THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 8, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:13 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally.
[Editor’s note: Please note that this transcript may contain strong language and addresses sensitive matters that may be difficult to read.]
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee. Today we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I will let the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Bernard: I am Wanda Thomas Bernard, a senator from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Arnot: Senator David Arnot from Saskatchewan.
Senator Jaffer: Welcome. I am Mobina Jaffer from British Columbia.
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Today our committee will continue its study on anti-Black racism, sexism and systemic discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Commission under its general order of reference. In recent years, allegations of anti-Black racism have raised concerns about the CHRC’s treatment of its own employees, as well as its decision-making processes when dealing with complaints.
Let me provide some details about our meeting today. This afternoon, we shall have three panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses, and then the senators will have a question-and-answer session.
Now I will introduce our first panel. Our witness has been asked to make an opening statement of 10 minutes. Generally, the rule is 5 minutes, but we really want to hear from you, so it’s 10 minutes for you. We shall hear from the witness, and then turn to questions from the senators. Our first witness, who is with us in person at the table, is Bernadeth Betchi, employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Before I invite you to make your presentation, I would like to allow Ms. Coward and Ms. Babineau to sit with you for support. I now invite Ms. Betchi to make her presentation.
[Translation]
Bernadeth Betchi, Employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as an individual: Good morning, honourable senators. Mbemba amos.
I would like to first thank you for the invitation and for this historic occasion. I would like to thank all the people who came before me and those present today. I would like us all to take a moment to think about those who have suffered and continue to suffer because of systemic racism. I think of the survivors here in the room and those watching from home. To all those people who are not here because of the fear and trauma inflicted by the commission and throughout the public service. Please know that I believe you, I see you, and I honour your strength to carry on.
I stand today on the shoulders of my ancestors and the global community; thank you for being a source of inspiration and strength to me.
My name is Bernadeth Betchi, I am a Black African woman, Cameroonian, and I am also Canadian. I am the mother of three children, they and she are my best guides and the reason why I am speaking out today and continuing this fight against racism and discrimination, despite the risks associated with this cause: a better world for our children.
It is impossible for me to say everything I would like to say and everything that is relevant to the study of this committee in just 10 minutes. Therefore, I will provide my speaking notes to the committee, and I have already provided a number of key relevant documents that I urge all of you to review in order to fully understand this issue.
[English]
I am a substantive employee of the commission, but I am currently on secondment to another department. I haven’t returned to the commission due to the workplace culture and the trauma from what I witnessed and experienced. Let me bring you back to the beginning of my journey with the commission.
I want to say that I fell in love with the commission’s core values and mandate. They aligned with mine and what I think to be one of my missions on earth. I started working at the commission in October 2019.
When I first met with leadership at the commission and expanded on my professional and academic experiences, especially being fresh out of the Prime Minister’s Office, it was understood that I could do so much. Those coming from the PMO typically occupy executive and management positions, much less senior advisor positions. I hold a bachelor degree in communications, a master’s degree in gender studies, and I am currently completing my doctorate studies. I have been teaching as a professor for many years now.
However, despite a recognition of this reality in our discussions, I was offered a junior role on the team — an EC-04 policy analyst position. I was told that they knew that this was a drastic demotion for me, but that it was the only position they could offer me right away. I was frank and said that this position was not only going to prevent me from using all my talents, grow in learning and expose myself to more opportunities, but it was also restricting them in benefiting from what I could do for the commission. I was told that once I was hired, we could discuss more opportunities. I took the position because the cause was — and is still — so important to me.
But what this initial interaction would later reveal is a consistent and well-documented practice of devaluing the expertise, credentials and professional experience of Black people at the commission. I would quickly learn that few people were hired at such a level in my unit, that there were rarely, if ever, any open competitions for positions, and that I would be expected to do the same work as the senior advisors on the team. I faced intersectional forms of discrimination. For instance, when I approached the acting director of the policy team to discuss acting opportunities, they speculated that I had my hands full at home because of my children and to maybe reconsider wanting to seek higher opportunities. I was also told by the director that I did not demonstrate having enough experience debriefing senior management. To that I responded, how more senior than the Prime Minister of Canada and his team do you want?
The commission systematically abuses staffing processes to reward certain behaviours, promote certain individuals, almost exclusively without competition, and to inflate the levels of positions. There are no avenues for meaningful career development for Black employees, regardless of their contributions. The institution relies on non-advertised processes to create advantage for some and disadvantage for others.
It wasn’t until I was going to engage the union that I was offered an acting position for four months. When the time came, I was told I would actually have to compete for the position, but I watched colleagues quietly promoted without competition, sometimes several levels up. How could I compete if the organization never holds competitions?
Please note that I never asked for any favour. Black people are not asking for favours. We are often overqualified, have multiple degrees, are bilingual or speak more than two languages, like me. We have extensive work experience, yet we are under classified and are not given fair opportunities.
I met with senior management. I outlined the violence that was happening within the CHRC’s walls. Just like so many have done before, he took the information, kept asking other Black employees and me to tell them and senior leadership our trauma, but continued and still continue to bring performative actions to hide what is actually systematically happening at the commission.
When I started attending meetings at the commission, I quickly started witnessing troubling behaviours. The dismissal of race complaints and the normalization of racist and sexist narratives are unfortunately not uncommon occurrences at the commission. I sat at tables where I heard dehumanizing conversations from people who are in charge of assessing complaints. It was shocking to see that all four investigation managers were White, with the exception of one employee, and that the entire team of investigators handling complaints filed on the grounds of race, colour, national and ethnic origin and religion were White and did not have relevant experience regarding race-based discrimination.
Long before any investigation took place, it was commonplace for staff to speculate about how a complainant is imagining things. It couldn’t possibly be about race. They must be lying. Pre-judging the outcome of a complaint is sadly normalized among all grounds, but the insidiousness of racism meant that almost every race-based complaint I saw was dismissed, irrespective of the evidence presented.
In a workplace where discrimination and racism are present, I felt marginalized, isolated, unsupported and excluded. I know that this is what created and continues to create feelings of anxiety, stress and trauma. The impact of racism is far-reaching and long-lasting. It affected my physical and mental health. I left the commission on sick leave in September 2020. I was then pregnant with my third child and was worried at how stress and violence experienced in the workplace were negatively affecting my pregnancy. I ended up giving birth earlier than the due date, which has never happened to me in all my previous pregnancies.
Many of those who have spoken out over the years continue to suffer and are too afraid to speak up. They have suffered from mental health issues such as depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation. Career loss, stagnation and exclusion from development opportunities have intergenerational effects for families. Some quit the public service and have had to navigate the job market during a pandemic without references as a consequence of speaking up for Canadians. It is not easy to speak up against an institution such as the commission, especially in a world where anti-Black racism exists in almost all communities and is so normalized that it is rendered invisible to most.
I will be making several recommendations in my brief, but today I want to speak to a few.
I support the recommendations made by experts and witnesses to reform Canada’s human rights system by facilitating a direct access model for complaints to the tribunal. Every Canadian deserves to have their complaints considered in a fair and timely manner by an independent body with the means to effectively resolve them.
The commission requires a complete overhaul of workplace reviews, including limiting its mandate to public education, outreach and policy support. There also needs to be accountability for those who have abused the system and harmed Canadians. We now have a finding of discrimination and evidence of the disproportionate dismissal of race complaints. There should be consequences for those in leadership who committed, enabled and promoted a culture of disregard for the human rights of employees and the public.
Lastly, I believe that it is time for Canada to embark on a path of reconciliation with people of African descent and to contend with its own history of enslavement, segregation and marginalization. We need national legislation and a policy framework that formally recognizes people of African descent in Canada as a distinct group whose human rights must be promoted and protected. A course of reconciliation with people of African descent requires an apology, public education and the preservation of records of historical injustices, including slavery, segregation and its impacts. To advance substantive equality, it must require the implementation of corrective measures, a robust framework for results and public reporting and facilitate consequential amendments to existing legislation and regulations to remove barriers, eradicate anti-Black racism and address disparities in outcomes.
[Translation]
In conclusion, Madam Chair, senators, to you here and at home —
[English]
I will not believe words without actions anymore and allow people to continue performative allyship. As a Black woman, as a mother, as a professional and as an academic, I contribute to this country and make it a better place to be.
On behalf of Black people in this country and around the globe, we deserve equitable treatment. We deserve the spaces we occupy and to exist in the skin that we are in. We deserve compassion and to be celebrated, and to experience joy, abundance and prosperity. We are intelligent, strong, resilient and talented. We will not tolerate being dehumanized anymore.
To this I say, Ubuntu: I am because we are. Thank you. Akiba.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Betchi, for your presentation, and thank you for your courage in sharing your story with us.
Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask senators and witnesses in this room, for the duration of this meeting, to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.
I will now turn to the deputy chair, Senator Bernard, for her question.
Senator Bernard: I want to start, Bernadeth, by applauding you for your resilience and thanking you for your courage. I know it takes a lot of courage to come into a public space such as this to talk about the trauma and racism you’ve experienced and witnessed. I also know you’re not just speaking of your own story — this is not just your story; this is the story of many people.
I have far too many questions, so I’ll put myself on the second round now.
There’s so much in what you’ve shared with us, but the first question I want to ask you is this: What consequences do you think would be appropriate for the finding of the recent grievance that you and others have put forward? You said there should be consequences. What is the scope of consequences you’re thinking about?
Ms. Betchi: Thank you so much for your question, senator.
I would start by saying that people who caused harm need to be held accountable. They should have the humility to step down from their positions and leave room for people who can come and solve or fix all the problems they have caused by perpetuating violence in many ways. That would be a very important one.
The structural and systemic changes we’re also asking for include reform of the commission. That is another important one to note.
At this moment, the actions we are bringing to the commission will only go forward if the people who have perpetuated the harms are removed from their positions and if we have folks who will come with their expertise, a new lens, and with meaningful and intentional actions to actually bring the reform that we’d like to see at the Human Rights Commission.
Those are the two recommendations I would like to focus on.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
As a follow-up, you noted that you’re on secondment. What would need to change at the commission for you to go back there? What would make that a workplace to which you’d want to return?
Ms. Betchi: A big part of why I don’t feel safe at the commission is the people in senior leadership. I trusted them with my story. I went to them to explain what was happening to me and other colleagues of mine. Like so many others, they took that story and used it but didn’t do anything. There were no meaningful actions that followed from me sharing my story with them. I believe it will be a triggering place for me until those people no longer work there.
Senator Bernard: I’ll just ask one more question for now and then give my colleagues an opportunity to ask questions.
You used the term “violence” to refer to racism. Not many Canadians would frame racism as a form of violence, but of course, we have research that has documented racism as a form of violence. Can you tell us a bit more about that and why you would frame the racism you’ve experienced and witnessed as a form of violence?
Ms. Betchi: Thank you for that question.
To better answer this question, I need to say that this is my interpretation of racism. If you were to ask another Black person, maybe they would answer something else.
I have been experiencing racism since the day I arrived in this country. I was three years old. Racism for Black people is at school, at the grocery store, at the soccer field and at the park. It’s now in the workplace. I have internalized so many of the violent words that have been spoken to me. Those words play in my head, day in and day out, even though I know my worth. That’s because of the racism I have experienced my entire life. There’s so much harm that I cause to myself because of internalized racism. It’s psychological. It’s harm that you can’t always see physically, but it is internalized. That is why I refer to racism as violence.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Betchi, I thank you. I follow Senator Bernard in saying you’re courageous. I agree. By being here today, you’re not just asking to protect your children, but you are asking for all our children to be protected.
Ms. Betchi: Absolutely.
Senator Jaffer: I salute you, because many of us have experienced racism, even in this institution, but we’re not as brave as you are. When I say to you that you’re brave, it comes from the bottom of my heart.
Ms. Betchi: And I respect that.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you.
I don’t know where to start. I’m in the same position as Senator Bernard. I listened to you, and I see somebody who has worked at the PMO. You’re not a shrinking violet or somebody who doesn’t know our system or how to work it, yet you are sitting in front of us and telling us these things. It sort of takes my breath away.
Given what you have said about your experiences and the internal culture, do you even think reform is possible, or do we need a fundamental change in the structure of that department? You have made recommendations. With what I heard from you, I just wonder if it is even possible to change the toxic culture.
Ms. Betchi: Thank you for that question. It’s a loaded one.
I will start by saying this: If I didn’t have hope, I wouldn’t be sitting here. Hope is what is at the core of my body, and that is why I’m fighting for all of our kids and all of us. We need to have hope that change can happen.
Senator Jaffer: Change at the commission?
Ms. Betchi: Change at the commission can happen. I provided a few recommendations. Like I said, there are more detailed recommendations in the briefing documents that I provided.
Senator Jaffer: I read them, but I am not so much looking at recommendations, because you’ve already made them, and I don’t want to take up time on that. But after hearing what you said, and you’ve been at the PMO, it is an environment even more toxic — not that I’m saying the PMO has racism issues, but it’s a tough environment to work in.
Ms. Betchi: Absolutely. I can testify that the commission is way more toxic than any other place where I’ve worked before. I can say that.
Now, if we go and proceed with the structural changes and remove the people who are leading the institution, I think there’s hope that we can bring true and meaningful reform.
Senator Jaffer: From what I hear from you, it’s everywhere. It’s not just the leadership. The leadership is based on this foundation of racism.
Ms. Betchi: Absolutely, yes.
Senator Jaffer: So do you think just removing the leadership would do it? Because it’s ingrained everywhere.
Ms. Betchi: It is ingrained everywhere. It’s ingrained at the commission. It’s systemic. The problem is that systemic racism is part of the system. The system is created like that and is created in a way that individuals are perpetuating what’s embedded in the system. Removing a few key players is a way that we can advance, and then we need to work to educate the public. There are so many other things that also need to accompany the reform, but I would say that because it’s in the system, we also need to focus on changing the system.
Senator Jaffer: Having worked at the PMO, did you contact anybody at the PMO to talk to them about your terrible situation?
Ms. Betchi: No, I didn’t contact anybody at the PMO to explain. Most of them learned about this situation, like everybody else, on the media.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witness, for your courage. I think it’s echoed by all the senators that heard you testify here today.
I have a similar question to the one raised by my colleague Senator Jaffer. You’ve described an experience of being marginalized, of sadness, of anger, of anxiety, stress and trauma, in what seems to be a thoroughly toxic environment. It actually paints a very bleak picture. I know you have some hope, but I really question whether there is anything that could be done to restore the trust and confidence that Black Canadians would have in the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I hear that you have some hope in that regard, with structural reform, deconstructing the commission and some of the processes and the leadership, and perhaps new leadership and new people are required because of the deep-seated cultural bias that appears to be part of your evidence but also part of the evidence of others that have come before you. I would like you to comment on that.
Second, would it be fair to say that we can assume that the same kind of systemic discrimination that has occurred at the Canadian Human Rights Commission is, in fact, occurring in most of the ministries and agencies of the federal government?
Ms. Betchi: I will start by answering your second question. My story is not a unique story for me at the Canadian Human Rights Commission or any department across the public service and in the private sector. I’m here, you hear my voice, but I’m speaking on behalf of everybody, all the other Black people that have experienced similar realities as mine. I’m here representing so many people. It happened at the commission, and it happens in so many other departments — I would say all the departments.
To go back to your first question, the reason I bring hope in here is because if I don’t have hope, then what else do we have? Okay, I don’t think that the commission is capable of change or even reform in a way that is meaningful, but then we need to try. That’s why I bring hope into this.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you, Ms. Betchi, for your very touching testimony that corroborates everything we have seen and heard since we have been doing this study. I also thank you for the hope you have for this commission. I am sorry to hear that this toxic environment at the Canadian Human Rights Commission caused your premature delivery; that is truly distressing.
How do you see the reform taking shape at the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Should there be more Black employees in senior management? Should there be more people who are informed and educated to understand the environment and context of Black people? How do you see this reform? Should the Canadian Human Rights Commission still exist? Some have suggested that it be disbanded. Most want a direct route. How do you see this reform of the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
Ms. Betchi: Thank you for your question, senator. In fact, there are several aspects to how I see reform at the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Earlier, I was talking about a problem of systemic racism. So the very system is created in a certain way, and then people are perpetuating that way, that discrimination, racism and oppression.
Having more Black people at the executive level, that’s always kind of an interesting question and tactic. I’ve been disappointed many times, precisely by Black people. They get into management positions and it seems like they forget everything that’s going on. Then maybe to keep their job, or out of fear, I couldn’t even tell you the reasons, their struggle stops at the door and doesn’t continue in their position as executives. They forget about us.
So, the people who have these roles need to be representatives with a strong heart, who are willing to continue to fight systemic racism against Black people. That’s the first thing.
So to say that we just appointed a person who identifies as a Black person, precisely to hide what’s going on in the Canadian Human Rights Commission or in other departments, I think that’s outdated, until you can really see the hard, real work that person is doing.
Also, I would say to you that the direct model that was discussed last week, that I brought back today to the tribunal, could be another way to break the control that the Canadian Human Rights Commission currently has over complaints. So the idea of having a direct model to the tribunal might be another way to do it, too.
I’d like to come back to the fact that appointing a Black person as a senior manager, so in a leadership position, is not enough. It is absolutely necessary that this person and their team bring about real change. So far, we’ve been very disappointed because when these people come into these positions, oftentimes they forget about us.
Senator Gerba: In the case that concerns you right now, have you filed any complaints that are in the process of being resolved?
Ms. Betchi: Yes, absolutely. I have made a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and I am also part of the Black Class Action.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: I join my colleagues in thanking you for being here, educating us today and doing so at some significant risk to yourself, I imagine, so thank you for that.
My question is on leadership, which seems to be the strain that my colleagues are exploring. You said in your testimony that key players need to be removed, but when key players are removed new players are put in place. I wonder if you would comment on the Canadian Human Rights Act itself, which mandates six commissioners to be named by the Governor-in-Council, including the chief commissioner, the deputy chief commissioner and members referred to as the accessibility commissioners and pay equity commissioners. There is nothing in the act that refers to the commissioners being from the designated groups themselves — women, persons with disabilities, Aboriginal peoples and visible minorities, and of course, there are intersections between these. Do you believe that the government should amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to ensure that there is, as you said, both experience and competency as well as the perspectives of marginalized groups at the leadership table so that you don’t have processes such as what you described: How can you compete when there’s no official competition? This goes to leadership. Tone comes from the top.
Ms. Betchi: Thank you, senator.
I believe that you answered your powerful question when you said you believe that there needs to be designated — I forget exactly how you stated it — but there needs to be people appointed from designated equity-seeking groups. They need to be at the head so that, as you said, it trickles down to the bottom in the processes, the structure and the conversations. The conversations at the commission will change if there are people around the table that know what they’re talking about. Yes. My answer is very short, because in your statement you answered your own question. I would say, yes, I think there needs to be that change, and there needs to be people appointed at those positions.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much. We’ll add it to your list of recommendations, and we look forward to receiving the brief.
I’m curious for you to compare the political sandbox with the public service sandbox. It stuns me, frankly, but can you describe your trajectory to the PMO? We’ve heard about your trajectory at the public service, but can you describe that trajectory and compare some key moments?
Ms. Betchi: When you say “explain,” do you mean my educational background and everything that led me there? What do you mean?
Senator Omidvar: How did you get to be at the PMO, and how do you compare and contrast that with your journey to the public service?
Ms. Betchi: First of all, any of the positions that I occupied and had the opportunity to be in, I worked extremely hard to get there. I also want to say that I’m educated, and I don’t always start by saying that because I believe that I’m a person first, but we have learned that education is important. We see it in the needs to require a bachelor degree. I almost have a doctorate degree. I’m educated, I speak multiple languages, and I am someone who works for the community. I’m a community builder. That is how I got to PMO.
I want to bring change. I want to work for the other. I love the other. I love people. I want to bring change. I am also thinking that, in a way, I’m trying to heal myself from everything I have experienced as a Black person, and I do that by helping others because I don’t want them to suffer as I have suffered and I continue to suffer. That is how I got to PMO: by telling people that maybe if I’m in that space, I can bring change.
I was hired at PMO and I worked there, and I eventually decided to leave. I told you I have a growing family. My children were young, and you know — I don’t need to teach you anything — how demanding the work is when you work in politics. It’s 24 hours, seven days a week. It is a tough place to be, but we need be in these spaces. I was there, and I loved my experience, and maybe when my children are grown, I will come back.
I had already left the public service three times because I keep experiencing racism everywhere I go. I left and I came back, and I left again. Then because I think it’s going to change this time, I come back and I leave again. I started working in the public service in 2009, and I started as an administrative assistant. I worked there a few years, went into politics at the PMO, and after my time there I came back to the public service. But I had left once already, and I came back.
Going back to the core of your question about the differences, existing in a black body in any space we go to is difficult. I’ll say that, and you can receive it the way you want to receive it, but existing in this body is not easy anywhere you go. I would have stayed if it had not been for external factors at the PMO, but I decided to go back to the public service, and to the commission, which, as I said at the beginning, had the core values that are embedded in my heart. But again, I’ve been disappointed. So as for the differences, I’m not sure, but I would say to exist in a black body in any space we go to is an act of resilience on its own.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
The Chair: I know I said I wasn’t going to ask a question, but I have a very brief one. We have a long list of senators on second round.
I want to take you back to the day that you started working at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the first time you had an incident of racism. What was your reaction? Something you said really resonated with me, that you worked very hard to get where you are, and I think a lot of us sitting here at this table can agree with that. I know that I keep pushing myself, and I feel like I have to keep proving myself as a racialized person. I understand when you say that. But you’re working at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and you’re experiencing racism. What was your reaction?
Ms. Betchi: The first time that it happened — and I’m rarely speechless — I was speechless. I could not believe what I was hearing. For a while, I was upset at myself for not saying anything. Because that’s what happens. You sit at those tables, and you’re the only Black person. If you say something, it’s because you’re angry. You’re always questioned: How do you know it was racism? Why is it always the race card? So I didn’t say anything because this was the last place I thought I would be hearing anything in that regard.
The first time, I remember having a conversation with my manager after telling that person I could not believe what I heard. That person told me that it wasn’t the first time. The second time that I witnessed it, I was prepared, mentally and physically, to say something, and ever since, I have been saying something. But when you say things, people don’t like you. They don’t invite you to tables where decisions are made, you’re not privy, they cut you out of conversations, and you hear after the fact. There are many things that will come after you speak up. But I was completely speechless, senator.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, we have 10 minutes left, and I have four senators on second round. If we can keep our questions and answers to two minutes, I would appreciate it.
Senator Bernard: Thank you so much.
There’s one other point I want to get on the record. You talked about a path of reconciliation for African Canadians in this country. You talked about an apology. When Canada signed on to the UN International Decade for People of African Descent, they did not issue an apology. When Canada recognized Emancipation Day for the first time in 2021, they fell short of issuing an apology. A group in African Nova Scotian Decade for People of African Descent have twice launched a petition calling for an apology, and we have not received one. African Canadians have not received an apology for the history and legacy of enslavement in this country.
In July 2022, we had an apology to the descendants of the No. 2 Construction Battalion. I recall speaking at that event and saying at that time that more apologies are due. We’ve not had one.
It sounds to me like you’re saying a path of reconciliation can only happen if there’s an apology. I’m wondering if you would give us a comment on that and if you could comment on why you think there’s such reluctance in this country to offer an apology to African people, to Black people, for not only the legacy of enslavement of our ancestors but the ongoing persistence of anti-Black racism.
Ms. Betchi: Thank you for your question, senator.
Black people are not recognized as humans. We’re treated as second-class citizens. That is why it is so hard. If you believe that I’m a human too and I deserve love and respect, it will be easy for you to give me an apology. That’s how I see this. That’s how I raise my children. It’s easy to apologize when you respect someone and when you want the best for them.
I said in my speaking notes that key term “performative actions.” That is what’s been happening: a lot of performativity, symbols with no substance behind them. There are a lot of words with no actions behind them. There’s a lot of, “We’re going to show up in public space so the public, Canadians, can say we were there,” but then we hear nothing after. We want concrete actions, and we want many apologies because there are many things to apologize for. That’s a good start. Then we’ll see.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: I meant to say this earlier and I forgot. For all those who are here with you, if it wasn’t for you, Ms. Betchi would probably not be here. We also appreciate your support because it’s support to all of us. Thank you very much for being here.
We all have so many questions, but time has run out. Since you went public and bravely started speaking about racism and the toxic environment at the Human Rights Commission, have you received support? Has your union been supporting you?
Ms. Betchi: My journey of going public started in 2020 when I came out with a Black class action suit. I have been on this journey since 2020. The collective, the community, my parents, my siblings — I’m one of five, and I have the best siblings, my friends — I have an amazing village that is taking care of me and my children.
Senator Jaffer: What about the union?
Ms. Betchi: They could do better, and I think it’s a lesson for my unions, really. You need to go to your Black employees and ask them how you can provide support.
Senator Jaffer: [Technical difficulties]
Ms. Betchi: They have. It sometimes takes time, but they have. I can now say that they are asking me how they can help me. Again, ask me, ask another person, it might be different, but I can now feel the support. I believe it took some time.
Senator Jaffer: What about fighting for you with the commission? That is more important.
Ms. Betchi: Absolutely that is more important.
Senator Jaffer: Have they done that?
Ms. Betchi: Again, it’s in how they’ve done it and maybe what they think is important or was important or how to do things.
Senator Jaffer: So they haven’t done it?
Ms. Betchi: I don’t want to say they have not done it. There are different things that they could still be doing.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, witness.
You’ve spoken other times about the need for an independent review to do an in-depth analysis of the problem that you’re describing and to come up with very strategic recommendations for change. Are you still calling for that? Can you amplify some of the things you would like to see, some benefit to Canada?
Ms. Betchi: Absolutely. When I first went public with this news, I said that we’re asking for an expert to go to the commission and do an internal investigation. That expert absolutely needs to be a Black person with anti-Black racism knowledge, which has not happened. The report that comes out of it needs to be public to all of us — no hiding anything, no secrets. That is something that we’re asking.
Senator Arnot: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Actually, I think Senator Arnot asked the same question that I wanted to ask, which is that today you have made a lot of recommendations and we need them. It will help us greatly in writing the report that we are going to give to the government, because at the end of this study, we are going to make a report, which hopefully will be taken into account.
If you had one important recommendation, as a result of all that you have done, which would allow you to say that your presence before us will have been useful, what would it be?
Ms. Betchi: Thank you for the question, first. It’s a great question.
In fact, this work, I’ll say it again, should not be done just by me, but by the entire community. If we could already allow complaints to go directly to the tribunal so that all Canadians could receive the justice that they deserve, I believe that my work here would have been done. That’s what I would say.
[English]
The Chair: I want to thank you for your courage and for sharing your story. People watching will have the courage to speak out when confronted with racism. We really appreciate your help in assisting us with this study.
I shall now introduce our second panel. The witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then have questions from senators. With us in person at the table, from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, I wish to welcome Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, Interim Chief Commissioner. She is accompanied by Ian Fine, Executive Director; and Holly Holtman, Director General and Senior General Counsel. I will now invite Ms. Malischewski to make her opening statement.
Charlotte-Anne Malischewski, Interim Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission: Good evening, honourable senators. Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee. My colleagues and I are humbled to gather on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe nation, this territory now known as Ottawa.
As Canada’s national human rights institution, the commission has long acknowledged that systemic anti-Black racism is real in Canada. No organization is immune, and it is up to all of us to uncover and reject all forms of racism and discrimination whenever they arise. That is exactly what the commission is doing and will continue to do. We are committed to doing what is necessary to ensure that everyone in Canada can trust the commission to conduct its work with integrity and accountability.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission sincerely apologizes for any instances in which we have fallen short of our obligations, whether as an employer or service provider. The commission does not tolerate racism of any kind in our workplace. We are committed to providing our employees a psychologically healthy, safe and respectful environment in which to do their important work. We are fully prepared to undergo an independent third-party workplace assessment, and we welcome a discussion of reforms to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
We also understand that the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat decisions have raised questions about the commission that cannot go unanswered.
In July 2020, nine Black and racialized employees wrote a letter raising concerns about racism and discrimination in the workplace and how the commission had been reviewing race-based complaints. That formed the basis of the policy grievances the unions filed that same year.
In March 2023, the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat released its decisions on the policy grievances. They found a breach of the no-discrimination clauses with respect to the collective agreements and no breaches of the other clauses cited.
The commission fully accepted the Treasury Board’s decisions and acknowledged to our staff and the public the very difficult fact that employees experienced discrimination in our workplace.
Until now, we have refrained from commenting on specific instances in the workplace, based on our obligation to protect the privacy of all those involved. We recognize now we must go further. Here’s what I can tell you.
There were situations in our Complaints Services Branch in which employees responded in unprofessional and disrespectful ways to the contributions that their Black and racialized colleagues made at work. That had a profound negative impact, which we deeply regret and apologize for.
Let me be clear: When this happened in 2020, the commission took prompt and appropriate corrective action to address the misconduct, but we did not stop there. Over the last nearly three years, we also took commission-wide action to ensure we are addressing the full scope of the concerns raised. The Treasury Board acknowledged those positive actions in its decisions and did not order us to do more.
On the recommendation of the signatories to the letter, the commission worked with an independent external facilitator, Arleen Huggins, to create a confidential forum for employees to share their experiences. The commission also developed a comprehensive anti-racism action plan based on Ms. Huggins’ recommendations and input from employees, unions, stakeholders and external experts. Every commission executive is accountable for implementing this plan, and that is assessed in their yearly performance evaluations.
There are 23 people on the commission’s executive team, 83% of those executives belong to one or more of the four employment equity groups, and 35% of the commission’s executive team are Black, racialized or Indigenous.
As part of our anti-racism action plan, we provided commission-wide training to increase awareness and discussion around anti-Black racism and the impacts of systemic racism, colonialism and trauma. We provided psychological supports, including a dedicated trauma-informed counsellor available to employees. We established the Decolonization and Anti-Racism Consultation Committee, made up of Black, racialized and Indigenous employees, as a forum for ongoing employee engagement, feedback and accountability related to all aspects of our work. We struck a network for advancing racial equality to engage external Black and racialized stakeholders and rights holders in our work. We worked with the former vice-chair of the Human Rights Tribunal in Ontario to review how we handled race-based complaints and implemented his recommendations, which included revising our tools and approaches. We continue to use non-advertised appointments, acting opportunities and other flexible approaches to support our Black, racialized and Indigenous employees’ career development and progression.
The commission has already seen meaningful results. Since 2018, the commission has reduced the dismissal rate for race-based complaints from 26% to 9% and increased the rate at which race-based complaints are referred to the tribunal from 6% in 2018 to 21% in 2022. We’re staying involved to make crucial legal arguments and present evidence in 93% of the race-based complaints that are before the tribunal.
We’ve also heard testimony of witnesses about the need to reform the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act. We echo many of those concerns. In fact, for years we’ve been advocating for many of the changes they have called for.
In closing, the people who work at the commission are a diverse group of people, many of whom have lived experiences of the very kinds of discrimination that the Canadian Human Rights Act exists to protect. They are dedicated individuals who care deeply about uncovering and eliminating discrimination and racism in all its forms. We are coming together to heal and effect change within our organization.
Thank you. We look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you for your presentation.
We will proceed to questions from senators. As is our previous practice, you have five minutes for your questions, and that includes the answer.
Before going to the other senators, I’m going to ask a question. You heard some of the testimony. You’ve been following. We heard the CHRC isn’t capable of change, and I have heard words from you today, “appropriate, corrective action taken.” Can you share with us what that means? We heard about flexible approaches to support Black, racialized and Indigenous employees, and you have already seen meaningful results. Can you tell me what all these words mean and what the changes are that have taken place?
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much, senator, for your question.
The work the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been doing over the last number of years is work that is really broad in scope and is detailed in our Anti-Racism Action Plan. That plan is meant to address the commission as a whole. Every single part of the commission, every level of the commission, has a role to play in ensuring that we are the workplace that our employees deserve and the national human rights institution that Canadians can trust and rely on when they come with complaints.
The Chair: Effective action that you have taken. We have a limited amount of time. Can you tell me one or two? Just give me one corrective action that has been taken.
Ms. Malischewski: When we’re speaking about individuals, we use the term “corrective action” because that is in reference to the way in which we handle misconduct in real time. While I’m not able to speak to the specifics of any individual personnel file, I would welcome the opportunity to speak to you about some of the meaningful work we’ve done across the organization to bring about change.
You asked a question around what that change really looks like, how do we know and what have we done? Let me take the example of our Complaints Services Branch. That is an area where we have heard this evening, and in previous testimony, considerable concerns about the way in which the commission was examining and deciding race-based complaints.
The commission has undertaken over the last number of years a significant modernization initiative which has involved the following steps, amongst many. First, there’s been training across the complaint services division, and that training includes trauma-informed approaches, uncovering unconscious bias and a serious of other forms of ongoing training that’s been mandatory across the branch.
The complaints services division has also engaged by hiring Mark Hart, former vice-chair of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, who himself had written a number of important race‑based decisions in that forum, to come and look at the tools we were using. He gave a really frank account of what the commission was doing and gave some really helpful guidance in terms of what the commission should be doing differently, and that was concrete. It was changing the review criteria that we’re using when we’re assessing files. It was also developing a series of educational tools that are mandatory, both for people who work within the Complaints Services Branch and commissioners who review complaints.
We know that the work that’s being done in complaints is seeing positive impacts because we’ve looked at the numbers and we’ve seen the number of dismissals go down, and, more importantly, we’ve seen the number of referrals to tribunal go up. We’ve seen from 2018 at 6% now up in 2022 to 18% of these complaints going forward. We know that if we want to effect meaningful change in this area, we need to have better data, and we’ve heard this from many stakeholders and —
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would proceed to questions from senators starting with the deputy chair, Senator Bernard.
Senator Bernard: Thank you for your testimony. Thank you all for being here.
I’ll start with a very specific question. With regard to the development of the action plan, were any of the nine Black employees who actually filed the grievance involved in the development of the action plan?
Ms. Malischewski: As you may be aware, I joined the commission a few months ago. While I’ve been learning a great deal about the work —
Senator Bernard: Your colleagues could answer that?
Ms. Malischewski: Absolutely. My understanding is yes, but I’m going to turn it over to Mr. Fine.
Ian Fine, Executive Director, Canadian Human Rights Commission: Thank you for the question, senator.
What I can tell you is that when an initial draft of our Anti-Racism Action Plan was prepared, it was disseminated amongst all of our employees, bargaining agents, stakeholders and experts for input. I cannot tell you right now who contributed, but I know many of our employees, bargaining agent, stakeholders and experts contributed to it, and we incorporated most of the comments we received back.
Senator Bernard: My question was, were any of the nine people involved? Maybe I could ask the question another way. Were any of them invited to be involved in the development of actions to address the concerns that they had taken forward in a very meaningful way? Were any of them invited to be specifically involved?
Ms. Malischewski: There were, in fact, specific invitations to all Black, racialized, Indigenous employees, including the signatories to the letter when we held a facilitation with Arleen Huggins. The idea of that facilitation was actually from the signatories of that letter. They had identified her in particular. That facilitation was a confidential space in which those employees could share their experiences, and then Arleen Huggins could provide the commission with recommendations based on those concerns. That’s really one of the key parts of what then becomes the Anti-Racism Action Plan. So yes, there was an invitation to meet with Ms. Huggins, and yes, the commission accepted the recommendations Ms. Huggins made, and that formed part of the Anti-Racism Action Plan.
Senator Bernard: You’re saying they were actively involved in the creation of the action plan? That’s what I’m trying to get at. Were they actively involved in the creation of the action plan?
Ms. Malischewski: What I can say is they were certainly invited, those who were at the commission at the time. I’m simply not able to comment on exactly who participated in the confidential facilitation one way or the other, but certainly I can confirm they were invited.
Senator Bernard: I think your colleagues perhaps had another response.
Holly Holtman, Director General and Senior General Counsel, Canadian Human Rights Commission: Thank you, senator.
I wanted to add that within the letter from the nine individuals, there was extensive action recommended. They went to the effort of articulating what they wanted and what they would recommend by way of change. I can certainly attest that we were guided in large part by the information and the recommendations set forth in that letter.
I joined in May of 2021. I do know that many, if not all, racialized employees within the whole organization were written to individually to join the DAC, which is the Decolonization and Anti-Racism Committee. There was a huge overture there.
The other thing I wanted to add by way of context was at the time, it was a policy grievance brought in large part because of the letter, and there was confidentiality respected of those individuals, given the fact there was an active policy grievance in place. I don’t know if that coloured that.
I would also like to add that of the nine individuals — I don’t know the exact numbers — by the time I arrived at the commission, there were only two or three. I’d have to get back to the committee with the exact number of the individuals still with the commission at that time.
I’m not sure if that’s helpful.
Senator Bernard: I’ll direct this question specifically to Mr. Fine. One of the things we’ve heard is that one of the alleged perpetrators was actually in charge of developing the action plan. Could you comment on that, please?
Mr. Fine: The person who developed the action plan, senator, was someone who was a long-standing member of our organization who was very committed to our anti-racism efforts. It is, for me, unthinkable that the individual who was in charge of that could have in any way done anything untoward. In fact, she is someone who is very committed to the work we’re doing and very committed to anti-racism and is herself racialized.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
I’d like to ask my next question of all three of our witnesses. We have heard from many witnesses that not only is the culture at the Canadian Human Rights Commission a toxic work environment, but that anti-Black racism runs rampant throughout the public service. People in the public service would look to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to bring forward cases. We’ve also heard that Black Canadians have lost all confidence in the commission’s ability to address complaints of anti-Black racism.
We’ve heard your testimony, and we appreciate you being here and giving this testimony. I’ve not heard anything in that testimony that speaks specifically to the workplace climate, culture and the systemic anti-Black racism that is really deep within the commission and public service. On behalf of Canadians who are watching this, on behalf of Black Canadians who are paying attention to what we’re doing here, what are you able to offer that would make them believe that things would be different?
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much for your question, Senator Bernard.
I do want to acknowledge that the commission has very much appreciated the testimony that you and others have given and the long-standing activism and advocacy that you’ve done in this space.
I joined the Canadian Human Rights Commission because I fundamentally believe in this organization’s mission. I believe it is incredibly important that we uncover and eliminate racism and discrimination across this country. I believe systemic anti-Black racism is ingrained in all of our institutions and that the commission is not immune. Certainly, when I joined the commission, I was deeply troubled to hear some very negative experiences like those that have been shared with this committee.
I think it is very important to say that, yes, the organization has been doing a number of very concrete things to change the workplace, but this is only the beginning. We’re committed to continuing to listen, to learn and to do what is necessary. When we say that we are prepared to undergo a workplace evaluation, that’s certainly part of it. When we are going to the mediation table with the unions, that is also part of it.
I firmly believe in the potential of this organization. Since I’ve joined, I’ve had the opportunity to speak to employees across the organization, including Black and be racialized employees who have told me that for some of them, their experiences have been very positive. They called this organization a second family. If it’s possible for some people to have that experience, every single person who works at our organization deserves that same experience and deserves to come to work knowing that they can bring their full selves to work and that they will be able to share their experiences and their expertise and be valued and respected.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you for being here.
I have other questions, but I’m going to go straight to what you were saying about how some have talked to you and they’re very happy. We would not be here if it wasn’t that many are unhappy. All my life, I’ve looked at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to be one place where any Canadian can go, within your mandate, and receive fair treatment. Obviously, those who have suffered are not coming to talk to you. That’s why we are sitting here today.
My colleague the chair asked you to give us specific examples, and what I’m frustrated with is that you’re just giving us generalizations. I’m a lawyer, so I understand when you talk about issues of confidentiality, but there must be things that are not within the confines of confidentiality that you can tell us. Because we’re not going away without hearing from you some specific things you’ve done.
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much for your question, senator.
I want to be very clear: When I speak about people’s positive experiences, that is an indication of the potential of the workplace. It is in no way to diminish the incredibly difficult testimony that we have heard in this committee. It is very difficult for me to hear these experiences, and I know that it is for my colleagues as well. It is those very concerns that have animated the work we’ve done in the last number of years. Let me summarize that work —
Senator Jaffer: Let me stop you. It was difficult for you to hear it. With all respect, what do you think about Ms. Betchi coming here publicly and saying this and not even being able to work in a place where she really wants to work and has tried to work a number of times? How do you think she’s reacting? When you apologized, why did you not specifically apologize to her? I don’t want you to hide behind, “It’s legal.” She’s sitting here, you’re apologizing, and why are you not apologizing to her directly?
Ms. Malischewski: I want to be very clear: I was deeply moved by Ms. Betchi’s testimony today. The kinds of experiences that she is describing are not experiences that I can pretend to understand. I do not live in her skin. But to hear her, as a new mom myself, about these experiences in the workplace, of a lifetime of intergenerational trauma, of having had the kinds of negative experiences she has described in our workplace, I’m dismayed to hear it. I’m heartbroken to hear it. It is absolutely, categorically unacceptable.
In my opening remarks, I spoke about some instances in which employees were treated with disrespect in the workplace, and I want to extend personally to Ms. Betchi that apology. It is unacceptable that she would have such experiences in our workplace.
Senator Jaffer: You personally are apologizing.
Ms. Malischewski: I’m apologizing on behalf of the institution to Ms. Betchi personally.
Senator Jaffer: From your perspective, where do you think the main issue is? Is this an institutional or a structure problem? Does it have to do more with a lack of oversight, or are there any larger sociological or cultural issues at play? I know there are larger sociological issues. We will leave that aside, because that exists for racialized and Black people right across. I’m just asking, why?
Six or seven years ago, the Justice Department was in front of us with the same kind of things. They made some changes, and now I understand from people who are working there that the changes are not so effective as they were right at the beginning.
Why are you here? If you’re making these changes, why is Ms. Betchi here?
Ms. Malischewski: I believe the Canadian Human Rights Commission is on the right path, but I would absolutely never suggest that we’ve reached where we need to be. This is an ongoing process of taking concrete action at every level across the organization, reviewing our human resources policies, engaging external experts to help us —
Senator Jaffer: So tell me, what is it going to take? What exactly is it going to take? I know there are all kinds of policies, and everything has to be examined. But if you wish — and I’m sure the government would give you assistance — you could change. What would it take for you to be able to say you’ve made the changes?
Ms. Holtman: Senator, if I may respond to the question, I’ve thought hard about this. The reason I think it’s so hard to grapple with this is systemic racism. We would all love to dismantle systemic racism, and even the Treasury Board decision acknowledges that these kinds of massive changes take time.
That being said, as you say, we wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for three unions, nine employees and the courage of Ms. Betchi to raise these issues to the level that the Senate would decide to dive into something like this. Clearly, it’s an issue, and it’s something that needs to be addressed.
As someone who has come to the commission within the last two years and things that I can point to, I think the first is the representation of diversity at all levels, top down. That is critical. As soon as you have more voices and as soon as you have lived experiences, that’s a fundamental thing that we can point to that has really improved. I know we have huge representation —
Senator Jaffer: Why isn’t there someone sitting here, a racialized or Black person with you? Are they not in executive positions?
Ms. Holtman: Ms. Jaffer, if I may, I’m an Indigenous person. I’m a member of the Métis Nation — apologies.
Senator Jaffer: I realize you are an Indigenous person. This is an issue for Black employees. Why isn’t there a Black person on the executive sitting here? I do very much respect you, but if they are in an executive position, why are they not here speaking with you?
Ms. Malischewski: It’s very important to us that we not tokenize those individuals on our executive who are Black, because as leaders of this organization, we have accountability. We need to answer the questions that Canadians have, and we’re not going to shirk those responsibilities. We know the diversity we have is not enough.
Senator Jaffer: Have you asked them whether they would come with you?
Ms. Malischewski: We do have some senior Black executives who offered to come with us today.
Senator Jaffer: But they’re not here. It’s evident they are not here. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Does that mean you chose not to ask them, or they chose not to come? You chose not to ask them to come?
Ms. Malischewski: We believed that it was important that the most senior —
The Chair: I want a “yes” or “no” answer. You chose not to ask them to come.
Ms. Malischewski: We chose not to put that on the shoulders of the Black executives we have.
The Chair: So the answer is “no.” Thank you very much. Senator Bernard has a supplementary.
Senator Bernard: I didn’t get an answer to my question, and it’s along the same line as Senator Jaffer. I really want to know what will restore faith. That’s what people want to hear. What will restore faith? I haven’t heard anything you’ve said up to now that gives me that critical hope that Ms. Betchi was talking about.
Ms. Malischewski: This is exactly the question that keeps me up at night. I believe we’re on the right path, but what specific thing can we do that will restore confidence? I’m hopeful some of the things we’ve committed to doing are going to do just that. I’m hopeful that an independent workplace assessment like the unions have called for will bring some accountability and will bring some answers that people are looking for right now.
I also hope that as we improve our ability to collect data about exactly who is coming to the commission and what the outcomes are, that we will better be able to answer people’s questions about how race complaints are being dealt with. We know right now that we have been making significant improvements and they are being referred to the tribunal at a much higher rate. We want to see that continue.
We want to ensure that when Canadians think of the Human Rights Commission, they think, “I can go there, and I can trust that my complaint will be dealt with fairly and with dignity.” I think that’s what Canadians need to believe and know, and we need to act and show that is what they can trust when they come to the commission.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for sharing your perspectives with us.
Ms. Malischewski, I too am having a hard time. You said that you want public service employees to feel that they can go there. Based on the testimony we have heard, which frankly left me appalled, at this point, Black employees do not have any trust or confidence in the CHRC. In fact, some of the witnesses have called for it to be demolished.
You’ve talked about the regret you feel, you apologize on behalf of the commission and you fully accept the findings of the Treasury Board. I want to ask you about those who victimize, not the victims. They are in your midst. I want to know what consequences they have experienced as a result of this finding of individual and systemic discrimination. Are they still in your employment? Have they left? Have they been shuffled sideways? What accountability measures have you made? Please don’t hide it behind legal confidentiality here. Tell me at least what process has been put in place to hold them accountable.
Mr. Fine: Perhaps I could begin. Thank you for that question, senator.
I want to assure you, and I want to assure all senators, that when we determined that there was misconduct in our organization, we dealt with it, and we dealt with it immediately when it happened. I can assure you that everyone was held accountable for any misconduct that happened in our organization. We did not wait. We took it very seriously.
Senator Omidvar: What range of actions — demotion, a note on their personnel files, a sideways shuffle, dismissal? What range of actions? I know you can’t talk about individual cases, and I appreciate that, but give me a sense of the range of tools that you deployed.
Ms. Malischewski: Some of these are exactly the questions I had when I came into this role to try to understand, because we know this is systemic, but we also know that specific individuals engaged in misconduct. I take some comfort in knowing that none of those individuals are currently managing people at the commission. That is very significant and important for us, because if we’re going to have a workplace that is safe for all, it is very important that people be able to go to their managers and trust that they will be heard and respected. For us, that is a form of accountability that is very important and I think needs to be highlighted.
Senator Omidvar: If they were managing people before and are not managing people now, can we make a conclusion that they’ve either been demoted or sideways shuffled?
Ms. Malischewski: It would be fair to say they are no longer in the same positions they were before.
Senator Omidvar: I’ve heard you talk a lot about a whole-of-institution approach, embracing the whole organization. We heard a lot about your plans, your processes, your policies and consultation. But frankly, in my opinion, process is often used by not just your institution but by others to obfuscate real progress. On a scale of one to ten, where do you put yourself?
Ms. Malischewski: That’s a very hard question. The Treasury Board decision certainly is a difficult one, and the testimony we’ve heard. I don’t know that we can give ourselves a good mark at this point. I certainly wouldn’t be doing that.
When you say procedures and policies can obfuscate progress, what is very important for us is that we have consistency across the organization from a top level down that this is being not just messaged but that there are concrete measures where we’re looking to identify where do the barriers exist for Black and racialized employees? What is actually happening in their experiences in the workplace? How can we support them, whether that’s through training or acting opportunities? Those are very concrete things. They may seem like human resources policies, and they may seem somewhat abstract, but those are the things that provide our employees with the support they need, the career advancement opportunities they need, and it’s the way that we address this as a systemic problem, because we know that this goes far beyond particular individual bad behaviour. We know that systemic anti-racism is ingrained in our institutions, so we need to look at the very foundation of those institutions to bring about the change that is required so that this Human Rights Commission lives up to the potential that it has and that it’s the workplace the employees deserve and Canadians expect of us.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today.
I know that you have a significant challenge to your reputation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission is always recognized as speaking on human rights issues internationally and nationally. It’s fair to say you have a big impact on the provincial and territorial human rights commissions in this country. That challenge is huge, given what we’ve seen. I’m hoping that you can be a positive example and exemplar to the rest of the civil service.
As we know, there’s a deep-seated anti-Black racism in Canadian society, and that’s what is at the core of this issue. You’ve talked about the change. You’ve acknowledged that change is required, and in order for change to happen, it has to be measured or else it won’t happen. I know you have a plan that you’ve implemented, but I’d be interested to know about how goals are set in that plan and how you are measuring for accountability and transparency in the plan that you have.
Finally, I’d like to hear about your confidence in actually creating a positive trust relationship between Canadians, especially Black Canadians, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much, Senator Arnot, for the question.
It is absolutely fundamental that we address these issues because of the trust and public confidence that is required for the commission to carry out its mandate. That’s why accountability is fundamental in this anti-racism work. Let me tell you a bit about what that accountability looks like.
We have built it into performance agreements at the executive level, and we’re working on ensuring it’s across the organization for every employee and that they be assessed based on their contributions to anti-racism work. That is actually a fundamental part of their work, and they are held accountable for it across the organization. That’s one piece.
Another important piece of the accountability is recognizing that the commitments we’ve made at one point in time may need to evolve, change and be added to. We are engaged, on an ongoing basis, with an independent anti-racism change expert, Charles Smith, who meets with our senior leadership on a monthly basis. He has these hard conversations. In the time I’ve been in the organization, we have gone branch by branch and looked at what the anti-racism commitments are in that branch and the progress that has been made on those. We’ve been asking ourselves the difficult question: When the progress hasn’t been what we have hoped, what do we need to do differently? He has helped us hold ourselves accountable and, by providing us feedback on those conversations, ensure that, from the highest levels in the organization all the way through, we are reflecting on an ongoing basis on the commitments we’ve made and thinking about what those commitments need to be going forward and what changes need to be put in place.
It’s also important to recognize that that we are in a situation in which we are expecting to mediate with the unions. Certainly, whether in that forum or through our network for advancing racial equality or internally with our Decolonization and Anti-Racism Consultation Committee, we are very open to hearing about what more needs to be done to move the dial on this and to make sure that as much of this happens as quickly as possible, despite knowing that some of this will take time. This is a problem ingrained in our society and our institutions that is having such a traumatic impact on people, as we have heard, so time is of the essence. We need to continue this work on an ongoing basis.
Those are some of the forms of accountability that we have in place to ensure that is exactly what we are doing.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: My question is for Ms. Malischewski.
I’m glad to know that you already recognize that there is systemic racism, that’s a good point of view to say that you recognize the problem in order to better address it. I’m also glad to know that you’ve taken steps to try to address the problem at the source.
My first question, which my colleague has already asked, is why has no representative from the Black community in a senior leadership position come forward to give us input on what is going on. Obviously, there is a breach of trust internally and externally.
The breach of trust comes from the fact that complaints are routinely dismissed and those that are upheld take a very long time to process. However, in your opening remarks, I did not hear anything that would restore trust. In particular, are we going to accept more complaints without systematically dismissing them?
When you talk about decreasing or increasing the handling of complaints, do you take into account that employees are afraid to complain? What are you going to do to reduce the problematic delays? We’re talking about two or three years, and some complaints have taken six years to be processed. Have you thought of a system that would bring trust back into this organization?
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you for the question, senator.
Public trust is really fundamental. What is important for us is to make sure that when people come to complain, they know that we will treat them fairly. We’ve worked hard on that. We’re starting to see change in that regard and we’re going to continue to make sure that there are changes.
You asked about timelines.
[English]
One of the questions that has been raised here and is something that we’re really grappling with at the commission is around the importance of the fact that we be accepting race-based complaints, dealing with them and then referring them on to the tribunal whenever there is that subtle scent of racism. That’s what the case law tells us. We have seen improvements in terms of the number of cases that are being referred on to tribunal. That significant increase in the last five years is a trend we want to make sure continues.
In looking at the way in which we deal with complaints and timelines, we are, quite frankly, having to juggle different pieces. On the one hand, timeliness is key. Delayed justice is no justice for many people. At the moment, our average time from first contact to the commission to the closing of the file is two years. That’s a really long time. We get that. It’s better than it might have been, but it’s still a long time. That’s on one hand.
On the other hand, there is the necessity to deal with such complaints in a fulsome way to ensure that when our human rights officers are assessing those files, they are really looking for the evidence. They are assisting complaints throughout and there is an opportunity for our equal access unit within the complaints services to help support people through. It’s about taking time for mediation and really engaging meaningfully with the complaints. It’s a bit of a balancing act between going through quickly versus going through in a really meaningful way.
In the organization’s history, there have been times when the commission has put timeliness above all else. In those times, there have been much more significant dismissal rates across all forms of complaints. We’re seeing a trend away from that, because we’ve specifically decided that it is important for us to be dealing with complaints wherever we have the jurisdiction to deal with them and that we be taking a really informed look at what it means when complainants come to the commission and what they might be alleging. We need to look behind and find all the evidence to ensure we’re identifying systemic issues and referring on to tribunal when cases require further inquiry and that we’re able to find mediated solutions when that’s possible as well.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Do you have a time frame, internally, for handling complaints? Do you have a goal, for example, that a file should not take more than three months to process before being transferred to the court? Is there a processing objective?
Ms. Malischewski: Yes, of course.
[English]
The question seems to be around whether we have objectives or standards around the handling of complaints. I’d be happy to provide the committee with exactly what our service standards are after we finish here. They do go to specific parts of the complaint process and how long we’re dealing with them at each stage.
It is really important to recognize that when we’re talking about a two-year period, it’s not as though someone is working on it for that entire time. Actually, one of the biggest problems we have is that, at any given time, about 25% of our inventory is assigned to a human rights officer, because that’s the capacity we have. We are working within the system we have to be as efficient as we can be and to modernize our processes so that we can move these files forward more quickly. Certainly, there are different places where complaints are sort of waiting, and one of them, quite frankly, is waiting to be assigned to a human rights officer for assessment.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: What are you doing for the victims, the people who have filed complaints? We heard earlier from one of our witnesses, Ms. Betchi, who gave birth prematurely. What are you doing for the victims while they are waiting for their complaint to be processed?
Ms. Malischewski: Hearing the story of this experience, I cannot imagine going through this. I am a new mother and I find it so difficult; I am at a loss for words when I hear what she went through. There is no doubt that many people who come to the Canadian Human Rights Commission have had very difficult experiences and remain in difficult situations while their complaint is being processed.
Support for people who are before the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be welcome. We do what we can within the law that we have, but if there could be more support for people during the process, that would be welcome. We certainly support that.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses.
I have a couple of things that I want to ask you to comment on at the end. I was struck when Ms. Betchi spoke about the comment that people want to be treated as a human, to be seen as human. All of my working life has been spent working with individuals who, for various reasons, have made that plea, whether it’s because of discrimination on the basis of race, sex or gender, ability, class or circumstance. It strikes me that we need to see leadership within the government writ large and that we look to the Human Rights Commission to be an exemplar, if you will.
I have three questions. First, if we don’t already have a copy of the action plan, could we receive a copy of it and some of the measures you’ve spoken about? Second, what are the recommendations that you feel would be helpful to the commission to move forward on the types of commitments that you’re talking about and that my colleagues have asked you about? And third, where are you seeing leadership on this that provides the forward movement within the government writ large?
I was also struck by Ms. Betchi’s comment about most things being performative, and in my humble opinion, most of what we’ve seen this government put forward with respect to substantive equality or the priority interests of those who are intentionally ignored — and I think of the section 15 protections that should be in place for folks in this country that aren’t — very rarely do we see true action that is beyond performative. Where are the substantive portions of these sorts of actions coming from? Where is the leadership and support coming from for you to make these changes? Obviously, you’ve talked about within your commission, but also outside of the commission.
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much for the question.
Human rights law is meant to recognize the full dignity of people’s lived experiences. That’s what I know brings me and I think many of my colleagues to do this work, so I absolutely share in the belief that it ought to animate who we are as an employer and also as a service provider.
We do have an accountability framework within our complaints screening, which is about ensuring equity, transparency, consistency and impartiality so that everyone who participates in the system can do so ensured that it is a fair process but also with dignity. That’s really important for us. Some of the ways we ensure that’s happening is by avoiding situations where any one specific individual would have the ability to influence the outcome of a case. It’s having checks and balances across the system. I would add that in terms of the ways we could better ensure accountability ourselves within the organization.
In terms of the anti-racism action plan, we would absolutely be pleased to provide you with a copy, as well as all the members of this committee. I would also encourage you to look at the progress reports. We are committed to publicly publishing our progress on our anti-racism action plan. We’ve done that twice already and will continue to do that. We will certainly provide that for you.
In terms of recommendations with respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act, as you can appreciate, it is certainly an older piece of legislation. We just celebrated 45 years of that piece of legislation, and it hasn’t been comprehensively reviewed since then. There have been tweaks, for sure. The commission is in favour of a review that would look at the gaps in protection that are afforded by the Canadian Human Rights Act, and some of those are around the limited nature of financial compensation that’s available. That would be upping the damages cap.
It’s also around the difficulty of access of the system. As we’ve heard from some witnesses, it’s time-consuming but also costly. Most of the people who come forward with discrimination complaints don’t have a lawyer. One of the reasons we’ve heard from lawyers is that it’s just not worth their while to support someone through this because there’s no cost regime. They may be successful at the end, but that’s a limitation, for sure.
Another area is that there is quite limited protection for retaliation offered to complainants after a complaint is filed. That’s an area we see as a gap.
There is currently a requirement for a legal presence in Canada as a prerequisite for filing a complaint, and we see that as a significant barrier. We believe that human rights justice ought to apply to every person in Canada, and that can exclude some folks who, for immigration and other reasons, are excluded by that provision.
Those are some of the ways in which we would see changes being made, but we would welcome any changes to the Canadian Human Rights Act and other pieces of legislation that would advance human rights justice in its full meaning. We certainly heard some interesting ideas around that, which we would welcome, such as a Black equity commissioner and other ideas like that.
Senator Pate: And in terms of where you’re seeing leadership or support for the actions you’re trying to take?
Ms. Malischewski: We’ve been seeing the support within the community. That’s where we have been really relying on our stakeholders and rights holders to hold us to account, to tell us what the needs are from their perspective and to challenge us when we’re not living up to it. That’s where I’ve really seen significant leadership. It’s in the communities, and that’s not surprising. The most meaningful advancements in Canadian history have been from advocates. As the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we’re an institution that is created by legislation, we’re a governmental institution in that sense, but we are very much informed and connected to communities of people with lived experience. That’s where we’re seeing the leadership and where we’re finding accountability as well.
The Chair: Last week, we heard from witnesses that training is not sufficient to put an end to racism in the workplace and that remedies are needed. Mr. Coward said last week that training is not enough, and unconscious bias is often used as an excuse. What remedies have been offered to survivors of racism within the CHRC?
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
The question around training is one that we’ve certainly grappled with because we know that education is really important, but we also want to ensure that the training that we are offering is actually meaningful. Unconscious bias training is one part of it, but it’s just one part of the training we’ve been doing. We’ve also had training around trauma-informed approaches and how to have conversations about racism that don’t perpetuate hate. There are a number of forms of training that we have been undertaking to ensure that there is support for everyone who’s working at the commission to do the work they are doing and to be informed and educated in doing so.
In terms of the experience of Mr. Coward — and I really do want to take a moment here because I heard about his experiences certainly before this committee’s study, but I also listened to his testimony. It is unthinkable that anyone would be serving this country and face such overt racism. And then for that person to come before the Canadian Human Rights Commission with a complaint and not find a remedy here is, frankly, a disgrace and certainly a failure. I’d like to believe that since that complaint was filed in 1993, the law has evolved, society has evolved and the commission has evolved, but we know that we continue to have work to do.
With respect to the accountability piece here, I think the most important initiative — though there are many — is around our disaggregated data collection. That is so we can ensure we are tracking who is coming to the commission with a complaint beyond the 13 grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act, because we know that groups people with quite different experiences together. For example, unless someone self‑identifies as Black, we don’t necessarily know that from the grounds in the Canadian Human Rights Act. So getting the data on how people self-identify and then tracking in a disaggregated way exactly what their outcomes are so that we know exactly how the complaints are being dealt with, we can identify if there are problematic trends and we can ensure we’re on track to deal with all complaints in a fair manner and to ensure that complaints are being dealt with and referred to the tribunal as they should.
The Chair: Remedies offered to survivors? Has anything been offered to the survivors of racism?
Ms. Malischewski: In terms of our complaints function under the Canadian Human Rights Act, certainly there’s the possibility of damages as a result of a human rights complaint. I’m not sure if that’s what you’re referring to. That is an area where the commission has advocated. We do believe that those caps are quite low given the nature and significance of the trauma that many people have experienced when they come with discrimination complaints.
The Chair: Two brief questions: Is the CHRC better positioned than the tribunal to screen complaints in a fair and impartial manner? Please explain. Also, how does the length of the federal process compare to the direct-access model in British Columbia and Ontario?
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much for the question.
I don’t have in front of me the numbers for the provincial model, but I’d be happy to look into that and provide you answers.
It certainly is the commission’s view that one of the things that would be very important if Parliament is looking at direct access at the federal level is to look at exactly what the experiences have been in the provinces that do have it, Ontario and B.C., so that whatever changes are made don’t create more problems than they solve.
When we talk about the complaints screening function at the federal level, I think it’s important to recognize what that actually entails. It’s a series of quite meaningful ways in which the commission accompanies people through the complaints process. That is from intake, assisting people in articulating their complaint on the basis of the requirements of the act. It’s ensuring there are supports for complainants as they are moving through the system. While there are certain supports identified, we also have an equal access unit that is designed to step in where there is more support required, and that is actively working to ensure that we have the supports in place to ensure that people are going through our system with dignity.
There’s also the opportunity for mediation. We’ve seen that’s really a meaningful way in many cases to get justice more quickly and to get something meaningful. Depending on the year, our settlement figures are anywhere between 60% and 70%. We have looked at it and ensured that settlements are happening for race-based complaints at comparable levels as they are for other complaints. That was one of the things that we wanted to ensure was the case. Mediation is one of the things.
Then, as we move forward and complaints do go on to the tribunal, the commission actually can participate. That means our lawyers showing up and making argument, hiring experts —
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt, but I have two senators and we have five minutes left. Senators, if you can be really brief.
Senator Bernard: I just have one follow-up question. In your response to I think Senator Pate’s question around changes to the act, it was raised earlier by Senator Omidvar that there’s nothing in the act that speaks to commissioners being from some of the — I’ll use the term — equity-deserving groups, and not equity-seeking groups. I do that deliberately. In talking about changes that you think would be helpful to the act, you’ve identified a number, so I appreciate that. What are your thoughts about the changes around whom the commissioners should be?
Ms. Malischewski: Thank you very much for the question.
Certainly, I take your correction well. They are indeed equity-deserving groups.
If it were of interest to Parliament to do something like that, that’s certainly something that would be of interest to the commission. Really, what we think is important is that there be diversity at every level of the organization. As you can appreciate, commissioners are appointed by government. Ultimately, the diversity that exists at that level is a result of government decisions. Certainly, if there were to be parameters to ensure representation at that level, that would be one of the ways to ensure accountability and to make sure that there is that representation on an ongoing basis.
Senator Bernard: I have one last question, and I’d like a “yes” or “no” from each of you, please. We’ve heard from several witnesses that the commission needs a total overhaul. What do you say to that, yes or no?
Mr. Fine: Thank you for your question, senator.
We have been trying our very best over the past many years to address concerns raised by our employees and by Canadians.
Senator Bernard: Is that a “yes” or a “no”? Is there a need for a total overhaul? This links back to the question I was asking earlier. In terms of restoring the faith of Black Canadians, many feel that anything short of a total overhaul will not restore their faith. So just a “yes” or “no.”
Mr. Fine: No.
Ms. Malischewski: I similarly believe that we can change the organization from within, that there are necessary changes to legislation, absolutely, but a total overhaul is not required in this particular instance. We can bring about what is needed in other ways.
Senator Bernard: You’re a “no”? Okay.
Ms. Holtman: I’m also a “no.” I think it can be changed from within.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: You’ve brought up the issue of the unrepresented a number of times. That’s the reality all across the country, even in appeal courts. I’m sure you know that. It’s based on costs, and your structure doesn’t give costs. That’s just for people who are listening. That’s a challenge.
Chair, I suggest that the panel be given the transcript. There are many questions that have not been answered. You have also offered to send documents. Let’s have a look at that, and then call them back, because obviously there are lots of gaps.
I have to tell you, my frustration is that in the Senate, we have the privilege of asking you questions and expecting an answer. People who work with you don’t have that privilege. People who appear in front of you don’t have that privilege. So I feel that we need those answers from you.
Chair, may I ask for steering to consider bringing this panel back?
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Jaffer. We’ll bring this issue up at steering.
I want to sincerely thank our witnesses for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with the study is greatly appreciated.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our third and last panel of the day. Each of the witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators.
With us in person at the table, I wish to welcome, from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Carole Bidal, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation, Office of the Chief Human Resources. From Canadian Heritage, we have Gaveen Cadotte, Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate Sector; and Peter Flegel, Executive Director Federal Anti‑Racism Secretariat. I will now invite Ms. Cadotte to make her presentation.
Gaveen Cadotte, Assistant Deputy Minister, Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate Sector, Canadian Heritage: Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for having me. It’s an honour for my colleague and I to be here joining you today on the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people.
I would like to say at the outset that there is no place in Canada for anti-Black racism and that hate or discrimination in any form is unacceptable and must be eradicated.
[Translation]
Our department works tirelessly to support government-wide efforts to build an open, welcoming, and inclusive Canada in which no one faces systemic racism, racial discrimination, or is terrorized by hatred simply because they are Black, Indigenous, Asian, Muslim, or Jewish, or a member of any other equity‑seeking population.
[English]
The Government of Canada has acknowledged the serious problem of systemic anti-Black racism in public institutions. As such, Canada has acknowledged its responsibility to work directly with Black communities to combat systemic racism.
[Translation]
The Department of Canadian Heritage has been active in combatting racism against Black people. Since 2018, it has spent $9 million to improve local community supports for Black Canadian youth, including empowering youth of African descent to address racism against Black people.
Since the launch of Canada’s Anti-Racism Strategy in 2019, Canadian Heritage has committed nearly $100 million to combat racism and systemic discrimination, including racism against Black people. This includes the creation of the Federal Anti‑Racism Secretariat to lead a whole-of-government approach to combatting systemic racism, discrimination and hate in Canada.
[English]
The strategy focuses on the ways in which federal policies, programs, services and laws impact Canadian society at large and, more specifically, communities and peoples with lived experiences of racism.
It bears mentioning that, in 2018, the Government of Canada officially recognized the International Decade for People of African Descent. Employment and Social Development Canada is leading work on leveraging the decade as a framework for the government to take concrete steps to secure the rights and freedoms of people of African descent and is doing so from a whole-of-government perspective.
The Treasury Board is the lead across the federal public service in addressing harassment, equity and inclusion within government workplaces, and my colleagues from the Treasury Board will be able to answer any questions regarding measures the government is taking to address anti-Black racism and discrimination in federal public service workplaces.
[Translation]
At Canadian Heritage, we have invested over $5 million since 2018 to fund a variety of projects that empower Black communities, including youth, to take action against Black racism. These include the following.
[English]
Some of those include — and I’ll just name two — the “It Takes a Village” project led by the Halifax-based Delmore “Buddy” Daye Learning Institute. It hosted various activities to help Black youth develop skills for the future and find solutions to overcome experiences of anti-Black racism. There is also the Edmonton-based African Canadian Civic Engagement Council which, in partnership with the Edmonton police, led a project called “advanced youth academy leadership” to advance alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system using a restorative justice approach.
The department is also providing $1.5 million toward an endowment to support the ongoing activities of the Jean Augustine Chair in Education, Community and Diaspora.
[Translation]
The last thing I would say is that we are currently preparing Canada’s new Anti-Racism Strategy and Action Plan on Combatting Hate, both of which will reflect the recommendations of hundreds of Black leaders from across the country, including Black youth, and will identify specific ways for the government to combat racism and hatred towards Black people. Both initiatives are high priorities for Minister Hussen.
[English]
We all know that there is still hard work to be done. We know this because, too often, Black people everywhere in Canada face discrimination, intolerance and hatred as a daily fact of life. That is not the Canada we want; it’s not the Canada we know we can be.
Once again, I thank you for inviting us, and we’re happy to answer any questions that you might have.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Bidal, do you have an opening statement? If so, please go ahead.
[Translation]
Carole Bidal, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Employee Relations and Total Compensation, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Before I begin, I would like to note that I am speaking to you from the unceded traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I want to thank the committee for inviting me to speak today. Madam Chair, I am appearing today in response to an invitation from the committee. I hold the position of Associate Assistant Deputy Minister of Employee Relations and Total Compensation in the Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer at the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.
While I play several roles in this position, I am here today to speak about my role as the employer’s delegated decision-maker for policy grievances and, in particular, the policy grievances filed by three bargaining agents alleging discrimination at the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
[English]
The Office of the Chief Human Resources Officer is the policy centre for human resources management in the federal public service. We develop broad policy direction and standards that enable deputy heads to fulfill their responsibilities for effective people management within their organization.
The Federal Public Service Labour Relations Act refers to three types of grievances: individual grievances, group grievances and policy grievances.
Policy grievances provide the employer and the bargaining agent with the opportunity to raise a general dispute about the interpretation or application of a collective agreement as it relates to them or to the bargaining unit, generally. The policy grievance process generally has one decision-making level internal to the employer. I am the delegated authority at that level for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat as employer. However, bargaining agents may choose to skip this level and refer the policy grievance directly to the Federal Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board for independent third-party adjudication.
In October and November 2020, three bargaining agents, the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Association of Justice Council and the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, submitted policy grievances to the Treasury Board Secretariat as employer. Each grievance alleged discrimination at the Canadian Human Rights Commission in violation of the relevant collective agreements.
In my role as policy grievance decision maker, I reviewed written submissions from these bargaining agents and from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I also met twice with the bargaining agent representatives, where they had an opportunity to make oral representations and respond to my questions relating to their submissions.
On March 6, 2023, I issued my response. Based upon the information provided to me in the context of this grievance process, I determined that the no-discrimination clause of each of the three collective agreements had been breached. As part of my decision, I advised the parties that the Treasury Board Secretariat remained available, at their request, to support them as they continued to work toward achieving a discrimination-free workplace.
The bargaining agent subsequently referred their grievances for an arbitration hearing at the Public Sector Labour Relations and Employment Board, and the board is now going to determine its process and the next steps for these cases.
[Translation]
The Treasury Board Secretariat, in concert with all departments, is actively working to address issues of discrimination and create a diverse and inclusive public service.
The government is working to eliminate racism and discrimination in our institutions, which includes passing legislation, creating programs, and supporting and developing disaggregated data reporting. Representation and inclusion are important.
Part of our cultural transformation is ensuring that employees from equity-seeking groups have access to barrier-free opportunities in their career progression. Programs like the Mosaic Leadership Development program, a public service-wide program to equip equity-seeking employees to enter the EX group and the executive cadre, are helping to create the public service leadership of today and tomorrow that is truly inclusive and reflective of the diversity of the Canadian population.
In addition, Budget 2023 calls for the Treasury Board Secretariat to develop, through consultations with a panel of experts, a restorative engagement process for the entire public service, where employees who have experienced harassment and discrimination will be able to share their personal accounts in a secure and confidential space.
[English]
I’m happy to respond to any of the questions that you may have today. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. I will turn to the senators for questions.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you so much to our witnesses for your perspectives.
My questions are all for Ms. Bidal from the Treasury Board Secretariat. Maybe I can put two of them together, because they’re related, and then pose a second one. The first is about recommendations that we heard last week from witnesses calling for amendments to the Employment Equity Act, including explicitly adding Black people as a designated group, separate and distinct from members of visible minority groups. What are the advantages and disadvantages of adding more specific designated groups to the Employment Equity Act?
Ms. Bidal: The Employment Equity Act doesn’t fall under the ambit of my responsibilities at Treasury Board, nor under Treasury Board generally. However, I can tell you that in the context of self-identification, adding new opportunities for members of equity-seeking communities to be able to self‑identify was seen as a positive advancement.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Let’s use the language of Senator Bernard, “equity-deserving” versus “equity-seeking” group.
My second question is on representation of equity-deserving groups, in this instance the Black community, on the commission’s appointed commissioner. There are six commissioners. We all know that. How does the federal government ensure that there is representation at this level?
Ms. Bidal: Unfortunately, I’m not privy to the manner in which commissioners at the Canadian Human Rights Commission are appointed.
Senator Omidvar: That is a Governor-in-Council position. Okay.
My third question I’m going to read it because it’s complicated and long. Last week, we heard from Hugh Scher, a human rights and constitutional lawyer, who argued that the recent finding of discrimination against the Canadian Human Rights Commission by the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat could be intended to harm the prospects of the proposed class‑action lawsuit brought by Black federal public servants alleging racial discrimination in the federal public service, stating it’s an unfair and bad faith use of the grievance process. How would you respond to these comments?
Ms. Bidal: Thank you for the question.
In accordance with the legislated and bargaining policy grievance process, my role as a decision maker is to look at collective agreements, weigh all the information and the submissions that are provided to me, and reach a conclusion where a collective agreement has been breached. That is what I did in these cases, and I can assure you that the Treasury Board Secretariat remains committed to ensuring access to a robust, effective and fair grievance process that addresses issues as they arise.
Senator Omidvar: In other words, you refute the witness testimony we heard last week.
Ms. Bidal: What I’m stating is that the decision that I made was based on the facts that were presented before me.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you all for being here this evening. We apologize that we’ve gone later. I think the fact that we’ve taken more time with each of the panels really speaks to the heaviness of the issues we’re addressing. Thank you for your patience.
I’ll start with a question following up on Senator Omidvar’s question to the Treasury Board. Could I ask you to comment on the government’s response to your ruling? What are your reflections on the government’s response to your ruling?
Ms. Bidal: I’m sorry, can you repeat the question?
Senator Bernard: What are your reflections on the government’s response to your ruling? And I’ll add, what are your reflections on the community’s response to your ruling?
Ms. Bidal: Thank you.
I understand from media reports that have been communicated to me that the Canadian Human Rights Commission did accept the findings from my decision. I also understand that there have been comments from other ministers with respect to the situation that was raised as a result of the grievances and my decision. At this point, I’m not going to be able to comment any further on their responses. The matter, as you know, is still before the Public Sector Labour Relations Board.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Let me ask of the Canadian Heritage secretariat, can you tell us how issues of anti-Black racism are specifically taken up within the anti-racism strategy? I know that when the strategy was being developed, there was strong community pressure from different parts of the country to do something specifically about anti-Black racism. How are issues of anti-Black racism specifically addressed in the secretariat?
Ms. Cadotte: Thank you for the question, senator. Perhaps I can start, and my colleague Mr. Flegel will continue on.
You’re absolutely right, and through the work of the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat, we actually conducted a national summit on anti-Black racism. It included hundreds of youth and Black leaders, and all of this work is helping us to inform a renewed strategy.
As part of the first strategy, there were initiatives to support Black communities and specific funding programs. Five million dollars was provided to communities to support specific initiatives for anti-Black racism. This is definitely a big part of the work we want to do, but going forward, recognizing that there needs to be specific focus on anti-Black racism.
I’ll let Mr. Flegel elaborate as well.
Peter Flegel, Executive Director, Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat, Canadian Heritage: Thank you, senators.
When the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat was set up, it was important for us to take a distinction-based approach to racism, recognizing racism is a systemic whole-of-government problem that cannot be solved by a cookie cutter or a one-size-fits-all approach. As soon as that was set up, we took the time to sit down with hundreds of Black community leaders from across the country, representing a variety of different communities and intersections, to first understand some of the challenges that they’re facing. What are some of the systemic barriers that currently and consistently continue to affect the communities. What are some of the gaps in the federal policies, programs, services and legislation that are out there? And lastly, and most importantly, what are the new policies, programs, services and legislation that are required to address the systemic and endemic problem of anti-Black racism in Canada?
We also sat down with hundreds of Black youth in front of cabinet ministers so that they could tell the cabinet ministers what they need for their communities, what they need to make their lives better and what they need to remove systemic anti‑Black racism. There were two recommendations — among many — that stood out. One was that the federal government needed to investigate the reality of anti‑Black racism within the youth criminal justice system, and two, the Government of Canada needed to set up Canada’s Black Justice Strategy.
As soon as we heard that, we went directly to the Department of Justice and said, “This is what we’re hearing from Black youth.” We were able to work with the Department of Justice to conduct a study, which was community-led and community-driven, on the experiences of Black youth with the criminal justice system, which created a whole slew of recommendations. As you know, the other recommendation, which was setting up Canada’s Black Justice Strategy was announced by the government, and we’re working hand in hand with the Department of Justice, as well as with Black community organizations across the country, to advance that strategy forward.
That’s just a few examples of the ways in which we take anti‑Black racism very seriously and we’re working with the community and our colleagues across government to effect change.
Senator Bernard: Thank you for that.
Do I have time for one more question, or should I go on second round?
The Chair: We won’t have time for a second round.
Senator Bernard: No second round with this panel. Aren’t you lucky?
I want to pick up on a question that I asked earlier around the whole issue of an apology and the resistance to an apology. Many Black youth are part of the Nova Scotian DPAD, and they have twice now had a national petition asking for an apology. Both times petitions were tabled in the House, and we’ve not had an apology. What are your thoughts about that? How does that impact the work that you’re doing?
Ms. Cadotte: We are aware of those two petitions that have been put before the House. We recognize that, to move forward, recognition of systemic racism, the harms of slavery in Canada and the harms of the discrimination that Black people live with in Canada is really a serious problem that needs to be addressed by all government at various levels. This is something that we are aware of. I know that there is consideration. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Department of Employment and Social Development Canada are leading work on the decade and building a framework around the Decade for People of African Descent.
Senator Bernard: [Technical difficulties] one of the recommendations.
Ms. Cadotte: Yes. As I mentioned, that’s something we’re aware of as one of the recommendations, and we hear the calls that are being made. I’m sure this is all being used to inform steps going forward. Thank you.
Senator Bernard: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: Thank you to the witnesses.
I just wanted to make a point here. I believe Nicholas Thompson from the Black Class Action Secretariat in panel three last week mentioned publicly recently — something I think we should follow up — that the Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat should be moved from Heritage Canada to the Privy Council Office to report directly to the Clerk of the Privy Council. I’d like that person to be invited to amplify that. I’m guessing as to why he said that.
I’m asking the question, would you agree with that? You have a whole-of-government approach and a whole-of-government solution. Would it not be a stronger base, given the structure of government and the ability to have mandatory compliance given the highest priority possible, based on the strongest foundation and perhaps robust funding to go with that, to ensure that the programming that you’re doing in fact has the backing of a whole-of-government approach, not just from the Ministry of Heritage but from the Clerk of the Privy Council to make it a significant priority to address anti‑Black racism? I ask all three witnesses for your opinion on that.
Ms. Cadotte: Thank you for your question, senator.
As you know, decisions of machinery are not ours as public servants to take. We have a very strong Federal Anti-Racism Secretariat with strong leadership and a diverse, distributed team across the country that work day in and day out tirelessly with their full beings and hearts to work towards a whole-of-government approach to eradicating racism and anti‑Black racism. This secretariat is special in that it reports directly to our associate deputy minister and also directly to me. There’s a level of freedom there, if you will, to speak directly with decision makers.
I agree with you that a strengthened and supported Anti‑Racism Secretariat is important. We have seen the results of their work to date and the difference this secretariat is making. That’s part of the mandate letter commitment for our minister to continue to support and strengthen the secretariat.
Senator Arnot: Are you aware of the concern or criticism Mr. Thompson raised publicly? And if so, do you know why he’s raising that?
Ms. Cadotte: I said in my opening remarks that Canadian Heritage is committed to addressing anti‑Black racism. We’re proud of the teams we have doing this work. We are aware of that message and the concerns that were raised about that individual. The department takes all information regarding its mandate and its workforce very seriously, and we’re reviewing the situation. Beyond that, I cannot comment. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: I understand that it may not be appropriate for me to ask you that question. Mr. Flegel or Ms. Bidal, any comments on that?
Ms. Bidal: With respect to the clerk’s call to action on anti‑racism, equity and inclusion, it is being taken seriously, not only at the Treasury Board Secretariat but across all departments as well. There are a number of key government-wide initiatives taking place, and horizontal consultation is taking place with stakeholders across different departments as well. That is happening now.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Thank you to our witnesses for being here today; your presence is much appreciated.
We understand from your opening remarks, Ms. Cadotte, that there has been a great deal of effort by Canadian Heritage to combat anti‑Black racism. I also understand from Ms. Bidal that the government has invested significant sums of money to support organizations that fight anti‑Black racism in Canada.
What are some of the concrete results you’ve seen since 2019, when you began investing so much money in fighting racism? How do you measure those results?
Ms. Cadotte: Thank you for the question, senator.
It’s true that we have been working hard at Canadian Heritage to advance the fight against racism. One of the things we would like to improve is disaggregated data so that we have more information on progress within the public service.
For each of the initiatives, there is an evaluation plan and there are performance measures and indicators. However, at the government level, we don’t have much information. That’s a gap we’d like to fill in the future, to really have the data and a framework to show us the history of all our progress in the public service. However, for each of the initiatives, there is a framework to manage performance.
My colleague Mr. Flegel might be able to tell you more about that.
Mr. Flegel: Yes, thank you for the question, Madam Chair and senator.
If we take 2018 as an example, the government invested about $25 million to support Black communities, to address racism against Black people, and to mark the International Decade for People of African Descent. From then on, we did a lot of consultation with Black communities to find out what the gaps are and what more the Government of Canada should do to address this issue.
Thanks to the mobilization of Black communities, the government now has a funding program for Black entrepreneurs that goes beyond $200 million. We have the first Black-led community endowment fund worth $200 million. So, I could give you a list that shows that since 2018, there has been a lot of investment because of the mobilization of Black communities. There’s a lot more work to be done, and there are more deliverables. However, we have a very exciting Black community-based framework to eradicate the scourge of systemic racism against Black people so that they can fully enjoy their rights and freedom in this country.
Senator Gerba: Thank you very much for the response. What we understood from the testimony of the Canadian Human Rights Commission representatives just before you is that there are a lot of delays related to processing and there are a lot of dismissed complaints.
Do you have a policy that goes beyond your department to observe what’s going on at the commission, to take action and maybe influence the complaint analysis process? Because we heard from an aide here in the room that the reality is that the burden of proof is on the complainant and not on the commission itself. Do you have any practical ways to go and observe and make sure that there is a solution?
Ms. Cadotte: Generally speaking, we have a tool; I’ll ask my colleague to explain the anti-racism framework.
Mr. Flegel: Indeed, we have developed and continue to develop a tool called the Anti-Racism Analysis Framework, which is similar to Gender Plus Analysis. It is used to look at different policies and initiatives within government from an anti‑racism perspective. These tools deal with things like creating new policies, contracts for businesses, communication. We are developing tools to enable government agencies to act more effectively to eliminate racism within those practices. We have been in direct contact with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, very recently, to help them be better equipped to combat racism within the organization.
When the analysis tool is ready, we will be happy to share it with you so you can use it.
[English]
Senator Pate: Thank you to you all for being here and for your appearance in the past as well.
I know that you’ve made many incredible recommendations about disaggregated data and policy changes. I’d be very interested in the framework that you’ve just discussed, if you haven’t already shared it. I apologize. I’m subbing for someone, so if you have already shared it, I will defer to the fact that you have already done it. If you haven’t, if you can do so, as well as any other recommendations you’ve made to other departments about this.
While none of us, I believe, would hold any brief for any individual or organization by admission or commission contributing to anti‑Black racism, I am one of a group that worries that some of the approach right now, focusing on the Canadian Human Rights Commission, may also be an attempt to get rid of some of the protections, albeit that need to absolutely be corrected, that do exist right now.
I’m interested in whether you’ve made any recommendations that have not been followed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and I’d like to know what those are.
I’d also be interested in what other recommendations you have made to government about including the Anti-Racism Strategy. Probably it won’t surprise you, given my history and what’s being proposed in terms of the justice strategy, but my fear is, knowing what’s happened with some of the Indigenous justice strategy, that it’s merely indigenizing a performative approach rather than a decolonizing or an anti-racist approach that has been taken there. Is there anything that this committee could recommend that would assist your work in that regard?
And, finally — and I apologize there are so many questions, but we’re at the end here — if there is any downside to the recommendation that my colleague Senator Arnot asked about, about moving this to a Privy Council position, if you’re comfortable raising that, if there is a downside. If not, we can leave it as is. Many of us are concerned about seeing anti-racism work writ large being raised to a much higher bar and priority, not just by this government but within Canada.
I apologize. I know those are broad, sweeping questions and comments, but any contribution to that would be gratefully received.
Ms. Cadotte: Thank you, senator, for the questions. I hope I remember them all.
Let me start by saying that we are aware of the decision that was made and the policy grievance. When it comes to the workplace and the federal public service workforce, when it comes to the Anti-Racism Strategy, it’s more of an external‑facing strategy, so it is more about Canadian society. It’s really our colleagues at Treasury Board, as Carole had mentioned in her speech, that had offered to provide support to the CHRC with regard to implementing changes following that policy grievance. So nothing in particular for us on that particular point.
I will sidestep the downsides on the machinery question. I will say that in the last budget, there was an announcement made that there would be a small office or team at the Privy Council Office as well, looking at anti-racism, equity, diversity and inclusion. We look forward to seeing how we can work together with that office.
As Carole had mentioned, from an internal public service perspective, the call to action has been a very strong instrument to incite change and to motivate leaders and hold leaders accountable for making changes in terms of anti-racism and diversity and equity.
In terms of our support to other government departments, I’ll turn to my colleague Peter to outline a few of the areas where we’ve worked with departments.
Mr. Flegel: Thank you, senator.
What I’ll say is that in the slew of documents we will be sending to the committee, one will be the report on the experience of Black youth within the youth criminal justice system. You will see listed several robust recommendations coming directly from young people, their families and organizations that support Black youth and who have experience with the youth criminal justice system.
Senator Pate: I don’t know if you can share this, but how robust was the interest of the government in looking at completely non-carceral, non-criminalizing components as opposed to the restorative types of approaches, if I can put it that way?
Mr. Flegel: What I can say is that a very dynamic and robust discussion is happening within government about the best approach to tackling the over-representation of people of African descent within federal penitentiaries, in the context of developing Canada’s Black justice strategy. You’ll be able to see that approach once the strategy is launched.
Senator Bernard: One of the things we’ve heard from a number of witnesses is that anti‑Black racism is not an issue that is solely related to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It is across the public service and across Canadian society. If we look specifically at the public service, can you offer any comment in terms of your thoughts about what we’re hearing from witnesses, namely, that anti‑Black racism is quite rampant? Maybe we’ll start with the Treasury Board because it would be one of those public service departments.
The Chair: Could I just add my question? It is very similar.
In 2017, Black civil servants who were working on a mental health program at the Treasury Board to help colleagues cope with racism were themselves subjected to racism. As you said, it is across the board.
Ms. Bidal: Thank you for the question.
There are two components to the answer. The first is in relation to the work I am asked to do with respect to the grievance processes and the oversight and role that the Treasury Board plays as an employer when something has occurred and ensuring that employees have access to a robust and equitable recourse mechanism in order to have their realities heard. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the grievance process offers different types of recourse for employees, as well as the bargaining agents, to support them through that, up to and including third-party, independent adjudication under the representation of their bargaining agents.
The second portion of your question is under the policy arm of the Treasury Board to guide departments in fulfilling their requirements. As my colleagues indicated earlier, a significant amount of work has already been done. A number of different programs have been launched, especially in the last few years, in response to the clerk’s call to action but also in response to the information we’re now gathering. We have a collection of disaggregated data at a level that we have not yet had the opportunity to benefit from. In that context, we are arming and equipping ourselves through the consultations and various programs that are happening across the public service, and in relation to people management at Treasury Board itself, to be able to set the foundation to ensure an equitable, diverse and inclusive workplace for everybody.
Senator Bernard: This particular grievance took almost three years to reach a decision. Is that a normal length of time for a grievance of this nature? It seems like a long time. I’m thinking particularly of the people who were directly involved but also those who were witnessing. That’s a long time.
Ms. Bidal: It was a long time. The grievance was filed in the fall of 2020. Initially, the unions did agree to hold their grievances in abeyance in order that they could receive and review certain information from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. So there was a certain lag at the outset in order to collect the correct amount of information, and this did take some time. Additionally, it did take some time for us to receive the submissions from both the bargaining agents and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Scheduling the hearings in the middle of the pandemic was quite difficult as well. There were two separate hearing dates — one in the fall of 2022 and another in the winter of 2023 — before my decision was rendered. That accounts for, at least in part, the delays in this particular case.
Senator Bernard: How does that timeline compare to a typical grievance of this nature?
Ms. Bidal: It’s an interesting question. To be honest with you, this is the first time that Treasury Board Secretariat, as an employer, has been seized with a policy grievance with the types of allegations we’ve seen. That is not to say that there have not been individual grievances or other types of grievances, but this was the first situation in terms of the scope and breadth of the allegations. It was also the first time that three separate bargaining agents filed grievances at the same time. Normally, it’s an allegation with respect to a single grievance. That added to the complexity of the situation as well.
The Chair: I want to take this opportunity to thank our witnesses. We greatly appreciate the help you have given us as we move forward with this important study. I speak for all the senators when I say that your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Senators, I want to thank you. We had indicated that we might finish at 7:00, but we didn’t because there were so many questions. I want to thank you for your patience too.
(The committee adjourned.)