Candice Bergen

[Public Safety, March 26th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to this side of the House. It might be a foreshadowing of things to come. I am not sure about that. It might be that she is joining the good side over here.

I appreciate the member's question. However, here are the facts. Our government has consistently supported our front-line police officers and the ability they have to keep our streets and communities safer. Unfortunately, the member and her party consistently vote against our initiatives.

However, that did not stop us. One of the initiatives we took and the member referred to is the police officer recruitment fund, which our government provided to the provinces. The provinces are responsible for policing. That is a provincial jurisdiction. I would think my hon. colleague would be sensitive to that issue and would support the provincial jurisdiction that is given to the provinces with regard to policing.

Nevertheless, we believe that providing the $400 million to the provinces to use to recruit new police officers was part of our responsibility and mandate, and a priority for our Conservative government. As we heard from Tom Stamatakis, the president of the Canadian Police Association, the chiefs of police and the provincial leaders, it was clear from the beginning that this was and is a temporary fund. Numerous provinces used it in the way they wanted. Montreal seized the opportunity and used it to create a specialized street gang unit. I would think that we could be very proud of what they did. However, when it went into this agreement they knew that it was temporary.

Our record shows we have injected funds to help prevent and fight crime. Since 2008, we have refocused on the national crime prevention strategy to ensure it would yield measurable results for Canadians. We have supported no less than 40 community-based prevention projects in Montreal. These projects represent an investment of $23.4 million over that five-year period. The opposition and this member again voted against it.

Therefore, I find it somewhat disingenuous and would ask my hon. colleague to explain why the opposition is complaining after the fact. Across the country every police organization and every province knew that the $400 million from our Conservative government, which the opposition members did not support, was temporary. We told the provinces what it was and they used it, as is their responsibility, and we were pleased with the way they used it. It seems like the opposition is trying to make political hay out of something that nobody else is looking to have a fight about.

[Public Safety, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, armchair quarterbacks are usually not the best quarterbacks, but it is easy after the fact to make these observations.

I want to assure the hon. member that whatever the allegations against Mr. Porter, they do not relate to his work as a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Nevertheless, the government has taken steps to strengthen the screening process. That is an important part of the work the government has done and continues to do. The measures we have taken and put in place are further safeguards to ensure the continued protection of confidential government information.

I appreciate the hon. member's comments with regard to Chuck Strahl. I agree with her. He is and will continue to be a great leader of that organization.

I appreciate the hon. member's contributions in so many ways. As a government, we need to look at what we have done and will continue to do to build on our strengths and ensure that anything we have missed continues to be accounted for.

[Public Safety, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her interest in this. I want to assure the member that the allegations relating to Mr. Porter have absolutely nothing to do with the work he did as a member of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. There has been no suggestion whatsoever of any improper handling or disclosure of confidential information.

Prior to his appointment, Mr. Porter was subject to a series of security background checks coordinated by officials from the Privy Council Office. These checks were robust and included police, security and financial records. The government consulted with both the leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of the Liberal Party. As the member is aware, Mr. Porter offered his resignation in 2011 and the government accepted it.

The allegations that Mr. Porter is currently facing do not have anything to do with his former responsibilities. The government has taken this opportunity, however, to strengthen the screening process as we feel that is important. Prospective Security Intelligence Review Committee members are now vetted in the same way as all other government officials who require access to highly-sensitive information through a clearance conducted by CSIS, in addition to a pre-appointment background check. This includes consideration of people with whom the prospective members are closely associated and connected with.

Importantly, CSIS does not assess individuals' qualifications to serve as members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee, also called SIRC, only their loyalty to Canada and their reliability. In addition, as part of new procedures, CSIS provides the results of its checks to the Privy Council Office, which, in consultation with the government, retains responsibility for deciding whether to appoint the individual. In this way, the independence of SIRC is preserved, which is incredibly important for all of us.

As the hon. member may know, in June 2012 the government appointed Chuck Strahl to replace Mr. Porter as chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Mr. Strahl was subject to these new security measures.

We believe the steps we have taken in this matter have strengthened the screening process. They ensure the continued robustness and integrity of the process, as well as the protection of confidential government information.

[The Budget, March 25th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Cranbrook for his comments. Some of my family members live in Cranbrook, and he has done an excellent job in representing the people of that community and that area.

I appreciate so much the comments that he made about the budget, especially regarding jobs and growth. One of the things that the chambers of commerce across the country have recognized is the lack of skilled labour in Canada. That has created a void in many areas. I know that even in Manitoba, there has been an issue regarding skilled labour. Could the member comment on our new program to link individuals who need training with the jobs that are available? Also, I wonder if he could talk about the importance of training people in Canada for the jobs that are available.

[Government Appointments, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Porter has resigned, and the responsibilities that he held have nothing to do with the allegations that he is being charged with.

If we are going to talk about individuals who sat on the SIRC committee and who made donations, why do we not talk about donations that were made to the New Democratic Party by the current leader of the Liberal Party who, before he sat on SIRC, made several donations to the NDP?

[Government Appointments, March 8th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, security clearances have not been relaxed under our Conservative government. In fact, we have introduced more rigorous checks for these types of appointments.

Arthur Porter submitted his resignation some time ago. The responsibilities that he held have nothing to do with the allegations he is facing now.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 8th, 2013]

Now the Liberals are calling for us to build new prisons, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if they know what they want.

The fact is that our prison systems are working to help aboriginal women. We are a leader. Correctional Service of Canada is a leader in terms of the services we are providing for aboriginal women who are serving sentences.

We need to look at the whole issue of why women are getting involved and becoming criminals. I think they are in a vulnerable stage. When the opposition is not supporting Bill S-2, which empowers women on reserve, it is not helping aboriginal women.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this government has stood for aboriginal victims and victims across this country in an unprecedented manner.

However, if that member and that party want to protect women on reserve, they need to support Bill S-2, which would empower women and let them have the matrimonial rights they are entitled to. It would empower them when they were at risk for violence.

On this side of the House, we actually act to protect women. We do not just talk about it.

[Office of the Correctional Investigator, March 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 193 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, I am pleased to table a report of the Office of the Correctional Investigator entitled “Spirit Matters: Aboriginal People and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act”, in both official languages.

[Public Safety, March 1st, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, we have met with Ms. Dion several times. We are very sympathetic and we are disturbed by what she has had to deal with. We are very concerned about an individual convicted of a very serious crime returning to the same area where the victim lives.

Our government will be bringing forward a victims' bill of rights, which is something no other government has done, as part of our plan for safe streets and communities. This is one of the four priorities set out by the Prime Minister, but it is not even talked about by that party. We have taken strong action to protect victims and to put victims first. We ask the NDP to support us, but we know that will not happen.