Randall Garrison

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to work with the member on the Canada-Tibet committee. As an aside, for many years I was not involved in Tibet solidarity work, until the Dalai Lama changed his position on homosexuality. Once he did, then I felt I could help work toward democracy in Tibet. However, Cuba still has a way to go to win my full support.

If the member is really talking about how to make progress in Canada's international relations, then, yes, these dialogues have to include an honest assessment of the situation. However, do I believe that is what the member's party has put forward today? No, I do not.

The member's party is calling out the Prime Minister for what I believe is a faulty statement. I say that his statement was incomplete. It was a mistake to state only the positives without any qualification in his original statement. However, spending an afternoon debating a statement is not the best use of our time in the House.

[Business of Supply, December 1st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be supporting this motion today. It is part of a regrettable tendency I see of both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the House to try to make partisan hay out of foreign affairs questions.

If we are going to discuss foreign policy on a Thursday afternoon in the House, there are many important issues we could be discussing. We could be discussing the humanitarian crisis in Aleppo. We could be discussing the aggressive foreign policy of Russia in eastern Europe or even in the Arctic. On World AIDS Day, we could be discussing the very encouraging prospect of the eradication of HIV and AIDS in the next 30 years due to the efforts of the global fund to fight HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. On a similar topic, we could be discussing how homophobia in Tanzania has caused that government to end the crucial community HIV/AIDS programs, which are crucial to achieving the goal of eradication. Instead, we are debating something that to me sounds a bit like the old Cold War, apart from having a mention of people like me in it, which would not have happened at that time.

No matter how valid the concerns it raises, I am also not supporting this specific motion because it suggests no action on the human rights situation in Cuba. Having called out Cuba, rightfully, for being a serious human rights violator, there is nothing in this motion that talks about how Canada could work to improve the situation in Cuba, to use our influence to help Cubans who are also concerned about human rights make progress in their own country. There is nothing of that. This is tit for tat, hit for hit, partisan political posturing in the motion.

In my remarks about Castro, I will strike what I would call a middle path between the statement of the Prime Minister, who forgot to include reference to a lack of democracy and human rights, which of course he has done before in his reference to Chinese leaders when he has forgotten that they may be efficient but not democratic, and somewhere in between when it comes to the Conservatives, who only see a great villain in Fidel Castro.

Without forgetting that lack of democracy and severe repression of human rights are a fact in Cuba, let us acknowledge the significant accomplishments of Fidel Castro and the Cuban revolution. They overthrew a corrupt and brutal regime led by Batista and brought about significant social development in the face of constant threats, including invasion by the United States and a decades-long blockade.

There is no doubt about Cuba's domestic accomplishments. Cuba has what is perhaps the highest literacy rate in the entire world at 99.8%. It has probably the highest immunization rate for children. Ninety-eight per cent of children by the age of two have been vaccinated against 13 illnesses, a far better record than Canada. Ninety-five per cent of the women in Cuba receive prenatal care, a far better record than either Canada or the United States. Cuba has among the lowest rates of maternal and infant mortality in the entire world. It also now has achieved one of the lowest rates of HIV infection through its very extensive and active community education programs. It has built impressive medical, research, and teaching facilities.

This medical revolution took place not just for Cubans domestically when it came to health, but through significant, what Cubans like to call, medical internationalism. Cuba offers free medical education to students from poor countries. Much more significant right now in a Canada where we have very high pharmaceutical prices and we talk about the impact of trade deals, Cuba produces quality pharmaceuticals and HIV/AIDS antiretrovirals and sells them to Africa at the lowest prices possible.

Indeed, internationalism was an important part of Castro's world view. Under his guidance, Cuba sent doctors, scientists, teachers, and construction workers to Africa, especially to Ethiopia and Angola in the 1970s and 1980s.

All of these accomplishments, domestic and international, are among the reasons many people in Cuba and many around the world hold Castro in high regard.

Unfortunately, I cannot join them. Cuba has historically and currently a terrible human rights record. On any scale, Cuba ranks as the least democratic country in the Americas. This too is part of Castro's legacy. This human rights record was established in the 1960s, a record of arbitrary arrests and detentions, surveillance and beatings, and loss of employment for anyone who disagreed with the government. Unfortunately, these very same practices continue today. This too is part of Castro's legacy.

When it comes to the LGBTQ community, Cuba's record has been among the most appalling in the world.

Yes, 1960s Cuba was part of the Americas, where people like me were nowhere treated with dignity or respect. However, to understand the circumstances is not to forgive or forget the record of Cuba.

The public ostentation law, which allowed for the arrest of people who publicly exhibited, as the phrase went, their homosexuality, pre-existed Castro, but it was enforced throughout the 1960s. In fact, for three years, anyone who was publicly known to be gay was sent to a group that was called military units to aid production. These were re-education and forced labour camps.

In the exodus from Cuba that occurred from April to September 1980 from the Port of Mariel near Havana, organized by Jimmy Carter, more than 125,000 Cubans fled. A very large proportion of those were from the LGBTQ community, many released from prison by Castro so they could be expelled as part of that exodus.

Probably second only to that is the record from 1980 to 1993. Cuba had what it called a quarantine for anyone who was HIV positive. This was not only a problem for gay Cubans, but anyone who contracted the virus, whether sex workers or drug addicts. They were placed in what were called sanitariums. International observers at the time said that this was simply a euphemism, that these were simply pretty prisons.

There was a break in 1986 when most of the legal prohibitions on homosexuality were removed, apart from the HIV quarantine, which carried on until 1993. Again, that was not exclusively a problem for the gay community.

Since then, we have seen Castro's niece, Raúl Castro's daughter Mariela, leading reform on LGBT rights in Cuba, but we should not be deceived. Cuba still does not allow any independent HIV organizations, any independent gay and lesbian organizations in Cuba. There is only the official organizations to which individuals must belong if they wish to be active in the community on these issues. Yes, things have improved, but that basic democracy, that basic human right is not present in Cuba.

I am one of those people who visited Cuba. It was not possible for me to do much as a tourist, but I did encounter LGBT community members. They expressed their great fear of even talking to me at the time because they still risked being imprisoned, arbitrarily arrested and detained. There is still a ways to go and people should not be fooled by the official adoption of LGBTQ rights because it is in the context where there are no democratic rights.

When we look at Fidel Castro, I do see great accomplishments of the revolution, but I will also never forget the human rights records and, in particular, the treatment of my own community.

Back to how we spend our time in the House. Perhaps there is some usefulness in this kind of debate, but as I said at the beginning, in any motion like this I would like to see some indication of how we as the Canadian House of Commons can promote human rights in Cuba. What can we do in terms of our aid programs? What can we do in terms of the inter-American human rights organizations in providing support to them? What can we do as parliamentarians to ensure progress is made toward a democratic Cuba? The social progress has been great, but the democratic process is yet to take place. I would prefer, as I said several times now, that we were debating how to do that and not what the Prime Minister said versus what the Conservative backbenchers say today about Fidel Castro. Not a perfect man, not a perfect villain is what I have to say today.

I hope in the future days like this will be used in more constructive ways to talk about how Canadians can help us solve the most perplexing conflicts in international human rights and how we can move forward in concert with others who care very deeply about human rights.

[Natural Resources, November 30th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, while B.C. Liberal MPs sit silent, B.C. New Democrats stand united to fight the Kinder Morgan pipeline.

Southern resident killer whales were designated as endangered more than a decade ago. Yet neither the Conservatives nor two Liberal governments have ever produced the recovery strategy required by law. Instead, we get yet another vague promise today.

How could the Liberals betray British Columbians and approve the Kinder Morgan pipeline without a recovery plan in place knowing that this project could wipe out these iconic orcas?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 29th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Davenport, whom I think made very persuasive arguments for this bill. She also said something very important in her response to the member for Richmond Centre, which I think is true, that seniors do care very much about the future of their families and that this is about guaranteeing security for everyone going forward.

That said, why have the Liberals been so tone deaf to the mistake in this bill to penalize women who drop out of the workforce to provide child care, or people with disabilities? How can we move forward with this without making sure that those provisions, which were in the original CPP, are maintained in this expansion?

[Criminal Code, November 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-305, introduced by the member for Nepean.

The bill is both timely and important in our community. The member for Nepean read a long, very impressive list of groups that are supporting the bill. That tells us a lot about the significance of promotion of hatred in North America at this time.

The bill would do two basic things. One is to expand the number of places that are defined as protected under law against hate-motivated damage, basically from religious property to community institutions like day cares, schools, universities, town halls, senior centres, and sports arenas. This is admirable, because we know that those who want to promote hatred do not pick on churches alone. Although they quite often do pick on churches, we have all seen these messages scrawled elsewhere in our communities. This is the essence of why this is an important bill.

The second part is important to me, as one of the six out gay members of Parliament. It tends to expand the grounds for protection of groups to include sexual orientation and gender identity. That is laudable. We have made progress over the years in extending protections to people of my community, but it has always been done in a piecemeal fashion, kind of step by step. I accept that this is another step in that progress.

Some people are surprised to know that sexual orientation was not originally included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Of course, I am old enough to have been around at that time. In fact, I was actually here in Ottawa at that time, and I was not a supporter of the Charter of Rights because it did not include my rights. That was corrected through decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

In 1996, Parliament, and again, a Liberal government, brought forward a government bill to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In 2004, the section we are really dealing with in this bill was brought forward by Svend Robinson, a New Democrat member of Parliament, and the first out gay member of Parliament. His private member's bill succeeded in working its way through Parliament to add sexual orientation to the hate crime section of the Criminal Code.

Of course, I am very proud that Bill C-16 has now passed in the House of Commons. It would extend that same protection against hate crimes to those who are gender diverse, non-gender binary, or those who are called transgender. Bill C-16 would also add this to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

When this bill gets to committee we will be asking for one small amendment, and that is to make its wording consistent with Bill C-16. That will take a very small amendment, but I am confident that the member for Nepean had no intention of narrowing the bill. I hope to have a good discussion with him about the possibility of that. I regard it as a technical amendment that really meets the objectives of what he laid out in the bill.

When it comes to hate crimes, we know the groups that are most often subjected to them because of the statistics that are kept. However, I would point out in the chamber, as I did in debate on my private member's bill in the last Parliament, and as I did on Bill C-16, that we do not keep good statistics on hate crimes that are committed on the basis of gender identity or gender expression, because these are not explicitly embedded in the law. They are lumped together usually, when they are considered at all, with sexual orientation, which is quite a different matter than gender identity and gender expression. Again, I hope we can make the bill more consistent.

We need a larger debate about hate crimes in this Parliament at some point. I am not faulting the bill. It is not the purpose of the bill, but I would look forward to a discussion, because unfortunately, in the last Parliament, in June of 2013, we passed a bill that removed section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would have allowed the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do more proactive work against hate crimes in our society.

The very fact that this is coming forward as a private member's bill gives me some confidence that we can probably find a consensus in this Parliament to actually restore the power to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to do that preventative work that would prevent the kinds of crimes that Bill C-305 is talking about.

I look forward to finding a forum where we could have that broader discussion among MPs.

I would hope that the government might bring forward such a bill as part of its agenda. Again I have to question why this important bill is a private member's bill and not part of the government's agenda. In response to my question, the member for Nepean said he hoped to have the support of his frontbench and the Minister of Justice for this legislation. That is a bit of a waiver for me in terms of my confidence. I hope that we can and will see the government, particularly the frontbench, support the bill and not kill a private member's bill as it has done to other Liberal backbenchers.

When it comes to hate crimes, the crimes that the bill focuses on are the most common. I do have to note once again that the groups most likely to be subject to violent hate crimes are the LGBTQ community and, in particular, transgender Canadians, and within that group, first nations or two-spirited people.

I am pleased that on Friday and Saturday in my riding, the Victoria Native Friendship Centre is putting on a workshop for two-spirited British Columbia youth from across the province to help them build confidence in themselves and to confront the prejudice and the violence they often face. I intend to be at that conference on Friday and to bring news, I hope, that we have support for adding gender identity and gender expression to help protect two-spirited first nation youth in this country against these kinds of hate crimes.

Who is in favour of this legislation? I guess my question should be, who in Canada would not be in favour of this legislation? Quite often because of the immense overflow of American culture and American politics into Canadian society, we get caught up in the negativity that goes on there, particularly the negativity of the presidential campaign, and the increased frequency of hate crimes reported throughout the United States as a result of the unfortunate encouragement of prejudice and hate by some very prominent citizens, including the current president-elect of the United States, whose name I always avoid saying.

As previous speakers have done, I am not going to review some of the incidents that have taken place. We all know about them. It is a bit like my own personal habit of not mentioning the perpetrators of crime, but instead talk about the victims and how they recover from that crime. It is important that we recognize the reality, and I thank the member for Nepean and the member from Edmonton for bringing that to our attention again.

I know my time is drawing short, but let me go back to what I said at the beginning of my remarks. I extend my thanks to the member for Nepean for bringing this forward. I encourage him to talk to the frontbench of his party seriously to make sure that those members will support this legislation. We have found some support, I hope broad support, within the Conservative caucus. The member will find universal support in the NDP caucus for his bill. We will ask for what I regard as a technical amendment to broaden the legislation a bit to make it consistent with Bill C-16. We look forward to this legislation's passing through the House expeditiously.

[Criminal Code, November 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I, too, want to thank the member for Nepean for bringing forward this legislation, especially in light of the unfortunate hate crimes we have seen in the Ottawa region in the past couple of weeks. I think it is very timely legislation.

My question for the member is this. Why is this coming forward from the Liberal side as a private member's bill and not as a government bill? It obviously should be a priority for Canadians, and therefore I am not sure why it is not a government bill.

Related to that, we have seen backbenchers on the Liberal side bring forward very good bills and their cabinet has voted against them. It has actually voted down private members' bills. Has the member had any consultations with his front bench to ensure his government will provide support to this very important bill?

[National Defence, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Liberals' promise of an open competition to replace the CF-18s was not worth the paper it was written on. Instead, they are using the same approach as the Conservatives with the F-35s, this time hand-picking the Super Hornets without an open competition. Same approach, different jet.

Everyone knows sole sourcing is the best way to get the worst price for taxpayers. Once again, the Liberals are breaking another major campaign promise. Does the minister really believe there can be an open competition five years from now after sole-sourcing nearly a third of the fleet?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed to see this amendment come forward at this late date. In committee, only one person voted against the bill, so it was not a partisan manner, and we had a long discussion about the fact that there had been three sets of public hearings on the Hill on the bill, and those transcripts are available to all members.

On the question she specifically puts in the amendment, it seems passing strange to me that her amendment does not include removing religious freedom from protections against discrimination, or gender, or race, because the argument she is making could be made exactly in the same manner, that we cannot have those in the human rights code because people might not be able to believe things about race or might not be able to believe things about relations between men and women. Obviously, it has not had those impacts. It has not affected free speech of those groups. How is the question of transgender, gender-variant rights any different than the other rights that are already in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the protected section of the Criminal Code?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Saskatoon West for the work she has done in this House on LGBTQ issues and for her support today for Bill C-16.

Earlier in one of the questions on the bill, the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski raised the question of two-spirited Canadians. I want to mention the conference taking place in my riding on the 25th and 26th, at the Victoria Native Friendship Centre, called 2 Spirits, One Heart, One Mind, One Nation. It is a B.C. aboriginal youth conference.

What I have heard many times, and I am asking the member if she has heard the same thing, is that some of the most discriminated against people are in fact transgendered aboriginal Canadians. Quite often they have the worst employment situation, the worst housing situation, and the worst alternatives facing them.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her work in her riding on behalf of the LGBTQ community, and also here in the House for her constant support.

Many of the social problems of discrimination in housing and employment fall under provincial jurisdiction, but there are some very fundamental things that are in the hands of the federal government.

One of those is access to passports and identity documents that will help transgender people travel, be employed, and help them in all facets of their daily life.

A second one is a particular concern of mine that I raised in the House in 2012 and unfortunately in committee where we were laughed at for raising this concern. That is the concern of the emphasis on gender in airport screening, which has nothing to do with security but often causes humiliation and embarrassment to transgender people who are not currently in possession of documents that match their gender identity.

A third, which is very important and I have also worked on for a long time, is federal corrections and making sure that inmates are assigned to the proper correctional facility, because if they are not assigned to the proper correctional facility they face great danger of violence. This also applies to those under immigration detention who are quite often not in federal facilities but face the same kinds of problems if they are placed in the wrong institution.