SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Jun/7/22 9:16:44 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry. The subject is really moving. However, we must resume debate. The hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

22 words

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:17:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, that may be a first. It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the citizens of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, especially on such an important night in this Parliament. Every day is obviously important, but when we discuss important motions, when we talk about money and confidence votes, it is an extremely important day. Today we are talking about Department of Justice estimates. One thing I want to discuss from the get-go, to lay the groundwork for what I am about to say, and this will likely build upon some of what my colleagues have had to say, is about justice versus criticizing the judiciary. I believe that all of us here want the same thing. All of us obviously want a safe Canada. I cannot look at any member here and think that anyone does not want a safe Canada. That would be nonsense. There are times, though, when I look at the Supreme Court and some court decisions, and I may not agree. There are times when I could look at the court's decisions and I understand how it got to the decision, and while I respect that, I may not agree with the ultimate conclusion. There are times when I look at the court's decision and the logic is unassailable, and it is clear that the right decision was made. Then there are obviously going to be times when we look at a decision and we say to ourselves, “I just do not understand how we got to that decision.” Our role as parliamentarians is unique, because we have this separation of the legislative branch and the judicial branch, but the two go hand in hand. When I was doing my first law degree, one thing I was taught, and I know that some judges do reject this, was that Parliament and the judiciary are in a dialogue, so to speak. The way that this dialogue typically happens is between the courts and Parliament. Generally what will happen is that there is impugned legislation, that legislation is challenged, and if that legislation is challenged and upheld, then there is no dialogue to be had because the courts have said that Parliament got it right. Then there are situations where the court strikes down the legislation, sometimes with a sunset clause, saying there is one year to fix it, or other times when the legislation is simply struck down, saying why the legislation did not meet the constitutional bar. That is where that dialogue frequently happens. Parliament acts, the court interprets the laws, and then it is incumbent on Parliament to act again. The distinction that we are talking about, though, is Parliament acting. How should Parliament act? Some people may say that is criticizing a decision. My respectful view is that it is not, because what we are doing here is that we are actually part of that dialogue, part of that law-making component that is so special and so central to this place. This is my recollection, and I think I'm going back to 1994 here, when I was still in high school, but that is how section 33.1, which was struck down a little while ago, actually came to be in its form that was, again, struck down. Again, we are going back 15 or 20 years, so please do not quote me on that law. I am also mindful of the Chief Justice's recent comments about the politicization of the courts. We need to be able to have a candid discussion about what legislation should flow from the Supreme Court's decision, perhaps not about the merits of the case but whether we are comfortable with the outcomes of a decision that is predicated on the legislation. I gave an intervention a week ago and that intervention was about the fact that I thought Parliament should be acting because there was a decision that offended my sensibilities when a seven- or eight-year-old was abused by a parent. That mother avoided jail and was given a community-based sentence. In doing that, my goal was not to necessarily say what this judge should have done, and I did not name the judge for a reason. I do not think that is the way we should be doing it. The point was to ask whether we should be looking at the legislation that led to this outcome. This outcome is based on legislation. There is a question, and a very live question in my mind, about whether we should be questioning that. That is one of the issues I have today. The point is this: How should Parliament respond to these decisions that some may agree with and some may not agree with? The cases I am going to look at are the Sullivan and Brown grouping of decisions. Those are the extreme intoxication decisions. There is a case about consecutive sentences for parole eligibility, although I think the extreme intoxication cases are a little different from my view. Right now, we do not have a law in place because it has been struck down, but the upshot is that, based on the court's decision, a person can avoid criminal liability based on extreme intoxication. This was always the case for murder because a person has to specifically intend to kill somebody or cause grievous bodily harm and be reckless as to the outcome. That is a specific-intent offence. The point is that a person who voluntarily consumed drugs no longer in this case could have the intent to kill or intent to have any criminality. This is what I find interesting and this is what I want to focus on. The courts have acted. How should Parliament respond? In my view, the court, at paragraph 12, laid out a road map for us, and it said: Parliament did not enact a new offence of dangerous intoxication, nor did it adopt a new mode of liability for existing violent offences based on a proper standard of criminal negligence. With the utmost respect, I am bound to conclude the path Parliament chose in enacting s. 33.1 was not, from the point of view of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter, constitutionally compliant. What I found interesting on my reading of that, and others may disagree and that is fine, is that it is almost as though the court is giving us a road map here of criminal negligence. That is what it seems to me. I have not watched the debate, but it is something I want to do and I was recently encouraged to do it. This very point, from what I can gather, was hit on about the foreseeability of these consequences of self-induced intoxication, followed by subsequent violence. I hope we all agree in this place that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. The problem is that it has not yet been addressed. I was one of four signatories on a letter to the government saying we will work with the government to address this and to address it as soon as possible. Frankly, I would have liked to see legislation tabled within a week or two of this. I am mindful of the justice minister's comments saying that they are looking at it, but this is critical. A lot of victims groups and women's groups have sounded the alarm, and for good reason. This is an important issue that really needs to be dealt with. Sometimes we talk about virtue signalling. This is one case where we, as a united House, should be signalling to the public and to potential victims that we are prepared to cover this legislative gap. I will close with this. If the government does wish to act, I will be prepared to help in a non-partisan way. I believe the other three signatories would be prepared to act in a non-partisan way. We are expending hundreds of millions of dollars when it comes to the administration of justice. This is one area that I have chosen to focus on that, in my view, has a gap. There are other gaps that we can get into, like Bill C-5 and things like that. However, this is one of the areas that I invite the government to consider when it is considering its spending and what it is doing in its legislative agenda.

1423 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/7/22 9:26:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's perspective on the role of the court being a sacred institution within our democratic process. Most importantly, we need to maintain a certain degree and level of respect of the court, and to work with the court. I do not disagree with his comments that our job is to help and react when it comes to making better legislation based on, perhaps, an outcome from the court. Does he apply the same logic to other institutions within government or at arm's length from government? Does he see the same value in ensuring that we hold these institutions and the fundamental objective of the institution in high regard as well, so as to not publicly go after, criticize and try to jeopardize those institutions, such as the Bank of Canada?

138 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:28:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I had no idea that my hon. colleague was going in that direction with that preamble. Obviously, I come from a legal background, and I do agree with my colleague that the courts are sacrosanct and that we have arm's-length relationships. However, what the member is getting at is something that has been an issue in an active leadership race and, frankly, it would be imprudent for me to weigh in on this.

77 words

Hon. Rob Moore (Fundy Royal, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:28:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. It was very thoughtful, and it touched on a number of really important points. There seems to be a perception among some that a decision is rendered and that is the end of the discussion. However, my colleague mentioned a charter dialogue, the appropriateness of Parliament responding and our doing our job on something that I feel, and many feel, needs to be addressed, which is this issue of a self-induced intoxication defence.

85 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:29:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an incredibly important question. My colleague raises the point about the court decision being the end of it. It is not the end of it. It is the end of the beginning, because now we move on to the next phase. The next phase is how Parliament should intervene. Parliament creates the laws, and the courts interpret them. The courts interpret law A a certain way. Now we move to law B. Law A was the beginning, and law B is the next step. It is fundamentally important that we not only understand where we were, but where we are going. Where we need to go on the issue of self-induced intoxication is with a constitutionally compliant law, perhaps rooted in criminal negligence, that ultimately protects victims and vulnerable people from situations of which we are obliged to protect them.

145 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Jun/7/22 9:30:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really want to ask the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo a question that relates to events today in British Columbia regarding events that happened in his riding. That, of course, is the finding of the coroner that the over 600 people who died from the heat dome last summer were in fact preventable deaths. I know that the hon. member is thoughtful, and I know this is not the topic of his speech, but I wonder if he has any thoughts on those findings. Certainly, for me, it rings a bell with negligence in allowing so many British Columbians to die without proper warning and without proper aid.

114 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:30:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, with all candour, I have not had a chance to review the coroner's report. However, I did see something tangentially, in passing, in the news. I cannot pass any judgment. The fact that people died in a heat dome is difficult for all of us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to all of those people. We never want to see this again. My hope is that if there is anything we can do as parliamentarians to assist in that regard, let us do it. However, a lot of that will fall to the province as well.

100 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:31:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a very short question for my colleague. He mentioned the importance of taking action, of moving to plan B. Is it important to act quickly to protect the potential victims of future attackers?

38 words

Mr. Frank Caputo

Jun/7/22 9:31:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we need to act quickly. When the decision was rendered about the constitutionality or lack of constitutionality of an anti-oil decision from Alberta, the Prime Minister said we would be appealing it right away. Where is that vigour to protect victims here? That should have been the next issue that we were dealing with. We should have dealt with it yesterday.

64 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid (Mississauga—Erin Mills, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 9:32:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I will let you know that I am sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Granville. I am pleased to stand today to speak to the work by Justice Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It is a key piece to reconciliation, ensuring the effective implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in consultation and co-operation with indigenous peoples. This initiative is a key priority for our government. It brings to light the commitment made in the 2021 Speech from the Throne to implement the declaration at the federal level. It also supports the directions in Justice Canada's mandate letter to prioritize the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and to work with indigenous people to accelerate the joint development of an action plan to achieve the goals of the declaration. The main estimates include $3.3 million to support broad and distinctions-based engagements with indigenous peoples and to develop an action plan by June 2023 as well as annual progress reports to Parliament for the 2021-22 and then 2022-23 fiscal years. Budget 2021 provided short-term funding to Justice Canada, which was $5.8 million over two years through to March 2023, to support the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act in consultation and co-operation with indigenous people. Budget 2021 also provided $23.6 million over two years to CIRNAC to support indigenous participation in the engagement process, including support for indigenous-led consultations. On December 10, 2021, the government launched a broad and inclusive engagement process with aboriginal peoples and a call for proposals for funding for aboriginal participation in the process, including support for aboriginal-led consultations. The call for proposals closed on April 15 of this year, and 151 projects were approved in whole or in part. The department ensured that the participating groups reflected first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples across Canada. Regardless of whether or not a particular indigenous governing body, representative organization, group or community has received funding, there will be a number of avenues for them to contribute their perspectives on the UNDA implementation. Timelines are tight. The UNDA put in place a two-year time frame to complete the action plan by June 2023. The plan must include a broad suite of measures, including, but not limited to, measures to tackle violence and discrimination against indigenous peoples and measures to promote understanding through human rights education. Funding is available to communities, nations and organizations across the country to support the participation of partners in the engagement process, with a focus on supporting indigenous-led work to identify priority areas for the implementation of the UN declaration. Budget 2022 proposes to provide $65.8 million over five years starting in 2022-23, and $11 million ongoing, to Justice Canada and Natural Resources Canada to accelerate work to meet legislated requirements under the UNDA, including the co-development of an action plan with indigenous partners. While the details of the budget are still being reviewed, we expect that part of this investment will be to support indigenous capacity going forward. This generational work will help advance reconciliation and forge stronger and renewed nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-Crown and government-to-government relationships. The main objective of this funding that is received is to support both departments' capacity to advance reconciliation through a three-year funding for the reconciliation secretariat. It is also to provide capacity funding directly to indigenous groups, organizations and communities to enable them to collaborate with the department on shared justice priorities, including developing an indigenous justice strategy. As emphasized in the Speech from the Throne 2021, the government remains highly committed to advancing reconciliation with indigenous peoples and accelerating the work on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people's calls for justice and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This funding supports key government priorities, including the implementation of the direction in the justice minister's mandate letter from 2022 to develop, in consultation and co-operation with provinces, territories and indigenous partners, an indigenous justice strategy to address systemic discrimination and the overrepresentation of indigenous people in the criminal justice system. Of this funding, $13.2 million will enable the department to build its capacity, which had never previously been funded, to work in co-operation with indigenous governments and representatives in order to continue to develop the relationships needed for reconciliation over the next two years. Importantly, $11 million or 45% of this funding has been provided directly to indigenous groups to support indigenous-led engagement within communities and organizations over the next two years and collaboration with the department on an indigenous justice strategy to develop solutions to justice-specific barriers that indigenous people face, including systemic racism and overrepresentation in the justice system. Policies, programs and legislative initiatives based on the lived experiences of indigenous peoples will benefit first nations, Inuit and Métis people as they seek to reduce contact with the mainstream justice system, promote access to fair and equitable treatment in the justice system and revitalize indigenous legal systems. The departmental funding will also support department-led engagement sessions with key stakeholders to ensure that a broad spectrum of indigenous voices and perspectives is fully reflected in the indigenous justice strategy. Provinces and territories will be key partners in this work on the indigenous justice strategy, as they are responsible for the administration of justice all across Canada. Accordingly, the Department of Justice will anticipate leveraging existing federal-provincial-territorial partnership fora to engage jurisdictions, while also using the new departmental funding to convene regional dialogues that involve provincial and territorial governments. Further to reforming the mainstream justice system, this is another area of work that is expected to be advanced under the indigenous justice strategy. The main objective of this initiative is to increase the Department of Justice's capacity to continue to lead negotiations with indigenous groups on the administration of justice in order to ultimately support those indigenous groups in fully achieving their self-determination. This essential initiative responds to a number of key government commitments, including implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, specifically call to action 42, and the National Inquiry into the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls report. The Minister of Justice's 2022 mandate letter commits to advancing the priorities of indigenous communities to regain jurisdiction over the administration of justice in collaboration with the provinces and territories and to support the revitalization of indigenous laws, legal systems and traditions. I am running out of time, and I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I will say that after over 150 years of top-down direction for indigenous peoples in our country, it is high time that we really invested in building that people-to-people relationship, ensuring the empowerment of indigenous communities all across Canada and ensuring that self-determination and self-governance are a priority.

1227 words

All Topics

Mr. Frank Caputo (Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:42:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the main point of my hon. colleague's speech was reconciliation in indigenous communities. One issue is this. We know that indigenous people are vastly overrepresented in our justice system, but also in victimization rates, yet her government has left the victim ombud position empty for quite some time now. Is the member able to somehow reconcile the contents of her speech with leaving such an important position open, given the victimization of indigenous people in communities?

79 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/7/22 9:42:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is really important for us to listen to indigenous communities with respect to the kinds of services they need. The secretariat will endeavour to find out the best ways to support victims who are indigenous. I know we have a lot of work to do to decrease that overrepresentation within our justice system and to provide that support to indigenous communities and those who are victimized. We will keep on pushing that needle further.

80 words

Ms. Laurel Collins (Victoria, NDP)

Jun/7/22 9:43:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke a lot about indigenous rights and ensuring the government is investing in meaningful reconciliation. As she was speaking, I was thinking about an organization in my community, the Aboriginal Coalition to End Homelessness, which has a shovel-ready project, a healing house. It offers for indigenous, by indigenous housing. This project envisions housing that also offers culturally supportive detox to the indigenous street community. The government has committed and has promised for indigenous, by indigenous housing. In this budget there is significant investment in on-reserve housing, but not the same level of investment for urban indigenous people. I am wondering if the member will commit to pushing her government for significant investment in for indigenous, by indigenous housing for urban, indigenous people and for supporting projects like the amazing one I mentioned, the healing house by the Aboriginal Coalition to End Homelessness.

148 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/7/22 9:44:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am on the record saying that housing is a human right. It is a basic right that all Canadians, including indigenous communities, deserve. We are prioritizing housing and ensuring that we are building and providing that culturally sensitive support to communities like the indigenous community. I look forward to working with the member opposite to ensure that we are advocating and pushing in the right way, so that all indigenous communities are able to have that basic right to housing.

83 words

Hon. Sean Fraser (Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 9:45:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague concluded her remarks by talking about the importance of transitioning away from a top-down approach when it comes to decision-making processes that impact indigenous communities. In our home province, Mr. Speaker, you would appreciate the changes that were embraced when the keys were handed over to Mi’kmaq communities when it came to the education system. They saw their graduation rate go from thirty-something percent to in excess of 90%, on par with non-indigenous students across Nova Scotia. That would not have been possible, in my mind, had we continued to implement a colonial-style mentality when it came to the education system for Mi’kmaq students. I am wondering if my colleague could offer commentary on the importance of empowering people to make decisions that impact their own communities when it comes to indigenous communities' abilities to make decisions, and whether she has any examples from her experiences as a member of Parliament in which this kind of a model might show opportunities for future growth.

178 words

Ms. Iqra Khalid

Jun/7/22 9:46:40 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree with the example provided by the minister. That nation-to-nation connection of supporting communities and uplifting them, I think, is the only way that we can really achieve proper truth and reconciliation, really building those partnerships with communities and creating a next generation of empowered indigenous peoples who have respect for their culture, who are able to thrive within their culture and who are also able to become meaningful proponents for all that they represent.

82 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed (Vancouver Granville, Lib.)

Jun/7/22 9:47:25 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the opportunity to rise to speak to the estimates. Several important steps are being taken by the government to support the effective and efficient functioning of the justice system, in particular regarding access to justice for youth, indigenous and Black persons and those who are economically disadvantaged. As the House is well aware, our justice system has been faced with mounting challenges in recent years. Some of these challenges, such as the increasing length and complexity of trials, preceded the COVID pandemic. Other challenges, such as the need to conduct trials virtually, were generated by the pandemic. Some of the justice system's challenges were felt most acutely by our provincial partners, as they bear the responsibility for the administration of justice, including the increased costs of technology and other public health measures. Of course, many of these challenges affect not only governments, but also individuals. These include the many individuals who struggle to afford legal assistance when they need it. Many of them also experience systemic disadvantages and discrimination. In some cases, these individuals come into contact with the justice system. Through the budget, our government made multiple investments to support the justice system to ensure that it treats those who come before it in a fair, equitable and effective manner. Budget 2021 announced an ongoing annual $43.3-million increase in funding for the youth justice services funding program. New six-year funding agreements for the April 21, 2021, to March 31, 2027, time frame were successfully negotiated and are now being put into place with the provinces and territories to implement this funding. This funding will enable the expansion and sustainability of critical youth justice services and programs delivered by the provinces and territories. Priority funding areas under the youth justice services funding program include diversion and alternatives to custody programming, which will allow more youth to stay out of the formal youth criminal justice system and/or custody. This new funding will allow jurisdictions to further develop and expand the range of culturally safe and responsive programming available to better support indigenous youth and other racialized youth populations overrepresented in the youth criminal justice system. This is particularly true for diversion programming, for which an increased demand is anticipated resulting from the implementation of former Bill C-75. While we are all pleased that there has been a downward trend in youth crime rates over time, this new funding is needed, as there has not been an increase in funding since 2006, when the Harper government came into power and implemented its failed criminal justice policy that did not focus on rehabilitation or diversion. We are fixing that through many measures, including budgetary measures such as this one and Bill C-5. The general youth population is increasing, which is expected to affect the demand for youth justice programming and apply additional pressures on the provinces and territories. There is a need to respond more effectively to the diversity of risks and needs of today's youth population. The new funding will therefore enable the sustainability and expansion of critical and more responsive youth justice services and programs. Our government also re-profiled $40 million in funding for criminal legal aid, provided through the 2020 fall economic statement to 2021 and 2022-23. The COVID pandemic generated significant multi-faceted and long-term impacts on legal aid in Canada. It also produced socio-economic conditions that foster high demand for legal aid, while simultaneously complicating the delivery of legal aid services and limiting non-governmental income sources such as law foundations. This additional investment of $40 million in criminal legal aid funding provided over two years is allowing legal aid plans to better align themselves with the reopening of the courts and provide services to accused people whose cases are backlogged. The additional funding also addresses deficits resulting from decreased law foundation funding and supports legal aid plans in fully implementing technological innovations and ensuring interoperability with the courts. Vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals and women, have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic. In view of their mandate to help the disadvantaged, some legal aid plans relaxed eligibility guidelines early in the pandemic to support individuals facing job loss. As the courts reopen, they are dealing with backlogs of cases accumulated during the pandemic. The additional funding for criminal legal aid will enable jurisdictions to meet increased demand, thereby reducing the number of individuals who self-represent. Self-represented accused people cost the system both money and time because of adjournments, multiple court appearances, a lack of information and confusion about proceedings. We are continuing to provide additional needed support to the legal aid system to address these systemic pressures so the justice system remains accessible to all Canadians. The past decades have seen a criminal justice system characterized by the increasingly disproportionate representation of indigenous and Black persons and vulnerable persons such as those experiencing a mental health and/or substance use disorder. The 2020 fall economic statement announced $6.6 million over five years, followed by $1.6 million annually, to support the implementation of impact of race and culture assessments, or IRCAs, nationally. From this, $1.3 million is available for 2022-23. IRCAs are better pre-sentencing reports that help sentencing judges better understand the effects of poverty, marginalization, racism and social exclusion on the offender and their experience with the criminal justice system. Federal funding will support the development of training curricula for IRCA writers, professional development programs for criminal defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors, and education programs for judges on IRCAs and on the preparation of IRCA reports for eligible racialized accused. The Government of Canada is committed to providing fair and equal access to justice for Black individuals and other racialized people by addressing systemic racism and discrimination in the criminal justice system and overturning a decade of failed Conservative criminal justice policy. Building on previous investments, budget 2021 also announced an investment of $26.8 million for 2021-22 to support the delivery of immigration and refugee legal aid services. This funding supports access to justice for economically disadvantaged asylum seekers by ensuring that provinces delivering immigration and refugee legal aid have the capacity to maintain service delivery levels. This includes the processing of many asylum claims from individuals who arrived in Canada prior to the pandemic-related border closures, those who made asylum claims from within Canada during the pandemic and those who are now arriving at Canada's borders. Additionally, the 2020 fall economic statement provided $49.3 million over five years, starting in 2021, and $9.7 million in ongoing funding to increase the application of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system to help address the overrepresentation of indigenous people and address systemic discrimination. As the House is aware, Gladue principles seek to ensure the systemic or background factors that may have played a part in bringing an indigenous person in contact with the law are considered in criminal justice decision-making, and that community-based, culturally appropriate restorative and traditional indigenous justice supports are available to help individuals meet the conditions of their sentences and implement healing plans. This investment includes funding to support the development and expanded use of Gladue reports, including the training of Gladue report writers, and will support community-based and indigenous-led post-sentence Gladue aftercare. This funding will also support projects focused on addressing systemic barriers and bias in the criminal justice system. The implementation of Gladue principles in the criminal justice system is also a key federal initiative in the Government of Canada's federal pathway to address missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and 2SLGBTQQIA+ people. Finally, building on the success of our existing work to address overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, and to improve indigenous people's access to justice in all areas of the justice system, budget 2021 provided $27.1 million over three years for indigenous community-based justice programs to address long-standing program integrity needs and to provide trauma-informed training on working with victims of crime. Funding will also help indigenous families navigate the family justice system and access community-based family mediation services. Among other objectives, these efforts seek to prevent crime and protect victims by addressing matters before they escalate. They also aim to help decrease the disproportionate number of indigenous children in care across the country and allow these children to remain with their families where appropriate and connect to their communities and culture where possible. In tandem with support for the implementation of Gladue principles, this work will further support the Government of Canada's efforts to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada, eliminate systemic discrimination from the justice system and respond to the MMIWG final report's calls for justice and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action. Through the main estimates, we are seeking to access the funding to support these initiatives this year. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on the critical steps we have taken to support the justice system, and I hope that all members of the House will support these estimates to advance this important work in criminal justice reform.

1544 words

All Topics

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Jun/7/22 9:56:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the public servants who wrote that very comprehensive speech recited by the member for Vancouver Granville. He spoke about a lot of justice measures taking place, but I would be remiss if I did not point out that the Government of Canada took an unprecedented and historic step in the last few weeks, which was the decriminalization of fentanyl. In the release, the government stated that the decriminalization of fentanyl, which has killed hundreds of people in that individual's riding, is a good step toward protecting lives. Can the member confirm and state in the House that the decriminalization of fentanyl will protect Canadians?

112 words

Mr. Taleeb Noormohamed

Jun/7/22 9:57:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in the riding I represent, which has many health care workers and many families and folks who have been affected by the opioid crisis, there is support for this important initiative. What it does is treats addiction as a health issue, not as a criminal justice issue. It is about time that Canadians recognize that members opposite continue to further victimize those who are dealing with addictions. It is time that we dealt with this as a health issue, not as a criminal justice issue.

87 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 83