Justice Committee on Feb. 25th, 2015

[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?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Just so you know, I haven't gone to the liaison committee because we passed a motion about travel to the Yukon at the last meeting. The clerk's office and his team worked overtime getting us a budget together—

[An hon. member]

He's a great clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

We have a fantastic clerk.

The budget works out to $68,776. What happens with this is, if it gets approved at committee, I will be seeing the liaison committee for its approval. If it gets approved there, it will go to the House leaders, and they will decide whether we can travel or not.

Does anyone want to move that motion?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That will give me another meeting to go to tomorrow, thank you very much.

Mr. Leef, that was money to go to Yukon if we get to travel to your home riding. Sir, the floor is yours. We're dealing with the reference of the subject matter of your private member's bill.

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Chair, if you could indulge me, maybe you could give me an indication of how much time I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have around 10 minutes. I'm somewhat flexible as you're way off base.

[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]

Thank you, Mr. Leef, for that overview of your bill.

We are going to questions now, and our first questioner is Madam Péclet from the New Democratic Party.

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

Thank you very much to my colleague.

I'm very happy to see him advocate for more social housing and education funds. We're not going to contradict him on that; that's for sure. We all know that there are some very vulnerable people we need to help right now.

This is an extremely important issue and I am very happy that we are going to be able to examine the matter. As we speak, there are people in Canadian penitentiaries who could benefit from actions taken now.

I would like to know what type of consultations my honourable colleague did before introducing his bill. I don't want an exhaustive list of the organizations that were consulted, whether they were health organizations or others. We are talking here about an amendment to the Criminal Code. Did my colleague consult organizations that could provide legal advice, or something similar?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

Certainly.

The impetus in the beginning started with the Canadian Bar Association's resolutions. They had provided some language over the course of time, and it was an issue that was interesting and important to me when I became a member of Parliament. So I spoke with members of the Yukon branch of the Canadian Bar Association, who were direct advocates and involved heavily at the national level. They provided some context and background for what they were looking at.

Of course, in the evolution of my bill, which had multiple iterations throughout that time, we had drafting experts look at it to evolve it and make sure we weren't creating any unintended consequences.

Also, all the while of course I was continuing to consult with CanFASD and FASSY.

A host of national groups and organizations have attended a number of the conferences where we've been able to put forward iterations of my bill, so that we could look at to see if it was reaching not only the right legal language, but effectively, for lack of a better term, the trade language that's used and make sure the legal verbiage was matching that. I would be guessing, but it was north of 100 different groups and organizations that I consulted with.

[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]

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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Let's have a short question, please.

[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]

Thank you for that.

Neither one of us was here in 2006, so neither one of us can speak to what steps were taken in implementing the recommendations of that study. We can speak to the great work that I'm sure you're tasking yourself with now on this study, and whatever recommendations you might bring from it.

On the point you raise, I think you'll certainly be able to tease it out when you're speaking with the witnesses on this specific justice end, and I certainly look forward to hearing their comments on that end of it. As I said, obviously I believe in the merits and the tenets of the bill, and I understand the benefits that would have been realized had I been able to get the bill through. For a number of reasons I made the determination that I didn't see I was going to have the time to get it through with the time I had left, and I wasn't going to be pleased with a symbolic win by having the bill die a natural death on the order paper in the Senate when the House rose in June.

I had a deep and heartfelt conversation with the people who have been very much invested in this journey with me and with their guidance and support I made the decision to effectively leverage the great work that had been done and the importance of this bill with our government to make sure that we realized some benefit, and in my mind this committee is that benefit.

When you talk to the stakeholders, and I'll let them speak for themselves, but they certainly spoke to me and indicated what a positive evolution this is. They're very excited about this opportunity, and I encourage you to give them the world on this one, because they think the step you're taking is probably the most significant step, in their words, that you've taken so far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much for those questions and answers.

Our next questioner is Monsieur Goguen, from the Conservative Party.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you, Ryan, for bringing this important issue forward.

Certainly championing the issue of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder before Parliament is to be commended. Your testifying here again today is another move forward toward resolving an extremely complex issue.

I want to take up on what Ms. Péclet was asking about, your willingness to open the field of study to different areas of mental health. You testified that as a corrections officer you were exposed to a number of inmates who had mental disorders. Of course, once they're in there, they're not always diagnosed. Certainly some of them would have fetal alcohol syndrome. Many are probably overrepresented there, but certainly other inmates have other disorders, whether it be schizophrenia or paranoia or what have you. Certainly that had to be at the heart of your motivation to widen the study: why not do something which is possibly all-encompassing for those who suffer from mental disabilities? That had to be a very large motivational factor in your decision to field this study, is it not?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

It's a good point. At this bill's introduction, I realized that there would be that interesting challenge right away: why this group and why not another group; how do you provide, dare I say, benefits of the judicial system and discretionary approach to one group and not another; and then, how do you sort that out?

That certainly was in part the motivation, because what we want to provide with the legislation we're putting forward is obviously what is going to be fair and equal to all groups, as best we can manage.

Some other conditions were raised. You raise a couple that are very poignant, and a couple of others were raised. I was able to offset those by saying that in all reality our correctional facilities aren't chock full of people with Down's syndrome or autism, as an example, but they are of people with FASD. But equally, there are other neurological development disorders, other mental disorders, other mental health issues that warrant some broader level of consideration, and I think you can engage in that as a committee.

Just to tie back into some of the discussion that has come up, there still is a mechanism today for courts to use judicial discretion. They can deploy it at this point; it's not as though they can't do it. I was trying to tighten it up a little bit to make it a little sounder, for lack of a better word, in law. But I'm very much excited about this broadened discussion, because I think we're going to be able to benefit the community far more largely than I ever anticipated when I started this bill.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

I really believe you're well served in seeing the scope of the study widened, because the bill you presented was by and large well accepted by all parties. It would be a springboard for a further and greater study, so I thank you for it.

You talked a while ago about the causes. Obviously, we know that it is consumption of alcohol while the mother is pregnant. Can you elaborate a little bit more about the sociological causes? Most people would recognize that drinking alcohol is unhealthy and that it causes damage to your child. Could you talk to us a little bit about that?

Also, you talked about costs that were rather significant. Could you give us some practical examples of what those costs actually translate into? What are the factors that drive these costs?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

I'll start with the first part of your question, and it's a good opportunity to really talk about FASD on a broad base.

You're right. The cause of FASD is prenatal exposure to alcohol. There are social factors that can contribute to it, such as addictions, mental health, the mother having FASD herself. There are also conditions that exist in which a lady may not even know she's pregnant. We don't know at the present day at what point of pregnancy and how much alcohol consumption can be detrimental.

There's a lot of stigma that comes along with FASD, and it creates different challenges later down the road in terms of identification, diagnosis, treatment, and support. Understandably, there's a lot of stigma around this. This is why it's so important to talk about this openly in Parliament now: to start moving the stigma away from it and understand clearly in Canada that there is not and should not be blame here. There are things we can do to help educate and to make this somewhat avoidable, but there are also circumstances that aren't necessarily avoidable and are nobody's fault. This is part of a great national discussion: making sure that the stigma and the shame start to move away for this. Then we can have an intelligent discussion about it.

Concerning the costs, they range from housing support—people with severe FASD never have true independent living, as it's always supported living—to education challenges, some one-to-one support.... Misdiagnoses cost a lot of money in this country as well, as there are different levels of treatment or people going untreated. Clearly, there is the cost of the criminal justice system, when people get mixed up and involved in it, and a lot of times it starts right at the youth criminal justice level. You can just imagine that these costs start to balloon, from social support, education, and health care needs right up to the costs any time a person ends up in the criminal justice system. I couldn't break them down on every scale for you, but they are alarming.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

You touched on one point.

In your experience in the area where you live, is FASD truly generational? Is it passed down from generation to generation? Do you see a prevalence of this issue?

[Ryan Leef, Conservative, Yukon, YT]

It can be. That's one factor.

But to break down another myth, we link into the Gladue decision and we start talking about generational.... One of the big myths around FASD is that it's a northern Canadian aboriginal issue. FASD knows no social bounds, and it knows no community bounds. It is affecting people in high social classes, and in rural and urban Canada.

The diagnoses are a bit different. We can talk about the stigma a little differently and that presents some challenges, but it is not an aboriginal issue. It is not a poor person's issue. FASD is alive and well in every community and social group and in every ethnic group you can think of.