Debates of April 9th, 2019

Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to Bill C-88. Despite the use of time allocation, I appreciate that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons earlier today said she would make efforts to give me a chance to speak and has done so. Even with abbreviated debate, I am therefore able to speak to this legislation.

I am also able to speak to what happened to this legislation when the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was brought forward in the 41st Parliament in 2014. It was something everyone wanted to support, but there were many measures with that act that were offensive to the foundational principles of self-government and respect for treaties.

In fact, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board, the Gwich'in Land and Water Board, the Sahtu Land and Water Board and the Wek’eezhii Tlicho Land and Water Board, all of which were the result of treaty negotiations between the Crown and those nations, were callously, carelessly, disrespectfully and completely violated with the notion that we could replace them with something described as more efficient.

I protested those changes at the time, as did the previous NDP member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, Dennis Bevington. We tried quite hard to persuade the 41st Parliament that it was wrong to change the law in this way.

Subsequent to the changes being made, a number of the boards that were impacted went to court to challenge what had just happened. The notion of a superboard was deeply offensive to the principle that had been there, which was that the land and water boards represented fifty-fifty decision-making between first nations and the federal government. It would have reduced the self-government that the Northwest Territories Devolution Act was supposed to respect. It would have taken away rights and reduced the scope of review by those various boards.

Earlier today in debate I heard a Conservative member say that Bill C-88 was another effort by the Liberal government to interfere with development, to thwart development and to drive investment away from Canada.

I am saddened by that kind of commentary. I agree with a number of criticisms of the Liberal government. There are a lot of measures being taken that I find far short of what is required, particularly when looking at the climate crisis, and far short of what is required when looking at the need for thorough environmental assessment. There was a commitment in the election to undo the damage that had been done by the Harper administration in a number of areas, and so far the Liberal government has done really well in some areas and less well in others.

It did extremely well in undoing discriminatory legislation towards trade unions, and that was done relatively quickly by the former member of cabinet responsible for labour issues.

The Liberal government did an extremely good job on a piece of legislation that is still before the Senate, Bill C-68, to repair the Fisheries Act. Bill C-68 not only repairs the damage that was done by the previous prime minister and his government and not only brings back protections for fish habitat. It also expands and improves other protections for habitat. It is an extremely important piece of legislation and I hope it passes quickly.

It is also complementary to a piece of legislation that I hope will be passed here. Earlier today in the House, the hon. member for Avalon, the chair of the fisheries committee, presented the report, and Bill S-203 is now back before the House. I hope we move to report stage and third reading expeditiously.

Bill C-68, which I am referencing, is also complementary in saying that we are now going to ban the taking of cetaceans into captivity in Canadian waters.

Again, all of these bills speak to undoing the damage done by the previous government, but Bill C-68 goes beyond that with more progressive measures.

Unfortunately, Bill C-69 is also before the Senate. I hope it will be amended and sent back here quickly. The Minister of Transport did an excellent job of repairing the former Navigable Waters Protection Act. There are some innovative changes to energy regulations. Unfortunately, the middle piece of legislation in that omnibus bill, the one on environmental review, does not undo the damage of the previous government, but rather keeps it in place.

However, this legislation is excellent in that it would actually undo the damage the previous government had done. It would set back in place the integrity of self-government, of decisions for land and water boards that reflect the negotiations under self-government agreements and treaties. Now that we are debating this bill at second reading, I would certainly like to see this bill in committee so that it could receive one or two additional amendments.

As was mentioned on the floor of the House earlier today when we started second reading debate of Bill C-88, given the content, the context and the need to take a step further and be more progressive than merely repairing, we should say that this bill operates under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That would be a very welcome amendment and, assuming this bill gets to committee and we are in a position to put forward amendments during clause-by-clause consideration, it is one that the committee can expect to hear from the Green Party.

I certainly support this bill, including the provisions to allow moratoria on drilling to affect such decisions based on evidence. I do hope the bill passes. I would like to see it pass with an amendment to ensure that it operates under the terms of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's history on this bill and the whole devolution process that happened in the Northwest Territories.

I still think the devolution process has a long way to go. As I mentioned earlier, there are certain parts of the Northwest Territories that were off the table during discussions for devolving responsibility. They included the Norman Wells oil fields and the Beaufort Sea. The regulatory process in the Northwest Territories is a model that the rest of this country could compare notes on to see how well it works when it comes to the inclusion of indigenous people. It is also high time that we start looking at the work that is being done on traditional knowledge and the scientific research that is being done on the Beaufort Sea. We also need to start looking the devolution of responsibility for decision-making on the Beaufort Sea to the Government of the Northwest Territories, along with the indigenous government.

I would ask the member to give her view on turning over all responsibilities to the people of the Northwest Territories.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the process of devolution is incomplete. People in the north should have the decision-making responsibility over their resources, lands and waters. This is behind the principle of devolution, and to the extent that specific areas are excluded, that is an error and should be corrected.

We want to ensure that discussions in the territories represent the concerns of the specific first nations mentioned in this legislation, but much of the territory around our circumpolar north is under the jurisdiction of the Inuit. We need to pay attention to that.

We also need to make sure, as the hon. member mentioned, that we respect and engage indigenous knowledge and science. It is particularly compelling that we do so in the context of a climate crisis in which we know that the warming in Canada's Arctic is occurring three times faster than the warming on the rest of the planet. We have known for quite a while that it was the Inuit and the peoples of the north who raised the alarm that sea ice is changing, that hunting is more difficult and that a way of life is basically at risk. Therefore, the more we consult and the more decision-making is led by northerners, the better our decision-making will be.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's support of our first nations, particularly the battle we have had for over a decade in trying to prevent drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

She mentioned that we are taking back a law that was unfortunate or wrong, but I would say it was illegal, because land claims agreements are constitutionally protected. A law cannot be passed that retracts a constitutionally protected item.

There was a parallel exercise that happened in Yukon on the environmental assessment process. There they once again tried to make a change that was not in line with the spirit or the law of the constitutionally protected land claims, on which the member supported us. We have retracted that change and gone back to the spirit of the agreement and the letter of the law that was originally contemplated in 30 years of negotiation.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, my language was too tepid. It is unusual, but that is the case. What happened under the previous Parliament was unconstitutional.

In regard to fighting together to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the hon. member said it has been a decade. I hate to correct the hon. member's math, but when I could not remember exactly what year I was in Washington, D.C., with the hon. member, fighting to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I made a quick reference to Google, and I found it was 2002. I remember I took my daughter and a young Gwich'in lad to see the opening of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

It was in 2002 that the hon. member and I were together in Washington, D.C., and I want to pay tribute to him, because I know that all those trips to Washington were beyond his parliamentary budget. He paid his own way to go to Washington to work as hard as we could, and now we have to redouble efforts because the Trump administration once again wants to lift protection and allow drilling in the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou, which are essential to the Gwich'in way of life.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

I will let the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development know that there are only about five minutes remaining in the time for debate on the question that is before the House. I will give him the usual signal.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to speak in support of the bill, but first I would like to share my recollections about visits to the Northwest Territories with the member who has spoken several times today so eloquently about the territories and the need for self-determination, in particular for the rights of indigenous peoples to be respected not just on this issue but on a broad range of issues.

In having the honour to go from community to community, to sit down with leadership in the indigenous communities in Behchoko and Yellowknife, to talk with families that are working in the resource sector and to talk to the Government of the Northwest Territories and the municipal leadership there, one thing becomes abundantly clear. Southerners who go north should go there to listen, and if they do, what they start to understand is that the importance that is placed not just on self-determination but on self-determination that respects the modern treaties and respects indigenous communities of the north is fundamental to making sure the progress that happens up there benefits the people who will not only be subject to the changes but also should be the main beneficiaries of whatever changes occur up there.

As we look at the agreement that was put in place, what we are building on is a flawed law that was passed in the previous session, which the Supreme Court struck down. I lost track of the number of laws that the previous government passed that did not make it through the Supreme Court. I think it was eight but it might have been nine. I am sure someone on the other side can correct me if there is a former AG over there, but the reality is that not obeying the law is something that the previous government set a high watermark on.

In the delay to obeying the law and the delay to writing good legislation and in not listening to the opposition as corrections were offered, the development of natural resources in the north was set back, but more importantly, the advancement of self-determination was set back. There are lessons to be learned in terms of how we proceed in the House and how we move with the Northwest Territories, with Yukon, with Nunavut, to make sure that the aspirations and the opportunities in the north are developed in a good way and a sound way.

One of the most important parts of this is that it is consistent with UNDRIP. One of the members opposite talked about why UNDRIP is not referenced in the body of the legislation. This is being asked in several other areas of legislation. UNDRIP has not cleared the other place yet. It has not received royal assent in terms of ratification and as a result we cannot reference a piece of legislation that technically does not exist yet because our system has not yet stamped it into law.

What we heard from representatives from the territories talking about this landmark piece of legislation is that it is consistent with the spirit of UNDRIP and it brings to bear those very principles as we take a look at how resources need to be developed carefully, but more importantly how water needs to be protected and most importantly, how traditional knowledge will be used to preserve and project a stronger future in the north.

The other thing that we need to come to terms with is the value of traditional knowledge. I was talking with one of the Arctic Rangers on a trip that I made to Iqaluit and he came from a part of the country that was even farther north than the maps of Canada often show. He talked to me about what is happening to snow and ice in the far north and how as exploration parties go up there to deliver everything from housing to roads to resources and to take a look at resource development, traditional knowledge is defining what is safe and what is not. Often safety is delivered not by someone from the geographic society but from elders who have passed on their knowledge as to what constitutes safe and unsafe passageway.

The bill recognizes the value of traditional knowledge and understands the value of engaging with all forms of scientific exploration and experience. That, too, is one of the reasons it is consistent with UNDRIP and is a good piece of legislation to be supported.

The most important part of this is that it allows the north to put a stamp of self-determination on its resource projects. It can look at the impact environmentally. It can look at the impact economically. It can look at the impact socially and it can make sure that the profitability of these projects is sustained in the north in a way that delivers sustainable, permanent, social transformation to one of the areas in this country that has the largest economic challenges facing any individual who resides in this country from coast to coast to coast.

This, in and of itself, is reason enough to support the bill, because it changes the nature of the conversation and the formula of the economics in the north to make sure that the process is a strong one.

We are also seeing that leadership from the indigenous communities and from the Government of the Northwest Territories have come to a consensus on how to move forward in a good way. As legislatures, when we see consensus emerge from outside the House and arms link in common cause, our job is not so much to legislate that into reality but to create legislation that dignifies, recognizes and supports that reality.

Another thing has been achieved here as well. Although we often have to lay our legislation onto existing circumstances, in this particular piece of legislation, existing rights holders have been recognized and brought into the legislation in a way that is consistent with not only good resource development but good environmental stewardship and truth and reconciliation.

For those reasons, I will be supporting the legislation and will be forever sad that I will not get to answer questions from the opposition.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

It being 5:45 p.m., pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #1288

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

The House resumed from April 5 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Justice

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar relating to the business of supply.

May I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #1289

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Geoff Regan]

I declare the motion lost.

It being 6:35 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 26, 2018, consideration of the motion that Bill S-215, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for violent offences against Aboriginal women), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Criminal Code

[Sheri Benson, NDP, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks by recognizing that we meet today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I hope that one day we will begin all of our daily proceedings in this place with this acknowledgement.

I also wish to acknowledge that my riding is situated in Treaty 6 territory and the ancestral homeland of the Métis.

It is an honour and a privilege to rise to speak on such an important topic as the mistreatment by our justice system of indigenous women and girls and to speak of a way that our justice system could make that change. I say that because we have a justice system that must do better for indigenous women and girls. We have a justice system that is just for some, but not for all Canadians.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that everyone has the right to be treated equally before and under the law and that all Canadians have the equal benefit and protection of the law. However, that is not the case for indigenous women and girls in our country. Indigenous women and girls cannot count on a justice system that is fair and just, that provides them the full protection of the law and that is blind to race and gender.

That is why I am speaking in support of Bill S-215 and to support the leadership of Senator Dyck, whose work and advocacy on the issue of missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is to be commended and respected.

Bill S-215 is about bringing equality into our justice system for indigenous women and girls. The bill would amend the Criminal Code to make indigenous female identity an aggravating factor during sentencing. We need such a bill because we need to reform our justice system now. For too long we have tolerated the discrimination against indigenous women and girls. We need such a bill because the treatment of indigenous women and girls in the justice system reflects “societal indifference to the welfare and safety of Indigenous women [that allows] the perpetrators [of violence against them] to escape justice.”

We know the names of two indigenous women, Cindy Gladue and Betty Osborne, not because justice was served, but for the exact opposite reason. We know these women's names because of the unspeakable violence perpetrated against them in life and in death; a justice system that continued to degrade them as human beings, treated them as less than. We know their names because of the efforts of indigenous women and human rights advocates who demanded justice for Cindy and Betty.

The bill before us today is one measure to combat societal indifference to the lives of indigenous women who are more likely to be victims of violent crimes and their circumstances more likely to be taken less seriously by our justice system. We have systems of protection and justice in the country that effectively demonstrate that indigenous women's lives and their safety are less important and less worthy than non-indigenous women.

The family of Nadine Machiskinic know this fact all too well. In 2015, Nadine, a 29-year-old indigenous woman, was found in medical distress in the laundry room of the Regina Delta Hotel. She had fallen 10 floors down a laundry chute. Because of a justice system that did not value Nadine's life, her death was never properly investigated. It is because of her family's tireless efforts for more than three years that in 2018 the Regina police service's actions in this case were formally reviewed by the RCMP.

We know now all that was not done for Nadine by the hotel, EMS, police and investigators to help her, to determine the circumstances of her death and to find the perpetrators. We learned that her death was not reported to police for some 60 hours, that police took four months to send toxicology reports and that it was over a year before the police made a public plea for information about the two men on surveillance cameras and video who appeared with Nadine.

In her own words, Senator Dyck acknowledges that her bill is not the magic solution that will end the violent victimization of indigenous women and girls and it will not change how Nadine was treated by the system. The bill is intended to cause a ripple effect in the justice system by ensuring judges consider the unique circumstances of indigenous women and girls in Canada today.

Bill S-215 is needed because despite all our justice system is meant to be, it is failing to provide equal benefit and protection through the law.

Like many systems that are being challenged today by indigenous peoples and human rights advocates, our justice system has not escaped the historical influences of colonialism and racism; influences that continue to this day. These influences have led to what is the reality for indigenous women in Canada, a climate in which indigenous women are particularly vulnerable to sexism by the police and the court system. Indigenous women who are victims of violence are mistreated by the systems that are intended to protect them.

Senator Dyck's bill is a response to extremely high rates of murder and disappearances of indigenous women and girls. This legislation will help to ensure a justice system that provides equal protection under the law for indigenous women and girls as guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This legislation also responds to our legal obligations in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect indigenous women and girls from violence, victimization and the indifference by the state and society to their experiences of violence.

I had the opportunity to sit in on presentations by Senator Dyck on her bill and to also hear of her research initiatives in partnership with the University of Saskatchewan. Prior to being appointed to the Canadian Senate, Dr. Dyck was a professor in the neuropsychiatry research unit in the Department of Psychiatry and an associate dean of the College of Graduate Studies and Research at the University of Saskatchewan.

It is through her leadership and her support of current research that we are learning definitively of the detrimental impacts of the racism perpetrated on aboriginal girls.

Finally, Senator Dyck's bill would afford indigenous women and girls protection similar to that given to others in the Criminal Code, such as taxi drivers and transit workers.

In debate so far on this bill, we have heard technical legal arguments from hon. colleagues in the official opposition about how this bill is not an appropriate avenue for addressing the failings of the justice system to protect indigenous women and girls. To that I say that technically, the law is not to discriminate; technically, the law is not to be sexist or racist in its application; and technically, the law is to enforce the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I rest my case.

We have heard from some on the government side, such as the special adviser to the Prime Minister on LGBTQ2 issues, the MP for Edmonton Centre, who in his speech during debate called for a broad-based, holistic approach as the best way to ensure better protection for indigenous women and girls.

First, I must object to the member's paternalistic tone and the choice of language in his comments. He stated that his way or the government's way is the best way—not a better way, but the best way. It is presumptuous of any member to state that his or her way is the best way. Further, terminology like “broad-based” and “holistic” are words that say to me that the government wants indigenous women and girls to continue to wait for justice and equal protection under the law.

Iskwewuk E-wichiwitochik, Women Walking Together, is a local women-led volunteer group in Saskatoon that has been supporting families and relatives of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls since 2005. Most recently, in 2018, the founders of the group, Darlene Okemaysim-Sicotte and Myrna LaPlante, received the YWCA Women of Distinction Award for their work.

Darlene and Myrna, along with the volunteer members of Women Walking Together, fully support Bill S-215. This endorsement must be respected and hold much weight in our deliberations on the bill, as it comes from women who know first-hand the impact of the epidemic of violence against indigenous women and girls and who combat every day the indifference of the institutions meant to protect women and girls.

Long before this chamber was talking about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, these women were speaking out, helping families and getting results. This House can do something now to change the lives of indigenous women and girls. We can pass Bill S-215 and begin to see justice served to all Canadians; not just some Canadians.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill S-215, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which was introduced in the Senate on December 11, 2015, by the Hon. Senator Lillian Dyck. The bill's objective is to provide greater protection to indigenous women from certain violent offences.

I wish to note at the outset that this critical issue is currently being studied in the context of the National Inquiry into missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which is examining institutional policies and practices that have been put in place as a response to violence, including those that have been effective in reducing violence and increasing the safety of women and girls.

As many of the constituents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park have indicated to me, indigenous women are disproportionately impacted by violent crime. Therefore, I know that we all support the pressing objective that Bill S-215 identifies.

Bill S-215 seeks to achieve its objective through new provisions that would require a sentencing judge to treat the fact that a victim is an aboriginal woman as an aggravating factor when sentencing an offender for certain specific offences, including murder, assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm and sexual assault. If a judge determines that an aggravating factor is present in a given case, a higher sentence is expected to be imposed.

Denouncing and deterring violent offences against indigenous women is critical. However, after significant reflection, it is incumbent upon us to express the government's concerns about the potential effectiveness of the bill's reforms in achieving the important objective which it targets.

Specifically, Bill S-215's proposed reforms may duplicate or conflict with existing sentencing provisions and may be under-inclusive in terms of protecting indigenous women, as well as similarly vulnerable victims, from all violent crimes.

Notably, the Criminal Code already requires sentencing judges to treat as aggravating factors the fact that an offence was motivated by hate based on gender or race or the fact that the offender abused a spouse, common-law partner or child. That is covered in section 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the Gladue principle, which is entrenched in the Criminal Code as a sentencing principle at paragraph 718.2(e), requires sentencing judges to consider the unique systemic and background factors that contributed to the commission of the offence, as well as all reasonable alternatives to imprisonment, when sentencing indigenous offenders.

Bill S-215's proposed aggravating factor may complicate the application of the Gladue principle. For example, in cases involving a female indigenous victim and an indigenous offender, a sentencing judge would be required both to lengthen the sentence for an indigenous offender's criminal conduct against an indigenous woman and, at the same time, to consider alternatives to incarceration, particularly in cases involving less serious types of offences, such as simple assault.

Assault is one of the most common offences charged in the context of intimate partner violence, and we know that this type of violence occurs in all cultures.

Although interpersonal violence is always a serious matter, we must keep in mind that Canada's definition of assault is broad and applies to any intentional and non-consensual application of force. ln some cases, especially those involving less serious forms of offending, incarceration may not always be the most appropriate response. Nor may it be the response supported by the victim, for example, in the context of intimate partner violence where the offender provides financial support to his family or takes care of the children while the spouse does so.

I am also concerned that the proposed aggravating factor may be too narrowly construed. Allow me to explain. For example, it would apply only to offenders sentenced for specific violent offences, such as uttering threats, assault, sexual assault and murder, but not to other types of offenders, such as those sentenced for human trafficking or other serious offences for which indigenous women and girls are overrepresented as victims.

These types of offenders are generally not indigenous themselves; rather, they may specifically target indigenous women because of their gender and ethnicity. For example, we know that indigenous women and girls are disproportionately represented among the vulnerable people who are sexually exploited in Canada. For that we can refer to the Department of Justice's 2014 technical paper on what was then Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act.

We also know that indigenous women and girls are targeted for this type of exploitation precisely because of their vulnerability such that applying the proposed aggravating factor to simple assault, but not to human trafficking, seems incongruous in this context.

Bill S-215's aggravating factors would also not apply to offenders sentenced for violent crimes committed against non-indigenous female victims, some of whom may be similarly marginalized and vulnerable to predation. My specific concern here is that this type of approach could create an unintended “hierarchy” of victimization. It is important to point that out.

Also, in certain types of cases, aggravating factors may be inapplicable or apply only in the determination of the period of parole ineligibility. For example, first degree murder, as well as second degree murder where the offender was previously convicted of murder, is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until 25 years has been served. Otherwise, second degree murder is punishable by a mandatory minimum penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole until at least 10 years and up to 25 years has been served.

Therefore, in murder cases, aggravating factors can only be taken into account in determining the period of parole ineligibility, i.e., 10 to 25 years, for an offender sentenced for second degree murder, as long as the offender was not previously convicted of murder.

For all these reasons, there are concerns about the potential effectiveness of Bill S-215's proposed reforms in achieving the bill's objectives. ln certain situations, the proposed reforms may even create results that are inconsistent with their objectives. Therefore, I suggest that the bill's objectives and proposed reforms be further studied with a view to determining whether there are other ways to achieve its objectives, while avoiding the potential unintended consequences that I have just described.

Examining the impact of criminal legislation on indigenous persons is a critical part of ensuring that legislation responds appropriately to the unique lived realities, which are the result of a long history involving many different forms of abuse stemming from colonization.

ln particular, indigenous persons are overrepresented as both victims and offenders. A piecemeal approach to law reform, given this complex social context, could have unforeseen and undesirable consequences.

The complexity of these issues is reflected in the January 2016 FPT framework to address violence against indigenous women and girls, which identifies principles and priorities to assist in improving how the justice system prevents and responds to this type of violence. The framework concludes with a poignant statement on the multi-sectoral response that is required:

Violence against Indigenous women and girls is a serious concern in this country. The causes of the violence are complex, but closely linked to historical government policies, which led to current conditions of low socio-economic status and vulnerability to violence. There is no simple or singular solution to this issue. Stopping the violence will require the combined efforts of multiple sectors and stakeholders.

I therefore stress the importance of taking into consideration all of the complexities of this issue when analyzing what can be done to improve the protection of indigenous women from violent victimization. Significantly, the missing and murdered indigenous women inquiry's report, which is expected to be released this spring, will provide important recommendations for concrete and effective action that can be taken to remove systemic causes of violence and increase the safety of indigenous women and girls.