THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
VANCOUVER, Wednesday, September 7, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 1:14 p.m. [PT] 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: Honourable Senators. I see that we have quorum, and I call to order this meeting.
I am Salma Ataullahjan, senator from Toronto, and chair of this committee.
Today we’re 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 participating in this meeting. We have Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Busson from British Columbia, Senator Jaffer from British Columbia, and Senator Martin from British Columbia. I’m the only one from Ontario, I guess.
Having held two meetings in June in Ottawa, today we continue our study on Islamophobia in Canada. Under our general order of reference our study will cover, among other matters, the role of Islamophobia with respect to online and offline violence against Muslims, gender discrimination, as well as discrimination in employment including Islamophobia in the public service.
Our study will also examine the sources of Islamophobia, its impact on individuals including mental and physical safety, and possible solutions and government responses. We are pleased to be here in Vancouver and to hear from witnesses about Islamophobia in this part of the country. This is the first of our public hearings outside of Ottawa. Tomorrow we shall be in Edmonton, and in two weeks, we shall be in Quebec City and Toronto.
Let me provide some details about our meeting today. This afternoon we shall have two one-hour panels with a number of witnesses who have been invited. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses. Then the senators will have a question-and-answer session. There will be a short break around 3:00 p.m. In addition, the committee has set aside time at the end of the afternoon to hear some short five-minute interventions from members of the public but without a question-and-answer session. If you would like to participate in this part of the meeting, you need to register beforehand with committee staff sitting at the back of the room.
Now, I will introduce our first panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make their opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from all witnesses and then turn to questions from senators. From British Columbia Office of Human Rights Commissioner, we have Kasari Govender, Human Rights Commissioner, and we have Madam Rachna Singh, member of the legislative assembly of British Columbia for Surrey-Green Timbers and Parliamentary Secretary for the anti-racism initiatives.
I will now invite Commissioner Govender to make her presentation.
Kasari Govender, Human Rights Commissioner, British Columbia’s Office of the Human Rights Commissioner: Thank you chair and members of the committee. I really appreciate the opportunity to be here to present before all of you today. I think the work you’re doing here is incredibly important, and I hope it will lead to concrete changes to keep Muslim Canadians as safe or safer from discrimination and hate they are facing.
I am grateful to be joining you not on Zoom for once. I’m grateful for joining on the unceded and traditional homelands of the Coast Salish peoples including the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations. I’m grateful to the people who have cared for these lands and these waters such that we may all be sitting here today doing this important work together.
I just want to spend my few minutes with you talking a bit about some of what I think are the key statistics on Islamophobia. I’m sure at this point you are very familiar, but I thought there were a few pieces that I’d like to point out in particular. I’ll then turn to what my office’s response has been, which has been the launch of a public inquiry and what we’re doing and what we’ve learned through that inquiry.
I wanted to start, then, with some key statistics on Islamophobia. Islamophobia gained traction in Canada post September 11 growing 253% between 2012 and 2015. It continued in the form of opposition to Canada’s acceptance of Syrian refugees in 2015 and 2016. And it was starkly exposed in the January 2017 Quebec mosque murder of six people and the June 2021 truck attack that left four members of a family dead and a young boy in hospital.
An Ipsos poll in 2019 reported that nearly half of Canadians admit to having racist thoughts and nearly a quarter of those to believe that it’s more acceptable to be prejudiced against Muslim people. As the National Council of Canadian Muslims noted in 2021, more Muslims have been killed in hate-targeted attacks in Canada than in any other G-7 country in the past five years. When looked at through an intersectional lens, we can see that this violence is often aimed at Muslim women, Black Muslims, and other marginalized people in particular. It is in this context and the broader context of the rise of hate that my office, B.C. Office of the Human Rights Commissioner, is undertaking the public inquiry into hate during the pandemic.
We launched this in August of 2021. Since the launch of hearings, we’ve received more than 100 oral submissions from over 60 organizations. We’ve partnered with five prominent scholars who developed research on the roots of hate, where it comes from, the experiences of online hate and responses to it, the impacts of the pandemic on domestic violence and gender-based hate and Indigenous legal responses to hate. We have heard from more than 2,500 people through a province-wide survey and learned a lot about people’s experiences through province-wide polling as well.
We’re currently drafting the report and the recommendations which are looking to how we can eliminate or address hate during times of crisis, like the pandemic and beyond, and we expect to have that report and recommendations delivered in March of next year.
What we’ve learned from about Islamophobia in the course of the inquiry has been eye-opening. Islamophobia is at the core of much far-right, extremist mobilization but it is also legitimized and perpetuated by mainstream political actors. There are multiple examples of Canadian-based online and alternate news platforms that spread Islamophobic disinformation. For example, between 2016 and 2019, a Facebook page called the National Conservative News Network Canada shared many Islamophobic fake news stories to its over 200 followers including many extremist conspiracy theories.
We heard from Dr. Tanner Mirrlees who is an expert in Islamophobia in digital media, and he said that Rebel News also regularly frames Muslim immigration as driving the demographic decline of white people. He reported that hashtags which explicitly call for death or even genocide were still visible on Twitter at the time of his submission to the inquiry in April 2022, and he described Islamophobia as the key means through which the far-right recruits and mobilizes people to its cause.
We have dug into why hate is on the rise, and I’ll just address it really briefly, which is that we believe there are some factors that are directly related to the pandemic. Hate stems from a fear of losing power during this time of great uncertainty and is rooted in racism, misogyny, and other discriminatory belief systems, and that isolation increases hate and violence within private spaces. What we’ve also learned through the inquiry is that it’s difficult to disentangle the factors related to the pandemic and the factors related to the rise of populist white nationalist movements across the globe, particularly during the Trump era. Both of these factors are key influencing pieces and are also set against the rapid growth and ongoing growth of the internet in our daily lives.
In the interests of time, I was going to speak a bit about where we’re going with some of the recommendations, particularly about regulating online hate, but in the interest of time, I’ll leave it there and leave it for questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Ms. Singh, you have the floor.
Rachna Singh, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Surrey-Green Timbers and Parliamentary Secretary for Anti-Racism Initiatives, as an individual: Thank you so much. I am really thankful for the standing committee for inviting me to be a witness in this.
The Chair: Oh, can you put your microphone on?
Ms. Singh: I didn’t know that. Okay. I’ll start again.
Thank you so much, chair, and thank you to the committee. It is such an honour to be here as a witness in this very important public hearing to tackle Islamophobia, and I will really want to thank Commissioner Govender also on her testimony.
I also want to humbly acknowledge that I am joining you all on the unceded, ancestral territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
The past decade has been especially difficult for Muslims in Canada with repeated acts of violent Islamophobia including the deadly attack on the family of five in London, Ontario, in 2021, and then also, before that, we had a similar incident in Quebec City.
This year Statistics Canada reported dramatic spike of anti-Muslim hate with a 71% surge in hate crimes against Muslim in 2021 compared with 2020. These are not just mere numbers; it is a wake-up call for all of us to do more to tackle white supremacy. Members of the Muslim community experience hate and violence on a daily basis as evident from reports of women being attacked for wearing a hijab to anti-Muslim graphically being displayed in several locations including in my home city of Surrey. I know that my Muslim friends and neighbours question their safety before even going for a walk.
Addressing anti-Muslim hate and systemic racism requires a relentless commitment from all levels of government, and it is a challenge we are all committed to. Today I have the privilege to listen to so many of you, and I’m forever grateful for the emotional label the Muslim community is providing today to educate us better.
As the B.C. government, we support the Government of Canada in creating the position of special representative on combatting Islamophobia to serve as an advisor and expert to strengthen efforts to combat Islamophobia and address barriers that Muslim communities face. In B.C. this June, the Anti-Racism Data Act was passed into law, a significant measure that allows us to gather critical intersectional data to help expose the gaps and inequalities that exist in how government delivers programs and services. This helps us build an equitable, inclusive province where we can deliver better outcomes for those who rely on these programs and services. For example, once this act gets implemented, we will be able to tell how Muslim women with hijabs experience our health care system and whether our Muslim children feel safe in our schools. I really want to thank the commissioner for her guidance, and support for our Anti-Racism Data Act.
The province will continue to engage with Indigenous peoples, racialized communities, and faith-based groups to inform this key piece of legislation that seeks to breakdown pervasive structural barriers. While we work on addressing longstanding systemic issues, we know that communities experiencing hate and racial violence cannot wait. Currently, we are exploring options to deter hate groups from registering as societies in British Columbia.
We have funded the Foundation for a Path Forward, a Muslim-led organization, to be the faith community convener for the province of British Columbia. They have worked to raise awareness on Islamophobia through education and engagement by launching road shows, broadcast, and interfaith exchanges at several places of worship across B.C. to facilitate understanding. They also engage members of faith-based and racialized communities to fight against exclusion and discrimination.
We know that education plays a key role in teaching our children the colonial history of history of B.C. highlighting local Muslim stories and the roots of Islamophobia.
While the current school curriculum includes topics relevant to Islamophobia, we recognize the need for deeper review and reform of the curriculum that relates to Islam and Muslims and develop resources that inform Muslim identities.
The ministry of education is also creating a K to 12 anti-racism action plan to give students and staff guidance on how to respond to incidents of hate and racism.
It is important that we use our collective voices to stand in solidarity against Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate in any of its forms. More, it is clearly needed to address the challenges in front of us. We will continue our work to create a province where everyone is safe and treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
Thank you once again, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
And now we will turn to the senators for their questions, and I have Senator Jaffer.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, chair. And thank both of you for your presentation, but more importantly there are not two busier women than the two of you, and for you to take the time to come here, thank you so much. I really appreciate it.
I’ll ask the first question of you, Commissioner. In your recommendations, the second recommendation, I actually was taken aback when I read that when you were saying that while some may fear that regulating online spaces undermines freedom of speech, but for marginalized people, they’re silenced. For a commissioner to say that — a human rights commissioner — that’s very powerful. So how, then, do we — I don’t mean the technical part, but what do you think should be in the legislation because anytime there is any online legislation that’s been talked about there is a lot of “don’t take our rights away.” So that’s why when I read this from you — for me, it’s the right thing to say. I was pleased that you said it. So, can you elaborate on that?
Ms. Govender: Thank you for the question.
Yes. So the piece I didn’t get to is what I think is the starting point for our conversation around online hate. As our — as I’m sure is obvious, our public inquiry, I have a provincial mandate under provincial legislation, so the public inquiry will be mostly aimed at provincial recommendations. But I’m sure we have a shared interest in how we regulate online space well across all levels of government as appropriate.
I think the starting point for that is to understand that this isn’t one human right at stake, which is freedom of speech and how justified are we to limit it, of which there are limits in our constitutional structure, but also that there are other important human rights issues at stake that are related to speech.
So that if we have spaces that are hateful, and we do, social media platforms are notorious for certainly creating venues for hate to be shared and sometimes to be amplified and some more than others. That silences many people. And that means, in fact, our justification of around freedom of speech around — you know, sunlight being the best disinfectant that if we just air speech it will make it go away. It’s not — it doesn’t quite play out in a context where there’s actually not healthy debate because the other half of the debate, the people whose rights are being trampled on, are not safe enough to speak up and to represent counterpoints of view. I think that’s an important starting point for then thinking through what’s in the legislation.
I would hope that our approach to online hate in whatever form from whichever level of government explicitly acknowledges that human rights that are at stake when we allow hateful speech to flourish, when we don’t require transparency from social media companies to say how are they dealing with hateful comments, what do they really do in these circumstances, and how are they promoting hateful views? Because the other thing that we have learned from this inquiry, in particular a paper that we commissioned on online hate, is that these spaces aren’t neutral spaces for anybody to contribute to. In fact, hate gets promoted through the use of algorithms on online spaces, and that means that more people are reached and therefore more people are silenced in that process.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Commissioner.
I wanted to ask a question of you, Ms. Singh. My colleagues might have another point of view on this, but I’m trying to decipher what we’ve heard yesterday and today and it sort of brings it down to me as the issue of racism and discrimination. You know, we can call it anything. You know, against women, against this, against that. For me, it boils down to racism, and so I was wondering — it’s a big ask I have, but I was wondering if you have a program that includes all kinds of racism and then a specific program for Islamophobia.
Ms. Singh: What we are seeing especially largely against the Muslim community we are [Technical difficulties].
When we are talking about racism, it is what every community is facing. Right? Islamophobia is just one form of racism that we are seeing not just in Canada but globally. But what we have seen in the wake of COVID happening with our Asian communities, that was — whatever name you want to give it — it was racism.
We as a government are committed to tackle racism, and I think with the creation of my position as the parliamentary secretary for anti-racism, we are tackling it hands-on. We are not trying to disguise it under the name of multiculturalism because for far too long we have done that. We have always said about Canada being such a multicultural, such a diverse country. We are different from the United States.
But what we are experiencing here — and especially in my role as the parliamentary secretary, I’ve had the opportunity to talk to so many community members, hear their stories — we have tried to not address the deep-rooted issue of racism.
Talking about eating — I always say eating butter chicken and eating samosas, participating in all the gatherings, like, Eid, Diwali, anything. It is really important. It is really good. I think we have done as Canada — not just in Canada but as a province also — we have done really well on that. But when it comes to the deep-rooted issue of racism, we try to shy away from that.
So, it’s very important to say the word racism, talk about it, and then make some concrete action plans. That’s what we as a government are committed to. My position and then also the legislation that we are bringing. We are specifically putting the word anti-racism in there. And when we talk about anti-racism, we are considering the intersectional. We are looking at it from the intersectional lens. When we’re talking about racism, like, how the most marginalized, most vulnerable communities — whether those are women, people with disabilities, our senior people, people from the LBGTQ+ communities — what their experiences are. We are considering that, but it is in the bigger umbrella of racism.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you so much. Thank you, chair. Second round.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Martin to be followed by Senator Busson.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for your insights and your expertise that you are bringing today.
My question is for Ms. Singh, and I took note of what you were talking about in terms of education. As a former educator, I know that we have a really important role as teachers to educate our children now for generational changes. So, when you talked about curriculum reform, which I know takes a lot of political will and it takes time, and you mentioned the K to 12 action plan. I wanted you to expand a little bit more about this. I’m quite interested in how concrete your initiatives are in terms of curriculum reform, at what stage is it in terms of adding this to the curriculum? I’d love to hear more about what you said in your statement.
Ms. Singh: Thank you so much.
As you said, it’s a very challenging task, and it’s a long process to change the curriculum, but I’m really glad of our government’s commitment to that. I wish my colleague, the minister of education, was here as well. She’s a strong ally in our work.
As the minister of education, before she took on her position, even the minister before, they have been having regular anti-racism roundtables with educators in British Columbia. We already had two roundtables with educators, teachers, staff and students, just to find out what their experiences are and what recommendations and changes they would like us, as a government, to bring.
Our Anti-Racism Data Act is also one way to tackle racism in our education system. Right now, we are not able to collect the data about their experiences, what students and staff are going through, what kinds of experiences racialized communities — whether those are Indigenous, Black, or other racialized communities — are having with the education system? One of the key areas that we would focus on with our Anti-Racism Data Act is education. By next year, hopefully, we will have the numbers to see what kind of racism, what kinds of barriers and gaps there are, and then to work on the policy — like, how to fill in those gaps and barriers.
This is the work that is coming out of my portfolio, but the ministry of education — I don’t have the details about the kinds of curriculum changes that are coming, but they are working very closely with the educational partners to bring in those changes.
Senator Martin: One sort of question that came out of what you just stated.
The data collection is kind of a challenge, isn’t it? My question may be to the commissioner. I am wondering about the accuracy of the data that we have at this time, and what can we do to ensure that we have accurate data?
Ms. Govender: Thank you for that question. As you heard a bit about —
The Chair: Put on your microphone.
Ms. Govender: Sorry.
It’s something that the provincial government has been working hard on. But before that, my office was working more generally about demographic data that can be used to create policy that furthers the goals of substantive equality rather than undermines them.
In response to the requests from the premier for some advice on this, my office produced a report called Disaggregated demographic data collection in British Columbia: The grandmother perspective. Based on the research and the consultations that we did it lays out the ways in which to do that, how to collect — not the questions to ask on the forms, not that kind of level of detail — demographic data that doesn’t perpetuate harm.
The accuracy question is such an important one, and even before we get to the accuracy piece, when we are collecting this data we need to think about are we doing harm. I think ultimately we need really good data to make good policy and law, but we’re sometimes collecting data from more of a big brother perspective, and this concept of the “grandmother perspective” that was gifted to us by an advocate by the name of Gwen Phillips from the Ktunaxa Nation. She talked about the role of government collecting data not as a big brother, not for the sake of just collecting information from citizens, but for the purposes of caring for them, of creating good public policy that would actually improve the lives of people much in the way that a grandmother would collect data about her family, collect information about the family to better care for them.
We used that frame to develop the outline of a legislative structure that eventually the government turned into legislation. A key component of that was having a strong community advisory committee and partnerships with First Nations, so the data specifically concerns First Nations. Which is not the conversation we’re having here — it’s a bit different — but in the context of Islamophobia, we would be relying, in a meaningful way, on people who are impacted by Islamophobia — by Muslim leaders and community members to say how they want this data used collected and stored. And if you disclosed, we don’t disclose it in ways that perpetuate harms. For example, we don’t disclose it in ways that could perpetuate stereotypes about Muslim people as security threats.
How do we use it to support people as opposed to undermine them? It’s surprisingly easy, I think, for data to be released in a well-intentioned way that is then used to perpetuate harms. So, I think that’s the starting point.
We do have some good data from StatsCan now about how Islamophobia has grown, and we’ve just talked a little bit about that. There was one statistic that I’ve included in my speaking notes, although I didn’t have a chance to speak to it directly, but I do think it is this is an important example of this, perhaps not unique, but a specific piece around Islamophobia as Muslim people being viewed as a security threat, and the 2017 poll by Radio-Canada that 51% of respondents in Canada felt that the presence of Muslims in the country made them somewhat or very worried about security. I think there’s a lot we can do with understanding that this is part of the racism here. It’s not true for every form of racism, and it’s, I think, important to understand that context. That’s one of the ways, I think, that accurate statistics can help us.
Senator Martin: Thank you.
Ms. Govender: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Busson.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I’d like to direct my comments and questions to both Commissioner Govender and MLA Singh. I want to thank you both for all the efforts that you both do, working for the kinds of goals and equality that you work for here in British Columbia. Being a British Columbian myself, I’m doubly grateful for the hard work and efforts and the challenges that you face every day.
Certainly, both Islamophobia and racism, in general, are a scar in this province as it is a plague in this country that needs to be addressed at every level. Interestingly enough you’re both here talking about your efforts within the jurisdiction of a provincial jurisdiction, specifically British Columbia and I’m interested if each of you have a comment or an observation or a recommendation to make about the level of integration between the efforts made provincially and the efforts made federally to address this terrible problem. Because whether it’s the jurisdiction of the provincial government or the jurisdiction of the federal government, we’re talking about the same people. They’re the same people that are being persecuted, made subjects of prejudice, the fear that they experience. Whether it’s from a provincial lens or a federal lens, we have the same victims at the same time.
I’m wondering if there is a coordinated effort to integrate the kinds of responses that we have? I believe that multiculturalism has evolved over the years to a different concept and we move more into pluralism and hopefully total inclusivity would be the ultimate goal in my mind. I’m wondering if you’d each comment on my observations, if you wouldn’t mind.
Ms. Govender: I’ll speak quickly to that. If I understand your question, it’s about the ways in which the federal and provincial government can or should collaborate or work together in terms of jurisdiction.
I think that’s really important and one area where we’ve done some work is around human rights in the online spaces. With the changes that were made some years ago to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the taking away of the section that spoke directly to online hate and the online space in particular. There’s now a bit of a vacuum in the law around who is responsible. Is it the federal human rights system or the provincial human rights system that can speak to human rights violations that happen online? I think our law needs to catch up to where we are as a society. There is quite a fluid interplay between our online lives and our real-time lives at this point.
It’s both antiquated and unrealistic to encapsulate all online regulation in all circumstances within the federal telecommunications jurisdiction, and it actually makes sense to think more about what the substance of what’s happening here is. Is this a federal actor? Then cover it under the federal law, and if it’s provincial actors, cover it in the provincial space. But those two should be seamless, so that if someone brings a human rights complaint — we’re making this argument likely before the human rights tribunal in the fall here — likely the hate they’ve experienced is not isolated, it won’t just be online, it won’t just be in person. Again, it’s quite a fluid barrier. We publish something, and then we might print it out; or we say something in real life, and we reiterate what we’ve seen posted on social media. So that if you bring a complaint, you should be able to have it resolved in the appropriate forum regardless.
At this point, there’s a real vacuum in the law. There’s no law that explicitly covers online hate. And I’m talking about outside the criminal context. I’m talking in the human rights context. I think that’s a key piece that the federal government needs to both occupy the space but also occupy it in a way that means that the provinces can step into it as well, so that there are no obstacles for complainants trying to bring a human rights complaint on that basis. Thank you.
Ms. Singh: Thank you so much for that question.
It is an issue that is not just restricted to the provinces or just federally. It is, like, collaborative efforts, and it is a non-partisan issue. It doesn’t matter which government comes to power. It is an issue that we need to talk about. Canada is a beautiful country or British Columbia is a beautiful province, it should be for everybody. There’s no place for discrimination. But we know what the reality is. We know what people are facing on an everyday basis.
I think the federal government has brought some important initiatives. Collaborating with the provinces. I would really like to collaborate with my federal partners, and what we can do better here in British Columbia. But as a federal government, I think it is important to have legislation. Very few provinces have legislation related to anti-racism. I know Ontario has one. Nova Scotia just brought in their anti-racism act. We are in the process of bringing our anti-racism act next year. But for the provinces that don’t have it, there should be some legislation that should work for those provinces or give them assistance and work collaboratively, I think, is extremely important. As you said, it affects all of us.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
The Chair: Senator Arnot, did you have any questions?
Senator Arnot: Yes. Thank you.
Well, this has been very informative. I really appreciate this. I’m going to ask Commissioner Govender a question about hate speech, and I agree with you 100% that speech has always been regulated, whether it’s fraud, slander, or liable.
We have to ask a question. Why do people use hate speech? What’s the purpose? What’s the motivation? And, generally speaking, I think it’s very clear that the motivation is to stifle any debate, to marginalize people, to make sure they do not participate in the debate. I’m very interested to know what the recommendations will be when they come out concerning that because words have the power to maim, shame, and blame. They are powerful. When people use words, they must be accountable for their words. This is a way to, I think, gather support for balance and, of course, people want to be able to speak as freely as possible, but you really have to examine the purpose of the words and why they’re being used. It’s antithetical to our free and democratic society, for the most part, when hate speech is used as a weapon to stifle debate.
Generally speaking, to both witnesses, I would want to bring to your attention a set of resources that was developed by the Concentus Citizenship Education Foundation. These resources were developed in Saskatchewan. They were customized for the Saskatchewan curriculum. They have now been customized for the Ontario curriculum. You don’t necessarily, in my opinion, have to change the curriculum. The curriculum is really broad-based throughout Canada. Most provinces and territories are very similar, actually. But it’s the resources inside that curriculum that’s really important.
These resources were developed in Saskatchewan to answer this question: What does it mean to be a Canadian citizen? What are the rights of citizenship? But more importantly what are the responsibilities that come with those rights, and how do you build and maintain respect for every citizen without exception? Why? Because every Canadian citizen deserves equal moral consideration. We’re all equal, and we need to be treated that way on a practical basis. And that is not happening. Those resources are all about rights, responsibility, and respect.
That’s the foundation that needs to be intact, and I think we need to recognize the power of education and the fact that teachers are change agents. They have the ability to shape the future society, to give students the tools they need to create the society in which they wish to live. These resources are not about what to think, they’re more about how to think. Critical thinking skills. That’s what’s being encouraged. So these are available.
They also speak to five essential competencies of Canadian citizenship, and I call those the five Es. They’re about all students graduating from Grades 12 should be able to be enlightened, ethical, engaged, empowered, and most importantly empathetic to be able to understand the position of others and to be able to see how that can play out as they develop the kind of society in which they wish to live.
With that background, I’d say that we really need to change the paradigm in the classroom, the ethos in the classroom, the ethos in the schools if you want to see a change in the ethos in the community. That’s where a lot of our energy should be placed. I commend those resources to you as Commissioner Govender at the human rights commission. I wanted to bring these to your attention and specifically to you, Ms. Singh, as an MLA and a good friend of the minister of education. I used to be quite involved in Concentus. I’m not anymore, but that organization would be quite willing to come to British Columbia and to show you what’s been done there and to see if they could be incorporated in the British Columbia situation.
They’re designed to be transferrable to other jurisdictions because it’s all about what it means to be a Canadian. And it’s this idea that we live in a multicultural, multitheist Canada. It’s very pluralistic. We are the most successful experiment in pluralism the world has ever seen, but there’s a fragility attached to it directly related to the knowledge, understanding, and commitment all Canadians have for our pluralistic society.
And, unfortunately, there are Ipsos polls that show that that commitment isn’t as strong as it should be. I think some of the things that we see are a demonstration of a failure by educators, education systems in Canada, to reinforce the pluralism that we embrace. I mean, it makes Canada different than any other country in the world, but we fail to invest in it the way we should.
I commend these resources to you, and I invite any comment you have because I believe that education ultimately is the place where you’re going to get the most bang for your buck, you’re going to see the best chance to effect real change in the community because young people understand fairness very, very well. It’s really about respect for every citizen without exception. That needs to be taught explicitly, intentionally, purposively, and sequentially, and that’s why a K to 12 curriculum can do that.
So, I’d invite you to answer my question.
Ms. Singh: I hope this is working. Okay. Thank you so much, senator. I completely agree with you that education is the key whenever we are talking about any kind of anti-racism resources. Education comes as a forefront pillar where we should be addressing it.
The Chair: Microphone.
Ms. Singh: It went off. It’s a little different in the legislature. It just goes on.
So sorry about that.
When I talked about the anti-racism roundtables, that’s what we were trying to find out. There are some jurisdictions. There are some educators who are on top of these issues, who are using these skills, these kinds of resources trying to guide their students, but we really want to enhance that, and that’s what came up in the roundtables, especially with the professional development courses that are being developed by the school districts. We are encouraging and that’s what the ministry of education is encouraging teachers to take up these courses so that they are able to provide these resources to the students.
We recently announced — which we are very happy about, and I’m sure Commissioner Govender as well — is having the grad requirement. We just had the Indigenous studies as part of our grad requirement. So starting the school sessions the school students passing out next year, they need to have the grad requirement. They need to take the course about our Indigenous people and on whose land we are settled. It’s very important for our kids to learn about their history and to see, like, the trauma, all that they have gone through. It is very important for those kids to know.
At the same time, it’s very important for them to know what the other communities are going through, what the history is, whether it is the Komagata Maru or the Chinese head tax or the Japanese internment, all of those colonial, historical episodes, I think our kids should be very aware of, and that empathy that you have brought in — it is the key to being a good citizen, a good Canadian citizen, good British Columbian, and just to be a good human being.
Senator Arnot: I just want to say that in Saskatchewan I know the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission did an outreach to high school students in Saskatchewan on the issue of racism, and there was a very clear and concise theme in the answers, and that was no more apologies. We don’t want apologies. We want action. So I want action. I am sure you do as well. But action has to be formulated around good solid resources to get the result that you want in the end.
Thank you very much for that advice. Thank you.
Ms. Govender: Thank you for your comments and questions. I just had a few additional pieces. Our legislative mandate includes an education component, but it puts it separate from the K to 12 components that you’ve just been hearing about. We have been developing a number of resources more generally on human rights, more specifically on racism and then some particularly in relation to hate. We’ve put out a question-and-answer document around the different legal remedies for hate, because we’ve noticed that there are often misunderstandings about the criminal law definitions of hate and versus the human rights definitions. That can have quite significant impacts on the way people talk and understand, even the media how they talk about hate and hate crime becomes this very high-level conversation. So we’ve produced some of those materials, but I appreciate you’re sharing the other ones.
I did want to mention, if I could, it reminded me of an earlier question around the jurisdictional issues. That there’s the data legislation that we’ve talked about that is more talk than action at this point. But as we’ve said, it’s necessary, I think, to build the action. One of the pieces that I think is really important to coordinate that I’d love to see the federal government working with provinces to develop is that kind of data legislation. That we now have multiple provinces that have developed it. I would go so far as to say that B.C. probably goes the furthest in what it mandates and what it requires, particularly that community embedded approach so that the data is guided in a way that works for the community. That’s an area that I would really love to see the federal government step into and cover off, as well.
I’ll circle back, then, to your first comment, about which I couldn’t agree more. That hate speech is often aimed at stifling the speech of marginalized people. That reminds me of a question, as well, from Senator Jaffer around the same issue, which I think is that substantive equality understanding. If we understand how these issues affect everybody and we have a constitutional obligation to protect substantive equality, which in my view as a former constitutional lawyer, is a proactive requirement. It’s not simply to prevent inequality from arising but to actively promote substantive equality. I think that’s where we can sort of frame the conversation. Freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right with limits, and substantive equality is a constitutionally protected right.
In my view as human rights commissioner, I see all of our rights through that lens. I see substantive equality really at the heart of what we mean by human dignity and human right, and we work out from there. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: I have a follow-up question. In your mandate to do public education — and we’ve heard a little bit about this previously — how do you approach educating the existing adult cohort, and what do you feel are the best mechanisms, the best media, the best tools, to be able to reach that group? I’m just wondering what your thoughts are, best advice as to an approach, a recommendation that this committee could make to addressing a solid robust education to the existing adult cohort.
Ms. Govender: Let me just hold on to the thought around recommendations that the committee might make.
In terms of our approach to adult education. We have a team of educators that work in our office, but it stretches far beyond that. We have developed some specific education materials, but that requires a level of buy-in already. You’re coming to a website, or you’re coming online, or signing up for a workshop. So you already have some level of interest. We’re trying to run a yearly campaign — a public interest or public awareness campaign. We’ve done one, and we’re just about to launch the second one. The first one was on anti-racism.
We posed a two-part question. It was a public awareness campaign that was on billboards, bus shelters and the sides of buses. The first piece was “am I racist?” It was a large question in bold letters. There was a follow-up piece that came a couple of weeks later which was — I can’t remember the exact wording — “if I don’t recognize the value of learning about our history of racism, am I racist? If I say I don’t see colour, am I racist?” It was questioning some of our basic assumptions that are often out there in the public. That’s one way we’ve tried to engage people that aren’t already engaged by putting it right in people’s faces.
We have a robust communications team. We do quite a bit of media and public work which was a strategic decision for the education mandate that we do. We’ve had good success on that. We’ve had thousands of media hits over the last three years, which has been great to see and the level of engagement. And then yearly polls to start to measure if any of that’s making progress over time. Which, honestly, we’ve only been around for three years, so we’re not quite in the measurement — we’re not quite able to see the level of change, but really trying to keep an eye on that to see what is effective, are these the right strategies.
Senator Arnot: That was a question I was going to ask. It’s the measurement of these kinds of approaches. We would be informed if we knew that that was a successful program, and the mechanisms in the media were viable to change attitudes.
The Chair: If I can ask the witnesses to be really quick with the answers, I have another senator who wants to ask questions.
Ms. Govender: The evaluation is ongoing, and we are really trying to measure it over time. We’re doing a project called the baseline project.
We’re doing a project looking at the baseline of human rights across the province so that we can do that kind of measurement over time, and we have annual polls and various other evaluation mechanisms built in.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I just have one quick question.
Yesterday we visited a mosque, and I was surprised to hear that in B.C. the rates of Islamophobic incidents are the highest in the country. Can you speak to me a bit about that? We were so impressed with the testimony we heard from the women. We are aware that when we talk about Islamophobia that our women are in the forefront because those who wear a hijab are more visible. We have seen incidents in Edmonton and Quebec, everywhere. Gendered Islamophobia, is that something that you have looked at? I’d also like for you to respond to the incidents of Islamophobia having risen so much in B.C. What’s behind that?
Ms. Singh: It’s very difficult to say, senator, what has caused that. It’s very difficult and it is very saddening when we see those kinds of reports coming out from British Columbia. The rise in hate, in any kind of hate. During COVID we had a really high number of anti-Asian hate, as well. We know that whenever there is any kind of disaster or any kind of situation going on the targets are always the most vulnerable, most marginalized communities.
That’s why we put so much focus on the intersectionality when we developed our anti-racism data legislation.
I really want to thank Commissioner Govender’s input and guidance for that legislation. That we focused on gendered Islamophobia and the reason we talk about the hijab woman facing discrimination, facing the hate more than the Muslim community as a whole, it is very important to look at the intersectional factors.
Like, I think because it’s out in the open, those women are out in the open. Looking at me, people cannot find out whether I’m a Muslim or what faith I come from. But, with those, it is, like, visible markers.
And one thing that we are very proud of. When we were doing our consultations for anti-racism data legislation, it was out in the communities. We involved a lot of communities, a lot of Muslim communities, and especially women’s groups. They were our partners during those consultations and the survey that we developed for our anti-racism data legislation. For the first time in the history of British Columbia, we had a survey that talked about the faith markers — like wearing a hijab or a turban — as the form of discrimination. We have never used those kinds of markers before to collect the data. This is the first time we have done that.
But to find out the root cause of why it is happening, it is really difficult for me to say. Maybe the commissioner has better insight into that?
Ms. Govender: I wish I had a better answer on that. I think one piece of context that may be helpful is that many human rights issues in B.C. are among the worst in the country. We also have some very good numbers on our side; but, you know we also have the poorest postal code in the country. We have the highest numbers of missing and murdered Indigenous women in the country here in B.C. So there are a number of human rights that are the most significant. We also have some of the strongest advocacy around human rights alongside Ontario. In the sense — and I don’t mean the human rights commission in that sense — I mean the cases that are litigated in the justice system around human rights. Disproportionally, many human rights cases come from B.C. So it’s both sides of the coin in case that’s helpful context.
I did want to speak to the intersectional point you raised, which I think is so important. I didn’t include the actual statistics; so I can’t pull them out directly for you. But in preparing for speaking today, I was looking at an article around the emerging numbers of the rise in violence and hate against Black Muslim women in particular in Canada. So intersectionality doesn’t end with faith and gender; it goes beyond, as well. We know that marginalization and violence are not completely additive with every identity factor you have, but there is a cumulative aspect of intersectional violence. So it’s not surprising both for the reasons that we said, the faith markers are more obvious but also women get harassed and experience more discrimination based on gender.
I would strongly encourage you in your recommendations, and I hear from your questions that this is very much in your mind, but when you collect data do it in a way that doesn’t prioritize anti-racism initiatives over other forms of discrimination and that allows for intersectional data to be produced and that you collect, store and use it in a way that allows it to be cross tabulated. So you can ask those questions, but if you don’t create a system that does not allow you to see the intersections, then you can’t use it. You can say that you’ve collected information on disability, and we collected information on gender and race. But if you don’t think proactively from the outset of developing desegregated demographic data processes from an intersectional lens, I think we risk reinforcing a male or a white norm of able-bodied form of discrimination, which can be really problematic.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer, I turn to you. Just to be mindful of time. We have four minutes left. So your question and your answer. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: My question will be short, but you may have to think about it. So you can do that and later on send something to the committee clerk.
Yesterday we were told about gendered Islamophobia, and so I’m wondering if either of you deal with gendered Islamophobia or just Islamophobia with your work. The reason I ask that — well, I don’t need to tell you that. You know that it’s different. So have you given any thought to that? Please start with the commissioner.
Ms. Govender: Absolutely, both. In terms of the data legislation, we pushed hard for an intersectional approach; and, in fact, while I think it’s incredibly important to have this focus on anti-racism, if it had been up to me and if you take a look at the grandmother perspective report, in fact, what we recommended was an anti-discrimination data act for the purpose of being truly intersectional. That’s one place where we’ve really focused on this issue.
Where Islamophobia has come into the sharpest focus in our work has been the hate inquiry and we have collected information that allows us to understand the intersectional way people experience discrimination, so as Muslim women in particular, and we received a number of survey responses in our surveys talking about how wearing more obvious markers of religion, for example, resulted in incidents of hate.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Ms. Singh: I will just echo what the commissioner says. Especially with our anti-racism data legislation. When we were doing the consultations, even before we started the consultations, the survey was talking about the experiences. It was not “yes or no” questions. We gave them the opportunity to talk about your experiences. And we had a number of responses, especially from the Muslim women talking about their experiences and how they felt the hate. I think it was the first time they had this opportunity, a safe venue to bring their narrative and talk about their experience.
Also, during the consultation, I’m so glad to have had such strong allies within the Muslim community, especially the women’s organizations. I know Senator Salma Ataullahjan knows quite a few organizations. Pakistani Women’s Society, they and many more, participated in our consultations, and it was great to see so many women, Muslim women, come out and talk about these experiences and also leading these consultations. I think that is very, very important.
Governments, we have the moral and ethical responsibility to tackle racism, but we cannot do it without our strong allies. So having such strong allies in the community who are ready to take on this work, who are going to lead this work for us, is extremely important.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, if you allow me just for a second. I want to say something about the commissioner. I’m looking at the commissioner, and the commissioner comes by her work honestly because her mother was a women’s rights person. I worked with her for many years. So I can see that the work goes on even though your mother has retired. Thank you very much to both of you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. While we’re acknowledging the work Ms. Singh does, and I thank you for the support you have shown the Muslims in B.C. The organization you mentioned, the Pakistani Canadian Women, I had a meeting with them, and they spoke very highly, and they were very grateful for your support and how outspoken you have been; so I thank you for that. We need allies. Muslims need allies. I hear that you have spoken up and received quite a bit of hate because of that; but, you know, I thank you. I thank you both for your strength. And I’m hoping that at some point we will have Dr. Babra Rana as a witness because that society I’ve been in touch with them for many years and they do incredible work.
I want to take this opportunity to thank both of you for your presentations. It will really help with our study as we move forward. If you feel there’s something you missed or would have liked to have said, please feel free to send us a written submission. That can also be part of your testimony. I thank you, and enjoy the rest of your day.
Senators, we’ll suspend briefly so we can get ready for the next panel.
Honourable senators, I will take this opportunity to introduce our second panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from all witness and then turn to questions from senators. We will hear first from the Muslim Students’ Association at the University of British Columbia, and then we’ll hear from Professor Karim, Chancellor’s Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University. Then we will hear from the Co-founder of the Foundation for a Path Forward, Tariq Tyab.
Abisola Kehinde, you have the floor. I hope I said your name correctly. Thank you.
Abisola Kehinde, Vice President and Sister, Muslim Students’ Association of The University of British Columbia: Thank you so much, chair and committee members. I acknowledge the owners of the land I am presently on, the city of Vancouver situated on the unceded traditional territories of Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.
It’s an honour for the Muslim Students’ Association of UBC to be invited by the Senate of Canada as a witness to speak on Islamophobia in Canada study. We appreciate the opportunity.
The numerous hate crimes targeted toward Muslims in Canada exist even after the parliament of Canada passed a motion in 2016 to condemn all forms of Islamophobia, such as the 2017 shooting attack at the Quebec City mosque to the most recent 2021 fatal attack on five members of a Muslim family. This shows the existence of Islamophobia in Canada still. The Muslim Students’ of UBC mission is to support Muslim students on the UBC campus to be the best versions of themselves while fulfilling their spiritual, academic, and social needs. We the MSA at UBC surveyed our social media on the 19th of August 2022 asking its members to share their experience with Islamophobia in Canada. That was after we were invited to this occasion. The responses were shocking, and one could only imagine the trauma faced by these students after such encounters. I will be read out some of the responses.
First, a student said that I was asked if I murder people when a person knew I’m a Muslim. I could only imagine the trauma. Another one said, “Once a boy asked me if I was planning to blow up the mall?” Another said, “Terrorist jokes and throwing paper airplanes at me while yelling Allahu Akbar.” Another said, “Terrorist jokes and making fun of Allahu Akbar.” Someone said, “Having to downplay certain opinions about different topics because of liberal pressures.” Another said, “Intimidated by a couple of guys right outside of Canada’s parliament.” And a person said, “I don’t know if this is considered Islamophobia, but why are there limited resources for Muslim financing. I don’t care about how I’m looked at as a Muslim. I care about being able to practise my beliefs in the place that claims it accepts and accommodates everyone.” And last of the response I’m sharing today is by somebody that says, “Everyday Islamophobia, which includes the stares and being treated differently.”
In summary, this shows a need for more measures to be put in place by the Canadian government against Islamophobia. As stated by the government:
The promotion and protection of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, is an important part of Canada’s constructive engagement in the world.
Suggestions on how to curb Islamophobia in Canada include more representation of obvious Muslims in different government positions and promotions of the positive impact of Muslims in the media while continuously advising the public about the traumatic consequences of hate speech toward Muslims.
I sincerely appreciate the platform once again and I hope that continued efforts are put in place to make Islamophobia a thing of the past in Canada such that there is true freedom in worshipping in peace and security. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Professor Karim, I turn to you now.
Karim H. Karim, Chancellor’s Professor, School of Journalism and Communication, Carleton University, as an individual: I begin by expressing profound gratitude to the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples who have cherished, tended and protected their traditional territories for thousands of years. I would also like to thank the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights and the Clerk of the Committee for inviting me to make this brief submission. It deals with three topics: The presumed separation of religion and state, sources of anti-Muslim discrimination, and I would like to end with a recommendation.
A major barrier to government action to anti-Muslim discrimination and its consequences in Canadian society is the presumption of complete separation of religion and state. In the ten years that I served in the federal public service and my subsequent engagement with it, I have seen that bureaucrats are not trained to engage with issues of religion. In fact, many consider them anathema. This has major implications for the development and implementation of policy and programs. On the other hand, Statistics Canada stated in 2019 that more than two thirds of Canadians reported having a religious affiliation and more than half said that their religious or spiritual beliefs were somewhat or very important to how they lived their lives.
Canadian governments have historically engaged with aspects of religion. The Charter guarantees “freedom of conscience and religion” as a fundamental right. Whereas the Charter gives all Canadians the right to hold their own respective beliefs, Christianity, the faith of the majority, has been given a particular status. The lyrics of the French and bilingual national anthem proclaim “Il sait porter la croix,” in a clear acknowledgement of the country’s Christian heritage. At the formation of the Canadian nation, the Constitution Act of 1867 provided for separate, religious-based schools. Roman Catholicism was given recognition within the Canadian state in addition to that accorded to the Church of England. By 1967, three other Christian denominations and the Jewish faith had been included in the federal government’s order of precedence, this is the document that determines the placement of individuals at official state ceremonies. In the early 1990s, the religious category in the order was made inclusive of all religious groups in Canada, in acknowledgement of the broadening religious diversity of the population.
It appears, therefore, that whereas religion is vital to many Canadians and has been incorporated in certain key aspects of the Canadian state, the machinery of the government has not quite figured out how to deal with it. The major concern in the public service seems to be engaging objectively with the sensitivities of faith-based matters. There are also important historical reasons for this problem. Canada’s political philosophies have significantly been shaped by European history, including the 30 Years’ War between Catholics and Protestants in the 17th century that led to the death of eight million people. Religion has subsequently been viewed as a negative force that is to be kept out of politics as much as possible. Therefore, before the Canadian government develops mechanisms to respond to anti-Muslim discrimination, there needs to be a clear understanding of the general bureaucratic reluctance to deal with religion as a whole.
I move now to sources of anti-Muslim discrimination.
I have been conducting research and writing books and articles for the last four decades on how Muslims are understood in western societies. Conflicts have been occurring between Muslim peoples and Europeans for the last 1400 years. This has given rise to deeply held stereotypes on both sides. From the early 16th century onwards, European colonization took a worldwide form that made one continent’s inhabitants ascendant over all others. It produced planetary structuration on a racial basis, that is, white supremacy. European theorization about racial hierarchy helped justify the systematic exploitation of other lands. Colonizers assigned themselves the mission of civilizing other races characterized as barbarous by scholars like the 17th century Hugo Grotius, who helped lay the foundations of international law. Other philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and J.S. Mill excluded non-Europeans from their supposedly universalist schemes of human rights. The Enlightenment was presented both to western and other societies as uniformly beneficial to all people even as its ruminations enabled Europeans to repress others. Race and religion fused in European perspectives about Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and other peoples around the world.
There is a growing body of literature on the racialization of Muslims in the contemporary contexts of anti-Islamic discrimination.
White supremacy serves as the social matrix for various forms of prejudice, including that against Muslims. Its societal pervasiveness is omnipresent. It explains why the young Justin Trudeau felt completely comfortable wearing brownface, among other places, at the West Point Grey Academy in Vancouver. He apparently had no qualms about appearing as the animated Disney version of Aladdin, who happily sang about his country, “It’s barbaric, but hey, it’s home.” White supremacy is probably the reason why another prime minister, Stephen Harper, insisted on calling what he perceived to be Muslim customs, barbaric.
The topos of Muslim violence has existed in European literature, music, and art for over a thousand years. To give a few examples, the 11th century The Song of Roland, which depicts the fight between Christianity and Islam as that between good and evil; Shakespeare’s Othello who murders his wife in a fit of jealousy; Mozart’s The Abduction from the Seraglio; and the Orientalist paintings of the Romantic era which portray the core stereotypes of violence, lust, greed and barbarism. The early silent films, The Sheikh and The Son of the Sheikh showed a Bedouin tribesman kidnapping a white woman, a theme that has become a Hollywood staple in later decades. These are the manifestations of a long-held cultural memory that gives forth similar depictions century after century. They are what has come to be held as the truth about Muslims, providing the cognitive frames to shape news, social media posts, and government policy.
As violence by some Muslim actors came to the foreground in the 21st century, terrorism came to be linked only to the followers of Islam. The parts of Canadian history that have included attacks against the state by Irish, Doukhobor, Armenian, Quebecois, and other groups are seemingly erased. Words such as Islam, Islamic, and Muslim have been corrupted by influential bloggers, journalists, and politicians to demonize an entire community, which itself uses such terminology to describe its piety, ethics, and moral conduct.
So to move on to my recommendation which is a principial approach.
After studying the problem of media depictions for four decades, during which I have worked with media organizations, civil society associations, and governments, I would like to take a step back and look at the larger and long-term picture. My conviction is that a viable human rights strategy in dealing with anti-Muslim discrimination should flow from purposive principles that resonate broadly in society. This will ensure wide acceptance and the support of strategic allies. Universalist principles should also provide the basic framework and support for the details of the overall plan to address the deeply ingrained mindsets that regularly reassert discriminatory practices. Without such underpinning principles, the specific measures of any proposed strategy run the risk of being vulnerable to erasure. Having a principial basis will also foster coherence and strength in the strategy.
My suggestions for the principles are social justice, mutual respect, and cultural understanding. These are not new ideas, but they have broad-based acceptability in society, and they can counter the hegemony, resilience, and power of white supremacy. They bear the potency of societal ethics. I will take the next few minutes to elaborate upon the three proposed principles for a strategy.
First of all, justice. Justice is the cornerstone of a well-functioning society. On it rests the obligations of the state and the hopes of citizens. It is the ultimate goal of democracy. A society in which people feel that there is a lack of justice is the cause of social distress that leads to turbulence. A benevolent state cares for all its citizens. White supremacy has, however, produced structures of injustice toward racialized peoples. They have been left out of the key modes of participation. Their voices have been muted. As a principal vehicle for public engagement, the media have diminished or distorted the presence of racialized peoples. It is incumbent upon governments to foster social justice.
Respect. Respect is essential for social harmony. It opens the door to good relations between peoples and helps shut the door to hate. It enables the self to welcome the stranger, the immigrant, the other. In the words of the poet William Butler Yeats, “There are no strangers here; only friends you haven’t yet met.”
Holding respect as a primary social value helps individuals guard against the insidiousness of stereotypes. It keeps us vigilant against those relentless discourses that would disparage people. It fosters the mindfulness not to attach the bad behaviour of an individual to an entire group. Respect makes us accepting of alien customs. It makes us think about our own likes and dislikes, our cultural traditions and religions in relation to those of others. Respecting the cultures and ways of life of all law-abiding Canadians is a primary requirement for a democratic society. Modes of public speech, media practice, and other social behaviours that normalize the existence of all peoples in Canada will serve as a model for good public behaviour. It will keep a check on the proliferation of miscommunication and disinformation.
So the final principle. Understanding.
Understanding is the next step. It is vital that our society continue to foster mutual understanding among all peoples. Aspects of cultures and religions may seem repugnant to the self, but being open to the long-term endeavour to understand the historical and cultural contexts in which other peoples operate is essential for a healthy, diverse society. Our own preferences developed over time can be re-examined if one is committed to the principle of cultural understanding. Decentring, not eliminating, Eurocentric modes of thought and practice is key to this process. White supremacy, whose structures are ubiquitous in our society, need to be revealed for its inimical and destructive effects. The media need to examine their own deeply held cultural biases. Only when these are understood can a human rights policy effectively counter white supremacy’s resilience.
So my recommendation to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights is to develop a principial framework that serves as a basis for a rigorous and long-term strategy to deal with anti-Muslim discrimination. Such an approach accounts for the resistance that its report will undoubtedly face from positions that would continue to support a racial and religious hierarchy in Canada. An engaged commitment to justice, respect and understanding can be the touchstone for Canadian society in the 21st century.
Thank you for your kind attention, senators.
The Chair: Thank you.
And now I turn to you, Tariq Tyab.
Tariq Tyab, Co-Founder, Foundation For A Path Forward: I’d like to thank the honoured senators, the chair, and our esteemed guests.
We’re on the ancient lands of the Musqueam, Tsleil-Waututh, and Squamish Nations, and I’d like to acknowledge and appreciate that.
My name is Tariq Tyab. I’m a proud Canadian-born Muslim who calls British Columbia his home. I’ve been serving the Muslim community and the greater community in British Columbia for 25 years. I’m a former executive with the BC Muslim Association, the province’s largest Muslim organization with over 19 mosques across the province. I’m also a co-founder of the Muslim Food Bank and Community Services, which provides groceries, meals, social services, and mental health support services for approximately 5,000 people twice a month in British Columbia.
Today, I’m speaking with you as the co-founder of the first official faith community convener for anti-racism initiatives in the province of British Columbia, Foundation for a Path Forward. We work with the Resilience BC Anti-Racism Network, Parliamentary Secretary Rachna Singh oversees that department; we also work with the Attorney General’s Office. And last month, we were honoured to receive the Official Patronage for our work from the Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, the Honourable Janet Austin.
Islamophobia. Over the course of the last five years, we have seen a terrifying increase in the rise of hate-motivated incidents in our country, from Islamophobic murders to anti-Asian discrimination, from anti-Semitism to anti-government attacks. The polarization of our society and the demonization of our citizenry are a direct threat to our democracy and freedom. Muslims have been disproportionally affected by this wave of intolerance and hatred. More than a quarter of Canadians believe that over the past five years, it’s become more acceptable to be prejudiced against Muslims.
According to a poll by Ipsos for Global News, the polling seems to correlate with an increase in hate crimes targeting Muslims living in this country. Canada does lead the G-7 nations in hate-motivated killings of Muslims, but those instigated against Muslim declined. So the police-reported hate crimes targeting religion declined 16% from 613 incidents in 2019 to 515 incidents in 2020, according to Statistics Canada’s compilation of police-reported hate crimes. But in 2020, police reported 2,669 criminal incidents motivated by hate, the largest number ever recorded since data became available in 2009. The Statistics Canada report was released on March 17, 2022.
Unfortunately, most Islamophobic acts are not being reported. This includes discrimination Muslims face at business and institutions, the insults and vandalism that target Muslims and the attacks, verbal and physical, target visibly Muslim victims, particularly those wearing hijabs and niqabs. The incidents of anti-Muslim hate targeting women being 47% of police-reported victims of Islamophobia according to Statistics Canada.
In January 2017, around 7:54 p.m., a white supremacist gunman — and we refuse to acknowledge their names due to their desire for notoriety — approached the Islamic Cultural Centre of Quebec City where evening prayers had just ended. He loaded .233 semi-automatic rifle and aimed at two men who had exited the mosque. The rifle jammed when he attempted to shoot. He dropped the rifle and shot the men with a 9 mm Glock pistol. The gunman then entered the mosque where he continued shooting with the pistol. He killed six men and critically injured five others in under two minutes.
It was around 8:40 p.m. on Saturday while 54-year-old Mohamed-Aslim Zafis was seated outside of the IMO Mosque on Rexdale Boulevard near Islington Avenue performing health screening at the front doors. Within a few minutes, Mohamed would be murdered by a neo-Nazi white supremacist who was influenced by the Satanic ideology of the Order of Nine Angles.
On June 6, 2021, the Afzaal family was struck by a truck on Hyde Park Road in what police described as a crime motivated by anti-Muslim hate. Talat Afzaal, Salman Afzaal, Yumna Afzaal, and Madiha Salman died, while a young boy survived. The event shocked the nation and shined a light on the effects of unchecked Islamophobia.
Here in British Columbia women have been attacked in public particularly in transit, buses, SkyTrain, and malls. Visibly Muslim women are afraid, many of them are afraid to go outside, and many are living in fear of being targeted by hate and violence.
But we have to ask where these anti-Muslim terrorists were radicalized. Where are the seeds of hate being sown? Honourable senators, we all know the answer. It is online.
Online hate. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service warned in 2020 that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are among the extremist groups that are using the collective social trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories aimed at radicalizing others. Transatlantic white supremacist terrorism organized, connected, and spread online is the gravest to not just Muslims and racialized minorities in British Columbia and North America but to all Canadians and our democracy.
The great replacement theory is a far-right conspiracy theory which says Western liberal elites, specifically Jewish elites, are bringing in immigrants who are Black, Muslim, and non-White to replace white people in North America, Europe, and Australia. Using data from organizations such as Moonshot and Google Jigsaw, we are able to trace the spread of these beliefs through Google searches. We find that anti-Muslim bigotry and Islamophobia are among the most searched for racist terms on Google search. The data we have today is granular down to the postal codes of the hate searches.
Here in British Columbia, we are per capita number 1 in Islamophobic hate terms searched. Anti-Muslim hate searches that are the top racist search terms in terms of Islamophobia. Number 1 is “remove kebab”; number 2 is “kebab removal”; number 3 is “kill Muslims.” This is what people actually search for when they type in Google.
What does “remove kebab” mean? It is a code for kill Muslims by right-wing extremist groups. This is a term from a song Serbian nationals played during the Bosnian-Muslim genocide during the 1990s, and that was ethnic cleansing that they perpetrated. The Christ Church shooter, a few years back, was playing the exact same song, the anthem, Remove Kebab, as he was driving to kill Muslims at the two mosques where close to 50 people were murdered.
Traditional media trends. The warping of the public’s perception of Islam and Muslims is accentuated by the portrayal of our community in traditional media. For instance, in the United States, The New York Times portrays Islam and Muslims more negatively than cancer, cocaine, and alcohol.
According to researchers from Toronto-based 416Labs, the findings are important since the media plays a powerful role in influencing the public perceptions, and this kind of reporting is likely to negatively distort perceptions of Islam and Muslims for those who read The New York Times. The study looked at The New York Times headlines in the period from 1990 to 2014; the researchers found that Islam and Muslims are consistently associated with negative terms at least 57% of the time, says the study. Only 8% of the news headlines about Islam and Muslims were positive. The report suggests that the average reader of The New York Times is likely to assign collective responsibility to Islam and Muslims to the violent actions of a tiny fraction, few extremists.
Here in Canada, our media representation has been just as distorted. The 2017 Quebec mosque shooting received six times less coverage in American media than the Parliament Hill attack by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a convert to Islam, even though the mosque shooting involved six times more deaths.
Terms related to the Quebec mosque shooting on the websites of the CBC, The Globe and Mail, and the Toronto Star yielded 194 relevant results in contrast to 768 for the Boston Marathon bombing, even though the Quebec mosque shooting occurred in Canada and was more fatal.
A 2017 study from the University of Georgia found that attacks by Muslim perpetrators in the United States received on average 449% more coverage in American media than any other attacks.
As we enter our testimony into the record for this inquiry, we wish to ensure that we also acknowledge and encourage the efforts being made to combat Islamophobia and hate in Canada. Hundreds of organizations across the country are working on solving this problem, and the government has made efforts as evidenced by these hearings; however, more is needed, more coordination and cooperation, more resources and effective regulations, and more efforts like those you are making today.
The Chair: Thank you for your testimony.
As is the custom, we will now turn to senators for their questions and answers. Senators, I will ask you limit your questions. We’re trying to keep to time, so five minutes for each question and answer.
So Senator Jaffer to be a followed by Senator Busson.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much. Thank you to all three of you. You have given us so much to think about. Just one day of just listening to you would not be enough. So thank you very much.
Because of the limited time I have, I will start with Professor Karim Karim.
Professor, you are an authority on this subject. You’ve been writing for such a long time, and I want to start off with asking you for a definition. I’ve been looking for a proper definition of Islamophobia, and I’m having difficulty finding one, and since you write so much on Islamophobia, do you have a working definition?
Mr. Karim: Thank you for that question, Senator Jaffer.
I’ve had trouble with the term myself, and being a person who is interested in the origins of words and etymology — sorry. As I was saying, the issue of etymology is very important when you look at the term Islamophobia. With particular respect to the phobia, which, of course, means fear, this is a term that is quite inadequate in terms of what is really happening. Fear, one could say, is only the first step. And it is important to recognize fear, irrational fear, fear from ignorance or whatever source it may be. But Islamophobia is just limited to that, the term — the fear of Muslims or the fear of Islam. It doesn’t seem to go beyond that in terms of talking about the consequences of that fear, which can be discrimination, violence, and worse.
I struggle with the term myself. I have not used it in my writing. Whenever I do mention it or whenever I am in a situation where I have to write about it, I put it in quotation marks because of my perceived limitations. The terms that I use, as I did in my presentation, are anti-Muslim discrimination or anti-Muslim violence and so on or anti-Islamic violence. I don’t tend to use Islamophobia. So I’m sorry. I can’t provide a definition because I am having trouble with the term myself.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Professor, you are the 2001 winner of the Robinson Book Prize for excellence in journalism. You wrote Islamic Peril: Media and Global Violence, the book that you received the prize for. Islamic Peril explores the lack of historical and cultural understanding in the mass media and covers some of the Middle Eastern countries.
Do you think things have changed since 2001? Where are we now? What is our report card?
Mr. Karim: That’s a very important question, Senator Jaffer.
It was written 20 years ago. I’m humbled by the fact that it is still being cited internationally and in Canada. It was primarily focused on Canadian media which used a variety of sources internationally including mostly American media, especially the wire services. What it did was it tried to uncover the longstanding situation as far as the perception of Muslims and Islam goes. As I explained in my presentation, there is a long historical continuity. I have noticed — not only in my work but the work of colleagues, and I’m very proud to say that many of my PhD and master’s students have also been working on these issues — that despite all this, the movement has been slow.
There is a general reluctance among journalists to engage with religion as there is with the public service, as I mentioned before. One could basically term it ignorance. There is ignorance not only to deal with Islam but with religion in general. So, when situations in society occur where journalists have to cover stories where religion is involved they are at a disadvantage. They just don’t know, especially about the situation of Muslims. Various terms have been disparaged. The term caliphate now gets linked to the so-called Islamic state or Daesh — a term that is a very proud historical institution in Muslim history and so on.
So what tends to happen out of this ignorance is this constant misrepresentation. I’ll give you an example of an article a Globe and Mail religion reporter had written once. He was reporting on a letter that had been sent to the newspaper complaining about something. And it had not been signed by the person’s name, but he had just signed off with the Muslim greeting, Salaam Alaikum. Now, the religion reporter did not know that Salaam Alaikum is a Muslim greeting; so he kept referring to the writer as Mr. Alaikum. So you can see even with the basic information about Muslims and about Islamic customs there is ignorance.
Things have moved slowly. Journalists are becoming more aware of issues of anti-Muslim discrimination, of racism, and so on, and trying to engage with them. There is a noticeable difference, but there is an underlying ignorance. So that will be my answer to that.
Senator Jaffer: Second round, chair.
The Chair: Yes, I will but your name down.
Senator Busson.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here.
This afternoon’s presentations are both incredibly informative and incredibly depressing at the same time listening to the statistics and the information that you share around the direction we’re going when it comes to dealing with, certainly, Islamophobia and more specifically, Mr. Tariq Tyab, talked about white supremacy in general. Our society has been a victim of that, of white supremacy, from, of course, before the time of the colonization and through the times of the KKK, and then it seems to have gained steam.
And I would just like to make a comment and ask for your reaction to the comment around the weaponization of social media by white supremacists in this country and around the world. And I’m not sure which one of you talked about the fact that it’s a worldwide movement that seems, again, to be gaining steam throughout this era and specifically through COVID.
You’ve talked about the principles of respect and justice and all of that. Would any of you like to comment on your concrete recommendations of what we can recommend, what we can do, not specifically around social media and education, but concrete recommendations that we can take forward that might address your concerns because it’s clear that you’ve given it a great deal of thought?
Mr. Tyab: There are some organizations that I would recommend. The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, that has done a lot of research on the impact of how social media is being used as a weapon to polarize society and foment conflict within our communities. Some of these state actors, and some of these are actually bots that are not even individuals. They are bots that are created to create animus among — I’ll give you an example.
In Texas, a bot created a Facebook page of a Muslim community wanting to build a larger mosque in Houston. Then another bot went into the white supremacist chats and far-right Christian forums saying that Muslims are coming to this community. You should protest against it. So this was something that was created. Real world conflict between white community and Muslim community crowds created by bots. And these are created by, again, state actors.
The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has actual research how Facebook and all these other social media platforms are being used by certain bad actors to weaponize and really mobilize anti-Semitism, anti-Muslim bigotry is another term, and to advocate for violence against our communities. We can share those resources with you and their recommendations.
There’s another book called The Islamophobia Industry, which actually charts where the money is behind Islamophobia and certain groups that have a vested interest in spreading Islamophobia and violence and prejudice against Muslims.
Senator Busson: Thank you, very much.
Mr. Karim: Yes. Social media is a huge problem. But there’s a longstanding model in media theory, which is trying to understand all sorts of communication.
There is the general impression that there is a media message and then there’s the receiver, and once the receiver gets the message, he or she will act out according to the message, but that’s usually not the case. That’s why advertisers have such a lot of problems trying to sell us things; of course, sometimes they succeed. But even when it comes to a negative message, like discrimination and so on, they do not always succeed. What is important for us to recognize is the social environment in which they operate. So it’s not a linear progression. Sometimes helped by what these days are called influencers. However, the primary source of influence in our society are — we may call them celebrities, so celebrities, people who endorse certain issues, certain ideas, and so on, including politicians.
President Trump has been blamed for many things, but he is very culpable for opening the door for certain kinds of behaviour. He legitimized a whole range of behaviours; and, of course, his messages do not stop at the border. They spill over into our country.
One could take another example. Bill 21 in Quebec. The kind of impact that this has in keeping people separate. When certain kinds of people are stigmatized in society, it doesn’t create the kind of harmony that we’re looking for. And, hence, immediately when that bill was being discussed and when it was passed, there were attacks on Muslim women and other Muslims in buses and in other public places.
Politicians’ political speech has a lot of influence, a lot of power, and when it is combined with social media, with the message that comes from the media, they gain a certain force. There is acceleration. There is magnitude.
So we need to understand these problems as a whole. There have been various kinds of media over generations that have played their role — movies, newspapers, magazines, and even before that, people used to communicate in different ways.
Things don’t happen just by themselves. It’s not message and action. It is how this message is relayed, who is speaking, who is communicating, who is credible to the group that is concerned, who are the source of influence, who is trusted. Unfortunately, people like President Trump who gained certain following and not only in his country but has admirers in our country, and that has kind of encouraged and legitimized all these other messages that follow through along his themes.
So I would suggest that rather than only focusing on the media messages — and I say this as a media scholar — we need to understand the larger social environments in which this is occurring, because sometimes, as I said, media messages fail, but they succeed when they are promoted by influencers.
Senator Busson: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer. Second round.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. My question was for you, Ms. Kehinde. I have a number of questions; and, chair, you can stop me whenever you want.
I still am not getting my head around this, but I think it was yesterday, Mr. Tyab or his associate who spoke about internet hate, online hate around, around UBC. Am I correct? Was that correct information?
Mr. Tyab: Correct.
Senator Jaffer: I was wondering, have you come across any of that at UBC?
Ms. Kehinde: Do you mean online hate that is targeted toward Muslims at UBC?
Senator Jaffer: Yes.
Ms. Kehinde: So —
Senator Jaffer: If you haven’t, that’s okay.
Ms. Kehinde: I haven’t personally. If we get messages like that on Instagram, our social media platform, and we block some accounts. We restrict access. And that is how certain hate messages become flat. Because these days, you think that there’s still freedom of speech and generally some apps don’t restrict, but certain apps are working on restricting speech. So I see no reason why governments cannot work to restrict certain speech, as well. Because if there are hateful speeches on Instagram these days, that gets flagged right away and the accounts can be suspended, which usually helps in reducing hateful comments that come later on such and some people getting certain great ideas that will act upon later in the future.
Senator Jaffer: So the other question. I think one thing that I’m always going to remember about your presentation is that everyday Islamophobia, which includes stares and being treated differently. Do you have to face that?
Ms. Kehinde: I do. So, personally, I think I have a strong personality, but I do face condescending stares, and usually I just shove it aside. But, of course, there are individual differences. When I’m asked about hateful anti-Islamic terms, I just tell people that — if you are in a literate setting, it’s still kind of better because people know that there is justice. You can get reported to authorities, and you face crime for that. But if you are in an illiterate environment, for example, people that you cannot necessarily report. If you are working maybe odd jobs in, like, a restaurant, of course, customers are always right. I have friends that are victims of this because they’ll be, like, “Oh, no.” Just like, “It’s okay. You get stares.”
The most important one is usually when people ask me that, “What are you doing?” And I’m, like, “Oh, I’m a student.” They’d be, like, “Oh, what exactly are you doing?” “I’m a PhD student.” You get the weird stares. “Like, are you really?” Like, “How are you going to be a PhD student?”
You know, and it’s just generally expected that you are less educated and less intelligent just because you put on a hijab, and if you go for certain jobs. Just know that once you get called for an interview and they see a type of dressing, automatically, they wouldn’t accept you because they don’t want you to work in that kind of setting. They don’t like the way you are dressed. So I just try to stick to the literate setting. Because I’ve gone for some odd jobs that I know that I didn’t get after the interview. Of course, when you qualify for the interview stage and you have to be present and they see and you don’t get called back. So I know that it still exists.
And people, unfortunately, have had to remove their identity. You know, some people reduce that kind of dressing just to fit into the society, just to feel more acceptable. It’s so sad, but it does happen. Hopefully government does something about it to promote that people that appear like this are not dangerous, they are okay, they are intelligent, and they are not like absurd or something like that.
Senator Jaffer: And not only are you a PhD student, you are a PhD student in biochemistry.
Ms. Kehinde: Yes, exactly. So when I’m, like, “I’m working on research.” They’re, like, “Really? Are you sure it’s not college?” I’m, like, “No, I’m working in a university. I’m a PhD student.”
That even brings me to a point where my close friend she said, I did not do my high school year. So I was shocked when she said when she moved here from Saudi Arabia, and she told a school counsellor that she would like to go to architecture or civil engineer. The counsellor was like, “Why don’t you go to something like home economics?” And, my friend said, “Why can’t I do something better?” The counsellor replied, “Oh, I think this one will be better for you.”
When my friend got home, she told her mom, and her mom, being educated, was, like, “No. You should push for it. You want to do this.” Then my friend went back to the school counsellor, and then the counsellor was, like, “Okay, if you want to do it, these are the resources.” So, if you don’t have educated parents, you just tend to be pushed back. “Okay, I can’t do it. Let me just go to a lesser program or a lesser, like, job because I’m not intelligent enough.” So, my friend was telling me about such counsellors. That even though they might not outright tell you not to go, they suggest that you shouldn’t do it, or they don’t provide you with the resources like they do for certain individuals to push toward getting the right education, toward you aiming for the right positions in society.
Senator Jaffer: And does the university support you?
Ms. Kehinde: Yes. I would say that the University of British Columbia try to be inclusive and diverse. So they try to support that. And I think that’s evident, like, why I’m here because, otherwise, they wouldn’t even bring me up. But these days they’re trying to be more inclusive. And I appreciate that.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: So just a question. Do students come and report to you, to the association instances of Islamophobia on campus? Do you have any kind of numbers?
Ms. Kehinde: No, sadly we don’t.
The Chair: Nobody keeps track of that?
Ms. Kehinde: Nobody keeps track of that.
The Chair: But it exists; right?
Ms. Kehinde: It does exist. It does exist.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Can I put you on the spot, Mr. Tyab? The Islamophobia Conference, a year ago or two years ago, the government was supposed to appoint a Muslim commissioner.
It has been a year and a half. Then nothing.
What are your feelings on that? I mean, I don’t want to put you on the spot, but it’s a question that keeps coming up, and people realize you’re a senator. They don’t realize that, you know, senators belong to different parties; we’re not necessarily the parties of the government. I really don’t know what to say to them. I advertised the job a few months ago, and I know people who did apply, yet nothing.
Mr. Tyab: My personal take on it is that because we do have certain sectarian issues — Sunni, Shi’ah, Ismaili, Qadiani — and then also Arabic and the multiple languages that Muslims speak, including French. Somebody who can address all these various communities and the various sects within Islam as well the ability to communicate effectively and represent all these communities in a fair way. I think it might be a challenge to find the right candidate.
I did want to answer Senator Jaffer’s question about the research that we referenced yesterday. So Google Jigsaw, what that means, is that those terms “kebab removal,” “remove kebab,” “how to kill Muslims.” When people search those terms in Google, the Google Jigsaw program will have an actual spreadsheet from across Canada to the province, to the city, to the postal code of how many people are searching for these keyword terms. Yesterday, it was referenced that the UBC postal code, for whatever reason, had more instances of those terms being searched than the other postal codes. That was the distinction.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
Mr. Karim: Senator, if I can just respond to your question about the — I think it’s the — what is it? It was the title of the commissioner regarding Islamophobia.
Mr. Tyab: The special envoy.
The Chair: The special envoy.
Mr. Karim: Right. One of the things that occurred to me while looking at the announcement, that advertisement, was the kinds of pressure that person would be under because it’s a fairly rough terrain out there, and a person holding that job would require — like many other jobs of that sort — a very thick skin because he or she would be under various kinds of attacks from people who would not appreciate the existence of that position. Or if he or she misspoke, the response, especially from certain quarters, would be just horrendous.
I speak from personal experience. I’m currently undergoing certain kinds of scrutiny, shall I say, from certain kinds of media because of some mistakes that I made recently when speaking at an event where the organizers turned out to be not what they had pretended to be.
So it can be a fairly difficult position. I would imagine that good people who would consider the position would need — I’m not sure what sort of support they would need, but it is a very difficult position to hold because of the kinds of potential pushback from, dare I say, racists, and to use the term which I said I would not use, Islamophobes. Perhaps one of the things that the government may want to consider is how can we protect a position like that?
The Chair: So maybe it shouldn’t have been announced. But it brings me to an interesting concept.
Mr. Tyab, what you just said, in that you’re looking for one person who has all these attributes. So one person might not have all these attributes. Would it be easier if they appointed a board of, like, three people?
Mr. Tyab: A lot of questions we face about Islamophobia are about women and the perception that Islam oppresses women, so to have a man speak for Muslim women, I think that would not be effective in being the appropriate representative. Possibly a council or two or three people, Muslim men, Muslim women, but somebody who can speak to the various sects within the community and the various community languages. I think that is a big challenge; a committee may be better than one individual.
The Chair: Thank you. That gives me ideas, maybe, for a recommendation at the end of the study.
Seeing no other senators who have questions, I want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of you for your time and your testimony. It’ll really help us when we get to the report stage. And if you feel that you’ve missed anything in your testimony that you would like to bring to our attention, you can always do a written submission. And I thank you for your time.
Senators, I think we’ve come to the end of a very long day. So I will end the meeting. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)