Canadian Heritage Committee on Sept. 25th, 2017

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

Thank you very much.

Chair, I also wanted to mention before my time has totally expired, can we make sure that the Wednesday meeting is televised, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Yes. It's always public, but if we wanted to ask if they would like to televise, I think that's good.

Thank you.

Now we go to Rachel Blaney for the NDP.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you both for being here.

One of the things that I've heard clearly from the testimonies before yours and some of the comments that you've made here is that we simply don't have enough data. One of the challenges is that people aren't feeling safe enough to tell their stories.

I'm curious. Could you tell me a little more about how we can collect data? I appreciated what you said about collecting, measuring, and reporting. From this table, how can we support the federal government in looking at this kind of collection of data?

[Shalini Konanur]

I would take the position that you do a review of what is going on currently in Ontario. There are probably ways to improve, but the framework that's being created for the collection of data is very comprehensive.

One critical piece involves the idea of disaggregated data. A lot of discussion has gone on around what that means. The truth is that disaggregated data, particularly around such things as race, is specific: somebody identifies as Indian or Jamaican. There is an importance to being able to collect data at that level of specificity, because it allows you then to measure what is actually happening.

We've talked about the experience of racialized people as not being homogeneous. Depending on the way you identify what happens, the impact upon you is very different. As a South Asian woman who identifies as heterosexual, the impact of some of the things going on is different for me from what it would be for my partner, who identifies differently.

I think we should look at the experience in Ontario and the framework that's being created. Organizations such as Colour of Poverty have also created very specific frameworks to collect disaggregated data. It has spent the past number of years training various municipalities and NGOs in the province of Ontario on how to do it.

I would echo what has been said, that we do not need to reinvent the wheel when talking about disaggregated data. Much work has been done already in Canada. We need to make sure, however, that the approach is not just about the collection of the data but also about the way it will be used, the way it will be reported, and what it is measuring.

[Shawn Richard]

I will speak to that as well.

The Law Society of Upper Canada recently convocated. They agreed to a bunch of recommendations about the challenges faced by racialized licensees. That project started in 2013. I was one of the people who assisted the law society in getting data.

It's not just people who are marginalized in their communities financially and educationally; it's lawyers. I had black lawyers who said to me that there was no way they were going to participate in this. What we had to do was ask people like me to go in to do the hard work, to identify specifically what the purpose was and how the data would be used.

Part of it involved the individuals who were there and who understood what was going on lending their credibility to the people who were involved to assure that things would be anonymous, because they were terrified. You can imagine that it's such a small community it would be very easy to identify individuals.

Part of it is the involvement with the community. You have to involve them at every stage, I believe.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

One thing I also want to have a bit of a conversation on is the reality that we need a solution to the question of how we address systemic racism. From a federal level, there are some specific places we can go.

Do you have any thoughts about how this government could take some next steps to address what's happening? You talked about police and racial profiling and you talked about carding. For many Canadians, I think systemic racism is invisible. They don't see it. How do we create this conversation in our country and at this level?

[Shalini Konanur]

I spoke about a race equity framework. It echoes what is already going on at the federal level with the gender plus framework. One overarching way of looking at this issue is that if you applied a race equity framework to any federal programming, you would be able to start to identify some of the indicators of systemic racism.

I will give you a very simple example. In income security, the federal government provides such things as old age security. If you applied a racial equity framework to the old age security program, you would probably find that the people least able to access that program are from racialized communities.

That is one way in which you can start to break down every systemic piece of work that the federal government does.

We've talked already about federal employment equity, which I really think is a critical piece that we need to speak loudly on. I'm going to leave it to Shawn to talk maybe about corrections.

There are priorities, however. Ontario said. “We cannot tackle every issue. We have to choose priorities and create strategies for those priorities.” I think it's critical for this committee to make a decision on what the priorities are.

As a lawyer, I would say the justice system is a critical priority. The housing system, on which work is already happening, is a critical priority. I would also say that creating a race equity lens will in and of itself be an incredible starting point for looking at every system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mr. Richard, you have less than one minute.

[Shawn Richard]

Very briefly, the first thing to do is to keep your own house in order. Make sure that your employees are benefiting from one, data, and two, support, to ensure they are not the victims of systemic racism. With corrections, there are recommendations in this report that everybody should look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Celina Caesar-Chavannes.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

How much time do I have, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have seven minutes for the question and answer.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I want to first thank you both for coming and for your testimony. Thank you for your service to our communities. I'm going to ask very brief questions. I have about four of them here.

What has the neglect of the implementation of the recommendations from the commission report had on communities, in your opinion, Mr. Richard? I'm wondering about the short-term and long-term impacts on our communities. I know that's a very big question, but can you respond in one minute?

[Shawn Richard]

It's hard to know for certain. Causation is very difficult. Had all the recommendations—and some of them have been implemented—been implemented, would we, for example, have this biggest issue, which is the explosion of black people in prison, both provincially and federally?

If you look at the report, there's an explosion from 1986 to 1994. Since then, we've had an even greater explosion, and that is a real problem. If you look at the actual offences, in prison, where you have segregation, which is a serious issue, and you look at the types of offences for which black prisoners are penalized the most, they're overrepresented in areas where there is discretion. In areas where there's a lack of discretion, for example, theft, they are under-represented.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Some of the recommendations have not been implemented, and that report looks well-used, so somebody must have been looking at that report.

How do we work to ensure accountability with anything we go forward with? How do we ensure that we have some teeth behind whatever we put pen to paper on?

[Shawn Richard]

I think it's like anything else. If you have a set of recommendations, you set a timeline to them. You know, my own file as a lawyer, if I have a to-do list, I have deadlines by which things need to be done. I'm instantly accountable. If they're not done by that particular time, the question is why. What do we have to do to change things? What are the reasons that they weren't implemented?

It's fine to have a set of recommendations, and they're important. I don't want to undervalue the importance of getting recommendations, but if you want teeth, if you want accountability, then make sure there's a timeline attached too, so that people can say, “You know, that recommendation, it was supposed to be done by now.”

The Law Society has done that with its report. It has given itself very clear timelines, and all organizations have been holding it accountable. It's held itself accountable, because it knows it has to get this done by then.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I'll pose the same question to you, Ms. Konanur.

[Shalini Konanur]

I would agree with everything you said. A strategy that just sets out recommendations is probably going to sit on the bench like the CAPAR did. The reality is that recommendations have to be set. Targets or measures have to be set, and timelines have to be set.

As those timelines come, those measures must be taken. If those targets aren't reached, there has to be accountability and reporting on why that didn't happen. Any kind of strategy we'd propose, a national action strategy, would have to be grounded in those types of targets. That's how we work. I have targets at my own workplace. I am accountable to my board, and it will ask me if targets are not met by a certain date. Those targets have measures, so that is very clear.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I want you, Ms. Konanur, to emphasize the role that going beyond gender-based analysis has on anything we do going forward. I always say that being a woman is only half of my issue; clearly, the other part is my race. I know you have given some examples. Please, emphasize the importance of that a little bit more.

[Shalini Konanur]

I think this committee has probably heard the term intersectionality over and over, so I think sometimes when I sit in rooms and say intersectionality people are like, “Okay, intersectionality.” The truth is that, when you work with clients, you see that they identify as so many different things and so many intersections of identity. You cannot have a strategy that will work for a person who doesn't recognize that. If you create a solution that is only based on a gendered framework, you are not recognizing that people of a particular gender are not the same. They identify differently and they're treated differently in society. I gave myself as an example. Why I think a race equity framework is so critical is that 25% of us are racialized and that number is growing. There is no reason why we would not have that front and centre with other intersections, like gender. If you don't have that type of framework, you will not have the success that you're hoping to have and the intention is to have that success. We are all intending for things to improve for people. You cannot do it if you are ignoring a specific part of a person's identity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have one and a half minutes.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

The last question goes to Mr. Richard and it could be as simple as yes or no for the answer.

Ms. Konanur spoke about priorities. Do you think that it would be appropriate to frame the priorities of this group, especially when we're talking about anti-black racism, within the context of the UN International Decade for People of African Descent, looking at recognition, justice, and development?

[Shawn Richard]

Yes or no to a lawyer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's as bad as a politician.

[Shawn Richard]

Possibly. We were on Parliament Hill in February seeking recognition of International Decade for People of African Descent and member Fergus was kind enough to try and put that forward as a private member's bill. Canada has yet to recognize that decade and that decade is passing. That's a problem.