 So we're going to get started in a couple of minutes here just for the people that are joining us and just waiting for a few more people to join. Okay, so I think we're good to go ahead. So hi everyone, thank you for joining us this evening. For those of you who don't know me, which might be some of you in attendance. My name is Maria Duga. I'm a professor at the school of law, and although I don't actually teach in criminal law. When I was articulating I did practice at the youth criminal justice office at Nova Scotia legal aid. And I also do research at the intersection of race and the criminal justice system. I'm very much looking forward to today's panel on criminal law and cultural competency with our three guest speakers from McKillop picked a law group, all of whom are graduates of the school of law. I just, I'll say this at the outset, we do have the question and answer function running so if you want to post questions into that as we go. I'll then pose those questions for speakers at the end of the presentation. So I'm really excited to welcome our three guest speakers that we have with us this evening. Alex McKillop is a partner at McKillop law group in Halifax. He's originally from Truro. He earned his bachelor of arts and criminology from St. Mary's before attending Dow for his law degree. He was called to the Nova Scotia Bart in June of 2016. He graduated from law school Mr. McKillop interned with the public prosecution service and worked in the tax and civil litigation sector of the federal Department of Justice. He has a general practice with a focus on criminal law, and he has appeared before the provincial court the Nova Scotia Supreme Court and the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. He also practices in the area of Canada's law as well. The Nova Scotia Barrister Society's racial equity committee, the criminal law professional standards committee, the criminal lawyers association, the Dalhousie pro bono committee and the Canadian bar association. Next we have Jade Picto, who is also a partner and McKillop, sorry McKillop Picto law group, and prior to attending law school she earned her BA in political science. She was a member of the Nova Scotia bar in 2016. Miss Picto article cold with Halifax water, McGinnis Cooper, the Subaga negative first nation, and the treaty and Aboriginal rights research center before moving into private practice. Her primary focus is criminal defense, indigenous and Aboriginal law. She's also a member of the NSBS racial equity committee and the criminal law professional standards committee. She's a member of the Dalhousie pro bono community advisory committee and a board member for the Elizabeth Fry society of mainland Nova Scotia, the Dalhousie legal aid society and Alcare Place. She's also a member of the Nova Scotia criminal lawyers association and the Canadian bar association. And finally we have Hannah garson, who is a lawyer with McKillop Picto law group. She earned her bachelor's degree from York University and her JD from Dow. She practices criminal defense and prison law, including representing clients at the parole board on habeas corpus applications and institutional disciplinary hearings. She's the executive director of the East Coast Prison Justice Society, a member of the Nova Scotia criminal lawyers association, the Canadian prison law association, and a former board member for the Elizabeth Fry society of mainland Nova Scotia. She has various publications related to criminal justice and prison law, including human rights and action, a handbook for women and provincial jails in Nova Scotia and habeas corpus in Nova Scotia and accessible guide. I think from these bios were very lucky to have these three panelists joining us this evening to speak to us about criminal law and cultural competency. And so without kind of further ado, I'll turn things over. I believe that Hannah is going to get us started. Thank you very much for the introduction, Maria. Before getting started, I just want to say that my place on this panel for cultural competency comes, I guess, with an acknowledgement that it's more of an attempt for me to be culturally competent. And it's a perpetual attempt. And not something that I can claim whether or not I know that I always succeed at. It's more something that I really try to work towards. And hopefully I get feedback. So it can let me know whether or not I have a lot to work on, or just a little to work on, but always something to work on. My focus for what I'm going to be discussing is how I whether or not I managed to be successful in my endeavor. Try to focus on being culturally competent and why I try to focus on being culturally competent in my building of my solicitor client relationships. The context of that will be in my criminal defense work, though some of it also plays a role in my prison law representation. Although the jeopardies are significantly different. So I would say it is more relevant in criminal defense work. So the focus without a doubt for being again in my attempt to be culturally competent is on getting to know my client. And that is meeting them where they are in the context of their life at that time whatever their life previously has entailed. And that can require investment of very little energy or a whole bunch of energy. And I will say the energy often doesn't accord with the seriousness of the criminal matter. It more has to do with a particular individual. So, sometimes the relationship building doesn't often look like I guess hard core legal work, it doesn't look like legal research it doesn't look like understanding the particular elements of an offense. And so, you know, sometimes questions can be asked, well, what is the reasoning behind this investment of time and energy but it does map at least in my particular experience, directly on to being able to be an effective defense counsel for my clients. And again just to define a little bit my understanding of cultural competence is part of it is racial but it's actually intersectional. So everybody in my experience has formed their identity based on a whole myriad of factors. Some of them are racial identity whether or not one identifies or the identity is foisted on you. Or any other number of factors and how one has been forced to and then chosen to navigate the world around them. And obviously, many of these identities involve power dynamics, and those power dynamics impact how somebody has come into contact with a criminal justice and sometimes clients really want to speak about this. Sometimes they really don't want to speak about this and sometimes you can't really tell until you try to engage with them. So, I'm going to speak up a little bit about how I found it can be relevant to mapping directly on to my capacity to represent my, my clients. So, the most relevant obvious context would be that of sentencing, but I think it actually comes in far before that. So for example, building just off the bat a solicitor client relationship. I have had a variety of instances where individuals have been noted to be particularly challenging. And instead, they are individuals who have had for reasons that are actually quite understandable. Full lives of difficult experiences with various representations of the state that at this point is taking the form of the criminal justice system and counsel often counsel that appears to be white. And if it's somebody who claims to be somebody on their side. If they haven't taken the time to demonstrate not just through words or the presumption that they're there to represent that individual's best interest. It is difficult for that particular client to actually ever form a trust solicitor client relationship. Why that matters is because you may get a very different version of events from somebody. You also, at least in my limited experience. They may also disclose things to you that become relevant at sentencing because they contextualize an understanding of somebody's behavior. Many of the things that they may recount to you are quite personal and simply would not be able to be shared in a relationship if there wasn't really a trust and bond there. Also lack of trust. I guess any kind of basic psychology would say somebody if they're feeling their back is up against a wall may lash out and a different version of that person who may qualify for a lesser sentence or just in terms of demeanor though we know demeanor is not always trustworthy but people do tend to judge. A different you might need a very different version of that same client. If you've taken the time to show them that you see. It's your obligation to. Give them an example of an encounter with a state representative that isn't negative so as a person who is privileged white and a member of a professional group. I, even though as defense counsel. I am representing the institution. And they many of my clients, I feel have no reason to trust me. And instead of feeling frustrated when they come to me with lack of trust. I try to take it on is my obligation. To demonstrate through actions, not just words that I can be somebody who tries to make to show them that they can feel heard. And perhaps, if I'm able to enable good communication with them, I can then try to continue to make my responsibility bringing some of those things with their consent to the attention of the crime prosecutors or the court. Because, other than in some rare examples, the court, nor the public prosecution have any way to be culturally competent, unless I draw to their attention. That is my responsibility as a contact person with my client. So. So I feel cultural competence should be experienced as an obligation on me as a duty that I owe. So that's in the context of developing trust to form a solicitor client relationship, but it also becomes relevant in the actual defense of allegations sometimes, not always but it can depending on the allegation. So for example, a person who has a lifetime history of negative experiences with individuals who represent the state. And then they have an allegation that involves, for example, threatening a peace officer or something. It may be, should you draw attention to, or if not a peace officer, another representative of the state in some way. So should you know and understand the context in which that offense has occurred. It may be relevant to the consideration of whether or not continued prosecution is actually in the best interest of the public, which is one of the two questions that crown prosecutors ask themselves, we're determining whether or not to continue a course of prosecution. If you do not contextualize those events to the crown prosecutor, they have no way of understanding whether or not it truly is in the best interest. Additionally, it can be relevant should that individual decide to go to trial, because unless you engage in some kind of gardener hearing or where you can test the facts, even if your, your client ends up being convicted at trial in determining what is a fit inappropriate case is often largely determined by which facts came out during trial. And unless you've had the many discussions to establish with your client, what the surrounding context is of why whatever occurred occurred which can be a lifetime of occurrences. Not that you need to discuss their entire lifetime nobody has time for that. Without that context you'll be unable to I believe effectively bring out facts that may later affect what could be a fit inappropriate sentence. Again, even decisions like whether or not somebody should take the stand which is their decision, however, something that you can give advice on. So as a defense counsel my job is nothing like a judge as counsel in as defense counsel in giving advice. One has to make innumerable micro judgments during your interaction with somebody. We judge people's demeanor. We judge people's speech patterns. If you run without understanding of cultural context wrong advice can be given, not that advice is either right or wrong it's usually some kind of gray area, but I guess uninformed or culturally insensitive advice can be given people's demeanors can be misinterpreted. So these snap micro judgments can really add up and so for example you may think what this person's going to be terrible on the stand. Perhaps you never established a trusting solicitor client relationship with them. I haven't really seen the demeanor that they would be able to show should that different solicitor client relationship have been shown. So, in my experience, I have been shown, I believe that taking the time to be culturally competent truly affects each stage of solicitor client relationship and then the, the heart and fast legal advice in capacity to run trials and sentencing and negotiations that follow. I don't believe that those are largely my comments for now. But thank you very much, Maria for asking me to speak here. Great. Thank you. I think next we have Alex. Yes, perfect. Thank you so much and I really appreciate your comments and thank you everyone for taking your time on a weekday night around 6pm to sit here and listen to the three of us attempt to try to discuss cultural competency. As a lawyer, my goal is always to be the best advocate that I can be from my client and being culturally competent is extremely important to meet that goal. If you are culturally competent, then it can assist you in understanding all the intricacies that come with being a counsel and help you really unpack a file so that you can really advocate and defend your client to the best of your ability. Now, I have a quote that I want to share with everyone that was actually from Jackie Berkeley and Robert right, and it was from the society record back in 2014. The legal persons influence in the conduct or the outcome of legal proceedings must be expected to have some baseline or minimum capacity to contextualize race and the relevant historical and current socio cultural variables affecting the outcome of legal proceedings. So it can sound like a mouthful but to put it plainly, if you're part of the justice system, you're expected to have some understanding of race and how it affects all aspects of the justice system and how it intertwines with the justice system. So I think a quick example be our versus parks which is the Ontario core repeal decision from 1993. Anyone who's practice in criminal law and who has had to deal with jury trials should know this case. Essentially what happened was that a judge refused to allow for defense counsel to ask particular questions I touched upon race. The question was around the ability as to whether or not the juror would be able to judge the accused who was a black Jamaican, and the deceased who was white without having any type of bias or prejudice. Now the judge refused to allow for that question to be asked, and the actual conviction was overturned on appeal because of the fact that the judge did not permit that question to be asked. So right then and there shows that the justice system whether it's defense counsel crown or the actual judge itself or justice presiding over the matter, if they don't have the fundamental understanding of the cultural factors that are a play, it can really result in a miscarriage of justice. Now, history is also extremely important whenever you're looking at cultural competency because history helps provide a foundation for the understanding and the intricacies of it. As a defense attorney we're reviewing precedents every day. So precedents are a form of history looking at case law and looking how it builds and relying upon that. Now the history of racism is also important to understand all the factors that are play as well. All you need to do is look at the Donald Marshall jr. inquiry, looking at that from 1989 were 32 years later and a lot of the recommendations that were in the inquiry, still haven't been implemented. One of the recommendations that was made was that a study should be done considering the proportional representation of visible minorities. So essentially the over representation of African Nova Scotians and indigenous persons in the justice system. Now Nova Scotia has a history of colonel colonelization also a slavery segregation, and the exclusion of racialized persons. So looking at that helps illuminate the reasons as to why race is an issue. Now a case that I think is a perfect segue from that statement is our DS, which is a 1997 Supreme Court of Canada decision. And in that actual decision, the Supreme Court advice that the reasonable person is cognizant of racialized dynamics and local communities and as a member of this community is supportive of the principles of equality. So basically all persons should be aware and have working knowledge of the racialized narrative. And that is extremely important because that was a Supreme Court of Canada saying that 1997 so eight years after Donald Marshall jr. inquiry. Now, oftentimes you'll hear the our word racism, referred to as unconscious bias. I find that it makes people more comfortable when discussing the racism the our word, and it allows for a safe place so people can discuss it a bit more. It's fine, but the African Nova Scotia community already has a distrust based on racism and based on the systemic issues they've faced throughout the years. And if you take this foundation mistrust and you add on top of it the over representation of our people in the criminal justice system were left at a very horrendous point. To be quite frank look at our sister country the US and all I need to say are numerous names such as George Floyd and other names like that. You'll see that this issue not only misrepresentation but having the justice system be used as a tool against our people continues to proceed even today in 2021. So, no one can sit there and say that racism doesn't exist and it doesn't play a factor so that's why looking at the history is important, so that you can really pinpoint and show. Wait a second colonization, look at Africa look at all these different things that have happened so that you can really protect your client and protect your client's interest with seeing as Hannah use the state and seeing how the state is projected. Some of the issues upon our clients. Now, just thinking broadly right now carding carding was an issue that you'll see in the media quite frequently. It was a live topic and Minister fury spoke about as well. I can advise I've been in court pulling out news articles and pulling out whatever I could to demonstrate that the situation my client was facing at the time is a similar situation that is constantly going on such as a carding issue. And that's why it was important for me to be quote unquote culturally confident so that I was aware of that issue of carding and also able to bring that up to the crown and bring it up to the court so that the court could deal with that individual person specifically in those specific circumstances. Another example that would be DWB driving while black. Now, as an advocate understanding all these racial dynamics can help our clients and help serve them to the best of our interests. So one of the first places I always start with, no matter what culture it is, is respect and understanding. I find that understanding one's culture and understanding the interest intricacies of it and having respect for it can help put you at a good foundation of where to start. Now, as I previously noted such as a carding issue or DWB driving more black. Once you're able to understand and respect the situation then you can see it and it's illuminated right in front of your eyes. So the next step once you've actually pinpointed the problem is what tools do you use to actually address the issue itself. There are many tools that are used throughout the criminal justice system specifically with sentencing I know the hand and briefly touched upon as well, such as calling evidence from an expert who has expertise who has been qualified by an expert. It's really important that as a defense attorney that you are properly putting that evidence before the court, because no matter how quote unquote woke your judges or how much they understand cultural competency, you have to properly put the evidence before them so that they can rely upon that evidence and provide a proper analysis and give you the decision that you want at the end of the day. So one of the tools that is often used dealing with African Nova Scotians is cultural impact assessments which I'll refer to a CIA is moving forward and cultural impact assessments to put it plainly or essentially like a pre sentence report on steroids, where it provides a good background of the individual person, taking into account, all the systemic issues that they've had to face, and all the systemic issues that they face throughout their life. I do think that CIA's were birthed by now justice and Derek at the time judge and Derek in 2014 and our versus X. This is what I commonly refer to as a perfect storm. It had the right Defense Council, it had the right judge it had Robert right who was the person who wrote the report in this and it all just seemed to happen at the right time with the right parties involved. And justice X was an extremely important and monumental decision from my perspective, because it really gave life to cultural impact assessment CIA's. There's also the R versus Gabriel decision, which was fearlessly advocated by Jeff Newton and also brain and role who are both members of the Nova Scotia legal aid lawyer roster, both excellent attorneys and they both did an extremely job of putting the argument forward and justice Campbell also digested it properly and understood what they're dealing with. In the case I'll continue to grow. One might think this next one is the same as plug but RV lands Perry that was a 2018 NSSC number 16 decision. That was a report decision for myself and also Jade picked up. And the interesting part of both this was that it actually included not only a CIA, but also a glad to report. So the intersectionality of both of that really had to heighten the cultural competence of council to properly put forward those arguments because the other thing is, it's not just putting the reports before the actual court or putting the evidence before the court, but also properly arguing it. So one of the issues that I find that some council will do is they simply referred to a race production, which is not the proper analysis at all. What you need to look at is the moral blame worthiness of the individual and looking at the actual reports you have whether it be a CIA or glad to report to actually properly quantify the moral blame worthiness of the individual and what they had to go through their entire life. All of those were extremely important because it assisted the actual person and barely having their matter heard. But as you can continue to see the cases evolve over time. We had the Ontario Supreme Court decision and RV Jackson which is a 2018 decision, and that also continue to show the value of CIA's and show the value that have the court and also the court continue to recognize the value that they have. Early on it was difficult in trying to discuss with the courts or discuss with the crowns, the actual importance and the value of these reports because not everyone understood it. Not everyone has lived a racialized life and not everyone has had to go through the simple micro assaults or the different things that racialized or marginalized communities had to face. So it is important to also see that as these case law continues to evolve the courts and the crowns and other defense attorneys have been more cognizant of it and understood it a lot more and we're able to digest it a lot better and actually understand that it's not a race reduction that it goes to the moral blame worthiness of the individual, which I think is extremely important when we're looking at these situations. Now, it's also important to be aware as well that not everything is perfect now. I've heard of information where there's still justices in our courts that are having difficulty with digesting CIA's and just don't know how to handle them. So that's why it's extremely important for us as criminal defense attorneys whether it be crown or defense as I just said, that we understand it really understand it so that when we get those situations and get those tough questions from the bench that we're doing those properly and to answer any questions and to assist the judge or the justice and properly analyzing the evidence we have before the court. Now, my hope is that eventually CIA's will be enumerating the criminal code, someone how glad your reports are in a way under section 718.2 sub E. I hope that someday we'll have sub F and it will make reference to African Nova Scotians as well. So if those cultural impact assessments are more readily available, and it becomes more of an onus on counsel to put it forward and not just a fence but also the crown. Hannah and Jade will hear me say this all the time but the justice system is like a canoe and defense and crown are inside of the canoe. And if only one of them is working and only one of them is rowing the canoes is going to go in circles the justice system will go in circles. And both the crown and the defense are working together, the justice system as a canoe will go forward and meet his ultimate goal, which is to make sure that justice is done, and is also seen to be done. Now, I also think it's important to advise everyone that this can be extremely emotionally draining. On this occasion, we're miss picked on our working on files involving letter report or cultural impact assessments and, as I've already said, you need to be able to properly advocate that to the court which obviously involves understanding them, and having to read what people have been through, and having to understand that as a human you're taking on part of that trauma. You're looking down these paths and you're realizing, you know that you want to be culturally competent you're looking to do different reports and you're looking to get up to speed on different stuff. Realize that that can be emotionally taxing on you and realize that you need to take some hour and hour oftentimes and that your client is aware of the trauma that they will have to relive while doing these reports. Here I tell them before they get those reports to make sure you talk to your client about it and prepare your client and prepare the family, because oftentimes it involves involving the family interview in the family, and the trauma sustained it's it's monumentous. We've had different clients at times where they've gone back to the cell and they just, they've been a mess right here in the actual CIA, and the documents get in the information get relayed to the, to the gallery to the courts, and touching upon those little details and it just can be really emotionally taxing and draining so I urge everyone and I want to cautious everyone that they make sure to have those conversations those tough conversations with their clients about what to expect when they're completing the reports, and also as lawyers to expect that. While we're fearless advocates were not always invincible. And so oftentimes you just got to make sure to take some time to address that. The next thing I'd like to point out is the cost that can be associated with cultural impact assessments. And when I first started requesting them, Robert right I believe charge around $10,000 land, the claim charges around $5,000. The courts have been more prepared to actually front the cost when you try to get the court to order it. Also, if you provide an explanation to legal aid on a legal aid client as to what you're looking for, and provide a nice outline as to why you want this largest disbursement legal aid I've never had any declines from legal aid if you provide the explanation as to what you're looking for legal aid is more than happy understanding the cultural aspect of it, and being culturally confident themselves as much as they try to be in can be, and every way to help support your client and to help front that cost. Because if not, we're already dealing with marginalized communities where there's economic issues, and you're asking your client to fork over $5 to $10,000 to get a report done, but just take solace knowing that the courts are more apt to provide those and to front the cost, and legal aid is there to provide assistance. So don't suffer in silence and make sure that you reach out and and obtain the resources you need to get the actual reports and get it. Those will be my comments and I would just like to say that if anyone ever has any questions or wants to know the process and getting it, or getting a cultural impact assessment feel free to reach out to me anytime, and I'd be more than happy to assist. Thank you so much, Alex. Just before we turn it over to Jade, I just wanted to jump in and add that there are two cases on cultural assessments or Urca is currently before courts of appeal so there's the Morris decision is being heard. There's the New Ontario Court of Appeal, I believe around February 11, and then RV Anderson is set to be heard by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in March. So although we won't have our criminal code amendment by that point. At least maybe we'll have some guidance from the courts of appeal to back up or give some strength to these reports going forward. Perfect. Thank you everyone for coming tonight I know it's really late. I can say it's an honor to be here. The other case that was coming to mind as Alex was talking about cultural impact assessments is RV Jackson out of the Ontario Court of Supreme Court. That is a fantastic decision in which the justice in that particular case took judicial notice of numerous factors such as over representations of individuals incarcerated, also talking about under employment and also slavery. So those things can also be utilized on a judicial notice basis. So it makes it a little bit easier in court to have that judicial notice behind you to support your argument so that necessarily you don't need to have as strong as a foundation as what perhaps is perceived, especially when you're looking at bail and sentencing for individuals who perhaps are in custody and you're trying to get out very quickly. It's a little bit more accessible I would say in those circumstances, but in terms of my role tonight I'm going to be talking a lot about glad you factors. But at the same time, in terms of going through glad you we are also looking at all culture. Hannah also mentioned earlier that you know she's always learning but it's fair to say we're all always learning because culture is so different for everyone. And I think our law is advancing in a lot of ways and we've started with glad you and some sense in the sense that it's entrenched in our criminal code. We're working on it in terms of especially African Nova Scotians and cultural impact assessments and perhaps having that criminal code amendment to include that. We also have to look at other individuals who come from different cultural backgrounds and how our criminal justice system is affecting that, particularly in Nova Scotia we know in individuals who are immigrating to Nova Scotia are being actually processed through our courts at higher numbers as well at this point. So we have to look at those factors as well. So I don't know if anybody had the chance to look at the policies, particularly pertaining to crown attorneys also in the province. So Josie McKinney actually created the document, and there was consultation with indigenous lawyers throughout the province. It's a fair treatment of indigenous people in the criminal prosecutions in Nova Scotia. So it pertains to crown attorneys obligations in terms of how they move forward in prosecutions of individuals who come from indigenous descent. So it really, and I feel like a lot of the time we always think that defense attorneys have this obligation to put forward these types of arguments and we do have those obligations. Obligations also pertain to the crown, especially when we're dealing with self represented individuals that are before the court. It comes down to the crown and members of our judiciary to make those types of increase from the offset of those individuals when they're coming into the court system to see how they identify and also having an understanding of what identity means. So one thing I see time and time again are specifically with indigenous populations. A lot of people say, you know, I'm not indigenous. I'm non status. Well, that doesn't mean you're not indigenous. It needs to be looked into and means to be discussed a lot more. A lot of the time indigenous persons who are living off reserve don't feel as though they're part of the community. And they don't necessarily want to self identify so it's about being able to explain that to them to understand that your identity is more than where you live. It is more than just being a member or qualified under the Indian Act. It's a lot more than just those things. It's about the community. It's about how you embrace your culture. It's also looking at the systemic factors that perhaps created a distance between you and your culture, such as being being a part of child welfare system being taken away from your home being taken away from your indigenous community that doesn't take away who you are. So it's about being able to have those conversations with your client and also being having conversations perhaps with individuals who are self represented and it comes at somewhat of a cost in the sense that you may not be always comfortable having those conversations but that's what it's meaning to be culturally competent in the sense that you have to fearlessly be able to have those conversations with individuals because that's how you're going to best represent them. And that's how you're going to best get the representation that they need before the courts. So in terms of the policy that comes in. Obviously the crown has an obligation also to put forward glad to factors. Just as much as the defense does. So in terms of that and how it begins is, first and foremost, do you prosecute. We heard from Hannah and we heard from Alex in the sense that we have to look at the specific circumstances of the offense to make a decision as to whether or not to prosecute. Is this an instance where somebody was driving while black. Is this a case where somebody who resisted arrest because they had distrust for the police. Those are all things that the crown needs to consider before to making that decision to prosecute. And in terms of the decision to prosecute. We also have to consider whether or not those matters need to be referred possibly to a restorative justice. Because restorative justice, perhaps for indigenous people, give it back to the community in the sense that they'll then have access to make more legal support network. If they're referred properly. And that's why it's also important to have those conversations because once that referral goes over to probation services and then goes to community justice, it doesn't always make it to make more legal support network either unless there's a self identifying feature there. So it's also on the onus to make sure that that is happening whether or not that restorative justice referral is happening out of Rainman day, because we need to know where that needs to be to make sure that that individual that's coming before the court is in the right place and in the right hands, and it's getting the healing mechanisms they require. It's not a legal support network. It is an organization that will help indigenous people who are going through the criminal justice system, whether or not you're an accused, or whether or not you are also a victim, or a complainant in circumstances. It's a mechanism to provide that additional support and explanation in terms of how to go forward. They are also the organization you'll go to for gladu reports, whether or not it's the smaller gladu reports that can be utilized for bail, or it's the larger gladu reports that can be utilized for sentencing. They can also be there for with your client perhaps through the time of trial and throughout all their court appearances. I know about me while we go support network is they typically know how to find your clients if they ever go missing, they will help you in terms of tracking down your client because they have all of the networks available. There's also the ability to utilize healing circles through them at the end goal for sentencing as well to make sure that your client is on that right path forward, and being followed up on and making sure they're getting the services and the access to services they need. So in terms of arraignment, crowns also have to make a decision in most cases to either proceed summarily or indictably. It's important to look at the file and understand who you who is before you when you're making that type of decision and looking at the file in the sense of has raised played a part in that individual coming before the court. It's also a part in terms of their interactions with police on that particular instance and what do you do about that in those circumstances, but also looking at the over representation of Indigenous and African Nova Scotians in our criminal justice system, and understanding that if you proceed indictably, it's a more serious matter. And perhaps that may mean that that individual goes to jail. We're looking at those determinations at the right time, and from the get go, instead of thinking about it just at sentencing race doesn't just come into play at sentencing. At the end of the day, the person who's coming before the court is either Indigenous, they're black, or there are some other form. And at this time, you have to be open to those types of considerations because if we're just dealing with it at failing. And that's the problem that we're seeing in our courts. Our numbers are not getting better, we're still seeing the overrepresentation, the numbers are actually getting worse as time goes on, because we're not getting things from the starting point. It's nice that we're dealing with it on sentencing, we're having amazing decisions coming out of our courts on sentencing, but we need to see it in trial, we need to see it in bail, and we need to see it in terms of how the crowns are dealing with matters as soon as they come into the court. So in terms of arraignment as well, you need to know this because you need to make the referral to make a molecule support network right off the bat. Get them involved, especially when it even comes to complainants or victims and matters, because you're going to have to know who is on the other side of that file. Are they going to require an eagle feather if it goes to trial? Are they going to need different support services? There's now victim support workers through Mingma legal support network. Nikki Farqua is one of them. These are all things that can be utilized that help with the process and also help with the distrust in our system, because it also gives a way for communities to come back into the system and take ownership over some of it. The other thing we need to look at is bail. Bail is something that has been talked about for a very long time. It's the first step in the process. You have somebody who's coming off the streets, they're coming into a correctional facility, and they're trying to get released. The crowns have to look at this from a different perspective. Hindsight is somewhat 20-20 in the sense that we want to utilize gledue factors in a way that perhaps is negative, and I think that's also creating this over-incarceration of indigenous populations in African Nova Scotians in our custodial system. We look at having addiction issues. We look at having poverty as being negatives, which they are, but we have to understand how to support that in terms of a bail plan, and we have to look at it with a different lens to be able to understand how to fix those particular issues, what resources to reach out to, to make sure that a proper plan can be put in place to ensure those individuals can be released from custody instead of leaving them there. That is creating the over-representation. We look at our Rayman numbers here in Nova Scotia. They're substantial. We did very well through COVID. Those numbers are up, and they're keep going up at this point as well because we're starting to lose sight of that. We know that the numbers of incarcerated people who are on Rayman can be drastically reduced here in Nova Scotia, and it can be done safely. In terms of bail, the other thing is MiGma Legal Support Network will also draft smaller GLaDU reports that will talk about factors that are plaguing indigenous communities, particularly the individual that is coming before the court. In some circumstances, as a defense attorney, you have to call evidence because you simply want to get that client out of jail that day, and you don't want to wait two weeks for that report to come through because sometimes it's not worth it. At the same time, as Alex was saying earlier, you have to tell your client that there's a risk of retraumatization because a lot of the time they don't understand how race has played a part in them coming before the court. They're not looking at all of the different things that led them to that particular moment in time that made that one decision, and it can be very disheartening to hear that. I recall running a bail hearing in Dartmouth Provincial Court years ago, and at the end of everything, he pretty much checked off every GLaDU factor there was, and I asked him, have you felt racism, whether it be overt or covert? And he said no. After being in child welfare, sustaining every type of abuse known to man, having every disadvantage, everything, and he still didn't understand what led him to be in that position that he was in. And at the end of the day, he was released, but as Alex said, a lot of the time those individuals go back to custody and they're not being treated. They're going back into remand into a provincial institution, and there's no healing happening after all of that. So one thing I try to do, particularly when I'm dealing with bail, unless I need to or even sentencing, I don't bring up those significant factors because I really heavily rely on GLaDU reports and cultural impact assessments to bring those factors out because I want to reduce the retraumatization to my clients. And it's a scary thing to go through. And I usually say that at the outset of a sentencing is that I'm not going to go into details in regards to the GLaDU report, especially when it comes to things such as abuse. A lot of individuals don't want those things to be put on record as much as possible, and they have a sense of either fear or distaste in the system, or even distrust. And those are hard things to talk about when you don't trust the system that you're in right now. It's about being cognizant that you have to make sure that those individuals are comfortable because that's how you're going to rebuild trust in the system and not having to really relay those facts over and over again. Because we have to look at the healing process and that's not creating a healing process. And that's why it's also important to utilize things such as healing circles or even sentencing circles. To be more retraumatizing. They're in a different format in the sense that you're amongst community members you have support persons there with you. It's not in the same venue in the sense that you're not separated from other individuals you're in a circle. You're discussing things that could affect you in the long term in a different way. It's more sense from a cultural level. So even though that is still traumatizing in a lot of ways. It provides some comfort in the sense that you have a circle around you that can potentially help heal. So the other thing you want to talk about is also trial, making sure that eagle feathers are also present in the courtrooms if your client decides to testify and they wish to instead of swearing on a Bible they utilize an eagle feather. As Hannah mentioned, in terms of behaviors understanding that behaviors can be different for individuals of different cultural backgrounds. We also have to understand that there's cultural arguments to be made at trial individuals who have distrust in the system may not react the same way as everybody else, and those things need to be brought up. And those things need to be discussed. Even in terms of a bail hearing I had run previously, it was in front of the Honorable Judge Atwood, and I had a young man with a significant distrust in the system. And Judge Atwood had actually made a finding he ultimately was released from custody that day, but he had a lot of charges involving the police mistrust of police. And he made an ultimate finding that based on where he is from. And, you know, seeing how colonization has impacted him, that he's seen the police as agents of oppression. And he actually said that he's seen them as agents of oppression. And that was a significant finding in the sense that it goes to the mentality of why or why not you don't cooperate with police, and looking at the mens rea component perhaps of those types of arguments, whether or not that's successful. And it's going to be ultimately up to the courts. But at the same time, it's an argument worth making in the sense that the courts potentially could have a better understanding of what is happening in our system and why people are making the decisions that they're making. So in terms of sentencing. I think that's something that's, you know, we talk about quite a bit. We talk about sentencing a lot in our courts. It's not something where we utilize Gladiou reports, but it's about making sure that we're utilizing them correctly, not re traumatizing the individuals coming before the court, and also looking at things that we can do as perhaps defense attorneys in particular, in terms of creating opportunities to perhaps advance our law and challenging provisions in regards to conditional sentence orders, and those availabilities of perhaps conditional discharges, and also challenging mandatory minimums. Those are opportunities that perhaps we have in those circumstances to advance the law and create a circumstance where an individual could get a discharge where they couldn't before could get a community based sentence, or perhaps doesn't go to jail period because there's no mandatory minimum that they're facing. Those circumstances is about making those right calls and we know there's Ontario decisions that just came out in regards to conditional sentence orders, otherwise known as CSOs that are giving opportunities for crowns even to consider community based sentencing, which will reduce the manifestation of Indigenous people and African Nova Scotian people in our justice system who are currently incarcerated. The other thing we have to think about too is what happens after somebody is incarcerated. Where do they go? Well, for the most part, they're either going into a provincial institution that does not have healing processes, that does not have ability and mechanisms that are going to significantly impact rehabilitation. Now, particularly as it relates to Indigenous offenders, once somebody is sentenced to federal time, they're likely given a higher security classification and likely going off to renews instead of going over to the farm. This creates a situation where there's, again, lack of healing, lack of rehabilitation, and those are things that should be considered also on sentencing is the sense that somebody because just their Indigenous based on their factors alone can impact the type of facility they go into. We're hoping ultimately as members of the public and members of the bar and members of the judiciary that we're going to make impacts that are going to be meaningful and make the community safer. How is it making the community safer to send somebody to a violent institution that has no rehabilitative prospects and making sure that they're coming out a changed person. There are circumstances that that happens. We have more success putting people in the community, surrounded by resources, but the other problem with that is that Indigenous populations, Afro-Nova-Scotan populations lack resources, because there is a lack of funding that also comes with that. We look at MIGMOL Legal Support Network as amazing as they are, as amazing of opportunities that they provide. There's not enough staff and there's not enough funding. There's not enough people to complete all of the circles that are needed. There's not enough people to support all the GLaDU reports that are needed. There needs to be more funding to assist with the overrepresentation. And it's also going to create situations where people are able to be processed through the system quicker, because there's huge delays in getting GLaDU reports, and there's huge delays in going through the restorative justice program right now. We need more workers. The other thing that we want to talk about too is issues in regards to parole. We know that GLaDU factors also play a role in that. Although they have to take those things in consideration, and that perhaps can be an error if they don't, you have to make sure that those are not being utilized in the wrong way. So that's something to also consider, I believe it was twins versus AG, which is another decision that talks about that. But those are things that kind of inhibit our ability to move through the justice system in a way that's meaningful, but as defense attorneys and even as crown attorneys and members of the judiciary, we owe the individuals of our society to be culturally competent, because it's going to help support them through this process and hopefully make the system better in terms of its advancement, and also in the sense of decreasing that overrepresentation that we've been failing to do. So it's about having your eyes open and understanding that there's a duty and to move forward in a way that you are not fearful of that duty and that you are moving forward in a way that is going to best allow you to represent your clients and other individuals going through our court system. I believe that's all I have to say for tonight. Thank you again, Maria, and thank you everyone for coming tonight. And as well, I think there's a lot of really helpful information that came out through tonight's presentation. One thing that I think, Jade, that you brought together really nicely at the end there is the fact that it's an obligation on all actors in the justice system right it's the best defense counsel that needs to be thinking okay what are the cultural implications of what's going on here. Crown prosecutors need to filter their work through that lens and the judiciary also has an obligation and a responsibility to filter everything that they're doing through a cultural competency process as well. So I will open us up to questions I noticed that there's one question in the chat that Alex answered but I'm not sure if all of our participation participants are able to see those, or if it's just between the person who posted the question. I'm just going to read it and then Alex if you don't mind jumping on and sharing your answer so that everybody has the benefit of it. So the question is, do you charge your clients for cultural competency knowledge building. If so, that seems unfair for the client. Yeah, I don't have my exact answer in front of me but essentially I just said, good question. No, we don't build clients for that cultural competency is kind of a life skill that you learn every day. It's not like I sit down and research race related articles for two hours and then build that client for it. It's something that you just continue to build knowledge on throughout your life and know we don't build clients for cultural competency knowledge training. Thank you for the question. And I follow up on that as well. A lot of the time, specifically within the first couple of meetings, I don't typically charge clients for those meetings because I think it's, it's valuable in the sense of my relationship with my mind but I don't always see the value in terms of the legal prospect. So I had two calls with a potential client who is indigenous. Those are not calls that I bill for that individuals coming in for a meeting on Thursday. I won't bill for that meeting. It's when things start really getting going that billing perhaps will come into play, but it is so important to build that trusting relationship with those clients because at the end of the day building trust with your client is going to be the most fundamental relationship that they're having because of the basically the liberty restrictions that they're facing in those circumstances. If you don't have trust with your client and your client doesn't have trust with you. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have a relationship. So it's important to put in that time to build those relationships to ensure that trust is there. And there is no monetary amount that's worth that. Because at the end of the day you as a lawyer have to be confident in moving forward in that relationship as well. Great. Thank you for that. We do have another question that came in. How do we respectfully hold judiciaries and crowns accountable for this lens so when they're failing or not kind of doing what we would want or what we would expect them to from a cultural competency perspective. There's a lot of the time with the crowns. It's having conversations as well ahead of time to discuss what perhaps the issues are to ensure that they perhaps understand the argument ahead of time so that you can have a fulsome discussion with them. In terms of holding them accountable. I think it's really going to come down to our judiciary and a lot of ways is to ask those right questions and in terms of our judiciary and holding them accountable. But again, one thing I realized through our judiciary is that they're very open for the most part and you can really have those types of conversations. There are members of the judiciary that I see even online right now. There are other members of the judiciary that I have seen come to other topics such as this that are trying to really advance their knowledge and they're really hitting the nail on the head in terms of cultural competency. And we do see those appeals happening. But at the same time I think that our judiciary is being very conscious and moving forward and trying their best in the circumstances. Just to follow up with that. I know that there was a judicial conference that was held in Cherrybrook I believe two years ago that I was blessed to be a part of. And that was where all the judges were most of the judges came to the community, met with the community to really get entrenched with the culture so they can understand all the dynamics as well so we are extremely lucky with the judiciary that we have. They mentioned appeals but also as I said earlier, properly putting the information and the evidence before the justice or the judge so that you're relying upon the history and the precedents. One thing judges love are precedents and so when you're pointing a case law, particularly from our jurisdiction or a court of appeal or Supreme Court of Canada. That is a benchmark and kind of holds them accountable to the principles and whatnot that are in that actual case law so I would suggest just making sure you have the proper evidence as well to make sure everyone understands where you're at and kind of creating that baseline. Add something to that. So, I guess in my experience with this the first question I tried to ask myself when I feel like perhaps a decision was made from whichever party, whether it be the judiciary or the public prosecution. First of all, likely I could attribute some of it to something I could have articulated or done I didn't and that's always helpful however that only goes so far as no one is. No one can themselves ensure that no their powers of persuasion are the things that are going to carry the day. But then the other question is, was the decision out of malice. And I would say the likelihood that it was out of explicit malice is very slim. And if it wasn't, which is almost all of the time. It can be done within the community because there is a full community of people who wants to work together to ensure that this knowledge is more deeply understood. So for example, should an individual or should a client have an experience like this perhaps. If it was within indigenous client feeling frustrated about what happened perhaps speaking with MLSN because there are community organizations and academics. And activists who have a wealth of knowledge and then the focus becomes well what is the best way to have a discourse that could be helpful after this because I mean and there are appeals or complaints that can be done but then the question is, is it a strictly legal issue or something where if not out of malice perhaps a educational discourse can be motivated because of what happened. I would just add to I mean I don't have the practical experience that all of you have but in continuing to make the arguments so just because it doesn't work the first time that you try and make it doesn't mean it's not going to work further down the line. So I just mentioned RVX and and speaking with the lawyers that were representing the defendant in that case they faced considerable pushback from the crown prosecutors. In that particular case and now we're at a stage, what is like six or seven years later where, yes we're still getting pushed back from the crown on some cases, but it's not as significant, or at least in some cases is not as significant as it was back then so I think that too, in addition to what everybody else has been saying is to just keep trying to make the argument and building up the resources so that it's undeniable that you have you get to a point where you have to be pursuing this line of reasoning because here's all of the evidence that we have to support it. I don't think I see any more questions popping up in the chat maybe I'll ask if there are just any more before I let our panelists go. I know it is getting late on a Tuesday evening so maybe people are feeling a little bit tired today. So I guess with that I'll wrap us up and just say thank you so much to the three of you for donating your time to come speak with us this evening. I know that I personally learned a lot about how to ensure that I would be more cultural culturally competent and also kind of in the work that I do at the law school. So thank you very much for that. I look forward to seeing the things that you do in your careers going forward and reading the case law that you are a part of. Oh we do have a comment in the chat here you are three shining stars of the Nova Scotia legal community. Thank you for the wonderful session. That sums it up better than I could have. So thank you very much and with that I will close us down for the evening. Take care everybody. Thank you everyone have a good evening. Stay safe my friends.