Candice Bergen

[Combating Terrorism Act, April 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill S-7, the combatting terrorism act.

As the world unfortunately witnessed last week, terrorism is still a very real evil threat that continues to threaten the world. The horrific bomb blast at the Boston Marathon and the terrifying aftermath that crippled the city have again demonstrated what terrorists strive for, which is the deliberate infliction of death or suffering upon innocent people to further some misguided cause. These horrendous acts of violence must stop, and the perpetrators who commit them must be punished to the furthest extent of the law.

It is precisely to prevent the scourge of terrorism from wreaking havoc in Canada that all members of the House need to stand together and support the enactment of Bill S-7.

The enactment of Bill S-7 would bring back the investigative hearing, which is a procedure whereby a peace officer may apply to a judge for an order for a person to attend before the judge and be questioned in order to gather information or to produce a thing before the judge. The order can only be made where the judge is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorism offence has been or will be committed. Thus, it applies to past as well as future terrorism offences.

This power contains numerous safeguards, such as the right to counsel and strong protections against self-incrimination. The bill adds safeguards that are not present in the original legislation. One of the key new safeguards is that in all cases, before granting the order to gather information, the judge must be satisfied that reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the information by other means. This is an important safeguard.

Bill S-7 also proposes to re-enact the recognizance with conditions. This is intended to disrupt terrorist activity from occurring. This provision would allow a peace officer, who believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be committed and suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person is necessary to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity, to go before a judge to have the judge compel the person to attend before him or her. At a hearing the judge then determines whether to impose the recognizance on the person. This tool is a modified variant of other peace bond provisions found elsewhere in the Criminal Code.

The bill also proposes to create new terrorism offences that are designed to focus on the problem of Canadians going abroad to commit terrorism outside Canada. Unfortunately, we are all too aware in recent months of examples of such heinous behaviour.

Bill S-7 proposes to create four new terrorism offences to help address this issue. These are the following: leaving or attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of knowingly participating in or contributing to any activity of a terrorist group, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of any terrorist group to facilitate or carry out terrorist activity; knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity; committing an indictable offence for the benefit of, at the direction of or in association with a terrorist group; and committing an indictable offence that constitutes a terrorist activity.

These are very important new laws that need to come into place, as we have seen what has gone on over the last week in Boston as well as even here at home. These are really important amendments that need to happen. Bill S-7 would bring these amendments forward.

These new measures are intended to prevent a person from leaving the country to participate in certain terrorism offences. It would make more robust the legal authority to arrest and prosecute a person who has left Canada or who is attempting to leave Canada for the purpose of, for example, attending a terrorist training camp.

Communities are asking us for this. Communities across the country are concerned when young people are being radicalized and leaving the country for this purpose. They want Canada to have strong laws in place to stop this. We really appreciate the fact that communities are working together with us.

The penalties for these offences would send a strong signal that leaving the country to engage in terrorist activity is unacceptable.

Bill S-7 also proposes amendments to fulfill parliamentary recommendations that were made following a parliamentary review of the Anti-Terrorism Act, and amendments to the Canada Evidence Act that are proposed in order to bring the act in line with court rulings. The provisions in Bill S-7 have been drafted with due regard for the Constitution of Canada. For example, the new terrorism offences found in the bill have stringent requirements, such as proof as purpose to do wrong.

The investigative hearing and the recognizance with conditions have several due process guarantees built into them and require annual reporting on their use by all governments, federal and provincial. As well, Bill S-7 requires Parliament to review the investigative hearings and the recognizance with conditions. We can see that there are strong and numerous safeguards built into this important piece of legislation.

In closing, I would like to express my deepest condolences to all of those who have suffered as a result of the despicable acts that occurred in Boston this last week. I hope, as I know all members of the House hope, that Canada will never have to suffer as Boston as suffered over the last week. We can only hope, though, that if such a terrible event were to happen in Canada, or if Canada were to become a target of terrorism, we would act as Bostonians have, with great courage and great resolution.

The way that the city has come together has been an inspiration for all of us. They have shown the world that fear would not define them. I would hope that Canadians, if such a thing would happen, would do the same thing. I would like to commend the Bostonians and honour them for what they have done, as a city and as our American neighbours.

At the same time, I would like to say that it is so important to ensure that Canada has the necessary laws and tools to prevent such a heinous attack. We want to make sure we are fully prepared and that we can combat terrorism and possible future terrorist acts, as well as making sure that anyone who has been involved in terrorist acts in Canada is dealt with. We have to ensure that the evildoers are met with the justice that they deserve. Otherwise, we as parliamentarians have failed our most basic duty, and that is to protect Canadians.

Therefore, I urge all members of the House to support the immediate and long overdue enactments of this important bill.

[Business of Supply, April 19th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, after hearing both of my colleagues' questions and responses to the issue of real matrimonial property rights for women on reserve, I am trying to understand the logic behind their opposition to it.

We have consulted with first nations groups and leaders on this but, more importantly, an individual's right to property is a basic human right. If we were talking about the right to be free from violence or to be free to worship on a reserve in any way anyone wants to worship, I do not think there would be opposition to those basic rights by the members. Both of these men would not have this problem if they were living on a reserve. It is only women on reserve who suffer from this draconian and very old law. There is no way to explain away this kind of law.

I cannot ask the member for Timmins—James Bay, but I can ask the member for Winnipeg North to please tell me why this basic fundamental right that every Canadian enjoys, that he and I enjoy, such as the basic right to property, as well as the basic rights to be free from violence and to worship in the way people want, is something he wants to continue to talk about and not actually act on.

[Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, March 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, when the leader of the NDP went to Washington, in between talking down Canada he managed to find time to have dinner with a man convicted of shooting a police officer. This individual shot Terrence Knox, a Chicago police officer, three times, leaving him permanently paralyzed.

The leader of the NDP seems to put a higher priority on bringing this dangerous and violent criminal to Canada than he does on creating high-paying jobs for Canadians. The leader of the NDP has been clear that bringing dangerous criminals to Canada is one of the values that guide him in what he does.

However, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has been somewhat silent on this matter. Does the public safety critic for the NDP agree with his leader that a convicted criminal who shot a front-line officer should be imported to Canada? I would encourage the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca to stand up for victims by standing up to his leader and condemning this irresponsible NDP decision to support a violent criminal.

[Aerospace Industry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's aerospace industry is anchoring thousands of high-skill jobs across our country.

Our government knows that innovation, ideas and ingenuity are what will matter in tomorrow's economy. Innovation is the best way for high-wage economies like ours to compete with countries around the world and to create jobs here at home.

Economic action plan 2013 demonstrates the government's commitment to encouraging innovation in the aerospace and space industries, with stable funding of nearly $1 billion over five years to the strategic aerospace and defence initiative, the creation of an aerospace technology demonstration program and the launch of consultations for the creation of a national aerospace research and technology network.

We are supporting this important industry and we will continue to do so.

[Aerospace Industry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to respond to my hon. colleague's question regarding our government's support for the aerospace industry.

Canada's aerospace industry is a world leader. Our aerospace productivity growth outpaced the rest of the G7 over the last 10 years, and the industry as a whole has an enviable reputation, with acknowledged leadership in business and regional aircraft, small gas turbine engines, flight simulators, civil helicopters, aircraft landing gear and environmental control systems.

The industry contributes over $11 billion to the economy as well as another $14 billion from indirect and induced work. Its cutting-edge work supports 160,000 Canadian jobs.

Our government puts a high priority on the aerospace sector. Just last week, economic action plan 2013 provided close to $1 billion for the strategic aerospace and defence initiative and established a new aerospace technology demonstration program. The government is also committed to consulting stakeholders on the establishment of a national aerospace research and technology network.

Our government is continuing to study the report's findings and will take action over the coming year to improve the focus and coordination of programs and practices relevant to the aerospace and space industries.

These initiatives are in addition to broader measures outlined in Canada's economic action plan 2013 that are helping manufacturers and businesses across Canada succeed in the global economy, including tax relief for new manufacturing machinery and equipment, support for skills development and training, and investment in leading-edge research infrastructure, to name just a few.

These investments benefit the whole economy, including the aerospace industry, which is a Canadian manufacturing and research and development leader. We are very proud to continue the support that we have been giving to our aerospace sector.

[Firearms Registry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member does understand the licensing process, and I appreciate his comments on that.

I would challenge him to bring any evidence forward that shows the registry portion of the firearms control program that was previously established in Canada has or had any effect on stopping one single crime.

The logic behind thinking that we can somehow stop a crime if we count the guns of law-abiding gun owners is completely flawed. It is impossible. That is why we committed to ending the long-gun registry, and we had the support of the Canadian people. We destroyed the data outside of Quebec. If Quebec wants to set up its own registry, it is absolutely free to do so, but we will not be supporting it.

[Firearms Registry, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to answer the member's question, and to once again highlight our government's commitment to law-abiding long-gun owners in Canada.

For far too long, law-abiding gun owners in Canada who were licensed to own firearms and use firearms for legitimate purposes throughout the country in rural areas, including in rural areas of Quebec, have been targeted. They were targeted by a wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The long-gun registry cost $2 billion to set up, as reported by the CBC. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever, nor is there any testimony from front-line police officers, that the long-gun registry has or had any ability to stop any kind of crime, much less violent gun crime. There are a number of reasons for that. Primarily, the data contained in the database of the long-gun registry was completely inaccurate. Only half of the firearms in Canada were actually in the database of the long-gun registry, because not every long gun was registered.

Therefore, police officers could not rely on the data. They testified numerous times in committee meetings regarding the bill that the government and I introduced to end the long-gun registry. I was at every committee meeting and I heard from front-line officers over and over again who said they could never count on the data. If they went on a call and the data said there were no firearms there, they knew they had to make sure to check, because many times the data was inaccurate.

We had a commitment that we made to the Canadian people and to long gun owners in Canada. We fulfilled that commitment. We scrapped the long-gun registry and we destroyed the data.

Certainly, if Quebec wants to set up its own gun registry, it is free to do that. However, I would suggest that in this time of the fiscal restraint it is going to cost millions of dollars, if not billions, to do so. It will do nothing to stop violent crime. It does nothing to end suicide, and it does not stop violence.

The measure we have in place with regard to gun control in Canada is the licensing mechanism. It may be that my hon. colleague does not understand the difference. Licensing means individuals go through a background check and a mental health check. Many times their spouses are consulted to see if they can legitimately, legally and safely own a firearm. That is where we have the ability to stop people from getting guns.

The majority of people who get guns illegally are doing so because they are involved in gangs, drugs and organized crime. That is where we have introduced legislation to get tough on organized crime and introduce mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes. Unfortunately, the member and his party do not support any of those measures.

We will continue to stand up for law-abiding gun owners. There is only one party in the House that consistently stands up for long gun owners, because we know the NDP would reintroduce the long-gun registry, and that is the Conservative Party.

[Regional Economic Development, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to ensuring that Canada's vast mineral wealth be developed as a vital part of our national economy. I want to highlight the Ring of Fire, which will be at the forefront of a mining renaissance in our country.

The Ring of Fire has the potential to create over 5,000 direct and indirect jobs in northern Ontario alone, plus significant spinoff benefits throughout the province. That is why our economic action plan 2013 and our Harper government has committed to $4.4 million over three years for initiatives like a Ring of Fire capacity-building initiative through FedNor.

Clearly, we are committed to the people of northern Ontario.

[Regional Economic Development, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad for this opportunity to address the member's question and to once again highlight the fine work our Conservative government has done and continues to do in northern Ontario.

We recognize the importance of having the tools in place to address the economic development needs of local communities and businesses. We are focused on investing in initiatives that build on regional strengths and capitalize on opportunities to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.

I am proud to report that our Conservative government, through FedNor, has invested more than $346 million toward more than 1,500 projects in northern Ontario, and we do not have to look very far to see the results of our investments.

In the city of Elliot Lake, the impact of the Algo Centre Mall collapse last year was deeply felt by the entire community, including local businesses. It forced the relocation of 30 businesses and affected more than 195 jobs. The need for infrastructure investment in this community was real and urgent. I am very proud of our government's response.

With an investment of $1 million, we helped the community to prepare and service a seven-acre parcel of land that will be the site of a new 80,000-square-foot retail centre. This investment, expected to attract approximately $10 million in additional private sector funding to the region, makes good economic sense. It also serves as one example to highlight our government's ongoing commitment to help communities build the infrastructure they need to grow their economy and create jobs.

Our Conservative government is committed to supporting economic growth and job creation in northern Ontario, and we will continue to do this through our economic action plan and through the efforts of organizations like FedNor.

[Public Safety, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the support she is now showing for our Conservative government's initiatives, like the police officer recruitment fund. She has now realized that we have introduced and carried forward some very good initiatives to support our police officers and crime prevention to make sure that criminals are in jail and our communities and streets are safe. I would suggest that she begin to support those initiatives before the fact, not after the fact when it becomes politically expedient.

We continue to have strong support for law enforcement across the country. Our caucus is filled with former and current police officers, something that nobody in the opposition can say. The Conservative agenda has to do with keeping our communities safe.

It is great to have the support of the member after the fact. The police officer recruitment fund was temporary. We encourage her to support all of our initiatives today.