“Canada in North America and the Hemisphere: Challenge and Symbiosis”

Speech by Peter M. Boehm
Assistant Deputy Minister, North America
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

To the 27. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für
Kanada-Studien e.V.
Grainau, Germany
February 17, 2006

Sehr geehrter Herr Dr. Alfred Pletsch,
Präsident der Gesellschaft für Kanada-Studien in Deutschland,
Liebe Kollegen: Frau Botschafterin Marie Gervais-Vidricaire und Herr Botschafter Paul Dubois,
Sehr geehrte Herr Dr. Charles Villiers, Leiter der Vertretung der Regierung von Quebec,
Sehr geehrte Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler,
Liebe Studentinnen und Studenten und Freunde Kanadas,

Ich freue mich wirklich sehr, hier zu sein. Als ich im Januar in der Financial Times ein Foto vom zugefrorenen Chiemsee sah und las, dass die Temperatur zwanzig Grad Minus betrug, – ob Celsius oder Fahrenheit, das spielt bei dieser Kälte keine Rolle mehr – da habe ich mir gedacht: Oh! Das sieht wie Ottawa aus, nur dass es hier Berge gibt! Warum wollte ich dann überhaupt von dort weg?
Aber gleichzeitig dachte ich, es wäre nicht schlecht, der hitzigen Phase der Regierungsumbildung nach den Wahlen in Kanada zu entfliehen. Und wohin lieber als nach Bayern?
Herr Dr. Pletsch, ich möchte Ihnen meinen ganz herzlichen Dank für Ihre freundliche Einladung aussprechen. Ich möchte auch Herrn Dr. Martin Thunert danken, der während seiner Zeit als Gastprofessor an der Universität Michigan ersten Kontakt zu mir aufnahm.
Wenn es um Dinner-Reden geht, muss ich immer an den Gladiator denken, dem es gelang – im Angesicht des Löwen – sein Leben zu retten. Er beugte sich nämlich zu diesem herunter und flüsterte ihm etwas ins Ohr. Daraufhin haute der Löwe ab. Ein anderer Gladiator fragte ihn fassungslos, was er dem Löwen denn gesagt hätte, dass dieser so entsetzt davonrannte.
Ganz einfach, erwiderte der Gladiator, ich habe ihm gesagt, dass er mich ruhig für sein Abendmahl einplanen könne, wenn er möchte – dass es aber vorher noch Reden gäbe.
Einführung
Kanada in den Amerikas, das ist ein weitgefasster Titel, sozusagen eine „kontinentale Jahresansprache“. Aber keine Angst: meine Ausführungen werden heute weniger ambitiös sein. Ich werde einige Perspektiven zu Kanadas Beziehungen mit den USA, zu unserer sich rasch vertiefenden Verbundenheit mit Mexiko und zu unserem Platz in den Amerikas beitragen.
Das ist schließlich mein Job.
Insbesondere werde ich auf die folgenden drei Fragen eingehen:

• Wie ist der Stand der Beziehungen zwischen Kanada und den USA?
• Gibt es ein Nordamerika jenseits der geografischen Definition?
• Wo liegen die Prioritäten Kanadas in den Amerikas?
und hieraus ergibt sich die folgende Frage:

• Vor welchen Herausforderungen stehen wir?

Le Canada et les États-Unis

Pour de jeunes pays, le Canada et les États-Unis partagent une longue histoire. Celle-ci trace les contours d’une amitié vitale et dynamique que les commentaires ont tendance, malheureusement, à réduire à des clichés simplistes bien en deçà de ce qu’est le Canada moderne et ses relations avec les États-Unis.

Cette situation relève en partie du fait que le Canada n’a pas attiré - et n’attire toujours pas - sa part d’attention. Il se passe bien des choses dans notre pays qui échappent au commentaire de l’extérieur. De plus, des études déficientes, lorsqu’elles sont faites, ont eu tendance à évaluer la relation bilatérale - la plus ample relation commerciale et économique au monde - en fonction de nos divergences de politiques du moment, par opposition à la profondeur et l’extension de notre engagement constructif, comme si les premières rendaient superflus la considération des secondes. Ce n’est pas le cas.

L’histoire, avec tout son poids, est instructive. (Je le concède, bien qu’étant Canadien de racine allemande - avec, par conséquent, un fort penchant pour tout ce qui est empirique). Elle révèle que le Canada et les États-Unis sont tous deux prédisposés à penser et agir indépendamment.

Nous avons à l’occasion des divergences d’opinion, rarement acrimonieuses, habituellement respectueuses, mais nous partageons aussi des vues communes ou complémentaires. Nous sommes portés, pareillement, vers la coopération stratégique, lorsqu’il en va de nos intérêts nationaux respectifs; tel que par exemple dans la lutte contre le terrorisme, ou en matière de santé publique, y inclus, la préparation contre les pandémies, et dans le domaine de l’énergie. Et souvent nos objectifs de politique étrangère s’accordent, même si notre modus operandi peut différer.

In 2006, the importance of enhanced public security to our national interests is overarching. The events of September 11, 2001, impelled us to find ways to work together with the United States to make our borders part of our fight against terrorism while recognising their role as drivers of our economies. I was serving at our Embassy in Washington, D.C. on September 11, and can still recall the brightness of that late Summer day -- so at odds with what had happened -- as well as the stillness that followed the attacks, in DC at least, and which preceded a fundamental shift in the way that we lead our lives in North America. Not everything changed that morning. Our realization of security threats, under which Europe, the Middle East, and parts of Asia and Central America, have long operated, did.

A security ethic is now entrenched firmly in North America, and -- four years after the events in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania -- there remains a strong resolve in Canada and the United States to deal with security threats. While I would suggest that there is a difference of risk perception in Canada – we may be underestimating our vulnerability -- and increasing concern about the impact of security measures on civil liberties, Canadians’ support for a well-reasoned security agenda is steadfast. There is still ample willingness to cooperate with the United States on North American public security. And, we are doing it.

I will address other areas of Canada-U.S. policy convergence tonight. But, allow me to first take a brave – in the company of so many academics – brief look at some of the cliches wrapped around this bilateral relationship, some truisms, and a few other factors that seem particularly significant to me.

I’ll begin with the question of values and attitudes. Several Canadian political commentators have interpreted recent polling to pronounce that Canada and the United States are on ethical and social paths that are diverging more with each passing year. I do not agree.

It is true that the buzz in Canada in recent months has been about the problems in our relationship with the United States - trade frictions, border and water issues, missile defence, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and lingering discomfort – in some circles - over our decision not to become militarily involved in Iraq. However, interpretations of polls frequently fail to take account of context, and of the complex history of Canada-U.S. relations. Perspective is lost. The focus is on short term trajectories. As frequently, commentators seem to assume that Canada’s bilateral relationship with the U.S. has always existed in some golden glow of harmony.

This is not quite so. Just last month, articles in the Washington Post amused a new audience with the old story that the U.S. had developed in the 1920's detailed war plans for the conquest of Canada. At the same time, we had our own plan, which was not so fanciful considering that the Canadian army of World War I was considerably superior to that of the United States. [We recall of course that at the end of the U.S. Civil War, the Union army was the largest in the world. Our confederation quickly followed.] As well, trade irritants have always existed: the current disagreement over lumber echoes similar quarrels dating to the nineteenth century.

Canada and the United States have long-reflected unique assumptions about the nature of political society and government. The United States being a profoundly revolutionary society, arguably the most developed real-world example of Enlightenment thought, yet built upon an equally profound religious foundation. This of course explains the conflict, particularly on the right, between secular and fundamentalist religious approaches – intelligent design, manifest destiny etc. Canada, for its part, has been in some real ways a counter-revolutionary society. Canada remained loyal after all to the British monarchy and has emerged, in many ways, as a significant post-modern state.

Equally, both societies have developed different world views. We have independent foreign policies. The United States is known for its conviction that it is the “city on the hill,” unconstrained by the quarrels of the old world. This is clearly reflected in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. It has shaped the thrust of its foreign policy for the past century, through occasional bouts of isolationism and at times a paradoxical aversion to all things multilateral. Yet, we perhaps do not give enough credit to American idealism these days for it is that idealism that created the United Nations, while spurning the League of Nations.

Canadians, however, have not generally seen their country as fulfilling a world-historical mission. As Margaret Atwood long ago argued, our greatest accomplishment has been survival. Neither our national demography nor our climate has favoured triumphalist ideologies. And, of course, it is a national characteristic to sell ourselves short, as it is to engage in foreign policy reviews every few years.

In all this we can see how America’s self image has been “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” while Canadians have devoted themselves to “peace, order and good government.” Both countries have codified these principles in their constitutions.

One of the most important developments in political consciousness in Canada has come over the past 25 years, the era of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter has gradually taken on the same totemic significance as the Constitution in the United States. Since Trudeau was influenced by the French Revolutionary Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and the U.S. Constitution, it celebrates the rights of the individual more than was the case in the traditional British-style legal structure. It has led Canadians to a “rights culture” that is closer to American and perhaps French ways of thought than our British roots.

The Charter’s stress on equality -- upheld consistently by the Supreme Court -- has become one of the most striking elements in the contemporary Canadian national character. In terms of Canada-U.S. comparisons, the Charter has had a most interesting effect. Traditionally, Americans were the more freewheeling society, with Canadians expressing more conservative views on social issues.

Recent polls do not suggest a radical readjustment of overall American social mores. (We cannot forget that Americans pioneered gay rights and the modern feminist movement.) However, the Charter has moved Canada to a different cultural space, one where most social indices reveal a country that is more liberal by almost every measure of societal attitudes. This is the origin of the impression that Canadians have more in common with certain Europeans. Without prejudice to those gathered here tonight, I would suggest instead -- with some 2005 polling in Canada to help back me up -- that what we have in Canada is a strong and strengthening sense of national identity.

From the aspect of political history: a key element is the political lesson of the Civil War. Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address are still worth reading for anyone who wants to understand the United States. [And, they are a lot shorter than this speech.] The lesson was that great ethical issues had to be fought through to a finish.

An equivalent experience took place in Canada in 1759. When Wolfe defeated Montcalm on the Plains of Abraham (the battle was over in 20 minutes when both generals had been killed) it was but one frontier in what has been described as the first truly global war. It was also an intense trauma for a well-established and sophisticated, if small, society. What followed was quite extraordinary by the standards of the time. There was no forced assimilation. Britain passed the Quebec Act in 1774, guaranteeing to Quebeckers, their language, their Catholic religion and French Civil Law, in short, the cultural framework that underpins modern Quebec. For Canada, the central lesson of its great historical trauma was thus quite different: accommodation and compromise became the tools with which to resolve the ethical questions. And so our experiment in post-modernism took form.

From the beginning, Canada and the United States enjoyed an exceptional relationship. Even in the nineteenth century, when genuine plans existed for war, trade flourished. By the time President Franklin Delano Roosevelt made his Good Neighbour visit in 1938, the structures of a modern bilateral relationship had been agreed: boundaries and shared water resources had been addressed and Canada had opened its mission in Washington. Canada’s first minister to Washington presented his credentials to President Coolidge in 1927 – while Roosevelt’s visit marked the beginning of the modern bilateral relationship.

What does this bilateral relationship actually look like today? Certainly, it is not very like those found in the European Community. We have only a handful of binational institutions. We rely on the many treaties, agreements and memoranda of understanding that structure the conduct of business. As in the EU however, much, if not most business is conducted by line departments other than the foreign ministries, even through the states and the provinces. [I refer to this as area code diplomacy – that habit of bureaucrats in Ottawa to phone their U.S. counterparts directly without informing the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade or our Missions. ] In Ottawa and across 23 Canadian missions in the United States, our department act as an integrator – situating issues in the spectrum of Canadian interests in the U.S. to ensure that specific objectives are congruent with broad national goals.

Big-ticket bilateral strategies are not the norm between Canada and the United States, except primarily in three areas where fundamental principles apply. Taken chronologically, the first of these is the environment. The Boundary Waters treaty of 1909 and the International Joint Commission still set out our obligations and a strong bias toward science-based management of the environment. The second area is defence. From the Ogdensburg Agreement of 1940, it has always been the first principle of Canadian strategy that Canada and the United States must defend the continent through a joint effort.

The third area is, of course, the economic integration of the North American economies. Trends in this direction long pre-dated the NAFTA but in recent decades, Mexico’s participation in the economic dimension has made the economic domain --- “the shared economic space” as our policy wonks call it -- the most North American of the fundamental interest sets. Access to the U.S. market is of course critical to both Canadian and Mexican interests.

Le point décisif de ce survol rapide des relations canado-américaines est que la relation est fondamentalement solide. Il existe une appréciation mutuelle entre bons voisins que chacune des sociétés continuera à évoluer à sa propre façon et à son propre rythme, chacune faisant ses propres choix sociaux et culturels tout en recherchant les bénéfices économiques et de sécurité nombreux qui naissent de la proximité et de la coopération. Bien sûr, il en apparaît ainsi à ceux qui pensent à ces choses. Sur cela, nous avons constaté que nous fonctionnons mieux lorsque nous n’essayons pas d’orchestrer l’avenir. On pourrait dire que l’Accord de libre-échange entre le Canada et les États-Unis et l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain visaient justement cela. Mais, en fait, lorsque nous les avons conclu, le moment était devenu propice. Je voudrais maintenant parler de l’Amérique du Nord.

North America

Albert Einstein once said, “The most powerful force in the Universe is compound interest.” The North American Free Trade Agreement could well prove his point. Signed in 1994, NAFTA played a central role in charting a trilateral relationship without parallel. In 2006, we rightly celebrate a well-designed, commercially vital relationship. NAFTA remains a state-of-the-art free trade agreement in terms of both its provisions and scope.

It has served Canada well. Canadians have benefited from the heightened competition and an integrated marketplace through better prices and a greater choice of higher-quality goods and services. Under the Agreement, Canadian producers and service providers are better able to realize their full potential by operating in a larger, more integrated and efficient North American economy.

Some numbers. Canadian merchandise exports to the United States grew at a compounded annual rate of 8.5 percent between 1990 and 2004. Around $680 billion in goods and services crossed the Canada-United States border in 2004. With respect to Mexico, results are no less impressive. Trade with Mexico has trebled since 1994. Mexico is now Canada’s 5th largest export destination and ranks 3rd as a source of imports worldwide, with bilateral trade in 2004 reaching $16.4 billion.

Of course, the trade and economic environment in which NAFTA operates has changed considerably in the past decade. The emergence of new economic players such as China, Brazil and India – not to mention a rapidly consolidating EU – has transformed the dynamic of world trade and brings both opportunities and challenges in terms of North America’s continued prosperity. An increasingly integrated trading network, with global sourcing of inputs, as well as redefined markets, adds to the changing reality for North American business.

This contemporary global economic environment drives how we respond as a North American community - particularly in terms of enhancing our economic competitiveness. Importantly, NAFTA also nourished a new and broader North America partnership - already mapped out by continental propinquity.

Built on economic potential realized by the North American Free Trade Agreement, the North America construct is emerging as a strategic framework through pragmatic, forward-looking decisions by politicians, civil servants, business leaders and citizens.

For example: the focus on security led to the adoption of individual and collective measures to reinforce our public security in areas such as counter-terrorism, international crime, counter-narcotics and other transnational threats. An area where this cooperation has advanced quickly is at our borders, with smart border agreements becoming the foundation for border cooperation.

The three countries of North America need each other -- to better enable mutual security and prosperity. Moreover, we want to work together on issues of common and complementary interest. These twin drivers are evidenced-well by high-level political engagement in mechanisms such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership. That said, we can also work, “a deux vitesses.”

The SPP was signed by former Prime Minister Martin and Presidents Fox and Bush in Waco, Texas in March 2005. The partnership recognizes that the objectives of prosperity, security and quality of life are integral to one another.

In its December 2005 survey of Canada, The Economist described the SPP as “little more than a forum for officials from the three countries to discuss a range of technocratic subjects, such as border security and health co-operation.” The judgement is wrong on both counts – as I asserted when interviewed for the article.

The SPP framework is not just a forum. Less than one year old, the SPP is still in its infancy. But it is already advancing common goals through robust, practical initiatives, some of which I have mentioned above.

And, let’s be clear. Issues such as aviation security and a harmonised North American import approach for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) management demand serious consideration by technical experts because they are technical in nature - and because they impact fundamentally life on the continent. And, beyond. It will be up to our political masters – our new Government in Canada, a new Government in Mexico post the July election and transition period, and the Bush Administration – to decide on the velocity.

Of course, Canada, Mexico and the United States are not uncritical, unquestioning friends. For example, Canada and Mexico debate with the U.S. over how best to manage our respective borders; and the U.S. and Mexico struggle to attend to challenges at the nexus of Mexican labour mobility, and U.S. immigration controls and labour market appetites.

This is how it should be. Not much happens when an engine is in neutral. [And, there is always a risk of sliding into reverse.] Rather, three independent foreign policies are finding strength in trilateral approaches to common cause. All three governments recognise that there are issues where a trilateral approach is desirable and times when it is not. This is the deux vitesses argument again.

To drag out the motor car analogy [what better place than Bavaria in which to do this?], we’ve all got plenty of room to manoeuvre [and scope for applying the turbocharger].

Against the backdrop of this entirely pragmatic cooperation, the Canada-Mexico bilateral relationship has its own unique resonance and dynamic. NAFTA opened the door. [To turn an old saying on its head, Canada and Mexico have opportunity between us.] In 2006, several points of convergence in foreign policy lend the relationship particular momentum, notably on hemispheric and global affairs. And, of course, the Mexican Presidential and Congressional elections in July will be of great interest.

The Canada-Mexico Partnership launched in October 2004 seeks, not unlike the Partnership for Prosperity between the United States and Mexico, to enhance the bilateral relationship further.

The partnership is designed to promote private and public sector dialogue at senior levels. It brings together business leaders, key economic actors and senior policymakers, and fosters the creation of strategic networks / partnerships. The public and private sectors of both countries are represented in quadripartite working groups established to advance results-based initiatives on competitiveness, human capital, and urban development and housing, agribusiness, and – most recently --energy.

The Hemisphere

As Canada engages more actively with Mexico, both bilaterally and trilaterally, we are also keenly conscious of the importance of cooperation in our hemisphere. As past Summit of the Americas hosts, Canada and Mexico worked closely together in preparation for the Fourth Summit of the Americas, held in Mar del Plata, Argentina in November 2005. I was there in my “Sherpa” capacity with former Prime Minister Paul Martin. In many ways, this Summit was a watershed event – an opportunity for those espousing new socioeconomic models to debate those promulgating more traditional models. And we had Diego Maradona to add to our excitement.

Equally, and notwithstanding disappointments attached to the outcome on the Free Trade Area of the Americas, cooperation at the Summit, in support of shared priorities in the hemisphere, was close and effective. Concrete results were achieved. The final declaration and Plan of Action succeeded in building upon the balanced agenda for democracy, prosperity and equity agreed at the Quebec City Summit in 2001. The separate Leaders' statement on Haiti, a Canadian initiative which enjoyed universal support, was an important development from Canada's perspective.

But summits inevitably must be measured by governments’ willingness to be politically accountable for their results and the collective desire to continue the summit process. In that respect, we are at a critical juncture in our hemisphere.

Although it was never our intention, nor did we see it as our manifest destiny as did the U.S., Canada is a country of the Americas - by geography, history, interests and shared experience. There are at least a dozen countries who share our system of government and colonial history in the Americas. In fact, it could be said that we avoided the hemisphere at a regional multilateral policy level for several decades, not feeling any affinity with military regimes and not wanting to get embroiled in the complex dynamics of U.S. engagement in the region. It was also not clear that regional multilateral approaches would support our bilateral interests.

Our relations, political and economic, with our hemispheric neighbours, grew as democracies took root throughout the region and we began to see commonalities of values and interests emerge. Canadian civil society organizations also became increasingly vocal in hemispheric developments, particularly the precarious situation in Central America beginning some thirty years ago. At the same time, the EU project was advancing at a rapid pace, and it was clear that the nature of Canada’s transatlantic relationships would alter permanently as a result. We needed to find our own region in the world. We expanded our representation throughout the region, building progressively a rich web of bilateral relations.

Today our relationships in the hemisphere are buoyed by trade and investment interests and by a political commitment to a secure, democratic and prosperous neighbourhood.

Two way trade with Latin America and the Caribbean now totals around $30 billion annually, and indications point to continued growth. [Canadian merchandise exports to Latin America and the Caribbean exceeded exports in 2004 to India, Indonesia, Russia, Germany, France combined.]

Moreover, Canadian direct investment in Latin America and the Caribbean (including Mexico) reached $85.2 billion in 2004. And, this investment is spread across many sectors – including, mining, banking, and telecommunications.

Nous nous appliquons en outre à inscrire notre engagement envers les Amériques dans le contexte de l’ensemble de la politique étrangère du Canada, en particulier en vertu de la priorité que nous accordons aux droits de la personne, à la bonne gouvernance et au développement démocratique.

Dans l’hémisphère, le Canada a promu activement un programme équilibré qui favorise la gouvernance démocratique, la croissance économique et le développement social, en particulier dans le cadre des institutions interaméricaines. Il existe en effet un ensemble d’institutions multilatérales régionales développées au sein desquelles nous pouvons oeuvrer, tel que l’Organisation des États Américains (OEA) où nous jouons depuis 16 ans un rôle actif et, je me permets de le souligner, où nous sommes un membre dynamique.
Entre autres contributions du Canada à l’OEA, on peut citer la création du Bureau pour la promotion de la démocratie, qui a contribué à renforcer la gouvernance démocratique et les processus électoraux dans la région.

There are significant challenges in our region. Democracy remains fragile in various places and in need of strong international support such as in Haiti. The Free Trade Area of the Americas has reached a critical juncture -- challenged by a number of countries. There is a recognition that economic growth alone -- especially sporadic growth -- is insufficient to guarantee social equity. Polarization has increased in the region and populism is on the rise, particularly in the Andean countries.

The FTAA is proving an especially divisive issue. But for Canada, and many others in the region, the completion of an FTAA remains an important objective. For us, the negotiation of a high-quality agreement is key to managing national prosperity equitably, enabling the kind of health, environment and social programs that can so profoundly improve the quality of life of residents of our countries. But there are those who say that the Doha WTO Round must come first, and still others who propose radically different economic development models.

What does this mean for Canada’s engagement in the region, which was ushered into its current phase with the promise of democratic neighbours, free trade, and hemispheric unity of vision and purpose expressed through effective multilateralism? Our friends in the neighbourhood look to us for ideas, reason and moderation.

In responding, we work from our strengths. As a free-market democracy with a commitment to social justice, we are strengthening our engagement with like-minded countries (Brazil, Mexico and Chile) to forge common ground and consensus wherever we can, whether on approaches to the fragile states in our midst or on international security, environmental, and transnational health issues.

Conclusion

In closing, I would make the following assertions:

Canada is linked by history, geography and economics to the Americas. It is the region to which we belong – naturally.

From our cool, northern vantage point, with our feet planted firmly on the vast Canadian shield and our backs against a snowbank, we look South to the United States -- a singular relationship long-fixed in shared and vital security and prosperity goals -- and in as good a shape today as it has ever been. Then, beyond the curvature of the earth, we look to Mexico where NAFTA set the scene for strategic bilateral cooperation. And, then we look further still to the concentric circles of the hemisphere where our traditional relationships are finding new partners who share a commonality of views – and, increasingly, common purpose.

Dr. Jennifer Welsh, has said that the world needs more Canada. Perhaps. But I would assert – without any hesitation – that our hemisphere needs more Canada.

Our engagement is not without challenges: some of the necessarily-transformational variety – including resistance in certain quarters to Canada’s commitment to advancing freer trade and, a continued mutual “knowledge deficit” with the region among key decision and opinion-makers. Other challenges are purely operational in nature – such as practical considerations around direct, high-level political engagement given, for example, limitations imposed on the travel of Ministers of a minority government.

We are however well-positioned to play an increasingly effective role. We come to regional relationships free of the history that shadows our more powerful continental neighbour, a desire to engage constructively, a flexibility in approach, and a commitment to multilateralism through both the United Nations and the OAS.

Finally, I would suggest that Canada’s role in the Americas has value for parts of Europe. From our unique perspective, and with the benefit of long observation and engagement, we have lessons to share. We also offer an interpretation of United States strategic thinking, North American agendas, and Latin American and Caribbean dynamics, that may make a difference in how you approach the Americas, and also how you respond to the voices and abundant opportunities of this region.

To quote a great Canadian, whose work I hope you have all studied closely, we’re skating to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.

We’ve always been quite good at doing that.

Herzlichen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit.