
Français		Home		Contact Us		Help		Search		canada.gc.ca		Canada International

Home > Media Room

Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada

Canadian Offices Abroad

Services for Canadian Travellers

Services for Business

Canada in the World

About the Department

SPEECHES

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips

<html> <head> <meta name="generator" content="Corel WordPerfect 10"> <meta http-equiv="content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <style> p { margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 1px } body { font-family: "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; margin-right: 0.0625in; padding-right: 0.1in } </style> </head> <body> May 31, 2005 OTTAWA, Ontario 2005/22 CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY NOTES FOR AN ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE PIERRE PETTIGREW, MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, AT THE APEX SYMPOSIUM “CANADA’S INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY” A new foreign policy for Canada “Gouverner, c’est choisir.” [“To govern is to choose.”] So said the 18th century French soldier Gaston, duc de Lévis. When it comes to Canadian foreign policy, this motto has been more often honoured in the breech than the practice. Canada, the “joiner,” is a member of more international groupings and organizations than any other country. We’re friends with just about everyone. That fact, coupled with being one of the most pluralistic societies in the world, has meant that we have often felt compelled to make pronouncements (if not act) on almost any major international issue. Unfortunately, as you all know, our capacity has not kept up with our rhetoric. While Canada has always played a larger role than it could be expected to play based on its demographics, we reached our limits in the 1990s and had to put our fiscal house in order, while scaling back our international ambitions. Consequently, we have been asked too often in recent times by many countries why we were no longer “in the game.” This was not only a matter of resource constraints. This was also a result of our unwillingness to “choose” between competing foreign policy imperatives. Our tendency to divide scarce resources among our many international interests and activities has meant that while we were often “at” the game, we have rarely in recent times been “in it.” We have to acknowledge that the world has changed: new powers are emerging, multilateralism has its limits and must be more effective, and we live in a time when security has taken on crucial importance. Change must beget change. In the complex and globalized world of the 21st century, Canada has a valued and valuable role to play, as well as a fundamental responsibility to be an active participant. If this is to happen, however, our approach must be one of realism and innovation. Canada must make clear choices about its international engagement; we must adopt an integrated, government-wide approach in pursuit of chosen policy priorities; and we must properly invest in the assets required to ensure that we can make a difference in the world. April 19, 2005, marked a critical moment of change. And I am not referring to the election of the new Pope, although that was unquestionably a significant event. I am referring to the long-awaited public release of Canada’s International Policy Statement, subtitled: A Role of Pride and Influence in the World.   Canada’s International Policy Statement represents the first fully integrated, government-wide approach to the international challenges and opportunities Canada faces. It presents a vision of an internationally engaged Canada anchored in North America, with a realistic road map for achieving our foreign policy goals. Better equipped with the right tools and assets, our diplomats, aid workers, troops and trade promoters will react more quickly, act more intelligently and be more agile, coordinated, targeted and effective. Diplomacy, defence, commerce and development will be increasingly interwoven and “policy choice” will be the watchword. The Statement has been shaped by not only the imperatives of integration and choice in response to global change, but also by Prime Minister Paul Martin’s interest in promoting transformative change domestically and internationally. It is designed to reinforce the government’s recognition—demonstrated in the 2005 federal budget—that if Canada wanted to be serious about its role in the world, it had to be serious about expending resources on that role. To that end, Budget 2005 confirmed over $17 billion in new spending to support Canada’s international role over the next five years, the greatest single increase in Canadian history. The priorities that the government has established for Canada’s international role have been shaped by what I call our international personality. I see Canada’s foreign policy as an outward expression of our society, of our fundamental interests in security, prosperity and sovereignty and our deeply held values of liberal democracy and respect for human rights, diversity and the rule of law. Our experience of building one voice from many cultures, many peoples and two official languages (with many more widely spoken) defines us as a country. These are the ingredients of our international personality. In an early 21st century marked by globalization, wide-ranging threats to human security, an unprecedented number of states in crisis and a pre-eminent world actor, Canada’s international personality is more important than ever. Our responsibility to protect and preserve the values and interests of our own citizens requires us to be active internationally, as responsible world citizens. Canadians, more than ever, want to make a difference internationally by bringing peace and reducing poverty. This is a challenge for a country of just 32 million people, but with communities from 150 different countries and commercial interests spanning from Mongolia to Michigan, it is essential. We were reminded, during the SARS [severe acute respiratory syndrome] outbreak in 2003, just how crucial it is to our security that we be prepared to act quickly and effectively abroad. While I am not a soothsayer by any stretch of the imagination, I did predict this reality in my 1998 book The New Politics of Confidence, where I stated that “With respect to international questions, Canada in the year 2005 will be faced with strategic choices it will be unable to ignore.” I was referring then to a highly globalized international policy and the consequent need for a redefinition of our foreign policy in order to “…maintain and improve our image and preserve our special nature in a more fluid international context….” That is exactly what Canada’s International Policy Statement is about: we clearly identified our interests, specified our core values and fundamental principles, and identified achievable, concrete objectives, supported by strategic, targeted investments and implemented in a coordinated fashion. Getting here from there: the Canadian political project In my view, the international personality of Canada reflected in our new foreign policy Statement is grounded in the success of the Canadian political project. I have spoken to you in the past about how, in the era of Louis Hippolyte La Fontaine and Robert Baldwin, we deliberately opted for a different path from that of other countries, a path that is completely our own. With their historic handshake in 1840, La Fontaine and Baldwin showed their determination to ignore the report of Lord Durham, who was recommending a form of assimilation of the “inferior” French-speaking population. Our choice was a determining factor for the future of our political citizenship, and it was reinforced in 1867 with the British North America Act, which stated that in adopting federalism, Canada would protect the rights of the French-speaking minority, the majority in Quebec. Canada did not propose to be a strictly English-speaking state or a strictly French-speaking state. Instead of opting for the traditional nation-state—with one language, one religion, one legal system and one culture—we created a country with two languages, many cultures and religions, and two legal systems, represented by common law and the civil code. Thus, successive waves of immigrants have found a different, pluralistic and welcoming country where they were encouraged to celebrate their own roots. Over the years, these immigrants have helped form the Canadian mosaic. We have created an original form of political citizenship that encourages our citizens to adopt a certain number of fundamental values, including respect for the individual and a common sense of justice. I believe that these values are at the heart of liberalism. We did not want a melting pot in which identities are blended together to make only one. We tell immigrants: we regard your groups, your personalities, your homelands, as assets to this country. This great Canadian mosaic—the opposite of the nation-state, which seeks to eliminate differences and assimilate minorities—makes for a unique country that, in my view, reflects many of our liberal values. By making this choice, Canada has become a country well equipped to face the post-modern era and globalization. The distinctive characteristics of Canada’s political personality, which are unique in the world, are based on principles and values we should share with the rest of the world: respect, tolerance, generosity and openness, among others. Defining Canada’s international motive The world of 2005 is a complex, multidimensional place with a growing number of actors who hold varying opinions, a world in which we communicate at lightning speed. When globalization began, there was an inevitable convergence of the global community that went beyond mere government actors. But globalization is also a huge pool of incredible diversity, where the fundamental values of some are sometimes called into question by others. Even before globalization, Canada opted for an open society. This openness to the world comes with its share of risks, and confronts us with a range of difficulties and disparities. But Canada has brilliantly demonstrated that these risks can become genuine advantages. While maintaining an open, multicultural and democratic society, we have succeeded in managing—and turning to advantage—the risks associated with this openness and diversity. But what drives us? What is our motivation? How can we, as Canadians, make a difference in a world of unequal power relations, where multilateral institutions, so valuable to the international community, are being put to the test? I feel the answer lies in two typically Canadian traits: conscience and confidence. Historically, there was an initial effort in Canada to strike the right balance between government intervention and market forces in the international economy, particularly in terms of the effect this produces on the economies of developing countries. The relationship between the state and the market is a dynamic one. In my opinion, by seeking to eliminate government intervention in favour of market forces, we would be making the same mistake as communist regimes that handed all of the decision-making powers over to the state. Here, more than anywhere else, striking a balance is imperative. As an abstract entity, the state has as its essential purpose legitimacy—that is, the deliberate search for that which is just, reasonable and fair. Its actions extend over the long term, through laws and constitutions. The state makes privileged use of constraint. This is the realm of conscience. The market, on the other hand, reacts as well and as quickly as it can to society’s consumption and production needs. Its essential objectives are efficiency and profit. Driven mainly by instinct and desire, the market does not have the same time horizon as the state, since it is imperatively dependent upon the immediate. This is the realm of confidence. For confidence to continue to engender progress, we must ensure that it is counterbalanced by an ethic of conscience. Conscience and confidence must go hand in hand. From this perspective, the worst enemies of progress are distrust and lack of concern. Let me give you a few examples of the spirit of confidence and the ethic of conscience in Canada’s new foreign policy, all of which are addressed in Canada’s International Policy Statement. I have often said that globalization must be given a more human face. The battle that the governments of Canada and Quebec are waging for cultural diversity bears witness to the importance of our actions. Although nothing has been concluded at UNESCO, where members are currently working on a draft Convention on the Protection of the Diversity of Cultural Contents and Artistic Expressions, we remain optimistic. Canada has been active on this issue for many years, and we will continue to cooperate with other countries to ensure that an eventual Convention has the necessary bite, while remaining compatible with our current trade obligations and those relating to human rights and international law. With my colleague Liza Frulla [Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for the Status of Women], we continue to support the excellent work of the Coalition for Cultural Diversity, which promotes the Convention and the importance of cultural diversity at the international level. Further support for these ideals is reflected in the commitment—announced in Canada’s International Policy Statement—to create the Global Centre for Pluralism in Canada, in cooperation with the Aga Khan Foundation. The Centre will support the study of how pluralism in multi-ethnic societies contributes to social order and prosperity. Development assistance is another valid example. Just as multinationals fiercely compete on world markets, governments compete on the international aid market. I was International Cooperation Minister when globalization was accelerating, and I see that the situation today has only intensified: every country wants to increase its influence, make a difference and help resolve conflicts. The fact is that, for too long, Canada has tried to do too much with too little, spreading our efforts too thinly without truly concentrating them enough to make a real difference. Recently, we came to a stark, but inevitable conclusion: we cannot be all things to all people. We know more than ever that international aid is essential. But we are also aware that the quality of international aid must take precedence over its quantity. We must make hard choices in order to adapt to this reality. Although globalization is creating a growing number of champions and pleasing an increasing number of people, we must conclude that it has created greater disparity and left more people behind, particularly in Africa. Canada’s International Policy Statement clearly expresses our resolve to better fund and better target our efforts, by more than doubling our aid within five years, by concentrating at least two-thirds of the bilateral aid budget on a core group of twenty-five countries by 2010, and by focusing on five critical aid sectors. Canada’s development assistance strategy will not only be better funded and focused; it will also be better coordinated so that debt relief, terms of trade, private-sector development support, aid for health and education and other assistance tools can collectively do more to help meet the millennium development goals of the international community, especially in Africa where the needs are most urgent. From now on, Canada’s international development support policy will be concerted and strategic. Conscience and confidence must equally go hand in hand in terms of Canada’s complex relationship with the United States. Nowhere else is there a bilateral relationship as multidimensional and progressive. Canada’s International Policy Statement brings our relations with our friend to the south to the fore, and with good reason. Canada and the United States have a long history of cooperation, tradition and solidarity, but we also have disagreements and disputes. What must set us apart, rather, is our attitude when there are differences of opinion—an attitude of respect, dialogue and accommodation of differences. I sincerely believe that over the past two years, we have advanced the Canada-U.S. relationship. Now, we intend to take this further, including closer engagement with Mexico. Our first priority should always be our North American home. The three NAFTA [North American Free Trade Agreement] partners must focus more clearly on how the inhabitants of the continent as a whole—425 million people with 34 percent of the world’s GDP—relate to each other and to the rest of the world, including a rising China and an expanding European Union. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, agreed to in March by Prime Minister Martin and presidents Bush and Fox, is very much in this spirit. In practical terms, we need NAFTA to work better, to give Canadians confidence that trade disputes cannot drag on indefinitely. Our partnership also means taking North American security seriously, with Canada pursuing a number of means, including: stronger continental defence cooperation; “smarter” borders that stop terrorists, while ensuring the free movement of legitimate goods, services and people; and an increased capacity to protect Canadian coastal and Arctic interests. With the new North American partnership, we have a golden opportunity to have our differences with the United States, while agreeing on the continent’s priorities. The Responsibilities Agenda provides another example. These days, mere minutes after a natural disaster strikes part of the world, half the planet can view images of the catastrophe. And the same is true of major political crises. This evolution in communications is empowering the public to seek action (by themselves and by governments), in these and other circumstances, that more often than not involve failed and fragile states either unable or unwilling to stabilize themselves, protect their citizens from harm, or develop the necessary institutional and societal framework necessary for growth and prosperity. In the face of this, we have asked ourselves some questions. Where have we been successful? How can we make a real difference? How do we instill confidence in a social ideal and balance this with conscience? In other words, how can we assume our responsibility to assist and protect, and do so in a realistic, practical fashion? That doesn’t mean doing everything everywhere. It means doing what we are able to do, and doing it well. It also means acting collectively on the basis of our common humanity. That is why Canada’s International Policy Statement stresses the importance of the Responsibilities Agenda outlined last September by Prime Minister Martin at the United Nations. Chief among these is the “responsibility to protect”—the duty of every sovereign state to protect its citizens from gross human rights violations, and, if the state cannot or will not do so, the right of the international community to intervene to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe. Canada regards the crisis in the Darfur region of western Sudan as a critical test of this responsibility, and is committing significant military, diplomatic and development resources to help end the suffering there. Our response was to establish both a $500 million Peace and Security Fund and a Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force (START), with Darfur as one of its first areas of activity. Our commitment to the Responsibilities Agenda is not limited to protection however. Multilateral reform is also essential to achieving Canada’s international objectives, and therefore we are promoting a new multilateralism relevant to the global challenges of today. Simple attachment to the principle of multilateralism and to the ideal of collective action is no longer enough. If we are to prevent and resolve conflicts, promote sustainable development and improve the quality of life of the less fortunate, multilateral cooperation must be more focused on results than ever before.   Therefore, we need to help focus the international community on rebuilding the UN’s credibility in strategic and achievable ways. That is why we endorse the innovative agenda for United Nations reform laid out in Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s recent report, which in part supports stated Canadian priorities such as the right to protect. Hard issues, such as Security Council reform, must be addressed, but we can start now to build momentum toward change. That is why we have proposed immediate action on practical steps such as establishing the new peacebuilding commission and transforming the UN human rights machinery, in particular through the creation of a credible Human Rights Council. That is also why we will continue to support the work of the International Criminal Court and the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (to which we have announced a new $5 million contribution, ten times the previous Canadian level of support). By the way, we can all be proud that both of these vital institutions are headed by Canadians. In addition to these measures, Canada continues to champion a new, informal leaders’ group—the L20—to help build confidence among key developed and developing countries, so that they can work together on difficult but important global issues, such as disease control and the protection of ocean resources, for which the only option is multilateral cooperation. Transforming Canadian diplomacy Our plan for renewing and transforming Foreign Affairs Canada consists of a renewed mandate for government-wide foreign policy coherence, structural changes and an enhanced departmental tool kit to enable better service to Canadians. With an infusion of close to $700 million in new resources, I am confident that we will be able to achieve our goals. While the focus is on better coordination amongst the four central international policy departments, there is also an urgent need to better coordinate the activities of the 15 other departments in Ottawa that have a significant international component to their mandates, as well as the activities of the provinces, territories and cities. If a province wants to act on the international stage, it must be able to do so in a coordinated manner and with effective support from the Canadian government. Foreign Affairs Canada will be a central pivot for coordinating Canadian government action and planning in international affairs. We know that there is an acute requirement for skills suited to the new international environment, including skills with difficult languages such as Arabic and Mandarin. Australia spends three times what Canada does per diplomatic officer on language training on a comparative basis; New Zealand, almost nine times. To meet these challenges we will be investing over $100 million. The foreign service of Canada has a proud history and tradition and I am determined to restore its capacity, to the benefit of all Canadians. Conclusion My experience in three of the four ministerial portfolios involved in drawing up Canada’s International Policy Statement has given me a broad perspective. I know with certainty that Canadians want to play a significant role in shaping the international agenda in a rapidly evolving world. We need to know ourselves and have confidence in who we are, in what we have achieved and in what we have to offer. And more than ever, this confidence must go hand in hand with an ethic of conscience. We have entered a new era guided by ethics and an international conscience. We have faced our responsibilities and we have made difficult choices. But we cannot be everything to everyone. We must do more of what we are good at, in places where our actions can make a real difference. Canadians are proud of the successful society we have built together. We have proven that by sticking to our values, while remaining conscious of our interests, it is possible to bridge our differences and succeed in a difficult and competitive international environment. The positive response we have received to date on Canada’s International Policy Statement, from Canadians and non-Canadians alike, reinforces our belief that we are on the right track. In this Statement, we have put our ideals and aspirations into words and objectives. Now, we must make sure that our actions speak as loud as our words. Thank you. </body> </html>

2007 - 2006 - 2005 - 2004 - 2003 - 2002 - 2001 - 2000 - 1999 - 1998 - 1997 - 1996

Print friendly version - Printing Tips



Last Updated: 2006-10-30	Top of Page	Important Notices