Megan Leslie

[The Environment, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of faith in that good faith because it is Conservative inaction that has made us a climate change laggard and denied Canadians jobs in the new energy economy.

I do not blame the Conservatives for wanting to pull out. Kyoto's independent emissions audits have exposed six years of failure by the government, six years of failed environmental policies and six years of failed federal leadership.

The government's climate inaction kills Canadian jobs. When will it stop blaming the Liberals for the failure of Kyoto? When will it actually introduce a plan for a transition to a new energy economy?

[The Environment, November 30th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, there was a CBC reporter, now the Minister of the Environment, who warned us that greenhouse gases were, and I quote, the “most important of all the environmental questions”. How times have changed.

At the time, he said that future generations would have to worry about the threat posed by greenhouse gases and, well, here we are.

What is the minister waiting for to come up with a real plan, instead of pulling Canada out of Kyoto?

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, that answer was very short. There is not much to say when it comes to defending what is happening with these programs.

What about efficiency and program delivery? How about the fact that we have a program that is run by one scientist and that scientist received a notice saying that he may lose his job? How about the fact that we have another program that monitors something completely different, a completely different set of data that is relied on by the international community, and is run by one scientist who also received a notice saying that his job may be on the line?

The minister does not understand what these programs do. He does not understand that they do different things. He does not understand that they are all very much needed. This is not about efficiency in program delivery. This is about shutting down science.

When is the minister going to own up to the fact that that is what he is trying to do here?

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, the hole in the ozone over the Arctic has grown to record size. As we have heard in the House, it is now twice the size of Ontario. Reports are that it could take about four decades to repair. This hole poses major long-term health and environmental concerns related to ultraviolet rays and it represents a massive environmental, social and financial debt that will be paid forward to our children and grandchildren.

That is why it was so concerning when this summer the government announced cuts that would affect Canada's ozone programs. These programs are world-renowned. They are made-in-Canada solutions. People from around the globe rely on the information that these programs gather.

On September 23, in the House, I asked the minister about cuts to the ozone monitoring program. I specifically asked about the reports that he was getting rid of one of two measurement systems that are used to monitor two very different aspects of the ozone. On that day and in subsequent rounds of questions he responded repeatedly in the House and in the media that the cuts were to address duplications within the program. He also refused to provide any analysis for how the cuts could be carried out without actually affecting the scientific data being produced by the programs.

Incidentally, he has also refused to this date to provide Canadians with an analysis about how the government will continue to ensure a healthy biologically diverse environment and how we will pass it on to future generations despite massive cuts to Environment Canada and the Environmental Assessment Agency.

However, lo and behold, last week it was revealed that one of the minister's senior officials wrote a report to the minister in September about the ozone monitoring program that contradicted everything the minister had been saying in the House and that the she herself had said to the media only a week after writing the report.

The minister responded to the questions about these contradictions in the House by saying that the document was actually being misquoted.

That document, dated September 16, discovered through access to information requests, states specifically:

These methods measure different characteristics of the atmosphere and thus complement, but do not duplicate each other.

That is actually in this access to information request. The wording is very clear: there is no duplication within the ozone monitoring program, and yet the minister's response was to attack opposition MPs and the journalist who broke the story.

As usual, he chose to suppress the science of the matter with spin, something we are used to seeing here. However, he has continued to do so more on this issue than on any other issue it seems that he has been questioned about, including his government's climate change plan, which, according to all the data analysis, is actually failing spectacularly.

As with many of the decisions that are being made by the minister, the core of this issue is scientific capacity, because these cuts are part of a systematic attempt by the government to reduce the ability of the federal department and agencies to monitor and respond to environmental hazards. We need good science for good environmental assessments, for project planning and research and innovation. Both industry and environmentalists agree that enhanced scientific capacity is essential at the federal level.

I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the minister will come clean about the cuts to this program and actually reinstate the funding to Environment Canada to save these programs.

[Safe Streets and Communites Act, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed by that timing, but I will be back tomorrow, hopefully, to finish my speech, because it is really important for me to get on the record about this bill.

I have been thinking about the omnibus crime bill a lot. It comes to mind whenever I have a moment to think, like on the plane from Ottawa to Halifax, or on the walk to the office. In fact, it came to mind last week in church, because last Sunday, November 20, at the Cornwallis Street Baptist Church, together with community members and descendants, Reverend Rhonda Britton and Dalhousie president Tom Traves, we celebrated not only the life but the legacy of James Robinson Johnston, the legacy that he left for Nova Scotia and for all of Canada. It was at this commemorative service that I started to think differently about Bill C-10. I will explain that.

James Robinson Johnston enrolled in Dalhousie University at the age of 16. He received his Bachelor of Letters degree in 1896 and his Bachelor of Law in 1898. He was the first member of Nova Scotia's black community to graduate from university and then, also, from law. He blazed a path for many to follow. His work in the African Nova Scotian community made a profound impact on the progress of African Nova Scotian communities today.

In 1991, a James Robinson Johnston chair in Black Canadian Studies was established at Dalhousie University to commemorate and deepen the link between the African Nova Scotia community and the academic study that takes place at universities.

Last Sunday, at the Cornwallis Street Baptist Church in my community, we not only remembered James Robinson Johnston, but we also had the opportunity to welcome the new JRJ chair in Black Canadian Studies, Dr. Afua Cooper. In her address, Dr. Cooper noted that James Robinson Johnston, along with many members of our African Nova Scotian communities, was a descendant of the 2,000 black refugees who fled the United States after the War of 1812 and settled in Nova Scotia.

The War of 1812 caught my attention, and it made me stop to think about the government's recent decision to commemorate the War of 1812, and spending millions of dollars to do so. It also made me stop to think about how our government is spending millions of dollars to commemorate a moment in history when free slaves came to Canada and how we are, at the same time, debating a bill in the House that would see thousands more Canadians in our jails, added to a prison population that is already disproportionately African Canadian.

I was sitting there thinking about this and trying to figure out if it was ironic or if it was just plain shameful, and a young woman named El Jones stood and took the stage. She is an amazing spoken word artist. I have seen perform many pieces about the realities of our community. Her performances are always thoughtful, provocative and truthful. In her piece about James Robinson Johnston, she said one line that crystallized what I was thinking about. In describing some of the needs of the black communities in Canada, she said, ”Because we need black lawyers and judges to advocate for us, reforming the courts where we are disproportionately jailed”.

That is it. We have failed to apply a racial lens to these bills. My NDP colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona eloquently spelled out the potential impacts of this bill on first nations, Inuit and Métis people earlier this afternoon. She was exactly right. Who is our system failing? All we need to do is look in our prisons and we will see who our system fails.

I look forward to the next opportunity in this House to finish my speech.

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, why do I not take a crack at deciphering what the intentions are?

We know that the Conservatives are waiting until December 23 to announce their withdrawal from Kyoto. If a country withdraws from the agreement, it does not take effect for one year. That means that Canada can try to sabotage the negotiations this year in Durban and next year in Qatar.

It is this kind of behaviour that denigrates and undermines Canada's reputation internationally. Will the minister admit that this is his plan?

[The Environment, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the South African high commissioner spoke about the reports that Canada may be withdrawing from Kyoto. She called the move disturbing and disappointing. She said it will undermine the negotiating process at Durban because Canada has not only planned a withdrawal, but has actively lobbied other countries to do the same.

The minister has admitted he has no intention to negotiate a new climate deal, and he has not denied his intention to withdraw from Kyoto. At the same time, the minister has said that his intentions in Durban are not to derail the negotiations on climate. Will the minister tell us what his intentions really are?

[Infrastructure, November 29th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to represent the wonderful riding of Halifax, a hub of creativity and innovation. Investing in cities like Halifax makes good economic sense. It is an essential part of our long-term plan for community development.

Beyond wanting to ensure that our cities are vibrant, green and healthy places to live for future generations, infrastructure investments in our cities create jobs and increase our quality of life through increased public transport, better housing and the green projects needed to transition Canada to the economy of the future.

The numbers prove it. While corporate tax cuts result in only a 30¢ return on the dollar, infrastructure investments contribute more than $1.50 in additional GDP for every dollar invested.

Public consultation is an indispensable part of determining what investments should be made. I am proud to point to the consultations carried out in the design of Halifax's new public library, which have resulted in a multi-purpose, forward-thinking community-designed hub that meets our community's needs.

It is time to invest in Halifax and time to invest in our cities.

[The Environment, November 28th, 2011]

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. That was not an answer. The truth is that Conservative inaction on environment is killing Canadian jobs. Now the government is trying to change the channel by reannouncing its failed clean air agenda. The irresponsible government is making us a laughingstock internationally.

Why will Conservatives not come clean with the world, why will Conservatives not come clean with Canadians, and why will they not admit that Canada is pulling out of Kyoto?

[The Environment, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, the government's position makes no sense, whether from a legal, moral or scientific perspective. By opting out of Kyoto, Canada is cutting itself off from the rest of the world. Thus, it is sure to be left out of important decisions concerning the future of the planet. The Conservatives prefer to play by themselves in their oil-sands box. Why?