Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members, for inviting me to appear before this committee to speak about systemic racism, religious discrimination, and Islamophobia.
I'd like to begin by acknowledging that we are meeting on the traditional unceded territories of the Algonquin Nation.
I appear before you in various capacities. I am an associate professor of gender and Islamic studies at the University of British Columbia. I am the Canada research chair in religion, law, and social justice. I am a Canadian and I am a Muslim. I was born in Toronto. I wore a hijab from when I was five years old. Then I wore a niqab for 10 years, from grade 10 to the end of my master's, through public high school and undergraduate and M.A. degree programs at the University of Toronto. So I appear before you as a scholar, as a brown Muslim South Asian Canadian, who has experienced, I would say, more than my fair share of systemic racism, religious discrimination, and Islamophobia.
Growing up in Toronto, I learned about Canadian multiculturalism. I was a proud Canadian at the same time that others—kids in school, teachers, doctors, cashiers, strangers driving by in cars—told me, in a million subtle and not-so-subtle ways, that I wasn't actually Canadian, that I should go back home, and that I was a terrorist. These people did not believe that the colour of my skin or my religion belonged on the cultural mosaic.
I have always been grateful that I was born and raised in a nation-state that did not force an artificial binary between my religious and national identities; that I was allowed, legally, to be Canadian and Muslim; that I did not have to choose; that in the end I was able to have my journey with my faith, and that this journey has not revolved around state oppression. But I've also always been acutely aware of the Canadians who have hated me and have resented the state for protecting my rights—the right to free speech and the right to religious freedom, which is to say the right to dress as I please. These Canadians have curled their lips, hurled insults at me, refused to render me services, and even made death threats against my family.
None of these countless experiences have made it into any documented hate crime reports. It takes an incredible amount of energy to just survive these experiences, never mind thrive in the face of them. To have a hate crime recorded is no easy task, as those of us who have encountered the police know well. Reporting demands tremendous emotional labour from victims. When my parents reported the death threat calls we were receiving in the middle of the night, that were filled with hateful language against Muslims and Arabs, the police, over the phone, told us not to worry about it. The police told my mother that they were probably just fooling around, making prank calls. So we, the children, slept huddled around her in the living room of the house, afraid that someone might actually come and kill us while my father was away, working the night shift.
Madam Chair, it is deeply painful for me to watch discussions about Muslim Canadians, even when we are the victims of violence, revolve around Islamic extremism and radicalization. The questions raised for me by this persistent move are as follows: Who is Canadian? Whose security matters in Canada? Who deserves to feel safe? Whose extremism is alarming? What kind of radicalization can be tolerated? When a self-declared Trump- and Le Pen-supporting white nationalist, far-right white supremacist, white male radicalized on the Internet walks into a mosque and executes Muslims in the act of prayer, and a motion is tabled to study the roots of Islamophobia to prevent such acts of terror given the alarming rise in Islamophobia, how on earth does a discussion come to be framed around Muslim extremism and radicalization?
It is wrong-headed to treat those in need of protection from crimes as the perpetrators of crimes, to blame the victim, to shame the vulnerable. We can only do this if we believe and behave as if Muslims and Islam are fundamentally and inherently violent. This is Islamophobia.
As a scholar, I see my role here as recommending to the committee a theoretical framework for their mandate and offering clarification around key terms that are central to these hearings. Let's start with “intersectionality” and its relevance to racism and discrimination.
What is beautiful about intersectionality is that it is a theory rooted in experience. It was coined by black scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, who noted that women of colour experience compounded discrimination, as their colour, gender, class, sexuality, etc., weigh down upon them cumulatively. Their oppressions are compounded, while people with privilege, white men, for example, experience compounded privilege based on their colour, gender, class, sexuality, etc.
Intersectionality argues that as multi-dimensional humans moving through time and space, we are always at varying and fluid intersecting influences of power. For example, white women might face oppression because of sexism, but they enjoy the privileges of whiteness. Similarly, patriarchy may privilege a man of colour, but his colour puts him at a disadvantage in a racist system.
None of these influences—race, class, gender, sexuality, religion—are essential to who we are. Their meanings are not defined. They are not inevitable. Rather, they are constructed. We as a society create meanings around and sustain them collectively and individually. We decide that men are better than women, worthier than women, when we pay women less for the same job. We decide that white people are better than people of colour when white people dominate in positions of power.
In light of intersectionality, we can see that racism, sexism, bigotry, Islamophobia, all of these things reduce complex, multi-dimensional individuals to the worst caricatures of only one of their identities, flattening even this one identity to its derogatory extreme. Rather than facilitating critique and dialogue, such behaviour chills difficult conversations. It obliterates communal differences, turning complex communities into homogeneous entities. When these attitudes are absorbed and internalized by social institutions, they become systemic.
When a population is overrepresented in any institutional context, this is a reflection of systemic inequality, to the detriment of some, and to the advantage of others. Think here about white men in CEO positions and indigenous and black people in Canadian federal prisons.
“Systemic” alerts us to the fact that we are discussing prejudice that is not just widespread and common, but that has come to be enshrined in the institutions of a society, such that it has become invisible to many. It is not obvious all the time, although sometimes it is. It is not located alone in individual people, although it resides there too. It transcends any one individual or group and their personal intentions. Most people think of themselves as good. Most people do not view themselves as racist, sexist, Islamophobic, although they may think and behave as such, individually and collectively.
When we focus on the systemic, some of our questions become irrelevant. For instance, is Islamophobia the right term in M-103, or is anti-Muslim more appropriate? Is this about Islam or Muslims? Systemic hate is not that sophisticated. It does not know to draw a line between Islam and Muslims. Consider that between 2012 and 2015, hate crimes against Muslims have increased a staggering 253%. That is not because of lone individuals, but because systemic racism has encouraged about a half of our population to fear Islam and Muslims without needing to differentiate between the two.
Consider that a 2017 Angus Reid poll tells us that 46% of Canadians have an unfavourable opinion of Islam. According to a 2016 Leger poll, 43% of Canadians have a negative opinion of Muslims. A 2016 poll found that more than half, 55%, of Ontarians—Ontario is the province I was born in, and where we sit today—believe that mainstream Islamic doctrines promote violence. It is ugly, shameful, and systemic when close to half the population of one of the most peaceful nations on earth hates the second largest religion on earth and its adherents.
Let us sit with these numbers. If close to half of Canadians have a negative opinion of Muslims, have an unfavourable opinion of Islam, and associate Islam with violence, then the alarming increase in hate crimes against Muslims is actually unsurprising. When a group of people are dehumanized or demonized, violence against them becomes normalized. These numbers tell us that the democratic foundations of Canada stand threatened. Children, young adults, teenagers, and adults are formed by their experiences of Islamophobia.
Every space Muslims find themselves in—public schools, courtrooms, parks, universities, coffee shops, yoga studios, even this very room—become potential sites of heartbreak and inequality. We start from a deficit. We must prove we're not violent, that we are one of the good ones, that we are not like the others. In this light, everything is skewed—our grades, merit, the legal and justice system, and governance. The hate consumes all of us, the hated and haters, and the hate weakens our democratic institutions.
I am grateful for motion M-103 and the work of this committee because, in focusing on the systemic nature of hate, it names a serious threat facing our democracy and offers us an opportunity—an opportunity to be better.
Madam Chair, we can be better.
Thank you, Dr. Fry and committee members.
My name is Avvy Go. I'm the clinic director of the Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, formerly known as the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. We are a non-profit organization that provides free legal services to low-income members of the Chinese and southeast Asian communities in Ontario. We are also a founding member of the Colour of Poverty-Colour of Change network, which is a network of individuals and organizations working to advance racial equality and racial justice in Ontario.
I want to thank the committee for giving us an opportunity to comment on motion M-103. Our submissions and recommendations are based largely on the joint shadow report that we submitted recently to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination during its review of Canada's compliance with ICERD. Many of the recommendations we put forward have been adopted by the UN CERD committee. These recommendations are just as relevant to this study that the committee is looking at.
We see the adoption of motion M-103 as a starting point for much-needed discussions about systemic racism, Islamophobia, and other forms of racism and hate targeting communities of colour in particular. In studying racism and discrimination, it's critical for the committee to focus not only on the individual acts of hate and racism but, as mentioned, to also explore systemic racism from a socio-economic perspective so as to identify key barriers facing racialized communities.
The committee should also critically examine government laws and policies that negatively impact racialized communities, in order to make concrete recommendations for positive change. In our written submission, we provided several examples of how systemic racism and hate affect members of racialized groups. I'm going to highlight just a couple in my 10 minutes this afternoon, starting with discrimination in the labour market.
There are significant racialized and gendered wage and employment gaps in Canada. For instance, data from the 2011 national household survey show that women of colour earned 32% less than non-racialized men, and immigrant women earned 28% less than non-immigrant men. Wage gaps increase for indigenous women, women of colour, and immigrant women with university degrees. There are multiple studies that confirm employers discriminate against job applicants with Asian-sounding names, who are 33% to 37% less likely to get a callback for interviews.
As a result of the labour market discrimination, poverty in Canada has also become racialized. The last census shows that 18.7% of racialized families live in poverty as compared to only 6% of non-racialized families, yet the federal government's current national poverty reduction strategy makes little or no mention of how it would address poverty experienced by communities of colour.
Racism also exists in the immigration system. Historically, Canada has always used race as a factor to determine who gets in. The most notorious of these examples, of course, is the Chinese head tax and exclusion act. While of course today government can no longer overtly use race as a selection criterion, systemic barriers continue for racialized communities coming from the global south. This is most evident in the changes to family class immigration over the last two decades, including the recently imposed annual cap of 10,000 for applicants sponsoring parents and grandparents, and the significantly stricter minimum annual income requirements for the sponsors. As racialized Canadians have systemically poorer labour market outcomes, and given that the vast majority of these family class immigrants come from the global south, including China and India, these changes disproportionately impede reunification of racialized families.
To combat racism in all its forms, we need a commitment from all orders of government, and we need the federal government to take the leadership role in this regard. We've put forward a number of recommendations which, if adopted, will go a long way to address racism and hate. I'm going to highlight them.
The Canadian government should develop a national action plan against racism, based on full consultation with indigenous peoples, people of colour, and non-governmental organizations working to advance racial justice in Canada. I encourage the committee to look to the Ontario government's model as an example of what that action may look like.
The government should adopt a race equity lens in the development of all laws, policies, and programs to properly consider and measure the impact of its actions on racialized communities.
The government should collect and track this aggregated race-based data across all government departments, ministries, and institutions, and use this data to develop strategies for addressing racism and measuring the impact of these strategies.
The government should also centre the problem of racialization of poverty in the national poverty reduction strategy and reinstate mandatory compliance with employment equity for federal contractors.
It should also work with all the provinces and territories to introduce and enforce employment equity legislation and develop a provincial poverty reduction strategy that will focus on the racialization of poverty.
The government should amend the Criminal Code to take hate motivation into account more effectively and introduce standards for identifying and recording all hate incidents and their dispensation in the justice system.
Finally, the government should engage with the most affected communities to address the disproportionate overrepresentation of indigenous communities and African Canadians and other racialized communities in the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, I encourage and welcome the fact that we are naming the issue of racism and hate but, more importantly, we need concrete action to end discrimination.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for the invitation to present to you on behalf of the Canadian Association of Black Lawyers, CABL for short.
CABL was formed in March 1996 as a national network of law professionals with an overall mandate to promote the advancement of black lawyers within the profession by providing support systems, promoting academic and professional excellence, and advancing issues of equity and diversity among the bar and judiciary.
Our members—black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, agnostic, and so on—are all bound by a profound concern about issues affecting the black community, including the issues before this committee.
The motion identifies two broad, pressing issues that are top of mind to our members, and in our view, they should be top of mind to the federal and provincial governments, and to anyone who takes the rights of all Canadians seriously. The first issue is racism. The second is religious discrimination.
Condemnation of acts of hate, including the murders at the Islamic cultural centre of Quebec City on January 29, 2017, should be swift and unequivocal. Racism, religious discrimination, or both justify hate speech, assault, and murder in the minds of people like Alexandre Bissonnette, James Fields, and Dylann Roof.
These overt expressions of hate and fear grab headlines. They make fair-minded Canadians shift in their seats, because they are dramatic, visceral reminders of the persistence of racism and racial discrimination in Canada. They are difficult to deny or minimize, though some try. However, for most Canadians, whom I believe to be fair-minded and generally well-intentioned, it is easy to draw a line between themselves and people like Mr. Bissonnette, Mr. Roof, and Mr. Fields. Racism becomes something clearly visible and easily identifiable. It is defined as an act or acts committed by particular individuals chanting horrid things and carrying backyard accessories, while marching on university campuses, driving into human beings, or shooting human beings in prayer.
With the time allotted to me, I would like to focus on a different form of racism, one that we call “institutional” or “systemic”. It is the form of racism that can be the difference between receiving a warning from an officer and ending up in the back of a cruiser. It's the difference between an opportunity to learn from a mistake on the job and having a mistake cost you your job. It's the difference between receiving the benefit of the doubt and consistently being the subject of doubt.
Systemic racism has been defined as the social production of racial inequality in decisions about people and in the treatment they receive. Racial inequality is neither natural nor inherent in humanity. On the contrary, it is the result of a society's arrangement of economic, cultural, and political life. It is produced by the combination of social constructions of races as real, different, and unequal, known as racialization; the norms, processes, and service delivery of a social system, known as structure; and the actions and decisions of people who work for social systems, known as personnel. If you are wondering, I didn't come up with this definition. It's from page 39 of the "Report of the Commission on Systemic Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice System.”
In October 1992, the Ontario government appointed the commission to inquire and make recommendations about the extent to which criminal justice practices, procedures, and policies in Ontario reflect systemic racism. Based on statistical evidence, the commission came to several conclusions, including that black people are vastly overrepresented in prisons. It identified two primary explanations for this overrepresentation, which were social and economic inequalities, and differential enforcement of criminal law. Differential enforcement revealed itself at several stages of the criminal process, including in the decision to imprison an accused before trial, or what we call remand.
On this issue, the commission found that black accused are more likely than white accused to be imprisoned before trial. Little of the difference of the use of imprisonment for black and white accused is explained by factors said to be relevant to imprisonment decisions. Imprisonment decisions are significantly influenced by the race of the accused, or, in the frank words of the commission:
||However closely we scrutinize the data, the findings disclose distinct and legally unjustifiable differences in detention decisions for black and white accused, across the sample as a whole and for some specific offences. The conclusion is inescapable: some black men imprisoned before trial would not have been jailed if they had been white, and some white men freed before their trials would have been detained had they been black.
In my view, the gravamen of the commission's report is that whenever broad discretion exists, racialization can influence the decision of typically fair, well-intentioned people and produce racial inequalities and outcomes.
What is particularly interesting is the contrast between the views of some of the stakeholders in the criminal justice system who were surveyed as part of the study and the commission's evidence-based conclusions. I would like to briefly identify a couple of them because it's important to put this into context. Some expressed that people who complain about systemic racism “do not understand the justice system”, that the idea of “there being widespread racism in the administration of justice is patently false. These ideas result from an ill-informed, politically correct minority who, I believe, have no experience in the criminal justice system.” “Whining about supposed discrimination is a waste of time. The suggestion of discrimination is unfounded.” Some say they are making “excuses”. “The accusation of 'racism' is often used as the last refuge of the scoundrel.” Those are crown attorneys.
I'm not aware of any reliable evidence that the conclusions reached in the commission's report have changed. In fact, in 2007, Dr. Scot Wortley, a criminologist at the University of Toronto, replicated part of the commission's work, a survey of Torontonians about police bias. Dr. Wortley found that the perception of bias in the police and courts appears to have increased between 1994 and 2007 for all racial groups, including whites.
I will now turn to carding. We have also seen the effects of systemic racism in what are described as street checks, known popularly as carding. This is the stopping, questioning, and documenting of people on the street who are not suspected of having committed a crime. Black people are far more likely to be carded than white people in “areas where we do not belong”, in ratios ranging from 3:1 to 17:1. This was the finding of the The Toronto Star, which analyzed 1.7 million contact cards filled out by Toronto police officers between 2003 and 2008. The legitimacy of carding cannot reasonably be evaluated outside of its concrete application. Although we appreciate recent efforts by the Ontario government, in CABL's view, carding is a practice that should be eliminated.
In summary, systemic racism is a real problem. It has been an issue for some time. Important work has already been done, but what, if any, progress has been made is at this point unclear.
We would humbly recommend that the committee survey the work of others on these issues. Don't reinvent the wheel. Important, valuable work has already been done. I point you to chapter 12 of this report. There are four key needs that are identified: one, anti-racism training of personnel; two, employment of racialized persons; three, increased participation of racialized persons in developing policies; and four, monitoring of practices for evidence of racial inequality.
Madam Chair, on behalf of CABL, thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
I'd like to thank the standing committee, and you, Madam Chair, for this opportunity to present on such a critical issue.
Pursuant to motion M-103, we understand that this standing committee is studying a whole-of-government approach to reducing and eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination, including Islamophobia, in Canada. We also understand that the study will look at issues of disaggregated data collection and hate crimes reporting. I will be making my comments and recommendations specifically related to those goals.
The South Asian Legal Clinic of Ontario is a not-for-profit legal clinic serving low-income South Asians in Ontario from a wide variety of home countries, as well as North America.
South Asians make up one of the largest racialized communities in Canada. Statistics, unfortunately, also show that many South Asian communities continue to fall below the poverty line at disproportionate rates for a number of reasons that include racism and other forms of discrimination.
SALCO's mandate includes the provision of direct legal services in areas of law including human rights, immigration, income maintenance, employment law, tenants law, family and intimate partner violence, and forced marriage. Our mandate also includes a large-scale advocacy on issues of racism, religious discrimination and gender discrimination.
Our own advocacy always starts from the premise that people have intersecting identities and that to improve their lives our decisions must recognize that intersectionality and how it impacts a person's agency or ability to make choices. For example, we know from evidence that racialized women face a larger gender wage gap than white women.
I would like to start by saying that any approach this committee takes to the study of racism and religious discrimination must have an intersectional framework to ensure the best possible outcomes for marginalized communities.
In direct legal service our clinic serves approximately 4,000 to 5,000 clients per year through legal advice, brief service, and casework. The information that I will be providing today is truly grounded in the work that we do within our communities and what we see and hear directly from our clients, as well as our own analysis of the systemic impact of the policies, laws, and regulations that impact them.
SALCO is also a founding member and steering committee member of the Colour of Poverty-Colour of Change campaign. As mentioned in our previous session, the Colour of Poverty campaign has focused on issues of racial equity and racial justice and concerns around the racialization of poverty.
Over the years we have seen many instances of racism and discrimination against the South Asian community in Canada both at the individual and systemic level. Systemically our own work has challenged immigration policy that targets South Asian communities like the conditional permanent residence. We have challenged issues of freedom of religion, in particular, the ability to wear the niqab in areas like a courtroom. We have challenged religious discrimination and accommodation in education, and we have looked at the issue of racial and religious discrimination in employment, including a call for employment equity.
We have also worked hard to discuss repealing legislation that we believe targets our communities, like the so-called Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act.
We have seen a rise in overt and direct racism in the form of violent acts against members of the Muslim community, and by extension, the South Asian community. The point must be made that we do not see a distinction there, and that many members of our community who do not identify as Muslim also bear the brunt of Islamophobia. In our own work we have seen a rise in targeted racism against all of those communities.
According to the 2016 hate crime report of the National Council of Canadian Muslims, the incidence of Islamophobia hate crimes or incidents reported to the NCCM and the police or in the media has been steadily increasing with the most recent frequently targeted hate-motivated attacks having been on Muslim women and institutions such as mosques.
What is not captured here are those people who face racism and discrimination on a daily basis and do not report it. We speak to clients daily who express incidents of hate, incidents of violence, incidents of Islamophobia, and who repeatedly tell us that they will not come out and report it, that they do not feel safe to do so, they do not feel they would be supported if they did so, and they do not feel that anything would happen if they did so.
In preparing for today I decided to look back at our own casework in 2016 and look at some of the incidents that were reported to us so that I could get a sense of what we have been seeing. It was a troubling review. These are some of the things we found.
We had many clients report frequent comments against Muslim women wearing the niqab in shopping centres and on the street, saying that they are not Canadian, that they should go home, or that they are terrorists. We had frequent comments against Muslim women wearing the niqab that they are anti-woman and anti-feminists. We had comments to Sikh clients wearing turbans that they were Muslim terrorists. We had comments that wearing religious attire meant that a person supported sharia law. We had comments that all South Asians practise forced marriage.
We had one client reporting an incident of being pushed on the subway and told, “Get out of my way. This is not your country.” Most recently, for myself personally, two weeks ago I was at a coffee shop, and a man butted in front of me. I made a comment to which he turned around and said, “Get out of this country, you Paki terrorist.” The environment in Canada is not great for those who are facing Islamophobia.
At a grassroots level, SALCO has seen a steady increase in the number of racist Islamophobic incidents reported over the past several years that mirrors the statistics that this committee has heard from other people in front of it.
This summer I had the opportunity to present to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which was reviewing Canada's progress on addressing racism. At the committee, Canada was inconsistent in its messaging around systemic racism. In fact, it went so far as to say that Canadian police do not racially profile. I would urge this committee to ground its approach in addressing systemic racism in Canada as a critical piece of its work.
I would like to move on now to some of the more practical recommendations that I would make, and I would echo some of the comments you've heard today.
The first recommendation is a call for a national action plan. I myself had the privilege of sitting on the provincial ministers advisory group for the Ontario anti-racism directorate. I would strongly recommend that this committee review the work of that directorate and consider the implementation of a national action plan that improves upon, not just reintroduces, our old CAPAR, the Canadian action plan against racism.
We need a robust plan that targets issues that the committee has identified and addresses them. In its closing recommendations, the United Nations CERD committee also made the same recommendation, and they urged the committee to review that report.
In recognizing gender equality, Canada has instituted a gender plus framework to be applied to all government decision-making. For me, this is a positive and much-needed step forward. By extension, I would also urge the committee to consider specifically applying a racial equity framework to government decision-making. It is estimated that 25% of our population is now or will soon be racialized. We must approach with the same vigour and importance the issue of race as we do with gender.
Had such a lens been placed on policies like the conditional permanent residence, which is now thankfully repealed, it would have shown that there was a disproportionate impact on racialized women from that policy.
I would also urge the committee, as other speakers have done, to review the United Nations CERD closing recommendations for Canada, as they echo many of the things that we are talking about here today. I would urge the committee to review the CERD recommendations on improvements to our immigration system and the embedded systemic racism within it. I would urge the committee to review the comments made about racial profiling within the criminal justice system and the child welfare system. I would urge the committee to also review the call for employment equity, the call for disaggregated data, and the call for a national action plan.
I would like briefly to talk about the federal poverty reduction strategy that goes on currently through the federal government. Discrimination based on race and religion plays a critical role in keeping racialized Canadians in poverty. Discrimination in employment continues to impact racialized Canadians' ability to have fair and equitable labour market outcomes. A very simple example is that those with Asian-sounding last names are less likely to be called for job interviews. In fact, I was at a legal education session recently, where the number one question was, “How can I change my name legally?”
I would also quickly echo the sentiment that the collection of disaggregated data would be critical to the work of any national action plan. Specifically, collecting data in a disaggregated manner will allow us to measure our progress.
I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I want to thank the witnesses very much for their testimony. I can only say that I regret some of the experiences you've had to live. I hope that our conclusions will assist you and many of your clients to live a life that's much more free from any kind of racism, prejudice, or bias.
We have a committee made up with members from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the NDP and, full disclosure, we did vote against this motion, for only one reason: there are some broad concerns, even within the Muslim community, around the word “Islamophobia”. We are in full agreement with “anti-Muslim hatred and prejudice”, but because there is even a movement, Muslims Against M-103, we felt there was a voice in that community that we wanted to defend. This is just so you understand where I'm coming from, but I appreciated your testimony.
I come from Hamilton, where after 9/11 we had not only some racists, but some very ignorant racists, who bombed the Hindu Samaj Temple, obviously thinking that it was a mosque, and burned it to the ground. Fortunately, through a lot of community efforts and government assistance, it now stands as a monument against racism. There has been some really good work in Hamilton, not only individual programs but actual institutions for diversity and inclusion. We've had some broader workshops and events throughout the community since 9/11 to continue that, but there is always more work to do.
Mr. Richard, I think your testimony was evidence of that. You mentioned the 1992 study, and I thank you. Chair, I think we should consider taking that study as evidence. You mentioned how much progress we have made, and your words were that it's “unclear”. Do you feel that, at least in the crown, there has been some education? You mentioned quotes from some crown attorneys. Do you think there has been some improvement there?