MP motivated by knowing she’s doing something real Halifax MP Megan Leslie has found herself at the forefront of one of the most contentious issues in Canadian politics.
As the NDP environment critic, she engages in daily clashes in the House of Commons with Environment Minister Peter Kent and Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver that have gotten increasingly nasty.
Leslie was likened to a traitor when she took a trip to Washington, D.C., to talk about green partnerships and possible alternatives to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from the Alberta oilsands to Texas.
Leslie has become one of the highest-profile members of the official Opposition. This stoked rumours that she would be a candidate to replace Jack Layton as party leader, but she ended up staying on the sidelines.
Leslie spoke to The Chronicle Herald over the weekend from outside Montreal, where she was taking French lessons. Her answers have been edited for length.
Q: Recently you asked Oliver about half a dozen times if he believed in man-made climate change. He eventually conceded that he did. Do you still suspect climate change-deniers are crafting government policy?
A: We know the party position is that climate change is real and it’s man-made. We also know there are certain government members, elected and appointed members, who are deniers.
(Oliver) did ultimately say, look, the science is clear that man-made climate change exists. But the bigger question is if he believes it is a problem? . . . I really do think he denies it’s a problem.
I just heard that it’s the minister of natural resources who is carrying the file concerning environmental assessments. I think that’s odd because it’s firmly within the Department of Environment. It’s really problematic if it’s the minister of natural resources. Who is he working for? Environmental assessments are not just supposed to clear the way for industry.
Q: The government responds to a lot of your questions, particularly around the Alberta oilsands, by saying it is balancing environmental protection with job creation. Is it right, in your view, to take a jobs-centric approach to the environment file?
A: The bigger question for me is why they refuse to invest in new jobs in the green energy economy. The last big announcement in the natural resources file was the discontinuation of the ecoEnergy Retrofit program. That program meant we had jobs in every region of Canada, not in one region or one province, but in every community.
We have millions of dollars in subsidies for oil and gas, but we don’t see the same investment in entrepreneurs in our community who are trying to make a business around green energy. We don’t see that kind of similar investment in what I think will be the energy economy of the future. The prime minister says we have to diversify our markets. I say why not diversify our energy sector.
Q: Did you expect your trip to Washington to spark such controversy? You were frequently characterized in the House as fighting against Canadian jobs.
A: Ah yes, I learned a new word in French: traitresse, or female traitor. It was absolutely ridiculously over the top. We went down to the U.S. to talk to legislators about all kinds of things. We talked about (the Keystone XL pipeline), we talked about efficiency, we talked about vehicle standards. The Conservatives wanted to paint me as something, so they went ahead and did it, but I think it was over the top.
It’s ironic that they’re criticizing me when they’re sending their own diplomats to other countries to lobby for industry. . . . This is keeping with the tactic they have of demonizing everyone who’s against them. Environmental groups are called "radicals." . . . It’s ridiculous.
Q: So what do you think should be done with the oilsands?
A: It’s a precious natural resource. So I believe we should be treating it like it is precious, as a way to transition us toward a green economy. I want to see an energy strategy created, one that looks to the future.
It would include the oilsands, renewables, efficiency and it would include our own energy security. One thing that people lose sight of is (the idea of using XL to ship oil to China) is great for China, but not for us. Why can’t this be about Canada’s energy security first?
Q: You argue your case week after week in the House, but the Conservatives have shown no signs of coming around to your ideas, and they have the majority government to do what they want. Has this year been a frustrating experience for you?
A: I think it depends on the moment. There are times I do find it frustrating and times I find it demoralizing. But there are times it’s inspiring, times I feel like we’re getting through. Sometimes I feel incredibly motivated by what’s going on and sometimes I feel very sad about what’s going on.
One thing that caught me off guard about this file is how emotional it is. It’s all those things in any given day. These days, working with the Conservatives is a challenge, for sure. Some days I come out of committee, and I am not an angry person, but I come out filled with rage. But, in all that emotion, there are moments I think this is wonderful and I’m doing something real here.
Original Article
Source: the chronicle herald
Author: Paul MacLeod
No comments:
Post a Comment