Megan Leslie

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a thoughtful one, and one that we put some work into before we actually drafted this motion.

I go back to SARA, the Species at Risk Act, and the fact that under species at risk, the federal government has an obligation to identify habitats that are needed for these species for their survival and their recovery. The federal government has the ability to step in if a province is failing to protect a species and its habitat. I would say that if a province is about to build an oil terminal in the middle of a beluga nursery, it is probably failing to protect the habitat.

I see this as a good motion for us to say that, no, this is not an acceptable project, and in fact the government does need to take action here.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the member meant to say that last thing. We serve on the environment committee together, and I do not think he meant to say that I do not care. I do not think he believes it.

The one thing I would say back to him is, why is it that the Conservative government refuses to acknowledge jobs and other aspects of our energy sector?

Do members know that right now in the oil sands there are 22,340 direct jobs? Do members know that in the clean energy economy right now in Canada there are 23,700 jobs? Do members know that right now in the Gulf of St. Lawrence region there are thousands of jobs in ecotourism, whether they are in whale watching or kayaking? People go to this region to see the belugas. That is a legitimate part of our economy.

I would argue that the green energy economy is a legitimate part of our economy, but the government is so hyperfocused on only fossil fuels that it is refusing to even treat the green energy economy equally, never mind promote it. Oil and gas continues to get subsidized, while the green energy economy is left to fend for itself.

[Business of Supply, October 9th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. members for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and Drummond, for their hard work on this issue. It is a great example of the outstanding work accomplished by members who are engaged in and committed to real consultations in their communities. It is impressive, and I am proud to work with them.

I will start by picking up on some of the criticism that we have heard from the Conservatives about our motion today. They are trying to tell us that two plus two equals zero, and that zero is zero environmental protection.

The NDP has been really clear. Our leader, who was minister of environment in Quebec, is a man with an incredible environmental record. He gets economy. He gets it full well. He has talked, and so have we all, very clearly about the fact that New Democrats are in favour of the movement of Canada's energy from west to east.

There are certain lenses that need to be applied there. Why would we be in favour of that? First of all, we are in favour of it for energy security. Let us look at this through the lens of energy security. Right now on the east coast, we are importing oil while we are exporting bitumen. It does not make sense that we are an importing and exporting nation of the same product. Let us look at it through the lens of domestic energy security needs.

Let us look at it through the concept of Canadian jobs. We will not support projects like Keystone XL that will export our jobs to the U.S. We would like to see value added happening here, creating jobs here in Canada. We have unmet refining capacity in Montreal and Saint John, for example. We have the ability to do upgrading here in Canada. Why would we not seize on those opportunities? That is the second lens, Canadian jobs.

The third lens is, of course, environmental protection, making sure we have robust environmental legislation for any big energy project, including pipelines, including terminals like this one. When we have that environmental protection in place, we know that any project is going to meet a certain standard. We can feel comfortable with that standard. We can know that this is a project that has met certain tests, stringent tests, and that can go forward.

Unfortunately, we do not have that sense anymore. We do not have that social licence when it comes to big energy projects, because we have seen a lot of our environmental regulations gutted and, in the case of the Environmental Assessment Act, actually repealed. It was not tinkered with; it was actually taken off the books, with a new and inadequate, I would argue, piece of legislation put in its place.

All of our thinking about west-east has to be with those lenses applied. Here we have a situation where we are not talking about that pipeline. We are talking about a terminal that fails every possible test.

If an energy company were thinking about creating a terminal for the export of raw bitumen—and, first of all, we would not have our value-added criterion met—where would it put it? It might think about putting it in a beluga nursery, possibly picking the worst spot in Canada.

The St. Lawrence River is a delicate ecosystem. It is an iconic river, but it is also one of the most biologically diverse marine environments in the country. In addition to it being biologically diverse, we see a species at risk. The beluga whales are there.

This is a nursery for the baby belugas. All of us in English Canada know that song by Raffi, Baby Beluga. This is where the baby belugas are, baby belugas in the deep blue sea. This is where they are. This is where they are being calved and raised.

It is incredible to me that a company would think that this is an appropriate place to put an oil terminal that would export raw bitumen and not create those value-added jobs and not consider energy security for Canadians.

It fails on so many levels that there has actually been an injunction issued by the Superior Court of Quebec. It halted exploratory drilling, proving that the Conservatives have failed to provide scientific answers from Fisheries and Oceans Canada to the Quebec government.

When looking into the belugas and the impacts of not just drilling but a potential terminal here, I actually went to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans website and looked at what it is saying about belugas. It is a species at risk, but maybe I was missing something here. Maybe there is some kind of exception, to threaten them in some cases. I was looking for answers. This is from DFO's own website, and it talks about the threats to the beluga. It says:

Hunting is certainly the main cause of the dramatic declines in beluga populations. However, contributing factors could include alterations to habitats—such as damming of rivers—and possibly noise pollution caused by ships and pleasure craft. The boats might interfere with the belugas’ echo-location method of hunting.

As well, dredging, shipping, industrial activity and environmental pollution have degraded the quality of the water in which the beluga lives. This could also lead to a decline in food supply.

Shipping, noise, industrial activity, and pollution are all potentials in this spot. It is mind-boggling that anybody thought this was a good idea.

Here is a really interesting part. DFO actually has a section titled “What can you do?” We realize it is not just about government; it is about each and every one of us taking responsibility and doing what we can to help. Listen to what our government department suggests that we do.

It says:

Beluga whales will get the protection they need only if all Canadians work together to reduce threats. Find out more about beluga whales and be aware of man-made threats. Do your best ....

I am laughing because I cannot even believe this is the advice, when we are looking at this terminal being built. It says:

Do your best to reduce these threats wherever possible to better protect the whales' critical habitat. Get involved with the habitat stewardship program for species at risk or another conservation organization.

We should take that advice, and that is why my colleagues from Drummond and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup have come up with this opposition day motion. They have taken to heart the advice from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and they have put forward this motion.

Where is the hook here for the federal government? What are we asking? Is this just a statement saying we would oppose this kind of terminal? There actually is a role for the federal government here because, once a species is listed under the Species at Risk Act, it becomes illegal to kill, harass, capture, or harm it in any way. Critical habitats are also protected from destruction. The act requires that recovery strategies, action plans, and management plans be developed for all species.

That is not happening here. Again I go back to the fact that the Conservatives need to take advice from DFO when it comes to this project. The federal government can step in if a province is failing to protect a species in its habitat, but it also has an obligation to act. Our federal government has been taken to court several times for failing to put in plans to protect species at risk; notably sage grouse in western Canada, where I think there are 12 sage grouse left in all of Alberta. The government has failed to protect species in the past, and it is failing now. The Conservatives need to take the advice of their own government department and they need to act.

It is not often that we get to quote Raffi Cavoukian, better known as Raffi. He is a singer-songwriter who focuses on social and environmental causes. My generation and folks younger than I grew up with Raffi, and he actually calls us “beluga grads”. That comes from his Baby Beluga song. He calls us “beluga grads”, and he wants us to change the world. Raffi is saying to us: Baby Beluga in the deep blue sea
Swim so wild and you swim so free
Heaven above and the sea below
And a little white whale on the go

As Raffi says, we need to act. We need to protect this endangered species and stop putting our blinders on when it comes to how environment and economy can work together.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit at a loss. Once again, I am not up on my Ontario politics and ancient history. I am here before the House, looking at this bill.

I appreciate the member's intervention. Again, this is why we have members of Parliament from all across Canada. It is so they can bring their first-hand experience to the floor here. I take what he is saying as an interesting addition to this debate.

I do have skepticism on a lot of other fronts when it comes to the Conservative government and the environment. Another good example, in addition to the cuts to Parks Canada, is that on climate change and reducing emissions. We were promised oil and gas regulations. That was eight years ago. Earlier today in question period I asked where those regulations were. There is neither hide nor hair of them.

My skepticism is well warranted. We have these questions on the environment, we have these issues that we want to have heard, we have ideas that we want to see turned into regulation or legislation and we have not seen them.

I am very willing to take a risk and work with everybody in the House. I believe we all want the best for this park, I believe we all want strong environmental protections for this park and we all want to see it created.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that comment. I have heard the member raise this issue several times in the House.

First, when I think about ecological integrity, I do not see it as necessitating the re-naturalization of farms. For me, that is not on the table. The member talked about other examples of farms in the past that were re-naturalized, but I do not see that as part of the equation here.

The member is very right when he talks about the fact that these farmers have had one-year leases. I do not know about other members, but if I had a one-year lease and I did not know what was coming down next year or what was going to happen, I do not know if I would make a lot of investments in my farm for the long term. I do not know if I would make those environmental and ecological investments. I do not know if I would engage in the best practices when it comes to farming and the environment because I might not be there next year.

There is some opportunity to listen to farmers, but also to talk to them and engage with them.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for his kind words.

Indeed, it is an incredible opportunity for us to be part of a government—I think that the opposition and all the other parties are part of the government—that will create Canada's first national urban park. What are the other challenges? As I already mentioned, I am a bit concerned about funding for the parks. Is it possible to create a new national park with the cuts to Parks Canada? Will there be enough scientists and employees in the park to support its objectives? I have a lot of concerns.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my colleague from Trinity—Spadina to the House. This is my first opportunity to interact with him here in the House since his election.

He asked if I knew about this, and I have to admit that I did not, because I do not follow Toronto politics closely. I am here, and I follow politics back in my home province of Nova Scotia. It is interesting that he can bring it to the floor and talk about that here.

I am not going to comment on Toronto municipal politics, but I will talk about skepticism. I did say that I was going to put down my talking points and I have, but this is the truth. We have seen cuts to Parks Canada. Twelve hundred jobs have been cut in parks across Canada. If parks are so important, how are we going to protect them, especially when we are seeing job cuts, park hours diminished, and parks being closed for different seasons? This is where my skepticism comes from. People cannot go to Kejimkujik National Park in my home province in the winter anymore. A lot of the communities around these parks rely on them being open year-round. It is unfortunate.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I understand what my colleague for Wellington—Halton Hills is saying, but it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. We can say “no” to hunting yet still not protect ecological integrity. They are different beasts.

We all have to acknowledge that there are people who have serious concerns about this specific issue of ecological integrity. What do we have to do as legislators? We have to address that head on. Instead of saying that we are going to ban hunting and picking flowers, we need to confront the issue of ecological integrity and figure out a solution. Organizations like Environmental Defence have a problem with this, and I trust the work they do. They do incredible work. They do incredible analyses. Therefore, let us deal with the issue of ecological integrity, not whether or not a flower is going to be picked. It is a different issue.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker. It was a good piece of legislation. Maybe we can stake out a bit of ground on what we do with urban parks. I am not anticipating thousands of them or a flood of urban parks, but it is a real issue, and we need to wrap our heads around it.

If we can establish what urban park protection would look like, then maybe we can apply it to Gatineau Park and have another win in this House.

I will go back to ecological integrity just for a minute, because members may think I am giving up too much here, that just because this is an urban park, we would not have strong environmental protections and we would not strive for ecological integrity. I want to be very clear and let the House know that this is not what I am saying.

I believe that a park next to or in Canada's biggest city should continue to strive for ecological integrity.

Ecological integrity is the goal of environmental protection within Rouge Park, Greenbelt, and Rouge watershed plans as well as in provincial and national park legislation and policies. I know that the government agreed to meet or exceed existing provincial policies. I have heard debate in the House saying that this legislation exceeds them, but I hear from the community that it does not meet them, so we need to figure this out.

Ecological integrity must continue to be the priority for the scientifically planned and zoned national habit systems of Rouge national urban park. We could look at different standards, such as net gain and ecosystem and watershed health, perhaps. It could be utilized for areas zoned for agriculture, infrastructure, hamlets, campgrounds, et cetera. I am not sure, but it is something we can talk about. If we think about it, lots of our provincial and national parks have highways, towns, railways, and other infrastructure within them, yet they still manage to prioritize that goal of ecological integrity.

We really want to see the creation of this park. We really want to work together to try to come up with a solution that addresses these concerns about ecological integrity. I look forward to hearing the witnesses at committee. I look forward to hearing speeches in the House afterward to see where we are, and I look forward to some questions.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am the environment critic.

I do not trust that this is just a different standard. It says to me that this bill is opening the door a crack, and other parks legislation will also have a different and perhaps lower environmental standard, so it is hard to trust that this is what the issue is.

However, if we are looking at a new consideration of ecological integrity or a new consideration of urban parks, then I think we need to have that conversation. I think it needs consultation. I think we need to hear from witnesses at committee.

I think we need to, as I said, put the talking points down and have an open and honest conversation about what we do with urban parks. I think there is a solution. I am not sure what it is yet, but I think we can get there together.

I often think about the fact that there is a concept that the environment is a precious, pristine thing that is unsullied and is separate from us. It is not. The environment is us. It is the people. It is our buildings, roads, and farms. We are part of the environment.

There has been a lot of work and thinking on that concept of the environment, so I know that the work is there that can help us get to a solution here. I do not know if it is an amendment to the Parks Act. I understand if the government does not want to reopen the Parks Act, but maybe we need to. Maybe it needs to be a definition for urban parks.

We need to come together. I think we can do it, both opposition MPs and government MPs and communities.

One might think I am naive in thinking we could actually work together to get this done, but I live in eternal hope. I actually have some good experience. There is precedence here in this House, even in this current majority government.

I am really proud of the work we, all of us, were able to do on the Sable Island National Park to bring that bill forward, to raise concerns about some problems with the bill, and to actually get assurances and commitments from government, whether it was via the park management plan or reporting, that dealt with some of the problem areas and with our concerns.

As a result, there was near unanimous support, with the exception of one. Everyone wins in that case. Everyone feels good and confident, and we know we have a good piece of legislation before us. I hope we can do the same with this bill.

I challenge all of us to maybe come up with a definition for ecological integrity, or maybe to come up with a different standard for urban parks, something we can all agree on. I do not believe that anyone in this House, or any party, wants weaker environmental protection. I take the government at its word on this.

I think we can figure this out, and then maybe if we can figure this out, we could actually apply that solution to something like Gatineau Park, for example. Members may remember that the NDP has brought forward legislation several times, I think it is three times, to clearly establish boundaries and to clearly establish roles when it comes to Gatineau Park. This is a park that exists without a plan or real boundaries or definition. I will say that most recently, legislation was brought forward, in the form of Bill C-565, by my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer. We think this is another opportunity for an urban park with strong environmental legislation.

Unfortunately, the government voted against that bill—