During the March 25 Warman v. Lemire hearing which featured the testimony of Dean Steacy, I must say I was really impressed with Doug Christie’s abilities. He didn’t get to question Steacy too much, as his time was limited, but when he got his chance, he lit right into the Jadewarrior and smoked out some very interesting information.
In his cross examination and despite the futile denials from Steacy, Christie shows the Tribunal that there was a working agreement between the CHRC and the country’s police forces regarding S. 13(1) of the CHRA, the section dealing with so-called “hate crimes”.
In this particular instalment, Christie does such a good job that even Chairman Hadjis (it sounds so “Chairman Mao”-ist, doesn’t it?) has had enough and calls Steacy on it. See the highlighted text in red. (I got a kick out of Hadjis telling Blight to sit down. He did the same thing to Giacomo “Serenity Now!” Vigna too.)
12 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, I’ve been
13 through that once already and I suggested to you that
14 if the Commission is investigating hate, then it has to
15 be under section 13.1; correct?
16 MR. STEACY: That’s what I said, but
17 the action plan and the MOU with the R.C.M.P. has
18 nothing to do with the investigation of 13.1, it has to
19 deal with other issues that the Commission is dealing
20 with in its business of investigating complaints of
22 We just don’t investigate hate
23 complaints and we have investigations going on for
24 sexual harassment, for failure to accommodate and
25 there’s 11 grounds under the Act and that MOU is
1 specifically done and set up with that employer to try
2 and deal with the internal issues that are going on to
3 help resolve complaints before they happen.
4 It has nothing to do —
5 MR. CHRISTIE: You say, therefore, it
6 has nothing to do with hate message; is that correct?
7 MR. STEACY: That’s correct.
8 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, let me read you
9 the second paragraph.
19 MR. CHRISTIE: Fifth bullet:
20 “Improving coordinating of human
21 rights related cases proceeding
22 with police efforts.” (As read)
23 MR. CHRISTIE: Sixth bullet:
24 “Obtaining access to specialized
25 training or investigating
1 hate-related cases, Canadian
2 Police College.” (As read)
3 MR. CHRISTIE: Were you aware of
4 those words, sir?
5 MR. STEACY: Yes.
6 MR. CHRISTIE: Well, that’s clearly
7 in regard to investigating hate message complaints;
8 isn’t it?
9 MR. STEACY: But that hasn’t been
10 negotiated and hasn’t been agreed to and it’s beyond
11 what I’m — my duties.
12 THE CHAIRPERSON: Hold on, sir.
10 Do you understand? Look, Mr. Steacy,
11 it’s quite clear that there’s discussion here about
12 contacts between CHRC and R.C.M.P. officers to share
13 information and so on, so it seems rather striking and
14 odd that you say that this MOU is about section 7 and
16 MR. STEACY: I don’t get how that’s
17 striking, sir, because if you go on the Internet and
16 you look at what the MOU says and what we disclosed in
17 the action plan, that’s what we’re doing now and we
18 are — and what we have — I’m not privy to what Mr.
21 Goldberg or what the people in our strategic
22 initiatives are presently negotiating or are trying to
23 negotiate in furtherance of investigation of section
24 13.1, it’s not my job. I am not privy to that
1 If that information —
2 THE CHAIRPERSON: The last line,
4 No, Ma’am, sit down.
5 The last line says:
6 “Obtaining access to specialized
7 training on investigating
8 hate-related cases at the
9 Canadian Police College.” (As
11 THE CHAIRPERSON: It doesn’t sound
12 like the type of answers you’ve been giving me, sir.
13 MS BLIGHT: I would ask you to read
14 to the witness the second, third and fourth sentences
15 of the first paragraph, because those make it clear
16 that these types of initiatives are only being proposed
17 for —
18 THE CHAIRPERSON: Okay, I know that,
19 but the witness makes it sound as if there isn’t any.