Mr. Speaker, on September 29, 1995, I asked the Minister of Justice whether he and the Canadian government supported the proposal for an international criminal court and, if so, what they were doing to advance this proposal. While the minister gave me a very positive response on that date, I want to pursue this further in order to put more details on the record of the House with respect to the proposed international criminal court.

Right away I should clarify the difference between the International Court of Justice, that is, the world court presently sitting in The Hague, and the proposed international criminal court.

The existing International Court of Justice, the world court, deals with disputes between the states; in other words, a dispute between the United States and Nicaragua or a dispute between Canada and Spain. If a country breaks its obligations under an international treaty a group of countries or another country may sue the accused country, the state, in the International Court of Justice. However, the International Court of Justice does not deal with international offences committed by individuals which are in violation of the same human rights treaties passed by the United Nations.

For example, although it has been 50 years since the Nuremberg trials following the second world war, nothing has been done to set up courts which can do what the Nuremberg trials did. The Nuremberg trials tried individuals who had committed war crimes during the second world war and held them responsible for their acts before the international community.

While there was a lot of talk following those trials that we should set up a permanent international criminal court, nothing was done until 1953. In 1953 a draft statute was prepared to establish such an international criminal court but it fell victim to the disputes of the cold war and never went anywhere.

However, times have changed and there has been a new initiative in recent years to once again establish an international criminal court which would hold individuals responsible when they commit crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, crimes of international terrorism and crimes of international drug trafficking. Although such individuals might be charged before their own domestic court or before the court of the country in which the victims were found, there is more credibility if there is a standing international criminal court in which such individuals can be tried.

We can recall a few years ago when certain Libyans were accused of putting a bomb in a plane which blew up over Scotland, killing many people. There was an attempt to bring the Libyans to trial in Scotland but there was a credibility question because many individuals doubted whether the Libyans would get a fair trial in a Scottish court when the passengers were killed in Scotland. It is much better that we have an international criminal court for those kinds of offences in which the judges are from many countries, not necessarily from the country of the victims, and therefore there is a semblance of credibility and fairness.

This matter has advanced quite far. In 1994 the United Nations set up a special ad hoc committee on the establishment of an international criminal court. The ad hoc committee has met twice since last December and the whole matter seems to be well on its way.

My purpose tonight is to ask the parliamentary secretary, since the very positive response of the minister in September, whether the ad hoc committee has completed its work and has reported to the sixth committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

When does he expect we will see agreement to a statute setting up such an international criminal court? It will be a great step forward when this is done. I congratulate the Canadian government on the work it has done so far. I hope this whole project will soon see the light of day.

Mining Exploration And DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Jesse Flis LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice after question period today asked me if I would respond to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce on his initiative and his perseverance to establish a permanent international court.

Events such as those in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia have amply demonstrated the need for a permanent international court to try individuals responsible for those most atrocious crimes of all: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The end of the cold war and a new found political will permit the international community to consider the establishment of such a court as a worthwhile and serious idea.

The permanent international criminal court would serve two crucial purposes. First, an important deterrent to criminal acts is the knowledge that perpetrators will be persecuted either by national authorities or by an international court.

Second, the establishment of such a court responds to desire for justice on the part of victims of these offences, thus permitting the international community to contribute meaningfully to the maintenance of peace and security by discouraging reprisals or other acts of vengeance.

Canada is at the forefront of efforts to create this court. The Department of Justice together with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National Defence have been participating this year in two meetings of an ad hoc committee created by the General Assembly of the United Nations to review the major substantive and administrative issues arising out of the draft statute for the court.

In accordance with the recommendations the ad hoc committee will be presenting this fall to the general assembly, Canada is now pushing for the convening of an international conference to negotiate the creation of the court.

We are very proud of the contribution Canada is making toward the establishment of the court as well as our current work on cases to be tried by the ad hoc courts for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. I hope this satisfies the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who, I say again, has shown leadership on this issue.

Mining Exploration And DevelopmentAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Pursuant to Standing Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.).