Sheila Malcolmson

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, September 19th, 2016]

With regard to the Ship Source Oil Pollution Fund: (a) what is the current dollar amount in the fund, broken down by (i) government contributions, (ii) industry contributions, (iii) funds allocated for direct emergency action and remedial action; (b) based on the information provided in (a)(i) and (a)(ii), how many contributions have been made to the fund over the past ten years, broken down by (i) name of contributor, (ii) amount of contribution, (iii) date of contribution, (iv) total amount of contribution for the lifetime of the fund; (c) what criteria are used to determine how funds are used for abandoned vessels, broken down by (i) environmental risk, (ii) monetary amount that can be accessed, (iii) time-limits for disbursements from the fund; (d) for each of the items identified in (c), what is the (i) definition of the comprehensive solution regulation, (ii) process for which the Canadian Coast Guard can access the fund, (iii) process for which it is reimbursed; (e) for each of the items identified in (c), when was the fund accessed for vessels along the entirety of the east coast of Vancouver Island and for which vessels or events was the fund accessed, broken down by (i) the amount of funds accessed, (ii) the date the fund was accessed, (iii) the outcome of the event, (iv) the status of the vessel, (v) the next plans for the vessel; and (f) was the fund in (e) accessed for the vessel the Viki Lynne 2, and, if so, (i) what was the amount of funds accessed, (ii) when were the funds disbursed, (iii) what were all of the expenses related to the fund, broken down by type of work done, (iv) what comprehensive plans exist to remove the remaining oil and solvents, (v) can the fund be used to remove, decommission and destroy the Viki Lynne 2?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, June 17th, 2016]

With regard to the strategy to deal with abandoned and derelict vessels by Transport Canada: (a) how many abandoned and derelict vessels are there in Canada; (b) for each of the vessels identified in (a), (i) what are their locations, (ii) how long have they been considered abandoned and derelict, (iii) what are the removal plans for each vessel, (iv) in which state of removal are each of the vessels, including but not limited to, assessing, removing or disposing, (v) what are the cost estimates for removal, (vi) what are the assessments on options available for carrying out the physical removal of the vessels, (vii) have the owners been identified, (viii) what has prevented the government from identifying the vessel owners, (ix) are they registered or licensed, and have the registrations or licenses been cancelled or suspended at any point, (x) are they a threat to navigation or to the marine environment; (c) how many abandoned and derelict vessels in Canada are 300 Gross Tons (GT) and over; (d) what would be the total estimated cost for the removal of all vessels in the derelict vessel inventory; (e) how many marine casualties have involved vessels that became shipwrecks in Canada’s internal waters and territorial sea, broken down by year for each of the past ten years; (f) how many accidents and maritime casualties are caused by abandoned and derelict vessels, broken down by year for each of the past ten years; (g) what are the risk factors that could lead to a vessel becoming a shipwreck and how is Transport Canada preventing those risk factors; (h) how many “responds to incidents” did the Canadian Coast Guard complete on abandoned and derelict vessels, broken down by year for each of the past ten years, and for each of these incidents please indicate (i) the date, time, and location of the incident, (ii) a description of the incident, (iii) the names of the vessels involved, (iv) the actions that were taken, if any, with regard to the abandoned vessel, (v) the current status of the abandoned vessel, boat or wreck and whether or not the abandoned boat, wreck, or vessel were decommissioned or disposed of, (vi) the plans to decommission or dispose of the vessel, if any exist; (i) what are the reasons for which vessels in Canadian waters would either be unregistered or unlicensed, or for which the registration or license has been cancelled or suspended; (j) for the vessels identified in (a), how many of these vessels then continue to float at anchor or tied to a dock; (k) how many lawsuits have involved the owner of the vessel and have had the aim of recovering the money to cover the cost of removal for abandoned and derelict vessels; (l) what has the government’s strategy been to date and what are the next steps for dealing with abandoned and derelict vessels, including (i) objectives, (ii) government departments and agencies involved in the strategy, (iii) other stakeholders; (m) what consultations has the government conducted and what are the next steps for future consultations with regard to abandoned and derelict vessels, broken down by (i) date and time, (ii) federal government participants, (iii) other participants, (iv) goal of the consultations, (v) method of inviting participants, (vi) length of time given for participation in the consultations; (n) has the government consulted with (i) municipalities, (ii) provinces and territories, (iii) First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities, (iv) representatives of Canadian ship owners, (v) maritime lawyers, vi) marine underwriters, (vii) shoreline property owners, (viii) the shellfish industry, (ix) the fishing industry, (x) the lobster industry, (xi) the tourism industry, (xii) First Nations and Indigenous People, (xiii) the Canadian Maritime Advisory; (o) if the answer to (n) is in the affirmative, what are the names of each person consulted; (p) has Transport Canada held any conversations with the Coast Guard regarding the possibility of making the Coast Guard responsible for abandoned and derelict vessels in Canadian water; (q) which options are examined by Transport Canada to address the issue of abandoned vessels and wrecks; (r) what did the department recommend with regard to Canadian membership to the International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks (IWR); (s) if the answer to (r) is in the affirmative, when did Transport Canada first make this recommendation; (t) does the strategy propose a manner in which to deal with the wrecks that were in existence prior to its coming into force; (u) how does Transport Canada plan to deal with existing abandoned and derelict vessels; (v) how would the IWR Convention address several of the limitations inherent in Canada’s current legislative framework; (w) has there been any consideration as to the use the IWR Convention as the centrepiece for a new legislative regime; and (x) has the government considered regulatory frameworks from other jurisdictions, and if so, which ones?

[Status of Women, June 15th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, the Liberal government promised that Canada would use gender-based analysis for all programs, policies, and laws. However, two Auditor General reports found the little done was piecemeal and inadequate. As the Auditor General said, a major barrier was lack of mandatory requirements.

Women's equality cannot be left up to the whims of any government or cabinet. Therefore, will the government introduce legislation before the end of 2016 to make gender-based analysis a mandatory requirement across all of the Government of Canada?

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, like so many areas where we have had a failure of federal government leadership, whether it is oil spill response, abandoned vessels, in this case marijuana dispensary regulations, I have seen my former colleagues from local governments scrambling to fill those holes. It means every community has to figure out its own ad hoc rules. It would be so much better if we saw federal leadership in this area.

The financial cost, the direct cost, is $4 million a year simply in prosecuting small personal possession charges. That is embarrassing, really, for us in this country in this day and age. That money could be spent so much better elsewhere.

The cost of criminal records for individuals we have discussed, and they can really hamper people's time.

I would argue finally for the government, it has the need to act on the very strong mandate that was given to it by Canadians, and I think voting in favour of this motion would be a show of faith in the Liberals' commitment to follow through on a campaign promise.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, voting yes to today's NDP motion would allow police resources to be concentrated on true crime in our country and actually getting at the root of drugs and violence that actually affect people on the ground.

They would have more resources to do roadside checks around who is driving dangerously for any reason, whether that is workplace fatigue, alcohol, or anything.

There really is no downside. Again, because the government has indicated that it is already going in this direction, its task force will recommend that this be a drug that is allowed to be used and distributed. We are simply talking about getting out of the lives of individual young Canadians who will unfairly bear the brunt of a drug charge for which possession, consumption, and distribution will be legal in just a matter of years.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

I would say two things. The first is that criminalizing simple possession of marijuana, small amounts for personal possession, has not prevented the kinds of effects we are seeing in our country. It is not natural or logical to link those pieces.

The second thing I would say to reassure the member, and I would hope for his support on this motion, is that all New Democrats are talking about is removing the terrible problem of young adults in Canada having criminal records for personal possession. It is simply to get them out of the criminal justice system. It would not do anything for illegal growers, illegal gangs, or fentanyl manufacturers. Those would continue to be criminal actions, and that is what police resources should be focused on: dealers, organized crime, and drugs that are truly killing and harming people.

Individuals who had very small amounts of marijuana and were intercepted by police would no longer face having criminal records. They could well be ticketed, as the Conservatives have proposed, but they would not face having criminal records for the rest of their lives.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Trois-Rivières.

Despite the Prime Minister's clear campaign promises to move quickly to fix our marijuana laws and stop the senseless arrests for simple possession, the government has spent the last six or seven months doing nothing. The Liberals announced a timeline for future action, in New York, but that action is at least a year away.

I am hearing from a broad range of constituents in Nanaimo—Ladysmith who are confused by the government's messages on marijuana, so here is a nine-part list of who is affected by leaving marijuana regulations uncertain.

First, there are judges. Justice Selkirk, from the Ontario Court of Justice, said, in December:

I recall distinctly the Prime Minister in the House of Commons saying it's going to be legalized. I'm not going to be the last judge in this country to convict somebody of simple possession of marijuana.

He continued:

You can't have the Prime Minister announcing it's going to be legalized and then stand up and prosecute it. It just can't happen. It's a ludicrous situation, ludicrous.

My second category is taxpayers, because the government spends $3 million to $4 million annually in prosecuting simple possession cases. New Democrats believe that it is irresponsible to allow police and court resources to be wasted this way, creating new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize. Police have better things to do.

The third category is legal commercial producers. There are 60 licensed commercial businesses across Canada. One of them, Tilray, is in my riding. These businesses have done everything the government has asked them to do. They have jumped through incredible hoops. They have security, investment, and inspections. It is a very tightly regulated industry. They have invested in good faith, but they are not sure what will be the conditions for further investment. They are in an insecure business environment.

The fourth category is legal personal-production licence holders. Again, the Conservatives made a whole lot of changes, and there were a lot of prosecutions over the last 10 years. They are in an uncertain place. These people are growing medical marijuana legally, but they do not know how solid the ground is on which they stand. It is a problem.

There is another broad group affected in my community: those with illegal dispensaries in their region. These are not licensed under the current law, so the fifth category is local governments that are left scrambling to address the jurisdictional hole left by the lack of federal leadership on the illegal dispensary issue.

The sixth category is customers who are reliant on this dispensary supply. They may well have been prescribed this medically. They believe that it is a legitimate source they can rely on. They are discombobulated by ad hoc police raids and the interruption of what might be a prescribed supply for them. It creates anxiety.

The seventh category affected is that of neighbouring businesses affected by these illegal dispensaries. These people are alarmed by changes in their neighbourhoods, outdoor smoking, and a different clientele mix. The Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce representatives are complaining to me about this and about the lack of federal leadership. There is a lot of work to do on this file.

The eighth category for me is regions that are missing out on the benefits from legal commercial medical marijuana growers. Tilray, in my riding, is one success story. The company added 140 employees in 13 months. Operating impacts are estimated to grow from $13 million to $88 million in our region if the government can get ahead and plan what this industry is actually going to look like. We are waiting for leadership.

Finally, the ninth category, which is the focus of today's debate, is the thousands of mostly young adults who will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because the Prime Minister did not respect his promise to legalize marijuana as soon as he took office. Having a criminal record for marijuana possession has big consequences. It can impede one's travel and future work opportunities. This is again the focus of today's debate. It is unfair to impose criminal records on citizens when we are told that this will be a legal drug in less than two years. It is unfair and it costs everyone.

One of the costs is 18 months, under a Liberal government, of needless arrests and wasteful trials that are tying up our police and our courts. The justice department has confirmed that it will cost taxpayers as much as $4 million a year.

In 2014, there were almost 60,000 marijuana possession charges, and Statistics Canada says that is 3% of all arrests in our country. In 2013, possession of cannabis accounted for 54% of all police-reported drug crime. If police stopped prosecuting young adults, then resources could be focused on dealers and organized crime.

In my city, Nanaimo, there is a fentanyl crisis that is tying up firefighters, police, health responders, and hospitals. It is causing deaths. This is a serious problem, and we are not getting the action we need on it. There were 17 fentanyl-related deaths in 2014 in the Island Health region, 22 in 2015, and nine in just the first three months of this year. The medical health officer for my region, on Vancouver Island, Dr. Paul Hasselback, says that Nanaimo's fentanyl overdose rate is higher than the provincial average. It is something we really should be focusing on instead of criminalizing simple possession of marijuana.

This follows a trail of Liberal failures. In 1969, a royal commission said that the cost to young individuals was not justified and said to get rid of prohibition for personal use. The Liberals ignored the recommendation. New Democrats introduced a bill, and it was not supported by the House.

In 2002, a Senate report said that the true damage to society caused by marijuana was felt through the side effects of criminal penalties. Again, there was no action. In 2009, the Liberals voted to support Bill C-15, a Conservative initiative to impose mandatory minimums for cannabis-related offences.

The Liberal and Conservative governments have consecutively failed to keep marijuana out of the hands of young people, and giving them criminal records has not helped.

New Democrats want the government to make a difference on the ground right now, to make a difference in people's lives. As the Liberal health minister said quite rightly, it is impossible to arrest our way out of the situation. Therefore, the government should support the NDP motion. It should immediately decriminalize simple possession while it drafts laws to legalize marijuana.

Yes, it can learn from Washington and Colorado. Yes, it can tackle edibles, labelling, and dosage control. It can do all of those things, but while it does that long, extended work, it should make a difference right now in the lives of Canadians. New Democrats believe that it is irresponsible to allow the valuable resources of police and courts to be wasted creating new criminal records for something the government imminently plans to legalize.

New Democrats will continue to push for the government to take common sense steps, such as decriminalizing simple possession of marijuana, while it develops a comprehensive plan and a timeline to legalize it.

[Business of Supply, June 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I was certainly intrigued that at the Conservative convention just a few weeks ago a resolution was passed to allow for the ticketing of those who possessed small personal amounts of marijuana. Therefore, there is movement happening here.

In that light, I am interested in the member's comments with respect to my and the New Democrats' hope of what might be the benefits of freeing up the police and taxpayer financial resources, which right now are consumed with ticketing individuals, and young adults in particular, for personal possession of marijuana, to focus on the true aspects of drug crime.

[Status of Women, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, 12 years after the task force on pay equity tabled its final report, Canadian women are still waiting for action. Witnesses who testified to this year's Special Committee on Pay Equity could not have been more clear: justice delayed is justice denied.

Women cannot and should not wait any longer. This is a matter of justice, equality, and good economic policy. Will the minister commit to tabling proactive pay equity legislation in the House before the end of 2016?

[Canada Learning Bond, June 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to students graduating this week, and a special shout-out to Vancouver Island University grads in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

For many Canadians living in poverty, though, affordable education is increasingly inaccessible. However, studies show that compared to a child with no savings at all, a child from a low-income family with as little as $500 saved is four times more likely to get an education. The Canada learning bond is designed to give such hope—$2,000 worth—yet the take-up has been very low.

I am proud that Vancouver Island University has a full-time person dedicated to signing up low-income families and children in care. VIU goes to community centres and helps navigate the paperwork.

I challenge my colleagues and universities across the country to follow VIU's lead. Let us help enrol students in the Canada learning bond. Let us help give real hope for access to education and jobs and give real hope for a better life.