CHRC – The "True" North

One of the things I did to resist the anti-Black discrimination I was facing at my department was file a complaint with the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada, or PSIC. PSIC’s mandate is on the front page of its website: “We handle disclosures of wrongdoing and help protect those who blow the whistle.” They protect whistleblowers by keeping their identities secret. The reason I’m revealing my identity now is because of the response I got from PSIC. Below is my response to PSIC Deputy Commissioner, Denis Bilodeau, who signed the letter I got.

“Mr. Bilodeau, I just received your letter explaining your decision not to investigate my complaint. Although, your decision is disappointing, it is not surprising. Your reasons for dismissing my complaint of systemic discrimination and anti-Black racism against my former [managers] at Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) are of most concern. You say that my complaint lacked specificity and would be better dealt with by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. This, despite the fact that I cited the results of the 2019 Public Service Employee Survey which had data on Black federal employees – for the first time ever – and confirmed that Black employees, public service wide, and at ECCC, report discrimination levels twice the average. In addition, I provided detailed information about the discrimination I had faced. You further justified your decision based on my assertion that the discriminatory “treatment is subtle in nature but that beyond your own experience, you have not witnessed any incidents involving colleagues.” This seems to indicate that, in order to qualify for investigation, the discrimination must be of a blatant nature like people calling us niggers to our face. This rarely happens whereas subtle forms of anti-Black discrimination are daily occurrences.

Your response is consistent with the Canadian Human Rights Commission that regularly rejects the majority of race-based complaints – and tried to do the same with mine – so your referring my complaint to the Commission is clearly inadequate as a solution.

The ineffectiveness of organizations like PSIC and the Commission in dealing with anti-Black racism complaints is one reason why I advise Black employees, including members of the Federal Black Employee Caucus which I co-founded, to use tools like race-based grievances, Access To Information and Privacy requests, the media and small claims court to seek justice.”

In her book, Race After Technology, Princeton Professor Ruha Benjamin says, “Until we come to grips with the “reasonableness” of racism, we will continue to look for it on the bloody floors of Charleston churches and in the dashboard cameras on Texas highways, and overlook it in the smart sounding logic of textbooks, policy statements, court rulings, science journals and cutting edge technologies.” Regarding the way PSIC and the Canadian Human Rights Commission currently assess race-based complaints, and applying it to a Canadian context, her quote could be reworded as:

“Until we come to grips with the “reasonableness” of racism in the public service, we will continue to look for it on the bloody floors of Quebec mosques, the videos of Canadian police officers abusing Black people, and white public servants calling their Black colleagues niggers, and overlook it in public service hiring, promoting and sanctioning practices.”

Mr. Bilodeau, our harassers no longer wear white hoods – they wear white collars.

[Sept. 4 update – I ended my original email to PSIC Deputy Commissioner Bilodeau with the question, “Given all this, please clarify what would qualify as enough specificity?” Today, I received the response, “It is not the Commissioner Office’s role to pinpoint what specific information should be provided for an investigation to be launched into your allegations of wrongdoing.”]

Burden of proof should be on those accused of discrimination not their accusers

Currently, people who file union grievances against their managers or make complaints of discrimination to organizations like the Canadian Human Rights Commission, alleging discrimination based on race, must prove two things: that discrimination happened and that it was based on race. This is almost impossible to do as most organizations require proof similar to that of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre (HRLSC). The HRLSC is an independent agency, funded by the Government of Ontario, to provide legal services to individuals who have experienced discrimination. Its website states:

“To prove discrimination, you must show that there is a connection…between negative treatment that you experienced and one of the personal characteristics (or prohibited grounds of discrimination) listed in the the [Human Rights] Code.

Put another way, to prove discrimination, you need to show…that you were subjected to negative treatment because of your gender, place of origin, family status or any one of the Code-protected personal characteristics.”

Meeting these requirements is next to impossible because, by definition, discrimination means someone doing something to you that they’re not doing to others. How do you prove they’re not doing it to others and that the difference is based on race?

One obvious way to get an answer to the first question in the workplace would be to ask your colleagues if they’re treated the same way. That works for very visible things like telework. For things like that, you don’t even have to ask as, if your manager denies your telework request, it’s pretty easy to see if she approved others’ requests because they’re not around. However, less visible types of discrimination are harder to deal with.

I had such an example recently where my boss called a meeting to engage in what I label “hyper critique”. Hyper critique is when a manager rarely, if ever, praises an employee’s work, but critiques it, most often in private meetings. Hyper critique is a common complaint of our Federal Black Employee Caucus members.

Proving whether my boss hyper critiques my colleagues is challenging. I could ask them, but most people are, understandably, reluctant to admit if they are subject to such things. They’re also often reluctant to admit if they’re not subject to such things as they may see that as admission that they’re getting preferential treatment.

So what can you do? Right now, not much. That’s why I recommend we push the public service to do three things:

Shift the burden of proof to those accused of discrimination instead of their accusers; require the accused to prove that they’re not discriminating.
Until the burden of proof is shifted from accuser to the accused, create a discrimination investigator function staffed with someone given the power to investigate claims of discrimination, including being able to mandate colleagues to reveal, in anonymous interviews, if they have been subject to the same treatment.
Start collecting race-based data on who managers sanction.

People who are being harassed and discriminated against have enough to deal with. Let’s take one thing off their plate.

Note: The opinions expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Black Employee Caucus. To contact an FBEC spokesperson use the Contact Us page on FBEC’s website.