Sheila Malcolmson

[Transportation, February 1st, 2017]

Madam Speaker, when I last rose in the House to address the issue of abandoned vessels, we were clear about what the problem was.

For maybe 15 years now coastal communities have been describing a myriad of bureaucracy that has made it impossible for them to identify which federal department, oceans being under federal jurisdiction, would deal with an abandoned vessel creating a navigation problem, or an oil spill, or visual harm to their community. People would phone Nav Canada and be told to phone Coast Guard. Coast Guard would tell them to phone Environment. Environment would tell them to phone the province if the vessel was washed up on the land.

It was a mess. It was embarrassing. I know a local community organization which for 10 years tried to find a federal or a provincial partner that would work with it to remove these abandoned vessels. Whether they are old commercial fishing vessels, whether they are worn-out fibreglass vessels, and whether it is because we are having more and more storms or more and more bankruptcies, more of these vessels are showing up on our shorelines.

Coastal communities have been very patient and very persistent on this matter. I want to give a special shout-out to leaders in my own riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, particularly Stz'uminus Chief John Elliott, Ladysmith Mayor Aaron Stone, and former mayor Rob Hutchins, who are very strong leaders. Together we got a significant vessel removed with the help of the former minister of fisheries and oceans, the member for Nunavut. We are very grateful for that, and it was a big win for our community.

However, we are looking for permanent solutions so that communities do not have to work as hard as Ladysmith did to have this four-year-old problem resolved. This problem was from a vessel towed into the harbour by Transport Canada. This did not originate in Ladysmith.

I will mention the solutions that I have been proposing, both in my role as local government and now as member of Parliament. One is to make Coast Guard one-stop shopping so people do not get the runaround. Coast Guard can negotiate with its various other member departments regarding who will take ultimate responsibility, but it is one-stop shopping. There should be more resources for Coast Guard obviously, because it is already doing this work off the side of its desks. Other things would be fibreglass recycling, innovation and research, and investment, because we need to find a market for this product. There should be an amnesty on abandoned boats, a kind of “bring in your boat” program, so that we can partner with local governments and try to get ahead of the problem. Vessel registration needs to be fixed. We should look at taking the load off taxpayers, who right now are paying 90% of the cost. We need to find solutions to take that cost off the backs of the taxpayers.

The national oceans protection plan was announced by the government back in the fall, and I was glad to see that leadership as the Conservatives certainly did not do it. However, we still do not know what that would include. One of the pieces that is a bit of a worry is the indication that, like the Conservatives, the Liberals think a solution to abandoned vessels is to criminalize the problem. We cannot penalize people we cannot find, and in any case, there are already remedies to take a person who has abandoned their vessel to court.

I am looking for the government's assurance that the national oceans protection plan was not just PR to soften the blow of a Kinder Morgan oil tanker approval that we sure did not want on our coast. That was all downside for us. There was no upside.

Please let me know when this legislation will be tabled, when we will finally have solutions for coastal communities to solve the impossible problem of abandoned vessels.

[Status of Women, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, front-line workers are decrying the lack of action from the Liberal government to end violence against women. They are calling the government's progress to date a massive disappointment.

There needs to be an immediate increase in funding for shelter operations. No woman or child should ever be turned away when fleeing domestic violence. When will the Liberals create a national action plan to end violence against women as promised to the United Nations?

[Status of Women, February 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, despite the Prime Minister's feminist words at the United Nations, he has failed to act, and the United Nations is calling him on it. The UN Committee to End Discrimination Against Women told Canada to get to work on pay equity, legal aid, abortion access, child care, and indigenous women's safety. It is a big list, and this is a big deal.

The government says it cares about the UN and it cares about women's rights, yet the UN says the government is failing to act. This morning, hundreds of women's labour and justice organizations called on the Prime Minister to heed the UN demand, and step up for women's equality.

Last month, thousands of women marched for women's rights. New Democrats stand with them. We want the government to get to work, uphold human rights, and make equality a reality for all women.

[International Development, January 31st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the United States has just blocked funding for any international organization that even mentions abortion. The consequences of this decision are monumental for women's health. Will Canada reiterate its support for women's access to reproductive health care at home and abroad? Will Canada condemn Trump's attack on women's rights?

[Statistics Act, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is such a curious experience to hear the Conservative Party debating Bill C-36, the restoration of data and evidence and the restoration of the long-form mandatory census. We are in another universe now.

I was elected to local government at the time that the mandatory long-form census was removed by the federal government. I was part of the movement of elected people who were deeply alarmed at the lack of data, the brokenness of our access to data, whatever it was we were measuring, whether it was measuring success, whether it was environmental protection, or whether it was service delivery. Then the alarm went through every local government convention around how we were going to know that we had the data that was going to point to where our federal and provincial dollars should go to support the social safety net. It was very alarming. We are glad to see this moved back.

I am curious as to whether the member wants to update the House on whether he shares the former views of the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka, who said the value of the data is not worth the intrusion of privacy rights, and that is why the Harper Conservative government removed the mandatory long-form census.

I would love to hear the member say that he now recognizes the importance of data for service delivery and the strengthening of our social safety net.

[Petitions, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions from residents of Gabriola Island who are opposed to the establishment of five new bulk commercial anchorages, each to house 300-metre-long vessels that are going to be exporting Wyoming coal to China, where it will be burned in power plants. Petitioners point out that this is bad for climate change, bad for the sensitive ecology, and bad for the sport fishery in the area. No local jobs are created. Oil spills risk their local economy. They urge the federal government to take their advice and to follow the government's commitments to restore habitat protection to the Fisheries Act and to restore the protections of the navigable waters act.

If the government had done its work, this petition would not be necessary and the community would not be so risked.

[Indigenous Affairs, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the parliamentary secretary, we want the inquiry to work well, and we are glad that the government launched it, but building one violence-against-women shelter on reserve, one a year for the next five years, is not enough, because we are so far behind. There is nothing offered in the Far North for the Inuit. The families are not being included in this process.

Here is another quote from the vigil in October:

I'm tired; I want justice for my daughter, for Shannon, for all of these women: our sisters, our children...our loved ones. We are living through this..... Yet they throw us promises. Well, you know what? We haven't heard anything yet. Nothing from this inquiry.

That is the mother of Shannon Alexander, who went missing in 2008.

If the government does not listen to the families, it will not get this inquiry right. Last week, on Friday, the government refused to include the Native Women's Association of Canada at its first ministers' conference. We must treat these advocates, these women and mothers, with respect. We must include them in the solutions.

The government must lead on this. Will it?

[Indigenous Affairs, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured once again to convey my personal hope and New Democrats' hope that the national inquiry into the issue of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls is successful and does the work for the country for healing to end violence against indigenous women and girls forever and to root out its root causes. However, we need the inquiry to work well, and we need it to do its work. I ask these questions in that context.

Last month the United Nations committee to end discrimination against women expressed serious concerns with Canada's inquiry as it is now envisioned. It says it is not taking a human rights approach. It does not have the explicit mandate to review policing or look into unresolved cases. It says specifically that the committee is concerned about the lack of an explicit assurance of adequate support and protection provided to witnesses, and about the lack of sufficient co-operation with indigenous women's organizations in the process of establishing the inquiry.

When the United Nations committee weighs in like this, we should pay attention; and so in that constructive spirit, I would like to flag that those concerns cited by the United Nations fly very much with what we heard directly from the families of murdered and missing women and girls.

Right here on the front steps of the Hill at the Sisters in Spirit vigil on October 4, we heard the great frustration of the mothers of missing daughters in particular. One Algonquin women, Bridget Tolley, said:

We're back again. We want justice. We don't want to be here anymore. We shouldn't have to be here. We shouldn't have to beg for justice.

She has been fighting to pursue the case of her mother for 15 years.

Another Mohawk woman, Beverley Jacobs, former president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, said:

I'm tired of government. I'm tired of their words.

I want to see something done for families. Something that they can feel that something is being done and their own justice is being addressed.

I have heard this repeatedly from advocates for murdered and missing indigenous women. They feel that their voices were not heard in the formation of the inquiry and in its terms of reference. They felt frustrated as the opening date of the inquiry, September 1, passed without receiving any details of how they would be included. The inquiry only provided the loved ones of the murdered and missing with contact information just last week.

We have fantastic organizations that can identify the needs of those participating in the inquiry and can really help make a difference and make it work.

I ask the government this directly. Will it follow the United Nations recommendation that the government ensure support and protection to witnesses and strengthen the inclusive partnership with indigenous women's organizations and national and international human rights institutions and bodies during the conducting of the murdered and missing indigenous women's inquiry and its implementation process?

[John Howard Society, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, at Christmastime, Nanaimo—Ladysmith celebrates groups serving on some very tough front-line social issues, such as the John Howard Society, which helps prison inmates stop reoffending and falling back into addiction.

After its staff Christmas party, Nanaimo business Holdfast Metalworks Ltd. gifted The John Howard Society with $5,000, saying:

... we have been impacted by the fantastic work the Society provides. We have two gentlemen employed at our shop that have been through your “Guthrie House” program. .... [They're] exemplary employees. They are motivated, caring and compassionate people with well-honed skills in conflict resolution and clear communication. It is because of your programs that they are looked upon as role models in our shop and have changed many of our other employees' attitudes in how they judge people that have had a less than typical past.

Thanks to the John Howard Society and to Holdfast Metalworks Ltd. for celebrating this work.

I wish my colleagues a merry Christmas.

[Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, while I have the floor I want to thank the cafeteria staff for feeding us perogies at lunch today, which was very appropriate given the deal we are debating.

I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of International Trade for bringing forward a trade deal to this House that the New Democrats are happy to support. It removes tariffs from steel to seafood, and aids exports, and adds Canadian jobs, without any of the downside of the other trade deals the government has been supporting, which give more rights to foreign investors to challenge disputes in the new investor court in the EU, for example, and undermine our environmental and social regulations.

Both the parliamentary secretary and the trade minister on the Liberal side have talked a lot about progressive trade deals. I would like to learn more, because we have had two very different types of trade deals in the House, one the New Democrats support and one we do not. Can the parliamentary secretary tell us more about his view of what constitutes a progressive trade deal and how this one fits with that?