Sheila Malcolmson

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, April 19th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about budget priorities and spending by the federal Liberal government.

Being elected in British Columbia and representing Nanaimo—Ladysmith, a coastal region, the Prime Minister's tease last weekend, that he was considering putting taxpayer dollars into the Kinder Morgan pipeline, was certainly a shock to voters who thought he was campaigning on a climate change initiative, not to mention his other broken promises on reviewing the Kinder Morgan pipeline process. There certainly was no mandate for that from voters. I am sure it was quite a shock to the people who believed his promises around climate change, indigenous assent, and new environmental reviews before threatening our coastline with any bitumen oil tankers.

That said, I am going to talk about the gender provisions missing from the budget implementation bill and missing from the government's budget. Women are named hundreds of times, but very little is delivered that will actually affect the lives of women on the ground right now and next year. There is no money for pay equity. There is no money for universal affordable child care.

How can the government think it is for women's equality, when it has not funded universal affordable child care and when it has not reformed unemployment insurance so all women are able to get access to parental leave? These are all serious goals. The government had lots of advice from lots of activists in the women's movement, including international organizations like Oxfam, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, CUPE, and Canadian Labour Congress. The government has been getting the best advice out there, and I am discouraged that it has not taken it up.

On Tuesday, with two of my NDP colleagues, I issued a report card on Canada's equality day, the anniversary, 33 years after the equality provisions were introduced into the charter by the Conservative government, forced by the courts. We are still waiting. In our Tuesday analysis, we found the gender provisions of the budget and the budget implementation bill very disappointing.

Speaking to Bill C-74, one of the first pieces is the child care crisis. There is still no universal affordable child care system. The current system barely serves one in four children. My sister had to move out of Toronto because she could not find affordable child care. She was paying more for child care than she and her husband were paying for rent. This is the same story for families across Canada.

The International Monetary Fund recommended that the Liberal government invest $8 billion a year into a universal affordable child care program and said that it would pay for itself. It would allow working women to return to work, to earn more money, to spend more in the economy, to be taxed on their income. Countries that have taken on a bold, new, progressive program like universal affordable child care find these programs pay for themselves. That is certainly the Quebec example.

In March, the Conference Board of Canada gave similar advice, as has the Governor of the Bank of Canada. They all recommend it. There is no more credible economic advice the government could get, yet no new dollars.

My colleague, the member for Parliament for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, has been doing good work on this in her critic role for children and families. We are going to continue to push for this most fundamental investment. This would be the first thing the government could do to help get women further ahead.

Pay equity is another big hole. These are the words of the finance minister when he made his budget speech. He said:

In this budget, the government is taking a historic and meaningful step by moving forward with proactive pay equity legislation in federally regulated sectors....What we can do is lead by example...

However, there is zero money for pay equity in the budget, not even the very simple ask of the Canadian Labour Congress and other labour partners made, which was to establish, right now, a pay equity commissioner, an office of gender equality to be able to put the infrastructure in place, the program and administrative infrastructure, so the government could make a program like pay equity run. Still there is no legislation for pay equity, although the Pierre Trudeau government promised it 42 years ago.

The current Liberal government promised it, under pressure from me and my colleague, the member of Parliament for Jonquière, on our very first opposition day motion in the House. We were so glad to have agreement from the government that it would implement pay equity. However, here we are. The Liberals are ragging the puck until the very end of the term. Surely if they had wanted to campaigned in the 2019 election on true feminism and truly investing in women, they would have done this most fundamental thing. There are zero dollars in the budget, and still no legislation.

Under questions in question period, the status of women minister said that the bill would not be tabled until autumn. That is not consistent with the advice it got from the consensus all-party pay equity task force. It is not consistent with advice from any NGO partners. It is a great disappointment.

We did see some movement in the budget, which I am glad to see, about federal leadership on coordination of policies for preventing on-campus rape and sexual assault. That was good news.

However, a piece that was missing, and mentioned in my gender report card, was an analysis of the New Democrats' repeated ask that the Liberals fund front-line women's organizations that were doing the bulk of the work around immediate servicing for women. They are answering the 24-hour hotline. They are giving shelter to women who are victims of domestic violence. They are helping homeless women who are in terrible economic trouble.

Again and again, we have heard these front-line groups say that they do not want program funding that has groups writing grant applications and competing with their NGO partners, hoping they might get the funding. They do not want to have to do something innovative, then having their funding expire at the end of the year and having to lay off people. Instead they want operational funding so they can keep the lights on and keep the staff they have hired. The budget might have gone some way in that direction, but we could not tease out the wording.

Since February, I have been asking the minister, in private correspondence and by getting her to make a commitment at committee, to please clarify what this funding will do. Is it operational funding for these front-line women's organizations that keep women safe and fed? There is still no clarification.

In the House on Tuesday, in response to my colleague, the member of Parliament for Victoria, when he said that in Victoria the sexual assault crisis hotline had to close because it could not get operational funding, the minister said that our report card was unkind, which was crazy language. Her budget was unclear. We have been giving her the opportunity to clarify. I really hope she has heard women's organizations. If she is going to give them operational funding, if that is being provided for in the budget, then I thank her, but we cannot tease it out. If it is still speculative, competitive only program funding, then that is a big disappointment.

Public transit is another piece that is an emerging part for rural women in particular. If there is no public transit, it makes them unsafe in British Columbia, and the Highway of Tears is a prime example of that. It also keeps women from saying yes to jobs. It is a true limiting factor. We urge the government to make deep investments in rural public transit infrastructure. It keeps women safe and keeps them better ahead economically.

We still found no measures to include equity hiring provisions in infrastructure projects. There have been great examples. In the 1990s, the NDP government in British Columbia put that as a condition on infrastructure investments. Employers have to hire 20% women and equity employees and indigenous employees. That worked very well on the island highway on Vancouver Island, where I was elected. It is such an opportunity. With the government making unprecedented spending in infrastructure, the Liberals should be tying in those conditions. That was absent from the budget.

We are glad to see gender-based analysis legislation being committed to, but it really needs to be now. Our all-party status of women committee asked for it two years ago. It still has not happened. That would make, in a transparent way, all budget decisions come through a gender lens.

We are glad to see the status of women ministry become a full department. The NDP has been advocating for this in many election platforms. My colleague, the member of Parliament for Elmwood—Transcona, advocated for this at committee. Two and a half years later, the government has taken our advice, which we are pleased to see.

In summary, this is a lot of talk, not enough action, and not enough delivery for women on the ground. I urge the government to accelerate and make real investments in women now. The economy will be better off. We will all be better off. It will be more fair.

[Indigenous Affairs, April 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, how could there be unintended consequences of restoring full human rights to indigenous women? Three hundred thousand remain affected by the fact that the government did not restore full gender equality to the Indian Act. With respect, the six women who were at the foundation of the court case that forced the government to take this step are not happy with what the government has done, and the parliamentary secretary heard the government get called out on that last night.

I ask for a fourth time why a so-called feminist government needs to consult on whether indigenous women have human rights.

[Indigenous Affairs, April 18th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, yesterday was Equality Day, and the 33rd anniversary of the coming into force of the equality provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

By great coincidence, or probably great planning on the part of some of our NGO partners, yesterday I had the great honour of being at a reception to honour six women who fought for equality for indigenous women in Canadian law. Last night we honoured Ms. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell, Ms. Yvonne Bedard, Senator Sandra Lovelace-Nicholas, Dr. Sharon McIvor, Dr. Lynn Gehl, and Senator Lillian Dyck, six women who were described in this way by the Ontario Native Women's Association:

The Famous Five fought to gain recognition for the equal personhood of women in 1929. So too, the Famous Six are fighting for recognition of the equal personhood of Indian women. But 88 years after the Privy Council ruled in favour of the Famous Five, the Famous Six, and the many thousands of Indian women and their descendants whom they represent, still do not enjoy equality with their Indian male counterparts under the Indian Act. This is an embarrassment to Canada, and a contravention of our human rights obligations.

Last night they were honoured, including Yvonne Bedard on her 80th birthday. It was so good to be able to thank them for fighting so hard. For 40 years, these women fought in court to regain Indian status for themselves and their children, which the Indian Act said they would lose if they married a white man, which is completely discriminatory. Of course, that is not mirrored for indigenous men who marry white women. Only the women were discriminated against.

I was very moved to hear the speech in particular by Sharon McIvor. She described how she now considers the 45,000 indigenous kids who regained their first nation status as a result of her court case her grandchildren. However, she said that 300,000 are yet to be included because the Liberal government has continued to resist full human rights being restored to all indigenous women in the Indian Act.

Members will remember the vote in the House on June 21, when my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, moved, in tandem with the amendments that were proposed in the Senate, to bring full gender equality for indigenous women into the Indian Act. To our great shame, the Liberal government voted those amendments down. The Liberals said there were unintended consequences. The Liberals voted to revert to discriminating against indigenous women. This was the “6(1)(a) all the way” amendment, which these famous six indigenous women warriors were asking the government to restore.

Madam Speaker, through you, I ask my counterpart on the other side of the aisle why indigenous rights for women should have to be the subject of consultation. Are they not full human rights?

[Petitions, April 18th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition calling on the Minister of Transport to cancel the department of transport's plans to designate the shore of Gabriola Island in the Salish Sea as a new bulk anchorage site, where five bulk anchorages are proposed, each for 300-metre-long bulk commercial vessels. This is a petition with signatories from Surrey, Calgary, Osoyoos, Gabriola Island, Nanaimo, and all over the B.C. coast, calling on the transport minister to recognize that the project, as proposed, could have catastrophic oil spill risks, particularly affecting the marine environment and the wetlands of Sandwell beach and Whalebone Beach, right in the heart of Snuneymuxw First Nation territory. We urge the transport minister to take the petitioners' advice and cancel the bulk anchorages proposed.

[Status of Women, April 17th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today, on Equality Day, I gave Liberals a failing grade in our NDP report card on women's equality in budget 2018. While the Prime Minister claims he is a feminist, he has failed to act on the most pressing challenges facing women in Canada. The budget provides zero dollars for pay equity, no money for universal affordable child care, and does not reform EI requirements that discriminate against women.

When will the Prime Minister put his money where his mouth is and stop making women wait?

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from the status of women committee.

In budget 2012, in an omnibus budget bill, the Conservatives deeply undermined and weakened the role of the National Energy Board, which was done with the hope that it might facilitate pipeline approvals. In fact, I was able to participate from my home on Gabriola Island, where we were concerned about pipeline impacts.

In the northern gateway review, people came to a hearing. They could give their testimony. They could hear each other. However, when it came to the Kinder Morgan review process, which was after the National Energy Board review had been significantly altered by the Harper amendments, there was no cross-examination of evidence. Anybody who had advice for the National Energy Board could only file it in written form. It was called a public hearing, but there was actually no hearing. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency tried to intervene but was barred as an intervenor. The National Energy Board ruled that the late-breaking evidence that bitumen sinks in a marine environment be barred from the hearing, from the process, based on its being prejudicial to Kinder Morgan. Of course, now we have all these court cases charging that the process was inadequate.

I would like to know my colleague's view, looking back on it, about whether the Conservative amendments to the National Energy Board process, effectively gutting it, might have contributed to these delays.

[Trans Mountain Expansion Project, April 16th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I personally think the member opposite's trust is misplaced. The commitments that were made by the Prime Minister in the election campaign were extremely clear: no mega projects without a social licence; first nations consent; and a new review for the Kinder Morgan pipeline, which was not done. Those are all broken promises.

I want to talk specifically about the Salish Sea located in my riding between Vancouver and Vancouver Island. It was identified by the tanker safety expert panel in 2003, which was a Transport Canada study. It said that the waters around the southern tip of Vancouver Island were one of four areas in Canada with the highest probability of a large oil spill. The south coast of BC, including Vancouver Island, was one of two areas in Canada with the highest potential impact from a spill.

A report done by the Royal Society of Canada identified that there was insufficient research on how to respond to bitumen if spilled into the marine environment. The report said the “potential long-term damage to the environment, waterfowl and furbearing animals is greater. Cleanup of heavy oils and bitumens is extremely difficult for both marine and inland spills because of their specific gravity, viscosity, flash point properties and high asphaltene content.”

In 2013, the Harper government said that it was going to conduct scientific research on bitumen in the marine environment. Then there was the much lauded oceans protection plan in November 2016. The Liberal government announced it would conduct research to better understand how different petroleum products behaved in Canada's marine environment. None of this work has been done. The response times remain unchanged. The research is still not done.

How can that British Columbia member continue to support this pipeline knowing the threat that it poses to our shared waters?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 16th, 2018]

With regard to the five proposed anchorages east of Gabriola Island, BC: (a) how many consultation sessions were organized by the government; (b) where did these consultation sessions take place, broken down by (i) city, (ii) constituency; (c) what groups and individuals were invited to the consultation sessions; (d) what groups and individuals participated in the consultation sessions; (e) which Members of Parliament attended the consultation sessions; (f) how many online consultation sessions took place; (g) which bands, leaders, Indigenous communities and organizations did the Minister of Transport consult with, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) name and title of the Indigenous group or community, (iv) attendees, (v) recommendations that were made to the Minister; (h) regarding the consultations in (a), by which criteria did the Minister decide which bands, leaders, communities and organizations to consult with; (i) what are the details of the discussion questions brought to each meeting; (j) how many meetings has the Minister held with Snuneymuxw First Nation, broken down by (i) date, (ii) location, (iii) attendees, (iv) recommendations that were made to the Minister; and (k) 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?

[Natural Resources, April 16th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, in B.C., the Prime Minister said that it was essential for social licence for any project like the Kinder Morgan pipeline. When he okayed Kinder Morgan, using Harper's deeply flawed process and over the objections of cities and first nations, he went back on his word.

He also promised provinces a co-operative relationship, but instead is pushing Kinder Morgan through, in spite of the alarm raised by B.C. over oil tanker traffic increases and increased oil spill risk. Why did the Liberal government break its promise?

[Fisheries Act, March 29th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, less than seven hours of debate is being allowed on Bill C-68, a really important piece of legislation, limited by the Liberal government. I am sorry that closure has been invoked on the bill.

I want to ask my colleague about the Cohen commission recommendations. For her riding, as in mine, this was a hot election issue. Coastal people are passionate about wild salmon and were very encouraged in particular by the Liberal government's commitment to implement the Cohen commission recommendations, and specifically, by the mandate letter to the fisheries minister with specific instructions to implement the Cohen recommendations.

Recommendation three was to break the conflict of interest, which has been repeatedly observed of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in that it is both the regulator of the salmon industry, protector of wild salmon, and the promoter of the farmed salmon industry. Those are in conflict. Certainly wild salmon and farmed salmon open net pen Atlantic salmon farming are in conflict.

I would like to know if my colleague shares my concern that the Liberal government has still failed to act on Cohen commission recommendation three.