José Nunez-Melo

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, March 24th, 2014]

With regard to Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions, specifically the Laval office: (a) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests; (b) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests in the past 10 years; (c) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to funding requests implemented; (d) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices; (e) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (f) in which months of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to meeting requests from MPs’ offices implemented; (g) what is the complete list of meetings between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (h) what is the complete list of meetings between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (i) what is the complete list of meetings between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (j) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices; (k) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (l) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by phone from MPs’ offices implemented; (m) what is the complete list of phone communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (n) what is the complete list of phone communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; (o) what is the complete list of phone communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year; (p) what are the existing standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices; (q) what changes have been made to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices in the past 10 years; (r) in which month of which years were the changes to the standards and procedures to be followed by employees and directors of the regional office to respond to requests for information by email from MPs’ offices implemented; (s) what is the complete list of email communications between MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs; (t) what is the complete list of email communications between representatives of MPs and employees and directors of the regional office in the past 10 years, broken down by year and political affiliation of MPs’ representatives; and (u) what is the complete list of email communications between former MPs and employees and directors of the regional office on a subject other than a former MP’s business, in the past 10 years, broken down by year?

[Petitions, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by 100 people who are very concerned about Gatineau Park.

Much like my colleagues here, I think that this petition is very important. It calls on the House of Commons to adopt legislation to protect this massive park in the Gatineau area.

[International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, March 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The UN encouraged the international community to eliminate all forms of racial and ethnic discrimination by declaring this international day in 1966, to commemorate the day in 1960 when police in Sharpeville, South Africa, opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful protest against the pass laws imposed under apartheid. In a world in which people are increasingly interconnected, tolerance, intercultural dialogue and respect for diversity have become essential. This international day is an opportunity for us to rally around the fundamental principle of the United Nations charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the equality of all human beings. Let us give this day the recognition it deserves.

[Petitions, December 4th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting three petitions signed by many people in my riding and the surrounding areas in support of the creation of a legal ombudsman mechanism for responsible mining.

[Ethics, November 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, during its investigation, the RCMP was unable to obtain the emails of Benjamin Perrin, the former counsel for the Prime Minister, because they had been deleted.

Therefore, the Prime Minister's Office has not shown full co-operation and Treasury Board rules were not followed.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister confirm these two statements?

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert once again.

Yes, the hon. members of the Conservative caucus are directly challenging the Supreme Court by proposing this bill in this way. I do not believe that the highest court in the land would accept that a majority in the House of Commons with somewhat peculiar orientations can contradict what the Supreme Court has already ruled on after deep analysis and thereby jeopardize the processes or procedures that must be followed to protect the health and safety of communities by maintaining these injection sites in Vancouver. It seems to me that the Supreme Court has said that these sites should be maintained, and I do not see why the Conservatives are now putting up as many obstacles and barriers as possible to prevent them from doing their work.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to my hon. colleague because his question is the same as what his colleague from Langley was precisely talking about.

The point is that we are talking about a judgment coming from the Supreme Court, and it is clear because, as I said, it was read to them. They are trying to put their objective in the other way, about community. We all know what the orientation of the Conservative caucus is. The Conservatives are not for community, they are corporate, so what they are probably defending is not the health security of communities but the pockets of big corporations. That is the point.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

I understand, Mr. Speaker.

What I wanted to say, really, is that our colleagues should be here to defend their own bill, but they are not. They are not doing their job. I am sorry if that was interpreted as highlighting their absence. What is more, among those present, only three of them rose to ask questions.

On this side of the House, the hon. member for Québec quoted the Supreme Court decision, and then a member from the other side asked her an irrelevant question. Proof that the Conservatives do not listen.

Among other things, the hon. member for Churchill stated the evidence, contrasting it with ideology, but the Conservatives did not seem to get it. The hon. member for Sherbrooke very clearly described the importance of these sites that are set up safely to address the scourge the bill refers to, but his comments went unnoticed.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona asked an excellent question and made some wise observations about the importance of monitoring these activities, and the hon. member for Louis-Hébert did a great job underscoring the social impact that this represents.

Last but not least, my colleague for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert drew from her medical knowledge to explain the risks involved as well as the scientific underpinnings of the issue.

[Respect for Communities Act, November 21st, 2013]

It is my privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-2, An Act to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I would like to begin by firmly stating that our caucus and our party are opposed to this bill, which has now come to second reading. Our caucus feels that decisions about programs that could be beneficial to public health must be given serious consideration and must be essentially based on facts. When we talk about facts, we are of course talking about tangible, solid, quantifiable evidence, not hypotheses and qualitative methods, or indeed ideological positions.

Not so long ago, in 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the InSite organization was providing essential services and should remain open under the exemption provided for in section 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Once again the Conservative government is proposing a very imperfect bill, based on a very conservative and openly anti-drug ideology. To justify itself it is fearmongering about public safety.

However, at present there is only one supervised injection site operating in Canada. This is InSite, and it is in Vancouver. Since it opened, Vancouver has seen a 35% reduction in deaths by overdose. Furthermore, it has been established that InSite has brought about a decrease in crime, in communicable disease infection rates and in relapse rates for drug abusers.

This site has become such a model that big cities like Toronto and Montreal are thinking of creating their own. We in the NDP feel that decisions about programs that could be beneficial to public health have to be maintained. We must reject any intervention based on unjustified reasoning.

The position of our party is supported by three major institutions in Canada. Those institutions issued a statement regarding the former Bill C-65, which is now Bill C-2. That statement speaks of a flagrant lack of judgment. It goes even further, describing this initiative as irresponsible and unethical.

Other institutions have also spoken out against this bill as proposed by the government, including the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association. Both have criticized the approach being taken by the government.

I would also like to mention the attitude of the Conservative caucus, of our colleagues opposite. Since this morning, I have noticed that there are only seven to 11 Conservative members in the House.

That is evidence of blatant disinterest on their part. The members who have spoken—

[Le gouvernement conservateur du Canada, October 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday in Laval, at the impressive unveiling of an Armenian memorial monument, which means "hope" and is very important to the Canadian-Armenian community, I had the opportunity to listen to my constituents' concerns about the actions of this government.

Believe me when I say that these complaints are no different from those we receive in the mail on a regular basis.

EI reform is the top concern for Canadians. This is followed by other issues such as the environment, public safety, housing and consumer protection.

Every time the Conservatives boast they have achieved something positive, the response is overwhelmingly negative.

In Laval, the unemployment rate has risen from 6.1% to 7.4% since June 2011.

When it comes to the environment and natural resources or the Senate, we get the same do-nothing policies.

When will we get a responsible government?