Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2017

The Current Transcript for November 24, 2017

Host: Susan Ormiston

STORIES FROM THIS EPISODE

Prologue

[music: Theme]

SOUNDCLIP

AMBER TUCCARO: Yo, where are we going? You better not be taking me anywhere I don’t want to go. I want to go to the city.

SUSAN ORMISTON: The chilling words of a woman being driven to somewhere unknown, by someone unknown. That would be the last time Paul Tuccaro would hear his sister Amber’s voice before she went missing in 2010. Her remains were found two years later. The mystery of what happened in the last moments of her life remain unsolved to this day. Amber was a woman from the Mikiesw First Nation. Her brother testified at the inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. He says the process was not only disorganized, but traumatizing. And he's not the only one who feels that way. In an hour, we're asking if the inquiry is doing enough to take care of the families who've been through the worst kind of trauma? Also today,

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, but was fired in 1989 because I’m a lesbian.

SO: What you just heard may sound unbelievable today, but only a generation ago, this was a reality: Canadians purged from military and public service for being gay. Deemed a threat to national security, LGBTQ personnel were grilled by special investigation units, hooked up to polygraph machines and, ultimately, discharged from service. Next week, Justin Trudeau will be apologizing to them for losing their jobs, their dignity and their privacy. And we start today by asking if this apology will usher in a new era free of discrimination?

SO: I'm Susan Ormiston, and this is the Friday edition of The Current.

Part 1: ‘A small victory’: LGBTQ Canadians ‘purged’ from Military and public service await apolpogy

Guests: Martine Roy, Frank Simpson, Doug Elliott

SOUNDCLIP

LYNNE GOULIQUER: It was counterproductive to your career to be LGBTQ out. You had to hide your sexuality, your orientation. You couldn't demonstrate it without being harassed. And the most extreme form of that is by the military police unit called the special investigation unit. If they caught wind of that, your colleagues could rat on you, call you out on it and you would just trigger the investigation process. So there was a fear of sanctions, there were sanctions and they were realized through investigations. And then, being kicked out, being shown the door

SO: That was Lynne Gouliquer, a professor from Laurentian University, who, in a previous life, was an air weapons technician with the Royal Canadian Air Force. Around three years into her service, she realized she was a lesbian and took pains to keep her sexual orientation a secret. She's recounting her time in the forces in anticipation of next Tuesday, when Prime Minister Trudeau is set to make an historic apology. He'll be addressing the men and women of the Canadian military and civil service who lost their jobs, and had their lives ruined because they were gay. My first two guests will be among those receiving that apology Martine Roy worked as a medical assistant in the military until 1984. She joins me from Montreal. And Frank Simpson was a steward with the Navy until 1978. He's in Victoria. Good morning to you both.

MARTINE ROY: Good morning.

FRANK SIMPSON: Good morning.

SO: Martine, what was the reason you were given for being discharged back in 1984?

MR: I was being discharged for being a sexual deviant, which was homosexual for them. That was part of the law that was with rape and incest, and homosexuality was under the same law. So if you knew anyone or if you were, you were getting arrested.

SO: Frank Simpson, what was the reason that you left the military in 1978.

FS: I was followed by military police, and questioned about being homosexual. And in the end, they let me out of the military for being gay.

SO: Frank, how long had you served in the military.

FS: 13 Years, 128 days.

SO: To the day you remember it. You were there a long time, you loved it.

FS: Yes, it was to be my career.

SO: What kind of work did you do? And what did it mean to you to be in the Navy at that time?

FS: I worked on ships on the West Coast mostly, and it was a great career. I wanted to stay there until I became a chief warrant officer, and it was my life.

SO: That wasn't to be ultimately. Martine, how long were you with the military?

MR: I was with the military for two years.

SO: And you were young?

MR: Yes, I went in the army I was 19 years old. I was arrested when I was 20.

SO Arrested! Tell me about that?

MR: I started the medical assistant class that was in Borden. So you go in the field, and you do some field exercise. I was in the field exercise, and there's a car that does arrives. It seems like a civilian car. So being a little naïve, I really thought they were lost civilians. I was asked to go with them. So that was ato get out of the field, when finally after I was in the car, I was told that I was under arrest. They showed me their badge as special Investigator unit. And then they brought me to a place on Borden that I didn’t know existed, and I didn't know why I was arrested either. They dragged this until I was in the interrogation room. That's when they tell me they were arresting me for homosexuality. They were they were told I was a homosexual. So for sure at the beginning you defend yourself. But then, they're really going in detail. They're getting really into your privacy. Who you see? How man many times? Everything, so at one point, you have to understand when you're 20 in your mind, I didn't have the experience of life or anything like this. So they told me if you tell the truth we're going to keep you. So I said OK, I'm going to tell them the truth, and I told them I confused. I was seeing a man — I was going out with a guy — but I did meet a woman that I was attracted to, and I'm not too sure if I’m gay or I’m straight? But right now, I'm concentrated on my career as a medical assistant in the army.

SO: You must have been frightened?

MR: I was very much so because I’d never experienced anything like that. I'm from Montreal, and I never got scared like that in my life. So it was very intimidating, and I find that already the army and the whole training is very intimidating. So this was adding on a bit to the stress and the fear. And I didn't understand as well. I couldn't understand why this was important. For me, my skills were important. How good I was doing was important. My sexual orientation or who I see I could not grasp, so that was really, really hard for me.

SO: Frank, does this sound familiar to you? What happened with you and the military police?

FS: The same thing, basically. Where they came and picked me up off the ship, and took me to an interrogation room. It was like four cement walls with a table in the centre, and two chairs, and a light hanging above the table. And they started interrogating me about where I go, which bars I go into and who I associate with? And like her, it was a very, very frightening, and very demeaning type questions.

SO: How did they know that you were a target of theirs, Frank?

FS: They had investigators following me I guess when I went to a gay bar, which I usually tried to sit in the darkest corner of the place. And they eventually caught me doing those kind of things, going into bars and stuff.

SO: And Frank, you were given a lie detector test at some point, what happened?

FS: I failed it terribly because they were asking me if I was homosexual, and of course, I said no, but I was terrified. I didn't want to lose my career, but it's just you're so scared at that point you just say things that you don't even think of.

SO: So you were trying to lie to save your job?

FS: Of course.

SO: Both of you, what was it like to be living through that time? Your personal life being dug into, being followed, investigated. It must have been scary, it must have been confusing? Frank.

FS: Yes. I didn't even know I was being followed. So, until such time as they came and got me, I had no idea that I was under investigation that they were following me. And the like everybody, it was an unknown at that time. And homosexuality at that time in the ‘70s was not acceptable.

SO: Martine, how was it for you?

MR: Same thing in the ‘80s, and you have to understand that when you join the army forces, it seems a little heroic. But you're going to do it to help your country, to defend your country. And the training you invest — the physical training you invest — and everything is really a way of life. So it's not just I go to work. It's really all my life was the army forces because first, you live there, you breath there, so it was very destabilizing. And like Frank is saying, you don't want to lose that. This is what you just invested like we could say all your sweat in.

SO: But you did lose it. How did they tell you you were going to be discharged?

MR: For me, it was horrible because they told me they did the investigation, they arrest me, they did the investigation, I was seen by a psychiatrist and then they let me be. And they told me you want to stay with us? You want a new contract? And I say yes, I want. And I even asked for a new contract, which they gave me. And I was like OK, top secret code and all that you're giving it to me? And they said yes, so even that I was even sure that everything was fine. It's only two months after I signed that contract that they call me at the headquarters. They asked me if I knew why I was called. And I said no. And they said because you're a homosexual, and we just found out, and you're going to be dishonourably discharged. You have nine days to get your things. And to help you, we'll give you an honourable discharge. But you can’t be a veteran, you can’t have your pension and we’re going to say that you’re not fit to ever work here.

SO: And you were what 21?

MR: Yes. Yes.

SO: Frank, how did you react when they told you you had to leave?

FS: I was devastated. The day that they came and got me and said I have to leave the ship now, I had to be put into Naden, which is the base here in Esquimalt. And I spent the last two to three months waiting for an answer whether I could stay or be discharged. And then they gave me a 12D I believe it's called, were my services were no longer required. They gave me an honourable discharge, and they even gave me a small pension.

SO: And what happened? Like how did you deal with that?

FS: The day that I got out, I immediately went downtown Victoria, I looked for the tallest building I could find, I went to the top, I couldn't get out to the outside because I was ready to jump. My life was over as far as I knew it. And after that, I couldn't get out. So I went home and went into a bit of a deep depression for a while.

SO: You did get your life back together again, I know that. How do you feel about this apology coming on Tuesday?

FS: It's very, very great because it started off with his father — Trudeau's father — and now, the son is taking over and he's ending it. And it's a small victory for all of us who were purged.

SO: Martine, how are you feeling about this apology?

MR: I feel like it's really, really big. It's a thing that you never think will arrive because it's 33 years that I've been waiting for this. For me, this apology will help not just me, it will help all my family friends, but the whole Canadian society because it's a very dark era of our history. And I think that's why it's so important we talk about it. We say it happened because we're really going to apologize, and then we can reinvest when that the next generation don't go through something like this. So it is, for me, a very historic moment. It's about time as well because other countries did it before us. So I think it's time for Canada to show its real colours. And saying they're inclusive and diversified, so they need to do that. We need to put that at ease.

SO: And Frank, Just finally for you, will it help you close that dark chapter as Martine has described?

FS: I don't know about closing, but it sure will help.

SO: In what way?

FS: There's a bit of peace of mind that the government has finally realized that they were in the wrong, and that all the pain we went through can at least be a lot lower.

SO: All right. Well thank you both of you, Martin and Frank, for shedding light on that dark chapter. I appreciate talking to you this morning.

MR: Thank you for having us.

FS: Thank you.

SO: Martine Roy was military personnel until 1984. She's in Montreal. Frank Simpson was with the Canadian Navy until 1978. And he is in Victoria.

SO: Before news of the prime minister's upcoming apology, the federal government had been hit with a class action lawsuit. Gay and lesbian civil servants and members of the forces outside Quebec are seeking $600 million from Ottawa for the discrimination they experienced. An undefined amount is being sought for those claimants inside Quebec. Doug Elliott is the lead lawyer on this suit, and he joins me here in Toronto. Good morning, Doug.

DOUG ELLIOTT: Good morning Susan.

SO: So how many people like Martine and Frank are there?

DE: We don't know for sure because there's no way of counting. At one time, the RCMP had up to 9,000 homosexuals under investigation in Canada. We don't know how many of those people are still alive, but we suspect that there are thousands of them.

SO: How tough, or has it been tough to get the government to deal with this?

DE: Well, last year, we announced a report in which we called for redress for this and other historic injustices. And the prime minister indicated that he was going to do something about it. We waited many months with no concrete action just nice words and a lot of these people are ageing especially the people from the earlier era. At least one of my clients has passed away since the prime minister made his announcements in October of last year. We launched a class action lawsuit to get to force the government to move quicker and to give redress to these people. I can say that the government came to the table quickly and we have been involved in very intense negotiations with them from the very beginning. And I am pretty hopeful that we're going to have a resolution in place before next Tuesday. I wish I could tell you this morning that it's already been done…

SO: A resolution in what way?

DE: A settlement in principle of the lawsuit. It's going to be impossible to have it officially settled because class action settlements have to be approved by the court. There just isn't time to get court approval before next Tuesday. But I think we may have a handshake deal with the government before next Tuesday. I've been working extremely hard to try and get that done before next Tuesday, and I expect to know by the end of the day whether we've got a deal.

SO: Doug, we did put in a call to the prime minister's office, and a spokesperson told us that in addition to a comprehensive apology on Tuesday, the prime minister is committed to introducing legislation to expunge the criminal records of LBGTQ people, and they're still on track to do that. But he wouldn't comment on compensation because of the lawsuit. So where do you think that's at? And what do you expect he'll hear on Tuesday?

DE: Well, I can tell you that the negotiations intensified. We were meeting once a month. We were up to once a week recently. And I've been on the phone with the Department of Justice every day this week. So we're working very hard, and I think we're down to details now I think is the way I would put it. So speaking for myself, I think an apology without compensation, you've heard the suffering of people like Martine and Frank, an apology without compensation would be insincere and a futile gesture. And I like to think that the prime minister is sincere when he says he's going to apologize. So I'm really, really hopeful that we're going to have an announcement that is going to provide both compensation for individuals like Martine, who have suffered terribly. You know a lot of our clients have PTSD. They spent time homeless. They've had addiction problems. And this really scarred them. They were treated like terrorists when they were young people by their own country. It's a shameful, shameful thing that we did to these people. But I also hope that there will be as part of this deal that there will be memorialization measures, as there were with Indian residential schools. You know something like the Holocaust memorial that was recently opened in Ottawa. I'd like to see something like that because as we saw in the United States recently, things can go backwards, you know? We can forget about this kind of past. And I think one of the tendencies we have as Canadians is to think of ourselves as really nice people who don't do bad things. And when we've done bad things I think we have to own up to it, and we have to shine a light on it to make sure it never happens again.

SO: Just briefly in our last minute, how about today? Is homosexuality accepted in workplaces now?

DE: Not completely. That's one of the things that's going to be part of this settlement, if it gets done, is to make sure that there is training in the federal civil service. And, particularly, I think those environments that were military or paramilitary: the army, the RCMP, CSIS. I think there still is a frat house mentality in some sectors there. Because once the government ended the policy, they didn't really do anything to reverse it. They didn't change the culture. And I think that we can't just stop discriminating. We have to get in there and root out those attitudes and change them, so that people are respected. I happen to think those workplaces are stuck in a time warp. They their culture there is totally different than at the CBC or my law firm.

SO: So apology is a first step?

DE: It's a very good first step, but it's not the last one.

SO: Thank you very much.

DE: Thank you, Susan.

SO: Doug Elliott is the lead lawyer on the class action lawsuit representing military members and civil servants. He is in Toronto. The CBC news is next and then, Gary kinsman helped write the book documenting Canada's history of criminalizing homosexuality.

SOUNDCLIP

GARY KINSMAN: Careers were destroyed. Some people killed themselves. We have collected evidence of people who killed themselves as a result of this.

SO: After the break, we'll hear why he thinks an apology from Justin Trudeau just won't cut it. I'm Susan Ormiston, and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

Part 2: army LGBTQ continued

Guest: Sarah Fodey, Gary Kinsman

SO: Hello I'm Susan Ormiston, and you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

[Music: Theme]

SO: Still to come: mounting criticism that the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women isn't taking good enough care of those who share their pain at those hearings. But first, we continue our look at Canada's evolution on LGBTQ issues, in advance of next week's federal government apology. Among the other indignities, Canadian government officials once used a test to detect homosexuality. It involved nude pictures and measuring pupil sizes, and it was known as “the fruit machine”.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER ONE: So I’m sitting in the classroom, having again a lecture of some kind. And then somebody knocks on the door.

SPEAKER TWO: He opened the door, there were two guys standing there and they asked for me.

SPEAKER ONE: And they said follow us. So I followed them outside.

SPEAKER TWO: And they blindfolded me.

SPEAKER ONE: Get inside the car, so I got inside the car. They slammed the door. They got in front and they started driving.

SPEAKER TWOP: The car stopped, they dragged me out the car.

SPEAKER ONE: We got into a small room, big light right in my face, wooden chair, sit down!

SPEAKER TWO: The setting was just like the movies I saw as a kid.

SPEAKER ONE: And then they started screaming OK, you're suspected of being a lesbian. We want names of all your friends, and we want them now, and you're not going to get out of here until you talk.

SPEAKER TWO: And you're scared. Like in my head and my self-esteem, everything crashed. Because for me, it was like how I can do this? How can you do this to me? And do nothing wrong.

SO: Those voices belong to three women, including Martine Roy, who we heard from earlier. Each was fired from the Canadian military in the 70s or 80s for being a lesbian. And they are featured in a new documentary called “The Fruit Machine”. The film looks into the decades-long governmental campaign to purge gays and lesbians from the Canadian military and public service. The documentary takes its name from the test employed by officials that supposedly detects gayness. Sarah Fodey is the documentary filmmaker behind “The Fruit Machine”, and she joins me from Ottawa. Hello.

SARAH FODEY: Hello. Good morning.

SO: Sarah, “The Fruit Machine”, what a name. What was the test?

SF: At its most crass, “the fruit machine” was designed to be a detection test to identify and weed out homosexuals.

SO: Well, how did that happen? What did it do?

SF: Essentially, people were subjected to suggestive images, and pupil responses were measured. It was incredibly flawed, as you can imagine. It was it was based on many assumptions, namely that gay and straight people would respond to the same stimuli in the same manner. That there's only two types of human sexuality, and the list goes on.

SO: So step that out for me. If your pupils dilated, what would that mean? I mean how was that measured, and what did it suggest?

SF: Well, the actual device was incredibly archaic. I do want to point out that it was a very short blip in a four-decades-long purge campaign. It was just it was completely unreliable and ridiculous really in a word.

SO: Who came up with “the fruit machine” test.

SF: It was funded at the highest level of the Canadian state. The Canadian Government commissioned the then head of the Psychology department at Carleton University Dr. Robert Wake.

SO: And this was what in the ‘60s?

SF: Yes, the early ‘60s.

SO: So they asked this professor to come up with a test, or was this being used elsewhere, and he developed it for the Canadian use?

SF: There's a debate on that, Susan. I've heard from different scholars and different historians, and there is debate on how “the fruit machine” actually came to be, and whether it was in operation in other countries other than Canada.

SO: Was it known then as “the fruit machine”, or something else? I'm curious.

SF: “The fruit machine” was known as a special project within the government and the RCMP. I recently interviewed a man for the documentary who spent time with the RCMP. John Sowatsky, he wrote a book called “Men in the Shadows”, and he actually interviewed the sergeant that was with the RCMP who came up with this this term “the fruit machine”, and it stuck.

SO: Now, who was subjected to this test? You say it was for a short time. Were you suspected of being gay, and then subjected to this testing? Or how did that work?

SF: Yes, there was basically three streams that people were put into: you were either suspected, alleged, or confirmed to be homosexual.

SO: And were these people civil servants? Or where were they coming from?

SF: Yes, predominantly on the civil service side. “The fruit machine” had its focus on the on the public service. But as your previous guests have shared, the campaign grew very strong on the military side as well.

SO: And did the people subjected to this machine know what they were being tested for?

SF: My understanding is that they were not aware. But again, because there is so little information regarding “the fruit machine” itself, in fact, there is a “fruit machine” in the Canadian War Museum here in Ottawa. It is called the American version of “the fruit machine”. But again, that has been brought into debate by many academics.

SO: And why is it so shadowy? Why do we know so little, or have trouble finding out how it was employed in Canadian circumstances?

SF: Well, I think the government, frankly, was ashamed that this is something that they followed. That this was a string that they followed for… even five years is five years too long to invest you know thousands of dollars. I mean there's no determination on how much money was spent, but it was considerable for the time.

SO: And what was happening during that time that made this come to pass? That this was something they were going to do? Was this a campaign? What were the circumstances around it?

SF: Well, it was the Cold War era, right? In Canada, so there was a fear — there was a constant fear — the fear of the unknown, fear of the unseen, the unseen enemy and fear of the other to be frank. So this was this preoccupation with national security. And for whatever reason, homosexuals were identified as having intrinsic character flaws that would make them susceptible to foreign spies.

SO: So that was it. They were worried about certain people being vulnerable?

SF: Yes, exactly.

SO: What surprised you most when you were making the documentary?

SF: That's a very good question.

SO: I think what I'm walking away from this the most with is such a strong sense of how Canada purged its best and its and its brightest. I mean these were top soldiers. They were they were the top civil servants of their time, you know? Leaders in their chosen field, they're smart people, they're funny, they're curious and above all else, totally, totally and utterly devoted to their service to our country. The kind of employee that that any company, let alone government, would welcome amongst their ranks, and the fact that these people were purged in the way that they were is just such a shame.

SO: Do you think that this has been in the shadows largely? That Canadians know about this part of the history?

SF: Most people don't know to be honest. I mean I've been developing this story for over 16 years, and even with the current media attention with the We Demanded an Apology Network, with the last lawsuit coming forth. People still are largely in the dark that this happened.

SO: And Sarah, what is your reaction to the national apology, which is coming next week for you, and for the people that spoke to you in the documentary?

SF: I think it'll be different for everyone. Some will find peace I'm sure a sense of closure. And others largely will be unaffected by it. Personally, I think it's important because I mean something only becomes important or real when it's acknowledged. So I think by the simple act of Prime Minister Trudeau acknowledging or apologizing, he's going to acknowledge that this happened for people, which is extremely important for the people that not only went through it directly, but for the families of those that did take their own lives, or that have passed away. But also for us Canadians as well who are concerned and fair-minded citizens. And who respond to human rights abuses, certainly within our own country.

SO: OK, Sara. Thanks very much.

SF: Thank you.

SO: Sarah Fodey is a film producer, and the maker of the TVO documentary “The Fruit Machine”. She was in Ottawa.

SO: It's not just former Canadian government workers and military personnel who wait anxiously for next Tuesday's apology. Those convicted of committing homosexual acts are expecting the prime minister to make good on his promise to pardon them. This includes a posthumous pardon for the late Everett George Klippert. Klippert was a mechanic living in the Northwest Territories, who was sent to jail indefinitely for his homosexuality. In 1967, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a court decision that would render Klippert the only person in Canadian history to be labeled a dangerous sexual offender simply for being gay. Here's a clip of Northwest Territories Liberal MP Bud Orange, reacting to that Supreme Court decision on the CBC’s “The World at 6”.

SOUNDCLIP

BUD ORANGE: Well, there's seven things that irk me. First of all, this man was not caught an indecent act. He was being investigated by the RCMP on another matter. He acknowledged that he'd been a homosexual for 24 years, he was charged by the police, brought before the territorial court, convicted to three years. Then, the Territorial Court of Appeals upheld the judgment. And now, came to the Supreme Court, and they upheld the judge as well.

REPORTER: Have you any reason to believe that the government may move on this case?

BO: I hope the ridiculousness of the situation forces the government to make a move in this regard.

REPORTER: Well, could we just draw you out on your views about the imprisoning for life, or as a dangerous sexual offender of a man convicted of a homosexual act with a consenting male adult?

BO: I think that when two male adults wish to engage in an act, which to me is a most repulsive act, but it's something that they themselves want to consent to, I think it's a private business. And provided they don't interfere with anybody else in society, I think it's their right as citizens of this country to be able to do so.

SO: That's Liberal MP Bud Orange in 1967, speaking to the CBC's Tom Earle. Everett Klippert would spend a decade behind bars for his so-called crime. He passed away in 1996, at the age of 69. Klipperts case is featured in the book “The Canadian War on Queers: National Security as Sexual Regulation”, co-written by our next guest. Gary Kinsman is co-author of that book, “The Canadian War on Queers”, and a member of the We Demand an Apology Network, an organization that seeks remedy for the historical wrong committed by the Canadian government against LGBTQ people. We've reached Gary in Sudbury. Hello.

GARY KINSMAN: Good morning.

SO: What were you thinking about as you heard that clip back in 1967?

GK: Well, it's really interesting to hear that. That was a very pervasive view even among the people who supported law reform efforts. So John Turner, Pierre Elliot Trudeau were quite capable of saying that homosexuality was a repulsive act, and that people who committed these acts were sick. They simply wanted to argue that they weren't necessarily criminals, right? So in some ways what happens in the ‘69 criminal code reform is transferring jurisdiction over homosexuals who engage only in private activities with one other individual over the age of 21 to counselors and psychiatrists and therapists, and not to the criminal justice system.

SO: Gary, backing up just a moment. A lot of Canadians would not have heard of Everett Klippert. Who was he?

GK: He was a working-class guy. He lived in Calgary first, and then moved to the Northwest Territories. In Calgary, in the early ‘60s, he was charged with a number of so-called gross indecency offenses with younger men. But that was not legally relevant at this point in time. We're talking about teenagers and adolescent men, as well as older men. He was convicted of those gross indecency charges, served his time and then moved to the Northwest Territories, where the police were doing and an investigation about an arson charge that Klippert had nothing to do with. But Klippert revealed that he was a homosexual, and had had lots of sexual activity. Again, he was charged, and convicted of three different counts of so-called gross indecency. Now you have to understand that in Canada, at this point in time, there was a lot of influence from the US sort of growing criminalization of homosexual activity. There was a sentencing provision called dangerous sexual offender, which gross indecency and buggery were both part of. Homosexual offenses were part of. And on sentencing without Klippert knowing this, he was actually sentenced, not just for the acts that he was convicted of, but he was sentenced as a dangerous sexual offender. Under the law, it was felt that if someone was engaging in homosexual activity and was likely to continue to engage in that activity, even if it was consensual, even if it was you know was fine in terms of the participants involved in it, they would be sentenced indefinitely as a dangerous sexual offender. And that's what happened to Klippert. So he was convicted of being a dangerous sexual offender. His lawyer watched an appeal on his behalf, and it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. And in the fall of 1967, the Supreme Court majority decided, in its infinite wisdom, in a very literalist reading of the section, that Klippert was in fact a dangerous sexual offender, and should stay in prison indefinitely. That's basically some background. I can, obviously, go detail.

SO: No, no. He was released in ’71, so how was his case instrumental changing the law around homosexuality in Canada?

GK: OK, so you have to understand that in the 1960s, there was this influence for growing criminalization coming from the U.S. that was embodied in the dangerous sexual offender legislation. But you also had another approach that was developed in England in the Wolfenden Report. There was an investigation into prostitution and male homosexuality that was arguing for a certain limited form of liberalisation of the law. That if things were engaged in private in a very narrow private realm involving only two individuals above the age of 21, that it should be partially decriminalized. So that's also in the works. And that's what informs Pierre Elliot Trudeau saying the state has no business in the in the bedrooms of the nation.

SO: That famous quote.

GK: He’s justice minister at that time. And he proceeds to produce omnibus legislation along the Wolfenden Report lines that eventually get adopted in 1969. But I should point out that there are gay and lesbian activists trying to open up discussion around law reform in Canada at a much earlier point, especially The Association for Social Knowledge in Vancouver. Arnold Peters, a maverick NDP member, actually moves a private member's bill pushing in the Wolfenden direction in 1964. There's a lot of things going on that create a new context for the possibilities for law reform.

SO: Gary, I want to move into present day because Prime Minister Justin Trudeau mentioned the case of Everett Klippert when he said the government was looking into pardoning members of the gay community convicted for committing acts of what was called gross indecency. So are you expecting that pardon to come on Tuesday?

GK: Well, first of all, maybe I should make a distinction. A pardon it's useful, but it can still recognize that people did something wrong. So what we're really asking for is the expungement of the Criminal Code convictions for people who were charged for consensual homosexual activity. Both before 1969, which would cover Klippert, but also after 1969 because it's important to understand that policing actually intensifies, more people are charged, more people are convicted after 1969.

SO: Very briefly, why was that?

GK: So that the mythology is what you're actually putting forward. The mythology is that the 1969 criminal code reform legalized or entirely decriminalized homosexuality. That's not at all the case. That’s a mythology that's been put forward by the Liberal Party and other groups in Canadian society. What actually happened was a limited exemption to gross indecency and buggery that meant that if you did it in a limited private realm, basically behind closed bedroom doors with one other consenting adult over the age of 21, that would now be exempt from the law. Everything else remained being criminalized. So that anything that became publicly visible was criminalized by the police, and that's why there was an intensification of policing.

SO: Confusion about that. So Gary, coming back today again, so you want these convictions to be expunged, is that going to happen? Are there discussions about it?

GK: There might be some reference to it in the apology on Tuesday. I certainly hope there is. I mean as the We Demand Network, we have not been given any access to the apology. People who were directly affected by the purge campaigns have had no input, aside from making submissions to the advisory council on the content of what's going to happen on Tuesday. My understanding is that the government is going to introduce separate legislation for the expungement of criminal code convictions. But they refused to tell us what offenses will be covered and what time period will be covered. We've asked numerous times for this information and they refuse to give it to us. Maybe they'll be some more clarity in the announcement on Tuesday. We're certainly hoping for that. And from the vantage point of the We Demand an Apology Network, the criminalization of homosexuality was a crucial way in which the RCMP basically put pressure on and blackmailed lesbian and gay people to give up the names of their friends in the public service and the military because they would threaten to lay criminal code charges against people if they didn't divulge this information. So it's really crucial that the apology on Tuesday not only be an official state apology, including really important redress measures. But also that it include a really clear commitment to the expungement of criminal convictions both before ‘69 and after.

SO: And we heard early in our program that compensation is being discussed and negotiated for people who are fired from their jobs or discharged from the military because they were gay. Is redress part of the solution do you think for those convicted?

GK: Redress should also be a possibility for those people who were convicted because many of their lives were also destroyed and devastated. Many people took their own lives in the context of the criminalization of homosexuality. So I certainly think that redress should be available there as well. And it's important that any sort of apology — any sort of expungement — include redress measures.

SO: And you say you think it's going to be separately. Very briefly, are we going to see it this year do you think?

GK: I really can't say. They have not been forthcoming with this information. You have to remember that the preparation of this apology has been done very secretly. Not a lot of consultation. We were able to give a submission as the We Demand an Apology Network, but there are no people who were directly affected by the purge campaigns who are members of the advisory council that advised the government on this. And for us, that's actually a really significant problem. The people who are most directly affected should actually have real input into what's going to be in the apology. So we did get make a submission, but no person who was purged from the military or the public service has actually been part of the advisory council to the government on this matter.

SO: Lots more to talk about on this, Gary. Thank you very much.

GK: Thank you. Have a good day.

SO: You too. Gary Kinsman is a member of the We Demand an Apology Network. That's an organization which demands an apology for the historical wrongs committed by the Canadian government against LGBTQ people. We reached him in Sudbury. Well, thousands of gay men who were convicted of now abolished sexual offenses in Britain were pardoned at the beginning of this year under new policing legislation. Billed as Turing's Law, it gives an automatic retrospective pardon to men who died before its enactment. It also makes it possible for those convicted and still living to seek pardon for offenses no longer on the books. Turing's law is named after the World War II code breaker and mathematician Alan Turing, whose personal and professional life became the basis of the Oscar-winning film “The Imitation Game”. Alan Turing was fired from his job with the British government, forced to choose between imprisonment for homosexuality, or chemical castration. Here's a scene from the 2014 film “The Imitation Game”.

SOUNDCLIP

SPEAKER: I would have testified.

SPEKAER TWO: And what would you have said? That I wasn’t a homosexual?

SPEAKER: Alan, this is serious. They could send you to jail.

SPEAKER TWO: Dammit!

SPEAKER: Your hands, they’re twitching.

SPEAKER TWO: No they’re not

SPEAKER: Alan.

SPEAKER TWO: It’s the medication.

SPEAKER: The medication?

SPEAKER TWO: Well, the judge gave me a choice: either two years in prison, or hormonal therapy.

SPEAKER: Oh my god!Oh my god!

SPEAKER TWO: Yes, yes, that right. Chemical castration to cure me of my homosexual pre-delections.

SO: And that was a scene from the 2014 film “The Imitation Game”.

[Music: Theme]

SO: Coming up in our next half hour: after testifying about losing his sister, Amber, Paul Tuccaro says he was left out in the cold by the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. He joins a chorus of others who say family members are being re-traumatized by the process and left to cope alone. I'm Susan Ormiston. And you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current.

Part 3: ‘Traumatizing experience’ Families of MMIW call for more support after inquiry testimony

Guests: Paul Tuccaro, Morene Gabriel, Julie Kaye

SO: Hello I'm Susan Ormiston. And you're listening to the Friday edition of The Current. Lorelei Williams is familiar with loss. Her aunt, Belinda, went missing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside 40 years ago. Her cousin, Tanya, was one of Robert Pickton’s victims. Her experience helped shape the design of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. And that's why Lorelei Williams was concerned when last week a friend of hers testified about losing one of her own loved ones at the inquiry. And she was not given support to deal with the emotional toll it took on her.

SOUNDCLIP

LORELEI WILLIAMS: I was worried about her too. You know I asked her a few times like how are you doing? What's going on up there? And she was having a really hard time with it. It was so hard because she reopened her wounds, right? And so she was having a hard time with it. And then I would check in with her and then I checked in with her when I was in Smithers as well because I think CBC and others were asking me about her too. And I asked her did you get any aftercare yet? She said no, nothing. and I was like. Wow! I still can't believe that nobody has reached out to you yet. And just today, like I ask her again, she said nothing, there's nothing.

SO: It's been three months since the beginning of the inquiries’ hearings. The process has been plagued by delays, firings and resignations of Commissioners, and now, criticism like we just heard that the inquiry isn't doing enough to emotionally support those who do testify. Paul Tuccaro testified at the hearing in Edmonton earlier this month. His sister, Amber, disappeared seven years ago. Her body was found two years later. But the case remains unsolved. Paul Tuccaro is joining me from his home in Fort Chipewyan in Northern Alberta. Paul, how important was it for you to be able to testify about your sister Amber?

PAUL TUCCARO: Well, I think it was important for our family to be there to testify because leading up to the visit and over the summer, I was told by different people from the inquiry that my sister's case not be included in the inquiry because it was ongoing, so that was one of the main reasons why we wanted to go to the community visit to make sure that we were able to testify at the hearing here a couple weeks ago.

SO: Can you tell us a little bit about your sister Amber? What was she like?

PT: Oh, she was you know she was she was young. She had her son, who was months old. He was her life, her pride and joy and she was happy to be a mother. She was just trying to get her own place when she was in Fort McMurray there before she went missing. And you know we're all happy for her, and you know she was my baby sister. And she got close to my kids. Even now, seven years later, it's still hard to accept the fact that you know that she is gone. I try not to think about it because I think about then all these things play in my mind like what happened that night she went missing? It just replays in my mind, and it’s just no good.

SO: So you went to Edmonton to try to talk to the Inquiry about your experiences. What was that like?

PT: Prior to us leaving and throughout the summer here, you had to be registered in September to attend the hearing in November. For the amount of people that I dealt with over the summer, I can’t even count them on both hands. That's how many people I got passed around to. I dealt with two different lawyers. And I was told a lot of different things.

SO: Paul, you said you cried in the Inquiry in your testimony.

PT: Yup.

SO: For the first time?

PT: Publicly yes, for my sister.

SO: Wow!

PT: And then I was sitting there, and even before it started like I started crying, and I'm like what's going on here? Like you didn't even say nothing. Nobody said nothing. I was thinking hold on, all these feelings were inside me. And then all of a sudden, they started to come out. But I was able to try to keep it together. Because all eyes were on me, you know? I was sitting at the front there and that was pretty tough.

SO: Sounds like it.

PT: I also said stuff about our family that you know we don't normally talk about publicly. But at the same time, I thought well, maybe if we can help another family by me saying what I said, then that's good for us then. The best part about being at their Inquiry to testify was that whatever was said it's a part of history. They can't say I didn't say it, you know? I could die tomorrow, and it's all public record, you know? Like it's for real now.And then you could watch it online again. It's a part of history, and it's documented. And we're finally able to see something about my sister.

SO: Important for you. So you had a lot of emotion. And when you finished and left the Inquiry, how were you feeling? Did you want some support at that point?

PT: Of course. Like you know this is a big deal, and like especially for me, like it was just we’re done now, you know? They did the handshakes and whatever. And then Lori came up to me said you know what? You know you can take a minute. You can go into the elder room if you want to talk to someone. But you know just take a minute if you want. Because once you leave the doors then you know media is probably going to want to talk to you. And that was it. Like everybody went about and did their own thing, and here I was. The funny thing is I got more support from other families that there, which was a good thing. We were experiencing the same thing, so we're there for each other. But then when we went to register, all they gave us was a little duotang with a couple phone numbers you could phone for support, you know? That's fine for some people, but for some people that doesn't work. Even for the elder room it's like you go in there, it's like a big conference room and you know out of respect for everybody, like I don't want to go in there and go smudge, or sit there and cry when there's other people inside there too. And then as soon as you walk in there, you know everybody looks at you and so I thought that they could have handled that a lot better, or had smaller rooms, or different rooms. Because you're up there testifying. You're saying all this, and then all of a sudden, you need to get a debriefing I guess, which didn’t even happen. I talked to a lawyer and she was like OK, I got to go get ready. I got another one coming up.

SO: What do you think does need to happen for people who are pouring out their emotions and their story after the Inquiry?

PT: I think they need to not just hand you a little duotang with numbers to phone. Sure they had people, which are identified by different colours. But somebody should have been there to say you know what? Do you want to go take a moment? Do you want to talk, you know? You kind of need somebody to be there for you because I'll deal with my own feelings. My spouse was dealing with her own feelings. We were there for each other, which was good. But then you know you do need that additional support. When it was time to go, nothing to say oh, you need a ride to the airport? You're OK to go back home? Nothing like that.

SO: So Paul, after all of this, what faith do you have in this Inquiry?

PT: I'm the type of person I made recommendations, and now it’s public record. I will be fallowing up with it. And I'm not going to sit back and just say I went there and I was a part of it. Not just from my sister, but there’s a lot of other women that are missing that you know they’re somebody’s mom, auntie, granny and stuff like that. They need to get the support that these families need too.

SO: Paul, in the end, are you glad that you testified?

PT: Yeah, just because it's public record now. And they can say that we didn't say what we said. I think they should have had people that were affected. they should have have hired people that that were impacted and having someone that's missing from their family, instead of hiring somebody that just because you go to a degree or whatever credentials. That doesn’t mean they experienced it firsthand. Like there's some people that work there that did experience it, but they could have went about it a lot better.

SO: OK. Paul, I want to thank you very much for sharing your story with us.

PT: Thank you.

SOPaul Tuccaro testified at the Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women in Edmonton. He was in Fort Chipewyan in Northern Alberta. We did request to speak with a representative from the Inquiry, but no one was made available.

SO: Well Morene Gabriel knows intimately what it feels like to relive that kind of trauma. Her older sister was killed in 2001, and her family has participated in the Inquiry hearings. And that experience prompted Morene to help make the testifying process easier for others. So this summer, she was hired by the Inquiry to be a community liaison officer for the Manitoba and Saskatchewan regions. And eventually was promoted to manager of community relations. But last week, she made recommendations on how the Inquiry could better provide aftercare in those communities. And soon after that, she was fired. Morene Gabriel is from the Ebb and Flow First Nation, near Lake Manitoba. That's where we've reached her. Hello.

MORENE GABRIEL: Good morning.

SO: Hello. Hello. How much could you relate to what we just heard from Paul Tuccaro?

MG: Yeah, as I'm listening to his interview, I can really see… I just can recount certain things that happened in the hearing where you can see people a day after the testimony kind of wandering. You can see the emptiness, and there's a somber feeling, a heavy feeling and there's only so much you can do.

But yeah, I can say that.

SO: Morene, what kind of support did you have to help you deal with your testimony and losing your sister?

MG: Well, it was my niece and my sister and I and my brother-in-law that I went through the hearing in Winnipeg. They testified. I wasn't physically in the room because I was actually working as one of the frontline staff, so I didn't testify. But I did watch it on stream, and I can tell you even just not being in the room and not seeing it firsthand was a very heavy feeling. I actually had to take a moment and then sit on a balcony, get some fresh air and try to keep myself together. It is a very traumatizing experience. I mean it's true.

SO: And what gaps did you hear about in the aftercare at the these inquiries. I mean you were there trying to smooth it over, and what were you hearing from family members?

MG: So there was no call back. From my position as a manager, we were expected to do the after care plans immediately after a person came out of their hearing, but I mean you're asking individuals for their plans for what it is they wish to see when they're still in the state of trauma. Nobody's thinking clearly, and so that passive approach to after care plans is one issue. My biggest issue when I was analyzing our internal documents, which is just a three page, very vague document, I questioned the governance documents, the policy and procedures. There is no guide. There wasn't a framework. So it begs the question, for me, I'm liable to administer this passive plan to ask families what it is they wish to see in an after care plan. So the same passiveness approach to assisting families impacted by violence is the same approach the rest as a society has towards Indigenous women and girls. It’s that passiveness that fails people.

SO: So Morene, what recommendations did you make that would be more active?

MG: Well, I thought I know it wasn't just specific to aftercare. I made 17 recommendations related to the internal process of staffing and H.R. are different areas of management. But I do remember — I do recall — requesting aftercare framework or governance documents for the aftercare plan. And then the next thing I know, that letter went straight up to the commissioners. And then the next morning, I was abruptly fired.

SO: What were you told about why you were fired?

MG: To this day, I do not have a letter or any type of communication stating why I was fired. I was just abruptly fired.

SO: And what do you think the reason was?

MG: Well, one of the things that we were told when the executive director came on was that we’re not to speak directly to the commissioners. And in an e-mail I say three weeks ago, I requested a document from one of the commissioners. And it was a pleasant response back. And it was action right to the Chief Commissioner to share a document. And so it was innocent. And I was reprimanded for that. But further to that, another conversation began and it was questioning when does the information get to the commissioners about things things that are important on the ground. And this speaks to the family's voice.

SO: Morene, the MMIW, we asked them for an interview. They didn't provide anybody for us this morning. But they did provide a statement to us saying that they are learning from and adapting to concerns raised by families. They're going to review the report, including the recommendations and ideas about more support for families. Do you think it will get better?

MG: I don't believe so. There's a disconnectedness. In our events, we bring external health supports to local events. And so that immediately is disengaging, or it's not effectively engaging health support if you're bringing people that aren’t familiar with families. Familiar with territories, so as these events move along, they get external contractors to come in and provide health support. There immediately there's a disconnect. One of the things that I did for Saskatchewan region, although I was fired before that, was to ensure that all the health supports were local and that continuing care would happen when we were gone. Because I know there isn’t an after care plan. There isn't a direct service that will happen immediately after from what I witnessed. So my question is why wasn't a plan put in place to have a succession plan in health care? Like I support a National Inquiry, but not the way it's structured. Not the way it's operating.

SO: Valid questions, Morene, and you've taken a step. Thank you so much for talking to us.

MG: Thank you.

SO: Morene Gabriel is a former staff member with the MMIW Inquiry. She was in the Ebb and Flow First Nation, near Lake Manitoba. After families complained about a lack of aftercare at the Inquiry, a group of community members in Saskatoon stepped in to offer support. My next guest is a member of that group. Julie Kaye does a lot of work with survivors and family members connected to Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. She is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Saskatchewan, and research advisor for the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women. She was in Saskatoon earlier this week, but today, we reached her in Brussels. Hello.

JULIE KAY: Hi, good morning.

SO: Good morning. How would you assess the job that the inquiry has done so far in providing care for people after they testify?

JULIE KAYE: Well, I think I mean I think we heard very clearly from Paul and Morene Gabriel that there's a lot of lacking in this area. And I think a big part of this is that for meaningful aftercare to take place, it first and foremost, requires meaningful engagement. And so what we see here is that families and communities and survivors and Indigenous women-led organizations and leaders and communities you know have been continually delegated this passive role. And I think Morene Gabriel mentioned the passivity that's been delegated to the community. And by putting families and survivors in this mere position of merely observing, or being a passive witness, it doesn't treat families and communities as the experts. And so what we see here is that the Inquiry continues to merely discover knowledge that's already very widely known in the community. And this includes the need for aftercare support. So you know we saw that the commissioners have recently expressed that concern for increased support for families that was outlined in the interim report. But we really didn't need an interim report to say this. Families and survivors all along and throughout the pre-inquiry process have said that these supports are needed as part of the work of the Inquiry, not as something separate.

SO: Julie, looking forward, is it realistic to think that the Inquiry will do more? They've seen the need now. They've heard about it and what should they do?

JK: You know I would like to be optimistic, but families have been saying this for a long time quite publicly. And they've continued to not be engaged. And so without this engagement what we just see is this continued process of the Inquiry you know coming in, taking stories, really bulldozing through communities and leaving the communities to pick up the pieces.

SO: What would you say should be in place for communities for people when they go back home?

JK: Well, there needs to be a number of things in place, but we have to get at this engagement to look at what communities are asking for. So communities have asked for everything from you know having healing lodges and gathering spaces, and that support for families. So it was mentioned the external contractors coming in you know this isn't a means of support that families have asked for. And they do know what's needed and what supports and, frankly, the Indigenous women-led organisations are as a country have been providing the support for a number of years. So you know I serve as a research adviser for the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women, and just as an example of engagement, the Institute tried for six months to engage with the inquiry as a known and trusted entity in the Edmonton community without getting any response. And when they finally were able to reach someone at the commission, that person left two days later. And then again, the institute didn't hear from the Inquiry until after the hearings had actually started. And so this is a massive waste of knowledges that are already in place. And not building up the supports that are already in the communities. And so you know when we're talking about addressing this you know ongoing daily violence that's taking place. We have to be working with the community that's right now on the ground addressing the ongoing violence. And that's just not happening. And I have not seen any indication that the inquiry has expressed a willingness to listen to families and survivors and community leaders that have been saying this for a number of years. And then especially throughout some of the harms that they've seen caused by the Inquiry process that have been adopted.

SO: Julie, very briefly we heard Paul Tuccaro saying in spite of the lack of aftercare, he thought the inquiry was meaningful to him. What about to you? Do you think it will have a meaningful outcome?

JK: I think it's absolutely meaningful that people are able to share their stories. But as a country, I think we have to move past this model of just taking stories and causing more harm in the process in the name of fixing a problem. We're really not fixing anything this way, and in fact, I think we're erasing the role that as a country and the government erasing the role of policing the criminal justice system. So we're really erasing our role in the problem. And so this isn't an inherently exploitative approach that will continue to cause more trauma and more violence without really building up the systemic solutions that are already taking place in Indigenous communities and among Indigenous women right now. And so we really need to flip this to build up those communities that are doing this work.

SO: OK Julie, thank you very much for speaking with us.

JK: Thank you. Julie Kaye is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Saskatchewan, also a research advisor for the Institute for the Advancement of Aboriginal Women. And she is in Brussels, Belgium.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

November 24, 2017 episode transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode