Evidence of meeting #47 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mischief.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Wells.
We'll go over to you Mr. Wilson.
February 21st, 2017 / 4:45 p.m.
Mickey Wilson Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and for having us here to discuss this important bill.
I want to begin by saying that I don't usually spend my time parsing out bills and exploring in depth that kind of work in building policy. I work in a community centre. I've spent 30 years of my life working in the LGBT queer and trans communities, volunteering for community-based organizations, and now as a paid employee, the executive director of the Pride Centre of Edmonton.
Our agency serves approximately 5,000 unique individuals every year, and in our outreach program we provide education to the larger community, to more people than that every year. We deliver our programs to government, not-for-profits, schools, churches, seniors centres, businesses in the broader community, and places of all kinds.
It's also important to know that I am a retired clergyperson, so I have a deep understanding of the connection between faith and the LGBTQ community, and the social construct of faith and its importance in the life of all communities. In my 20 years of active ministry, I served only two congregations. One was in the inner city of Edmonton, which was made up largely of homeless people, mostly indigenous. The second congregation was queer and trans and we met in other spaces that we shared. Most of the time that I was in those congregations, we did not use traditional worship space. We rented ad hoc, we met by the grace of others, and certainly we occupied spaces that would not necessarily be described in this bill.
As part of my volunteer work, I was fortunate to work with the board of Egale Canada, and for five years I was the chair of their national trans committee. During that time, the Egale study “Every Class in Every School” was undertaken, and it was released in 2011. It was the first study of its kind and exposed astounding statistics related to harassment, violence, and the perceived lack of safety. In addition, the study found that Caucasian youth, both LGBT and non-LBGT, experienced significantly less physical violence and harassment—8% compared to 13% of aboriginal students and 15% of youth of colour. This is significant because there is an aggregate effect, or a kind of double whammy that they experience. They are at risk not only because of their gender or sexual orientation but also because of their ethnicity.
In 2014 the Trans PULSE study on trans people in Ontario found even more alarming statistics related to trans and non-binary people. But significantly, the research showed that the experience of discrimination can result in exclusion from social spaces, unemployment, avoidance of health care, and poor mental health. The study also revealed the impact of intersecting oppressions such as one's trans identity, gender, and being part of a racialized community, and it produces the same aggregate effect.
Although physical assault and violence are not what's being addressed in Bill C-305, the experience of hate-motivated mischief is likely to have the same aggregate effect, where multiple categories of identity intersect. Research also indicates that LGBTQ people worry more about being victims of discrimination than do others, and research shows that in fact we anticipate it in our lives, often on a daily basis. The resulting minority stress has a collective impact that is particularly noticeable when there is an incident of violence, harassment, or mischief.
In the past five years I've seen “fag” and “homo” sprayed on a vehicle in my neighbourhood, notes posted on windows and doors using slurs about all kinds of people, vehicles burned, and windows broken. They were my windows. The other side of that coin is the impact of acknowledging the reality of our vulnerability and our value as citizens.
The inclusion of rights and the validation of LGBTQ identities at legislative levels empowers and strengthens queer and trans people, both individually and collectively. I've seen this in my life over and over again, from the decriminalization of homosexuality in 1969, which is when I was just coming out, to the amendment of the Human Rights Act in my home province of Alberta to include gender identity and gender expression in December of 2015.
In reading Bill C-305, I am uncertain exactly which buildings and which contexts this amendment might address, or perhaps should address. I know that hate-based mischief has the same result regardless of where it happens, whether it is in a religious setting, a community centre, a women's organization, a community group of indigenous folk or people of colour, a gathering place for queer and trans people, or posted on the door of a senior's room in a seniors' facility.
This kind of legislation sends strong messages. To those who enact legislation against hate-motivated mischief as a society, it says we reject this kind of action. It may not stop the action, but it says it's not okay, that it is unacceptable. To the vulnerable, the message is much stronger: it's that we matter, and that's really the most important thing of all.
Thank you for your time today.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson, and I thank you both for your comments.
Now we're going to questions. We're going to start with Mr. Falk.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Thank you for attending committee today.
Mr. Wilson, I have some questions I'd like to ask you. Looking at the legislation—you've obviously had a chance to study it a bit—do you think it addresses the concerns that you've identified in your presentation?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
It addresses some of them, certainly. I'm not sure that it would clearly identify some of the issues the LGBTQ community might experience in terms of mischief. A lot of mischief crimes would happen in personal residences and against personal property. It certainly would happen in spaces that are occasionally used perhaps for our purposes. For example, if somebody knows that a hall is rented for an LGBTQ facility during pride week, an event could happen there, and it wouldn't be a regular use or a primary use.
I think there are perhaps some gaps in it. I'm not sure how to close those gaps. That's not my job, but I certainly see that it might not meet all the needs of this community.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
Okay.
You've identified the word "primarily" in the first four paragraphs of the proposed amendments. You've indicated that it may be problematic, especially in the context of your communities, and you're suggesting that it should be considered more carefully and perhaps altered?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
I think so. In reading it, I wondered if it needed to be in there at all. I think that if a crime of mischief happens and there were an identifiable group in there that's been targeted, then it shouldn't matter whether its the primary use or not.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Ted Falk Conservative Provencher, MB
In the previous panel that we had here, Ms. Khalid asked about how this legislation might act as a deterrent. Based on your testimony and your experience, do you think this bit of legislation would be a deterrent, and if so, how do you think it would play out?
4:55 p.m.
Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
One could only hope that hate would be stopped by deterrence, but it most often isn't. I believe that it certainly puts a message out there. People who perhaps could be swayed, may be swayed because it's there. Unfortunately, though, I don't believe most hate is swayed by legislation or law.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much, Mr. Falk.
We're going to go to Mr. Boissonnault.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, both, for travelling to Ottawa. It's really important for us to have your perspective from the LGBTQ2 community and also a perspective from the west, particularly from Alberta and Edmonton.
During my recent community conversations, I met researchers across the country. In Vancouver, I met with the Stigma and Resilience among Vulnerable Youth Centre, known as SARAVYC. I asked a direct question. “How can we save the lives of queer and indigenous youth? How can we stop suicides?” Jennifer, one of the researchers, took out a research study and said, “Here's the proof. We need safe spaces and we need symbols.” What youth need to know is that there's a space where they can be safe to be who they are, but they need the symbols that identify that those safe spaces exist. They need the kind of pride flags and trans flags that you have on Camp fYrefly, on the iSMSS office and the pride centre, and what Vancouver City is now doing with all of its rec centres, having safe spaces there. These are important, but, as you mentioned quite eloquently in both your remarks, that then turns those spaces and those gatherings into targets.
What's important for me to know and what I would like to ask you is, how do we, not just with legislation but with other tools at our disposal, attack some of these issues?
Kris, you were very blunt that we need a wholesale review. You don't have to take my word for it. The last 2013 data from StatsCan shows that 16% of hate crimes were motivated by hatred based on sexual orientation. That makes our community the third most targeted after race and ethnicity, and religion. I applaud Mr. Arya for including this and going this far.
Kris, my question for you, Mr. Wells, is what would the substantive and symbolic impacts for the LGBTQ2 community be if sexual orientation and gender identity were added to this section?
Then I'll have a question for Mickey and a question for both of you.
4:55 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
Thank you for the question. I think at its face, it says that you matter, you exist. When we name people, we give them personhood. We recognize that they have rights, that they're full, contributing, and valued members of our society. We also recognize as a government that this is a distinct, vulnerable community in our society. We certainly wish it weren't that way, but that's a reality. These changes are symbolic. They expand the conversation. They enlarge the space of inclusion in our country.
I think they can also be substantive in giving some of those tools to law enforcement, to our prosecutors, to send out those strong messages that, when these crimes do happen, they're going to be taken very seriously because of the differential impact that they have. As has been said time and time again, these are not crimes, even though they might target property. They target an entire group of people. That message reverberates strong and loud and then makes people feel that they have to be silent and invisible. It makes them feel less safe to be able to go into those identified safe spaces.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
Mr. Wilson, how would the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity affect the Pride Centre of Edmonton and other like organizations across the country? How would these proposed additions impact members of the trans community and gender-diverse Canadians?
5 p.m.
Executive Director, Pride Centre of Edmonton
I think it's really clear that, when people can see themselves in legislation, they're more likely to feel empowered. Most queer and trans people don't report hate crimes, hate incidents, or incidents of bias that happen in the community because they don't think anybody will listen. They don't think anybody really cares about whether or not I got called a name or was threatened in a washroom because I'm trans or any of those kinds of things.
What it does do is to say that I do matter, that my government has taken my life into consideration and has said it's important, that it's important enough to put on paper and to create a bar that's met by law.
What would it mean to the pride centre? Certainly it would make us feel safer. We haven't had, in this round of occupation, the current space that we have, anything pasted to our doors or anything like that, but we have received letters that we do report, and they sit in my cabinet telling us that we're evil, that we need to repent, that we're going to hell, and that we shouldn't exist.
Gender-diverse people are perhaps the most marginalized among us. Trans women are underemployed or unemployed. Trans women of colour are murdered violently. They're beaten. Trans people struggle every step of the way. I would say that we face injustice at every turn. I can say there isn't a day that goes by when we don't have to deal with some sort of conflict or confrontation in our lives. On my trip here this morning, I had to have a conversation with the airport screeners about who I am. So it's every day.
I think the government acknowledges who we are and says that people don't have a right to mistreat us or commit crimes against our property or the spaces that we're in. It's really significant.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
We're working very hard to make sure that you feel safer every day. You know that, and I know you were part of the conversation.
Mr. Chair, do I have 30 seconds or one minute left? How much time do I have, or am I done?
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
You actually have no time left, but we have 30 seconds, and I'm happy to give it to you for 30 seconds.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Maybe answer this in another part. Forty percent of homeless youth are LGBTQ2. We have LGBTQ seniors going into seniors' facilities being re-closeted. As our government starts to make more spaces for LGBTQ seniors and to help get all kids off the street, but certainly LGBTQ youth as well, how does this kind of provision make those spaces safer, in your mind?
5 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
We know that hate is a learned value. Right? The reality is that the large majority of hate crimes are committed by youth against youth. These are crimes under the age of 25. If hate is a learned value, the real question comes down to what we are teaching our children. Where are they learning that it's okay to hate and attack other people?
A lot of this has to start with the conversations we're having with our families around dinner tables. We're seeing this conversation happen right now in the National Hockey League, through February's being designated as “hockey is for everyone” month. Our organization, along with others and Calder Bateman, have created pride tape as a visible way that NHL players and role models can wrap their sticks in rainbow hockey tape to say that we're allies; that we're going to stand against discrimination; that we're going to create spaces of inclusion.
While we're talking about changes to the Criminal Code, we're talking about all those little changes, the micro-practices whereby individuals and organizations step up and denounce hate and prejudice, because that's how culture will change.
This is an important first step, but I really believe it's about education, cultural change, and the kinds of conversations we're having.
5 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I very much appreciate both of your testimonies today. Thank you for coming to Ottawa to give them.
Professor Wells, I was really glad to hear your testimony when you were talking about the piecemeal approach to the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code is a vast piece of federal legislation. It clocks in, I think, at over 1,300 pages. Every time I review it, I find myself jumping around from section to section, because there can be sections separated by 500 pages that deal with the same area.
I know the intention behind Bill C-305 is a very noble one, but you raised some concerns in your testimony about whether these very specific definitions are going to leave some spaces out. Section 718.2 allows a judge to impose harsher penalties if a crime is motivated by hatred, based on a few characteristics. I note that as this is currently written, gender identity and expression are not included.
Would it be a better way to go to put it in, to make it a bit broader and make a judge more able to interpret it? When you were testifying about this specific section, you raised the prospect of whether businesses that are easily identifiable would be excluded. Neighbourhoods in Vancouver and Toronto are not covered in this legislation, but they are identified as places where the trans community hangs out to feel safe; they are their community.
What are some of your thoughts on that?
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I think you're right. This inevitably happens with legislation that is amended over time: sections don't necessarily read together and they're difficult to find. If judges are having a hard time finding various sections that are current or no longer on the books, I'm not sure how everyday, ordinary citizens are to be able to interpret it.
That's why there is a proposal to add a specific hate crimes section to the Criminal Code that will consolidate all of this together. It will make a stronger statement to individuals and as a nation about how we understand hate; we've certainly done that with terrorism. It also provides clear guidance and gives greater opportunity to educate law enforcement as well.
We know that right now there are special prosecutors who deal specifically with hate, because of the complexity of being able to prove motivation, who's included, who's not included. The fact that we don't even have a standardized definition of what a hate crime is Canada is, to me, unconscionable. How are we going to get at the intent of the changes to the Criminal Code when we have police departments all across the country operating with different understandings?
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Alistair MacGregor NDP Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
It's like the elephant in the room not being addressed by this—
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Professor and Faculty Director, Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services, University of Alberta, As an Individual
I know there is support. It's just a matter of making this a priority, and when we see the state of the world before us, I do believe that now is the time for us to do this in this country. This is a serious discussion that we should be having. How do we consolidate our approach against hate, whether that's with the Criminal Code or the other resources we have?
We know that across Canada there are great models of hate crime units. Some are focused within police services while others have coordination provincially, but do we have that nationally as well?
I think a lot of what happens is that we shift that off into forms of extremism and terrorism, but we're talking about how hate and terrorism can be and are different things. They can be related, but they can also be very separate as well. When we talk about hate, we're often talking about targeting vulnerable individuals. When we're talking about terrorism, we're talking about entire classes or groups of people as well.
I believe this legislation is important. I believe it's a step in the right direction. I think it's a conversation that we need to strongly carry forward.