Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 28th, 2010

[Maria Barrados]

It's not the Public Service Commission of Canada that would be doing this. But the kind of model where we have an excellent example of how it worked very well was the work that Al Johnson did in South Africa. Mr. Rae mentioned Al Johnson.

Al Johnson was one individual who was supported by the Government of Canada, who spent a lot of time in South Africa, and he was working with the ANC before they were in power. So this situation was very unusual, and it made people just a little bit uneasy, because usually we do government to government and here we were working with the ANC. Al Johnson, being the kind of individual he is, had connections with everybody. He had matches...with premiers; the Public Service Commission was involved, the Auditor General was involved. I was with the Office of the Auditor General, and he had me going to South Africa to help them build audit capacity in South Africa.

As a model, you have one individual who is a champion, who is on a mission, who then uses the resource that is there. So he established the connections, he got the money to do the travel, he got the money to have them come here, and he developed a relationship that developed operational capacity with the ANC people, who were very well educated, but they had never really run anything and they'd never run government.

So you have to look at each situation and ask how would be the best way to accomplish that. But we have some extraordinary experience and some very good experience that I think we should build on in doing those things.

I don't know very much about Sudan, but I would take a close look at that South Africa model as a model for how I think Canada made a great contribution.

[Glen Pearson, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

That's great.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Does the Bloc have another quick question before we're done?

Mr. Dorion, you can go ahead.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Ms. Barrados, when we look at the list of countries you gave as examples, we see that those which have involved cooperation with the Public Service of Canada are those where there has been activity on the part of major Canadian business players, or where there have been major projects in this area. We also note the absence of countries where business prospects for Canada are much weaker, for example African countries, Haiti, etc.

Is this a pure coincidence, or is there a link between this cooperation and trade or investment projects on the part of Canadian business?

[Maria Barrados]

In my presentation, I gave the example of countries where the Public Service Commission has done work. It is really a matter of chance.

This ad hoc approach is not the best. I believe it would be far better to adopt a strategy to determine to which countries the government of Canada wishes to provide support and funding. It would be entirely possible to invite other countries. However, I believe that there must be mutual interest, a request from the country and a Canadian interest. It could also be a matter of the desire to help. However, I believe that these two things must be in place.

It is not realistic to think that we, as a country, can impose our model on other countries. It should rather be an approach that consists in basing the partnership and cooperation on common interests relating to given areas.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Are there links between the intervention you pursue in these countries and the activities of Canadian business?

[Maria Barrados]

That depends. Each situation is unique. The work in China is truly being carried out between public services. The Department of Foreign Affairs is on board with us and there may be other relations down the road, but they will not be with us, the civil servants.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

What about the situation of India, for example?

[Maria Barrados]

We are just at the very start with regard to India. We have had a discussion with the people. The government has a broader strategy. Relations with the officials are an element of the strategy, but we are just at the very beginning.

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Thank you, Madam Barrados.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

How do you go about adapting and implementing this cooperation between your public service and that which you are attempting to put in place in those countries with which you have chosen to establish partnerships? One must also take into account the culture, would you not agree? I am thinking, for example, of China. Based on what I heard earlier, there is still corruption within the system. How do you manage to bring things to fruition in that context, given that, here, we have a public service that is somewhat cleaner? The situation must be all the more difficult for you when you go into countries such as that, where you are confronted, both culturally and sociologically, with situations for which you are not prepared.

[Maria Barrados]

To my mind, that is one of the greatest advantages in having a relationship with a country the culture of which is different. We, as public servants, gain a lot from this relationship. It is an opportunity to learn about other cultures, especially since Canada is now a much more diverse country. When I have discussions with the Chinese, they want to know our opinion, in order to better control their way of doing things. They are very much aware of the problems that exist within their public service. They want more accountability, more measurement supervision, improved productivity and a better evaluation of this productivity, given that it is in their interest to have an honest public service reporting to the leaders. There are discussions that are different, but also similar, with regard to these matters.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

May I continue?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's all the time you have.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That is quite a gift you are giving me, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Once again, Madam Barrados, we thank you very much for taking the time to be here. Certainly your knowledge and expertise have been very enlightening for the committee. We wish you all the best.

We will suspend for a couple of minutes and move on from there.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Would all the members and witnesses come back to the table? We'll get started momentarily.

Once again, I want to take the time to welcome Mr. Williams. I don't think anyone needs any introduction because he's been around for a while. He looks after an organization called GOPAC.

I'd also like to welcome Steve Saunders, who's president of the North America-Mongolia Business Council. Mr. Saunders, welcome as well.

I know both of you probably understand the way things work, but just in case you don't, we start with opening statements, and we'll have a chance to go around the room with some questions. If you need any translation, you can probably get set up before the questions get started.

Mr. Williams, why don't you start, since you know your way around the committee table a little better than most of us? We'll hear your opening statement.

[John G. Williams, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's certainly a pleasure to be here in room 209 of the West Block with the foreign affairs committee.

I seem to have a different perspective today. As you know, I spent many years sitting in your chair. I'm certainly glad to be back among friends and colleagues in the Parliament of Canada to talk about the issue of good governance, here and elsewhere. Good governance is the issue people are looking for to improve the quality of their lives around the world.

We talk about Canadian values, and the Prime Minister talks about Canadian values, which include democracy, the rule of law, free speech, cities that work, and societies that work. These things are important. In Canada, of course, we enjoy a whole spectrum of social services, including health care and so on, which makes our society a wonderful place to live. We tend to take it for granted.

Mr. Chairman, much of the credit belongs to a professional public service. Governments come and go and the public service stays. They are the ones who implement government decisions. When the government changes, they take the new direction and they implement the new direction that the people have chosen.

When we look at our country and our Constitution, it starts with peace, order, and good governance. Of course, what many other countries have is no peace, no order, and no good governance. That sometimes differentiates our prosperity and their poverty.

There are three things that all people are looking for in this world, and those are peace and prosperity and that tomorrow is going to be better than today. We enjoy that here in Canada, but elsewhere that does not happen. We have to ask ourselves why.

When we look at the public service, as I said, it is the glue that holds a country together. It is the professional civil service that responds professionally to a government. While it responds to the public policy of the government, it owes an allegiance to the society. That's an important thing to differentiate. A public service owes its allegiance to society, not to the government of the day. In a democratic country the government of the day can change and the public service still has an allegiance to the society it serves. These are the kinds of values we hope we can instill in other countries around the world.

You've just heard from Ms. Barrados, the president of the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is not a department of the federal government, as you all know, and there's a reason for that. It is a separate, stand-alone commission, with its own board of directors and a president who is charged with the mandate of ensuring an apolitical, professional public service. It's not one that jumps to the command of the government if the government wants to do something illegal, improper, and untoward. They are professional, and Ms. Barrados is charged with that responsibility of ensuring that Canadians are served by people of that calibre.

Unfortunately, in other countries that is not the case. We have civil servants who jump to the demand of the government, whatever the government says. Here, they are the people who apply the rule of law. In other places, they don't.

Mr. Chairman, I was reading in the paper quite recently about Afghanistan. Afghanistan is very much in the minds of the Parliament of Canada, the Government of Canada, and the people of Canada at this time. Our military resources are expending such a great effort over there, and our soldiers, too, who are giving their lives for the development of Afghanistan.

I read in the paper about how bags of something were going through the airport. The customs officer said he had to inspect these bags. Somebody said no, no, they're from the big guy; his bags go through for free--uninspected, untouched. Now, you can expect there was a good chance these bags may have been full of cash or drugs or something else that was illegal. But because he was the big guy, there was no inspection. For everybody else, there may have been an inspection, but not for him. He gets to write his own rules.

Here we have a public service that says you can't do it that way. It doesn't matter if you're the Prime Minister, a member of Parliament, whomever it may be, the rule applies to you.

You go to some countries, you go through the customs, and you have to hit the button. Mexico is a good example. It doesn't matter who you are: if it's green, you're fine; if it's red, you will be searched. That is a random concept.

But in some countries that does not apply. I think of Zimbabwe. We all know about Zimbabwe. They've just found a whole bunch of diamonds down in Zimbabwe. Who is going to benefit from that? It's not going to be the people, because the public service are going to take their orders from the government and say, “That money belongs to us, not them.” That is the great shame that goes on and the atrocity that goes on in some of these countries.

Bangladesh again.... The Bay of Bengal is supposed to be floating on gas. I told the auditor general a number of years ago, “You have a responsibility to ensure that the rule of law and the rules for managing that gas are in place before the gas comes ashore.” If it's not there, the gas will belong to the rich and is of no benefit to the poor. This is how a public service manages a government and manages and applies the rule of law, society's rules, to ensure fairness and that society is served.

They need to have the capacity to collect taxes. They need to have the capacity to deliver programs. In many countries, they can't do that. We take it for granted here that when a government passes a piece of legislation, saying there's a new program for Canadians, the public service delivers.

A good example, Mr. Chair, is in the last year or so where there has been a great emphasis on spending money on infrastructure. Because of the economic condition, this was deemed to be good, not only here but all around the world. Governments were spending heavily on infrastructure. Many billions were spent by the Government of Canada, and the Auditor General said the other day that it has been put in place and is well managed because we have a public service that understands that their responsibility is to serve the government and serve the people.

You can imagine some other countries where the government decides to spend $25 billion or $50 billion on an infrastructure program. How much of it would leak out and never be spent on society? That's the type of thing that we should be thinking about when we are helping to export our knowledge and our expertise and to train other civil servants.

The University of Alberta has an ongoing program with senior civil servants from China. They come over to Alberta, they work, and they spend some time doing courses at the university. They sometimes come here; I have spoken to them here. These are the professional leaders of the public service of tomorrow who are already benefiting from Canadian expertise, so that the values we hold dear can be instilled in the public service over there.

It's an interesting thing, Mr. Chair. You know, I've travelled the world, and I say nobody votes for poverty. I haven't found anybody who ever voted for poverty. Yet half the world is poor. The World Bank tells us that 1.5 billion people in this world are destitute on less than a dollar a day.

If there was a public service in each and every country that knew how to deliver programs, who were educated, who were in a position to stand up to the government and say, “We deliver the public policy that you decide”--provided it is fair and reasonable and ethical and so on--these countries would all be much better off.

Now, for Mongolia, as we know, there is the potential for a huge amount of resource wealth to come out of there. A lot of that is being developed by Canadians. I think we have a responsibility, Mr. Chair, to take our expertise—not just our mining expertise but our intellectual expertise and our capacity for good governance expertise—to Mongolia too. The resource wealth of Mongolia belongs to the people of Mongolia, not the government and not the people in power.

Through an active, well-educated, well-trained public service that can deliver the programs to the people of Mongolia, they will be much better served than just allowing mining companies to go in, take the wealth, leave some royalties behind for a few, and leave the country.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you and the committee for driving this agenda. We can be citizens of the world. The discussion here today says that Canada would like to be part of the citizens of the world, and I would like to compliment you on that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

We'll now move to Mr. Saunders, who, as I mentioned before, is with the North America-Mongolia Business Council.

Mr. Saunders, the floor is yours.

[Steve Saunders, President, Headquarters Office, North America-Mongolia Business Council]

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,

thank you for this opportunity to speak in support of the initiative on cooperation between the Public Service Commission and the Civil Service Council of Mongolia.

The North America-Mongolia Business Council, NAMBC, is the oldest and largest international trade association linking Mongolia to the west. We were founded 20 years ago, within months after the fall of the politburo. We represent Canadian and American investors in Mongolia and Canadian and American organizations and companies that are active in that country. We've had the opportunity for 20 years to observe the path of Mongolian development.

As Mr. Williams has very eloquently pointed out, Mongolia, like every other country on earth, never voted to be poor. They never voted to be picturesque. Although Mongolia was in the worst shape of any of the former Soviet satellites and former Soviet states in 1990 when the Russian Soviet occupation and subsidy ended, Mongolia has responded to the challenge better than any other former Soviet satellite or state. More so than any of what used to be called its socialist brothers, Mongolia has simultaneously and relentlessly pursued democratization and liberal economic reform.

It has not been easy. The condition of Mongolia in 1990, as revealed by a study at Harvard University, which nobody really read, was more analogous to the Italian economy in 1943 or the Japanese economy in the six months before the surrender in 1945. They were devastated.

They have rebuilt their country, brick by brick, step by step, with several commitments that I think reflect the confidence of Mr. Williams and others among the distinguished and learned members around this table that Mongolia would be a suitable beneficiary of this kind of assistance from Canada.

Number one, they are self-aware. This is a government and a political system that is self-aware. They know what their problems are. They don't try to cover them up. They don't shoot the messenger. There is free speech. There is an awareness of what they need to do and a sensitivity to their responsibility to the people.

Number two, they have always, for 20 years, been interested in best practices. They don't want to just get it done. They want to get it done the right way--not the right way that's convenient, but the right way that's the best in the world.

When it comes to an honest, functioning civil service, arguably Canada is very close to if not the best in the world. I point, with some humiliation, given my passport, to the fact that Canada, in the latest Transparency International survey, rose from number eight to number six. The United States fell from number 20 to number 22. It is the first time the United States has been outside of the top 20.

Mongolia is interested in the best way the world has discovered to fix problems.

Number three, they correct their mistakes. In 1998 they imposed a gold export tax, which effectively killed mining in the country. Two years later they repealed it. It took them only one year to repeal the 68% windfall profits tax on gold and copper mining. It took them only two years to correct the impression created by the 2006 mining law that the government would confiscate a government share of mining licences.

Instead, they demonstrated by action, in the case of the Oyu Tolgoi mine, that the government would pay for it. So this is a government that I think is sincerely eager to regard Canada--as Prime Minister Sükhbaatar Batbold said during his historic visit to Ottawa in September--as a model country for Mongolia to imitate.

This proposed activity and relationship between the Public Service Commission and the Mongolian government service council offers a valuable opportunity for Canada, and not only on a commercial basis. Let me say for the record that one of the biggest impediments to the success of Canadian and other companies in Mongolia is lack of efficiency and transparency in the government service, in the bureaucracy. The better the bureaucracy functions, the more level the playing field. This is a goal that is shared, not just by the foreign investors in Mongolia, but by the Mongolian business community.

The Canadian role in Mongolia in an official way has evolved more slowly than that of other international partners of Mongolia. We've only had a resident ambassador for two years. Canada has never been a member of the international donor committee, which, for the last 20 years, has averaged about $350 million a year in aid to Mongolia. However, today Canada is the largest single western investor in Mongolia. After China, it is the largest investor in the country. As Mr. Williams has said--and as my friend, Mr. Abbott, knows very well and has been sharing with the committee--the level of Canadian investment in Mongolia is already starting to have an impact on the Canadian current account, as Centerra and other countries repatriate profits.

This PSC initiative offers Canada the opportunity to have a high-impact, high-visibility, and highly important effect on a key player in the future of the investment and business climate in Mongolia. There is a desperate need for structural change. We look at this and compare Mongolia to 150 other countries today. But if you look back and compare Mongolia 20 years ago to Mongolia today, it is a vastly different place, not only in the landscape and the prosperity of the people, but in improvements in government structure. They've done it in bits and pieces, and what they've done is remarkable and astonishing. It is a better place administratively than Kazakhstan, other “stans”, and even several other Soviet satellites in eastern Europe. But it still needs work.

There are important structural reforms on which they need advice. The character of an independent civil service commission is a key factor, as Mr. Williams emphasized. It does not now exist. So here's an opportunity for Canada to do something very visible without spending the amount of money that Japan, the U.S., China, and other donor countries invest.

Corruption is a problem in Mongolia. It ranks 116 out of 178 in the world. It's the 22nd worst in the region. But things are getting better. The Mongolian government and Parliament enacted and created an independent anti-corruption office that is just getting off the ground. They have brought indictments, and it enjoys broad public support.

In response to a question one of the members raised earlier, other efforts have been funded by donors in the past to improve the civil service and governance. There was training provided by the Government of Sweden aid program, and domestically most of the training is provided in-house by the Mongolian Academy of Management. It provides short courses to about 1,500 civil servants a year. Keep in mind, this is a country where the top civil service pay is about $2,300 U.S. a year.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to share these views with you. I'll be delighted to answer any questions if there are any.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Saunders.

We'll now move to our first round.

Dr. Patry.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Saunders.

Thank you, John. It's always a pleasure to see you back. You say that practically everything needs to be done. My first question is to you.

You could have the best civil servants, as we have here in Canada. When I came here as a parliamentarian years and years ago, I found out that they're very important. They run the country. They could take orders from any government, but they run the country, in a sense, and they do it very well. I appreciate their work a lot, and the work of the Library of Parliament. We have experts over there, and they're dedicated to our country and to Parliament.

But my question, John, is about parliamentarians. You talk about corruption. You created GOPAC. You have been the president of GOPAC and have travelled the world with GOPAC. It has helped you see. How do you see the parliamentarians in those countries? How can we help the parliamentarians?

I remember years and years ago when I went to a francophone country that had just had an election. I met the day after with the chair of the health committee--a doctor. He came to see me and asked what he was supposed to do as the chair of the committee, and what the committee should do. Sometimes we start from scratch and it is very difficult.

Can tell us how it's going in Mongolia, and some other countries, maybe in Asia? If you have a good public service but you don't have a good understanding of parliamentarians, you don't go anywhere.

My other question is for Mr. Saunders. We have Canadian mining companies over there. How do you rate their work over there with the population—not with the government, but with the population?

[John G. Williams]

Thank you very much, Dr. Patry. I appreciate the question, because GOPAC is working with parliamentarians around the world.

The role of a parliament is to hold the government accountable on behalf of its citizens. That is fundamental. Usually we find that the first thing corrupt governments do when they get into power is to change the rules to preserve their power. In order to do that, they co-opt the parliament. Therefore, Canadians and parliamentarians need to work with those parliamentarians who believe in honesty and integrity.

I'll be honest, Mr. Chairman, not every parliamentarian really believes and is committed to that philosophy when he becomes a parliamentarian. They can be bought and co-opted for whatever reason, by whatever method, by the government, and therefore the public are left out of it. The public no longer have the capacity to hold the parliament accountable and the government accountable, and that's why they're poor, remember? Nobody votes for poverty. It's because a vote doesn't count that they're left poor and they're left on the outside.

So what can we do? Go back to three simple concepts.

Peer support. Peer support in politics is fundamental because the guy who builds the biggest coalition wins. You do that every day. You vote in the House of Commons. The party that gets more than half the vote wins. You've all run for elections. If you got more votes than anybody else, you won. When you sought the nomination and you got more votes than anybody else, you won. You have to build a coalition. We have to build a coalition of ethical parliamentarians who believe in honesty and integrity, not on party lines but across party lines in the parliament. If we can find that cadre of parliamentarians who are committed to honesty and integrity and can build that coalition big and large enough to dominate the parliament, you are going to see a government that is accountable.

The second thing we have to do is education for parliamentarians. We were all something before we came here: lawyers, doctors, farmers, fishermen. It doesn't matter what we were, we were all something, but we weren't parliamentarians and we weren't politicians. One day we arrive here and we're deemed to be fully trained and we know everything there is to know. Well, the answer is, we didn't. Therefore, we have to educate parliamentarians, because their role is the counterweight to the executive, to pass judgment on the legislation, to pass through the public accounts committees and other committees, to hold the government accountable and bring in the witnesses and the bureaucracy to say what's going on over there. Access to information for the preservation of the freedom of the media is a fundamental responsibility of the parliament to ensure that parliament is the counterweight to the executive in an open and public way so that people can see what's going on.

The third objective is what I call leadership for results: we have to do something. It's fine to know what we're supposed to do, but if we don't do anything, that doesn't mean anything either. We have to know what we're doing. GOPAC promotes, for example, the UN Convention against Corruption. Most governments, and I presume even the Government of Mongolia, have signed onto the UN Convention against Corruption. But has it implemented the UN Convention against Corruption, or do they just sign and send out the press release and say, count us in? We have to do these things. Anti-money laundering legislation is vitally required in many countries around the world. A code of conduct for parliamentarians so we can stand up and demonstrate our own ethics and probity is desperately required. We have a number of these agendas.

So peer support to build a coalition, education so we know how to do the job properly, and figuring out agendas where we can make the government accountable to the parliament and to the people will build an ethical society where the people are in charge and they will vote the crooks out and vote the good guys in. I'll never say which ones are which, but we'll leave that to the voter. That's how you build an ethical society.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Saunders, you're dealing with a professional politician here, so you have to wiggle in your time. We don't have much time left. He's chewed much of it up. We want a response, but you are almost out of time.