To a Luncheon of the Canadian Club of Winnipeg

I did not remind Mitchell that I was once Canada's foreign minister and I am not from Winnipeg. I politely overlooked the fact that Mitchell had been a foreign minister and that he was from Winnipeg. I did say to him: "What about Mike Pearson. He was a great foreign minister, and he was not from Winnipeg". Mitchell said; "Jean, where do you get your best advice?" I answered very quickly, "Aline." "Exactly," Mitchell said. "Maryon Pearson was born and raised in Winnipeg."

Mitchell is right. Lloyd Axworthy is one of our greatest foreign ministers. One of my proudest moments in public life came in December 1997 when I stood beside Lloyd and the Secretary General of the United Nations for the signature of the Ottawa treaty to ban anti-personnel landmines. That treaty will save tens of thousands of lives. Children in Bosnia, Cambodia, Mozambique, and so many other countries where mines have made playgrounds into killing fields will play safely once again. And, ladies and gentlemen, that treaty would not exist if Lloyd Axworthy had not fought so hard to make it happen.

This treaty, along with the International Criminal Court, another Lloyd Axworthy initiative, clearly bears the stamp of Canada and represents our values. They represent what Lloyd has defined as our concern for human security. Which takes protecting and enhancing the lives of people and their communities as its point of reference.

And that has never been more clear than in the events of this week. That is why we have joined NATO in taking action against the former Yugoslavia. As Canadians -- as world citizens -- we could not sit and watch as people are displaced, their homes looted and burned.

Canada, in keeping with our obligations as a member of the United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, must demonstrate solidarity with the community of nations in upholding the rights and freedoms we hold dear.

It is clear that President Milosevic has made a mistake in Kosovo. He thought we would, by inaction, condone the ruthless oppression of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Sadly, it is his own people who are today paying the price for his bad faith and reckless miscalculation.

Our participation in this NATO mission is just the most recent example of how our foreign policy is dictated not only by our interests but by our values. Our values as Canadians. Our basic human values.

No document better embodies those values than our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am proud, as Minister of Justice of the day, to have played a role in its creation.

I think our Charter of Rights is a useful reminder to us, not just of the values we hold, but of the realities we face in promoting those values around the world.

Remember the Charter did not happen overnight. It took us 115 years -- most of our history as a nation -- to achieve it. And the path to entrenchment was far from smooth. Also remember the Charter is not absolute. Even our fundamental freedoms are subject to limits that are established in law. Limits that protect minorities. Reasonable limits that protect our society, such as gun control or anti-hate laws.

This has been our experience. And it reminds us that all societies tend to evolve towards the rule of law only over time. And that even in the most democratic of societies, law-based and justifiable limits can be placed on fundamental freedoms.

I believe these are realities we must recognize. But make no mistake. They must never be used, any more than national sovereignty should be used, as a blind behind which to hide actions that are abusive of universal freedoms.

Canadians want us to promote respect for fundamental freedoms and basic human rights in all countries, as expressed in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and elaborated in two subsequent Covenants.

That is why one of the most important elements of our foreign policy is dialogue. Recognizing that dialogue implies listening as well as speaking.

Over the last five years I have met with the President of China nine times and with the Premier five times. Each time I have raised human rights questions. I encourage further progress in systemic reform. And I criticize their treatment of specific cases of political dissent.

I did the same when I was in Cuba last year, telling President Castro that arbitrary detention of people for simply expressing political views is unacceptable. Last week, the sentencing of these same people caused me to request that we review our activities in Cuba, to direct our efforts towards people rather than institutions.

I listen when I am told about the challenges of providing for the most basic economic rights of food, clothing, shelter and at least a minimum of education. I point out, however, that the right to eat and the right to speak are not in conflict. Stable, productive societies are built on both. As I said when I addressed university students in China a few months ago, a healthy plant requires both water and sunlight in order to grow.

And I believe that it is because we recognize the importance of basic economic rights that senior leaders in China and Cuba and elsewhere listen to us. That they consider Canadian practices when they are trying to modify their own.

So we do more than preach principles. We go beyond dialogue to more active tools of engagement to help governments move in a positive direction.

We help countries redraft their laws to incorporate precepts that give meaning to basic rights and we help in the training of judges and other professionals in the legal system. We also work with other agents of change to encourage the emergence of dynamic non-government organizations. To help support those who need it most. To act as mortar between the bricks of law, judicial infrastructure and society's other large and often very powerful institutions.

It is not just on human rights issues that we support institutional growth. By addressing environmental or social challenges we help build the capability of people to take a direct role in improving their lives and those of their children.

Yes, we trade with countries whose human rights records are far from perfect. Those who suggest that the choice is "trade versus human rights" pose a false choice. We do not set aside our concerns and commitments on human rights in the pursuit of economic gain for Canadians.

Trade and investment, when pursued fairly and with the view to sharing the benefits, also increase income levels and the ability of individuals to provide for themselves and their families. That has been our experience here in Canada. It is the experience of nations around the world. We have no right to deny people all over the world that same opportunity.

I think Canadians should be proud of the commitment of most Canadian companies to being good employers wherever they invest. For example, our agrifood businesses teach modern genetic and processing technologies, leading to better trained workforces and improved nutrition.

Representatives of Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises, who are travelling abroad more, bring their values with them: decency, tolerance and integrity. These touch and influence their many contacts and invariably contribute to change.

The more complex the pattern of our involvement with a foreign country, the more likely it is that we will be able to contribute to social, economic and legal change. And we are in for the long haul. Despite the bumps in the road along the way. Because the challenges we face as a global village are too important not to address head on.

They are many. Climate change. The spread of diseases. And most pressing of all, global poverty. Indeed, for far too many people in the world, their priority each and every day of their lives is survival. The gap between rich and poor on Earth is greater than ever before and is growing: the citizens of the richest countries, the top 20%, consume 86% of the world's goods. The poorest 20% consume 1.3%.

How do we compare in what we consume? Americans spend $8 billion each year on cosmetics. Europeans spend $11 billion on ice cream. No one begrudges this. But consider that the cost of sanitation for the 2 billion people on earth who lack it is estimated at only $9 billion. Or that a billion and more could have access to basic education for only $6 billion.

The world is expected to increase its population between now and 2050 from 5.5 billion to 9 billion. Most of that increase will occur in the cities of the Third World. It is not hard to see the potential for further upheaval, refugees, and general destabilisation, unless we deal now with the issues of poverty, environmental degradation, and population pressure.

We do not have to accept predictions of inevitable conflicts between races, religions, and cultures in the next century. But the one clash which looms as almost certain is that between the world's rich, and its many more poor.

It is in our own self-interest to understand that now that our own house is in better repair it is time to refocus our attention on helping our less fortunate neighbours in the global village.

Obviously, one important contribution we can make is increasing foreign aid. And I am pleased that in our last two budgets, after several years of having to cut back in almost every area of spending, we have turned the corner on our expenditures on foreign aid. And I believe we need to continue increasing those expenditures as circumstances permit, in the years to come.

But there is another aspect to global poverty. Even wealthy nations know how deficits and debt can imprison governments. Look at our own recent history in Canada. Now try to imagine the situation in desperately poor countries, where massive indebtedness chokes the government's ability to help feed and heal their own citizens.

I am proud that over the last twenty years, successive Canadian governments have been able to forgive $1.3 billion in foreign debts owed to us by developing countries. In fact, we are a leader among G-7 countries for debt - forgiveness to developing nations. And have consistently called for more generous terms. I believe that gives us an authority and credibility to take a leadership role on this issue, which will be a key focus of the next G-7 meeting in Cologne.

That is why I am announcing today the Canadian proposal we will be putting to our G-7 partners. This is a policy we will push for the G-7 to adopt as a group for all its members and which we will adopt for dealing with the remaining debt owed to us by developing nations:

First, we propose that other industrialized countries forgive 100 percent of the debt owed to them by those least developed of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries. That is the technical term for them. But let's call them what they are: the poorest of the poor.

Second, we propose that the cases of these extremely poor countries that were initially deemed to be ineligible for consideration but have been hit by unexpected shocks such as natural disasters or world economic turmoil be re-examined. One example of such a country is Honduras, which I will soon travel to, which has been so devastated by Hurricane Mitch.

Third, we propose that up to 10 million ounces of gold from IMF stocks be sold in order to allow the IMF to participate in a broader initiative to assist heavily indebted poor countries.

Finally, we propose that further debt forgiveness and that further credit extension from developed world agencies to other debtor nations be linked to human development expenditures, and discourage harmful, or excessive, military expenditures. To put it in very simple language, we should forgive debt and grant further credits to countries that increase spending on education and health care for their people and reduce spending on weapons and the military.

Governments that are making a real effort to educate their people, to give them a healthier, better life, deserve more support. And they deserve a break when it comes to their debts. But governments that would rather spend on AK-47s to oppress their own people and destabilize their neighbours deserve no such break. And we propose the creation of a debt forgiveness regime that ensures they don't get one.

These measures are about justice and fairness. There are other proposals that have been put forward by other nations of the G-7. Some have common points with the proposal I have outlined today. Let's have a full and comprehensive discussion. But let it be more than a discussion. The poor of this world deserve more than just talk. They deserve action.

Ladies and gentlemen, we in Canada are blessed. As the United Nations has confirmed every year for five years running, we enjoy a quality of life here that is quite simply the very best in the world.

But with those blessings come responsibilities. The responsibilities of being a world citizen. Responsibilities that are more important than ever as the world becomes a smaller, more interconnected, more interdependent place.

Whether it is doing our share to help alleviate global poverty, or doing our share to promote stability and prevent conflict through peacekeeping missions under the U. N., or through our membership in NATO, Canadians are determined to play the role of a responsible world citizen.

Just over a hundred years ago, ladies and gentlemen, a great Canadian, Wilfrid Laurier, became Canada's prime minister. For him as for me, and for so many in this room today, Canada has been the inspiration of our lives. This century has been ours, not because we built great armies but because we have built a more decent and just country, the envy of the world.

But we do not seek envy. The seeds of our discontents died long ago. It is the fruits of tolerance and justice that we enjoy today. Now we must offer their richness to others in Honduras, in Mozambique, in China, in countries all over the world just as Canada in this century has given so much to Laurier, to me and to you.