Madam Speaker, the debate today on Bill C-19 concerns setting up an International Criminal Court that would deal with serious issues like genocide and various other crimes between nations and internally.
The idea for this court came up after the serious issues of the second world war involving the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. It also came from the current United Nations special war crimes tribunals which arose out of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
On July 18, 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly, Canada along with 119 other countries signed a treaty that would bring into force the International Criminal Court. This court is intended to be a permanent court with a permanent bureaucracy. The treaty was specifically referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
This court would have the power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. These include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression which are open to wide interpretation by judges from around the world who would be sitting on this tribunal.
In short, the purpose of the ICC is to prosecute war crimes, including internal acts of repression. This is where we begin to question the interpretation that the various judges would use and bring into effect judge graded law, I guess, on an international scale. It is my understanding that the regulations and other issues setting up this court are not in place at this time. To a certain extent, we are buying a pig in a poke on this treaty with not knowing those very things.
We in the Canadian Alliance certainly support foreign policy that is guided by values and the principles of Canadians. In trying to set up one court that would encompass the beliefs and traditions of the whole world, it is hard to see that being done in a very effective and efficient manner or even in a manner that would deal fairly and justly with individual countries around the world.
That is one of the arguments why ad hoc courts have been set up to deal with specific incidents that arise as opposed to trying to say, before the crime is even committed, that we will be imposing this set of values on those people in that country when it may be culturally insensitive and not in keeping with the traditions in that area of the world.
A specific country or individuals in a specific country who are committing crimes against humanity certainly cannot be tolerated, but I question whether or not this permanent court is the best way to address those crimes.
The ICC threatens to become a powerful, unaccountable institution with power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try citizens of even Canada. Here we would run into the interpretation of the courts as to what constitutes this crime when that may be something we would consider a crime in Canada but a crime that should be dealt with internally as opposed to a crime that this court and the United Nations would feel should be dealt with on the international scene. That is a serious consideration.
I do not believe it has been demonstrated that the United Nations has the capacity to run an international criminal court without making it as ineffective as some of its programs and the bureaucracy set up to handle issues of starvation and so on around the world. It always seems that individual countries end up having to come to the aid of other countries that are experiencing problems that the UN seems incapable of doing anything about because of the gigantic bureaucracy it has put in place. It is a bureaucracy that has been put in place not by an elected government necessarily. The bureaucracy is made up of people who were appointed, often patronage appointments, from the member countries of the UN that puts these people in place.
What we could see with a permanent court is virtually permanent employees of the bureaucracy and permanent appointments to that court that would not be in the best interests of many people and many countries. As Canadians, we have to very seriously consider national interests and national values as to what we believe is a criminal justice system. Even between ourselves and Europe there is a difference in how criminal justice systems work. I do not believe the negotiations that were entered into to bring this treaty forward really considered all the various aspects.
From our government's point of view, prior to the signing, besides the non-government organizations that were funded by the federal government, we should have obtained more input from the general population of Canada and from the opposition members in the House of Commons.
I believe that the ICC could undermine the ability of the United Nations to act in the interests of international security and peace. One example would be stopping Saddam Hussein or sending a message to international terrorists. I do not see how, at this point in time, we can get away from the co-ordinated efforts, such as we have under NATO, to take care of these serious international issues. The United Nations just does not have that capacity. Giving the United Nations a permanent criminal court would not seem to be the way to go at this point in history.
I do not think the world is ready yet for a world government. There is a lot of resistance out in the ridings when people consider that there is this bogeyman set up as the world government. When we talk about permanent institutions like a criminal court, that is what is happening. I appreciate that it is not designed for every small offence inside a country, but it does smack of having one world government, which is certainly not in the best interests of individualism, freedom or democracy as we know it in Canada.
I support the concept and the continuation of the ad hoc international tribunals that have been dealing with war crimes and international situations. These tribunals should never be made permanent. Instead, I argue that they should always remain ad hoc, subject to sunset provisions as the tribunals are presently operating.
My main reason for saying that is that a permanent international body would essentially be unaccountable and would, as experience with other international organizations have shown, become a rogue type entity to the sovereignty of elected parliaments and legislatures. Not every country that appoints people to this court would be democratic. Many countries in this world are still run by dictatorships.
The ad hoc bodies have the advantage that they can be set up and dismantled by sovereign governments and by governments that have a direct concern and interest in the area and might have the military strength. In the case of Canada, which has little or no military strength, it could make a strong, morally persuasive effort for which we have a good reputation on the international scene. The world would be much better served by having that type of ad hoc court which would be more sensitive to the very incident that has given rise to the complaint of war crimes.
In conclusion, war crimes are something that every one of us has lived with in our lifetimes. We can certainly go back into recent history and see the war crimes that were committed. It is of very serious concern to all of us.
However, rather than just submitting a good idea forward to our foreign affairs minister and certain other people around the world, maybe the majority of people will not be in agreement with that. Countries with a long history of democracy, such as the United States or Israel, have very serious concerns about this treaty.
I think we would be remiss as a government in Canada and as Canadian people to approve a treaty that is deficient in any way. When the majority of the world, including a major power like the United States, have their questions answered, along with the serious questions we have raised here today as part of the Canadian Alliance, that is the time we could consider having a permanent court.