Randall Garrison

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George for his tireless work on behalf of veterans and on the issue of PTSD.

What we are trying to do is change attitudes. I commend the senior leadership of the military for taking on the task for trying to change attitudes, but I do not commend the glacial pace at which we are working.

Again, when I talked to the families, they identified that in the cases of the individual family members they lost, making self-harm a disciplinary offence and treating self-harm as a disciplinary offence was a barrier to getting assistance.

I think this is one of the things we could easily do. However, when the minister says that we should study it again, it means that it would not get done in this Parliament. We are out of time. Therefore, we need to act more expeditiously, and that is why I am calling on all parties to support my private member's bill to get this done before the next election.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I have three things to say.

First of all, the minister wrote to the members of the committee 30 minutes before we were going to vote. It was clearly an attempt by the minister to influence the committee and to not allow the committee to be independent on this issue. That is the first thing I would say.

Second, once the chair ruled that the amendment was out of order, I challenged the chair. We had a recorded vote on whether we would sustain the decision of the chair to rule it out of order. Each and every one of the Liberal members voted to sustain the chair's ruling that it was out of order. Each of those members is clearly on the record as doing so. I know that the hon. member was not present that day, so he is not on that list.

That leads me to my third point. It is that these things happen, but now we have a private member's bill before the House that would allow us to do the same thing. Therefore, I call on those members to support the private member's bill and support the Conservatives and the NDP in getting this obstacle to getting mental health services that people may need out of the National Defence Act.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Forty-five? Again, we do not have a good count of the reservists.

We know that even though the strategy was put in place, this continues to be a serious challenge for the Canadian Forces. It is a challenge, obviously, on the humane grounds of taking care of those we ask to do difficult and dangerous work.

...it is disturbing that even today under paragraph 98(c), a service member could face life imprisonment for attempted suicide. It would be more appropriate to consider self-harm under such circumstances as being symptomatic of a serious and urgent mental health concern, and signalling the need for appropriate and immediate medical intervention.

She is calling on us to make sure those supports are available, to make sure those barriers are removed. She said very clearly:

There is no benefit to leaving paragraph 98(c) in the National Defence Act, nor is there a downside to removing it. In my heart, I believe it is morally responsible [to remove this section].

I do not mean to be too crass here, but it is also a challenge when we invest in people to serve Canada and the result of that service is that we lose their skills and their contribution because of mental health problems.

The Canadian military has said it is committed to removing obstacles to providing mental health assistance for those who need it in the Canadian Forces. When the bill came to committee, I moved an amendment to it that would remove the largest symbolic and practical barrier to providing mental health assistance for those who are considering self-harm. That is paragraph 98(c) of the National Defence Act, which makes self-harm a disciplinary offence.

When I talk to people outside the Canadian military, their reaction to this situation is that 30 years ago, in civilian life, we moved way beyond regarding attempted suicide as the fault of the individual and began to treat it as a mental health issue, as an illness that could be dealt with and treated.

In the National Defence Act, to which all recruits are trained, it says self-harming is a disciplinary offence. In practice, when I talk to leaders within the military, I hear that this measure is not used very often and is rarely applied, but the fact that it exists and presents self-harm as a disciplinary offence creates on onus on the individual not to seek help, because what they are considering may become not just a mental health issue but a blot on their military career. It creates another obstacle to reaching out for help.

We heard moving testimony from witnesses at committee, including Sheila Fynes, whose son died by suicide while serving in the Canadian Forces and who did not get the help he needed despite repeated attempts to harm himself while serving. Instead he was subjected to discipline several times as the solution to his problems, instead of being recognized as suffering from a mental illness and receiving the treatment he needed.

Ms. Fynes is most dignified and has resisted all tendencies to become bitter about what happened with her son, instead working tirelessly with 161 other families of those who died by suicide to try to make sure this does not happen to any other families. Here is what she said at committee:

Other witnesses spoke from their experience within the Canadian military as commanders who faced these crises. One of those was retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Guy Perron, who appeared before the committee last November, noting that paragraph 98(c) refers both to self-harm and also to asking someone else to do harm. He said clearly that there is no downside to removing section 98(c) as it refers to self-harm and went on to say that if the worry is about someone in the armed forces asking someone else to harm them, that's already covered by lots of other regulations. Assault is the main one that would apply. If a serving member asks someone else to harm them so they can get out of service, that person is already guilty of offences if they carry it out. He saw no downside to removing this section.

The Judge Advocate General's office made it clear that this section is rarely taken through the formal process. In other words, it is not used very often. However, the fact that it makes it a disciplinary offence means that it is sometimes applied at the command level. I think there was only one case in the last 10 years of someone being prosecuted for self-harming through the military justice system, but the fact that it is there as a disciplinary offence allows lower-level decisions that apply discipline rather than assistance to these mental health issues.

It was a big missed opportunity. The Liberals, as I mentioned, argued that it was outside the scope of Bill C-77 to remove this section of the National Defence Act. That was a very technical argument and one that is very difficult for me to accept, in that Bill C-77 already amended eight other sections of the code of conduct, so it would have been very easy for the committee to decide to proceed with this amendment.

Although the Liberals have not done so and the bill is now before us without my amendment, I still support the bill. I think there are many positive things in it. However, I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-426, which does the same thing. It is a very simple bill. It suggests taking paragraph 98(c) out of the National Defence Act.

The Liberals argued at committee that doing it at committee was not the right way or the right place, but they were sympathetic, so my challenge to the Liberals now is this: If the committee was not the right place to amend Bill C-77 in this way, will they join the Conservatives and the New Democrats in now supporting my bill to take this section out of the National Defence Act and remove one of the major barriers preventing those who are suffering with mental illness from getting the treatment and help they need?

With that, I will conclude my remarks, and I will be happy to take questions.

I am happy the bill is moving forward. I am happy it is going to be done before we go to another election so that we do not have a further delay on victims' rights in the military justice system, but I remain disappointed that we have missed a big opportunity to do something about the crisis of death by suicide in the Canadian Forces.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to support Bill C-77. It has a title that would not let anyone know what it is about. It is called “an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts”. What it really ought to be called is “a bill to complete the process of military justice reform”. That is the basic reason we in the New Democratic Party are in favour of the bill. We are in favour of it despite its tardiness, and we are in favour of it despite it missing a major opportunity to take an action I will talk about later.

Certain key provisions here are important, and I think we have all-party support for adding these to the military justice system. The first of those would provide greater rights and protections for victims in the military justice system. What the bill would do is align the military justice system with the civilian justice system and align it with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. That means that there would be rights for those involved as victims in the military justice system to be kept informed of the progress of their cases and to get key information about the process in terms of timing: when things will be heard and when they will be resolved. This is something that is not in the military justice system presently.

The second of those rights for victims is that victim impact statements would be allowed in the military justice system in the same way they are allowed in the civilian justice system. That is an important reason to support the bill.

The second reason, which was mentioned just briefly before I stood to speak, is that the bill would bring the military justice system into conformity with the Gladue decision of the Supreme Court in 1999. which allows justices to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders in determining sentencing. The same principle we have been using for 20 years in the civilian justice system would be applied to the military justice system. It is a bit tardy, but it is a good thing to do.

The bill completes most of the military justice reforms that have been worked on for more than 15 years. They were mostly introduced by the previous Conservative government. In its bill, for some reason, the victims rights pieces were left behind. That was a bit surprising in that it was the Conservative government that was bringing forward the reforms, and it was the Conservative government that was the big proponent of the victims rights act. It was a bit peculiar that it was left out, but here it is again. It is a bit tardy, but it is in this bill.

The government passed most of the major military justice reforms in 2013. Here we are, six years later, still dealing with a bill to complete those reforms.

There are some oddities in the military justice system that would be cleared up here. One of those is the fact that there is no requirement to keep transcripts of all military justice proceedings. A summary hearing can be held without any record of that hearing being held. Therefore, it can become very difficult for anyone to appeal a decision from one of those tribunals when there is no written record of it. That is one of the things the Conservatives brought in in their original bill, which was quite positive, as well as better protections against self-incrimination, which did not exist in the military justice system, even though they are required by the Canadian Constitution and the bill of rights. Those were some of the things that were in the 2013 bill that were necessary. This bill would fully implement some of those changes.

What I do not understand is the great delay in getting this done. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives were slow to act on what were clearly needed reforms in military justice. I am not sure why the Conservatives did not complete the job on their watch. They only got as far as Bill C-15, and they introduced Bill C-71 in the dying days of the last Parliament, which is essentially the same as Bill C-77.

Having criticized the Conservatives for being slow, I will criticize the Liberals for being even slower, because they had the Conservative bill, Bill C-71. This bill, Bill C-77, is essentially the same bill, but it took them two years to bring it back to Parliament.

The other part of this is that neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals acted expeditiously to get the sections of the original Bill C-15 proclaimed. That bill passed in 2013, and it was not fully proclaimed. It was not fully enforced until September of 2018. We had five years before the legislation was actually put into practice. Some of that was through funding not being made available for the necessary changes, especially in terms of staffing the military justice system. Some of that is simply inexplicable to me. I do not know why it took them so long to get this done.

Again, as I mentioned, it took the Liberals two years to introduce a bill virtually identical to the one the Conservatives introduced in 2015. That makes no sense at all.

What we are doing in Bill C-77 is important, not just in the narrow sense of the military justice act but because of lots of other provisions for military justice and the operations of the military. One of those is Operation HONOUR, which is the military's attempt to deal with sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military. One of the key things here in Bill C-77 is that better supports would now be mandated by law for victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military justice system. This is a supporting measure to Operation HONOUR, which has its big challenges. It has not been entirely successful.

We had former Supreme Court justice Marie Deschamps before the committee on February 7. It was her report on sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military that sparked some of these changes that are now taking place. What she cited was a reluctance that remains in the military to report sexual harassment and sexual assault, and what she said very clearly to us in the committee was that the solution to that is better support for victims at all stages.

Bill C-77 provides that support when we get to the formal stages for sexual harassment and sexual assault, but Madam Deschamps was very clear that there needs to be better support for victims before the formal processes begin. That is something that is not in Bill C-77. That is something that is not mandated by law. However, I do not think that is a necessity. The Canadian Forces could obviously begin to put in place those better supports for those who have been subjected to sexual harassment and sexual assault when they first make it known to their supervisors or to others in the military system. If they make those supports known and make those supports available, we will get better reporting and we will get better handling of all those cases.

There is still more work to do before the formal legal stages that are being dealt with in Bill C-77. I certainly encourage the leadership of the Canadian Forces to act quickly to get those supports for victims in place.

The other reservation I have in supporting this bill is that it has missed a huge opportunity. That is an opportunity to help deal with another serious concern in the Canadian Forces, and that is the problem of death by suicide in the military.

Over the past 15 years, we have lost 195 serving members of the Canadian Forces to death by suicide. That does not include reservists. The government has admitted that we do not do a good job of keeping track of death by suicide among reservists. The 195 is only those in the Canadian regular forces. We know the number is far larger.

We know that those who are young men between the ages of 25 and 30 are 250 times more likely to take their own lives if they are in the Canadian Forces or are veterans. Something is going on, with the difficult and dangerous work we ask people to do, that results in mental health challenges that we are not responding to in an effective manner.

In November 2017, we had the announcement of a joint DND and Veterans Affairs suicide prevention strategy. I applaud the military for having such a strategy. Again, it is a little tardy, but okay, let us get moving on this. Its focus was on providing more support for those who are facing mental health challenges and more training for all staff within the military, including chaplains and others who are assigned to support those serving members, in how to spot signs of suicide and how to deal with those suffering this mental health injury that has led to self-harm.

That strategy, as I said, was put in place in November 2017. Unfortunately, in 2018, we had 15 more serving members and two members of the reserves die by suicide. That is in one year, 2018. One of my colleagues is signalling that the government's count was two, but there were probably actually five—

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for those comments on the round table and the role of the Judge Advocate General, but my question was very specifically about the amendment that was defeated through procedural manoeuvring, I will call it, in committee.

I will ask him once again. Does he support, at least in principle, the idea of taking self-harm out of the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence? This stands as one of the major barriers, even if only at a symbolic level, to people in the Canadian Forces getting the mental health assistance they might need.

[National Defence Act, February 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the good work the hon. member does on the defence committee, where I am pleased to serve with him.

When this bill was at committee stage, I proposed an amendment in committee to take advantage of this opportunity to remove the question of self-harm as a disciplinary offence from the military code of conduct. At that time, the Liberals in committee argued that it was beyond the scope of the bill and it was not the appropriate way to deal with this problem. Since that time, I have introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-426, which would do the same thing: remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence.

I wonder whether the member, at this point, having not supported that amendment at committee, is prepared to support my private member's bill to take self-harm out of the military code of conduct.

[National Defence, February 8th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Forces continue to lose more than one member per month to death by suicide, yet one of the barriers to serving members getting the help that they need is the fact that self-harm remains a disciplinary offence in the military code of conduct.

Since the Liberal members ruled my amendment to fix this out of order at committee hearings on Bill C-77, let me ask the minister.

Will the government now support removing self-harm as a disciplinary offence by agreeing to support my private member's bill, Bill C-426, and expedite its passage through the House?

[Divorce Act, February 6th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen with the Minister of Justice in his seat as the minister. I would like to congratulate him on his appointment, but it is disappointing that on his first bill, there is a time allocation motion.

The member for Calgary Shepard and other Conservatives have mentioned that the Liberals have used time allocation 56 times. That does not come anywhere near the 100 times the Conservatives did in the last Parliament, so there is a little hypocrisy here.

Despite the fact that I am a supporter of the bill and I agree with the minister that great progress is being made, there is an importance to debate in the House that gets missed through time allocation. Members might want to speak at third reading members, like myself who represents both my constituents, some of whom have concerns, and who represents families that are quite diverse. However, sometimes we have other responsibilities in committee or other things we have to do so we cannot get here on that one day when there is a debate, especially when the government House leader has shortened the amount of notice we have of when things will be debated.

It is important that we have debates so all members can represent their constituents, can represent all parts of Canada and, in this case, represent diverse families in Canada.

In my case, I would have liked to have been able to speak so I could reassure those constituents, who have expressed opposition, of the reasons why I support this important reform. In the rush to get things through, sometimes we miss the importance of that debate and the timing of those debates so all parts of the House can be heard.

[Resignation of Member, February 6th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my party to join the member for Milton and, I am sure, all members of this House of Commons to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his 22 years of service: service to his constituents in Kings—Hants, service to the people of Nova Scotia, service to this House and service to Canada.

The member for Kings—Hants indeed does have a distinguished record, but for me and many other Canadians it is not least for being an out gay MP and then being elected five times after coming out, a record he shares with Svend Robinson. The member for Kings—Hants was only the fourth gay MP to come out, after two New Democrats and one Bloc member, but he still managed to set two records. He was the first Conservative to come out, albeit a Progressive Conservative, and then a year later he was the first Liberal to come out. Therefore, out of the first four members of Parliament in the parties, he holds two records, and I am sure, in the last two days we can make room for him over here.

The member is always quite modest about the importance of his being an out gay MP. He made reference today to what is most important, and that is inspiring members of the LGBTQ2 community always to aim higher and to know that everything is possible in Canada.

He has also helped remove barriers for all of those who will follow him. I once had a moment when I dreamt of being in cabinet and I am now starting to dream that dream again, but no matter where we are in Canadian life—whether a woman, a member of the LGBTQ community, a visible minority, disabled—whenever we see someone from our community succeed, it does let us know that it is also possible for us to achieve our dreams. I thank the member for Kings—Hants for that.

In 2004, the member for Kings—Hants set another record by being the first out gay cabinet minister, but at the time there was more comment on the fact that he was the youngest cabinet minister. I think that is why it seems this is an early retirement, even though he has been elected seven times.

For all that he is modest about his achievements, he has been part of a government that has made significant strides in improving the lives of LGBTQ Canadians, so for all that progress that has been made—I know he has been in there pushing the gay agenda—I want to give him credit. For all that remains to be done, I blame his colleagues and we will hold them responsible for that at the next election. I know it is being at the table that is so important, and I thank the member for Kings—Hants for playing that role.

I am not going to go on nearly as long as he did, and I am not nearly as funny as he is. However, all who worked with him know that the member for Kings—Hants represents all that is best of collegiality in this House. All who have watched him here in this House will have often seen that glint of humour, even in the most serious statements, but they have never seen a shadow of malice from this member, and I thank him for that.

While we in this House are sorry and sad to see the member for Kings—Hants go, I know that his husband—let me say that again because I love to say that in the House of Commons—his husband and his daughters will be glad to have him back full time. We all wish him well in whatever career he chooses to adopt, providing it is outside of politics. Once again, I thank the member for Kings—Hants for all he has done here. I thank him for being a friend in this House. We are very sad to see him go.

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I want to say just a little bit about the situation in my riding, where a third of people are tenants and over 40% of those tenants spend more than a third of their income on rent each month. In the last year, we saw an average of an 8% increase in rent in the community. While the published vacancy rate is 1%, in fact for affordable housing, it is 0%. What are these people supposed to do? That is my real question. For those people who cannot even afford to rent, certainly buying is beyond a possibility. The average person in my riding just cannot afford to buy a place at all.

The government says that it has a housing strategy, housing partnerships and is doing all these things. However, we can look at the investment resulting from the Liberals being in government over the last three years. When we ask neutral authorities, such as the parliamentary library or anyone else, to look at spending in my riding, the amount spent on affordable housing, or housing of any kind, by the government is zero.

How does the hon. member explain all the good things the government has said, but the result in affordable housing is none?