JUST Committee Report

Islamophobia and Additional Measures that Could be Taken to Address the Valid Fears that are Being Expressed by Canada’s Muslim Community

Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights

This dissenting report reflects the views of the Conservative Members who sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights; M.P. Larry Brock (Shadow Minister for Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Vice Chair, Brantford-Brant), M.P. Jamil Jivani (Durham), M.P. Michelle Ferreri (Shadow Minister for Families, Children and Social Development, Peterborough—Kawartha), and M.P. Tako Van Popta (Shadow Minister for Pacific Economic Development, Langley—Aldergrove).

Introduction After nine years of the NDP-Liberal government, Canada is more divided and unsafe than ever. Justin Trudeau’s declaration that Canada is a “post-national state” with no core identity has undermined the very essence of what once united us as a nation. Under his leadership, hate crimes have surged by 251%, and soft-on-crime policies allow repeat offenders to walk free within hours of their arrest, endangering communities across the country.

This report was intended to address an urgent and sensitive matter, the rising tide of hate crimes in Canada, particularly Islamophobia. As Islamophobia continues to escalate under the current Liberal government, it is more important than ever that parliamentarians work together to combat violence, hate, and discrimination. A unified response is essential to ensure that all Canadians can live free from fear.

Discrepancy Amongst Reports Unfortunately, the Liberal government’s politically charged and inconsistent approach to the conflict in the Middle East has only deepened divisions. Liberal MPs have sent conflicting messages—publicly supporting Israel while delivering contradictory rhetoric to pro-Palestinian groups. This same divisiveness has been reflected in the handling of the reports on Islamophobia and antisemitism.

Initially, all parties agreed to approach the reports on Islamophobia and antisemitism equally. Yet, Liberal members failed to deliver on this commitment, taking a one-sided approach that undermined the integrity of the process. By splitting the study into two separate groups—where different Liberal Members sat before the committee for the Antisemitism study versus the Islamophobia study—the Liberals created confusion and inconsistency amongst the two reports. This approach undermined the original intent of the studies and further deepened the divisions that these reports were meant to resolve.

For instance, during the antisemitism study, witnesses acknowledged that one could hold a pro-Zionist position while criticizing Israeli government policies. Yet, the Islamophobia study failed to adopt a similar approach. It did not affirm that criticism of Palestinian actions, such as those of Hamas,  could be separated from anti-Muslim bias or racism. This disparity in how the two studies and reports were approached highlights their inconsistent and unequal treatment of these important topics.

The Focus of the Study Conservative Members of the Justice Committee supported studying the rise of Islamophobia in Canada but are disappointed that the committee’s scope expanded to include anti-Palestinian racism (APR) and anti-Arab racism. Nine of the thirteen recommendations in the report focus on these issues, shifting the focus away from Islamophobia toward political issues of national identity. This shift is unhelpful and undermines the importance of witness testimony on the committee's original mandate: addressing the valid concerns of Canada’s Muslim community regarding Islamophobia.

Dr. Avner M. Emon, a professor at the University of Toronto, highlighted this confusion in his testimony, noting that the committee’s mandate suffers from a “fundamental category error.” He argued that the hatred directed at Palestinians should not be conflated with Islamophobia, as Palestinians are not synonymous with Muslims. Conservatives agree with Dr. Emon’s analysis and believe that the issue of anti-Palestinian racism should be studied independently, not within the context of Islamophobia^[1].

Numerous community groups also support the perspective of Conservatives. To demonstrate, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) expressed concerns in their June 21, 2024 brief, stating: “What makes us want to be on the record today is that a new concept, that of Anti-Palestinian Racism (APR), is being promoted, whose express objective is to negate the Jewish experience, identity and values, while also dismissing and diminishing the real need to define and combat Islamophobia.” ^[2]

CIJA further stated that the definition of APR introduced by the Arab Canadian Lawyers Association (ACLA) introduces categories based on national origin and political opinion, which diverge from the established anti-racism definition. They warned that this “fosters a divisive environment within Canadian society by pitting groups against each other in what resembles a zero-sum game of competing claims of discrimination.”^[3]

Similarly, Janice LaForme from the Alliance Combating Campus Antisemitism in Canada (ALCCA) stated in her June 21, 2024 brief that the concept of APR is “seriously flawed and will undermine the rights and freedoms of Canadians, particularly Canadian Jews and non-Jewish Zionists.”^[4]

Mark Sandler, also from ALCCA, warned in his June 21, 2024 brief that some seek to weaponize the definition of APR to demonize Zionism and Jews, stating, “They often seek to define APR so as to effectively include as racist any challenge to Palestinian narratives on the creation of the State of Israel or on the conflicts that followed.” He concluded: “It took a decade of scholarship and expertise and international consultation to develop the IHRA– International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance–  definition of Antisemitism. Some are now asking this Committee, which is mandated to examine antisemitism and Islamophobia, to opine on APR. It is outside the Committee’s mandate”. ^[5]

Therefore, this shift away from the original mandate of the study dilutes the focus on the legitimate concerns of Canada's Muslim community, undermining the valuable testimony provided by witnesses who spoke specifically about Islamophobia. The inclusion of APR, as highlighted by various community organizations, introduces new and complex categories that risk complicating the conversation and fostering division rather than unity. Experts like Dr. Avner Emon, as well as organizations such as CIJA and ALCCA, have emphasized that the issue of anti-Palestinian racism warrants separate and independent study.

Despite Conservative Members' insistence on the importance of staying true to the committee's original purpose—focusing on the understanding and combating of Islamophobia, without allowing political issues of national identity to overshadow the legitimate concerns of marginalized communities—we believe this report does not fully reflect that.

Recommendations to the Government of Canada

In light of the evidence and the urgency of the situation, we propose the following recommendations for the Government of Canada:

• 1.      The Government of Canada must adopt a principled and unwavering stance regarding the ongoing conflict in Israel. The current mixed messaging from the Liberal government—supporting Israel within Jewish communities while offering contradictory statements to pro-Palestinian groups—has deeply divided Canadians. This politically expedient approach is damaging to national unity. Canada must present a unified, moral foreign policy that reflects our commitment to peace, security, and justice for all parties involved.
• 2.      We call for the immediate suspension of Canadian taxpayer funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) until it is verified that no Canadian dollars are supporting terrorism or terrorist organizations. The government's ongoing funding to UNRWA, despite its ties to Hamas and promotion of anti-Israel sentiments, is unacceptable. Canada must ensure its resources are not used to fund violence or destabilize peace efforts.
• 3.      While fostering empathy and peaceful coexistence is important, the responsibility for promoting tolerance and unity should lie with religious leaders, not the government. These leaders are best positioned to guide their communities. The government should support these efforts, rather than impose values that may not align with the specific cultural and religious contexts of diverse communities. Empowering religious leaders to promote understanding is a more effective approach than top-down imposition of policies.
• 4.      While initiatives to promote digital literacy, critical thinking, and resilience against extremism are important, DEI policies have had unintended consequences. These policies have frequently been used to marginalize certain groups and have failed to effectively combat hate, as demonstrated by the alarming rise in incidents of Islamophobia and antisemitism, a concern consistently highlighted through witness testimony before this committee. The government must abolish DEI policies and ensure they do not perpetuate division or undermine the goal of fostering inclusive, respectful communities.
• 5.      Instead of introducing new hate crime legislation, as suggested in the recommendations, the government should focus on enforcing the laws already in place. Canada has robust legal frameworks to combat hate crimes and discrimination; the issue lies in their inconsistent application. The government must be tougher on crime, ensuring that existing laws are consistently and effectively applied to combat the rise in hate-fueled violence and discrimination.

These recommendations are designed to guide Canada toward a more cohesive, principled approach to combating all forms of hatred. Canada's policies must prioritize the safety, security, and dignity of all Canadians, including Muslim communities. By taking immediate action to address hate crimes, strengthen law enforcement, and ensure Canada’s leadership in global efforts against terrorism and hate, we can foster a more just, secure, and inclusive society for all.

Conclusion Antisemitism and Islamophobia are evils that must be eradicated. It is our moral duty as Canadians and as Parliamentarians to speak out against them and ensure that those responsible for these heinous acts face the consequences. Conservative leadership would ensure that law enforcement has the proper tools to fight hate and that these laws are enforced consistently.

Conservatives believe we must first fully understand what APR entails and ensure it does not conflict with other forms of discrimination recognized in Canadian law. In particular, it should not clash with the IHRA definition of antisemitism. The emphasis on APR and anti-Arab racism in this report detracts from the important testimony on Islamophobia, and we agree with Dr. Emon that the committee’s mandate suffers from a “fundamental category error” by expanding beyond its original focus.^[6]

We support the report’s recommendations regarding Islamophobia but believe that the study should have remained focused on this issue, not diverted to political questions of national identity. It’s important to note that Conservatives are not alone in this perspective; numerous community members and organizations supported our preference to maintain a narrower focus, as was the initial objective of this study.