Randall Garrison

[Committees of the House, June 13th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate today, it seems like there is not just one elephant in the room, but a whole herd of elephants in the room.

Nobody really wants to talk about the fact that the private market will not produce affordable housing and affordable rental units. What we actually need, as I think everybody in this room is aware, is for alternatives for people that provide secure housing, through co-operative housing or other forms of non-profit housing. I wonder if the member would agree with me that this is the real elephant in the room that we are not talking about, which is the failure of the market system to produce affordable housing.

[Human Rights, June 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, exclusionary policies that ban trans women and girls from sports are cruel human rights violations. There is no credible scientific evidence to support these bans. The real threat to women's sports is not trans women; it is systemic and discriminatory underfunding of women's sports.

Human rights protections are only meaningful when the government takes a stand in defence of rights and against discrimination. What is the Minister of Sport doing to bring an end to trans-exclusionary policies at organizations like Swimming Canada?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for drawing that direct line between the smoke that is choking the capital, the fires across the country and climate change. Where I live, on the west shore of Vancouver Island, last week, firefighters stopped 10 potential brush fires from taking over our communities, and I want to shout out thanks to all those firefighters, both professional and volunteer.

We seem to have missed an opportunity in this budget implementation act to increase the tax credit for volunteer firefighters, and I wonder whether the member would commit to making sure we consider that for the next round of budget talks.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, June 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I must say I am bit perplexed as to why the Conservatives would do a quorum call in the middle of my speech. Maybe they do not want to hear what I have to say about parole and the importance of parole to public safety, or maybe they do not want to hear what I am about to say about bail.

One of the things we have been talking about as New Democrats, which is now in the government's bail bill, a bill we have not been able to get to because of the delays of the Conservatives, is community-based bail supervision. That is the idea that we would take similar principles to parole and apply them to bail.

Right now, in the system we have in this country, when someone is on bail, there is actually no supervision whatsoever. The government's bill, Bill C-48, would provide that judges could refer people to community-based bail supervision programs. That means that people who are on bail would actually be supervised if they have a curfew, if they are supposed to be at a certain address or if they are supposed to be going to work, whatever the conditions of bail are. We do not really supervise that now. Community-based bail supervision would be important.

The other thing the bill would do is help with what I see as the real problem with bail in Canada, which is that we detain way too many people before trial, people who have not been convicted of anything. In particular, we detain way too many indigenous people, way too many racialized people, way too many poor people and way too many people with mental health challenges.

We do that because our system says that to get bail, people need a surety. They need somebody who is a friend or family member, who has a stable address and a stable job. They, themselves, also need a stable address, a telephone and usually a car before they could actually get bail. What we are doing is taking a lot of people and keeping them in detention, at very high costs, sometimes over $1,000 a day to keep people in detention.

If we use community-based bail supervision programs, the average cost of those pilot programs that the John Howard Society runs is five dollars a day. What we would get out of that is better public safety outcomes, fewer people in detention, and better public safety because we have better supervision for those on bail.

I am talking about this because it is the other end of the system from parole. Both of these are measures to keep the public safe. If we invest in parole and if we invest in community-based bail supervision, we would have fewer people who are victims of crime in this country. I hope that people in this House will see the wisdom of investing in these ways of rehabilitating and reintegrating people into our society.

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, June 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, as a New Democrat, I am pleased to rise in the House and say that we do support this bill as part of our commitment to the protection of victims' rights. Also, we encourage all members of the House to support the attempts to provide victims with the services they need in terms of rehabilitation or to compensate for losses they have suffered as a result of being victims of crime.

We conducted hearings in the justice committee, where we heard from victims, and we heard very clearly that one of the things they want is accurate and timely information about the parole process. For that reason, I am quite happy to see this bill come forward and to support it. One of the additional things we heard from victims was on the specific case of sexual assault victims, who asked to be consulted and to be informed about publication bans, and have the right to opt out of publication bans on their assaults. Many of them felt a publication ban without their consent denied their agency and their ability to speak about their own experience, and often it inadvertently protected the perpetrators when their names were suppressed. That is in a bill that is before the Senate, Bill S-12. It was in committee in the Senate today, and I think most of us look forward to that provision getting here to the House very soon.

There are other important measures, and I thank the member for Shefford for talking about the attempt to move coercive and controlling behaviour into criminal law. That was originally in a private member's bill I sponsored, but it is now being brought forward by the member for Victoria as Bill C-332. I hope we will be dealing with that this fall. Again, by making coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence, we can prevent victims of violence in the future, since coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate partner relationships is almost always a precursor to actual violence in that relationship.

I spent 20 years, before I came here, as a criminal justice instructor, and one of the things I know from working with and talking to victims is they are concerned about public safety, and in the very specific sense that almost every victim wants to make sure we take measures to make sure the same experience they had does not happen to others. That concern for public safety is always front and centre with every victim I have met with.

It is unfortunate when rhetoric around crime, punishment, parole and bail veers off into what I would call an ideological position that tougher, longer sentences actually keep people safe. It really misunderstands the purpose and function of our parole system. We know that, in Canada, people are eventually going to be released from jail, except for a very small number of them. The parole system does not provide a “get out of jail free” card or earlier release; it provides incentives for good behaviour in the corrections system and it provides incentives for people to participate in rehabilitation, to take drug and alcohol counselling and to take anger management courses. It is hard to get parole if one does not engage in good behaviour in the system and does not engage in those rehabilitation activities. A person will not actually get parole and will not get the privileges of a phased release, being in a halfway house or any of those other things that are seen somehow as privileges. Those things are actually the phased reintegration of people into the community.

We know that people who successfully complete a parole process have a much smaller chance of reoffending. If we make parole almost impossible to get and if we insist on very long sentences, we actually have a negative impact on public safety, in that those who have committed crimes will serve their sentence in the institution, will not participate in rehabilitation activities and will be released at the end of their sentence with no supervision, no access to public services and no monitoring of what they are doing in the community. Parole is a way of keeping people safe; it is a way of promoting public safety. It is a way of encouraging rehabilitation. It is important we not lose sight of that. Having said that, victims obviously need to have accurate information about how this works and what is happening at each stage of the process. In that sense, of course, I am still supportive of this bill.

At this point, it is important to mention what I will call the unsung heroes of public safety, who are not as high profile as the police or as corrections workers. Those are the parole officers in this country. Parole officers work very hard with those who are being phased back into the community, to make sure they are successful. In doing so, they help promote public safety. I salute the more than 1,600, I think it is now, parole officers who work for Corrections Canada and belong to the Union of Safety and Justice Employees.

They have recently released a report, within the last year, that points out the challenges they face. Parole officers have very high levels of operational stress injuries in their occupation. That has to do with the stress of dealing with the offenders and the lack of resources in our system.

One of the things they have called for is the hiring of additional parole officers. This would help each of them do their job in a healthier manner, but also reducing caseloads would mean there is more time for those parole officers to spend on the people who are being released, so they can provide better supervision, more monitoring of things like curfews, or more monitoring of whether they are actually where they are supposed to be while they are on parole.

In addition, they called for increased mental health services for parole officers. One of the things they pointed out was that this, in actual fact, saves money. If we provide better mental health services, we avoid the burnout that leads to long-term operational injuries and long-term sick leave.

The other thing they asked for, and I think this is interesting because it shows their professionalism, is increased funding for more mental health professionals working inside our correctional institutions and as part of the parole system. Quite often what we see now, unfortunately, is offenders who have very complex psychological and substance abuse problems to deal with. We need those highly skilled professionals to help design the programs that would help rehabilitate them into the community with the least risk possible to the public.

Again, it is important, whenever we are talking about probation, parole or bail, to remember that things like parole and bail are designed to help keep the public safe—

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, June 6th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member is aware that the justice committee conducted hearings on victims' rights. In those hearings, we heard about the topic that he talked about, which is the importance of accurate and timely information for victims.

We also heard from victims of sexual assault that, very frequently, publication bans were imposed on them that prevented them from talking about their assaults and inadvertently protected the perpetrators. One thing they asked for was accurate information and the ability to give consent for publication bans. This is part of a Senate bill now and part of a private member's bill from the member for Victoria. Will the hon. member support that proposal when it comes forward to this chamber?

[Business of Supply, May 30th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying I will be splitting my time with the member for Burnaby South.

Let me start by going back to what I think is important. What we have before us today is a motion that sets a way forward for dealing effectively with the real problem of foreign interference in our democracy. Let us go back to what that motion actually says because most of the debate has said nothing about that.

The first thing it does is call on the right hon. David Johnston to step aside from his role as special rapporteur. Having issued his interim report, he says that he intends to keep working, but even in that report he says that the fact that he is there is an obstacle to a public inquiry.

Very clearly, I think Parliament will end up calling on him to step aside to make way for the public inquiry New Democrats have been talking about now for weeks. We were the first ones to put forward a motion at PROC, and the first ones to put forward a motion in this House, calling for a full public inquiry.

What is different about the motion this time is that we have specified in the motion that we should have all-party agreement on who should lead that public inquiry so that we maintain the public confidence that, for whatever reasons, the right hon. David Johnston has lost as the special rapporteur. Let us get all-party agreement working through PROC on the person, and let us get all parties working through PROC, the committee of Parliament, on the mandate to review foreign interference from all states, not just China. The last part is, of course, that this report come back before the next election.

That is what it is. It is a clear plan for how we proceed from today, something that I expect we will be voting on tomorrow. We will see where that leads us. This is a difficult problem for Canada because we are an immigrant nation with large diaspora populations from many countries around the world, and inevitably those people keep close relationships, not just with their families but also with their culture and their countries of origin. Many maintain dual citizenship. Obviously, there will be those close relationships, and they are not inappropriate in and of themselves. People want to maintain their culture and their contacts, and many governments promote building those relationships.

What becomes a problem is when that relationship building crosses a line into interference in our democracy. We have clear evidence that that interference has taken place, as I said, not just by China but also by India, Iran and many others. What we need here is a study that shows us both the scope of the problem and how we could effectively respond to it. I do not believe there is any way to get that without the public inquiry.

There is a separate interference concern that I have always held, which is not subject to this motion and not subject to the special rapporteur, and that is the concern about interference of private interests from abroad in Canadian democracy. We had a very serious example of that having taken place with U.S. dollars supporting the convoy that was parked outside the House of Commons, which was calling for the overthrow of the Canadian government. There were more than 51,000 donors, documented, from the United States, giving several million dollars to that attempt to interfere with our democracy. That, unfortunately, is not covered. What we are talking about here is state interference in our democracy, which is a serious problem.

Unfortunately, the report from David Johnston only muddied the waters. From the beginning, this respected Canadian was put in an impossible situation. His report leaves many questions unanswered, including who changed key briefing documents for the Prime Minister, and it leaves some unasked. How could we get a report without even talking to Elections Canada about what happened?

The waters have been further muddied by the refusal of the Conservative and Bloc leaders to accept a briefing on foreign interference, as though this would somehow silence them, yet we have heard very eloquently today from the member for Durham, the member for Vancouver East and the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, all of whom have received confidential briefings, yet were able to speak very clearly on the important issue of foreign interference after those briefings.

The last thing I want to say is that I have difficulty understanding the arguments of the Conservatives and the Bloc that the NDP needs to bring the government down over this issue. If we were to bring the government down over this issue, we would go to an election where we have done nothing about foreign interference, where we do not know how big it is or how to respond to it. This motion we have proposed today clearly specifies a public inquiry should report back before the next election, so we would have a chance to counter that foreign interference and not go directly into another election with the same problems that we have seen before.

I hope to see all parties support this motion, but frankly, I do not expect to see the government support it. It has been stonewalling the public inquiry from the beginning.

Where will we be after Parliament votes? I hope this will pass. I hope the special rapporteur will then step aside. The government should then realize there is no point in further stonewalling a public inquiry and will then work with the other parties to get that public inquiry going as soon as possible.

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brampton Centre for his quite measured speech on what is an unmeasured or moderate resolution from the Conservatives.

I wonder if he agrees with me on something. The Conservatives seem to be conflating safe supply with new addictions and it is certainly not the case. Safe supply is a way of keeping those who are already suffering from addictions, suffering from substance use problems, alive until we can get them into treatment and we can get them out of the situations that have led to their dire circumstances.

Does he agree with me that safe supply is certainly essential to preventing loss of life in our communities?

[Business of Supply, May 18th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very reasonable speech in response to the quite unreasonable motion before the House.

In doing so, I would like to ask if he agrees with me on this. On Vancouver Island, there are more than a dozen overdose prevention sites, which people like to call safe consumption sites. They save hundreds of lives every year, but they also help connect those with addiction problems to social services and treatment programs in the community.

Does he agree with me that the closure of those overdose prevention sites would contribute to more deaths and a larger number of addiction problems in the community?

[HIV/AIDS, May 15th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, as a gay man of a certain age, the fight against HIV/AIDS will always have a higher profile for me, even though this disease now equally affects intravenous drug users and indigenous people alongside gay men. The government adopted the UNAIDS strategy for eliminating HIV in 2016. We know what to do.

Other countries are making rapid progress. In Australia, from 2020 to 2022, new cases dropped by 39% and it expects to successfully eradicate HIV by 2030. Instead, in Canada, new cases of HIV increased by 26%, the sixth year in a row of mounting new cases. The government made promises to do the right thing, but it has failed to make investments in community-based testing and treatment, investments costing less than $100 million annually, but investments that are crucial to make this goal a reality.

Budget 2023 fails to make any new investments in the elimination of HIV and continues the stagnation of funding that began in 2008. What in the world is the government waiting for? The time to act is now. We can eradicate HIV and AIDS in Canada if we act.