House of Commons Hansard #111 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was war.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
There are nine motions in amendment standing on the notice paper for report stage of Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and to implement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: a ) the vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motions Nos. 3 and 7; b ) if Motion No. 1 is concurred in, a vote will be necessary on Motion No.4; c ) however if motion No. 1 is negatived, it will be unnecessary to proceed with the vote on Motion No. 4.
Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: Motions Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8 and 9 will be voted on separately.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 to the House.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I read the Chair's decision on the acceptability of certain of the amendments to Bill C-19 I introduced. I find the Chair's decision on two of them questionable and I would ask that it be reviewed.
At issue are the two motions dealing with the schedule. Basically, both amendments are aimed at making sure the complete text of the Rome Statute is incorporated into the schedule to the bill, whereas currently only two articles are incorporated in the bill as it now stands.
These two motions were supposedly found out of order because the amendments went beyond the scope of the bill. I find it difficult to understand how the amendments go beyond the scope of the bill as they are aimed at incorporating the whole statute when some parts of it are already incorporated into the bill.
The true aim of these amendments is to circulate the text of the Rome Statute so that citizens may learn what it is all about when they read the act, as is the case with other implementing acts which include the text of the Geneva conventions, for instance, or of the treaties on antipersonnel mines or the nuclear test ban, which were recently passed by this House.
I urge the Chair to review the decision and rule in order two of the amendments aimed at incorporating the complete text of the Rome Statute in Bill C-19.
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
At this time I would like to take the point of order raised by the member under advisement and we will get back to him on that very soon.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-19, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 19 on page 1 the following:
““Minister”, in relation to any provision of this Act, means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the Governor in Council as the Minister for the purposes of that provision.”
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following new clause:
“3.1 The Governor in Council may, by order, designate any member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada to be the Minister for the purposes of any provision of this Act.”
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 2 the following new clause:
“3.1 The Minister may designate any person to exercise the powers and perform the duties and functions of the Minister under this Act that are specified in the designation and on that designation that person may exercise those powers and shall perform those duties and functions subject to such terms and conditions, if any, as are specified in the designation.”
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 22 the following new clause:
“32.1 The Minister shall prepare an annual report with respect to the implementation of this Act and shall cause a copy of the report to be laid before the House of Commons within three months after the end of each financial year or, if the House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that it is sitting.”
Madam Speaker, we have noticed that some of the clauses which are the subject of the amendments you just read cannot be found in several pieces of legislation recently passed by the House of Commons to implement international conventions.
For example, in the Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act and in the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, it says at the beginning that a particular minister is designated by the governor in council to administer the act and that it is possible for that minister to delegate this responsibility to another minister.
In the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, there is also a provision that was added, at our request, to take into account the way in which Australia fulfilled its obligations under that convention, provision whereby the minister was required to submit an annual report on the application of the act in order to inform the people about how the act was administered and how it allowed the country to fulfil its obligations under the treaty to which it had become a party.
That is the reason why amendments such as these could not only be useful, but could also give more consistency to the various implementation bills this Parliament is called upon to pass so that Canada's international obligations under the treaties to which it becomes a party are fulfilled.
I am calling here for a certain degree of consistency in our treaty implementation legislation, a consistency which is lacking and which the House should reflect upon more deeply since we do not seem to be able to have the same legislative practices whether we are dealing with the anti-personnel mines convention or, in this case, with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
These amendments would improve the bill and give more consistency to our treaty implementation legislation.
David Kilgour LiberalSecretary of State (Latin America and Africa)
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. I know that he is a renowned scholar and that everybody respects his opinions as an international law professor.
The importance of establishing the international criminal court literally cannot be overstated. The court is a legacy of the Nuremberg war trials which came out of the ashes of the Holocaust and the second world war.
We are all aware of the depths of horror that the 20th century brought to millions and millions of our fellow human beings on this planet. There have been forced famines, genocides, mass expulsions, mass rapes, that horrible term ethnic cleansing, and every war crime one could imagine. Those who commit those crimes from now on must be held accountable to humanity. People who do these things must no longer be able to hide anywhere on the face of the earth. In order for the international criminal court to be created, 60 nations must ratify this proposal before December of this year.
Many members of the House have recognized the importance and the urgency of ratifying the international criminal court and actively urge other nations to follow suit.
Human rights NGOs have echoed repeatedly the urgency of passing the bill at committee hearings. I would like to commend in particular the members for Mount Royal, Burnaby—Douglas and our colleague from Mercier for their unequivocal commitment to seeing the establishment of the court and the timely adoption of this bill.
May I also commend the members of the foreign affairs committee and in particular the chair, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, who played a most productive, thoughtful and constructive role at the committee.
The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry is very much aware of that because he was fully involved maybe more than any other member in the committee hearings and he knows that the committee heard a lot of testimony.
It passed 18 amendments as a result of suggestions from members of all parties, including the hon. member's own party. I understand it was a most non-partisan, collaborative and satisfying process such that the chair referred to it in the House the other day. He said, “I should like to take one minute and share an observation with the House. It is often said that in committee time is not given to study bills properly and to amend them. I urge members of the House to have a look at the many amendments which were made to this bill with the co-operation of all members”. The member for Beauharnois—Salaberry expressed his satisfaction with the process calling it “une expérience tout à fait extraordinaire”.
It is therefore a surprise, although it is perfectly proper as the member knows, to see a further 20 amendments at report stage, possibly knowing it would delay passage of the bill while there are only a very critical few days left in the House before adjournment. I would submit that the amendments are either identical or similar to those considered thoroughly at the committee stage, or more relevant to the hon. member's personal interest, the role of parliament in treaty implementation.
Thus, we were surprised on this side of the House to see the hon. member submit so many amendments this morning. It must be clear that the government cannot accept any of these amendments. I must also clarify something: I mentioned that 60 countries must approve the treaty; this is a ratification issue. Sixty countries must ratify the treaty before it can come into effect.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-19 and the various amendments.
This bill is very important for all of us. As has been indicated it relates to the implementation of Canada's obligations under the Rome statute regarding the international criminal court. This bill would certainly make it an offence to commit genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime.
When we look around today we see so many examples of war crimes and atrocities being committed that this is a certainly an area we have to pay strict attention to. Human life is our most valuable resource and asset. We see crimes being committed against humanity, against children, women and quite often innocent bystanders of war. This is an area that we have to seriously look at.
Looking at the background of this situation, it was in July 1998 that 160 nations decided in Rome to establish a permanent international criminal court. This was a big move forward in terms of looking after the interests of mankind and protecting humanity.
The bill deals with the implementation of Canada's obligations and indeed is very important. Canada has been a strong proponent for the establishment of the international criminal court. It has often been suggested that our poor record at home in prosecuting suspected war criminals is something to look at closely.
We certainly support implementing our obligations. With respect to the amendments, I support my hon. colleague from the Bloc Quebecois concerning the necessity of an annual report. I believe that is in Motion No. 7. An annual report is important because it brings about accountability and transparency. It is the record and way of informing the public as to what we are doing on issues. We know how very important annual reports are so we support the motion.
I will not speak to the amendments tabled today because we have not had the opportunity to study them. However, certainly we would support anything that helps or alleviates some of the suffering we see as a result of war crimes, and brings about a fair process to deal with that kind of situation.
As an aside, we talk about war crimes and define them in terms of genocide and various acts and atrocities. In the whole process of war and our involvement, when we send our troops abroad into the battlefield, we have to have a much broader definition of what is criminal, what really can be “criminal” when it comes to how we treat our own people who defend our shores. In a lot of instances we have to draw our attention to what we ourselves do by way of supporting or not supporting our troops when they are on missions.
There is one thing which I think is a very serious “crime”. When a soldier who has dedicated and devoted his life to our country goes off to war and he is concerned about taking a vaccine that could harm him because of problems with that vaccine, he faces a court martial. The individual has to go through the strain, stress and turmoil of a court martial. It places stress on him, his family and others close to him. There are the costs involved. When he is successful and a judge pronounces that something has been done wrong and his rights have been violated, then the government sees fit to institute an appeal against that decision and the individual is put through further turmoil, strife, pain and suffering. This to me is a crime in itself and is something we have to look at.
We cannot talk about being concerned about war crimes and what happens in other parts of the world when here at home we put our own people through what can be truly described as a criminal experience.
With those comments I conclude my remarks. When we look at these things I urge that we truly consider what we are saying and where we are coming from in our own hearts and minds.
Jean Dubé Progressive Conservative Madawaska—Restigouche, NB
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-19, an act respecting genocide, crimes against humanity and ward crimes.
The Progressive Conservative Party supports and applauds this excellent initiative by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
First of all, I should like to congratulate the members of the standing committee on foreign affairs, who all worked together on this initiative without any needless party politics. Moreover, the committee report was tabled this week and all members are, I believe, pleased with the way it has turned out.
Much can be said about this bill. I believe it would be advisable to review the main thrust of Bill C-19.
The purpose of Bill C-19 is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICC, on July 17, 1998. In order to have a clear understanding of this bill, it is important to first of all have a clear understanding of the objective and scope of the Rome Statute.
The Statute was approved in July 1998 by 120 countries and will come into existence after ratification by the parliaments of 60 states. The ICC will be the first permanent international instance mandated to investigate the most serious of crimes under international law: genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
I am proud. It was high time for Canada to show some leadership by ensuring that the authors of these horrible crimes are charged and punished. With so many lives lost, the international community should work together in order to do something.
With Bill C-19 Canada joins forces with the numerous countries, which are taking the necessary steps to integrate the Rome Statute with their national legislation. Although nine states have already ratified the Statute, it is a source of pride to the Progressive Conservatives Party that Canada is one of the first to enact legislation to implement the Rome Statute.
According to the Department of Justice there are presently in Canada 400 people that are deemed to have been involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
It is totally unacceptable that those war criminals could quietly live as if nothing had happened. Canada does not want to be recognized as a haven for war criminals.
The clock was ticking. The international community had to get together to develop a permanent organization having all the powers to fulfil it's obligations. We could not ignore the atrocities committed in some countries under the guise of war any more. It was too easy, and unfortunately, the previous system of ad hoc tribunals was not very efficient. Being a permanent organization, the ICC will be able to fulfil its mandate.
Clause 4 of the bill states that every person who commits genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime is guilty of an indictable offence. The definition of those three terms is based on sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute.
It is an addition to the criminal code since every person convicted of one of these offences is sentenced to life emprisonement if their crime was intentional. In all other cases, that person is liable to life imprisonment.
These measures would apply to offences committed in Canada and would allow the government to bring an action against the perpetrators or to extradite them so that they can be judged by the ICC. As I have already said, it is a real improvement because it was very difficult for the Department of Justice to prosecute war criminals who had found refuge in Canada because of the court's decision in the Finta case that we have already talked about.
There is however an element on which I would like to come back, and it is the defence argument of obedience to the orders of a superior. It will be remembered that in his client's defence, Mr. Finta's lawyer argued correctly that, under the criminal code, the defence of obedience to a superior's orders was available to members of the military or police forces.
From now on this kind of defence will no longer be available, except under international law. These provisions were necessary.
Another feature of the bill is its retroactivity. Some expressed reservations about this. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the minister and the committee on their work. In most cases, the events in question occurred as far back as the second world war or during conflicts prior to the signing of the Rome Statute.
One must be realistic. Since most of the events date back more than 50 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find the individuals who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity, especially under the nazi regime. Moreover, justice department officials had difficulty finding witnesses to those events to justify the extradition. If the bill had not applied retroactively, it would not have made sense.
Bill C-19 is fairly complete, as it gives jurisdiction to Canadian courts in the case of offences committed outside Canada through clause 8. This clause also recognizes that Canadian courts have the authority to prosecute any person charged with having committed specific acts, providing one of the conditions listed exists.
With respect to Bill C-19, Canada now has an obligation to surrender people caught by the ICC for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. I could say a lot more about the need for such a bill, but in conclusion I will mention that victims of war have suffered terrible ordeals, and through Bill C-19 Canada takes the position that no war criminal is safe or welcome within our borders.
This position has the support of Canadians and the Progressive Conservative Party. We do not want our great country to serve as a haven for war criminals.
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is the House ready for the question?
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
All those in favour of the (motion, amendment) will please say yea.
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
All those opposed will please say nay.
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
In my opinion the nays have it.
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
I declare the motion lost on division.
(Motion No. 1 negatived)
Crimes Against Humanity ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)
Consequently, I also declare Motions Nos. 3 and 7 negatived.
I will now put the motions in Group No. 2 to the House.
Daniel Turp Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 2 the following new clause:
“2.1 The purpose of this Act is to implement Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute.”
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-19, in Clause 8, be amended by replacing lines 30 to 43 on page 9 and lines 1 to 6 on page 10 with the following:
“8. A person who is alleged to have committed an offence under section 6 or 7 may be prosecuted for that offence if, at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed, Canada could exercise jurisdiction over the person.”
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 2 on page 11 the following new clause:
“11.1 For greater certainty, in proceedings for an offence under any of sections 4 to 7, an accused who formerly occupied a position as a Head of State or government, member of a Government or parliament, elected representative or government official and who, at the time of the proceedings, no longer occupies that position, may not rely on immunities or special procedural rules that may attach, by virtue of statute law or common law, to the official capacity of the person.”
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-19 be amended by adding after line 14 on page 22 the following new clause:
“32.1 A certificate issued by the Minister of Foreign Affairs stating that at a certain time a state of war or armed conflict existed between Canada and the state named therein is admissible in evidence in any proceedings in respect of an act or omission that constitutes an offence under this Act and is conclusive proof of the facts so stated.”
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-19, in Clause 70, be amended by replacing lines 23 and 24 on page 37 with the following:
“of the Extradition Act, the Visiting Forces Act, the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act or the Foreign Missions and International”
Madam Speaker, that group of motions will give us the opportunity to comment on the substance of Bill C-19.
As a plenipotentiary in this House and after hearing with pleasure the comments of my colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, as well as those of the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa, I would like to begin my speech on the second series of my substantive amendments to this the bill by saying that the Bloc Quebecois strongly supports Bill C-19.
We believe that it is very important for the House to pass the bill so it can become an inspiration for other nations or parliaments that will also be called upon to meet their international obligations by fulfilling the commitments resulting from their participation in the Rome conference, the adoption of the statute, its signature and its ultimate ratification, which usually follows the adoption of an implementation bill like Bill C-19.
It is true that Canada could become one of the main advocates of the statute in the international community to convince 50 other states to ratify the Rome Statute. So far, ten nations, one very recently, have ratified the statute. We need 50 more countries to pass similar legislation so that the statute can come into force and the International criminal court can start to operate, try and, if need be, sentence people found guilty of serious crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or war crimes.
Consequently the Bloc fully supports the bill and, with my colleagues from Mercier and Laval Centre, we co-operated in the work of the committee to improve the bill. However, there is still room for improvement. That is the object of some of our amendments at report stage. Incidentally, we had made our intentions known in this regard in committee.
I understand the secretary of state's surprise, but is it not appropriate sometimes for the opposition to surprise the government? It always has so many surprises in store for us.
In this case, we wanted to propose a few amendments to further improve the bill. I will call the members' attention to two of those amendments for the purposes of this debate and, most likely, for the purposes of the arguments that may take be raised before the courts that will be called upon to enforce this legislation, prosecute and eventually convict the authors of such serious crimes.
Motion No. 5, which amends clause 8 of the bill, would give Canadian courts extended universal jurisdiction in the case of serious international crimes such as those covered by Bill C-19. In this bill, universal jurisdiction is limited in scope because there has to be some kind of connection with regard to the nationality of the victim or the accused, or to the person who, during an armed conflict, committed a war crime.
There is also the connection to the territory since a person cannot be accused if he or she is not present in Canada. We would like to see this notion of custodian jurisdiction extended so that Canada has the power to request the extradition of a person for prosecution under this bill, a power countries such as Belgium and Switzerland seem to have already assumed.
We would like the universal jurisdiction recognized in Bill C-19 to be wider in scope, so that Canada can stop being a haven for war criminals and become a place where these people are brought to justice. If Canada gave its courts extended universal jurisdiction, compared to what is provided for in Bill C-19 as it stands now, Canada would be in a position where it would meet its international commitments better than any other country and where it would show its desire not to let serious international crimes go unpunished.
There is another provision that we would wish to see amended. It would involve adding to this bill a new clause, clause 11.1, which would very explicitly recognize that, if a foreign head of state or government or member of a government, or even a member of parliament, is on Canadian territory and could be brought to trial, this person would not be able to rely on immunity before the courts.
To make this clear, we could give the example of General Pinochet who, if he were on Canadian territory, could be brought to trial, but could perhaps claim some immunity before our courts if our legislation were not clear enough.
During the work of the committee, experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs told us that the precedents set by the judiciary committee of the privy council in London that examined the case of Mr. Pinochet had deprived General Pinochet of his immunity. Consequently, these precedents could be applied here. The common law that resulted from these precedents could be applied by our courts and deprive someone such as General Pinochet or someone in a similar situation of his immunity.
What the Bloc Quebecois would have wished for and still wishes for is for these precedents set by the judiciary committee of the Privy Council to be included in the bill.
This is why we are proposing subclause 11.1, which would clearly say that an accused who formerly occupied a position as a head of state or government, member of a government or parliament, elected representative or government official and who, at the time of the proceedings, no longer occupies that position, may not rely on immunities or special procedural rules that may attach, by virtue of statute law or common law, to the official capacity of the person.
Such a provision would be useful because it would provide for more certainty; we would be absolutely sure that individuals suspected of having committed serious crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide, could not obtain immunity before our courts. It would enshrine the common law in the statutes of Canada and would allow courts to strip those individuals of their immunity in order to punish crimes that should be punished.
We have proposed other amendments that should improve this bill, including a provision clearly stating that this act relates to the discharge of Canada's obligations under the Rome Statute.
In conclusion, I would like to say how important it is to sustain the effort to ensure rapid implementation of the Rome Statute.
The adoption of the Rome Statute in 1998 by the Conference of Plenipotentiaries was a turning point in the history of humanity. We are collectively trying to establish an institution that would allow nations and international institutions to truly punish international crimes. We already have an institution. All we need now is to adopt and ratify the treaties, pass the implementing legislation, as we are doing today, and that dream will become reality.
Finally, I would like to pay tribute to someone who is no longer with us, Justice Jules Deschênes, who devoted part of his life to these issues. A major report was drafted by the Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals, which he presided. I want to pay tribute to Justice Deschênes and to thank him and his family for his contribution to this debate, which he would have been proud to witness today.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this group of motions. Generally speaking we would be supportive of this group of motions, although we find that Motion No. 5 could perhaps be worded a little better. Generally speaking we agree with the intent of that motion.
As I mentioned earlier, the whole bill is one that is extremely important. Even though it was in July 1998 that the nations agreed to this international criminal court, we realize that the UN General Assembly recognized the need for an international criminal court as early as 1948 in the aftermath of the second world war and the subsequent Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. The U.S., France, Russia and China have argued for a court with circumscribed powers. A Canadian led group of like minded nations supported a strong international criminal court, including the U.K., Croatia, Singapore and Egypt.
When we look at home at how this concept has developed, we realize that the international criminal court and Bill C-19 do not really have a high profile in Canada. We have to elevate that profile and bring to people's attention how important this kind of process is. The limited opposition has been focused on minor issues without putting forward the question of the principle of the court. That is a very important principle that has to be looked at.
Within the non-governmental organization community we know that the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development has established a wide network of supporters in Canada and internationally, including groups such as Amnesty International, the U.S. based Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights Internet. Certainly our party is supportive of the idea of this court.
As I said earlier, we have to look at a broader aspect when we deal with the whole issue of war crimes. One very serious issue that is taking place right now, and if it were to unfold we could certainly say it would lay the groundwork for further war and war crimes, is the national missile defence system which the United States is proposing.
Just recently the President of the United States journeyed to Russia to try to convince the Russian president and the Russian Duma that his system was something they should be unconcerned about and that they should perhaps support. We realize that mission fell flat on its face and now we notice that the Russian president has travelled to North Korea to try to sort out questions and concerns around that whole issue with the North Koreans.
This is a very serious issue. It is something that ties into the topic that we are looking at today when we talk about war and war crimes. Right now, if we look seriously at the issue, Canada could be a leader in this whole area. We could perhaps be calling for a solution to the problem the U.S. feels it faces and would give rise to the need for such a national missile defence system and the whole question of ballistic missiles.
We should be leading the fight to call for an international ban on test missile flights. The whole issue of missiles could be tackled from a different perspective, a preventive perspective, in the same way as we did with land mines. We could be the leaders in dealing with the issue in a proactive, preventive way as opposed to the reactionary way in which the U.S. is dealing with it that is tending to lead to arms augmentation and more build-up rather than disarmament.
I just tie that into the issue because it is very important. We know the outcome of any further activity in that area could certainly lead to many serious cases of war crimes being looked at.
Leon Benoit Reform Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, the new slave trade being carried out by people smuggling rings is a heinous and despicable crime. People are forced into lives of prostitution, into the drug trade and into sweatshops. It is critical that people smuggling is dealt with firmly and quickly.
Let us have a look at the government's record on this issue. Ten months after the first boat arrived less than 25% of the cases have been finalized. More than 50% of the 600 who came by boat are still in detention. More than 25% of the 600 have just disappeared. These 600 people are only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to people who come to Canada with the aid of people smugglers.
The government has failed the victims of this new slave trade. What a blotch on Canadian history. The government has a lot to answer for when it comes to its inaction on the serious problem of people smuggling and the new slave trade.
Judy Sgro Liberal York West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to mention two important initiatives taken by the government in my riding of York West.
Just recently York University received a $14,000 grant under the northern scientific training program. Since its inception in 1961 this training program has played a key role in supporting the development of scientific expertise in northern research and in promoting the vital and growing role of Canadian universities in this field. Without this support, many of these initiatives would be very difficult to promote.
The second initiative is part of the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which is an $11.8 million investment aimed at strengthening the research capacity of 28 Canadian universities. Under the new opportunities fund, York University will be able to finance a new scientific research facility.
York University and its students are an integral part of my riding. I am very glad to see that the government recognizes the vital importance of funding such research initiatives.