Foreign Affairs Committee on Nov. 4th, 2010

[Kristina Wittfooth]

At the end of the day, of course, it might be a combination of both. The volunteer retired person's enthusiasm and interest might be there initially; however, there might be other conflicting situations for a retired volunteer--family reasons, age, health, or other issues--that put that person's long-term commitment in jeopardy.

What one should foremost think about is the extent to which we are talking about long-term commitment. Nothing happens in development in a week. It usually takes several years to work. You have to start with building relationships. You have to start with building trust. You have to form that kind of rapport. If a person comes from an institution that already has that--let's say the Public Service Commission has already established a rapport with a partner institution--the individual attached to that of course already comes endorsed to some extent, but then you need the context and the parameters within which this individual works. You would have to have some kind of long-term commitment built into that, and it needs to be built into the design of this partnership.

[Jim Abbott, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

You cut the cloth very small. Let me paint a word picture.

In this word picture, Mongolia has a deficiency in mine permitting. In Natural Resources Canada there are a dozen people in the mine permitting office. Mongolia has a deficiency that is identified. To maintain the short-term enthusiasm of the retired volunteer, would tasking that person with resolving that specific problem be an answer to the concern that you've raised?

[Kristina Wittfooth]

Yes, if the institutional.... It depends also on whether you are talking more of technical issues and sharing knowledge and expertise on a technical level. That would require a long-term commitment to perhaps developing a classification system, which is a multi-year undertaking. It always depends a little on factors such as institutional partnership and the kind of work it involves. When two colleagues--two technical professionals--speak, you don't need that kind of....

Canada as a country already speaks for itself. They have formed a partnership because we have a reputation, so you don't need the buildup of a long-term relationship, but in a situation in which you have several donors and several competing interests with one beneficiary, it is quite necessary to make a case for Canada.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Thank you very much.

That's fine. That's all of your time, Mr. Abbott.

Go ahead, Mr. Dewar, please. You have seven minutes.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I apologize for my tardiness. I was with colleagues from all parties with regard to the situation in Burma. We had a long press conference. My colleague from the Bloc and Mr. Rae and the Conservative Party member were in attendance.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I should mention my connection to Ukraine. It goes back to the elections. I have an item I will save forever, an orange scarf that was given to me by my mother, who was there as an election observer. It was also a lucky charm for me during the 2006 election, and I will keep it forever.

After the euphoria of the elections in Ukraine, what followed was the process of liberalization after the collapse of the previous regime. One of the things that I think many people are seized with is that a lot of corruption has been reported. I don't think that's news, but what has been Ukraine's experience with it? Have any of your activities worked on stemming corruption? If so, could you elaborate?

[Larissa Bezo]

Thank you.

The focus of our project is really on supporting civil service reform, so this is very much to your point with regard to corruption or anti-corruption.

The bottom line for Ukraine is they need a professional public service that works, that is not corrupt, and that can accomplish the things the government needs to do. Our focus has in fact been on helping them at a policy level to articulate both a policy and a legal framework for the professionalization of the public service, because as I'm sure you're more than well aware from your time spent in Ukraine, at the moment Ukraine does not have a professional public service. There is no formal separation between political and administrative. So our partner, the beneficiary of this particular project, the main department of the civil service, has spent the last five years undertaking a country-wide campaign to shore up support for that professionalization of the civil service. So Canada is making a very important contribution in helping them to articulate that vision and to already think at a very operational level about how the Ukrainian public service will eventually become professional and become a public service that would operate free of political influence.

One of the very significant contributions worth noting in that vein is the role the Public Service Commission of Canada has played. I know we had mentioned it previously, and there were questions from other members with respect to the Public Service Commission. They in many respects have had a very interesting role, in that they have helped our Ukrainian partner to think about how in the future, when there is a law adopted on the civil service to formally separate administrative and political, they're in fact going to monitor that the public service remains politically neutral and free of any kind of political influence. And the Public Service Commission model is one that is being explored in the Ukrainian context.

Most likely there will be a hybrid at some point, but the Public Service Commission, through the president and her staff, has been very instrumental in facilitating a public policy dialogue around what that in fact could look like in the future. And that's a very important contribution that Canada is making in this area.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Just to be clear, I wasn't the one who was a monitor. It was my mother, and she brought back the scarf for me. I hope to go one day.

I think everyone can agree to the notion of Canada supporting capacity and professionalism and oversight and accountability, and certainly there is concern that, after the liberalization and the previous attempts in Ukraine to continue what was a positive trend, key commitments from others to ensure that it's sustainable are needed.

I do have a question, though, and I've brought this up to other witnesses, and generally for the committee. How does this fit in with Canada's foreign policy? My concern is that while this is a terrific initiative, we need to actually have a foreign policy strategy that encompasses this valid and important contribution. In other words, if we are just doing this piecemeal, ad hoc, it won't be as coherent and sustainable as it should be.

I guess it's a cart-and-horse equation. How do you see this working if we're going to do it well; that is, to provide public service training both here and in situ? And do you see the need for us to have a strategy for where Canada wants to be, as opposed to just waiting for people to come to us or responding in an ad hoc fashion?

[Kristina Wittfooth]

If I may, I will try to answer a very comprehensive and large question--I'm trying to be focused here.

Overall in Canada's foreign policy interest, I think it's self-evident that there's an intrinsic importance to having a professional, competent, and transparent public service in any country Canada is working with.

In the Ukraine case, you have trade issues, European Union issues--in the sense of the location of Ukraine--and you have the geopolitical importance of Ukraine, in very many ways. You have the context of global importance for Canada to have its network and work, for instance, with Ukraine, in different fora, so when Ukraine has a stable civil service you can have a common understanding in security issues, energy issues, and value issues.

Good governance is a foundational piece; you cannot be without that. Any sector--health or education, or energy, whatever--stands on good governance. Good governance only happens if you have a good, competent, and professional civil service.

For foreign policy purposes, I think that Canada, in so many ways, considers Ukraine to be a very strong and important partner. So there is leverage in diplomatic presence; there is the Canadian profile when it has bilateral relationships with Ukraine.

The perception in Ukraine about Canada delivering good governance is very important. And that is the perception. That is the understanding that has been built in Ukraine, that Canada stands for good governance--civil service reform being one pillar of that.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Bernard Patry]

Okay, that's it. We have to go now to Mr. Goldring.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for appearing here today. This is an extremely important discussion. With Ukraine, I believe we have the ability to really explore these types of issues that are common in many other parts of the world. We could not have a better, more compatible platform of engagement. We truly are two countries of great friendship. We are the first to recognize, from the western world of independence, the 1.2-million-person diaspora here in this country. So certainly there is the basis for the greatest of friendship and the greatest of openness and reception to build on that.

But I'm sensing here, and particularly even in the comments from the public service report specifically on Ukraine, concerns that a clear commitment to the human resources management reform is not in place. Then it goes on to say that the likelihood of success is significantly reduced.

In light of some of the other comments, I'm sensing that perhaps the good work that you are doing may be, unfortunately, in isolation from other work and efforts that could be brought to bear to perhaps help. One of the elements here, which seems to be of particular concern and is noted in that paragraph too, is that a changing political scenery has an impact. As well, perhaps there's a difficulty with the politicals who in the past have been engaged in public service direction. Maybe, for one thing, there should be some engagement with the politicals to develop a system of policy and principles to embrace the work you're doing, to get beyond this impasse, and to concentrate more on other issues that would benefit the country.

The other point is with regard to education. I understand there were efforts to bring about information development at the university level in Ukraine, but I'm not so sure about the grade-school level. I do see other countries in which there has been a program. This is from 1990, so there has been a program for 20 years--that's a generation. Perhaps if there had been development work at the education level or the primary-school level, as we have had in Canada, that would have brought through a whole new generation of better understanding of governance, and they could look forward to what their government could do.

So is what we need kind of an umbrella organization that encompasses your specific efforts as well as other specific efforts? Because I would say that Ukraine, certainly of all the countries of the world, is one in the development of which we should be able to make a long-term impression and improvement.

We have the will of the government to help do so as well. We have all of these assets at our fingertips, and yet we still have difficulty. So is it much more from other areas? Are you being constricted because you're looking at one aspect and maybe political or other areas are impeding those aspects? Could you do more in concert and with the collective effort of more groups of people?

[Kristina Wittfooth]

I'll start and then I will hand it over to Larissa, who has the freshest news from the ground.

I will say that you're absolutely right. This is a constant balance in navigating the political scene, if you will, in Ukraine. Sometimes there has been a sort of openness. The Canadian government and CIDA have been very flexible, in some instances, to help us grasp the opportunity when a new government has come into power, like when Yushchenko became Prime Minister. We were able to reposition ourselves to provide some very, very important new technical assistance from Canada.

Then there are other instances when we have to adjust because there have been major changes or an overhaul. As Larissa was saying, politics and the bureaucracy are not separated. When the government changes, all oblasts—meaning provinces—have a new governor and so on, so commitments that were there have to be renegotiated with new people. You are living in a country in constant flux, in a constantly changing scene. That is one of the things we have learned, that by being present in the country, having a presence there, having our ear on the ground, we are able then to position ourselves when changes are happening.

I would also like to say that we have always tried to find the level in the bureaucracy to work with that is at less risk of being affected, so when there is turmoil on the top, the small wheels continue to move.

There is no turning back the clock. The post-Soviet countries have crossed the Rubicon. It's only a question of how they are now with political and geopolitical realities, how they are trying to then manoeuvre. Then sometimes you feel that it's two steps forward, one step or more back.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

This type of improvement and this type of engagement you're doing, does it go forward into legislation through the Rada?

[Kristina Wittfooth]

Yes.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

So it really would be a change of regime that would impact it, but you do take it through the Rada.

[Kristina Wittfooth]

Yes, and now I would like Larissa to give you examples.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That's the last question. We'll get you to wrap up, and we'll come back over there.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Who is this man?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Yes, that's right, I'm back. You're done.

No more Mr. Nice Guy. He's gone now.

[Larissa Bezo]

Just very briefly to add to what Ms. Wittfooth has said, in this particular project and in previous initiatives that CBIE has been involved in, we do take it to the point of bringing laws forward or bringing forward other legal normative acts. The work begins at the stage of policy development, but ultimately you want to see tangible products.

One of the interesting things—and you raised it initially in your question—is whether it makes sense to engage politicians or others beyond just the governance piece, in terms of the public sector institutions. Are there needs? Does it make sense? I think we would both say yes, very much so.

If you were to take the civil service project as an example, one of the challenges our Ukrainian partner has faced, as I mentioned, is five years of lobbying and facilitating public dialogue around the need for a new legal framework for the civil service.

As regards the public service, there isn't a public servant or a Ukrainian citizen who hasn't heard about the draft law on the civil service. The challenge has been more on the parliamentary side in terms of building understanding among parliamentary deputies about why this is important. I think there Canada certainly could contribute.

I think through more regular contact—things like the Canada-Ukraine parliamentary association, etc.—dialogue could be facilitated around these issues to really reinforce the importance of governance and of those very significant institutional aspects. This is one area where our project could benefit immensely from that kind of input.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Goldring.

We're going to move back over for five minutes to Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to continue a bit on what Mr. Goldring was suggesting about the educational aspect of your mission. I totally understand that what I think Mr. Goldring meant was how you sensitize, if you wish, children at school about governance and so on and so forth.

I would like to draw on the example of at least what I know in Quebec at the National School of Public Administration, which is the university-level professionalization of our civil servants. Is it something you would envisage to be a better way of making sure your project remains a definite factor in Ukraine to form the next generation of public servants and to be a very accepted and recognized diploma for somebody to have?

[Kristina Wittfooth]

I will start, and then go to Larissa, because we are both anxious to speak.

I will quickly say that this is what we have actually done in the past. For six years CIDA funded, through us, CBIE, the so-called academy of public administration. We were there to help them create a very solid supply site, meaning educating future civil servants. They had a masters program, and we helped to contribute to--

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Curricula. Okay.

[Kristina Wittfooth]

Yes, exactly.

As a matter of fact, the vice-president of this academy was a Canadian, from Alberta. When he moved to Ukraine, he was instrumental in creating, first, the Institute of Public Administration and Local Government. Under the president's decree, this then became the National Academy of Public Administration. So CIDA and Canada have a long relationship with key public administration civil servant education--a higher-level education training institute.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

This is for future civil servants, from what I understand.