Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 10 - Evidence - Meeting of June 10, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 5:55 p.m. to study the rise of China, India and Russia in the global economy and the implications for Canadian policy.
Senator Consiglio Di Nino (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, I see a quorum. I call the meeting to order.
Welcome to the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. For the record, the committee is currently examining the emerging economic influence of China, India and Russia, and Canada's policy response.
Today we are fortunate to have appearing before the committee Mr. Christopher Westdal, who has an extensive relationship with Russia, particularly as ambassador for Canada to that country. Correct me wherever I go wrong, because I am going by memory, Mr. Ambassador.
We will commence with some opening remarks by Mr. Westdal and then we will move to questions from our committee members.
Christopher Westdal, as an individual: I am privileged to address you, senators, and I do thank you truly for the honour. As we discussed, I would propose in the next 10 or 15 minutes to highlight and to summarize the main elements and the recommendations in my written testimony, which would be available to those who want to consult it later, and it is in more detail than I will be able to cover in my remarks. I certainly will welcome a chance to discuss further any of the subjects I touch upon.
I will use this time to speak a little about the world of the risen BRIC, the one we are in, namely Brazil, Russia, India and China, and then about Russia within that world, and then about some implications — and there are many, but only some in all of that for Canada.
I start with a description of the world of the risen BRIC. We are living through an unexpectedly rapid, profound diffusion of global power of all kinds: hard, soft, political, economic, commercial and cultural. That is sped by growth rates in those four countries and their progress, and by U.S. failures against Osama bin Laden, still in Iraq despite whatever the outcome might ultimately be, and in global standing that has sped this diffusion; as well continuing global communications, finance and commerce, all beyond prior imaging.
Given that the India and China of BRIC alone are half of the people on earth, their rise is tectonic. It defines much of our age. This diffusion of power is fateful; it is fated; it is overdue; it is necessary; it is inexorable; it is unnerving and it is exigent, with no sure winners.
Our position is brilliant, as the Russians say, but far from hopeless. Far from hopeless indeed; the sky is not falling. Our media sustain a kind of ``doomsday cult'' now with the end nigh for no end of reasons daily, as headlines and breaking news bites require. The human gig on earth is not up quite yet, though. We are not out of energy or oil or air, and we are not out of creativity or courage or vision or leadership either, though they all sure are precious these days.
It is not a zero sum game here on earth in either politics or commerce, though. Change happens, occasionally massive, like that now under way, but with our wealth and our wits well used, we can live with those changes. We had better do so. We have outsized interests to serve in the world, vastly more than our share: We are half a hundredth of the people on earth; We have a twelfth of the surface of the planet: our interests are outsized and we must be able to serve them and we need outsized talent, energy and dedication to do so.
In this new world, we will need to get used to big, new players, quite a few of them. There is jostling at the high table. It is musical chairs up there. You may want to consider the prospects in the decision that faces the government about the Security Council race that is coming up. We could talk about that.
It is getting rough out there and the list is long, as usual, of lurking demons but, as I said, the sky will not fall down. There will be wrenching adjustment and anxiety for sure, but among major powers, pray, no need for major quarrel. We know we cannot have a major quarrel any more. We may not have fought but we certainly have survived our last no-holds-barred major war on earth. H-Bombs are holds we have just got to keep barred.
To look on the bright side of that, we sure have a lot of good reasons to get along. It is true that credible, integrated global government remains far off in human prospects. However, it is also true that we are making some stunning progress on earth: scientifically, technologically, economically, culturally, institutionally and socially. Hundreds of millions are escaping misery. Driven by mass markets, vast industries like the auto industry are effecting radical change, whether we like it or not, before our eyes, headlined every day. This is Joseph Schumpeter's relentless creative destruction gone global, at a quite frenzied rate.
Good things happen too, and tides turn in our heads and in our hearts and our spirits, attitudes, policies and programs at home and abroad. Good things happen amidst the gloom. I will not recite them but will draw your attention to two quotations, one from Ronald Reagan's inaugural address about Lincoln. These days we have an African American on a path he might yet complete from the Illinois of Abraham Lincoln to the Whitehouse of George Bush. I have a quote from Ronald Reagan on Lincoln and one from Lincoln on the meaning of America. Those might come later.
Whatever we make of our prospects, however scary it is, however many doomsdays you can imagine or be presented with every day, every hour, bells are for ringing, not hands.
The end of a nightmare is always the dawn of a better day. I know that you are politicians and exist in a political community. I am not, but in our country, in all countries I think, and in the world there is a palpable, powerful hunger for achievement and competence. There is a hunger to break the fast of global vision, credible vision, served vision, active vision, competence, state government achievement, a famine of hope and competence. Politicians at home and abroad will be challenged to sate this hunger with vision and practical competence, including state competence.
The boomers are sick and tired of cynicism, and the new generation has not had enough time to get cynical yet, let alone sick and tired of being so. I do think that hunger and that thirst will be quenched by whoever wins this November. That is a palpable hunger in our community.
I move on to say that the term ``multi-polarity'' should be considered a positive construct, freed of the connotations of opposition and antagonism that were inherent in Cold War notions of polarity — as in bipolarity and battery notions, opposite poles — and freed as well of its current status as a code word for opposition to the highest pole, Washington.
Think, rather, of multi-polarity as all the poles of a vast tent, maybe a multi-ringed circus, or the spires of a great cathedral, high enough and big enough for the whole broad church of us, the whole multi-ringed circus of mankind, complementary multi-polarity in a multi-spired world. No one is in charge. That is good. Who would get to choose who would be? It is a community; it is alive.
My point, and I can elaborate it, is that the prospect is not at all hopeless of such a world community, infinitely complex beyond all human understanding as, note, some term the grace of God, ultimately uncontrollable exogenously, but at the same time organic, sensate, collectively intelligent and adaptive, perhaps even possessed of a spirit of the whole, if only awe at the stunning marvels of existence as close to miracles as makes no difference, and possessed, at last, to the end of that old deep instinct of ours to survive.
Russia is among the key players in this dawning, multi-spired world, this big tent of ours. Good news, Russia is quite new: fundamentally different, incontestably improved — dramatically improved — sped by the high fulfilled standards of both Putin's leadership and of the price of oil; unprecedentedly legitimate, and that is important. It has not been digested. The Soviet Union was not legitimate. It needed to be contained; it was congenitally messianic. Russia was not prosperous with a burgeoning, unprecedentedly propertied, exigent middle class in touch with a successful and reliable Russia.
Russia is on a roll. Its prospects, unlike America's, are decidedly brighter at home and abroad, relatively and absolutely, than they have been recently — that is not saying much — if not brighter indeed than they have ever been before in Russia's long tormented history.
In our new world, that fact matters immensely. The sinews of Eurasian security are Russian. The largest nuclear arsenals remain Russian and American. Russia alone links the West in the form of NATO's Partnership for Peace with the East in the form of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. Russia is unique, the world's largest country; a crucial federation aside a lot of troubled neighbours, a nuclear weapon state, a very well-equipped and experienced global player with a permanent seat and a veto on the UN Security Council and a host of multilateral credentials, from the G8 to NATO and the SCO, to APEC and the OSCE and the Arctic Council. The list is long — and note, it overlaps a lot, but not entirely, with our own list, although not at the UN Security Council level. One fact we need to note right away in this context is that we are a smaller player, and in many settings a ``demandeur.'' We do not have a veto on the Security Council. They are not demanding to listen to our view on how to use it.
The stakes in all this are sky high. Russia's territorial and moral integrity, coherence and constructive regional and global security cooperation are crucially important. There is a world of difference between the effects of Russian antagonism and those of Russian amity — a nuclear-armed world of difference. We do not want to get that wrong. We have plenty of problems on earth without getting that wrong. We do not need to get it wrong.
In this context, Russia's recovery, dramatic progress and enhanced prospects are good news for all concerned. I will describe them all, should you wish. There would be much more to fear in Russian failure than there is in Russian success, in today's stable progress. There would be much more risk — there would be blighted prospect and dashed hope — in Russian weakness or fissure than in its strength, reliability and effectiveness.
Russia's progress under Putin, continuing now under Medvedev, has been dramatic. The facts speak for themselves, as do — when they are regularly consulted — the people of Russia. In eight years, Putin has led Russia from alarming disorder, despair and derision to stability, hope and respect, however grudging. Putin's is a record of constructive leadership with sustained, genuine public support, unmatched in the ranks of the G8 and far beyond.
The economic facts are startling. Check them out. They are available; I can recite some. I think you know those facts.
With respect to Putin's democratic record and credentials, I will return to that subject, but I simply, briefly, say here that there was no democracy in the 1990s, back from which Putin has been able to have Russia slide. You will remember he was, and is, commonly accused of backsliding. In fact, my view is that Putin has done much to establish essential prerequisites of Russian democracy, above all a big, surging middle class, growing by the tens of millions, owning property, demanding now that they have some law and order.
It is not a question in my mind of whether Russian democracy is managed. I know that is an oxymoron in a sense, but it is a question of whether Russia's democracy has been managed well. I think it has been managed very well indeed, including the handoff just completed, and that may not be over quite yet. We can talk about that.
I have free counsel for you about two subjects, first about the rise of BRIC and general implications for Canada about the rise of these four countries. Then I have implications for Canada about the rise of Russia. I will go through them quickly. We can return to any of them that you might want to discuss further.
First, do count our blessings. In the emerging world of the risen BRIC, Canadians are well equipped to prosper. We are one two-hundredth of the people of the world, with one-twelfth of its surface. Let that fact sink in.
Do recognize that our responsibility is comparably compelling. Think also of the responsibility of Russia and Canada together. Russia spans 11 time zones; we span 7. That is 18, and there are only 24. Together, we command three-quarters of the northern latitudes of the earth. There is a lot of responsibility in that, and there is a lot of motive to cooperate with Russia in that. Do recognize that that is compelling.
Do scout the field out there in the world and do the arithmetic. It is world-class rough out there. The numbers are changing, with more players our size and bigger than we are used to. It is a big team out there on the ice. In the relentless competition of world affairs — big league diplomatic hard ball, influence — the ability to lead comes dear.
Canada does and will count, to be sure, on account of our territory, our wealth, our achievements and our envied circumstances, but we are not big or strong enough to take for granted, in major capitals and councils in the world, the kind of influence we need to serve well our outsized interests and our correspondingly outsized responsibilities. We must earn that influence, bilaterally and multilaterally. Quality counts at all levels, from the level of the Prime Minister to the level of the minister — and not just the foreign minister; many ministers have international portfolios — to the level of senior officials who have international work to do, to the level and quality of our diplomats in our foreign ministry. The world is more exigent than it has been on account of BRIC.
Please do redevelop, re-equip, redeploy and actively reinforce our diplomatic team to cope with the load. It is no secret that DFAIT has been hounded, harried and nickel-dimed half to death for decades now. Your diplomatic team needs support, inspiration, leadership, trust, strong staff development and adequate operating budgets — and it does not have them for foreign operations. Most of our foreign diplomats are at home, to a larger extent, than in any other G8 country. We should be spending disproportionately, given our size in the world. We are not. We are pinching pennies in false economies there. We do not have adequate budgets for public diplomacy and we do not have adequate budgets for official representation that is worthy of Canada and Canadian values in wanting to be generous and hospitable to strangers and visitors to the official residences of camp. We need to take ourselves more seriously in that respect and we need to put some gas in our diplomats' tanks.
The Chair: Mr. Westdal, if you could wrap up, I would appreciate it, sir.
Mr. Westdal: I will. Do not take Canada too seriously in the world — I can talk about that — but take Canada seriously enough. Do get a grip on our nerves about our prospects and about terrorism, an ancient criminal scourge that feeds on feeble nerves.
Do not believe much of what Western media have to say about Russia. Certainly, do not believe — I will be specific — the coverage of Maclean's magazine. Russia is not going to hell; there is a deep insult, in that headline, to all Russian people. Think of it, when you have just come off your best eight years out of the hell of the 1990s, and a foreign magazine says that you are now going to hell. Where were they? When did they lose the plot? That is insulting, as is Vlad the Terrible — an insult a few weeks later about the danger of ``appeasing'' — that was the word — Putin, that want-to-be KGB tyrant rebuilding a police state. That headline betrayed a stunning failure of historical perspective and was an insult to the intelligence of readers, the President of Russia, the Russians — most of whom support him — and the countless victims of Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism. Do not take those headlines seriously. Understand what is seriously wrong with them.
Do comprehend, recognize and welcome the dramatic progress under President Putin of a new, different, legitimate, successful Russia. Indeed, we should celebrate it once in a while, if only to let the Russians know we wish them well, which sentiment we have not for some time — since they got back on their feet — gone much out of our way to express. We should can earnest lectures. We should let the spectres of the Soviet Union and totalitarianism and terror rest in peace. We should note that Russia takes a fundamentally defensive strategic posture for good reason. We should note that accusations that Russia is belligerent and provocative should be taken with a grain of salt.
We should not fan false fear where trust would do more good. We should not pick fights where none need be. We should recognize Russia's legitimate interests in its many volatile regions. We should not push NATO further across Ukraine and Crimea right into the Caucasus — a frozen cauldron of conflicts that Russia cannot ignore. We should not feign surprise that Moscow might mind. NATO is not a knitting club, nuclear-armed for nothing; Russia knows. We should not wish the risk of civil strife on Ukrainians. We should not bait bears; it is not smart.
We should promote amity between our neighbours, Russia and the United States, as though it were our natural national calling. It is a very useful thing to do for Canadian security, and surely it would have to be seen as a thing to do by Canadians for the security of the world. It seems to me that everyone should promote amity in the neighbourhood.
There is a world of difference, again, between a Russia of amity and a Russia of antagonism. Canadians share an interest almost as profound as Ukrainians' interest in ensuring those two neighbours have relations that are constructive. That will set the tone of the world.
Forgive me; I will race to a conclusion. Do build a distinct, constructive, bilateral and multilateral institution with Russia, our northern neighbour. It is destined. Do sustain our institutionalized cooperation. Much of it is very successful and fruitful. Do pay attention to Russian experience in the North. They have been there longer and have more experience than us. Do welcome all manner of cooperation with Russia. Do maintain our presence there; and, finally — this is ``finally'' because I have skipped over such things as taking the Russian market seriously, which I am prepared to discuss — do note that while there was no revolution in Russia 17 years ago — people were not hanging from lamp posts — the music changed but the orchestra stayed much the same.
The right to own property is revolutionary. We must believe that. I believe that, and I believe in the freedom of that. Russians' other new rights and freedoms only make it more revolutionary. Keep faith in that freedom. Give freedom a chance to get on with its inexorable good work, shaping a new, utterly different generation of Russians. Give it a chance to enhance civil life and nurture reliable institutions. Give it a chance to help Russians build better lives at long last, and give freedom time to get the job done.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Westdal. You certainly whetted our appetite. I will go right to questions because we have limited time. I would ask colleagues to please be succinct in your questions and the same to you, Mr. Westdal, in your answers. If we can contain it in a shorter period of time, we can have an opportunity to ask you more questions and get more wisdom from you.
Senator Stollery: I will give my place to others. I thought your testimony was terrific. I think the witness is terrific. I agree with almost everything you said. The views, particularly at the end of your presentation, I completely subscribe to and I know Russia a little bit myself. I would like to turn my time over to others who may have questions that I might not have.
Senator Smith: I feel pretty sympatico with your overview. I know that democratic cultures do not occur overnight. It takes a long time, but it is quite incredible. I have been there a few times; the first time was 40 years ago, and the progress is just incredible.
I was amused with your reference to the demons, like those biblical traditions of casting demons out. At some point, we might have to identify who they are.
I asked a previous witness a similar question to this, which is that if you look ahead 10 or 15 years — that is not long when you think of what happened 10 or 15 years ago — do you ever see Russia wanting to get into the EC and having a shot at it? NATO would be more of a stretch, I would think, for a whole bunch of reasons that I do not need to go into. Or do you see them trying to be the pole for a group of countries? It is hard to see many former Soviet Union ones, although there are a few of them. Belarus is a bit of a joke, I think, at the moment. It is hard to see, say, the Baltic countries or Poland wanting to be part of a pole of which Russia is the magnet. It is interesting to watch the dynamics in the Ukraine, because there are still very strong factions there. I can see stronger ties with, say, India, for a whole bunch of reasons.
Do you see them wanting to be a very independent pole or, eventually, integrating more into part of Europe, where they could be as muscular as any single country in Europe, whereas NATO is different because of the Americans? What do you see happening on those fronts?
Mr. Westdal: If I try to look ahead 10 or 15 years, I am an optimist, but I am a humble optimist about it. Jack Matlock, who was Ronald Reagan's ambassador in Moscow, said he remembered two sets of famous last words. The first: Alcohol has no effect on me. Second: I understand the Russians.
With that proviso, as you said, who knows what will happen in 10 or 15 years? We have seen startling changes.
Senator Smith: Like a riddle wrapped up in an enigma.
Mr. Westdal: Yes. Without that proviso about not being able to predict the future in Russia of all places, I would say, though, quite unequivocally, that Russia does not aspire to join anything. Russia is sui generis a pole of its own, and it aims to be a pole near the equal of the EU; perhaps in security and political terms, a more important, or at least a more coherent player, than the EU. In terms of economics, its economy will not at any time reach the size of the EU economy, but it does not imagine joining. Not all of Russia is European, and it is an endless debate about where the ``Europe'' ends in Eurasia. No, not in the EEC, not as aspiration and not as identity.
NATO, yes, indeed now, is a stretch. Several years ago, President Putin did moot possible Russian membership in NATO, but he was politely dismissed. It was not taken seriously. Speakers at the summit of NATO and the foreign ministers meeting of NATO that then followed his speech pooh-poohed it. Frankly, I think it was not deadly, deeply serious because it came with conditions about shared decision-making that I cannot imagine the rest of the members of NATO ever being able to accept.
The point is, no. All of that having been said, the links that Russia retains with NATO in the Partnership for Peace are critical. There is a NATO-Russia Council. Further to what I was saying about doing all we can to encourage amity between our neighbours, that is one of the places where we Canadians should be doing it, at the NATO-Russia Council. Another place is in our global partnership, and there are other places. However, all of that is not about Russia joining NATO.
To answer the other part of your question, yes, indeed, I see it as a pole of its own. I hope it will be constructive. It is capable of being constructive. We need it to be capable, particularly in its very difficult neighbourhoods. As to how large a group it will lead, internationally it will have quite a bit of influence over the years because it will have means; it will be able to do things in the world and it will be imaginative. However, there are many in its own neighbourhood who have fresh reason to fear Moscow, and who are not likely candidates to join any kind of Russia-led caucus.
Uzbekistan is a particular case. That was a high point of Western American bases into Central Asia. For a time there, until Andijan, the Americans had a base in Uzbekistan. The cost of being harshly critical of Andijan was to have the base kicked out. That was a high-water mark, if you will, of American military bases in Central Asia.
Uzbekistan is now back in Russia's camp because the Russians bite their tongue about what they truly do not like about what happens in the basements of Tashkent. However, if you do not bite your tongue — and you have to know all the time that you cannot have your cake and eat it, too — there are costs for that kind of candour. All of that is to say that Uzbekistan is certainly open to cooperation with Russia, as is Belarus, as you said, and Eastern Ukraine.
Take note: That is not the Ukraine of our diaspora, roughly speaking. Eighty per cent of our diaspora has roots that are in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Eighty per cent of Ukrainians, on the other hand, have roots that are not in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and speak Russian as patriotic Ukrainians, which baffles some patriotic Ukrainians.
Armenia has a very close and necessary security relationship with Russia because it depends on Russia to protect it against Turks, and so on. That is ancient.
There are some, but Russia will be a pole without a very large, natural constituency, I would think, for some time. I hope and expect that through momentum and, obviously, self-interested leadership, Russia will continue in the direction in which it is now moving, and that will, I think, only be to the good. I sustain this faith in the power of freedom to have people demand better and better government. That is happening.
Senator Dawson: First, I want to apologize for being late. I started listening to you across the street at the Victoria Building.
I can assure you that that is one of the objectives. You say we have to help our Department of Foreign Affairs and support them. We have been hearing it often enough over the last few weeks, witness after witness. The Russian ambassador came and gave us the same type of message that you have given us, Mr. Westdal, about increasing our support. You are speaking to a crowd that I think will be leaning your way. Basically, what we have to do now is get the arguments that can help us sustain the fact that we want to give more resources.
You mentioned some of the efforts that could be made. One of the problems we have heard mentioned here often is the fact that Canadian companies that have gone into Russia have had legal problems. Investors were not respected, and deals seemed to have not been legally honoured or financially respected. Having Russians as northern neighbours and wanting partnerships in the future is one thing, but if we look at the recent past, some of the agreements that we had with them — and you might have been there at the time — seemed to have not been respected. How can we have the confidence that, going forward, we should be looking at them as partners if, in the past, we have had problems with deals that seem to not have been respected?
Mr. Westdal: When you speak about agreements that have not been respected, do you mean commercial deals, not Russian treaties?
Senator Dawson: I misspoke. Not state to state, but Canadian business people investing in Russia, arriving here and telling us we — pardon my French — got — you know what I mean.
Mr. Westdal: Some Canadian companies have been burned; not nearly as many as one might think, but still, they got burned in the bad old days, and some never did find justice. However, many did not get burned and many succeeded. That was in the old days. This was a constant issue for me in the embassy.
I will focus on a specific case you may know of, the Aerostar Hotel. Senator Stollery will know the case well. I do not want to recite it in too much detail. The points I want to make about it are a few. First, the embassy pursued it relentlessly, to an extent to which I think Canadians would have objected, in the form of correspondence with judicial organizations. For example, I admit having sent such letters to ensure that the Aerostar case received the attention that it should receive.
The point at the end of a long story is that, at the end of the day, justice was done in the Aerostar case; most inefficiently, though. The hotel was kept closed for a long time. That was a huge waste. However, the partners had had their difficulties. At the end of the day there was a financial settlement, so just take note that a story that was bad news every month for several years in the end was reasonably resolved to the satisfaction of the parties. Now it is not supposed to have that kind of ending in Russia, but that one did have that kind of an ending.
The point here is that the situation is improving monthly, daily. Though, to be noted, is that corruption in Russia is a conceded, serious, challenging fact. Medvedev, in his first speeches, has addressed corruption directly and sworn that he will do what he can about it. It is not an easy problem to tackle.
Two weeks ago, I hosted 10 speakers of Russian regional Dumas, or their legislatures, and the focus was on the steps we take in Canada to separate wealth and power. One of the key institutions that we have in that respect related to all of that, that ancient challenge in political science, is an independent civil service. They do not have one, and they cannot conjure that overnight, either.
That is part and parcel of a legal regime in Russia, which is getting better, and I would try to sum up by saying that for every example you could give me of a company that got burned, I promise you that I could give an example of five at the time that did not get burned, or 10, and I promise you that I could give you an example now of hundreds that are not getting burned. I also promise you that some will get burned. It is business; it is rougher and rawer, and the going is tougher, and you need diplomats' support and it matters, but the rewards in such a market can be spectacular.
Russia's market is immature but it is growing in sectors in which we are excellent. So much of our technology and equipment is relevant, and it works at 40º below. We are used to the distances, and we know how tough the stuff has to be, and we know how tough the people need to be.
There really is reason to get excited about this notion that Canada can have a distinct relationship with Russia. We owe ourselves and we owe the world a distinct relationship with Russia, given our environmental responsibilities, and given this need to make sure that our neighbours get along; because if they do not, we are in a radically different world. Those nukes have not gone away.
This last administration in the United States stopped talking about nuclear disarmament even before 9/11. They took the word ``disarmament'' out of the title of that part of the department of the State Department. This was not a response to 9/11. That whole agenda of nuclear disarmament, which used to be one of our priorities, has just sat dead still for eight years now since the high point in the year 2000. That is a field where we should be encouraging Americans and Russians to work together. What better could we do for ourselves and the world?
Senator Dawson: One of the success stories would be McDonald's Canada having been probably the best partner to be able to integrate the Russian market.
One worry I have, and on the local scene — remembering that all politics is local — is that in Eastern Canada, GazProm is now into negotiation on the Rabaska project with Quebec Gaz Métro, Enbridge and Gaz de France on providing natural gas for us in the future. They have had this image of the bad Russian player and, as you know, this agreement was signed a few weeks ago and everyone seems to think we are sleeping with the devil. I would like your comments on that.
Mr. Westdal: No, we are not sleeping with the devil. Russia is not the devil, and GazProm is not the agent of the devil. I do not mean to seize your word because I am sure you would not insist on that word, but that is not what is going on. What is happening is the engagement of Russian wealth, talent and business with our own wealth, talent and business, doing things that need to be done in the world. The question of whether we are to move gas from the Arctic to North America has been debated at length over the last several years. At one point it looked like a certainty, and at one point GazProm and PetroCan were talking about the arrangements that would be made to bring it to Gros-Cacouna, and so on. I know that GazProm has put part of that on hold and I think the reason is that the demand for gas in Europe now looks so massive that there will really not be a need to build those big ships that carry the big spheres of gas to bring it to North America, but I am not a gas market expert.
Integration, multi-national business with Russia is a good thing, I am personally involved in some multi-national business with Russia, and so are senators personally involved in multi-national business with Russia. It accords and resonates entirely with my commitment to amity with Russia. Good business is good for relations with Russia. Amity with Russia is good for peace, and that is good for us all.
Senator Mahovlich: We have not touched on the environment in Russia. Are they in charge? Are their emissions in control? Are they keeping up with the Americans and the Canadians, or can we help them?
I would like you to touch on the subject of property as well. You are talking about private property now. When I was over there in the 1970s, all I saw were these huge apartment buildings, and everyone lived in apartments. I never saw a house the whole time I was in Moscow. Where would they ever own a house?
Mr. Westdal: Those are two interesting subjects. On the environment, are they in control? Dare I say no, not very well, no. I am sure that their rules and regulations are excellent. I do rather expect that they will have gone through the entire procedure of checking everyone's best rules, regulations and laws, and there will be some quite strict ones.
Senator Mahovlich: They burn a lot of coal.
Mr. Westdal: Yes, they do burn a lot of coal, and they do not scrub it, and that problem existed throughout the former Soviet Union. There are still some very dirty sources of energy. There are still some nuclear plants that will require intense maintenance. There are still very serious environmental problems in Russia and elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, but there are also some very serious problems in the United States, in the upper reaches of the Columbia. Cleaning up the mess of the weapons of the Cold War is still a huge issue, and part of the whole disarmament agenda is cleaning up the whole environmental mess in the wake of building nuclear weapons. It is an awful mess, and that is part of their environmental situation.
They did ultimately pay lip service to Kyoto, but I do not think they took it all that seriously in that they did not think anyone would really fulfil it, but they recognize that they have the largest share of the world's environment. When you are at an environment meeting and a Russian walks in, the most important player, arguably, just walked in, so they can never escape that responsibility; and we are number 2, so we can never escape it, either.
Can we help? Yes, indeed. There are things that we have explored, and know that maybe they have not, so we can share our experience, but all of our efforts pale beside a good shock of $4 per gallon oil. We need to remember that, too. The market sure helps when it needs to, but yes.
The answer is yes, we could, and we are already doing some things in that field and we should be open to doing more, particularly as we commit ourselves not only to the economic kind of transformation we need so that we do not end up building the Silverado type vehicle, but rather the cars that people need and the market will want, and so on. There is all of that technological side of things and there is the protection side on the environment.
I will move on to your comment about the huge apartments of the 1970s. That has changed. There was practically no one living in single-story buildings in the 1970s, except perhaps in villages. In the cities there might have been a small fringe of old village housing, but from start to finish it was buildings of up to 15 stories high. There was a great concentration of modular apartments. Think what you will of them, they were wonderful housing for people who were living in the back of a farm room. They were like the war-time housing that greeted veterans at the end of World War II in this country. They were the Russian equivalent of that, and they were a great blessing, although they were nothing fancy.
The point is that they gave those cities a density that is quite healthy for a city. Those cities have street life because of that density of apartments.
Senator Mahovlich: They have good subways.
Mr. Westdal: Yes, they have excellent subways. Moscow's is one of the finest in the world. Has that changed? Yes, it has, but that is part of the traffic problem. Because of those apartments, there is such a hunger for outdoor space and for bigger rooms, now that they can finally afford them, that demand for land around the cities has exploded, as have prices. Not only are there huge apartments buildings in the rings of Moscow, but now there are also many square miles of single-story dachas, so large that they should be on 250-acre estates, but they have only eight feet between them. The city is spreading that way, and the result has been crippling traffic. You cannot drive a car across the city during the day. It is impossible. It takes two or three hours to drive to the airport. That is evidence of their success, but it is also evidence of the spread of wealth. A handful of very rich people do not make traffic jams.
Senator Corbin: When is your book coming out?
Mr. Westdal: I do not have one.
Senator Corbin: Are you writing a book?
Mr. Westdal: No, I am not.
Senator Corbin: I would encourage you in that direction.
The Chair: Would you be a financial backer of the ambassador's book, senator?
Senator Corbin: I am not in that business. I appreciate very much what you have told us. I say with some shame that the Russia I got to know best over the years was the Russia of Anton Chekhov. I read and reread his stories and never get tired of them, but that is the old Russia.
You touched briefly on Russian society. You told us about the surging middle class demanding law and order. Since we intend to go to Russia in the coming months, could you tell something of the societal tensions and trends? Tell us about the rural versus the urban, the industrial sector and the armed forces. Tell us about the aspirations of youth, the current middle class and retirees. What kind of a fudge do we have here? Tell us about the real people.
Mr. Westdal: I will try to do that. Thank you for your encouragement to write a book. I am not doing that, but certainly when I am prodded to think about my memories of Russia and other places, I could fill several sheets.
You asked about the surging middle class demanding law. That is the driving force. There really is a progression. The Russians understand well, and it has been in recent history that if you want a little law, you need a little order. That comes before anything else, and that is what Putin gave them. He gave them a little order and the beginnings of some law that works, too, because they now need it themselves. By the way, that is also a mechanism whereby ill-gotten gains become acceptable fortunes. It has happened in our country and it will happen in Russia, too.
That surging middle class in Russia is thought to be 40 million people. The announced goal of the plan is to bring it to 60 million people, this in a population of about 145 million. The dominant cohort in the population is now declared and measured as middle class.
Yes, people have been left behind; people in the rural areas. There are heart-break villages in Russia being boarded up. They are down to the last few souls, all lonely, but there are heart-break places like that anywhere that transportation starts to render location irrelevant. If people are heartbroken that those villages are dying in rural Russia, they are free to move to them. They are not, and for very good reason. Life is much better elsewhere.
Do not be misled that dire poverty in the country means that the wealth is not spreading around. It will never reach every village; it does not in any system. Yes, there are people in the rural areas who are left behind. There are people who were just the wrong age when the world got turned on its head. They were too old to get started again at anything new, but too young to drop dead. They were the losers, in a way. Their pensions vanished. They were not about to run off and learn a new trade, get a great new job and be representing IBM at conferences in Paris. That was not going to happen to them.
That has not been easy, but unemployment rates have dropped substantially. Pensions now mean something. Wages get paid. Hospitals are starting to improve services again. Notably, education survived in good shape, all things considered, and that says something about Russian culture that is older than Soviet times. That is important. It needs to be remembered that there is great wealth in Russian culture, pre-Soviet. America was one of the great beneficiaries of it, by the way.
There are fascinating stories about the origins of Hollywood, as much in the music halls of Minsk and Odessa as anywhere else, brought by folks to North America who found themselves on the West Coast playing the songs they had heard when they were living in what was a Jewish-Slavic-Russian community for centuries before the tragedies of the last century, which was one of the worst on record for the Russians. It was a catastrophe. They are now in their best decade.
A key fact about the demography of Russia is that finally the life expectancy is beginning to rise again. Finally young couples are having children. In fact, there has been a dramatic boom in Russian reproduction, which is always a good sign for obvious reasons. There are people who went abroad looking for opportunity who are coming home, having realized that there is more opportunity in Russia than they can find elsewhere the world.
Everything is booming, and the wealth is spreading well. Russians look quite adept at capitalism, thank you. They can certainly take the rough and tumble of it. The rough and tumble they went through in their history and in the 1990s makes the rough and tumble of our capitalism look like a picnic most of the time.
The industrial sector is recovering, and therefore there are not quite as many heart-break stories of factories with no jobs that used to sustain whole towns. The army needs more money to give decent wages to the troops. It is still unpleasant getting conscripted into the Russian army. It is not fun at all, but it is much better than it used to be. The budgets are now increasing, and they will now adequately be able to keep arms safe. Do not ever cheer for a low Russian defence budget. If it does not have enough funds in it to keep a nuclear arsenal safe, for example, or if it does not have enough funds to pay for troops who are capable of doing something constructive when there are challenges to security in the very volatile south corridors of Russia where it would be a drastic mistake, in my view, to imagine NATO membership.
With respect to Georgian membership in NATO, is NATO right in the Caucasus? There is a huge Georgian diaspora in Russia. Do not let me get diverted to that when I was talking about demography. I was led to it by the need for competent armed forces. That is improving.
The aspirations of youth: What can I say about the youth of Russia now except that there are now people who, let us say they were 5 years old at the time, are 20 years old now who do not know what the Soviet Union was. They have access to the Internet. They watch television. They read papers. Their national television is controlled, but they are far from being without access to the world. They are traveling as they have never traveled before. They want Russia to succeed. They do not want Russia to lord it over the world, but they want Russia to be respected. They want Russia to be a decent place for them, their children and their families to live. That is what they want, and they have not had that for a long time. They are on their best decade ever now.
The Chair: I will ask a couple of quick questions of my own before going to Senator Stollery again.
Arguably, Mr. Putin and his very popular personality in Russia did not have a similar success internationally, partially for some of the reasons you mentioned. His international relations were, to some degree, considered a failure in many areas. Mr. Medvedev inherits this. Could you give us some comments on that? How big a challenge is that for him? Do you see that changing under his leadership?
Mr. Westdal: You are right; Putin has been popular almost relentlessly throughout his presidency. It is interesting that the only time his popularity took a dive down was at the time of the Kursk inicident when, if you remember, he stayed on holiday in Sochi rather than rushing immediately to Northern Russia, closer to the victims. It is not that there was anything he could do, but the political mistake was dramatic, and that is the only time his polls fell sharply.
I will follow that up by saying that he learned from that. He learned from Beslan, too. If you remember the episode where the Russian submariners were caught in a bathysphere — there were two or three of them — and they were saved when Russia asked for help from NATO, for U.S. and U.K. cooperation. That was a great thing. The point that I want to stress is that Putin had stated at the time of the Kursk incident that no international help was needed or welcomed, and he paid a huge price for that. Two years later, it happens again, and he rushes to the scene and, believe me, all help was immediately encouraged, asked for and received. I thought that was quite a significant difference about him learning how important it was to respond to Russian public opinion, which is also another feature of democracy. His popularity has been quite striking: Over 70 per cent sustained for eight years, and it is genuine.
He has not been as successful internationally. Certainly that is true, although I have just a couple of comments about that. I have seen Putin interact with our prime ministers, with our Governor General and with other G8 leaders at St. Petersburg. He is treated with great respect by other world and national politicians for the very good reason that they are politicians. They know that he has a political hand dealt by history and circumstances as well. Has he played it well or not? He has not played it badly. He was by the end of his eight years a veteran at the G8 and a veteran in other circles. I think that he certainly was respected by other leaders.
I would also add that those who have watched him perform in person at great length, like in three- or four-hour press conferences or in long substantive discussions, would also respect and understand why he is so popular. I do not think he has been unsuccessful in that circle internationally.
I think that the Orange Revolution was probably his worst international misstep. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was not understood in Russia, but the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, the fixing of that fixed election, was one of the best things that ever happened to Russia. That really put an end to the empire, to the illusion of empire, to the notion that the empire is not over yet.
If you recall, however, that found Putin in Spain, if I remember correctly, saying that Janukovich was likely to win the election and he was our man, even at a time when the exit polls were saying that Janukovich had lost badly. Putin got off a plane in Moscow with Janukovich, if I remember correctly, on the wrong side of all of that.
When one wonders why he has not been so popular internationally, there is the whole territory of residual distrust of Russia. I am not so sure it is that. I think that the misstep in Ukraine and the perception that that means Russia is a bully in the region, which I do not think it is, that misstep cost him dearly. I do not think his friendship with Berlusconi particularly helped him in many circles elsewhere in Europe and probably North America.
I think people respected that he had a very close relationship with George Bush. I think there is much to criticize in the foreign policy of George Bush. It did very few people much good. To give him credit, he did follow his instincts and he sustained a friendship with Putin. I think he is on the right side of that.
If you look at relationships that have been sustained with Putin and those that have not, did you know that the Independence Avenue of Georgia is called George Bush Street? That is not a call that will reflect well on Sakashvilli. Sakashvilli's views of the fact that Putin may not be popular in his circles, or even some of the Orange Revolution circles, I do not think will last.
Medvedev does not inherit failures internationally in any way. Medvedev inherits a Russia having one of its best decades ever. He will want to try to sustain that. He will want Russia to be a decent place. He will want Russia to be a reliable place. He will want Russia to play a role in the world that Russians might be proud of, and those are all instincts that we should very much want to encourage.
I think that Putin will continue to play an active role. He obviously is doing so. For example, it will be interesting to see who is sent to Japan for the G8 Summit, whether it will be Putin or not. There is speculation that he might go. People would read much into that. I do know how much should be read into it.
Medvedev may go, but it would not be unheard of for the Prime Minister to go, the head of government to go to a summit, although I think that is just rumour. I would be surprised if that happens.
I think Medvedev will be his own man. I think Putin sees this as a systematic handoff of power and a transfer of authority, which has been peaceful and seamless in policy and political terms but in itself is no mean feat in Russian history.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Westdal. I was in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution. I actually just came back from Georgia during their elections, and I was given the responsibility of leading the short-term observation, the election- monitoring mission in Kazakhstan on behalf of OSCE. I have had a little experience in those areas, as have many of our colleagues; we are not without some knowledge.
Before I go to Senator Stollery, I have a brief comment. The Russian economy for the last decade or so has been driven principally by energy and energy prices. Are they making any real attempt at diversification? Are they using some of this wealth to look for those days, whether it is 20, 30 or 50 years from now, when that particular resource will not be quite as valuable as it is today, or will not be as available as it is today?
Mr. Westdal: I am interested to learn of your OSCE experience in Kazakhstan, and in both Ukraine and Georgia. It would be great to have more time to talk about those aspects.
As to the question of diversifying, the answer is yes. First, it is not just energy, of course; it is commodities, all of their minerals, not so much wealth these days in pulp and paper. They have practically everything, including oil and gas. They are dependent on this broad commodities boom, and I know they hope it will be sustained. I think it will, but that does not mean much.
Have they been diversifying? Yes. They are trying to get active at the immediate value-added stage. For example, do not ship aluminum ingots but shape them into something in aluminum. Start making aluminum framework for furniture, that kind of value-added at the first stage. At least grow some pigs with all that grain instead of sending all that grain out. At least make some dairy products. Agriculture is starting to revive.
Then if you look at the conscious acts of diversification, some of it has been survival, for example, the aircraft industry of Russia. Russia and the Soviet Union has been the home to much of the aircraft aeronautic design genius in the world for a long time, and they were losing their aircraft industry. They did not want to lose their aircraft industry for security and other reasons, and they have now begun working with international air companies to revive that industry. That is an element of diversification.
Their automobile industry has survived, and it is now booming. Frank Stronach knows that. It will boom. They have a lot of energy, but stop and think for a moment that they need a lot of energy. If you think we have distances to cover flying and driving around, boy, they have twice and three times the distances to cover. They have many isolated cities, called the Soviet curse, the notion being that the Soviet period led them to misplace their infrastructure. That is true. They have cities of millions of people in the far North that they need to remove from the far North, for example.
It costs a bundle to fly around Russia. As transport and energy costs rise now, this will affect Canada as well, since travel itself will become more expensive. Places such as Russia will find some outfits even more isolated. Take note, they need a lot of energy, and I do not think they are ever likely to lead the world in energy efficiency because they have so much, and they have to use so much. They are diversifying, unfortunately, I would say. One of the fields in which they are diversifying — I would say it is unfortunate but it is the world that we live in, and they will compete just as others do — is arms: fighter aircraft, military vessels, land armoured carriers, tanks, Kalashnikov rifles. They are re- established in the arms trade. It is a form of diversification.
I mentioned that agriculture is reviving. The wealth is spreading. How vulnerable are they to a crash in energy prices? If other commodity prices stayed up, I think there could be a bubble in petroleum. They would bump along there. They have so much money flowing in now — billions by the day — that prices would have to fall pretty far before they were short of cash.
They need to figure out what to do with the cash, whether to use it internally — in ways that will not drive, first, corruption or, second, inflation up the wall — or to use it internationally. If it is sovereign wealth, sometimes that is resented. We need to get used to sovereign wealth. They have just announced that 40 per cent of their oil revenues will go into foreign equity investments. That means that there will be Russians in business around the world, which is a good thing. The next time some foreigner in Russia is accused of taking the local wealth out, it will be possible to point to a Russian in another country taking our wealth out. There is mutuality and reciprocity in that. That is good. Yes, they are diversifying.
The Chair: Thank you. We appreciate that.
Senator Stollery: I have a couple of questions. I agree with so much of what this witness says. I remind honourable senators that we had Mr. Putin here some years ago. I was pretty impressed at the time. I think a lot of people underestimated him. I was not one of them. I think he has done a tremendous job in taking a basket case and making it into a serious affair.
On that business of Canadian investments, one day I was in Klim, which is about 250 kilometres west of Moscow. It was in the morning, and at that time they did not have hotels. I still had to stay in one of those old Sovietski gastinitsas. I came out for coffee, looked over, and there was a McDonald's sign. The amazing thing is the Russian McDonald's is even better than it is in Canada, even though it is owned by a Canadian. The selection and everything about it was nicer.
This business of the border countries to Russia, I think many books will be written about why their view of Russia as an enemy has continued. I do not understand it. It is dangerous. When you go to conferences, you find some person who you otherwise think is a sensible person who then makes the silliest observations about Russia. It is amazing. When I read Mr. Jack Matlock was the U.S. ambassador during the Gorbachev period, I sent members of the committee the ISEES book where Matlock says the Russian changeover was done by Russians. They did it and they did it peacefully. How many instances can you come up with in history where such a fundamental change took place with only two people getting killed in those tank operations?
Our witness knows these things better than I do. I want to say one more thing. The committee also studied Ukraine and is very aware that the very word ``Ukraine'' means ``borderland.'' and that means the borderland between Poland and the empty space that is Russian, and the linguistic divide is caused by that. It is a very difficult divide for other religious reasons; for all kinds of reasons.
My question is about DFAIT. We have heard this before — DFAIT is being starved, they do not have enough money, we do not have enough people. You have told us that we have far too many people in Canada who should be abroad.
By the way, we heard the same criticism of CIDA. Most of them are sitting over here in the CIDA building, and we are having the president tomorrow night, if I am not mistaken. Maybe that might be a question we could ask him.
Could you compare us to our competitors in their foreign services and their trade service? Take the Germans, the Japanese, the Australians and the Americans. Could you give us a comparison in what seems to be the impoverishment of our own so important branch of the public service that represents us abroad in this increasingly internationalized world? Could you enlarge on that subject?
Mr. Westdal: Yes, I will. I made a few notes as you were speaking. First, I would pay tribute as well to George Cohon for the job he did, and for the years and the dedication it took. Senator Mahovlich earlier said that it was tough going. Yes, it was; it was not easy. However, he stuck it through and McDonald's in Russia is now a very significant success, whatever you think of Big Macs. Of course, it was done by Canada. There are many in Russia who think McDonald's is a Canadian company, because the breakthrough was done by McDonald's Canada.
Why is Russia seen as an enemy, unreasonably or irrationally? I think there is one important aspect of an answer to that. That is, in the neighbourhood, among the Balts, among the Poles, among many in Ukraine with memories of Stalin, the wounds are still quite raw.
Here is the rub in it: The Russians — give them time — at the moment are not interested in hearing about the crimes of the Soviets. It is almost a psychological self-protection to make this distinction between Russia and the Soviet Union.
In my view, there is a huge distinction to be made between the two. However, the fact is, as I mentioned, the music changed but the orchestra stayed the same. You cannot expect people to say, ``Yes, a short time ago, when I was in that world of the Soviet Union, I was guilty of crimes,'' but there are so many nearby neighbours who want that suffering acknowledged.
The Ukrainians want to hear that, yes indeed, it is understood that there was an imposed famine. The Russian response, in part, is that it was not just imposed on Ukrainians. Russian kulaks and others had it imposed on them as well by Stalin, a Georgian. It is a complex story. I think there will have to be some kind of process of truth and reconciliation in the future there, but not yet, and we should not wait impatiently for that.
On to DFAIT: Yes, it is starved. I spent a good part of my adult life working in that ministry, so I suppose I would say this, but do not take my word for it. Get the facts yourselves.
The point is that we have outsized interests and we have outsized responsibilities and, therefore, we should be investing disproportionately in the means of dealing with the world, and we are not. We are investing meagrely compared with others, compared with the G8. The point is that we do not give Foreign Affairs enough money to put people abroad.
It costs $300,000 to put someone abroad that it costs $100,000 to keep in Ottawa. Every time you want one more abroad in that service, you have to spend another $200,000 that year. Get used to it. If you want to move five more, that is $1 million that year.
However, if you really want to make a difference and get a significant proportion of our foreign services out there in foreign lands, which is what they should be doing and which is why they joined and which is where we need them, we will have to pay the money required.
We have no excuse. We are rich. We are rich like people cannot have dreamed of. We are the luckiest people in human history on the planet, arguably. Do not tell me that we cannot afford to give people good dinners in our embassies because we will not give them an operating budget.
For goodness sake, we have to take ourselves more seriously. We are an adult in the world. We are not even young anymore. We are one of the well-established nations, with all kinds of accomplishments, so we should have a foreign service on which we spend proportionately more than other countries. Why? Because we are only holding on to our seat at the high table. There are now 20 others with as good a claim as ours.
Here is an interesting fact, and you could get this quantified. Do you know that all four of those countries — Brazil, Russia, India and China — are well known for the quality of their diplomats — the language-speaking ability of their diplomats, their understanding of history, their experience, the rewards they are given, the stature their countries accord them, the respect they accord them, the salaries, the entertainment budgets they are given so that they can do their job of wining and dining. That is their job, to make connections that are good for Canada happen. It is not an easy job. It is hard work. You politicians know that. It takes enormous effort. When your job is to entertain well for Canada, and the essence of the matter is what is the quality of the conversation that is taking place at the event you are organizing, what is the substantive point of the deal, why does it make taxpayer sense to pay for all of this? When at that point you know someone is counting on you to count the onions and make sure you have a receipt for every onion you used last night, that drives you wild. It is so far off the point, it makes so little sense and it is such a waste of talent and resources.
Lamborghinis with empty gas tanks are fools' cars. Chevs with no gas are fools' cars, too. Go-karts with no gas make no sense. We have to give our diplomats the resources they need to do their jobs. No, we are not doing that.
The Chair: Mr. Westdal, I do not think you are saying that with enough passion, actually.
Mr. Westdal: I have only had one chance to say anything to a Senate committee. This comes from the heart.
The Chair: It certainly shows. Thank you. I wanted to ask another brief question as a supplement to that of my colleague, Senator Stollery.
You have made your point that at the top of the list of the things that we as a country should do to live within the world of the BRICs is to make a much more serious investment in our folks out there, and even increase the number of folks we have out there. I think you made that point.
In one minute, what are the next two recommendations you would make to our committee?
Mr. Westdal: The first one has to be about promoting amity between our neighbours. That is a calling for us; it is a no-brainer. We should be doing that.
Quickly, on number two, I might not get the right ones, but we need to engage with Russia. One important thing is that we need to continue funding the technical cooperation we have under way with Russia.
Read what retiring Supreme Court Justice Bastarache said yesterday in the newspaper that these links with jurists in Russia were very important, and that they were in touch with the most senior jurists, who were trying hard in Russia to create a more independent judiciary. That is a CIDA project.
There is a head-on collision that will go on here. There is great pressure on CIDA to help only the poorest, concentrate and focus on just a few. Fair enough, if there is any other institution in our government capable of sustaining all the other things that CIDA is sustaining, including these very useful things in Russia.
Some would say why on earth are you spending CIDA money in Russia when oil is at $120 a barrel? The Russians can afford that. That, I think, misses the point. We are spending CIDA's money because there is no one else's money to spend there. The Government of Canada needs means other than CIDA to sustain such lengths. Until we have other means, we should go on using CIDA.
My second point is to sustain that funding. There is a real chance that it will not get sustained. Those vital links among senators, justices, civil service administrators, trying to help them create an independent civil service, are essential.
A third point would be about re-equipping and re-establishing respect and active support for our diplomats.
The last notion I leave you with is directly related to BRIC: We need a large cast of world-class characters and actors. This is not an easy field to run on. We need our Prime Minister, of course, at all times. By the way, he has a day job, and so do all the others that we are counting on to lead and save the world. We need our ministers. There are several who have international portfolios — foreign affairs, trade, health at a time of SARS, agriculture at a time of a food crisis. These are international mandates to which Canada must respond. We need to cover all of those bases. Think of how complex these countries are. Russia has 89 subjects of the federation. Some of these subjects have GNPs the size of our big provinces. They are senior officials. We need to be able to engage them. We ourselves have a whole raft of provincial officials who have serious responsibilities and could engage with Brazilian, Russian and Chinese officials, but particularly, relevantly, Russian. That is my third recommendation. Do try to redevelop our diplomatic service. It needs help. It needs budgets and it needs trust.
The Chair: Mr. Westdal, on behalf of the committee, I want to express our gratitude. I think my colleagues would agree. We have run about half an hour late. You have been extremely useful to us. You have imparted good wisdom and good opinions, which will be put to use as we prepare our reports. We may call you back just to share some of our experiences. Once again, I thank you for appearing. It was a very useful exercise for us.
Mr. Westdal: You are very welcome. It is my honour, truly.
The committee adjourned.