Sheila Malcolmson

[Status of Women, May 17th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Cystic Fibrosis Canada for giving us all these beautiful yellow roses to wear today. They are still all over the House at this hour. We are thinking of the victims, survivors, and their families.

I am here tonight to follow up on a conversation I was having with the Minister of Status of Women about Canada's response to violence against women.

In 1995, Canada was ranked number one on the United Nations gender equality index. Today, Canada ranks 25th. As the Feminist Alliance for International Action notes, in the past 20 years, Canadian women have gone backward. A big part of that are the levels of violence that women and girls continue to face in Canada. Statistics Canada says that rates of violence against women remain largely unchanged over those two decades.

Here are some terrible numbers. One million women report having experienced sexual or domestic violence in the past five years. Women are 11 times more likely than men to be a target of sexual violence. Sexual violence experienced by indigenous women is more than three times that of non-indigenous women. Women living with disabilities experience violence two to three times more than women without disability. Sexual and domestic violence costs our economy over $12 billion a year.

I know the government and New Democrats agree that this cannot stand. I really hope that the minister's representative will not, again tonight, just restate his commitment to changing things and his recognition of the problem, but that we talk about what we are going to do.

Almost a year ago, the former minister of status of women started a federal strategy to address gender-based violence. A year later, we still do not have a plan, and the government has been largely silent on the progress it has made on that plan.

The need for this is clear. Responses to violence against women across the provinces and territories are fragmented. Services are often inaccessible and inconsistent across Canada. The status of women committee heard this very clearly from dozens of witnesses last year. This has been a critique of the federal government for decades, including from the United Nations, OXFAM, and the coalition of more than 180 organizations that urged the previous government and this one to endorse the blueprint for Canada's national action plan on violence against women and girls. This government has failed to do that.

The government keeps announcing that the strategy will be released in the coming weeks. It said that on February 1, February 7, March 6, March 8, March 17, and March 23. On April 12, the Minister of Status of Women made a low-key announcement saying more indepth details will be announced in the coming weeks as the strategy takes form. Again, it is in the coming weeks. It keeps being said, but it has been months, almost a year. The government is asking women to wait again, and that is not fair to victims. It is not what victims and survivors need or want. We need clarity from the government.

Will the government stop asking women to wait for the coming weeks to come, and finally release its plan that will actually deliver safety to women in danger, and immediately act to make Canada safer for women and girls?

[Indigenous Affairs, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with absolutely every word the member just said, but none of them has anything to do with my question, other than my very first line that said that, yes, we want the inquiry to succeed and we need it to succeed. None of that says anything about the government's responsibility to make sure that the inquiry has the money it needs and that the government funding approval process is not starving and emasculating the commission.

Maybe the member has good reassuring answers for me, but this was all over the press yesterday. It is an extremely high-profile issue. I cannot believe that the minister's representative is not ready to answer these questions.

Does the PCO approve expenditures, or does the inquiry? Has the inquiry been hampered in its ability to support families or its work because of the PCO? Can the member demonstrate that the PCO has not or is not impairing the independence of the inquiry? It is time for truth telling.

[Indigenous Affairs, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in support of a successful national inquiry into the tragedy of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls and two-spirited people. Canada needs this inquiry to succeed. We need to get to the bottom of why so many women disappeared. We need to support their families. We need to fix our social institutions to make sure we are doing everything we can to prevent further tragedies like this.

It is in that spirit that I asked both on Friday and this afternoon if the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs is doing everything she can to have the inquiry succeed. Do the commissioners have full access to inquiry funding, and if not, who is delaying approval of those expenditures? The minister refused to answer. On Friday, she also answered, “We are confident that the commission has the tools, the resources, and the networks to ensure that voices of families are heard and that they have the support they need”, but that is not what the families and survivors are saying.

Yesterday the inquiry received a failing grade from the Native Women's Association of Canada, and also yesterday, 30 families and indigenous leaders wrote an open letter to the chief commissioner. They said that the process is in serious trouble due to delays and a lack of transparency and communication. Both reports issued yesterday suggested that the approval of the budget, as well as the lack of access to funds, may have contributed to those delays.

That is the question I am repeating tonight, because that is wholly within the realm of the Liberal government. It is not the independent inquiry but the government that has the responsibility to make sure the resources it promised are flowing to the commissioners and to the inquiry so they can do their vital work.

In the Native Women's Association of Canada report card, it said, “It is likely that outside factors, such as the approval of the budget as well as a lack of access to funds, may have contributed to the delays”. In an open letter published yesterday, an entire section was dedicated to the question of the independence of the inquiry. It says,

We were promised an independent inquiry, but it appears that many questions remain about the role of the Privy Council Office (PCO) in decision making.

These are the questions I put on the floor again tonight, the same questions. These are the exact words that were written in the open letter:

1. Does the [Privy Council Office] approve expenditures or does the Inquiry?

2. Has the Inquiry been hampered in its ability to support families or its work because of the [Privy Council Office]?

3. Has any of the budget for the Inquiry been spent to support [Privy Council Office] offices or civil service staff?

4. Can you demonstrate that the [Privy Council Office] has not or is not impairing the independence of this Inquiry?

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the RCMP provide the majority of policing services in British Columbia. In my riding, there is no police force other than the RCMP, so I see them on the ground. They have bicycle control. They have a canine unit. They are part of the homelessness task force. They do fantastic outreach. They are receiving training on domestic assault. They are very connected with the grassroots front-line organizations around prostitution and around women's safety. I cannot say enough about them.

I cannot reconcile that community image of the RCMP with what I read in the headlines and in the Auditor General's reports. The dysfunction at the top seems to be so extreme. With the sexual harassment allegations, no wonder women have a hard time complaining to the police when they see headlines like that.

I can only believe that a progressive piece of legislation, such as what was ordered by the courts, could only improve the force. It is up to all of us in Parliament to make sure we give that the very best chance.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I note that it took a year for the government to hear the advice from the opposition members. We only heard five days ago that the government was going to take the advice that the Senate had delivered to the government 11 months ago, so we are really in a crunch here.

I have had a few messages from people within the RCMP community that they do not understand the government's new language around management rights being inserted into the legislation. We have not had time to study this. It is a new idea. It looks like it gives power to the RCMP commissioner to ensure that police operations are effective, but that might just override all of those other pieces of collective bargaining, depending on how that is interpreted. Just before the vote, I will be talking with my colleagues in the opposition lobby to find out if they have had any more satisfaction during debate today on this matter. I am glad to see the new language we asked for a year ago, and that RCMP members asked us to advocate for a year ago at committee gravitated as of five days ago into the government's legislation. However, I do not know how the police associations and the members themselves are feeling about that, and whether they think this is actually going to protect their interests.

[Public Service Labour Relations Act, May 16th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member of Parliament for South Okanagan—West Kootenay.

I want to extend more than anything my sincere thanks to members of the Nanaimo, Ladysmith, and Gabriola detachments of the RCMP for the work they do in the riding that I am honoured to serve. There are 159 sworn members of the RCMP who form the ranks in my riding, and they join 18,000 members across the country. As we talk today about Bill C-7, I am reminded that it does not only affect officers in my riding and across the country, but it also affects their spouses, grandparents, children, classmates, our entire Canadian community.

To remind us of what it is we are debating today, I have an email that was sent to me by Robyn Buchanan. She writes:

As you know members of the RCMP have waited a long time with lower than fair wages due to both conservative and liberal governments. This past weekend they are banding together by removing the yellow stripes from the side of their uniforms. This peaceful protest is to speak to the government and let them know that they are dissatisfied with safety issues and wage issues. Plainclothes members and members of the public are showing their support by wearing yellow ribbons. Often these ribbons are made from the very stripes that are removed from the uniform.... I can make you a ribbon myself, as my husband is an RCMP officer on Vancouver Island.

I am wearing one of those ribbons today, as are many members here in the House.

I also have an email dated April 4 fromDavid Buchanan who said:

The Treasury Board's stance is that as an RCMP member I am just another federal employee. I assure you we are not just average federal employees. I was one of the first police on the scene at the Nanaimo Mill Shooting. I ran towards the gunfire and not away. I also arrest countless impaired, unlicensed and dangerous drivers. I am not just another federal employee, I am a police officer. We should be compensated as police officers. I put my life on the line. RCMP members have the added stress of feeling undervalued and unsupported by our government. We are watching police officers falling to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder on a daily basis; yet we are considered “just another federal employee”.

I am just one police officer attempting to make things right for my other police brothers and sisters.

These fine men and women do dangerous work on our behalf. Collective bargaining is about fostering respect for workers and their rights, creating a safe working environment, and rewarding workers for their dedication and growth. It allows employees to have a voice and enables employers to listen. The cornerstone of collective bargaining is that respect. This is a right that is enjoyed by a vast majority of federal workers and those rights generally allow workers to be part of the conversation about staffing levels, deployment, relocation, and sexual harassment, except for the RCMP. That is what the court ruled in 2015 and it ruled that it must change.

We appreciate that the bill in front of us today does include those elements, that workplace safety and sexual harassment issues be allowed to be collectively bargained. We heard that loud and clear from RCMP members over the last year and a half that they have been writing us letters.

The extent of sexual harassment in the force has been widely documented and widely covered in the media. What makes it especially troubling to me is that it was explicitly excluded from the first version of the government's bill, which we debated a year ago.

On workplace safety, rural officers have special concerns. I think in particular of the terrible tragedies in Mayerthorpe and Moncton, where there was a terrible loss of life of RCMP members. There remain issues as to the extent to which they were protected. These men and women stand up for us and we should stand up for them.

A letter was sent to me by Thomas Trachsell, in which he said:

The RCMP has fallen so far behind almost every other police force in Canada in almost every area that we are literally on the verge of breaking. We are near the bottom of pay in Canadian police forces, our training opportunities now routinely lag far behind that of most other police forces, and our equipment is often years out of date or decades behind schedule being deployed.

If the government restricts us to negotiating pay and benefits alone, that may help us recruit more people, but it won't stop our members from dying because they are working alone in remote places without radio communications or proper backup because local managers creatively interpret backup policies or ignore them altogether.

It won't stop over-worked people from descending into depression, losing families and committing suicide. It won't stop abusive managers from bullying and intimidating the men and women that they supervise. It won't fix our broken promotion system. It won't promote any change in the imbalance of power between management and employees in the RCMP that has bred a culture of fear and distrust of management among many members, a culture which actively opposes innovation and creativity.

Tell the government that RCMP members deserve to be given the dignity of being free to bring all matters relevant to our working conditions to the bargaining table, a freedom that every other police force in Canada enjoys, so that we can begin to fix our own problems from within.

How did the government embrace this plea for support and this call to action? The government bill that we were debating a year ago excluded staffing, deployment, harassment, and discipline from collective bargaining. Most witnesses at the committee that studied Bill C-7 expressed great concern about what was left out of this collective bargaining agreement. In the New Democrats' view, this meant that the bill failed to live up to the court's direction, but the government members voted down our amendments at committee which would have brought those vital topics into collective bargaining and would have amended the bill at that time.

The government then shut down debate last May, a year ago, because it was so urgent that we move forward. Then the Senate did its work and did it quickly. It removed those exclusions from collective bargaining. It allowed those matters to be included in the legislation for the purposes of collective bargaining. It reported to the government in June 2016 and the government sat on those Senate changes for 11 months.

I still feel that if the government had taken the opposition's advice a year ago, it could have incorporated those amendments early and could have given RCMP members some satisfaction that they were being heard. I am glad that the government members are listening to the Senate's advice on this matter, but still the government only told us this five days ago, and stakeholders did not hear before then, and it is shutting down debate tonight. I believe I am the second-last speaker. We have had closure on debate twice on a bill that is still not perfect. With respect to the Senate amendments the government is going to receive, we cannot tell entirely whether the government is going to accommodate all of the supports that our men and women on the front line need in order to be safe themselves while they keep our communities safe.

I will end by noting what Corporal Clover Johns from Nanaimo reminded me. He said that members of the House have what RCMP members do not now have. We hold the power to listen and to voice their concerns when they were not afforded an opportunity to do so. We have the power to enact just laws that enhance the national police force, to treat its members fairly, and to advance public safety in Canada. We should do that today and we should guarantee members of the police in Canada equitable, open, and harmonious labour practices.

[Indigenous Affairs, May 16th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the inquiry into murdered and missing indigenous women received a failing grade from the Native Women's Association of Canada. Yesterday, 30 families and indigenous leaders said the process is in “serious trouble”. A full and independent inquiry was promised to families, but that is not what they are getting.

I have asked this question before and the minister has refused to answer. Do the commissioners have full access to inquiry funding? If not, who is delaying approval of those expenditures?

[Status of Women, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, there was not a single witness at the pay equity commission that was held last year, a special committee, who asked for more consultation or asked for more time. It was the unanimous recommendation of the committee that the government table legislation in June 2017. That is two weeks away. There is not a single excuse to delay.

I repeat my question to the member opposite: why on earth is the government waiting? The debt of $640 billion is a big one, and the government is just building it. As well, can we please see this lost document that is now out somewhere in the public domain, the one that was lost by the former employment minister's staff, which explained to cabinet why on earth the government would betray its promise to Canadian women and delay pay equity legislation once again?

[Status of Women, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, without pay equity, women are robbed of an estimated 23% of their earnings. The government is an accomplice to that robbery.

Thirteen years have passed since the 2004 Pay Equity Task Force report. It was a comprehensive blueprint for pay equity. It was a three-year study of a proactive pay equity regime, consisting of 596 pages and 113 recommendations. Again, that was in 2004 when the Liberal government was previously in power.

If those recommendations had been implemented in 2004, women would have had $640 billion more in their pockets, money they are now owed. The wage gap has cost Canadian women $640 billion in lost wages since 2004. Imagine for a moment the improved quality of life women would have had if they had not had to wait. Imagine the boost to the economy if that money had been in their bank accounts or spent in our communities that whole time.

As Barb Byers, secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Labour Congress, who very recently retired, and I thank Barb, testified at committee hearings held a year ago:

Let us also be mindful that women have been waiting for longer than 12 years. We've been waiting for decades and decades, and while we wait, the debt owed to those who are caught in the wage gap continues to mount. These are women with children to raise, women who deserve a dignified retirement, and many are women who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination both in the workplace and in the community.

In June 2016, almost a year ago, the Special Committee on Pay Equity, created by a New Democrat motion, tabled a report called “It's Time to Act”, but the government decided not to act. It is not a hard fix.

There is no reason for the delay. Women are still being denied pay equity. We have models and best practices within our country. There has been proactive pay equity legislation for public sectors for several decades: Ontario since 1987 and Quebec since 1996. Those regimes also include the private sector. Ontario and Quebec found that the cost of these provincial proactive pay equity laws was not significant and not as costly as employers had initially feared when the regimes were introduced. Plus it is a human right and it is the right thing to do.

This year, the Liberals sent a delegation to the 61st session of the Commission on the Status of Women. Interestingly, its focus was #stoptherobbery and #payequity was everywhere. The United Nations asked all countries to #stoptherobbery, but justice has not happened in Canada. We have just learned through the media that a senior ministerial staffer to the former employment minister lost classified documents going to cabinet that explained why pay equity legislation was still being hung up.

I want to know when the government will table those lost documents so we can learn what possible excuse the government has for failing to deny women legal pay equity.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 15th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Nanaimo, the city I am honoured to represent, had 13 fatalities in the first three months of this year and 28 fatalities last year. We are a smaller city but people are dying in this emergency at the same rate as people in Vancouver. While the government delayed action for a year and a half and then the Senate delayed it for another three months, inexcusably, the human impact has been colossal.

Could the member for Vancouver Kingsway tell me who is picking up the pieces in the meantime? Who are the front-line people who are filling the gap around the lack of inaction from the federal government?