ARCHIVED - Speaking Notes for the Honourable John McCallum Minister of National Defence To the Toronto Board of Trade

This page has been archived on the Web

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please contact us to request a format other than those available.

Minister's Speeches Archive / October 25, 2002

***************************************
NOTE: The following transcript is presented in the language(s) in which it occurred. There is no translation available. We are providing the transcript for your information.
***************************************

Richard O'Hagan: With emphasis on "properly", emphasis on "properly". Well, good morning to all of you and I do welcome, Mr. Chairman, this opportunity to introduce our guest speaker. As we all know, politics these days has some image problems. I don't suggest John McCallum will singlehandedly fix all of these but it certainly helps to have him on the scene, a man of his caliber and distinction.

For most people, politics has some barriers to entry, business people especially, professional people. Loss of income, loss of privacy, strains on family life are among the more obvious ones. I suppose you could even count, Mr. Minister, early morning speeches. But happily, Mr. McCallum did not allow these obstacles to stand in his way. The fact is that he has long, or had long nursed an interest in electoral politics and as the last election approached he decided to make the plunge. He was his party's candidate for office for Parliament in Markham, the dynamic and culturally diverse riding in the northeast part of the Greater Toronto, and the electors there responded by giving him the third largest majority in Canada, and for a new candidate, a neophyte candidate that was a resounding endorsement in itself.

Now, in addition to his political standing, Mr. McCallum is undoubtedly still best known as the former Chief Economist of the Royal Bank of Canada, but I think it helps to know a bit more about him, that he was born in Montreal, did his secondary education at Trinity College School just east of Toronto here, that his undergraduate studies were done at Cambridge, in England of course, and that his graduate work began at the University of Paris and that that work was completed back home in Canada at McGill where he earned his Phd in Economics. This led to a job in the Government of Manitoba and was immediately followed by I suppose what would qualify as the first phase of his career, an academic phase, first at the University of Manitoba, then at Simon Fraser in B.C., and then a return east to the Université du Quebec à Montreal, and then after that he went on to McGill as Professor of Economics, subsequently Head of the Economics Department and then from there, from that post he became the Dean of Arts which I think we all can easily imagine is a major responsibility in a major university.

By the sheerest coincidence, the Chair of the Governing Council or the Board of Governors at McGill was also the Chair, very discerning Chair and CEO at the Royal Bank, so when an opening for Chief Economist occurred at the Royal Bank, certain steps followed and our man opened up yet another career phase as a bank financial institution economist, a role in which of course, as we all agree, he became exceedingly well known. He continued in that important and rewarding role until politics beckoned and from that he went into Parliament, as we know, at the election, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Martin. Then in due course he became the Junior Finance Minister, the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions is its formal name, and then given the vagaries and the hazards of politics an opening occurred at the Defence Department and in due course Mr. McCallum became the Minister of National Defence.

I myself am comforted by the fact that one of the key portfolios of government at this time is occupied by one of Cabinet's brighter lights, and that I suspect is due more to, or perhaps not as much to his outstanding performance as Commander of his school Cadet Corps than to his intellectual rigor, his training as an economist and his keen sense of Canada's place in the changing world. It gives me great pleasure therefore to present to you the Member of Parliament for Markham and Minister of National Defence, the Hon. John McCallum.

Hon. John McCallum: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This wasn't in the plan but since Dick mentioned Cadets, let me start out by telling you how I became Minister of National Defence. I was minding my own business at home on a Sunday morning and the Prime Minister called and he said, "Please be in Ottawa at 3:00." I said, "Yes, Prime Minister." I got to Ottawa at 3:00 and he said, he called me again and he said, "I want you to be Minister of National Defence" and I said, "Yes, Prime Minister." And he said, "Be at my house at 5:00 and the swearing-in is at 6:00." And I said, "Yes, Prime Minister." And I got there and he said, "What's your military background?" And I said... well, I wasn't expecting that. I said, "Well, I was a cadet in high school for four years and my father was in the war, the Second World War in the liberation of Holland" and he paused for a moment and he said, "Ah, that's good. That's why I make you the Minister of National Defence." And then he told the same thing to the media. I didn't tell the media about being a cadet, he did.

Anyway, after almost five months on the job as Minister of National Defence, this is my first major speech and I'd like to take this opportunity to share some of my thoughts on the role and direction of the Canadian Forces. But before I get into that, let me comment very briefly on my other role as the Member of Parliament for Markham and as a Toronto area Minister. And like you of the Board of Trade, I want you to know that I'm committed to sustaining and promoting the social fabric and the economic leadership of the Greater Toronto area. We have a huge amount going for us. We're number five in North America for business headquarters, we're number two in North America automotively, we're number three in financial services after New York and Chicago, with 143,000 people employed. We're number three in entertainment and we're number four in pharma/biotech.

I think we have a strategic asset in the diversity of our population - 42% of all the visible minorities in Canada live here and 42%, by coincidence the same number, of the population of Toronto is foreign-born. And I think particularly given the demographics, this is a strategic asset not least in Markham, our ability to welcome and integrate people from all different countries and cultures and religions and races, and just to give you one example of what was striking to me when I first became a Member of Parliament in Markham to learn that in one high school in Markham the students amongst themselves had 55 different first languages. So that tells you quite a lot.

We also have challenges and you know what they are, I know what they are. I don't have time to get into them because this is not the main topic of my speech today. But what I want you to know is suffice it to say that I will be there around the Cabinet table along with my colleagues, David Collenette, Allan Rock and others, promoting the well-being and the interests of this city.

But now I want to go into the main purpose of my comments today which is about the military. Since becoming Minister of National Defence, my respect for the military has taken a quantum leap and the turning point for me was in July when I went to Afghanistan to see our soldiers and our airmen and seamen and women and the temperature was over 50 degrees Celsius but you didn't notice it because of all the sand in your eyes. And there were our people and I had an opportunity to speak to a number of them, minus officers, and to a person notwithstanding these appalling conditions they were first of all pleased to be going home but at the same time proud that they had done their duty there and proud of what they had achieved and they had every right to be proud because I spoke to at least three Americans, a Lieutenant General, a Colonel and a Sargent and to a person they praised our people for what they had achieved. And so my respect for them went up and the thought occurred to me that if I don't speak up for them around the Cabinet table who will. So since that time I have.

Or to put it in a different way: NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson put it well in fine British style when he told me that the Canadian military does well "when measured by outputs rather than inputs". Translated into Canadian, this means that what we do we do very well, but he'd like us to do more. What are the essential purposes of the military today? I think they are to defend the lives of our citizens and to preserve and promote our national sovereignty. The military has also played a pivotal role in our history and in the emergence of Canada as a nation.

So what does sovereignty mean in this context? It means that our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign policy objectives and to do our fair share in the struggle for democracy and freedom around the world. Sovereignty means that we must be able to defend Canada and participate meaningfully in the defence in North America. As well, sovereignty means the defence of our territorial claims, not least in the north.

Finally, sovereignty means strengthening our capacity to fight terrorism. What can be more threatening to our sovereignty than a bunch of terrorists determined to kill innocent Canadian citizens and destroy Canadian property? Sovereignty means all of these things and, ladies and gentlemen, sovereignty does not come cheap.

Now, some of you may say that terrorism is an American problem, not a Canadian problem. To those people I would say how many of you would have though two weeks ago that nearly 100 Australians, and as of today two Canadians, would be killed by terrorists in Bali? I don't know the probability of a terrorist attack in Canada but I do know that it is significantly greater than zero. So if you ask me whether we should be doing more or less than we're currently doing in the defence of our country and continent, I would say more. Or if you ask me whether we should do more or less in deploying our Forces to the myriad trouble spots of the world, again I would say more. Increases in defence spending between fiscal year 2001 and 2006 will total more than $5 billion.

So we have put some money into defence. Nevertheless, in my own personal view and notwithstanding these improvements, I believe we should be spending more than is currently planned. Indeed, the Canadian Forces need more money simply to continue operating as they are today in a sustainable way. Over the past few decades, overseas deployments have gone dramatically up while total members have gone dramatically down. So you don't have to be a brain surgeon or a PhD mathematician to understand that this is not sustainable. It translates into too much time away from home for too many of our people with negative implications for morale, family life and general well-being. It also translates into retention problems.

As Minister of Defence and as a human being, I think it's wrong to continue overstretching our military people and their families. As an economist, I know that some of our most valuable Canadian Forces members will simply quit if this issue is not addressed, and I also know given the time and resources that go into training our military personnel we simply can't afford this kind of exodus.

So either way, whether I look at the Canadian Forces as a human being or as an economist, and these two sometimes coalesce into one, I know that we must find a way to address the overstretching of our people. And, ladies and gentlemen, this is one of my essential points. With those brave young Canadians who I met in Afghanistan firmly in the back of my mind, I say to you that it is simply wrong that we treat in a shabby way those of our fellow citizens who risk their lives for us. Unfortunately, Defence faces a sustainability challenge not only in the area of people but also in the area of capital. I give my predecessor, Art Eggleton, great praise for the fact that he brought about significant improvements in the quality of life of our military people. The problem is that some of those improvements were financed by raiding the capital budget and we cannot continue to mortgage our future in this way.

And to those, and there are some, who say that they want more money for people but not for equipment, my answer is that when we put our men and women in harm's way we must equip them so as to minimize the risk of injury or death. Not only that, but we must also equip them to win as a combat-capable force.

Now, at one level it should not be a surprise to you that the Minister of Defence wants more money; that's always a given. Overnight in a nanosecond when I moved from Junior Finance Minister to Defence I became a spender rather than a saver. But I think the climate for more money might be good. When the two Axworthy brothers, both ardent, long-time Liberals as opposed to retired Generals, both called for a substantially higher defence budget, that might be significant. And there's more good news. As compared to a year ago, there's been a huge jump in public support for increased funding for the Canadian Forces. According to the most recent polling by Polara, who happens to be the official pollster for the Liberal Party of Canada - so it may have more weight for that reason, I hope so - because what they found is that 48% of Canadians were supporting increased funding for the military compared to 17% that would favor less spending and the rest want the same, whereas a year ago only 26% favored increased military spending while 31% wanted less spending.

Now, anyone who thinks that this is just a September 11th blip should look further back to the five-year trend. Support for the Canadian Forces has been consistently gaining ground according to this same polling firm. In fact, no other area of government has seen anything like the increase in support for the military over the past five years. The growth is dramatic, 31 percentage points, a 31-percentage-point increase in those who would support more spending for the military over the past five years.

Now, I'm talking about increase, I'm talking about trends, and I will acknowledge that we, we're starting from a low base. Five years ago, support for the military was second lowest out of 17 and now with this dramatic increase in support we're around the middle of the pack. So we're not as high as health care by any means, but we're now the middle of the pack instead of the bottom and the increase, the trend increase over the last five years has been nothing short of dramatic.

Having said all this, the final budget decisions are made by the government and the government must make choices among competing priorities. But rest assured that over the next few months I will be making the case for defence. At the same time I will also be focusing on two priority areas, restructuring and people, and for the rest of my time I'd like to focus on those. Actually, there are three, the third is the Canada-U.S. connection but I don't want to talk too long, but maybe someone will ask me about that. I will focus only on restructuring and people.

Now, as Dick pointed out, over the last decade I've worked for a number of large institutions, as Dean of Arts at McGill, Chief Economist as the Royal Bank and now Minister of Defence, and I've observed that any large organization has silos, bureaucracies and waste. Don't get me wrong, that's not anti-military. I said any large organization, and I've been in at least three. And, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that the leaders of all such large organizations have a duty to push for continuous change and for restructuring. Now, my predecessors as well as the military leadership have brought about tremendous change in defence in recent years. So we can't afford to stop now, change has to be continuous, it's always a work in progress. And that's why I've been asking awkward questions such as whether we need certain capabilities, some of which might be remnants of an earlier era, without naming any names.

Universities, banks and government departments have a responsibility to students, shareholders and taxpayers, respectively. In the case of defence, I'm responsible for ensuring good value for money for the Canadian taxpayers and I intend to honor that responsibility. To help me do that I'll soon be appointing a small number of highly qualified people with extensive private-sector restructuring experience to study administrative efficiencies in the Department of National Defence, and I'll ask them to report back to me in six months.

The next priority I want to discuss is people. One area I'd like to focus on is education. When it comes to the importance of education, I have to admit to a slight bias. The educational world, even more than the banking world, is my natural habitat, at least if you measure this in years of service. In large part through the influence of our Canadian hero General Dallaire we are making far-reaching changes to our system of professional development and education and we've committed to promoting a learning culture at all rank levels. As I said when I was only about a week-old Defence Minister, there are far worse fates than to be remembered as the education Defence Minister. So that clearly is one of my primary areas of focus.

As a government, we must be prepared to defend our citizens, our economy, our infrastructure, our economic systems and even our way of life. Ladies and gentlemen, we owe it to our men and women in uniform and to ourselves as a country to make the Canadian Forces the best in the world, at least, to quote Lord Robertson one last time, "in terms of outputs if not inputs", and I as Minister of National Defence, a job I take very seriously, am committed to doing precisely that. Thank you all very much.

Chris Ridabock: We will very shortly invite our panel of some journalists to come up, shortly, Deirdra, and I just want to thank the Minister and I want to thank you for bringing us this very strong message in support of our Armed Forces and our Armed Forces everywhere they serve. I personally join you in this support from my own brief experiences over the course of the last year, and I want to thank Lieutenant Commander Genest who's with us this morning over to my right for those experiences through his public affairs office, and I was joined very recently by Dale Richmond who is the present Chair of the Board of Trade down at that mission to NORAD and Cheyenne Mountain, I'm sure he would add his thanks as well. And so I'm also a convert. Further, Minister, I very much thank you for your message this morning of alertness, alertness to the dangers that we all face and that Canada faces as a member of a community of free nations who enjoy and guard our own lifestyles, our lifestyles of freedom. And we must be...

TAPE FLIP

Chris Ridabock: ...certainly through you delivered a fine message this morning. It sounds also as though we need to lend our shoulder to the wheel and give more financial support to those who serve our country from literally all of the seas and from border to border. So thank you and...

Hon. John McCallum: So I'm still in the hot seat here. I'm only beginning to be in the hot seat.

Moderator: Absolutely. Are these working? These aren't working terribly well.

Unidentified: I'll start by saying that in a former life I worked on a morning program and the business interviews started at 6:45 and it was always a huge relief when John McCallum spoke as a guest, you knew that someone could coherently explain merchandise trade surplus and key growth projections at 6:45 in the morning and obviously your coherence in the early morning hours has not been affected by changes in your life. Now, I guess we've all probably got lots of questions based on those remarks. So to kick it off I'll introduce Burton Woodward, as you know, the Business Editor of Macleans, and Burton, why don't you toss the question into the ring?

Burton Woodward: Thanks. Minister, I'd like to give you the opportunity to give us a case study about what you were talking about. Last month you told us on the topic of Iraq and joining the Forces there, if we were really, really pushed we could muster the soldiers. How long they would stay, that's another matter. Now, since you made those remarks, of course it's been very clear that we are going to join that force and your colleague, Bill Graham, suggested it might come as early as February. So all the discussion you've just given is about money in the future, but what can we do right now? What can we do in Iraq?

Hon. John McCallum: Well, first of all, we hope there won't be a war and so one answer could be that I'm not sure I want to answer a hypothetical question about a hypothetical Canadian commitment to a hypothetical war. Politicians often avoid hypotheticals, but I won't go that way totally.

Burton Woodward: What about contingency planning?

Hon. John McCallum: Well, we always are in the process of contingency planning. These people in Defence headquarters are planning for all sorts of contingencies in the event that government calls upon them. And we are stretched, as I said in my speech, but we've never failed to deliver when called upon. So in this hypothetical case which you mention, we already have two or three ships depending on the day and the region and we have some aircraft. Those could be diverted to Iraq. We could conceivably send some fighter jets and possibly some soldiers. So that is the hypothetical possibility but as I said, we hope there won't be a war and we hope that's what's going on in the United Nations will succeed in terms of bringing the weapons inspectors in and destroying the weapons of mass destruction. That's our position now, but we do have the possibility of providing a military contribution should there be a war and should the government decide to participate.

Moderator: Okay, Carol, the next hypothesis from you?

Carol Gore: You said somebody might be interested in asking you about the defence of North America. I would be interested in hearing how far we could go in integrating our defence system with those of the United States without compromising our sovereignty.

Hon. John McCallum: Well, I'm glad you asked that because that was the part of my speech I left out. I'd rather be shorter and people wanting more than longer and people wanting me to stop talking. But now you've given me an opportunity answer that. We are in the midst of negotiations with the United States for enhanced military cooperation navally and on land. We already have NORAD for the air. And the purpose of this is to safeguard the lives of Canadians while at the same time maintaining sovereignty.

And I'll give you an example. We want to have this planning group, Canada/U.S., that would examine various contingencies and devise plans for what should be done were a terrorist attack or an actual disaster like an earthquake in Vancouver for example to happen. And you know, I'll give you one example. Suppose there were a biological attack on Toronto and the people to help in the U.S. were in Buffalo and the people to help in Canada were in Winnipeg or Calgary, well if we plan we can get the people in Buffalo to come very fast. If we don't plan, we won't even know their phone number. So I would say this is a common-sense thing to help save lives and also to minimize the chance of such a terrible thing occurring through increased sharing of our intelligence and things of that nature.

But there are no soldiers or sailors under command, there's no integration, there's no standing forces under U.S. command in this proposal. So I don't think there is in any sense a reduction in Canadian sovereignty. So it's like walking and chewing gum at the same time, we're doing practical things to protect the lives of Canadians and Americans, which I think is the highest duty of government, while at the same time safeguarding our sovereignty.

Carol Gore: May I have a quick follow-up question?

Hon. John McCallum: Yes, of course.

Carol Gore: Could you envisage expanding NORAD to include ground and naval forces?

Hon. John McCallum: Well, this planning group will be large in NORAD physically in Colorado Springs where we've both visited, but it won't be a part of NORAD and I guess looking to the future anything is possible but this is not the plan, and to those who say this is a slippery slope to full integration of our forces into the American, I would say I don't agree with that because we control the slope.

Question: Excuse me, Minister. You spoke of the fact about promoting national sovereignty, about the ability to deploy the Forces here at home and overseas and yet U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci was quite critical just a week ago concerning the lack of our heavy lifting capabilities. Is that.. what can we do to rectify that problem, the fact that we don't have the jets to carry our Forces, the large...?

Hon. John McCallum: One of the jobs.. I am an admirer of Mr. Cellucci but, you know, to be honest, one of the functions of an ambassador is to sell the products of his country whether it's a Canadian ambassador abroad or a U.S. ambassador here. So he's not exactly a disinterested party when he recommends strategic airlifts. He has a certain strategic airplane in mind which happens to be manufactured in the United States. So my answer to that is that decisions on these matters will be made by the Canadian Government in the interests of Canadians and not by the U.S. Ambassador. That having been said, we all have the right to free speech and I'm always interested in what he has to say.

Question: A follow-up question. Part of the, one of the issues perhaps the public has with military forces, we talk about spending more money on them and such and yet it takes such a long time to acquire new equipment, helicopters for example, one of the more public issues. Is there a way to speed up the acquisition process of new equipment?

Hon. John McCallum: Well, I mentioned I was going to be appointing a number of private sector people to look into certain efficiencies or lack thereof in the Department of National Defence, and I should also emphasize none of these people will be concerned in any way with military capabilities, these are administrative efficiencies, and it's not for sure yet but I think that one of the topics which I will be asking one individual in conjunction with some inside people who will be working with that person to look at is efficiency of the procurement process, because I agree with you that in the recent pas or even the distant past that efficiency leaves something to be desired.

Question: Thank you.

Moderator: Are there any questions from the floor for the Minister this morning? Okay, Sir.

Question: Dale Brand from the (inaudible)

Hon. John McCallum: In what sense?

Question: Well, in the sense, as they say, mixing civilian and military decisions is a bad thing to do, and that (inaudible)

Hon. John McCallum: I'm willing to look at anything. My sense is that that is not a major problem and that the military and the civilians work quite well together. But one issue that I am looking into which is related to National Defence headquarters is whether there may be efficiencies to be gained by some consolidation of administrative functions. You know, we had integration of army, navy and air force some decades ago, but we still have certain administrative functions, one for the navy, one for the army, one for the air force, and I think we might be able to save some money and gain some efficiencies if instead of having one for each of the three services we have one for all three. And so that is one aspect of administrative efficiency in headquarters that I will be looking into.

Moderator: I think there was another question at the back of the room.

Question: Mr. McCallum (inaudible), so the question is how to enhance the education and the training of pilots.

Hon. John McCallum: Outputs and inputs of 50%... I didn't know that, but what I do know is that we have about 10% of the ships in the Arabian Gulf or the Persian Gulf that we've made about 50% of the boardings and hailings, so the navy has done stellar work in the Afghanistan region. And indeed some people think that we've brought our 800 soldiers home and we've nothing left. Well, we have. I think it's down to around 1,000 now. We have, or 900 people still there, naval and air. And we have excellent pilot training. We have low level in Goose Bay. I was there just a couple of weeks ago. We have an excellent NATO training facility in Moose Jaw and we train NATO countries, we have five or six NATO countries in each place and I've had major praise from my British colleague on what we do over there because, you know, they need big spaces to do the... this is a geographical advantage we have. The empty space over Labrador where they do their flying is bigger than the area of England and you can't do this low level flying over England or you'd get a few complaints. But in Labrador it works quite well. So we're using our comparative geographical advantage there in being a major training center for NATO pilots. As for regional airlines, I'll leave that to David Collenette.

Moderator: We've got a question at the back here, someone who's been trying.

Hon. John McCallum: This is a well-informed questioner.

Question: (inaudible)

Hon. John McCallum: Thank you for that question. Yes, in 1994, white paper is eight years old if one does one's arithmetic. I don't think that the world has changed fundamentally in the sense that if you look at the three objectives set out in that white paper, defending Canada, working with the United States to defend the continent and doing our share in overseas deployments to promote peace and democracy and justice. I can't imagine that those basic objectives would change, although the weight attached to each of them might change over time. But that having been said, yes, as stated in the Throne Speech, the government will by the end of this mandate have a major view of foreign policy and defence policy. That's what is stated in the Throne Speech.

The details of that are not clear as of now, so I'm looking at it in what one might call the medium/long-term and the short term. The medium/long-term is this defence review which will happen. The shorter term is in the lead-up to the budget which is likely to be early next year and, as I said in my speech, I am making a case for more resources for the Defence Department in the next budget prior to a review. The last thing I want is for a many, many month-long review to bar us from access the next budget, because we... need more resources. So I am focusing on the short run to get more resources for the military more or less doing what we are currently doing but in a long-run sustainable fashion. And on the other hand, in the medium and longer term where this review, as stated in the Throne Speech, will come in being.

Moderator: We probably have time for one more question. I think there's another hand.

Question: (inaudible)

Hon. John McCallum: Well, the Americans are going to do it anyway, aren't they? And there's something to be said for... let me rephrase that. The Americans are going to do it anyway. We as a government have not made a decision yet but certainly there are concerns in terms of the weaponization of space on the negative side, but there are also arguments for joining in terms of industrial benefits for Canada in terms of having some influence over how this system works and so on. So we have not made a decision yet but we are considering the thing carefully and we are discussing this with our American friends. But you said one question, but...

Moderator: Yeah, I know.

Hon. John McCallum: I think there's another one back there.

Question: Mr. Minister, I'm Theresa Gibbs from (inaudible)...

Hon. John McCallum: Maybe we should have had only one more question. I believe so and I hope so, I'm working hard on it. I can't guarantee it but I am working hard on it. The fact of the matter is that a helicopter is not a simple thing and we have literally more than a thousand recommendations from Industry for technical modifications. The Department has to go through each and every one of those. As I acknowledge before, there has been some slippage, but it is one of my top priorities and I am doing my very best to get the right helicopter at the right price as soon as possible.

Question: Thank you.

Moderator: Well, Mr. Ridabock, maybe you want to wrap things up. We're just a little past 9:00 and people probably want to get on with their morning. Thank you.

Chris Ridabock: As we move towards closing there are two special guests that we also want to thank for being with us this morning and that is one, Manuel Guvera (ph) who is the Council General from Argentina. If you would stand and thank you very much for being with us this morning. I'm sure the Minister is delighted to see you.

Chris Ridabock: And also, I'm not sure that he's in the room but that is Takoshi Kazuka (ph) and Takoshi Kazuka is the Counsel General of Japan and he was to... there he is.

Chris Ridabock: I'm delighted, Sir, that you too are with us. I want to thank our panel of esteemed Canadian journalists for being with us this morning and, Deirdra, thank you so much for...

Chris Ridabock: And of course the Minister for gracing us, being with us this morning and providing us with such wonderful insight and tremendous response to those tough questions. Part of my job is a little bit also on the commercial side and that is to bring to your attention some of our future breakfasts and the first will include Howard Hampton and his topic will be no Enrons in Ontario, following by the Hon. Tony Clement and that's on Thursday, October the 31st, dealing with the Privacy Act, followed by Dr. David Suzuki, Tuesday, November the 5th, Beyond Kyoto-Setting a New Bottom Line, and of course coming up, the 115th Toronto Board of Trade annual dinner. Please mark your calendars and get out your chequebooks for January the 20th, 2002, Westin Harbor Castle. Our speaker this year is Frank Stronick, the founder and Chairman of Magna International and keeping with our tradition of tremendous leaders on the industrial/commercial side of Canada wherein last year we had Laurent Beaudoin who was Chairman of Bombardier. So thank you all very much for coming this morning. Particularly, thanks to the Minister once again and delighted to see you.

-30-

Date modified: