May 10, 2004
Montreal, Quebec

SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER

Check against delivery

Dear friends, I want to thank you for inviting me home to speak with you about foreign policy here in Montreal.

Our city’s internationalism is well known. A crossroads between Europe and North America, Montreal is home to international organizations and welcomes institutions such as yours – yet another tangible sign of the city’s vitality.

In foreign policy, as in domestic policy, the choices we make reflect the values we hold dear. I was reminded of this just over a week ago, during my visit to Washington. Topping the agenda, needless to say, were issues central to the shared and immediate concerns of our two countries, namely softwood lumber, beef, Iraq and the missile shield.

On the topic of softwood lumber and beef, protectionism serves no one’s interests. As for Iraq, I reiterated my personal support for our decision not to join the coalition forces. But I also made it a point to look toward the future and underscore our commitment to help the Iraqis rebuild their country and adopt a democratic system, with the help of the United Nations. On the question of the missile shield, Canada will be guided by its own interests when making its decision.

One thing is clear: Canada remains profoundly opposed to the weaponization of space. We want space to be considered as a universal good. I also broached two ideas of longer-term import, which will prove central to what I see as the foreign policy of tomorrow’s Canada.

These two ideas have been evolving for several months now, but I would like to talk to you about them today because they have really come to the fore over the past week. These two ideas are inspired by deeply-held Canadian values. Values such as: multilateral action to resolve disputes; faith in the rule of law; good governance and transparent institutions as conditions of progress; and above all, the thirst for equity and justice, the cornerstones of true security.

The two ideas I’m going to talk to you about recognize that while globalization has been of considerable benefit to us, it also poses a whole series of challenges that we cannot resolve without contemplating new approaches and taking new initiatives.

The first idea has to do with the fact that the international institutions created 30 to 50 years ago, for all their usefulness and importance, have yet to adapt sufficiently to meet these new challenges. Ten years ago, when I was Minister of Finance, we were confronted with serious cracks in the global financial foundation, which led to the Mexican peso crisis of 1994 and the Asian crisis of 1997, followed by the Brazilian crisis. The problem facing us, as G-7 Finance Ministers, was that while we understood very well the difficulties facing these countries and believed we had the necessary solutions, we couldn’t win their acceptance because they did not belong to the G-7 and, quite naturally, rejected any solution imposed from the outside.

That is why in 1999, we created a new forum, the G-20, bringing together the G-7 Finance Ministers but also the Finance Ministers from emerging economies in every region of the world – China, Indonesia, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa – countries that, together, account for two-thirds of the world’s population.

And it’s working. It was the G-20 that, during its meeting in Montreal in the year 2000 and thanks to the cooperation of all the countries seated around a single table, succeeded in implementing the mechanisms needed to deal more effectively with international financial challenges. Which brings me to today. The G-8 is very important. But when I look at the problems confronting us in this day and age, global woes that know no countries and know no borders, things like SARS, AIDS, the greenhouse effect and global terrorism, it is obvious that there are limits to what the G-8 can do, since its grasp is too narrow.

The solution? I believe we need a G-20 at the Head of State level, not to replace the G-8, but to complement it. I am convinced that a meeting of the G-20 leaders can make a significant contribution by galvanizing our efforts at the multilateral level and giving impetus and a better sense of direction to our institutions working in the field of global governance.

Is this important for Canada? Clearly it is, because this gives us a chance to act as a catalyst for fundamental action. It will give us the leverage we need to build a bridge between North and South. All of these things are crucial for Canada. Few countries are as open to the world as we are. Our economy depends on global stability.

Is the idea of a G-20 realistic? More and more, I believe that it’s feasible. My discussions on the G-20 with the European Commission have sparked some interest. The same was true of my discussions with the Presidents of Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. The two key countries are the two major powers of the North and South, the United States and China. The day before I was appointed Prime Minister, I had a meeting with the Prime Minister of China, Wen Jiabao, during which he showed interest in the idea. I will be following up on this.

The other key country is the United States. And in Washington last week, I broached the question with President Bush, who expressed genuine interest in the idea, and that is what I wanted to talk to you about today.

During my meeting with President Bush, I described the concept of the G-20, a Group of leaders from the developed and the developing world that would meet as informally as possible in order to advance the yardsticks on some of the most difficult issues before the global community, HIV-AIDS, the need for greater cooperation against terrorism, the need to address the growing gap between the rich and the poor. American support is key,
and, as in my discussions with other world leaders, President Bush expressed genuine interest and I believe the G-20 is an idea whose time has now come.

Now that the idea is making headway, I intend to carry on the discussion with the other regional powers in Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Will we succeed in creating the Heads of State G-20? That remains to be seen. But if we do succeed, I believe we will have in place a mechanism that is totally in tune with an ever-changing world.

My second proposal stems from an observation that I will illustrate using three contemporary examples: Example number one, Haiti. Ten years ago, Canada, the United States and France intervened to restore to power that country’s democratically-elected president. This was a fairly expensive operation for us. But because we left before developing the institutional structures Haiti needed, here we are 10 years later, back
to square one. Let us not make the same mistake again.

We recognize that as a French-speaking country and as an important partner in the Americas, Canada has a special responsibility toward Haiti, and this time we are going to make sure that the international community lives up to its obligations to help strengthen Haiti’s public governance institutions.

Example number two, Afghanistan. With our 2000 soldiers, Canada leads NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Our troops are doing a wonderful job. But it is clear that Afghanistan will never have security or economic development unless steps are taken to build government institutions capable of bringing political stability to that country.

Final example, last year, former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo and I co-chaired the United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development. Our report contained a number of recommendations. But our main conclusion was that the private sector in less well-off countries will not develop until it has confidence in its country’s public institutions.

What can we conclude from these examples? It’s pretty clear: There will be no social peace nor economic development without stable, strong and honest public institutions.

First, failed states more often than not require military intervention in order to ensure stability. But we would be deluding ourselves if we thought that military intervention, indispensable though it may be, was enough to restore long-term security to a country. Without solid public institutions, operational government ministries, a good legal system, honest police forces, independent courts, human rights commissions, schools,
adequate hospitals and competent public services, the stability brought by peace-keeping forces can be fleeting at best.

So what am I proposing? The international community must build the capacity of vulnerable countries to create and manage their own public and private institutions, and there is no country better placed to take on a leadership role in this area than Canada. We have all that it takes to get the job done. We have the knowledge gained from nearly a century and a half of experience in developing solid institutions here at home.

Canada has a vast reservoir of talents to create or strengthen the most diverse institutions in countries with the greatest need. That is what we are doing in Jordan, for example, where we are training Iraqi police officers. This kind of cooperation already exists among Francophone countries. Canada, Quebec and New Brunswick are working together to foster the development of the people and institutions of the less well-off countries of La Francophonie.

But we can do so much more. For example, we can offer countries in need one of Canada’s greatest assets: bijuralism. The coexistence in our country of common law and civil law affords us an influential role both in the Commonwealth and in La Francophonie, as well as in a number of Latin American countries.

You’re going to tell me that there are other countries with the necessary skills. So why is it up to Canada to be the catalyst? My answer: Canada can get the ball rolling, not only because of what we can do, but because of who we are. We inspire confidence not only because we are a large industrialized nation, but also because we are neither a former colonial power nor a superpower.

Just as important, Canada’s big advantage dates back to its founding, when two distinct groups were brought together in a single political community B French and Catholic on one side, English and Protestant on the other. Over the years, we have added a rich mosaic of languages, ethnicities and religions, and we have striven to respond to the concerns and demands of our Aboriginal peoples.

We have accomplished a major feat, an enormous feat, really, in managing this integration in a spirit of tolerance and respect for diversity. There were certainly difficulties along the way, and mistakes were made, but all in all it has been a remarkable success. It shows that a country is not just a language or culture. It’s the ability to live together and the desire to succeed together. And today we have a growing number of advantages on our side.
In order to build,in vulnerable countries, the type of institutions from which Canadians of all origins benefit here at home.

We know we can count on the full cooperation of our diasporas in Canada, such as the Haitian, Afghan and Iraqi communities. Canada has relentlessly promoted a convention on cultural diversity under the auspices of UNESCO. Why? First, to protect our own cultural heritage, but also for what it means outside our borders.

Countries must have the right to take the necessary measures to preserve and promote their culture. What’s important about the UNESCO convention is that it helps strengthen institutions and reassures societies, by letting them know that they can adopt a modern system of governance and open up to the world, without losing their distinct culture. Canada has followed this path throughout its history – one more reason why we are well placed to help developing countries build their institutions.

So, where does that leave us? In the Speech from the Throne we announced our intention to create a new organization known as Canada Corps. Today I am pleased to let you in on some of the details. The idea behind Canada Corps is to make available to countries in need the talents and values of Canadians who want to help these countries build their institutions and, in so doing, stronger nations. I am now announcing that the operation is underway.

In the Speech from the Throne we announced our intention to create the Canada Corps, an organisation dedicated to making available to countries in need the talents and values of Canadians who want to help to build the institutions of stronger nationhood. Today I want to fill in the details. I am convinced that this idea is in keeping with Canadians’ deepest aspirations. For example, look at the visionary and courageous Quebeckers who have for so long manned the front lines in the war against poverty, disease and ignorance. They have founded schools, hospitals, clinics and agricultural stations, as well as building irrigation facilities and power plants.

The Dominican Father Georges Henri Lévesque, who founded Université Laval’s School of Social Sciences in 1938. Not the type to rest on his laurels, he created, at age 60, the Université du Rwanda in Kigali, serving as its rector from 1963 to 1972.Over ten years ago, with the help of CIDA, Hydro-Québec began overhauling Jacmel’s electrical infrastructure in Haiti.

Today, Jacmel is the only area in the country which has electricity 24 hours a day. In various parts of the world, the Mouvement International Desjardins is helping set up savings, micro credit and community financing cooperatives. In February, when the violence in Haiti was at its worst, many commercial banks were ransacked. But the Caisses populaires were protected by the inhabitants of the communities in which they were based. None of the Caisses was attacked. Not a single one!

In this spirit, Canada Corps will help create synergies among the many public and private
organizations active in the field of development. It will make available the skills of institution- and capacity-building specialists. It will mobilize Canadians of all ages who are willing to contribute to institutional development.

We are counting, of course, on the cooperation of the private sector, civil society and federal institutions, and we are also counting on the cooperation of the provinces.Canada Corps will have access to three categories of people: experts at various levels of the public and private sectors; people who work in the voluntary sector, like the Canadian Executive Service Organization; and young people with expertise or training in areas such as the law, management or community organizing.The experts will run the gamut, from MBAs to retired police officers, from constitutional specialists to dieticians or teachers.

Some needs will require a long-term contribution. In other cases, the task at hand will be intense, but fairly short-term. A case in point: the Canadian experts who monitored the elections in Mongolia and Georgia.

We will be giving young Canadians the opportunity to help their fellow human beings and get to know the world a little before launching their careers in Canada. We will do everything in our power to ensure that their participation in such activities is an integral part of their formative experience.

We are talking about people like Pierrot Tremblay, an Aboriginal who graduated from a Quebec university with a Master’s degree and knowledge of the Spanish language, and who took part in the presidential commission charged with human rights in Guatemala.

So how far along are we in the process? We have just set up the secretariat responsible for Canada Corps. This secretariat will emphasize consultation with the various stakeholders from the three categories of resource persons and forge links with other democracy-oriented institutions in Canada,such as the Forum of Federations, which is working with authorities in Sri Lanka to find a federal solution to their inter-ethnic problems. Over time, the organization will forge links with groups in other countries and with international organizations active in the same field.

To head up the secretariat as acting Director General, we have appointed Ms. Marie Gervais-Vidricaire of the Canadian Foreign Service. And today I have the pleasure of announcing the names of the two Canada Corp co-chairs, namely Gordon Smith,
formerly Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and currently Director of the Centre for Global Studies at the University of Victoria, and Julie Payette, astronaut and woman of science and erudition.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I came to talk to you today about two new foreign policy initiatives on the part of our new government. As a country, we are proceeding from an existing dynamic. We have essential bilateral relations. We have regional and global perspectives.
Our relationship with the United States is vital.

We belong to all manner of networks, including the Commonwealth and La Francophonie. We belong to multilateral institutions that play a central role in human development, beginning with the United Nations. All of this is the product of our history and our geography. Now we need to build on it .

You will find in our foreign policy the traditional Canadian elements of generosity, compassion and sacrifice. But I want to revitalize this tradition to suit an increasingly complex world.

Allow me to give you a final example: Every year 14 million people die of diseases that could be avoided if they had access to affordable drugs. In the next 24 hours, 8 000 people will die of AIDS and 14000 others will become infected with HIV, destroying families and devastating already fragile countries. Figures like these are mind-boggling, and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has launched an urgent appeal to the international community. Canada will answer the call. This week, we will be the first country in the world to pass a law that will allow pharmaceutical manufacturers to produce low-cost drugs to combat HIV and AIDS in Africa.

In the same vein, I would like to announce today that Canada will contribute 100 million dollars to a new initiative of the World Health Organization. This program seeks to treat three million people with AIDS by the end of 2005.

This contribution makes us the program’s leading donor. Canadians can take pride in this, because this is a question of life and death.

That’s what we need: a forward-looking foreign policy approach, mindful of the new threats confronting us but confident in our ability to overcome them through new partnerships. We need a foreign policy that recognizes that the world’s new borders are not those of States but rather those of ignorance, intolerance and injustice. These are the borders we must cross. It’s a foreign policy that recognizes that there can be no development without security and there can be no lasting security without justice, without equity and without development.

The challenges facing us today are enormous. That is why Canada must adopt a fresh perspective and new ideas in order to meet them. Both my proposals venture off the beaten track! So much the better. If the G-20 political leaders come together and galvanize international governance, and we manage to create solid institutions in vulnerable countries, we will have only done our duty.

Ideas change the world. Well, Canadians can come up with new ideas. And we can also take steps to put these ideas into practice. Canada leading the way? Some will day it’s a dream. Perhaps, but it=s an awfully realistic dream, and one that is shared by all Canadians. We have created one of the most remarkable countries in the world. And yet, nature certainly didn’t do us any favours.

Two founding peoples who had waged war against each other created a bastion of tolerance, a nation where talent goes hand in hand with diversity. We are often described as a bridge between Europe and North America. But we’re more than that. Way more.

We are an example to the world of what a country should be. Showing others the way is at once our destiny and our responsibility.

The Canada I am proposing is a Canada that reflects our deepest values.

It’s a Canada that is open to new and better ways of doing things.

It is the Canada that our friends want. And it is the Canada that Canadians want.
Thank you.