Sheila Malcolmson

[Infrastructure, September 26th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, we need to act on climate change. We have lost 10 years, arguably 20 years of action around the globe. We have damaged Canada's international reputation, and we have certainly affected our fishing stocks, forests, public safety, and put more stress on firefighters, local farmers, and on future generations. Action is badly needed. Canada cannot stand on the sidelines. We need to transition now to a cleaner and greener economy.

That means setting ambitious targets to reduce greenhouse gases and acting on a concrete plan to actually deliver those targets. Unfortunately, the federal government here, and at the other end of the House, has done neither. I am reminded of my first job out of university, in the early nineties, working with environmental groups and industry across the country to use economic instruments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollutants. The Liberal government of the day did not embrace the recommendations that we made together, and we have a lot of time to make up.

Shifting away from fossil fuels and toward cleaner technology is good for the earth, the atmosphere, the economy, and it creates a lot of good, green, local jobs in the process. Therefore, my picture is much friendlier and more positive than my colleague who just spoke.

The good news is that climate action is a win-win. I have a lot of good stories from my riding, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, that illustrate what we can do if we make our investment and economic decisions with a climate change filter.

The Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre is building the first affordable family housing project in Nanaimo since 1998: 17 units of affordable housing, some of them designated for elders, some for youth transitioning out of care, and some for survivors of domestic violence. This is the first certified passive house in western Canada for affordable housing. Passive homes use 80% less energy than conventional home constructions. Low energy use leads to lower operating costs, which leads to more affordability for the residents and homeowners. We are very proud of Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre for embracing this technology, which has been in place for 30 years in Europe.

Another great affordable housing project that I have had the honour of being involved with is Habitat for Humanity's mid-island chapter on Vancouver Island. It has just opened the first two of six new affordable housing units. It had a fantastic amount of community support for this. Vancouver Island University's carpentry students dedicated 5,000 hours of labour toward this project, on which they learned about energy efficient technology building techniques and installing low-energy windows, ventilation systems, and lighting. Interior design students were involved. Heavy equipment operators were involved. It is a wonderful community experience. To be part of the key ceremony where two families took ownership of two homes built by volunteers and students in an environmental and low operating cost way was a very proud moment for all of us.

We have a number of LEED certified buildings in our region: Ladysmith Community Services Centre, the Nanaimo Fire Station No. 4, South Forks water treatment plant, and many others. There are about 20 all together. We have had great economic impact from building homes in a more energy efficient way. The economic impact of LEED buildings across the country for the last 10 years is estimated to have resulted in $128 billion worth of economic output.

In 2014, Canada's green building industry employed more direct full-time workers than the forestry, mining, and oil sectors combined. This is a great place of pride for us, and a huge economic opportunity, a local employment opportunity as well as a climate change saving opportunity.

We need our government to support local initiatives like this and remove barriers to innovation here at home. We have the know-how in our communities. We want climate leadership that supports, not impedes, cutting greenhouse gas emissions in our riding, on the coast, and across the country.

We also have infrastructure wishes in our riding that would benefit from a climate change task and will reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

There is a huge need for regional transit in my riding. In communities that are just 20 minutes apart, Ladysmith and Nanaimo, there is no public transit connection. That is a problem for students, for the affordability of post-secondary education, and for band members of the Stz'uminus first nation. It is hard for them to commute to their jobs. If they could use the bus, life would be more affordable. There is great demand, and many business people are pulling for public transit in my region. A climate change filter on infrastructure investment would put this to the top of the list.

There is fantastic volunteer work on bicycle paths and mapping out what our community could look like with lower greenhouse gas emissions and getting vehicles off the road.

There is a huge lobby for food-processing facilities that would support local farmers in value-added processing and niche foodie industry, which is big across the whole country. Distillers, brewers, and wineries as well are all looking for ways to support infrastructure that supports local agriculture.

The indigenous peoples place of culture is a very hopeful initiative in my riding. It would implement some of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission on bringing people together, all nations, indigenous and non-indigenous, in a beautiful facility. We are looking for infrastructure funding for this now. It would have a day care, a school, and a community kitchen. Again, it would be built with a passive design, using 80% less energy than conventional buildings do.

We are very thankful to the Mid Island Metis Nation, the Boys & Girls Club of Canada, and Nanaimo Aboriginal Centre for this innovative and positive development that would be climate friendly and good for my community in every way.

Vancouver Island University has a proposal for district geo-exchange energy based on flooded, abandoned coal mines that underlie the university campus. The intent is to replace natural gas, to reduce carbon outputs to near zero, and to use the facility as a teaching and awareness site, a teaching opportunity, to help people get excited about alternative energy and see it working.

New Democrats support this motion. We support initiatives to help lower Canada's greenhouse gas emissions and to promote federally funded projects, like the ones I have described, that would mitigate the impacts of climate change. The motion proposes that infrastructure projects receiving over half a million dollars in federal funding be subject to an analysis of the project's potential greenhouse gas emissions. This is a welcome addition.

It is disappointing, however, that the language in the motion does not appear to compel real action from the government. We are hoping for criteria that would tie decision-making more directly to the results of the greenhouse gas emissions analysis. We would like a mechanism that would compel real action in government decision-making on infrastructure. We want specification of projects that promote climate change prevention, not just action after the fact. We believe that input from stakeholders, particularly environmental organizations and local governments, would add to the study at the committee phase.

At this point, it looks like the motion lacks real teeth, which are needed so badly to compel action from the government, but New Democrats look forward to the conversation at committee and are optimistic that the details can be improved.

It has to be said that the Liberals have had a hand in undermining Canada's environmental assessment regime and assessments for federally funded infrastructure projects in particular. The Liberals supported the Conservatives' Bill C-10, which was the first blow to our environmental assessment system. It removed a trigger for projects receiving funding in the first place. The Prime Minister voted in favour of that, as did 12 of his current cabinet ministers in this Parliament.

New Democrats are happy to see the change in tone but certainly want this to be a more powerful tool that will actually get results: real action.

Investing in renewable energy projects, embracing new building technology, and growing our food closer to home would build more new job opportunities, support small business, and create the win-wins for climate action that our local economies, our communities, and our country so badly need.

[Status of Women, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations and women's organizations from across the country have been calling for a national action plan to end violence against women.

While the government took some good first steps this summer, its scope does not seem to include policing, education, or women's shelters. How can we plan to end gender-based violence if we are not going to talk with the police, if we are not going to include policing? Why is the government adopting such a narrow scope in its approach to this vital work?

[Business of Supply, September 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I went to junior high in Charlottetown, P.E.I., so I am very glad to hear the conversation in the chamber today about the importance of Atlantic Canada. I am finding it a little rich, though, I must say, to hear my Conservative colleagues lecture us about Supreme Court appointments when there was, in the last couple of years, their backtracking on their promises and integrity, their not following very clear constitutional requirements, and their public attempts to undermine the integrity and reputation of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, a woman we hold in very high esteem across the rest of the country.

I do not feel that there are lessons to be learned from the Conservatives on how to appoint to the Supreme Court, so I invite my colleague, the member for Victoria, to describe more completely, as he is our justice critic, how to actually get diversity and high-quality appointments to our Supreme Court in Canada.

[Genetic Non-Discrimination Act, September 20th, 2016]

I will follow your lead, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member opposite and the senator for initiating this important legislation.

The New Democrats believe that the government must work to end genetic discrimination and encourage genetic testing to improve health care planning and care provided to Canadians. New Democrat MPs Bill Siksay and Libby Davies were leaders on this front. They brought bills to the House in 2010 and 2012 to end such discrimination, and so I support this bill also.

Although B.C.'s Minister of Health has said genetic discrimination is “one of the most critical patient privacy issues of the modern era”, to our shame, we have no provincial or federal legislation protecting privacy for genetic test results.

Therefore, what is at stake with the status quo? Norm from Nanaimo summed it up in a letter to me:

“Under current law, companies can obtain private genetic information by request and then discriminate against people based on their genes. Not only is this practice unfair to Canadians, it is also putting many people at risk. Genetic testing saves lives, but all too many who could benefit are opting to refrain from testing, fearing future discrimination. This fact alone infuriates me, saddens me, and has moved me to write to you today.”

I agree. No Canadian should forgo critical testing because of the fear of discrimination by their employers or insurers.

As the New Democrat spokesperson for status of women, I have a particular understanding of this legislation's need, particularly how critical it is for Canadian women.

September is Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month. A week ago, Nanaimo's Ovarian Cancer Walk of Hope raised over $5,000. This is a cause that really needs that kind of community help.

As I said in the previous session at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, for ovarian cancer, the fatality rate is terrible. It is the most fatal women's cancer in Canada. More than half of the women who are diagnosed will die of the disease within five years. There is no vaccine. There is no screening. There have been no major treatment breakthroughs since the early nineties and no improvement in outcomes.

There is hope in genetic testing. Fifteen to twenty per cent of all ovarian cancer cases are related to a gene mutation which is hereditary. If this is known, actions can be taken. The problem is women at risk for the gene mutation for ovarian cancer may decline to have genetic testing because they fear discrimination from their employers or insurers. We hearing directly from Ovarian Cancer Cancer that we have real cases of this right now.

If this Parliament prohibits genetic discrimination, Canadians will have greater freedom to seek the best health care possible without fear of discrimination. The New Democrats are proud to stand with nurses, doctors, health care providers, and the vast majority of Canadians in opposition to discrimination on the basis of genetic characteristics.

I will carry this on when we next have the pleasure of debating this constructive legislation.

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow on my colleague's theme on consultation around the trans-Pacific partnership.

Friends in the labour movement have said that their consultation of the TPP was a phone call two hours prior to a meeting, asking if they could they come to it. That is not really meaningful consultation to us.

I want to pursue my colleague's conversation about supporting the trade facilitation agreement, which we do support. Could he talk a bit more about concerns around worker safety? Some of the changes around hazardous goods in transport would conceivably involve more exposure to hazardous materials, including pest control. Could he tell us about his concerns around protecting workplace safety and about conversations we might have in committee on this issue?

[Food and Drugs Act, September 20th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, in my province of British Columbia, trade deals signed by the Harper Conservative government and successive Liberal governments, especially over the last 10 years, have cost 21,000 jobs in value-added manufacturing in the forestry industry. We have lost 21,000 lumber-producing and pulp and paper jobs, which were well-paying, solid, lifetime jobs. This has had devastating consequences for some of our communities.

I am curious what my Conservative colleague would say in response to this question. Why did the Conservative government, during its time, not focus more of its efforts on facilitating domestic trade and improving opportunities for small and medium enterprises instead of negotiating these flawed trade deals that are sacrificing a great many jobs at the local level and harming our economy?

[The Environment, September 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, with respect, a web page or a motion does nothing to address the real environmental and economic costs that coastal communities have been suffering for two decades now under successive Liberal and Conservative governments. I know this. Over 12 years elected to local government, we passed several dozen resolutions calling for federal action and provincial action on abandoned vessels. I appreciate the government's intention to support the motion from my colleague opposite, but the motion does not change anything on the ground for coastal communities.

When we spoke in April, it sounded like the Liberals' comprehensive plan was imminent. These were direct quotes from Hansard. Therefore, please tell me what is the government's timeline to table legislation in the House that will deal with abandoned vessels legislatively forever, once and for all?

[The Environment, September 19th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in April when we discussed the longstanding problem of abandoned vessels, Transport Canada said it was developing options, that it was on top of it, that it was taking care of the issue. It said it was developing a comprehensive approach and was addressing the issue as quickly as possible. All of those things were said in our debate on that day. That was five months ago when a solution sounded imminent.

I am interested today in hearing what the elements of the government's plan are now, five months later. In the spring, I secured a Department of Fisheries and Oceans agreement to remove the Viki Lyne II, an abandoned vessel that had been languishing in Ladysmith Harbour for four years since Transport Canada towed it there. It was deemed by the Coast Guard to be at imminent risk of sinking.

It is great news that the government agreed with my proposal to remove it. The government is now negotiating a bid, and we hope that the contract will be awarded shortly.

However, the worrying part is that initially DFO thought that the vessel would be removed by the end of August. Now we are at the end of September. We still do not have a contract in place. These things are moving slowly.

This summer I heard the views and advice of 2,500 community members on abandoned vessels. We heard from marina operators, businessmen, businesswomen, and local governments. They all told me that the abandoned vessel problem has not gotten better but worse. We know that not dealing with the problem has real costs.

A BC Ferries vessel hit a submerged vessel in the spring, and that ferry service has said that abandoned vessels endanger the safety of its passengers and crew and that it has cost them in terms of travel delays.

The shellfish industry says that jobs are at risk. If an abandoned vessel is submerged, shellfish harvesting is shut down. As Kathleen Nicholls from Limberis Seafood Processing in Ladysmith says, “we... suffer economic losses (no product = no sales)”.

Tourism operators on our coast throughout our region say that it costs them. It is frustrating to see problem vessels shifted from one bay to another.

What are the solutions? We need to end the run-around and finger-pointing by adopting Bill C-219 to designate the Coast Guard as the responsible department to deal with abandoned vessels; to build Coast Guard budgets and staffing back up, so that we can look after our coast responsibly; to create more recycling facilities for fibreglass and support local salvage businesses; to create a vessel turn-in program, like Oregon state has; and to update the vessel registration system and use license fees to pay for disposal costs, like Washington state has.

There are great ideas out there. I am eager to hear the government's plan. What is your good news? How fast is your timeline? Five months ago it sounded like the work was well under way. We want to hear the elements of your plan to solve the abandoned vessel problem once and for all, and to protect our coasts from their environmental and economic risks.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund: (a) what is the current dollar amount in the fund, broken down by (i) government contributions, (ii) industry contributions, (iii) funds allocated for direct emergency action and remedial action; (b) based on the information provided in (a)(i) and (a)(ii), how many contributions have been made to the fund over the past ten years, broken down by (i) name of contributor, (ii) amount of contribution, (iii) date of contribution, (iv) total amount of contribution for the lifetime of the fund; (c) what criteria are used to determine how funds are used for abandoned vessels, broken down by (i) environmental risk, (ii) monetary amount that can be accessed, (iii) time-limits for disbursements from the fund; (d) for each of the items identified in (c), what is the (i) definition of the comprehensive solution regulation, (ii) process for which the Canadian Coast Guard can access the fund, (iii) process for which it is reimbursed; (e) for each of the items identified in (c), when was the fund accessed for vessels along the entirety of the east coast of Vancouver Island and for which vessels or events was the fund accessed, broken down by (i) the amount of funds accessed, (ii) the date the fund was accessed, (iii) the outcome of the event, (iv) the status of the vessel, (v) the next plans for the vessel; and (f) was the fund in (e) accessed for the vessel the Viki Lynne 2, and, if so, (i) what was the amount of funds accessed, (ii) when were the funds disbursed, (iii) what were all of the expenses related to the fund, broken down by type of work done, (iv) what comprehensive plans exist to remove the remaining oil and solvents, (v) can the fund be used to remove, decommission and destroy the Viki Lynne 2?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2016]

With regard to the strategy to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels by Transport Canada: (a) how many abandoned and derelict vessels are there in Canada; (b) for each of the vessels identified in (a), (i) what are their locations, (ii) how long have they been considered abandoned and derelict, (iii) what are the removal plans for each vessel, (iv) in which state of removal are each of the vessels, including but not limited to, assessing, removing or disposing, (v) what are the cost estimates for removal, (vi) what are the assessments on options available for carrying out the physical removal of the vessels, (vii) have the owners been identified, (viii) what has prevented the government from identifying the vessel owners, (ix) are they registered or licensed, and have the registrations or licenses been cancelled or suspended at any point, (x) are they a threat to navigation or to the marine environment; (c) how many abandoned and derelict vessels in Canada are 300 Gross Tons (GT) and over; (d) what would be the total estimated cost for the removal of all vessels in the derelict vessel inventory; (e) how many marine casualties have involved vessels that became shipwrecks in Canada’s internal waters and territorial sea, broken down by year for each of the past ten years; (f) how many accidents and maritime casualties are caused by abandoned and derelict vessels, broken down by year for each of the past ten years; (g) what are the risk factors that could lead to a vessel becoming a shipwreck and how is Transport Canada preventing those risk factors; (h) how many “responds to incidents” did the Canadian Coast Guard complete on abandoned and derelict vessels, broken down by year for each of the past ten years, and for each of these incidents please indicate (i) the date, time, and location of the incident, (ii) a description of the incident, (iii) the names of the vessels involved, (iv) the actions that were taken, if any, with regard to the abandoned vessel, (v) the current status of the abandoned vessel, boat or wreck and whether or not the abandoned boat, wreck, or vessel were decommissioned or disposed of, (vi) the plans to decommission or dispose of the vessel, if any exist; (i) what are the reasons for which vessels in Canadian waters would either be unregistered or unlicensed, or for which the registration or license has been cancelled or suspended; (j) for the vessels identified in (a), how many of these vessels then continue to float at anchor or tied to a dock; (k) how many lawsuits have involved the owner of the vessel and have had the aim of recovering the money to cover the cost of removal for abandoned and derelict vessels; (l) what has the government’s strategy been to date and what are the next steps for dealing with abandoned and derelict vessels, including (i) objectives, (ii) government departments and agencies involved in the strategy, (iii) other stakeholders; (m) what consultations has the government conducted and what are the next steps for future consultations with regard to abandoned and derelict vessels, broken down by (i) date and time, (ii) federal government participants, (iii) other participants, (iv) goal of the consultations, (v) method of inviting participants, (vi) length of time given for participation in the consultations; (n) has the government consulted with (i) municipalities, (ii) provinces and territories, (iii) First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, (iv) representatives of Canadian ship owners, (v) maritime lawyers, vi) marine underwriters, (vii) shoreline property owners, (viii) the shellfish industry, (ix) the fishing industry, (x) the lobster industry, (xi) the tourism industry, (xii) First Nations and Indigenous People, (xiii) the Canadian Maritime Advisory; (o) if the answer to (n) is in the affirmative, what are the names of each person consulted; (p) has Transport Canada held any conversations with the Coast Guard regarding the possibility of making the Coast Guard responsible for abandoned and derelict vessels in Canadian water; (q) which options are examined by Transport Canada to address the issue of abandoned vessels and wrecks; (r) what did the department recommend with regard to Canadian membership to the International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (IWR); (s) if the answer to (r) is in the affirmative, when did Transport Canada first make this recommendation; (t) does the strategy propose a manner in which to deal with the wrecks that were in existence prior to its coming into force; (u) how does Transport Canada plan to deal with existing abandoned and derelict vessels; (v) how would the IWR Convention address several of the limitations inherent in Canada’s current legislative framework; (w) has there been any consideration as to the use the IWR Convention as the centrepiece for a new legislative regime; and (x) has the government considered regulatory frameworks from other jurisdictions, and if so, which ones?