Ryan Leef

[Northern Development, June 17th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, various elements of the Arctic Archipelago are separated from one another and the Canadian mainland by a series of waterways collectively known as the Canadian Northwest Passage. However, questions continue to be raised about Canada's sovereignty in this area.

Canada's north is a fundamental part of our national identity and vital to our future. Could the Minister of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency and chair of the Arctic Council explain to this House whether Canada has any proof that there is sovereignty over this land?

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a good point and a great question. The most up-to-date figures we have right now and the common numbers used, and they do vary a bit, are that one in a hundred Canadians are born with FASD. That is the estimate.

He raises another good point about the misdiagnosis, because there is a tremendous amount of stigma around this, and there are a lot of reasons for it. There is no fault in this story about how it happens. There are a lot of complex issues and reasons that a person can be FASD-affected, but it does lead to diagnosis challenges in the first instance, and then because of the stigma, there is a tendency and a propensity to have it misdiagnosed as something else, ADHD for example, or just no diagnosis at all, just ignoring what we could clearly see to be the case.

The member raises a good question about the prevalence of it, and our government is actually funding prevalence studies at the provincial and territorial levels within the prison system. They are doing that in Yukon to identify at least some better handle on the numbers in the correctional system, but as a population nationwide, the numbers are alarming.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get an opportunity to talk about it in my speech, but I am very proud of the work that has been done by our federal government in investing. I speak exclusively to the north, to the Yukon territory, where recently, back in January, I was able to open a 14-unit house with federal government funding under options for independence, and that provided the necessary social support networks that keep people living with FASD out of the criminal justice system, to provide them opportunity, hope, and the necessary support they need.

I think we have done a really good job as a federal government through the health portfolio, through the housing portfolio, and through our education strategies. There has been a number of things that I have seen roll out in the territory since 2011 that our federal government has done, which I think are just tremendous.

Admittedly, that is really where the bulk of our attention and funding should be directed, prevention and social support, and not such a focus on what I see as a small piece of the bigger question mark around FASD and social support.

I am happy, and of course naturally I gravitate to a justice bill because of my background as a former police officer and a former correctional officer, where I saw first-hand the implications and impact on people with FASD in the justice system. However, truth be told, I think we still do need to focus a lot of the support on health, education, and social support. I think our government has done a fantastic job of that, and I am happy just to introduce something that I think will play a small part in a very dynamic and complex picture.

I do thank the member for that excellent question.

[Criminal Code, June 5th, 2014]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-583.

However, before I do that, I would like to take one more opportunity to express my sincerest condolences to the families of the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who lost their lives yesterday. I would also like to express, at least from my point of view and the point of view of the member for Kootenay—Columbia, who is a former member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that our thoughts and prayers are with the members of the RCMP, their families, and the entire community of Moncton. We hope that there is a fast and safe resolution to the capture of the suspect.

Before I begin on Bill C-583, an act to amend the Criminal Code in respect to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, there are a few requisite messages of thanks that I need to put out there. First and foremost, I must thank Rod Snow and Heather MacFadgen of the Yukon division of the Canadian Bar Association. Both of them spent a great deal of time and effort, long before this crossed my radar as a member of Parliament, in diligently forwarding the cause of people with FASD, particularly as it relates to justice issues and what we can do. My gratitude goes out to them for helping it get this far and for their continued effort and support.

I would like to thank the Options for Independence Society in the Yukon, which has created a great social support network, providing affordable and available housing. It has also created the appropriate and needed social support networks in our territory for people living with FASD to make sure, in the first instance, that they do not find themselves in conflict with the law.

Of course, I must thank the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Society Yukon, which has done a lot of the heavy lifting on this file to make sure that people who are disadvantaged and living with FASD find the opportunities that they need and clearly deserve in our society.

There are a host of other groups and organizations nationally, internationally and here in the North American continent that have reached out to me. A total of some 1,500-plus stakeholders have reached out to me directly in my office to offer guidance and suggestions, and just to be there to support what I am trying to achieve in Bill C-583. To each and every one of them, too many to list, I give my thanks.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the legislators of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, both of which recently passed unanimous motions calling on the Government of Canada to support Bill C-583. I would say that it was done in an admirable and non-partisan manner.

In the Yukon, the motion was tabled by Liz Hanson, the leader of the opposition, and supported by Minister Nixon, the hon. minister responsible for justice in the Yukon. I appreciate their ability to come together in a non-partisan fashion and provide support and important information to the Yukon through their legislature about the challenges of people living FASD as they relate to the justice system.

Getting to Bill C-583, what does my private member's bill propose? It would do three fundamental things.

It would define FASD in the legal context. I say that not as a word of caution, but as a word of explanation. Sometimes we have social definitions and sometimes we have medical definitions of words that do not always mirror each other or connect properly. What I have tried to do in Bill C-583 is come up with a definition that would meet the test of the legal mind and the legal definition. Sometimes, there is a little bit of variance between social definitions and medical definition, but importantly, I have seen broad public support, including group and organization support, for the definition that I have arrived at.

That is an important step, because in the absence of a definition, the courts are very much limited in their judicial notice of being able to account for what I will get into as somewhat of an explanation for criminal conduct. It is not an excuse, and I will talk about that in a little more detail as I get into subsequent sections of my bill.

The first part is how the bill defines FASD. Second, it would allow the court to order assessments where they have reasonable grounds or evidence to believe that FASD may be present in an accused, and that it contributed to the offence or criminal conduct.

Finally, the bill seeks to allow the court the discretion to consider FASD to be a mitigating circumstance in the sentencing phase. I will touch on that just a little bit, to explain any confusion that might exist among the general public about what mitigation means.

It is important to understand that mitigation is not absolution. It is not an excuse for poor behaviour, but it is an explanation. I am going to talk about some of the symptoms of FASD that make this bill warranted and reasoned when we consider diminished responsibility and mitigation, and why mitigation could be so important for people and for the courts to have with regard to FASD.

One could ask why we would choose FASD, and so I will give some concrete facts on that.

FASD is one of the leading causes of brain disorders in our country, affecting nearly one in a hundred Canadians at birth. That is an alarming rate. Right now, we know that nearly 60% of people living with FASD will at some point run into conflict with the law, which is also an alarming figure.

I want to be clear that FASD does not instantly and immediately equate to criminality. Indeed, it does not. I was at a conference not too long ago in Vancouver where I met wonderful people who live with FASD day to day. Undoubtedly they have challenges, but they are contributing. They are working hard in our society. They are living with these challenges and they are able, through a tremendous amount of personal, family, and community support, to keep away from any conflict with the law, but they are not free from challenges.

Indeed, I heard the story of one young lady who is an intelligent, well-spoken gal. She talked at this conference immediately before me. I must say that she did a better job of addressing a huge audience of 500 people than I did. It was remarkable to watch. However, she talked about some of the challenges she faced.

She talked about going to work in the morning and forgetting her keys and then returning home to get her keys, but then forgetting why she had come home. Then, when she finally realized what she was looking for, her keys, she forgot what she needed her keys for. She had to slow down and calm herself and deal with that confusion and frustration of not being able to really grasp exactly what she needed to get done. Eventually, through trial, challenge, and tribulation, she would get back on track with what she needed to do that day.

This is just one example of the challenges of people living with the real challenges of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

I am going to read something I think is relative and poignant to the debate. It came to me from a Yukoner, Chief Ray Jackson, who is the former chief of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nation, and Jenny Jackson, who wrote this book called, Silent No More! A Poetic Voice Breaks the Silence of FASD. It is about Crystal, who was kind enough to sign this book for me, and she gives a summary about one of the poems in the book. She writes:

This is a brief summary of how people might view their differences while longing for acceptance with FASD.

As an explanation for the poem, she says:

Everything is new each day because it is due to the lack of understanding of consequences. Every day is a new day. Yesterday is gone forever and people are living in the moment. There is an awareness of the different worlds, but people are inviting others to come and join them and they want them to accept them.

The poem reads:

We are living in our world where everything is new each day,
Again, we'll try to find our way,
A world that has its axis tilted to the right
A world that has no time and needs are out of sight
Come into our world
Be patient and kind, forgiving and blind
Tell us we are all right

I think the poem is saying that we need to enter this discussion. We need to understand and appreciate the challenges of people living with FASD.

I would offer that, as a government, we have been focused on a couple of things. We have been focused on making sure that perpetrators of crime are held to account; and that we have a solid, sound justice agenda to make sure our citizens are protected and public safety is paramount.

I think we have done an exceptional job of that. I think we have done a great job of making sure that people who are out to harm people in our society are held to account, that our citizens are protected in this country, and that any deviation from the law that is heinous in nature is reflected in the community's abhorrence of that behaviour.

At the same time, we have run an additional agenda: taking care of victims of crime, supporting our victims of crime, making sure that their voices are heard loud and clear. If we start from the position that people are indeed victims first, if they are born with a neurological development disorder because of exposure to alcohol before they were born, our government has made a clear commitment to make sure we protect victims first in our justice agenda. I would posit to the entire House, to every one of my hon. colleagues, that if we start from the position that people with FASD are victims first, then we are reaching a point where we can have a balanced discussion about this bill.

Undoubtedly, there is the challenge that a person then breaks the law and needs to be held to account for the breach in law. How do we deal with that? How do we make sure we balance public safety and the need for rehabilitative efforts and corrective measures to take place in a conventional world when we have a non-conventional client, when we have client who does not necessarily understand right or wrong in the same fashion as we do, or benefit from the same sentencing, sanctioning, or denunciation as we would as everyday citizens within the justice system.

I talked about it and touched on it a bit, that my bill is not absolution for misconduct; it is mitigation. It is not an excuse for bad behaviour, but rather an explanation. How does mitigation fall into this question mark and how do we maintain public safety when we do that?

My bill, in the mitigation section, talks about the very real elements, the symptoms of FASD, that could lead one down the path of criminality. Examples are the inability to understand the consequences of one's actions and the inability to control impulsive behaviour. Those things have direct and real links to criminality. In fact, those symptoms, statistically, in our justice system, account for the over 90% of administrative type justice offences that a person with FASD would find themselves in. What are those kinds of offences? They are breach of probation, breach of conditions, failing to show up for work as part of their release conditions because they cannot manage their schedule and do not necessarily understand those terms and conditions, because as is said in the poem, each day is a new day. They have to start a new day fresh and remind themselves of what they have to do. Sometimes that breaks down to not just days but hours and sometimes even minutes.

To balance public safety, I have written into my bill that the court shall consider to be a mitigating circumstance where those symptoms contribute to the offence, because as I said, FASD does not instantly equate to criminality. It is not as simple as to say people have FASD and therefore they are going to involve themselves in criminal conduct. That is absolutely not true. However, what will happen, or can happen, disproportionately, is that FASD, where those symptoms manifest themselves out at different times and at different places, can contribute to criminal behaviour, and we need to take that into account.

Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up and I could probably stand here and talk for another 20 minutes about this. I look forward to questions and comments from my colleagues on the bill, where I will be able to address some of the issues that are raised. However, I will leave members with this thought.

In our criminal justice approach, it has been a long-held defence that people who consume alcohol and behave in a particular way because they are intoxicated can offer that up as a reasoned defence. A 20-year-old who gets drunk and acts like a 15-year-old can offer up that excuse in law. However, someone who has been exposed to alcohol and has a neurological brain disorder and has an operating mind of an 8- to 15-year-old, in adulthood, cannot offer that up as a reason. That should generally just shock the consciousness of Canadians and us as members of Parliament.

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his great speech and all the work he has done on this since becoming a member of Parliament. I know it is well received by his community and by everybody right across Canada, because it is indeed an important piece of legislation.

It is great to hear that both the NDP and the Liberals are prepared to support this to go through to committee. The one issue that they continue to raise is the mandatory minimum aspect of the sentence.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would comment on whether he feels that past practices of six months' sentence for stabbing a law enforcement dog in such a cruel and heinous way or intentionally driving a vehicle into a horse that is serving the better interests of the Canadian public is really reflective of the nature of that kind of crime. Also how important is it to send a clear signal that the public sentiment and support for service animals does indeed warrant, in the greater public interest, the sanctions that are being proposed under this piece of legislation?

[Justice for Animals in Service Act (Quanto's Law), June 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Liberals has been that mandatory minimums might somehow create a constitutional or charter challenge, and they have been bringing this up over and over again. Where this is the case, we know the rulings are clear. Where they constitute cruel and unusual punishment, they become unconstitutional. That ruling has been levied very few times on the vast majority of sanctions imposed by the Liberal government itself for mandatory minimums, as the minister indicated.

It is interesting that we are talking about that context between cruel and unusual punishment for an individual who is putting cruel and unusual treatment on a service dog. The member articulated clearly that they are well trained, that great Canadian and public expense goes into training these dogs, that there is a tremendous amount of safety and security provided to the Canadian public by these dogs and to the law enforcement officers they serve and that there is tremendous value to protecting service animals, not just police animals but service animals.

Does the member recognize the contradiction in that we are talking about effectively and reasonably sanctioning people for cruel and unusual treatment of animals that are providing our country with the greatest of service and we are letting that get hung up by an anticipatory cruel and unusual treatment of the people who are offending this law.

[Tougher Penalties for Child Predators Act, June 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting to listen to the Liberal members pose questions about this. They talk about imposing mandatory minimum sentences on child sexual predators as though these perpetrators just made a bad decision one day, just woke up and did not do something right today that they really should have rethought about.

The Liberals talk about our policies being based on fear. They are darned right. I think the average Canadian should be fearful, and is fearful, that somebody would prey on their child for sexual purposes.

The fact that the Liberal Party has no interest in imposing a sanction on that will be its problem, not ours, because this government will take those concrete steps.

I do have a question for the minister on this. The Liberals like to drag out all the statistics on the U.S., but they do not tell the Canadian public that over the last three decades, the States have actually been increasing penalties and increasing sentences on child sexual predators. There are five states in the United States that have the death penalty for child rape. Are the Liberals suggesting we mirror our Conservatives cousins to the south? Is that what they are recommending?

The minister has talked to victims. What do they have to say about that?

[Energy Efficiency Program, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to this topic. It is great to follow on the heels of the opposition members when they talk about our government's record on care and concern for the environment.

I am just going to take the five minutes I have to highlight some of the things we have done, and maybe refresh the member's memory on some of the excellent initiatives our government has made in terms of energy efficiency, climate change, and the work we have done as a government to ensure that our environmental priorities remain high in this country, and to remind the members that, in each and every case that we have put those initiatives forward, the opposition has voted against those measures.

The member who just spoke talked about the home retrofit program. He said it was a beautiful program. It was so beautiful that when it was introduced the New Democrats voted against it. Now of course they are calling for its return. It is ironic that they will talk about these programs that they voted against as though they were part and parcel of the development of them, and clearly that is not the case.

I am proud to say that as Yukon's member of Parliament, just last year I was able to announce half a million dollars over two years out of the eco-energy fund for projects in our communities, and some of those projects were for climate change adaptation. When those initiatives were put forward in this House, the opposition members voted against them. They voted against the funds for those excellent projects. Therefore, while they say that the Conservative government has not done anything for the environment or is not interested in energy efficiency, that is absolutely not the case. What is the case is that every single time we put those initiatives forward, the opposition members vote against them.

I have travelled around the Yukon, opening up excellent and much-needed affordable homes across our territory, homes for seniors in communities like Dawson City, Watson Lake, and Haines Junction. Each one of those large property developments not only created jobs, economic opportunity, and valuable home projects, but they were also built to SuperGreen standards. High-energy-efficiency homes, the latest in technology, are great for the Yukon, great for the community, great for Canada, and a great standard to set. Sadly again, when the government put forward those initiatives to build those homes in economic action plans 2010, 2011, and 2012, the opposition members voted against that critical spending.

They voted against affordable homes. They voted against eco-energy retrofit programs. Then they stood in the House today and said that, first, we should resurrect those programs, and second, that we are not doing anything. However, the record is clear. Those SuperGreen standards for those homes have been great.

Let me quickly mention the national conservation plan. We heard the member opposite talking about climate change being just man made, just from human influence. Of course there are factors, and we take this into account. However, there are natural factors that can contribute to climate change; water vapour and volcanic eruptions are good examples. Also there are natural forces that can help reduce climate change. I will talk about that quickly, but if volcanic eruptions have some contribution, I am sure the whole House is wondering what on earth bozo eruptions could do in terms of GHG emissions in our country. We will save that discussion for a later day, and I will just say this.

On that national conservation plan, we are protecting wetlands, which are important carbon sinks. Since 2010, our government has increased boreal forest protection right across this nation, and boreal forests are important carbon capture mechanisms in the climate change discussion. However, when we made investments in boreal forest protection, opposition members voted against it. When we make investments in the national conservation plan and as we move forward under strategies to fund eco-energy programs and natural conservation programs, we can bank on it that time and again, sadly, that the opposition members will vote against those strategies and the government will stand behind them.

I am just proud to say that the work we are doing today will continue into the future. It is great work for Canadians and most certainly great work for my territory.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the one thing we have to reflect on is what benefits Canadians receive from cleaner energy technology. I am not so inclined to deal with the worse-case scenarios because what we have, as was noted, is a mature, responsible, well-developed, and extremely safe industry that happens to provide tremendous benefits to Canadians from coast to coast to coast with clean energy generation.

An increase in the limited liability from $40 million up to $1 billion is a substantial increase. It is remarkably higher than other countries.

If we are going to talk about the unfortunate and very unlikely event of a disaster, then we have to be realistic about the clean-up and the capacity to do that. We can look at Fukushima for example, as the member for Wetaskiwin pointed out. Despite the unlimited liability that Japan carried, there was no way the corporation could cover those costs, and Japan ended up having to step in and pick up those costs.

It does not matter what we set the liability amount at. If we make it so outlandish that there is no capacity to deliver it, then it is an unrealistic point we are making in legislation. We are ensuring we strike that perfect balance so as to invite that development, invite that industry, so Canadians can enjoy the benefits of safe, clean, green energy technology at an affordable rate with reasonable and sensible protection for Canada and its environment.

[Energy Safety and Security Act, May 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wetaskiwin did an excellent job of explaining why the $1 billion liability would be sufficient and balanced for our country. The one thing that is important to note is it is a substantial increase. This has not changed since 1976, and here we are in 2014 looking forward to cleaner energy generation in our country.

The one thing that needs to be expressed when we talk about this is finding the balance of attracting this sort of development for cleaner, greener energy technology in our country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We do not want to set a limit so high that it obstructs any of that, because then we have to rely on diesel generation. I and the people of the north know this. We have to rely on burning diesel to heat our homes and to transport food on the highways. Electrical generation in our country needs to get cleaner and greener, and this would be a great way of doing that.

The member referenced the U.S. $12.6 billion liability. The member for Wetaskiwin accurately pointed out that the U.S. enjoys the benefit of being able to pool those liability plants, and individual plants are lower than the Canadian limit. While we talk about a couple of others that have unlimited liability plants that are higher than Canada, there are a number that are substantially lower, including the United Kingdom. South Africa has a $240 million limit. Spain has a $227 million limit. France is even lower at $140 million.

Canada has found the right balance to ensure we can deal with this without making it so obstructionist that we are unable to enjoy the benefits that we would get from clean energy generation and the Canadian benefit with lower and cleaner electrical costs.