Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Both Professor Hart and I will be speaking to some of the themes that appeared in Carleton University's report, a blueprint for a new engagement with the United States, copies of which were sent to all members of Parliament. It is a two-volume report. I would encourage the members, if they haven't seen it or read it, to refer to it.
What I am going to do in my remarks is focus on some of the general foreign policy challenges of the Canada-U.S. relationship. I will also discuss broadly what some of the key elements of our new strategy should be in dealing with the United States on global economic and security issues.
Professor Hart is then going to speak to some of the very specific economic challenges in managing our bilateral relationship with the United States, just so that everyone is clear on what our dog and pony show is going to do for you.
The first element of our strategy with the United States should be to engage America's leadership at the highest level and to continue to do so in order to advance a mutually beneficial agenda. That obviously began with the short working visit that took place last week. But I think it's going to be absolutely critical in the weeks, months, and years ahead to maintain the positive tone and momentum of that meeting.
We need to regularize the bilateral summit process on an annual basis. Summits with a high-level agenda, with deadlines, goals that are endorsed by the Prime Minister's office and the White House are key to galvanizing the bureaucracy and to supporting a serious dialogue between the two countries. I think it's fair to say that permanent consultative institutions have long been a key missing ingredient in our bilateral relationship, certainly in the recent and not-so-recent past.
The second key element of our strategy should be to engage America's leadership with adroit diplomacy and inspired ideas for managing the major economic and security challenges of our fast-changing international system. As we all know, the global economy is in trouble and there are a large number of major security challenges that both we and our American partners face.
That being said, I think it's fair to say that there are many potential avenues of engagement on the global agenda, but we have to be selective and we also have to play to our strengths. There are three specific areas of engagement that I would like to draw your committee's attention to.
The first one is the reform and strengthening of international economic institutions. The current global financial crisis, stock and commodity market gyrations, and impending deep recession are corroding the structures and traditions of international economic cooperation that were constructed over the last half century. I think it's fair to say that the G-20 meeting that was convened by George Bush last November underscored that there are still some major divisions and disparities as to how to move ahead and how global governance is perceived. What we're seeing right now are some key differences that are emerging between ourselves--that is to say, Canada and the United States--and the European Union about what the nature of new financial regulatory initiatives should be, about the depth and breadth of governance at the international level. I think there's a real risk that different views about how to deal with the current crisis, if it's not handled properly, are going to exacerbate international tensions and make cooperation more difficult. That's an opportunity for us to not only work with Washington but also with our European partners to realign some of the machinery of global governance, particularly in the financial area.
The second area for intensified cooperation is to recalibrate the mission in Afghanistan by strengthening the role of diplomacy and development to ensure that al-Qaeda does not gain a stronger foothold in the region. As we all know, the administration is moving quickly to ratchet up the level of its diplomatic engagement with Richard Holbrooke's appointment as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The biggest problem right now is that neither the United States nor NATO has a clear political strategy for dealing with this escalating conflict. As a major combat-troop-contributing country, Canada can and should play a constructive role in defining the goals of this new diplomatic offensive. For example, we could take the lead ourselves in establishing an eminent persons group that might include, for example, individuals like former UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and former European Union envoy Francesc Vendrell—individuals of that calibre—who know Afghanistan and the region well. By convening and supporting the work of such a brain trust, Canada could help broaden the base of the U.S.-led political process that is under way right now and also bring new ideas to the table that are constructive and not necessarily American.
I think one of our challenges is to convince the United States that it's important to widen the circle of the conversation around Afghanistan and Pakistan's future, and that Mr. Holbrooke, in spite of his many diplomatic talents, cannot and should not carry the torch alone. Canada can play a key role in opening up additional avenues for dialogue and discussion with key constituents and affected parties, help with the engagement of other external actors—the neighbours, and that includes Iran—and also with the testing of ideas and political solutions before they are formally put on the table. A group of wise persons supported by Canada could help ensure that the new U.S. diplomatic offensive in the region gets off on the right foot and stays on course.
The third area for intensified cooperation is the area of nuclear non-proliferation. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified the gravest threat facing the United States as the danger that weapons of mass destruction are going to fall into the hands of terrorists. To address this threat, the new administration has indicated that it is going to look to negotiating reductions in nuclear stockpiles with other countries, particularly Russia, while strengthening the current nuclear non-proliferation treaty regime. It's also going to revive negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, and it will urge the U.S. Senate to ratify the comprehensive test ban treaty.
One of the biggest problems with the current nuclear non-proliferation regime is that countries such as Iran can play both sides of it by blurring the distinction between possession and non-possession of nuclear weapons capability while staying within the NPT regime. As the world's leading exporter of uranium and a major supplier of nuclear technology, we clearly have a key role to play. We have been long-standing champions of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and a key supporter of the International Atomic Energy Agency and of the development of nuclear safeguards. We are very well positioned to work with the new administration to strengthen and preserve the integrity and structure of the NPT regime so that there are proper firewalls in place for countries that have or that intend to pursue nuclear energy programs.
One final observation before I turn to my colleague is that the third element of our strategy with the United States is to redefine the sovereignty-security equation in our overall defence relationships, and also in the north. These have traditionally been especially sensitive areas in our relationship with the United States, but I think it's going to be important as we look to the future, and particularly to the security challenges that we face at the border, that we also look and keep pace with the broader security challenges confronting the North American continent.
One of the recommendations in our report is to look at ways of broadening the scope and command of current structures and existing partnerships, particularly around NORAD, looking perhaps to a NORAD or a new set of arrangements that would secure the North American perimeter on land, sea, and air. And I think if we were to begin to move in that direction, or at least begin to have a discussion about moving in that direction, we could alleviate or begin to alleviate some of the concerns the United States has about a porous and vulnerable northern border.
Thank you.