Sheila Malcolmson

[Status of Women, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Canada marks Gender Equality Week this week.

From the New Democrats' perspective and women in the grassroots movement, women continue to bear the brunt of successive failures by both Conservative and now Liberal governments to invest properly in women's true equality, the programs that would combat the inequality that they face.

Women would have more to celebrate this week if the government, with its very strong mandate from the people and very strong intentions and declarations of gender equality, had actually acted on that mandate to implement.

I am going to focus today particularly on ending violence against women. Canada made a commitment to the United Nations, and I am very proud that our country stood up with other countries, saying that yes, we will use our power to end violence against women and we will enact a national action plan to end violence against women. However, the government has not enacted a national action plan. It has a federal plan which is much more narrow.

What happens within the United Nations system is there are visits every five years by the United Nations representatives to find out whether Canada or any country that has signed on to a UN declaration or treaty is actually upholding its commitments.

In April of this year, Canada had its visit from the UN special rapporteur to end violence against women. She was only in Canada for 13 days, but she visited such an array of regions of the country and talked to such a variety of strong grassroots women's groups and front-line workers who gave her fantastic advice.

She summed up the ways that Canada has failed. First, violence against women in Canada is still a serious, pervasive and systemic problem, unfinished business that requires urgent actions. Second, women's human rights in Canada are protected in an incomplete, patchwork way. Third, federalism should not be a barrier to human rights implementation.

I had this debate in the House with the Prime Minister which was the impetus for this further debate today. He said that I should not be so judgmental and that I should recognize that Canada is having conversations at the United Nations among other partners. This is the root of the problem. The conversations do not actually enact real change for women on the ground.

The New Democrats are going to continue to press this in the most constructive way we can. Please, let us get on with the implementation. The talk is over. We know everyone would benefit from achieving gender equality. We know it is the right thing to do, but it cannot just be the celebratory stuff and it cannot just be conversations.

The national action plan to end violence against women, as I noted, is one of the failures. There is a dire shortage of shelters for women and children escaping violence. There is a lack of sustainable funding for a sufficient number of safe and confidential shelters. There is inconsistency in policy and legislation across all jurisdictions in order to promptly address sexual violence on campuses and in schools.

It is a damning report from the UN special rapporteur. What has the government done since April to put the UN special rapporteur's mind at ease?

[Status of Women, September 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the pay gap between men and women is 32%. It is even worse for women with disabilities, indigenous women and racialized women. Women are done waiting. We want economic justice now. However, every day we hear heartbreaking stories about women in poverty with the same root cause: no pay equity. If Liberals were serious about gender equality, why are women still waiting for the proactive pay equity legislation they have been promised for 42 years?

[Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion of the TMX pipeline, and I have since 2011. It would boost bitumen oil shipments through the Salish Sea in my riding from once a week to once a day through sensitive ecology that cannot handle a spill. That is all downside and no upside for B.C.'s coast, and it is not in the national interest. Therefore, I and the New Democrats oppose Bill S-245.

Since the Liberals announced that they are buying the TMX pipeline, I have had more input from constituents on this issue than anything else. B.C. people are telling me they feel betrayed by the Prime Minister. They are dismayed the Liberal priorities are so stuck in the past. They are angry that the Prime Minister has bailed out a Texas oil company with a massive payout, to assume onto taxpayers a risk that the corporate interest was unwilling to assume, and dump all the financial and environmental risk onto Canadians. This is all about the future of our country and our environment.

Here is a fast reality check on some of the rationale out there. There is already a pipeline to tidewater. There is no demonstrated market overseas for bitumen and dilbit, and there is no price differential. Even if there was, exporting raw dilbit would be exporting the good jobs that could go with refining and adding value, the jobs the government has said it is trying to protect.

Solid bitumen eliminates the need for the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The safest way to ship it is in solid form. No pipeline expansion means no social or first nations impacts, and no need to bail out Kinder Morgan with the $4.5 billion to $12 billion this is estimated to cost. There is certainly no need to buy this aging 65-year old leaky pipeline. All of the savings that could have come from not using taxpayer money that way and all of the benefit that could have come to our country is deeply discouraging. Therefore, I am going to outline the reasons I think it is not in the national interest in the following areas: first nations relationship and our constitutional obligations; endangered species; climate change; oil spill risk; fossil fuel subsidies; and, last, coastal jobs.

Starting with endangered species, the federal government has a clear responsibility to protect species at risk. There was a 2012 court order that told the government it needed to put measures in place to protect the habitat of the orca, which was the number one impact that was identified in the National Energy Board review. As meagre as that review was, it did say that the shipping noise impact was unavoidable and without remediation. The government went ahead and approved the pipeline anyway. The important thing for members to know is that the shipping noise interferes with the orca whales' ability to communicate with each other and to locate the chinook salmon they feed on. Their numbers before the 2012 court ruling were 87 members of the southern resident orca pod, which has now dropped to 75. This summer, international headlines focused the world's attention on the plight of this endangered species. The fact that environmental groups just last week filed another lawsuit against the Liberal government for its failure to protect the orcas shows that its vaunted oceans protection plan is not helping orcas yet.

With respect to the first nations consultations, for the finance minister to say, the very day of the court ruling, that the pipeline will be built and that we will also consult first nations leadership again shows the Liberal government does not get it. It cannot say it is going to consult but it has already decided what it is going to do.

We keep hearing from the government that its most meaningful relationship is with first nations, yet they continue to be pushed to the side. It is particularly coastal first nations that I am talking about here. Certainly, I am reminded by my constituents that this is not all first nations. However, in my own riding, the leadership is extremely concerned and opposed to the approval and expansion of the pipeline because of the oil tanker traffic.

Here is a message that I received this morning by text from my friend, Doug White III. Kwul’a’sul’tun is his Coast Salish name, his Hul’q’umi’num’ name. He is a former chief of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, and he is an elected councillor now. He states that, “Snuneymuxw has been frustrated that while [Kinder Morgan] and the [National Energy Board] said the project ends at the Burnaby terminal, and [Kinder Morgan] has no responsibility beyond that point with respect to tanker shipping of bitumen through the Salish Sea (which represents a total risk of the way of life of the Salish peoples...), they have taken it upon themselves to unilaterally define the project as being in the national interest without ever sitting down with the Snuneymuxw to discuss how the foundational pre-Confederation Treaty of 1854 structures such a decision.”

He goes on to say, “Completely ignoring and effectively denying the Treaty of 1854--particularly its powerful protection of fisheries in the Salish Sea--is the opposite of recognition and reconciliation. Even the colonial government of Vancouver Island in the 1850s knew the basic legal and political reality that they could not extract resources of Vancouver Island without establishing a proper relationship premised on recognition and respect of the continuity of Indigenous control and decision-making about their territories and resources. That is why the Douglas Treaties were established 160 years ago. We have to ask: Is the approach of the current government of Canada less than even a colonial government in the 1850s? The answer is clear.”

That is a condemnation and a huge damage to the national interest, which is of true reconciliation. That is the only way we can move forward.

So much has been said on climate. I am reminded by my constituent David in Nanaimo who wrote to the Prime Minister saying, “Your government says this Texas oil company's pipeline is in the national interest. We believe that having a safe climate is in our national interest, and the two are not compatible.”

I could not say it better myself. The disaster that is climate change barrelling down on us while the government has still failed to do anything stronger than adopt the emission reduction targets of the Harper Conservatives is a deep betrayal. The true national interest would be to truly act strongly and reduce climate change emissions.

On oil tanker safety and protection of the coast, the waters that I represent are one of the four areas in Canada with the highest probability of a large oil spill, according to the 2013 federal tanker safety panel of Transport Canada. It is one of the two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact of a spill.

In 2009, as chair of Islands Trust council, I wrote to the federal government when it was the Conservative government saying, “Please tell us that you are studying the impacts of dilbit, diluted bitumen, in the marine environment.” That evidence was blocked from the National Energy Board. I have been asking repeatedly in question period for the Liberal government to take action, and it has not. We have no demonstrated way to clean up dilbit in the marine environment, especially in a place with the speed of currents and rise and fall of tides that we have.

My constituent Mark wrote to the Prime Minister saying, “Any spill in the oceans surrounding Vancouver Island and the Strait of Georgia would be a national disaster.” I agree with him: not in the national interest but a national disaster.

This also breaks the promise that the Canadian government has made to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. That was a promise made to the G20. It has been repeated again and again. The government has been fighting with the Auditor General these past three years. It will not show the evidence that says it is acting on fossil fuel subsidies. Certainly the purchase of the Kinder Morgan pipeline for $4.5 billion is evidence of further breaking of that fossil fuel subsidy promise. What that money could have been invested in instead, redirecting fossil fuel subsidies into establishing coastal jobs, green, sustainable jobs in renewable industries, would really be keeping all of our promises.

So much is on the line for us on the coast. A UBC study in 2012 said that the potential impacts of a large oil tanker spill could lead to as much as a 43% loss of employment in the province's coastal industries. Twenty thousand people on the Lower Mainland could be affected by a spill, and as much as $687 million in damage to the GDP from a single spill. Again this was identified by UBC.

In closing, I say, again, this is not in the national interest. As a kayak guide, I have had the great privilege of exploring so many of Vancouver Island's and B.C.'s wild places. I am deeply determined, along with my constituents, to stand up and protect the coast. Investing in and accelerating Kinder Morgan's oil tanker traffic is absolutely the opposite of the national interest, and I hope this House will agree.

[Petitions, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, because there is unprecedented global awareness about the calamity of the oceans plastics problem and grievous images of entangled sea turtles and drowning sharks, citizens from Nanaimo—Ladysmith petition this House to adopt Motion No. 151 in the name of my NDP colleague, the member for Courtenay—Alberni. He urges the Government of Canada to go much further than its announcement yesterday and not simply voluntarily include banning plastics from its federal procurement but to actually go ahead and regulate mandatory measures to deal with the disaster of marine plastics.

Petitioners remind this House that this is not a problem that comes from overseas. We have plastics generated from our own country and from our own aquaculture industry on the coast that are polluting our waters and interfering with coastal ecology and coastal jobs.

[The Environment, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, last week yet another boat was wrecked off the Sunshine Coast. Storm season has hit, but coastal communities are being asked to wait again, despite dangerous abandoned vessels polluting our oceans.

The Liberals' program will remove just 23 abandoned vessels this year across the entire country. We have learned that the promised inventory of wrecked vessels has not even started and will not be ready before July.

How can the Liberals justify to coastal communities that at this rate it will take more than 40 years to deal with the pollution backlog?

[Public Services, September 21st, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, people cannot access the federal services they need to live in dignity. Seniors, people with disabilities and in poverty, and new Canadians are frustrated and flooding my Nanaimo—Ladysmith office with desperate calls for help. Whether they are seniors waiting for pensions that they need to get by, worried taxpayers trying to reach the Canada Revenue Agency, or families seeking critical information from Immigration Canada, they face deeply frustrating obstacles the government has failed to fix. Government phone lines are jammed, websites do not work, processing backlogs cause wait times to stretch from days to weeks to months to years, and workers are frustrated too.

I know Canadians deserve better treatment. Let us undo the damaging cuts that the Conservatives made, let us rehire front-line staff, let us reopen regional offices and let us invest properly in our vital public services.

[Women, Peace and Security Ambassador, September 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the security of women and the security of the state are deeply intertwined. A 2009 resolution of the Security Council stressed the particular impact that armed conflict has on women, children, refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as other vulnerable civilians, including persons with disabilities and older persons. The United Nations and international aid agencies say women are among the most heavily impacted victims of war. Tens of thousands suffer from sexual violence, rape and lack of access to life-saving health care.

Amnesty International says that women and girls are uniquely and disproportionately affected by armed conflict. Women bear the brunt of war and represent the vast majority of casualties resulting from war. Rape and sexual violence target women and girls and are routinely used not only to terrorize women but also as a strategic tool of war and instrument of genocide. Systemic rape is often used as a weapon of war in ethnic cleansing, and in addition to rape, girls and women are often subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war, sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities.

In all countries, everywhere in the world, sexual violation of women erodes the fabric of society in ways that few weapons can. This is the moral challenge to our country and to our government. Some 603 million women live in countries where domestic violence is not yet considered a crime. In many countries, there is repression, the silencing of abuse, and the mistreatment and imprisonment of women and human rights defenders. Are we exporting weapons to these countries?

Former New Democrat leader Stephen Lewis, in a very powerful speech, said, “We’re not supposed to be sending armaments to countries that have a ‘persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens’. Saudi Arabia is the embodiment of the meaning of the word 'violations'.” He went on to describe the irony of having a prime minister who unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist and yet is selling weapons to a regime “steeped in misogyny”.

There is some good news, though. UN Women noted this year that “When women are included in peace processes there is a 20 per cent increase in the probability of an agreement lasting at least 2 years, and a 35 per cent increase in the probability of an agreement lasting at least 15 years.” That, again, is the link between women being the victims of war and the antidote to war, preventing it and keeping the peace. This is particularly through the women, peace and security agenda of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325.

I laud the role of civil society organizations around the world. They have worked very hard for this. Following this resolution passed in October 2010, the Security Council has adopted seven additional resolutions. Collectively, these resolutions include key issues. The first is participation, including strengthened women's representation, involvement and active participation in peacebuilding, conflict prevention, peace negotiations and post-conflict rebuilding; second is protection, support for preventing and responding to violence against women and sexual and gender-based violence during armed conflict; third is prevention, highlighting the importance of conflict prevention and reaffirming the important role of women in the prevention and resolution of conflict and peacebuilding; and finally is relief and recovery, including support for women's equitable participation and gender mainstreaming in all post-conflict peacebuilding and recovery processes.

The UN motion in 2010 was ultimately acted on by the Conservative government. It delivered the Canadian national action plan on women, peace and security six years late and with little support. Therefore, we are now on another iteration.

Flowing from that, in 2016, my New Democrat colleague, the member of Parliament who represents Laurier—Sainte-Marie, at the foreign affairs committee of the House of Commons, initiated a study on women, peace and security, which concluded that, “greater and more consistent leadership” was needed from Canada, including greater resourcing and comprehensive coordination at the highest levels of government. It gave rise to the motion that we are debating in the House today, which New Democrats spawned and support.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I laud the work of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. It has been holding the banner for peace and against war year after year. It is a very strong and committed peace movement in my community.

The Canadian Voice of Women for Peace urges the House in particular to:

Increase funds that go directly to women's organizations involved in building peace. We know that these organizations are crucial in both ensuring peace at the grassroots level and in fostering leaders that are capable of participating in peace negotiations. However, they are underfunded and starved for resources. From the evidence available it appears that this has not been a priority of the Canadian government to date.

One recommendation, consistent with United Nation's goals, is that 15% of all funding going to conflict affected countries have gender equality/women's empowerment goals as their principal purpose.

I thank the Canadian Voice of Women for Peace.

Because we want this motion and this movement, which is so built on the backs of so many, to succeed I am going to propose amendments in three areas, and will describe the rationale for them first before I move the motion.

First, while Canada has historically been recognized as a leader on human rights, the status has recently been slipping as the Liberals fail to follow through on their public rhetoric on human rights, women, peace and security.

Second, we want to acknowledge the importance of women's active participation in and contributions to peacekeeping and the peace-building process.

Third, the Liberals have provided no additional funding for its new commitments to women, peace and security and the proposal of an ambassador on women, peace and security. The national action plan on women, peace and security is nothing more than rhetoric without a dedicated line in the budget.

Therefore, I move the following: That the motion be amended by (a) replacing the words “Canada is a world leader” with the words “Canada has traditionally been a world leader”; (b) adding, after the words “countering violent extremism”, the words “and acknowledge that when women participate in the peace processes the chances of having lasting peace significantly increases”; and (c) adding, after the words “Action Plan reporting”,the words “and (i) encourage the government to allocate additional funding to support the new ambassador, their mandate and the full realization of Canada's national action plan on women, peace and security.”

[Firearms Act, September 20th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, the correspondence that I am getting in Nanaimo—Ladysmith about Bill C-71 and the amendments to the gun safety process that the Liberal government is proposing are running kind of fifty-fifty. I am very aware that many responsible gun owners, hunters and gun clubs in my riding are very concerned about the design of this. They see the steps as mostly being unnecessary. They are already comporting themselves well and already subject to a lot of rules. In the spirit of co-operation, I will provide one example and hope that the government representative can give me some detail. I am hoping you can reassure this constituent of mine.

Andrew from Nanaimo said, “The background checks for the possession and acquisition licence are already currently legislated to go back five years. However, at the discretion of the chief firearms officer, they can go back as far as they feel necessary already. On top of this, all PAL holders are run through the Canadian police information centre daily to check to for any infractions which may be of concern. If C-71 passes and these mandatory lifetime background checks are required every time a licence is renewed rather than just on a new application, this will simply be a waste of RCMP resources. Instead of lifetime, why not just set the time frame for new applicant background checks to be at the CFO's discretion? They will probably go as far back as when the applicant turned 18 anyway”.

Through you, can you let me know if that is a consideration as a way to minimize the impact on—

[Natural Resources, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the spin is astonishing. The court completely discredited the government's approach to this. There was no reason for the Liberal government to use the discredited and undermined Harper Conservative review process. In fact, the Prime Minister promised during the campaign that he would not, and they did. They chose to leave marine impacts out. They chose not to implement the 2012 court ruling on protecting habitat for orca. In fact, just last week, the environmental groups took the Liberal government to court again over its failure to protect the habitat of the orca. The most astonishing thing is to be so bold as to say they cannot increase the oil-spill safety net without approving a pipeline and a 1,200% increase in oil tanker traffic. It is hypocritical; it is not true. If the government truly were going to lead, it would boost oil-spill response right now and spend tax dollars doing it, but it is not.

[Natural Resources, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when I was last debating this issue of paramount importance to the coast of British Columbia and my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the Minister of Natural Resources said some stunning things, given how deeply the federal government has since invested itself in the Kinder Morgan pipeline. He challenged me on my numbers and said that it is not a sevenfold increase in tankers but only one tanker a day. Well, in fact, the National Energy Board said that it is a 680% increase. Just last week, a Tyee magazine quoted economist Robyn Allan as saying that it is more like a 1,200% increase; from 30 tankers a year to 408 tankers a year, which is a colossal increase.

The minister also said that this is happening at a time when indigenous people for the first time had been involved from day one and were becoming part of monitoring and safety. Here is another deep betrayal of that promise. The Heiltsuk first nation are heroes on the coast for being the on-water response in a very ad hoc way. There was not a government-led response to the sinking of the Queen of the North when the ferry went down, nor to the Nathan E. Stewart. These were very high-profile sinkings and attendant oil spills on the coast.

Therefore, the Heiltsuk bid to the federal government to be able to own and operate a standby tug, which we sorely need. Washington State has it, but Canada does not. It is to be able to have a strong tug capacity to take vessels that are in trouble into safety, so that they do not create an oil spill.

The Prime Minister just the week before had stood with the Heiltsuk people, shoulder to shoulder, proclaiming his allegiance and solidarity with them, and recognizing their stewardship and ownership of the waters. Well, the tug contract was given to an Irving subsidiary on the Atlantic coast, not to local people, and not to very strong indigenous leadership. What a betrayal that was.

The minister also said to me that “we believe we are going to leave the backyard of indigenous people better than we had found it”. What a totally patronizing comment that is. Indigenous leadership has been the stewards and occupants of the B.C. coast since time immemorial. To think that the lauded oceans protection plan is going to leave the coast better than when we started is an embarrassing statement for a minister to make, particularly in light of the court case that has since come down.

Coastal people had been saying all of these pieces loudly on the coast, and coastal MPs brought them into this Parliament: about the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, such as the biggest risk on the coast is from oil tanker traffic, which had been insufficiently studied; that the orca whale impact had not been accommodated, although it had been identified; and that indigenous people had not been consulted.

The strongest court ruling came down affirming that all of those were barriers to the Kinder Morgan pipeline. It is now, of course, the Prime Minister's pipeline, because he spent $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money buying it. Then, on the very same day, we had the finance minister say that the pipeline will be built and, oh, they will also do more consultations.

How can the government square all of these inconsistencies, and how will it move forward, given all of these broken promises?