Aileen Carroll

[Reform Of International Organizations, May 27th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member for raising the issue of conflict prevention and how international organizations can be reformed to play a more effective role in this regard.

We are all aware of the radical changes that the world has experienced since the end of the cold war. While the threat to the global community's security posed by the cold war has been removed, the number and intensity of violent conflicts has escalated over the last decade. In recent years conflicts have taken an enormous toll on many countries in Africa particularly, which has seen its progress seriously undermined by debilitating wars.

The face of war has also been transformed by the large majority of conflicts now taking place within the borders of states, rather than between states. Many of these intra-state conflicts have had a devastating impact within the country and on the region as a whole. Civilians account for the majority of victims of such conflicts and are often targeted by belligerent forces. Indeed, many of the threats to the security of the individual are the direct or indirect result of conflict, very often of the intra-state variety.

Despite the indisputable importance of conflict prevention to the people of the world, the international community does indeed find itself short of adequate tools to manage conflict and to consolidate peace processes. Global and regional institutions, most of which were created in the years immediately following the end of the second world war, have been slow to adapt to the realities and demands of a rapidly evolving global environment.

It would be misleading, however, to conclude that the shortcomings of the international community's capacity to play a more effective role in preventing conflicts, or indeed responding to an early stage of emerging conflict, is due solely to the flaws in the structure of mandates of international organizations. In many cases, the missing ingredient prevents timely and effective intervention and that indeed is the political will and the willingness of members of the international community to commit the required resources.

Canada believes that a dynamic and responsive United Nations should be at the centre of the international community's efforts to prevent conflict. Many components of the United Nations have a contribution to make in building a global community less prone to conflict.

The security council has a central and irreplaceable role to play in the maintenance of peace and security. During our current term as a member of the security council, Canada is determined to press the council to assume its proper leadership role which it has frequently abdicated in recent years.

Furthermore, the government believes that the council must re-examine the traditional interpretation of its mandate. We have advocated that the security council needs to broaden its horizons to addressing emerging threats. A credible and relevant security council must be quickly apprised of emerging intra-state conflicts and seek ways to prevent them from occurring.

We reject the argument that the security council should limit its attention to traditionally defined conflicts between states. The human security consequences of intra-state conflicts and the potential of such conflicts to destabilize adjacent countries demand preventive action by the international community. The security council is the appropriate forum that should be assuming the lead in such action.

During our presidency of the security council in February, Canada convened and chaired a special debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. In addressing this debate, the Minister of Foreign Affairs called for “vigorous, comprehensive and sustained action” by the council to address the tragic brutalization of civilians which characterizes so many of these contemporary conflicts. He identified four challenges facing the council. These include the prevention of conflict, the respect for international humanitarian and human rights law, the pursuit of those who would violate humanitarian norms and standards and, finally, the issue of the instruments of war.

I am pleased that the security council agreed to ask the secretary-general to prepare a report, due this September, which will identify concrete measures that can be taken to improve the protection of civilians in armed conflict. We see this as one step in an ongoing process which will provide an improved level of protection to the vulnerable.

Canada has also stated clearly to the United Nations membership our view that the security council must not focus on solving the problems of one region while remaining indifferent to the problems of others. Political will and leadership, including the large and powerful members of the international community, are needed in order that the security council may play its proper role in preventing and resolving conflict.

In addition to our efforts to encourage the security council to assume greater responsibility in preventing conflict, Canada is active in many other ways to enhance our own and the international community's capacity and effectiveness in this regard. Of particular significance is the Canadian peacebuilding initiative launched in 1996 which is designed to improve the coordination of Canadian peacebuilding activities, both government and NGO, and to strengthen Canada's contribution to international peacebuilding.

Peacebuilding is the effort to strengthen the prospects for internal peace and decrease the likelihood of violent conflict. It is rapidly becoming an essential element of the UN's involvement in conflict-torn societies. We will meet these new challenges by strengthening the UN's capacity to prevent conflict, respond rapidly when conflict erupts and to provide post-conflict peacebuilding instruments.

Making peace, maintaining peace and building sustainable peace must be understood not as three separate elements but as three vital and interdependent components of the same mission; that of eliminating violent conflict and building lasting peace in all societies.

In conclusion, I wish to reiterate that the government appreciates the interest of the hon. member in the issue of conflict prevention. The government shares the view that the global community must find ways to enhance its ability to prevent conflict, including international organizations. More effective conflict prevention is clearly essential to assuring the human security of people in many parts of the world.

Canada is working actively and energetically at the United Nations and in other forums with a wide range of states that share our commitment to developing an improved conflict prevention capacity of the global community.

The motion under consideration contains the proposal that the government should convene an international meeting to develop a multilateral plan to reform international organizations to enhance their conflict prevention capabilities. This is a timely suggestion. However, the fact is that there are ongoing efforts, both formal and informal, involving a broad range of countries that are aimed precisely at the objective contained in the hon. member's motion. Canada is at the forefront of those efforts and is determined to find ways to improve the international community's conflict prevention capabilities.

The complexity of the issues involved and the divergent approaches of members of the global community would suggest that meaningful progress toward enhanced conflict prevention capacity of international organizations will likely be incremental rather than revolutionary. Launching a new process to promote an end that is already being pursued as a priority by Canada and many other countries in different forums is not likely to add value. In fact, it could detract resources and focus from ongoing efforts despite the best intentions of those who would propose such initiatives.

For this reason, the government is not convinced that the adoption of this motion would be conducive to advancing the worthy objective of improving the international community's conflict prevention capability.

[The Economy, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a report of a study undertaken by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities found that Canada's poorest citizens have been hardest hit by the continuing drop in family incomes.

The poorest 10% of residents in 16 Canadian cities saw their total income drop by 18.8% from 1992 to 1996. During the same period the top 10% of Canadian earners saw their total incomes rise by 6.8%. The old notion that if the affluent are doing well then everybody else will be doing well is clearly not happening in Canadian cities.

We do not have to concern ourselves with the families that pay the highest taxes. We do have to be concerned about the quality of life of Canadians who pay half or more of their incomes for housing as their numbers are increasing.

Affordable housing and adequacy of income are basic determinants—

[National Child Benefit, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has highlighted the importance of ensuring government actions do what they are intended to do.

The social service ministers will be releasing a progress report for the national child benefit in Quebec today. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national child benefit does what it is supposed to do, namely help Canadian families with children?

[North American Free Trade Agreement, May 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Departments of Foreign Affairs and International Trade recently distributed a fine document in celebration of the first five years of life of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The report presents a scorecard of impressive statistics including a marked increase in trade with the U.S. and Mexico. Added to these global data are seven success stories highlighting quotes from spokespersons in various sectors.

What concerns me is that while I too am committed to open door trade policy, the reports of the impact of NAFTA are highly selective. To obtain a more complete picture we need to see the other side indicating the compromises to our environmental protection policies and our heritage and cultural strategies.

Even if it is difficult to isolate the causes and effects of trade agreements, we have a duty to aim for the utmost transparency, and to present both the negative and the positive aspects of the situation.

[Student Loan System, May 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, students in my riding often find it hard to obtain loans.

Could the minister tell this House what measures he has taken recently to improve and simplify the student loan system in Canada?

[Equality Day, April 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, April 17 is equality day.

This day marks the 17th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a remarkable initiative taken by the government of the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau.

The Liberal government and the Prime Minister are committed to the principles in the charter and the resultant jurisprudence, just as we are dedicated to the linkage between human rights and economic prosperity with our trading partners.

The charter of rights and freedoms guarantees freedoms already enjoyed by Canadians and formulates new rights. The charter broke new constitutional ground respecting mobility rights, equality rights, minority language educational rights, gender equity and multiculturalism.

Since 1982 courts at all levels have dealt with thousands of charter cases, some decisions seriously impacting public policy debate. All Canadians can be proud that this is a country which celebrates equality and human rights.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We are members of NATO. NATO is a collective security. A collective security is an association of states. This one in particular works through discussion and works through participation by all members in the decisions taken.

Article 5 of NATO makes clear and puts forward that if any one of the 19 members is attacked, such action will result in all 19 members coming to that member's defence. This is not a defensive action, but still the logistics and the role that Canada plays as one of those 19 members is such that we too are very much a part of the decision making process. We are equal with the other states in bringing our views to the decisions.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. It is indeed a question I considered as I looked up into the galleries today and saw the young people who were here to observe their representatives debate a critical issue.

One could spend a long time as my learned colleague knows in a discussion of what constitutes a just war. From my remarks I have not only brought forward the amount of thinking that was necessary for me in preparing to speak today, but also the analysis I believed necessary before I could stand in the House and say that the evil we are observing and the terror being imposed upon a people is at such a level that we are justified in responding with force and with military might.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for his question. While I value his point of view, I believe we must contain ourselves to the question at hand, which is to engage in a debate on the action that is before us, on that action that is being taken.

Indeed the war, like other wars, could lead to new steps and at that time it must come back to parliament for debate. However whether or not Canada and NATO allies will indeed send in ground forces is not the issue today, but rather the bombing that has been explained and brought forward to the House is to be debated and considered by all of us.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the weight of the words spoken today in the Chamber must not be diminished in any way by the participants in this debate.

As politicians we might at times engage in rhetoric that resonates with lofty ideals or would be aspirations, but when we debate the committing of Canadian lives to an action as grave as the conflict in the Balkans it is incumbent on each of us to weigh heavily the views we express, the words we employ, the actions we promote, for we are inputting a decision making process with grave implications for the present and future of the international community and for the jurisprudence which encompasses the actions of sovereign states.

That is so irrespective of whether we endorse or question the continued involvement of this country in the battle to alleviate the suffering of the people of Kosovo.

We are witnessing intense images of horrendous suffering by the Kosovar people. The information available and the intelligence gathered indicate that President Milosevic is engaged in wholesale efforts to ethnically cleanse Kosovo of the large majority of Albanian muslims. He is doing so in the most vile manner, utilizing barbaric methods that defy imagination and contravene the conventions of war. The result of these atrocities has led the member states of NATO to do all possible to protect the Kosovars and prevent this tyrant from attaining his goals.

The discussion in the media and elsewhere has queried the role of NATO in this action instead of the United Nations. While the response has openly acknowledged that Russia and China would have vetoed and therefore forestalled unacceptably a UN military action, we must consider the ramifications of the alternate route we have employed.

As a collective security organization NATO should respond defensively and not offensively, but events in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have twice provoked the intervention of NATO to protect its citizens from their unscrupulous leaders.

The argument that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a sovereign state is not to be taken lightly but compels us to consider, as I stated at the outset, whether a state's claim to sovereignty is sufficient to allow that state to engage in actions against its people which contravene the rule of law and deny the very basics of human security.

At what point does Canada and the countries with which we have formed alliances decide that sovereignty is no shield from responsibility, that the very raison d'être for a sovereign state is its obligation to provide for the well-being of its citizens.

Sovereignty cannot be used as an excuse to permit an atrocity or to engage in ethnic cleansing that borders on genocide. When a country engages in such activities the analogies of history intrude. We are compelled to risk acting outside the precepts of international law as it has to date been applied and take the action we have engaged in thus far, and actions that may be proposed, to stop the possible destruction of a people.

We cannot continue to be baffled by the definitions of the past. Nor can we fail to heed the past and like Chamberlain in 1938 believe that monsters like Hitler and Milosevic can be appeased and peace in our time purchased. It cannot because they will break every value we hold basic and every human norm we hold as minimal.

We are by the very definition of our democratic societies compelled to do all that is possible and effective to assist the people over whom they hold power.

Let us recognize the turn in the road we have taken. The cold war is no more and the relative security that a two bloc world and a nuclear umbrella provided is likewise no more. We have entered a considerably more destabilized international landscape. We are today debating the Baltics, a region of Europe that has rarely enjoyed any long term stability and has frequently been the centre of racial foment and hostilities.

We must look very seriously at the consequences of this military action. Are we redefining our foreign policy strategies? Are we motivated, as Henry Kissinger might contend, by the compelling need to be partners with our allies to preserve equilibrium? Are we moving toward an unqualified support for ethnic self-determination as promoted by Woodrow Wilson? The implications of supporting these principles either alone or within coalitions such as NATO are far reaching and of considerable consequence.

We move into an uncharted legal landscape on the international plane, a landscape of foreboding future entanglements with no clear exit strategies. While the humanitarian dimension of the Kosovo quagmire is paramount, the legal precedent of this engagement will survive after the conflict and our remedy are concluded.

The Canadian government's intention to further the goal of human security at the security council and within our bilateral and multilateral alliances is legitimate from every perspective. It is the essential component that African leaders like President Konnare of Mali have defined as vital to the economic and social development of the wartorn countries of that continent.

The violation of human security in Kosovo is unacceptable. The total lack of regard for the rule of law is unacceptable. One had merely to watch in astonishment last week on Canadian television as Milosevic's henchman Arkan Raznatovic told viewers that he had no concern over Louise Arbour's charges against him of horrendous war crimes as he refused to accept the legitimacy of the international court and the War Crimes Tribunal. These are leaders for whom power is the arbiter, not the law. As Hitler demonstrated, in the world of diplomacy a loaded gun is often more potent than a legal brief.

Milosevic's reign of terror in Kosovo did not just precede the peacemaking efforts at Rambouillet by a matter of months. I was in Belgrade and Sarajevo nine years ago with the Canadian Bar Association. We were hosted by Yugoslavian lawyers. In Belgrade I met a woman lawyer who through great personal courage, I learned, acted for the Albanian Kosovars and did so often through the vehicles of the international jurists and Amnesty International.

She related incidents of chronic discrimination and denial of human rights. She described a visit there as a visit to the 15th century and despaired of anything but a steady worsening of their plight. We have witnessed such a decline culminating in the horrors we are now debating. There comes a time when we too take some risks in coming to the Kosovo defence.

The decisions before us cannot be relished and seem almost contrary to every precept I hold integral. Thirty years ago many of us fought not to engage an enemy but to halt a war that could not meet the bar for a bellum justum by any acceptable definition. As a young graduate student in 1966 in Halifax I carried a placard in Joe Howe Park, a little uncomfortable with this new role but convinced as we all were that the war in Vietnam, predicated as it was on a theory of containment and dominoes and as flawed strategically as it was bankrupted morally, had to end and such jingoistic ventures never embarked on again. As Dylan maintained, God was on no warrior's side.

The times were to have changed but the horrendous suffering we are seeing in Kosovo is witness to the fact that much has not changed. The people of the international community must accept and promote the application of force in containing a demagogue like Melosevic who knows no bounds and knows no morality.