Bill C-583 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to add a definition of “fetal alcohol spectrum disorder” (FASD) and to establish a procedure for assessing individuals who are involved in the criminal justice system and who it is suspected suffer from FASD. It requires the court to consider, as a mitigating factor in sentencing, a determination that the accused suffers from FASD and manifests certain symptoms.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Sapers.

That was extremely interesting, albeit a little discouraging too. You reviewed the implications of the Gladue case very well. The reality does not seem to correspond to what was anticipated at the time. We are now studying Bill C-583, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder). We are just studying it in broad terms.

You are aware of the recommendations that the Canadian Bar Association has made, starting in 2010, about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). The association came back to the issue in 2013 with five very specific recommendations dealing with what correctional services must do. You say that definition perhaps should be broader, and I understand that, but we have to start somewhere because the situation just seems to be becoming more tragic.

Before you made your presentation, you were surely aware of the bill Mr. Leef has introduced, Bill C-583.

Do you think that the bill could help to improve the situation?

[Howard Sapers, Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.

Thank you, committee, for the invitation to appear before you this afternoon in the context of your study of Bill C-583.

I'll speak about some of what it is that we know about the prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and as important, some of what it is that we don't know about the disorder in corrections, and the specific outcomes for federally sentenced offenders affected by fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. I'll comment on the capacity of the Correctional Service of Canada to meet rising mental health care demands in federal prisons, and conclude with some considerations that I believe are relevant to your study of this proposed legislation.

With respect to the prevalence of FAS disorders amongst individuals involved in the criminal justice system, there is no one conclusive or confident dataset, though it is an area that has attracted more research and attention in recent years. Estimates for FAS-disordered individuals amongst correctional populations vary significantly, with numbers typically ranging from about one in 10 to nearly one in four.

It is difficult to reliably establish prevalence rates in correctional settings as there is considerable variation in methods of diagnosis, testing, and case identification. It is complicated by the need for some diagnoses to confirm a history of maternal drinking in a population who were often the victims of abuse, neglect, or subject to intervention by child protection authorities. The impact and interplay of socio-economic factors and criminal justice system involvement in disadvantaged settings suggests that FASD is a substantial problem among youth and adult correctional populations. FASD is a lifelong, clinically recognized disability; an afflicted person does not outgrow their brain injury.

The research to date suggests that individuals with FASD are at increased risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system due to neuropsychological deficits in judgment, difficulty understanding consequences of behaviour, inability to make connections between cause and effect, impulsivity, drug or alcohol misuse, and a failure to learn from past mistakes. The range of cognitive deficits that characterize FASD have important legal and practical implications for the criminal justice system.

As a group these individuals challenge some of the underlying premises of sentencing, namely that defendants understand the relationship between actions, outcomes, guilt, culpability, and punishment. The response of the criminal justice system may, in fact, exacerbate individual difficulties associated with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. For example, sending an FASD-affected person to jail to “learn a lesson” may be an exercise in futility. A sentence founded on specific or general deterrence is not likely to be meaningful for an FASD person.

In 2011 the Correctional Service of Canada conducted one of its first comprehensive research studies of FASD prevalence in federal corrections. It found that amongst a sample of newly admitted adult male offenders aged 30 and under, 10% of the participants met the criteria for a diagnosis of FASD. Another 15% of the sample met some of the diagnostic criteria, but were missing information critical to making or ruling out a positive diagnosis. The rate of FASD amongst this sample is 10 times higher than the current general Canadian incidence estimate, which according to Health Canada is about nine in 1,000.

The research also demonstrates that those diagnosed with FASD had a higher risk and needs rating compared to other offenders. FASD-affected offenders had severe neuropsychological deficits in attention, executive functioning, and adaptive behaviour. They were much more likely to have had multiple convictions and previous periods of incarceration as both youth and adults. Offenders with FASD have more problems adjusting while incarcerated. They are less likely to have completed school, and more likely to have dropped out at an earlier age than other offenders. They are more likely to report a personal and family history of abuse, substance abuse, and delinquency.

Research confirms another important finding that goes to stigma and perception, which is that the level of violence used during the commission of their crimes was not markedly different from non-FASD affected offenders.

Significantly, none of the offenders diagnosed in this research study had been previously identified as being FASD-affected. As the research concludes:

There is a population...within Correctional Service Canada who are affected by FASD who are currently not being recognized upon intake, and are not being offered the types of services or programs that meet their unique needs.... Screening to identify those at risk for an FASD is necessary and has been demonstrated as feasible in a correctional context.

Four years later, Corrections Canada still does not routinely screen for FAS disorder among newly admitted, federally sentenced offenders. This is a vulnerable population with significant mental health and behavioural needs. More recent CSC research confirms that those with FASD exhibit deficits that impact their ability to adjust to an institutional setting. As such, they are more likely to be involved in institutional incidents, both as instigators and as victims, and to incur institutional charges. They complete their correctional programs at much lower rates and they typically spend more of their sentence incarcerated before their first release. Offenders with FASD are more likely to be returned to the community on statutory release.

The unfortunate reality is that most FASD-affected offenders come into prison undiagnosed and untreated, and they remain that way. There is very little programming for affected adults in the community and there are no correctional programs specifically for offenders with FASD. CSC can and does adapt interventions to accommodate needs. There is evidence to suggest that individuals with FASD can benefit from programs that are structured, highly repetitive, and that use multiple delivery modalities.

I will conclude my remarks with a cautionary note. Bill C-583 contemplates an amendment to the Criminal Code that would require the courts to consider as a mitigating factor in sentencing a determination that the accused suffers from FASD. It is a proposed change to sentencing principles that is similar in intent to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, which was enacted in 1996 and which expresses the need for judges to consider all other sentencing alternatives before sending an offender to prison, with particular consideration for the circumstances of aboriginal people. The seminal Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Gladue, 1999, interpreted this provision as a remedial measure aimed at combatting the overrepresentation of aboriginal peoples in Canadian prisons. Though the intent of paragraph 718.2(e) was to show restraint in the use of incarceration, the outcome of this measure has not lived up to the optimism about it.

When the Criminal Code was amended in 1996, aboriginal people represented 15% of the total offender population. Today, almost 25% of the federal inmate population is of aboriginal ancestry. These trends are accelerating. In fact, the incarcerated aboriginal population has increased by more than 50% in the last 10 years. If there has been judicial restraint, it has not translated into an actual decrease in the number of aboriginal people being sent to Canadian jails and prisons.

A correctional system that relies on obeying orders and rules that incentivize appropriate conduct and requires an offender to demonstrate behavioural progress is not particularly accommodating to persons afflicted with FASD. Similarly, a parole and pardon system that is predicated on the need and capacity to express remorse and learn from past mistakes is also not well-suited to FASD-affected persons.

I have suggested that the challenges faced by FASD-disordered individuals are largely at odds with the purposes of sentencing and incarceration. It is one thing to shed light on the causal factors that may have brought an FASD-afflicted person before the courts. It is quite another to have in place upstream diversion and treatment programs, services and supports in the community that could provide the courts with an appropriate disposition other than incarceration. Sentencing is a back-end measure. There is a need for screening and diagnostic services to be made available to FASD-afflicted persons at first contact with the criminal justice system. Prevention and diversion should be front-end considerations. By the time a case makes it to sentencing, options other than incarceration have become considerably restricted.

Notwithstanding these concerns, it may well be time to consider broadening the definition of mitigating factors at sentencing to include all forms of mental illness and disability, not just FASD. Such consideration, while late, would certainly be better than never.

Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I'm going to call this meeting to order. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, meeting number 67. According to the orders of the day we're dealing with the order of reference of Wednesday, November 26, 2014. The subject matter is Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

We have a number of witnesses today. I'm going to do a little housekeeping first if you don't mind, committee. We did invite everybody back who was at the last meeting, at which we were interrupted with numerous votes. One person is joining us in the second hour and a half who had given their presentation but we didn't give an opportunity to ask questions. Three of the witnesses in the second hour are on video conference, so it will take a few minutes to get that set up, and we have a fourth witness who will be here with us in the room.

We have two witnesses with us today, but let me start with this. Technically the committee is to report back to the House on Thursday. There is no way that we're going to have a report by Thursday. My recommendation to the committee is that we ask for an extension of 45 days. We'll do it within 45 days, but that's the maximum we can ask for. We'll get a motion here and it will go to the House. It will get voted on, I guess. I could ask for unanimous consent to see if we could get it done that way. It's one less voting round for us. I need a motion to that effect. If we pass it today I would bring it to the House tomorrow, and we would have it passed before Thursday.

[Wenda Bradley]

Thank you.

When Bill C-583 is approved, requests for appropriate assessments need to be made by the court. An assessment for FASD should be requested and it should follow the Canadian Medical Association diagnostic guidelines. These guidelines suggest that a multidisciplinary team assess all abilities or concerns for the individual with an adaptive functioning focus versus a strictly psychological analysis. A stand-alone, general, psychological assessment is not as useful and may in fact be harmful because it doesn’t reflect actual brain damage and impact on functioning.

There is a great deal of co-morbidity with mental health issues, but the mental health issues need to be considered in relation to the underlying permanent brain damage caused by prenatal alcohol exposure. Some of the mental health issues may be occurring because the underlying FASD had not been diagnosed earlier in the life of the person.

An FASD assessment, following the collaborative approach recommended by the CMA, could as well recognize or rule out genetic issues and consider the effect of other traumas an individual may have encountered that may be affecting his or her abilities. If all aspects of the judicial system, from investigation, decision to charge, pre-sentence, court, sentencing, disposition and conditions, incarcerations and reintegration, understand the impact of FASD on a person, effective help and support can be offered. A person may succeed in not being involved in further justice issues, or at least minimize the need of involvement, if appropriate dispositions can be made.

As one of our clients has said about trying to stay out of the justice system, “I know I make a lot of bad choices so I need you to help me not make so many.” Having a diagnosis also helps individuals learn where their strengths are and where they need help to keep themselves out of trouble. One young fellow I am aware of who has a history of sexual touching of children, now knows that he cannot be where children are because he struggles to control this impulse, so he intentionally stays away from areas where children will be.

We as a society need to get over our feelings of loss and grief for what the potential of the person could have been and get on with accepting the person for who they are. Dr. Sterling Clarren has frequently said that people with FASD are doing what they were designed to do and we need to adapt our behaviour towards them. Collaboration between FASD-informed services and FASD-aware service providers will be the only way that a person who has this disability can move through life. Interventions must begin with nonjudgmental, unbiased observations.

People with FASD need the understanding, caring, and support from all levels of service providers. A story of a court interaction that I was privy to demonstrates how knowledge of FASD can be used for collaboration of service. There was a judge addressing a client known to the court to have FASD and listing off the requirements of probation for that person, with an appropriate language level and at an appropriate rate of talking. The client was intently listening and nodding his head as the judge talked. The judge finished and then asked the person if he understood. The client, who understood some of his own limitations, said, “Yes, Judge, I understand, but I won’t remember.” The judge was quick to point out that was why his FASSY worker would go over the probation orders with him daily.

This story, I feel, is significant in that the judge recognized and acknowledged, by his actions, the disability of the offender; the offender recognized as part of his disability that which would make it impossible for him to do what the judge was asking; and both recognized the need for support to continue outside the courtroom.

We're learning that people with FASD, with supports, can live clean, sober, and lawful lives and contribute to their own families, communities and society. By making this important amendment to the Canadian Criminal Code through Bill C-583, Canadians will keep the most vulnerable people of our country from further harm or from causing harm to others, and the judicial system will get to the root of the challenging behaviours that impact victims, families, communities, and our society.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us. I'm sorry for the delay in the beginning of the meeting. This is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 66 and we're dealing with the order of reference of Wednesday, November 26. The subject matter is Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code, regarding fetal alcohol syndrome disorder. We have a number of witnesses, and we're going to get right to them because we only have a short period of time. The goal is to hear all the witnesses. If we have time we'll have a question period, but if not, we'll start.

As per the orders of the day, please introduce yourself when you're speaking. From the Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto, Mr. Rudin, the floor is yours.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Committee members, for your information, I would like to remind you that on the Monday we get back—obviously the break week is next week—we're going to be back to Bill C-587. We have witnesses for the first hour, and clause-by-clause study—there are only four clauses—for the second hour.

The next one was scheduled for C-590. My suggestion, which I think we'll follow, is that we'll continue to deal with C-583 at that meeting. If we're approved to travel, we'll be travelling the next week and having two meetings. Otherwise, after the break week, if we're not travelling from the 16th to the 18th of that week, we will have two more meetings at least on this subject. So we'll bump C-590 until after we've done this study. There is no use having three things going on at one time, in my view.

With that, I do need witnesses. Whether they're witnesses we're going to see in the Yukon or here, we need witnesses from all parties.

Thank you very much.

With that, we're adjourned.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

If the 2006 study was not satisfactory to the member, that may be because the government did not follow the recommendations of the committee. That may be why there is not enough information from Parliament's point of view.

I have several studies here that demonstrate the importance of acting regarding criminal justice. I know that someone who is found guilty of an offence is affected by the fundamental principles of criminal justice. However, we have to give indications to judges and to the actors in the criminal justice system. This is in line with the principles established in the Gladue decision—you are probably familiar with that Supreme Court judgment.

Historically and culturally, people who are victims of this syndrome find themselves in penal institutions without any kind of help. Why not come to the assistance of these people by adopting Bill C-583? We could also ask the government to respect the recommendations contained in the 2006 study, and help these people.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

As I said in the House, I believe in the merits and the tenets of the bill without question. There's a little more to that process, of course.

I want to deal with a couple of points in a more general perspective here.

As for the bill itself, when I first introduced this, I wrestled with the narrow scope of C-583, that it really was only going to impact one part of the population in that justice piece. Through my consultations, which were continuous—literally daily I was speaking with the groups and organizations—when we started looking at the timing left for us, and the greatest good and the greatest impact, we started looking at this silo-breaking study as being something that really would be beneficial.

It was largely on the advice and support of many of the groups that are invested, and not just groups and organizations.... As you can imagine, I've been inundated with input from families who have had this experience, people living with children with FASD. I was getting the pure family perspective. The law enforcement community, and groups and organizations in the health community really support what it is that you're going to be able to do with this study.

Also, you did mention the 2006 study. I'll correct you on this. There haven't been a lot of studies. There has been that 2006 study, but since that point in time there's been tremendous evolution in knowledge around FASD, particularly around the field of diagnosis, and that's an important thing for this committee to seize itself with. I think the groups will tell you clearly that we've learned a lot since 2006, and what we can do with that information at the federal level is very important. But right now I don't think that evolution of information has permeated all of the departments the way it should. It is very much making what you're doing worthwhile in topping up that 2006 study, which is, in my mind, at present day a little bit incomplete.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

That's a broad consultation. Congratulations to the member.

In your speech, you also referred to a conference that took place in Vancouver. You said that you went all over Canada to consult different organizations regarding your bill. In your speech in the House of Commons, you said there was a national consensus on the importance of acting on this problem. As you said, your bill has received the approval of the Canadian Bar Association and of several other organizations. We agree that this is an extremely important problem.

We should deal with it right now, because there are people who could benefit from this right now.

Studies were already done by other committees, among others the Standing Committee on Health, in 2006. What could that study add to our work? The NDP was ready to support Bill C-583 today and send it quickly to the Senate. Why did you vote against the bill when all of these organizations support it? What will that study add? Today, we could at least have passed something that is likely to help people in prison, who unfortunately are victims of a syndrome that is beyond their control.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Okay, fair enough.

Mr. Chair and committee members, thank you very much for your invitation to appear today on this important topic.

I apologize, but I am going to make my presentation in English only. I don't speak French well, but I understand it well. If you have questions to put to me in French, that will be fine.

I'm practising as best I can. If there are any questions in French, I'll do my best to navigate those and rely on interpretation if I can.

I've had an opportunity to speak about my Bill C-583 in the House of Commons a number of times. I thought that today, for the benefit of the committee, I would reflect more on some of the potential recommendations I have. Having worked with groups and organizations that routinely deal with FASD, I would perhaps also like to provide a little bit of guidance based on my professional experience, both prior to becoming a member of Parliament, and now, as a member of Parliament, to help with your deliberations as you take on this study.

Before I get to that piece, I do want to say that it has been an interesting journey for me to explore how the development of a private member's bill works in the House of Commons, and the work entailed in engaging community partner groups and colleagues on both sides of the House.

I can say that from a Yukon perspective, when I took this on, I found tremendous support from the Yukon territorial government, and indeed, from the opposition there. The NDP opposition in the Yukon were very supportive of the efforts I was making. I am also grateful for the support that was provided across the floor in the House of Commons to move this into committee for a more detailed study. In that vein, I think we have an opportunity here to do some great work for the people that work with people living with FASD on all facets of this issue.

I know we have a colleague here, on the NDP side, who has put forward some legislation in the past to deal with this important topic. I know my colleagues on the Conservative side of the House have been seized with this for a long time. And, of course, we have colleagues like MP David Wilks who has seen the impacts first-hand through his career, as I have, of people living with FASD, and their conflict with the criminal justice system.

My background involves not only growing up in the Yukon where there is, I think, tremendous leadership by the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, FASSY, to address this critical topic in Canada, but also, in my professional careers as a correctional superintendent and as a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I was directly able to see the challenges people living with FASD have, particularly when they come into conflict with the law, and also some of the measures we can take to help support them before the justice system becomes an inevitable track in many of their lives.

They are disproportionately represented in the justice system. There are a number of reasons for that which I think we'll be able to touch on through some questions and answers members might have.

I've said a couple of times in my addresses to the chamber on this topic that our government has been focused on victims and victims' rights. I commend our government for that approach. The reason this topic is so important is that long before people with FASD collide with the criminal justice system, they are victims first. Unfortunately for them it's a life sentence. FASD doesn't get better. It is a lifelong condition once someone has it, and there is really no other neurological development disorder that sets somebody on a crash course with the criminal justice system from the moment they are born. That's the bad news.

The good news is there is lots we can do, much of which you will hear over the coming days as you engage in this study. There is a lot of great work that's being done by community groups and partners, and indeed, by our government.

I'm looking forward to being able to touch on some of the great work I think puts Yukon at the forefront of FASD research and FASD engagement, in large part due to contributions by our government and investments in the right areas which I know will help to improve the social living conditions of people living with FASD, improve their opportunities in life, and ultimately avoid the inevitable collision with the criminal justice system we often see.

Of course, there is a critical element in this that involves a prevention discussion, and I know that other experts and witnesses will talk to you about that.

In that vein, what I've heard from the discussions I've had with the key stakeholders and I think you're going to hear—and it would be my recommendation—is that the committee look at a broad perspective of across-departmental approaches to this. From a justice committee standpoint, if all the roads are leading to a justice outcome, we need to look at where we can support the prevention or altering of that route. I think we all recognize that starts with investments and support in education, social support, housing, employment opportunities, skills development, health care and prevention, and education around that front.

I would encourage the committee to attempt to broaden the witness base as best they can, if that hasn't been a consideration to this point, to see if we can break down some of the silos that might exist at the federal and provincial levels. Much of the discussion that we have when we reach out on those topics does involve provincial, municipal, and NGO support at the community level. It doesn't all fall under the purview of the federal government. Nonetheless, the federal government can take a role in engaging in those discussions and providing either the necessary financial support, legislative support, or the networking that can often be realized by federal counterparts in this role.

There are a couple of quick facts that I think are important for the committee to consider. We'll clearly talk about the social impact of FASD. There is also a financial cost that is well stated. I'm referring to a report now from the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, which estimates annual costs for FASD in Canada to be about $5.3 billion; the average individual cost per person is approximately $1 million over their lifetime.

I think that illustrates clearly that prevention and support, particularly on the prevention front, are very important in terms of the overall financial cost. We have some challenges with diagnoses that I know will be discussed throughout this study, but the best estimate we have right now is that about one in every 100 births in Canada has been affected by FASD. Those rates are alarming as well.

I applaud and I thank the committee for taking this on. You can see both in terms of the numbers on the social costs and the financial costs that this is a worthy topic of national discussion and national attention. For that, I congratulate and thank you. I obviously wish you all the best as you continue your engagement on this study.

With that, I'd be happy to field any questions members may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay, it looks as if we have everybody here, which is great.

We are the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. This is meeting number 64. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 26, we are dealing with the subject matter of Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

With us we have Ryan Leef, the MP for Yukon. It is his private member's bill that has been referred us in terms of the subject matter, so we're going to have an opening statement from him and then we'll do rounds of questions.

Prior to our doing that, we have two pieces of business to deal with.

There are two budgets on the table, ladies and gentlemen. The first one deals with Bill C-587, which is $5,700. That has to do with the committee dealing with the bill on increasing parole ineligibility.

May I have a motion for $5,700?

Drug-Free Prisons Act

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-12, the optimistically titled drug-free prisons act.

Bill C-12 would amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act to require parole boards to cancel day parole or full parole if an offender failed a drug test or refused to provide a urine sample and if the board then considered that the criteria for granting parole were no longer met. As the law currently establishes, urine samples may be demanded on reasonable grounds as part of a random selection or as a prescribed requirement of a particular program, such as a substance abuse treatment program.

Bill C-12 would also clarify that conditions of parole or other forms of release may include conditions relating to an offender's use of drugs or alcohol. The imposition of such conditions would explicitly include cases where drug or alcohol use had been a factor in the offender's criminal behaviour.

The Liberals will be recommending that this bill go to committee for further study. However, I would like to reiterate the criticisms that my colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque, levelled at this bill over a year ago.

First, we would all like to see drug-free prisons, yet Bill C-12 takes an exclusively punitive approach to substance abuse in Canada's correctional facilities. Does anyone think this will be effective?

In his 2011-12 annual report, Howard Sapers, the Correctional Investigator of Canada, made the following observation:

A “zerotolerance” stance to drugs in prison, while perhaps serving as an effective deterrent posted at the entry point of a penitentiary, simply does not accord with the facts of crime and addiction in Canada or elsewhere in the world. Harm reduction measures within a public health and treatment orientation offer a far more promising, cost-effective and sustainable approach to reducing subsequent crime and victimization.

Mr. Sapers' report specifically stated:

—that a comprehensive and integrated drug strategy should include a balance of measures -- prevention, treatment, harm reduction and interdiction.

In 2012, the Conservative government re-appointed Mr. Sapers, giving him his third consecutive term. Accordingly, one might be tempted to think that the government would take the advice of its chosen adviser. After all, Mr. Sapers' recommendations were the product of careful and politically impartial analysis. Efficacy was the sole motivator.

Why does the Conservative government not listen to the highly qualified individuals who have been hired to give good advice and who are motivated solely by the desire to give good advice?

When Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien suggested splitting Bill C-13 into two bills, the government ignored him. When Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin of the Supreme Court tried to warn the government about its legal problem with appointments from the federal court, the government ignored her. We all remember that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice even went so far as to slander the Chief Justice for trying to save them from themselves. This is a worrying trend, although I do not expect the government to take my advice, either.

In this instance, ignoring the Correctional Investigator is stunning, or as my Newfoundland colleagues may say, “stunned”. Howard Sapers was vice-chairperson for the Prairie Region with the Parole Board of Canada, director of the Crime Prevention Investment Fund at the National Crime Prevention Centre and executive director of the John Howard Society of Alberta. He served two terms as an elected member of the Alberta legislative assembly, including as leader of the official opposition. He is also an adjunct professor School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University, and he has served as president of the Canadian Criminal Justice Association. That is whose advice the government is ignoring.

Instead of taking that advice, the government is opting for a purely punitive strategy. Yes, the government's only solution to drug use in prisons is to keep more people in prisons for longer periods of time. As Kyle Kirkup wrote in the The Globe and Mail, the government's thinking on criminal justice is summed up by the slogan “Got a complex social issue? There’s a prison for that”.

I suppose this should come as no surprise. Bill C-12 is business as usual for the Conservatives. It is strong on rhetoric and weak on policy.

The government consistently prioritizes optics over substance, Orwellian sound bites over logic and it does Canadians a great disservice. We see it with mandatory minimums. We see it with the failure to use evidence to formulate public policy. In its eagerness to appear tough on crime, the government goes soft on thinking.

Last year, Mr. Sapers shared some deeply troubling statistics with Canadians. His report indicated that Canada's prison population is now at its highest level ever, even though the crime rate has been decreasing over the past two decades.

About three out of four offenders in federal penitentiaries are considered to have addictions, and a very high percentage of those addicts also have mental health issues. Given the context, this new bill's punitive approach is clearly unjustified.

Further, close to a quarter of all inmates are aboriginal, although aboriginal people make up only 4% of Canada's population. In the past decade, the number of aboriginal women in prison has increased by 112%. Aboriginal inmates are also subject to use-of-force interventions and incur a disproportionate number of institutional disciplinary measures. In addition, aboriginal inmates are typically released later in their sentences—80% by statutory release—and are less likely to be granted day parole or full parole.

Still, here we have a bill that does nothing to address the historical injustice and resultant social problems that aboriginal people are grappling with today. Instead, this bill would effectively lock up aboriginal inmates struggling with addictions for longer periods of time.

The issues plaguing aboriginal communities are reported in the newspaper, and we know those are available in this chamber. Therefore, ask, when is the government going to address the problems facing aboriginal communities?

I am disappointed by the government's approach, but I am not surprised. Just a couple of weeks ago we saw what the government did with Bill C-583, the bill from the member for Yukon, that would have made fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD, a mitigating factor in sentencing. Of course, FASD disproportionately affects aboriginal and northern communities. Bill C-583 was a bill that both the Liberals and the New Democrats were ready to support, yet the member for Yukon agreed to turn the bill into a study, killing his own proposal. One could reasonably infer that the government pressured the member to do this rather than risk being seen—Heaven forbid—as soft on persons with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. However, I digress.

Speaking of this bill, we need to consider what the correctional investigator said in his 2013-14 report. Specifically, he was critical of the government's continued refusal to develop a comprehensive program. I emphasize the word “comprehensive”. To respond to continued drug use in penitentiaries, he said:

Interdiction and suppression in the absence of a more comprehensive range of treatment, prevention and harm reduction measures will not eliminate the demand (or supply) of contraband drugs or alcohol.

Mr. Sapers also criticized how the government had undermined a key correctional services program on addiction, specifically, its 10% funding cut to the prison methadone program. Mr. Sapers said:

I question the appropriateness of reducing investment in a program that delivers sound public policy benefits from both a health and public safety standpoint.

I could not say it better, and I would strongly urge the government to heed the advice of its chosen advisers by developing a more comprehensive strategy than what this punitive bill represents.

Again, Mr. Sapers set out what that strategy would look like. It would involve an integrated link between interdiction and prevention, treatment and harm reduction. It would involve a comprehensive public reporting mechanism and would involve a well defined evaluation, review and performance plan to ensure efficacy.

Finally, when the bill goes to committee, I would especially urge the government to take seriously any constructive proposals for amendments that emerge. We currently have a punitive bill that would not solve the drug problem in Canada's prisons and that would exacerbate aboriginal incarceration rates. Frankly, we need to do better, and we can do better.

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-583, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder), be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Oral Questions

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the amendment to the second reading motion of Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder), be deemed to have been withdrawn, that the bill be deemed to have been read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Criminal Code

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking all members of Parliament for engaging in this debate. It has been a great opportunity to bring the intentions of Bill C-583 to the forefront.

I will talk briefly about the impetus for the bill and my belief in it. However, before I get to that, there are a few people in my community in the Yukon I would like to thank for all the work they have done to support this legislation getting this far.

I would particularly like to thank Rod Snow and Heather MacFadgen; the great people at FASSY and Mike McCann; and a good friend and former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Gina Nagano, who provided some fantastic insight into the merits of Bill C-583 on a recent visit here in Ottawa.

My staff, of course, as members can imagine the evolution of this bill, have done a tremendous amount of work with the broad stakeholders across Canada, and for that I thank them.

I thank the great stakeholders in our nation who have done so much work that we have been able to get the bill to this point.

I want to touch on one thing, so that those across the community realize. Unfortunately, in the life of a private member's bill, time is not always our friend. We know that it is not immediate, but as we near the end of the 41st Parliament, I am being very realistic about the chances of my bill now getting through all the phases a bill needs to go through, including three readings in the Senate. It is important to me that we do not just have a symbolic victory for this bill, but that we actually have concrete, measurable, and tangible things.

On that note, I was proud to support the government's initiative to expedite the subject matter of this bill, move it into committee, break down the silos, and go across departments to study this bill from a broader range than the focus I had under Bill C-583. From that, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we are going to achieve outcomes and recommendations that will provide a broader benefit for the entire community of FASD. I very much look forward to seeing the results of that study and hearing expert testimony right across Canada, particularly from my home territory in the Yukon, which I know are leading the way in FASD research. I am looking forward to that.

I know the recommendations are going to be concrete. I know they are going to be solid and beneficial to the entire community. I know, without exception, that we are going to build on the great work we are already doing as a government, take those recommendations, and come out with an action plan that will invariably improve the lives of people living with FASD in Canada. I am very excited about that.

I cannot help but notice that, in the world of social media, already the NDP has tweeted out that I have agreed to kill my own bill. Let me correct the record on that point before those members get on their tweeter storm.

This is an important step for people living with FASD and an important step for the community. I urge NDP members, before they launch out into their social media hack job on this, to understand that this is critical for the community and important for the people across this country. Their opportunity to study and research this is going to be the most significant step forward that we have had on FASD in a long time in the Canadian Parliament. For that I am proud, and for their previous support of my bill, I am thankful. However, I ask them, I urge them, to not play politics with this issue, get on board, support the committee, provide witnesses, participate wholeheartedly and fulsomely, provide recommendations that are going to help this community, avoid the social media attack campaign that they have already started less than a minute and a half ago, and get on side with this community. That is what I am asking as we move forward, and I look forward it.

Fundamentally, as a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and as a deputy superintendent of the Whitehorse correctional facility, I know and I have seen first-hand the impact of the criminal justice system on people living with FASD who involve themselves or get mixed up in it. I believe fundamentally that the merits of my bill are sound and I stand behind the tenets of that piece of legislation. Were it not for the time I had left, this bill would still be going forward, and I know with a good amount of support from the House of Commons.

I will leave members with this note.

I know that our government stands behind victims, and victims first, and people with FASD are victims first. Long before they ever become offenders in the criminal justice system, they are victims. There is no other population in our country who, when they take their very first breath, are on a crash course with the criminal justice system, and that is true for people with FASD.

I look forward to bringing this issue to committee, getting great results with the subject matter experts who exist in our nation, and finding concrete and real results.

I look forward to everyone in this place participating wholeheartedly in that study so that we can improve the lives of Canadians. I thank the government for its efforts on this.