Megan Leslie

[March 24th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I heard about forests, hydro and nuclear. It is not enough to tout current practices and current projects focusing on science and technology of the past. I am talking about the jobs of the future, the investments of the future, the innovations that we cannot even possibly imagine yet. If we continue to focus on the old energy economy, we will lose jobs and we will lose opportunities for private investment.

If the Obama administration is investing in research and development at a rate of 18 to 1 compared to Canada, where would you put your money, Madam Speaker? I bet it would not be Canada, not with those odds of finding the next breakthrough on renewables in the U.S. versus Canada.

The time for action is now, for the health of our planet and for the health of our economy. I hope the government comes to realize it soon.

[March 24th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, something really exciting is happening in Nova Scotia.

There was a very exciting announcement this summer where our government announced that it was looking to get 25% renewables on line by 2015. This is a pretty ambitious target when we consider the fact that Nova Scotia does not have vast sources of hydro like other provinces. The vast majority of our electricity actually does come from coal-fired power plants. I applaud the NDP government in Nova Scotia for this bold move.

We are one of many provinces across Canada that is looking to renewables to clean up our electricity systems while at the same time creating the jobs of tomorrow.

Earlier this month in question period, I asked the minister if the federal government planned on being a serious partner with the provinces in these efforts. Right now it does not look like it is ready to be that serious partner, because the ecoEnergy for renewable power project is out of money for new projects and the sustainable development technology program was completely absent from the last budget.

This hurts Nova Scotia, Atlantic Canada and all of Canada. The government is funding carbon sequestration projects over renewables at a ratio of 7 to 1, sending more and more of our money to oil companies and coal-fired plants than to tidal research or wind or solar. We have all kinds of wind producers in Nova Scotia, as an example.

In Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, P.E.I., and Newfoundland and Labrador, we are poised to produce green power, clean power. We have literally a tar sands worth of jobs right there, waiting for it, if we would just invest strategically in research and development.

The Pembina Institute and Environment Northeast have done a really great analysis of this past budget in relation to renewables and energy efficiency technology. They actually did give this budget a failing grade. Despite the government's claim that we are in step with our American neighbours, we are in fact being outspent on renewables by a ratio of 18 to 1 at the federal level.

These two groups point out that the relative share of expenditures between our two countries is really important when we consider the inter-connectedness of our energy markets, and that we actually compete for clean energy jobs and capital investments. The relative levels of government investment and support in clean energy will actually play a part in dictating where clean energy investments are likely to happen.

I have witnessed this in Nova Scotia, at both the micro and the macro level. Starting with the macro in Halifax, I have met incredible researchers who are doing this kind of research and development in renewables, in particular in tidal and wind. We are centre of research and innovation in Halifax. We are a hub of knowledge and exploration. It is this kind of work that must be supported federally with programs like the SDT and ecoEnergy renewable power.

On the micro level in Nova Scotia, I had the privilege to work on the demand side management programs. These are energy efficiency programs that would actually be paid for and run by the utility. This was part of my work with the Affordable Energy Coalition prior to being elected.

In developing these programs, we actually had to have a budget line, right there. It was there for training new workers for these green jobs that we had created. Now it was not very many jobs, but we created jobs by investing in the green economy, by investing in green technologies. This is what we are losing out on if we fail to continue funding important programs like this.

I call on this government to renew funding for the sustainable development technology program and the ecoEnergy for renewable power program as soon as possible to ensure—

[Petitions, March 24th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union collected signatures to petition the government to continue government funding of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The USSU Women's Centre is a pro-choice organization that serves as a resource and information centre that, among other things, organizes around issues of gender equality and human rights. It supports the work of the International Planned Parenthood Federation in its work to promote education, access to birth control, safe abortions, and HIV prevention in countries around the world.

Both the petitioners and I look forward to the minister's response.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona for his insightful question about this issue.

It is an interesting thing, because we are talking about our millennium development goals. Some people ask what about Canada.

The first thing I would point out with the millennium development goals is we have agreed to put .7% of our GDP toward millennium development goals and toward foreign aid and development. When we look at the whole picture of our GDP, .7% is a very small amount. I think that is something we can achieve. At the same time we can invest in such things as a national housing strategy. Many people in our northern regions are living in overcrowded, decrepit housing. We could actually deal with maternal health and child poverty here in Canada. I think that both are achievable.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. However, with all due respect to the member for Crowfoot, I do not agree with him.

What is happening in Afghanistan is a combat mission. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but they have been mentioned in this House many times. The numbers are shocking when we look at the amount of money that has been invested in the combat mission that goes toward combat as compared to the amount of money that goes toward aid.

If the government's objective is really about saving the lives of women and children, I really do wonder how many lives are lost at the expense of that combat mission that is attempting to do the exact opposite of what it is actually achieving.

[Business of Supply, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak about the promise on maternal health and the G8. I am pleased to participate in the debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver East.

This opposition day motion is specifically about the inclusion of family planning and sexual reproductive health options. However, I would like to talk about this motion within the greater context of maternal and child health and Canada's failure to and potential to act on this important global issue.

The Prime Minister said that the major project Canada would present during the G8 in June would be an initiative aimed at reducing maternal and infant mortality rates in developing countries.

Initially, the government stated that family planning programs would not be part of the initiative, saying that its objective is to save lives. However, that decision was reversed and it then said that family planning has always been considered an area of action.

The plan, as described by the government, has been presented as a holistic approach that focuses on clean water, vaccinations, nutrition and training for health care workers. However, we have no confirmation that it will include access to family planning and no funds have yet been allocated. I have some key statistics that I would like to share and which I hope will shed some light on this issue.

Access to contraception methods and reproductive choice are widely recognized as ways of saving lives. According to the World Health Organization, the first step in preventing deaths of new mothers is to ensure that women have access to family planning methods and safe abortion services.

Family planning could prevent 25% of maternal and child deaths in the developing world by preventing risky births that are too close together, too early or too late in a woman's life. Modern contraception helps fight the spread of HIV and AIDS by allowing HIV-positive women to space births for optimal health and access services to prevent mother-to-child transmission. Every year an estimated 74,000 women around the world die as a result of unsafe abortions. This could be prevented with contraception and access to safe abortion facilities.

By refusing to incorporate family planning into the maternal health initiative, the government is out of step with the international community.

Around the world, we are seeing actions, like President Obama's who recently revoked the global gag rule, a policy that barred any foreign organization from receiving U.S. funds for providing, advocating, informing or counselling women on abortion, in his first week in office.

In a 2009 white paper on international development, the United Kingdom called for safe abortion services where abortion is legal and an increase of one-third in the number of contraceptive users.

In addition, the EU has said that its action at the G8 will be based on the 1994 Cairo declaration, which aims to ensure universal access by 2015 to reproductive health care, including family planning.

Finally, we are out of step with our millennium development goals, a series of eight international development goals that all 192 UN member states agreed to achieve by the year 2015, a year that really is just around the corner.

Goal five states that we commit to improving maternal health by reducing maternal mortality and allowing people universal access to reproductive health. We must remember that this was agreed to by all 192 UN member states, including Canada.

I have a United Nations fact sheet indicating that almost all maternal deaths are avoidable. In industrialized countries, pregnancy- and delivery-related deaths are rare.

The rate of maternal mortality remains unacceptably high in many countries in the developing world.

Meeting millennium development goal 5, to reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015, is proving be a major challenge. It is the MDG on which the least progress has been made.

According to UNICEF, the UN Population Fund and WHO, the World Health Organization, up to 15% of pregnant women in all population groups experience potentially fatal complications during birth, 20 million women each year. More than 80% of maternal deaths worldwide are due to five direct causes: hemorrhage, sepsis, unsafe abortion, obstructed labour and hypertensive disease of pregnancy.

In about 21% of the 500,000 maternal deaths occurring each year, women die as a result of severe bleeding. This complication can kill a woman in less than two hours. Control of bleeding, replacement of blood or fast emergency evacuation is needed to save lives.

This fact sheet also looks at what needs to be done. It lists a number of initiatives.

It suggests providing sufficient funding to strengthen health systems, in particular for maternal health, child care and other reproductive health services, and ensuring that contraceptive, medication and materials purchasing and distribution services are working well.

Dedicated national programs need to be established to reduce maternal mortality and assure universal access to reproductive health care, including family planning services.

We need to adopt and implement policies that protect poor families from the catastrophic consequences of unaffordable maternity care, including through access to health insurance or free services.

Access to contraception as well as to sexual and reproductive health counselling for men, women and adolescents has to be improved.

In addition, pregnant women have to be protected against domestic violence, and men have to get involved in the care of pregnant women and, more generally, in reproductive health.

We have known these things for years and yet we still have not seen action in a serious way.

When we look at the facts, one thing becomes obvious: the Liberals failed to assume their responsibilities to developing countries. In light of that failure, what assurance do we have that they will be able to hold the government accountable where maternal health is concerned?

It is time for action, not words. We support this opposition day motion, but we also hope that it is worth more than the paper that it is printed on.

[Housing, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard that answer before, meanwhile nearly half of all Inuit in the northern region live in overcrowded homes. One thousand new homes are needed immediately but last week the government renewed a plan to create only 300 units over five years.

How does the government justify this failure? Inhuman conditions will not be alleviated by one-off investments and shiny photo ops. Our proposal to give Canada a national housing strategy is at committee this week. Will the government support us?

[Housing, March 22nd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 1.5 million Canadian families live in unacceptable housing conditions and over 300,000 people rely on shelters every year. Stable housing saves lives, improves the health and safety of our communities and it stimulates our economy.

However, Canada is one of the few countries in the world without a national housing strategy. Why is the current government rejecting our proposal to develop one?

How does the minister justify billions in tax cuts for banks and oil companies but no long-term plan for those who need it most?

[Oil and Gas Industry, March 12th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in Nova Scotia the sustainable development technology program is a leader in tidal energy production but it is absent from the budget, and the highly successful ecoEnergy for renewable power program has been cut altogether.

The government claims that it wants to spur innovation and yet it continues to give all the breaks to the oil economy of the past.

When will the government wake up, stop coddling the uber-profitable oil companies and invest in tomorrow's energy economy?

[Social Measures, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, 20% of homeless women are sexually assaulted every year. That is a tragedy. But the government has allocated three times as much money for animal shelters as it has for women's shelters.

Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of children and seniors live in substandard housing. Canada is the only G8 nation without a national housing strategy.

Will the government support our bill in order to solve the problem?