This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 18 December 2014, At: 17:58Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Review of Faith & InternationalAffairsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfia20

THE PROMISE OF CANADA'S OFFICE OFRELIGIOUS FREEDOMJames C. Wallace & Richelle WisemanPublished online: 16 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: James C. Wallace & Richelle Wiseman (2013) THE PROMISE OF CANADA'SOFFICE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 11:3, 52-60, DOI:10.1080/15570274.2013.829994

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2013.829994

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and arenot the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should notbe relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE PROMISE OF CANADA’SOFFICE OF RELIGIOUS

FREEDOMBy James C. Wallace and Richelle Wiseman

Canada has become the newestnational advocate for advancing thecause of religious freedom around theworld. On February 19, 2013, at an

Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama’at in Toronto, Ontario,Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harperofficially announced the establishment ofCanada’s Office of Religious Freedom (ORF)and the appointment of its first ambassador,Dr. Andrew P.W. Bennett. The creation of theCanadian ORF was years in the making. Now theoffice and the new ambassador officially have amandate to address and advance religiousfreedom issues around the world within thebroader context of Canada’s foreign policyobjectives.

The announcement event in Toronto wasattended by a diverse group of Canadiansincluding religious leaders, politicians from all themajor parties, as well as members of the public.The location of the announcement was a strategicchoice intended to send a message. TheAhmadiyya Muslim community has experiencedsignificant persecution in some Muslim-majoritycountries, such as Pakistan, where it is viewed as aheretical Muslim sect. By having the publicannouncement at the Ahmadiyya mosque, PrimeMinister Harper sought to confront one of themajor criticisms directed at the office even beforeit was formalized—that the ORF would onlyaddress the persecution of Christians around theworld and would ignore other faiths.

The February 19 announcement was thefulfillment of a promise that Prime MinisterHarper made during the 2011 federal electioncampaign. On April 23, 2011, at a CopticChristian church in Mississauga, Ontario, thePrime Minister declared, “A re-electedConservative government will continue to be achampion for freedom of religion and freedom ofconscience around the world” (CBC News2011). He added that Conservatives, if electedwith a parliamentary majority, would establish anOffice of Religious Freedom (ORF) within theDepartment of Foreign Affairs and InternationalTrade (DFAIT) to monitor and promotereligious freedom as a key objective of Canada’sforeign policy.

At the time, the campaign promiseprompted a number of articles and opinionpieces in the Canadian media calling into

James C. Wallace is a Lecturer in the Department of International Relationsat Boston University. He is also CEO of LACUNA Group International, aconsulting group working with business, government, and NGOs on issues ofreligion, culture, human rights, and international affairs. He is co-author withTimothy S. Shah of a forthcoming book, Smarter Than You Think: TheSurprising Emergence of an Evangelical Intelligentsia in America (OxfordUniversity Press).

Richelle Wiseman is a communications professional and writer in Calgary,Alberta, Canada. She is also Senior VP of LACUNA Group International whereshe applies her knowledge of cultural and religious issues to the work ofbusiness, governments, and NGOs. Richelle has published a variety of articlesand columns in the Canadian media and has a chapter in Gender, Culture,Religion: Tackling Some Difficult Questions (Sheldon Chumir Foundation forEthics in Leadership, 2012).

52 | volume 11, number 3 (fall 2013) © 2013 Institute for Global Engagement

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

question the motivation for the creation of suchan office. One such criticism was that the ORFwas a ploy right before the election to garnermore votes from ethnic and new immigrantcommunities. However, the idea of a CanadianORF did not originate with Prime MinisterHarper’s Conservative government. The ideawas first floated in 1998 by Lloyd Axworthy,then Minister of Foreign Affairs andInternational Trade in Jean Chretien’s Liberalgovernment.1 Axworthy announced thatDFAIT would make confronting religiouspersecution a priority. Subsequently, heinitiated a conversation between religiousleaders and DFAIT regarding the creation of anoffice focused on religious freedom. Accordingto John Siebert of Project Ploughshares, theprocess “did not bear fruit.” However, Canadadid become involved with the Organization forSecurity and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)in addressing the religious and minorityconflicts which erupted in the formerYugoslavia and Soviet Union in the late 1990s(Siebert 2012). Further, in 2004, theParliamentary Subcommittee on Human Rightsand International Development adopted aresolution urging the Government of Canada“to make the protection and promotion of theright to freedom of religion and belief a centralelement of its efforts to defend human rightsinternationally” (Cameron 2011).

A major influence on Prime MinisterHarper’s April 23, 2011 campaignannouncement of his intention to create aCanadian ORF was the shocking assassinationof Pakistani Federal Minister of MinorityAffairs, Shahbaz Bhatti, which occurred justweeks earlier. Bhatti was a Christian whopublicly advocated and bravely fought forreligious freedom for all minorities. Bhatti calledfor reforming Pakistan’s controversial blasphemylaws which continue to be used to persecuteChristians and other religious minorities inPakistan. Bhatti had visited Canada onFebruary 8 and 9, just three weeks before hisassassination by Taliban gunmen in Islamabad.While on his two-day visit in Canada, Bhattiwas hosted by the Honorable Jason Kenney,Canada’s Minister of Citizenship, Immigration,

and Multiculturalism and a close confidant ofPrime Minister Harper.

When Bhatti was assassinated so soon afterhis visit to Canada, the shock of the event servedto galvanize the Prime Minister, MinisterKenney, and Minister of Foreign Affairs JohnBaird to create a Canadian ORF. Kenneytravelled to Islamabad to attend the memorialservice for Bhatti and made an official statementfollowing the event:

Shahbaz was fully aware of the threatsagainst him. And yet to be killed because ofyour beliefs and your courage in expressingthem is an outrage against all who believein freedom of religion and freedom ofexpression. As the first and only Christianminister in the Pakistani government, heunderstood intimately the importance ofprotecting religious minorities. He workedtirelessly to defend religious freedom andhuman rights in Pakistan and around theworld, not least through his publiccondemnation of his country’s blasphemylaws. (Kenney 2011)

A few weeks later on March 26, 2011, Canada’sGovernor General dissolved parliament anddropped the election writ, setting the stage forCanada’s 36 day federal election campaign.During the campaign, when Harper declared hisintention to create the ORF at a Coptic Christianchurch, standing by his side was Peter Bhatti, thebrother of Shahbaz Bhatti. Harper’s electionvictory with a majority parliament on May 2,2011, ensured that the ORF would become areality.

Following the election, the Prime Ministerand other cabinet ministers convened severalconsultations with a wide range of Canadianreligious leaders to gain their input on thecreation of the ORF. Government ministers alsoconsulted with influential international religiousleaders such as His Highness the Aga Khan, HisHoliness Pope Tawadros II, and U.S.Ambassador-at-large for International ReligiousFreedom Dr. Suzan Johnson Cook.

The annual budget for the ORF wasestablished at $5 million to cover a staff of five

james c. wallace and richelle wiseman

the review of faith & international affairs | 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

people, including the Ambassador, and forprogramming. Three staff members were hiredsoon thereafter, and throughout 2012 the searchfor an Ambassador for the office proved to be achallenge. At least two individuals who wereapproached declined to accept the offer of thepost. It was not until late 2012 that Dr. AndrewBennett was asked and accepted the challenge ofleading what had already become in the interim acontroversial office.

Confronting the ControversyFrom the day it was first announced, the

Canadian ORF generated controversy. A host ofcritics voiced concerns across a broad spectrum ofarticles and opinion pieces inthe Canadian media. Theseconcerns reflected howCanada has evolved into asecularist, pluralist democracywhere the original dominanceof Catholics and Protestantshas given way to a morereligiously and ethnicallydiverse society.

Canada’s official policy of “multiculturalism,”adopted in the 1970s and 1980s, contributed tothe widely held secularist conviction that for thesake of preserving “tolerance” in Canadiansociety, religion and religious expression shouldbe relegated to the private sphere. Canadianpoliticians, in contrast to their American cousins,generally take great pains to avoid being publiclyidentified with one particular faith tradition, so asnot to be seen as intolerant or religiously biased.

Within this context, Prime Minister Harperis known to be an evangelical Christian and criticshave long accused him of having a “hiddenagenda” to enforce his Christian beliefs throughgovernment policy (Haskell 2006).2 There is noevidence to support this, but it was raised onceagain upon the announcement of the ORF.

Among other criticisms, secularistscomplained that because Canada is a secularcountry, government funds should not bedevoted to the promotion of religious freedom.Human rights activists complained that thegovernment should fund enterprises whichaddress all human rights and not single out

religious freedom as a special human right.Atheists asked what the ORF would do for peoplewho have no religion and who are perhapspersecuted for non-belief. Opposition partiesdecried that the ORF was aimed at gaining votesfor the Conservative government. Otheropponents asserted that in a time of budgetausterity it made no sense to devote a tiny budgetto the ORF in the face of other more pressingneeds. With its limited staff and budget, some saythe ORF will be too small to achieve anything ofsubstance on the international stage.

In his February 19, 2013 officialannouncement speech, Prime Minister Harperaddressed some of these criticisms head-on. He

linked the perseverance of theAhmadiyya Muslimcommunity to Canadianvalues and said to themdirectly, “You strengthenCanada’s commitment todiversity and pluralism.” Hereferenced Canada’s recentefforts to rally support for

religious freedom among the leaders of the G-8,of the Commonwealth, and at the Francophonie.He also mentioned Canada’s work to provide asafe haven for 20,000 Iraqi refugees, “many ofwhom are Chaldean Catholics, driven from theirancient homeland under the threat of death.”Finally, in his speech, Prime Minister Harperlinked the fight for religious freedom to thedevelopment of democracy: “Today, as manycenturies ago, democracy will not find—democracy cannot—find fertile ground in anysociety where notions of freedom of personalconscience and faith are not permitted” (Harper2013).

Facing reporters after the announcement, thePrime Minister clarified that the ORF would becareful to avoid the criticism sometimes lodged atits US counterpart of being biased towardsChristianity. In response to a reporter’s pointedquestion, Harper stated that “Canada is a verydifferent country where the strengths of non-Christian faiths are quite significant…This isnot an office to promote a particular religion.This is an office to promote religious diversity andreligious tolerance around the world.” When

A HOST OF CRITICS VOICED

CONCERNS ACROSS A BROAD

SPECTRUM OF ARTICLES AND

OPINION PIECES IN THE

CANADIAN MEDIA

the promise of canada’s office of religious freedom

54 | volume 11, number 3 (fall 2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Ambassador Bennett responded to reporters, hereinforced this position:

This is not about a theological question—it’s about a human issue, not a theologicalissue. So all religions, all people of faith andagain those who choose not to have faithneed to be protected. Their rights need tobe respected. So it’s promoting that—that’s the mandate. (CPAC 2013)

An Ambassador Ready to LeadAmbassador Andrew Bennett is well qualified

to take on the challenging role as the CanadianAmbassador of Religious Freedom. He has anextensive academic background in history,political science, and religious studies. As apublic servant, he was a policy analyst with theQueen’s Privy Council Office for Canada,Export Development Canada, and NaturalResources Canada. Bennett was a Scholar Experton the Americas Desk with Oxford Analytica,and a Researcher with the University ofEdinburgh’s Institute on Governance where hiswork focused on Scotland’s process ofdevolution.

Prior to coming to the ORF, Bennett was aProfessor and Dean of Augustine College, a smallChristian liberal arts college in Ottawa. He has aBachelor of Arts in History from DalhousieUniversity, a Master of Arts in History fromMcGill University, and a Ph.D. in PoliticalScience from the University of Edinburgh. InOttawa, he is a Subdeacon and Cantor with boththe Holy Cross Eastern Catholic Chaplaincy andSt. John the Baptist Ukrainian-Catholic Shrine(Office of Religious Freedom 2013).

As Ambassador, he has been tasked withaddressing such diverse situations as thepersecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt,Baha’is in Iran, Ahmadiyya Muslims andChristians in Pakistan, and Falun Gong followers,Uyghur Muslims, Christians, and Tibetans inChina. To reporters following the announcementevent, Bennett said:

I’m looking forward to working with mycolleagues in the foreign service and the

department of foreign affairs that are doingthis every day. They’re out, in ourmissions, talking about religious freedomin those countries where there is thischallenge posed to people seeking topractice their faith, to live their faith.(CPAC 2013)

At the annual Religious Liberty Dinner inWashington, DC on April 18, 2013, AmbassadorBennett articulated his views about religiousfreedom in the keynote address of the evening:

Religious freedom does not just meanfreedom to worship. It also meansfreedom to study one’s faith; freedom topreach it; freedom to engage inmissionary activity; freedom to changeone’s faith and—yes—freedom to holdno religious beliefs.

As many of you know, the need foraction in defending freedom of religion inmany countries is urgent. Religiouspersecution is on the rise around theworld. We are called upon to act and todefend the human rights of all. We mustdo so, because religious freedom is not atheological issue, it is a human issue.Every society must recognize the basichuman dignity of all, regardless of faith.We all possess free will. We must havethe freedom to exercise this in matters offaith.

I believe that human dignity is central tothe message of freedom of religion. Frommy outreach to many different faithcommunities, it is clear to me that thepursuit of faith is inherent in ourhumanity. Each one of us seeks tounderstand who we are as human beings;how we relate to each other, to the worldand how we relate to the divine or to aparticular philosophy we might pursue.All of us have the right to express andmanifest our beliefs, and this right andthis freedom must be upheld anddefended. (Bennett 2013)

james c. wallace and richelle wiseman

the review of faith & international affairs | 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Bennett further affirmed his commitmentand that of the Canadian government toaction, not just words:

Canada is prepared to lead, with ourpartners and allies, to promote the dignityof the human being and each human’sinherent right to profess and practise theirfaith freely. We do so knowing thatsocieties that protect religious freedom aremost likely to protect other fundamentalfreedoms. We do so knowing that it is nocoincidence that religious freedom isprominently recognized in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, amongother declarations. And we do so knowingthat deeds go much further than words—that if we do not stand up against injustice,these international instruments are nothingmore than words on paper. We need towork together to protect basic dignity forall, including the very basic right ofreligious freedom.

With this in mind, as Ambassador ofReligious Freedom, I will ensure that myoffice will oppose religious hatred nomatterwhich religious community it is directedtoward. In my view, the office will reflectthe very best of Canadian society.Furthermore, we are determined to workwith partners around the world to support,promote, and protect the rights andprivileges that come with living in a free anddemocratic society. We will defend thosewho have religious faith and those who donot hold a particular faith so that theymight fully exercise their right to freedomof religion or belief. We will continue towork with our partners where we can, andwe will not be afraid to speak out with astrong, independent voice to supportfreedom of religion when we need to.

I am emboldened to act. I urge you all tojoin Canada and all others who stand up forreligious freedom or belief and humandignity for all. If we pursue the truth, wewill accomplish the good.

Ambassador Bennett’s commitment to leadershipand action was publicly validated on May 10,2013 when Sri Lankan Muslim leader AzathSalley was released from police detention. Oneday after Mr. Salley was arrested “for allegedlyprotesting against the government and provokingreligious and racial extremism,” AmbassadorBennett and the ORF spoke out to denounce hisimprisonment and the violation of his humanrights. In so doing, Canada was one of the firstcountries to publicly challenge Salley’s arrest andto call for his release. Upon his discharge fromprison, Azath Salley personally telephonedOttawa’s High Commission in Colombo, SriLanka to thank Canada for condemning hisarrest. Canada’s newspaper of record, the Globeand Mail, proclaimed this result “an unusuallyquick success for Andrew Bennett, the Harpergovernment’s newly minted Ambassador ofReligious Freedom” (Chase 2013; Sri LankaGuardian 2013).

Canadian Conceptions of ReligiousFreedom

By its own admission, Canada borrowed theidea of an ORF from the United States (Duggal2013). Yet the origins and development of theconcept of religious freedom in Canada arenotably different from the United States.

First, in the early 16th century, settlers cameto Canada from France to explore, trap, fish, andtrade goods with the aboriginal inhabitants.French settlers also came to establish—in thename of God and King—the colony of NewFrance which would be dominated and shaped bythe Catholic Church. English settlers followedsoon thereafter engaging in similar colonizing andcommercial pursuits, while religiously fashioningtheir society in keeping with the tenets of theChurch of England. These early settlers did notcome for religious freedom or to escape religiouspersecution, as did the Americans. Rather theCanadians were loyalists, not revolutionaries.They maintained their fealty to their Europeanparents, both church and state (Choquette 2004;Dufour 1990; Epp-Buckingham 2013;Menendez 1996).

Second, the idea of religious freedom did notplay an early and intrinsic role in the formation of

the promise of canada’s office of religious freedom

56 | volume 11, number 3 (fall 2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Canada as it did in the United States. For theAmerican Founders, religious liberty was a centraltenet of their constitutional experiment—fromthe Virginia Statute for the Establishment ofReligious Freedom [1779] to the FirstAmendment of the US Constitution declaringthat Congress shall neither prescribe norproscribe religion [1789] to President ThomasJefferson’s famous interpretation of the FirstAmendment in his letter to the Danbury BaptistAssociation declaring that it erected a “wall ofseparation between Church & State” [1802](Hamburger 2002; Witte 2005). By contrast,“religious freedom” in Canada was originally“recognized as a principle of fundamentalcharacter” without being specifically articulated assuch (Saumur 1953).

From 1760 onwards, after the Britishdefeated the French on the Plains of Abraham,treaties and legal statutes3 focused more onprotecting specific religious rights and practicesfor Catholics in Quebec and elsewhere versusarticulating the religious rights of all Canadians.Moreover, the British North American Act of1867, which constituted the Dominion ofCanada as a self-governing nation though still apart of the UK, granted special religiouseducational rights to Catholics and Protestants,but no other religious rights or freedoms weredecreed (Epp-Buckingham 2013; Ogilvie 2010;Saumur 1953).4 Not until the adoption of theCanadian Bill of Rights [1960] and the CanadianCharter of Rights and Freedoms [1982] was“freedom of conscience and religion” codified asthe first of the “fundamental freedoms”guaranteed to “everyone in Canada.” Whileneither banning religious establishment norguaranteeing free religious exercise, the Preambleto the Charter affirms that the nation “is foundedupon principles that recognize the supremacy ofGod and the rule of law” (Canadian Charter1982; Menendez 1996; Ogilvie 2010).5

A legal definition of religious freedom was notformally established in Canada until 1985 whenthe Supreme Court of Canada ruled in alandmark case called Big M Drug Mart whichstruck down the Lord’s Day Act prohibiting retailbusinesses from operating on Sundays. In

paragraph 94 of Big M Drug Mart the justicesdefined religious freedom:

The essence of the concept of freedom ofreligion is the right to entertain suchreligious beliefs as a person chooses, theright to declare religious beliefs openly andwithout fear of hindrance or reprisal, andthe right to manifest religious belief byworship and practice or by teaching anddissemination (R. v. Big M Drug Mart1985).

In paragraph 95, the justices go further to stressthat religious freedom is characterized by theabsence of “coercion or constraint”:

Freedom in a broad sense embraces boththe absence of coercion and constraint, andthe right to manifest beliefs and practices.Freedom means that, subject to suchlimitations as are necessary to protectpublic safety, order, health, or morals orthe fundamental rights and freedoms ofothers, no one is to be forced to act in a waycontrary to his beliefs or his conscience.

According to legal scholar Janet Epp-Buckingham of Trinity Western University, “thisappears to give a very broad meaning to religiousfreedom” and “includes not only freedom ofbelief but also freedom of worship, practice, andteaching” (Epp-Buckingham 2013).

A third important difference between Canadaand the United States is the philosophical andconceptual relationship between church andstate. For the United States, Jefferson’s metaphorof “a wall of separation” embedded in the FirstAmendment is dominant, compelling,“attractively simple” and “beguiling.” It hasbecome a “popular vision of religious liberty”worldwide in response to deeply felt fears ofecclesiastical authoritarianism, interference in thestate, and cultural control (Hamburger 2002).However, in Canada there is widespreadconfusion about the official relationship betweenchurch and state because three differentphilosophical visions exist within Canadian

james c. wallace and richelle wiseman

the review of faith & international affairs | 57

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

history, law, and culture. One is the concept of anestablished state church affording special rightsand protections to particular religious groups.The residue of this religio-political philosophy isstill found within the Canadian legal andeducational systems in spite of Canada’sincreasing secularization. For many Canadians,the state church legacy is accepted as “just the waywe do things here.” A second religio-politicalconcept is that of laïcité, the French notion ofsecularism, which predominates in Quebec andother Francophone areas. Laïcité encompasses aform of separation of church and state along withthe secularization of the public square whilesanctioning the regulation of religion in theprivate sphere in ways thatmost Americans would findunacceptable. The thirdconcept of church and statefrequently articulated byCanadians is not surprisinglythat of their neighbors to thesouth. American culture andnews coverage are so pervasivethat many Canadians,particularly those with apopulist understanding ofCanadian religious history,believe that the concept of “separation of churchand state” is embedded in the CanadianConstitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms.This is erroneous.

Concluding ReflectionsFor the new Canadian ORF, Canada’s

historical, constitutional, and conceptualunderstanding of religious liberty holds thepotential to be both an advantage and animpediment. Advantageously, since religiousfreedom is not central to the Canadian nationalnarrative, religious freedom advocacy is not likelyto be an ideological obstacle in Canada’sinternational affairs. Moreover, since Canada is acomposite of diverse models of church and state,it is more likely to be viewed by the internationalcommunity as understanding and tolerant ofdisparate national church-state frameworks. Andsince Canada’s constitutional statementsregarding religious freedom are minimalist,

Canada may be viewed as more benevolenttowards nation-states whose constitutionalreligious freedom guarantees do not includedisestablishment or free exercise clauses.

Yet ironically, the potential impediment forCanada’s religious freedom advocacy emanatesfrom these same contextual advantages. Thediffuse and opaque nature of religious freedom inCanada makes the government, perhaps,susceptible to shallow, politicized advocacy onthe international stage. The government—andmore than just the current party in power—willneed to define by its policies and actions what“religious freedom” means internationally forCanada. What will Canada advocate for? What

will Canada oppose? Wherewill Canada stand with theirinternational friends on issuesof religious liberty and wherewill Canada stand alone?Where will Canada break newground for religious humanrights in a world that “is asfuriously religious as it everwas, and in some places moreso than ever,” as Peter Bergerfamously declared (Berger1999)?

Some scholars and advocates in theinternational religious freedom community haveexpressed skepticism about Canada’s ability toinstitutionalize the ORF within the Canadiangovernment bureaucracy so that it will endurethrough successive governments led by opposingpolitical parties. However, on April 24, 2013, the308-member Canadian House of Commonscomprising representatives from five majorpolitical parties voted unanimously to supportMotion 382 acknowledging the importance ofreligious freedom to Canadian foreign policy(Shipley 2013). This “remarkable show ofsolidarity demonstrates Canada’s position onreligious freedom internationally” and affirms thatreligious freedom is a right “that Parliament wantsto see upheld at home and abroad.” MP DavidAnderson who seconded the motion in the Houseof Commons stated, “Today’s vote demonstratesthat religious freedom is not a party issue but aCanadian one. Canadians are committed to

CANADA’S HISTORICAL,

CONSTITUTIONAL, AND

CONCEPTUAL

UNDERSTANDING OF

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY HOLDS

THE POTENTIAL TO BE BOTH

AN ADVANTAGE AND AN

IMPEDIMENT

the promise of canada’s office of religious freedom

58 | volume 11, number 3 (fall 2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

working together to ensure that people have theright to choose their own faith and to also changetheir religion” (Anderson 2013).

This unanimous vote by the CanadianParliament is a bold declaration to theinternational community that religious freedomis a priority for Canadian foreign policy, in thepresent and for the future, no matter which

party forms the government. It is a proclamationthat Canada’s support of international normsand human rights regarding religious freedom issolid. It is a confirmation that Canada isprepared to lead with courage and conviction onissues of religious liberty in a way that willhopefully inspire other nations to follow itsexample. v

1. The timing of this Canadian initiative coincided with the discussion and debate in the US Congress over international religious persecution, the Wolf-Specter bill, and the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (IRFA) which was signed into US law by President Bill Clinton onOctober 27, 1998. For more information on the history of IRFA, see Farr 2008 and Farr and Hoover 2009 below.

2. For a qualified and political defense of Prime Minister Harper’s faith from one of his Liberal critics, see MP John McKay’s statements in HuffingtonPost.caas reported by Michael Bolen, August 16, 2012. Accessed June 7, 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/16/stephen-harper-religion-christian-faith_n_1791867.html.

3. The Articles of Capitulation in 1760, the Treaty of Paris in 1763, and the Quebec Act of 1774.

4. The Supreme Court of Canada case Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299 provides an excellent, comprehensive summary of the foundations ofreligious freedom in Canadian law.

5. Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects fundamental freedoms, including “freedom of conscience and religion”. Section 15of The Charter protects individuals from discrimination on the basis of religion. The Preamble to The Charter, which acknowledges “the supremacy ofGod,” has not had any substantive impact on the Supreme Court of Canada’s interpretation of religious freedom.

ReferencesAnderson, David. 2013. “Canada’s Parliament Adopts Motion on Religious Freedom.” David Anderson, MP, Cypress Hills-Grasslands. April 24, 2013.

Accessed April 25. http://www.davidanderson.ca/right-to-freedom-of-religion/canada-s-parliament-adopts-motion-on-religious-freedom

Bennett, Andrew. 2013. “Address by Ambassador Andrew Bennett at Religious Liberty Dinner.” Religious Liberty Dinner at the Canadian Embassy, April 18,2013. Accessed April 25. http://www.international.gc.ca/wet30-1/orf-blr/speeches-discours/2013/04/18a.aspx

Berger, Peter, ed. 1999. The Desecularization of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics. Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Cameron, Geoffrey. 2011. “Next Steps on Religious Freedom Office.” Embassy Magazine, June 1.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 1982. Accessed April 9, 2013. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html

CBC News. 2011. “Harper promotes religious freedom office.” CBC.ca, April 23. Accessed April 13, 2013. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/23/cv-election-harper-saturday.html

Chase, Steven. 2013. “New religious-freedom watchdog faces uphill battle.” Globe and Mail, June 7. Accessed June 8. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/new-religious-freedom-watchdog-faces-uphill-battle/article12403557/

Choquette, Robert. 2004. Canada’s Religions. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

CPAC. 2013. “Prime Minister Harper announces Office of Religious Freedom.” CPAC.ca, February 19. Accessed April 12. http://www.cpac.ca/eng/videos/84008

Dufour, Christian. 1990. A Canadian Challenge Le défi québécois. Halifax, NS: The Institute for Research on Public Policy and Oolichan Books.

Duggal, Sneh. 2013. “Religious Freedom Chief Handed Tough Gig.” Embassy Magazine, February 20.

Epp-Buckingham, Janet. 2013. “Bridging the Secular Divide.” Talk given to conference Bridging the Secular Divide: Religion and Canadian PublicDiscourse, McGill University, May 27–28, 2013. Talk is an excerpt from Buckingham’s forthcoming book, Fighting Over God: Religious Freedom History inCanada, McGill-Queen’s University Press..

Farr, Thomas F. 2008. World of Faith and Freedom: Why International Religious Liberty is Vital to American National Security. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Farr, Thomas F., and Dennis R. Hoover. 2009. The Future of US International Religious Freedom Policy: Recommendations for the Obama Administration.Washington, DC: Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs at Georgetown University and the Center on Faith & International Affairs at theInstitute for Global Engagement.

Hamburger, Philip. 2002. Separation of Church and State. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harper, Stephen. 2013. “PM delivers remarks on the establishment of the Office of Religious Freedom.” Government of Canada media release, February 19,2013. Accessed April 10. http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?category=2&featureId=6&pageId=46&id=5310

Haskell, David. 2006. “Stephen Harper’s Religious Faith.” Kitchener-Waterloo Record, 7 February, page A7. Accessed June 7, 2013. http://www.wlu.ca/page.php?grp_id=1470&p=8327&f_id=37

Kenney, Jason. 2011. “Minister Kenney attends memorial for Pakistan’s Minister of Minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti.” Government of Canada media release,March 4. Accessed April 11, 2013. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/statements/2011/2011-03-04a.asp

james c. wallace and richelle wiseman

the review of faith & international affairs | 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Menendez, Albert J. 1996. Church and State in Canada. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.

Office of Religious Freedom. 2013. “Ambassador’s Biography.” Last Modified March 18. Accessed April 10. http://www.international.gc.ca/religious_freedom-liberte_de_religion/bio_bio.aspx

Ogilvie, M. H. 2010. Religious Institutions and the Law in Canada . 3rd ed. Toronto: Irwin Law Inc.

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295. Accessed June 8, 2013. http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/43/index.do

Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299. Accessed April 14, 2013. http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2736/index.do

Shipley, Bev. 2013. “My Motion 382 on Religious Freedom passes in the House of Commons.” Bev Shipley, MP, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, April 25. AccessedApril 26. http://www.bevshipley.ca/media_/press-releases/mp-shipley-motion-382-on-religious-freedom-passes-in-the-house-of-commons

Siebert, John. 2012. “An Idea Whose Time has Come: The Harper Government’s Promised Office of Religious Freedom could Offer Expertise on the Role ofReligion in Foreign Policy.” The Ploughshares Monitor 33 (3), (Autumn 2012): 14–18. Accessed April 10, 2013. http://ploughshares.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2012autumn.pdf#page=14

Sri Lanka Guardian. 2013. “Azath Salley Released.” The Sri Lanka Guardian, May 10. Accessed June 8. http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2013/05/azath-salley-released.html

Witte, John, Jr. 2005. Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2013.829994

the promise of canada’s office of religious freedom

60 | volume 11, number 3 (fall 2013)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

lasg

ow]

at 1

7:58

18

Dec

embe

r 20

14