1.1   THE COMMITTEE’S STUDY

On 4 April 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (the Committee) adopted the following motion:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and in accordance with the resolution of the House agreed to on Thursday, March 23, 2017 which read:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should:

• (a)  recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear;
• (b)  condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e‑411[1] and the issues raised by it; and
• (c)  request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could
  • (i)   develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy making;
  • (ii)  collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Private Members’ Business M‑103)

The Committee commence a study as requested in paragraph (c) of the motion referenced above; and that the Committee schedule witnesses to appear such that it would complete gathering necessary evidence and give instructions to the Committee analysts to draft a report with the objective of reporting back to the House its findings and recommendations.[2]

Pursuant to the motion, from 18 September to 8 November 2017 the Committee held 14 meetings on the study and heard testimony from 77 witnesses. It also received 34 briefs. Witnesses included national organizations, groups representing various racial and religious communities from across the country, government officials, academics and experts. The Committee wishes to thank all those who contributed to the study.

This report is divided into three parts:

• 1)  Introduction and overview of the context regarding systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada, including the legal framework, existing initiatives and key terms;
• 2)  Issues related to systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada as raised by witnesses; and
• 3)  What the federal government could do moving forward.

1.2   LEGAL FRAMEWORK

1.2.1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Over the years, Canada has established a legal framework to combat discrimination and racism. One part of this framework is the equality provision in section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter):[3]

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.[4]

Also relevant to this study is section 2(a), which addresses freedom of conscience and religion, and section 2(b), which addresses freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression.[5]

Regarding the promotion of Canada’s ethnocultural diversity, section 27 of the Charter sets out the concept of multiculturalism, stipulating that “[t]his Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”[6]

1.2.2 Canadian Human Rights Act

In addition to the Charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act^[7] protects people from discrimination when they are employed by or seek services from the federal government, First Nations governments or federally regulated private companies.[8] The provinces and territories have adopted similar human rights legislation that is applicable to their respective jurisdictions. The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) was established to administer the Canadian Human Rights Act[9] when it was passed by Parliament in 1977. The CHRC is responsible for protecting the core principle of equal opportunity and promoting a vision of an inclusive society free from discrimination.[10]

1.2.3 Canadian Multiculturalism Act

Adopted in 1988, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act[11] acknowledges multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and ensures that federal institutions are responsive to Canada’s multicultural reality.[12] Under section 5 of the Act, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is responsible for implementing the Act and for taking the measures that she considers appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada.

1.2.4 Criminal Code

There are four specific offences considered to be hate propaganda or hate crimes in the Criminal Code:[13]

• advocating genocide (section 318(1));
• public incitement to hatred where likely to lead to a breach of the peace (section 319(1));
• willful promotion of hatred (section 319(2)); and
• mischief motivated by hate in relation to religious property (section 430(4.1)).[14]

All of these offences list hatred based on religion, race, colour and national or ethnic origin as grounds for pursuing charges.[15] In addition, section 718.2 of the Criminal Code outlines sentencing principles to be considered in all cases and considers evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on these grounds as aggravating circumstances that should increase the sentence for an offence.

1.2.5  United Nations Documents

In addition to Canadian legislation, human rights documents adopted by the United Nations regarding freedom of thought, freedom of religion and protection from discrimination were raised by witnesses as part of the legal framework for the Committee’s study.

1.2.5.1  Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the Declaration) was proclaimed on 10 December 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly. Canada voted in favour of the Declaration. Though not a legally binding document, the rights listed in the Declaration have been developed and codified in other legal human rights instruments. Article 18 of the Declaration states:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.[16]

In his testimony, Jay Cameron, barrister and solicitor at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, told the Committee that freedom of expression is enshrined in international documents to which Canada is a signatory.[17] Don Hutchinson, author, further added that “[t]he Supreme Court has asserted a robust definition of freedom of religion that aligns with” the Declaration.[18]

1.2.5.2  International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination[19] was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 21 December 1965. According to the Preamble:

[T]he Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set out therein, without distinction of any kind, in particular as to race, color or national origin.

The Convention also recognizes that “all human beings are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law against any discrimination and against any incitement to discrimination.”[20] In addition, the States Parties to the Convention declared they are resolved

to adopt all necessary measures for speedily eliminating racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations, and to prevent and combat racist doctrines and practices in order to promote understanding between races and to build an international community free from all forms of racial segregation and racial discrimination.[21]

Canada ratified the Convention on 14 October 1970. As such, Canada must submit reports to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) on the actions that have been taken to implement the Convention.

On 13 September 2017, the CERD released its most recent Concluding Observations on Canada. The CERD commended Canada for a number of recent developments, including the passing of M-103 by the House of Commons, the establishment of Ontario’s Anti‑Racism Directorate, the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the resettlement of 46,000 Syrian refugees in 2016.[22]

In this report, the CERD also made a series of recommendations for Canada, including:

• Collection of data: that Canada provide improved statistical data in its next report to the CERD, and that the Government of Canada begin to systematically collect disaggregated data in all relevant ministries and departments to improve monitoring and evaluation of policies that eliminate racial discrimination and inequality.
• National action plan: that Canada develop and launch a new national action plan against racism.
• Hate crimes: that Canada take steps to prevent hate crimes, facilitate reporting by victims, and provide mandatory training for law enforcement on recognition and registration or hate crimes.
• Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and United National Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP): that Canada develop an action plan to implement the TRC’s 94 calls to action and implement UNDRIP.
• The creation of an anti-racism legal framework: that Canada “enact legislation in compliance with the requirements in article 4.”[23]
• Racial profiling and disproportionate incarceration: “That law enforcement agencies have programmes to prevent racial profiling…and that Canada address the root causes of overrepresentation of African-Canadians and Indigenous peoples at all levels of the justice system, from arrest to incarceration.”
• Indigenous land rights and Indigenous peoples: that Canada ensure “the full involvement of First Nations, Inuit, Métis and other indigenous peoples…with free, prior and informed consent on all matter concerning their land rights.”
• Violence against indigenous women and girls: that Canada take “immediate action to end violence against Indigenous women and girls.”
• Discrimination against Indigenous children: that Canada ensure that all children, on and off reserve, have access to all services available to other children in Canada without discrimination.
•  Discrimination in the education system: that Canada ensure equal access to quality education, without racial discrimination and regardless of whether the child lives on or off of a reserve.
• Employment discrimination: that Canada ensure the elimination of discriminatory hiring practices and discrimination in the workplace, conduct a comprehensive review of the existing employment equity regime, and that public bodies collect and publish data on the “ethnic composition of the public service.”

During the Committee’s study, a number of witnesses urged the Committee to consider the CERD’s recommendations. For example, in her appearance before the Committee, Ms. Shalini Konanur, Executive Director and Lawyer of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, said:

I would also urge the committee, as other speakers have done, to review the United Nations CERD closing recommendations for Canada, as they echo many of the things that we are talking about here today. I would urge the committee to review the CERD recommendations on improvements to our immigration system and the embedded systemic racism within it. I would urge the committee to review the comments made about racial profiling within the criminal justice system and the child welfare system. I would urge the committee to also review the call for employment equity, the call for disaggregated data, and the call for a national action plan.[24]

Other witnesses who spoke in favour of CERD’s recommendations included Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Clinic Director of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic,[25] Ms. Tamara Thomas, Policy Researcher and Analyst at the African Canadian Legal Clinic,[26] Dr. Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada,[27] and National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations Perry Bellegarde.[28]

1.3   EXISTING INITIATIVES

1.3.1  Federal

1.3.1.1  Multiculturalism Program

The Department of Canadian Heritage administers the Multiculturalism Program, which derives its mandate from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.[29] Under the Act, the Minister may encourage and assist individuals and organizations to undertake research, encourage and promote exchanges, and support minority communities in overcoming discriminatory barriers. The objectives of the Multiculturalism Program are:

to build an integrated, socially cohesive society; to improve the responsiveness of institutions to the needs of a diverse population; and to engage in discussions on multiculturalism, integration and diversity at the international level.[30]

The program comprises two main components: Events and Projects. The events component provides funding to community-based events that foster intercultural or interfaith understanding, civic memory and pride or respect for core democratic values.[31] The projects component funds projects that build bridges and promote intercultural understanding, promote equality, and foster citizenship, civic engagement and a healthy democracy.[32] The funding allocated for the Multiculturalism Program is $8.5M annually.

The Multiculturalism Program also supports Canada’s participation in agreements such as the above-mentioned International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and in “institutions that address multicultural issues globally.”[33]

1.3.1.2  Canadian Race Relations Foundation

Established in 1997, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation (CRRF) is a Crown corporation that undertakes research, collects data, and develops a national information base to further an understanding of the nature of racism and racial discrimination. As stipulated by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation Act,[34] CRRF’s mission is to

facilitate throughout Canada the development, sharing and application of knowledge and expertise in order to contribute to the elimination of racism and all forms of racial discrimination in Canadian society.[35]

1.3.1.3  Court Challenges Program

The objective of the Court Challenges Program (CCP) is, among other things, to “help clarify and assert certain constitutional and quasi-constitutional official language rights and human rights in Canada.”[36]

The CCP provides financial support to individuals or groups “to initiate or participate in test cases pertaining to rights and freedoms covered by the Program.”[37]

1.3.1.4  Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion

On 17 May 2016, the government announced the creation of the Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion (OHRFI). It replaces the Office of Religious Freedom, which was created in 2013. According to the government, the OHRFI will “work closely with Canadian and international members of civil society, religious groups, academia, and non-governmental organizations” to allow Canada to “truly leverage its pluralistic experience as a multicultural and multi-faith country.”

1.3.2  Provincial

While the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Commission made written submissions to the Committee, the Ontario Government’s 2017 plan – A Better Way Forward: Ontario’s 3-year Anti-Racism Strategic Plan[38] (“the Ontario Plan”) was the only provincial initiative discussed by witnesses who appeared before the Committee. It should be noted that British Columbia has not had a human rights commission since 2001.

In February 2016, the Government of Ontario established the Anti-Racism Directorate, which works to eliminate systemic racism in government policies, decisions and programs. The Directorate held community meetings across Ontario, and based on the input it received, the Government of Ontario released the Ontario Plan and the Legislative Assembly passed the Anti-Racism Act, 2017[39] on 1 June 2017. The Anti-Racism Act, 2017 permits the government to implement race data collection and an anti-racism assessment framework.

On 20 September 2017, Mr. Sam Erry, Associate Deputy Minister of the Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division of the Government of Ontario, appeared before the Committee to discuss the Ontario Plan. Mr. Erry explained why he thought the anti-racism approach in the Ontario Plan is “the best approach to truly ameliorate the harms of systemic racism.”[40] He argued that the anti-racism approach is different than the multiculturalism approach as it recognizes that systemic racism exists. He further stated that the traditional multiculturalism approach that promotes diversity is not sufficient in combatting systemic racism. He elaborated by saying:

As Canadians, we are well socialized in the concept of multiculturalism. When we think about diversity, we're celebrating people's individual differences and perspectives. Building a diverse society and focusing on raising awareness about diversity are good and necessary things to do, but they are not sufficient to change the deeply entrenched inequities for indigenous and racialized people, and other groups. The diversity approach has failed to change the power imbalances that result in privilege for some groups and disadvantage for others.[41]

Mr. Erry continued:

The anti-racism approach acknowledges and addresses the fact that indigenous youth are more likely to end up in the child welfare system or jail, and the fact that many racialized youth, particularly young black men, are more likely than white kids to drop out of high school and empirically less likely to be represented amongst the ranks of our CEOs and senior leaders.[42]

The Ontario Government’s anti-racism approach recognizes the significance of understanding how racism is experienced differently by different groups along intersectional lines, including gender identity and expression, creed, class, sexual orientation, history of colonization, or other personal attributes, otherwise known as intersectionality.[43]

The Directorate is also developing an anti-racism impact assessment framework to help anticipate and remove unconscious bias in proposed policies, programs and decisions. Currently, the Directorate is piloting the framework in examining the child welfare, justice and education systems in Ontario.

Specifically, the Ontario Plan is composed of initiatives under four categories:

• Policy, research and evaluation: the Plan acknowledges that to address racial inequities, better race-based disaggregated data is necessary. The plan will also develop an anti-racism impact assessment framework to help anticipate and remove unconscious bias in proposed policies, programs and decisions.
• Sustainability and Accountability: the Plan includes the development of measurable targets, public reporting and mandated community engagement.
• Public education and awareness: the Plan notes that the targeted education and awareness initiatives will be developed to increase awareness of systemic racism and how it impacts people. According to the Plan, these initiatives will focus on anti-Black racism, anti-Indigenous racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and others form of racism against racialized groups such as Sikhs.
• Community Collaboration: The Plan aims to collaborate with communities on a regular basis through the establishment of an anti-racism consultation group chaired by the Minister responsible for anti-racism and holding an annual anti-racism conference that brings together researchers, community partners, experts and policy makers.[44]

A number of witnesses, including Ms. Thomas,[45] Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission,[46] Serah Gazili, community member of the Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House,[47] and Ihsaan Gardee, Executive Director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims,[48] supported the Ontario Plan. Additionally, the CERD’s most recent observations for Canada recommended that the federal government establish a national strategy based on the “good practices mentioned in Ontario’s anti‑racism strategy.”[49] The Ontario Plan has been in place since March 2017 and a full evaluation of the plan is not yet available.

1.4   KEY TERMS

1.4.1  Systemic racism

Racial discrimination is often understood as an individual act of discrimination, such as a refusal to provide a service, rent an apartment or offer a job to someone because of stereotypes based on ethnicity or race. However, racism can also be systemic or institutional.[50] Sometimes systemic discrimination is intentional, such as the forced removal of Indigenous children from their families to attend residential schools or the imposition of the Chinese head tax. These were policies that were applied by governments and other institutions in a systemic way.

Shawn Richard, President of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, defined systemic racism as follows:

Systemic racism has been defined as the social production of racial inequality in decisions about people and in the treatment they receive. Racial inequality is neither natural nor inherent in humanity. On the contrary, it is the result of a society's arrangement of economic, cultural, and political life. It is produced by the combination of social constructions of races as real, different, and unequal, known as racialization; the norms, processes, and service delivery of a social system, known as structure; and the actions and decisions of people who work for social systems, known as personnel.[51]

As society has evolved and with the advent of human rights legislation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, these overt forms of systemic discrimination have become rarer. However, more subtle, often unintentional forms of systemic or institutional racism and discrimination continue to exist. Various racialized communities may experience racial discrimination differently based on their specific history of exclusion and marginalization in Canada and the stereotypes that have developed about their community members.

In his testimony, Senator Murray Sinclair explained systemic discrimination as follows:

People have a hard time understanding what systemic discrimination is and what systemic racism is. This is because it's not the kind of racism that comes necessarily from the behaviour, words, and actions of individuals, other than the fact that they are guided by the system in which they are functioning. The phrase that I always like to use is that systemic racism is the racism that's left over after you get rid of the racists. Once you get rid of the racists within the justice system, for example, you will still have racism perpetrated by the justice system. This is because the justice system follows certain rules, procedures, guidelines, precedents, and laws that are inherently discriminatory and racist because those laws, policies, procedures, processes, and beliefs—including beliefs that direct individuals on how and when to exercise their discretion—come from a history of the common law, which comes from a different culture, a different way of thinking.[52]

In accordance with the language used in M-103, the Committee focused part of this study on understanding systemic discrimination in Canada, and possible solutions. Mr. Erry described the meaning of systemic racism:

Systemic racism is often caused by conscious or unconscious biases in policies, practices, and procedures that privilege or disadvantage particular groups of people based on perceptions of race. It's not always intentional, but whether or not it's intentional has little bearing on the inequitable outcomes indigenous and racialized people experience.[53]

Ayesha Chaudhry, Associate Professor and Chairholder of Canada Research Chair in Religion, Law and Social Justice, stated:

When a population is overrepresented in any institutional context, this is a reflection of systemic inequality, to the detriment of some, and to the advantage of others. Think here about white men in CEO positions and indigenous and black people in Canadian federal prisons.[54]

Some impacts of systemic racism that the Committee heard about include:

• Poverty: Ms. Go discussed how racialized families live in poverty at greater rates than non-racialized families.[55]
• Unemployment and hiring: some witnesses indicated that racialized persons are more likely to be unemployed, employed in precarious work, or have difficulty being hired.[56]
• Education: some witnesses suggested that racialized youth are not provided with adequate educational programming and opportunities.[57] Furthermore, content and imagery in school curriculum may also tend to reflect the majority perspective and may not recognize the contributions of racialized communities adequately, which has an impact on both racialized and white students’ perceptions about each other. Chief Bellegarde suggested that school curricula should be changed “to teach about inherent rights, treaty rights, aboriginal rights, to teach about the residential schools and the history and the impact of residential schools, and the Indian Act.^“[58]
• Criminal justice system: some witnesses described that certain groups, particularly Black[59] and Indigenous[60] Canadians are likely to be stopped more frequently than white individuals, and are more likely to be refused bail or incarcerated.

1.4.2  Religious Discrimination

The study also focused on religious discrimination in Canada. Some witnesses felt that racial discrimination and religious discrimination should be dealt with distinctly. Father Raymond de Souza distinguished between these two types of discrimination: “Race, of course, involves characteristics inherited at birth. Religion is a matter of faith and practice, which can change.”[61] As explained by Andrew Bennett, Senior Fellow at Cardus, members of religious communities “face discrimination variously because of who they are, what they believe, what they wear, and what they value, all of which can be at odds with what secular elites in this country believe to be true.”[62]

Sikander Hashmi, spokesperson for the Canadian Council of Imams, further noted some of the consequences of religious discrimination. He said:

The right to worship and practice one's faith freely and openly as one sees fit, without infringing upon the rights of others, is a fundamental right, yet this fundamental right of Canadian Muslims is being eroded by those who seek to instill fear within the Canadian Muslim community through attacks and intimidation tactics.[63]

1.4.3  Islamophobia

The Committee heard differing views on the use of the term Islamophobia.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission’s definition of the term is:

Islamophobia can be described as stereotypes, bias or acts of hostility towards individual Muslims or followers of Islam in general. In addition to individual acts of intolerance and racial profiling, Islamophobia leads to viewing Muslims as a greater security threat on an institutional, systemic and societal level.[64]

A number of witnesses provided different definitions of the term, such as:

• “an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims or Islam that leads to discrimination;”[65]
• “anti-Muslim discrimination or hate;”[66]
• “a criticizing or scathing negative opinion that might directly or indirectly cause humiliation or damage to the reputation and or incite to hatred and to violence against a person or a group of persons for the only reason that they are of Muslim faith;”[67]“extends from ‘a fear or hatred of Islam and Muslims’ to acknowledge that these attitudes develop into individual, ideological, and systemic forms of oppression that shore up specific power relations;”[68]
• “anti-Muslim hate;”[69] and
• “the irrational fear or hatred of Muslims.”[70]

Some witnesses disagreed with the use of the term. Michael Motsyn, Chief Executive Officer of B'nai Brith Canada, noted that the unclear definition of the term could create tension between communities. He said:

The committee's work and its outcome must exercise great care in any definition of Islamophobia, if indeed any is attempted. Any definition that is vague and imprecise, that is embraced by one community but not all, or that catalyzes emotion or irrational debate on scope and meaning can by hijacked and only inflame tensions between and among faith communities in Canada and detract from the committee's objective.[71]

Ali Rizvi, author, also noted that the term may have a negative impact on the Muslim community as a whole. He stated:

The word “Islamophobia” is an umbrella term that also conflates legitimate criticism of Islam—as is being done by many of my fellow liberals and secular activists trying to change our societies in the Muslim world—with the demonization of Muslims, which is obviously wrong.[72]

Raheel Raza, President of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, mentioned that she believed the use of the term could also limit freedom of expression. She held:

I believe, though, that using the word “Islamophobia”—let me be very clear—in the motion will curtail free speech, because no other ethnic community or religious community is mentioned by name in the motion except Islamophobia.[73]

1.4.4  Intersectionality

A term that was often raised to the Committee by witnesses was intersectionality.[74] This concept acknowledges that individuals are shaped by multiple factors, such as gender, race, ethnicity, indigeneity, class, sexuality, geography, age, disability and migration status. It also acknowledges that the way individuals experience racism and discrimination can be compounded by a number of features of an individual’s identity.

Mr. Gardee provided an example of how discrimination can be felt differently; noting that Black Muslim women may “face gender-based discrimination, race-based discrimination, and religious discrimination.”[75] Ms. Thomas also provided an example of how discrimination can be felt differently among different communities. She said:

The African descendant community in Canada has many various intersecting identities, and many members of our community identify as Muslim. Members of our community are often targets of both systemic racism and Islamophobia.[76]

As explained by Ritu Banerjee, Senior Director of the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence at the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, the various manifestations of hatred, such as discrimination and violence, are linked, and necessitate a common approach composed of “many perspectives, a strong evidence base, and firm commitment on the part of all levels of government and Canadians to address them.”[77] In the course of the study, witnesses brought forward the question of data collection, recalled instances of discrimination that impacted them, drew attention to legislative action that could be undertaken and offered suggestions as to how government should approach these issues.

Witnesses agreed that accurate data was necessary in order to identify issues facing different communities and to ensure the appropriate response from government bodies. As summarized by Sam Erry, Associate Deputy Minister of the Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division of the Government of Ontario: “No data, no problem, no solution.”[78]

2.1   PRESENTATION OF THE CURRENT DATA

Throughout the study, when speaking to the issue of hate crimes in Canada, witnesses referred to Statistics Canada’s most recent data on police-reported hate crime in the country, in 2015.[79] Representatives of Statistics Canada, which oversees data collection and analysis regarding hate crimes, also appeared as witnesses during the study. For the purpose of its work, the organization uses two separate approaches to quantify hate crime incidence in Canada: police-reported hate crimes and self-reported hate crimes.

2.1.1  Police-reported hate crimes

Every year since 2005, Statistics Canada receives data from police services through the Uniform Crime Survey (UCS), using the automated records management system to collect information on incidents that have been recognized as a crime.[80]

As confirmed by Yvan Clermont, Director of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics at Statistics Canada, there was an increase in the number of police-reported hate crimes in 2015, going from 1,295 incidents the previous year to 1,362, a 5% increase. This was out of a total of 1.9 million criminal incidents that were reported during 2015.[81] Data indicates that certain groups faced a greater increase than others: this was due in part to an increase of 61% of incidents against Muslims, from 99 to 159.[82] However, Mr. Clermont noted that since 2009, the number of hate crimes has declined.[83]

On 28 November 2017, Statistics Canada released its report Police-reported hate crime, 2016. The report indicates there was an increase in the number of hate crimes from the previous year. There were 47 additional incidents, bringing the total to 1,409, an increase of 3%.

In 2015, the data regarding the motivation[84] behind hate crimes indicated a 5% rise, in the number of incidents motivated by hate of a race or ethnicity, from 611 to 641, which represented “close to half of all hate crimes reported to the police in 2015,” while 35%, or 469 incidents, were motivated by hatred of religion.[85] In 2016, hate crimes based on hatred of religion represented 33% of all hate crimes; however, 2016 saw a decrease from 469 to 460 incidents.

A further 11% of hate crimes targeted sexual orientation in 2015: the 141 incidents represented a decline of 2% from 2014. In 2016, incidents targeting sexual orientation rose to 176 incidents and accounted for 13% of all hate crimes. Crimes motivated by other factors, such as mental or physical disability, language, sex and other similar factors (e.g. occupation or political beliefs) increased from 77 to 86, representing less than 1% of hate crimes in 2015.[86]

The 2015 data showed an increase in assaults and threats as crimes motivated by hatred: 38%, or 487, of the total of 1,295 hate-crime incidents were violent, a 15% increase in one year.[87] However, the majority of police-reported hate crimes targeting a race, an ethnicity or a religion were non-violent: 339 incidents motivated by hatred of a religion were non-violent, which accounted for 76% of hate crimes in this category, and 327 incidents targeting a race or ethnicity, for a total of 55%, of offenses.[88] These incidents include mischief, vandalism and graffiti. In total, 561 or 44% of all hate-crime incidents in 2015 were qualified as mischief.[89]

Crimes targeting sexual orientation were more likely to be violent: 78 incidents were considered violent, and accounted for 59% of all incidents in this category.

Hate crimes were more violent in 2016, with the number of violent hate-motived crimes rising from 487 to 565, a 16% increase. In 2016, 43% of all hate crimes were violent, compared to 38% the previous year.[90] Both non-violent hate crimes and mischief incidents decreased between 2015 and 2016: non-violent hate crimes from 785 to 740 and mischief from 561 to 528.

Concerning hate crimes targeting race or ethnicity, the Black population has been the most targeted group since 2010.[91] Despite a decrease in the number of incidents since 2012, in 2015 the Black population still accounted for 35% of racial hate crimes: 224 out of 641 incidents targeted the Black population. While there was a decrease of 4% in the number of incidents targeting Black populations in 2016, from 224 to 214 incidents, they remained the most targeted race or ethnicity, at 15% of all hate crimes.

Incidents against Arab and West Asian populations rose from 69 to 92 incidents between 2014 and 2015, an increase of 33%. Meanwhile, there were 35 incidents that targeted Indigenous populations, which represented 5% of hate crimes.

In 2016, there was an increase in the number of incidents against South Asians, Arabs and West Asians. Incidents targeting the South Asian population rose from 48 to 72, those against Arab and West Asian populations increased from 92 to 112.

While the Muslim population was the religious group that saw the greatest increase in the number of hate crimes against them in 2015, the most targeted group in 2015 remained the Jewish population. Despite a decrease from 213 incidents in 2014 to 178 in 2015, incidents against the Jewish population still accounted for 38% of crimes motivated by hatred of a religion.[92]

The Jewish population was also the most targeted religious group in 2016, with an increase from 178 to 221 incidents, which represented 16% of all hate crimes. Meanwhile hate crimes against the Muslim and the Catholic populations decreased: incidents against Muslims went from 159 to 139, down to 10% of all hate crimes, while those targeting Catholics decreased from 55 to 27, for a total of 2% of all hate crimes.[93]

Statistics Canada also provided demographic information related to the people accused of hate crimes. In 2015, “youths ages 12 to 17 years accounted for 22% of all persons accused in police-reported hate crimes,” and 87% of all accused are male.[94] In total, “young males under the age of 25 years old made up more than one-third of all persons accused of hate crimes”[95] in 2015. Regarding hate crimes targeting religion, the majority of accused were between 12 and 17 years of age, and about half were under 24 years old.[96] Persons accused of hate crimes motivated by hatred of race or ethnicity tended to be older: 63% were aged 25 years and over.[97] Regarding the demographics of victims, the majority of victims of hate crimes were male, except for hate crimes targeting Muslim populations, where 53% of victims were women.[98]

2.1.2  Self-reported hate crimes

Conducted every five years, the General Social Survey (GSS) on Victimization asks a sample of Canadians aged 15 and over whether they have been a victim of the following offenses: sexual assault, robbery, physical assault, break and enter, theft of motor vehicles or parts, theft of household property, theft of personal property and vandalism.[99] Data obtained from the GSS differs from data collected by police services, as it is “based upon the perceptions of individuals regarding whether or not a crime occurred and what the motivation for the crime may have been,” whereas information from the police strictly consists of incidents that fulfilled the criteria for hate crimes as cited in the Criminal Code and were substantiated by an investigation.[100]

In the latest GSS, which was conducted in 2014, Canadians cited 330,000 criminal incidents that, according to them, were motivated by hate, corresponding to 5% of all declared incidents.[101] According to the GSS, two-thirds of the victims of these incidents did not report them to the police. In a follow-up question, the GSS asked for reasons as to why the crime had not been reported to the authorities. Victims of hate crimes listed “fear of revenge” and a perception that “the police would be biased” as reasons why they did not go to the police. Victims of hate crimes gave these reasons in greater proportion than victims of non-hate crimes.[102]

Mr. Clermont of Statistics Canada told the Committee:

As in 2009, race was the most common motivation for incidents to be motivated by hate, cited by just over half (51%) of victims who believed the incident was motivated by hate. Other motivations included sex (reported by 26% of victims), age (19%), and religion (11%).[103]

As indicated by Rebecca Kong, Chief of the Policing Services Program of the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics at Statistics Canada, variations in reporting from year to year mean that one must proceed with caution when comparing one year’s report to another, as “small fluctuations can turn into large percentage increases” due to how small the numbers can be.[104] In its report, Statistics Canada specified that “higher rates of police-reported hate crime in certain jurisdictions may reflect differences or changes in the recognition, reporting and investigation of these incidents by police and community members.”[105]

2.2   CHALLENGES WITH COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

When commenting on the available data regarding hate crimes in Canada, witnesses raised what they consider to be challenges related to data collection and analysis, including underreporting, a lack of uniformity and the need to provide additional reporting options for victims. These challenges are discussed in the following sections.

2.2.1  Underreporting

One of the main issues raised by witnesses has been underreporting, which has an impact on the quality and usability of the data that is made available. Shalini Konanur, Executive Director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, explained:

What is not captured here [in the data] are those people who face racism and discrimination on a daily basis and do not report it. We speak to clients daily who express incidents of hate, incidents of violence, incidents of Islamophobia, and who repeatedly tell us that they will not come out and report it, that they do not feel safe to do so, they do not feel they would be supported if they did so, and they do not feel that anything would happen if they did so.[106]

The necessity of reporting hate crimes in order to understand “the magnitude of the problem in our communities”[107] was underlined by Gilles Michaud, Deputy Commissioner of Federal Policing at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a point of view echoed by Avvy Yao-Yao Go, Clinic Director of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.[108]

In order to reduce the underreporting rate, Mr. Michaud indicated that “Education programs … are essential in combatting hate crimes, as they encourage victims to report incidents so law enforcement can initiate investigations.”[109]

In its report on police-reported hate crime in 2015, Statistics Canada listed a variety of factors that may affect the reporting of hate crimes incidents:

[T]he presence (or absence) of a dedicated hate crime unit or training program within a particular police service may influence the identification of a crime as hate-motivated. The existence (or inexistence) of community outreach programs, public awareness campaigns, zero tolerance policies and victim assistance programs are all factors that may affect the willingness and/or ability of community members to report incidents to police, or to disclose to police the nature of the crime as hate-motivated.[110]

This motive was also raised by Ms. Konanur who explained that within the community, “fear of engaging with the police”[111] prevents some of her clients from reporting.

2.2.2  Lack of uniformity

The lack of uniformity in the data sources was another challenge affecting data collection and analysis that was raised by witnesses.

Bruce Clemenger, President of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, stated that government ought to act to ensure this uniformity:

[C]ollect data consistently and uniformly. Develop uniform national standards on collecting, categorizing, and reporting hate crime data to help ensure consistency across the country. This would provide a consistent body of information to inform dialogue and policy-making. Statistics Canada and other government departments should consult with faith communities in developing data collection. Likewise, faith communities need to be more aware of definitions and reporting protocols.[112]

In its brief submitted to the Committee, the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic recommended more “mandated standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system”[113] in order to better protect racialized groups.

Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, shared a similar view:

This committee should recommend that the government establish uniform national guidelines and standards for the collection and handling of hate crime and hate incident data. This step will help ensure that local, provincial, and national law enforcement consistently collect, catalogue, and publicize data regarding hate crimes and hate incidents. The more accurate and comprehensive the data available, the more appropriately efforts to counter hatred and bigotry in Canada can be calibrated to address the specific needs of the communities most impacted. Comprehensive empirical data is required to effectively diagnose the problems and prescribe the most appropriate solutions.[114]

2.2.3  Improving reporting

Witnesses had suggestions for providing additional options for reporting hate crimes and other incidents. Haseen Khan, Executive Committee Member and Treasurer of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, raised the idea of a national registry on a variety of incidents, one that would be more informal and therefore removed from the “burden” of going through law enforcement processes:

[O]ur first recommendation is to create a national registry to record all hateful incidents involving Islamophobia and other forms of racial and religious discrimination.… Our experience is that if you want to have informed decision-making on any issue, you first need to have the information in both quantitative terms as well as qualitative terms, because that is the only way for us to move forward. We need to have a better informal system in the form of some sort of national registry where they can dial in or log in and complain and record their report with all the facts and figures without going through any further harassment.[115]

Soudeh Ghasemi, Vice-President of the Iranian Canadian Congress, suggested that “a racism and discrimination hotline be set up to allow victims of discrimination access to counsel and allow government to collect information on these incidents.”[116]

Mr. Clermont believed that the current system for collecting data from police services currently works well:

I believe that, with time and with all the mechanisms in place with the police forces in order to report through the uniform crime report.... The standards are given. There is training online. There is data validation that goes with them, individually, when we find there are big differences from year to year. There is a big process of data certification that goes with police forces. I would think that the mechanisms in place are very good at the moment, especially for an administrative data survey.[117]

When asked to consider what improvements could be brought to the system in place, Ms. Kong added:

I think in terms of working with police, continuing to sensitize them to the importance of the data, and training them, we find that it makes a big difference when a police service has a hate crime unit and has strong relationships with communities in terms of the willingness of victims to come forward. That's where we'll get information on the numbers.[118]

However, Ms. Kong indicated that there was a gap in the available information on offenders’ motivation.[119] In order to fill that gap, she suggested that a “specific research project designed where those who would have access to offenders could do interviews and collect that type of information” could be created.[120] In her testimony, she also informed the Committee that “it’s not unheard of for [Statistics Canada] to work with non-profit organizations or community-based organizations in data collection.”[121]

2.3   RESEARCH

Witnesses raised the need not only for more accurate data and better means of collecting and analysing it, but also for more substantial research once the data is made available. As explained by Yavar Hameed, barrister and solicitor at the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association:

[T]here needs to be more research done. That research can be done by the government. Civil society can be enlisted, researchers can be brought out to go to the communities.… Doing that research, having people go out and document in the communities—and there are ways in which that can be done—requires a sensitivity to the communities and it requires going to the communities themselves. Taking that research and bringing that research back to where policy is where we see an important gap and where there needs to be development.[122]

Jasmin Zine, Professor of Sociology and Muslim Studies at Wilfrid Laurier University, suggested that research on Islamophobia, systemic racism and religious discrimination be included as priorities through the Social Sciences Research and Humanities Council, the Canada Council of the Arts and at Canadian Heritage.[123] Idris Elbakri, past president of the Manitoba Islamic Association, built on this idea, saying that “there need to be grants to academic experts in universities to study this issue further…to inform our policy-making with scholarly research that has withstood the test of peer review.”[124]

2.4 ISSUES RAISED BY WITNESSES

Throughout the study, witnesses reported instances of racial and religious discrimination they have faced or dealt with in their community. Some examples raised by witnesses include:

• the murder of six Muslim men praying at the Centre culturel islamique de Québec in Quebec City on 29 January 2017;[125]
• anti-Semitic hate speech[126] and graffiti;[127]
•  the frequent carding of Black Canadians in “areas where [they] do not belong;”[128]
• the inequitable access to government services for First Nations children;[129]
• the rejection of a Canadian university’s proposed law school by three provincial law societies because the University has an “underlying philosophy and viewpoint that is Christian;”[130] and
• the “name-calling and taunting” of members of the Sikh community who are perceived to be Muslim.[131]

Witnesses also had recommendations as to how the federal government should approach these issues.

As the Committee listened to witnesses, it was reminded to consider the struggles faced by every community and was asked not to focus on any particular racial or religious groups. As outlined by B’nai Brith Canada in its brief:

The Committee’s work and its outcome must not diminish, or be perceived to diminish, the threat to Canadians of all faith communities who face racism and religious discrimination, and it must not suggest that one form of racism or religious discrimination is more threatening or of greater priority than another.[132]

This was also the approach prioritized by Renu Mandhane, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission:

We need to send a collective message that while the Constitution protects freedom of expression, it also guarantees equality, regardless of race and religion. The government has the power to take action to protect people who are harmed by racism and Islamophobia, and we call on it to boldly do so.[133]

2.4.1  Hate speech, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience

Many witnesses acknowledged having been subject to hate speech and recounted instances of hateful comments being directed at them. A number of witnesses stressed the importance of both freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.

This view was expressed particularly in relation to the question of Islamophobia and criticism of religion. As expressed by Tarek Fatah, Founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, “We need to stand up for human beings, for people and their rights. We need to be able to challenge ideas and ideologies without the fear that we will be called ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted.’”[134] Michel Juneau-Katsuya, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Northgate Group Corp., reiterated this opinion, and added that “We need to be able to criticize what needs to be criticized in order to identify what are the Canadian values and what kind of society our society wants to be.”[135]

Father Raymond de Souza, for his part, warned against “a chill around discussing difficult questions regarding Islam [as] those need to take place,” reminding the Committee that these discussions are already taking place within Muslim communities.[136] This point of view was also echoed by Peter Bhatti, Chairman of International Christian Voice, who stressed that it is “the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians to lawfully and respectfully criticize any Islamic religious idea.”[137] The question of freedom of expression was raised by other witnesses, such as Jay Cameron, barrister and solicitor at the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, who reminded the Committee that the concept protects both “speakers” and “listeners.”[138]

Regarding freedom of conscience, witnesses underlined the need for the government to ensure that individual freedoms are respected for all Canadians, no matter their religion. According to Julia Beazley, Director of Public Policy at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, government’s commitment to freedom of religion should be distinct from the “more general category of human rights.”[139] She remarked that religious perspective should be included in public debate and emphasized that:

This is an important part of what it means to be a free and democratic society. Government should not compel or coerce Canadians to act against their beliefs or to celebrate beliefs that are counter to their faith. We recommend that robust conscience protection be legislated so that no one is forced to act against their conscience or deeply held beliefs.[140]

Some witnesses had recommendations that were specific to situations faced by the groups they represent. For example, Trinity Western University recounted instances of discrimination faced by their students, alumni and faculty members.[141] Appearing before the Committee, the University’s President, Robert Kuhn, recommended that the government should apply the concept of “duty to consult” to religious groups as well:

Before embarking on legislative or other responses to what might be characterized as moral issues, I believe it would be a prudent and positive step to ensure consultation with religious organizations in order to understand the perspective of religious people in Canada.[142]

In its brief, the Christian Medical and Dental Society stated that legislation should “protect members of religious minorities…from being forced to act against the tenets of their faith or their conscience in the service of their patients.”[143]

Another theme that was raised by witnesses was the presence of hateful speech online. Sikander Hashmi, spokesperson of the Canadian Council of Imams, expressed the need for more resources dedicated to this issue:

Increase funding for law enforcement and security agencies to investigate hate speech on the Internet, to enforce existing laws, and to gather intelligence on, investigate, and prosecute radical individuals and groups who believe in terrorizing Canadian minorities through criminal acts with the same vigour and allocation of resources as has been done so far against individuals and groups who believe in terrorizing Canadians indiscriminately through criminal acts.[144]

2.4.2  Discrimination related to employment

Some witnesses presented their experiences with employment discrimination based on their racial or religious identity.[145] In order to provide more employment opportunities for underrepresented groups, Larry Rousseau, Executive Vice-President of the Canadian Labour Congress, called on the government to “immediately introduce proactive pay equity legislation that will close the wage disparity, in particular for racialized Muslim, Black, and Indigenous women.”[146] Tamara Thomas, policy researcher and analyst at the African Canadian Legal Clinic, also supported “mandatory pay equity.”[147]

Speaking on the current situation in the federal public service, Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Governance, Planning and Policy Sector at the Treasury Board Secretariat, recognised the low representation of certain groups, and explained that a name-blind recruitment strategy pilot project was currently in place.[148]

For Ayse Akinturk, Executive Committee Member of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, eliminating the barriers to employment should be the priority, and the government should “introduce and implement appropriate tools that will promote equity and inclusion.”[149] She argued that when “people feel they are socially and economically empowered…their self-esteem and their resistance to attempts to be discriminated against rises.”[150]

2.4.3  Social discrimination

Another aspect raised by witnesses was the discrimination faced by youths in the education system, particularly Indigenous youths. Kevin Barlow, Chief Executive Officer of the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council, found that there are “systemic issues” within the system.[151] This point of view was shared by Cecil Roach, Coordinating Superintendent of the Education, Equity and Community Services at the York Region District School Board, who called on the government to:

[D]eclare indigenous education as a national emergency and develop a plan of action with defined timelines to ensure that the national dropout rates of indigenous students fall within the average of white students.[152]

Some witnesses offered examples of social discrimination faced by their community. In her testimony, Ms. Go reminded the Committee that “if you're a person of colour, if you're indigenous, you are two to six times more likely to live below the poverty line compared to a non-racialized person.”[153] In his appearance before the Committee, Sam Erry, Associate Deputy Minister of the Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division of the Government of Ontario, stressed the need to solve the underlying issues that can cause discrimination against certain groups:

Tackling the systemic institutional barriers that prevent indigenous and racialized people from achieving their full potential is not only a moral imperative, it's also an economic imperative.[154]

Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, urged the government to ensure that “First Nations children can access all the public services they need, when they need them, and without additional red tape related to their First Nations status.”[155] She also called on support and funding for Indigenous languages.[156]

Another example of discrimination focused on financial institutions. In his testimony, Pouyan Tabasinejad, policy chair of Iranian Canadian Congress explained that following Canadian sanctions against Iran in 2012, “banks have refused to deal with those who had or were perceived to have any financial links to Iran whether personal or business. This resulted in the closure of the bank accounts of Iranian Canadians, including Canadian citizens, for no other reason than because they were Iranian.”[157]

2.5   LEGAL CONCERNS RAISED BY WITNESSES

In addition to relating instances of discrimination, witnesses also expressed legal concerns that they believed could be addressed by the federal government.

2.5.1  Criminal Code review

Many witnesses mentioned that the provisions in the Criminal Code that oversee hate crimes ought to be revised in order to better protect victims and address their needs. For example, the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, in its brief submitted to the Committee, asked for amendments that would “take hate motivation into account more effectively and consistently.”[158] B’nai Brith Canada recommended that:

The Committee should clearly outline the provisions of the Charter and the Criminal Code that apply to hate speech and hate crimes. The Committee should examine how the provisions of the Criminal Code, in particular, can be strengthened, stressing the consequences to be faced by those who act contrary to the Charter and the Criminal Code.[159]

Furthermore, during the course of the study, Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Justice Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act, was in the process of being examined by the House of Commons. As some of the provisions in the Bill concerned sections of the Criminal Code related to religious communities, some witnesses discussed the Bill during their appearance before the Committee. Don Hutchinson, author, called for Bill C-51 to be amended in order to retain section 176 of the Criminal Code, regarding obstruction or violence to officiating clergyman and disturbing religious worship. However, he approved the proposed removal of section 296, concerning blasphemy, as “all beliefs and practices, religious and non-religious, must be open to critical evaluation and peaceful dialogue, debate, and dissension.” Ms. Ghasemi agreed with Mr. Hutchinson, stating that the government should not remove “parts of the Criminal Code that provide protection to places of

worship, religious ceremonies, and faith communities” at a time “when hate crime against people from specific religious backgrounds is rising.”[160]

In her testimony, Ms. Ghasemi stated that “a systematic review of our Criminal Code legislation in regard to hate crimes and hate speech is long overdue.”[161] She added that “numerous sources have reported that a significant part of the problem in prosecuting hate crimes is that the Criminal Code limits what can be done and does not allow speedy and efficient prosecution.”[162]

One of the recommendations in Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House’s brief is the need to “[r]eview and strengthen the laws against hate speech and hate crimes by providing a more inclusive and clear definition of what, exactly, constitutes a hate crime.”[163] Participants added that “these laws should specifically detail and define Islamophobia.”[164]

Some witnesses specified sections of the Criminal Code which, according to them, ought to be revised. Mr. Hashmi argued that section 319 should be expanded “to characterize all physical attacks against religious symbols in public places… as public incitement of hatred or willful promotion of hatred”[165] and asked the Committee to “consider expanding subsection 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code to include religious schools.”[166]

Aurangzeb Qureshi, Vice-President of Public Policy and Communications at the Alberta Muslim Public Affairs Council, also stated the need to clarify “the ambiguous nature of section 319.”[167] He also touched upon section 318, which he said should be amended “so that a hate incident can be charged as a crime without having to specifically meet such an unrealistic threshold of genocide.”[168] Mr. Qureshi also called for an expansion on the section on mischief.

2.5.2  Facilitate investigation and prosecution of hate crimes

As indicated by Statistics Canada, there is a discrepancy between the number of times people consider themselves to have been a victim of a hate crime and the number of hate-crime incidents reported by the police.[169] In their testimonies, witnesses proposed ways to facilitate both the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

Mr. Fogel told the Committee that “In an era when statements can live on in perpetuity online…the statute of limitations for hate promotion should be extended.”[170] He also called on the federal government to support the development of hate crime units within police services. He stated that:

These units have been integrated into several police services across Canada and have constituted an unqualified success. Units specifically trained to investigate hate-motivated crime ensure that incidents are handled with particular sensitivity and understanding of the distinct nature of the crime and its impact on the victims, their families, and their communities. Universalizing hate crime units would ensure that as many vulnerable Canadians as possible can benefit from these services that ensure the officers responding to hate incidents are the best equipped to do so.[171]

In its brief, Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House also called upon the government to “Strengthen the legislation pertaining to human rights redress in cases of discrimination.”[172] However, Ms. Mandhane argued that the current laws are not enforced enough and that “we really need to start thinking about defining hate in a way that captures the lived experience of people who experience it.”[173]

2.5.3  Legislation related to Indigenous Peoples

Witnesses also shared legal concerns and suggestions for government actions that could help combat the discrimination Indigenous Peoples face. National Chief Perry Bellegarde, of the Assembly of First Nations, asked for the “full adoption and implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples [UNDRIP],” calling the document “a road map to reconciliation,”[174] a recommendation supported by other witnesses.[175]^, [176] In addition, he stated that a close examination of legislation would be necessary should Canada adopt UNDRIP and that there needs to be “a process for the law review and the policies.”[177]

A number of witnesses, including Chief Bellegarde, Mr. Rousseau and Ms. Blackstock, also supported the implementation of the 94 recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the work of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls.[178]

Senator Murray Sinclair, former Commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, argued that systemic discrimination and racism are embedded within Canadian laws, and that Canada needs to change “those laws that … continue to have an impact, or those laws which on the face of it do not have an intentionally negative impact but have a differential impact by virtue of practice.”[179] Regarding the judicial system currently in place, Chief Bellegarde asked for an “overhaul” to “work towards restorative justice systems instead of punitive justice systems.”[180]

In her testimony, Ms. Blackstock called on the federal government to “comply fully with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's orders” regarding Indigenous children and the inequity in funding for child welfare services.[181] In his testimony, Senator Sinclair denounced this situation, stating that “the factors that are utilized and followed in order to make a decision as to whether to take a child into care…do not include those factors that are unique to indigenous families.”[182] He also told the Committee about the discriminatory rules still present in the justice system.[183] For Senator Sinclair, the key to helping Indigenous populations, whether it is about child welfare or the justice system, is “empowering Indigenous communities” as they have the knowledge to do it better than non-indigenous agencies.[184]

3.1   NATIONAL ACTION PLAN—A WHOLE OF GOVERNMENT APPROACH

Much of the Committee’s deliberations focused on finding practical solutions that the federal government could introduce to decrease and/or eliminate systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada.

Canada has long been a leading promoter of multiculturalism, which is recognized in section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and codified in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Although these policies are significant in the promotion of a diverse Canada, some witnesses suggested that they are not sufficient in combatting racism and discrimination. Mr. Sam Erry, Associate Deputy Minister of the Inclusion, Diversity and Anti-Racism Division for the Government of Ontario, stated:

Building a diverse society and focusing on raising awareness about diversity are good and necessary things to do, but they are not sufficient to change the deeply entrenched inequities for indigenous and racialized people, and other groups. The diversity approach has failed to change the power imbalances that result in privilege for some groups and disadvantage for others.[185]

As will be discussed in the section below, the Committee heard a range of suggestions regarding a whole-of-government approach that the federal government could take to address systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada. Many witnesses advocated for a national action plan that encompasses all parts of the federal government because systemic racism and discrimination requires a systemic response.[186]

The suggestion aligns closely with a recommendation made by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) that Canada “develop and launch a new national action plan against racism.”[187] Cindy Blackstock, Executive Director of First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, supported CERD’s recommendation. She stated:

There should be an anti-racism strategy. That's something that United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination recommended to Canada in its recent review. That is an important piece.[188]

It should be noted that in 2005, the Government of Canada launched a national action plan entitled A Canada for All: Canada’s Action Plan Against Racism.[189] In the plan, the government committed to remove race-related barriers in the workplace and in the community and to consult racial and ethnic groups on the development of public policy to achieve this objective. The plan, which had a five-year funding commitment, lapsed in 2010.

Some witnesses noted that Canada’s social landscape has evolved considerably since 2005, and they suggested that a new plan would require “refreshing.”[190] Avvy Yao-Yao Go , Clinic Director of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, noted that since 2005:

…things have changed. The action plan back then may not be as relevant today. One of the issues which I think the action plan back then didn't address was Islamophobia, which I think is a very important issue for us to address today.[191]

3.1.1 Development of a National Strategy

As racism and religious discrimination affect various groups differently across Canada, many witnesses discussed the significance of the development of such a national strategy. Some of them recommended that to fully understand and address the effects of systemic racism and religious discrimination, there needs to be direct and regular consultation with those directly affected.

For example, Haseen Khan, Executive Committee Member and Treasurer of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, noted:

I think the strategy has to be developed and implemented in consultation with grassroots organizations, because they are at the forefront. They are familiar with the realities on the ground. On a day-to-day basis, they get complaints. They counsel those who have been victims of these scenarios, these serious situations.[192]

Shalini Konanur, Executive Director of the South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario, echoed this opinion. She stated:

I would just say that it is really critical that in creating these plans you have a community-based approach. You need to hear from the community. You need to hear from the people facing these issues in order to create strategies that will have some impact on those cases.[193]

Andrew P.W. Bennett, Senior Fellow with Cardus, agreed that community groups and non-government organizations should be consulted, but cautioned that a wide array of opinions should be sought. He emphasized:

If you're going to bring together [Non-Government Organizations] and community groups…there has to be a constant check on political inclination…You should always be seeking to engage broadly.[194]

In terms of the hands-on development of the strategy, Ihsaan Gardee, Executive Director of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, recommended the establishment of a specialized group within the public service to lead the development and implementation process. He suggested that an anti-racism directorate be established within the Department of Canadian Heritage and could lead in developing, implementing and monitoring a national plan.[195]

Witnesses also encouraged the government to engage with faith communities to combat religious discrimination. Don Hutchinson, author, encouraged parliamentarians to “engage openly with people of various religious beliefs, and this includes connecting with faith-based organizations in the community and those participating in the process of policy development.”[196] Julia Beazley, Director of Public Policy at the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, further suggested the establishment of “a forum for dialogue and co-operation” or a “multifaith advisory group or council.”[197] Peter Bhatti, Chairman of International Christian Voice, also argued in favour of creating an interfaith council, saying that “it needs to be about protecting interfaith harmony and other objectives where we put all the religions together, through seminars and conferences, to chill the hatred of one for the other.”[198]

3.1.2  Race Equity Lens

When devising policies and programs, it is important to understand the needs of the population served. Systemic racism occurs when government actions fail to address the needs of certain racialized groups within the population, resulting in unfair, discriminatory practices and outcomes. To expose and prevent systemic racism, a number of witnesses suggested the development of a race equity lens as a key element of a national action plan.

The race equity lens is a tool to assist the government in developing, implementing, and evaluating government programs, policies, and services.[199] Ms. Mandhane recommended that the federal government consider a tool similar to Gender-based Analysis Plus (GBA+) for race equity. GBA+ is “an analytical tool used to assess how diverse groups of women, men and gender-diverse people may experience policies, programs and initiatives.”[200] Ms. Mandhane stated:

For over 20 years, the government has required federal departments to conduct gender-based impact assessments. Our final recommendation is to require impact analysis based on race.[201]

Ayse Akinturk, Executive Committee Member of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, said that a race equity lens similar to GBA+, could “promote equity and inclusion and eliminate racial and religious barriers to employment.”[202]

The application of such a lens does not necessarily mean a targeted policy or program response but rather ensures that policy makers have the necessary information to evaluate whether policies or practices could have a discriminatory outcome. Ms. Mandhane stated that the implementation of a race equity lens would fit into Canada’s legal framework, and would be “consistent with the values of Canadians and with the Charter.”[203]

Ms. Konanur added that creating such a lens could be an “incredible starting point” for the federal government in identifying the indicators of systemic racism.[204] The lens could be used to understand how future government activities affect racialized groups and indigenous peoples, it could also be used to analyze and improve current legislation and programming that may have unintentionally racist effects.[205] For example, Ms. Go noted that had a race equity lens been placed on the [recently eliminated] conditional permanent residence regulation,[206] “it would have shown that there was a disproportionate impact on racialized women from that policy.”[207]

Tamara Thomas, Policy Researcher and Analyst for the African Canadian Legal Clinic, explained that a flexible tool like a race equity lens would be a beneficial tool to many racialized communities because, “A one-size-fits-all approach is not going to work….” She added that to fully understand how different racialized groups are affected by different government activities, the Government “need[s] to apply a racial equity lens.”[208]

Pouyan Tabasinejad, Policy Chair of the Iranian Canadian Congress, suggested that the adoption of such a lens could promote a positive change in the public service. He explained: “There needs to be a change in the mentalities and the approaches we have in government. We need to accept that systems of privilege and under-privilege are at play here, and an equity lens would definitely help dismantle and alleviate some of these issues.”[209] As such, similar to GBA+, federal employees could also be trained to apply the lens to their daily activities, with the goal of creating a federal government that is sensitive to and aware of the population it serves.

Some witnesses also recommended that the gender-based equity budgeting process be expanded to include a race-based model as well.[210] Mr. Gardee stated:

Just as the federal budget was rightly subjected to a gender-based analysis, this lens should be expanded to include a diversity, equity, and inclusion analysis. When spending decisions are tied to policy and the rationales that underpin it, they can have far more broad-reaching impacts than attempting to address social phenomena after they occur.[211]

Ms. Go,[212] Ms. Akinturk[213] and Mansoor Pirzada, President of the Muslim Association of Newfoundland and Labrador,[214] made similar suggestions with respect to the budget and a race equity lens.

3.1.3  Benchmarks and Accountability

A number of witnesses noted that to ensure that a national action plan is effective, sustainable and accountable, it must include clearly defined targets, deadlines and reporting mechanisms.[215] In the UN CERD’s recommendation that Canada establish an action plan against racism, it was further suggested that “legislation, dedicated resources, targets, and adequate monitoring and reporting mechanisms” be implemented to ensure the plan is sustainable and accountable.[216]

Similarly, Ms. Mandhane explained that in order for national strategy to produce meaningful results, it must be adequately-resourced, transparent, and sustainable from government to government:

I think what's really important in these plans is that the government set out benchmarks for how it's going to report publicly on progress against the plan, because we see a lot of plans that, quite frankly, look wonderful but without resources and without a commitment to be transparent about how you're going to measure progress against the plan, it's very hard for the public to understand the value of the plan and how we're moving forward. There needs to be a longer-term initiative.[217]

3.1.4  Intersectionality

According to Ms. Mandhane, “[M]ost racialized people experience discrimination in an intersectional way.”[218] As such, some witnesses suggested that, similar to the Ontario Plan, intersectionality should be a core component of a national strategy. Mr. Erry described the Ontario Anti-Racism Directorate’s approach:

For the directorate, it also means we fully acknowledge intersectionality. This is important, because racism is experienced differently by various racialized groups and within groups along intersectional lines, including gender identity, creed, class, sexual orientation, history of colonization, or other personal attributes.[219]

Ms. Konanur agreed that intersectionality is key to a national strategy. She cautioned:

If you don't have that type of framework, you will not have the success that you're hoping to have and the intention is to have that success. We are all intending for things to improve for people. You cannot do it if you are ignoring a specific part of a person's identity.[220]

Ms. Blackstock also discussed the significance of taking an intersectional approach, particularly for Indigenous peoples because of their “distinct historical and discriminatory relationship”[221] with the government. She supported the development of a national strategy, but added:

It's so easy sometimes to collapse people's experiences together and try to come up with general solutions… I think that we need to totally respect the distinct circumstances that different groups experience in this country…. What we want to do is respect differences by co-creating a peaceful and respectful society where diversity is welcomed.[222]

3.1.5  Cross-jurisdictional cooperation

Combatting systemic racism and religious discrimination does not fall under the jurisdiction of any single level of government. Transforming racist or biased systems and institutions and addressing deeply entrenched discrimination requires a cohesive, collaborative and cross-jurisdictional approach.

Although the focus of this study was addressing systemic racism and religious discrimination at the federal level, it was suggested repeatedly that any meaningful solution will require cooperation across all levels of government.[223]

Witnesses suggested that cooperation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments is necessary in a number of areas, including data collection,[224] education and training for students and educators,[225] and employment standards.[226]

Other witnesses, including Ms. Mandhane and Mr. Hashmi recommended that the federal government meet directly with provincial governments to discuss human rights and discrimination in Canada. Ms. Mandhane noted:

I think even bringing together all the ministers of justice or ministers responsible for human rights or ministers responsible for anti-racism to talk about common areas of concern and how to attack those across the country in a concerted evidence-based way would be a huge real mark of success for this government. As many of you know, we haven't had a federal-provincial-territorial meeting related to human rights for over 30 years. These are concrete steps through which the federal government can show a real leadership role.[227]

Mr. Hashmi agreed, and further suggested that municipalities be involved in such discussions.[228]

3.1.6  Social media

The role played by social media in diffusing hateful speech was raised by various witnesses throughout the Committee’s study. Mr. Roach mentioned that within educational institutions they “are seeing the rise of anti-Semitic graffiti, students making anti-Semitic comments or posting anti-Semitic images on their social media.”[229] Samer Majzoub, President of the Canadian Muslim Forum, raised the issue of far-right groups who are using social media to “[express] their hatred, their violent expressions openly” and deplores that “no one has really approached them.”[230]

Other witnesses stated that social media can be isolating and prevent users from encountering with those who hold different views. Ms. Chaudhry said that “people online sort of live in a social media bubble” which prevents them from seeking out “news that they do not agree with.”[231] Kevin Barlow, Chief Executive Officer of the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Executive Council, further added that “anti-social media also puts people in corners” and that consequently “people are becoming more segregated.”[232]

In order to address issues of discrimination that occur online, Ritu Barnerjee, Senior Director of the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence at the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, expressed the need to identify and implement best practices:

Examples of best practices include the use of humour and the building of empathy between speakers and recipients of hate speech to shift the conversation away from expressions of hate and de-escalate the risk of violence. Other best practices highlight the need for alternative narrative campaigns to be sustainable, to use appropriate platforms to reach the targeted audience, and to better understand the needs of a particular audience.[233]

Ms. Banerjee raised the example of Project Someone, a programming initiative overseen by the Canada Centre for Community Engagement and Prevention of Violence. This online project, described as “social media education every day” provides “tools and training for educators who want to promote discussions on and awareness of hate speech through art and multimedia platforms.”[234] Project Someone was also cited by Anver Emon, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Religion, Pluralism, and the Rule of Law at the University of Toronto, who highlighted the project’s themes of “empathy and critical thinking” but criticized it as “[perpetuating] the all too common idea that links Islam and terrorism, for the purpose of combatting radicalization.”[235]

Witnesses called on the government and Parliament to act to address this issue. Ms. Mandhane said that we must “challenge the very real hatred that we are seeing, not only in the media, but just generally, online and otherwise.”[236] Regarding those who use social media to “fuel insecurity”, Michel Juneau-Katsuya, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Northgate Group, said that:

This phenomenon must be broadly denounced by companies, professional monitoring and accreditation associations, as well as members of the public and anyone on the Internet. We must also hold to account those who have more direct access to the public. It is generalized inaction that could have serious consequences right across the country.[237]

Mr. Roach, for his part, believed in the positive influence of social media, and said: “let's embrace social media. Let's use social media as a force for good.”[238]

3.1.7  “Fake news”

Some witnesses expressed concern over the spread of “fake news” and discussed the role the government should play in combatting it. Mr. Juneau-Katsuya described the negative implications of the spread of fake news, and stated: “the era of fake news and “alternative facts” have contributed a great deal to that insecurity taking root.”[239] He added:

We're constantly bombarded with fake news, fake facts or “alternative facts” is an issue that we're facing and that we can't dismiss. Today, young people are always on social media. It takes about 15 minutes to write fake news, but it takes months to counter it.[240]

As a solution, Mr. Juneau-Katsuya noted that Canada has the “necessary laws and regulations in place,” but stronger enforcement of these policies is necessary.[241]

According to Mr. Hashmi, the spread of fake news “can have very real consequences.”[242] To decrease the spread of fake news, he made a number of suggestions regarding the role of political leaders. He suggested that political leaders have a “zero tolerance policy for any type of hate” and that they be responsible for “call[ing] it out when it happens.”[243] He added that political leaders have training for their staff and volunteers so that they “know what's appropriate and what's not, and also so they understand the importance and the power of their words.”[244] Mr. Hashmi also suggested that political leaders ought to “bring in people from different communities to come and just talk to share their perspectives.”[245]

Mr. Barlow echoed this suggestion by stating that the government has a role to play in educating the public when there is “fake news.”[246]

Frank Huang, National Secretary-General of the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, agreed that the spread of “incorrect” and “misleading” comments is problematic, particularly on social media.[247] He recommended that the government establish “special working groups” to monitor the spread of “fake information and to disseminate the true facts.”[248]

3.2 EDUCATION AND TRAINING

The Committee heard that cultural and societal changes are necessary to end systemic racism and religious discrimination and as that part of this shift, the federal government should develop a public awareness campaign to promote tolerance and diversity, as well as training programs for professionals[249] and work with the provinces to create educational programs in schools.

Mr. Khan articulated the views of many witnesses when he stated that “education and awareness are the most powerful tools to address any type of ignorance or misconception.”[250] Idris Elbakri, past president of the Manitoba Islamic Association echoed this view and stated, “Education, in addition to our existing hate laws, is our best defence, and offence, in dealing with racism and hatred.”[251]

As will be discussed in greater detail below, the Committee heard that education and training on racism and religious discrimination in Canada are required for the population at large, the federal public service, young Canadians and educators, law enforcement and the media.

3.2.1  Public Awareness and Dialogue

Several witnesses spoke of the need for greater awareness of systemic racism and religious discrimination in order to create an open dialogue and empower individuals to speak openly about it.[252] Through a public awareness campaign for the population at large, the federal government could initiate a conversation about “understanding and diversity.”[253]

Ms. Mandhane discussed the need to change the narrative regarding racism and discrimination in Canada:

At an individual institutional and leadership level, we need to counter that with our own narratives and our own views. I think we are very scared of using the word “racism” but I think that we do need to be bold and to counter those narratives…How do we bring the majority of Canadians, and not just racialized Canadians, into this conversation so that they can talk about their concerns about racism?[254]

In a written brief, B’nai Brith stated that the Committee’s study could spark a broader discussion and education campaign on religious discrimination:

The Committee can catalyze a government-supported education campaign engaging Canadian civil society groups, the media, policy institutes and faith communities, to promote understanding of the societal threat from hatred and discrimination based on religion.[255]

Mr. Hutchinson discussed the role of Parliament in promoting religious freedom in Canada. He stated:

We need to understand that we actually have great religious freedom in this country, but what's missing is the promotion component. The media's not interested in telling us good news about our freedoms. Parliament and the legislatures are in the ideal position to give greater promotion to our freedoms as parliamentarians engage with the public and with religious bodies.[256]

3.2.2  Education and Training in the Federal Public Service

Some witnesses felt the federal government could improve education and training on racism and discrimination in the federal public service. Carl Trottier, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Governance, Planning and Policy Sector at the Treasury Board Secretariat, informed the Committee that some work is being done to educate the public service on equity and race issues. He explained:

The Canada School of Public Service has a full suite of learning and development programs, including orientation training for new recruits and other courses that incorporate information on employment equity.[257]

Mr. Hashmi said that the federal government could do more to promote understanding and diversity, by providing mandatory, regular training sessions featuring discussions with members of diverse groups for management and employees.[258] Serah Gazali,

community member of Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House,[259] and Ms. Akinturk[260] offered similar suggestions.

3.2.3  Youth Programming

The Committee heard that the impact of systemic racism and religious discrimination should be taught in primary and secondary schools.[261] As well, there should be cross cultural understanding and interfaith awareness.

Although witnesses conceded that education is outside federal jurisdiction, some suggested that the federal government could provide a targeted federal funding stream to the provinces and territories to revise elementary and high school curricula to include lessons on race, religion, diversity and related topics.[262] Mr. Erry said:

We need to think about public education and awareness in a very evidence-based way and use as many channels as we can to achieve a higher level of consciousness in the country, in the province, and also a special focus in the early years. We’re waiting too late, respectfully, to have these conversations. We need to talk about this in grade one, in grade two, and so on, because there’s a lot of hate spewing in playgrounds.[263]

National Chief Perry Bellegarde of the Assembly of First Nations added that the federal government should lobby the provinces to ensure curricula includes lessons on inherent rights, treaty rights, Indigenous rights and the history of Indigenous peoples in Canada.[264]

In addition to improving education for students on cultural, racial and religious diversity, some noted the significance of training educators. Ms. Gazali recommended that “the federal government should collaborate with the provinces to ensure that this training is mandatory for all teachers, including college and university professors.”[265]

3.2.4  Law Enforcement

Witnesses stated that law enforcement and justice systems have a critical role to play in responding to hate crimes. While legislation provides important guidance to law enforcement, some witnesses suggested that basic understanding and the application of the Criminal Code provisions on hate crimes could be improved.[266]

As one solution, a number of witnesses stated that law enforcement in federal, provincial and municipal forces should receive ongoing training on cultural diversity, unbiased policing, and the investigation of hate crimes and enforcement of hate crime legislation.[267]

Shimon Fogel, Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, added that “federal government resources should be allocated to support the development of dedicated local police hate crime units.”[268] Coupled with increased training, he said these steps could lead to more consistent and robust application of hate laws.[269]

Ms. Chaudhry said that engaging the communities that are often targeted by hate crimes during the course of law enforcement training could be a useful exercise.[270] Community involvement in such training could provide an opportunity for fostering positive relationships and building trust.

3.2.5  Media

The Committee heard that the media have an important role to play in educating the public, and could play a more “thriving role” in discussing issues of diversity.[271] Some suggested that sensationalized reporting of certain groups, particularly Muslims, can distort reality and promote hate.[272]

Ms. Chaudhry noted that in particular, the media play a role in perpetuating and sustaining ideas about Muslims as violent. As a solution, she suggested that media outlets offer training sessions “so reporters can understand when they are participating in conversations that include entrenched ideas about Islam as inherently violent.”[273]

Such training could assist in preventing the spread of misinformation or “fake news.” Ms. Chaudhry added that when racist and discriminatory misinformation is presented in the media, “it is the responsibility of political leaders to really lead the nation and to call out Islamophobia or systemic racism when they see it and when they hear it.”[274]

3.2.6  Cultural Competency Training

Senator Murray Sinclair suggested that cultural competency training could be a useful form of training to offer. It could combat systemic racism and discrimination that may be embedded or perceived to be embedded within a number of professions, including social workers, teachers, policy makers, public servants, lawyers, judges and health professionals. Senator Sinclair advocated for this form of training as it gives professionals the opportunity to “immerse themselves in the culture,” and ultimately learn from and connect with other cultures.[275]

Muainudin Ahmed, Director of the Muslim Food Bank and Community Services Society, also suggested cultural competency training be provided for professionals who work with immigrants and refugees.[276]

3.3   COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Witnesses also called on the government to ensure that dialogue aimed at addressing systemic racism and religious discrimination involves members of the communities concerned. The government’s role, according to Mr. Bennett, should be to “act as a facilitator within communities.”[277] He added that government should also encourage “greater public expressions of religious faith and different beliefs so that we can hear one another and talk to one another again.”[278] For Raheel Raza, President of the Council for Muslims Facing Tomorrow, the priority should be to empower communities to bring about change within themselves, particularly for the Muslim community.[279]

A number of witnesses argued in favour of additional funding from Canadian Heritage. Ms. Ghasemi called for programs that support “initiatives of diverse community organizations dedicated to improving interfaith and intercultural understanding.”[280] Ms. Go recalled funding her organization received from Canadian Heritage in the past to do community consultation and said that “more funding of that nature should be given out.”[281] In their brief, Frog Hollow Neighbourhood House also called for funding to support “community-based events intended to convene diverse groups of newcomers, First Nations, and other Canadians at community-organizations.”[282]

Other witnesses made recommendations regarding interfaith and intercommunity dialogue. The role that government can play in encouraging conversation and exchange between communities was presented by Mr. Elbakri:

We need to empower our communities to continue the work they do, to partner with one another and to work with school divisions, law enforcement, and social services to create the awareness and understanding needed to support the victims of hatred and racism. Government can also play an important role in creating a better and deeper understanding of the phenomenon of racism and discrimination as they re-emerge in different forms and target different victims.[283]

Other witnesses, such as Ms. Mandhane[284] and Laurence Worthen, Executive Director of the Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada,[285] also underlined the importance of involving communities to exchange and learn from each other and the positive role this can have on society as a whole. When members are involved in intercommunity dialogue, “they are less likely to maintain prejudices, biases, and stereotypes against those groups,”[286] explained Ms. Chaudhry. Ms. Thomas added that working directly with the communities means more efficient communication and that“putting in the effort to try to identify who the community leaders are, where these people are going, how they are spending their time, and then reaching out to those cultural hubs, is one of the best ways to communicate information.”[287]

In her testimony, Ms. Ghasemi encouraged the government to increase funding for already existing programmes which “support the initiatives of diverse community organizations dedicated to improving interfaith and intercultural understanding, and target these programs at impacted groups.”[288]

3.4   IMPROVING DATA COLLECTION IN FEDERAL SERVICES AND IN THE FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE

Witnesses also proposed actions that government departments could take to address issues related to systemic discrimination. Suggestions included the collection of disaggregated data across the federal public service “in a way that enables analysis of the intersecting effects of ethno-racial background with gender identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, immigration status, age, and (dis)ability,”[289] as explained by the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic in its brief.[290] In her testimony, Ms. Thomas went further, proposing that such data collection and analysis should be all‑encompassing and mandatory:

It is impossible to solve a problem when you are unable to identify where the issue lies, or its gravity. This data collection must be mandatory across all federal and provincial ministries, agencies, and boards. The federal government needs to work with the provinces and territories, particularly those with high concentrations of African-Canadian and other racialized people, to develop a consistent data collection strategy. The federal government also needs to work with community groups to collect this data directly from the communities themselves.[291]

In his testimony, Mr. Trottier mentioned that his department is responsible for monitoring and collecting data on employment equity in the public service for “[a]ll four employment equity designated groups, meaning women, aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities.”[292]

The importance of collecting disaggregated data was stressed by Ms. Konanur, who said:

The truth is that disaggregated data, particularly around such things as race, is specific…There is an importance to being able to collect data at that level of specificity, because it allows you then to measure what is actually happening.[293]

David Matas, senior legal counsel for B’nai Brith Canada, further proposed that non-government organizations collect information about non-criminal radicalism, and that government set standards for consistency and support organizations in this endeavour.[294] Yavar Hameed, barrister and solicitor at the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association, encouraged the government to create a database for complaints related to discrimination in order to better identify what is occurring and how to address those situations.[295]

The Committee heard from many witnesses about the various aspects of systemic racism and religious discrimination in Canada. While witnesses noted the significant achievements made in terms of equality and diversity, some acknowledged that Canada is not perfect and can do better.

Systemic racism and religious discrimination affect Canadians in different ways. For a country as diverse as Canada, it became apparent that there cannot be a one-size-fits-all solution to these issues. Delivering credibly on combatting racism and religious discrimination requires not only leadership, but meaningful cooperation and comprehensive action.

The Committee’s recommendations focus on the federal government’s role in addressing these issues. However, the Committee recognizes that to adequately address systemic racism and religious discrimination, all levels of government ought to be involved.