Megan Leslie

[Veterans, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that he “[did] nothing wrong” when he told off a group of veterans. He said that he considers demands that he resign over his conduct to be a “badge of honour”. A big strong record indeed.

Why did the minister retract his apology?

[Veterans, February 3rd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Veterans Affairs was forced to apologize after he insulted veterans. However, over the weekend, he said that he had done nothing wrong and that the whole thing was nothing more than a union plot against him.

If the minister claims to have done nothing wrong, why did he apologize last week?

[Ethics, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when the news broke first through Nigel Wright and then through the RCMP that many people in the PMO were involved, did the Prime Minister confront his staff and demand answers as to why they had misled him?

[Ethics, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when asked about Mr. van Hemmen, the Prime Minister replied:

...it is a long-standing government policy...to provide legal assistance to such individuals.

However, these fees were related to the RCMP investigation into Nigel Wright and Mike Duffy. Why are the taxpayers being left on the hook to defend PMO staff from the RCMP investigation into Conservative corruption?

[Ethics, January 30th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, in question period, the Prime Minister keeps insisting that Senator Irving Gerstein is not under investigation by the RCMP, but Mr. Gerstein's name comes up repeatedly in court documents. He played a role in the payoff, and the RCMP has never said that he is not a part of its investigation.

Can the Prime Minister share with Canadians how he knows that Senator Gerstein is not under investigation?

[Ethics, January 29th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was the Minister of the Environment who was caught out at another questionable Conservative fundraiser. The minister must have known that there was something not quite ethically right about this event when she snuck in via the back door, but perhaps she hoped that sneaking in through the back door would mean that no one noticed she was breaking the same ethical rule her colleague, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, did just last week.

When is the Prime Minister finally going to put an end to this unethical behaviour, and what sanctions will this minister face?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, January 27th, 2014]

With regard to fast-start climate change commitments made by the government in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord: (a) what analysis does or has the government used to analyze the results of funded projects; (b) when will the government announce its financial plans for fulfilling climate change mitigation and adaptation commitments to developing countries past the 2012-2013 fiscal year; (c) what are the conditions necessary for the government to renew its contribution of public funding in support of the 2020 goal, committed to under the Copenhagen Accord, to mobilize up to $100 billion per year in financing by 2020; (d) what public funds will the government commit to fulfill its climate finance pledges between the fiscal year 2012-2013 and 2020-2021, broken down by year; (e) broken down by year, (i) what amount (in Canadian dollars) and what percentage of the funds referred to in (d) will be delivered as loans, (ii) what amount (in Canadian dollars) and what percentage of these funds will be delivered as grants; (f) has the government done any analysis of the social and economic impacts and benefits of loans versus grants for recipients; (g) what will be the percentage of funds allocated to mitigation, compared to funds allocated to adaptation to climate change, between the fiscal years 2012-2013 and 2020-2021; (h) how will future climate change mitigation and adaptation financing meet the requirements for Canadian official development assistance under the Official Development Assistance Accountability Act, namely with respect to poverty reduction, taking account of the perspectives of the poor, and the promotion of human rights; and (i) with respect to future climate finance funding delivered as loans or grants to multilateral banks, how will the government ensure that projects receiving funds meet the required aid effectiveness principles?

[Ethics, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of questionable ethics, recently the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke had the bright idea to campaign against the incandescent light bulb. She tried to turn the light out on her own government's legislation. Not only did she campaign against her own party's policy, if we go to the website, we can donate. Where does it bring us? To a Conservative riding association.

This clearly breaks the rules. The question is: What sanctions is this member facing for breaking the rules?

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

I would like to give an example of what is happening here in Ottawa. Perhaps that will help alleviate some of the concerns people in our communities have.

In Ottawa, Campaign for Safer Consumption Sites and the Drug Users Advocacy League came together and opened a mock injection site, where people from the community could see what it was all about. Instead of fearmongering, with pictures of needles rolling around, they said, “This is what it is. Come and talk to our nurses, health experts and people who think this is a good idea. Come on in and see what it is that happens in here”. People get to see the little kits that would be given to people who access the site. It's a mock site, which helps demystify and dispel the myths, where people can ask questions. We are afraid sometimes, and that is okay. People can go there to ask questions and get educated on the issue instead of just being told that we should live our lives in fear.

We should get educated on these issues, and the Campaign for Safer Consumption Sites has done a really remarkable thing. Not everybody in Ottawa agrees, but it has created a safe space for debate and discussion, and that is a far cry from what the Conservatives are doing.

[Respect for Communities Act, January 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question and it is complicated. This is not easy stuff. It is not black and white. There are a whole lot of shades of grey here, and so we figure it out.

Yes, there will still be people dealing in drugs if there are safe injection sites. Yes, there will be, but right now there are people dealing in drugs. We have a choice of having a community where there are drug transactions and people dying, or a community where there are drug transactions and maybe not as many people dying. Maybe one person will decide to take advantage of addiction services and will no longer be an addict. If there is just one, I consider that to be a victory.

It is not simple. I am not standing here saying that we have the magic bullet, that we know exactly how to do this and how it should roll out, but I do know in my heart that the first thing we have to do is try to save people's lives. If that is what safe injection sites do, I am all for them.