Randall Garrison

[The Budget, April 20th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for his tip on pinning the Speaker. He and I have always worked for [Technical difficulty—Editor] in this Parliament.

Let me reassure the member that New Democrats know that a budget is a confidence question, and we have reassured Canadians that we will not force them into an election in this third wave of the pandemic. That is why I am quite disappointed that the Liberals have put some things in this budget that they know New Democrats would not normally support.

Does the member actually support cutting the emergency benefit by 40%? I have many people in my riding who work in the tourism industry. The tourism season is not coming back this year, for the second year in a row, and they are forced to depend on that emergency benefit. It is going to go from $2,000 a month to $1,200. How are they expected to survive on that pittance?

[Points of Order, April 19th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to a point of order raised by the member for Don Valley West, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, with regard to a question placed by the member for Cloverdale—Langley City in the debate on Friday on Bill C-6, conversion therapy.

This is not the first time I have had to respond to these kinds of statements in the House of Commons, unfortunately. What the member for Cloverdale—Langley City did was to hide behind biblical quotations to cast dispersions on gay members of the House of Commons. This is a very serious matter for me. I believe it is, in fact, a question of privilege. It makes it difficult for members of Parliament to do their jobs when they are subject to these kinds of accusations. It also makes it very difficult to encourage other Canadians to run for public office when these kinds of slurs are allowed in the House of Commons.

As I said, this is not the first time I have had to deal with this, unfortunately. On September 29, 2011, the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, Russ Hiebert, made a statement in S.O. 31s where he implied that because of my position on certain legislation, I was a friend of pedophiles. At that time, I stood in the House and objected to that statement, first, because as an adult survivor of child abuse, I took very strong offence to that kind of statement; and second, because once again it made it difficult for me to do my job as an MP when subjected to those kinds of accusations. The same excuse was used by the previous member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale in 2011, which is being used again, “Oh, I didn't really mean that. Someone has misunderstood because I didn't say word for word what I clearly implied in my statement.”

This does affect me as a serving member of the House. This affects all members of my community across the country when these statements are allowed to stand without apology or removal. I would ask the Speaker take this into very serious consideration and take appropriate action to ensure that this does not happen again in the House of Commons. That can only happen when a member is sanctioned for doing so.

[United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, April 15th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for a very moving speech on Bill C-15. The concept of consent was first raised with me nearly 40 years ago, when I lived in Yellowknife, by leaders of the Dene Nation in their initial opposition to the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. Ever since then, we have heard this rhetoric that recognizing indigenous rights will somehow block progress.

I wonder if the member shares my concern that these expressions of concern about delay and about blocking are fundamentally based on what can best be called stereotypical views of first nations, if not racist views of first nations.

[Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2020, April 13th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway for shining a light on the vulnerabilities Canada faces because of our inability to access vaccines and other key drugs, and a solution to that problem, as well as our vulnerabilities in long-term care and the solution to that problem being to take profit out of long-term care.

I wonder if the member shares the doubt that the budget will actually provide concrete measures to work on these problems, when the Prime Minister issued a mandate letter to the Minister of Finance saying there could be no new permanent spending programs.

[His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, April 12th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I rise virtually today to express condolences on behalf of New Democrats to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and the entire royal family on the death of Prince Philip. As it has been for all families who have lost loved ones during this pandemic, necessary restrictions make these losses even harder to bear.

Prince Philip will be remembered not only for being the longest-serving consort in the history of the British monarchy, but also for being the person he was: someone dedicated to encouraging young people to set high goals and work hard to achieve them through the Duke of Edinburgh's Award; someone who recognized the importance of the conservation movement and keeping our world habitable; someone who could support a powerful and strong partner and only rarely, if ever, get caught trying to upstage her; and, someone who was a dedicated public servant, keeping an active schedule well into his nineties and even remarking at one point that he was probably the world's most experienced plaque unveiler.

Let us not forget that Prince Philip was also a World War II naval veteran as we wish him fair winds and following seas in bidding him farewell.

[Business of Supply, March 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech with interest because I am not all that happy to be debating this motion today, but the government has left us, as members of Parliament, no choice.

Here is the situation at National Defence. For three years, after serious allegations of sexual misconduct were made against General Vance, he stayed as the chief of the defence staff. There was no investigation and no effective action. When we asked the Minister of National Defence to be the minister responsible, he said it was not his job. He said we had better talk to the Privy Council Office. When we asked him what the Prime Minister knew about this, he said he had asked his staff to do that.

Therefore, we are placed in the unenviable position of having to call his chief of staff to find out what the Prime Minister's Office was told and to have to call Privy Council officials to find out why there was no investigation. How do we avoid this situation if the Minister of National Defence will not take personal responsibility for his failure to act and remove General Vance?

[Criminal Code, March 24th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to rise in the House today rather than just speak to a pinhole camera, as I always say, but let me say that New Democrats will be supporting Bill C-22 at second reading, because there are some good ideas in it. However, if we are going to be amending the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, we see Bill C-22 as a real missed opportunity. We have two very important crises in front of us as Canadians. One is the opioid crisis and the other is the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and Canadians living in poverty. We had a real chance to tackle both of those issues in this bill and, instead, the government has given us a very tepid response.

What we should see in this bill is a change to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to decriminalize the personal possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use, and we should also see a second provision that would automatically expunge previous criminal records for personal possession of drugs. If we had those two things in this bill, we could tackle the problem of addiction by moving it clearly to the health system rather than the criminal justice system, and we could tackle one of the main causes of over-incarceration of marginalized people in Canada.

The policies that New Democrats are talking about are more effective, more just and even cheaper. I want to talk about mandatory minimums. The one good idea in the bill is to eliminate mandatory minimums for drug offences. New Democrats have certainly long argued for this. Conservatives, in their speeches, have been saying that the bill would eliminate mandatory minimums created by the Liberals, which is true and I am for that, and it creates a lot more mandatory minimums created by Conservatives, and I am also in favour of that.

Mandatory minimums do not do a thing to prevent or deter crime or make Canadians safer. All that mandatory minimums do is to guarantee that some people who should not be in prison at all, who would be better off in rehabilitation or diversion programs, are incarcerated. Mandatory minimums end up costing the public money, and having spent 20 years as a criminal justice instructor before coming here, I can say that those who go to prison actually end up far more likely to reoffend than those who do not. Therefore, rehabilitation and diversion programs are a great success and mandatory minimums stand in the way of those programs.

When it comes to overrepresentation, there is no doubt that when we look at the statistics of how many indigenous people are in the correctional system, though they are only 4.9% of the population, they make up over 30% of the people incarcerated in Canada, as the criminal investigator, Ivan Zinger, reported. If we look at Black Canadians, in the last census though they were about 3.5% of Canadians, they are more than double that percentage of the prison population. Many people who live in poverty end up embroiled in the criminal justice system because of very minor drug offences. Again, if we are looking at what the real solution is to both of these problems, it is decriminalization of the personal possession of small amounts of drugs.

Let us take the example of Portugal, which decriminalized personal possession in 2001. We see some very positive results as a result of that legislative action. There have been steep declines in overdose deaths in Portugal, in drug usage, in new cases of HIV and hepatitis C infections and in drug-related crime. Overdose deaths declined from over 400 per year to less than 40. Drug usage declined among all age groups, but it was an especially large decline in the 15-year-old to 24-year-old age group. New HIV infections declined by 90%. Portugal previously had the highest rate of drug-related HIV cases, and decriminalization led to that very steep decrease. It also led to a decrease in incarceration, by about 75% for drug offences.

This measure had lots of related impacts. First of all, the police reported that they had much more time to devote to serious drug trafficking cases when they were not messing with personal possession cases, and it helped eliminate many long delays in the Portuguese criminal justice system by taking many of these minor cases out of the court system.

Did it solve all problems related to addiction and drug use? No, of course it did not. Observers have pointed to the need that if we decriminalize personal possession, we need strong prevention and treatment programs to go alongside that. We need things like supervised injection sites, needle exchanges, provisions for the safe supply of drugs, better access to anti-overdose medications and improved access, obviously, to drug prevention and treatment programs.

Certainly the opioid crisis makes more dramatic action than this bill offers necessary. On the south island, in 2019, there were 65 overdose deaths. In 2020, during the current pandemic crisis, there 120 deaths. In British Columbia as a whole in the period of COVID, the number of toxic-drug deaths doubled in that time period.

Is decriminalization of the possession of small amounts of drugs for personal use still an idea outside the mainstream? Certainly I felt like an outlier when I first began talking about this as a city councillor in 2008, though, of course, Portugal was my example then as it is now. However, now we can add to the list of supporters of decriminalization of personal possession, including big city mayors, from Kennedy Stewart in Vancouver to Valérie Plante in Montreal; the Elizabeth Fry Society; the John Howard Society; virtually every criminal justice researcher; the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police; the World Health Organization; the Global Commission on Drug Policy; and various UN agencies.

While the New Democrats are offering support for this timid bill, it does do one good thing in eliminating those mandatory minimum sentences for drug offences. However, what we are offering is also criticism for the failure to take on the bigger questions that lie behind our failure to confront the opioid crisis, the over-incarceration of indigenous people, Black Canadians and Canadians living in poverty.

The New Democrats will continue to fight for more effective, comprehensive and cheaper measures to get these two jobs done.

[Criminal Code, March 24th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, the minister knows that my question is going to about why he has not gone a bit further. Why are we still talking about criminal penalties for the personal possession of small amounts of drugs when all health authorities recognize that we should treat addiction and drug use as a health problem, and not as a criminal problem? Why be so timid? Why do we not just move to eliminate those criminal penalties altogether?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Return, March 22nd, 2021]

With regard to the Royal Canadian Navy’s frigate replacement program and the National Shipbuilding Strategy: (a) how critical is progress on the modernization of the Royal Canadian Navy to the defence of Canada and its allies; (b) what is the status of the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement project, including the (i) timelines, (ii) costs, (iii) target dates for the Royal Canadian Navy to take delivery of the frigates; (c) has the government conducted an inquiry in regards to the management, costs and associated production delays of the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement project and, if not, will the government commit to holding such an inquiry and make the results public; (d) what measures are being taken by the government to make sure that the National Shipbuilding Strategy remains on track to provide Canada’s armed forces personnel with the equipment they need to do their work in a timely and cost-effective manner; and (e) has the government considered appointing a single minister responsible for defence procurement, similar to our allies in the United Kingdom and Australia, in order to streamline military procurement and to provide better accountability to the public and, if not, will the government commit to establishing such a position?

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 22nd, 2021]

With regard to the government’s commitment to expunge the criminal records of LGBTQ2+ Canadians for historical offences that are no longer criminal offences as part of the Expungement of Historically Unjust Convictions Act: (a) how many people have applied to have their records expunged for unjust convictions; (b) what percentage of the applicants have been successful in having their records expunged; (c) of the unsuccessful applications, what reasons have been given for their rejection by category and how many rejected applications fall into each category; and (d) is there a deadline for applying for expungement under this act and, if so, will that deadline be extended to take into account the impact of the pandemic on the ability of those affected to complete applications?