Shelly Glover

[National Aboriginal Day, June 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as a proud Métis woman, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to mention that on Sunday, June 21, Canadians are invited to celebrate National Aboriginal Day.

It is an opportunity for the Inuit, the Métis, and members of first nations to express their deep pride in their heritage and their successes.

On that day, I will pay tribute to Louis Riel, the passionate Métis leader and founder of the province of Manitoba, and to the Métis people, who have learned to live together in a bilingual and multicultural society as they inspire us by their diversity.

I would also like to thank and congratulate APTN, a television network created by and for aboriginal people, and the Union nationale métisse Saint-Joseph du Manitoba and its president, Gabriel Dufault, for the excellent work they do with francophone Métis people.

As Canadians explore the rich, diverse cultures of the Inuit, the Métis and the first nations, barriers fall and friendships are formed.

National Aboriginal Day is for all Canadians. Join in the celebration. Meegwetch.

[June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will reiterate that the actions taken by the hon. member, when she stands on this issue, do suggest that our police agencies and other stakeholders invested in this are not taking this seriously when we are taking it very seriously.

Our government has done other things to make sure that the commitment to our aboriginal women is taken seriously. For example, in our economic action plan we announced $400 million over two years for new housing projects and remediation of existing housing on first nations reserves. We also announced $200 million over two years in support of housing in the north.

Our government has also been working with aboriginal organizations to address the many challenges in the lives of aboriginal women. We will continue this work. We expect some support on that side of the House, for not only the work we do but the work the police officers are doing and the other stakeholders, who tell us time and time again they appreciate what we have done.

[June 10th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, it is a key priority of our government to address violence against all women, and in particular, aboriginal women, who experience both a higher rate and more serious forms of violence than non-aboriginal women.

I have to add here that my hon. colleague brings this up time and time again. I am an aboriginal Métis woman. I have worked on these specific files regarding missing aboriginal women. I trust our police agencies, who are working diligently, day in and day out, to make sure that they uncover every single clue that will lead to the discovery of why they are going missing.

It is offensive to me and to many police agencies to hear the Liberal representative continue to say that they do not do anything, that they are not investigating, and that the Liberals do not have faith in them. I want that to be understood here today because this has got to stop. We have got to show our police agencies more respect than this.

As to the question when? As stated repeatedly, we are working right now to address the complex web of issues related to the disappearance and murder of so many aboriginal girls and women in Canada. One of the ways we do that is by providing support to the Native Women's Association of Canada for the Sisters in Spirit initiative, which is a collaborative, multi-departmental endeavour.

Now in its fifth year, Sisters in Spirit is a $5 million initiative that has been laying the foundation to address the roots of violence against aboriginal girls and women, specifically by improving education and employment outcomes; reducing poverty; providing safe, appropriate housing; working to eliminate homelessness; and improving access to justice.

Governments are working together and sharing best practices to improve the lives of aboriginal women and girls both on and off reserve.

Police forces across Canada are sharing their resources and their experience to put an end to the family, sexual and racial violence that threaten the lives of so many aboriginal women and weaken Canada's social fabric. Their goal is to improve investigation and intervention services and models.

Status of Women Canada is an active member of federal-provincial-territorial subcommittees on healing and subcommittees on missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Together with its partners, Justice Canada is working hard to improve the way the criminal justice system deals with cases involving missing and murdered aboriginal women.

Status of Women has also provided funding to address the unique issues facing aboriginal women. In 2008-09, Status of Women provided over $3.2 million in funding to projects that directly impact aboriginal women. This funding builds on the 2007-08 Status of Women funding, which saw $14.6 million go to projects helping aboriginal women.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the solution to the problem of missing and murdered aboriginal women, and to the more generalized problem of violence against women, lies in the achievement of equality for women.

Let me assure all hon. members in the House that the government is committed to achieving that goal, and I, as a former police officer and a Métis woman, will stand up every single time that the opposition members bring this up to negate what they are saying, and to support our police agencies and all of the partner stakeholders who are definitely invested in this, which includes our government.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his question and for his comments about my service with the police.

I just want to mention that my colleague's question relates to crimes. What this bill is trying to do is prevent acts from occurring. They are not crimes that necessarily have been committed. We are trying to provide tools to investigate the potential that acts of terrorism are going to occur.

Our police officers at this point do not have the powers that we are attempting to provide to them through this bill. They do not have the ability to question people under what we are now calling the recognizance with conditions and those types of things. We want to provide them those tools so that we can safeguard national security.

It is not about charging people and referring to charges that are already in existence in the Criminal Code. It is about prevention. It is about using tools so that we can ensure the national security that we all care tremendously about.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question.

Our government realizes that everything that is done is not always perfect. Everyone in the world knows that it is impossible to be perfect at all times. There will always be exceptions. We are not saying here that we are perfect or that our police officers, lawyers and all those involved in the legal process are perfect. It is impossible for everything to be perfect. We know some mistakes will be made.

I was a police officer for nearly 19 years. I made mistakes. Sometimes I also suspected something else. Nevertheless, there has to be some prevention of terrorist acts. These are very serious acts, and I hope my colleague will take that into consideration when he votes.

[Criminal Code, June 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to note that I will be sharing my time with the member for Northumberland—Quinte West.

I am very pleased to rise in my place today to speak in support of Bill C-19. It seeks to re-enact the investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions provisions in the Criminal Code. The bill is almost identical to former Bill S-3, which died on the order paper at second reading before the House in a previous Parliament.

I will start by quickly explaining what investigative hearing and recognizance with conditions mean.

The investigative hearing provisions would empower a peace officer investigating a terrorism offence that has been or will be committed to apply to a judge for an order requiring a person who is believed to have information concerning the terrorism offence to appear before a judge or produce a thing. The peace officer would have to have the prior consent of the relevant attorney general before making such an application. What would be essential to deal with this is an information-gathering order that would apply in respect of a witness, not an accused.

Recognizance with conditions means that, with the prior consent of the Attorney General, a peace officer may lay an information before a provincial court judge if the peace officer believes on reasonable grounds that a terrorist activity will be carried out; and suspects on reasonable grounds that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person, or the arrest of a person, is necessary to prevent the carrying out of the terrorist activity. The judge could then compel that person to attend a hearing before him or any other judge.

As mentioned, a number of arguments have arisen in the past that have been critical especially of the recognizance with conditions provision. I will deal with them one by one.

I would like to address the contention that the recognizance with conditions provision is unnecessary because the Criminal Code already contains other provisions that could be used to prevent the carrying out of a terrorist activity, especially sections 495, 810 and 810.01 of the Criminal Code.

Section 495. (1)(a) states that a peace officer may arrest without warrant a person who, on reasonable grounds, he believes is about to commit a serious indictable offence. In addition, sections 810 and 810.01 apply when any person fears on reasonable grounds that another person will cause personal injury or commit a criminal organization offence or a terrorism offence. These sections empower the judge to order that the individual enter into a recognizance with conditions.

These provisions all focus on someone who it is reasonably believed is either about to or will commit a crime. They do not encompass any other person and so are very narrow in scope. On the other hand, the recognizance with conditions provision would apply to situations where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be committed and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the imposition of a recognizance with conditions on a person is necessary to prevent the commission of a terrorist activity.

In other words, the police may have reasonable grounds to believe that a terrorist activity will be committed but would otherwise be unable to take action in relation to a person because the officer lacks, at the point of identifying the threat and the person, the grounds necessary to support the requirement of a belief on reasonable grounds in relation to that particular person. That officer may only have reasonable suspicion. Given the grave nature of the harm posed by terrorist activity, there is a sincere need to be able to act quickly to address the threat.

The provisions relating to recognizance would allow persons to be brought before a judge if there are reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement in terrorist activities. They would also allow a judicial review to prevent the commission of acts of terrorism. This is why the provisions relating to recognizance with conditions are necessary and judicious.

In relation to the investigative hearing, one complaint has been that it takes away a person's right to silence. We have heard the member of the NDP repeat that several times during his dissertation. However, let us not forget that the Supreme Court of Canada held otherwise. In application under section 83.28 of the Criminal Code in 2004, the Supreme Court concluded that the investigative hearing provision did not violate section 7 of the charter.

In fact, the Supreme Court found that a person testifying at an investigative hearing is better protected than any other witness in a criminal trial. This bill also clarifies that the maximum detention for a witness arrested to ensure appearance at an investigative hearing is limited to 90 days, as is the case for witnesses who are detained in relation to a criminal trial under section 707 of the Criminal Code.

The provision relating to recognizance with conditions is in large part based on the Criminal Code provisions on sureties to keep the peace. As I have said, the purpose of the modifications is to make it possible to prevent apprehended acts of terrorism. There are also guarantees, particularly the need to obtain the consent of the Attorney General concerned.

It has also been argued that imposing a recognizance with conditions on a person attaches to that person a stigma of being an alleged terrorist. However, as noted, there are other peace bond provisions in the Criminal Code—for example, where persons are required to enter into peace bonds because it is reasonably believed they will cause personal injury or commit a sexual offence against a young person. These exist today. In these cases, there is no requirement that a criminal charge be laid.

Should these provisions be eliminated on the basis of a stigma possibly attaching to persons even though they have committed no crime? I do not believe that is the case. The government considered the substantive recommendation in the House of Commons subcommittee's interim report to the effect that the investigative hearing power be limited to the investigation of “imminent”, and that word is important, terrorism offences, thereby excluding the possibility of holding an investigative hearing in respect of past terrorism offences. This recommendation was not accepted.

It did not take into account, for example, the possibility of a terrorist group planning a series of terrorist acts following on each other. An investigative hearing related to the first offence, held after the fact—that is, in relation to a terrorism offence that had already been committed—might bring to light certain important information that would make it possible to prevent the other offences from being committed.

I have attempted to address some of the arguments that were previously raised against these provisions. It is my view that these criticisms do not stand up to close scrutiny. The proposed provisions are minimally intrusive and do not present a threat to Canadian values but actually protect them. Therefore, I ask all hon. members in the House to support this bill.

[Nunavut Official Languages Act, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak to the hypocrisy of the Liberal Party and its empty rhetoric on Canada's north.

On Monday, this House spoke with one voice and endorsed a motion recognizing the Nunavut Official Languages Act. This motion is the result of 10 years of consultations on the best ways to preserve the Inuit language and culture.

The motion also recognizes that the Inuit will proudly control their institutions, speak their language and manage their future. This was a historic occasion.

Unfortunately, on Tuesday, unelected and unaccountable Liberal Senators blocked the passage of this step forward for Nunavut. This is a disgrace and members of the Liberal Party should be ashamed of themselves.

Unlike the Liberals, we take the north seriously. We value its place, culture and creed within Canada. With Conservatives, our northern policy is more than just empty lip service. With Conservatives, it is real action.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague for his speech. I also wanted to quote some other people. My colleague quoted some excerpts from studies, and I would also like to quote some before I ask my question.

I am going to quote in English:

We have to send a strong message, especially to high-repeat offenders, which the bulk of them are, that this will not be tolerated, and that if you get caught you're going to get a certain sentence--count on it.

Who said that? Dr. Daryl Plecas from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police research chair and director for the Centre for Criminal Justice Research, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley.

Therefore, there are researchers who are in support and who believe in what we are doing. When my colleague opposite said that if we have minimum sentences, we are going to see a higher rate of recidivism. Most of these drug offenders, according to some of our experts, are already repeat offenders.

We need to protect Canadians from these repeat offenders. We need to do everything in our power to make sure they do not drag our children into a drug world and that they do not drag our children into drug addiction.

That is why I believe strongly in the measures our government is taking. However, I want to ask the member a question.

He said that minimum sentences will not solve the problem of crime. However, doing nothing will not help the situation either.

If my colleague has a magic bullet to solve all the problems of crime, can he share it with us?

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of things before I ask my question. The Bloc Québécois and NDP members were talking about overwhelming evidence, is what the NDP member said, that minimum mandatory sentences backlog the courts, for example. I can assure them that after almost 19 years of policing, we on this side of the House appreciate that there are backlogs. We care more about the safety and security of Canadians. Backlogged courts are a result of, most important, the two-for-one pre-custody credit. We are looking at revoking that. I am hoping that the Bloc and the NDP will support us, given what they have said about this.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague with regard to simple possession of marijuana. There are certain people asking repeatedly if this will apply to simple possession of marijuana. Will they receive a—

[Liberal Party of Canada, May 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when things do not go their way, the Liberals go running for cover. In fact, hypocrisy is at an all-time high with the Liberal Party.

Over the last few months, Canadians have become more and more aware of what the leader of the Liberal Party really thinks of Canada. Most recently, it was revealed that the leader of the Liberal Party called America his country. The leader of the Liberal Party himself said that he was not worried about the 34 years he spent outside of Canada, and yet now the Liberal Party is trying to hide these sad statements.

The Liberals are running for cover and are trying to hide their own leader's statement of calling America his country.

Considering that they want to lead the country one day, why are the Liberals trying to stop Canadians from learning their leader's record?