Sheila Malcolmson

[Status of Women, November 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, in my discussion with the status of women minister in this House earlier this fall, I referenced that the United Nations and women's organizations across the country are calling for a national action plan to end violence against women. I asked why the minister had chosen a very narrow scope that does not include services such as shelters, policing, education, and some of the fundamental factors that can lead to increased violence against women but also in which we can find some of the solutions, such as the welfare system, in areas of provincial, municipal, and territorial authority. It was in that context that I asked the question.

The minister said that it was great hearing from people across the country and that she is listening to police. That is a good thing. However, that is not aiming toward a national action plan. Therefore, I want to dig a little deeper into why I did not get an answer from the minister that day, and reference some of the very good support for the current government. If it is truly committed to ending violence against women and gender equality, it would be happy to embrace this broad base of advice.

I will start with the United Nations. Under international law, every country has an obligation to address violence against women, and the United Nations called upon all countries to have a national action plan in place by 2015. It is now 2016 and Canada does not have one. Therefore, on Friday the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women issued its report. It is all about Canada. These only come out every five years or so. Therefore, this is a particularly good opportunity to hear from the United Nations about how it views Canada's progress.

In section 24 it states:

The Committee notes with appreciation that the Ministry of Status of Women is currently working with other Ministries to develop a federal strategy against gender-based violence.... However, the Committee is concerned about:

(d) The lack of a national action plan, bearing in mind that the strategy will only apply at the federal level;

In section 25 it states:

...the Committee recommends that...[Canada]:

(d) Expeditiously adopt a national action plan in consultation with civil society organizations, especially aboriginal women's organizations, to combat gender-based violence against women and ensure that adequate human, technical and financial resources are allocated for its implementation, monitoring and assessment;

It also indicates, around the necessity to have a national action plan, increased reporting by women regarding incidents of violence and de-stigmatizing victims and working with judges, prosecutors, police officers, all of which fall within provincial authority.

I will end with flagging, from the blueprint for Canada's national action plan on violence against women and girls, which was prepared by NGOs and women's organizations from across the country. Last year they called upon the government to implement a national action plan. It indicates that, in the absence of a national action plan, responses to violence against women in Canada are largely fragmented, often inaccessible, and can work to impede rather than improve women's safety.

Therefore, my question to the status of women minister is this. Why not a national plan? Why so narrow a federal plan?

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will not disagree with the encouragement of my colleague across the way around the prospects of trade with the EU. The European Union is ideal for us to work with, which is why we want this to succeed with the details being right.

Following on my Conservative colleague's question, we are looking for a little more detail around the mechanisms to address negative impacts on the Atlantic fisheries. The concerns that the fishery would be hurt by the removal of minimum fish processing requirements for seafood for the EU, during the Conservative time, were proposed to be dealt with by this $400 million offer, this interim work with the provinces and the feds.

I ask that the member tell me what is in the deal under the Liberal government, because we have not heard any details on compensation for Atlantic fisheries around value-added processing, and surely that is a detail we need to get right before this is signed. I am curious.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly want my colleague's constituents to continue to make cheese, because it is the best. From British Columbia, I can say that the hon. member's cheese is the best, although ours is good.

This is a very good point the hon. member raises. The Conservatives promised a $4.3 billion compensation package for supply management farmers affected by CETA and TPP, but the Liberal government's offer, finally, after a lot of delay, was announced to be $350 million. I will say those numbers again. It was $4.3 billion under the Conservatives. It will be only a $350-million package for dairy farmers, so that falls far short.

This is a time when we need to be increasing our local food security, stimulating and protecting our local economy, and absolutely adding value to the resources we have.

The dairy industry is a vital partner and a long-standing part of our local economy, and we cannot risk alienating it and impeding its ability to continue to feed Canadians in this way.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will rely on the advice of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, the Canadian Health Coalition, and in fact, Health Canada itself. They all say that the direction of prescription drug costs is way up. Nobody is estimating it down. We are already in a huge crunch.

Canadians pay more for drugs than any other consumers, and we are the only country in the world that has a public health care system that does not have a pharmacare plan. We have work to do. It is a service we could provide, which New Democrats are committed to providing. We certainly are concerned that entering into a forever trade deal like this would limit those opportunities.

This is absolutely a place to slow down, as the Liberals proposed in the previous Parliament, and study this and be much more clear. With 215 out of 338 members of this House newly elected, we would certainly all benefit from more study in this area.

[Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Implementation Act, November 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, at risk of repeating what has been said so many times in the House today, New Democrats support trade deals that reduce tariffs and boost exports, but we remain firm that components like investor-state provisions that threaten sovereignty have no place in trade deals.

In our view, the job of government is to pursue better trade, that is, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects, above all, Canadian jobs. A final trade deal must be based on its net costs and benefits. We have always been clear on this and have opposed trade deals in the past that would have a net negative impact on Canadian jobs and the environment.

To repeat what my colleagues have said, particularly the member for Essex, who has been so strong on this file, trade with Europe is too important to get wrong. The NDP supports deepening our Canada-EU trading relationship to diversify our markets. However, there remain significant concerns and unanswered questions about the proposed CETA deal.

First, changes in CETA will increase drug costs for consumers. Second, there are concerns about local procurement, particularly for local governments. Third, investor-state provisions will have to be removed before this deal is ratified, and fourth, the Liberals have not properly compensated dairy farmers for their loss of market share under CETA.

With respect to the first, increasing drug costs are a significant and known downside of CETA, yet the Liberals have not delivered on their promised compensation to the provinces and territories for the increased cost of prescription drugs to provincial taxpayers and consumers. Changes to intellectual property rights for pharmaceuticals under CETA are expected to increase drug costs by more than $850 million annually.

Quoting Jim Keon, the president of the Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association, he said:

A study prepared for the [Canadian Generic Pharmaceutical Association] by two leading Canadian health economists in early 2011 estimated that, if adopted, the proposals would delay the introduction of new generic medicines in Canada by an average of three and a half years. The cost to pharmaceutical payers of this delay was estimated at $2.8 billion annually, based on generic prices in 2010

The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions has also warned that it could be more difficult to bring down drug prices through a national pharmacare program if CETA comes in.

In opposition, the Liberals demanded that the Conservatives present a study of the financial impact on provinces and territorial governments, both on their health care systems and on prescription drug costs. Now that they are in government, they are telling the provinces that they will cut health care transfers, while pursuing agreements that risk increasing drug costs for the provinces.

According to the Canadian Health Coalition, the delayed arrival of cheaper generics will increase the cost of prescription drugs for Canadians by between $850 million and $2.8 billion a year.

CETA is the first Canadian bilateral free trade agreement since NAFTA that includes a chapter on intellectual property rights. It goes well beyond Canada's existing obligations. The increased patent protections granted to brand name pharmaceuticals were an EU priority, but they are not a Canadian priority. We heard this all the time during the election campaign. When door-knocking in all kinds of neighbourhoods, we heard from Canadians who were splitting their pills, skipping prescriptions, not taking their full prescribed drugs each day, and having to make the terrible choice between buying food and taking the medication their doctor had prescribed. That is a terrible situation, and to think that the current government would risk exacerbating that problem for consumers is unimaginable to me and is certainly not consistent with its campaign promises.

My second area of concern is local procurement. When I was elected to local government, TILMA, the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, was proposed. It was very controversial in British Columbia.

These days, local governments are encouraged, when they raise taxes on property owners, to then spend those taxes in the local community as much as they can. The local government will contract someone to put up a website, for example, or if it needs catering for a government operation or public function, it might bias that procurement toward local providers and maybe even pay a premium. This has been done more and more. However, the local procurement restrictions increasingly threaten and intimidate local governments from doing those fantastic things that are good for local business and good for the local economy.

We hear that above a certain threshold, minimum local content policies will be outlawed, even for municipal and provincial government procurement. Companies will also have an expanded ability to use temporary foreign workers, without a study of the impact on Canadians.

My third area of concern is the investor-state provisions. These are mechanisms that allow foreign corporations to sue our government if they feel that our regulations have impeded their ability to profit. We know this too well in Canada. Canada is already one of the most sued countries in the world under investor-state dispute mechanisms. Canadian companies have won only three of 39 cases against foreign governments, and our government continues to get new complaints seeking billions of dollars in damages.

One example currently before the courts is Lone Pine Resources, an oil and gas developer that had obtained an exploration permit to look for shale gas under the St. Lawrence River. The Quebec government took the very bold step of revoking the permit in response to constituents' concerns about fracking, but Lone Pine sued the Canadian government, under its U.S. affiliate, under NAFTA chapter 11 and sought $250 million in compensation.

What other province is going to be as brave as the Quebec government and take a stand against something like fracking if there is this kind of chill? This is a real problem. Existing investor-state dispute provisions have also been considered a regulatory chill where governments have failed to take action in the public interest when they have feared that it may trigger an investor claim.

The Canadian Environmental Law Association said:

[CETA] will significantly impact environmental protection and sustainable development in Canada. In particular, the inclusion of an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the liberalization of trade in services, and the deregulation of government procurement rules will impact the federal and provincial governments' authority to protect the environment, promote resource conservation, or use green procurement as a means of advancing environmental policies and objectives.

That worries me, every piece of it.

In February 2016, during CETA's legal scrubbing phase, the minister announced changes to the ISDS provisions that are supposed to improve transparency and strengthen measures to combat the conflicts of interest of arbitrators. However, the new court system still allows foreign investors to seek compensation from any level of government for any policy decision they feel would impact their profits.

The Liberals still have not explained how they would ensure that environmental health and safety regulations would be protected from foreign challenges.

Fourth, the Liberals have not properly compensated dairy farmers for loss of market share under CETA. Quoting the Dairy Farmers of Canada:

CETA will result in an expropriation of up to 2% of Canadian milk production; representing 17,700 tonnes of cheese that will no longer be produced in Canada. This is equivalent to the entire yearly production of the province of Nova Scotia, and will cost Canadian dairy farmers up to $116 million a year in perpetual lost revenues.

We cannot afford to be making and processing less of our own food. We cannot afford this for dairy farmers, who are at the foundation of the way our country and our rural economies have grown. We cannot let this go.

The Liberals also have not explained whether and how they will compensate Newfoundland and Labrador for fish processing losses. Again, this is a time we should be adding value to our natural resources, not trading them away.

Given all these concerns and all these unresolved issues, I will quote Maude Barlow, from the Council of Canadians:

Given the process could take another five years in Europe, what's the rush here other than another photo op? There needs to be a fuller public consultation process on CETA, just as the government has done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

I will leave, finally, by saying once again that New Democrats want better trade, trade that boosts human rights and labour standards, protects the environment, and protects Canadian jobs. This is not a progressive trade deal until those measures are implemented. If the Liberal government will not stand up for progressive trade deals, New Democrats surely will.

[Status of Women, November 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government promised gender parity for its senior appointments, and that means fifty-fifty. However, only a quarter of federal crown corporation and agency directors are women. One in four is not gender parity. It is not even close.

According to the Canadian Board Diversity Council, the government's approach is insufficient, and “quotas may be necessary to bring about the desired change”.

Will the government support my bill to ensure equal representation? It is a simple question, yes or no.

[Indigenous Affairs, November 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the United Nations committee on discrimination against women has just expressed serious concerns with the inquiry into the murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. It says that the inquiry is not taking a human rights approach, that it does not have the mandate to look into policing, or look into unresolved cases.

These concerns echo exactly what we have heard from the families of missing and murdered mothers, daughters, and sisters. Will the government finally respond to these concerns, and will the government finally listen to the voices of families?

[Gender Equality Week Act, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we definitely need gender equality. There is no question. Canadian women earn only 74¢ for every dollar earned by men. Domestic and sexual violence cost our economy over $12 billion per year. There are 1.4 million women who report, and few report, having experienced forms of sexual violence in the last five years. One in four women in their lifetime will be affected by gender-based violence. Canada ranks 60th in the world when it comes to gender parity in our parliaments. We are behind Kazakhstan, South Sudan, and Iraq. Then we just had this very high-profile loss with the U.S. election of president where a lot of us are saying that a highly qualified woman lost to an under-qualified man. It is important to raise the profile of the contribution that Canadian women have made to the growth, development, and character of our country. There is no question.

Already this year, we have women on bank notes, we have a gender-balanced cabinet, and we have this bill being debated today to establish gender equality week. None of that makes a whit of difference in the lives of Canadian women on the ground. I suggest respectfully that the best way to honour women is by legislating real change on gender equality. After more than a year in power, the current Liberal government has failed to translate feminist rhetoric into real change, and it is far beyond time to put words into action.

New Democrats have a great list of actions that could be taken to make a difference in the lives of women and girls.

Number one on the list of actions is pay equity legislation now. Women make 74¢ on the dollar. Aboriginal women with a university degree earn 33% less, so the gap increases the more educated indigenous women are. Although the legislation was written 12 years ago when the previous Liberal government was in power, the government now says its target is late 2018. There is no excuse for that. Not a single witness recommended that kind of time lag. Women have waited 40 years for pay equity, and they should not have to wait any longer.

Another action is more women in Parliament. There are only 26% in this House. At this rate, it is going to take us 89 years to reach gender parity in Parliament. Because the Liberal government voted down the candidate gender equity act last month, which would have promoted a gender-balanced Parliament, we think that the government should introduce its own measure to actually get more women in these seats. Members of Parliament who voted against the candidate gender equity act include the sponsor of this bill and the Minister of Status of Women.

We want an expanded strategy to end violence against women. We still do not have a national plan of action to promote the protection of women and girls despite the commitment made to the United Nations in 1995. Since then, many countries have adopted a national action plan. They include Belgium, Finland, France, and the United Kingdom. Australia is on its fourth plan, kind of breaking some stereotypes about Australia's cowboy mentality. Here in Canada, rates of violence against women have remained largely unchanged over 20 years, and the absence of a national action plan is resulting in fragmented approaches across the provinces and territories. We want the action plan scope that the minister is now undertaking to be expanded to include service delivery in areas of provincial responsibility. That is what a national plan is. That would mean that it includes education, policing, and the justice system, all key services that can help end violence against women.

We want well-funded women's domestic violence shelters. On any given day, more than 4,000 women and over 2,000 children reside in a domestic violence shelter, every day. More than 300 women and children are turned away from shelters on any given day. Three out of four cannot be accommodated, and those are the ones who come forward looking for help. There has been a 24% increase in phone calls at the Haven Society in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. More and more women are asking for help. We need expanded services to be able to accommodate them. We are pushing hard for federal funding to support domestic violence shelter operations, and we note that in the mid-1990s the Chrétien government cut that operational funding, which was characterized as the most Draconian spending cuts in federal history.

New Democrats want domestic violence shelters for first nations, Métis, and Inuit women. According to Amnesty International, the scale and severity of violence faced by indigenous women and girls in Canada constitutes a national human rights crisis. Some 70% of Inuit communities do not have access to any domestic violence shelters.

Indigenous women face a violence rate of three times that of the rest of the Canadian population, and yet the Liberal budget funded only five new shelters on reserve over the next five years. That would result in a total of just 46 violence against women shelters on reserve across the country, and that is by 2022, well after the government's term is over. We also have to look much more thoughtfully at violence against women shelters off reserve.

Gender-based analysis is something that we need legislated in Canada. Gender equality can be exacerbated by policies and spending decisions if we do not have a legislated solution through which these kinds of decisions are made. The Standing Committee on the Status of Women, back in June, recommended that legislation be tabled in the House by June 2017. New Democrats recommended that it be tabled next month, because we need to get ahead of all of the policy changes and infrastructure spending that is about to roll out. However, the government's response was no timeline whatsoever. It thinks that in 2018 it might have a reaction to whether we need legislation at all. Therefore, there is no timetable for legislation.

We need child care in this country, high-quality, affordable child care, that helps women seek employment, improves their job skills and careers, and eases family financial stress. I was delighted to see this week that Premier Notley, the New Democrat premier in Alberta, is creating 1,000 new child care spaces and 230 new child care jobs. As Stephen Lewis has famously said, feminism is a vacant construct without a national child care system.

New Democrats want more federal appointments of women to crown corporations. Only 27% of members of boards of directors of federal crown corporations are women. This is a power that the government has to change, right now. The Canadian Dairy Commission, for example, has no women on it whatsoever. The Bank of Canada and CMHC have mostly male board members. In my community, the Nanaimo Port Authority has a majority of women on its board, and it is a fantastic board.

The federal government made commitments to real change in the mandate letter for the Minister of Status of Women, but no action has been taken yet. If none is taken, then I will encourage the government to support my bill, Bill C-220, which would move, over the next six years, gender parity on federal crown corporation boards and commissions.

There should be free prescription birth control. The costs of family planning fall disproportionately to women, and yet it is increasingly unaffordable. Liberals should work with the provinces to provide a framework for the full cost of prescription contraceptives to be covered.

Finally, the NDP wants the government to act on its fundamental responsibility by restoring the funding cut by the Conservative government to all of the under-funded social service organizations that support women, girls, and children in our communities. This is especially urgent for women with disabilities, women who are suffering poverty, aboriginal women, and women living in rural and remote areas.

In summary, we should take real action to achieve gender equality. We believe that, when women are no longer disproportionately affected by violence, inequality, and poverty, then we could legitimately have a celebratory week. I am going to vote in support of this bill, but New Democrats are going to propose at committee that this bill not enter into force before the government implements proactive pay equity legislation and gender-based analysis legislation.

After more than a year in power, the Trudeau government has failed to translate feminist intention into real change. It is far beyond time to put words into action. Together, let us create a gender equality week once we have something to celebrate.

[Status of Women, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday we asked the Liberals to take real action to prevent violence against indigenous women. Seventy percent of Inuit communities have no access to shelters.

Amnesty International says “The scale and severity of violence faced by Indigenous women and girls in Canada...constitutes a national human rights crisis.” Yesterday, the Native Women's Association called the government inaction “a breach of human rights”.

Will the government take responsibility, so no woman is ever turned away from a domestic violence shelter?

[Canada Pension Plan, November 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats applaud the general direction of this bill. We agree that we need to do more to improve retirement security for young Canadians, and we applaud the government, and especially the labour movement for pushing long and hard for this change.

However, during the course of this curtailed debate, and it is unfortunate that the government invoked closure on debate on this bill, my colleague, the member for Hamilton Mountain, identified a flaw in the Liberal legislation.

It used to be that there was a child-rearing dropout provision in the CPP legislation. It was the same thing for persons with disabilities. People who received CPP disability benefits were protected so that their payments would not be clawed back.

These are two flaws in this legislation. I want to hear what the government is going to do. If New Democrats vote in favour of sending this bill to committee, will the government fix these two serious errors, which would interfere with pension benefits for both women and persons with disabilities?