Hélène Laverdière

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

The NDP has always been in favour of a mixed member proportional system, as I told my colleague earlier. I, too, think that it is the most appropriate system. That said, the last thing I want to do here is to say that the committee's findings on these issues should be x, y, or z. I think it is crucial that we let the committee do its job. However, I am sure that the NDP representatives on the committee will show the clear advantages of what we are proposing.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the committee will have to do its work with openness and hear some experts; it will also have to rely on the participation of citizens and very broad consultations. After that, we will be able to assess the various options on the table. I do not think we should prejudge the final outcome on anything whatsoever.

Personally, I am looking at the mixed member proportional system. I see how it works in countries like New Zealand or Germany. This system seems to work very well. I find it has the advantage of encouraging people to vote, because everyone knows that every vote is going to count, one way or another. I consider this a great advantage. However, I think we should not prejudge what the committee will be able to accomplish through its consultations.

[Business of Supply, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, there are moments when one can be especially proud to be a member of Parliament. I am especially proud today to be part of this team, with my colleagues, who managed to put the process to reform the voting system back on track. This is truly a great moment and I commend and thank the Liberals for working with us and supporting our proposal.

Electoral reform is very important. In Laurier—Sainte-Marie, people talk to me about this a lot. It is important to them. Everyone had concerns about the process. They did not want to see it exacerbate cynicism rather than rallying the public around a common goal. They were quite concerned, especially about the committee that is being set up to undertake this reform.

I want to quote two people. First, Paul Journet, from La Presse, who said:

What could be more ironic? On the one hand, the federal Liberals want to change the voting system because it distorts the will of the people. On the other hand, they are using this distortion to give themselves a majority of the seats on the new review committee. They are taking advantage of the problem to better control the outcome.

That is what we have been fighting against for months now. I am pleased to see that we are going to have a committee that will truly represent how the public voted and will be relatively proportional.

I would remind hon. members that the NDP has long wanted to change the voting system as well. The current voting system just does not work. It creates false majorities. We saw just how much such a majority could be mishandled during the 10 years that the Conservatives were in power, although their majority was based on less than 40% of the popular vote. We hope that we will not see more of the same from the Liberals.

This fuels cynicism. People need to be able to believe in the system. I really like the idea of a mixed member proportional voting system. I know some people who have said that their vote for a given small party would be meaningless, because the party has no chance of winning in their riding. We all know of these examples.

With mixed member proportional voting, all votes count. Beyond the fundamental democratic issue and the fact that the House of Commons would better represent the popular will, this could also help combat cynicism. It could also encourage minorities, such as indigenous populations, to play a more active role in the electoral process. Indeed, over the past few years, voter participation has decreased, and we want the vast majority of Canadians to take part in the process.

I am also thinking of young Canadians, because, as we know, they do not vote much. I always like to paraphrase Rick Mercer, who once asked some young people whether they would let their grandparents choose their friends, their music, and their clothes. I often ask young people this question, and of course, they always say no. Like Rick Mercer, I tell them not to let their grandparents choose their government. It is absolutely crucial that young people vote.

It is not me who is going to be most affected by an issue like climate change: it is them. What we are now doing is building their future.

I hope that we are going to adopt a system that is both fair and equitable, but also, and to me this is essential, a system that will encourage people from all walks of life to participate, whatever their opinions or orientations, and especially young people. Action is urgently needed, and I find that the process is already lagging somewhat. Putting a new voting system in place is not something that is done overnight.

I am truly happy, even delighted, that today we have at least managed to agree on a formula that gives the representatives of the Bloc Québécois and the Leader of the Green Party their say in the matter. Indeed, this formula is in large part a reflection of what we want to accomplish. I hope that everyone will be prepared to work together.

The House is currently debating two issues that are truly fundamental. I am referring to the bill on medical assistance in dying, and the reform of the voting system. In both these cases, we must succeed in establishing a dialogue and finding ground for agreement.

As I was saying, I am absolutely delighted to be part of a team that has pushed for a viable and credible solution for the population, and I thank the Liberals for joining us on this issue.

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, according to Human Rights Watch, Saudi Arabia is currently arming Yemeni forces. These forces, led by General Mohsen, are accused of violating human rights and recruiting child soldiers. We have no guarantee that Canada's armoured vehicles will not end up in the hands of this general, but the government continues to turn a blind eye.

Why are the Liberals rejecting our proposal to create a committee to study arms exports?

[Foreign Affairs, June 2nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, during a press conference yesterday a Canadian journalist was berated by the Chinese foreign minister for asking a question about human rights. While this was happening, the global affairs minister just stood by. Freedom of the press is an important value for Canadians, yet our minister stayed silent.

Will the government stand up for human rights and freedom of the press and join so many Canadians in criticizing the behaviour of the Chinese foreign minister?

[Public Safety, May 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it has come to our attention that RCMP officers spied on journalists without authorization. There needs to be an investigation into this.

In the meantime, the Liberals still have not made good on their promise to revisit Bill C-51, which they voted for.

Bill C-51 is an affront to liberty and gives unprecedented powers to our intelligence services without any accountability.

When will the minister keep his promise and take action to respect our civil liberties?

[CBC/Radio Canada, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I hope I was sufficiently clear in my initial presentation.

No one is disputing the fact that certain buildings, in their current state, do not meet CBC/Radio-Canada's needs or the fact that the building in question needs extensive renovations. It is also true that CBC/Radio-Canada is not a real estate company.

The two key issues are social licence. By consulting the community, CBC/Radio-Canada created an advisory board with various local stakeholders. That board's first recommendation was that CBC/Radio-Canada confirm that it would remain in the eastern part of downtown, not just anywhere, but in the eastern part of downtown. That is what the local stakeholders want, and that is CBC/Radio-Canada's moral obligation, in addition to meeting its own commitments. That is absolutely crucial.

Lastly, to come back to the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada's independence, yes, it is independent when it comes to content. However, as we have said ourselves, it is not a real estate agency and any new projects must have cabinet approval.

I therefore hope the government will not be satisfied with simply following this file; I hope it will show real leadership.

[CBC/Radio Canada, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Laurier—Saint-Marie are very concerned at the moment about what is going to become of the Radio-Canada tower and facilities in the proud Centre-Sud neighbourhood.

We all know that the situation is different now. We have new technology, and things change. Radio-Canada has to adapt. However, that does not necessarily mean it should liquidate its assets at fire sale prices or get out of the neighbourhood. When Radio-Canada set up shop in what was known as the Faubourg à m'lasse some 50 years ago, it completely destroyed a neighbourhood.

The people of Centre-Sud are resilient, and they adapted to the new reality. They built their lives around that reality. If Radio-Canada were to leave, everything those people have bravely built over the past five decades would be laid to waste once again.

Radio-Canada's departure would have a huge impact on local merchants, particularly those on Sainte-Catherine and in the area known as Cité des ondes, or media city, which is home to CBC/Radio-Canada, TVA, LCN, and CTV. They are all located in that same area, just steps away from one another. The area has a unique vitality that must be protected.

As I already said, the corporation must adapt to new realities, and no one is disputing that. However, it must also consider the broader context that I just outlined. It must consider the needs of a neighbourhood that is bravely facing many challenges. Above all, CBC/Radio-Canada must consider its own commitments. When the corporation sat down with the City of Montreal in 2009, it said that it would not move. They developed an agreement with some very interesting points. There is nothing to say about that. The entire agreement is based on the fact that CBC/Radio-Canada planned to stay in the same location. Now, there are rumours. We do not have access to the minutes of the board of directors' meetings. Many rumours are circulating and people are worried.

When I asked the minister the question in the House, she answered that the government would remain at arm's length from CBC/Radio-Canada. I do not agree with that. There can be no meddling with the content broadcast by CBC/Radio-Canada. However, when it comes to selling a building of such great significance in this part of Montreal, we must remember section 48 of the Broadcasting Act, whereby CBC/Radio-Canada cannot sell a building valued at more than $4 million without the approval of the Governor in Council, meaning cabinet and the minister. The minister cannot wash her hands of this issue and allow CBC/Radio-Canada to decide on its own. She must take a stance on this matter.

[Foreign Affairs, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Foreign Affairs said that he would cancel the export permits of military equipment to Saudi Arabia if there were new revelations of human rights abuses. But yesterday, the Prime Minister basically said there will be no cancellations. This is about human rights. This is about Canada's international commitments. The question is simple: Who should Canadians believe?

[Foreign Affairs, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's messaging around selling weapons to Saudi Arabia is really disturbing.

We have a video that clearly shows the kind of armoured vehicle we are going to sell to Saudi Arabia being used as we speak to crush the civilian population. The minister said that we are not selling those particular armoured vehicles and that we have not yet sold any to Saudi Arabia. That is not very convincing. He also said that there was an element of risk in the contract, but that it was a calculated risk.

Can the minister tell us how many dead civilians it will take for him to recalculate? What number would that be?