THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 14, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5:04 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and, in camera, in consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am Salma Ataullahjan, senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today, we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan, Senator Omidvar from Ontario, Senator Gerba from Quebec, Senator Housakos from Quebec.
Our committee is studying Islamophobia under its general order of reference. Our study will cover, among other matters, the role of Islamophobia with respect to online and off-line violence against Muslims, gender discrimination, as well as discrimination in employment, including Islamophobia in the federal public service.
Our study will also examine the sources of Islamophobia, its impact on individuals including mental health and physical safety, and possible solutions and government responses.
After holding two meetings in June in Ottawa, our committee held public meetings in September in Vancouver, Edmonton, Quebec City and Toronto. In addition, we visited mosques in each of these cities. We are now continuing our public meetings in Ottawa.
Let me provide some details about our meeting. This afternoon we will have two one-hour panels with a number of witnesses. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses then the senators will have a question-and-answer session. At the conclusion of the public portion of our meeting, the committee will hold a short in camera meeting to discuss future business.
Now, I would like to introduce our first panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes.
We have the pleasure to welcome Monia Mazigh, Author, Human Rights Activist and Adjunct Research Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Carleton University; and Samira Laouni, Director, C.O.R. and President and Co-Founder, Muslim Awareness Week.
I now invite Professor Mazigh to make her presentation.
Monia Mazigh, Author, Human Rights Activist and Adjunct Research Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, Carleton University, as an individual: Dear honourable members of the Senate, thank you for inviting me to testify at your committee. I would like to thank Senator Salma Ataullahjan and Senator Mobina Jaffer for their hard work and efforts to bring the issue of Islamophobia to all Canadians in order to find ways to combat it.
My name is Monia Mazigh. The last time I testified in front of a parliamentary committee was in September 2003, about 20 years ago when my husband, Maher Arar, was still in prison in a Syrian dungeon. That was during the height of the so-called “war on terror.” That war shifted the world’s politics but also shifted our own Canadian politics and shifted the lives of many Canadian Muslims, including my own.
Canadian Muslims became like a “fifth column” that needed to continuously prove their loyalty to Canada every time there was a violent attack carried out by other Muslims whether in Canada or anywhere around the world.
When I immigrated to Canada in the early 1990s, I was looking for better academic opportunities, but most importantly, I was looking for the freedom to practise my religion without being judged. In Tunisia, the country where I was born and raised, my opportunities diminished the minute I wore the hijab, my headscarf. What marked the beginning of a personal spiritual journey where I wanted to be true to my Muslim identity while pursuing my dreams to be a university professor gradually turned into a big hurdle in my journey.
My hijab brought me suspicion from the authorities, mockery of my friends, and discrimination from my school. Canada at that time represented the perfect place to live freely practising my faith, as I understood it, while continuing my graduate studies. Unfortunately, I quickly realized that Canada was not the “El Dorado” I dreamed of. When I first applied to McGill University for my PhD program in finance, my application was first put on a long waiting list, then on a short waiting list until it was finally accepted. Later, upon completing my doctoral studies, I applied for a few positions in finance, and I was told several times that there were too many other qualified candidates or that there were budget cuts resulting in the position being eliminated.
I will never have the perfect evidence for you that those refusals were motivated by me wearing a hijab; however, I can tell you that when I finally became a finance professor at Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops, B.C., I received anonymous hate mail to my faculty address calling my hijab a “rag over my head.” Once on a panel about Islamophobia, I was called “oppressed.” The journalist who said it bluntly told me, “No matter how many degrees you hold, for me, you will always be an oppressed woman.”
A few days ago, I was watching an interview with Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the first British Muslim politician. She rightly pointed out that before 9/11, British immigrants were labelled according to their origins — Asians, South Asian, Africans — or according to their skin colours — black or brown. Post 9/11, religion, in particular Islam, came to define us entirely, but unfortunately, in a context filled with stereotypes, misinformation and hate. I totally agree with her brief and very accurate summary of the challenges we are experiencing today as Muslims living in the West.
In this context of Islamophobia, I heard about cases of Muslim women who decided to remove their hijab just because they don’t want to be solely judged in relation to it. After all, they have degrees and skills, and their headscarf is one of many of their identities. Meanwhile, in the media, some politicians and some commentators are constantly bringing us back to this only identity: Muslim. It is usually looked at through a narrow and distorted prism.
In the last two decades, I worked and collaborated with many human rights organizations to bring forward the plight of several Muslim Canadians detained abroad, and even here in Canada, to the attention of the Canadian government. Obviously, it all started with my husband’s case. In each of these cases, Islamophobia played a large part in their unjust treatment.
If Muslim women were always judged according to the particular symbolism of their hijab, Muslim men are confined to violence and terrorism. Since the introduction of the Anti‑terrorism Act by the Canadian Parliament in 2001, only Muslim Canadians have been charged and convicted under this act, as if a whole body of Canadian laws has been designed to target exclusively Canadian Muslims. If this is not Islamophobia, then what other name can we call it?
Years ago, I resigned from my finance professor position and decided to write. I started with my own story and then moved on to write fiction about Muslim women. I come from a line of strong women who find power in their faith and spirituality, and I am very proud to continue their legacy. I will never be defined as a victim but rather as a storyteller, or preferably, as a truth-teller. This is precisely why I continue to write and denounce injustice, including Islamophobia. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Samira Laouni, Director, C.O.R., and President and Co-Founder, Muslim Awareness Week, as an individual: Good evening, Madam Chair, senators.
Thank you very much for this invitation to share my concerns and observations about Islamophobia, specifically in Quebec.
My name is Samira Laouni, and I will speak at length about the effects of Islamophobia on employment in Quebec.
For me, living in Canada and Quebec means flourishing in a pluralistic society that prides itself on its values: inclusion, respect and caring for others. We must aspire not only to live together, but also to work hand in hand and build together a society free of rejection and hate.
That is why, in April 2010, in the wake of reasonable accommodations, we created the C.O.R. It’s a non-profit organization for communication, openness and intercultural rapprochement.
We also co-founded Muslim Awareness Week. Its vision is for every Quebecer to feel like a full citizen and be treated as one, regardless of his or her beliefs, origin, skin colour, mother tongue or any other marker of identity.
These aspirations require coherent and consistent solutions centred on productive dialogue. However, polarized positions and a lack of a sense of shared responsibility often get in the way.
While we are still debating what terminology to use: “Islamophobia” or “anti-Muslim racism,” hate crimes continue to rise. I quote:
According to Statistics Canada, the number of police-reported hate crimes targeting Muslim religions in 2021 increased by 71% over the previous year.
This is definitely connected to Quebec’s context of political-identity issues, as we saw during the last election campaign. Specifically, the PQ candidate in Sainte-Rose made Islamophobic remarks, and Mr. Boulet, the outgoing Minister of Immigration made false claims about immigrants:
Eighty percent of immigrants leave for Montréal, do not work, do not speak French or do not adhere to the values of Quebec society.
I sometimes wonder what Quebec’s societal values are.
Has this minister, Mr. Boulet, asked himself why immigrants aren’t working, if that’s the case? Has he considered the non‑recognition of diplomas, qualifications and experience, particularly by professional orders that impose nearly insurmountable barriers?
Does he understand the harmful effects of Bill 21? By directly discriminating against women who wear the hijab, it legitimizes prejudice against all Muslims, or those presumed to be Muslim.
For us, it is equally unacceptable to force women to wear the hijab, as is happening in Iran, or to ban it at work.
Has he measured the thickness of the glass ceiling that prevents upward mobility, not only for newcomers, but also for the second generation?
Two Quebec university studies revealed discrimination in access to employment based on last name.
At a time of extreme labour shortages in Quebec, everyone can find a job. But many immigrants, especially those labelled “Muslim,” are working in jobs that are completely unrelated to their qualifications, jobs that most Quebecers disdain.
Therefore, our first proposal to fight Islamophobia is to improve the hate speech bill. Let’s be clear: Yes, we are in favour of freedom of expression, but we also recognize that it ends when it affects a person’s dignity.
We need a hotline, like SOS Racism, that could collect and record calls from victimized citizens, but mostly for directing them to appropriate resources.
All police officers, or all police forces, need mandatory training on the law’s provisions that includes real examples. That way, they can properly collect and draw up complaints from citizens. It would also serve as a way of monitoring Islamophobia.
We also ask that all politicians make a pact to never — even in jest — verbally attack any minority whatsoever, or tolerate such attacks.
We need publicity campaigns to raise public awareness. The first thing that comes to mind is advertisements during news bulletins in the mainstream media. They could feature workers of various backgrounds, including those of European origin, in different areas of employment. They could also feature people who stand out for their particular contribution to our society. A good example, which I strongly recommend that you watch, is the documentary Pluri’Elles by Institut F.
Awareness-raising projects that have proven their effectiveness should be granted recurring funding. Indeed, donors insist an innovation in proposed projects; this is often a determining criterion. Why would a new project be preferable to one that has already proven its utility?
We suggest developing mechanisms to ensure proportional representation of diversity in the public service, on various boards of directors, etc.
The Employment Equity Act includes mechanisms to establish gender parity and pay equity in the federal public service. The act must be amended to ensure representation of various minorities based on their proportion of the population. Of course, they must be equally qualified. In the public service, at least, we need internal procedures to help break through glass ceilings. That way, immigrants could move up the career ladder.
In conclusion, if we work together to reduce prejudice and stereotypes against diversity in general, especially against Arab Muslim citizens, we better align skills and employment opportunities.
Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations. Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask members and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
We will now proceed to questions from senators. As was our previous practice, I would like to remind each senator that you have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both our panellists. They were excellent presentations, and I really appreciate them. I have a question first for Ms. Mazigh and if possible on the second round for Ms. Laouni.
Ms. Mazigh, your advocacy and fight for justice for your husband was truly admirable. My question to you, though, is since that time 20 years ago, how have national security laws been adjusted or amended to take into account the lessons learned from the rendition of your husband in Syria?
Ms. Mazigh: Thank you. There is a short answer to this, and there is a longer one. I will start with the shorter one. In 2007, Justice O’Connor, who was commissioned by the federal government at that time, released two reports. One of them was about what happened to my husband. The other was a recommendation for the federal government. I can tell you with 99% certitude that, unfortunately, none of those recommendations have been adopted by the government to change those situations.
So the same thing — the rendition — can happen again, and we will still have the same unfortunate result. We will have to rely on individuals, social activists and human rights organizations to raise the profile of these cases but not count on the government to help.
The longer version is that without sounding partisan or being with one party or the other, I think in the last years, even though those recommendations have not been adopted, the whole climate in unjustly arresting and persecuting Muslims came down a little bit. There was not as much application of the laws I was mentioning in my statement — the Anti-terrorism Act. Nevertheless, the laws still exist, so while the narrative changed a little bit, unfortunately we still have a series of laws in our Criminal Code that target exclusively — without saying it, of course — Muslims. They have been charged and convicted under it.
I want to say something. In Canada, most of the terrorist attacks that have happened and the victims they have made are under Islamophobia. They did not occur under other — I would say — criminal acts. So it is very concerning for me that we still have these specific laws, all of them making Muslims look violent. Many of them will contribute to this Islamophobia that we are talking about — the irrational fear of Muslims.
Senator Omidvar: Ms. Mazigh, do you believe, given the state of Islamophobia in this country — and we have heard witnesses before providing very disturbing testimony and evidence — that Justice O’Connor’s report should be opened up again as part of the recommendations of this study?
Ms. Mazigh: Absolutely. I think this is very important. We spent three years and public funds to produce a very important report. Some of his recommendations were somehow introduced — the creation of an integrated agency where people can present their complaints as part of not only the RCMP but also other agencies. However, this is very little. We still have agencies in Canada — I’ll give you a very simple example. We still have the no-fly list. My husband cannot travel even though 20 years has gone by since what happened — even 15 years. Many other Muslims cannot travel. The worst is that they don’t know why they cannot travel. So this no-fly list is another flagrant and obvious example of Islamophobia. I’m not telling you that everyone on that no-fly list is necessarily Muslim, but there are many Muslims who find themselves on it.
At the time that I was working for the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group, Transport Canada did not even want to give us the number of Canadians who are on this list. Some people talk about 1,500, but they could not even tell us because they said this is a national security threat. That is the kind of information that probably the majority of Canadians do not know and do not hear about. But if you go to the airport and try to travel, and you are humiliated in front of your family, and they tell you that you cannot take the plane and don’t tell you why, this is a problem.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witnesses, for coming today. I really appreciate your advice.
I would like you to address an issue as follows: Canada has been described as the most successful experiment in pluralism the world has ever seen. There is a lot of truth to that, but there is some fragility attached as well. Ms. Mazigh, you were indicating that Canada was not the “El Dorado” you thought it would or could be. My position is that Canada has failed to invest to the extent that we would have success in embracing diversity and making it the Canada that it should be.
What advice do you have, particularly with respect to the power of education? I’m thinking of the K-to-12 system or the university system. I’ve heard some comments as well about adult education. I’m just wondering what you might say with respect to that issue. This could be answered by both witnesses.
Ms. Mazigh: By education, are you talking about kindergarten to grade 12 or university?
Senator Arnot: Both.
Ms. Mazigh: It is very important to recognize that, even though I have to also insist that I’m not an expert. Probably there are people who have better ideas. However, as a parent of two children who went to school in the public system and went to university as well, I can tell you that we have a lot to achieve in terms of changing our curriculum, for example. I’ll give you a very simple anecdote.
In Ontario, the Grade 11 students have an optional course on world religions. I think it’s a very good idea, but because of the chronological succession, they will start with some ancient religions and they will end up with Islam, which happens to occur as the third and the last monotheist religion. Usually, the professor doesn’t have enough time to teach it. As simple and anecdotal as that may appear, I think we have to change that. I’m not saying put it in the first place or the second but never the last.
We should come up with innovative ideas. Recently, Statistics Canada released the proportion of Muslims in Canada. We should be represented somehow, whether in terms of professors or in terms of the curriculum. There are many obstacles that my friend, Samira Laouni, talked about in employment. There are probably some professors who can be quickly hired, trained in a very short time and brought into the public system so they can teach and represent that diversity.
Yes, as a Canadian society, compared to other societies, we are very open and we are multicultural. I have to admit that. Nevertheless, unfortunately, Canada is I think the only G7 country with such a high number of Islamophobic attacks. We have to do something about that.
Senator Arnot: Does the other witness have time to answer?
The Chair: Yes, of course.
Senator Arnot: Ms. Laouni, do you have any comments on my question?
[Translation]
Ms. Laouni: Thank you for your question. The problem is that education is a provincial issue. I don’t think Mr. Legault really wants to hear anything from the federal government.
There used to be a course on ethics and religious culture, which has now been abolished. It certainly helped a lot in terms of knowledge about others and openness to them in all their diversity, be it based on sexuality, gender, religion or colour. It was really extraordinary. I personally participated in developing the curriculum with the Quebec Ministry of Education.
Unfortunately, this course no longer exists. Nonetheless, as my colleague Monia Mazigh said, we could still train teachers, especially at the university level, because that’s where it’s all happening. We could play a role in quickly training university-level teachers; they, in turn, could train students in pedagogy, for instance, or social intervention for social workers. That would be a good thing to do.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you. This question is for both witnesses. I’ve heard from Ms. Laouni that she was proposing that we improve the law on hate speech. I’m just wondering what your thoughts are. I would just point out that we seem to have a lot of examples from the United States where there’s actually very little regulation of hate speech or of any kind of speech, really, whereas in Canada, we’ve always had regulation of speech — libel, slander, fraud, hate. What are your thoughts on how hate speech could be reinforced in a better way, in a much more expeditious way?
[Translation]
Ms. Laouni: Certainly, hate crimes are already well regulated in Canada, but hate speech is still kind of like.... I would say that hate speech is a bit of a grey area and we don’t know how to define it in relation to defamation or anything else. If you put in a rule that freedom of speech — no one is against virtue and freedom of speech — stops once it affects the dignity of the other person, I repeat the dignity of the person, it becomes hateful.... If this barrier was established, I think hate speech could be more reined in. Hate speech is becoming more and more frequent, especially with social media and algorithms on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and others.
If you saw the severity, meanness and number of hateful comments.... You can feel a hatred — excuse the language, but a crass hatred — in social media. Sometimes you wonder if it’s really a human being treating another human being in that way. Freedom of speech is one thing, but to stop harming the dignity of another is another. That distinction is necessary, I think.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Thank you. Ms. Mazigh, do you have any comments on that issue?
Ms. Mazigh: We have seen many examples. It’s all about setting the bar, how to set it and where to set it. If I take the case of the Anti-terrorism Act, for example, or the case of terrorism, the bar was set super high. I think there was a desire from some legislators to sort of instill fear into a lot of Muslims. I think they succeeded somehow because a lot of Muslims live in fear these days.
I’m not saying to try to necessarily implement the same thing that I denounced, but if we install the bar of hate speech at a level where people understand that there are consequences to what they are saying, of course, we will have some results. But, right now, there is a fuzzy line between hate and freedom. When it comes to Muslims and Islamophobia, it’s always about freedom of expression. It’s never about having consequences to what people are saying. As a civilized society, we have to be honest to our values, to what we are really preaching.
People today are very smart, not because they have smartphones only, but they can see the hypocrisy of the system. If we allow some people to say things, and we defend other people to say other things, then the system is not working well.
We have to come up with online regulations that will make us look as we pretend or claim we are — civilized, just and fair. Right now, I’m not seeing this. Our hate laws are very poor and poorly enforced.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I thank our witnesses for their compelling testimony. My first question is for Ms. Laouni.
Thank you for your recommendations, which are very relevant and will be very helpful to us. I would like to come back to the point of credential recognition. Do you think there is a link between Islamophobia and credential recognition in Canada? If so, what can we do as legislators to make a difference? What are your expectations?
Ms. Laouni: It has to be said that, when you are a landed immigrant, as you know, you go through a whole process of assessment of your credentials, your age and your health, so that you would be allowed to settle in Quebec.
As far as credential recognition is concerned, I would suggest that it be done in the countries of origin, even before the immigrant settles in Canada, regardless of the province, because, in any case, the person is in the process of recruitment to come to Canada. It takes two to three years to get a degree recognized, but during that time the person needs to feed their family. They don’t have time to wait for that recognition.
Now, is there a direct relationship? I cannot make such a claim. I haven’t considered this point specifically. On the other hand, degrees, whether they come from the Maghreb or from Africa, for instance, are always undervalued. A Moroccan doctorate has the equivalent of a bachelor’s degree or, at most, if it is in science, a Canadian master’s degree. These are not at all the same equivalencies.
In Quebec, European degrees, especially French ones, are recognized at the same level. Once again, there are problems with the curriculum. For example, I have a PhD from the Sorbonne that was recognized as a master’s degree. What was explained to me was that, since France does not have a semester system, but rather an annual system, the doctorate was called a “university doctorate,” not a “state doctorate.” This is a really strange explanation to say that my PhD is not equivalent to a Quebec PhD. Is it because of my name or because of the established curriculum? I don’t know. I can’t prove that. What is certain is that, as soon as you don’t have a Quebec-sounding name, hiring is problematic in Quebec. That is certain, and many studies have proved it time and time again.
Senator Gerba: In an interview you gave, you stated that Quebec took a positive step in derogating from Bill 21 during the pandemic, by allowing people wearing religious symbols to work in health care. Did this move the needle on Bill 21, and what is your assessment of that today?
Ms. Laouni: Unfortunately, I don’t believe that the provisions made by the Quebec government in relation to Bill 21 concerning workers — and especially women workers in health care — have made a difference. Everyone suffered from the pandemic, which was a very difficult period in many ways. We saw that the vast majority of workers — and I mean women — came from a wide variety of backgrounds other than Canadian, whether they were Haitian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Algerian, and so on.
Unfortunately, even Mr. Legault was photographed while receiving a vaccine from a woman wearing the hijab. A number of hateful comments followed this tweet. This is where the seriousness of Islamophobia is felt. To this must be added a grandfather clause, which ensures that women wearing headscarves who were already working in a school service centre in Quebec before the bill was passed and who continue to work there have the right to remain there, but under certain conditions.
If these women move from the service centre or change geographical areas, they lose their right to teach. If they want to change jobs or seek professional advancement, they are not eligible. Yet, Bill 21 was passed to safeguard equality between women and men. But if a male Muslim teacher wants to change geographical areas, he has the right to do so, just as he has the right to seek professional advancement. Things have only gotten worse in Quebec with Bill 21. It has not helped Quebec or Muslims in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Housakos: Thank you for being with us today. Thank you for sharing your views.
For starters, I want to be clear that there’s nothing worse than xenophobia, Islamophobia, any kind of phobia. Any time human beings are afraid of something they don’t know or something they haven’t really comprehended, it always seems to manifest itself into ugliness.
The truth of the matter is, racism is not reserved to Canada. It’s not a Canadian problem. It’s a global problem. Unfortunately, it’s part of human nature. I’ve seen it myself as a son of immigrants. The truth of the matter is Canada is a country where you’re either an immigrant or children of immigrants. If we don’t find a way to get everybody on the boat rowing in the same direction, Canada will never achieve its ultimate potential.
I don’t agree that legislation is going to stomp out Islamophobia any more than it will stomp out racism. It’s important to have hate laws in the books, as we do. It’s important to have various laws in the Criminal Code that are applied when people cross the line. It’s important that the government continues to educate people in our institutions to achieve what we’ve achieved.
Again, if you look at the history of Canada, how we treated our Indigenous people, there’s some ugliness there. If we see the relationship between the two founding peoples of Canada, French and English, there was some ugliness there. If you see the way Catholic Irish were treated when they first came in the history of Canada, there was ugliness there. When Jews came here during a period of time, more ugliness. We can go on and on.
I grew up in a place called Park Extension. That’s where I was born. It’s an immigrant place. That’s where immigrants in Quebec land. In my time, 80%. Ms. Laouni, I’m sure you know the place.
When I was growing up there, we were separated by a fence: The poor kids, the immigrant kids and the rich kids. The fence is still there. When I was growing up, the fences were padlocked. You couldn’t even go over to trick or treat on that side.
I know how that feels. When I advocate for racialized groups, I do it because I’ve been there. Obviously, the groups being discriminated against now, it is much more complicated because they’re visible minorities, religious minorities and so on and so forth.
I have three questions. My first question is: Is multiculturalism in Canada helpful in combatting a lot of this Islamophobia? I’m not sure. There are times I think multiculturalism has served us well. I think at other times it creates hyphenated Canadians, and it divides us more and doesn’t allow for integration.
One thing I have seen is if you’re a child of immigrants, you can face all the racism in the world. We have laws in Canada. Most Canadians are fundamentally good. Over time, we persevere. My parents always told me, “Keep your head down, work hard, follow the law, and you’ll get to where you need to go.”
I look at the Senate today. It is very representative of our country. The House of Commons less so, but it’s starting to be more representative. I’m looking at our policing institutions and our university professors. We have a lot of work to do, particularly vis-à-vis the Muslim community, but we’re slowly getting there.
So is multiculturalism helping or should the government focus more on creating more integration, and what would that be?
My second question is: In the last seven years, if we look at the Trudeau government, they talk a big game on Islamophobia. They show up at every single parade to take a knee, and they go to every single protest. But if I listen to your testimony, the rates of Islamophobia are going up; the crisis is getting worse. If I understand correctly, the current government is getting an “F.”
I’d like your comments on it. It is a partisan question, but we’re in a house of Parliament.
My third question is equally partisan: Our policing institutions in this country, SPVM or SQ, if there is an increasing rate of hate toward a particular community, which I sense to believe that’s the case because I’ve been hearing it from many of my constituents in Montréal, why have they been so incapable of applying more charges and applying the Criminal Code more effectively? Do these forces get an “F” as well? What can we do to correct that?
There’s a comment there and three questions.
[Translation]
I totally agree with you; as a Quebecer, I find Bill 21 completely disgusting — I’ll use that word. More needs to be done, but I also see with time that people have common sense. We’re quietly winning the war. I remember that, before the last provincial election, according to a poll conducted in Quebec, 80% of people were in favour of this bill. Now, if we look at the polls, the more we talk about it, the more Quebecers realize that it is discrimination. I think the best thing is to make our neighbours and friends aware. We will eventually come to common sense. Thank you.
Ms. Laouni: Thank you very much for your comments and questions, senator. When it comes to multiculturalism — and you know this as well as I do, you are a Quebecer too — differentiation and sensitivities exist.
In Quebec, we don’t talk about multiculturalism; we talk about interculturalism. As soon as you say the word “multiculturalism,” a red flag goes up. Whether we talk about multiculturalism or interculturalism, it certainly helps to decrease Islamophobia.
Now we have to see how all of this is handled, worked on and put together to bring people together. This is why, in my proposals, I talked about continuing to fund projects that are not always innovative because the prerequisite for submitting a project is that it be innovative. Yet there are projects that have already been carried out.
For example, C.O.R. conducted a project we titled empowerment of Muslim girls through art and the encounter with the other. It was both an intergenerational and an intercultural project, as we brought together Muslim mothers and daughters from three major cities in Quebec: Quebec City, Sherbrooke and Rimouski. Most of the work was done in Montreal, and we met with groups of so-called “native” feminist women, native Quebecers, so French Canadians. Together, we formed small groups. You can visit our website, www.corapprochement.com, to see their creations, their paintings and their slams. You will see how they expressed themselves together to talk about women’s freedom, women’s rights, women’s emancipation, and so on.
At that point, we forgot who was a native Quebecer, who wore the veil or not, what age the participants were; we forgot everything. The common denominator was women’s rights and women’s emancipation. Unfortunately, the funding for this project has ended and we cannot work on it again, although it creates opportunities where we could repeat the experience with other women.
With respect to your second question, this federal government has done a tremendous amount of work — I know they are in the process of recruiting to find someone to help fight Islamophobia, and that is a very important job. Despite that, the increase in the rate of hate crimes and hate speech is staggering, and that is very serious. The question is, are people filing complaints because they are more aware than they used to be? Some experts believe so. Are there really more hateful acts as such being committed? Again, this is a reality, but it is certain that, as leaders in Quebec, we have done a lot of awareness-raising among women to show them how to film these acts, how to file a complaint, and so on. This is something that has been widely done in Quebec.
As for the question about the SPVM and the SQ, as I proposed, there needs to be more training for police forces, so that they can fully understand the complaints made by victims, so that they can transcribe them and file them as official complaints with the courts. This is very rarely done.
In 2008, when I was a candidate in the federal election, I received an anonymous letter at home containing death threats. The executive office of the party I ran for accompanied me to my local police station. When I introduced myself to the policewoman, I showed her the letter and explained what was going on. She gave me a large form, which looked like an Excel file, and told me to come back to her when I finished filling in all the boxes with all the incidents. So police training is very important. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, chair. I will try to stay within my time. In fewer words than Senator Housakos used, I will agree with him that one can legislate behaviours, but one cannot legislate attitudes. We have to get to the heart and minds of people with this irrational fear they have.
The Government of Canada in June announced a call for applications to fill the post of a special representative on combatting Islamophobia. I believe they might be in the process of announcing the results of that competition.
My question is to both of you. Do you agree with this move? It came out of the National Summit on Islamophobia in 2021. And what specifically do you hope this position can help us achieve in combatting attitudes?
The Chair: I also wonder why it has taken them a year and a half to fill this position, considering there are 1.5 million Muslims and they couldn’t find a candidate? I understand it’s going to be a representative, and I think it’s going to be two people. I recently had a conversation with the minister and asked about that. I would like you to answer Senator Omidvar’s question.
Ms. Mazigh: I think the symbolism of a special envoy about Islamophobia is very important. And I say very clearly there is symbolism here. I spoke about the bar, I think yes, there is a whole symbolism behind that.
Whether this person or these two persons will have enough independence, leverage, tools, funding and a mandate — I think that is something I will be very curious about and will be following very closely. If this is only a way to say, “Yes, we are working on it,” but then meanwhile it is tremendous, huge pressure on that person without having the tools and the mandate, then it will be futile, I guess.
It is a good first step, but again, it is a very small step. And we have to be very careful and very vigilant.
I would also like to add something about Islamophobia in general. I think we spoke about Islamophobia when it comes to employment and when it comes to the law. As one of the senators mentioned, it is also an international phenomenon. Even if Canada were to become Islamophobia-free one day, it takes an event to happen like in any other part of the world like it happened in the United States. We were not affected here and then all of a sudden we legislated, we had our anti-terrorism laws, and then the hatred it creates.
I think we have to not only act on a legal level, it is very important, we have to act on an institutional level. We have all these institutions like the RCMP, like Public Safety, like the local police, they have people who are there just to scrutinize Muslim communities and go to the mosque to spy. And this is horrible, because we are paying them to target the community.
Yes, we want to be safe. Yes, we want to be secure. But at the same time, an example like what happened here in Ottawa’s downtown, we have an occupation. Guess what? It was not by Muslims. It was by other groups, many of whom belong to White supremacist groups. We have to keep an eye on all the groups who represent threats to Canada and not to pick and choose. It happens that the easy groups to scrutinize and surveil and spy on happen to be Muslim.
I think we have to be very careful. Those institutions should come clean about how they participated in the installation and the acceptance of Islamophobia in Canada.
Maybe their education and awareness are helpful, but I think most of all it is certain recognition of what happened, recognition of the mistakes and of the wrongdoing like it was done for some people who were called communists, like it was done for some people who are Black who are still being surveilled. I think we have to make sure that our own institutions are not participating in feeding Islamophobia and racism in general.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: I request the meeting to be extended for five minutes.
The Chair: Okay, we’ll go over five minutes. Can you be really brief with your answers?
Senator Omidvar: I’ll ask Ms. Laouni the other question. Right after you, we are going to hear from the RCMP and Public Safety Canada. What questions would you have us ask them?
Let me word it differently then. The RCMP and the CBSA are both big players in security. There is evidence — both anecdotal and from research — that, in fact, Muslims are apprehended at the border, prevented from travelling safely, whether it is the no-fly zone or questions that they are asked.
The government is planning to introduce the public, independent oversight of both these forces. What is your comment on the role of the security forces in the Islamophobia context?
[Translation]
Ms. Laouni: Thank you for the question. I believe that national security is a necessity on any territory. However, having such lists, not knowing how many people are on those lists, and not knowing the reason why is problematic and remains problematic. An explanation should be sought.
Ms. Mazigh mentioned her husband, and I could tell you about mine, who is constantly being stopped for more specific screening of his papers when he travels. Yet he has never had a security problem in Canada or anywhere else in the world. He gets stopped because he has a Muslim name and because someone else with the same name as him is in trouble in the U.S., apparently. He is being confused with this person from the U.S.
A distinction really needs to be made between preserving safety and the way to do so. It should definitely not be done to the detriment of people and of their dignity. Maybe we should ask the RCMP and Public Safety Canada what they are doing to really dig, to find out what cases are posted or to ascertain that a person is problematic or not. What are they doing to do that? I don’t know. I volunteered for seven years on the diversity committee with the RCMP commissioner. I raised this issue many times and each time the response I received was that the matter was outside the purview of national security and the RCMP. Accountabilities need to be established.
It is no longer possible for one institution to pass the buck every time to another institution to offload responsibility. I think that’s necessary.
Senator Gerba: In terms of your personal situation, you have indicated that you have left your job and are now focusing on writing. Did you quit because of the Islamophobia that exists in academia?
Ms. Mazigh: No. When I resigned from my faculty position at the university, it was for personal reasons. But I remember my friends and colleagues saying to me at the time, “You’re going to go to Ottawa and they’re going to be lining up to recruit you.” I went back to Ottawa and there was no line-up. I applied to both universities and no one recruited me.
This is a very important issue because you can never, or very rarely, prove that there was discrimination. These are academic institutions and, in general, companies are very good at not disclosing the reasons why you are not accepted. Unfortunately, there will always be a good candidate of similar stature applying at the same time as us, so we’ll never know. However, as my mother says, my heart tells me. My heart is telling me and I think that, yes, there is discrimination.
Just go see if there are enough women wearing the hijab. What you will be told is that, no, we’re recruiting Muslims, we have people... If they’re invisible Muslims, if they’re men who don’t look like Muslims, or if they’re women who choose not to disclose their faith — and that’s absolutely their right — I say there’s another side to the coin that we’re not being shown. Personally, I know very few women who wear the hijab and teach at the university. We are very far from this ideal of multiculturalism or diversity. It is being done more and more, and sometimes even for profit and marketing purposes. The new generations want role models, so it is done sometimes, and that’s good, but we’re very far from the target.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
Ms. Laouni: My personal experience was that I sent out resumés and, for every job I applied for, I would automatically get a call for a phone interview. With each phone interview, I was invited to an in-person interview. Every time I arrived at the interview site — it still makes me laugh, because now it doesn’t affect me, it makes me laugh — the person who received me to announce my arrival would look at me strangely, run over, and I would hear her say, “The lady is wearing something on her head.”
My case was already set beforehand, even before I spoke, even before I behaved as a candidate who, sitting in an interview in front of the employer, tried to verbally and even bodily express, with gestures, my intention to work there and what I could bring to the job. After more than 50 such experiences, I can tell you that, psychologically, I was no longer able to apply or go for an interview.
That’s why I set up the C.O.R. I thought, “I’m an intellectual, I’ve learned, I’ve still been taught a lot. I’m not going to stay and cry about it at home in the kitchen with my pots and pans. I’ll have to get out.”
[English]
The Chair: I have a very brief question, and you can answer with “yes” or “no.” I’m sure you are aware that in Ontario, in Grade 6, they are going to be teaching about anti-Semitism. Do you think they should do the same for Islamophobia?
Ms. Mazigh: Absolutely. I think it is very important. The figures speak for themselves about the level of hate and the seriousness. People have been killed in this country because they are Muslim. I don’t think there is another reason.
The Chair: Thank you. That is one of the reasons that prompted me to suggest this study. The most Muslims killed in a G7 country is in Canada.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you. Your presentations will help us when we draft our final report.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel of witnesses. Each witness has been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from all the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
I wish to welcome those joining us by video conference today. From the Royal Canadian Mounted Police we have Mark Flynn, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing, National Security and Federal Policing, and Nadine Huggins, Chief Human Resources Officer. From Public Safety Canada, we want to welcome back Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice.
I now invite Mr. Flynn to make his presentation to be followed by Ms. Huggins and Mr. Westmacott.
Mark Flynn, Assistant Commissioner, Federal Policing, National Security and Protective Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to be with you this evening. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we’re on the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Nation.
I would say that Canada, as you know, prides itself on its diversity, as we should. But sadly, we are not immune to crimes fuelled by hatred. Since 2014, Canadians motivated in whole or in part by their extremist views have killed 26 and injured 40 in Canada. Two of the most notorious or prominent examples that affected the Muslim community include the 2017 attack on a Quebec City mosque, in which six people were killed and 19 injured, and the 2021 vehicle attack in London, Ontario, that took the lives of four innocent family members and left one child seriously injured. These demonstrate the nature of the crimes that we are seeing in Canada.
In reflecting on these attacks, it is imperative that we consider how hate crimes affect not only the individual victims but whole communities across the country.
When looking at policing — and as a member of the RCMP and as part of the broader policing community — I can tell you that police agencies are uniquely well positioned to counter hate crimes by virtue of their presence in communities across the country. But I have to say that a police response alone is not enough. Hatred begins at levels that are before the criminal threshold, and if we wait until they meet the criminal threshold, we are missing opportunities to prevent those offences from occurring. Also, as I’m sitting here today as the assistant commissioner in charge of national security and federal policing, I’m going to be speaking to you from my own responsibility with respect to national security but also from the broader policing community’s responsibilities in responding to hate-motivated crimes.
For hate-motivated crimes, the primary responsibility is the local police of jurisdiction whether that be the RCMP, Toronto police, OPP or other police services in Canada. That being said, there is often significant overlap between hate-motivated criminal activity and certain types of national security-related criminality, especially in the ideologically motivated violent extremism space, which is the responsibility of both the RCMP’s national security section and the police of jurisdiction. I can say that when we are dealing with crimes that span these two areas of responsibility, we work very closely with our policing partners across Canada in both the investigation of those offences but also in the engagement of the communities we are serving and the communities that are representative of the victims of those crimes. This coordination, as I said, extends beyond the investigation, and that engagement with the local community is a key cornerstone of effective policing at all levels across the country.
In what I expect will be some of your questions and in the responses today, you will see that there are different approaches across the country to that community engagement and the response to some of the crimes, but I can give you some examples as we get to that point in our discussion today. However, a key element is that we work with the affected communities to ensure they are supported and not victimized by the perpetrators, the Canadian and international response and the stereotypes that often go along with some of those crimes. The odds of successfully preventing or investigating any hate‑motivated crime greatly increases with that local community engagement when the police and community come together. That’s why I would like to take a moment to encourage all victims and witnesses of any hate‑motivated crime and hate-motivated activities, even if they are not meeting the threshold of a crime yet, to report these incidents to the local police of jurisdiction or to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s National Security Information Network. All the reports of this suspicious activity are used in our responses to this type of crime and help provide evidence moving forward.
In conclusion, I want to reaffirm the RCMP’s commitment to addressing the serious and growing problem of hate crimes, and I thank you for your time and the opportunity to be here today. I’m interested to hear your thoughts and to take any questions. At this point, I will turn it over to my colleague Nadine Huggins to speak to some of the organizational elements of this discussion.
The Chair: Thank you.
Nadine Huggins, Chief Human Resources Officer, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: Good evening and thank you, Madame Chair and distinguished members of the committee, for inviting us here today. I respectfully acknowledge that I am greeting you from the traditional, unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
I welcome this opportunity to speak with you about the RCMP’s ongoing commitment to addressing systemic racism and discrimination, as well as key initiatives, underway and planned, to advance equity, diversity and inclusion in our organization.
[English]
The RCMP is taking strong action in support of anti-racism as part of its Vision 150 plan to advance equity, accountability and trust. This modernization agenda is focused on transforming aspects of our culture by shifting mindsets and behaviours. Since developing the plan, the RCMP has implemented a number of initiatives. I’ll talk to you about three of them: the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, or EDI, strategy — the first of its kind in the RCMP — the deployment of mandatory training and meaningful steps taken toward the collection of race-based data.
The EDI strategy is really the product of broad consultation and engagement both internal and external to the organization. It integrates perspectives shared by employees and networks comprised of members from racialized and ethnocultural communities, persons with disabilities, religious minority groups, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ communities and other equity-seeking groups that have been traditionally or historically marginalized or under-represented.
The RCMP’s modernization agenda is aligned with the clerk’s Call to Action on Anti-Racism, Equity, and Inclusion in the Federal Public Service. It’s aligned with Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy and is aligning with the first ever National Action Plan on Combatting Hate.
Our strategy is fundamentally underpinned by an intercultural learning series which supports the RCMP’s commitment to systemic and culture change through the delivery of mandatory training focused on addressing systemic racism, discrimination and unconscious bias.
Finally, the collection and analysis of disaggregated race‑based data on police interactions with members of the public is also a collaborative project that will see the RCMP use and disclose data to address systemic racism and barriers by identifying where there are differences in policing outcomes for diverse communities across Canada. This work and information will foster improvements to our policies and training. We anticipate it will strengthen trust.
RCMP recruitment, renewal and modernization is another priority as we seek to ensure that we represent the communities we serve, and that we position ourselves as a preferred career option for Canadian citizens and permanent residents. It is incredibly important to us that we diversify our talent pool by attracting applicants from equity-seeking groups. We’ve made inroads in this regard by renewing our candidate assessment elements and carefully designing them to ensure that no applicant will have an advantage or disadvantage based on their cultural background. We ensure that we’re taking into consideration all varieties of diversity as we proceed with our recruitment renewal.
[Translation]
As we look toward the future, our ambition is to be informed, respectful, trusted and inclusive in our approach to change. The RCMP takes a firm stance against racism and all forms of discrimination, in both how we manage our people and how we police the communities we serve.
[English]
We are focused on ensuring that, as we modernize our organization, we have diversity and inclusion at the core of our initiatives.
Thank you very much. I will cede the floor now to our colleague from Public Safety Canada.
Chad Westmacott, Director General, Community Safety, Corrections and Criminal Justice, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I would like to start by acknowledging that the land on which I work and live is the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
I would also like to thank the honourable members of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for inviting me to speak today as you advance this important study on Islamophobia in Canada.
I had the opportunity of joining my colleagues back in June when we presented to the committee on the work that Public Safety Canada is undertaking to support the government’s commitment to combat Islamophobia and other forms of xenophobia and extremist violence across the country.
Today, my focus will be on the Security Infrastructure Program, also known as SIP, as I understand that you’re interested in learning more about the program.
The SIP supports the Government of Canada’s efforts to help ensure everyone feels safe in their communities. More specifically, the program is designed to support communities at risk of being victimized by hate-motivated crimes, by enhancing security infrastructure at private, not-for-profit places of worship, educational institutions, gender-based violence shelters and community centres. The goal is to create safer, more secure gathering spaces for community members.
Since its creation, the Security Infrastructure Program has provided more than $11 million in funding to 430 projects across Canada, of which 127 of those recipients were Islamic organizations. This represents 30% of all contribution agreements. Islamic organizations are among the largest number of recipients funded under the program.
Results from the most recent evaluation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy indicate that SIP investments have increased the sense of physical and psychological security among users of vulnerable facilities. Most participant organizations reported and increased sense of security among the population that accessed the facility.
The most recent call for applications held in 2021 saw a total of 96 proposals recommended for funding. Of these successful proposals, nearly 30% will support Islamic organizations looking to make security enhancements to community gathering spaces, particularly in places of worship, for example, mosques and community centres.
In response to the concerning rise of police-reported hate crimes, which rose 72% between 2019 and 2021, the Government of Canada has increased the SIP budget to reach more communities at risk. Budget 2021 and the Fall Economic Statement 2020 provided additional investments to SIP, raising the budget to $5 million annually.
In addition to providing funding for the program, the government has also made commitments to ensure that the program is responsive to communities’ needs. The former Minister of Public Safety made a commitment in July 2021 during the National Summit on Islamophobia to consult with Muslim communities to learn about their experiences with the program.
Additionally, the 2021 mandate letter directed the Minister of Public Safety to support the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion in the development of Canada’s National Action Plan on Combatting Hate by exploring potential adjustments to the SIP program.
To advance these commitments, Public Safety Canada, in collaboration with the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat, hosted a virtual meeting in December 2021 with members of the Canadian Muslim community to obtain additional feedback on how the program can be improved.
During the consultations, participants recognized SIP as an important measure that allows communities to protect themselves but also highlighted a number of challenges, including a complex and lengthy application process, a lack of responsiveness to emergencies, barriers to participation due to the 50% cost-sharing requirement and an absence of community partnership components.
I am pleased to share that, in response to the feedback received, Public Safety is currently working on making changes to the program to address the challenges that have been highlighted. We are continuing to explore enhancements to reduce the administrative burden and increase accessibility to program funding. Some of these changes will take effect soon, as Public Safety is preparing to launch the next call for applications shortly.
We are also working on additional enhancements to further address recommendations from the communities. Some of the concerns that were flagged by communities during the consultations, including the need to address the root causes of hate, go beyond the parameters of the SIP program given that the program focused specifically on infrastructure enhancements. That said, Public Safety will continue to work with partners to see how the remaining issues can be addressed. The SIP is a small part of a much larger Government of Canada commitment to create a safer and more inclusive Canada for all.
Public Safety continues to collaborate with Canadian Heritage and other government departments to advance a more comprehensive approach to addressing racism and hate in Canada through the renewal of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy and the creation of the first-ever National Action Plan on Combatting Hate.
Thank you again for inviting me to speak today. I look forward to our conversation. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentations.
Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask senators and witnesses in the room to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone, or remove your earpiece when doing so; this will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively affect the committee staff in the room.
I will start with Senator Omidvar. To remind senators, we have five minutes for both the question and answer; I ask everyone to respect this so the committee can finish on time. Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, chair. Please feel free to cut me off, should I transgress. My two questions are to Public Safety.
Thank you, Mr. Westmacott and to the officials from the RCMP, for joining us.
Thank you, Mr. Westmacott, for answering my question from June about the percentage and the proportion of funding. I was encouraged to hear that 30% of the funding actually does go to Islamic organizations; that’s a good indicator, I believe, for you and for Canada.
However, I want to ask, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security recommended a few changes to the program, including removing the need to demonstrate risk for applicants, and extending the program to include non-physical security infrastructure. What is your response to those recommendations?
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you very much for the question. We have heard the same thing, both through the house committee but also through our Muslim organizations that we’ve been working with. We’re taking a look at how we can best implement those recommendations into the programming.
As I indicated, there will be a call for applications coming shortly, and there will be some changes to the program that will be coming through the future call for proposals.
Senator Omidvar: The House of Commons or civil society says the program should be extended to include non-physical security infrastructure. Could you give us an example of what that would be?
Mr. Westmacott: There are some elements of non-physical security infrastructure that could be done, including training. The program already does support some forms of training that can be done to show staff how to respond to hate-motivated incidents. That is one element of non-physical infrastructure that the program currently supports.
We also heard from some Muslim organizations about the fact of how SIP in some ways actually builds a barrier. What you’re doing is putting up security features, and, in fact, that closes off some openness to community dialogue. One of the elements we’re looking at is that notion of supporting community interaction through this programming that would allow for addressing greater community involvement and greater community interaction.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I thank today’s witnesses. I would like to understand a little bit better, and my question is for all the witnesses. When we talk about Islamophobia and when we say we are fighting this hatred within institutions like the RCMP, how do we manage to do so knowing that, in another context, such as the Quebec City mosque shooting, this individual was considered to be suffering from mental health problems? Do you yourself manage to make the distinction between hate crimes and the mental health of the individuals concerned?
[English]
Mr. Flynn: Madam Chair, I know that was offered to all of the witnesses here, but it’s probably appropriate that I start, if that’s okay with you?
The Chair: That’s fine, yes.
Mr. Flynn: Okay. When we are looking at any of these tragic incidents and trying to determine whether it meets Criminal Code thresholds for a terrorism attack or other hate-motivated crime, mental illness is always a consideration, but I would say less so now. We’ve learned over time where it is appropriate to apply any assessment of mental status or capacity and it is not at the front end of these incidents.
First and foremost, the police who are responding — often the front-line police of the jurisdiction and the RCMP’s national security unit — look at public safety first; then they look at the thresholds for the various offences, for the charges, which is part of what our job is; then they determine what needs to be done to manage the public safety threat, so continued incarceration, charges, diversion, et cetera, depending on the nature. Obviously, in the mosque attack, we’re talking about a very serious incident. We look at the health issues further down the road when it’s coming to a criminal prosecution. It’s not as much a consideration anymore at the front end of our response to these matters.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: There are consequences in terms of the media because, when the media reports this kind of incident, this kind of drama, they are quick to label those who are related to Muslims as “terrorists”; normally, all of this encourages Islamophobia.
On the other hand, some witnesses told us that the media is causing Islamophobia to be perpetuated in our country because they have a lexicon associated with Muslims. With this lexicon, we can see right away that these media encourage Islamophobia.
In your practices, what do you do when it is the media involved that encourage this kind of hateful language?
[English]
Mr. Flynn: Thank you for that question. The media coverage of any type of terrorism incident is something that we are concerned about and how it shapes public opinion.
You may or may not have noticed — I hope you have — that in many of the recent RCMP and other police-of-jurisdiction responses to terrorist incidents involving groups or association to groups with Muslim or Islam in the title of that group, whether it be a listed entity or otherwise, we have undertaken a concerted effort to not use those words in our press releases or in our language when we are speaking to media because — I agree with you — it fuels a public perception that is incorrect and creates an incorrect association between a violent act of an individual to a religion and a specific portion of the Canadian and international population.
So we — and I say “we” because it is the policing community — and I would also say that, in my conversations with the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, they are also undertaking that effort not to use words that may — not misinform but lead to the fuelling of a characterization of a group because of that activity.
The Chair: Thank you. Would Public Safety like to answer any of Senator Gerba’s questions?
Mr. Westmacott: I don’t have anything to add. Thank you.
The Chair: My question to you, Public Safety, is this. We heard from Evan Balgord, Executive Director of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, that section 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada is insufficient to hold Canadian citizens and media organizations accountable for the wilful promotion of hatred toward Muslims. One solution would be to reinstate section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. What are your thoughts on this?
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you for the question. I have to admit, I’m not in a position to answer that. I think that would probably be best answered by colleagues from Justice Canada.
The Chair: Thank you. When you were here last time, Senator Jaffer asked you some questions about how you are really consulting with communities. Are you consulting with communities on a regular basis?
Mr. Westmacott: Yes. Thank you very much for that question, Madam Chair. We are working to consult with Muslim organizations on a regular basis. We mentioned the forum on Islamophobia, but we also have, in December, had the discussion with Muslim organizations in terms of how we can improve the programming. Subsequent to that, we’ve been taking the information we’ve heard, and we’ve been working on how to best address those comments. We work at ongoing consultations with Muslim communities.
The Chair: What are your individual consultations? Do you do any consultations with any individuals? How are these individuals chosen?
Mr. Westmacott: Through the SIP programming, we have not done a lot of consultations with individuals. It has normally been through the organizations that have traditionally received funding through the program, as they have experience with the program in and of itself and can provide that feedback back to us in terms of their experiences, what has worked and what has not worked.
The Chair: What specific efforts do you make to consult with communities?
Mr. Westmacott: Beyond what I’ve already indicated, those tend to be the efforts that we make to work with the individual communities, so the partners that are our funding partners that we tend to work with, there’s an ongoing dialogue with them as we go through the funding process to find out, as I mentioned, what is working and what is not working and what are things that we can do to improve.
We also work very closely with our Canadian Heritage colleagues through the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat in terms of engagements that they undertake where the question of infrastructure comes up.
The Chair: You mentioned that 30% of the funding is going toward Muslim groups. How are these groups chosen?
Mr. Westmacott: Every year there’s a call for proposals for the Security Infrastructure Program. Organizations put forward the proposal in terms of what they would be looking for in terms of the Security Infrastructure Program. There is an assessment done through the department in terms of taking a look at all of the proposals received and the funding available, and it directs the funding toward those that are most at risk and have the best proposal that meets the conditions and requirements of the programming.
The Chair: Who takes this decision? How many people are involved in this decision making?
Mr. Westmacott: That’s a good question. I don’t have the exact number of people with me. I can get back to you with that; however, it is a cross-departmental group that meets together. Folks from our program branch are the ones that deliver the program, and folks from our policy branch would have the policy overlay on top of that in terms of what it is that the program is trying to do.
It is a group effort. I would say there are probably five or six officials that take a look at that, and then those recommendations are put forward.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: My question is to both agencies, and it’s about the alleged infiltration of our security agencies by White supremacist groups. Concerns have been expressed during the National Summit on Islamophobia that the public safety portfolio is permeated, to some extent.
Could you comment on that, and could you let us know what safeguards you’re putting in place to prevent this phenomenon from gaining ground?
The Chair: Who would like to take first dig at that?
Your question was to both of them, right? Yes.
RCMP, would you like to answer that question?
Ms. Huggins: Perhaps I’ll start, and then I’ll turn it over to Mark Flynn.
In terms of infiltration of White supremacist groups, the organization has its security protocols that it puts in place to ensure that employees are conducting themselves in line with the security requirements of the positions that they occupy.
We also have a very rigorous code of conduct process, so if there is wrongdoing on the part of our regular members, in particular, but also our public servants, we have processes that we’ll put employees through.
With regard to being in a position to make a comment as to whether we can validate in any way any sort of infiltration within our organization, I certainly wouldn’t be comfortable doing that, but I can assure the committee that we do have regular screening of our employees to ensure that they’re meeting the security requirements of the positions that they hold.
Mark, I don’t know if there’s anything else that you want to add to that.
Mr. Flynn: I would just add that whenever there is an accusation or any sufficient information to target a criminal investigation into any association with a listed entity — and, obviously, I’m speaking from a terrorism perspective or association with a terrorist group — we always take that seriously and would institute criminal investigations where appropriate in addition to those internal administrative measures.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Westmacott?
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you very much for the question.
I would say that I don’t really have much to add to that. The RCMP spoke for themselves. I don’t really have anything to add for CBSA; although, I would indicate that they would probably be taking similar measures.
I know for public safety, we have our security clearance as well that needs to be undertaken, which would be expected to pick up issues. As Mr. Flynn pointed out, if there were any issues identified, the appropriate action would be taken within public safety to ensure that there is no infiltration going on within the department in and of itself.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: This question is for Ms. Huggins. I’m interested to know how the RCMP developed the education resources that deal with unconscious bias and systemic racism and what kind of adult education lens was used to develop those resources. Were they customized because it’s a police force that is being educated, and if so, in what way? Has it been fully implemented now?
With respect to new recruits and existing members and ongoing service officers, has it been implemented? Has it been measured? What kind of measurements of success are there, and what kind of changes have you made to the program to get better success?
Lastly, with respect to the collection of race-based disaggregated data, has that new model been in the field, and if so, what are the results of that?
Ms. Huggins: Thank you very much for the questions.
I’ll start with the education resources. Our mandatory training is part of a broader, intercultural learning strategy that was developed by the organization. We have a Cultural Awareness and Humility course as well as a Uniting Against Racism course. Both of those courses — and particularly the Uniting Against Racism course, which is a much more robust series — were undertaken in conjunction and collaboration with employee groups within our organization, experts external to our organization, and it definitely does take the most modern adult education lens to the development of the training.
We consulted with external experts for the substance of the course, bringing to bear a public lens as well as a policing lens and then tailored the information so that it would be meaningful to the officers and to the employees of the RCMP.
We’ve rolled out that training. We have just about 100% compliance with the mandatory training on Cultural Awareness and Humility, and we’re pushing upwards of 50% on Uniting Against Racism. Those numbers are still going. That course was only released several months ago.
With regard to who takes the course, we introduced bias awareness training, a bias awareness assessment pilot with our new recruits, and they will be taking the Uniting Against Racism course. So right at the beginning of our introduction into the organization, folks understand very clearly that our organization is focused on anti-racism and preventing discrimination. The training is mandatory, and all of our employees are required to take it, so that will cover the full spectrum of our organization.
With regard to measures of success, the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion strategy itself has a series of performance measures, and the uptake of the training and assessment is one of them. We pay attention to how many folks have taken the training, and we’re looking at how we can determine how that training translates into changes in behaviours and different mindsets.
With respect to the collection of race-based data, that, you can imagine, is quite a broad project. We are currently consulting on the development of a race-based data framework that will align with work being undertaken by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. We have established a dedicated team to engage with stakeholders, experts and employees to really explore how we should best implement race‑based data collection. We have done some investigation across the country as to which communities we might be able to pilot this project in before we roll it out across the country.
It is very important to us that we engage with communities directly so that they understand what we are trying to establish and how we are going to accomplish it and that they have the opportunity to input in the processes that we use. We anticipate those pilot projects will roll out during the fiscal year of 2024, and we anticipate that there will be pilot projects across the country so that we are getting a really good indication of how a full-scale, race-based data collection will roll out. Thank you for the question. I don’t know if there is any follow-up.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for that information. The committee has heard comments from witnesses in other meetings that the collection of this data is very uneven, not uniform, so anything that the RCMP can do to build a common model would be quite helpful because you can’t really identify an issue if you are not measuring it. I don’t think it has been measured well, certainly in other municipal jurisdictions currently. Thank you for that information.
Ms. Huggins: Thank you.
The Chair: I have a question for Public Safety. In 2021, the National Council of Canadian Muslims recommended that federal funding be available to support survivors of hate‑motivated crimes and stated that this funding should not be contingent on a final criminal sentence being rendered. How could eligibility for this type of funding be determined and what factors could be considered when determining the amount of support that survivors could be eligible to receive?
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you very much for the question. I would say that those are very good questions that I don’t necessarily have an answer to. We are well aware of the recommendation and we have been taking a look at how funding would be provided to survivors of hate-motivated crimes, working with colleagues in the Department of Justice and associations like the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. At this time, I don’t have an answer on what could be considered to be eligible in that context and what would be the factors.
The Chair: This is an ongoing conversation that you are having among yourselves?
Mr. Westmacott: We are discussing the concept and how this could be done, yes.
The Chair: What policies are in place to prevent profiling and mass surveillance of Muslim communities? I know that personally people have spoken to me who have been asked in mosques, let us know what’s happening in mosques and come and tell us. A couple of people have spoken to me about that.
Mr. Flynn: From an RCMP perspective, number one, we don’t do mass surveillance on any community. It would be wrong to do so. Number two, when we’re looking at the policing resources even to investigate the crimes where there is sufficient evidence to know there is criminality, there are not sufficient resources to even do that. On an ethics level, we don’t do it; on a practical level, we couldn’t do it.
As far as safeguards, when we’re looking at — you mentioned mosques as an example. The RCMP has a policy in place that requires high-level approval whenever any of our investigations touch on what we consider a sensitive sector, religious institutions being one, academic institutions another, political parties, et cetera. I could go on. There are numerous. Whenever any of our activities when we are undertaking criminal investigations touch on any of those communities, there has to be a higher level of approval. When we are looking at national security investigations, those requests and operational plans that articulate why they need to engage with someone at a religious institution come to my desk for approval and sign-off.
Frequently that involves requests as simple as wanting to interview somebody who has had previous contact with a suspect, and it can go from there all the way up to, obviously, someone who is involved in a religious institution associated with criminal activity. When I say that I’m not talking Muslim faith, I’m talking any religious institution. As you can imagine, many religions have people that are good and bad and we investigate any of the elements that fall within our mandate and I approve those operational plans.
The Chair: Thank you. Would you be able to tell us about the safeguards that are in place to prevent people with extremist views from working in national security agencies?
Mr. Flynn: I would say that our national recruiting campaigns as well as our internal security clearance processes are looking at the character of the individuals and also any criminal associations of those individuals. Certainly, if somebody is connected with a group that is of concern, that impacts their ability to obtain a security clearance as well as the recruiting decisions. Perhaps my colleague Nadine Huggins would like to speak further on that.
Ms. Huggins: Thank you very much, Mr. Flynn, and thank you for the question. I’ll reiterate that the security clearance process is quite rigorous. We have an enhanced reliability status within the RCMP within the larger Public Safety portfolio for the most part. We require a deep investigation into the reliability of the individuals not just in terms of their character with regard to the public service but with regard to Canada as a whole, with regard to the state. It is quite rigorous. If somebody has an association, that association is well investigated as part of our security clearance process.
The Chair: Thank you. Could you also tell me what steps the RCMP are taking to address hate crimes across Canada including in its capacity as co-chair along with Canadian Race Relations Foundation of the Task Force on Hate Crimes? With whom does the RCMP consult on issues relating to hate crimes?
Ms. Huggins: Thank you for the question. I’ll start there and then if colleagues would like to jump in.
There is no question that there is a recognition on the part of the RCMP that there are widespread negative impacts on individuals and communities with the rise of hate. Our participation as a co-chair of the national Hate Crimes Task Force sees us sitting with 13 other police services and we can certainly provide you with more information about which police services these are.
As part of the task force, we are looking to identify the gaps and mitigating solutions, to better support impacted communities across the country, but that work is still ongoing. We are not in a position at this stage to talk about any of the results of the task force, only that they are looking to better understand the unique challenges faced by diverse communities. As the RCMP, we are particularly interested in understanding how we can strengthen our own responses coming out of the work of the task force.
I’m happy to answer any supplemental questions to that. I’m hopeful that I provided the information you needed. I don’t know if anybody else would like the opportunity to contribute to that.
Mr. Flynn: If I may add, Madam Chair, as part of the CACP, Counter-Terrorism and National Security working group of which I am the co-chair with Chief Myron Demkiw with Toronto Police Service. One of our subcommittees recently produced the Countering Violent Extremism Guidebook for the policing community to help them when they are looking at what I would call the overlap in the movement from the hate crimes into the national security investigations that are absolutely fuelled by that hate crime.
We come together on a regular basis to discuss, obviously, the national security elements of it, but in doing so we are always speaking about the hate elements of that, including what Nadine Huggins just spoke to.
The Chair: Thank you. Have the RCMP surveillance practises or other police methods changed since the decision in R. v. Nuttall, which found that the RCMP entrapped two converts to Islam through Project Souvenir. How are you rebuilding trust with the Muslim communities after that decision?
Mr. Flynn: That decision is, obviously, something that we, as police and as a community, are very well aware of. It has impacted our practices in the fact that we are aware of it and the concerns that were raised by it.
As far as rebuilding our trust in the Muslim community — and, I know we are limited in time here — in preparation for this appearance I did get a summary of some of the engagement across the country of our national security units that go back well before the R. v. Nuttall decision and ongoing since then that articulates significant engagement in various regions across the country. I won’t say it’s consistent across the country, but there is significant engagement with the Muslim community. I think it is through that engagement that we build the trust and confidence and realize that we should not be judged by a single incident alone but by how we consistently engage those communities, hear the concerns and act differently from them.
The Chair: Thank you. I’m sure you are aware of the newly released statistics that Muslim population has grown to 5% now which means that 1 in every 20 Canadians is Muslim. Thank you for the work you do.
My final question is to Public Safety. How are the employees of Public Safety Canada being trained to reduce and eliminate anti-Muslim bias in their work?
Mr. Westmacott: Thank you very much for the question. I will start by noting that I am not part of the human resources group. That being said, there is a series of mandatory training that is required for Public Safety employees, including training around diversity and inclusion. A number of other activities go on within the department to promote diversity and inclusion, including this week, diversity and inclusion week. There are a number of events and speakers, and so on, that go forward to ensure that employees are well trained, well aware and promoting diversity and inclusion in a welcoming and supportive environment.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Seeing no other senators have questions, I want to thank all of you for your presentations. They will help us a great deal when we go ahead and write the report. Don’t be surprised if you hear from us again because the study is ongoing. We reserve the right to call you again. Thank you very much for your time.
(The committee continued in camera.)