♪ >> Welcome to Canada Files .

I'm Valerie Pringle.

My guest today is the Honourable Louise Arbour.

Madame Arbour was the UN Special Representative for International Migration.

Before that, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Before that, she was the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

She served 5 years as a Justice on the Supreme Court of Canada.

Also on the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In a lifetime of service, her mission is to promote and protect human rights for all people everywhere.

>> Madame Arbour.

Welcome.

>> Thank you.

>> How did you become so passionate about human rights?

>> I think it's all law.

It all starts with my fundamental trade.

Which is the law.

My original interest was in criminal law.

So that brings you rapidly into human rights issues.

Protection of vulnerable people including people accused of crime.

I think it was an evolution.

I can tell you when I was in law school, there was no such thing as human rights law.

It just developed in the course of my career.

I think it's anchored in my general background in criminal law.

>> There was a quote that you provided one of the honours you were given, from a 19th century cleric.

You could probably speak it along with me.

It says, "Between the rich and poor" "Between the strong and the weak" "Between the master and the servant" "It's freedom that oppresses and the law that sets us free" I think people would be surprised by that.

Why does that mean so much to you?

>> I worry sometimes that people talk about things like human rights or the rule of law.

Not having much of a sense of-- it's kind of a good thing but what exactly is it?

To me, that quote captures exactly, in a very simple way, what the rule of law is all about.

Between the rich and poor, the strong and the weak.

It's unbridled freedom that can lead to oppression.

It's the law's mission to set free.

That is to create an environment which equalizes these differences.

And reduces the chances of abuse and oppression.

So the rule of law, for a lot of people, they think it means ruled by law.

You should have laws to govern conduct.

But it's a lot more than that.

It's not any law.

It has to be laws that are just and justly enforced.

It takes away arbitrariness, the potential for abuse of power.

So I think it's a very simple way of capturing the essence of what a society ruled by law, by just laws, is all about.

>> What made you so strong?

Was it 10 years at a Catholic girls school in Montreal?

>> Well that obviously had a huge impact.

I'm sure a lot of it positive.

But when I reflect on it, I think I spent the rest of my life running away from that kind of environment.

Which was essentially a very homogeneous environment.

I didn't realize at the time but I spent the rest of my life craving differences, different people and places.

>> You obviously love challenges.

I'm thinking you studied civil law in French in Quebec.

Then clerked at the Supreme Court.

Then came to Ontario, learned English and taught common law.

So it was...there's a challenge.

>> I like novelty, I think.

It's very awkward.

I'm not very introspective.

I never left anything I was doing because I didn't like it.

Or because I was bored.

I'm not easily bored.

On the other hand, I can't resist if something comes up and it's new.

Even though I'm objectively not all that qualified to take it on, like working internationally.

I'm easily intrigued.

Let's put it this way.

I'm ready to go.

>> Opportunities have presented themselves to you.

Obviously apart from academia, which was great.

Then the Ontario Supreme Court, then the Court of Appeal.

All interesting huge careers.

But then the UN job came up as Special Prosecutor for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and the War Crime Tribunals.

Were you astonished?

What did you make of that job?

>> First of all, it was not at all what I thought it would be.

First of all, it was very new.

This had never been done since the Nuremberg trials-- an international criminal law venue in which heads of state, military and political leaders could be brought to account before the world.

This had never been done.

It had been talked about for years.

I think it's unimaginable we'd see that again today.

It's essentially the Security Council of the United Nations agreed to create these two tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

When I saw that, I never thought in my lifetime that criminal law which was my discipline, would have an international reach.

When I got there, it was extremely operational.

It was not an intellectual laboratory.

It was deploying people to investigate with basically no blueprint, template or handbook on how we're going to do this.

On a typical day...first of all, in my days it was mostly investigations.

We had just started trials but it was mostly investigations.

But everything I knew about investigating crime in a Canadian context was about police power.

So they have the power to wiretap.

They have networks of informants they could rely on.

We didn't have any of that.

We were investigating massive crimes in countries in which we didn't know the culture.

We didn't speak the language.

No networks of informants, powers of arrest, or search.

We had to think from first principles, very strategic.

Be willing to take a lot of risks.

>> As you say, mass murder.

Rape as a weapon of war.

Ethnic cleansing.

You were in the field and trying to sort through this as well.

>> Yes...of course, not just me.

The tribunal was growing but when I arrived already had a core of investigators.

Many came from the US and they were very good.

A handful of people who had done, in a domestic context, war crimes investigation.

Meaning old Natzi war crimes.

From Australia, UK and Canada.

But that's very different.

This was investigating historical events.

We were dealing with conflict still brewing and unfolding.

>> Slobodan Milosevic was the sitting head of government.

You were indicting him and trying to bring him to justice.

>> I'm sure he thought that we would never reach him.

I never met him.

I deliberately ...I went to Belgrade many times ...I knew I was going to indict him so I was very keen to avoid the inevitable embarrassing handshake.

I figured, there's not going to be any point talking to him.

He's not going to tell me anything useful.

But I'm sure that he never ever thought that this would happen to him and it happened!

Essentially when his power base, internally, collapsed.

>> What was your end feeling about what you were able to accomplish?

>> It's very difficult to measure what we thought then and what we see now.

When this was unfolding, I think we had some naive expectations that this was part of the never again .

>> Prevent all further atrocities.

>> They'll be so scared.

>> A warning to all heads of state and government.

They would never do this.

They'll be hauled up... >> They'll understand now they can be made accountable.

This in retrospect confirms what I believe also domestically.

There is a limit to deterrence.

As an objective of a criminal justice system.

The reason people commit crimes is not solely guided by their anticipated fear of punishment.

Or fear of being caught.

The reason people don't kill each other is not because we have a law against murder.

It's because we have a shared understanding of society.

Now there's some deviants.

That's why I think the death penalty for those who argue the death penalty on the basis of deterrence is completely misguided.

In my opinion, there's no evidence whatsoever that the anticipation of being caught and severely punished has a large impact.

>> So you look at Ukraine, for example, and shake your head.

>> Before Ukraine, between these tribunals and Ukraine, there's a lot of conflict.

Many in Africa, Yemen, Syria.

We have the International Criminal Court.

Which is the legacy, the follow-up on these two ad hoc tribunals.

...it doesn't mean that it's not a good thing to have the court.

But we cannot assume that its main function is exclusively deterrence.

>> While you were in the role of special prosecutor, you were offered a position on the Supreme Court of Canada.

To the surprise, you said of many of the other people involved in these investigations, you said I have to go back and take this job.

It's not one you turn down.

>> That's really interesting.

Of all the lawyers that I worked closely with in those days, all my European colleagues, whether from Denmark or France, they were astonished that I would consider leaving what they thought was the best law job in the world.

Like prosecuting war criminals for the UN.

There's nothing better.

The ones who got it were the Americans.

Of course, she has to go.

You don't turn down an appointment to the highest court in your country.

The US Supreme Court composition is the same-- nine judges.

It's only them and the Canadians obviously who understood that yeah, I had to go back.

>> You served five years but you left before retirement age.

How did you make that decision to go to the UN again, as the High Commissionaire of Human Rights.

>> I have to say not lightly.

It took me a very long time to come to terms with the fact I could leave.

It's not a life sentence.

I had known Kofi Annan.

He was asking me to come back and work with him.

First I told him I can't.

I can't leave this particular position which I liked actually!

But then it just kept rolling in my mind-- this would be so much fun.

Going back on the international scene.

I could see with his backing, I figured-- the Human Rights Office had a reputation of being a bit sleepy and not all that well-managed.

I thought maybe I could go fix that.

>> It's interesting you said you thought it might be fun.

You've been described as paying a heavy price there.

It was hard work and a hard time.

You didn't pull your punches, not against America-- what you saw happening in Guantanamo.

This is 2004, war on terror time.

You didn't pull your punches on Israel and what you saw happening in Lebanon, for example.

You were called anti-American, anti-semitic.

You were attacked a lot.

>> Yes, you know....as we move into these different venues, there's a loss of innocence each time.

Whatever innocence is left by the time you move in these kinds of circles.

But you make assumptions that sometimes don't quite work out.

It was a very difficult time because the US, which can normally be relied upon, on good days, AS a real champion on human rights issues.

On a less good day, maybe somewhat indifferent.

In that particular period of time, it was openly hostile to any form of international scrutiny or criticism.

Yet it was a time where the US was on a very bad path of questionning even international norms.

Like the absolute prohibition on torture.

It's not that it's complied with everywhere.

But it's accepted that torture is not acceptable.

Then of course, there's deviants.

The US was actually openly questionning well, there may be times where it is appropriate.

No, it is not appropriate!

So it was particularly challenging because one of the great champions of civil liberties, human rights, fundamental freedom was actually...as I said.

In the four years that I was the High Commissionaire for Human Rights, I made 80 trips.

I went to Russia twice, China.

I could never secure an invitation-- to make an official visit to the US.

They were always busy.

Every time I asked the US Ambassador, it was always well, the Secretary is very busy.

That's fine.

Can we block five or six potential target dates?

It never worked.

>> Wow.

>> Until I went in any event.

What I did...actually I think the first person I contacted was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

I thought I'm a former judge.

Why don't I just go to the US and visit my fellow judges.

So I told the ambassador, "Mr Ambassador, I have very good news for you."

"I will not harass you to try to get me a date for a visit with the Secretary of State.

I'm just informing you that I'm going to the US.

I'll have lunch at the Supreme Court and probably visit a few people on the Hill.

What!

No.

>> I guess you made a career of just working around things-- figuring it out.

>> And not in a very hostile, aggressive way.

But you know, it's my job.

I have to find ways in a very polite-- yeah, just have to get it done.

So it shows where America was in that period of time.

And what it meant internationally not to have the support of such an important anchor of these values.

> You think of all these things you've done and seen.

Do you have a dim view of humanity?

Do you think the arch of the moral universe bends in the direction of justice?

>> I think that contrary to what I assumed until relatively recently, I think everything is cyclical.

Maybe because of the era in which I live.

For a long time, I thought we were on a course of improvement.

The position of women in society.

Respect for minority rights and the erosion of dogma that came from institutions that were set in their ways like, in my case, the Catholic church.

I saw a lot of progress that I thought was going to go forever on the pathway to eternal happiness.

Now I think things are cyclical.

The only thing that's hard to judge is where we are in the curve.

Have we reached the bottom?

Is there going to be a swing back?

What is it going to look like?

The impact of things like technology, artificial intelligence.

I'm very optimistic!

I look at my grandchildren and I wish I could do it again.

There's no reason to despair even in the face of, in some cases, abominable setbacks.

>> You're so results-oriented.

It's interesting that you support and believe in the UN.

A lot of people look at that body and go, really.

>> Maybe they don't know.

If you think of the UN, purely as a political body, and that's unfortunately a lot of what we see in the news.

The Security Council failed to agree on a resolution on Ukraine.

So you see all the politics of it.

It's the old saying of dogs dancing.

It's not a question of how well they're dancing.

We should celebrate the miracle that they're dancing at all.

Would we be able today to create a forum where every state in the world has an equal seat at the table?

I don't think so.

So we should already agree that it's a good thing.

We've just had an agreement that took 10 years on protecting biodiversity in the oceans.

After the Montreal agreement on biodiversity generally, now we've targetted the high seas.

It's in the news not even for 24 hours.

It disappears.

This is a lot of accomplishments.

Not to mention the role of all the agencies.

They're out there.

They're not seen on a daily basis.

Whether it's the World Food Program, UNICEF, or the High Commission for Refugees.

They operate camps for 70,000 people, whether in Darfur or in Bangladesh for the Rohingyas.

The UN is a huge presence in the world that works.

>> A force for good.

>> Miraculously!

It works, in a very diverse workplace environment.

You have to work there to see what it's like.

To work on a daily basis with people who don't look like you, who come from a very different place.

But can march to that drummer.

It's great!

>> Because you worked for them again in terms of migration.

Between conflict in the world and climate and all the things that are happening, migration will continue at the pace it is now.

>> There's no question.

It will become easier to move.

It's easier through communication technology to see what the options are.

So there is no reasonable expectation that people will revert back to staying where they are.

I think dispelling the negative mythology of migration already goes a long way.

The exercise of this global compact was very good for that.

Just to put in the public discourse some of the elements.

First of all, when people move, they move close to home.

Not the whole world wants to come to America.

Most people, given the choice, are very happy to stay where they are.

If they can no longer stay there, make a living, raise and educate their kids, get decent healthcare.

First they move within their country, somewhere else.

Then they move next door, in the region.

Right?

The economic pulls and pushes that regulate that environment are very poorly understood-- how the west developed countries need and rely on immigration.

Including the presence of irregular migrants to work all the informal economy that contributes to a lot of services being cheap.

Because these people are underpaid.

All these aspects were important to bring to the surface.

>> So what's next for you?

Do you...if the phone rings, you're off?

>> Well, I turn it off, first of all.

I always joke that I'm working very hard at trying not to work at all-- not very successfully so far.

In the end, it's not true.

...the last big thing I did that took me very full-time was a one-year review of sexual misconduct and leadership in the Canadian armed forces.

That big chunk of work-- as long as it's finite, I'm prepared to do some work but I wouldn't embark on some amorphous long-demanding enterprise.

I'm with a law firm so I still have my fingers in the law, which I like.

And enough travels so I'm good.

>> The final question is what does being Canadian mean to you?

>> Canadians sometimes have a very romantic view of our place in the world.

That as long as you have a Canadian flag on the back of your backpack, all doors will open.

And everybody loves you.

>> We're nice.

>> Yes.

We matter.

But when you arrive internationally, you realize the way people look at you also inform what you think of yourself.

Then it becomes more challenging to live up to our internal conception of who we are.

We can do more.

>> We can always do more.

Canada has a role to play internationally?

>> Yes...for instance on this migration issue.

Canada was there.

It should have been there with a megaphone.

Because internationally, rightly or wrongly, we're viewed as the all-time success story when it comes to immigration.

We were there, I would say relatively timid.

Not with a kind of megaphone like we could have taken on that particular issue.

So we could do more!

>> Your work is not done either, obviously.

It's great that you're still so engaged by so many things.

We're grateful for that and all your work.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Appreciated your time.

>> My pleasure.

>> We'll be back next week with another episode of Canada Files .

♪