Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 25th, 2017

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I'd like to thank both of you. That was very helpful. I like the fact that you grounded some of what you said in other reports for us to look at. That was really helpful.

Ms. Konanur, you mentioned the national action plan. You talked about how we might not need to go back to the old action plan, but we might need to look at updating it. What are some of your thoughts about what you would want to see in an updated national action plan?

[Shalini Konanur]

Just reading the old action plan, I think it is a good starting piece, but it is not specific enough. It's too general. Working in Ontario, seeing the action plan set out there, I would recommend that we create an action plan that sets a framework, obviously, a framework of intersectionality, and a racial equity lens. In doing so, I would then urge this committee, based on what it's heard, to choose priorities. Create within a national action plan the ability to have an overall framework and then priorities, perhaps corrections as a priority, employment as a priority, Islamophobia as a priority, hate crimes as a priority.

In the work that's being done in Ontario specifically, four pillars have been identified: Islamophobia, anti-black racism, racism within the indigenous community, and anti-Semitism. Within those four pillars, there are very clearly identified targets for what the government hopes to do within the next five years. I would like to see a structure that has clarity in terms of what the framework is, then clarity in terms of the priorities, and then clarity even within those priorities about what the targets are, what the measures are, and how the government proposes to reach that.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

That feeds right into the next piece I had for you. You mentioned that you've been working with the Ontario directorate. In fact, people came to speak with us last week about the work they're doing. You're there on the ground working with it. What are the lessons you think we should take from them as the biggest strengths, and then perhaps the weaknesses or pitfalls that we should be alert to?

[Shalini Konanur]

I think one of the critical things they've done a tremendous amount of work on is the collection of disaggregated data. One of the greatest strengths of the program was their commitment to the collection of that data throughout the province. They spent a lot of time developing the framework for how that would happen. This was not just in terms of how to collect at the front end, but how to collect, how to measure, and how to report. It's a front-to-end approach to the collection of data.

The other thing I wouldn't call a weakness. I would just say that it is really critical that in creating these plans you have a community-based approach. You need to hear from the community. You need to hear from the people facing these issues in order to create strategies that will have some impact on those cases. At the beginning of SALCO, my own organization, I was sitting down and trying to figure out what such a large group would do and what our priorities were. The only way to do it was to go into our community, sit down and speak to our clients, and do that needs assessment.

Ontario is doing that, but it's really critical that this piece does not get lost and that in creating those strategies, sub-strategies, and targets those communities are involved.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Excellent.

I found it particularly heartbreaking to hear you mention that people want to change their names. For me, keeping my name was always an important part of keeping my identity. This speaks to something that's come up from a few witnesses so far about employment equity issues. The federal government recently introduced name-blind applications. I'm not saying that's the whole answer, but where do you see that type of policy playing into the issues around employment equity?

[Shalini Konanur]

I think it's an interesting start and a good approach. I think the recommendations in the previous sessions are really critical, that a lot around employment equity requires a unified approach from the federal and provincial levels. We're just not there.

A strong leadership and a strong voice from the federal government calling on provincial counterparts to implement that employment equity approach is really critical. I do think that the federal government has probably done more by way of employment equity than many of the provinces have. The problem is that most of the people we work with are employed in provincial ventures, and would not be impacted by solely a federal employment equity process. A loud voice has to be used by the federal government to push that agenda forward throughout Canada, I think.

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Richard, you've raised a lot of issues, specifically within the criminal justice system. I was looking at the CERD report. Have you had a chance to look at it at all?

[Shawn Richard]

No, I haven't, but I would like to speak to the last thing that my friend discussed.

We applaud the efforts the government is making. The idea of a name-blind application process, so people can at least get in the door, is a good start. The fundamental problem, of course, is that at some point people's involvement is going to be very clear, who they are and where they are from. You can't take away all the opportunities for people to exercise discretion. We are not machines. We are people who are going to have to make judgments. At some point, the information we receive is going to influence our decisions. The question we have to grapple with is, how do we make sure that systemic racism or religious discrimination doesn't influence that decision, or at least that it doesn't influence it to the point where we are not happy with the outcome?

The first part is that we have to recognize that we can't just run away from the issue. We can't have a magical solution. We have to do very hard work, and that is, first, acknowledging that we have biases, all of us. That's it. If you're in the room and you're serious about it, you just say, look, we're human beings, all of us. When we look at information, we are going to interpret things in a particular way. Now, that acknowledgement doesn't let us off the hook, but at least it starts a discussion where we can then say, “Okay, fine, we have these particular biases”, and we can look at the data. There is lots of data available. What can we do so that, when we are making that decision—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

We're going to have to move to the next round, but you can keep going on that. As you said, we've started the discussion.

[Shawn Richard]

I'll just finish the sentence. What can we do, when we are making that decision, to minimize the effect, to at least be aware of the decisions we are making and then look at the data, look at the product, and make further changes if necessary?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Peter Van Loan]

Mr. Sweet, go ahead.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for their testimony. I can only say that I regret some of the experiences you've had to live. I hope that our conclusions will assist you and many of your clients to live a life that's much more free from any kind of racism, prejudice, or bias.

We have a committee made up with members from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the NDP and, full disclosure, we did vote against this motion, for only one reason: there are some broad concerns, even within the Muslim community, around the word “Islamophobia”. We are in full agreement with “anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice”, but because there is even a movement, Muslims Against M-103, we felt there was a voice in that community that we wanted to defend. This is just so you understand where I'm coming from, but I appreciated your testimony.

I come from Hamilton, where after 9/11 we had not only some racists, but some very ignorant racists, who bombed the Hindu Samaj Temple, obviously thinking that it was a mosque, and burned it to the ground. Fortunately, through a lot of community efforts and government assistance, it now stands as a monument against racism. There has been some really good work in Hamilton, not only individual programs but actual institutions for diversity and inclusion. We've had some broader workshops and events throughout the community since 9/11 to continue that, but there is always more work to do.

Mr. Richard, I think your testimony was evidence of that. You mentioned the 1992 study, and I thank you. Chair, I think we should consider taking that study as evidence. You mentioned how much progress we have made, and your words were that it's “unclear”. Do you feel that, at least in the crown, there has been some education? You mentioned quotes from some crown attorneys. Do you think there has been some improvement there?

[Shawn Richard]

It's hard to say. What we have, the December 1995 study, is really a comprehensive study with the best evidence available at that time. I know a lot of crowns. As a lawyer, I would like to believe that the sentiments that were expressed, even at that time, were hopefully not representative of crowns generally. I don't think they are, from the crowns I've met, but I have no way of knowing, and that's part of the issue.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I also want to thank you, Mr. Richard, for your candour with regard to.... We are required as individuals to confront our biases, to try to be more aware of where they are and to make sure that no matter what setting we're in that we're constantly being self-reflective and self-evaluating in eliminating them. I appreciate that part.

Ms. Konanur, is your office in Toronto? Do you have more than one office?

[Shalini Konanur]

We do. We serve the province, so we have a head office in Toronto and we have seven satellite offices, most of them spread between Hamilton and Durham. We also work with clients from London, Windsor, and Ottawa.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

So you would be familiar with some of the things I mentioned about Hamilton.

[Shalini Konanur]

Absolutely.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

How common is it.... First, when people come into your office...because one of the things...and Mr. Richard alluded to it a bit. My colleague Mr. Reid and I saw it when we had a committee called the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism, that there is a distinct lack of consistency in reporting throughout institutions and communities across Canada.

I know resources are always stretched, so I don't want this to sound like a judgment or anything, but do you have the capability of tracking some of those reports when people tell you they're uncomfortable going to law enforcement but this is what's happened to them?

[Shalini Konanur]

We do. We have a system whereby we can input intakes by issues. As people raise issues, they can be input into the system. My own review was based on pulling information out of our system.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

That's fantastic.

If somebody says they're afraid even to go to law enforcement and report it, that's cause for grave concern.

Have you had any initiatives to try to get dialogue between law enforcement in the different communities you represent, now that I know that it's broader than Toronto?

[Shalini Konanur]

We've done a lot of legal education work within our own communities on their relationships with the police. I'll be very frank and say that the communities we work with have not yet been receptive to having that type of conversation. We are still working on a framework of building trust, to be honest, and we're not there yet.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

Not there to even get people in the room to have a friendly dialogue.

[Shalini Konanur]

There is still a real fear of engaging with the police. One of the things I didn't mention is that a lot of the people who are reporting are not in status in immigration. We have these categories of very marginalized clients who, for other reasons, will not engage in that system but are facing these issues.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook, ON]

I was also concerned about your testimony that the representation of Canada at the UN was inconsistent. Was that a government representative giving testimony or NGOs or both?

[Shalini Konanur]

It was a government representative.