Megan Leslie

[The Environment, February 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister called—

[Homes Not Connected to a Sanitation System, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to rise today in support of today's motion to protect water and public health in rural communities. This is an excellent motion, and I applaud the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel for bringing it forward. She is bringing forward a sound policy idea.

As we heard in her speech tonight, she listened to her constituents and identified a gap in policy. Working with her community along with outside experts she came up with a creative policy solution to solve the problem. This is a perfect example of responsible representation by an MP and I am proud to say that the MP for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel is one of my NDP colleagues. It is great work.

Motion No. 400 seeks to study the establishment of financial support programs to bring homes connected to a septic system up to a standard, with the aim of improving public and environmental health. This kind of program would make Canadians in rural communities, who are often left out of city initiatives, a priority. It would carry benefits both for the environment and the economy.

The federal government invests millions of dollars to bring municipal wastewater treatment systems up to standard, but more than a quarter of all Canadians, mainly in rural areas, are not connected to these city treatment systems. They depend instead on home septic systems. As it stands, 25% of Canadians are forced to pay out-of-pocket to maintain their septic systems on top of the taxes they pay for the municipal services they do not use.

Some may wonder why the member for Halifax would be standing to speak to the motion. My riding does include rural communities that are not part of the municipal wastewater system. I am pleased to tell the House that the motion has been endorsed by some communities in Nova Scotia.

I also support the motion from my perspective as the NDP environment critic. From an environmental and health perspective, a consensus exists that outdated septic systems in low income rural areas pose a threat to water quality and public health. Updating these systems is quite expensive and often too costly a project for Canadians.

The government understands the importance of maintaining high standards for wastewater treatment in cities. We need to establish the same high standards for our rural constituents. We have to develop a funding program for homeowners who do not have the means to ensure that their septic systems meet those environmental standards.

The member for Westlock—St. Paul said earlier in the House that he did think the motion was in federal jurisdiction. He said that government members would not be supporting the motion, keeping in mind of course that it will not be a whipped vote and that members will be free to vote as they want. With respect, saying that the motion is not within federal jurisdiction is just a way to duck the issue. This is a perfect opportunity for federal leadership.

I checked the website of the member for Westlock—St. Paul. He celebrates things on his website like $9,000 that went to the Cold Lake Public Library flooring renovation and $23,000 to the Gibbons curling rink for upgrades. Members might be wondering what in the world flooring upgrades and curling rink upgrades have to do with federal jurisdiction. That is a good question. These kinds of projects are federal issues and do fall within federal jurisdiction because the money comes from a community infrastructure fund. Why would the federal government not show leadership on something like Motion No. 400? Why would it duck this issue? Why would it not take real leadership and stand up for the health and environmental protection of our rural communities?

Motion No. 400 would be an important step toward increasing the equality of services for both rural and urban taxpayers. Rural living is becoming more expensive and services are becoming more difficult to access. Citizens in these areas are often unable to reap the benefits of many of the federal programs that we do see coming forward. We need to give rural Canadians the support they need to maintain the same standard of living as city dwellers, rather than force them to relocate to cities.

Further, the motion would help to protect both water quality and public health. Outdated sceptic systems are a major source of pollution in rural communities. They have been shown to contribute to the growth of bacteria in our water. By leaving these sceptic systems in their current state, we risk contaminating our drinking water, which of course poses a serious danger to the health of Canadians.

Water contamination can affect not only drinking water, but also aquatic ecosystems and beaches. A number of rural communities depend on this kind of tourism, and the economic losses that come with water contamination are serious.

In addition to supporting local economies, this measure would be of personal financial benefit. It could relieve rural Canadians of a disproportionate financial burden and allow them to participate more fully in their local economies. The motion would go a long way to solving those kinds of problems.

All of this means that rural communities would be strengthened if these measures were to be taken. The motion is a real and tangible way to improve the quality of life of rural Canadians, and it is actually part of a larger package of policies that the NDP is proposing to help rural communities.

The motion was inspired by a resolution of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that flagged as a problem the lack of federal support for septic system upgrades. On behalf of their constituents, who are really our constituents, they are pressuring the federal government to act on this issue. The federation, along with over 70 individual municipalities on just the first day of debate, have all expressly supported Motion M-400.

The Conservatives say that existing federal funding meets this need, but the municipalities are vigorously disputing this claim. We have evidence from different municipalities saying that existing programs do not solve this socio-economic problem, and that the funding does not come close to the demand that exists. Federal investments in infrastructure simply do not target the distinct and widespread need for financial support for rural sceptic system upgrades. Current investment in this area is in no way comparable to what is spent in urban areas. Federal and provincial governments have contributed up to 85% of the cost to upgrade municipal water systems, but rural Canadians are forced to bear the full cost of upgrading their sceptic systems themselves, simply because of where they live.

I really hope, despite the fact that we have had some indications the government will vote against the motion, that all members will give serious consideration to this arbitrary inequality that leaves rural Canadians with a disproportionate economic burden.

The federal government must carefully consider the implications of the current financing system for rural Canadians. As parliamentarians, we must take a good, hard look at the problem that families cannot afford to replace their sceptic tanks and maintain water quality in their communities. We have to explore the opportunities that could provide these Canadians with the financial support they need for important investments.

Canadians across the country have signed a petition calling on the government to consider establishing a financial support program to upgrade outdated sceptic systems for families in need. I echo their support of this motion, because I believe that rural Canadians deserve the same quality of service, the same health protections and the same ability to participate in their economies and society as every other Canadian. I believe that Motion M-400 does just that, so I am proud to support it.

[The Environment, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservatives, the New Democrats thank the environment commissioner for his work.

In today's report the commissioner warned us that despite repeated Conservative assurances, Atlantic offshore petroleum boards were not adequately prepared to respond to an oil spill.

Is the minister doing anything to ensure that the response plans are effective and that government action will be coordinated in the event of a major oil spill off the Atlantic coast, or does the minister agree with the hon. member for Calgary Centre, who claims that oil spills will simply biodegrade in three years?

[The Environment, February 5th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, federal waters and fisheries are the federal government's responsibility.

Environmental protection is not keeping pace with development, and Canadians are paying the price.

That is exactly what is happening with the marine protected areas. Twenty years after the Convention on Biological Diversity was signed, only 1% of Canada's marine environment is being protected.

While pollution and overfishing threaten our oceans, why is the minister rushing into offshore development without proper protection?

[Arctic Council, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives talk about protecting the environment, but the only action they take is to gut those very laws that protect our environment. Now when Canada takes over the chair of the Arctic Council it must not become yet another organization, or another body, where the Conservatives stand up for their oil and gas industry buddies.

From the loss of sea ice to the impacts of climate change on traditional ways of life, the environment in the Arctic is at a crossroads. Will the Conservatives allow these concerns to be central to the work of the Arctic Council?

[Arctic Council, February 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, experts are concerned, and with good reason, about the Arctic Council’s marine oil pollution preparedness and response plan.

As Canada prepares to take the helm of the Arctic Council, our national offshore liability regime is clearly inadequate. The Arctic is more fragile and vulnerable than any other ecosystem.

What position does Canada intend to adopt at this week’s meeting of Arctic Council environment ministers?

[Abortion, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, just days after the 25th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision and just days after we heard the Minister for Status of Women acknowledge that Canadians do not want the abortion debate reopened, we see another attempt by the Conservative backbench to do just that. These Conservatives are trying to get the RCMP to investigate abortions as murders.

Will the government make it clear that this question was settled 25 years ago? Will the Prime Minister make it clear that he and his government understand that abortion is not murder?

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating a motion calling on the government to make the improvement of economic outcomes of aboriginals a central focus in the next budget. The government should therefore conduct nation-to-nation consultations in keeping with treaties.

However, in his speech to caucus, the Prime Minister did not make this issue a priority. What is worse, the Conservative members and senators hurled insults.

How will aboriginals fit into the next budget?

[Aboriginal Affairs, January 31st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last year the Prime Minister committed to renewing the Crown-first nation relationship, but after failing to act for a full year, he made the same commitment to the National Chief of the AFN on January 11. Yet there was no mention of it in his speech to caucus yesterday.

Many first nations, Inuit and Métis people are living in poverty in homes without electricity and they have no choice but to send their kids to schools that receive one-third less funding than other schools in Canada, while Conservative backbenchers and senator are hurling insults.

Action is needed now. When will the Prime Minister act to start addressing these serious problems?

[Foreign Investment, January 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including three brave Conservative MPs, have written letters condemning the sell-off of our natural resources to a Chinese state-owned company.

In fact, as the member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale wrote, “our trading and investing relationship with China is one-sided and a...proposal of a similar magnitude and nature by a Canadian company in China would simply not be welcomed”.

The member for Medicine Hat wrote, “Canadian laws must prevail, and if we were to allow a state-owned company of a foreign nation...to buy a strategic asset here, we would be setting a very dangerous precedent”.

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga said, “this is an example of the most unfair trade possible...”.

Today I rise to salute those brave MPs who have stood up to the Conservative Prime Minister's reckless rubber-stamping and sell-off of our natural resources. Now, if only a few more Conservatives would follow their lead.