Sheila Malcolmson

[Indigenous Affairs, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I note that for the second time, the government has chosen not to deny the Maclean's magazine report that $2 million of the inquiry's money have been spent directly on Privy Council Office bureaucracy, so I take that as a yes. That is a very sad state of affairs.

Two weeks ago, the Liberal majority at the indigenous affairs committee blocked a motion to hear from the Privy Council Office witnesses on how they were handling money for the murdered and missing indigenous women inquiry. Last week, at the status of women committee, we learned that Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada had declined our request to participate in the status of women committee's study on indigenous women's experience in the justice and correction systems.

Could the government please reconcile these refusals in light of the Liberal government's commitment to ending violence against women, standing with indigenous women, and also operating in a transparent manner?

[Indigenous Affairs, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, partway through the 16 days of activism to end violence against women, I note with great sadness that indigenous women are seven times more likely to be murdered and three times more likely to be sexually assaulted compared to non-indigenous women.

The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, evaluating Canada's actions on violence against women found that the government is failing to act on “The continued high prevalence of gender-based violence against women...in particular against indigenous women and girls.”

Over two decades, more than 58 reports on violence against indigenous women have been compiled by governments, international human rights bodies, and indigenous women's organizations like the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Shockingly, researchers found that only a few of those recommendations have been implemented, and more than 700 recommendations to end violence against indigenous women remain unimplemented; 700 remain on the table, not yet acted on after all these years.

Nine months ago, I urged the Canadian government, along with my New Democrat colleagues, to demonstrate leadership by walking the talk, and dedicating the political and financial support, resources, and funding to meet Canada's long-standing international commitments, and its constitutional commitments to make this a safer country where indigenous women and girls live free of violence. It is far beyond time to put those words into action.

Following the interim report of the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women, just a few months ago, the inquiry commissioners blamed Liberal interference for the slow progress of the inquiry. Eight out of the 10 challenges that the commissioners listed blame the federal government for bureaucracy and lack of resources.

For example, there were start-up issues, delays, and obstacles opening offices and hiring staff. There was an average of four months to hire a new staff person, eight months' delay in opening offices, which often lacked proper equipment, Internet, and office equipment, telephone connections, and shared drive. There was just an astonishing lack of support.

The Privy Council Office is repeatedly implicated, by the inquiry's interim report, but also by the Native Women's Association of Canada and a joint letter from 50 indigenous leaders and family members. On multiple occasions in question period I have asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs if funding was fully accessible for the commissioners, and if the government was doing everything it absolutely could to support the families of murdered and missing indigenous women.

The government has always said yes, and yet Maclean's magazine reported that out of the $5 million spent by the inquiry, $2 million was taken completely by Privy Council Office bureaucracy. Can this really be true? Are the Liberals really spending 40% of the inquiry's budget on Privy Council Office bureaucracy?

[Business of Supply, December 4th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, we are reliant on well-trained, rested, ready-to-go RCMP officers who can help Canada deal with the swings of a sudden domestic emergency and are looking out for instances of radicalization right within our communities. We understand, though, that the RCMP is understaffed. There is a lot of burnout, among young recruits in particular. Having been trained federally, they often move to other police forces where the conditions are better. Could the member reassure us that the government is doing everything it can to create good working conditions so our well-trained RCMP are ready to help us in case of emergency?

[Petitions, December 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition in which coastal voices from Halifax to Cowichan Bay on Vancouver Island urge this House to act now on the longstanding issue of abandoned vessels. They point out that no effective programs or regulations exist, and call on the government to designate the Coast Guard as the first stop to end the runaround and jurisdictional quagmire of abandoned vessels and to create good green jobs by supporting marine salvage businesses in support of recycling.

Also, they also call on the House to support of my private member's bill. It has been deemed non-votable, but we will find other ways to bring coastal voices to this House.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, because my colleague has given some of us a bit of a challenge in terms of the relevance of his remarks, I would invite him to show us where in Bill C-63 it expands the Canada child benefit, because it is not in this legislation.

On the topic of other missing pieces, why does the budget not include any spending for new child care spaces, on which people could spend the Canada child benefit money? If we do not have new affordable child care spaces in last year's budget and this year's budget, there is nowhere for working women to spend that money.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in the riding I represent, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, the cancellation of the public transit tax credit is a double whammy. It is affecting not only the people riding transit and who are now not able to claim it against income tax at the end of the year, but also ferry-dependent communities, such as Gabriola Island, where I live, including students and workers there. People used to be able to get back a bit of the fares they paid as a tax credit, which is particularly important for us in British Columbia after the former provincial Liberal government instituted a user-pay regime that shot fares up by 120% in some communities, way beyond the pace of inflation.

I would like to hear more from my colleague about the financial impact on the ground of this cancellation, and the message it sends to Canadians that a tax credit to encourage use of public transit has been cancelled by the Liberal government.

[Petitions, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, because five bulk commercial anchorages, each for 300 metre long freighters in the Strait of Georgia, also known as the Salish Sea, are proposed to stop at Gabriola Island, petitioners from Nanaimo, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver, Vancouver, and Gabriola Island urge the Minister of Transport to have the new anchorage proposal withdrawn.

They cite the risks from oil spills, catastrophic storms, impacts on commercial and sport fishing, and tourism in the area. We urge the government to take their advice.

[Indigenous Affairs, December 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' Bill S-3 proposal does not end discrimination in the Indian Act, does not help all women, and should not be subject to consultation.

Indigenous women have been loud and clear. Discrimination should end for all indigenous women. Although Bill S-3 meets some of the court's order, it fails to bring justice for all indigenous women. Liberals promised that they would be better. They promised a real nation-to-nation relationship.

Does the minister concede that this bill fails to end gender discrimination for all indigenous women?

[Indian Act, November 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to my colleague, whom I enjoy and appreciate very much, I will say in the strongest way I can that I will not be a champion for incremental equality. That is not the work of parliamentarians.

One hundred and fifty years is absolutely too long.

The member opposite sets up a bit of a red herring. We are not here today talking about repealing the Indian Act. That will be a good day when that is what we are debating. What we are debating is the implementation of repeated court rulings that both the Liberal and Conservative governments have received to remove gender discrimination. The bill we had before us in this House that the current government introduced, that we debated and voted on, on June 21, was a very short stage, just the 1951 cut-off. It did not have the commitment to go backward, and that is what we are pushing for, complete gender equality. It is not something that needs to be consulted on.

The government, having received push-back from the Senate and having had its bill refused, now is back with another half measure. However, it still is not supported by the indigenous women affected, it is not supported by the indigenous women lawyers who have been fighting this all these decades, and neither should we as parliamentarians accept a bill that is a half-hearted measure and incremental equality. We have waited too long for indigenous women to have fairness in our country.

[Indian Act, November 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be standing on Algonquin territory.

I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for Burnaby South.

After much pressure, Liberals have a new Bill S-3 fix to end legislated discrimination against indigenous women, but only after consultations. This is not supported by the women who have been fighting this inequality in court for 40 years. It shows again that Liberals are not upholding their promise to respect indigenous people and to bring full gender equality.

I do not understand why a government that calls itself a feminist government needs to consult on whether indigenous women should have human rights, because they do. We want the Prime Minister and his government right now to remove all sex discrimination from the Indian Act.

Since its inception, the Indian Act has accorded privilege to male Indians and their descendants and disregarded female Indians as second class. To sum up where we are right now, despite unprecedented government promises of indigenous reconciliation and respect, Liberals are trading off human rights based on budget lines. Indigenous women who have been fighting 40 years in court for gender equality watched in dismay June 21, National Aboriginal Day of all days, as the Liberals gutted reforms that would have made the Indian Act less vile. These were moved by my colleague, the member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and others.

Canada's laws still say that indigenous people with a university degree, military service, or a white husband lose their Indian status. Would one not think that a government that pledged to a nation-to-nation relationship built on respect would want to remove all of those conditions?

“Indigenous women deserve the equality the charter is intended to ensure and protect”, said litigant Lynn Gehl, and they do. There is much support for the government ending all sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Canada has endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which clarifies state obligations on self-determination, including the right to determine membership. UNDRIP already has application in Canadian law.

Also, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women just a year ago called out the current government for the need to act on this file. It said:

...the Committee remains concerned about continued discrimination against indigenous women, in particular regarding the transmission of Indian status, preventing them and their descendants from enjoying all the benefits related to such status...The Committee recommends that the State party remove all remaining discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act that affect indigenous women and their descendants, and ensure that aboriginal women enjoy the same rights as men to transmit status to their children and grandchildren.

It did not set out a very long timeline or an indeterminate timeline. It did not say consult on it. It said that Canada, to uphold its international commitments on human rights, must remove all gender discriminations against indigenous women.

The government has failed, and it has given the House again a flawed bill.

After 40 years of litigation by indigenous women, many of whom are still alive, and indigenous lawyers who have been fighting alongside them, the government failed to ask them what they thought or have them inform the proposed legislation now before the House.

Here are two indigenous women lawyers, and I am paying attention to their words.

Pam Palmater, chair of Ryerson University's centre for the study of indigenous governance, said:

...this bill does not remedy gender discrimination. ...according to the numbers, it actually will only remedy about 10 percent of the known gender discrimination under the Indian Act, and that, by far, is not a bill that's acceptable.

Another indigenous lawyer, now the Liberal justice minister, was the B.C. regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations. This is what she told the House standing committee in 2010 on Harper's version of Bill S-3:

What this bill does not do is address the other Indian Act gender inequities that go beyond the specific circumstances of Sharon McIvor and Sharon McIvor's grandchildren.

This year, the Ontario Native Women's Association said:

By rejecting the “6(1)(a) All The Way” amendment to Bill S3 the federal government has betrayed its promise to Indigenous women. The amendment would have reinstated our sisters and removed all sex based discrimination from the Indian act.

Three warriors whom we are still informed by, these powerful indigenous women, litigated starting 40 years ago against both Conservative and Liberal governments repeatedly. Jeannette Corbiere Lavell litigated for 40 years and is not helped by Bill S-3. Sharon McIvor, litigant and now defence lawyer, asked why they would consult on whether they can continue to be discriminated against. Lynn Gehl, also a longtime challenger of this discrimination in courts, said that the minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is using consultation as a weapon. That is no way to move forward.

Many indigenous women's groups have called attention to the provisions of clause 10,another flaw identified in Bill S-3. With this clause, the government is justifying past discrimination and past violations of human rights. It acts as an incentive to allow the government to continue to discriminate with impunity until it chooses to address it or is forced to address it. It underscores the sense of colonial entitlement. It undermines the rule of law. The government cannot be given immunity for its conduct.

My colleague the member of Parliament for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou moved two times, at committee and in the House, for the government to remove clause 10 on that basis and the government twice has voted it down.

Some of the up and coming women leaders are Shania Pruden, of Pinaymootang First Nation in Manitoba, and Teanna Ducharme, also known as Ayagadim Majagalee, a Nisga'a woman. They both were part of the daughters of the vote taking their seats in the House just six months ago and they both testified at the status of women committee, strong, powerful, young indigenous women speakers. The late Shannen Koostachin informs the work of the House so often. Helen Knott is a Treaty 8 activist on ending violence against women associated with mega projects such as the Site C dam, which again the government is letting indigenous women down on.

In their names our responsibility as parliamentarians is to say again we cannot afford half measures in this country anymore. Gender equality and first nations respect is the solemn promise of the government and of me and my New Democrat colleagues. We are going to keep working hard to keep those promises.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that, in relation to Bill S-3, An Act to amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration), the House:

1. agrees with amendments 1 to 8 and 9(a) made by the Senate;

2. proposes that amendment 9(b) be amended by replacing the words “on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but that day must be after the day fixed under subsection (1).” with the words “18 months after the day on which the order referred to in subsection (1) is made.”.