Sheila Malcolmson

[National Anthem Act, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to serve with my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa—Vanier, and honoured to be in this House today.

I am sorry that the extremely positive and supportive speech I was about to make has to be interrupted by saying I am ashamed to have heard those words from that member. After 10 years of the former government slashing and burning women's programs, creating national embarrassment across the world, disrespecting indigenous people, disrespecting history and science, and having this fantastic opportunity to remediate the Conservative Party's image, I cannot believe he would say such things. To speakers from his party, I hope that my compelling argument might change the tone for the next series of speakers to follow.

The New Democratic Party, being a strong supporter of gender equality and having a very strong record of concrete action on achieving women's equality, I, along with every New Democrat I know, am very proud and honoured to support this bill before the House today.

It must be said that true action on gender equality in Canada will only be achieved when the government shows true leadership and action on addressing the gender gap, taking real action on universal child care, equal pay for work of equal value, ending violence against women. That said, symbolic changes help as well.

A national symbol's value is tied to its ability to reflect every one of us and bring us together. To help bring us all together on this bill, I am going to give 10 great reasons to vote in favour of the private member's bill from the member for Ottawa—Vanier. Members will be relieved to know that not a single one of them is because it is 2016.

One, this is not such a big change, and I want my Conservative friends to really hear this. Our lyrics used to be gender-neutral until they were changed in 1913. Even when Canadian women did not have the right to vote, Canada had gender-neutral lyrics in its English language anthem. If this feels like a threatening change, please roll back time to more than a century ago in Canada when we had gender-neutral lyrics for our national anthem.

Two, the French lyrics do not need to change, so, as we know in Canada, that makes it simpler. The French version does have gender-neutral language, and it has since 1880. Its words have not changed since then. The French are very evolved, very ahead of their time.

Three, the member for Ottawa—Vanier is following in the tradition of fabulous New Democrats Svend Robinson and Libby Davies. This will be the tenth time in 35 years that this Parliament has tried to change the English language lyrics to promote gender equality. Said another way, it is about time.

Four, changing the words will ensure that more than 18 million Canadian women are included in our national anthem. Continuing to sing “thy sons” excludes 52% of our population.

Five, as the member for Ottawa—Vanier has compellingly outlined, many advances have been made in Canada in gender equality since 1913. There was the federal right to vote in 1918, the right to run for office in 1921, the Persons Case in 1929, the admission of women in the army in 1980, and the inclusion of women's equality in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. The member compellingly argues that the bill reflects the evolution of our society.

Six, if we take the “stand on guard for thee” literally and think of soldiers, we have to vote for the bill. This would honour our sisters who are in service on the front lines of our armed forces.

Seven, it sounds good: “true patriot love in all of us command”. We all brought Kleenex for this. I am trying to lighten the mood here.

Eight, 58% of Canadians polled last year agreed with this change to the anthem.

Nine, they are in excellent company. High-profile supporters include former Conservative prime minister Kim Campbell, author Margaret Atwood, Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth, former Conservative senator Hugh Segal, former Conservative MP and Liberal Belinda Stronach, and former member of Parliament and Toronto city councillor Olivia Chow. Members are in good company if they vote yes.

Finally, if all of these reasons are not enough, the member for Ottawa—Vanier wants women to have this voice. Let us vote together, and let us include women in our national anthem.

[The Environment, May 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the feds towed the vessel Silver King from one riding to mine a month ago. Now it is rotting right off Ladysmith's community dock, and dozens of abandoned vessels cram the harbour already. Local business, Ladysmith council, and the Stz'uminus First Nation all warn that this will harm the local community and economy.

This is a growing issue for our coast, yet the government is shuffling the problem from one community to another. When will the government remove abandoned vessels from Ladysmith's harbour?

[Status of Women, May 3rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, on a single day, three out of four Canadians seeking help from a domestic violence shelter are turned away. Many more women fleeing violence cannot even access a shelter because none exist in their region. The Liberal budget did not have sufficient funding and offered no money for a comprehensive national action plan.

We need to address this problem at its root. Will the government adopt a national action plan, with adequate funding, and finally end violence against women?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss further with the member the comments he has heard from his constituents around conscientious objection from health care providers and practitioners.

New Democrats in the all-party committee made a clear recommendation that no health care worker should ever be compelled to participate in assisted dying and that they should be legally shielded from unfair consequences resulting from that personal decision.

Despite my intention to support the bill at second reading and send it to committee, there is still concern that there are no legislative measures to enshrine that recommendation, although we are hearing from the government that it may be interested in non-legislative options.

I would be interested to hear whether the member has further ideas about which side of the regulation that issue might fall and whether he shares my concern that it would be better, for the sake of health care providers, to lock in those protections and guarantees.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for personalizing the conversation in relation to family members. It is appreciated.

Coming back to the issue of palliative care, I want to thank the Conservative members of the special committee who put a focus in their dissenting report on the importance of palliative care and the failure of successive governments to implement that.

I want to flag again the work that my colleague from Timmins—James Bay is doing on the palliative care issue and the fact that he was able to get the House to agree. It was a rare moment of close agreement a couple of years ago.

I am hoping that the member can talk a bit more about what steps the House and the government might take to bring some of those recommendations around palliative care to fruition.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's particular focus on the absence of advance directives in the legislation. I share his concern. I would like to explore that a little more with the member. Perhaps he could shine a light on why this might have been missed and how we could fill the gap.

In paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Carter decision, the Supreme Court referred to the cruel choice that is posed to legally competent patients facing degenerative diagnoses, and those who have to choose between taking their lives prematurely or losing capacity later on. The member referred to that in his speech. The solution proposed by the all-party committee, which I salute, was to allow them to record their wishes while legally competent, and then through an advance directive, which would be subject to the same stringent medical and legal safeguards as the instantaneous request that is more identified in the legislation that is before us.

I am hoping the member can shine a light on why his government ignored that very specific and very constructive recommendation.

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we want the bill to move forward. We want this medical service to be accessible to all. We also want to get the details right.

During the election campaign, the leader of the Liberal Party issued a statement that told us that he believed the Supreme Court made the right decision and that Canada's laws must be consistent with the court's ruling, because that is the right thing to do.

If experts who testified in the Carter case find that in fact the outline of the bill is not consistent with the court's direction and ruling, will the Prime Minister and his party still support the direction of this legislation, or will they bring forward amendments at committee in order to bring it in line with the Supreme Court ruling? Will they seek a reference to the Supreme Court to ensure that their proposal is completely charter-compliant?

[Criminal Code, May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot of agreement, but I want to reflect on the correspondence I am getting from people in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

One writer said, “I want to have the choice how and when I am ready to die. It is not simply a matter of providing palliative care facilities, but we should definitely have more and better hospice care in people's homes as well as residential hospice within the community. I consider it a basic human right and though it is of essential importance to me in my senior years, I believe that people of all ages should be supported in facing their own end.”

This is an issue that has gone on for a long time and my sense is this Parliament and people are ready to decide. However, following up on my colleague's comment across the aisle, the Conservatives had opportunities to consult, but slowed and slowed.

I think all parties recognize that the Quebec leadership on this issue, so far as thorough and complete consultation, is to be admired. After the Carter decision and while they were still in power, why did the Conservatives not take the initiative and do the consultation we needed?

[Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law), May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to acknowledge the terrible tragedy that gave rise to this bill. Our hearts go out to Jeff Durham, his family, and his community for such a terrible loss.

Despite the good intentions of the bill's sponsor, this bill has the unintended consequence of reopening Canada's debate on abortion, and New Democrats will not risk jeopardizing a woman's right to choose. There are 36 pro-choice groups across Canada—and if I had time, I would read the really long list—all opposing the passage of this bill, describing it as an interference with a woman's constitutional right to choose.

To make the most women and children safe, my proposal is that the kind of legislation Canada needs is much more broad. The best way to protect the most women and children is to take action on gender-based domestic violence against women. Cassie was killed by a stranger, and she is an exception. Nine in 10 women victims are murdered by someone they knew. Therefore, to have the most impact, let us take action to prevent women from being killed by their partners and acquaintances.

First, Canada needs a national plan to end violence against women. Most other western countries have this. Canada is falling behind. New Democrats have led on this issue over the past sessions of Parliament. NGOs and labour organizations have developed a very strong blueprint that charts the way forward. We urge the government across the aisle to take action early on this, and we will stand together on that.

Second, Canada needs more investment in domestic violence shelters. Imagine a woman making a decision to take her children and leave a violent marriage or relationship and then, when arriving at a domestic violence shelter, being told there is no room for her. This is what last week's release of the “Shelter Voices” survey said. Almost three out of four women are turned away due to lack of capacity. With stable, predictable, multi-year funding, both for building and operating, we could prevent women from having to stay in a violent situation.

Because of the strong actions that Parliament can take to truly make women and their children safer without inadvertently jeopardizing a woman's constitutional right to choose, I will not support this bill, and I urge parliamentarians to work together on what will truly make a difference on the ground in women's safety every day.

[Protection of Pregnant Women and Their Preborn Children Act (Cassie and Molly's Law), May 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, we are cognizant in Canada that the vast majority of women who are victims of murder are killed by someone they know. Almost nine in ten women are killed by an acquaintance or, even worse, by a spouse or intimate partner.

I am interested to hear the member's view on the great need for Canada to adopt a national domestic violence strategy to combat violence against women. I hope this will have an increased priority, which will affect most women and will have the greatest impact on women and their families.