One of the consequences of globalization is that we have a longer list of issues that need to have the discipline and perspective of professional diplomats engaged in them. Environment is one, and it's not just climate change. Over the years we've had experience in cross-border environmental issues. The way in which acid rain was dealt with is a good example of diplomacy and sectoral knowledge being leveraged in Canada's interest. The Arctic has an environmental dimension.
My concern is that we need to have the integrating capacity of Canada's interests involving the sector or department that is affected--Environment, or the Department of Natural Resources--but we need to have an integrated perspective that brings diplomacy to bear, and coordination and leverage as well. I'm not saying this isn't present; I'm simply saying we probably need to spend more time and effort on ensuring coherence across a range of what some would construe as a domestic agenda that really has an international dimension.
The new ones are environment and health. Heath includes infectious disease; increasing the coordination of vaccine and health research on a global basis; and the whole R and D agenda, which may not be entirely embraced globally. But there is an opportunity for Canada to leverage its university and research infrastructure in the interests of Canada's foreign policy, if I can put it that way. That might even be research on environmental issues that are uniquely ours--oil sands; heavy oil, and the like; and certainly northern environmental issues, going back to Dr. Patry's comment about the Arctic.
So I am very much of the view that we need more mechanisms to include diplomats and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in what is articulated as a Canadian policy issue.