Sheila Malcolmson

[Petitions, September 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, seniors are having trouble paying for medications in my riding of Nanaimo--Ladysmith and one in five people is unable to fill prescriptions for financial reasons. We hear stories every day of seniors in particular splitting pills or skipping a dosage in order to make their medications last. I therefore bring to the House of Commons a petition, with signatories from Nanaimo, Ladysmith and Calgary.

The petitioners urge the government to implement universal affordable pharmacare. They note that the savings from universal drug coverage for Canadians by moving to a universal affordable system would be in billions of dollars. Not only would it be the right thing, the ethical thing, and the healthy thing to do, but it would also be a wise investment by the government.

[Status of Women, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague on the Liberal side, the gender balanced cabinet, the Status of Women minister, round tables and strategies are all good things, but they are not changing women's lives right now. It is such a huge pent-up demand. With so much good will and words from the government, we really thought that three years into their mandate the Liberals would have made real changes in the lives of everyday women already, but it has not.

This is a strong recommendation coming out of the status of women committee. Employment insurance has not been reformed by the government in a way that helps women. The use it or lose it parental leave that my colleague just mentioned will be a missed opportunity if the government does not expand access to parental leave benefits as too many parents in Canada do not qualify. Six out of 10 workers do not qualify for employment insurance benefits. That means they cannot get the access to leave.

There is still no employment insurance reform that will address anything other than part-time—

[Status of Women, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am recognizing that this week is the 40th anniversary of Haven Society, a domestic violence shelter in the riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, which I serve. For 40 years, it has been keeping women and their children safe. It has been reaching out to police and other public safety officials. I believe it is partly because of the great efforts of Haven Society reaching out to the courts and working with lawyers and police officers in every aspect that Nanaimo has one of the lowest rates of unfounded sexual assault findings by the RCMP in the country. We are very proud of Haven's work and I thank it, its staff and volunteers who do such fantastic front-line service, especially the businesses and donors that support them.

As I stand in this Parliament today, I would like to send anniversary greetings to Haven Society, a fantastic domestic violence shelter that has been in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith for 40 years. It keeps women and children safe, and has been at the front line of domestic violence prevention and keeping women sheltered.

It reaches out to the RCMP and the criminal justice system. It works collaboratively with police to identify offenders and help them understand the cycles of violence and the particular aspects of domestic violence that might make women less willing to come forward or respond in a different way under questioning. That sensitivity and that collaboration have resulted in Nanaimo having one of the lowest rates across the country of police findings of “unfounded” in cases of domestic violence.

I thank Haven Society, its front-line workers, its volunteers, and people and businesses in the community that donate and support Haven Society. We are grateful for its work.

In light of the government's commitment to women's equality and the announcements it has made in its budget about its intentions, why has it not yet legislated changes to women's equality that would lead to changes on the ground?

We have heard repeatedly, particularly at the status of women committee, about the cycle of economic impoverishment that starts with pay equity legislation not being in place federally. If women earn less than their partners, they are more likely to drop out of the workforce, and then they cannot afford child care. They may then have several years of interrupted earnings. When they return to the workforce, they are often in precarious part-time work with no access to benefits or unemployment insurance, which means that women in Canada retire in poverty in particularly serious ways.

When is the government going to legislate pay equity? Why has it not yet legislated it? It has had three years, and it was 42 years ago that the first Trudeau government promised it.

[Natural Resources, September 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister came to Nanaimo the air was choked with smoke. He heard “climate change worsens wildfires”. He heard coastal people warn of increased oil tanker spill risk. Some called it “a national disaster”. He did not listen. Just a week later the Liberals bought the pipeline just as the courts were shutting its expansion down.

When will the government finally listen to coastal communities, shelve the climate change hypocrisy and cancel the Kinder Morgan expansion?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 20th, 2018]

With regard to the five proposed anchorages east of Gabriola Island, British Columbia: (a) how many meetings has the Minister of Transport held with Snuneymuxw First Nation, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) attendees, (iv) recommendations that were made to the Minister; (b) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence related to the meetings referred to in (a), including the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number; (c) how many meetings has the Transport Canada representative held with Snuneymuxw First Nation, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) attendees, (iv) recommendations that were made to the Minister; and (d) what are the details of any briefing notes or correspondence related to the meetings referred to in (c), including the (i) title, (ii) date, (iii) sender, (iv) recipient, (v) subject matter, (vi) file number?

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing some resistance from the Liberal side to the idea of our amendment, which we are debating right now, which would close the loophole that prevents government-owned vessels from having the same penalties and fines applied to them that private vessels are subject to, on the basis that this is a phantom idea. For members who have joined the House recently, we named about four different vessels, in the town of Bridgewater alone, that were government assets that became abandoned.

I wonder if my colleague is familiar with the story of the MV Sun Sea. It was a boat that came to Canada's shores carrying refugees. The Canada Border Services Agency took legal custodianship of the vessel. It tried to sell it but could not find a buyer. That was in the news very recently. The government now has spent close to one million dollars just to store and maintain the vessel, let alone dismantle it.

Closer to home, in my colleague's riding, the Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a famous vessel that sank and had to be pulled out. Again, it was a government asset. It was an RCMP patrol vessel. It was a Royal Canadian Navy vessel. It was a fisheries patrol ship and then finally a fisheries protection vessel. That is an example of a crown asset that then became a pollution risk in my colleague's riding. I would like to hear his thoughts on that.

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, my Atlantic colleague across the way has been a real partner coast to coast in pushing for abandoned vessel solutions.

We are debating the report stage amendment, which would close the loophole that, right now, means that government-owned vessels are not subject to the penalties and fines proposed in this legislation. I want to take my colleague back to some of the conversations at committee.

It was the member for South Shore—St. Margarets who said, “I think this legislation covers government vessels, therefore, they're not allowed to become derelicts. Is that not boiling it down to the basic...? This legislation says you can't have an abandoned, derelict, or dilapidated vessel, so therefore the government could not have that. Is that not correct?” The Transport Canada representative said, “This legislation does not cover government vessels.” This is exactly the fix that I am proposing today, so I am very much hoping for my colleague's support, a yes vote, to this amendment, because it would close the loophole that the member for South Shore—St. Margarets identified.

There were also witnesses who talked about vessels in her riding specifically, and I visited some of them last summer. The Farley Mowat, the HMCS Fraser, and HMCS Cormorant were all government assets that were abandoned in her riding. David Mitchell, the mayor of Bridgewater, said in his testimony to the committee, “Yes. I think that does make sense....in order to bring the ship up. If you're going to divest yourself of a ship, as a government, you should make sure that the person who takes on that responsibility can.”

I want to know from my colleague whether she is going to support my amendment, which would close the loophole and fix the problem that she identified in committee.

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague, who chaired our discussion at the transport committee and chaired it well. We had a good debate, and fantastic witnesses, whom we were pleased to have learned from.

If my colleague is characterizing my legislation, Bill C-352, as the first model she described where the taxpayer would end up picking up the bill for abandoned vessels, that was absolutely not the intention of my legislation. It was to designate a single agency that would be the first point of contact. It was very much like the Washington state model, where the whole focus is based on user pay. However, the key piece is that we need to be able to find out who the vessel owners are if we are going to send them a bill.

My feeling is that if, in the 1990s, the Conservatives and Liberals had not done so much to undermine the vessel registration system with their successive cuts to front-line services, Canada would now have a way of tracking who the responsible owners of those vessels are. Now we have a huge backlog, which is the legacy of that time of supposed cost-cutting. It is a good reminder that cutting services and laying off public servants can actually do more harm than good.

This brings me to my question. Why did the Conservatives let the vessel registry fall into such disrepair, and why did they close the regional offices in B.C. that were doing the vessel data collection?

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have to respectfully disagree with my Liberal colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. The consultation we had at committee was that we wanted this law to apply to government vessels as well.

The member for South Shore—St. Margarets asked in the committee if the legislation covered government vessels and the Transport Canada representative said, “This legislation does not cover government vessels.”

We then heard from probably a dozen witnesses who all said that this loophole should be closed. The mayor of Bridgewater talked about three different cases of vessels that were former government assets, or were government assets. They had been abandoned in his community and he wanted this law to apply to them.

In what world does the government's intention to have a “comprehensive solution” fit with leaving out a major contributor to the abandoned-vessel problem, all the old Coast Guard vessels, the worn-out fishing inspection vessels, the navy vessels, B.C. ferries? Why would they not be applicable to this law, as is in the case in Washington state?

[Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, June 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating answer from the representative of the transport minister. The amendment that New Democrats are proposing would have the effect of making Bill C-64 apply to government-owned assets. Right now the Liberals have written themselves an exemption and a loophole that we are proposing to remove.

If my Liberal colleague really does want to see a comprehensive and whole of government approach, as she just said, why would the government not vote for my amendment to close that loophole and make this legislation apply to government-owned assets as well?