Debates of Feb. 14th, 2018

Indigenous Peoples and Canada's Justice System

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Chair, I have two question for the member.

First, the member spoke about FASD as being one of the issues. I know she voted in favour of Bill C-235, which recognized FASD in the justice system, as did I. At the time, the government, the front bench, did not support the bill, so there was a difference of opinion. Therefore, could the member speak to that bill with respect to why she made a different choice than the ministers?

Second, I would like to ask the member about the issue of indigenous victims of crime. I asked a previous speaker about how we supported victims of crime. We know that indigenous people are disproportionately likely to be victims of crime. Immediately my response to that question was to go back to the issue of indigenous offenders, which needs to be discussed as well. However, does the member have thoughts specifically on what we can do to better to support indigenous people who are victims of crime?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, I did support the private member's bill from my colleague, the member for Yukon.

When I was in Edmonton, one of the mental health professionals there actually said that if he had one wish, it would be that they could better diagnose, treat, and support people who have FASD within the corrections system. Of course it needs to extend beyond just within the corrections system, into the community. If we can treat FASD before people ever come in contact with the criminal justice system, it would be better for them, their families, and all of us.

I did wholeheartedly support the hon. member's bill. I appreciate the support of the member from across the way. I do hope that it is something we can move forward with and really make a difference in the lives of people who are living with FASD.

On the member's second point, to do with indigenous victims of crime, as I mentioned, indigenous women in particular are disproportionately victims of crime and victims of violence. Sadly, those victims often end up in the criminal justice system. That is not always the case, but we have heard that, for indigenous women, quite often that is the pathway they take.

We have also heard how the parole board includes, when they wish to, victims in the parole board hearings. Not all victims of crime are willing to be part of that, but they are included if they wish to be in the parole board hearings. I think it is important that their voices are heard throughout this process. Certainly indigenous people, indigenous women in particular, are disproportionately victims of violence and victims of crime.

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Chair, I share my colleagues', both my Conservative and Liberal colleagues', sadness that the Liberal cabinet did not support the private member's bill to include fetal alcohol syndrome considerations in sentencing.

If the government had voted yes, if it had not voted its own member's bill down, it would have achieved the truth and reconciliation call to action number 34. The government promised it was going to implement all of them. That was a lost opportunity.

Another one, also one of the calls to action, call to action 32 asks the government, and this was a campaign promise, to reverse the mandatory minimum sentencing brought in by the Conservative government. My colleague sits on the status of women committee with me. We have heard Debra Parkes, Jonathan Rudin, Rajwant Mangat, all legal professionals on the issue of indigenous women in the justice system and the incarceration system. They have all said the government should undo the mandatory minimum sentencing requirement and allow judges judicial discretion. It would have a huge impact for women in prison and their families.

Will my colleague work with me to have the government start tomorrow to undo that damage? It could be done.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. We have not heard one person come to committee to say that mandatory minimums were the right thing to do. They are just simply wrong. As I mentioned, they increase rates of recidivism.

When I visited Edmonton, it was not just the one woman to whom I spoke. It came up repeatedly, both from offenders whom I met, as well as people working within the system, that mandatory minimums do not make Canadians safer. We need to get rid of them.

I am hopeful that one of our recommendations from our committee will be to get rid of mandatory minimums. I certainly will work with any member of the House from any party to see that happen.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Chair, a few years ago, I toured the Kent maximum security prison, which was in my riding at the time, and I was struck by two things. I was expecting to see a bunch of old men, people who were serving out long life sentences. In fact, I found a bunch of very young men, and I was told by the people there trying to provide some training to those inmates that none of them had graduated from high school. Most of them, if they were lucky, had a grade 8 or grade 9 education.

I wonder if the member can talk about the importance of education across all demographics, but specifically for indigenous Canadians. Our previous government tried, with Bill C-33, to work out a system so that no matter where people lived in Canada, whether on reserve or off reserve, they could get the same level of education. That effort did not bear fruit. It fell through, but I wonder if she could talk about the importance of education in giving hope and opportunity to indigenous people and all Canadians.

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, it is funny that the member mentioned that, because I, too, was struck when I went to Edmonton max how young the people there were and the fact that the younger people were in the maximum security institution and the lifers were actually in the minimum security institution.

In terms of education, indigenous children are still funded at about two-thirds of what children across Canada are funded for their education. The last numbers I remember seeing I think were $9,000 for indigenous students and about $12,000 for students living in my riding of Oakville North—Burlington.

Certainly education for all Canadians is critical. For people with a high school education, it is difficult to find a job. Probably most of them do not even have an elementary school education, quite frankly, and that is what sent them into a life that has led them into corrections.

Sadly, though, when they are in a maximum security institution, they are not getting any education. There is very little programming there, so by sending them away to a maximum security facility, without any access to programs, to education, or to skills training, we are not preparing them very well to be integrated into society again.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask a question concerning cultural training for law enforcement officers. This was a recommendation I believe the committee heard from Teresa Edwards. I think cultural training is something that is always important.

Does the member believe that this would go a long way toward making people more aware of some of the fundamental issues indigenous people face in the justice system but also the historic issues indigenous people face in general?

[Pam Damoff, Liberal, Oakville North—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chair, the quick answer is yes. We heard that culturally appropriate education for police officers, for law enforcement, and for lawyers would go a long way in making our criminal justice system far more sensitive to the people they are working with in the indigenous community.

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

It being 11:04 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, the committee will rise and I will leave the chair.

(Government Business No. 20 reported)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m.)