Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here today to talk to Motion No. 103. My colleague and I have served together on the subcommittee on human rights, and I respect her commitment to these issues. However, we disagree on some points of her motion.

For those of us who have worked on issues of religious freedom, there is nothing worse than to hear of a faith community attacked simply because of who they are and because of the faith they hold. This is much too common around the world. We were reminded that we are not immune when we heard of the massacre in Quebec City, and the killing of people as they were praying.

I come to this discussion as a person of faith. Like so many other Canadians, my faith informs my life at every point. I know there are millions of Canadians, of many different faith groups, who live more confidently because of their faith. However, that does not always mean that we are always understood by the culture around us. Holding to a faith perspective often puts people at odds with the world around us. To hold a different perspective from our neighbour is to run the risk of being misunderstood. We live in a country made up of people from around the globe, from over 150 different cultures, histories, and beliefs. In the past, we have bridged those gaps. This has been done by insisting that each person has the right to believe or not believe, as he or she chooses, without coercion. He or she has the right to live out those beliefs, and has the right, and I would argue the obligation, to communicate those beliefs. The right to religious freedom and belief and the freedom of speech go hand in hand. When we find language that clarifies our perspective to others, we stand a chance of being understood and our issues being explainable to those who hold a different viewpoint. That is how we come to an understanding and acceptance of the fact that others can hold very different beliefs than we do. When we understand those differences, they are no longer threatening to us but actually complement what we are as a nation.

We have over one million Muslims in this country who are a part of the Canadian fabric. They have been here for decades. Generations have lived in Canadian society. Many live alongside their neighbours, who perhaps do not even know that they are Muslim. First, they are neighbours and then they are friends.

In the last few years, the events in the Middle East and around the world, including here in Canada, have put a new focus on Islam. One thing that is obvious is that not all Muslims, and indeed not every Muslim in Canada, hold the same views. When people see what is happening around the globe, they want to know more. They want to hear more information. They want explanations. This is where we find ourselves. The radical few are making a lot of trouble for everyone else. They have been successful in creating an atmosphere where both Muslims and non-Muslims are uncomfortable and fearful. As a country, we need to find long-term solutions to those divisions. However, to find solutions we need clarity. We need to be able to talk clearly.

That leads us to today and to Motion No. 103, which is highlighting one religion in particular but without clear language on what that means. It is unfortunate that this motion does not encourage conversation, because in the content of the motion the focus is on one term, Islamophobia. This is a word that we see often but one that many people are uncomfortable with because they do not know what it includes. In Motion No. 103, Islamophobia has been left undefined. People do not know what it means in this motion. It is not good enough for it to go to committee to be defined there, as the mover suggested yesterday. It was her responsibility or the responsibility of the PMO when it wrote this motion to define it if their intention was other than to play some sort of political game with it. No one knows how the word is defined in Motion No. 103 because we do not know what the mover intended. She tried to lay a bit of a definition out for us tonight. That is unfortunate, but not surprising, because there is no consensus on the meaning of the word in Motion No. 103. Is it so inclusive that it covers any and all criticisms of Islam?

There are many in the radical community who are trying to use this phrase as a catch-all. Does it allow for the asking of difficult questions? It sounds silly, but I have been to seminars where people were told they did not have the right to ask probing questions because that would mean that they were defining another religion in some way. Is “Islamophobia”, in Motion No. 103, only referring to the extreme hatred that we see as mosques are desecrated and people are killed? If that is the definition, Canadians can clearly understand that. However, because of the lack of a definition, this term can be applied differently depending on the priority of the user. Some apply the term to only serious acts of hostility, while others apply it to every critique and every act against Islam. Canadians have been confused by this and have been contacting all of our offices. I know every member in this Parliament has heard from their constituents, who are asking such questions as, “Is the term meant to inform us or intimidate us? Does it encourage free speech or is it shutting it down?” We cannot answer those questions because we do not know what is meant in the motion.

This word is a conversation stopper and it needs to be set aside. We do a disservice to actual victims and their families when we describe what happened to them with the same word that we use to describe insulting language. Those attacks are not on the same level. Let us not describe them that way.

As Conservatives, we have focused on these issues for years. That is why we established the office of religious freedom to protect religious expression around the world. It was working well until the Liberal government shut it down.

We wanted to make this motion work. We went to the member opposite and suggested amendments. A simple change to amend it to say “hatred against Muslims” rather than “Islamophobia” would have made it much clearer. Everyone can understand that. They know what those terms mean. We did that so that this motion could be supported unanimously, if possible, but it was refused by the member, or by the PMO.

Why not change it to easily describe what we are trying to address? Would that not have allowed us to have a mature debate? The mover, who should want this more than any of us, refused our suggestions, and so we are stuck with this version. We are stuck with a divisive term that means nothing, or everything, which is not clearly defined. It is of little value in the debate about the role of Islam in Canada. That is unfortunate, because this motion could have set a new direction. It could have set us on the path to talking together, to walking together, and to working together. Perhaps it would have been easier to pretend that all is well and say nothing other than we oppose Islamophobia, but that leaves too many things unresolved, especially around issues of free speech.

This has a lot of people concerned. We are hearing from people across the spectrum. Moderate Muslims are left without the kind of comfort they need to have. The Canadian public that is interested in this issue has no safe place to take their questions and concerns. They are becoming reluctant to ask questions publicly because they do not know what they will be accused of. That is not healthy for our country. It is time we began to talk about these issues in much more mature terms.

If Liberals are using Islamophobia as a political football, they are not serving Canadians well. While they may be thinking they will get some sort a short-term political gain in passing this motion, the reality is this is not addressing the issue at a level necessary to deal with Canadians' concerns.

We need to have an open conversation in this country in order to support and promote the right of people of faith to live safely. To do that we need to have the freedom to speak clearly, openly, and in well-defined terms. The road to stress and persecution comes through the failure to communicate and to identify and protect safe spaces to have these discussions.

This debate tonight and the one tomorrow give us the opportunity to rise above clichés and to engage in a real debate about the future of religious freedom, free speech, and the place of religious communities in that conversation.

This is not just theoretical. I have worked with MPs from around the world on these issues. I have a friend, a Muslim MP, who is a moderate in a modern, democratic country. He is using his voice in his country to speak to these issues of what Islam is and is not. Because of his courage, he is under constant threat, under police protection because radicals do not want him speaking. To them he is an Islamophobe; to his constituents he is speaking on the issues of religious freedom and free speech.

Let us elevate this debate so that we can begin to deal with these issues in Canada maturely. If we do not, we will pay a heavy price in division and conflict. We have the opportunity to avoid that, so let us do it. Otherwise, we will be allowing a small group of ideologues who are trying to cause trouble around the globe, and a small group of people in our own country who hate for no reason to have their way, to drive a wedge between moderate Muslims and the Canadian public, both of whom reject the hatred that we saw two weeks ago.

David Anderson

Transcript

Private Members' Business

Discussions (0)