Well, with Gladue reports, we've been given a guideline. Normally we look at the community history and at the individual's history and background. We look at things like mental health and physical health and all of that, and their community of origin, and residential schools. A lot of the people I interview are younger. They haven't gone to residential schools, but their parents went, generally. There's sort of a checklist for whether they've been in foster care, whether they have substance abuse issues, whether they've been abused, and things like that. There is a long checklist, and normally I'll go through that.
However, there isn't a checklist, which is one of the things I have observed about these reports, for the justice system. For instance, did the police do a proper investigation? Did the person get a fair trial? The onus is on the individual and the Gladue writers.
We're told that we don't give recommendations to judges, only a background on the person, but that doesn't make sense to me. I think the judges need to be able to hear some of the recommendations, but maybe that's just the way that Gladue reports are set out.