THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 13, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in persons); and, in camera, to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I am Salma Ataullahjan, senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce members of the committee who are at this meeting. We have Senator Boyer from Ontario, Senator Gerba from Quebec, Senator Jaffer from British Columbia and Senator Omidvar from Ontario. Online, we have Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan.
Welcome to all of you and to those viewing these proceedings on SenVu.
Before we proceed, I would like to inform the honourable senators about the proposed timing for our meeting today. It is a three-part meeting on a tight schedule. First, we will begin our study on Islamophobia in Canada in two 30-minute segments with witnesses. Both will include question period.
Then we will likely proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons. Finally, we will consider a draft report.
Today, we begin our study on Islamophobia in Canada, including as it relates to online and offline violence against Muslims, its sources and possible solutions.
The reason I proposed this study is that we are seeing a great increase in online hate and acts of violence against Muslims, and what shocked me when I did some research was that Canada has had the most killings of Muslims in a G7 country. I thought that since Muslims are 3% of the population, we should do this very important study.
I will now introduce our first panel of witnesses. We have from the Department of Canadian Heritage, Peter Flegel, Executive Director, Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat. From Public Safety Canada, we have Dominic Rochon, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, National Security and Cyber Security Branch. He is accompanied by Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice and Robert Burley, Senior Director, Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence.
I now invite Mr. Flegel to make his presentation.
[Translation]
Peter Flegel, executive director, Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat, Canadian Heritage: Good evening, everyone.
My name is Peter Flegel and I’m the executive director of the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat at the Department of Canadian Heritage (PCH).
[English]
I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which I work and live is the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation.
Thank you to the honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for this invitation to speak on such a vital and pressing topic.
Just last Monday, I joined hundreds of members of Muslim communities from across Canada who gathered in the National Capital. Together, we marched through the heart of downtown Ottawa to commemorate the first anniversary of the terror attack that left four members of a Muslim family murdered in London, Ontario.
Earlier that day, I was graciously welcomed by several dozen Muslim leaders at the National Council of Canadian Muslims’ Advocacy Day. For over one hour, representatives of a variety of national, regional, grassroots and student organizations spoke directly to me about the tremendous barriers they face daily. They also addressed the ways in which the government can work with Muslim communities to combat systemic Islamophobia as part of our broader efforts to combat all forms of racism — and no one minced their words.
They affirmed that Islamophobia is a concrete and daily reality for Muslim communities across Canada. They stated that every day they fear for their lives, and they said that the government has a responsibility to take all necessary steps to eradicate this scourge from our society. And this was no surprise.
[Translation]
From the beginning, combatting Islamophobia has been a priority for the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat at PCH as we lead and coordinate a government-wide approach to combatting racial discrimination.
To provide some context, the Federal Secretariat is the cornerstone of Canada’s anti-racism strategy for 2019–2022.
[English]
Established in 2019 by the Government of Canada, the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat is a centre of expertise in the Department of Canadian Heritage that works directly with federal departments and agencies to identify systemic barriers, policy gaps and the impact of federal decisions.
We work under the leadership of the Honourable Ahmed Hussen, who is the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion. We do our work to then assist federal organizations in developing and delivering programs, policies, legislation and services in ways that remove systemic racism, including Islamophobia.
To play this role, the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat has established a community-to-government-policy pipeline, which has connected us to close to 4 million people across the country. It enables us to centre the voices of equity populations with lived experience of racism within the work that we do to assist federal institutions in their policy-making work.
With arguably one of the most diverse teams in government, we are working hard to develop sustained and trusting relationships with Muslim communities. We have done this by organizing Canada’s first-ever National Summit on Islamophobia — of the Government of Canada. We have convened a town hall with hundreds of Muslim community leaders on developing solutions to the pandemic. We have facilitated meetings directly between those leaders and federal departments to find ways to improve the design and delivery of federal initiatives. We have developed and piloted an anti-racism lens or framework offering government departments better tools to remove systemic barriers, including Islamophobia, from their lines of business.
[Translation]
Most recently, we have hosted 21 roundtables with various partners and stakeholders, led by the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, including leaders from Muslim communities with intersectional identities.
[English]
And this is what we heard. Islamophobia is taking its toll on the mental health of members of Muslim communities, including youth. For those victimized by hate, there are serious barriers to reporting hate crimes and then obtaining recourse. Concerns abound about the potential infiltration of and/or partiality to White supremacist groups within our institutions, notably in the wake of the convoy in January of this year.
Federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments would benefit from better coordination of their efforts in combatting hate, notably but not exclusively in education. Nationwide efforts to combat hate, particularly at the grassroots level, are requesting more funding to tackle issues of hate and to ensure safety.
Systemic Islamophobia, including surveillance of Muslim communities, remains a grave concern given the greatest threat to national security comes from White supremacist groups.
There is an opportunity to enhance coherence and impact of federal laws to prosecute hate crimes and hate groups.
Muslim lives in Canada are being stigmatized and endangered by the parroting of Islamophobic tropes on a variety of international, national, regional and local platforms and outlets.
The government is listening to Muslim communities. One of the recommendations from last year’s summit was to create a special representative on combatting Islamophobia —
The Chair: Mr. Flegel, we are really tight on time, so could you finish up? Some of the issues that you want to speak about might be brought up in questions. Thank you.
Mr. Flegel: Absolutely.
So essentially, the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat will be working with several departments and stakeholders on renewing Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy and releasing Canada’s first ever National Action Plan on Combatting Hate.
[Translation]
Again, thank you for the invitation, and we look forward to discussing this with you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I will now turn to Dominic Rochon. The floor is yours.
Dominic Rochon, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, National Security and Cyber Security Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, chair.
Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Dominic Rochon. I am the Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of the National Security and Cyber Security Branch at Public Safety Canada.
[Translation]
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today; I sincerely hope that our appearance and discussion may help inform the committee’s study on Islamophobia.
As you heard from my colleague, Peter Flegel, June 6th marked the one-year anniversary of the deadly attack on a Muslim family in London, Ontario. This and other attacks, including the 2017 Quebec City Mosque shooting, and most recently the attack on a mosque in Mississauga in March 2022, underscore the urgent need to take further steps to address this threat.
[English]
For context, Public Safety Canada’s mandate is to keep Canadians safe. We do this by working closely with other departments and agencies to lead on policy and programming related to national security, border strategies, countering crime and emergency management.
In December 2021, the Minister of Public Safety received his mandate letter from the Prime Minister and was asked to support the development of a National Action Plan on Combatting Hate, which you have heard about from my colleague, Mr. Flegel.
In addition to that work, we are actively supporting the government’s commitment to combat Islamophobia and other forms of xenophobic and extremist violence across the country.
[Translation]
One of our principal programs in this regard is the Security and Infrastructure Program. The program helps communities at risk of hate-motivated crime by providing funding to make security improvements to their community gathering spaces.
Since its creation, the Program has provided more than $11 million in funding to more than 380 projects across Canada. Departmental evaluations have shown positive results, with funding recipients agreeing that the program has increased their sense of security and reduced the incidence of hate-motivated crime at their facilities. Public Safety Canada is exploring potential improvements to the program based on feedback from stakeholders.
[English]
Another issue that we are actively exploring ways to address is ideologically motivated violent extremism, or IMVE. In his mandate letter, the minister was also asked to bring forward measures to counter the rise of IMVE, which my colleagues spoke about at the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security last month.
On IMVE, prevention is an essential component of the whole-of-government and whole-of-society response to this threat. Six years ago, the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence, or Canada Centre, located in Public Safety Canada, was launched to lead the federal government’s efforts to prevent and counter violent extremism.
[Translation]
Guided by the National Strategy on Countering Radicalization to Violence, the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and the Prevention of Violence works with national and international partners—in government, civil society, industry and research—to develop and share knowledge about effective prevention practices.
Through its grants and contributions program—the Community Resilience Fund—the Canada Centre also provides financial support to researchers and front-line practitioners to better understand, prevent and respond to radicalization leading to violence.
[English]
At the same time, the threat landscape is very complicated because holding extreme views does not guarantee that serious violence will occur. National security and intelligence tools are available to respond to IMVE when activities pose threats to the security of Canada that meets the threshold set out in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act for serious violence.
At Public Safety Canada we are actively working to respond to IMVE and the organizations that meet these thresholds, including those harbouring extreme xenophobic and White supremacist views. Of note, Canada currently has eight IMVE-specific organizations and one individual listed under the Terrorist Listings Regime in the Criminal Code.
Lastly, I would like to speak to Public Safety Canada’s efforts to enhance bias sensitivity and improve cultural competency of national security practitioners, in part through public engagement with Canadians and diverse communities.
Notably, in March 2022 we hosted our third annual symposium on bias and intersectionality issues on the theme of national security, Islamophobia and anti-Asian hate. We heard from civil society how national security policies and operations have impacted Muslim and Asian-Canadian communities, and that the national security community must improve outreach by consciously interacting with communities in a way to ensure they are not viewed or treated as security threats.
[Translation]
To conclude, I wish to underscore that our work at Public Safety Canada to combat Islamophobia is part of a much larger Government of Canada commitment to create a safer and more inclusive Canada for all.
Thank you for your time.
[English]
I will be pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentations.
We will now proceed to questions. I already have a list. We will start with Senator Jaffer, to be followed by Senator Omidvar.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much, chair.
Thank you all for being here today.
The Chair: We are on a tight schedule. Instead of the regular four minutes, we have three minutes for questions and for answers.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
My question for both of you, Mr. Flegel and Mr. Rochon, is: How are you really consulting with the communities? Are you consulting with the communities on a regular basis?
Mr. Flegel: Thank you. I can start.
At the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat of Canadian Heritage, we regularly consult and engage with a variety of different communities, including Muslim communities. I mentioned the national summit that was organized in 2021.
We’ve organized the town hall with Muslim community leaders on Islamophobia in the context of the pandemic.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Flegel, I don’t mean to be rude. Because I have a very short time, what I’m asking is what your direct consultations are, not the conferences you organize; I read about that and you spoke about that.
What are your individual consultations? For example, the National Council of Canadian Muslims are a very well-known organization within our communities. What are you doing? How are you consulting with them to stop Islamophobia in Canada?
Mr. Flegel: In addition to, as I mentioned, the summits, the town halls and other events that we organize, we have one-on-one telephone calls with Muslim leaders from different organizations.
We organize meetings between government departments and the Muslim community so that we can improve federal policies and programs that affect Muslim communities.
We look forward to continue working with Muslim communities to combat Islamophobia.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Mr. Rochon?
Mr. Rochon: Very quickly, because that’s a very broad question. As you can appreciate, I’m here representing the Department of Public Safety Canada but the security and intelligence community is much broader than that.
Senator Jaffer: It’s not a broad question, Mr. Rochon. I’m asking what are you — you are here representing your department and —
Mr. Rochon: Indeed.
Senator Jaffer: — your minister on these issues. It’s not a broad question.
I’m asking you what consultations you are having with communities? What are you doing? Not the big conferences you have. What specific consultations are you having?
Mr. Rochon: The reason I answered the way I did is because I cannot speak for the Canada Border Services Agency, CSIS, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I will speak for the Department of Public Safety proper.
As I mentioned to you, we had a symposium on Islamophobia and anti-Asian hate that specifically invited various representatives. That’s one example.
My colleague, Robert Burley, is responsible for the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence and perhaps he might have a few points that he would like to raise. We have various programs that engage.
We also have another group that I’ll just mention quickly, the National Security Transparency Advisory Group that I co-chair with a number of individuals.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Rochon, I have run out of time. May I ask both of you, Mr. Flegel and Mr. Rochon, to provide to the chair what specific efforts do you make to consult with communities? This will give you a chance, Mr. Rochon, to ask all the different departments under the minister and tell us what exactly — not big summits, not Islamophobia summit — are you doing to support the communities at this very difficult time? Thank you very much. Please provide that information to the chair.
Senator Omidvar: Chair, I have a quick question for Mr. Flegel and then one for Mr. Rochon if my time permits.
Mr. Flegel, I get from your presentation that you’re primarily an outward-facing department and strategy. You deal primarily with communities.
I want to know how you deal internally, inside government, because we know that discrimination and Islamophobia possibly exist inside government as well. That’s my question to you.
Mr. Flegel: Thank you very much for that question. Absolutely. One of the things that is key to the strategies for us is to work and support the Treasury Board Secretariat in its work on combatting systemic racism within the public service, which includes Islamophobia. Within the Federal Anti-racism Secretariat, we made sure to hire Muslim staff members who are providing not only their lived experience but their expertise to drive this critical work of combatting all forms of racism, including Islamophobia.
We look forward to continue supporting the Treasury Board Secretariat and the Privy Council Office to combat and eradicate racism, including Islamophobia, within the public service.
Senator Omidvar: Do you work with the Public Service Commission?
Mr. Flegel: Also.
Senator Omidvar: Have you noticed if, in hiring, there is a trend one way or the other?
Mr. Flegel: We would be happy to share the latest disaggregated data with you in writing.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. Mr. Rochon, I have a very simple question for you. I listened with interest when you talked about funding for making mosques safer and more secure. Without safety and security, the worshippers are sitting ducks. How would you grade the safety and security of mosques in general in Canada?
Mr. Rochon: If I could pass that question on to my colleague, Chad Westmacott. He’s responsible for the Security Infrastructure Program that, I think, covers specifically the question that you’re looking for an answer to.
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Crime Prevention Branch, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much for the question. I would say that it is difficult for us to grade the security of mosques across the country. I would say that the program that we do have, as Mr. Rochon has pointed out, evaluations have shown that those who have participated in the Security Infrastructure Program have come out feeling safer after investments were made to support the security of mosques.
Senator Omidvar: How many have participated in a range of mosques in Canada? How many are signed up?
Mr. Westmacott: We have over 380 infrastructure projects that have occurred. I can get for you the numbers specifically dedicated to mosques.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you. We would like to see a ratio. If there are 1,000 mosques, are 10% participating, 20% participating? Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Good afternoon, witnesses. My question is directed to Mr. Flegel.
Mr. Flegel, you indicated that in your consultations, education was highlighted as one part of the solution. Would you agree with me that robust resources from Grades K to 12 that emphasize the rights of citizenship, but, more importantly, the responsibilities that come with Canadian citizenship, and the fundamental responsibility to respect every citizen is something that the community would welcome as an upstream preventative mechanism getting into the school system from Grades K to 12 to create a much better understanding than currently exists?
Mr. Flegel: Thank you for that question. We heard directly from hundreds of stakeholders across the country about that exact point: the power of education and citizenship to change minds, to combat hate, to combat Islamophobia. That is definitely a point that we have heard and are considering as we build two things: a new and first-ever National Action Plan on Combatting Hate, and Canada’s new federal anti-racism strategy.
Senator Arnot: Thank you. I appreciate the answer and the direction in which Canadian Heritage is going.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for Mr. Flegel. There is more Islamophobia in Canada than in most G7 countries. Is Canada’s action plan, which you referred to, inspired by what is happening in other countries? I would like to know what other countries are doing to ensure that the rate of hate crimes against Muslims goes down. That is my first question and I will have another one for Mr. Westmacott.
Mr. Flegel: Thank you very much for your question. The National Action Plan on Hate is currently in development. Of course, we are looking not only at the recommendations from communities, but also at what is being done around the world to learn from best practices. Once the plan is ready, we would be delighted to present it to you.
Senator Gerba: When do you expect that plan to be ready?
Mr. Flegel: We could provide you with details and confirmations in writing.
Senator Gerba: What is being done in the meantime? I come back to the question asked by my colleague Senator Jaffer. What is being done in concrete terms, day to day, to ensure that Muslims would not be coming face-to-face with that hate on a daily basis? What is being done until the plan is implemented?
Mr. Flegel: Thank you for that question. Investments of several million dollars are being provided to Muslim communities to support them in the fight against Islamophobia.
[English]
For example, the Canadian Arab Institute has received $184,000 to launch projects against Islamophobic hate; and the Afghan Women’s Centre of Montreal and many others. It’s really key and critical at Canadian Heritage to be able to fund and support community organizations to play that leadership role.
I would invite my colleagues at Public Safety, who are also quite engaged, to share some information about the work that they are supporting.
Robert Burley, Senior Director, Canada Centre for Community Engagement & Prevention of Violence, Public Safety Canada: Thank you very much, and good afternoon.
Certainly, the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence has, as a primary tool, the Community Resilience Fund, which funds projects and research, including community-based organizations. While we don’t have projects that are aimed specifically at Islamophobia, we do have projects that are aimed at the full range of IMVE issues.
Senator Omidvar: Mr. Flegel, I heard with interest that you have a plan you are developing. We are doing an Islamophobia study. We have to hear from you about this plan and its timing. We will be operating in a vacuum otherwise. Can you assure us that such a plan will be shared with the chair of this committee?
Mr. Flegel: Absolutely. We are committed to sharing the plan with you once it is ready.
Senator Omidvar: When do you think it will be ready? Our timing has to be in line somehow.
Mr. Flegel: Absolutely. And we will follow up in writing to make sure that everything is in line, as you suggested.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Flegel and Mr. Rochon, I have to admit to you that it’s very disheartening listening to you both. You are both talking about plans that will be in place, and you will provide them to us.
You knew you were coming here. You knew you were coming to an Islamophobia study, and you are talking generally without giving us any ideas. I hope that very soon you will give us exactly what you are doing.
Also, Mr. Flegel, I know you’ve been very much involved in the GBA study and including communities in the Gender-based Analysis Plus study. What exactly are you doing to help especially the civil service and the Public Service Commission to understand about Islamophobia? Can you provide the committee with what exact package you have about how you are teaching about Islamophobia?
You gave an excellent presentation to the African-Canadian group. We really appreciated it. I’m wondering if you can please provide this committee with exactly what you are doing on Islamophobia.
The Chair: I’ll just add: Do you feel you are putting added responsibility on the shoulders of Muslim employees, that they must educate and do their jobs as well?
I understand if you can’t answer. We would like some questions answered. I’ll put a few other questions to you. You can always send the answers to us in writing since we are running out of time.
You said that you have seen positive results. Could you tell us what the positive results have been?
How do you choose the stakeholders?
We also spoke about priorities. What is the priority when we’re dealing with Islamophobia? The community pipeline is connected to 4 million people. Please let us know in writing the following: How are you connected? How are these people chosen? I want to know how stakeholders are chosen. Please let us know that.
We’ve come to the end of our time, but we’re looking at the interest and the number of questions that senators continue to have. I would like to take this opportunity to tell you that I think we’d like to call you back. Instead of half an hour, I think we will allot one hour to you.
Gentlemen, I thank you very much for appearing before us today. We appreciate your testimony, and we look forward to seeing you again.
Before we move to our second panel, I will ask Senator Boyer to take the chair. I am in an advisory role with the NCCM, The National Council of Canadian Muslims, so I’ll have to recuse myself and, therefore, I will not chair the second panel. The deputy chair, Senator Bernard, is unable to attend, so Senator Boyer has graciously agreed to chair the meeting for this portion of today’s meeting on the study and the segment on Bill S-224, which I’m the sponsor of.
Senator Yvonne Boyer (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting Chair: In our second panel, we are continuing our study on Islamophobia in Canada, and I’d like to introduce our next witnesses. We welcome from The National Council of Canadian Muslims, Mustafa Farooq, Chief Executive Director; Daniel J. Kuhlen, Lawyer; and Nusaiba Al-Azem, Lawyer.
I now invite Mr. Farooq to make his presentation.
Mustafa Farooq, Chief Executive Director, The National Council of Canadian Muslims: Madam Chair and honourable senators, thank you so much for the invitation to appear before this committee to share the perspective of The National Council of Canadian Muslims on this incredibly important study on the issue of Islamophobia. I want to acknowledge that I am joining you today from the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Anishinaabeg Algonquin nation, and no tackling of the challenge of Islamophobia is complete without challenging anti-Indigenous racism.
Briefly, The National Council of Canadian Muslims is an independent, non-partisan and non-profit grassroots organization. Our mission is to protect human rights and civil liberties, to challenge discrimination and Islamophobia, to build mutual understanding and to advance the public concerns of Canadian Muslim communities.
I want to begin today by reading the names of my brothers and sisters into the record: Ibrahima Barry, Mamadou Tanou Barry, Khaled Belkacemi, Aboubaker Thabti, Abdelkrim Hassane, Azzeddine Soufiane, Mohamed-Aslim Zafis, Yumna Afzaal, Madiha Salman, Salman Afzaal, Talat Afzaal. Those are the names of Muslims taken from this nation in acts of Islamophobia in the past five years, during the Quebec City mosque attack, the London terror attack and the IMO attack.
Indeed, as Senator Ataullahjan noted, Canada has become the leading nation in the G7 in terms of targeted killings of Muslims motivated by Islamophobia. That is to say nothing of those left behind. That is to say nothing of Aymen Derbali, the greatest hero who jumped in front of bullets at the Quebec City mosque attack and who was effectively paralyzed because of the attack. That is to say nothing of the children of Mohamed-Aslim Zafis, whom I spoke to earlier this month and who worry about the streets of walking in Etobicoke to this day. That is to say nothing of a brave young man growing up in London without his sister or his parents. That is to say nothing of other attacks that have happened across Canada, that could have easily resulted in fatalities, from the attack at Dar Al-Tawheed Mosque in Peel this year, where a man wielded a hand axe and tried to kill “Muslim terrorists,” to attacks on Black Muslim women in Edmonton at knifepoint, to vicious assaults on the streets of Montréal.
The problem of violent Islamophobia across Canada is extremely dangerous and requires a whole-of-government approach. This is to further say nothing of systemic Islamophobia. It is to say nothing of the way in which our national security agencies have a history of disproportionately targeting of Canadian Muslims. This is to say nothing of provincial legislation, like Bill-21, that attempts to exile Muslim women wearing hijab from most of certain public-sector positions. It is to say nothing of the problems at the border with the CBSA or Muslim charities with the CRA.
The problem of Islamophobia is therefore one that is appropriately being studied by this committee as being one of the major challenges confronting this nation today. I want to, therefore, thank this honourable committee for engaging in further study of Islamophobia.
In the past, there has been significant and unfounded fearmongering regarding the study of Islamophobia in the other place. We can only turn to the infamous M-103 study of Islamophobia in 2017 that resulted in death threats to parliamentarians and protests right here on Parliament Hill.
I want to note that the study of this committee should also begin with an exhaustive reading of the report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Taking Action Against Systemic Racism and Religious Discrimination Including Islamophobia. That includes helping this committee to define “Islamophobia,” which Canada has generally defined as follows:
Islamophobia includes racism, stereotypes, prejudice, fear or acts of hostility directed towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia can lead to viewing and treating Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.
By way of a concrete recommendation to this committee, NCCM submits that the following actions and policy steps should be undertaken. First, while many of the 61 recommendations put forward at the National Summit on Islamophobia in 2021 have been committed to, like the creation of the office of the special representative on Islamophobia or the national support fund for victims of hate-motivated crimes, we encourage both chambers to prioritize putting forward legislative and regulatory changes to further operationalize all of the recommendations put forward at the summit.
Second, we recommend that this committee accept and put forward the recommendation that violence and systemic Islamophobia deserve not simply study but further action from this chamber.
Third, in terms of immediate concrete steps towards challenging Islamophobia in a meaningful way, we’re encouraging this committee to put forward the following recommendations: the creation of a free-standing provision in the Criminal Code to mandate a special process to deal with hate crimes, including stiffer penalties for violent offenders and a rehabilitation path for young offenders or those who could benefit; a reform of the Security Infrastructure Program to enable mosques and community organizations to better protect themselves in the form of streamlining funding for places of worship; and an investment in anti-Islamophobia public service announcements from the Government of Canada to educate and to produce behavioural changes.
Subject to this committee’s questions, those are our submissions. Thank you.
The Acting Chair: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Farooq. It was comprehensive. We will now proceed to questions. I would like to inform each senator that you have three minutes for your questions, and that includes the answers.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, all of you, for being here.
As-Salaam-Alaikum, Mr. Farooq. I have so many questions for you, and I’ll have to call you another time. I’m not sure if you heard the exchange with the government, but it was extremely frustrating, because they say, “This program is in process. We’re looking at it. We’re working on it.” My first question for you, rather than just getting upset, is: Has the government specifically sat with you? The National Council of Canadian Muslims, or NCCM, is one of the biggest Muslim organizations in the country. Has the government sat with you? Has it consulted you on what you think should be happening?
Mr. Farooq: Thank you for your question, senator. Before I say anything else, it would be remiss of me not to, first, thank you for your many years of standing up for minority communities, not just the Muslim community, but many diverse communities, especially at times when it was more difficult to do so. I thank you for your work.
In terms of answering your question, clearly, the government has been meeting with us and has been consulting with us. I also want to note, specifically, that people like Mr. Peter Flegel are doing a lot of work in their own individual and personal capacities to try to move things forward. However, I also need to be clear that the pace of change is not nearly fast or thorough enough. I hope that answers the question.
Senator Jaffer: Mr. Farooq, it frustrates me, because when I think about what happened in Quebec at the masjid and in London and other places, immediately afterwards, all the leaders — the Prime Minister, the ministers, the MPs, the premier — turn up to give support. However, it is my impression that after that, they disappear, and there isn’t any change for us Muslims in Canada. There are only words.
I know you have to be careful, Mr. Farooq, because you still have to work with government organizations, and I understand if you can’t say it in public, but can you provide us with ideas of what should be done when the newspapers have disappeared? For me, when the newspaper and the television coverage disappear, the Prime Minister and all the people involved disappear too. What exactly could politicians be doing to support our community?
Mr. Farooq: Thank you for that important question, senator. If I’m being frank, I share many of your feelings. Unfortunately, it almost feels like it’s only when there’s been a fatality or there’s been a horrific attack that people seem more willing to make things happen and to move things forward. Frankly, the Quebec City mosque attack should have been the end of the conversation. It was the worst attack on a religious institution in modern Canadian history. We should have never needed to come back to the government to ask for more. The government should have led the way in confronting and ending the violence and systemic Islamophobia.
I’ll say two things. First, in the aftermath of the London attack, prior to the summit, we conducted major consultations from coast to coast, bringing together thousands of Canadian Muslims, to ask them what the path forward should be in terms of substantive policy recommendations. We put forward 61 policy recommendations to the government at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. To date, while many of them have been instituted or the government has committed to implementing them, many have not yet been implemented. Second, there are many important questions that we’re still missing the answers to. For example, to what extent do our national security agencies surveil White supremacist group versus Indigenous groups, Black groups, Muslim groups and environmental groups? These are simple questions of transparency that we asked for answers to in our recommendations and we have yet to receive responses to. Those are the kinds of things, as well as the institutionalization of those recommendations, we’d like to see.
Senator Jaffer: I’ve gone over my time. Can I please ask you to provide more detail in writing? Brother Farooq, thank you very much for your nice comments. You really touched me. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Mr. Farooq for helping us with our study. My question is about a specific expression of systemic racism in government policies, and I refer to the report by the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, or ICLMG, on the fact that six of the charities revoked were Muslim charities. The International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group has concluded that there is systemic racism in the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA.
What or changes have you seen, and what would you like the CRA to do specifically to address this charge?
Mr. Farooq: Thank you for your important question, senator. I’d also like to commend you for your advocacy on examining the ways in which marginalized communities in the charitable sector have challenges in their dealings with the CRA. We’ve seen recent commitments under direction and control, of course, led by your advocacy, senator, so thank you for your continued work on this issue.
The ICLMG issued its report — NCCM and the University of Toronto issued a report just preceding that about systemic Islamophobia within the CRA. We have seen the government, of course, commit to a review of the way in which Islamophobia may play a part within tax audit practices of Muslim-led charities. This is an important step, but we also want to be clear: While this review is happening and while the government has admitted that there may be issues, we see no reason that there should not be a pause on revocation practices, given this ongoing review, for Muslim-led charities that have been subject to the Canadian Revenue Agency’s RAD-based analyses. This is our basic idea for the government, of something important that should be done while this review is happening.
Senator Omidvar: I’ll come back for my followup on the same subject. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much, Mr. Farooq, for your testimony and for your recommendations. We really appreciate it. It will help us better understand this issue.
Public Safety Canada officials just told us there were funding programs implemented to help combat Islamophobia. How are those programs manifesting in your institutions, especially mosques? Are you aware of this? Have you received this funding, and how is that strengthened security manifesting itself?
[English]
Mr. Farooq: Thank you, senator, for this important question. I’ll speak specifically to the question of the Security Infrastructure Program, or SIP. The Security Infrastructure Program operates as a fund administered through Public Safety Canada so that organizations that are at risk can apply for safety measures and for things like cameras, improved doors, gates, training for volunteers, et cetera.
What I’ll say is something I’ve said publicly, which is that the Security Infrastructure Program, fundamentally, no longer works. To put that into very clear analysis, the London Muslim mosque — the individual involved in the London terror attack was only a few blocks away from the London Muslim mosque when he was apprehended after carrying out his attack — just received their Security Infrastructure Program a very short time ago, even though it has been a year since the attack.
The IMO mosque where Mohamed-Aslim Zafis was killed outside has still not received SIP funding.
The program is incredibly bureaucratic and challenging to navigate, and the process simply doesn’t work. Also, the way in which it functions, where one has to apply within the cycle for funding months later, means that, for example, at the Peel mosque, Nusaiba, who is on the call with me, we were literally at the Peel mosque where someone came with pepper spray and an axe, and we were scrubbing out pepper spray with our own hands on the floor of the mosque, because, simply put, to qualify for the funding, you have to wait for months later, and it’s not a retroactive program.
We’ve taken this to Public Safety. They’re aware of our concerns, as they have been for over a year, as to the fundamental problems of this.
The Quebec City mosque — I’m sorry — I can’t talk about this because it makes me quite infuriated. The Quebec City mosque still has to have literally the sheerest of metal to cover up all the windows, because they still haven’t had the full funding to rehabilitate the whole mosque.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I know people, devout Muslims, who are afraid to go to mosques. They are afraid to go to mosques because they don’t feel safe there. Do you think security measures outside mosques should be expanded, so that the security provided would be much more targeted across communities that are generally in need?
[English]
Mr. Farooq: Yes, I think that is accurate. One of the things that we certainly want to see is for the government to invest in public messaging to illustrate clearly that Muslims, regardless of whether you’re at a mosque or walking to work or you’re in transit, you deserve to feel safe.
The real problem in this country is not simply that we have certain White supremacist groups or that we have certain people who attack people on their way to work or at school. The real problem is we have an attitude problem. Regular, continued polls seem to demonstrate that 40% of Canadians are roughly in that range, depending on the poll.
The Acting Chair: Mr. Farooq, I’m sorry to interrupt, but our time is so limited. We have another question, from Senator Arnot.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Mr. Farooq. That leads into a question that I have on this attitude problem in Canadian society. I notice in the summit, some of the recommendations included the review of curricula and using an Islamophobic lens. The whole idea would be to create new, robust resources about Canadian citizenship, emphasizing the responsibilities all Canadians have, including the most fundamental responsibility of respecting their fellow citizens. Could you comment on that aspect of your work, and the view of The National Council of Canadian Muslims on the power of education to address that attitude problem, which, I agree with you, exists?
Mr. Farooq: Thank you, senator, and I’ll try to be very quick in my response. Thank you for all the work you’ve done for many years defending human rights, and thank you for your work right now on this study and this important question.
Very simply, we think education is a key critical component. All the attackers who have committed fatal attacks on Canadian Muslims were young men, some of them barely out of high school. Education, of course — which is to some extent, from a pedagogical perspective, at the provincial jurisdiction — needs to be addressed. It’s part of the reason that the model piece of legislation we’ve put forward in Ontario, which enjoyed some level of bipartisan support, is largely focused around educational reform. But I also think the government has a role to play in putting forward public service announcements. We’ve changed Canadians’ attitudes in relation to smoking and other various public health approaches. We can change it around Islamophobia too.
Senator Arnot: I’m just wondering, Mr. Farooq, if you’re aware of the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation materials. I know your predecessor was quite supportive of those materials, and I wonder if you have any comment about that particular resource. If you do not, I believe that Mr. Kuhlen may have some knowledge about that.
Mr. Farooq: Maybe I’ll let Mr. Kuhlen speak to that.
Daniel J. Kuhlen, Lawyer, The National Council of Canadian Muslims: Thank you very much, and good afternoon, Senator Arnot and committee members. Thank you very much for taking the time to meet with us. It’s an incredibly important issue. I’d like to highlight and concur with everything my colleague Mr. Farooq has just said.
Specifically, when it comes to the question of education, I’m quite proud to say that the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation actually exists in Saskatchewan, and they have established a K to 12 pedagogy that’s age-specific and focuses on the responsibilities of citizenship. As a lawyer, we recognize the importance of the rights of citizens, but it’s also incredibly important that all our citizens, from the youngest to the oldest, recognize that when we exercise our rights, we have to do it in a responsible fashion. The Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation has created this pedagogy that will help to educate and inform young Canadians as they go through the education system.
I would highly recommend that this committee review their materials. They have a website. They have a wealth of leader-, teacher-, educator-driven materials about appropriate pedagogy to deal specifically with discrimination, Islamophobia, various xenophobias, hatred and intolerance.
It’s something our country desperately needs with respect to the Muslim community, and with respect to all marginalized groups in our society.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlen. I have a very quick question that I would like Mr. Farooq or any of you to answer. A recent U.K. study showed that over 69% of Muslims currently employed face discrimination because of their religion in the workplace. Has any similar survey ever been done in Canada, and what kinds of numbers are we looking at here?
Mr. Farooq: Thank you for this important question. Yes, there have been similar studies that have been done in Canada. I’ll have to pull the exact information. I’ll provide that as an undertaking for the purposes of this study.
A study that I believe was done in 2015 found chronic underemployment among Canadian Muslims. I think we need to look no further than in Quebec, where even as there’s a shortage of teachers, there has been a remarkable fixation on driving out those who are visibly Muslim, whether they wear a hijab, or whether they wear a skullcap, from becoming teachers, and what this has meant has been catastrophic. I know so many young folks who are fundamentally deciding that it’s not worthwhile to even try to become a teacher if you’re Muslim.
The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you to the senators.
Senator Omidvar: I have a question for Ms. Al-Azem. I wish to get a response from her, please.
The Acting Chair: Let’s put the request in, and perhaps she can respond in writing.
Senator Omidvar: I would like to know how Islamophobia impacts Muslim women in particular, and we look forward to getting your response in writing.
Nusaiba Al-Azem, Lawyer, The National Council of Canadian Muslims: I look forward to providing it. Thank you very much, senator.
The Acting Chair: I would like to thank all of our witnesses for participating today. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated. This concludes the first part of today’s meeting dedicated to our study on Islamophobia in Canada.
Our next meeting on this important issue is scheduled for Monday, June 20.
Honourable senators, on April 28, 2022, the Senate adopted an order of reference for the committee to examine Bill S-224, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons.
As a reminder, Senator Ataullahjan, chair of this committee, being the sponsor of the bill, decided not to chair these proceedings, and in the absence of Senator Bernard, our deputy chair, asked me to chair this segment of our meeting, to which I agreed.
At this moment, Senator Hartling is replacing Senator Jaffer for this portion.
Is it agreed that the committee now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-224, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, trafficking in persons? If you do not agree, say so. Carried.
Shall the title stand postponed? If you do not agree, please say so. Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry? If you do not agree, please say so. Carried.
Shall the title carry? If you do not agree, please say so. Carried.
Shall the bill carry? If you do not agree, please say so. Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? I do not see any observations. Is it agreed that this Bill S-224 be reported to the Senate? Agreed? Carried.
Senator Hartling: Agreed.
The Acting Chair: Thank you, senators. Colleagues, this concludes the public portion of today’s meeting. We will now suspend for a few seconds and go in camera to consider a draft report. The meeting is suspended.
(The committee continued in camera.)