Debates of March 26th, 2013

Foreign Affairs

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening with the opportunity to once again remind the member of Canada's principled Middle East policy, which is not immoral, as he wrongly implies. In fact, Canadians can be proud of our government's principled policy and, as the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated in his original response to the question, Canada has been and remains “...a strong supporter of the peace process”.

Our position is well known, and it is the same as it has always been. We are committed to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East whereby two states live side by side in peace and security. We have been clear that all unilateral actions are ultimately unhelpful to the cause of peace. This of course includes the Palestinian Authority's provocative action and rhetoric at the UN General Assembly, which would obviously elicit a response from Israel.

The hon. member implies that we do not support the Palestinian society. Again, I remind him of the minister's response to this exact question. We are delivering on our commitment to provide assistance, with $300 million geared toward supporting the security and justice sectors, sustainable economic development and humanitarian needs. This assistance has been well received not only by the Palestinian Authority but also by Israel and the United States.

Canada's position has been consistent and it has been clear. We continue to believe that the final status issues are to be resolved between the two parties. We continue to urge the two parties to return to negotiations without pre-conditions.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a recent statement from the Minister of Foreign Affairs was shocking, to say the least. At the most recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee held in early March, the minister said that the Palestinian authority could face serious consequences, specifically a possible end to aid delivered by Canada, if it files a legal complaint against Israel before the International Criminal Court regarding disputed territories in the West Bank.

It is completely appalling that a cabinet minister would threaten to punish the weakest party in a conflict, the Palestinians, simply because they ask the ICC to examine the status of the Israeli settlements and give a ruling.

Can the government also tell us why it is threatening the Palestinian authority if it turns to the International Criminal Court—a body created by the international community to protect civilians from war crimes—on the issue of Israeli settlements?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I actually attended that conference and heard the minister's speech. I can assure the member that no such threat was made. However, I must reject the premise of the member's question.

Our government's position is clear. The only way to achieve a just and lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the parties. Unilateral actions on either side are unhelpful to the peace process, and we have conveyed this to both parties. Canada is maintaining its $300 million in assistance to the Palestinian authority, but we will not recognize a Palestinian state prior to a negotiated peace agreement with Israel.

We continue to be committed to a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East whereby two states live side by side in peace and security.

As the Minister of Foreign Affairs noted in his speech to the UN General Assembly on November 29 of last year, the importance of a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and has been a consistent theme for the last 45 years.

I can assure the member that Canada remains committed to this path.

Public Safety

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening I have chosen to share with the House what I would do if I had the honour of having the Minister of Public Safety's job, which is permitted during the adjournment proceedings pursuant to the Standing Orders.

If I truly wanted to fight crime and help victims, as the Minister of Public Safety often says he does, I would design crime legislation accordingly. However, I would not offload the costs onto the provinces and territories. I would take on those costs. I would do the calculations to figure out the best crime laws to provide enough control over criminals and protect victims while avoiding exorbitant costs for the territories and provinces.

I would not abolish the police officer recruitment fund, a $400-million fund that I personally created in 2008 and that I would renew on March 31, 2013, for five years, for all of Canada. I would also explain why this fund is so important. It is responsible for the creation of many specialized and joint squads.

For example, for the City of Quebec, this fund represents an investment in the fight against street gangs. In Montreal, an investment of $37.5 million over five years, taken out of that $400 million, helped create the Eclipse squad, which is a squad of 46 specially trained officers who combat criminal groups—such as the mafia, biker gangs and street gangs—and violent crime.

This group focuses primarily on criminal profiling, not racial profiling, of those involved in organized and violent crime. The officers work in close collaboration with investigators. They have a thorough knowledge of the city and the crime-ridden areas where street gangs operate. Their presence alone has a major preventive impact on public safety in Montreal, particularly in the downtown core. They have built a strong relationship with bar owners. Quebec's bar owners' union is calling for the Eclipse squad to be maintained because it offers support in various areas of the city as well as to regional teams.

For example, in 2012, I would have been proud to say that Eclipse made 540 arrests, including two for murder, and carried out 42 weapons seizures. My money, the public money that I invested in public safety, made a difference. It is not surprising that the Quebec National Assembly, Montreal police, the City of Montreal and the municipalities are calling for the Police Officers Recruitment Fund to be maintained. I would never have abolished it. That would have been a very serious mistake for public safety in Canada.

I think that would have been a terrible message to send to criminals because it would be like saying it is recess time. I cut funding and they can commit their crimes.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

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.

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the invitation to join her party, but unfortunately this is just a moment in an adjournment debate, and her government would have to change many things before I agreed to join it.

That said, I want to assure the hon. member that I understand the government considered this fund temporary. Still, if I were the Minister of Public Safety, I would use my own judgment. If I were creating laws with the intent to put the maximum number of people in prison, I would expect a lot of police officers would be needed to arrest those people.

This magical thinking has to stop. Making laws, dumping the costs onto the provinces, and believing that they will be able to cover all the expenses is ridiculous.

We are the people who make the laws. If we were in the United States where each state makes its own criminal laws, I might understand. But that is not the way it is.

Thus, I invite the Conservatives to reconsider their decision. Of that $37.5 million, four cybercrime sources made it possible to arrest Magnotta, a revolting serial killer from Quebec.

Anonymous, for example, was also being closely watched by the cyberpolice. We must not cut out the things that work.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

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.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 8:10 p.m.)