Megan Leslie

[Veterans Affairs, November 26th, 2014]

Speaking of the mental health strategy, Mr. Speaker, in 2009 the government committed to develop performance measures to assess if the mental health strategy was meeting the mental health needs of veterans.

The Auditor General has now confirmed that the minister never followed up on that commitment. He did not even bother to collect data that would be helpful to make this eventual assessment.

Can the minister explain to Canadians why he refused to fulfill this commitment and ensure that veterans receive the mental health services they need?

[Veterans Affairs, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, distress levels among our veterans are a problem. According to the ombudsman, their suicide rate is 45% higher than in the general population.

Alarm bells are going off, but the government is dragging its feet. The Auditor General says that a quarter of veterans have to wait over eight months before receiving mental health care. That is unacceptable. Why is the minister trying to save $1 billion at our veterans' expense?

[Halifax Central Library, November 26th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, they are tweeting about it, posting sneak-peak photos, they are peering through the fence trying to get a glimpse. Everyone is talking about it in Halifax.

On December 13, people will actually be able to go inside and see for themselves. It is the new Halifax Central Library, an incredible civic landmark for the community.

This building is so much more than a library. It is an example of what can be achieved through federal, provincial and municipal collaboration. It is a building for our future that reimagines what a library can be.

This library will blend the best of traditional library services with new and innovative spaces, making it a vital centre for learning and culture in the heart of the community. It is a public building for all of us, an adaptable and flexible space that will meet the changing needs of the community.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in making this dream a reality. Please join me. I am going to grab a coffee, a nice book and I will see everyone in Halifax's new living room.

[Northern Development, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop the excuses and start getting help to our veterans.

The Auditor General also reported that help provided through the Nutrition North program to offset sky-high food prices may be ending up in the wrong pockets. The department does not even determine whether northern families are actually benefiting.

This is about helping people who now pay over half their monthly income on food. Why have the Conservatives failed to track retailers and ensure that this program is helping northern families who are struggling to make ends meet?

[Veterans Affairs, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives failed to act and they have failed our nation's veterans.

Now the Auditor General is reporting that:

....Veterans Affairs Canada is not adequately facilitating timely access to mental health services.

The Conservatives even failed to assess whether their mental health strategy was helping veterans at all.

Last year, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if he would make this a personal priority. Why has the Prime Minister failed to do so? Why have the Conservatives failed our veterans?

[Veterans Affairs, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report is definitive. The Conservatives have failed to provide our veterans with speedy access to mental health care. In some cases, veterans wait up to eight months. The auditor says that is way too long, especially considering the number of veterans who have committed suicide.

How can the minister justify sending $1 billion back to the treasury and firing staff when there are such desperate needs?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. We listen to the speeches and then write down ideas for questions, and the last sentence of his speech answered my question, so I guess this is more of a comment.

In the last sentence of the member's speech, he said that we could have found a solution, that we could have come up with something, that we could have found a solution. That is the thing that is most important to me: that we actually did try to find solutions.

First I need to say the legislation should not and does not speak to a change of land use. The legislation does not talk about tearing up farms.

However, if we go back to the international standard required for a park, to the definition of a “protected area” according to international standards, we find that conservation is to be identified as the first priority. What are we creating here? By the international standard, we are actually not creating a park.

We have had similar situations. This is not the first park. Yes, it is unique because it is urban, but it is not the only national park to compete with urbanization or infrastructure needs. Let us look at Banff National Park. There is a highway running through Banff. The CP railway runs through Banff. We figured it out.

I was going to ask the member whether he thinks we can find solutions to this as legislators, as drafters. I assume his answer is “yes”. That was a great speech.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. She did drill down to the issue of the existing protections that are stronger than what would happen with this national park if the lands are transferred. The proposed legislation would not meet or exceed the existing protections that are in place.

What else could we have done?

I think we did everything we could, but we have to think about what comes next. Therefore, I am excited about our solution, to bring forward a private member's bill that would spell out what the NDP would do for the park when we form government, how we would bring it up to a standard that is acceptable and protect ecological integrity while also protecting the other activities in the park.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and the work he did at committee on questioning witnesses. He is a neighbouring MP as well, and there are a number of neighbouring MPs to this park. We all want to see this park established, but how do we get there?

The member pointed out something that I will admit I had not thought about.

On the definition piece, certainly the NDP brought forward amendments to define ecological health and ecological integrity. We are legislators, and we need to have those definitions. We need to talk about what we want to do and to spell it out. Sometimes a definition of ecological health or ecological integrity would specifically exclude something. For example, we could exclude the Highway 407.

The member brought up a good point about the definitions of the six things that the minister is supposed to be doing now, which could potentially put the farmers at risk. It makes me think about some of the discussions we had—and I do not remember if it was at committee or here in the House—about the park management plan. The Conservatives were saying “Just trust us; everything will be in the park management plan, and you will be really happy.”

Well, the management plan is not legislation. The management plan is policy. There is a big difference between policy and legislation. It could be the whim of a minister to say that they are not into the management plan anymore, and they then might do x or y.

Where are the protections for farmers? Why is that not legislated, as in the NDP amendment that we brought forward? Why is ecological health not defined?

The definitions matter, and they are our job as legislators.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague has the best interests of the park at heart and I know he has worked hard on this. However, I disagree with him. It is not adios, to use his word, to farming. We are talking about sustainable agriculture.

Let us look at the fact that right now these farms only have a one year lease. If farmers only have a one year lease, how much improvement will they make on their farm to make it more sustainable, even something as easy as tiling for draining? If they make that investment, it then will take a number of years to recoup that investment. We need to look at the fact that they have one-year leases and they have been unable to implement some of the sustainable farming practices that we would come to expect.

I would not think that Friends of the Rouge Watershed would be considered to be an outside agency. These groups have worked really hard. At committee, every one of them said that they were not talking about getting rid of the farms. The amendment I talked about at length says, “also the ongoing presence of agriculture”.

When he says that it cannot happen, that we cannot protect ecological integrity, it can. All we need to do is be creative, look at an amendment like what the NDP has brought forward, and we can solve these problems, not just throw up our hands and walk away from them.