Randall Garrison

[Protection Against Extortion Act, April 17th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start tonight by stating something that is particularly obvious to most people, which is that “tough on crime” is a slogan and not a policy that contributes to keeping communities safe. Dealing effectively with crime requires a laser focus on the reality before us. Exaggerating crime statistics to promote fear brings us no closer to solutions; in fact, it often leads us to counterproductive measures.

As such, I would ask everyone to beware of those who cite percentages when we are talking about crimes. It is an easy way to distort the situation we are facing, and the most basic example of that is that two is, of course, 100% greater than one. I am not in any way saying we do not have a problem with extortion. We clearly do, but to combat it, we must understand what is actually going on with extortion in this country.

Last month, media reports identified 74 active investigations of extortion in three provinces. What do all these investigations have in common? All the extortion cases targeted South Asian businesses. Whether they were restaurants, laundries, bakeries or convenience stores, they were all owned by members of the South Asian community. All these cases used the same methods: letters, phone calls and social media messages threatening arson, drive-by shootings and even kidnapping if protection money is not paid. All the included messages threatened bullets, rather than future messages, if the police were contacted.

Clearly, there is no coincidence here. This is organized crime at work, targeting the South Asian community.

There were incidents last November in White Rock and Abbotsford of threatening letters that gave a month to pay up. In December, shots were fired into at least one home in White Rock, while there were two shootings at homes in Abbotsford and one case of arson.

In Ontario, Peel Regional Police opened 29 investigations in November and, as in B.C., Peel Regional Police reported several shootings in which multiple shots were fired at homes and businesses. There were 34 identical incidents in Edmonton.

Some arrests have been made, including two in Surrey, seven in Edmonton and five in the Peel region. The RCMP has created a task force, which it calls the RCMP national coordination and support team, to share information and coordinate efforts to combat what is clearly a targeting of the South Asian community by organized crime.

Delivering resources to those local police forces and the RCMP, so they can share information and coordinate their efforts, is key to combatting extortion.

In February, in the midst of these instances in Surrey, the Conservative leader delivered a speech where he laid out the three things proposed in the bill before us: imposing a mandatory minimum of three years for extortion and four years if using a firearm, as well as adding arson as an aggravating circumstance. He called these additional tools for police to use.

Here is the problem with this proposal and the reason the NDP will be voting against Bill C-381: The evidence is clear that mandatory minimums are not effective as a deterrent. As a tool, mandatory minimums do not deter people from committing crime. No criminals sit around at home thumbing through the Criminal Code to see what possible penalty they face, before deciding whether to commit a crime. What they do evaluate is how certain they are to be caught and prosecuted, so devoting resources to enforcement and prosecution are the keys to deterring offences such as extortion, which are clearly premeditated and planned.

There is another problem with this, of course, and that is the unintended consequences. The member for Kingston and the Islands clearly identified that mandatory minimums disproportionately impact those most marginalized in society: the poorest in our society, indigenous people and racialized people. However, there is a second unintended consequence that is often missed, and I know about this from my experience as a police board member and from teaching criminal justice.

If we have a mandatory minimum, then the prosecutor cannot really plea bargain.

That is important in extortion, because the people who most often get arrested in extortion investigations are the ones who do the drive-by or throw the firebomb. These are most often young men who have been pressed into service by gangs. If we want to get at the organizers, the people who hired them, in effect, to carry out these crimes, we have to be able to use plea bargaining. However, with a mandatory minimum, where they know they are sure to go to prison, we have no way of getting at the people who actually organize these crimes.

As such, it is an unintended consequence of mandatory minimums that obstructs the investigation and prosecution of crimes such as extortion.

I will not go on at great length here, because we have had to make these arguments many times. It is clear that mandatory minimum sentences do not work to deter crime. It is clear what works, and that is the devotion of resources to enforcement and to prosecution. We have to understand that although the Conservatives like to situate us in some great, huge crime wave that is sweeping the country, extortion is a particularly focused campaign by organized crime to target the South Asian community in this country, and we have to respond appropriately.

[Protection Against Extortion Act, April 17th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have Conservatives bringing forward a bill that calls for imposing mandatory minimum penalties. I am wondering what evidence they have, in describing this as a tool, that mandatory minimums actually works as a deterrent because, as a former criminal justice instructor, I can cite stacks of information that show that mandatory minimums have absolutely no deterrent effect.

[Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act, April 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support, as all parties do, tackling the important issues that the bill before us seeks to tackle. We also know that there has been an explosion of sexual exploitation of individuals online without their consent and an explosion of child pornography. What we have to do is find those measures that would be effective in bringing an end to these heinous practices.

Like the member for Peace River—Westlock, I would like to support and salute the survivors who have told their tales, at much personal sacrifice and much personal anguish, publicly acknowledging what has happened to them and the impact it has had on their lives. We would not be making progress on these issues without that work by those survivors, so I think we all want to salute them for their bravery in taking up this problem.

However, the challenge with these issues is to find what will actually work to end sexual exploitation. We know that a lack of resources for enforcement is almost always at least equally important to any gaps in legislation. What we need to see is dedicated funding to specific and skilled police units to tackle these questions because it can become highly complex and highly convoluted in trying to bring these cases to prosecution, and we know that is one of the problems with the existing legislation. It is difficult to prosecute for these offences under the Criminal Code as it now stands.

We look forward, as New Democrats, to hearing from expert witnesses in committee on what measures will actually be the most effective in bringing an end to these practices, and whether and how the measures proposed in Bill C-270 would contribute to bringing an end to online sexual exploitation. The bill, in some senses, is very simple. It would require checking ID and keeping records of consent. Some would argue that the existing law already implicitly requires that, so is this a step that would make it easier to prosecute? I do not know the answer to that, but I am looking forward to hearing expert testimony on it.

While this legislation is not specific to women, it is important to acknowledge the disproportionate representation of women as victims of both child pornography and of sexual exploitation online without consent. However, I would also note that we have had a recent rash of cases of sexploitation or sextortion of young men who thought they had been speaking to other partners their own age online. They later find out that they were being threatened with the images they had shared being posted online and being asked for money or sexual favours to avoid that. Yes, it is primarily women, but we have seen this other phenomenon occurring where men pose as young women to get young boys to share those images.

Obviously, we need more education for young people on the dangers of sharing intimate images, although I am under no illusion that we can change the way young people relate to each other online and through their phones. Education would be important, but some measures to deal with these things when they happen are also important.

If we look at the Criminal Code, paragraph 162.1(1) already makes it illegal to distribute an intimate image without consent. Of course, child pornography, under a succeeding subsection, is also already illegal. This was first brought forward and added to the Criminal Code 11 years ago. I was a member of Parliament at that time, and the member for Peace River—Westlock joined us shortly after. It came in an omnibus bill brought forward by the Conservatives. In that bill, there were a number of things, to be honest, that New Democrats objected to, but when the bill, which was Bill C-13 at the time, was brought forward, our spokesperson Françoise Boivin offered to the government to split the bill, take out the section on online exploitation without consent and pass it through all stages in a single day. The Conservatives refused, at that point, to do that, and it took another year and a half to get that passed into law.

New Democrats have been supportive in taking these actions and have recognized its urgency for more than a decade. We are on board with getting the bill before us to committee and making sure that we find what is most effective in tackling these problems.

What are the problems? I see that there are principally two.

One, as I have mentioned before, is the difficulty of prosecution and the difficulty of making those who profit from this pay a price. All the prosecutors I have talked to have said that it is difficult to make these cases. It is difficult to investigate, and it is difficult to get convictions. Are there things we can do that would help make prosecution easier, and are the things suggested in the bill going to do that? I look forward to finding that out in committee.

The second problem is the problem of takedown, and we all know that once the images are uploaded, they are there forever. They are hard to get rid of. As members of the government's side have pointed out, there are measures in government Bill C-63 that would help with warrants of seizure, forfeiture, restitution and peace bonds in trying to get more effective action to take down the images once they have been posted. I am not an optimist about the ability to do that, but we seem to lack the tools we need now to make a stab at taking the images off-line. It is also important to remember that whatever we do here has to make our law more effective at getting those who are profiting from the images. That is really what the bill is aimed at, and I salute the member for Peace River—Westlock for that singular focus because I think that is really key.

We also have to be aware of unintended consequences. When subsection 162.1(1) became law, in court we ran into a problem fairly early on of minors who share private images between each other, because technically, under the law as it is written, that is illegal; it is child pornography, and it certainly was not the intention to capture 15-year-olds who share intimate images with each other.

Whenever we make these kinds of changes, we have to make sure they do not have unintended consequences. Whether we like the practices that young people engage in online or not is not the question. We just have to make sure we do not capture innocent people when we are trying to capture those who profit from exploitation. The second part, in terms of unintended consequences, is I think we have to keep in mind there are those who are engaged in lawful forms of sex work online, and we have to make sure they are not captured under the broad strokes of the bill.

Again, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony about what will work to tackle these problems. We know the images are already illegal, but we know we lack effective tools in the legal system both to prosecute and to get the images taken down. New Democrats are broadly supportive of the principles in the bill. We are looking forward to the expert testimony I am certain we will hear at committee about what will actually work in tackling the problem. I look forward to the early passage of the bill through to committee.

[Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act, April 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward this private member's bill, which directs our attention to some really important problems.

Is the member familiar with the report from the Department of Justice on cyber-bullying and non-consensual distribution of images from just a year ago, which takes quite a different approach from his bill and says we need to rewrite the existing offence so it is easier to prosecute and include measures, which are now in Bill C-63, to allow forfeiture, seizure, restitution and peace bonds in connection with these kinds of things?

[HIV and AIDS, April 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with the community-based prevention services and the other dedicated organizations that serve those living with HIV/AIDS. For the upcoming budget, they are calling on the government to deliver the funding necessary to eliminate HIV.

The government committed to having 95% of those vulnerable being tested, 95% of those tested receiving treatment and 95% achieving viral suppression by 2025, but it has failed to meet its interim targets. Instead, rates of new infections are rising, not falling. New infections in Saskatchewan have increased by over 30% since 2020. Among indigenous people in Saskatchewan, the rates of testing, treatment and suppression are only 67%, 67% and 68%. Rates of new infections are falling dramatically in other similar countries.

All we need is an investment of $100 million annually over five years, yet federal funding for self-testing kits ran out on March 31. Funding for outreach in indigenous communities on the Prairies also came to an end. Without investments in self-testing kits and community outreach, Canada will continue to fail at limiting the spread of new HIV infections.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, since the Conservatives are constantly raising the costs, my question is whether the hon. members have had the same experience I have had.

I have had constituents come to me and say that they have been quoted a 100% increase in their fire insurance. They have come to me and said that they cannot get flood insurance and that the insurance companies say it is because of climate change.

While we talk about the carbon tax as increasing costs, I find that my constituents are facing far higher costs as a result of climate change than anything that is going on with the carbon tax. Of course, there is no rebate when insurance premiums go up by 100% or people cannot get flood insurance at all.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member's speech, and I wonder if he is as confused as I am about this Conservative motion calling for a carbon tax election. Clearly, the carbon tax is not popular with a lot of Canadians, but they recognize that it is a better idea than doing nothing about climate change.

In the last three elections, a majority of Canadians voted for parties that supported the tax. If we have a carbon tax election, why do the Conservatives think Canadians would suddenly change their minds and vote for a party that opposes doing something about climate change?

[Health, March 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there is panic among community-based health prevention groups that are working to limit the spread of HIV in Canada. On March 31, the Liberals let funding for HIV self-testing kits run out. Self-testing kits have quickly become a vital tool in limiting new infections and moving towards the eradication of HIV/AIDS. We know community-based distribution of test kits works. Frontline workers were hoping to see the funding double, rather than end.

Will the minister commit today to providing the funding needed to help eliminate HIV?

[Business of Supply, February 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the member is the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Does the committee have any plans to investigate accountability for the Phoenix pay system? It was planned by the Conservatives to cost $310 million and now has cost more than $2.6 billion, with more than 200,000 public servants still facing problems with their pay. Is the committee going to investigate that Conservative boondoggle?

[Business of Supply, February 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy when the Liberals and the Conservatives have a contest over who the worst managers in government are. It is quite ironic that the Conservatives are so focused on this one instance of misspending, when they were the government that brought in the Phoenix pay system. They estimated that would cost $310 million, and it has now cost more than $2.6 billion.

My question to the member refers to something she said in her speech about how our confidence and supply agreement with the Liberals does not benefit working people. Does she not support the dental care plan that we started? Is she opposed to the pharmacare plan we just received agreement on? Does she oppose the anti-replacement worker legislation? Does she not think those programs benefit working people in this country?