Alexandra Mendes

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, did the minister order the general to turn his back on the vice-admiral? Is that what happened? The minister said that he did not agree with the vice-admiral's order after it was made public, and he then forced the general to reverse the vice-admiral's order. Is that what happened?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, why, then, was the order not reversed internally? Why was the vice-admiral's order reversed publicly?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I will ask my question again. Since there is a hierarchy, can he simply tell us where the directive came from that reversed the order of the vice-admiral? Who gave that order?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, during his press conference, General Natynczyk said that it was his duty to ensure that the minister is not caught off guard. Did the minister order General Natynczyk to reverse the vice-admiral's order? Did the general act of his own volition or did the minister and the general consult with one another ahead of time?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, let me try again because I may not have been clear. I was talking about the Navy's budget, not its personnel. My question is: when did the minister find out that General Natynczyk was going to reverse Vice-Admiral McFadden's order?

[Business of Supply, May 27th, 2010]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to keep asking the minister questions about the cuts to the Navy's budget. First, when did the minister find out that General Natynczyk was going to reverse Vice-Admiral McFadden's order?

[Ethics, May 10th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, over a month ago now, the Prime Minister informed Canadians that he had tossed the Status of Women minister out of cabinet and the Conservative caucus. He also asked the RCMP and the Ethics Commissioner to investigate. A month on, Canadians still do not know why.

A lot has happened since then, but we still do not know the nature of these allegations, deemed so serious that the Prime Minister needed to call in the RCMP on a sitting cabinet minister for the first time since the days of Brian Mulroney.

It was not enough that the minister violated security regulations in an airport or treated airport employees poorly. It was not enough that members of her staff passed themselves off as members of the public and wrote letters in support of her or that her husband was conducting personal business in her office.

All this time, the Prime Minister kept telling us that she did very good work.

Then overnight, he called in the RCMP. These are questions that have to do with the integrity of the government. It is time to end the culture of deceit. When will the government come clean with Canadians?

[Firearms Registry, May 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, police forces, families, students, dozens of special interest groups, the families of victims of the Polytechnique and Dawson college massacres, women's groups, medical associations and farmers who understand the importance of gun control are all rallying to save the firearms registry.

Why? Because the registry is necessary. It is crucial to public safety. Police officers consult it over 11,000 times every day.

Yet the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse is about to vote to eliminate the registry. Like the other Conservative members from Quebec, he is going to blindly follow his leader, like a sheep.

His leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, has decided to side with the gun lobby.

Will the hon. member for Lévis—Bellechasse listen to his constituents? Will he listen to Quebeckers? Will he listen to police officers? Or will he blindly go along with the gun lobby?

[Ethics, May 5th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, under the Conflict of Interest Act, it is illegal to promote the interests of pals and give special treatment to people represented by pals. As many as seven ministers—ministers—clearly violated that act by giving Rahim Jaffer privileged access and fast-tracking his grant requests.

Since they refuse to appear before the committee and answer questions, will they at least acknowledge in the House that this sort of behaviour is illegal?

[Business of Supply, May 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do agree with my colleague on the fact that the Conservatives seem to want to divert the whole focus of this motion. This motion would cover a loophole in the act. It is nothing more than something that respects an electoral promise made by the Conservatives. I do not think we are asking for too much. We are asking that this loophole be covered by the new act.