Alexandra Mendes

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 15th, 2010]

With respect to contracts under $10,000 granted by the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec since January 1, 2008, what are: (a) the names of the contractors; (b) the amounts of the contracts; (c) the dates of the contracts; (d) the dates of completion; and (e) the descriptions of the services provided?

[Status of Women, March 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the minister would have us believe that she knew nothing about this, but there are plenty of examples to suggest otherwise. On March 5, a certain Paul Shaw wrote an op-ed piece condemning the work of the airport staff, and even suggesting that while they were putting the minister through the usual checks terrorists could have had a field day.

Can the minister confirm to us that the author of that letter is indeed a former reform candidate and the current president of her riding association?

[Pensions, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, there are more than 10,000 retirees in Canada who thought they had sufficient retirement income. They are about to lose 30% to 40% of their income and all of their health benefits at a time when they need them most. We cannot wait for more consultations. The government must take immediate action to amend the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act and treat retirees as preferred creditors.

When will we see the necessary legislative amendments to protect retirees?

[Pensions, March 25th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget, the Conservatives confirmed that the retiree issue was so important that they would hold consultations with Canadians within 90 days.

They did not respect their own deadline. More than a year later, these consultations had still not produced a concrete proposal for the provinces at the meeting in December and had produced even less for Canadians. And what did the government announce yet again? Consultations. Enough with the empty promises. The provinces want measures and Canadians are demanding answers.

When will we get a definitive answer?

[The Environment, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, this does not tell us what will happen next week.

The St. Lawrence River, which is not a Great Lake, is a collective treasure that is at the heart of the history, the geography and the lives of Quebeckers.

Yet funding for the St. Lawrence plan for a sustainable development will expire next week, and the government seems to want to let it die in silence.

The Conservatives' laissez-faire approach will not clean the St. Lawrence River. It cannot clean itself. Quebeckers want to know who will do it.

Will the government renew funding to protect the St. Lawrence, yes or no?

[The Environment, March 23rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the St. Lawrence River is part of our collective wealth. May I remind the minister that the St. Lawrence is a river, not a Great Lake. It is an invaluable natural asset that has been at the heart of Canada's history and economy since Confederation, yet the Conservative government does not seem interested in keeping it clean for Canadians.

The funding for the protection of the St. Lawrence will expire this year, next week in fact, and the minister still will not say whether the government has a program to replace it.

Is there or is there not funding for the sustainable development of the St. Lawrence River?

[International Cooperation, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, that is doublespeak. Every year, 1,500,000 women die because they do not have access to family planning services.

The government is giving in to the religious extremist lobbies at the expense of African women.

Maternal and reproductive health is a human right. Contraceptives are essential to the health of African mothers. The use of condoms in Africa could mean the difference between life and death.

Can the Prime Minister explain to Canadians why he is against this simple, proven method of preventing STDs?

[International Cooperation, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, the government made a formal commitment to support voluntary family planning at the G8.

Why does it now want to block access to contraception for African women?

Why are the Conservatives so obsessed with trying to push these George Bush-like doctrines on the world's poor?

Does this government believe in the benefits of contraception?

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, March 10th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House of Commons to speak to Bill C-429. We have already heard from the bill's sponsor, the member for Manicouagan, whom I thank for this proposal, as well as from the government.

I will begin by saying that I am surprised, if not stunned, that the government simply rejected the bill for a whole slew of technical reasons. The minister seems to believe that all these measures would give preferential treatment to one industry. According to him, they would violate Canada's supply obligations under its domestic and international trade agreements. But the minister's staff seem to have forgotten or failed to grasp that the ultimate aim of Bill C-429 is to help Canada's forestry industry while logically promoting new ways of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Once again, it is clear that the government refuses to consider the positive side of measures that come from this side of the House. It prefers to reject the spirit of this bill out of hand instead of working with us to better serve the interests of all Canadians. It claims to want to work with the opposition parties to make government run smoothly, but it soon shows its real face.

The irony in all this is that if this bill had been introduced by the party in power, I am certain that all these supposed problems and complications would not have been seen as barriers. In addition, if the government had introduced such a bill itself, I am sure that the minister would not have worried about the appearance of preferential treatment or the possibility of trade disputes. But because the idea did not come from the government, all it can do is shoot the whole thing down.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member from the Bloc Québécois who continues to defend the interests of the Canadian softwood lumber industry, while the government continues to stand idly by at a time when a major sector of our economy is having serious problems during this difficult economic period. By making such efforts to defend the Canadian softwood lumber industry, the Bloc is showing that it understands the important role this sector plays in Canada's history.

I find it interesting that the bill before us could very well promote a sense of unity for our country. Its target is the best interests not just of Quebec, but all of Canada.

The bill simply asks the government and, in particular, the Department of Public Works and Government Services, to look at its procurement practices in a new light. Of course, we are well aware that one cannot always use wood to build. Often building codes, engineering specifications and structural integrity will dictate what materials can and should be used. What this bill proposes is that when decisions are being taken in determining what materials to use for a project, wood should be the preferred material.

By giving preference to wood as a building material, it does not prevent or undermine the use of other building materials. The bill simply says it should be considered, with preference given to promotion of the use of wood, while at the same time taking into account the cost of materials and greenhouse gas emissions that will be created.

I would like to point out that Public Works and Government Services Canada manages 23% of all the premises administered by the federal government and that the minister's mandate covers less than 1% of crown buildings. This bill would not apply to the entire government procurement and contract process.

This bill only focuses on a small portion of crown buildings and asks that a new approach be taken in the procedure used for government contracts in one department. Such a measure would support our forestry industry directly and promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

If we consider that using one cubic metre of wood to replace other construction materials can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by almost one tonne, it is easy to understand the importance of using more wood. It seems like a win-win situation to use Canadian materials such as wood, which would allow us both to help an industry and reduce greenhouse gases. We have been told for years that we must reduce greenhouse gases and now we have a bill in hand precisely to do so. We must defend it with conviction.

Unlike the party opposite, my party and I are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and realize that every choice we make can be a step in the right direction. This bill may seem like a small step in the total amount of greenhouse emissions that we could actually reduce, but these little changes will add up to a cleaner and greener Canada.

The current procurement process established at public works was developed with the idea of it being open and transparent. It is designed to provide a fair and level playing field. This amendment to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act does not impede this procurement process. Rather, it asks the department to rethink and be more cautious in its procurement practices while considering the economic and environmental benefits.

We all know that we have to take another look at the way we do things. For example, we are now often asked to pay for plastic bags when we shop. Consumers have begun bringing their own reusable bags with them, which reduces the use of plastic bags and thus the harmful effects of these non-biodegradable bags in landfill sites. This small action has had a positive effect on costs and on the environment for the businesses themselves and for consumers. This trend seems to be continuing. Consumers are adopting this practice, which has become a new reality. Either we bring our own bags or we have to pay for plastic bags.

If consumers had been asked if they were prepared to make this change five years ago, we would likely have heard a lot of angry complaints. However, this approach seems to be becoming the norm, more and more stores are adopting such a policy, and consumers are prepared to support this environmental initiative.

I have no doubt that, in five years, we will be so used to it that we will wonder why we ever used plastic bags.

It is much the same with Bill C-429. It is a new way of looking at our current procurement practices. The bill does not say to use only wood; it is saying that the use of wood and the environmental impact of procurement decisions should be considered.

The bill is a first step to a greater good, and I realize that it scares the party opposite. My party has already committed to setting mandatory clean energy federal procurement standards. This bill would fall under that commitment, and I believe it is time to start rethinking the way we work. It is a small step to a greater good and I believe that in the future we will change these guidelines.

If we cannot make such changes within the government, how can we expect Canadians to do so? We have to take a leadership role and show that we are prepared to make positive changes. We have to change the way we do things. We must improve our methods. As lawmakers, we must take the lead for the good of society and not create roadblocks to changes in our objectives to have a better country and a healthier environment.

I am sure it is clear now that I will vote in support of this bill at second reading. I think we must put it to a committee, which will study it in order to strengthen it. I would also like to know what the various stakeholders on both sides think of it so that it can be as practical as possible. We have to change the way we do things. We must not be afraid of change. We must accept it joyfully, because as a country, we have the opportunity to proceed progressively.

Whatever the government may think, I hope the parties on our side of the House will support the bill so it can go to committee as soon as possible.

[Girl Guides of Canada, March 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to invite my colleagues to come and celebrate 100 years of girl guiding in Canada at an event on the Hill this evening.

Over the last century, hundreds of thousands of girls and young women have been touched by guiding.

They have had the opportunity to learn new skills, to develop lasting friendships, to improve their leadership skills, to tackle challenges and to experience adventures, all while they learned about the world around them in a supportive environment.

I was one of those girls. as were many women in the House, and I am proud to say that much of what I am today I owe to guiding.

I ask members of the House to join me and Girl Guides of Canada, Guides du Canada, in 200 West Block after the vote for a fun evening of celebrations, activities and refreshments, including cookies.

I urge them all to come and meet the guides from their communities and together we will celebrate a century of much accomplishment.