Together， let us dedicate ourselves to making this new round of negotiations a stunning success. Through our enthusiastic support for international cooperation， let all our nations repudiate the message of terrorism and strive together for greater underst
Thank you very much. Introduction
As Canada's Minister for International Trade， I very much appreciate this opportunity to speak to CEOs from APEC nations.
Meetings like this are an excellent opportunity for government officials and business leaders from different countries to exchange views on the critical issues of the day.
Of course， in recent weeks， no issue has loomed larger than the tragic events of September 11， the global war on terrorism that has been launched in response， and the climate of uncertainty that has resulted from these events. I believe that the attacks on New York and Washington did not just target the United States： they were attacks on all of us. Citizens of 60 countries died in these barbaric acts， including several hundred Muslims. They were attacks on all open societies， on all countries that promote pluralism and religious tolerance， on all countries that support open economies and free trade as an important element of peaceful exchange between countries. They were attacks on our values.
In this context， this gathering is doubly important： it symbolizes our commitment to dialogue， to international exchange， to building deeper trade relationships， and to our commitment and determination to strengthen the multilateral trading system despite this unwarranted aggression. I thank each of you for being here， to demonstrate your support for these goals.
Efficiency and Equity： The Essence of Globalization
I would also like to thank the organizers of today's event for choosing to focus the discussion on the balance between Efficiency and Equity. This is an extremely important and timely discussion， as the future of the multilateral trading system depends， in my view， on our success in achieving that balance.
Some people frame this debate as a choice between opposing objectives - between mutually exclusive or conflicting goals. The theme of this conference is a much better description of the issue - it's a question of balance， certainly， but of mutually supportive forces. The choice is not either economic growth or more equitable sharing of the benefits of economic growth. The choice is how to achieve both growth and development. Economic growth， through efficiency， provides the means to achieve equity， through development.
This has been proven time and again throughout history. Where there is “Equity” - or to state it more clearly， where there is the rule of law， public education， health care， social welfare and other such advantages - “Efficiency” - or in other words a strong and prosperous economy - is more likely to follow.
And “Efficiency” - or economic growth - is a precondition to “Equity” - or a higher standard of living for local citizens. This is not to say that economic growth is sufficient to ensure development and equitable distribution of wealth - which depends on governance - but it remains a necessary ingredient of equity.
And yet some people insist that globalization is， by definition， a negative force. They claim that it leads to a widening gap between the rich and the poor， as well as to environmental degradation， among other ills.
Those people are just plain wrong.
Take the alleged link between globalization and poverty.
A recent World Bank study looked at trade and income data for a group of 101 countries beginning in the 1970s. The study identified a group of successful developing countries - referred to as “the globalizers” in the study —— that have made significant tariff reductions， and large increases in actual trade volumes since 1980.
The results were very interesting. According to the study， the globalizers are catching up with rich countries， while the non-liberalizers are falling behind.
In the 1990s， GDP in these globalizing developing countries grew at 5 percent per capita. In rich countries， it grew by 2.2 percent per capita， or less than half that of the globalizers. And finally， in those developing countries that are resisting globalization， GDP rose by only 1.4 percent.
We are seeing important progress in the campaign to raise the living standards of people around the world.
Over the past few decades， average life expectancy in many developing countries has risen， from 45 to 64. Literacy rates have almost doubled. The percentage of the world's people with access to safe， clean water has increased from 45 percent to 70 percent. And according to a study by the UNDP， cited during our debates at the APEC Conference by my colleague， Ambassador Zoellick， the United States Trade Representative， there has been more poverty reduction in the last fifty years than in the previous five hundred years ？- and those fifty years saw a seventeen-fold increase in international trade， under the framework of the GATT and the WTO.
The evidence is the same on the question of the environment. An index of environmental sustainability in 122 countries prepared for the World Economic Forum this year showed a strong correlation between a country's commitment to the environment and its overall wealth.
I could go on. The fact of the matter is， as Clive Crook wrote recently in The Economist， “economic integration is a force for good； ？-globalization， far from being the greatest cause of poverty， is its only feasible cure.”
You and I， and our colleagues and counterparts in government and business， must embrace that message and become its champions.
