Madam Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today. It is getting to be a bad habit in that I am following the hon. member for Halifax West again today as I did last night, but I guess I could do a lot worse.
I want to put my comments about this important issue on the record. We have already had the opportunity to discuss the issue at some length through the debate on the motion by my colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, but I have a few additional thoughts.
Most people in my area do not even understand, nor do I, the roles of the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, where one jurisdiction starts and one ends, and how they fit together and work. The motion by the hon. member helps to simplify that, to make it clearer for all, and to help define the roles of each organization.
The Conservative Party definitely supports the initiative of the reform member and we want to congratulate him on his excellent work. However we are going to return to what we have already pointed out with regard to the motion's limitations. That is the underlying assumption that it is impossible to determine the signs that predict world conflicts and to develop responses to those conflicts well in advance.
The purpose of the motion is laudable but I think it is somewhat over-optimistic. Even in this Chamber we often have trouble reaching understandings on issues and we have trouble agreeing with one another despite our good intentions. Imagine the difficulty that would be encountered by the various world bodies which certainly have diverging interests even country by country. But then again, walking on the moon was merely a dream 40 years ago, so maybe if we keep trying we can achieve this goal.
The time for reform of international institutions has certainly come. There is no question.
The Minister of Finance explained in great detail during his meeting yesterday morning with the members of the foreign affairs committee that the necessity for reforming these institutions is paramount and the time is now. He stressed the urgency of international co-operation in establishing international standards and codes in order to reduce the risk of financial instability in the world's financial system. We heard the same story from the first deputy managing director of the IMF, Mr. Stanley Fischer. The demonstrations in Washington and Seattle are not isolated gestures either.
It is imperative that the world's institutions listen, respond and understand that their decisions have an impact on ordinary people's everyday lives. It is through national governments and the representatives they mandate to represent us that we will be able to influence these organizations and not otherwise.
We live in a time when everything is done on an international scale. Unfortunately I do not think the people's needs are being genuinely respected. It is not for lack of desire to do so in some corners, but because the way international institutions operate is just too complex and they seem to serve the interests of certain stronger countries at the expense of the less influential countries.
For instance, during the gulf war the UN played an important part in the decision making process, but during Kosovo the UN proved insufficiently effective for some of its members and was promptly replaced by NATO. Why did that system fail?
Everything depends on the interests of the member countries, and the interests often diverge. Another factor is that world bodies have proliferated in recent decades. Their functions have become more ponderous and they have become less effective because of their excessively complex procedures. I am thinking here of the hierarchy of international organizations.
Often the result is either that action is delayed until it is too late or that everyone is so confused and no one really knows anymore what the solution to the problem is or even whether there is a solution. We have seen that firsthand.
The players on the international scene choose an organization that suits them depending on their own interests rather than on the basis of what would be the best way to solve the problem. The best example I can think of is the trade conflicts that may arise and do arise, and there are plenty of them even between Canada and the United States.
If one party thinks it has more chance of winning by choosing the WTO, it will address itself to the WTO for arbitration. But if it is the free trade agreement that would serve its interests better, the country will opt for that process. We are thus finding ourselves in a real spider's web of bilateral, multilateral and international agreements. The result is confusion, inefficiency and ultimately, conflict.
Frequently foreign affairs would like to introduce an initiative but unfortunately finds that it clashes with an agreement signed with one of the world organizations. On a given issue the answer is yes under the agreement with one organization but no under the agreement with another. It has become a real tangle.
When everything becomes too complicated it is time to simplify as proposed in this motion. It is in this perspective the Progressive Conservative Party has concluded that it is high time for the thinking and discussion process on internationalization that is suggested by this motion.
The operations of international bodies should be simplified and clarified with a view to making them efficient and effective enough to meet the needs of ordinary people. Let us not forget that is why they were set up. That is how we will prevent conflicts in the future.