FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

Á

1100

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

The Honourable Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Clerk

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

Á

1105

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Professor Tareq Y. Ismael (Department of Political Science, University of Calgary)

Á

1110

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Mr. A. Üner Turgay (Director, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University)

Á

1125

Á

1130

The Chair

The Honourable Mobina Jaffer (Senator from British Columbia, Lib.)

Á

1135

Á

1140

Á

1145

Á

1150

The Chair

Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Á

1155

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Â

1200

The Chair

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Â

1205

The Chair

Senator Mobina Jaffer

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

Â

1210

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. John Harvard

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. John Harvard

Â

1215

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Â

1220

Senator Mobina Jaffer

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

The Chair

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Â

1225

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.)

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Â

1240

The Chair

The Honourable Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Hon. Diane Marleau

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

Â

1245

Hon. Diane Marleau

Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael

The Chair

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.)

Â

1250

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

Mr. Irwin Cotler

Mr. A. Üner Turgay

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Â

1255

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Hon. Diane Marleau

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Ms. Aileen Carroll

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Aileen Carroll

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 047

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, September 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1100)  

[Translation]

    The Clerk of the Committee: Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, we have quorum. Pursuant to Standing Order 106, the first item on the agenda is the election of the chair. I am ready to receive nominations.

    Mr. Harvey.

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): I nominate Mr. Patry.

    The Clerk: Mr. Harvey nominates Mr. Patry. Are there other nominations?

[English]

    It is seconded by Mr. Day.

    Are there any other nominations?

    I see no further nominations. I therefore declare Dr. Patry is elected chair.

[Translation]

    Still pursuant to Standing Order 106, you have two deputy chair positions to fill. All I can do is to hold elections for deputy chair.

[English]

    Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): I propose Madam Marleau.

    The Honourable Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): I'll second it.

    The Clerk: There is one nomination for Ms. Marleau as the government vice-chair.

    Mr. Penson.

    Mr. Charlie Penson: I'd like to nominate Mr. Day for the second vice-chair.

    The Clerk: All right. We'll take one at a time.

    Are there any other nominations for vice-chair for the government?

    Seeing none, I declare Ms. Marleau elected as vice-chair for the government side.

    Mr. Penson has proposed the name of Mr. Day for vice-chair, opposition. Are there any other nominations?

    Seeing no further nominations, I declare Mr. Day vice-chair, opposition.

    I now invite Dr. Patry to take the chair.

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): I would like to invite our guests, our witnesses, to the front of the table.

    The order of the day is pursuant to Standing Order 106(1), election of the chair and election of vice-chairs. That's done.

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of relations with Muslim countries, we have as witnesses this morning, from the University of Calgary, Professor Ismael, who is a professor of political science; from McGill University, Mr. Turgay, the director of the Institute of Islamic Studies; and also from the Senate, the Hon. Ms. Mobina Jaffer.

    On a point of order, Madame Lalonde, s'il vous plaît.

Á  (1105)  

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I have a question of privilege because I want to make sure that things are clear between us. This morning we received two meeting notices. You are actually the only person who can call a committee meeting. It seems to me that, if we want to do things properly, we should receive the same notices, but from you. Otherwise, the rules no longer apply, and it is important for the rules be clear to everyone.

    The Chair: Very well, thank you.

[English]

    Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I know everybody is looking forward to hearing our witnesses.

    I wonder if I might ask, given the fact that we ran out of time in our previous meeting to deal with the request for the Solicitor General and the foreign affairs minister to come before this committee at the earliest possible time, can we be assured of saving a few moments at the end of the meeting to deal with that?

    The Chair: Do you mean the end of the meeting today?

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: At the end of the meeting today, could we deal with that request?

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): This is the motion of which I gave notice, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Which request? I don't know.

[Translation]

    Mr. Bergeron, go ahead.

[English]

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I raised the request yesterday.

    The Chair: We could discuss it, but we cannot vote on this. When the préavis was given by Mr. Bergeron, it was a technical procedure. At that time he was unable to put his motion because it was not a 24-hour motion. Now that the committee is reformed, he needs to give a 24-hour motion.

    We can discuss it, but to vote on it is the technicality. I don't mind discussing it, but there is not going to be a vote on this today. If Mr. Bergeron is coming back with his motion, it could be voted on Thursday.

    Yes, Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to hear clearly from you that if there is unanimous consent on behalf of the committee members regarding this motion, we can take the action it calls for.

    The Chair: If there is unanimous consent, of course. But the clerk is telling me that in order to have unanimous consent, he has to have the motion before him, and he does not have it right now. So if you can provide him with the motion this morning and if there is unanimous consent, we will discuss it.

[English]

    We can vote on this if we have a motion.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Did you table the motion last time?

    I know I never prepared motions.

    The Chair: We're going to start with our witnesses this morning. We're very pleased to have Mr. Ismael, Mr. Turgay, and Mrs. Jaffer.

    I must thank Mr. Ismael and Mr. Turgay for providing members with some of your text in advance, which we have then translated into French. Merci beaucoup. It was very much appreciated.

    We're going to start with Mr. Ismael, at the request of Mrs. Jaffer. She wants to speak last.

    Mr. Ismael, please, if you're ready, you may begin. You have a statement for about ten minutes. After that, we'll have Mr. Turgay and then Mrs. Jaffer. We'll have Q and A after that.

    Professor Tareq Y. Ismael (Department of Political Science, University of Calgary): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I will not read my statements—you already have the notes. I will be speaking to the general issues and I may summarize some of the notions, but I will not go through the normal reading that some people seem to like.

    The topic, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the most interesting topics and one of the most difficult to deal with in the sense that there is so much emotional and sometimes even ideological baggage attached to it. However, as a scholar, I begin with the notion that the term “Muslim world”, while it has a clear connotation in cultural terms and real political terms, at least now, is a very, at best, precarious term in the sense that when we speak of the Muslim world, we really have not looked at the issues in cultural terms; we look at them usually in political terms.

    The whole notion of the Muslim world is very closely associated with the 17th century notion of those whom we can understand, and eventually carried into the 20th century with more ambiguities, and eventually, by the early 20th century, we tried to understand, but we never did, so the confusion increased. However, by the second half of the 20th century, the term began to take a different meaning, and that is “them and us”—the good guys and the bad guys. Unfortunately, with the events of September 11 and after, the Muslim notion began to be associated with something called terrorism.

    As a result, and with the mass media perceptions and introduction, sometimes editorially oriented with a specific manipulation, the term “Muslim world” ends up being uncivilized, usually terrorists, usually against us. As such, we are automatically on the other side and we are in a civilizational conflict, i.e., the good guys, us; the bad guys, them. We interpret everything from that perspective. The result is we have a very huge gulf, if you will, which was exacerbated by events that were purely political and given a religious context.

    I wanted to make that very clear at the outset, that this is very misleading. It's true in cultural terms, but in political terms it carries with it baggage that is very dangerous and could affect us and our relationship with them. On this basis, I would caution against the use of that term in light of what we have been experiencing with some groups that have taken a political stance for political reasons and not for cultural or religious reasons.

    I wanted to make that very clear, and I was debating whether I should bother this distinguished audience with this. But the more I look at it, the more I get convinced that this is a very important notion that has to be somehow addressed and hopefully looked upon in a different light from what we have been led to believe in by the mass media, whose political bent we all know.

    Now, I say that basically because I have done two or three studies on this, on how the mass media ran with the notion, gave it an interpretation, and eventually led us, as a public, into a certain direction that could well be detrimental to our understanding of those 1.3 billion people.

    Canada's image outside, especially in the geographic area that encompasses the Muslim nations and states, is always very positive in the sense that Canada is looked upon as a country that is committed to international law, international organizations, and the notion of peace—peacemaking and peacekeeping. This country, a small country by any standard, had an international acceptance in the region to the degree that we should be proud of that image.

Á  (1110)  

    I just visited two ambassadors—courtesy calls—and both were so pleased that I was invited by your distinguished committee to come to speak and address this issue. They both made it very clear that this country's image is very much in contrast with this country's actual deeds in international relations.

    On this basis, I am more than pleased to tell you that Canadian involvement in the so-called geographic Muslim world has always been positive, but we need to push that a bit further. I am thinking, basically, of the whole idea of the Canadian vision in foreign policy. I don't have to tell you, its size or its population is limited, but its weight, internationally, is something we may see much more clearly when we meet with people from the outside.

    We have an international weight that doesn't really correspond with our military, economic, even social, size. We have an experiment in social coexistence, social harmony, that the rest of the world admires. For that reason, I think our peacekeeping role, our peace initiatives, could be enhanced with some new visions.

    I have one idea I have been working on that may be a bit different. This country has one of the best higher education systems in the world. It has a very close interaction with civil society. It has a very important communication between the academic institutions and the population; thus, there is civil society involvement in our universities.

    More importantly, our universities have an international reputation that is basically similar to that of the Americans, without the American political baggage, if you will. There is what I call an opportunity that we have not looked at, although everybody identifies it as an important contribution we could make that could enhance the basic principles of our foreign policy.

    That's the whole idea of an academic exchange between us, the third world as a whole, the Muslim world, and maybe the Arab world more particularly. I'm zeroing in on one specific country, Iraq, and this particular state.

    I'm sure you know we have one of the most respected institutes of Islamic studies in the world. I am proud to be with my friend, Professor Turgay, from McGill, one of the oldest...more than 52 years old. I remember as a young student I always looked upon that place as a model to emulate. I'm looking at others. Maybe we should consider the whole notion of some new, innovative, visionary approach to our peacekeeping with a different orientation, maybe a university.

    I am very much involved in being an Iraqi originally and a Canadian—proud to be both.

    We were at an international conference in Cyprus at the end of April. We saw what happened in Iraq, the cultural atrocities, the destruction of one of the most important civilizations, the foundation of our civilization. As professors, we were flabbergasted and chagrined about what happened.

    The American professors felt they had to do something, so we met. Everybody had an idea. Some of us said, “We are professors; we can do only the things we know best, maybe establish a university modelled after a Canadian university.” They said, “You Canadians take over. You have been very decent in your foreign policy. Maybe you can clean us up”—i.e., the Americans or the British. “Your relationship—a western orientation—to a people who feel that all of us are guilty of what has happened in Iraq...”

    So we came up with the idea of an international university in Baghdad, in which we will do two things. One is hopefully emulate and borrow from the Canadian experience, with more emphasis on civil society. Some Canadian values, not all of them but the most important of them, could become the basic norms of that university, to emphasize the interaction between civil society and the academic community in a way that creates a new model to be emulated but does not usurp the rights of the national universities.

Á  (1115)  

    It was the idea that since all these military regimes, the most brutal of which is the last one, Saddam Hussein's, reduce those universities not to universities but rather only to institutions of learning...rather than a place to produce ideas, interact, and have respect for those ideas and the whole notion of bringing societal needs and interacting with society, special civil society, to produce good citizenry... This was lacking, we thought.

    If we start something like this, with some Canadian input and direction, then we may become the model to be emulated, if not copied, and on this basis we are moving in that direction. I feel that this is a new, interesting, innovative, and visionary approach.

    When we brought this to the population—that is, basically those who happened to be at the conference—and then when we contacted Iraqi professors outside, this was received very well. I thought this was something to bring to this committee as a possible supplement or complement of a new vision of a very respected foreign policy and maybe an initiative into something else.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Á  (1120)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ismael.

    Now we'll go to Mr. Turgay.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay (Director, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University): Thank you, Dr. Patry.

    Once again it is a great pleasure for me to be here and certainly a great honour to be among you.

    If you would allow me, let me give you some information about the conference we held in Montreal, directly related to our discussion today, and then perhaps make a statement. After that, of course, I am open to any questions you may have, including any on the recommendations I made some weeks ago to DFAIT after my visit to Southeast Asia.

    We held a conference on September 25 and 26, organized by the Institute of Islamic Studies and strongly supported financially and ideologically by DFAIT, as well as CIDA. The conference included approximately 130 people, visitors from Asia and Southeast Asia, as well as Canadians, and very few from the United States. We had as guests the ambassador of Turkey, who has served in Iran and certainly for quite some time in Indonesia, the ambassadors of Indonesia and Thailand, the high commissioners of Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam, and many scholars and government officials and retired government officials from the region.

    The objectives of the conference were to create better understanding and linkages between Canada and the Islamic communities in South and Southeast Asia; to promote an awareness of South and Southeast Asia's diverse Islamic communities; to examine the impact of Islamic communities on regional development trends and the broader Asian security environment; to highlight the importance of Islam in the private sector, private sector development, and to draw lessons for the business community to enhance Canada-Asia economic relations; to examine the roles of Islam and Canada in promoting social development issues such as education, gender equity, and poverty reduction and to provide an opportunity for our Asian participants to gain exposure to Canadian values of a pluralist society; and finally, to draw up policy recommendations with a view to enhancing relations between Canada and South and Southeast Asian Muslim countries.

    We had certain expectations of this conference. We sought a policy recommendation on an exchange between young leaders of Canada and Asia; policy proposals on how to enhance Canada's position vis-à-vis the Islamic communities in the region; a balanced analysis and exchange of ideas on Islam, multiculturalism, and Asian and global security; development of a network of contacts among Muslims and other religious leaders and scholars, academics, and governmental and non-governmental representatives; building a network of private sector representatives supporting stronger economic relations between Asia and Canada; and of course presenting Canada as a tolerant, multicultural society. Allow me to tell you that we have been quite successful.

    For our Canadian participants, I think we saw the smiling face of Islam. We heard some of the major concerns of the Muslim countries in the region--higher education and increased communications, not person-to-person but actually equipment and systems. We heard their efforts for good governance, gender equality, and poverty reduction, and we understood that Islam plays a very important role.

    It's clear to me that Islam is very much part of the development programs and plans of the countries in the region. It is not viewed in any way as a hindrance to development, but indeed, in their view, Islam encourages development. With this support for free enterprise, with this support for profit and for reward in the afterlife, for material as well as spiritual success, Islam becomes very important in their plans.

Á  (1125)  

    For our Asian friends, we show them that Canada is a tolerant country. We value our ethnicity, our diversity. We find richness in diversity. It's our program, our ideology, and we're very proud of it. We do not believe in the melting pot, because the melting pot does not really melt.

    We also show them that Canada is indeed interested in and eager to understand their concerns, to understand Islam, to make society conscious of and sensitive to the feelings and beliefs of the Muslims in the region. I hear, from the remarks of our Asian friends, that we have been successful in doing that.

    We came to the conclusion, mutually, that the only way we can really proceed is by being honest brokers and true friends, and by being critical of each other. Enthusiasm shown by both sides, both Canadian participants and Asian participants, was heartening indeed--heartwarming.

    We had participants from India, Pakistan, Cambodia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Brunei... I must be skipping a few. There were a dozen countries. Again, allow me to say that it was really quite an achievement, and we were very happy to be an agent for this.

    If you would allow me, Mr. Patry, let me make some general comments about Islam, and then of course I will join in with the question period.

    We see Islam today as a dynamic force in the contemporary world. The end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 15th Islamic century were certainly moments of Islamic revival and increasing visibility and influence in the world.

    From success in elections in Algeria and Jordan, and recently in Turkey, to political permanence in Southeast Asia and effective expansion of Islam in Africa, North America, and Europe, the entire world of Islam shows the continuing appeal and power of the message of the Koran.

    The Islamic resurgence is part of a global expanse of religious revival that surprised many analysts in the 1980s. In the past, an established part of the theories of modernization was that modern development involves the secularization of the polity as a prerequisite for significant social change. The contemporary experience in Muslim societies shows very clearly that old assumption of a direct correlation between modernization and secularization must at least be re-examined, if not rejected.

    I would assume the currently visible resurgence of Islam is not simply the last gasp of a dying religious tradition. The general basis for this assumption is an examination of the experience of the Islamic community in modern history, which brought the conclusion that the Islamic world, like other societies in the contemporary world, is in the process of major transformation.

    The result of that process, however, will not be identically modernized, secularized societies. The shape of global post-modern society is only beginning to emerge. But it seems clear that special identities provided by the major world religious traditions will have important roles to play in that emerging new global order.

Á  (1130)  

    A fundamental issue is the nature of the religious tradition in the post-modern world. It is possible that fundamentally new ideas and institutions have been given a traditional appearance by the established religions. Using this point of view, one might see the current revival of Islam as a desire to provide familiar forms for basically non-Islamic ideas and institutions.

    Many commentators view the Islamic movements of the 1970s and 1980s in that way, seeing Islamic activism as primarily nationalist, socialist, or economically motivated movements dressed in the garb of religion. That viewpoint seems at heart to deny the possibility of a truly Islamic-inspired anti-imperialism or an Islamic-oriented desire for social transformation. It also ignores the durability of the appeal over the final decades of the 20th century.

    An alternative view, we may suggest, is that the Islamic community is entering a new phase, not the end of its history. It is possible to see the current resurgence as a continuation of basic themes, even though those themes may be expressed in new ways. To ignore religious motivations and concentrate only on the economic drives or secularized political motives is to limit unnecessarily the scope of our understanding.

    In the broader perspective of Islamic history, the dynamic vitality of the faith has assumed a variety of forms as historical conditions have changed. Any examination of Islam in the contemporary world must take that past experience into account if the present is to be adequately understood. Part of the visible Muslim resurgence is putting modern sentiments into Islamic garb, true. But the Islamic resurgence for a considerable number of Muslims also involves the creation of new and effective forms for the continuing vitality of the Islamic message.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We're going to Mrs. Jaffer. I just want to let our members know that she was once a special envoy of our Prime Minister in Sudan.

    Mrs. Jaffer.

    The Honourable Mobina Jaffer (Senator from British Columbia, Lib.): Thank you very much.

     Bismi Allahi alrrahmani alrraheemi, in the name of Allah, all humanity, we have created you from a single pair of male and female and made you into nations and tribes so that you may know each other.

    That is chapter 49, verse 13 of the Koran.

    The Koran asserts the universal essence of humanity on the one hand, and on the other its diversity in terms of individuality, gender, nations, and tribes. The reason for this distinctiveness is so we may know each other.

    The Koran also recognizes plurality, and its awareness is encouraged so we can see the essence that unites humanity. A common purpose and understanding can be achieved only through acceptance and knowledge of diversity. In fact, the creator can be known only through the diversity of Her creation.

    Honourable Chair, thank you very much for asking me to come before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to speak on the subject of Canada's relations with Muslim countries. As a Muslim woman, it is my privilege to appear before you on this very important issue.

    I am an Ismaili Muslim woman and my spiritual leader is His Highness Prince Karim Aga Khan, the 49th hereditary imam of the Shia Ismaili Muslims. As you know, the two major sects of Islam are Shias and Sunnis. The Ismailis constitute one of the Shia sects.

    I have prepared a title page that I am hoping... and may I be so presumptuous as to ask you when you travel to countries to look at how women are being treated. I have them in French and English, if I may pass them out. My title page, which I would like you to look at when you travel across the many countries, has on it what education is provided, choices, interpretation of the Koran, and then what reaches equality for women.

Á  (1135)  

[Translation]

    The bridges that we have built between Canadians and Muslim countries are growing stronger and more numerous. Canada is very well respected in Muslim countries for its multicultural policies, its consideration towards citizens from all civilizations, its desire to build sustainable partnerships with them and its commitment to pluralism.

[English]

    Canada's commitment to pluralism is truly unique and serves as a model to the rest of the world.

[Translation]

    I was asked to speak to you today about my own experience as a Muslim woman. I will begin by telling you a bit about my past. I grew up in colonial Uganda, a non-Muslim country, and I still remember very clearly the day when, at the age of four, I was physically removed from a school for white children. I can still see the anger on my father's face. I heard him say: "I will build an even better school for girls, for my daughters".

[English]

    Education. With the assistance of His Highness the Aga Khan, my father built Aga Khan kindergarten, a school that continues to exist and at which my sister, Bergees, a Canadian teacher, recently taught. From Aga Khan kindergarten I went to Aga Khan primary school, where every day I would see a picture of my grandfather, whose portrait is still hanging there and who made a substantial contribution to that school. My secondary education was at Aga Khan secondary school. The Aga Khan financed all Aga Khan schools, which continue to exist in East Africa today.

    I believe my teachers, whom the Aga Khan personally chose in Britain, were some of the best in the world. As a child, it was ingrained in me that education was the key to freedom and an independent life. The previous Aga Khan, Sir Sultan Muhammad Shah, had emphasized on numerous occasions that if you have school fees for one child and you have a boy and a girl, educate the girl, as by educating the girl you educate a family.

    As a young girl, I looked up to Afghani and Iraqi women doctors, as well as Iranian women professionals, who came to work in Uganda. We aspired to go to Lebanese and Iranian universities. Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and even Egypt, were places where women were encouraged to be professionals. Education was seen as a way to be independent, and it was to be my own salvation. All that I was able to bring with me as a refugee from Uganda was my education. By fleeing Idi Amin's tyranny, I had lost all my assets, including certificates of education, but I had my education. My education was portable.

[Translation]

    That is why I believe today that the area where our country will be best able to leave its mark is the education of girls in Muslim countries. An overview is contained in appendix A of my brief.

[English]

    I have prepared in both French and English something that I would like you to look at because of the limited time, as to what exists in the different Muslim countries.

    As for headdresses, as a child I saw my grandmother and other women around me abandoning long dresses and headdresses. The world for women was opening up. We were being integrated into mainstream society.

    My mother was the first Muslim woman in East Africa to complete university. After she married, she studied in England and at Kent State University in the U.S., and my father raised six children in Uganda. She is presently a social worker in British Columbia.

    In my world, whether I was living in Uganda or studying in England or the U.S., I saw only a few elderly Muslim women wearing the hijab. It was a time when we did not need to identify ourselves as Muslim women.

    Paris Matchmagazine asked the Aga Khan about the hijab:

What does the Aga Khan, a Europeanized Muslim, think about the debate on the wearing of the Islamic scarf in France?

    He responded:

How do you expect me to forbid someone from openly associating themselves with their religion? The law today is acting on the form, not the underlying significance of this practice. One should not impose oneself in an aggressive manner, but should live serenely within one's faith. If pressuring someone to change their beliefs is considered offensive, why should someone change their beliefs just because these beliefs consist of a free individual right? The separation of religion and state implies multiculturalism before anything else.

    Then, suddenly, as I became an adult, doors started closing for Muslim women. Historians may tell you differently, and I of course will defer to them, but for me, the world of Muslim women changed with the Iranian revolution, when it was decreed that women had to wear headgear and could not exhibit any hair. Women were thrown into the notorious Evin prison if they did not comply. As a refugee lawyer in Uganda, I have represented many of these women. We began to see our world through the purdah and the burqa. There was a rise of fundamentalism.

    The Aga Khan addressed this issue of fundamentalism when he stated:

If fundamentalism means the destabilization of a society, I am certainly opposed to it. We have taken up the annoying habit of linking each sporadic act of terrorism to the Muslim world. It is a painful confusion. The Muslim world is made up of 1 billion believers, living in 30 to 40 countries, speaking 500 languages and dialects, people who come from countries which became Muslim—some at the time of the Prophet, others 300 years later—some speaking Arabic, others that do not. There is no Islamic entity where 1 billion believers interpret and practice their faith in the same manner. The truth is that you from the west, perceive so badly the Muslim world, that you judge it as though it was only one single block. We have a better understanding of you in the west than you do of us, because you colonized and governed us for some period of time. The destabilizing activities are a reality, but are minor compared to the mass of silent believers that we are. It is sort of like if I said “The IRA commits acts of terrorism in England; therefore, all Catholics are dangerous terrorists.” You tend to confuse the religion of people and their political goals. While many fundamentalists have clear and precise political objectives, far less often are their objectives uniquely centered about proselytizing. In some cases even, the West has gone as far as peddling their own ideologies by manipulating the Mujahedeen to remove the Soviets from Afghanistan, and have used extremists to counter the communist threat. The free western world must establish a distinction between political ambitions and the religion of Islam. It cannot be denied that the ideological frustrations of the Algerians, the Jordanians or the Libyans have created extremist movements, but this should not smear the credibility of the entire Muslim world.

Á  (1140)  

[Translation]

    In the discussions that you will have in Muslim countries, I would encourage you to ask the questions about education that I have included at the end of my brief, and also about the choices made on behalf of women. Are women themselves making these choices or are they being made for them by others?

[English]

    Indeed, Muslim women do suffer in the hands of bearded fanatics who drape themselves in the cloak of Islam, yet the position of these zealots is untenable when weighed against the tenets of the faith.

    The Koran recognizes the various capacities of women. Examples of these include the tender conversation between God and the Mother of Moses when she is asked to give up her son in order to protect his life so that he may liberate the oppressed. Before his mother places him on the River Nile, she satisfies the nurturing instinct of a mother by feeding him first.

    A similar example is the gentle and intimate exchange in the Koran between the Creator and Mary, the Mother of Jesus. Whilst all alone, Mary exclaims that she wished she were dead as a result of the prolonged pains of labour at childbirth. The Creator consoles her by urging her to drink and to eat fruit provided for her and assures her that the pain will come to pass.

    The leadership and diplomatic virtues of the Queen of Sheba are also extolled as she deals with King Solomon. She is shown as a ruler in her own right, and there is much that any female leader, Muslim or not, can learn from her example. She makes many decisions through consensus and guides her male advisers. Her ruling out war against King Solomon in order to protect her people, despite the obvious might of her armies, demonstrates some of the characteristics of the female leader described in the Koran.

    For many non-Muslims and Muslims alike, the majority of whom do not read classical Arabic, these parts of the Koran are revealing and conveniently ignored by Muslim fanatics that are often portrayed in the popular media. The one question that we all have to ask is, who interprets the Koran in the Muslim faith?

    Lastly, the question remains, who in society interprets the shariahlaw?

Á  (1145)  

[Translation]

    Only a small fraction of those who call themselves Muslims can read in their mother tongue, and even fewer can read Arabic. Many educated young people are literate in the language of the society they grow up in: Russian in the central Asian republics of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kurdistan, Chinese in Xinjiang and other Chinese provinces, and English and French in some parts of Africa and Southeast Asia.

[English]

    There is a sad legacy of colonization. Many Muslims, if they wish to follow shariah law, are dependent on a small class of elite men to interpret the Koran.

    You will, of course, see on your travels that women are notably absent in the historical development of shariah law. This absence is a function of a culture of patriarchy that has reached many faiths and societies. The struggle for the rights of women is not isolated to one sector of humanity, but should be a collective cause, irrespective of religious orientation.

    The cause of the rights of women is the cause that requires the participation of men. Men should rightly act to protect the rights of their mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters. What thinking parent would cripple the future of their daughter or son by denying her or him the best education possible? I believe it is only when women are educated that they will have choices that will enable them to interpret the Koran, which will in turn empower them to attain equality.

    This committee's assessment of Muslim countries and Canada's relationships with them will be exceptionally important. It will assist Canada to build partnerships with Muslim communities, foster a greater understanding of the diverse and different cultures in the Muslim world, and build a solid relationship based on harmony and trust.

    I respectfully suggest that you ask the same questions of women and minorities in these countries, as you will help our country and others in developing foreign policies that will ensure enduring partnerships.

    I have perhaps been presumptuous, but I have prepared some questions in English and French on the status of women in those countries. I will distribute these, which you may want to carry with you when you go to the different countries.

    As a Muslim woman, and as the first Muslim senator in this country, I want to thank you tremendously for the study you are carrying out, because I believe this study will not only help us in Canada but will also help people across the world.

    Recently, I was asked by the European Parliament to present a paper on liberalism and fundamentalism—which I also have here for your perusal in both languages.

    Lastly, what I would like to leave with you is that the work you are doing is very important; you are not only building harmony in our country but also harmony in the world, for which I commend you.

    I want to leave one thought with you. When I was little and practising the piano, I never enjoyed music, so I would annoy my grandmother and mother by sometimes just playing on the black keys and sometimes just on the white keys. It was only when I was preparing this paper that I really understood what my grandmother was trying to tell me. To build real harmony, you have to play on both the black and white keys; you have to understand both the Muslim and the Christian world.

    Thank you very much.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Senator Jaffer.

    Now we're going to start with questions and answers for five-minute periods.

    We'll start with Mr. Day, please.

    Mr. Stockwell Day (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Chairman, and thanks to each of you for your presentations, which were very helpful, I can tell you.

    Congratulations and all the best for the developments at the university. That is certainly such an important key. I was also encouraged to hear that there will be a focus on economic freedom, which I hope will continue, because we all know that to reduce levels of poverty, you have to raise levels of economic opportunity. I hope it includes instruction on the rights of freedom to own property and the freedom of enterprise. Those are keys, and I'm encouraged to hear that.

    It was mentioned that to be true friends we need to be critical of each other. An old statement from the Middle East says that the wounds of a friend are faithful and the kisses of an enemy are deceitful. Hopefully we will continue as friends as we try to analyze and look at the challenges.

    I believe, and I think my colleagues here believe, that Islam is a dynamic force in the world. I also agree with the statement that we should not ignore religious motivation, which is so important. There's a difference historically, of course. The west has evolved with an understanding of what is known as the separation of church and state. Sometimes that is misinterpreted to mean we should separate faith from the public square, which we should not do.

    Senator, I'm very pleased that you felt the freedom to open up with quotations from the Koran and to give us some of your insights in terms of life because of your understanding of the Koran. I am not offended by your faith coming into the public square; I think we are enhanced by that. Sometimes when people quote the Bible or talk about biblical interpretations, others are offended. The difference, of course, in western society is that we try to have government not imposing sectarian rules on the population, but that doesn't mean there should not be an expression of faith.

    I would like to ask two questions about remarks that I think were wonderfully encapsulated by the Aga Khan, that the media and others are indeed smearing—maybe not intentionally—the positive elements of Islam. It happens because of this tiny faction that is bringing death and destruction through terrorism.

    You mentioned the words the “mass of silent believers”, but silence can be the problem. I ask this of people who present all the time, because I need to know, but my first question is, what can we do to encourage in the mosques around the world, those who speak for Islam, to make a very direct statement countering this thought that if you terrorize or blow up innocent people you will go to heaven to be received by 72 virgins? That's something very specific that we know is presented to a narrow group of very susceptible people, but we don't hear it countered widely or strongly. We know you don't share that view, but we don't hear it countered. When the mass of the population in western society don't hear the counter message, that's when that unfortunate smear starts. Can you comment on that?

    And also specifically to what the senator was saying, when we go to these other countries and we want to address things like the rights of women, how do we do that in a way that does not offend those very countries that might be practising the diminution, the violation, of the rights of women? How do we do that in a way that does not offend but that is still critical as friends of each other?

    The Chair: Who wants to answer the first question?

    Mr. Ismael.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: I really think Mr. Day has an excellent question.

    We have a problem. The problem is in these interpretations there are so many that are counter-interpretations of anti-terrorism, and they clearly denounce and are made to be anti-Islamic in practically every state in the region.

    Our mass media, unfortunately, picks up only the abnormal, the unusual, the most dramatic, and sometimes is even incorrect, maybe because of ideological reasons, or whatever it may be. Here I'd like to bring the example of Egypt. There are so many governmental, if you will, institutions, mainly the major institution in the Muslim world, Al-Azhar, which have clearly indicated in so many different ways their rejection of terrorism, if not the condemnation of it. And there are so many so-called Muslim thinkers, Muslim interpreters of the Koran, who have made it very clear that this is anti-Koranic, if not anti-Islamic, as a whole. In a way, there is really no acceptance and there is a clear and loud rejection of that.

    What happened, though, was the extremists happened to be the main source of our interpretation of Islam, whatever the reasons may be. I think some of the reasons are ideological, if not ignorance. Some of them are plain ignorance; others are ideological.

    In most of these countries there was a clear governmental—and even religious leadership—rejection and condemnation of terrorism. In a way, that is really, unfortunately, not conveyed to us, and maybe your mission there will be to understand that.

    With regard to women's education, I don't think anybody would be offended, even the most radical religious fundamentalist groups with all of their interpretation of the Koran. They cannot stand up and say God forbids or the Koran forbids the education of women. As a matter of fact, I think my distinguished colleague, Senator Jaffer, has pointed out some very good examples. The wife of the Prophet Mohammed happened to be his boss; he worked for her, so in a way his wife was his economic provider, if not the direct manager of his life. In a way, the Prophet himself was not discriminating. Actually, the only descendant of the Prophet that is left happened to be from his daughter. I happen to be a Husseini and I am proud to be of that descent. The Sayyids, the so-called descendants of the Prophet, happen to come from a woman descendant. In that respect, I think we should not feel embarrassed to ask the question directly, and if you have a strong feeling, put it to them and say, “This is the way we have in the west; this is the way we think you are. You tell us if this is true.”

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: We'll go to Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you very much to all three of you. I have a question for each of you.

    Mr. Ismael, unlike your document, which is very interesting, your remarks concentrated mainly on the title of our study, which you feel is not appropriate politically. I understand what you are saying. We seem to be suggesting that it is a case of us and them, and we are studying them as opposed to us. Given your intention, what title would you propose? That is my question. You said that it is important politically, and I believe that.

    Mr. Turgay, you said that right now, in the countries that you are studying, Islam is gaining ground and people are questioning the concept that modernization goes hand in hand with secularization. From our cultural standpoint, it is difficult to understand that modernization is not the same as secularization. I believe that that is one message that you are trying to get across, but I would like you to back that statement up by giving us some models, since we need to see models where Islam is bringing about modernization.

    Finally, Ms. Jaffer, we could listen to you and discuss these things with you at length. I would like to have all the answers to all the questions that you have asked us. You conclude that education alone will enable women to interpret the Koran and therefore to be truly free. But from the information that we have had, women are a long way from being in that situation. So what do you propose for the short term?

[English]

    The Chair: We'll go in order. We're going to start with the question to Mr. Ismael.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: Thank you very much, Madam Lalonde. This is really one of the most important questions, and I wanted to bring that to your attention for two reasons. One, in our mass media and public discourse, we seem to think that Muslims in a special way are equated to certain groups of activists, terrorists and what have you. I would say that if you are to approach it that way, I think you have to be much more specific. What I'm really proposing is that maybe we should take geographic or cultural areas. Islam as a culture—i.e., a shared and learned behaviour—is fantastic. But the way we visualize it and approach it in the west is in that direction, and that's what's dangerous about the whole issue.

    I am saying it's a culture that controls people's actions, minds, and even perceptions. Islam happens to be influential. But Islam is presented to us not as a geographic area and not as a culture, but as them and us and we versus them; and on these bases, they are our enemies and we are their enemies, and there is a gulf between us.

    So when I propose that we consider that very seriously, what I'm really trying to say is let us consider it as a culture. If you want to consider it as more than a culture, fine; but don't look at it as a uniform extension of our visual and, if you will, public relations propaganda or mass communications images that are presented to us. The reason I insist on that is that a lot of us do not seem to think that the mass media or the public bridges the gulf between the two. Actually, it widens it, and that is what worries me.

  (1200)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Mr. Turgay.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: Yes, thank you for the question, Madam Lalonde.

    In the view of the Muslims, Islam is no hindrance to development or modernization, of course. It's not. They would like to modernize and ascend to the economic and social levels we have in the west. However, they would like to do it within the framework of Islamic ethical and moral values. When they build an industry or provide communications, what they are doing is to ask if it is in accordance with Islamic values. No one really opens the Koran and checks to see if it fits the Koran—absolutely not. But there are certain ethical values in Islam, and most important, of course, are social and economic justice. Is it a just system? Does it improve justice in the society? Does it provide a decent distribution of income? And particularly in regard to natural resources, which in the view of Muslims belong to God, are they really handled properly? These are some of the major questions they ask.

    If I may suggest, what we are really doing is reaching Muslims in Muslim communities in the 21st century. I would say “communities” because except for very, very few exceptions—and I can only think of one, and please don't ask me which one it is at this point—in Pakistan, Algeria, Iran, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and on and on, the governments do not—I repeat—do not reflect people's choices. They do not. Therefore, in the eyes of the Muslims, those governments are really illegitimate. Saudi Arabia is as much an enemy of bin Laden as United States is. We have to be very careful. What the people think and what the governments say are two different things.

    And while I'm at it, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the existence of the Islamic threat, be it in Egypt, be it in Morocco, be it in Lebanon, be it in any country, suits the governments quite well, because it's only through the existence of an Islamic political group that Mubarek receives millions of dollars from the United States. They want to control it, yet they want it to exist.

    So what you will hear from government officials is quite different from what you would hear from community leaders.

    Thank you.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Mrs. Jaffer, briefly please.

[Translation]

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: Ms. Lalonde, thank you very much for your question. Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. It is very difficult. But if the society is open, it will be much easier for women.

[English]

    For example, if there is an openness for education—and our country has done a great job in having CIDA—and there will be money given for education, then I suggest that it becomes a continuing process.

    Of course, there are many educated Muslim women all over the world now. One of the things that I would ask when you travel is that you ask to meet with these women. It would be very useful to see how we do education.

    If I may, Chair, I would like to answer Mr. Day's question on how to get to the women. I ask that you not only look at women, but look at minorities as well. I request that when you are in Pakistan that you meet with the Christian minority. In Iran, you should meet with the Bahai minority. It's very important. The Bahai are the most persecuted people in Iran. In Saudi Arabia, you should meet with the Shias.

    For the women, may I suggest that there be two things. Before you go to the country, you could get a state response of what the education is and what they are doing to educate women. Secondly, meet with the women's groups when you are in the area.

    When I was in the Sudan, I faced the same challenge you were talking about. I asked that the state people not be present when I met with the women so that I could really truthfully set out for the women what the Sudanese government said about education. I was able to set up a safe environment, which a lot of you here would be able to do, so that the women and minorities could have an honest conversation.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mrs. Jaffer.

    I only want to let you know that the second report of the UNDP will be available, I think, this coming October. It's about knowledge, and we're looking at this also.

    Monsieur Harvard, please.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the witnesses for their presentations.

    I always find these discussions rather difficult, because I'm not a scholar in this particular area. The last thing I would ever want to do is ask a question that would make it appear I am somehow sitting in judgment of any religion, particularly the one you share.

    Let me put this question respectfully to you, Mr. Turgay. You said a few moments ago that Islam is no hindrance to development and modernization. We heard President Musharraf speak to the committee on Friday. He suggested that religion had nothing to do with September 11, and this was a political act. We've heard a number of times, Mr. Turgay, that when it comes to some of these rather unfortunate political acts, whether they're inside the so-called Muslim world or outside, don't blame Islam.

    Yet I would submit this to you, at least in the form of a question. You can't have it both ways. You can't have the religion of Islam go to bed with governments, be they in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or wherever. When somebody attacks economic policies, or you look at their economies and they're an absolute bloody mess, you can't say “you can't blame it on our religion”.

    The fact of the matter is that in many of the countries religion and government are indistinguishable. They're like that. You can go to Saudi Arabia and find the religious police. You can go to Tehran and find the mullahs. To use the term in Christendom, there is no separation of church and state. You're in bed together.

    It's very difficult, and I say it with great respect, to accept the proposition that “We're not at fault here and our hands are clean. We're all in favour of modernization. We're all in favour of development. You have to blame the other guy.”

    Who is the other guy? The other guy is you. He is right beside you. You're like Siamese twins. Let me put that to you, most respectfully.

  (1210)  

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: You're very honest, sir. I appreciate it very much. You're right.

    There are a number of things. First of all, of course, in countries like Algeria and Turkey, Islam has nothing to do with the government. Although in Turkey today they may appear to be rooted in Islam, Islam doesn't play an iota of a role in Turkish law. It doesn't. It affects the elections. However, there isn't a single law in Turkey today that is based on Islam whatsoever, none whatsoever.

    Having said that, I should also point out that universal suffrage was instituted in Turkey in 1934.

    Mr. John Harvard: It's a supposedly secular state, though, Mr. Turgay.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: It is.

    Mr. John Harvard: Let's take Saudi Arabia or Iran. Maybe they are better places.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: Absolutely. There are a number of things happening, sir. The Saudi government follows Wahhabi Islam, which is the most conservative Islam. They are thriving on it. They argue that their legitimacy is really based on Wahhabi Islam.

    In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini brought into practice not a new concept, but a concept called “Vilayet-e Faqih”, meaning the “rule of the jurist counsel”.  

    Let's get to Saudi Arabia first. It's a very important question that you asked.

    Saudi Arabia, sir, in the last twenty years has been—I can be on the record for this—pouring millions and billions of dollars into spreading Wahhabi Islam all across the country, building hundreds and hundreds of mosques, and sending thousands and thousands of brochures and information about Wahhabi. They have certainly affected the interpretation of Islam from one corner of the world to the other.

    People who used to interpret Islam Muslims in a very broad and open-minded way, in a progressive interpretation of Islam, because of the Saudi efforts, have turned into conservative elements in many parts of the world. Islam very much serves the purpose of the royal family. Since they are putting their legitimacy on Islam, as I expected, and we see today, the challenge comes from Islam.

    As far as Iran is concerned, again, it is a very conservative interpretation of Islam. Yes, it is Shia. It doesn't matter. Again, minorities do not have any rights. Yet when they do their development plans, little attention is paid to Islam.

    There too, I can say for the record for this committee, you do have intense corruption at the highest levels of the mullahs. Some of the richest people in the world are some of the mullahs who are holding extremely important positions in Iran today. We have to recognize that. As far as people are concerned, they don't see much of a hindrance. People's interpretations of Islam in their hearts and in their daily lives are quite different to the selfish, self-centred, and self-serving interpretation of Islam by some of these governments.

    I hear arguments. Muslim friends can argue with me. When we look at the Bader-Meinhof gang in the 1960s, the Red Brigade in Germany, and Red Brigade in Italy, we don't call them Christian fundamentalists. Why is it that we call these people Muslim fundamentalists? Why? Because these small groups argue that they do it in the name of Islam.

    Mr. John Harvard: They didn't speak for the government of the day.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: They don't.

    Mr. John Harvard: They're very small.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: They're very small.

    Mr. John Harvard: They're a small cell, whereas in Islam, let's say Saudi Arabia, these are not insignificant minorities. They are people who actually have the power, Mr. Turgay. Am I not right?

  (1215)  

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: Yes, you're absolutely right, sir. You're absolutely right.

    I think that we come to Mr. Day's question. I think that those of us who interpret Islam in a progressive, liberal way, if you would, are failing in our responsibility. There's no question about that. We don't talk.

    There are reasons for it. Daily life is busy, and there is the threat from extremism. This is a time, as a number of us argue, when it's silly to take back religion from the extremists. The dialogue should not be between Christians and Muslims. The dialogue should really be between Muslims themselves, I think.

    You're right. Your point is very well taken. It doesn't help to say that it's not really Islam, etc. Also, like other religions, for example, both the Bible and Koran are theory, I should say, and very pacific. You can be very selective about passages and argue.

    Sure, it's a problem, sir. I agree with you. It's not an easy answer.

    Mr. John Harvard: Thank you.

    The Chair: We'll go to Alexa McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to thank all of our guests very much for their presentations. The frustration is there's probably not one of us who wouldn't have an hour's worth of questioning we'd like to pursue.

    I'd just like to very quickly touch on two things and then turn to Senator Jaffer's presentation.

    I appreciate the expression of some unease--I know it wasn't meant to be outright criticism--with our description of the committee's undertaking the study of Canada's relationship with the Muslim world. I'm wondering if I could just ask Dr. Ismael if he would suggest a term that might be more accurate, because this is about our gaining better understanding.

    Secondly, I very much appreciate Dr. Turgay making the point that despite some concerns that arise from time to time, generally speaking, among Muslims in other parts of the world Canada is respected for its values and so on. That really leads me directly to Senator Jaffer's presentation. The template you have shared with us to build understanding, particularly of the status of women, I think is a very helpful one. I certainly will carry it in my head and in my heart as we travel.

    I'm haunted by the notion that perhaps we need to heal ourselves as Canadians before we can really be seen as having credibility in other parts of the world. I just want to say this very briefly and request your response, your advice.

    On Thursday this committee heard incredible powerful testimony from a brilliantly trilingual, highly educated Muslim woman by the name of Monia Mazigh. She has a PhD in economics from McGill University. She's not been able to find a job in Canada.

    I went home to my riding and most recently met with a young, brilliant, personable Syrian-trained doctor who has been in Halifax for four years unable to gain entry to use her education in our Canadian health care system, and we are going to lose her to Germany, where she will have no difficulty.

    On Friday I was in London, Ontario, where I met with a group of new Canadians, most of them women, who told their heartbreaking stories, and I'll refer to only one. An Iraqi woman with a masters degree in electrical engineering is working as a clerk, because she still has not been able to gain entry to her profession.

    Finally, this morning I took a taxi to work, and the taxi driver turned to me with tears in his eyes and said, “I have a wife who has been in Canada for four years. She's a medical doctor, and she's cleaning people's houses because she cannot gain entry to the workforce.”

    I guess I would just ask what advice you may have for us as we present ourselves as Canadians to the Muslim world--what it is we can and must do to address this issue.

  (1220)  

    Senator Mobina Jaffer: Thank you.

    I'll have Ismael speak after, but I think maybe the title could be different. From what I've read in all the transcripts and everything that was presented to you, you are doing the commendable job of better understanding Islam, and I think that's what you're looking at when you go abroad as well.

    As for the situation at home, I can very much relate to it, as I myself had great challenges with the Law Society of British Columbia. I almost had to take them to court before they accepted me. I had a law degree from London University, and they wouldn't accept it. I could write a book on my challenges with the Law Society of British Columbia, but if it hadn't been for a Canadian helping me out... I also was cleaning houses when I came here as a refugee, and I had great difficulty. The law society wouldn't even give me forms. They wouldn't even assess my qualifications in British Columbia. I had a number of years of challenge before my qualifications were accepted. In the end, all I had to do was write an exam, but it was just the mindset—how could I be a lawyer?

    I think the answer is—and there is some work being done by our Minister of Immigration on this—accreditation. Quebec has the best system, as far as I know, and that is if you come from another country, there is a central system where your qualifications are assessed. Nobody minds doing exams, because you've come to a new country; at least it's moving a step forward. It is just this door that the professional organizations shut on you—that you need Canadian experience, that your qualifications are not good enough.

    The sadness is not just for the individual; the sadness is for us. Today our hospitals go without professionals, while professionals are driving cabs. We have a job to do.

    When you go to all the different countries you are travelling to, what you bring is awesome respect for Canada, so I don't believe people will be looking at you with those eyes. They will be looking at you with respect.

    I'm thinking of what Mr. Harvard was saying. The challenges are great. Most of these Muslim countries were colonized—not that that's an excuse; it's been that way for a while. But Saudi Arabia is not a democratic country. What our country has to work toward is helping countries become democratic, and once they are democratic and there is a separation of state and religion, as we have in our country, then it will work.

    But even in our country we have work to do. Last week a girl in Montreal was not allowed to wear a headdress.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you.

    The Chair: Are there any comments?

    A very short comment, Mr. Ismael.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: Thank you very much.

    I think this issue is a very important one. There are two reasons I did not want the term “Muslim world”. You have sizeable minorities in the region, especially the Christian minorities.

    In Egypt, for example, there are 10 million Catholics; some say 15 million. That's a very reasonably accepted estimate. The Catholic Church is one of the oldest Christian churches. In Lebanon, more than 50% are Christians. In Syria, a sizeable number of its population is Christian.

    In addition to all this, you have minorities that are basically religiously different. There are, for example, minorities you have never heard of—for example, Yazidis, a segment of a very unusual sect in Islam. And there are Sabians, who are a combination of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism in one. These are very unusual.

    So when you say “Muslim world”, in a way you're really blanketing all these minorities as not important, and—

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Can you suggest another term for what you understand we're trying to do?

    The Chair: It's not easy. Is there anything you can tell us—

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: A geographic—

    The Chair: You mentioned geography, but, you know, we're looking at India, also. India is a huge country, and there is a minority of Islamic people in India. It's much more than all the other countries of the Middle East together. It's not an easy solution, but we'll try to...

    We also don't want to have a stereotype. That's the idea.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: I am in complete agreement with you.

    Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important. I just wanted to bring in that basic distinction, basically because of the climate we live in now—i.e., our own images, our mass media, and our scholarship, if I may. If you take a look at the scholarship, I happen to know, you will be amazed at how primitive it is. Take a look at Iraq. How many books do we have on Iraq in our libraries? How many books do you have on Kuwait, on when Iraq invaded Kuwait? One or two. Even now, if you look at other countries, we are primitive, our scholarship is limited, and our understanding is ambiguous if not confused.

    Take an example of an opinion-maker, a leader, one of your distinguished parliamentarians who just asked a very good question. But that question itself has so many complicated, if you will, and challengeable notions. If we do that here in a committee like this, what about a citizen who drives a taxi somewhere in southeastern Calgary, where I have been living? More importantly, I think Senator Jaffer hit on a very important point, and our distinguished member of Parliament asked a very good question. I think there is something much more than racism here.

    When I came from the States, they gave me 50% more than what I was making in the States. Actually, they went to 70%. They gave me three months' salary without my even being here just to attract me. Why? I think it was because I came from the States, so I was cleaned up, if you will. I was accepted. If she had come from London, she would have been treated differently, but she came from Uganda. So we have a racist approach to a lot of things. We may not like to admit it and we may not like to feel it, but we see it.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Now we're going to pass it to Ms. Carroll, but I just want to pinpoint something Ms. McDonough said. The problem of immigrant medical doctors in Canada is not just because they're from Islamic countries; the same rules apply to immigrants from any country in the world. I just wanted to point that out.

    Ms. Carroll, go ahead.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): After a quick read, I just noticed your reference to Chechnya in the paper you gave us, and I think this in a way is a case in the point you're making. I'm sorry Mr. Harvard isn't here, because from my perspective Chechnya has gone to extremism--not completely, but largely because, first, we have failed to assist, and maybe we didn't assist because we didn't understand.

    I'm thinking of Mr. Akbar, the incredible journalist who was here last week. He made reference to the fact that we make continual errors but never take the time to say we made one here, to acknowledge them. He went on further to make reference to the reconciliation process in South Africa, but he and his colleagues who were with him all said the west has simply been unable to say we did it wrong, that we've made a major error. It has created great difficulties.

    I don't want to use up my time, because someone else here can speak on Chechnya, not me. Francine knows that Chechyna is a very big point for me and for a lot of us Canadians who go as parliamentarians to the Council of Europe. What is happening in Chechyna is no longer being monitored because the Council of Europe, Human Rights Watch, and the OSCE are no longer allowed in. We're moving toward a farcical election on Sunday that's as farcical in my view as the referendum, and no one is stepping forward.

    Now, we all know what's happening between Washington and Moscow, and Chechnya is getting terribly caught up in the whole process. I think Chechnya is a country this country could stand up for, or at least we could demand that a spotlight be put on that situation. I think you gave it for the purposes of this discussion, because it's a very good example.

    Anyway, let me keep quiet and ask you to comment a little more.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: Thank you very much.

    Actually, I wanted to restrain myself. I'm a political scientist, and I have been very much a professor—

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: Don't restrain yourself.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: —and this is a very bad combination, really.

    This is a very good question, and I don't think I want to be—

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: We need you to be what you want.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: Thank you very much.

    I think you have a very good point. The point I was trying to make was not only that. Look at what happened in the former Yugoslavia. If you go to the Muslim world—let's use that term just for convenience—the question is asked, where are the areas of tension you have today? There are areas where people are massacred, if you will. If you go to eastern Europe, who is being massacred? It's the Muslims in Albania and Herzegovina.

    Chechnya is another one. Turkey and the Turkish population are much more concerned because they are close to Chechnya and they see what has been happening in Chechnya. They are asking the question, what is happening and where are you people?

    More importantly, we only look for...Saudi Arabia, for example. I have written all along on Saudi Arabia. My interpretation is different from that of some of your colleagues. One, the whole political system of Saudi Arabia today is very closely associated with one segment with one of the most extreme interpretations of Islam. The Hanbali school is the most extreme of the Islamic Sunni schools, and the Wahhabi is the most extreme of the so-called Hanbali school. The royal family today, the royal regime, and its associated institutions—and you are much more distinguished than I am in these interpretations—are very extreme components of that.

    In addition to my very distinguished colleague Professor Turgay's interpretation, I can say that the whole association of certain segments of the system with the religious foundation—which, I just told you, is the most extreme one—produces corruption, whatever sort of regime you want to call it. That's very unusual and abnormal.

    But take a look at Turkey. Turkey today is trying very hard to deal with the Cypriot issue. Who are the northern Cypriots? Again, they're Muslims. This is why you have difficulty in trying to convince people we are not being targeted.

    I speak very often as a Canadian—and I'm proud to be one—and I try to give the Canadian side of the issue, sometimes even twist it. I say, hey, you have to understand this; you haven't done your homework.

    But then—and this is very important—if we go and meet with these people, maybe it's time for us to admit that we really didn't know. The scholarship we have is minimal, not only here but internationally, in the U.S. Give me a scholar who specializes in Afghanistan. Professor Turgay can tell you, there were two or three American scholars who had done something on Afghanistan, but it really had nothing to do with contemporary Afghanistan and the war.

    Iraq is another example. We don't have much, even now. We really do not have any scholarship on that.

    Chechnya, again, is a bleeding sore everywhere in the Arab world because they see it. I don't have to tell you about Palestine because you already know and have some experience with that.

    Look at what's happening in Iraq today: straightforward genocide, really. What can we do? We don't know, although the Canadian image in Iraq is one of the brightest images anybody can have. I'm saying this basically because they tell me, please, if you see any policy-makers, we want you—and I thought this committee should be the place to tell you this—to convey to them our gratitude.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go now to Mr. Bergeron, s'il vous plaît.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I would first like to thank the three of you for coming today and for your excellent presentations. I will not hide the fact that I feel somewhat overwhelmed as we progress with our review, as it becomes clear that we are dealing with a huge issue. Sometimes I think we cannot limit it enough to reach any conclusion that would be the least bit significant or conclusive, if I can put it that way.

    That said, I do not want to predict the outcome of this study. So of course we will continue, but before getting to the crux of the matter, I will put a very easy technical question to Mr. Turgay. Could you provide committee members with the documents and recommendations made at the forum that was held in Montreal a few days ago?

    I will now talk about the subject that worries me right now. I think Mr. Ismael was very close to the mark when he said that the main point is the Muslim world. My colleague had suggested that we should really talk about the Arab-Muslim world, even though the term "Arab-Muslim world" does not clearly define what we are trying to define. However, in my view it is clear that the term "Muslim world" is too restrictive in that there is a very large Christian minority in Palestine, but you cannot distinguish between the Muslims and Christians in Palestine when it comes to their political objectives or their daily life. They basically share the same aspirations. The Islamic element or the question of Islam is therefore not a determining factor, at least as far as Palestine is concerned. So is it appropriate to only speak of the Muslim world? We will have to look at that.

    I would like to ask you a question on the impression Canadians have of this Muslim or Arab-Muslim world. We know full well that in a democracy, much of what the government does is determined by public opinion, which, in turn, is largely influenced by the media. I am worried about the image of this Arab-Muslim world that the media convey to Canadians. As was mentioned earlier, the impression we are given is that it is essentially a terrorist, extremist populace, if not a very negative Muslim regime, if only in terms of the treatment of some Canadian prisoners in Muslim countries.

    Last week, when we discussed the cases of Maher Arar, William Sampson and Zahra Kazemi, I mentioned the fact that there were hundreds, if not thousands of Canadians who are imprisoned abroad. Yet the media seem to focus on three cases, cases of blatant violation of human rights, but that involve Muslim countries.

    How can you explain the fact that in Canada, when the media talk about the Arab-Muslim world—which in part conditions the perception that Canadians would have of the Arab-Muslim world, and therefore the government's attitude towards it— the focus is on the extremist aspect of that Arab-Muslim world, on terrorism, and the violent treatment of Canadians in prison abroad?

  (1235)  

    How can you explain the fact that in the case of prisoners, for example, the focus has been solely on those cases, when we know that there are cases of Canadians in other countries, such as Latin America, which are not any more exemplary?

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, you have exceeded your five minutes by asking your question, but I will nonetheless ask our guests to respond. You can answer the first question, Mr. Turgay.

[English]

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: Very quickly, I think that perhaps one of the most important things of a number of things that came out of the conference is that our visitors from Asia and Southeast Asia were terribly impressed by the fact that Canada is willing to listen. Canada is willing to listen, and Canada is willing to learn without passing judgment. That is their impression, and they do appreciate it, without having too much of a hidden agenda. I say too much of a hidden agenda because we always look for some business connection and some mutually beneficial economic situation.

    Again, I think it is very important that what came out of the conference, and our Muslim friends emphasize it over and over, is that the Islamic world is not one single thing or single unit with one point of view, and that the Islamic world is not preoccupied with its relations with the west. This is not so. Muslims made a point of it over and over again that they live in countries where modernity and tradition, reason and faith have been in tumultuous argument since at least the late 19th century. Even after September 11 and America's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the main preoccupation of the ordinary Muslim people on the streets really continues to be the state of the Muslim world, especially of their countries—not their relations with the west.

    One of the outcomes of the conference is that they appreciate that Canada is very much aware of stepping into somebody else's argument, particularly about the true meaning of Islam and the assumption that democracy and Islam are really different and separate things. They recognize or perceive that Canadian government policy does not do this; therefore, they appreciate it.

    They also made the point, which I can certainly relate to my colleagues' remarks, that they can sit down with you and can go over all the conflicts in the world one by one—Bosnia, Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, India, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Georgia, and Aceh. In the eyes of the general public, it appears to them that the Islamic world or groups are under pressure or attack, either by some western power, read the United States, or by governments supported by the United States, as in the case of Aceh. That comes out quite strongly at all levels of participants, and it is very hard to make these specific points regarding each country.

  (1240)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Ms. Marleau, please.

[English]

    The Honourable Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Thank you for your presentations.

    As you know, we will be going to a number of countries.

    I'm particularly pleased I've heard you, Ms. Jaffer, because I think it's important that we give these people a comfort zone to speak to us clearly. So it's a point I think our committee will take into account.

    I have one question for you, Mr. Ismael. You said something that shocked us, I think. We haven't had an explanation for it. You mentioned a “genocide” in Iraq. I don't know if I heard that properly.

    The other point I want to make is that in our trip, are there any specific things you would suggest we look for as we travel from country to country?

    Thank you.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: Thank you very much.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: The other was to Dr. Turgay or to all of you.

    Go ahead.

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: I used the word “genocide” because I just finished a book on Iraq and I'm taking it to London with me tonight. It will be published next week and hopefully it will be out soon. In it we went through four or five basic barometers of what I call genocide.

    The amount of oppression and lawlessness that is taking place, especially on women and children, is beyond comprehension. We have no statistics on it. People are literally dying by the hundreds, if not the thousands, and we have no idea about it. Our mass media doesn't seem to give it any attention. More importantly, I don't think we have any reporting on this to our societies, especially those that happen to be directly involved, such as the Americans.

    We really have what I think is a clear case of innocent women and children who are being completely cut off... And a lot of them are eventually killed or attacked, especially the women. Women in Iraq today are being taken by force and a lot of them are being sold as slaves.

  (1245)  

    Hon. Diane Marleau: By whom?

    Prof. Tareq Y. Ismael: We don't know exactly. Those who happen to be in charge are supposed to be... There are so many explanations. All that people say in Iraq is that people are somehow encouraged by certain groups to do this to the population, and there are so many sides to the explanations. Women cannot go to school. Women cannot go shopping. People cannot move from their houses and they can't even interact with each other. There is something wrong going on, and we have not even been told about it, but it's happening every day to women and children, in particular.

    Girls of 14 or 15 years of age are kidnapped on their way to school. The universities are full of people guarding their women, their children, when they go to school. There are hundreds of examples of that.

    The honourable member raised a very good issue. Our mass media has a very unfortunate racist approach to a lot of the reporting on the Middle East. I just finished an article, which is footnoted in the presentation I gave you, on clean, straightforward racism in our mass media. I don't have to go through all these opinion-making journals such as the National Post. Specifically, I quoted some of the phrases used on Muslim people and on political situations, which makes them much more ugly than they normally are accepted in our mass media.

    Again, the policy in question is a very good example of that.

    The most articulate spokesman for the Palestinians was the late Edward Said, who was a Christian who had written so much on Islam, on the Middle East. The most articulate living, if you will, spokesman of the Palestinians is Hanan Ashrawi, a Christian woman. So if we speak in religious terms and say only the Muslim world, I think we have to be extra careful.

    Did we get anything? I think you did. Most of you have read about some very genuine issues that were an education for me. You have been concerned with those issues. You raised some issues that I never thought would be discussed among you.

    So in a way, I think your study produced very important results, and I have a feeling that by the time you come back you will have much more to say to all of us, to academics and Canadians. That I am very sure of.

    The other thing I would like to mention, and I think it is very important, is the Canadian environment encourages the study of the Middle East. I have been sponsored for the last 25 years by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Every book I have written was financed by them, and again that's another avenue that Canada somehow encouraged, if not directed. So in a way, my work has been enhanced by a Canadian agency, which your Parliament has had a lot to do with. And your committee, I'm sure, should be proud of it, my friends.

    The Chair: Thank you very much. If you have any suggestions for the trip, you can either fax or e-mail them to our clerk.

    Now we'll go to Mr. Cotler.

    Mr. Cotler, please.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): My question is for Professor Turgay, my colleague at McGill, but it's open to the other two panellists to reply to as well. The reason I am addressing it to him is because it is based on two points he made with which I concur, but I just want to take it one step further.

    The first point was that the Islamic world is, as you put it, in a process of transformation, but the Islamic identity, regardless of this transformation, will have an important role. I think that is something to be encouraged, and I in fact share with you the notion that the correlation between secularization and modernization should be rejected. It's too simplistic and inappropriate. So I agree with that first thesis.

    The second--and this is something I would agree with as well--is that the conflict is not necessarily one of a clash of civilizations, but the issue is really one of a dialogue or a conflict within Islam itself.

    You may recall that we had a conference at McGill University. Professor Abdullah Ahmed An-Naim of Emory University described it also as a conflict between liberal and progressive Islam and radical and extremist Islam. I just want to say parenthetically that I don't regard fundamentalist Islam as necessarily negative. If people want to be religious, that's fine, but I am speaking in the sense in which you spoke about it, I think, in terms of the conflict between liberal and progressive and radical and extremist, though I know all these categories have shades.

    The problem is--and I think you mentioned it, Professor Turgay--that radical Islam may sometimes be state sanctioned, well financed, and globalized in its teaching and communication, whereas liberal and progressive Islam, as it's called, may sometimes be marginalized, intimidated, or suppressed. How do we encourage the voice of this liberal, progressive Islam while Islam is undergoing this process of transformation and while we want to secure the Islamic identity within that process of transformation but try to encourage that liberal, progressive Islamic voice?

  (1250)  

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: The problem is a serious one, but of course it is really something the Muslims will have to fight out themselves.

    I would hate to see a U.S. agency getting involved in support of the progressive Islam. It would be the kiss of death for them; it really would be.

    Even for us in Canada, I think direct, obvious support for some of the liberal Islamic organizations is perhaps not the wisest thing. Again, if I may say so here, I consider that it is doing a very fine job with small projects that bring the local people closer to the west, that attention that we can show towards their Islamic sensitivities. It's tough. It's hard for me to answer, but as for direct support....

    We have to challenge some of the policies of Muslim governments. That is really what we have to do. Many Muslim governments are hiding behind Islam, and many Muslim governments are hiding behind cultural relativism, if you will. As Canadians, we have to argue for at least a minimum common denominator. We cannot really accept...take Saudi Arabia again, which does that physical punishment--cutting off hands, chopping off heads. We have to be critical of that. It doesn't matter what the cost is. These are our very basic values.

    On the other hand, if there is a civil group over there arguing against the death penalty, I think you can support that. I don't see anything wrong with that. We must not appear as if we are really meddling, yet we have to keep some of our own principles and stand by them and argue with them. We really have to.

    The members of this committee are going to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Palestine. Another group will go to Turkey. Some other groups are going to Indonesia and Pakistan. I have a feeling that when the two groups get together you'll say, “What are you talking about; this is not what Islam is all about.” You will find a different Islam in all these different countries, and you will find a different role assigned to Islam by the government as well as by the people, and even different practices. In some, you won't even recognize that you're in a Muslim country except for the beautiful mosques and the call for prayer five times a day. In some countries, it is a totally different view. You will get imbued in some with the aura that Islam exudes.

    It's tough, Dr. Cotler.

    Mr. Irwin Cotler: I may have used the word “we” loosely. I wasn't only referring to “we”, as Canadians, but also to how Muslims would encourage the voice within the Muslim world. I think there are two sides to it. I think that the primacy of the dialogue, as you put it, is within the Islam group.

    Mr. A. Üner Turgay: Yes. I think, simply put, by being brave and forthcoming.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    I want to thank all our guests this morning. It was a very good exchange. I know it's already one o'clock.

    I just want to tell all the members that this afternoon our leaders are meeting at three o'clock just to be sure that they will approve the trip we're looking at.

    Thank you, again.

    Before I close it, Madam McDonough wants to talk.

    Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I've put forward a motion consistent with the decision made by this committee on September 18 to urgently request the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General to come before the committee. The reason for the reference to October 7 is it's already 12 days since we made that request. Everyone knows we are going abroad carrying out our committee work here—our study on Canada's relationship with the Muslim world, with the Muslim communities. I'm not sure what the best term is, but we need to keep taking that under advisement.

    I just feel very, very strongly, given the testimony that we had on Thursday about how Maher Arar's life literally hangs in the balance, that we need to get on with this as an urgent matter, even if it requires calling a separate meeting, a special meeting. We had a special meeting on Friday. I think that was appropriate. I didn't happen to be able to be there, but I didn't object. There's a special meeting again tomorrow with the head of the Arab League. I agree with that. But I think we have to undertake the responsibility to follow through on what we know about how a Canadian citizen may, literally, through an unfair trial, face execution in Syria without our hearing from our Solicitor General and our Minister of Foreign Affairs.

    I would ask the committee's support. I know that if it were a new motion, a new subject, it would require advance notice. But I believe it's consistent with our rules for us to further put a timeframe on a decision that we'd already made on September 18 in this committee. I'd ask the support of all members, with a clear recall on what we heard from the testimony last week.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: In response, you mentioned that the motion was accepted on September 18 by the full committee. There's no doubt about it. For me, it looks sufficient. The minister was not here last week. You know about this. We already have three meetings this week, and next week he's also travelling. I'm not here to speak to the agenda of the minister. We have his parliamentary secretary. She's here today. With regard to the Solicitor General, we're just going to keep asking him. We all agree with you.

    If they can give us a time, we're going to try to suit them, if possible, and to try to find an hour in between some other witnesses to increase it. But there's only so much we can do about this. I don't know if anybody wants to add something on this, but we all agree. But to put October 7.... If the Minister of Foreign Affairs is not there, he's not there. There's nothing I can do about his agenda.

    Mrs. Carroll, please.

    Mr. Bergeron, go ahead quickly.

[Translation]

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As time is going by so quickly, I was wondering whether colleagues would be prepared to have a discussion now on the motion that I tabled a few days ago. If so, we could perhaps take a few minutes to discuss it. Ask the clerk, he has a copy of the motion.

    The Chair: From the way your motion reads, all that I can say to you about the RCMP is that the committee would have to vote on a motion and send it to the House of Commons so that the House can ask Mr. Proulx, the Assistant Commissioner of the RCMP, to come back before the committee. As I clearly stated, Mr. Proulx is prepared to appear before the committee again. He told me personally that were he asked, he would appear before the committee again.

    We can discuss the motion, but we cannot do as you ask and pass it today.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Unless we have unanimous consent.

    The Chair: Yes, but you need to have 10 members of the committee to adopt a motion. We do not have quorum for that. I was only trying to say that if you want him to come back before the committee, you can make your request to the clerk. personally, I am in full agreement with that idea.

    Hon. Diane Marleau: I have to point out that he will not give us any more answers the second time than he did the first time. In any case, I would be surprised if he did.

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, I think that we would get a lot further if we got the Solicitor General to appear before us; that is what I think, anyway.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That being said, Mr. Chairman, as parliamentarians, we do not have to put up with a public official appearing before the committee and systematically refusing to answer questions. You may feel that by pronouncing a few words he was providing an answer; however, what he said was tantamount to saying "I will not answer that". The way I see it, that is refusing to answer the question.

    Marleau and Montpetit are very clear on this point: the witness must answer. The fact that he refused to provide answers and that we will not get any more answers next time, does not mean that we can simply give up and invite someone else instead. I think that, one way or another, we simply have to make our dissatisfaction with his answers known.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, your motion, which I still do not have, was comprised of two parts. You request that we ask Mr. Proulx to come back before the committee and you want to ask the House to ask the committee to again summon Mr. Proulx. That was the way you worded your resolution. However, we do not require the authorization of the House to get the witness back before the committee.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, we could debate the motion straightaway, but in my opinion, it is about stepping it up a level. The committee has already invited the assistant commissioner to be a witness and we all know what the outcome of that was. However, were the House to act on the committee's dissatisfaction and summon the witness again, the effect would be different. If the institution itself were to say to the assistant commissioner that the committee was not satisfied with his answers and that, therefore, it was requesting that he appear before the committee again, and that this time, he provide answers to the questions asked, it would certainly carry more weight.

    The Chair: I understand your arguments, and we will certainly study them. The clerk's office will verify the technical details of your motion and we will study it on Thursday.

[English]

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: We had a report on the continuing unavailability of the foreign affairs minister. We didn't get a report on the progress of scheduling the Solicitor General before the committee. Can you give us that report?

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: To be fair, Alexa, we're going to be away for two weeks, so that factors in as well. This committee is going to travel.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: That's precisely the point of my bringing it forward.

    The Chair: No, no, with regard to the Solicitor General, I didn't have any answer myself. We could divide them, because the way it was drafted September 18, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Solicitor General were together. Now, if the Minister of Foreign Affairs cannot appear in front of the committee, we could have the Solicitor General come alone. He's a big boy also. I agree with this. We're going to try. We'll try.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: So the request has gone to the Solicitor General. We just haven't gotten the answer.

    The Chair: The request is gone.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I just want to reinforce, though, the importance of Stéphane Bergeron's urging that the House give some direction in this regard, because we ought not to make the mistake of thinking that it's as simple as saying to the Solicitor General, you tell the RCMP what to say. That gets us on a very dangerous road. I think it's a question of having a broad base of concern from all sides of the House, which was certainly reflected here, that this matter needs to be dealt with and it's not a question of saying to the Solicitor General, you just give direction.

    The Chair: Okay, we'll discuss it on Thursday. It is going to come back when we meet on Thursday.

    Madame Caroll.

    Ms. Aileen Carroll: For the purposes of our discussion on Thursday, I think we would benefit from the clerk's defining clearly for us what procedure applies when members from CSIS or RCMP or others come. For one, I don't know how procedure defines when a witness can say this is a matter of national security or these are things I cannot discuss and when witnesses cannot. I'm not cognizant of that. I don't think others are. So if we could have benefit of that, it might help all of our discussion.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    The meeting is adjourned.