how important it is to be very precise in our language when discussing such important things.
[English]
I’m joining you today from my fully equipped home studio — which is also my dining room because people still aren’t coming over for dinner — here on very ancient land in the shadows of the Rocky Mountains. This place that the Blackfoot have called Moh-kíns-tsis has drawn people since time immemorial. They are drawn here by those waters, the two rivers that come together. Moh-kíns-tsis means “the elbow,” the place where the rivers come together. The original inhabitants of this land were Niitsítapi, just meaning “the people.” We call them the people of the Blackfoot confederacy now, the Siksika, the Piikani and the Kainai First Nations. They are joined here by the mountain people, the Îyârhe Nakodabi people, the Chiniki, Wesley and Bearspaw First Nations. By the beaver people, whom we call the Tsuut’ina people, whose land is adjacent to the city of Calgary. Métis people came here very quickly.
For the last 150 years or so, this place where those rivers come together has been a place of welcoming, of refuge, safety, prosperity, opportunity and freedom for people from every corner of this broken earth. Here in Alberta, we have a very long Muslim history. Some say that the first Muslims to arrive in Canada actually came here, where they formed trading relationships with Indigenous peoples. We know that the first mosque in Canada, the Al Rashid mosque, was built in Edmonton in 1938 by Ukrainian tradespeople, largely, to serve the Muslim population of this area. The first elected cabinet minister of Muslim descent in Canada, Larry Shaben, was an Albertan. We currently have the first Muslim Lieutenant Governor anywhere in the Commonwealth, I believe, here.
And then there’s me. When I was elected, on October 18, 2010, the very next day, I suddenly found myself extremely famous. I was on CNN; I was in Time magazine; I was interviewed by Al Jazeera. I wasn’t being interviewed because of my exceptionally brilliant campaign, my thoughts on urbanism or public transit or because of my incredible good looks. Interestingly, I wasn’t even being interviewed because of the colour of my skin — I was the first non-White mayor of any major city in Canada. All people cared about was my faith. The first Muslim mayor in the Western world. I was a bit surprised that people were so interested in this all over the world. In fact, national media like The Globe and Mail took years to call me just the mayor of Calgary and not the “Muslim” mayor of Calgary.
At this point, I had a choice to make. Did I want to talk about my Muslim faith? After all, I’m not an imam or Muslim scholar, and I didn’t want to be defined as that Muslim guy. I even hesitated coming here today to talk about Islamophobia. But at that time in 2010, I also felt that things were changing, and not necessarily for the better. We had situations where people around the world were talking about increasing anti-Muslim sentiment, and I thought, you know what? Here’s an opportunity for us to tell the world about a place where pluralism works, where multiculturalism works and where diversity works. Canada — Alberta — Calgary. If I have the ability to play a tiny part, if I had been given that chance, then perhaps I should do that. One of the lines that I always used was that, growing up in Calgary, I never for a moment thought that there was any job in the community, except maybe priest or rabbi, that was unavailable to me because of my faith.
Things got worse. In 2015, things changed in a very significant way. Do I believe that the government of that day in its barbaric cultural practices act and the niqab ban was particularly Islamophobic or that those people were Islamophobic? No. Do I believe they saw political benefit in a cost-benefit analysis by targeting Muslims? Yes, I do.
I saw the response to MP Khalid’s motion 103, which frankly — and apologize for saying this — just said, “We don’t like bad stuff.” Yet all of the response that happened — all the vitriol and the hatred came out, and frankly, the difficulty that our political and media class had in responding to that strongly bothered me deeply.
For the last many years, people across the country and I have spoken out against that law in Quebec — the only law in the entire Western hemisphere that actually says that there are certain jobs you cannot have, no matter how smart you are, based entirely upon your faith. I have been shocked at the silence of our political class in terms of dealing with all of this.
I have been extraordinarily vexed in the last few weeks by the response of our political class and our media class, by the shock and the pearl-clutching that we have seen, that someone we hired to fight Islamophobia might actually have something to say about Islamophobia. The fact that the special representative has been browbeaten, harangued, lectured to, forced to take meetings with people who are not interested in listening to her but are interested in using her to score political points, to me, really highlights a very serious problem in our country. We can say the right things. We can set aside cash to do things. Here in Alberta, we can give mosques extra money in order to have security and close-circuit cameras outside of their mosques to fight vandalism.
But where do we find the political courage to truly say, as Ms. Khalid was just saying — and I think she was quoting me — that the single most important thing about our community — the promise of our community — is very easy one: Regardless of where you come from, how you worship or whom you love, you belong here and you deserve a life of dignity here? It does not take courage to do that. It is not an act of great political bravery to simply stand up for the dignity of people.
We have to be able to get that through our establishment. I really thank you all for doing the hard work of understanding where we are as a community. I hope your report will pull no punches, because, again, it’s not courage; it’s just the right thing to do.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. We will now proceed to questions from senators.
As is our practice, I would like to remind each senator that you have five minutes, which includes the questions and the answers.
Senator Manning: Thank you to the witnesses for a very interesting conversation.
I’ll put my first question to Ms. Khalid. Over the course of the study, several witnesses have told our committee about the significance of M-103, and the resulting report from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, which included recommendations related to the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat and the use of Gender-based Analysis Plus as a positive tool in the federal public service.
Other witnesses have discussed how the backlash to M-103 demonstrated a concerning level of anti-Muslim hate in Canada.
Why do you think there was so much backlash to M-103, and how can that response be avoided in future to combat anti-Muslim hate? Are there outstanding recommendations from the Heritage Committee report that you believe are important to address?
Ms. Khalid: Thank you so much for those questions.
I really spent a lot of time thinking about why there was so much backlash to M-103, especially when we were just looking to provide comfort, support and equality of opportunity to those who are struggling to make it.
Ultimately, there were a lot of different factors that contributed to that hate. We saw that there was a Conservative leadership race that was happening, and a lot of the rhetoric that was being spewed and being spread around, and a lot of misinformation and disinformation about what M-103 was about, and what Islam and Muslims were really about, was being used to raise money. This is all on record.
That was very unfortunate.
Also, there is a significant lack of understanding. I don’t want to use the word “ignorance,” but I will say that we just don’t know who our neighbours are anymore. That also really led to what happened with the rhetoric and the vitriol that I received as a result of M-103.
We can do better. What I really appreciate about that whole experience was that we went through a national conversation about what our rights are, where one person’s rights begin and another’s rights end, and how rights complement each other. Where does a person’s right to practise their religion interfere with another person’s right to safety and security of the person? And so on.
The report that came out of M-103 was an important one, and the work that has been done over the past number of years with respect to combatting not just Islamophobia but anti-Semitism and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination has been important.
Can we do more? Absolutely we can.
Senator Manning: Thank you.
As a follow up to that, I have had the privilege to be elected to office both provincially and federally, and the fact that you are here sitting with us this evening as members of Parliament means that you have support in your ridings to be here. I’m not going to question that part, but in your day-to-day activities as a member of Parliament here in Ottawa, how does the fact — they have concern for your safety and your work. How do you operate knowing full well that there is an element out there that may have — I hate to use the word “hate,” but it is what we witness in this country, sadly. How do you operate on a day-to-day basis, not necessarily in your riding but here in Ottawa?
Ms. Khalid: I’m really happy that the Parliamentary Protective Service, or PPS, have provided MPs with additional security, should they need it. I really appreciate that.
I sit on the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians as one of my roles as a parliamentarian. I am also on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics as a parliamentarian as well.
My main concern then and now has always been how I represent my community and how I can better support my community. I have not really spent a lot of time thinking about my own personal safety and security. The reason for that is because I trust Canadians. I know I am safe in my community. I just want to be able to do right by my constituency and for Canadians in general. I know the PPS is and has been there to help support us whenever there are challenges.
The Chair: I have to put you on second round, senator. We have a long list of senators.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to all three of you. It’s really an honour to have you all here.
I’m going to start with Mr. Nenshi first. Ya Ali Madad. I know you are the kind of person that will look at the recommendations. As you know, we are preparing the report. I’m putting you on the spot, but what three recommendations do you think this committee should make to the Senate?
Mr. Nenshi: I was hesitating in giving specific recommendations because I didn’t want to presume I understood the work of the committee, but since you asked, I will go forward.
Number one, we need a strong statement from this committee that across this country, the importance of the dignity of Muslim people matters and that Muslim people cannot be used as political footballs. That’s a hard thing to say; we have seen from what has happened over the last few weeks, it has been difficult to say that. Specifically, I would love to see from this committee a straight-up condemnation of religiously bigoted laws across this country, including Bill 21 in Quebec.
Part of what the committee also needs to do is to really highlight the importance of acceptance of people from different religious backgrounds throughout the community. That goes far beyond what some might call Islamophobia. It would be dangerous if Islamophobia was defined as hate crimes, because there is much more to it than that, but there is a clear line between those things. If this committee were willing to make, for example, recommendations on the accreditation of foreign professionals and the importance of that in allowing people to really live meaningful lives within the community, that would be very important.
This committee can also make a strong statement around anti-racism and anti-religious bigotry in general. That really must be the basis for the work we do. When Ms. Khalid was just answering the question about why there was such a backlash on M-103, the one thing we have to remember is that some, but not all, of the Islamophobia we see is manufactured; it is by design. Political calculations have been done that show that targeting Muslims has a greater benefit than cost from a political perspective and a fundraising perspective, if I can be that crass.
This stuff didn’t just happen; people across the country didn’t just wake up and say, “I’m going to send death threats to Iqra Khalid.” This stuff is organized. It’s important that we stand up against that kind of design and organization as well.
Those are vague recommendations, and I know that, senator. But those are the kinds of statements that Canadians would feel very well served by coming from this committee.
Senator Jaffer: To both of you, salaam alaikum. I had a soft question for you, but now I’m going to ask you a hard question; forgive me.
You, MP Khalid, and you also, MP Zuberi, faced a lot of challenges when you introduced the Islamophobia motion. I remember the terrible way you were treated. I’ll never forget it. Now we have Amira Elghawaby. She’s being treated very badly.
I remember at the end, when you were being treated that way, the government did come and give you support. She’s just left there. What worries me is she’s being discredited even before she starts her work. Who wants to do the kind of work she will have to do with the way she’s being discredited?
Of course, everybody has an opinion. You wouldn’t want someone who has no opinion. I’m wondering if the two of you can say if the government is doing something concrete to give her support so that she’s not completely in a place where she’s alone.
I know it wasn’t fun for you, Ms. Khalid.
The Chair: Before you answer, there is a feeling in the community as a whole that she was left on her own when she needed support and when she was being attacked. That is making the community wonder how much support she is going to get from the government when she goes about fulfilling her duties as the special representative for Islamophobia.
Mr. Zuberi: We just need to look at the comments of the Prime Minister. He has been very clear in standing firmly by her, saying that she has his support and his confidence. That was a clear statement made in the face of many calls, in Ottawa and elsewhere, for her to step down. I think that is leadership and a firm backing.
Now comes the important work that she has to do. Her job is to be an adviser to the federal government and to departments. This notion of being a bridge builder — She’s not the intergovernmental affairs minister; she’s not there to build relationships with communities across the country, but because of the conversation around her, it’s now an implicit responsibility, I would say. But, expressly, her job is to be an adviser to federal departments.
I think that this response provides an opportunity, a window, for her to do the important and necessary work to have conversations. As Ms. Khalid mentioned, it’s through interactions that discrimination melts, and studies show this. Studies show that, initially, when you have newly landed communities that bump into society at large, there is the dust of discrimination that is kicked up, but that does settle in time and as people get to know each other.
That is what must happen with her mandate. She will need to engage with communities across this country, have conversations and allow people to get to know her and what her job actually is.
Ms. Khalid: If I can add briefly to that. Amira is a badass. She is a sister, and we always support her and the work that she is doing, but I would also add that it is not solely her responsibility. It is also the community’s responsibility to support her as she does this important work. It is also the community’s and Canadians’ responsibility to come together and say, “Hey, look. These are the issues, Amira. This is how we can work together to get through. These are the recommendations that we have. This is how we can build bridges.” Acting as a facilitator and as an advocate for the role is how she’s going to succeed.
We can’t just say, “We’ve appointed somebody and now it’s up to her to succeed.” That would be a very intersectional way of saying that we’ve just led her onto the glass cliff and are waiting to push her off. We need to support her and continue to ensure that she is successful as she embarks on this very important mission.
The Chair: MP Khalid, you have three sisters here in the form of Senator Gerba, Senator Jaffer and myself, who are very supportive of Amira. She was one of our first witnesses, and we are hoping to hear from her again at the end of March.
Senator Arnot: Witnesses, thank you for coming today. This is an unusual panel. We have two elected members of Parliament and a former mayor of Calgary. You’re well-known policy-makers, and you have great influence in the community.
I’ve asked this question of many of the panellists that have come before this committee when I’ve been present, and I make this comment to you: The Aga Khan came to Canada in 2010, and he spoke in Toronto. I happened to be at one of the meetings, and he said that Canada is the most successful experiment in pluralism the world has ever seen. I believe he’s absolutely right. But there’s a fragility attached to that observation, and that is directly related to the knowledge, understanding and commitment all Canadians have to our multicultural, multi-theistic and multi-ethnic country.
Sadly, I believe we have failed to educate students in schools, particularly K to 12, on the rights of Canadian citizenship but also the responsibilities that come with those rights and the fundamental responsibility to respect your fellow citizens, respect every human being. Why? Because every human being deserves equal moral consideration.
Democracy and our human rights are not self-winding. We need to explicitly, intentionally, purposefully and sequentially teach these things to Canadian students. We’ve failed to do that in an effective way.
When I look at anti-Muslim hate, Islamophobia, we know that the components there are ignorance, fear and malice. We need an antidote to that poison, and I believe it belongs with the power of education and educating students in a way that gives them the tools they need to create the kind of society in which they wish to live.
I would like to hear the comments of the witnesses concerning that idea, an emphasis on education to truly make Canadians understand the power of our citizenship.
Mr. Zuberi: There was a positive example set by a previous Quebec government when it introduced a world religions class, which led to a lot of mixing and mingling. What was happening was that students were going into different places of worship — Sikh houses of worship, Hindu temples, et cetera — and being exposed to places they’ve never been exposed to.
That was a very positive initiative. It was something that opened up a lot of people’s eyes. It’s not currently there, but it was there in the recent past.
I would also ask that this committee, if it hasn’t already, take note of the Bouchard-Taylor report from Quebec. It was a very exhaustive report. I would incorporate that into your work.
I’d like to pick up on what Ms. Khalid mentioned earlier around misunderstanding. The Bouchard-Taylor report said that the majority of stories around the reasonable accommodation debate were misreported. Essentially, only half of the story was actually being reported to the public.
Earlier, I was asked what can be done to address discrimination. I would say that one of the key things is for leaders to actually take a moment and ask themselves if are they fully understanding the issue at hand.
Ms. Khalid: Thank you, Sameer.
I would add that something I’ve been advocating for for the past couple of years is a national round table. Although, as a federal government, we really don’t have jurisdiction in education curricula across our country, I would really like to see a national round table bringing in experts not only on diversity and inclusion, but on food and nutrition, financial literacy, online hate and digital citizenship, et cetera, who come together and put together a baseline curriculum that we would like to see across our country, with the caveat that provinces can add on to it. I think that having that baseline curriculum would create better citizenry within our young people from K to 12, as you had mentioned, senator. It would also ensure that as kids grow up, they have more understanding.
I think at the crux of this is we have a fear of the unknown. We have a fear of things that we don’t know and of people that we don’t know. When we get rid of that fear, we automatically build more inclusive societies. I think including that in our curricula, especially when it comes to religious education or just cultural education about the people that live with us and around us, we would be building stronger communities by educating our young people better through this national round table.
Mr. Nenshi: Senator, that was so well put. Thank you for that. The Aga Khan gave the LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture three days before I was elected, if memory serves, and I’ve been quoting it for many years, and I was able to expand on some of those themes when I had the honour of giving that lecture a few years later. If you’re very bored one night or you’re an insomniac, you can find that LaFontaine-Baldwin Lecture where I talk about this in some detail.
I want to highlight something and maybe just push back on you a teensy bit.
We always quote Dr. King when he says “ . . . the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,” but we never acknowledge that we have to grab the arc and pull it toward justice. It doesn’t just happen. As you said, it’s not self-winding; we have to actually do the work. Part of that is certainly education.
I would be a little bit hesitant focusing entirely on the education of young people, because in my experience with young people, particularly urban young people in Canada, the kids are going to be all right because they actually have to live this diversity every single day. I always do an experiment when I’m talking to students, asking them, what percentage of people in the community are not White? What percentage of people are Muslim? They tend to highly overestimate the number of people because that’s the world they live in.
The challenge that we have is that there are forces actively working to educate folks in the opposite direction. Before I came here today, I said I must be very careful; the Senate is a place of sober second thought where people are very distinguished, and I shouldn’t be as spicy as I normally am. Here we go.
The whole time I was mayor, I was invited to innumerable conferences on the radicalization of young Muslim men. How do we stop the radicalization of young Muslim men? I will submit to this committee that our problem is not the radicalization of Muslim men in this country. It’s important, and we have to focus on it. When do we start talking about the radicalization of White people in this country? When do we start talking about the fact that there’s a generation — not students but the next generation up, people in their 20s, 30s and older — who are feeling dispossessed, wondering about change in their community and are very susceptible to radicalization messages?
We saw that through the entire pandemic, but it didn’t start nor will it end with the pandemic. The fact that, as the previous witness was talking about, we are focused in the CRA on — and we never really talk about this anymore. Some of the justification that was given for anti-Muslim sentiment before was always being worried about terrorism. You actually don’t hear that very much anymore, and the reason is because — and I hate this phrase — domestic terrorism has become a bigger deal. I don’t like domestic terrorism because it makes it sound like it’s a lesser kind of terrorism than Muslim terrorism. But in reality, that kind of radicalization is what we really have to combat.
Your point is an important one. It starts in the K to 12 education system, but we have to continue ensuring that people have access to the knowledge and messages and have the cross-cultural activities and the cross-faith ability to be able to understand one another better. It certainly doesn’t stop the moment you turn 18.
Senator Arnot: Good point.
The Chair: Can we try and be brief with our questions and answers?
Senator Gerba: I will try to be brief.
[Translation]
Thank you to our guests; it is really interesting to hear your personal backgrounds and experiences. Congratulations on the motion; even though it earned you a lot of insults, you dared to do it and it is really appreciated.
I would like to know what you think of the word “Islamophobia.” I am from Quebec; you saw the reaction of Quebec as a whole to this nomination, because using the word “Islamophobia” implies a generalization: If there is Islamophobia, all Quebecers are Islamophobic. Do you think this word is scary? Do you think that this word should be accepted and should continue to be used to describe the situation that Muslims are experiencing in Canada? If not, do you think the term can be changed to make people feel concerned?
I have a second question.
Thank you to Mr. Zuberi for mentioning the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which really analyzed in detail the issue of intercultural relations and all the proposed reasonable accommodations.
Quebec is a society that wants to be secular. I do not really like the term in English, because it does not say exactly what is meant, namely that once someone enters the public space, they must be dressed in such a way that their religious identity is not recognized. Do you think that the concept of Bill 21 needs to be reviewed and explained, so that people understand the position of Quebec on this very sensitive issue?
If we do not solve the problem of the very understanding of this term, given the behaviour and the position of Quebec, even the appointment of our special representative will cause problems in the province of Quebec, and that worries me a lot.
Mr. Zuberi: To answer your first question, I think it is important to keep the term “Islamophobia.” Other similar words are used for other communities, such as “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Black racism”; these concepts are defined by such terms. It is true that from time to time there are other sub-concepts that can be added to the concept and principle.
[English]
At this moment in time for Islamophobia, it is critical that the term is maintained, I would say. It carries a meaning. No term is perfect, but it does carry a meaning. Plus, this term has been in use for over 20 years now. It was first mentioned in a Runnymede report in the U.K. and has continued on.
[Translation]
You asked a second question. There is a big debate going on in Quebec right now on the issue of Bill 21. At first, the majority of Quebecers supported this law, but over time, support has diminished. We saw what happened with the Chelsea lady.
[English]
She was removed from the classroom, and we saw immediately there was a drop in support for the law. The debate is ongoing, and I think it’s unfair to the understanding of Quebec for us to say that this is the position of all Quebecers, because it certainly is not.
[Translation]
This is the position of the current government.
[English]
There is a notwithstanding clause on the law, and that gives a window of opportunity each and every five years for this law to fall, so I’m hopeful that it will in the next 10 to 15 years.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to have all three of you here today. Your testimonies have been excellent. I have to tell you, I was on the plane this morning reading my notes for the meeting, and I didn’t know it was for this committee, but I saw the three of you were appearing before the committee, and I thought, “I would love to go to that committee.” Then, I realized it was the committee I was going to. Thank you all. You’ve made my day with the excellent work you’ve been doing.
Ms. Khalid — and this is directed to everybody — your experience when you introduced Motion 103, I can remember the harassment and vitriol you were subjected to. Many of us can remember what happened at the time; it was way over the top. Senator Arnot spoke earlier about talking to young people. I used to be a teacher, and I think parliamentarians should be the role models for the language that we use, and the way we hold ourselves to account in parliament.
Have things gotten any better a few years later after that horrendous period that you went through personally in introducing what was a really good motion? The good thing was that it certainly got a lot of publicity. Are things getting any better with Parliament? Is the discourse more measured and thoughtful, and are people being respected? Or is it just the same old, same old? Have we learned anything?
Ms. Khalid: I will say that when I attended the vigil for the Afzaal family in London, Ontario, who had been killed because they were Muslim, I saw all the political leaders there, and they used and recognized the word “Islamophobia.” I remember how difficult it had been for me to get them to recognize that Islamophobia existed, given the voting record back when M-103 was being debated. There was a huge call to say that this was non-existent, that this was the wrong word, or this was creeping Sharia, or what have you.
But when we were mourning the deaths of these four innocent people and a young kid was lying in hospital, not knowing that his whole family had been killed because of who they were, I remember the leader of the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and, of course, our Prime Minister saying that this was an Islamophobic incident. I wanted to cry. Because at that time four years ago, I had said that we need to combat Islamophobia in our country, and I had faced such huge backlash for it. And it took the deaths of more people for it to be recognized. It’s not okay. It’s absolutely not okay that it took this long, but it is now recognized, and I take some solace in that.
Senator Cordy: Mr. Zuberi, would you agree? Are things changing ever so slowly?
Mr. Zuberi: I definitely do.
[Translation]
We must always have hope.
[English]
We have to have a deep conviction that things will get better, and I believe they have gotten better. If I look back at where we were 20 years ago after 2001, things have gotten concretely better.
In the first decade after 2001, there were a lot of challenges. National security agencies were continuously knocking on the doors of lay leaders, not people involved in nefarious activities, but lay leaders in the community. We learned from that. We realized that is not acceptable.
The understanding of who Muslims were or are has increased a lot over time, but we still have a lot of challenges.
If there’s one recommendation I would say to this body, it is that we need to promote policies and programs that allow for the mixing of people, and in particular, not in the big cities of Canada, but in the medium and smaller cities of Canada and in every province of our country. This is where we will build understanding. It’s when people don’t mix and mingle with each other that we have false impressions of our co-citizens. So if there’s one recommendation I would put forth, it is that there are programs and policies that encourage mixing and mingling within the medium-sized and smaller cities of our country.
Mr. Nenshi: Thank you for that. I’m a little bit less optimistic. I think things had been getting a lot better. I think that since 2015 or 2016 — and I don’t want to put on a tinfoil hat here — but we’ve seen the forces of division and hatred become much more organized and sophisticated by being able to use the tools of social media and technology to push their work further. When we look at the results of how people are living their lives — I don’t need to tell any of you the stats on the increase in hate crimes and so on — I think that has been aided and abetted by too many people in my former profession — politics — who have seen short-term political gain in this work.
[Translation]
It must be said that I am not a Quebecer and I speak French like a cowboy. I do not really know the nuances of secularism. I do not know the history of Quebec or the history of church power in Quebec.
However, I know that when people have discussions about language and the words being used, it only serves to avoid doing the work that must be done.
[English]
In English, I always say when I’m speaking to my staff, one of the greatest ways to avoid work is to talk about the work rather than actually do the work. I think when we get caught in questions of language — is Islamophobia the right term, for example, as we’ve been discussing — it doesn’t matter what we call it. I actually don’t love the term Islamophobia, because it’s not about a phobia or a fear. I often talk about religious bigotry, but it doesn’t matter what we call it. The same people are going to attack us anyway. The thing that is the most difficult for us to understand and to remember is that past discrimination can never justify current discrimination.
A former colleague of mine, a former mayor from Quebec, wrote an op-ed last week in which he talked about why laïcité matters to Quebecers, and it is because Quebecers felt very badly done by by the Catholic church for so long. It’s a 50-year-old story. He actually said that we can justify taking away rights from Muslim women because his grandmother was forced to have so many children.
You can’t use past discrimination to settle present discrimination. I know it sounds naive and “Pollyannaish,” but we have to create a public square where everyone feels strong enough to welcome everyone else. A truly secular public square is not a square that discriminates against some people, and says, “You can participate less than other people can participate,” which is what Bill 21 ultimately does.
MP Zuberi has a point. People started turning against Bill 21 when they realized actual human beings are involved here. There’s a great teacher who is actually losing her job because of this; it’s not just a theory of a woman who wears a hijab. That public square has to be open enough and strong enough to be open to everyone.
And by the way, I say this to Muslim communities too. I say, “I’m a Muslim and my Allah is not so weak that God is being threatened by a young girl in Pakistan who is a Christian.” When did my god become that weak?
Similarly, when did our society become so weak that the thought of someone who dresses differently than us, who is not preaching, who is not converting, who is not grooming people into her religion, but simply dressing differently than us — How is our society so weak that that’s such a threat? That’s what we have to be able to overcome. We have to be able to do that on the level of policy.
We have talked a lot about changing people’s hearts. We have talked a lot about making people more tolerant. I use the word “tolerant” very carefully. A lot of folks don’t like tolerance. I don’t want to be tolerated. I want to be accepted. I want to be respected. I say, I would be happy with tolerance. I would be happy with the person saying, I don’t really like that Muslim family living next door to me. They are not going to be my best friends, but I respect their right to live here, to have jobs and to be educated and participate in the community.
We have talked a lot about that. As politicians, as parliamentarians, we also have to ensure that our policies meet what we’re talking about.
The final thing I’ll say on this story — I’m ranting — but the final thing I’ll say is this: There has been some debate, and we have even heard it today: Are Quebecers more Islamophobic than others? I would remind you that in 2015, and in polls done since then, the level of support for things like Bill 21, for the niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies, was extraordinarily high across the country. Yet, it is only in Quebec where politicians are acting on that.
In 2015, if that election had simply been about the barbaric cultural practices hotline — and if you believed the polls at that time — the vast majority of Canadians — well, I shouldn’t say the barbaric cultural practices hotline, because that was crazy. The niqab ban at citizenship ceremonies, if it had only been about that, then that government would have won a vast majority.
That government didn’t win that election, because people vote on other things. To actually just focus on that is a political mistake, and it’s also a policy mistake. That’s why I keep saying, it’s not courage to do the right thing. Ultimately, people will be rewarded for doing the right thing from a policy perspective.
Sorry, I went way beyond your question.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Omidvar, as the chair, I’m going to take the liberty and give you time.
Senator Omidvar: I will be brief. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I’m going to ask one question to all three and invite you to respond.
M.P. Zuberi, you talked about the investments that this government has made to battle Islamophobia. I would like to shift the focus from investments to issues of structural and systemic racism in federal law which have either intended or unintended consequences — I’m not smart enough to figure that out — on people who are Muslims.
I’m talking specifically about the Anti-terrorism Act, which was passed by former Prime Minister Chrétien in 2001, passed in a rush, followed in 2015 by the national inherent risk framework strategy that was brought into life at the Ministry of Finance by former Prime Minister Harper. The Canada Border Services Agency; RCMP; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; Canadian Security Intelligence Service; and CRA all function in the orbit of its influence. The result is that some communities experience systemic racism in a real, felt way.
I’ll give you one example. The CRA revokes Muslim charities at a far higher rate than it does any other charities.
Do you not believe that it is time for your government to review these pieces of legislation?
Mr. Zuberi: Great question. I think that you are highlighting something really important, that legislation made in times of deep emotion is legislation that has to be reviewed.
There was a deep emotive moment in the international community and Canada when the ATA, Anti-terrorism Act, was passed and made law soon after the 2001 attack. As you pointed out, it had grave repercussions on Canadians, in particular, an impact on Muslim communities.
It led to that specific community of Canadians feeling like they were being viewed as fifth columns in their own home and society. If that is the impact of legislation, then, as you say, it warrants a review. It warrants a review not only because of the way in which it landed and the false positives that were the result of it, but also because that legislation was specific for a moment in time that doesn’t necessarily apply 20 years on in the same way, right?
We know that we are, today, dealing with far-right extremism. This is a new form of extremism that leads to violence. We have to ask ourselves, are the tools of 20 years ago equipped to deal with this present-day issue?
Not to say that the issues of 20 years ago are completely gone; no, they still are in the public conversation and in the international context to some extent, but we also have real issues here at home today. That’s how I would respond to your thoughtful and pointed question.
Ms. Khalid: I’ll just quickly add, I spoke about this earlier, about equality of opportunity. Having more and more people sitting at those decision-making tables that understand the context, that know that a Muslim is not a terrorist, that know that anti-Semitism is wrong, that know that being a Black person is not de facto negative in any way, I think having people sitting in those positions of power at the decision-making table goes a really long way in combatting systemic discrimination in all of its forms.
I would encourage the committee as one of its recommendations to take note of that and to recommend that more and more people of diverse backgrounds, including Muslim people, be included on board appointments all across the country.
Mr. Nenshi: Thank you for that very thoughtful question, as always from you, senator.
I think it was former Senator Sinclair who said that systemic racism is what you have left when you get rid of the racists. What we have been able to do is really change people’s hearts and minds, as I talked about before. Now we really have to look at those structural issues that, even though the people who are working within the system are not racist, that is what the system is set up to do. Government is notorious for this.
I always used to say, when I was mayor, none of my public servants want to go to work every day, and nobody wakes up in the morning and says I want to go to work today and screw over a citizen, but sometimes you get to work and the citizen complaint is such that the policy, procedure and how you manage it only gives you the option to screw over the citizen. When you do that day in and day out, you tend to forget the institutional levers that caused that.
A lot of people respond very badly to these words, “systemic racism.” In reality, what we are talking about are generations of power, of design. I always said when I was in government that I’m not a very bright person. I only have two answers to every problem, and they are always the same two answers: Take a systemic view of what you are working on and put the person you are trying to serve at the centre of your systemic view.
Too often we serve the policy. We serve the process. We serve the bureaucracy. We serve the forms that have to be filled out instead of serving the citizen.
If we’re able to use this lens of systemic discrimination and really be able to then, methodically and rigorously, take that systemic view and reformat things so that the citizen is at the centre of the work, it makes a huge difference.
I’ll give you a trite example. We had all these problems this year in the passport office. One of the things that I diagnosed out of that, in my chair in semi-retirement here, was that the passport office is one of the few areas where the federal government directly serves citizens.
The City of Calgary has to serve citizens in every way, every day, the municipal order of government. But one of the challenges they were having is that the passport office had to follow all these ridiculous policies instead of thinking about what their goal is, which is to get the citizen the passport as quickly as possible while reducing the risk to the community of giving the passport to the wrong person. In reality, that is a tiny, tiny risk, but the entire system is based on removing the risk that there will be passport fraud. Why are we so worried about passport fraud? Well, we’re worried about passports being used in the commission of a crime. Why are we worried about passports being used in the commission of a crime? Because people have Canadian passports who might not traditionally look Canadian, and so we have to put in all these checks and balances to make sure those people have passports. Do you see what I’m getting at here? When we look at the institutional power structures — this is just a hypothetical example — that have created that, we find the institutional problems that you are describing, senator.
If one of the recommendations from this work is for government to take a systemic view of how to rigorously remove these levers of institutional authority and power that have been set up over generations, that would be very powerful work. We just can’t screw it up by letting it get into the public service and be all bureaucratic.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nenshi. Senators, I’m sorry, there will be no second round. I didn’t get to ask questions either.
I want to thank the witnesses for your testimony. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our third panel of witnesses. These witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from them and turn to questions from the senators.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome you. I was surprised to hear from you that you wanted to appear. I welcome you to this committee.
We will hear from Michael Mostyn, who is Chief Executive Officer of the National Office of B’nai Brith Canada, who will be making the statement along with David Matas, Senior Legal Counsel at the National Office of B’nai Brith Canada.
Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer, National Office, B’nai Brith Canada: Thank you so much, honourable senators. My name is Michael Mostyn, and I am the chief executive officer of B’nai Brith Canada. I am accompanied today by two of my colleagues. I will be sharing the time with Mr. David Matas and Mr. Richard Robertson, who will be pleased to — along with Mr. Matas and myself — answer any questions you may have.
B’nai Brith is the oldest Jewish human rights and social services organization in the country. Through our League for Human Rights, we have been producing an audit of anti-Semitic incidents since 1982. This work has allowed us to develop an expertise in identifying many societal trends that lead to the manifestation of hate in our society. We utilize our learned experiences to assist all vulnerable members of our society to counteract the hate and racism that they experience. For example, B’nai Brith is presently hosting a series of round-table meetings to develop a community action plan as part of Ontario’s Anti-Racism Anti-Hate initiative.
Our commitment to protecting human rights is what led us to appear before you today. We feel that, given our experience and expertise, we can meaningfully assist today’s study in its desire to nurture a welcoming and safe Canada for all its Muslim citizens.
Much discourse has been presented to this committee on the topic of Islamophobia. However, I am also here in my capacity as a representative of Canada’s mainstream Jewish community to inform you of just how saddened and hurt Jews were to learn that they had been the victim of an unwarranted smear campaign in the form of a report presented to this committee by Jasmin Zine. The report was endorsed by others who presented to this committee. By being included in her document, the leading Jewish organizations in our country responsible for combatting anti-Semitism were falsely slandered by Zine of conspiring to construct, implement and profit from a manufactured Islamophobic industry — not surprisingly, a highlight she specifically excluded from her oral testimonies before this committee.
The bitter irony of these dangerous, conspiratorial presumptions spuriously made against the most targeted group of religious-based hate in Canada should not be lost on anyone. No one should be surprised if these elements of her report contribute to the growth of anti-Semitism in our country. An overly narrow or overly broad definition of anti-Muslim hatred, or the use of an undefined term such as Islamophobia, can clearly have the unintended consequences of victimizing non-Muslims, progressive Muslims and the greater Muslim community itself. The only true value of Zine’s report is indeed that it has demonstrated this sad fact so that we may seek to overcome it.
This is why B’nai Brith Canada recommends the use of a clear definition of anti-Muslim hatred that protects Muslim individuals, is not at cross-purposes with the rights of other minorities, is in line with Canadian jurisprudence and is grounded in universal human rights values. My colleague David Matas will now expand further upon our proposals.
Mr. Matas: The study of Islamophobia that the Senate has undertaken can usefully define the term. We make this suggestion from the perspective of our own experience and the defining of the term “anti-Semitism.”
The term “anti-Semitism” literally is meaningless, since literally anti-Semitism means being against semitism, and semitism does not exist. “Anti-Semitism” was a term coined originally by Wilhelm Marr who founded the League of Antisemites in Germany in 1879. He saw semitism as a Jewish conspiracy to control the world. This semitism, this conspiracy, never existed. The belief in its existence was a fantastical form of bigotry existing only in the minds of anti-Semites. The ravages of the Holocaust discredited the term. The vocabulary of anti-Semitism switched sides. The word “anti-Semitism” today is not brandished by anti-Semites. Rather, it is a term used by those combatting anti-Jewish bigotry, not just the particular form of bigotry Wilhelm Marr and his colleagues held, but rather all forms of anti-Jewish bigotry.
Anti-Jewish bigotry has existed since prehistoric times. Its existence is perennial, but its form is ever changing. Because of the perennial nature of anti-Jewish bigotry, the constantly shifting substance of that bigotry and the use of a term to encapsulate that bigotry which literally refers to nothing, it became useful to define “anti-Semitism.”
There is a general consensus now about what the definition should be, endorsed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, albeit with fringe rejections. We see anti-Semitism today as not just the particular form of bigotry that the original League of Antisemites manifested, but rather all forms of anti-Jewish bigotry.
This evolution of the meaning of the term “anti-Semitism” and the adoption globally of a definition by consensus is, we suggest, a useful precedent to follow for the term “Islamophobia.” While Islamophobia literally does mean something — irrational fear of Islam — its literal meaning is too narrow for the real problem at which it hints. The real problem is anti-Muslim bigotry. Islamophobia is one cause of that bigotry, but it is not the only cause.
It might be simpler to refer just to anti-Muslim bigotry than to refer to Islamophobia. However, since the term “Islamophobia” is now widely used and recognized, it is probably preferable to keep the term, but, like anti-Semitism, define it beyond its literal meaning.
If we look at the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism, what we see is a general statement of what anti-Semitism is, what anti-Semitism is not and some examples offered as guides. This manner of presentation we suggest is a useful template for Islamophobia. We would suggest a definition of Islamophobia that identifies the term with anti-Muslim hatred, which asserts that the term does not prevent reasoned criticism of various interpretations of Islam and provides examples of what the phrase includes, Islamophobia in its literal sense being one of them.
Canada had an important part to play in the 2016 adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance adoption of the definition of anti-Semitism through its November 2010 conference and summit of the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism in its Ottawa Protocol. Canada could and we suggest should also take the initiative to help form a global consensus around the meaning of the term “Islamophobia.”
Those are my remarks. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your remarks. I don’t see any senators having any questions.
Senator Omidvar: I didn’t hear something. Mr. Mostyn, you said there was a brief submitted to us that you were citing. Could you cite the name of the witness who provided the brief?
Mr. Mostyn: Thank you, senator, for the question. You are not referring to the B’nai Brith brief?
Senator Omidvar: No.
Mr. Mostyn: The document that I was making reference to was Professor Jasmin Zine’s paper, “The Canadian Islamophobia Industry: Mapping Islamophobia’s Ecosystem in the Great White North.”
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I didn’t hear the name.
The Chair: Seeing that nobody has any questions, I want to thank both of you for your presentations, and I want to thank you for appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.
(The committee adjourned.)