Randall Garrison

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2022]

With regard to Canada’s trade relationship with China and human rights violations in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas of China, such as Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Gansu: (a) has Canada raised concerns over human rights violations during its possible Canada-China Free Trade agreement (FTA) exploratory discussions; (b) has Canada consulted with Tibetan human rights advocacy groups during its public consultations on a possible Canada-China FTA, and, if so, (i) how many were consulted and what were their names, (ii) what was the full report of their concerns and recommendations; (c) does Canada and China’s joint feasibility study examining the potential economic benefits of a FTA for both countries include considerations of human rights violations; (d) how does Canada ensure that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for Multinational Enterprises and the United Nations Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights are upheld within its Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China; (e) has the Canadian government prohibited the importation of goods from Chinese companies violating the Customs Tariff section 132(1)(m)(i.1) which prohibits the importation of goods that are produced wholly or in part by forced labour, and, if so, (i) how many companies were banned, (ii) when was this done, (iii) what are their names; and (f) has Global Affairs Canada conducted any investigation into recent reports stating that an estimated 500,000 Tibetans have been placed into labour camps similar to the ones in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 20th, 2022]

With regard to the effects of climate change in Tibet, the Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992), and the United Nations’ (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports: (a) has the government ever raised (i) concerns regarding the detrimental effects of climate change and Chinese development policies on Tibet’s fragile ecosystem, and, if so, when, where, and with whom have these concerns been raised, (ii) environmental concerns relating to Tibet during UN climate change conferences, or other global climate change conferences; (b) has the government called for an external investigation of alleged violations of the human rights of environmental activists inside Tibet, and, specifically, has the government raised concerns about the imprisonment of the Tibetan nomad environmental activist A-Nya Sengdra who was imprisoned for his activism in 2019; (c) has the government called for an external investigation of human rights violations in Tibet concerning the mass removal of nomadic pastoralists; and (d) has the government raised with China the issue of expansive damn-building in Tibet, its impacts on Tibet’s fragile ecosystem, and whether there has been consultation with local Tibetan communities?

[Questions on the Order Paper, September 20th, 2022]

With regard to Canada’s guidelines on supporting human rights defenders and the human rights violations happening inside the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas in China such as Sichuan, Qinghai, Yunnan, and Gansu: (a) has Canada encouraged China to ratify the United Nations’ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; (b) has Canada encouraged China to sign the Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; (c) since 2017, has Canada called upon the Chinese government to accept country missions which would visit the TAR and Tibetan areas in China by international human rights organizations; (d) since 2017, has Canada called upon the Chinese government to accept country missions which would visit the TAR and Tibetan areas of China by the United Nations (UN) Working Group on Enforced Disappearance, the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, and other relevant UN entities; (e) since 2018, how many requests has the Canadian government made for permission for Canadian officials and diplomats to visit the TAR, and (i) how many were approved and denied, (ii) were there any limits and restrictions placed on their travel, activities, and interaction with people; (f) since 2017, has Global Affairs Canada (GAC) requested that Chinese officials provide evidence of the whereabouts and well-being of Gendhun Choekyi Nyima the 11th Panchen Lama, and, if so, (i) when and where was this done, (ii) who was this addressed to; and (g) has GAC called upon the Chinese government to release information about the whereabouts and wellbeing of the leader of the search committee for the 11th Panchen Lama, Chadrel Rinpoche, and the rest of his team?

[Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, September 15th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is both a great honour and a sad responsibility to stand in the House today, on behalf of the people of Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, to pay tribute to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II in this special commemorative session. For me, today is another one of those moments that so many of us never imagined being part of. I think we are all still in a bit of shock, because despite her advanced age, we really had not begun to think about or contemplate a world without the only head of state that most of us have known our whole lives.

It is an inspiring reminder of just how long and in how many ways the Queen served all of us to note that not only was she our longest serving monarch, but Queen Elizabeth was among the dwindling group of veterans who proudly served in World War II. In early 1945, as a young woman of 19, she joined the British Auxiliary Territorial Service, becoming the first female member of the royal family on active duty, where she served in non-traditional roles in learning how to drive and maintain vehicles, an interest she maintained for the rest of her life.

When we think of her long reign, it is important to remember that her accession to the throne really was doubly unexpected. In 1936, the unexpected abdication of her uncle, King Edward VIII, made her heir to the throne at age 11. Then, the early and equally unexpected death of her father, King George VI, in 1952, thrust her into the role of Queen at the age of 26.

However, Queen Elizabeth seemed to have intuitively understood from the beginning that the role of constitutional monarch requires a broad knowledge and a depth of understanding of both politics and world affairs in order to carry out the role of Queen effectively. She worked very hard at making sure that she was fulfilling that role in the best way she could. She knew that although her powers were in fact very few, they remained very significant.

I apologize here for still being a recovering political scientist even after 11 years in the House, but I do think that an understanding of the role of constitutional monarch is important to understanding just how good a queen Queen Elizabeth II was.

By the 1860s, British constitutional scholar Walter Bagehot famously asserted that only three rights remained to the British sovereign: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage and the right to warn, a clear statement of the line between governing and reigning in a constitutional monarchy. While the Queen could exercise those rights in private, other important functions of the monarchy always required that those rights be exercised only in private. Those other important functions are to serve as a guarantee of constitutional government, to guarantee continuity of government and to provide a symbol of national unity above politics.

It was the passage of the Statute of Westminster by the U.K. Parliament in 1931 that created a separate Canadian monarchy in law. This act also clarified that the Canadian Governor General was the direct representative of the sovereign and not the U.K. government. At the same time, it confirmed the well-established precedent that the few reserve powers of the monarchy, those largely revolving around the appointment and dismissal of prime ministers, could only be discharged by the Canadian Governor General and not the Crown. What was left to British monarchs, now established legally as our Canadian monarchs? It was almost nothing, except, again, guaranteeing constitutional government, guaranteeing continuity and guaranteeing national unity.

While some have trouble seeing a monarch as a symbol of continuity and of the state and unity, personally, I see this concept as providing a key advantage by separating the concept of loyalty from politics. There are other solutions to this problem, but none are so simple and reliable as a constitutional monarchy. That is why there are so many constitutional monarchs among the great democracies of the world, not just Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K. and other members of the Commonwealth, but also Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Norway and Japan.

Today, we need to remind ourselves how much Queen Elizabeth II has come to represent the model constitutional monarch and exemplify the strengths of constitutional monarchy. In our system, the fact that loyalty is expressed toward the Crown protects us from the worst ravages of civil discord. Our oaths are sworn to the Crown and not to the politicians of the day. This means, as some of us like to point out, that everyone can feel free to oppose the Prime Minister without having our loyalty to Canada being questioned. We have seen the dangers of unifying symbolic and political roles in a single person and how that is still playing out in our neighbour to the south.

Queen Elizabeth's long life has caused many to take for granted a second strength of constitutional monarchy, which is continuity. She saw 12 Canadian prime ministers, from Louis St. Laurent to our current Prime Minister, 12 B.C. premiers, from W.A.C. Bennett to John Horgan, and countless other provincial premiers come and go. It is not a surprise given that she served Canada for nearly half of our time as an independent country.

When a constitutional monarch dies, there is no doubt about the continuity of the institution, as their heirs automatically assume the throne. When prime ministers leave office, in turn the constitutional monarchy guarantees there will be someone there to make sure the job is filled.

At this point, I want to acknowledge that the symbol of the Crown has differing meanings for first nations in this country, and I express my respect for those who have different understandings of the role and responsibilities of the sovereign as they relate to first nations. I acknowledge that this understandably results in differing and diverse reactions to the passing of Queen Elizabeth II among first nations.

Now, after my long digression on the role of the monarchy, let me return to the long reign of Queen Elizabeth in less theoretical terms.

She did this job with incredible grace and dignity, in good times and bad, and always under the relentless scrutiny of the press and public. However, somehow, despite the limitations inherent in her role, Queen Elizabeth still managed to let the person she was shine through. I am going to recount two stories that illustrate this for me, although neither is my own story. I trust the owners will not mind, as they have told these stories publicly before.

A few days ago, Dmitriy Shapiro reminded us of the story of the Queen's meeting with Holocaust survivors at the 60th anniversary commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz in 2005, as recounted by late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Sacks wrote about the Queen's attendance where she met with Holocaust survivors, and while protocol and scheduling normally kept the Queen to a very tight schedule, with the Queen usually being ushered away promptly by her staff at the end of her appearance, on this occasion Queen Elizabeth refused to leave. She remained, speaking individually to members of the large group who had gathered. One of her attendants told Rabbi Sacks that they had never seen her stay so long after a scheduled departure. Let me quote Rabbi Sacks:

She gave each survivor—it was a large group—her focused, unhurried attention. She stood with each until they had finished telling their personal story. It was an act of kindness that almost had me in tears. One after another, the survivors came to me in a kind of trance, saying: “Sixty years ago I did not know if I would be alive tomorrow, and here I am today talking to the queen.” It brought a kind of blessed closure into deeply lacerated lives.

My second story, more brief, demonstrates the Queen's compassion. It has been told by Catherine Clark, who was stuck, as a 10-year-old, at a reception of a Commonwealth heads of government meeting. When she said she wanted to leave, she was told that no one could leave before the Queen, so she waited by the door. A short time later, the Queen came by and asked why she was still at the reception after all this time. Catherine told the Queen that she was waiting for her to leave first, to which the Queen responded, “Well, let’s go then, shall we?” Then she took her hand and off they went.

There are so many more stories of this kind, stories of her kindness and genuine interest in the ordinary people she served. She has touched so many individuals and families. Even in my own family, my uncle, John Garrison, now in his eighties, still likes to recount the story of serving as part of an honour guard when Queen Elizabeth placed a wreath at the Canadian cross on a visit to Arlington National Cemetery in Washington in 1957. He recalls standing along the red carpet when she passed, close enough to reach out and touch her, although he says with a glint in his eye, “Even at a young age I understood that things wouldn't go well for me if I actually did that.”

My own experiences with the Queen were always at a greater distance, including being on the streets of Ottawa in 1983 when the Queen came to preside over the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution and in 1994 when she came to the Commonwealth Games in Victoria. On those occasions, I saw the genuine affection for the Queen first-hand.

My closest personal connection to Queen Elizabeth came at the time of her Diamond Jubilee. One way the Queen chose to celebrate her Diamond Jubilee was by awarding medals for community service, which is so fitting for a monarch whose whole life was one of exemplary service. It was a great honour as a member of Parliament to award those medals in my riding on her behalf, and it meant so much to the recipients.

Queen Elizabeth's love for Canada was shown by her many visits: 22 as a sovereign in total, I am told, including seven visits to British Columbia, with stops on Vancouver Island each time. Some stops in my riding are well documented, including her visits to review cadets at what was then the Royal Roads Military College in 1951 and 1983, showcasing the close connection the royal family has always had with the Canadian Forces.

As well in 1983, the Queen unveiled a plaque at Craigflower school in my riding to commemorate it as the oldest school building still standing in western Canada.

Of course, some of her visits had greater significance, including the 1971 visit marking the 100th anniversary of British Columbia joining Confederation, the 1994 opening of the Commonwealth Games, and probably the most Canadian thing Her Majesty ever did, which was to drop the puck at a National Hockey League exhibition game between the Vancouver Canucks and the San Jose Sharks in 2002.

What stands out to me in all those visits was the obvious care and attention shown to all those the Queen and other members of the royal family met. This care and attention given to all kinds of Canadians has set a powerful message of belonging and inclusion. In doing so, the Queen set a precedent that will long survive her, a precedent I have recently seen Prince William and Prince Harry follow in carrying on the legacy of Princess Diana in embracing the 2SLGBTQI+ community.

As my time draws to a close, let me extend my personal condolences, along with those of my constituents, to the royal family in this time of great personal loss, of a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother.

Let me also say that I, like many, find it hard to imagine a Canada and indeed a world without the Queen. However, in our political tradition, where precedent plays such a great role, I am confident the Queen has left us with clear guidance on how to preserve a democratic government and how to promote unity and inclusion. She has given us a powerful example of a life of service, one lived with enormous dignity and grace.

Farewell, Queen Elizabeth II. May she rest in peace.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, in justice, when talking about a number of issues, there is always an area where we need to do more. That is the issue of violence against women. We have heard the Liberal government talk about its action plan for quite a long time now, and I think most of us are ready to see that plan and would like to make sure there is actually action in the action plan.

As I mentioned toward the end of my speech, the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour is a form of violence, but it also usually leads to physical violence eventually. We have had all-party agreement at the justice committee; we achieved that twice. We have held hearings at the justice committee. I express my hope, and I do it again, that sometime very soon in this Parliament we will get the same all-party agreement to move quickly on that issue as well.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my experience is the same as what the minister and others have expressed, which is that the vast majority of people I have heard from in this short period of time, especially ordinary citizens, would like to see us move very quickly to close this possible loophole. The majority of organizations that are more active in legal reform have also said they think this bill accomplishes what we need to do.

As I said in my speech, there are some, but only a few I have heard from in the past few days, that think that we could do more or that we could make closing the door even tighter. I am not sure they are correct about that, given the Supreme Court decision, but I am certainly willing to hear from them in the hearings we will conduct this fall.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to state again, as I have many times, that the hon. member for Fundy Royal and I have a good working relationship, despite the fact there are many things we might not agree on. Sometimes there is common ground, as there is tonight.

Certainly I agree with him. Though it was not our idea and I believe it may have been his idea, the motion we are dealing with would order the justice committee to conduct such hearings in the fall. As I said in my speech, it will give us the opportunity to see whether we have done the right thing and whether there is more we can do on the issue of violence against women through extreme intoxication.

Absolutely, the answer is yes.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking tonight on Bill C-28, though perhaps not to be speaking at this hour, but I am glad to see Parliament acting quickly in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in R. v. Brown, which found section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of the extreme intoxication defence, unconstitutional. That was on May 13 of this year, only some five weeks ago.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court found section 33.1 violated the charter, both section 7, which provides protection for life, liberty and security of the person, and section 11(d), which protects the presumption of innocence. It is also important to note that our legal system has gone back and forth over time on the legality of using extreme intoxication as a defence in crimes requiring an element of intent.

The Supreme Court of Canada, before the charter, in 1978, in a case called R. v. Leary, said it never could be used as a defence in those kinds of cases. However, after the charter was established in 1994, in a case called R. v. Daviault, the Supreme Court overruled what I guess we could call the previous common law rule and restored the possibility of using extreme intoxication as a defence, finding that the prohibition violated the charter.

The details of the Daviault case were particularly horrible, which other members recounted earlier, and they actually caused Parliament to act fairly quickly in 1995 to restore the prohibition on the use of extreme intoxication as a defence by inserting section 33.1 of the Criminal Code. That is the section the Supreme Court now has said is unconstitutional once again.

I want to stop here and remind everyone that simple intoxication has never been a defence in Canada for crimes of violence of any sort, including sexual assault, and nothing about the current Supreme Court decision or about Bill C-28 changes that. Simple intoxication is not a criminal defence in this country, but there has been a great deal of misinformation, particularly online, that has misled people into thinking that somehow simply being drunk is a defence in criminal law in Canada.

We have to remember that extreme intoxication is a very specific and limited circumstance, a specific circumstance where impairment is so severe that people have no control over their bodies, their minds have no control over their bodies or, in common language, they are unconscious about what they are doing. Even though these cases are rare, like other members who have spoken before me, I am glad to see us acting quickly to restrict the possibility of anyone being able to escape responsibility for their actions by using the extreme intoxication defence and avoiding responsibility, therefore, for the harms that they have caused others.

Many groups have urged us to act quickly, but I acknowledge that there are some others who are concerned that we risk not getting it exactly right by moving too quickly. That is why I am glad to see that the motion we are dealing with tonight has a provision in it for hearings at the justice committee in the fall. It is unusual for us to conduct hearings on a law so soon after passing it, but I think it gives us a chance to review what we are doing here tonight to see if we have in fact had unforeseen problems or to see if in fact there is more that we need to do. That is why I am confident with us moving ahead tonight because we will do that review in the fall.

The Supreme Court of Canada itself pointed out a couple of options available to us as parliamentarians to restrict the possible use of an extreme intoxication defence while still respecting the charter. I believe that Bill C-28 does this well, in ways that would effectively re-establish the principle that in almost all cases, extreme intoxication is no defence.

How would Bill C-28 do this? It would do it in two ways. In order to make a claim of extreme intoxication, defendants will have to provide expert evidence in their own cases that their intoxication was so severe as to amount to what in law is called automatism. This is a well-known legal concept and a specific state already defined in law that the mind is not in control of the body. Therefore, defendants have to present evidence in their own cases, not that it is possible that they were extremely intoxicated and not just claiming that they were extremely intoxicated, but that they were, according to expert evidence presented, in a state of extreme intoxication. That evidence, of course, will have to be presented in court and can be tested in court.

The second way in which Bill C-28 would make it difficult to use this defence is that the prosecution would be able to argue that even if the accused has proved that they were in a state of extreme intoxication, they failed on the standard of criminal negligence because they failed to take the measures a reasonable person would have taken to avoid causing harm.

If a person takes intoxicants or combines prescription drugs and illegal drugs or combines alcohol and magic mushrooms or whatever it is that the accused was doing, and if they, as a reasonable person, should have known the possibility of losing control and the possibility of violence, then they should have taken measures to limit that possibility, and if they did not, then they could not use this defence.

My summary, in plain language, is that the Supreme Court of Canada cracked open the door on the use of extreme intoxication defence, and what we are doing with Bill C-28 is shutting that door as far as possible while still being consistent with the Charter of Rights.

The Minister of Justice has presented a charter statement for Bill C-28 that certifies that Bill C-28 is in fact charter compliant and consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court in R. v. Brown. I have no reason to doubt the content of that charter statement.

As likely the last speaker on Bill C-28 tonight before we adopt it, I do not want to risk going on at too great a length, but let me say that after a House sometimes has had a bad reputation with the public for being overly partisan and polarized and unable to look after the public good, I believe we are demonstrating something different here tonight.

Through the confidence and supply agreement between the Liberals and New Democrats, I believe we have already demonstrated that in a minority Parliament we can co-operate and work together to get things done, but Bill C-28 demonstrates an even broader ability of parliamentarians from all parties to come together co-operatively and to act swiftly in the public interest. That is what we will be doing tonight when we pass Bill C-28 a little over a month after a Supreme Court decision that cracked that door open to escaping responsibility for violent acts by claiming extreme intoxication.

What we are doing tonight is once again, as I said, making that a remote possibility. We are making it the remote possibility that it should be.

I hope we come across other opportunities in this Parliament to have the same zeal for working together. One of those opportunities is on the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour, and there is a link here because we are talking about violence primarily against women.

Twice the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights has recommended to the House that the government introduce legislation to make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence. Such legislation would recognize that coercive and controlling behaviour is in itself a form of violence, but it would also recognize that it is very often a precursor to physical violence.

As I said, twice now the justice committee has recommended this to the House, and I hope we will find an opportunity to get the same all-party agreement and the same ability to move forward on that piece of legislation as well.

In conclusion, sometimes I am very proud to be a part of this Parliament, and tonight, on Bill C-28, is one of those nights.

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I know the member shares the same concern we have as New Democrats: This is only one part of attacking violence against women. Does she share with me the concern that the justice committee has twice recommended to the House that the government act to make coercive and controlling behaviour an offence in the Criminal Code? We know that coercive and controlling behaviour contributes directly to violence. Does she share my concern about the sloth with which the government is approaching that recommendation?

[Criminal Code, June 22nd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his openness and co-operation in working with other parties to address this issue.

I wonder if he shares with me a concern I have. A confusion of simple intoxication with extreme intoxication has been inserted into the public discourse, in particular online. I guess what I hope we can do tonight is somehow address the fact that in this country, simple intoxication has never been and never will be a defence against violent criminal acts.