Randall Garrison

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, November 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that it is refreshing to hear a speaker this afternoon who has actually stated his position on the bill that is before the House.

Does the member have any observations on why the Conservatives seem to want to talk about anything this afternoon other than the bill that is before the House and declaring our support for Ukraine by supporting the improved free trade agreement?

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, November 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, that is a bit of a peculiar answer to a very straightforward question. In fact, if we all do support Ukraine and free trade for Ukraine, then it is a bit hard to understand why the Conservatives are putting up speaker after speaker who will not say clearly that they are going to support the free trade agreement. In fact, a recent speaker said there were limits to the Conservatives' support for Ukraine.

Either we do support Ukraine, support this agreement and get on with it, or we do not.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023, November 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, of course, I am very much a supporter of free trade with Ukraine and anything else we can do to help a democracy stand up against an invasion of its territory.

I am a little concerned by the Conservatives saying that their support for Ukraine is unequivocal and then saying that it has limits, and that they seem concerned about the cost. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction in the speech, saying there is unequivocal support and then saying that we have to know how much it costs before that support is unequivocal.

I know that the government and New Democrats certainly stand with Ukraine. We do not want to offer any hope to Russia that we are somehow going to abandon Ukraine, which I am afraid the member's speech did toward the end.

[Court Challenges Program Act, November 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of Bill C-316 at second reading. This is a bill that would amend the Department of Canadian Heritage Act to require the minister of heritage to maintain the court challenges program. In other words, it would simply take an existing program and entrench it in legislation.

Why do we have to have something to entrench an existing program in legislation? It is because the Conservatives, twice before, have eliminated the court challenges program. I do not necessarily believe there will be a future Conservative government, but the fear is that a future government would be able, in the absence of this legislation, to simply eliminate this program without coming back to Parliament. Therefore, this is an important change.

As always, the Liberals have done the minimum here. There are some other things we could have done to support the court challenges program. As a Parliament, we could expand its mandate because, right now, it is severely limited to only minority language rights and equality rights under section 15. There have been many calls from the legal community to expand the mandate of this program so it could apply to other cases where, frankly, the government has not taken leadership in protecting rights but where people lack the resources to bring these cases themselves. Court challenges can take years. They can cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars.

What this program does is level the legal playing field for those who want to defend their rights against the government or against abuse by others in Canadian society. This program has been in existence, off and on, for 30 years, but it has played a very important role in helping defend women's rights, indigenous rights and the rights of other marginalized Canadians, so it is important that we make sure this program endures.

The program was created in 1978 on the issue of minority language rights. When the Charter was adopted, it was expanded just a tiny bit to add equality rights. The program was cancelled by the Conservatives in 1992 before being brought back by the Liberals in 1994, only to be cut again by the Conservatives in 2006. Then we had a big gap. In 2015, both the Liberals and the New Democrats campaigned to restore the program. The justice committee, in 2017, recommended not only that this be entrenched in law, but also that the mandate be expanded. That part is missing from this bill, but in 2018, the program was restarted.

Let me give some examples of kinds of things this program has done. It financed the case that resulted in ending discrimination related to access to what we used to call “maternity benefits” under what was then the UI act. It helped establish what is now known as the rape shield law, which prevents the accused from using the sexual history of a sexual assault complainant as a defence.

The program funded the cases that resulted in restricting access to victims' personal records, such as counselling records, in sexual assault cases. Again, this ruling would not have happened otherwise because women who have been the victims of sexual assault do not have the resources to bring forward this kind of case and fight it through court. Therefore, the Women's Legal Education & Action Fund, LEAF, applied to the program and received funding, which resulted in this very important decision.

One more example is that sex-based discrimination under the Employment Insurance Act for part-time employees who are women was ended as a result of the case. Again, it was brought by LEAF with funding from the court challenges program. We have a very strong history of defence of women's rights.

There are a couple more cases I could provide, but a favourite of mine, as a gay man, is Egan v. Canada in 1995, where two gay men who had been in an intimate relationship for 30 years were denied old age security benefits because they did not fit the definition of a spouse. There was a case, this time by the Metropolitan Community Church of Toronto, taken to court to say that this was unfair because they had been a couple and Egan had paid into these benefits, including to old age security, Canada pension and things like that. This established equal spousal rights in the time before equal marriage.

In one last case, Daniels v. Canada in 2016, it was established that the status of Métis and non-status Indians under the Indian Act were protected. This was brought by the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, who, again, did not have great resources to spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers.

What is really clear is that there is broad support in the legal community for this program, including and especially in the advocacy of the Canadian Bar Association. There are certain precedents, as I mentioned, about the mandate not being broad enough. Cindy Blackstock and certain disability advocates have demonstrated why we need to expand that mandate so that cases of people with disabilities and of aboriginal women could more easily get into court.

I am going to take a minute to talk about recent events, which I think point to upcoming challenges to the rights of the 2SLGBTQI+ community and particularly to those of transgender and gender-diverse Canadians, who are among the most marginalized Canadians and those with the fewest resources.

Hate crimes against what I like to call the queer community, in reclaiming language, are up. They are up shockingly high. The official figures of those reported to the police show a 64% increase in one year in hate crimes directed against the community. Hate crime data from the police does not actually separate out crimes against trans folks, but a sampling that has been done by academics found that, first of all, hate crimes against the queer community, and particularly the trans community, are more likely to be violent. In the case of gender-diverse people, 80% of hate crimes involve violence. This is where government policies, particularly of certain provincial governments, are fuelling the hate, which has direct results of violence in the community.

I want to talk about the anti-trans school policies in Saskatchewan and New Brunswick for just a minute, because I think the trans and gender-diverse communities are going to want to make sure there is a court challenge to these policies. Without a program like the court challenges program, this would not happen. In August, Saskatchewan announced policy changes requiring parental consent for trans students under the age of 16 to be called by their chosen name and pronoun at school. We do not ask parents whether “William” can be “Billy”, but somehow when it comes to trans kids and their identity, we are creating in Saskatchewan a special bar to using names and pronouns that reinforce the student's identity. The policy was quickly challenged by the University of Regina's pride centre. After a hearing, an injunction was granted that paused the implementation of the policy. The same day, Premier Scott Moe announced he would invoke the notwithstanding clause, and he called an emergency session of the Saskatchewan legislature to enact Bill 137, which amends the education act and includes the notwithstanding clause.

A government used what was really the nuclear option in law to take away rights from kids. It falls into the category of what I would call the spillover of American rhetoric into Canadian politics. It talks about parental rights instead of what we have in Canadian law of parental responsibilities and children's rights. Parents have a responsibility to nurture their kids and to affirm their kids. We know that school peers who use their chosen name and pronouns experienced 71% fewer signs of severe depression, a 34% decrease in reported thoughts of suicide and a 65% decrease in suicide attempts. Therefore, this is a policy that causes great harm. The government could do more to provide leadership in fighting this rising tide of hate, in particular by implementing the 29 recommendations in the white paper on trans rights tabled last June. In fact, e-petition 4666 went up today, asking it to do just that.

In conclusion, New Democrats support Bill C-316, even though we would like to see more from the government to support the court challenges program. It is still important to entrench the program in law in order to make it harder for any future government to eliminate the program. As I said, the court challenges program could use an expanded mandate to be able to fund cases beyond minority language rights and section 15. The program could use increased funding to ensure that it can fulfill its purpose in levelling the playing field on rights in the courts, so that not just those who are already rich and privileged can defend their rights and seek fairness in the courts. Even in the absence of these further improvements, we hope to see expeditious passage of the bill through all its remaining stages.

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Bloc member's comments. I thought I heard a couple of red herrings in there.

One concern that the Liberals also raised is about how there might be some wealthy person in Canada who would benefit from having GST removed from their home heating. I am not really concerned about that, as long as they pay their taxes. The other one is the high cost of these programs.

Would the member support an excess profit tax on the oil and gas companies to help pay for things so that others can afford their heating and get off fossil fuels?

[Business of Supply, November 7th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's speech with care. He noted that the impact of excess profits is nine times that of the carbon tax. I wonder why he is not nine times as outraged himself about the excess profits that are being raked in while contributing to the climate crisis.

Why will the government not support an excess profit tax on oil and gas, which was even imposed in the U.K. by Conservatives?

[Committees of the House, November 1st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we heard from the member about the many important things in the 10th report, and I do not disagree with him about the importance of the report.

However, given that it was adopted unanimously in the committee, and now that we have had those important recommendations brought to the attention of the House, would the hon. member not agree that if we simply had no more people rising to speak on this, we could pass it, deal with the report and move on to other equally important business of the House?

[Business of Supply, October 31st, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc for raising this important question in the House today.

I wonder if the member sees the same phenomenon I see in my riding. Through the pandemic, we know that in long-term care and home care, lots of jobs are filled by newcomers to Canada. They make an important contribution to our health care system, yet they are the ones having a very hard time finding affordable housing so they can fill those jobs.

I wonder if the situation in the member's riding is the same as in mine. These people, who are newcomers, are not causing the housing problem; they are victimized by the housing problem, and we need them to provide those services in the health care field.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the efforts he has put in within his community to help address the scourge of sexual assault in all communities across the country. I also thank all of the community-based organizations that provide support to survivors of sexual assault in particular but also to victims of crime.

One of the things we concluded unanimously in the justice committee's report on providing better support for victims of crime is that the federal government has to do more to support community-based activities. Coming back to Bill S-12, I think one of the important aspects of allowing sexual assault victims to speak freely about their cases if they choose to do so is that it will help remove the stigma associated with sexual assault. This in itself will help improve reporting rates.

[Criminal Code, October 25th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking to Bill S-12 today, as it would address one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights report entitled “Improving Support for Victims of Crime”, which was tabled in the House in December 2022.

When the justice committee began its study on victims of crime more than a year and a half ago, the member for Victoria brought to my attention the bizarre and unjust situation that survivors of sexual assault face in their current circumstances, which is that survivors regularly suffer from restrictions on their ability to talk about what happened to them and sometimes even suffer penalties for violating court-ordered bans on the publication of information that would identify their own names. It is important to note that these bans are routinely imposed in sexual assault cases across Canada. Anecdotally, we know it approaches 100% of the time. It is also important to note that most of the time, this happens without survivors' being aware that the publication ban is in place.

Bill S-12 would fix that by requiring notification of survivors. There are many reasons a survivor might choose to or inadvertently violate such a ban. Some feel that such publication bans inadvertently protect the perpetrators by the necessity of protecting their identity in circumstances where the publication of the perpetrator's identity would identify the victim. Others feel the idea of publication bans itself is based on an archaic and misogynist idea that sexual assault victims are somehow responsible for what happened to them and should be ashamed.

To be clear, some survivors do want their privacy protected by having publication bans in place, but others believe that public safety requires them to let family, friends and members of the public know of a risk of sexual assault they might face, by identifying the fact they were assaulted and who the perpetrator was.

At this point, I want to express my thanks to the survivors of sexual assault, and in particular those from the group My Voice, My Choice, who risked retraumatization by coming forward to committee and talking in public about their own personal experiences, in order to get the legislative change they need, in the hearings before the justice committee on victims' rights that began in October 22, more than a year ago.

Again, I want to thank the member for Victoria, who brought this situation to my attention and then introduced a private member's bill on the topic in order to try to get the House to act. In addition, I want to thank the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, the former minister of justice, who decided to include measures to restore agency to survivors of sexual assault by including it in Bill S-12.

The government did not choose a path, using a Senate bill, nor did it choose a timetable, at the last minute, that New Democrats might have chosen. This has left us with little time to meet the deadline for passage of Bill S-12 and therefore with little time to consider all of the important amendments suggested by My Voice, My Choice, without endangering the fate of this bill as a whole by causing a to and fro between the House and the Senate. Now, we have a bill that, had it been on a better path and a better timetable, could have been even better in meeting the needs of survivors of sexual assault. However, we still have a bill before us that, I am assured, would make the necessary fundamental changes to restore agency to survivors and to ensure that there would not be prosecutions for violating bans of those whom they were supposed to protect.

Let me turn briefly now to the other half of Bill S-12, which provided the original impetus for the bill. The Supreme Court of Canada decision requires revisions to the sex offender registry. The Supreme Court found that automatic lifetime registration for those convicted of listed offences was overly broad, and as a consequence, was capturing some who were very unlikely to reoffend. I know some argue that all must be listed, but it is important to remember that if we list people who are at very low risk to reoffend, we waste public resources that might better be used to monitor the higher-risk offenders.

Instead, Bill S-12 would meet the Supreme Court's challenge by implementing the presumption of registration of those convicted. This would mean that a very small number of those convicted of listed offences could ask a judge to use their discretion to exempt them from legislation. The estimates are that it would be probably far fewer than 10% who could ask for that exemption.

The bill would also strengthen the sex offender registry in a couple of important ways. Most importantly, to me, it would add the offences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and so-called sextortion to the list of offences that would result in registration as a sex offender.

In our modern world of overuse of social media, overuse of the Internet and overexposure of everyone to everything, these offences sometimes may seem trivial. However, we must remember that with non-consensual distribution, intimate images last forever on the Internet, and I think those who perpetrate this need to understand that these offences will be taken very seriously and that they will be monitored as sex offenders on the registry to make sure they do not engage in this kind of behaviour again.

I would like to conclude with thanks to all the parties that have worked together to get this legislation here today in time to meet the Supreme Court of Canada's deadline. I know that some parties still have reservations and I know that some of the victims would like to have had more amendments made to the bill. However, I do believe that we have it in a form in front of us today that will help restore agency to survivors of sexual assault in the future. I think that is a very important reason for us to act promptly.