Let me start with the first question.
Just off the top of my head, in terms of what are the ideas we could build upon, we're coming to the testing point at the Security Council—if we win—of the end of the MDG goals, the millennium development goals. I would think we ought to have a strategy of how we are going to contribute to closing the gap on the MDGs, which can speak to global health issues. And we have a good record on which we can advocate and build, speaking to some of the work we have done over the last number of years in Africa and have continued in the last while. So I would say, what are we going to say about the MDGs?
The second is how we would articulate the Security Council's role in the new paradigm of global security, of non-state actors, fragile states, and the like. Again, I think we can come to that discussion informed by our experience in Afghanistan and Haiti, where Canada has had a number of years of active engagement.
Perhaps as a third volley, I think we could speak with some credibility on issues of transparency and governance within the United Nations itself—remember Canada chaired the subcommittee of the General Assembly that dealt with administration within the UN—but also transparency and governance issues within global institutions. And here I go back to Mr. Abbott's question with respect to the IMF and the like. How is global governance altering, and what is the Security Council's role in it?
Those are three. I'm sure there are others, and perhaps better ones, but I do think the member's question was a very useful one to sharpen up the question, what's our campaign? Why do we want to be there? And it's not just because historically we've been there, but what do we want to contribute?
With respect to Mr. Shultz and my comment about tending the garden, he certainly, in my recollection.... I couldn't tell you where the idea came from, but I suspect that wherever it came from, it only worked because Secretary Shultz said he wanted to do it, that they would respond. I believe it happened not just because of the personalities, but also because of the agenda. I've talked to Mr. Shultz about it, and he said he got irritated when they were talking about South Africa or differing views on Central America. But he said he learned a lot. I would point out that we let quiet diplomacy take its part. I'm not saying we shied away from saying what our view on South Africa was, but I don't think we publicly went and said, well, I think we'll beat up Mr. Shultz on South Africa today.
So the relationships are important; the regularity of them is. I think Canadians sometimes forget that the European foreign ministers and line department ministers see each other.... If a week goes by without their seeing each other, it would be rare. An American Secretary of State does not have to worry about being in question period and does not have to seek permission for whether or not an aircraft is available.
I'm only making the point that we have constraints on our foreign ministers—and I'm not just talking about the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but also the ministers active in a global approach to Canada—that prevent us from being as active and as present as we ought to be. Minority Parliaments actually make that even more constraining, by virtue of votes and the like, and that actually makes Canada less of a player. Ministers have to be engaged outside of Canada for the global agenda, or it's just talk among the bubble of Ottawa.