Sheila Malcolmson

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am having trouble figuring out what the question was in the middle of that tirade, but I will take the opportunity to say that I do not know any Canadian workers who want to have the kind of blood on their hands that we hear about, in some cases from very vulnerable people as a result of human rights abuses.

If we had a parliamentary committee that could look at the financial arrangements between sales and the receiving country, we could have more confidence in going forward. A lot of new information has come out about human rights abuses in the receiving countries since that deal was first discussed, and since the Liberals signed-off on it.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will say three things.

One, we are not proposing to end arms manufacturing or exports. I know there is a constituency in favour of that. However, this motion is about striking a committee to investigate the human rights records of our customers. Therefore, if we get our business in order, there is no reason that we cannot continue to manufacture arms within the right framework.

Second, the committee that the member described is not studying the human rights record of our arms customers. It is doing an economic study, not a human rights study.

Nonetheless, I was glad to have the support of the members opposite for our New Democrat opposition day motion on pay equity. In that case, we all agreed to strike a special committee to look at the urgent need to bring in pay equity legislation, an issue that has languished for 20 years. That committee met and did its work and tabled a report to the government.

Because I sit on the status of women committee, I know as a committee member that we have lists as long as our arms of the things we want to work on. The rationale for having an additional committee specifically focused on just this task is that it would be its only requirement. Many members of the House are not sitting on a committee and would certainly be able to lend their expertise.

[Business of Supply, September 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.

Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of the motion on the floor, I will start off by saying once again, as my colleagues have been echoing all morning in this House, that for too long Canadians have had too little information about our arms exports to countries with questionable human rights records. This has to change.

Liberals have not been been fully transparent with Canadians about our arms exports, but we have a right to know who Canada is doing business with and under what conditions.

There are increasing allegations that Canadian weapons are being used to commit human rights violations in countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan.

It is clear that Canada's arms export policy is not working, and it is really time to have a national conversation about arms exports, with a multi-party commons committee that would collaborate across the floor.

Human rights are not optional. If the government wants to show Canada that it is a leader in human rights, then it needs to ensure that it, and we, are walking the talk.

I was very moved at a ceremony in my community, in Nanaimo, right on the waterfront, on August 6, which is the anniversary of Hiroshima bombing. Members of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, a very long-standing activist organization within our community, was talking about the UN vote that was coming up on nuclear disarmament. They shared my optimism that, given the campaign commitments around peace and security and restoring Canada's international reputation on the world stage, our Prime Minister was going to direct that Canada vote in favour of negotiations to end the nuclear weapons trade.

However, sadly, last month, Canada voted against negotiations for a global treaty banning nuclear weapons. It was shameful. It was a shock to everybody. These nuclear negotiations had been called for by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; 68 countries ended up voting in favour of the motion, so Canada was on the outside of that international consensus; and the vote was called “the most significant contribution to nuclear disarmament in two decades” by one of the UN member countries.

The Liberal government's vote last month also flew in the face of a 2010 resolution, in this House, encouraging the Canadian government to join negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention. The motion was adopted unanimously in this House and in the Senate, with support from all parties, including the Liberals. However, it was a real sad point that they did not follow through and carry on with that commitment that would have made us proud on the international stage. We want to move forward in a more positive way. There is more United Nations consensus with which our country can join.

A 2009 resolution of the Security Council stressed the particular impact that armed conflict has on women, children, refugees, and internally displaced persons, as well as on other civilians who may have specific vulnerabilities, including persons with disabilities and older persons, and it stressed the protection and assistance needs of all affected civilian populations.

As the New Democrat spokesperson for the status of women, I want to bring a particular gender lens to the debate.

The United Nations and international aid agencies say women are among the most heavily impacted victims of war. Tens of thousands suffer from sexual violence, rape, and lack of access to life-saving health care.

Amnesty International says women and girls are uniquely and disproportionately affected by armed conflict; women bear the brunt of war and are the vast majority of casualties resulting from war; rape and sexual violence target women and girls and are routinely used, not only to terrorize women but as a strategic tool of war and an instrument of genocide; systematic rape is often used as a weapon of war in ethnic cleansing; and, in addition to rape, girls and women are often subject to forced prostitution and trafficking during times of war, sometimes with the complicity of governments and military authorities.

In all countries, everywhere in the world, sexual violation of women erodes the fabric of a community in a way that few weapons can. This is the moral challenge to our country and the government. Six hundred and three million women live in countries where domestic violence is not yet considered a crime. Are we exporting weapons there?

In many countries there is repression, the silencing of abuse, and the mistreatment and imprisonment of women, human rights defenders, and activists. Are we exporting to those countries?

In some countries women are considered perpetual legal minors, permanently under the guardianship of male relatives. Are we exporting there?

In some countries it is actually legal for a man to rape his wife. Are we exporting arms to those countries?

We hear again and again that Canadians want to have more scrutiny over the destination of Canadian weapons, and they want to know that we are not exacerbating these human rights abuses in countries abroad.

At the NDP convention in April, Stephen Lewis gave a very powerful speech, and I quote:

We're not supposed to be sending armaments to countries that have a 'persistent record of serious violations of the human rights of their citizens.' Saudi Arabia is the embodiment of the meaning of the word 'violations.' And the government of Canada refuses to release its so-called assessment of the human rights situation in Saudi Arabia. So much for the newly minted policy of transparency.

He went on to say that it was a huge pleasure to have a prime minister who unselfconsciously calls himself a feminist, yet is selling weapons to a regime "steeped in misogyny".

Is it not time that we looked more closely at the regimes we export weapons to? Polls show that most Canadians disapprove of arms deals to human rights abusers. Many Canadians would be shocked to know that Canadian weapons exports have nearly doubled over the last 10 years. While Canada used to export arms mostly to NATO countries, under the Conservative government our arms exports shifted to include many countries with very troubling human rights records. Canada is now the second-largest arms dealer in the Middle East, after the U.S. Saudi Arabia is now the world's second-largest buyer of Canadian-made military equipment, after the United States.

Our arms export rules were supposed prohibit the sale of military hardware to countries whose governments have a persistent record of seriously violating the human rights of their citizens. However, it is clear that our arms export controls are not working. While the government argues, as the Conservative government did before it, that Canada has strong arms export regulations, in recent months Canadians have grown increasingly concerned about Canadian arms exports falling into the wrong hands.

Canada does not control or track the use of its arms exports overseas. Worse, it was revealed in August that the Government of Canada has weakened its arms export policy to make it easier to export military hardware to states that abuse human rights.

We have a few pieces of good news, despite all of this tough stuff. I am very glad that the government has agreed to accede to the Arms Trade Treaty. We look forward to seeing the details of that. It is a move in the right direction.

We do have a pre-election commitment from the Prime Minister. He said to the press that Canada must stop arms sales to regimes that flout democracy, such as Saudi Arabia. That was reported in the London Free Press on August 10, 2015.

We have a government that says that it is committed to equal rights for women and that it is deeply committed to transparency.

I urge the government, in the spirit of co-operation, to agree to a House committee that would provide parliamentary oversight of arms exports. This oversight is badly needed. We would have multi-party co-operation investigating current and future arms exports, and we can follow the example of other countries that have taken this step.

Let us move forward. Let us do the right thing collectively. Let us make Canada proud on the world stage again.

[Modernizing Animal Protections Act, September 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-246, proposed to ensure laws that prevent animal cruelty, shark finning, and the sale of products made from pet fur.

Because Canada's laws on offences against animals have not been substantively changed since 1892, constituents such as Robin Fru and Judy Daviduk, of Nanaimo, are urging me to move mountains against animal cruelty.

Large sections of this bill advance measures that New Democrats have proposed over time, and we would like to see these become law, and we would like to see the hard work of many community organizations, and parliamentarians of all stripes, recognized.

Most important to say up front is that this is about animal abuse, not animal use. The bill would not apply to lawful activities such as hunting and fishing.

The Department of Justice has been clear: this bill applies to criminal abuse, not lawful activities involving animals. However, because letter writers have conveyed to me that they fear the lawful activities of ordinary Canadians could be interpreted as being affected by this bill, we will introduce amendments to clarify that. The NDP wishes to protect the right to hunt, fish, farm, and trap legally, and we will propose amendments to clarify that. Hunters and anglers are vital conservation partners on Vancouver Island, and we need them to be part of the conversation about criminal animal cruelty.

The first part is about shark finning. Despite action by local governments to ban shark finning, Canada still imports several hundred thousand pounds of shark fins every year. This section of the bill would stop the importation of shark fins.

Thanks to the New Democrat member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, this measure came within five votes of passing in 2013. The only party that stood against it was the Conservative Party, even though 81% of Canadians polled supported a shark fin ban at that time.

One of the most comprehensive studies on shark fisheries was compiled recently at Dalhousie University, in Halifax. In it, scientists estimated that at least 100 million sharks are killed every year around the world. It may be 273 million each year. The study found that shark populations are being depleted faster than they can reproduce. This threatens the stability of marine ecosystems around the world.

The largest culprit is the illegal shark fin harvest, which feeds a growing demand for shark fin soup. Sharks are hooked out of the ocean onto boats and their fins are sliced off while they are still alive. The rest of the shark is discarded into the ocean, where, unable to swim without its fins, it sinks helplessly to the bottom to die. This powerful image was conveyed in the documentary Sharkwater. It was horrific carnage that I will not forget.

While sharks have survived earth's mass extinctions for over 400 million years, many shark species could be extinct within decades. A major environmental issue associated with shark finning is that the harvest is not specific to gender, size, or species. Therefore, we cannot target harvests to avoid endangered species, as we do with conservation-oriented fisheries.

A further biological complication is that sharks are naturally slow to breed and mature. This makes sharks particularly vulnerable to overfishing, and it makes extinction for many shark species increasingly likely.

This is why extinction would be absolutely terrible. Shark extinctions would significantly alter ocean ecosystems, and they likely already have, because sharks are vitally important apex predators. Like wolves and lions, their terrestrial counterparts, top predators control the population of grazers below them in the food chain. If left unchecked, this can destabilize entire ecosystems.

Specifically, sharks reduce the over-consumption and depletion of plankton by herbivorous fish. This is relevant to the pressing issue of climate change, because plankton are a carbon sink. Plankton absorb carbon, and when plankton die, they sink the carbon to the bottom of the ocean, where it sits. Without sharks, plankton populations will become depleted, meaning more acidic oceans and more carbon in the atmosphere.

Shark extinctions will exacerbate climate change. The health of the oceans, the climate of the planet, and ultimately the survival of our species might depend on sharks.

If by any chance people still believe the myth that sharks are bloodthirsty human eaters and ruthless killers that might harm our species, I will share this compelling stat with them. More people are killed each year by falling vending machines than by shark attacks. I ask members to please come together and support the ban on shark-fin imports for all our sake.

The second part of this bill includes provisions to strengthen and modernize existing animal cruelty offences. These provisions have been advanced by many members of Parliament, including former New Democrat, Peggy Nash. They passed third reading in the House several times, and they were once even approved in the Senate. These changes are needed. For example, a man was acquitted of beating his dog to death by a baseball bat, but he was acquitted because the dog died quickly. As well, willful neglect of domestic animals has been hard to prove. This bill today, instead, proposes a gross negligence offence for failing to provide adequate care, where an individual is found to have departed markedly from a standard of care that a reasonable person would use.

Finally, in this bill, the courts would be allowed to impose a lifetime ownership ban on repeat offenders of animal cruelty. Ninety-two per cent of Canadians polled support updating the Criminal Code to make it easier to secure convictions for animal cruelty offences. I hope parliamentarians will stand with these people.

The final part of the bill proposes to ban the sale of cat and dog fur, and also to require source labelling of fur. This would match the laws in the U.S. and the European Union. A 2012 Toronto Star investigation revealed that cat and dog fur is used in children's toys, boots, and in trim on coats. Three NDP MPs have previously attempted the measures contained in this bill to ban the sale of that fur and to require source labelling for cat and dog fur.

In conclusion, I want to say again that this bill is not about hunting and fishing. If it were, I would not support it. This is about animal abuse, not animal use. The bill applies to criminal abuse, not to lawful activities involving animals. My riding is built on commercial fisheries. It is full of hunters and anglers doing vital preservation work, and our riding is very dependent on recreational and sport fisheries. Because I do not want anyone to fear that lawful activities like those would ever be affected by this bill, there is an amendment we would propose in committee to clarify that this would not affect lawful hunting and fishing.

Finally, Robert Brodgesell of Ladysmith reminded me of Gandhi's words: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. I urge Parliament to vote together and show leadership to end animal cruelty in Canada.

[Status of Women, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I want to know whether the ministry for the Status of Women believes that two new shelters for every province for domestic violence is adequate. Does it think that five new shelters on reserve across Canada over the next three years is adequate to meet demand, Is the ministry committed to providing the operational funding that these organizations need to service victims of domestic violence and prevent violence against women?

[Status of Women, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I really do need to know the answer to my question. Do you think that the two new—

[Status of Women, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member especially for her ministry's commitment around concurrent implementation of the 1,200 outstanding recommendations around murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. We do not have to wait for the end of the inquiry in order to act, so I am grateful for your commitment.

[Status of Women, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the last time we had this discussion, we were talking about greater support for survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

The need is great. One in four women in Canada will experience intimate partner violence or sexual violence in her lifetime. That is according to the World Health Organization. I cannot overstate how badly my region of Nanaimo—Ladysmith needs action to prevent violence against women, and how much has fallen to our front-line organizations who pick up the pieces every day.

One such group, Nanaimo's Haven Society, receives eight crisis calls every day. Every year, it serves close to 4,000 people suffering physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and violence. However, because of inadequate financing, every year Haven turns away over 75 women who are ready to leave abusive situations, but who the Haven Society simply does not have enough room to house.

Across our country, there is a powerful network of domestic violence shelters picking up the pieces in just this way. One night alone last year, 8,000 women and children were in domestic violence shelters. Every day, 305 women and children are turned away from shelters, mostly because of overcrowding. This means that three out of four people seeking help to flee a violent situation cannot be accommodated.

I acknowledge the dedication of the Minister of Status of Women, and I deeply hope that her Liberal cabinet and the Minister of Finance agree with her that funding solutions is vital. The cost of not dealing with it is extreme.

Justice Canada estimates that the economic cost of violence against women is $12.2 billion to Canada every year. That is $415 per capita annually in costs from domestic violence.

The Liberal government's announcements do not seem to be enough to meet this enormous pent-up need over the last decade. The Canadian Network of Women's Shelters & Transition Houses has said that if half the money went to new spaces, because it could partly also go to renovate or repair existing shelters, it would mean just two new shelters for every province.

For first nations, the budget announcement will only support the creation of five new shelters on reserve and it will take three years to build them. In short, there will be only five new shelters on reserve across Canada over the next three years.

While the one-time capital funding is being welcomed, does the minister's representative believe it will be sufficient and what can she do to address the lingering need for operational cash? More than half the shelters are feeding their clients using food banks. The cost of electricity and every other kind of operating cost has gone up and up while the funding has gone down.

We do not have enough staff hours to deal with the increases in the number of clients served. We have waiting lists for counselling that the clients really need, and more operational funding would help that.

My two questions for the parliamentary secretary are as follows. Is the funding announced adequate for capital funding? What can be done about operational funding to support this very important community work?

[An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, since Bill C-51 remains in place, I would like to hear more from my colleague about what protections are in place to ensure that the right of legitimate dissent by first nations and environmental activists remains in place. Does the bill remedy those deficiencies in Bill C-51? If there is any infringement on such legitimate public discourse, which I view as in the public interest, allowing free speech? How can that public interest be protected?

[An Act to establish the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, September 27th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, the New Democrats support the direction of this bill because it fulfills a campaign promise that we made. We do though look forward to the conversation at committee to talk about some of the weaknesses we have identified.

We have one question around the appointment of the chair. The United Kingdom used to allow its prime minster to appoint the chair of the oversight committee, but that was abandoned in 2012 in favour of an elected chair. Other Westminster systems like Australia also elect a chair of its oversight committee to ensure that it is properly independent and is also perceived to be properly independent. Germany even rotates the chair, so the opposition chairs it sometimes and the government chairs it sometimes. A private member's bill of one of the Liberal members has also proposed an elected chair.

We are curious as to why the government now insists that the Prime Minister must control the appointment of the chair who would look over this important independent body.