Personally, I would tend to disagree that the UN is a symbol of the past. That is not to say the UN does not have its problems. A significant overhaul was attempted last fall, and that overhaul was not generally accepted per se. But certain aspects of it were accepted and were advanced.
The UN is not a symbol of the past in the sense that in the Democratic Republic of Congo it is pursuing a mission with the MONUK that is in many ways similar to the mission in Afghanistan. They've taken a very bold stance in the Democratic Republic of Congo, conducting offensive operations in the eastern parts, and they are taking the fight to the different groups involved in horrible activities throughout the eastern conflicts.
Is the UN a symbol of the past? It seems to be a symbol of the past if we look at the last 10 years in Canadian foreign policy. Since the mid-nineties, most of the Canadian deployments have been through NATO, and so this is not a new reality, this is a 10-year-old reality. NATO definitely has assets, and the western countries have pulled out, ever since the catastrophes in Somalia, Rwanda, and Srebrenica. Not only Canada, but all the western countries have pulled out of the UN and have tended to use tools closer to home, like NATO.
Now, this is not entirely a bad evolution. The Africans have done it with the African Union, and we do it with NATO. But we need to be careful here. I don't think Canada should disengage completely from the UN, because some of its work is definitely relevant, positive, and still up to date.