Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 20 - Evidence - February 17, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study current issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities (topic: social inclusion and cohesion).
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. I call the meeting to order.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
My name is Kelvin Ogilvie. I am the deputy chair of the committee, and I will chair the meeting today.
Before introducing our senators and welcoming our guests, I want to note that today we have one panel. We will hear from two witnesses, and the meeting will end no later than 12:30. Is that agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Before officially welcoming our guests, I want my colleagues to introduce themselves. I will start on my right.
Senator Martin: Good morning. I am Yonah Martin from Vancouver, British Columbia.
Senator Braley: I am David Braley from Ontario.
Senator Seidman: I am Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Eaton: I am Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
Senator Callbeck: I am Catherine Callbeck, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Merchant: Hello. I am Pana Merchant, senator from Regina, Saskatchewan.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. We have two panelists this morning, as you can see. We have appearing as an individual Dr. Bramadat, who will speak to us about religious minorities. He is Director of the Centre for Studies in Religion and Society at the University of Victoria. Also appearing as an individual is Kristopher Wells, Researcher, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services at the University of Alberta. Welcome to the meeting.
I will ask Dr. Bramadat to begin with his presentation, followed by Mr. Wells, and then we will open the committee for questions from the committee members.
Paul Bramadat, Director, Centre for Studies in Religion and Society, University of Victoria, as an individual: Good morning. It is lovely to be here, although I expected colder weather coming from Victoria.
Senator Cordy: You missed it.
Mr. Bramadat: I hear. This feels more like Vancouver than Ottawa.
I will use my formal remarks this morning to share some good news, some bad news and some comments about the place of secularism in the debates surrounding religious minorities in Canada.
As most of us know, many of the institutions and policies that address religion in Canada emerged to quell conflicts between Protestants and Catholics. While these inventions have done a good job of keeping the peace between the two solitudes, by the 1960s, it became clear that we would need some new institutions and new policies for the post-colonial multicultural world that was emerging.
We invented new policies. Among them, of course, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Multiculturalism Act are probably the most significant, and we layered these policies on top of the older structures.
However, the policies, laws and ethos that emerged to manage religious pluralism in the 1960s did not simply replace the 19th century implicitly Christian policies, values and assumptions about religion. Indeed, the situation is messy. Sometimes the relatively progressive general principles of reasonable accommodation, the Charter or various human rights codes shape the outcome of public debates. Sometimes the outcome is determined by 19th century assumptions or often xenophobic public opinions about relative newcomers and religious minorities.
Today, of course, we hear echoes of both these traditional and recent perspectives in the debates on polygamy, same-sex marriage and the appropriate way the state should respond to kirpans, hijabs or gay-positive teaching materials in schools.
Sometimes, these perspectives lead to scenarios that must seem bizarre to some religious minorities, such as the frequent references to the separation of church and state in the debate over the same-sex marriage question on the one hand and frequent references to the constitutional guarantees for publicly funded Roman Catholic separate schools on the other.
On some issues, we as a society claim to be adamantly secular and on other issues, we privilege one particular religious group over all others and over the principle of the separation of church and state.
The good news is that compared to many other Western liberal democracies, Canada is performing well. Legal and political mechanisms such as the Charter, human rights codes, employment legislation and the Criminal Code exist for religious minorities to seek redress for discrimination. Federal bodies such as Citizenship and Immigration Canada and a variety of provincial ministries and programs exist to provide funding and other forms of support for a number of anti- racist and pro-inclusion initiatives that promote the social and cultural inclusion of minority religious communities. Even better than these structural supports, there is, I would say, a political culture and a widespread, if not unconditional, ethos in Canada that promotes inclusion and diversity.
There is bad news too, of course. Many Canadians take pride in the formal structures we have created to promote cultural diversity, but these structures are not enough. They cannot stop one student from hurling anti-Jewish, anti- Muslim or anti-Sikh insults at another. Our policies and laws, by themselves, do not make it easy for someone to lodge a complaint or talk to a neighbour. As such, we must be ever vigilant about protecting and perhaps enhancing both these structures as well as the broader, and I think deeper, ground-level form of multiculturalism in Canada.
What broader issues are at stake here? It is worthwhile to remember that the debates in Canada around major issues such as national security, multiculturalism, immigration and accommodation, as well as those debates around seemingly minor issues such as residential zoning, sports regulations and tax policies reflect controversies taking place, not only of course in Canada, but in every other Western liberal democracy about the future of secularism and the place that the religious claims of minorities ought to have in supposedly secular societies.
Recently, Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor popularized the tension between open versus closed secularism. Although there are a great many forms of secularism throughout the West, when most people use the term "closed secularism," they refer to a society in which important segments of the public sphere are framed as off-limits to religiously identifiable citizens and religiously rooted public claims.
It is an article of faith among many Canadians that people leave their religious identities at the door when they enter city hall, the courtroom, a classroom, Parliament and other public spaces. In these places, we say they should function simply as citizens, not as religious citizens, and they should translate their religious motivations into secular terms that can be understood by all other citizens, in theory.
Closed secularism sounds like a good way to keep the tribalism, misogyny and violence often associated with religion out of the public arena. Moreover, in theory, it protects the rights won by women, won by religion and won by gays and lesbians, among others.
I appreciate these concerns personally. However, for those religious minorities who cannot, or will not, conceive of themselves as anything but religious citizens, an explicitly or implicitly closed secularism conveys the message that Canada does not welcome them as they are.
One new way forward is to adopt, and perhaps to enhance, open secularism; to aim for a society in which we are guided by the much-valued Charter principles but in which we strive to develop laws, policies and a broader ethos in which religious claims and identities are welcomed in virtually all parts of our society. Open secularism will not be easy, but the current situation is contentious, litigious and confusing; it is also not easy.
This is not a call for relativism. As a society, we might decide still to exclude the kirpan from certain places and we might decide still that judges must remove obvious signs of religious identification. Such decisions can be made and conveyed in terms of practical concerns and Charter principles.
In an open secular society, one can and must say no to religious groups from time to time, but much depends on the way one says no. In the current climate, in some places in Canada, the "no" is often delivered in a dismissive and humiliating way. Equally problematic is the fact that the "no" is delivered often uncritically, as though our Charter principles were value-free dictates written in stone rather than a laudable but imperfect set of human inventions reflecting the values and interests of specific groups at specific times.
If we were to adopt a more open form of secularism, perhaps we could overcome the current and rather confusing situation of today, in which we say with some of our policies and practices that we welcome religious minorities, and with other policies and practices that we do not; or that we welcome religious people only when they adopt a secular public persona. The current arrangement, it seems to me, alienates members of these minorities and also robs the public sphere of the insights they might contribute.
Those are my formal remarks, and I thank you for inviting me to address this panel. I look forward to fruitful conversations.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I now invite Mr. Wells to present.
Kristopher Wells, Researcher, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation and opportunity to speak with you today. I will focus my brief introductory remarks on the importance of acknowledging diversity and difference in relation to sexual minorities and the issue of social inclusion and social cohesion.
Let me begin by briefly defining the concept of sexual minorities. The term emanates from contemporary research, law and legislation and is increasingly understood as an umbrella category for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, and queer identities; those identities other than heterosexual.
In part, this notion of sexual minorities has evolved from landmark judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada, which include Egan in 1995 and Vriend in 1998. In Egan, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled sexual orientation was an analogous ground to other characteristics identified in section 15(1) of the Charter, which we commonly refer to as the equality provisions of the Charter.
In Vriend, the Supreme Court read sexual orientation into Alberta's human rights statute. Importantly, Vriend also reaffirmed the equality rights of lesbians and gays across Canada.
Traditionally, sexual minorities have not been included in discussions of multiculturalism and, by extension, definitions of cultural diversity. Until relatively recent history, sexual minorities have been seen as fugitives or outcasts in our society. These identities were never to be named in polite company. We only need to look back some 40 years to realize that before 1969, gays and lesbians were considered to be criminals and social degenerates in this country.
While the pace of equality has evolved rapidly since, which includes the legalization of same-sex marriage in Canada, discrimination towards sexual minorities is still frequent and pronounced in our society. In Canada, the latest report from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics identifies that lesbians, gays and bisexuals are amongst the top three most targeted groups in Canada for hate and bias crimes. Hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation were also identified as the most violent in nature of all those reported. It is also important to note that approximately only one in ten hate crimes are ever reported to law enforcement.
In kindergarten-to-Grade-12 schools, where my research frequently occurs, it has often been said that homophobic language and bullying is endemic and does not target only sexual minority youth but any youth who are perceived to be different. In relation to hate crimes, research indicates that the number one perpetrators of hate crimes in Canada are youth, and the number one victims of hate crimes in Canada are also youth. North American research also identifies that the profile of a gay basher is a white male between the ages of 15 and 25.
Research and experience tells us that one of the best ways to reduce prejudice is simply by getting to know someone who is different. The question for us to consider is, how do we prompt these meaningful experiences with diversity and difference in our major cities and particularly in our rural communities?
In my work with the Edmonton Police Service, we have begun to foster this dialogue by creating a series of community liaison committees, which are composed of a variety of different minority groups including the Chinese, Aboriginal, Black, Jewish, Indo-Canadian, Muslim, African Canadian and sexual minority communities. These committees all have a senior member of the Edmonton Police Services assigned to them, and the elected community chairs of these committees meet collectively four times a year to compose the Chief's Community Advisory Council. This council meets directly with the Chief of Police and senior members of the Edmonton Police Service, and provides a forum for minority communities to have their needs and concerns expressed to the highest levels of the police service. The operational belief is that all Edmontonians are only as safe as their most vulnerable citizens, namely their minority communities.
What we have learned from these diverse communities sitting around the table is that the needs of the sexual minority community, which include the need to feel safe and the need for a sense of belonging, acceptance and connectedness to the larger community, are no different than other minority communities. The difference is that, unlike most other minority communities, the sexual minority community is an invisible minority, which means that one cannot readily identify a person as belonging to this community by simply looking at them or speaking with them. Their visibility is often tied directly to feelings of safety.
For example, sexual minority youth often find themselves in a position of double jeopardy, whereby to access services and supports, they have to make their identities visible and, in doing so, place themselves at increased risk for victimization. As a result of this dilemma, many individuals remain silent, invisible and unable to access the important community supports and services they need. This dilemma also applies to sexual minority seniors.
Another important difference relates to how sexual minorities exist within all faith-based, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and racialized communities in the world. Once again, the visibility of these individuals is tied to issues of safety and a sense of belongingness and acceptance.
For example, some ethnic, cultural or faith-based communities may be openly hostile to sexual minorities. As a result, individuals within that community may remain hidden, and often isolated and disconnected. The common response is that, we do not have any lesbian or gay people in our community; therefore, we do not need to address this issue.
That is one comment I frequently hear from school principals.
Sexual minority individuals often have to navigate three different worlds. For example, if they are Aboriginal and gay, which is often referred to as "two-spirited," they may not be accepted by the dominant society because of systemic racism and homophobia, and they also may not be accepted by their Aboriginal community due to experiences of colonization and prejudices against sexual minorities.
Then, when they turn to the sexual minority community, they also might find they are not accepted, as many members of this community have also internalized dominant stereotypes and prejudicial attitudes towards Aboriginal people. Ultimately, these individuals may be caught between life worlds, without any sense of belonging, acceptance or community. In essence, there is no safe haven or refuge for them, making these individuals extremely vulnerable.
What are the priorities for social inclusion for sexual minorities? First, it is critical that we talk about the recognition of sexual minorities as a distinct minority group, as we do with cultural, linguistic, religious or ethnic communities. The key focus should be on inclusion and integration in all federal and civic programs and policies that are designed to support minorities. Too often, because sexual minorities are an invisible minority, they are not readily included in these programs or services.
We also should have a recognition and understanding of the distinct risk factors and experiences of transgender and transsexual individuals within the sexual minority community. For example, Bill C-389 is scheduled to come before the Senate, and that bill seeks to include gender identity and expression in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the hate provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Ultimately, people need to see themselves included in law and legislation. This inclusion is particularly important for the transgender and transsexual community, which research indicates are amongst the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in our society.
We also need to consider support for community engagement and infrastructure. For example, community pride centres, pride parades and festivals are critical to instil a sense of belonging, connectedness and civic pride. Pride parades are far more than an economic force for municipalities; they are also vital in helping to build a sense of community attachment and larger civic engagement.
Critically, there is a need to move beyond tolerance as well. Tolerance is an often used yet incredibly power-laden concept. To tolerate someone means that I choose to put up with them and invite them to the table without having to interrogate any of my own values or beliefs. Tolerance is a shallow form of inclusion.
As a truly inclusive, multicultural and pluralistic society, we need to move beyond tolerance to acceptance, appreciation and hopefully to the celebration of diversity and difference.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to our conversation.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Obviously, together you have put before us issues that are current, have considerable history and will have importance in the long run. I now open the floor for questions from my colleagues. I will start with Senator Eaton.
Senator Eaton: Thank you both: very fascinating. You raise a lot of interesting topics for discussion.
May I start with you, Mr. Bramadat? There has been a bit of discussion, we all edge around it, about gender equality vis-à-vis religious freedoms. You were talking about how we have "closed" and "open" secularism. I am thinking of Steven Blaney's private member's bill now before the House of Commons, which requires uncover one's face to vote. Can you comment on that bill? What do you think of it?
Mr. Bramadat: That is a good question. It is important to interrogate that bill and ask ourselves why we are focusing on this one particularly small group of women who cover their faces. We are talking about in Montreal and elsewhere.
Senator Eaton: Is it the number that counts, or the principle?
Mr. Bramadat: Let us look at the principle, because we have other ways people can vote without showing their faces. We have ways people can vote if they are living in Indonesia and they happen to be Canadian citizens; we do not ask them to show up here and show their faces. With respect to that particular class of Canadians, if you will, who are living abroad and are able to vote in our elections, why is it that no one is advancing a bill suggesting they should not be able to participate in that part of Canadian society, but this particular group of veiled Muslim women are seen as a threat? That observation is the first we ought to consider.
The second observation to consider is whether there might be other Islamically appropriate ways of responding to that situation. For example, many Muslims I know who are Orthodox Muslims, for instance, say, I have no problem showing my face to vote; I only need to show it to a woman and not to a man.
It is not all that complicated to see how that can be accomplished in a practical sense. Even if this bill does pass, when a Muslim woman whose veil covers her whole face rather than only her hair comes in to vote, the woman can step aside, go behind a screen, show her face and confirm she is who she says she is, and she is good to vote. Most Muslim women will accept that solution, as far as I am aware.
Senator Eaton: That is a practical solution. I understand what you mean.
As a frequent flyer, I would feel uncomfortable going through security behind someone who did not have to take off their hijab or burqa, because anyone can be underneath. Do you feel the same way, or do you think there is another form of accommodation there?
Mr. Bramadat: I have two observations. First, can we solve that problem the same way we would solve the voting problem? Again, we are talking about a small number of women.
Let us say we take the woman aside to the screening room and simply ask her to show her face to a female. There is a way of confirming that she is who her ticket says she is.
Let us say we could not solve the issue that way and we had to take her word that she is the person her ticket says she is. Would I feel more uncomfortable around her than others: not necessarily.
Senator Eaton: I would not feel uncomfortable standing or sitting next to her if we were not boarding an aircraft. I am made to take off my shoes, my necklaces, my belt and my jacket if I have something underneath, but someone else can cover themselves and walk through under the pretence, in some cases, of a religious principle.
Mr. Bramadat: She still needs to walk through the screening mechanisms, so if she has anything metal, she will be stopped and frisked as usual. Why would we assume that when she is boarding a plane, she is any more likely to be armed than the fellow sitting next to you in an Armani suit? He has had to take off his shoes and belt and you can see his face, yes, but that Muslim woman in the full covering has walked through the same screening system that he has walked through.
Senator Eaton: Do you think that people immigrating to this country, where we applaud gender equity — as a woman, I sometimes feel that is not gender equity. Why are people coming to this country that do not want to — I sound like a terrible old bigot. If I emigrated to Saudi Arabia, obviously I could not walk around dressed this way. I would not be allowed to leave the plane this way, and I would accept those rules.
I am always surprised when people come to this country and say, I do not want to show my face to vote, or I want to wear a hijab when I drive a car even though my peripheral vision may be somewhat compromised. I am surprised that we do not say to people, this is what we stand for in this country.
How far do we go?
Mr. Bramadat: How far do we go in accommodating the religious convictions of others?
Senator Eaton: Yes.
Mr. Bramadat: I think we ought to go pretty far. We have to ask ourselves in exactly what way is that woman with the hijab compromising your freedom and dignity? There are a number of other situations in Canadian society where women's equality is not validated from top to bottom, through the Catholic Church, for example.
Senator Eaton: I disagree. I am Catholic, and I am comfortable with the Catholic Church.
Mr. Bramadat: Right, but you are also comfortable with the structure within the Catholic Church that states, women have distinct roles and they are not allowed to be priests.
Senator Eaton: Yes: I can have children and you cannot. I accept that. We have gender differences, you and I.
Mr. Bramadat: That is right. Gender differences about you being able to have children and me not are hard-wired into us. However, some hierarchy saying, you cannot be a leader and I can, is not hard-wired into us.
As a Catholic, you accept that particular gender difference, and it is a legitimate form of diversity within Canadian society. You are not saying we should kick out the Catholics or insist they change these things.
I am suggesting only that it is important for us to ask ourselves why this particular kind of clothing amongst this small number of people so upsets us. In some cases, perhaps it reflects a certain kind of gender inequality, but in other cases, it reflects simply a different value system around what proper female modesty ought to look like.
Senator Eaton: You are totally right. However, I find it offensive to see a man with two women fully veiled walking behind him and being treated badly; that is all. We corroborate that difference in what we do in this country by not questioning it. You are right, but you are much more tolerant than I am.
Mr. Wells, my best friend is gay and my children have gay friends — or gay husbands, as they call them. I do not recognize any of the things you are talking about. Are they only well-adjusted abnormal gay men?
Mr. Wells: There is not a singularity of experience. We are talking about a diverse community. I think your example speaks to how far we have come in society and how we have sped up the process of equality. What we have seen in particular for youth is there is much more of a commonality. We see more positive representation of gays and lesbians on television. It becomes more of our social vernacular.
However, for many, there are still distinct challenges, particularly if they are from outside an urban centre where there are now more supports; but if they are a gay or lesbian youth or youth who is questioning their sexuality and they are in my home province, in rural Alberta, it can be difficult.
There is always the presumption of heterosexuality. As soon as one is born, there is this belief that one is heterosexual; otherwise no one would ever need to come out and declare themselves. Right away, we see a privileging of one particular identity over others. That challenge of coming out depends on the environment, the family environment, how open or inclusive they are as well, the experience that young people have had with other people; as I said, getting to know someone who is different. If people know other gays or lesbians, chances are those people will become more accepting and inclusive of them.
Senator Eaton: You talk about wanting to become a distinct group. If they want to be accepted like everyone else, how can they do that if they want to become a distinct group?
Mr. Wells: It is similar to what creates a cultural group or a cultural minority, in that sense. There are often common beliefs. There is a common affiliation. That is why I mentioned that having a community pride centre in many cities is important. The centre is a common space to come together in. What is different is that this group is not taught its history in classrooms. When they are being discriminated against in their school, let us say they are being called names in homophobic language, sometimes they cannot go back to their family for their family to say, that happened to me, and here is how I dealt with it, so they can positively reframe that experience.
For some of these youth, for example, their families may be a source of discrimination. This is why finding other members of a community who have gone through a similar experience becomes so important.
In Edmonton we are working with our Big Brothers Big Sisters organizations to create what we call a queer-to-queer mentoring program. We use that word "queer" because it is a word that many young persons are using.
Senator Eaton: It seems pejorative.
Mr. Wells: It does, indeed. It was the word that you could never utter aloud. For a certain generation, it was seen as the worst thing you could call someone. They have reclaimed that language, in a sense. If we take that word back, now what are you going to call us? However, it also has a unique history.
Senator Eaton: You call him or her a human being.
Mr. Wells: Ideally, it is about a process of humanization; seeing the person for themselves and what they bring to our society or to our relationships.
Senator Eaton: Sexuality should have nothing to do with your identity.
Mr. Wells: It is interesting. Some people say we are moving to a place where it is no longer the defining part of your identity.
Senator Eaton: You should be a person.
Mr. Wells: It is the same question with gender. Some people would say that my gender is a unique kind of experience that makes me different from, let us say, males in society, and I should be conscious of being a woman in this society; that is part of my identity. It is not all of my identity, but it is a significant part.
Senator Merchant: Welcome to both of you. It is enlightening. We are now talking here about religious minorities. Because of our change in immigration and the rapidity with which we see different faces, different cultures and different appearances, sometimes we lose sight of the fact that these minorities are small minorities. Can you tell us, first, Mr. Bramadat, how big is the group we are talking about when we talk about religious minorities in Canadian society, as compared to the Judeo-Christian component with which we are familiar and comfortable?
Mr. Bramadat: I can give you estimates. In the Canadian census we only ask questions about religious identities every ten years. The last statistics we have are 2001 statistics. If we track the trends for several decades, the last statistics we have about Muslims are that there are 570,000. My guess is that today there are somewhere between 700,000 and 800,000 Muslims. Hindus and Sikh are around the same number. We have a disproportionate number of Sikhs here, as compared to in India.
Senator Merchant: I want to interrupt. Can you give it to us in percentages? Are you able to? If you cannot, that is all right.
Mr. Bramadat: About 2 per cent to 3 per cent are Muslims in Canada; 800,000 out of 32 million. Is someone better at math than I am?
The Jewish community is about 1 per cent and has been about 1 per cent. It has grown slightly in the last decade or so. It is about 1 per cent. It is maybe 350,000 or 360,000. The Hindu and Sikh communities are about 1 per cent, maybe a little more now. They are probably in the 500,000 range, so say 1.5 per cent.
The Buddhist community is about the same, maybe a tiny bit less.
The First Nations community, it is hard to know where one would slot such people in the religious map, but there is a real growth in people who describe themselves as traditional spiritualists rather than as some kind of Christian. That cohort within the Aboriginal world is growing, so maybe 1 per cent there as well.
We also have to be mindful that within the Christian cohort there are minorities as well. There are Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and certain evangelicals who think of themselves as religious minorities within Canada, which is to say that they think of central Canada as being controlled by Catholics, Anglicans and United Church people. They see themselves on the periphery of those worlds.
By 2017, we are looking at reaching about 10 per cent of non-Christian folks. Also growing rapidly is the number of people who describe themselves as having no religion, which does not mean that they are atheists. That is a different category, which is not growing all that fast, but the people who no longer find themselves comfortable within any particular denominational institutional structure — and it depends which study we look at — is about 15 per cent. That group is larger than the whole other non-Christian, non-Jewish category combined.
Senator Merchant: I have notes here from the Library of Parliament. They credit all this information to you. That is why I asked you. They say that you have noted that between 1991 and 2001, the number of Canadians who identify themselves as Muslim increased by 129 per cent; Hindu, 89 per cent; Buddhists, 84 per cent; Sikhs, 89 per cent; and Jews, 4 per cent. Because of immigration, these people are becoming much more numerous than people are used to.
Mr. Bramadat: Yes.
Senator Merchant: Do you find there is a demographic that accepts new people? Is it more difficult for those of us who are a little bit older to accept newcomers? Is it easier for youth? Our hope is with the young people. Can you comment?
Mr. Bramadat: In the three or five major urban centres in Canada, especially Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, but maybe also Calgary, Edmonton and Winnipeg, there is an increasing acceptance, especially among the youth. When I walk the streets of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, the number of mixed race and, at least visually perhaps, mixed religious couples in their 20s or late teens is, to me, heartening. When we look at opinion surveys about the comfort one might feel with one's sister, daughter or son marrying someone who is not like themselves, that statistic is skewed by age. Many people in their 30s and 40s have a much higher level of tolerance in that area, so there is good news on that front.
Senator Merchant: Sometimes we see opinion surveys that might say that 82 per cent of Canadians accept people of other faiths, but I am never sure what the questions in the survey are. You talked about acceptance and tolerance. I do not know sometimes whether that statistic means that 82 per cent of Canadians would tolerate someone from another religion or race, or whether they would accept them in the same high numbers.
Mr. Bramadat: Some people say tolerance is a stepping stone to acceptance. One needs at least that, it seems to me, to call a society civilized. Then one wants to go further and aim for a deeper kind of acceptance, both for sexual minorities as well as religious minorities.
Maybe I am an optimist, but it feels to me that acceptance is coming, slowly and unevenly. We know there are places in the country where, for many political reasons, there is resistance to the growth of these communities, especially the Muslim community. The Muslim and Sikh communities receive all the attention, unfortunately, but that is the political reality. There are places in the country where there is less comfort around that question, but when we compare Canada to other major liberal western democracies, we are skewed way out on the left in terms of the acceptance of ethnic, religious and racial diversities: in terms of whether we would like an "X" person to live next to us; or whether we would like an "X" person to marry our son or daughter. If we compare the statistics in Canada with many other countries, we are significantly unlike them.
Senator Merchant: There is a phenomenon people sometimes fear, especially with Muslims. Talking now about newcomers to this country, beyond the first generation, there is a fear of the radicalization of Muslim youth. What is that all about?
Mr. Bramadat: Why is there a fear or is the fear real?
Senator Merchant: Why does radicalization sometimes happen with the second generation and not the first generation of newcomers?
Mr. Bramadat: The traditional narrative of the newcomer was, and this is a narrative probably many of us around the table can tell of ourselves or our parents: that they come from country "X"; they make certain sacrifices, perhaps where they were doctors and lawyers and they become taxi drivers or social workers; and their kids become accountants, doctors and lawyers. They make these one-generation sacrifices and their kids move out to nice homes and drive nice cars.
There is evidence that the narrative is breaking down. When we look at why it is breaking down, and among whom, it seems to be that racialization is the principal vector of the breakdown. It is still probably the case that an Italian or Dutch immigrant is likely to have a jarring landing in Canada, but they and their kids will likely build themselves up. However, someone coming from a war-torn country in Africa or certain other parts of the world may suffer other kinds of discrimination — racial or religious discrimination, according to their credentials — so the anxiety is that the sort of traditional immigrant narrative that many of us either know or know about is breaking down.
Some people say that radicalization occurs among communities where some of the stresses of that broken-down narrative are felt the most. Within the Muslim community, many people have been surprised. These people are second generation in their 20s, often, and they come from middle-class homes in Burlington, Brampton or wherever. People are scratching their heads: what is going on? The reality is that they are living in a different world from many of us.
I do not want to emphasize this point too much, but the difference in the youth generation's use of social media and the Internet in general is categorical; it is not a difference by degree. It is a categorical difference, so they can grow up in a relatively comfortable middle-class environment and yet they can feel an alliance to things happening and struggles occurring 5,000 or 10,000 kilometres away. That is because they inhabit those cultures imaginatively, in a way that many of us cannot imagine that easily.
I use Internet, I am comfortable there, but I do not see it as a place. I see it as a tool to communicate with my friends. For many people, it is a kind of a place. That is why people are always shocked when this kind of radicalization occurs among people who, on the surface, appear to be totally integrated: what is the problem with so-and-so? What is happening when so-and-so is not at school or is not in any of the normal contexts in which we say that he or she is integrated?
They go to this other place, this cyber-culture. In that culture, there are not the kinds of traditional boundaries that we recognize. There is not the hockey coach to say "calm down"; there is not the teacher; there is not the imam who can counsel some moderation. All bets are off and that is where much of this anxiety comes from.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here this morning. It is interesting. When we think of inclusion of minorities, I think we all tend to think of racial minorities, women and Aboriginals. It is good to have a discussion this morning on sexual minorities and religious minorities.
Dr. Bramadat, I was interested in your comments. Religious wars have been going on forever and ever, and never have stopped. One of your suggestions is to enhance open secularism. Can you explain specifically how you use the term "open secularism" and how you think it would be beneficial for everyone to adopt that concept?
Mr. Bramadat: The concept is always used in its juxtaposition with closed secularism, which most of us have an easier time grasping because it is easier to say we will exclude religion languages or identities from the courtroom or city hall or from places A, B or C.
Open secularism is more complicated. In some sense, one can say we are already adopting that concept in Canada. We are negotiating these things piece by piece; but the concept itself is new enough that we need more conversation around it. I can give you illustrations of what I mean. I will think about a couple of different social contexts.
One is education. The provincial policies around education about religion are a patchwork set of policies across the country. Only Quebec has this one policy where they require of their students that they have some kind of basic knowledge about the world religions. That policy is an unusual thing.
Quebec is so unusual with regard to the question of religious minorities. It is the place where so many difficult, contentious things occur, but it is the place that has spent the most amount of time asking how can we, as a society, ensure that our kids going through schools can engage the religious diversity they see around them, or at least have a chance to engage in the diversity they see around them.
As many of you know, Quebec instituted in 2008 a course on ethics and religious culture, which is now mandatory. Other provinces are nowhere near as thoughtful on this topic as Quebec is. That course is an illustration of open secularism because Quebec has many concerns about religious diversity in the public arena, especially in the official context of the public arena; yet it is the province, the culture, the nation, if you will, that has adopted the most interesting, rigorous, experimental approach to dealing with what I would call the real problem of religious illiteracy, and it is a real problem.
Who decided that my eight-year-old son, by the time he reaches grade 12, will know nothing about Sikhism, Islam, Hinduism or Christianity? Who decided that for my family? It was not me. It was the minister of education who decided that it is important for my son to know the capital of Prince Edward Island, which it is important for him to know — I knew you were from there, Senator Callbeck — but is it necessarily more important for him to know that, as a kid from Victoria, than to know a little bit about Sikhism, Islam, Judaism or Christianity? Someone has made that decision for him.
Quebec has made this interesting decision as a society to address this question of religious illiteracy. It is in the early years — it started in 2008 — so it is hard to tell how it is going and what the real effects will be on Quebec society. I would say that is an example of open secularism. They have not said no religion in their schools — at least, no religion entirely in their schools.
It would be a great idea if other provinces tried to learn from the Quebec experience with regard to how to educate kids about religion; to learn what works and what does not work.
Hospitals are another important site of these negotiations. In that area, there is good news. Hospitals are increasingly open to being sensitive to the religious needs of their patients. I think about, for example, hospice and palliative care. We know a person is dying; that person will not get better. Are there ways in which the hospice doctors and nurses can accommodate religious needs to give a good death to this person?
Hospices in Canada are more and more open to this need. I will give you an example. When orthodox Hindus die, they want to be on the floor of the room, not on a bed. There are many reasons for that need; we can probably imagine what they are, in terms of being closer to the earth when they die. It is tricky for a nurse or doctor to examine, treat or deal with the various problems of a dying person on a floor. Some Hindus may also want to drink water from the Ganges River. Again, if one is a doctor or nurse and does not want their patient to suffer, yet they are drinking probably the most polluted water on the face of the earth, it is a challenge for to find a way to do that. In fact, the patient might have another three weeks of dying from cancer as well as diarrhea.
Hospitals and hospices are increasingly sensitive to ways that might work. I would say that is a kind of open secularism. These institutions are state funded; yet we have a slight opening.
I call it only a slight opening because in some cases it is not so open, but in other cases it is. We have a slight opening to the notion that perhaps there are ways of adjusting and accommodating. For years we have been offering kosher food and halal food to people in hospital. In a sense, that has worked.
I do not want to go into too many court cases, but courts are another situation in which we see an effort to balance the needs of the community and the needs of the individuals. In the Multani case around the kirpan in schools, the court came to a decision allowing the kirpan to be in schools but it has to be bound so tightly, underneath the boy's clothes, that it is hard to be used in an immediate sense of rage.
Those are examples — the education system, the health system and the legal system — but most of these things are worked out interpersonally between neighbours, co-workers or teacher and students. Most of these things never see a human rights tribunal, never see a courtroom, and that situation is as it should be. How can we contribute to Canadian discourse or public life such that it is easier for those ordinary face-to-face human intimate interactions to be resolvable, to be practically solvable? I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Cordy: That was helpful. That goes back to the attitude of, do not talk about religion; to the days of do not educate the students about birth control because they might have more sex. Do not educate them about other religions; they might investigate them.
Mr. Wells, thank you also for coming today. You said that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual community is the most targeted group in Canada. That information does not surprise me. My guess is that the cases we hear about are likely the tip of the iceberg; that many of them are not even reported to the police or to anyone.
You said the number one victim and the number one perpetrator are youth. That surprises me in one way because I think our young people are more open than our generation, when we were that age.
However, it does not surprise me because the youth are trying to find themselves and they do not want to be different from anyone else in their age group. I understand that.
What kinds of programs do they have in Edmonton that could be best practices for other communities? I understand that the urban areas are different from the rural areas. I see it in Nova Scotia. You talked about the difference in Alberta. I think we would see it everywhere. What kinds of programs are working with youth groups that might be helpful in other communities?
Mr. Wells: There are a number of things. First, it is about making sure that there is a youth group so there is a place to find a commonality of experiences. "Other people like me" is often what youth have said; to be finally in the majority instead of always being in the minority in all their other communities.
There is a power in that sense. There is belonging and attachment.
We found in the youth group in Edmonton that runs every Saturday night from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. that regardless of whatever else is happening in their lives, they know they have this one safe space for two hours a week where they can go and find acceptance and support.
We started that way as a volunteer grassroots community group. The youth said to us, we need more than two hours; we need a space to come together to learn about our community, learn about history, and learn skills and strategies to improve our lives and to change our schools or other services.
We created a program called Camp fYrefly, which is a youth leadership and resiliency-building program. In that program, we created a four-day summer leadership camp. We brought together about 50 youth from across the country for four days as a community — and we particularly target youth in rural communities — to come in and learn leadership skills that they can take back to their communities with the idea of capacity-building in mind. Also, they knew that they were not alone when they went back to their communities; that there was this network of support out there that they could always reach back into.
Mr. Bramadat was talking about the power of the Internet. It is positive to know they are not alone. They are only an email away from finding support when they face a difficult experience. The youth came up with the name for the camp. They spell "fYrefly" with a "y." It represents an acronym — fostering, Youth, resiliency, energy, fun, leadership, yeah!
Many of these youth report that Camp fYrefly is different from their other summer camp experiences and programs. We are trying to build them as change agents, in a positive way.
We created the camp programming similar to other social justice movements. We looked at what was called citizenship schools in the southern United States and the Highlander schools that worked with the African-American community to develop literacy skills so they could register to vote and be a part of liberating themselves from oppressive circumstances.
We use that freedom school model; it is the same experience with the feminist community. It is sitting around the kitchen table recognizing that their experience is my experience is our experience. It is that isolation and alienation when they feel disconnected that can lead to, as Mr. Bramadat said, the radicalization where they look for a community to find that sense of belonging. Extremists out there can prey on them, or, in the case of many sexual minority youth, they turn that experience inward and it becomes about internalized homophobia: I have been told only that I am bad, immoral or worthless; therefore, I do not deserve any better.
With any youth, the process is always trying to move them from internalizing to externalizing where they can reach out and find support. The camp was four days and the youth asked us, what about the other 361 days in our community?
We spun off from there and with partners such as the Edmonton Community Foundation, the United Way and the City of Edmonton, we created a sexual minority youth advocate and outreach worker. This person's job is to work with these youth in the community and to connect them with inclusive supports and services.
We know that if an agency is not inclusive the first time a youth goes to it, chances are that person will never go back. We often do not have a second chance with youth. The question is how to make that first experience, that first contact, a positive experience. If the agency is not familiar with sexual minority youth, their particular risk factors or their needs, then that youth worker can go and help to educate the agency to build their capacity so that the next time a youth comes to the agency, the youth will be included and supported. The agency will know the right questions to ask that may allow that particular youth to reveal parts of their identity, which also might help them access treatment. It might help them find a resource that is more suited to their needs.
It is always about the kinds of questions that are being asked and the environment that is being made. We have created those programs largely with the success of community partners. This partnership has been important to us.
The Deputy Chair: Do you have a quick question?
Senator Cordy: You mentioned the challenges of recognizing sexual minorities as a distinct minority. I know that even in Parliament we see it. Every time we have a bill that says gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual, we receive many emails on the bill. I can imagine that recognition is a challenge.
Mr. Wells: It is a challenge. As I mentioned, sexual minorities exist in all other communities in that sense, so people do not necessarily see them as a distinct minority group. We find that when there is acceptance in a particular community and they are embraced, there may not be a need to have other kinds of supports.
As Senator Eaton said, some of our researchers postulate that we have moved to a post-gay world where sexuality is no longer a defining identity. People have said the same thing in the United States: We have President Obama, an African American, in the White House, perhaps the most powerful office in the world. We are in a post-race world. Are we truly in a post-race world because one person from the African American community is in a position of power and authority?
Senator Seidman: Dr. Bramadat, you asked an important question in your presentation, and you raised the all- important word, multiculturalism. I will focus on what you have said on page 2 of your presentation:
It is worthwhile to remember that the debates in Canada around major issues such as national security, multiculturalism, immigration and accommodation . . . reflect controversies taking place . . . in every other Western liberal democracy about the future of secularism and the place that the religious claims of minorities ought to have in supposedly secular societies.
I cannot let that pass because it is a critical passage.
You start the paragraph by asking the question, "What broader issues are at stake here?"
This question is very current. Recently, Britain has joined other European countries, as well as Australia, in declaring that they are no longer officially multicultural societies. They say that they can no longer adhere to this principle because it is fracturing the cohesion and security of their societies. Perhaps Canada is the only country left in the world — I am not sure if that is true; however, I hear it may be — that is officially a multicultural society.
As a result, some people say that all potential immigrants to Canada should be well informed of Canadian values and sign an agreement that they can adhere to them. How do you respond to that idea?
There are core basic values that we share in Canada, upon which our society is built. Do we have a responsibility as Canadians to protect them?
Mr. Bramadat: There is a lot in that question; it is a good question. You are probably right that we are one of the last societies that is officially multicultural. Germany and the Netherlands have backed away; France was never really there; and the U.K. has backed away, as has Australia.
One thing that is important to bear in mind is that the European experience of multiculturalism is different from ours. Many of their ethnic minority cohorts are children of, or are themselves, guest workers. In other words, those people came after the war from countries A, B, and C to rebuild Europe after it almost destroyed itself.
The assumption was that they would go home after they rebuilt the roads, sewer systems and so forth, but they did not go home. Many of them were from formerly colonized countries, so they spoke French or whatever language. Therefore, they felt that, on some level, this country should be their home. Their attitude was: You invaded my country a long time ago and colonized it; then you wanted me to come here to work to rebuild your infrastructure; I did that, and now you are telling me I am not welcome here.
The Canadian situation is different. We have ethnic minority cohorts who came in, in a sense, as worker cohorts, but we tended to cherry-pick. Since the late 1960s, that has generally been our approach. We have received the best and brightest, at least for much of our post-1960s period. We have doctors, engineers, accountants, lawyers and so on, and often African people with a great education. I am not sure the cohorts are comparable.
When the European countries look at their ethnic cohorts, many of them are in much greater trouble economically than our minority communities are in Canada in terms of education, health outcomes and so forth. European countries are experiencing different challenges than we are experiencing, largely as a result of immigration policy itself.
That is the first thing I would say; namely, that the situations are not exactly comparable. However, as I mentioned before, the immigrant narrative of "you will suffer for the first generation but eventually you will be okay," is beginning to be severely challenged, mostly by racial issues.
Should we ask newcomers when they come here to sign a document that promises that they will agree to A, B or C core values? Most people who come here are aware already of what Canada is about. They have the Internet in the places they are living, and they are aware of the story of Canada, or that the brand, if you will, of Canada is an international brand. They are not shocked when they come here and it is cold, people eat donuts and same-sex marriage is legal. They know all these things. They also know we are a multicultural society. They come with certain assumptions as to what that will mean for them.
When they arrive here, some of them are shocked that people are challenging their ethnic, cultural, religious or racial identities. They say, Our multiculturalism stops here; we cannot accept A, B or C feature of your identity.
Many newcomers say, When I came from place X to here, I was under the impression multiculturalism was an integral part of Canadian society; why has what I wear on my head become such a problem?
I do not think it would be wise to make people sign. I do not think it is necessary. The core values are already well circulated among the newcomer cohort. That is not to say that there are no problems, but the problems on the horizon are not Europe's problems.
We may have different kinds of challenges, but I do not see our country developing into a European state in that regard with that host of problems. I do not think having them sign a document will be helpful. Can you imagine the committee tasked with the job of creating that document? Would we put on that document, "We as a society affirm difference, gender equality, democracy and so forth"?
Not many people will come in saying, "I do not agree with gender equality." People might say what Senator Eaton said, which is, "The way I define gender equality is different than the way you define it; I define it in always having a particular relationship with my husband."
Senator Eaton: Or by not going to school, not going out by myself, not having a driver's licence or not signing a lease.
Mr. Bramadat: I am not saying the definition of gender equality in other cultures is to my liking or that it is necessarily unproblematic. The question is whether it is so problematic that it justifies making everyone who comes to Canada sign this document. We must address that question.
It seems that the people who embrace views that are the most on the margins are small in number. This document might further alienate them from their families and the societies to which they seek some degree of integration. I do not know if that answer has addressed your comment.
Senator Seidman: I think you have evolved your description of whether these people know about things like gender equality and what it means within the context of living in Canada. Where you may have presented to us initially that people all know before they come to Canada and do not need to read about it, they may not really know. For example, they may make assumptions that multiculturalism means that they can have Sharia law in Canada, and that is fine with us. Might it be helpful to describe what we mean by gender equality, for example?
Mr. Bramadat: I do not think many people come to Canada thinking they can have Sharia law in any kind of formal way. However, when they come here and there are existing Canadian values around diversity, tolerance, acceptance and so forth, a small group think they can test those values as well. With regard to different notions of gender relations, they come here and are not surprised that there are different ways of being a husband and wife. However, they are surprised that any Canadians would knock on the door and say, We do not approve of your way of being husband and wife.
They know about the dominant Canadian ways when they come here, but they are sometimes surprised by the flak they receive, if you will.
Senator Seidman: My second point is that there are core values we share as Canadians. Do we have a responsibility to protect them?
Mr. Bramadat: We absolutely do. The way we protect core values is by having a conversation as open as possible about issues, and this is one venue in which to have that conversation. It seems that protecting the core basic values of accommodation, diversity, pluralism and multiculturalism costs something. It means that we have to sit beside someone on an airplane that makes us feel uncomfortable.
Senator Eaton: No, no, it is when she goes through security. I do not want to stand behind her in security. I am fine with sitting on the airplane.
Mr. Bramadat: The kind of diversity we want will not always be comfortable. Yes, we have a responsibility to protect those core values, and that responsibility requires some discomfort.
Senator Seidman: How might we protect them, in your estimation?
Mr. Bramadat: There are institutional ways, such as education, health care and the courts. They are the three major contexts in which these issues come into the public domain. We can ensure that those contexts are both rigorously accommodating and forums for significant disagreement. We can ensure those formal contexts are doing a good job, and so far, there is reason to be optimistic about them. We can also try to be cautious with the assumptions we make about things happening in Europe necessarily happening here, and about the erosion of Canadian values simply because people here are adopting different life ways. That seems to be the way to deal with it.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask you about a piece of research on people from different religions and their sense of belonging in Canada. This research looked at immigrant Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims. Those immigrants had a greater sense of belonging than the Canadian-born members of the same religious group. Apparently, that sense of belonging decreased with every subsequent generation. Do you agree with that research?
Mr. Bramadat: That is a good question. We do not have many generations to study in that cohort. For Muslims, 80 per cent or 90 per cent are still first generation, and they have children who are the age of 15 to 25, or thereabouts.
On your first point, yes, they have a greater sense of attachment to Canada. They complain about the same things Canadians complain about, such as the weather, taxes and so forth. It is too hard to generalize about the second generation having less attachment as a whole. There are cohorts in that second generation who are redefining what it means to be Canadian, but I find surveys like that one to be too general in the way they frame the question.
Again, if we ask a first generation person, "Do you have an identification with Canada," the immigration process itself tends to preselect; namely, people who will be eager to sign on to this new project of being Canadian. They have, as you say, a higher-than-average degree of attachment.
Although I am always resistant to making massive generalizations about generations, members of the second generation do not speak with accents. They are more comfortable. They are not surprised by Canadian society, and they see some of its flaws more clearly — perhaps, than their parents do — especially around race and inclusion. If they have an intersecting difference, for example, if they are gay and lesbian, they see other things.
Many of them are surprised and, perhaps, less optimistic than their parents. It will take a couple more generations before we can verify that the trend is consistent. It could be a reflection of ordinary intra-family differences. Again, my father who was a newcomer to Canada was zealously pro-Canadian integration and multiculturalist. It was hard for me to convince him to observe: "Dad, do you see this failing or that failing, or this policy reform or this act of racism and how it would interfere with your deep optimism about the Canadian project?"
For him, it was impossible to go there. In my own family, I see differences in terms of attachment. He would have scored extremely high in that attachment measure. I would probably score less high. Do we then say that from his generation to mine, there has been a decrease in attachment? I guess so, but my attachment is a bit more complicated than his was.
I am not sure how I strike you: whether I strike you as a great threat to Canadian society in terms of my level of attachment.
Senator Callbeck: Do you have any thoughts on this subject, Mr. Wells?
Mr. Wells: Yes and no, in the way it intersects with the issue of sexual minorities. The sense of inclusion and belonging becomes so strong. Do I see myself included? Do I hear myself represented? It is that dialectic between visibility and invisibility, and how meaningful that inclusion is.
We see, for example, sexual minority youth who may have a stronger attachment to their sexual minority community than to their cultural community because of prohibitions and taboos. It is often said in some cultural communities that homosexuality is that Western disease: It does not exist in our culture at all; it has become imported and has become part of that propaganda; we do not subscribe to that cultural value, but maybe we need to tolerate it being here in Canada.
It is as Mr. Bramadat said. That narrative of same-sex marriage is out there, and we have seen some of those challenges in the federal government's immigration guide that was in the news within the past year about what messages we are trying to send about Canada to the rest of the world.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Wells, the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey showed that hate crimes motivated by sexual orientation roughly doubled between 2007 and 2008. Was that increase simply an increase in reporting, or is it a real increase?
Mr. Wells: It could be both, in a sense. We know that the more we go out into minority communities, particularly those that might have a difficult relationship with the police service as in the example of people coming to Canada from a war- torn, lawless country, they do not interface with the police service in the same way.
The more we talk about, and educate about, hate crimes, the more the reporting and the statistics will go up. That statistic is not necessarily negative. Perhaps it means there is more trust in the relationship with the police.
It is difficult to say whether the sexual minority community here in Canada is reporting more. Is violence increasing, or has it always been there? I will give you an example. I know many sexual minority couples, whether they are lesbian or gay male couples, who will not walk down Whyte Avenue, the major street in Edmonton, holding hands because they are afraid that someone will attack them or yell something out the window of a passing car. Does a heterosexual couple think twice about showing that kind of affection?
An interesting example, if I may, is that the Edmonton Police Service has established a hate crimes unit, one of the few specialized units in Canada, and the police service has targeted working with minority communities. When training new recruits, how do we take that prototypical new recruit through the police service, maybe a White male, aged 25, who has not had a lot of experience with diversity or difference, and have them understand what it is like to be a minority? How do we have them understand what it is like to be a woman walking to her car late at night, wondering if she will reach her car safely?
One of the activities we have undertaken is to put them in plain clothes, two male and two female recruits, plunk them on Whyte Avenue, ask them to hold hands and walk to the other end.
For the first time in their lives, some of these recruits talk about being afraid. They talk about reactions of other people, staring at them, looking at them without saying anything. It becomes a powerful exercise because their privilege has been removed. All that unearned privilege they have had in society, for example, the male privilege, the White privilege or the privilege of ability that we have. We start to connect that experience to other forms of oppression.
It is not about using this exercise to benefit the gay and lesbian community and to talk about them, but about what it feels like to be different and to be singled out for that difference in our society.
I hope, in a sense, hate-crime reporting goes up because that means more people are feeling informed. First, they know hate crime is not an acceptable value in our society, and they are receiving inclusive service from the police when they report to say, yes, this concern is legitimate. It should not happen.
As well, the justice system is taking those crimes more seriously. More recently we have seen harsh sentences for crimes motivated by hate. We want to send out the message in our country that hate is not a value that will be tolerated in Canada.
Senator Dyck: Thank you, gentlemen. Your presentations were clear. I have been listening to the discussion carefully, and thoughts are whirling through my head.
Something that struck me is something you said, Mr. Bramadat, which was also alluded to your presentation, Mr. Wells, which is that our Charter principles are not value-free. What we believe as a society or as a nation comes from the values that individual citizens hold, and those are worked into the Charter and the various laws we have.
You also mentioned we have a Canadian brand of values that we, as a nation, believe in. What I see is an ideology that we aspire to. People within Canada and outside Canada see us as a nation that welcomes all people from all around the world. I am a firm believer in multiculturalism, obviously because of my background, yet there is the reality that, as a nation, we have these values, but some of our citizens suffer from hate crimes and acts of discrimination.
Much of what we talked about centres on those who are discriminated against. However within our Canadian value system, we obviously have a strong nucleus of people who do not believe in that discrimination.
That discrimination has been there from time immemorial. What do we do to examine those people and look at their values? Why can they not accept people who have different sexual preferences, people who have different religions and people who have different beliefs because they come from a different country? What can we do to address what is happening there?
I believe those people might be called the bullies, bigots or racists that have thrived in our country and around the world forever. What do we do to reach those people and open their eyes to see that they, too, have similarities with the people they are picking on?
Mr. Bramadat: That is a great question. It is hard to find a magic bullet for that one.
On some level, we can say this is an ordinary mammalian response, and that there are bullies and mean people everywhere. That is true. There are some people we cannot draw across a line of humanity. We cannot make them see the human nature of someone, if that person happens to be gay or whatever.
Inasmuch as we can have any positive effect on people who might be bullies, it seems to me that education, for example, is probably the best way to have that effect. We have tried to have that effect in our schools, around citizenship, education and so forth.
The way religion is framed within that broader package of information fascinates me, because sometimes kids receive a simplistic, watered-down version of what Christianity says, Islam says and so forth. Many of these kids find that the picture they are given of these other religions that are not their own do not necessarily map with what they might hear on the news or see on the streets, or what their neighbour who is Sikh, Buddhist or Hindu might show them. Many are confused.
My preference is to see some of these issues that you are talking about addressed, at least initially and partially, in the education system where religion can be woven into the kinds of teaching we give them about history, politics and geography; but not woven in a naive, Pollyanna way. That is not helpful. Then they go out into the real world and they think, "Wow, someone told me that all Christians turn the other cheek."
They see that not happening in the world around them and they feel betrayed. Then they begin to wonder, maybe what they told me about Muslims and Sikhs is also not true. We need to give them real-world education about religion, such that when they encounter a person of a different religious background they are not so frightened of that experience.
That education will not guarantee everyone will be nice to one another. The same thing applies to education around sexual diversity. It will not guarantee that result. It is, at least, a start. That is one thing that can be done at the policy level: include it in the curriculum. However, most teachers have a hard time imagining how to include that education. It is complicated and expensive. There will be tons of lawsuits.
At the level of public discourse, often our doctors, lawyers, journalists and politicians — people in the news, shaping the news and so forth — are themselves illiterate about religion. It is not their fault. These kinds of basic courses are not required in law school, medical school or journalism school. It will be good if we have it on both levels: both at the school end of things and at the professional, training end of the discussion.
Mr. Wells: I agree that education, as we have been talking about, is critically important, but the approach has been a real patchwork.
Mr. Bramadat talked about how religion is dealt with in Quebec, but we have seen regressive steps in Alberta where our government passed legislation called Bill 44 that put a prohibition on talking about sexuality, sexual orientation and religion in schools without express parental consent.
The question becomes, particularly in public education, what is the role and responsibility of public education? Is it to teach the values that are taught at home or is it to teach the values of what it means to be a responsible and respectful Canadian citizen?
This question is about diversity and how to move beyond a shallow understanding of diversity and multiculturalism. We have heard about the dress, the dance, the food, as being that surface-level exposure to multiculturalism, but how do we prompt that meaningful experience with diversity? It is not only the responsibility of education.
As an example, in Edmonton we have been having a lot of conversations with our hockey team, the Edmonton Oilers, which is owned by the Katz Group now. The thing that is so unique about the Edmonton Oilers versus other professional sports franchises is that the majority of season ticket holders are citizens, everyday people scraping together to buy their tickets. They are not bought, 90 per cent of them, by corporations and then given away. The kind of relationship that one must have with the community is different.
The Katz Group is looking at how to engage minority communities to be part of the fan base that traditionally did not exist before, as well as outreach to sexual minority communities. They have acknowledged that maybe this community is an untapped economic market as well, but also they are asking, what does it mean for us to be a leading community organization and to reflect Edmonton, which has proclaimed itself as a human rights city?
Here we have not only the City of Edmonton — I know you heard from the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, — but the police service has now created a specialized unit on diversity, equity and human rights. Our Alberta Teachers' Association has had a 10-year program on diversity, equity and human rights in schools, and now we see other leading corporate citizens becoming part of that conversation.
The question I always have is how to move this conversation from being an extraordinary conversation into an ordinary one so that it is an everyday part of our social fabric. I do not think the change will come from one program, one policy or one intervention. Changing culture is like a thousand or more different kinds of practices. It is an attitudinal change, which we measure on a much longer scale.
Senator Dyck: Do I have time for a second question?
The Deputy Chair: Yes, you do.
Senator Dyck: Both of you mentioned the role of youth in acts of discrimination against various groups. Some witnesses talked about having victims' groups where people come together who have shared experiences, and that group allows them to raise consciousness, feel accepted and gain back strength.
With respect to youth who are bullies or perpetrators of discrimination, does that same sort of phenomenon occur with them? Do you think there is, as it were, a youth gang or a group of youth that feed off each other to allow this type of behaviour to percolate, and maybe we are not conscious of it happening? I suppose it depends on their peer group, who they hang out with, and whether it is encouraged within that group. Is there a way of infiltrating or reaching those youth to show them different activities or expand their horizons so that they begin to see that those they are picking on within their spheres have some commonality? Is there a way of bridging the gap between them?
Mr. Wells: The question is, how do we first identify those youth who may be at risk in our schools? They are the ones, as you mentioned, that are seen as classical victims, but also those who are at risk for the propensity towards violence or discrimination. A lot of that propensity is as a result of being disconnected from a particular peer group.
Your mother was right, you are the company you keep, in the broadest sense. This is where you are learning those peer values; what is and is not acceptable within this peer circle. Schools, in particular, have done interesting things. They have held things like mix-up days, where students are designated to move outside their social clique for a day and go into the cafeteria, sit beside someone who is different and start a conversation.
The simplest way to reduce prejudice is being able to see the other person as a person. We see this prejudice with hate crimes where hate crimes become particularly violent because the person is no longer seen as a human. The person is seen as an object. It is not one stab wound, it is 30.
Fundamentally, how do we move to that process of humanization rather than dehumanization? What are the questions we need to ask? What are the meaningful engagements? That process, to me, becomes such a critical piece for intervention.
In Calgary, for example, we have had the Aryan Guard marching on the streets of Calgary, a White supremacist movement. We have had them recruiting in schoolyards and giving out compact discs with their information. They are targeting vulnerable, disaffected youth to say, "Here is community; here is everything you are not getting."
Often the group blames the minority groups for taking away their rights: This is their rightful position, their status, in society.
Those people become susceptible to these messages. We talk about indoctrination. How do we become aware that indoctrination is happening? Where are the parental family connections? That piece is huge. Family is the most important resiliency factor for all youth, regardless of where they come from. How do we work with families to help provide parenting skills? That piece is another huge community intervention piece as well.
Youth do not exist in a vacuum. We look at where all those important attachments are, and the messages and education they receive. For some youth, faith communities are important to their resiliency as well.
We say that youth need at least one trusted adult in their lives that they can turn to; hopefully they have a lot more supports. Having one person they can reach out to when they are having a difficult time, or if they are feeling alone or isolated, can make a world of difference. That person needs to be accepting, inclusive and nonjudgmental.
The Deputy Chair: I need to move on. I have three senators on the list. We are coming to the end of our time.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: I want to get back to the subject Senator Eaton brought up, that of the bill introduced by Steven Blaney.
I firmly believe that voting is a right, but it is also an obligation. Wars and revolutions are being waged today because people want to have the right to elect those who will govern their country or state. However, I think that seeing this bill as anti-Islamic is a really narrow way to view it.
I would tell you that the idea for the bill took root during the last elections when a group of young people showed up wearing Halloween masks representing leaders of various parties in a Montreal district. It became very difficult to determine who those persons really were, who had voted and who was perhaps returning, wearing the same mask and claiming to be someone else. So, this bill was inspired by that incident.
I agree with you in saying that this was a one-time occurrence during one election, but the point is to try to prevent this kind of incident from happening again. I feel that it is all too easy to say that the bill discriminates against Muslim women who wear veils when voting. Perhaps Mr. Bramadat would like to comment on this issue later.
Mr. Wells, I was very surprised to see in your presentation a whole paragraph praising the qualities and benefits of pride parades. I have nothing against gays, but I am a little put off by the parades.
Those parades are most often objectionable, and I find that they add to the feeling of apprehension, even aggressiveness, towards the gay community. There are no hetero pride parades. We are as we are, and I do not see why we need to be proud of being born gay. I fully understand that people are born gay, but I have a hard time with you talking about all the benefits of such parades.
I would like you to explain to me what is so beneficial about walking around in the streets wearing tawdry clothes and saying: "I am proud of being born gay." I do not understand.
[English]
Mr. Bramadat: In a sense your question is a follow-up on the conversation we had with Senator Eaton. Maybe I can ask a question by way of clarification. The people who came by in the hockey masks and the Halloween masks, what was their objective?
Senator Champagne: They wanted to be seen on television, that was all, but it was still difficult to identify them. If they came back with a different mask or with the same one later on and said they were someone else, then the process of voting might not have been right.
Mr. Bramadat: You can correct me if I am wrong, but my impression is that although they were the initial inspiration for this conversation in Quebec about masked and veiled voting, the conversation quickly began to centre around the Muslim veil.
It is not as though the conversation was, from beginning to end, about people who show up in hockey masks or skeleton masks. Quickly, people saw this situation as an opportunity to say that we would face this situation at a voting booth if a woman came with a full face covering, which is abstractly the case; that is true.
I pose that question partly to remind all of us that the controversy and scandal that arose in Quebec over veiled voting was not a controversy that the Muslim community sought. In a sense, the controversy was imposed upon them, and then they had to respond, and all this public debate developed around what happened in that scenario.
I do not know that I would call the bill anti-Islamic. The tone of some of the debate was anti-Islamic, of course. One would expect the range in any debate, and one would expect some of those comments to be made.
Senator Champagne: Unfortunately.
Mr. Bramadat: Absolutely: It is not as though this issue is not an important one for us as a society to tackle, but it begs the question, what about that person who lives in Indonesia and is voting by mail? There are a lot more of them than Muslim women with the veil. What about saying, here is an opportunity for open secularism to work? We can be presented with this kind of problem, the possibility of veiled voting, and we can say — "we," the Quebec electoral authorities — perhaps we should have a lengthy meeting with groups of Muslims to say, if this problem arises in a voting context, do you have any suggestions for ways we can resolve this issue to keep everyone happy; we need to see their faces; they need not show their faces to men; can we resolve that issue practically?
That problem could have been settled quickly.
Senator Champagne: I think you understood my question well. I think it is wrong for people to say this bill is anti- Muslim, and this is what people are saying. It is not. It touches Muslim women through what it says, but it was not meant to touch that problem to start with.
Mr. Bramadat: In my lecture, I think I said something like much depends on the way one says no. You can appreciate how, from a Muslim perspective, the tone of the debate around the veiled voting controversy in Montreal could easily lead a Muslim to feel that it was principally anti-Islamic.
Similarly, the cheers that erupted in the National Assembly recently when the question of the kirpan was decided — those cheers, the exaltation that was expressed in the National Assembly — could lead a Sikh to feel that exaltation was anti-Sikh.
It seems to me that when you say no to people, you say no in a solemn, mournful way: We tried to include you, however we have this or that principle or practical consideration and we cannot do it. The "no" should be delivered as a sign of, we failed, unfortunately; we are sorry but we cannot accept this or that.
However, when it is delivered as an exaltation, that we have pushed back the barbarians yet again, you can appreciate, I think, how someone would say that sounds anti-"me" or anti-"my group," rather than anti-principle. At the level of public discourse, it became this problem. It became the kind of rude, pushing-back-against-the-barbarian problem.
Mr. Wells: I will try to answer the question briefly. The question of the pride parades is a common one, and a common critique we hear even within the sexual minority community itself; this notion of being deliberately provocative. Where a lot of that criticism stems from is the long-standing repression of sexuality in general in society.
It has often been said that when there is significant repression, then we see an overt kind of response that is necessarily, whether we like it or not, there. It is part of the community. Part of this community still holds on to its fugitive, sort of outlaw roots.
Traditionally, we saw a similar debate around legalizing same-sex marriage in Canada. Many members of the lesbian and gay community were strongly opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage and said, why would we want to be part of a patriarchal institution that degrades women? That was the critique. Marriage came from property rights in its history.
Others said, we want the right to choose in that sense, because this issue is about that notion of legalized equality; being treated the same, having the same rights, and anyone can choose to be married. For some people that institution is important. For others, it may not be so much, and they decide not to get married and have their own kind of ceremony.
One challenge we have within the sexual minority community is the diversity that exists. It is sometimes hard to come together as a cohesive community, much like many other minority communities.
The same question becomes, why do we have Caribana on the streets celebrating Caribbean culture? Why do we celebrate Chinese New Year? It is around that source of pride, pride in one's identity and a sense of belonging in a community. Perhaps the reason there is not a heterosexual pride parade is because heterosexuality is the dominant default. Some would say that every day it is okay to be heterosexual in our society; to live without fear of repercussion.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Women represented a minority in our society for a long time. Today, this is no longer the case, at least demographically speaking, since women live much longer than men. I think that a woman whose sole dream in life is to be equal to men is not very ambitious.
I am wondering if, someday, we will be able to say that Roman Catholicism is a minority religion. Since it insists on celibacy and excludes women from the ministry, is it destined to become a minority religion?
[English]
Mr. Bramadat: It will be a long time before the Catholic community is a minority, just demographically.
Senator Eaton: Are you Catholic?
Mr. Bramadat: No, I am not.
Senator Eaton: Please do not use it if you are not, please. I am a Catholic. I find it offensive.
The Deputy Chair: We will hear from the witness.
Mr. Bramadat: I was only responding to the senator's question and saying, I think it will be a long time before they would be a minority community, just demographically. We have lots of newcomers who are Catholic — Filipinos and others. In the 10-year period between 1991 and 2001, they had a slight growth.
Senator Champagne: Thank you.
Senator Martin: I have a few comments and two quick questions. I am not sure even where to begin in that, as other senators have expressed, there are so many thoughts and responses going through my mind.
The first thing I will say is that I feel sometimes that my husband is a visible minority. He is of Scottish-English descent in East Vancouver, where our neighbourhood is about 85 per cent Asian. After the Olympics, there was a show on the CBC about a father and son travelling through the small towns across Canada, playing ice hockey on the frozen ponds or lakes, and going to Tim Hortons. He was glued to the television, remembering his childhood. He grew up in the Kootenays. For me, it was like looking through a window at a life that we do not have, presently, in East Vancouver.
I remember thinking, as we talk about inclusion, that there are minorities all across Canada. Who that minority may be depends on one's perspective. I feel like I am championing the voice of people like my husband.
As a teacher, I also want to say that you talk about being careful about bringing religion into the classroom and whatnot. I taught social studies. I mostly spent my time teaching in high school, but I also spent seven years in middle school. Grade 6 students have a textbook called Global Citizens where they learn about different cultures, about global responsibility, about how to begin their own non-profit organization and about service. It is a wonderful curriculum.
Then in Grades 7 and 8, depending on the teacher — I know in my school all Grade 8 teachers taught a unit on religions of the world — I encouraged my students of different faiths to be the presenters of their religion, as well as encouraging other students to participate, and it was a real jigsaw learning environment.
Education is definitely the key to changing generational changes to be inclusive on all sides, and I want to share that B.C. is doing that well. If it is not happening in other provinces, perhaps they should have a look at the B.C. curriculum. I was proud of what teachers were doing in B.C. classrooms.
My question for you, Mr. Wells, regards Camp fYrefly. I love camps; I work with youth and I have been a camp director and supervisor. One key involves the training of your supervisors. You are bringing together youth who are vulnerable and who desire belonging to a group, so there is the importance of the responsibility of your counsellors and supervisors to model healthy living. I do not want to make any assumptions, but in positions of leadership they can have a lot of influence.
Some of my students in high school were exploring, and they dabbled in homosexuality but returned to realizing that it was only curiosity. I know there are a range of students, so can you speak to the kind of training you provide to your counsellors and supervisors? That role is an important one for them.
Mr. Wells: Absolutely: What is unique about the camp is that we are a faculty of education, so we run the camp program the same as any school program. We provide rigorous training. We bring our adult volunteers in before the camp and go through extensive training, such as what to do around disclosure and what the camp policies and procedures are.
One of the core workshops we offer is around healthy relationships, and that training is mandatory for every camper. We end up splitting the campers off around age lines to have age-appropriate conversations. We also call in our community partners who have that specialized expertise.
We are now in our eighth year. We have a location in Edmonton and another one with community partners in Saskatchewan, and we are looking to expand as well to other parts of Canada.
In terms of our supervisory ratios, they are probably as good as at any camp in that I think we are at about six campers to every trained adult who is available there.
The other thing we discovered early on is to use a lot of arts-based activities. We have found that many youth will express thoughts and feelings through their art projects that they could never express with words.
We have had a counselling psychologist available as well. We draw on trained professionals such as educators and social workers — people who are comfortable and confident, have a lot of experience working with youth and who want to reach out to particularly vulnerable youth. The standards and conduct are rigorously looked at and evaluated.
At the end of the camp program, our volunteers send us an evaluation as to what we could do better, but especially the absences and needs of the youth are of the utmost importance. We try to be a youth-driven program.
Instead of looking at these youth, our big focus is being "at risk," such as what would happen if we looked at them as fundamentally being "at promise." How would the questions change if we changed the foundation or the lens? Recognizing that every young person out there has inherent talents and gifts to give to a community, our job is to help find ways for them to bring those gifts forward.
Senator Martin: Mr. Bramadat, I first came to Canada in the early 1970s, and I remember singing "O Canada!" and "God Save the Queen" and saying the Lord's Prayer every day. All my friends in the community in East Vancouver were like me, immigrant children. They went home to conservative parents with shared values, in terms of having strict rules and fearing the parents more than getting into trouble at school; therefore, we really behaved in school. There was that sense of common values.
I want to bring up the question of Canadian identity. With respect to what I have always thought about the whole concept of multiculturalism, I am proud of what Canada has. However, I feel that what we have been missing in the last little while, where in some ways we forget some of the other voices and achieve the balance, is that the Canadian identity is a glue, the thread that keeps all the pieces together.
Do you have any comments regarding the importance of Canada as a country valuing cultures and distinct identities? What is most important is to have that shared Canadian identity. I feel I had that shared identity, being immersed into a neighbourhood in East Van, and I feel we are moving away from that shared identity. Can you speak to the concept of Canadian identity?
Mr. Bramadat: I think we can have it both ways. I am looking for the evidence that it is a big problem in Canada. There is plenty of evidence in Europe that it is a big problem, but I do not see it as such a big problem. We have things like the Olympics and all manner of sports activities across the country that bind Canadians together. There are traditional regional rivalries, multiculturalism as a policy and bilingualism. I think we have both, and we are managing it well compared to other liberal democracies.
I do not disagree that it is important to value the newcomer diversities as well as seeking to intuit, if only that, some kind of common sense of "Canadianess." Of course, no one has been able to nail that sense down, and perhaps that is the special magic that Canada has wherein no one can do that easily.
Maybe that is one of the reasons why things are going well here, again, relative to Europe. We have not said, "By June 13, 2014, we will figure this Canadian identity thing out." In fact, Canada has this more fluid, dialogical, communal quality to it. Maybe that is the secret.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, colleagues. You have obviously been completely engaged in this topic. I thank Senator Braley for understanding that we agreed on the time for the end of the meeting.
I want to thank our two guests. It is remarkable to have such eloquent spokespersons from two areas that have not always interfaced well. I would love to have asked Dr. Bramadat a question with regard to the issue of open secularism versus the problems that religious identity has created for others over time, particularly communities including those that Mr. Wells spoke about today. Unfortunately, I will have to forgo that question as well.
I have greatly enjoyed the answers, and I think our colleagues have explored a range. Thank you so much for being so open with us today. I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)