CHPC Committee Report

Supplementary Report by New Democrats

Introduction:

In the face of increasing hate crimes in Canada, Motion M-103, was a motion that was supposed to unite the voices of parliamentarians from coast to coast to coast to stand against all forms of systemic discrimination and racism.  Instead, it became highly contentious, partisan and controversial.  This was not only disappointing to New Democrats, it was simply heartbreaking to witness how Government members and Members of the Official Opposition let partisan politicking win the day as they absolutely refused to work collaboratively to address what should be a non-partisan issue for all elected officials. As a result, this motion, while supported by the majority, was not unanimous.

At the heart of the controversy is the term “Islamophobia” in the motion.  First, there was considerable debate and concern over the term Islamophobia and what it meant as its use is relatively new in Canada. New Democrats believe that Motions and Bills before the House of Commons should be written in clear, concise, and plain language so that all Canadians can be engaged in our democratic institutions. With that in mind, it would have been beneficial for the government and the mover of the Motion to be more open to amending the Motion to include an agreed upon definition. In fact, agreement was reached from all parties on 26 October 2016 where all members of the house had no trouble unanimously passing the motion moved by the Member from Outremont,

“That the House join the 69,742 Canadian supporters of House of Commons e-petition (e-411) in condemning all forms of Islamophobia.”[i]

Misinformation around the Motion itself, combined with a lack of general agreement to the understanding of the term Islamophobia, fueled a fear both in the public and advanced by some witnesses that M-103 either itself changed laws or that by using the term Islamophobia in the Motion it would elevate Islam’s protection to be above any other minority group in Canada.

It is very unfortunate that the same spirit of cooperation shown on October 26, 2016 was not applied with M-103.  It is the view of New Democrats that it would have been entirely feasible for all members of the house to come to some agreed upon language regarding the term “Islamophobia” so that the passage of Motion M-103 can be unanimous and public fear regarding the intent of M-103 can be put to rest.  Not only did this not happen, in fact, there was so much partisan posturing that the Official Opposition attempted to pass a motion in the House of Commons on 16 February 2017 that was essentially the same as M-103, and called for an identical study to occur at CHPC.

New Democrats, refused to be part of such political posturing.  We examined each motion independently and assessed them on their merit.  We are in favour of any motion that aims to address and combat discrimination in any form and believe that as elected officials and representatives of our communities in the House of Commons, it is our duty to stand up together, against racism and discrimination in any form.

New Democrats note with profound disappointment the deep irony that whereas the intent of M-103 is to “quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear”, the motion itself actually became the target of a disturbing online misinformation campaign which was based on dog whistle xenophobia/racism/Islamophobia. MP offices across the country received a massive amount of correspondence containing that troubling misinformation. MPs were being lobbied to vote against a ‘law’ well after the motion had already passed, and it was clear that in some cases witnesses appearing before the committee were under the impression that the study at committee was to determine whether or not M-103 should be supported.  During this study, it also became apparent that some witnesses were not aware of what the passing of M-103 in the House of Commons meant.  It needs to be stated that the committee’s responsibilities as dictated by M-103 was to study the issue and to make recommendations to the government on a “…whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination…” and to “collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessment for impacted communities….”[ii]

It must be emphasized that the work of the committee is completed following the tabling of the report.

No new law is adopted with the passage of M-103.

Aside from the issue regarding the lack of definition for the term “Islamophobia”, concerns were raised by the Official Opposition regarding why the term “Islamophobia” was the only term singled out and stated in Motion M-103. There is no question that the level of hate crimes varies amongst different communities.  In Canada, hate crimes against the Jewish community remain the highest.  As noted by Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs:

“Confronting hate is an all too familiar experience for Jewish Canadians. In report after report, Statistics Canada and police services across the country continue to confirm ... that Jews are the religious minority most targeted by hate-motivated crime, in both absolute numbers and on a per capita basis. Nationally, there were 54 hate crimes targeting Jews per 100,000 individuals in 2015.”[iii]

Equally significant is the fact that the hate crimes against the Muslim community have the highest rate of increase.  Mr. Fogal further stated: “In fact, Muslims were the next most targeted group, with 15 incidents per 100,000 individuals.”[iv] This was affirmed by Yvan Clermont, Direct of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics who stated:

“The increase in the total number of hate crimes in 2015 was attributable in part to an increase in the number of cases targeting Muslims. The number of hate crimes against Muslims reported to the police increased from 99 to 159, an increase of 61%. At the same time, the number of hate crimes targeting Jews decreased from 213 in 2014 to 178 in 2015. So, hate crimes against the Jewish population is still the largest number, but the number was followed very closely by crimes targeting the Muslim population.”[v]

The intent of including the word “Islamophobia” in the motion was to recognize this fact. Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, people of the Muslim faith and those who appear to be of the Muslim faith have been increasingly under the microscope of the public and law enforcement. This increased scrutiny has led to Muslim people and places of faith being targeted for acts of violence. Statistics show that hate crimes are on the rise in Canada. Mr. Clermont, informed the committee that,

“Between 2014 and 2015, incidents of hate crimes reported by the police increased from 1,295 to 1,362. Certain groups saw greater increases. For example, in 2015, the number of incidents involved the Arab and West Asian population increased from 69 to 92 incidents and incidents involving the Muslim population increased from 99 to 159 incidents. I am still talking about incidents reported to the police.”[vi]

It is with this trend in mind, along with the tragedy that occurred at Quebec City’s Great Mosque which saw a white-nationalist gunman injured 25 worshippers, killing 6, that New Democrats support explicitly condemning Islamophobia. The motion is clearly worded that the study was to be aimed at addressing systemic racism and religious discrimination in all forms.

Given the nature of the study, the NDP had hoped that partisan positions and talking points would be set aside once the committee got down to work, especially regarding decisions on the recommendations to put forward to government. After all, it was made clear by members of all parties that the support for eliminating racism and discrimination was universally supported. New Democrats worked hard and across partisan lines in an attempt to put forward comprehensive recommendations which included concrete actions and accountability measures. New Democrats support the recommendations in the main report; however, the main report also failed to adopt some significant recommendations in some key areas.

It is with this in mind, that the NDP includes our supplementary report. With the clear support of witnesses appearing before the committee, the NDP calls on the government to take additional actions around the following areas:

• 1)  Canada’s Indigenous Community
• 2)  Economic Issues
• 3)  Financial Institutions
• 4)  Training/Education
• 5)  Public Awareness
• 6)  Social Cohesion and Integration
• 7)  Best Practices
• 8)  Hate Speech and Hate Crimes
• 9)  Data
• 10)  Social Media/’Fake News’

Canada’s Indigenous Community:

The systemic discrimination and racism that has been faced by Canada’s Indigenous Peoples is well documented throughout Canada’s history. Sadly, it continues to today, and as a result of the extreme acts perpetuated against generations of Indigenous peoples, the legacy of this racism continues to impact people today. The committee heard compelling testimony from Indigenous leaders such as Assembly of First Nations Chief Perry Belegarde, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council Kevin Barlow, and the Hon. Murray Sinclair, Senator and Chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Witnesses spoke about the wide range of discrimination; be that historic, overt, systemic, or residual that Indigenous People have been and are subjected to. Witnesses also provided the committee with thoughtful, whole of government approaches to truly achieve reconciliation and justice.

Indigenous leaders and many non-Indigenous witnesses that appeared were clear that moving forward on the Calls to Action contained with the TRC was an important first step, alongside Canada adhering to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and supporting the National Inquiry in Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women.

National Chief Belegarde stated:

”One of the most important ways is for the full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That, to us, is a road map to reconciliation. It's a road map to ending discrimination and racism in this country and throughout the world.”[vii]

Dr. Blackstock focused on the ongoing systemic discrimination towards First Nations children, and the recent Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rulings which have called on the federal government to end this practice. She explained that,

“In this case, it is the Canadian government that continues to racially discriminate against first nations children. That has to be acknowledged, not only because it relates to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's top call to action about equity and child welfare to make sure that we raise this generation of children safely in their families, but also because it's simply the right thing to do. What have we learned from history? That is the other piece. We apologized for residential schools, and then we apologized for the sixties scoop, and now Canada is out of compliance with four legal orders of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to end racial discrimination with children. What have we actually learned from residential schools? What have we learned from the past? How do we prepare this generation of children to learn from those past actions of racial discrimination, affecting indigenous peoples and others, in ways that prepare them to address injustices, both in a contemporary format and going forward into the future? Today we saw in census figures that we're not holding up our promise to the residential school survivors in terms of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number one. Over 40% of all children under four in child welfare care today are first nations children. Keep in mind that when children were removed for residential schools, they were removed at the tender age of five, and we saw the cataclysm that created. These are preschoolers.”[viii]

Dr. Blackstock also talked about her organization’s efforts to ensure that all of history is discussed, as often the discrimination enacted and perpetuated by our historical leaders is overlooked or completely ignored.

“We've created historical plaques that accurately tell the stories of these people. Duncan Campbell Scott, for example, is recognized as being a confederate poet, but he is also recognized as being a key actor in what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found to be cultural genocide. His historical plaque includes both passages: confederate poet and cultural genocide. For Dr. Bryce, the full story of his career is told as well, and it's the same with Nicholas Flood Davin. I think this is something very essential: teaching, at a time when people are talking about taking down monuments. I actually don't agree with taking down monuments. I agree with telling the full and proper truth, and this is something that I'd like to see the National Capital Commission embrace with a lot more vigour. For example, just a couple of years ago there was an exhibit on Laurier and Macdonald, and it talked about the building of the railway and the first francophone prime minister. It said nothing about their respective roles in residential schools. John A. Macdonald was an enthusiastic endorser of them, and hired Duncan Campbell Scott; Laurier was prime minister at the time when Dr. Bryce's reforms hit the newspaper, and he did not press for those reforms to be implemented and those kids' lives to be saved.”[ix]

Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner at the Ontario Human Rights Commission noted how little Canadians actually know about Canada’s history of colonialism and the injustices that have been committed, stating, “Up until recently, many Canadians, including me, knew very little about the history of colonialism and the ongoing impact of intergenerational trauma on indigenous people and families.”[x] The need to increase awareness of the general public to help reduce the ongoing and future continuation of the perpetuation stereotypes and discrimination was clear. Additionally, better consultation with Indigenous communities, which is referenced in the TRC Calls to Action was also discussed at length.

Though the Government has repeatedly promised to restore a nation to nation relationship; however, actions speak louder than words.  Many of the recommendations from witnesses with concrete calls for action and accountability measures that would be critical to the elimination of systemic discrimination for Indigenous peoples are missing from the main report. It is with this in mind that New Democrats make the following recommendations:

Recommendation One:

That the Government support Bill C-262, private member’s bill from the Member for Abitibi – Baie-James – Nunavik – Eeyou, which is an Act to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the UNDRIP.[xi]

Recommendation Two:

For government departments providing services to First Nations children and families to undergo a thorough and independent 360 degree evaluation to identify any ongoing discriminatory ideologies, policies or practices, outline ways to address them, and for these evaluations to be made public.

Recommendation Three:

That the Government of Canada immediately comply fully with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s orders regarding First Nations children.

Recommendation Four:

That the Government of Canada fully and properly implement Jordan’s Principle.

Recommendation Five:

For the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to publicly cost out the shortfalls in all federally funded public services provided to First Nations children, youth, and families (education, health, water, child welfare etc) and propose solutions to address these shortfalls.

Recommendation Six:

For the Government of Canada to consult with First Nations people to co-create a holistic Spirit Bear Plan to end all of the inequalities, with deadlines and confirmed investments.

Recommendation Seven:

That the Government of Canada work with the National Capital Commission (NCC) to create historical plaques here in Ottawa that recognize the true telling of history as it relates to injustices committed against Indigenous Peoples.

Recommendation Eight:

For all public servants, including those at seniors levels, to receive mandatory training to identify and address government ideology, policies, and practices that fetter the implementation of the TRC’s Calls to Action.

Recommendation Nine:

For the Government of Canada to declare Indigenous education as a national emergency and develop a plan of action with defined timelines to ensure that the national dropout rates of Indigenous students fall within the average non-indigenous student population.

Training/Education:

While it is important to adequately address discrimination and racism when it occurs, it is even more important that we as a society work together to prevent these issues from happening in the first place. The only way to do this is through training and education. It was made clear that this must begin at a young age. It is a firm belief of New Democrats that racism and hate is a learned behavior. If we educate against that, we give future generations the tools and knowledge to push forward, to break down barriers, and to eliminate the systemic issues that remain.

Chief Belegarde, recommended adding more Indigenous education to our school curriculums, advocating that,

“I think education and awareness leads to understanding and leads to action. The education school systems across Canada.... I know this is a federal one, but lobby the provincial premiers and everyone across Canada to change the school curricula to teach about inherent rights, treaty rights, aboriginal rights, to teach about the residential schools and the history and the impact of residential schools, and the Indian Act. The curricula have to change. That's one big piece.”[xii]

The call for more education directed at young people was echoed by Soudeh Ghasemi, Vice-President of the Iranian Canadian Congress who stated:

“On the education issue, yes. In the education system, I do believe that it’s very important that there are curricula to teach students how to address discrimination, to battle discrimination, and to understand these concepts. Training in the school environment is very important.”[xiii]

New Democrats agree that it is essential that we ensure this foundational piece is supported by the Federal Government.  Aside from ensuring that the education materials about different religious and cultural practices are developed, it is important that supports are provided to all government employees and educators. To that end, New Democrats recommend:

Recommendation Ten:

That the Government of Canada work in collaboration with all levels of government to devise a national plan to fund and provide cross-cultural and inter-faith training to all government employees and educators in our school systems.

Economic Issues:

As identified by a number of witnesses, systemic racism and religious discrimination have far ranging impacts on individuals and communities subjected to it. While the more overt instances of racism and discrimination are increasingly less tolerated by our society, the more subtle and implicit forms of racism and discrimination are harder to detect, understand, and address. This discrimination can also manifest unintentionally, a result of the unconscious biases of individuals in positions of power that stem from longstanding stereotypes and myths around ethnic and/or religious minority groups.

It was brought to the attention of the committee that this can be seen and has in fact been measured in employment and economic outcomes amongst Canada’s minority populations. Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Clinic Director of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, spoke at the length to the committee about the existence, persistence of these issues and their generational impacts:

“There are significant racialized and gendered wage and employment gaps in Canada. For instance, data from the 2011 national household survey show that women of colour earned 32% less than non-racialized men, and immigrant women earned 28% less than non-immigrant men. Wage gaps increase for indigenous women, women of colour, and immigrant women with university degrees. There are multiple studies that confirm employers discriminate against job applicants with Asian-sounding names, who are 33% to 37% less likely to get a callback for interviews. As a result of the labour market discrimination, poverty in Canada has also become racialized. The last census shows that 18.7% of racialized families live in poverty as compared to only 6% of non-racialized families, yet the federal government's current national poverty reduction strategy makes little or no mention of how it would address poverty experienced by communities of colour.”[xiv]

She went on to say that,

“Because of discrimination, they are unable to access good-paying, decent jobs. You are trapped in precarious employment situations where your income tends to be lower and you tend to be living in poverty. Your life chances are lower. The future of your children is more restricted. It becomes a generational issue as a result of that one area of systemic racism. Of course, some call this a prison pipeline for the indigenous, and the African Canadian community as well.”[xv]

The committee was provided with additional examples such as resumes being passed over because of ‘ethnic sounding’ names and one a troubling example described by Narges Samimi of the Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House who described a workplace incident of discrimination that she was a victim of:

“I was one of those employees who went through that systemic discrimination in the workplace. I was wearing the hijab before, and one day my manager came to me and said, ‘Nerges, if you want to have this job, you need to give up something.’ I wasn’t sure what she was talking about. She said she meant my hijab, that I couldn’t have my hijab there because of the place where I worked. She said she didn’t want me to change my religion, but she didn’t want me to have a scarf on my head there.”[xvi]

Balpreet Singh of the World Sikh Organization of Canada explained that,

“That's really the insidious part of discrimination. The discrimination we used to see before was blatant. You're wearing a turban, you have beard, this isn't going to work. What we are seeing now, like I said, is ‘You're not the right fit’ or ‘Your interview didn't go as well as it should have’. I've had anecdotal evidence of individuals who say they didn't get any success until they tied their beard, until they brought their beard together and looked a little bit more Western, as it were. We do hear these sorts of stories, but without data, it's very hard to get the whole extent of the problem. I think it's very clear that, for the Sikh community, anyway, whether you're first generation, second generation, or third, you're going to have the articles of faith if you're a practising Sikh. With time, your accent goes away, but you do look different and sometimes that's a problem.”[xvii]

An individual being passed over for a job leaving a job because of their name or ‘non-Western’ appearance, or leaving a job because they feel unwelcome or have been subject to this subtle racism and/or discrimination has significant impacts that allow for the perpetuation of these issues to continue in our society. We must act to break these cycles which allow for the continuation of employment discrimination that in turns creates generational poverty. New Democrats acknowledge that it is important to have tools to assist individuals who face barriers to equitable access to services and employment or tools that foster diverse and equitable hiring; however, we must work to break these cycles in a more cohesive way. It is with this in mind that New Democrats make the following recommendations to the Government of Canada:

Recommendation Eleven:

That the Government of Canada improve processes for labour market and economic achievement by devising a national strategy on labour market integration and achievement that acknowledges the economic inequalities experienced by immigrants, people of visible minorities, religious minorities, and Indigenous Peoples.

Recommendation Twelve:

That the Government of Canada follows Ontario and Manitoba’s lead and establish provincial Fairness Commissioners to ensure that regulated professions have registration practices that are transparent, objective, impartial, and fair.

Recommendation Thirteen:

That the Government of Canada

• a)  Centre the problem of racialization of poverty in the National Poverty Reduction Strategy.
• b)     Reinstate mandatory compliance with employment equity for federal contractors and effectively enforce the regime.

Recommendation Fourteen:

That the Government of Canada work with the Provinces and Territories to

• a)  Introduce and effectively enforce employment equity legislation;
• b)     Collect and analyze data on the racialization of poverty; and
• c)  Remove barriers to recognition of international training by institutions, regulatory bodies, and employers.

Social Cohesion and Integration:

The goals of better education and increased public awareness of these issues is to increase Canada’s social cohesion, and to strengthen the integration process for newcomers to Canada. Changes to our education system, and public awareness campaigns take a long-term focus on the issues of systemic racism and discrimination. Throughout our communities, countless individuals and organizations are working hard to help create a sense of belonging and harmony amongst diverse groups. There are concrete actions that can be taken immediately to increase social cohesion and integration.

In their written submission to the committee, We need to move beyond feelings and look at the systemic impacts of racism on our economic and social status, the Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House and Kiwassa Neighbourhood House advance three recommendations that the NDP support regarding actions to increase social cohesion in our communities.

Recommendation Fifteen:

That the Government of Canada establish additional programs to facilitate integration and reduce segregation by supporting community based events intended to convene diverse groups of newcomers, First Nations, and other Canadians at community-organizations.

Recommendation Sixteen:

That the Government of Canada provide a new funding stream for media and arts programs aimed at the most marginalized and vulnerable communities of newcomers and/or ethnic religious minorities.

Recommendation Seventeen:

That the Government of Canada foster institutional participation and leadership by providing funding to identify how members of diverse groups, especially women of colour, can be supported to become leaders in the community.

Public Awareness:

For those no longer in Canada’s education system, New Democrats believe we can always learn more and do better, especially when it comes to recognizing our own implicit biases and understanding the impacts of systemic racism and discrimination. Staff Sergeant David Zackrias of the Ottawa Police Service called on the government to, “support public awareness campaigns that are community-led, working hand in hand with law enforcement. We all have a stake in this fight to eradicate discrimination.”[xviii]

 Sikander Hashmi, a spokesperson for the Canadian Council of Imams called for the government to “run regular national public awareness campaigns to instill a sense of national pride in Canadian diversity and to highlight the positive contributions of Canadians of all types.”[xix] The NDP supports the ideas brought to committee about raising public awareness of the benefits that we as a country receive from being a diverse and inclusive society, and therefore recommend:

Recommendation Eighteen: That the Government of Canada provide targeted new funding for NGOs who have been leading the way in settlement and integration training to deliver workshops in community spaces and schools to facilitate public awareness and education campaigns to combat systemic racism and religious discrimination

Best Practices:

Education materials, public awareness campaigns, and social cohesion efforts undertaken by communities should not be done in a vacuum. To have the greatest success from coast-to-coast-to-coast, being able to share best practices easily was brought to the attention of the community. It is important for organizations to have the opportunity to know what is out there, what is working well, and how successful programs can be tailored to be as effective as possible in their communities. It is through the sharing of best practices that we will be able to see the greatest gains in all of these areas.

With this in mind, The NDP supports the recommendation put forward in We need to move beyond feelings and look at the systemic impacts of racism on our economic and social status, the Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House and Kiwassa Neighbourhood House.

Recommendation Nineteen:

Develop a national web-based portal where community organizations and agencies can share best practices for programs and strategies to address racism and religious discrimination.

Recommendation Twenty:

That the Government of Canada host a federal-provincial-territorial meeting to discuss the rise in hate crimes in Canada to develop best practices to countering this trend.

Hate Crimes and Hate Speech:

The committee heard from several witnesses that the current threshold for a crime to be considered a hate crime was incredibly high. Aurangzeb Quershi, Vice President of Public Policy and Communications for the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council (AMPAC) explained:

“We have found it extremely difficult to charge an individual with a hate crime, and it demands a threshold that is unrealistic. For example, section 319 specifically requires the consent of the Attorney General in order to lay charges, a high bar and something that very few other sections require.”[xx]

Renu Mandhane explained the importance of accurately defining hate so that the laws that do exist can be enforced properly, he stated:

“We have seen very little enforcement of laws against hate crimes under the Criminal Code. I think if we want to avoid what we’re seeing in the United States, we really need to start thinking about defining hate in a way that captures the lived experience of people who experience it.”[xxi]

Some witnesses also drew attention to issues that minority groups are not being taken seriously by law enforcement when they do come forward to report that a hate crime has been committed. Ihsaan Gardee, Executive Director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims suggested that, “law enforcement should be required to retain and undertake regular and ongoing training in bias-free policing as well as victim-based approaches to dealing with hate crimes.”[xxii]

Once a crime has been reported and is being investigated, witnesses before the committee noted that in some cases that motivation - i.e. hate – was not being examined. David Matas Senior legal counsel at B’nai Brith Canada explained,

“One of the problems we see with the police forced dealing with hate-motivated crimes is sometimes – indeed, perhaps all too often – they will identify a crime without looking at the motivation. I mean, obviously if somebody paints a swastika, you can see the motivation, but it’s a simple assault, they may just go after the assault without looking at the motivation. The low figures we hear about hate-motivated crimes are in some instances the result of the police just not looking to see whether it’s a hate-motivated crime. One of the things we could usefully do in terms of training is sensitize police forces, so that when there is a hate dimension to a crime, it gets noticed, it gets reported, and it gets acted on.”[xxiii]

The difficulty in laying a hate crime charge, difficulties in having complaints responded to in a standardized and thoughtful manner, and the lack of trust that complaints will be taken seriously led to what many witnesses described as significant underreporting of hate crimes in Canada. This is because official statistics rely only on police reported hate crimes. Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs recommended that, “the government establish uniform national guidelines and standards for the collection and handling of hate crime and hate incident data.”[xxiv] Additionally, other witnesses recommended ways for hate incidents to be reported and counted that were outside of police statistics. For example, the Mr. Quershi highlighted AMPAC’s Islamophobia hotline, informing the committee that, “the AMPAC Islamophobia hotline was launched in April 2016… was introduced as a tool for the Muslim community to monitor Islamophobic incidents across Alberta… Over the last year, the hotline has received over 400 calls”[xxv].

New Democrats firmly believe an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and therefore every effort should be made to prevent hate crimes from happening in the first place. However, once a crime has been committed, we need to make sure our laws, our law enforcement agencies, and our judicial system adequately recognizes what has happened and acts accordingly to ensure that justice is served. With this in mind, New Democrats recommend:

Recommendation Twenty-One:

That the Government of Canada strengthen the legal and regulatory responses to discrimination by reviewing and strengthening the laws against hate speech and hate crimes by providing a more inclusive and clear definition of what, exactly constitutes a hate crime.

Recommendation Twenty-Two:

That the Government of Canada better protect minority groups from hate incidents by taking hate motivation into account more effectively and consistently.

Recommendation Twenty-Three:

That the Government of Canada establish standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system.

Recommendation Twenty-Four:

That the Government of Canada create a standardized hotline to allow for the reporting of hate crimes and/or discrimination for the collection of data that goes beyond instances reported to the police.

Recommendation Twenty-Five:

That the Government of Canada collaborate with municipalities, provinces, and territories to create and fund dedicated police hate crime units.

Financial Institutions:

New Democrats were deeply troubled by the testimony provided to the committee by representatives of the Iranian Canadian Congress (ICC), regarding the discrimination that Iranian-Canadians can face from Canada’s financial institutions. Pouyan Tabasinejad told committee members that:

“Since 2012, as a result of strict sanctions placed on Iran by the Canadian government, banks have refused to deal with those who had or were perceived to have any financial links to Iran, whether personal or business. This resulted in the closure of the bank accounts of Iranian Canadians, including Canadian citizens, for no other reason than because they were Iranian. For example, the bank account of an Iranian engineering student in Quebec was closed with only $700 in the account. When he approached the bank he was only told that his account was closed because he had an Iranian passport.

Even today, after the government eased some of its sanctions on Iran in February 2016, financial institutions are still applying the same discriminatory rules, and we have received several reports from ordinary Iranian Canadians who have been subject to discrimination by banks.”[xxvi]

This level of discrimination is simply unacceptable. Therefore, New Democrats recommend:

Recommendation Twenty-Six:

That the Government of Canada immediately undertake to work, in collaboration with the responsible regulatory agencies, to ensure that individuals are not being discriminated against in their access to banking services.

Data:

Data is a key component to policy making. Without a complete understanding of any given situation, it is incredibly difficult to implement good policy. The reinstatement of Canada’s long form census has rebuilt some of the data collection processes needed to ensure policy makers can make informed policy decisions. However, it was brought to the attention of the committee by Ms. Go that complementary race-based administrative data sets are missing from all levels of government. This has lead the varying levels of governments to not have the high quality information required to fully acknowledge and understand the impacts of racism and discrimination in Canadian society, especially as it pertains to issues like poverty. Often, what data is available is not detailed enough. For example, Ms. Go highlighted in the brief submitted to the committee by the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic that while the new Poverty Reduction Strategy prioritizes communities at heightened risk of poverty, the broad category of ‘recent immigrant’ is used, and ‘people of colour’ is not mentioned at all. The NDP believes that we must do more to ensure we know how policy is impacting different communities.

New Democrats support the recommendation brought forward by Ms. Go in the brief the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic submitted to committee:

Recommendation Twenty-Seven:

That the Government of Canada collect and track disaggregated data with respect to ethno-racial background across all Departments, Ministries, Divisions and relevant institutions, and use this data to develop strategies for addressing systemic racism. Immigration status should not be used a proxy or substitute category for race, and racial groups should not be homogenized under the category of “visible minority”. Data should be collected in a way that enables analysis of the intersecting effects of ethno-racial background with gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, immigration status, age, and (dis)ability.

Social Media and Fake News:

In today’s increasingly connected world, and in a world where information spreads quickly and no longer necessarily through ‘trust’ or ‘reliable’ channels, so-called ‘fake news’ has emerged as a real concern for many people. Often, this ‘fake news’ or misinformation is spread through social media, meaning people are reading and sharing information that they’re being shown by friends and colleagues. As media has diversified greatly, independent sources - whether they are legitimate or not - can look just as polished and trustworthy as traditional media. There has also been a continued blurring between editorials, ‘info-tainment’, and journalism which further clouds things.

As discussed in the introduction, misinformation was rampant regarding M-103 itself. Much of this was a result of editorials and an online campaign of misinformation that was initiated by sources that would describe themselves not as journalists, but as pundits, or commenters, despite the look and feel of journalism.

During this study, witnesses touched on role that social media and misinformation plays in shaping public opinion. Frank Huang, the National Secretary-General of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians (NCCC), spoke about misinformation that was shared amongst the Chinese Canadian community through social media that negatively influenced opinions on refugees:

“In the Chinese online community, there was sensational news. A social media WeChat account with the name T*T TD Canada Trust posted the following information: “I received at least 20 refugees to open bank accounts today. I just learned that the government gave each of them $800 every month and this family has four adults and six children, that means $8,000 per month and they don't even need to pay tax. So after tax, $8,000 a month means $200,000 per year.” This was posted by somebody who says that he's a TD Bank staff member working in Montreal. This news triggered intense responses in the Chinese community and was re-posted many times. It triggered backlash and outcry against the Chinese government and even the prime minister. These kinds of irresponsible words incite hostile sentiments towards refugees.”[xxvii]

Mr. Huang would later explain that:

“We know that this is misleading and incorrect information. However, because it is on social media, a lot of people don’t know what’s true and what’s not true. A lot of people felt very strongly about this, so they began to repost it to spread the fake posted information, and they began to express their hostile sentiments towards refugees and the Canadian government. It’s very hard to regulate social media.”[xxviii]

Former CSIS analyst and CEO of Northgate Group Michel Jeneau-Katsuya spoke about the impact of fake news and the difficulty in addressing it, saying, “It takes about 15 minutes to write fake news, but it takes months to counter it.”[xxix] Ms. Mandhane addressed possible ways that individuals and society as a whole can work to counter these false narratives:

“I think first of all that, at an individual institutional and leadership level, we need to counter that with our own narratives and our own views. I think we are very scared of using the word ‘racism’ but I think that we do need to be bold and counter those narratives. I have to say that we’re in a new era where everyone’s ideas are of equal weight. On social media you can kind of lose sight of the fact that these very vocal voices don’t often represent the majority of Canadians.”[xxx]

This sentiment was echoed by Cecil Roach of the York Region District School Board, who urged:

“I think we have to embrace social media… There’s a small percentage of them who hold views that are insidious. However, the majority of our students are good students who want to do the right thing… Let’s use social media as a force for good.”[xxxi]

Mr. Huang used thoughtful and provoking examples from his own life, including the above mentioned one to highlight how our own internal biases, and those biases that are contained within our communities help foster an environment where misinformation can thrive because it conforms to our biased views. He stated, “Personally, I believe this kind of discrimination is due to a lack of understanding and deep-rooted prejudice. To get over this kind of discrimination, we need to strengthen communication and education.”[xxxii]

New Democrats appreciate the ability that social media has given us which is that we can now share ideas and thoughts to wide audience quickly and easily. It is also recognized though that this ability can be misused to divide communities, play upon people’s fears and to misinform. It is therefore important that we recognize the responsibilities that come with these new, powerful tools. Therefore, New Democrats recommend:

Recommendation Twenty-Eight:

That the Government of Canada develop a strategy to address the spread of false information and fake news through social media.

Recommendation Twenty-Nine:

That the Government of Canada explore and make available tools that will help individuals identify and recognize their own internal biases.

Conclusion:

It is clear to New Democrats that much of the negative reactions to M-103, be that within partisan politics, implicit biases, or through misinformation campaigns, highlighted precisely why passing the motion and conducting this study at the Standing Committee for Canadian Heritage was important at this time in Canada. As we look internationally, it is clear that Canada has thus far remained an outlier to the dramatic increase in xenophobia and the rise of far-right politics. The majority of Canadians remain committed to and value Canada’s multiculturalism and the idea that diversity is our strength. However, at this junction in time, it is important that we do not rest on our laurels but that we commit to doing more, as individuals, as communities, and as governments to ensure that we continue on this path.

Committee members heard compelling testimony about how far Canada has come, and how far we still have yet to go to address and eliminate systemic racism and religious discrimination. It is important that we confront these issues with open minds, open hearts, compassion, and with understanding that we can and must do better.

The Committee was given important and thoughtful recommendations for how the federal government can take action and show leadership on this. While new Democrats strongly advocated for many of the recommendations in the main report; however, in the end, it was felt that a supplementary report is needed to ensure that these additional specific concrete recommendations with accountability measures are brought to the government’s attention as part of the whole of government action plan to tackle something as important as systemic discrimination, racism and religious discrimination for our nation. To eliminate systemic racism and religious discrimination, we must think big and act boldly.