Randall Garrison

[Criminal Code, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to start by thanking the minister for the co-operative and open dialogue that he and I have maintained on the bill and many other matters in the justice area. I also want to thank him for bringing the bill back promptly, because the concern of the New Democrats has always been that we not inadvertently prolong suffering for those who are at the end of life and for their families.

I do have a concern that the minister seems to have dropped the review off the edge of the agenda here. We are talking about the bill, but the work we need to do also includes the broader review. I placed an order on the motion paper today suggesting that we establish a special committee to deal with these broader issues. The minister made many references to the review without talking about a schedule or how we would accomplish this review.

[Criminal Code, October 5th, 2020]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (controlling or coercive conduct).

Mr. Speaker, today I have a private members' bill that would help address domestic violence in Canada by making controlling or coercive conduct in an intimate relationship a criminal offence. Right now police often lack the ability to intervene in domestic violence cases before physical violence takes place, even though significant harm may have already been inflicted on one of the partners. People living in fear of violence should not have to wait to experience violence before receiving help and protection. This bill acknowledges that victims of controlling or coercive conduct suffer serious harms that are not overtly violent. Harms resulting from fear of violence often include declining mental and physical health, and limitations on the partner's ability to carry on an independent and autonomous life.

During this pandemic, governments have told Canadians to stay home to stay safe, but unfortunately not every home is a safe place. In fact, I know in my riding, as in most communities, police have seen a spike in domestic violence calls during the pandemic. Creating a new offence for controlling or coercive conduct will not only help stop the serious harm already being suffered, but also facilitate earlier intervention by police, which may avert physical violence later on.

If this bill had already been enforced, it might have been possible to prevent the shootings in Portapique, Nova Scotia, earlier this year. The shootings began with an incident of domestic violence between individuals whose problematic relationships had been brought to the attention of the police by neighbours and friends numerous times, though without ever rising to the level of physical violence that would have allowed police to act. This bill will fill that gap. The federal ombudsman for victims of crime has recently called for adding this kind of provision to our Criminal Code, and a similar bill has been enacted in the U.K.

I hope the government will support this private members' bill and help facilitate its early passage through the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Conversion Therapy, October 1st, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I want to start by congratulating the government on the prompt reintroduction of this bill to ban conversion therapy in Canada, despite some members being in their early days in the House.

At this ungodly hour in British Columbia, I want to stick to three simple points.

First, this is very welcome legislation. No one in the SOGIE community needs fixing because of their sexual orientation or gender identity. In fact, attempting to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity is impossible, and the attempts themselves do great harm to those fearing or already suffering from rejection by family, friends and their community. Again, this is welcome legislation, and I am glad that the Liberals in this Parliament have changed their position to support the ban on conversion therapy.

The topic was first brought before Parliament by Sheri Benson, former NDP member for Saskatoon West, with an e-petition more than two years ago that received more than 18,000 signatures. The government's response at that time was that this simply was not a matter for federal jurisdiction, so I was glad to see the Liberals change their position during the last federal campaign, and I was glad to see Bill C-8 introduced on March 20, which I know to all of us seems an eon ago. Now COVID, combined with prorogation, has put us back to square one on this bill today. When it comes to the practice of conversion therapy, which attempts to change someone's sexual orientation or gender identity through counselling or aversion therapy and does great harm to those subjected to it, we need protection from harmful attempts to get us to deny who we are. The practice must end. Again, no one in the SOGIE community needs fixing.

Second, on all issues of importance to the SOGIE community, progress has been achieved as the result of brave advocates from our community stepping forward. In terms of protecting our rights, nothing has ever been given to my community without a struggle. I want to give a particular note of thanks to conversion therapy survivors who have stepped forward to tell their stories, two of whom have had a particular impact on me in terms of focusing my attention on this issue. They are Matt Ashcroft and Erika Muse. Just a couple of days ago, three conversion therapy survivors organized an online summit entitled End Conversion Therapy. I want to thank the co-founders of CT Survivors again for their important work: Rocky Tishma, Michael Ferguson and Matt Ashcroft. The conference focused on preventing anyone else from having to suffer the harm of conversion therapy by discussing how to defend, strengthen and heal our communities. Participants heard first-hand accounts of the damage that conversion therapy does, from people who had lived it, and heard how conversion therapy survivors are now working to support each other.

Third, I want to emphasize again that the NDP will support the bill before us, but I have said all along that we need to listen carefully to the SOGIE community, and in particular to conversion therapy survivors, as we work to strengthen the bill at committee. The Liberals have suggested a legal strategy that falls short of the real demand of survivors and the SOGIE community: a complete ban on conversion therapy in Canada. There is also concern that the ban does not capture the full range of conversion therapy practices and that there needs to be more attention to those practices directed at the transgender and non-binary community. Thousands of Canadians have been subjected to the harmful practice of conversion therapy, and it is something that is still with us. Studies have shown that, even more than the minister suggested, nearly 50% of trans and non-binary Canadians have been subjected to some form of conversion therapy, instead of being affirmed and celebrated for who they are.

It is past time to ban this practice in Canada, but as we do so, we must also remember that it is necessary to strengthen the capacity of the SOGIE community to work with survivors to repair as much of that harm as possible. I will be watching to make sure that the federal government makes a significant contribution to that effort.

I look forward to working with the government to make sure that we get both parts of this job done soon.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, September 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to welcome back the member for Winnipeg South Centre. He is looking so well, and I honour his strength.

COVID has devastated the tourism business in my riding, from Butchart Gardens on the eastern boundary to small, family-owned sport fishing and tourism businesses in the west, including Wilsons Transportation, which provides key charter bus services, as well as seven golf courses, and dozens of hotels and restaurants. Together, they represent several thousand jobs in my riding.

My question is this: Given the heavy dependence on U.S. tourism in my riding, the fact that businesses have lost their spring, summer and fall seasons, and that the member for Winnipeg South Centre is an influential member of his caucus, will he join me in pressing the government for a tourism-specific recovery strategy? Otherwise, we risk permanently losing important parts of our tourism infrastructure.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 25th, 2020]

With regard to the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) Policy: for each defence procurement project, what projects or transactions have been approved as meeting the contractor’s obligations under the ITB Policy, broken down by (i) contractor, (ii) procurement project, (iii) fiscal year since 2016-17?

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, when we take a serious look at the savings to both the federal and provincial governments in all the plans that are involved, it seems hard to believe that the Quebec government would not take part in discussions about such a national plan. I do not believe that it said it would never talk about this.

I know the Bloc members are excessively concerned about jurisdiction, but I know that ordinary Quebeckers are not so concerned about jurisdiction. They are concerned about affordability and the ability of the government to deliver programs like this.

I think we could look forward to very productive talks with Quebec on a national, universal, accessible, portable pharmacare program.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by responding to the first part of what the member said.

I do not believe the demand in this country is for some form of pharmacare. That is not what the Hoskins report called for. It called for a universal, publicly delivered, accessible, portable public program. It did not call for “some form of pharmacare” or some patchwork of it.

The member mentioned talking to the provinces. The motion calls for convening talks right away to get to work on this. Obviously we are going to talk to the provinces and obviously we are going to have to build a system across the country.

My hon. friends in the Bloc are always worried about jurisdiction and the ability to opt out of programs. There are differences in Quebec. We respect those. Those kinds of talks would have to go on in order to implement a national, universal, publicly funded, accessible and portable pharmacare system, not just “some form of pharmacare”.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly recognize that important medical research is going on across the country. What I cannot really understand from the member is why she thinks important medical advances would be excluded as a result of a national pharmacare program.

We could write the kind of formulary we want and we could put in place the procedures to decide how prescribing takes place. If a major advance were to come forward like the member is talking about, why would a national system not take advantage of that new technology? Why would it not build that into the system?

I am guessing we have a way to go yet, but there is no particular reason that those advances would not fit in a national, comprehensive and accessible pharmacare plan.

[Business of Supply, March 12th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on my party's opposition day motion on pharmacare. I have to say that my twentysomething self would be somewhat perplexed that I am actually doing this, and that is not just to think that as a gay man I might be an MP, but also that we still have not finished Tommy Douglas' dream of comprehensive public free health care.

Strangely, we have convinced ourselves we already have that. We seem, somehow, to be turning a blind eye to the gaps in that system. Tommy always thought it would be a step-by-step process, but that eventually we would get there. I think we have to ask ourselves how we have convinced ourselves for so long that pharmacare and dental care should not become part of our comprehensive public health care system.

I am very pleased to sit in an NDP caucus, led by the member for Burnaby South and by the member for Vancouver Kingsway on this important question of how to advance toward the goal that Tommy set so many years ago. It is a caucus that has put forward clear and achievable plans to fill those gaps.

When the Liberals proposed the so-called middle-class tax cut last December, we proposed in return that we limit the benefits of those cuts to those earning less than $90,000. With the savings from limiting that tax cut's benefits to the rich, we could in turn finance a dental care program for everyone earning less than $90,000 a year.

There is a practical step we could take and a way to pay for it, one that is clearly within our means and clearly doable. I am hoping, after we debate pharmacare, that we will move to that next stage of debating dental care in this Parliament.

As promised by our leader, our first private member's bill that is going to be brought before the House here will be by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, Bill C-213. This lays out a specific plan for pharmacare, based on the principles of medicare. Once again, this is a program that is universal, comprehensive, accessible, portable and publicly administered.

My twentysomething self would also be perplexed about why we do not already have this. When Tommy Douglas set out his dream, first in the provincial campaign in 1960 in Saskatchewan, he knew it would be difficult, he knew it would be step by step. In 1962, when he tried to add doctors' visits to the existing hospital insurance plan, he had to face down a 23-day doctors' strike.

We know there will always be people who will step forward, who will say there are so many reasons why we should not take the path we know is the right path.

In 1965, B.C. joined Saskatchewan with a hospital and doctor visit insurance plan, and then in 1966, in Pearson's second minority government, we had a federal government that finally offered financial assistance to provinces that had such a universal plan. Sure enough, within 10 years, we had public health care plans established in every province across the country.

When Tommy moved to the federal level, he brought his dream with him. In 1961, he became the leader of the newly established NDP. In the first platform the NDP put forward, specifically, a proposal to have a pharmacare program on the same principles as a medicare program. Unfortunately, it has taken us a bit longer than I think Tommy thought it would to get an NDP federal government. I know that, because in his last term I had the great privilege of having Tommy as my MP.

Along the way there were other reasons to be optimistic about pharmacare. I guess I would have to admit that. First of all, as previous members have mentioned, we have had numerous commissions, advisory councils and studies dating back 60 years, probably to the first one that I saw, recommending a universal pharmacare program.

One would think we would get to this. Skipping over all that time, last June we had the Hoskins report from the Liberal government's own appointee. A Liberal from Ontario sat down and worked through all of the issues, and ended up recommending the same thing that we have all known we needed, according to the five principles of the Canada Health Act. It was something he judged we could implement by January 1, 2022.

Perhaps today's motion is the first step toward that date: January 1, 2022. I really hope it is. I am encouraged by the things I have heard from previous Liberal speakers, that they are going to support this motion. This motion commits the House to moving forward on pharmacare. It is not just an expression of opinion, as opposition day motions sometimes are. It is a commitment, if it is passed by the majority, that we will actually do something to get pharmacare in place.

I would hope that action would occur quickly. The NDP has offered that opportunity with our private member's bill.

However, we would not be disappointed if the government introduced a bill even before that and decided to move it through expeditiously as a government. I am not seeing that happen, but maybe today this opposition motion marks a change in direction toward finally getting this done.

Let me talk for a moment about why we should be doing universal pharmacare, and in doing so I could talk about savings to the health care system. The Hoskins report was very clear that overall expenditures on prescription drugs in this country would drop by about $5 billion a year. This would come from a number of sources. One is, of course, that we would get the ability to negotiate lower prices for drugs through strategies such as bulk buying of drugs, increasing generic substitutions and also eliminating administrative costs.

For those members in the House who like to go on about bureaucracy, let us look at the patchwork system we have across the country with literally more than 1,000 health care plans all being administered to accomplish the same purpose. The Hoskins report was very clear about the savings overall to the system if we adopted a universal, comprehensive and publicly delivered pharmacare program.

I could talk about the savings that would come to the health care system through better health outcomes. This goes beyond that $5 billion. What it would really mean is if we remove the barrier of cost for people to actually get the treatment they need, in terms of prescription drugs, they are going to be healthier. That would reduce the stress on our already overburdened health care system.

This would mean that we could do more with the same resources we have now if we did not have people who end up in the emergency room, in the hospital or ill because they could not afford their prescription drugs. That is an additional savings that would not show up in dollars, but it would show up in less stress on the dollars we are already devoting to our health care system.

I could also talk about savings to business. This may be a strange one for some people to think about, but there would be important savings to businesses here from adopting this kind of national comprehensive program. Right now, businesses and their employees jointly spend about $16.6 billion in expenditures on drug plans. What happens to that money? That money takes costs away from businesses and their employees and transfers it over to be shared by all of us through the taxation system.

Therefore it would reduce the burden that businesses have to carry, but also, and here is where I am going to be an advocate for small business again, a comprehensive universal plan like this would help level the playing field for employment in small business. Lots of small business owners tell me they have trouble getting the highly skilled help they need because the scale of their operation is not big enough for them to offer a good drug plan. If we have a comprehensive public plan, when it comes to hiring employees, small businesses can compete with the big companies that already have those benefit plans.

We can understand why people might prefer to work at a small business in the community they are from, but have to think about their family when it comes to drug protection. Maybe they would choose their second choice as an employer and go with a big company because of the drug plan that it offered, and the safety and security that it would appear to offer their families. There would be an important benefit for small business by this levelling of the playing field when it comes to prescription drugs.

I can also talk about equity. A good reason for a national pharmacare program that is comprehensive and universal is that the patchwork we have now means that the treatment people get in Canada depends on which province they live in, who their employers are and how big their wallets are. That is certainly something that I, as a Canadian, do not believe we aspire to in this country when it comes to the health of our citizens.

The real reason I believe we should have a public universal program for pharmacare is its impact on ordinary families. Let me take a minute to talk about what this really means in everyday situations.

One in five Canadian households reports a family member who in the past year has not taken his or her prescribed medicine due to its cost. This means more sick days in families and, in many cases, means earlier deaths in families because people were not taking their proper prescriptions.

More than three million Canadians per year report that they are unable to afford one or more of their prescription drugs, and there are the same outcomes. It is bad for families, bad for their health and bad for the health care system.

Almost a million Canadians reported that each year they cut back on food or home heating in order to pay for their medication. This is a cruel choice that we are forcing on Canadians who do not have prescription drug coverage.

Finally, Canadian adults are two to five times more likely to report skipping their prescriptions than those who live in a system which already has a comprehensive and universal public program.

Here in 2020, we are at a historic moment. The Liberals have a minority government. Universal health care came through a Liberal minority government. Well, here is another opportunity to move forward. We in the New Democratic Party have presented proposals consistent with the Hoskins report, which will help us get a detailed plan in place.

Today we have the motion from the member for Vancouver Kingsway before us, a motion that will commit us to move forward to where we all want to go in this country.

[Health, March 11th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, more than 15 months ago I asked the Prime Minister to act on rising HIV/AIDS infection rates in Canada, yet the number of new cases here continues to climb, while countries where HIV/AIDS testing and treatment are more accessible have seen reductions of over 30%. China is already putting self-test kits in vending machines on university campuses.

As we hope to see approval of Canadian self-test kits soon, could the Prime Minister tell us how his government plans to make sure that those kits will actually be accessible to young gay men, racialized and marginalized Canadians and indigenous communities?