:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honorable members.
I am delighted to be here today to talk about public service partnerships between nations, with a particular focus on the work of my organization, the Public Service Commission of Canada.
We are an independent agency reporting to Parliament, mandated to safeguard the integrity of the public service staffing system and non-partisanship of the public service. We have been in existence for over 100 years and are proud of our contribution to building a merit-based, non-partisan federal public service. The PSC reports annually to Parliament on its activities and results. Its 2009-2010 Annual Report was tabled in Parliament on October 5th.
While the PSC's mandate is mostly domestic, over the years, it has been approached by a number of countries to share its expertise and experience. As David Holdsworth wrote in his article entitled Sharing the Merit Principle: The Public Service Commission of Canada Abroad:
One of the lesser known stories of Canadian public administration during the past two decades is the role the Canadian model has played in contributing to human resource management reforms in other parts of the world. While a professional, non-partisan and merit-based public service is often taken for granted within our own borders, other countries looking to reform their public service see ours as a reference point and Canada as a source of best practices.
In this age of an increasingly competitive global economy, evidence concerning the value of a competent public service is persuasive. Studies by the World Bank have found that there is a strong correlation between a country's competitiveness and prosperity, and the quality of its public sector. This correlation holds whether the country is developing or developed; whether it is located in Asia, or Europe, or elsewhere in the Western world.
[English]
Canada's public service is known around the world for its professionalism, competency, and honesty. This reputation has brought delegations from other nations seeking information and assistance from departments and agencies. Many have come to the PSC, and we have worked more closely with some in the area of human resource management.
Our experience in South Africa is an example of the wider network approach. The PSC was part of the South Africa-Canada program on governance. The Canadian model served as a significant reference point. In fact, the new 1996 South Africa constitution enshrined an independent public service commission accountable to the National Assembly and a set of values and principles that significantly echo those of the Canadian public service.
The collaborative approach also applies to our involvement in Ukraine. A longstanding CIDA-funded project for public sector reform in Ukraine exists, and it is managed by the Canadian Bureau for International Education. The PSC has provided expertise to the project within the limits of its resources and capacity.
We have also signed memoranda of understanding with the support of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The first was signed in 1991 with China's Ministry of Personnel, and it dealt largely with exchanges of knowledge. It was designed as a loose framework agreement, with annual work plans within which China could draw upon Canadian expertise according to its needs. The PSC was the coordinating organization on the Canadian side. A number of delegations visited China to observe their system first-hand and make presentations on selected aspects of the Canadian system. The initial MOU was renewed on several occasions.
In November 2007, the PSC signed a new MOU with the Central Organization Department of the Communist Party, the goal of which is to pursue and enhance exchanges and cooperation in the fields of senior public service management, human resources management, and public administration. This MOU set the stage for the first Canada-China symposium on personnel appraisal and assessment in the public sector, which took place in Beijing in March 2009.
The symposium was very productive. The face-to-face dialogue allowed the experts to share their knowledge and experience, and they were able to establish a rapport that bodes well for the second symposium we will be organizing here in Canada next year. I believe that this success will certainly help us move forward with other initiatives under the MOU. Our work with China is based on increasing our understanding and exchanges for mutual benefit among senior officials.
This brings me to our recent involvement with Mongolia. On September 28, the PSC was pleased to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Civil Service Council of Mongolia to share information and expertise with them. They see Canada's human resource management practices as the model for their reforms. The MOU is supported by the prime ministers of both countries, and there is a great deal of interest in the steps taken by the Government of Mongolia to put in place a professional and non-partisan public service, which is considered to be an essential element in developing a stable regulatory environment and investment climate.
The PSC is looking forward to working with our partners in Mongolia, and we will be drawing on the expertise of our colleagues across the Government of Canada to implement the MOU. I should mention that two other MOUs were signed with Mongolia, involving Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Standards Council.
The PSC is also working on an MOU with the Union Public Service Commission of India.
The PSC is proud of the contribution it has made and is continuing to make in its partner countries. These partnerships have been beneficial to both sides, and we are seeing some concrete results on the longer-standing ones. A longer-term approach is critical.
Our work at the PSC has always been supported in some way by government, but our work has been largely ad hoc. As well, the amount of time and effort that can be directed to these projects, both at the PSC and across the public service, is limited since very few special resources are dedicated to these projects. The demand for our expertise and assistance is greater than the resources available.
I think we can do better. I believe that government officials abroad can identify where the Canadian contribution is most wanted and needed, and that would support other Canadian initiatives. For example, the strong interest in Mongolia for Canadian expertise in support of their administrative reforms would provide a more investment-supportive environment.
I also believe there may be an opportunity for recently retired individuals from the public sector, including parliamentarians and public servants, who want to be involved in these projects. A resource of seasoned practitioners would be a considerable asset. Their careers have encompassed periods of extensive change in many areas of the public sector, and their experience could be especially effective for countries seeking to professionalize their public service. Involving these individuals would help maintain continuity, which can be a vital aspect of building partnerships--for example, I do not think our success with the China MOU would have been possible without the continuing involvement of the former PSC executive director, who was instrumental in setting up the original MOU.
Mr. Chairman, we need to bring these significant resources together through some effective networks. With the use of volunteers and a small amount of seed or start-up money, much can be accomplished. Seed money would be used to initiate planning on projects or programs and to obtain further support. The work in Mongolia, for example, could proceed in this way.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
:
I am not asking for more authority, a broader mandate, or more money for the Public Service Commission. Thank you for letting me clarify that.
What we do at the Public Service Commission is really on a very small scale. What I'm faced with, given the interest and demand—and this came really to the forefront with Mongolia—is how we do this as a country and as a public service. How can we do these things without actually growing any of the other government departments? I certainly don't want to grow the Public Service Commission in this area. I had the same discussion with respect to India: how do we do this?
Certainly, domestically, within the Public Service Commission, there has to be a reliance on other experts and other departments in other parts of government. And I think there is a tremendous opportunity to take advantage of the large group of people who are retiring out of the public service.
We have a retirement rate of executives of about 9%, which we've had for the last few years. That rate is going to continue until about 2013. They're retiring out very young in the public service--that's another debate altogether. The average age is around 58. They still have a lot to contribute. They have a lot of experience. They have a lot to contribute, and they're actually keen to volunteer. Some of them want to make money, but many of them are keen to volunteer. I see a tremendous opportunity, actually, to take advantage of this pool of people who are in good health, are keen to volunteer, and are keen to do things, by connecting it with this demand.
There is a strong demand, and when there's strong demand and mutual interest on the part of the country, and you have a pool of volunteers, there must be some way to put them together. I think there's an opportunity here through things like networks and collaboration. Those are concepts, but you develop the inventories, and people can search the inventories. And probably a small amount of seed money from a place like CIDA or External Affairs would allow the development of plans. There has to be a bit of seed money so that you can travel to these countries and spend time sitting down with them and asking what exactly they think would be helpful and what exactly we can contribute.
I think the discussions you'll have with Ukraine will show how extremely beneficial this is to making progress. So a small amount of seed money is what I would be....
If there really is a mutual interest in pursuing this further, then there are other funding agencies. CIDA is one. The Royal Bank and some development funds and foundations are others. And some of these countries actually have some money they could put toward this. For instance, if you have a lot of natural resources, and you have revenue from natural resources, and this is important to you, you should be making some contribution to this too. It could be in kind, such as by putting staff toward it.
Thank you, Ms. Barrados, for being here. We were just chatting before your presentation, and you said this is the first time you have been at the foreign affairs committee, so welcome.
I also think it's important that we understand the opportunities here. Just after being elected, I actually had the opportunity to go to Iraq. An initiative sponsored by Forum of Federations led me to it. The conference was actually sponsored by an Italian group, but they had seen some of the work that Forum of Federations had done. For obvious reasons they were interested in governance issues and were extremely interested in how a post-Saddam Baath government could work. Frankly, one of the dilemmas in Iraq is that they haven't had the opportunity to have that conversation in time to look at what can be done.
They were enormously interested in Canada. You talk about resource allocation. At the time, I said if you looked at the front page of our paper you'd see one of the premiers of our provinces and the having it out over resource allocation. I said they weren't at war with each other, which of course meant physically. I said that's important, because we have a framework; we have responsibilities. Some are constitutional and known and others are agreed to over time. They also have linguistic differences. They have a majority-minority situation within regions. They desperately wanted to have help in terms of set-up for governance.
I guess you could go around the world and talk about different regions and similar opportunities for Canada to support governance in either post-conflict or developing nations.
I don't think anyone around this table would disagree that we should be doing this. I think it's a matter of how we do it, and your points are well taken that there's a massive opportunity when you consider the people who are retiring from the public service. We have management colleges like Rigaud, in Gatineau, which I know well because my father helped set up one of them, for things like customs.
Do you know what the government's strategy is with regard to taking the opportunity for Canada to be involved, or, as you indicated in your comments, at this point is it nascent and ad hoc? Maybe I'll just stop there, and then we can go from there.
How you get started is on two levels. There have been various efforts to develop inventories of public servants who are interested in doing the work. A lot of people ask me because I've been around for a long time and I know a lot of people. I know the people who are leaving and I know what their interests are. But that will get stale-dated fairly quickly.
An association like APEX has done some of the work. People like Jocelyne Bourgon, a previous Clerk of the Privy Council, and David Holdsworth, the person I quoted, have at various times done something like this. You have those organizations that could do that inventory of your retirees and what their interests are.
I see that it's the government side that has to--either through a plan or a strategy--and again, not very big, but sort of say, “Where are the places where we, as a government, think we should be doing this?” It's that kind of matching that has to occur.
To actually then take it to the next step, there has to be an agreement on both sides in terms of, yes, what I would like and what we think we can productively offer.
Some of the discussions that we have had with the Mongolian prime minister.... He's keen on having a public service that operates like the Canadian public service. Well, it took us a hundred years and it's not going to happen overnight.
What is it we can do to begin to operationalize some of the grand ideas? Canadians are very pragmatic. They're good at taking a whole bunch of different ideas and things that look like there might be disconnects and making them work and making them move forward.
That's the real value in having those discussions and saying, “To solve these problems, these are some of the things you need and we can help you get there. Now you give us some people to work with.” I think the real models are where you have the collaborative work, working together, so it's not a matter of writing a report, dropping the report, and walking out.
:
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.
:
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.
:
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen,
[English]
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.
[English]
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?
:
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.
:
I'm going to give you the light answer, because time and the chairman are staring me in the face.
The dominant political party in Mongolia is the Mongolian people's revolutionary party, which is the former Communist Party. Fifteen years ago, they renounced their communist heritage. They apologized for 70 years of communist rule. In fact, the top item on the agenda at the MPRP congress next month is to change the name, to make it into the Mongolian people's party and drop “revolutionary”.
Mongolia has had free and open presidential elections and parliamentary elections since 1992. The presidency of Mongolia has switched back and forth between the democratic party and then to the MPRP, and then back to the democratic party, peacefully and without very much rancour. In terms of parliament, in the election of 1996, the democrats won. In the election of 2000, the MPRP won. In 2004, MPRP won, but it was so tight that they made a coalition government, and that was the first coalition government that you're referring to. In 2008, the MPRP won a solid majority.
However, there was a very uncharacteristic seven-hour civil disturbance in Ulan Bator. The then MPRP prime minister made what most observers thought was a sensitive and good, intuitive judgment. There was a lot of unhappiness in the country about the way things were going, about lack of transparency, and other things. He voluntarily, even though he had a solid majority and did not need the support of any other party to govern, invited the next largest party, the democratic party, into a coalition. MPRP has 60% of the cabinet seats and the independent agencies; the democratic party has 40%.
Now, some Mongolian critics have said that the problem of the two largest parties, which together have 74 out of 76 seats in parliament, essentially means there's no opposition. The next parliamentary elections are in 2012, and the expectation is that the coalition will get a divorce sometime in 2011.
:
Thank you. I do not know if I have very much time left, but I would like to make a comment.
Mr. Williams, I certainly do not purport that I have your vast experience. For the information of the people who are listening, I would note that you were formerly a conservative member of this government, but I did not have the opportunity to work alongside you.
I would like to come back to one of the last statements you made. As you have noted, there are very few women around this table. I find it odd that there are not more women. Ms. Brown, a colleague from the Conservative Party, comes here once in a while. In my opinion, if there were more women in the Department of Foreign Affairs, there would perhaps be a different sensitivity with regard to the heaviness that characterizes the department.
In all parties, men and women have been elected. I imagine that some members are convinced that they will be able to make changes and move our society forward, whereas others have different convictions. They are probably here in the pursuit of their own interests. Whether it be in advanced nations such as ours or in developing countries, I believe that this is part of human nature. Even if we would like our public service to be without reproach, it is a fact that it is impossible to control that which motivates human nature.
We obviously are confronted with exceptions. Even here, we are in the pay of the governments that succeed each other. The public service remains, but it is under the yoke of the government in place. It must agree to change its orientation, to new policies or to programs that will be adjusted. We can hardly pretend that this public service will rise up and denounce the government. I believe that you do not bite the hand that feeds you.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Madame Deschamps, for the question regarding women in politics. I will not comment on women on either side of the House, but in general, it's great to see women participating in politics.
In a democratic society there is a loop between the governed and the governors. Those who are governed have to be happy with the governors or else they're going to find a way to change the government. Since 50% of our population is made up of women, and they have a voice, I would like that voice heard loudly and clearly in the political sphere. That is how you're going to find more women in the political process, where they exert the influence and the opinions they have.
Within the public service, I'm glad to see, for example, Madam Barrados, president of the Public Service Commission. I've known her for many years, since I came here, first as Assistant Auditor General. And of course we have Ms. Fraser, the Auditor General, and others in senior ranks. This is good. We recognize the role women can, should, and must play in the governance of our society. These are the issues I'm glad to see we are addressing as a mature and developed nation.
On your last point, about whether the public service can exert their opinion on the government on public policy, no, they cannot come out publicly and criticize the government. That is not their role. As I said, they have an allegiance to the population and to the citizens at large, not an allegiance to the government of the day. They have an obligation to implement the policies of the government of the day, but they do not owe their allegiance to the government, because the governments change. Society doesn't. And that is where we find a public service that is professional, efficient, competent, trained, with both genders delivering services and feeding information into the government as to what public policy should be.Then we're going to enhance the values provided to our government and enhance our society.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Williams and Mr. Saunders, for showing up.
John, I suppose I'm still somewhat of a rookie, but five years ago when I came here, I was one of those new MPs. If I were to think back to those who I've learned most from and sat at their feet, I would have to say that you, sir, are right up at the top. It's great to see you back. It's great to hear you talk about those things that we had so many discussions about.
I've got two questions. I want to say too at this point that we're really fortunate to have both of these gentlemen here. Again, I don't think anybody has to speak about John. We all know your background, your credentials, and what you've contributed to this Parliament.
Mr. Saunders, sir, I read your resumé, and it's profound, quite frankly. So I'm going to ask you two questions; actually one to you, John, and then one to you, Mr. Saunders.
The first one is to you, John.
I firmly believe, and I know around this table many of us--or hopefully all of us--share this belief, that when we go out we are ambassadors; we're not simply members of Parliament. Again, you and I have talked about this a number of times. When we get the opportunity to travel to different countries, we have the profound privilege to go out and represent, as both of you have stated, probably if not the best, then one of the best systems in the world. The message we bring has to be one that points citizens from around the world to a system that, as Reagan used to say, is a light on the hill, a beacon.
My question to you--and before you answer it, I'm going to give the question to Mr. Saunders too so you both have your questions--is on training. Again, I was privileged to sit and talk with you, and I've had many discussions, but there's very little training in the way of that mandate for our members of Parliament. I want to just have you comment on possibly that type of a program.
Then, Mr. Saunders, the question I wanted to lay at your feet is this. I appreciate American diplomacy and I appreciate the way the Americans...they've done an outstanding job through the years. We may not be parallel, but I guess when we go out and administer our foreign policy, we understand that to do so there has to be some type of benefit. The Americans have always done that in the past when they laid out their foreign policy.
What is the benefit to Canada? The obvious benefit is that we have some mining interests in Mongolia and others, but what can be some of the other benefits we see? I really firmly believe that. Sometimes I wonder--I look about at what's taking place in China--if we are getting those benefits. I wonder if, when we give them great advice, when we give them great knowledge--such as what we've just heard from the last witness, that type of sharing in information--we shouldn't be more demanding and expectant on the end results.
If that makes sense to both of you, then maybe, Mr. Williams, you could start.
:
Thank you, Mr. Van Kesteren. Again, thank you very much for the compliments you expressed. I appreciate them very much.
On the question of training for parliamentarians, I think of the illustration I have sometimes used. Imagine you are on the operating table and the anesthetist is about to put you out. The surgeon shows up and he's got a big scalpel in his hand. He leans over and says “I haven't done this before. How do you feel?” Nervous, of course.
Think of us, as parliamentarians. When I was a parliamentarian and we first showed up here, we were untrained. We were not familiar with the rules. We didn't understand this institution of parliament and how it works as an institution to hold a check and balance on the government. We ran on public policy and the party policy. We said vote for me and I will implement whatever is in the party policy.
Then after the votes are counted, you find yourself on the opposition side. Whatever you said about implementing party policy is largely irrelevant because it's not going to happen. It's the governing party that says their agenda won and their agenda is to be implemented, subject of course to convincing the other parties it's a reasonably good idea.
The concept of the check and balance of a parliament is never discussed in the elections. Nobody has ever said during an election, “Send me down to Ottawa to be a parliamentarian and I will hold the government accountable.” Nobody has ever said that, but that is the role of parliament. Therefore, we need to have a methodology where we elevate the competence and understanding of parliamentarians as to their real role. Primarily and fundamentally, the parliament, on behalf of the people, is a check and balance on the executive. When parliament is accountable to the people through open and fair elections, with an independent media that keeps them informed, so that they can decide whom they want to represent themselves, then we have a functioning democracy. When ballot boxes are stuffed, when the media is controlled, when parliamentarians are blindly following the leader because he buys their vote with a bucketful of cash, you will not have a democracy. It's game over.
Unfortunately, in far too many countries in the world, that, or something similar, is how democracy is run. It is no democracy. That's why people are poor. They do not have the capacity to pull the chain of the people and say they didn't vote for poverty and government has an obligation to deliver prosperity to them. They can't do it. They can't pull the chain.
I've been to far too many countries and seen far too many rules that prevent the people from holding the parliamentarians and government accountable. That is the problem.
:
I think what Mr. Williams has said is a lot more interesting than what I have to say, and I'm delighted and honoured to be on this panel.
You ask a perfectly legitimate question: what's in it for Canada? In the short term, the mining investment obviously repatriates income, and those economic benefits don't need discussion here.
This is why Canada is so well positioned now to take advantage of an opportunity that is created as a result of Prime Minister Batbold's visit to Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper made it very clear that the incentive for Mongolia to move ahead more expeditiously than they have over the last six years with a FIPA in order to provide some guarantees of asset protection for Canadian investors is that at the end of that rainbow, we start negotiations on a free trade agreement.
Canada will, as it has for the last 10 years, once again be ahead of the United States on the FTA. The American Congress has refused for several years to renew the trade negotiating authority of the President. This applied to President Bush; it applies to President Obama. He does not have trade negotiating authority, and Congress has an uncertain appetite for future FTAs. My impression is that the Government of Canada has no such reluctance and is in very many ways eating the lunch of the United States on moving ahead on its FTA program. It is likely that Canada can have an FTA with Mongolia much faster and much sooner than any other country, with the benefits that would produce.
Education exports: if a Mongolian is educated at one of Canada's fine colleges and universities, for the rest of his life, when he thinks of needing a major construction company, he's going to think of Lavalin, not necessarily Bechtel. If he needs to buy a plane, he's going to think of Bombardier and not of an American producer or Embraer or Fokker. If they get to the point of mass transit, he's going to think again of Bombardier and not an Italian manufacturer.
There is an awareness among very senior private sector Mongolians that an education in Canada is qualitatively different, and to many of them better, than in the United States simply because of the social environment. The president of MCS Holding Company, which recently had an IPO in the Hong Kong stock market, which established the capitalization of their company, which owns a piece of the Tavan Tolgoi coal project at over $5 billion, asked me for advice on where to send his sons. He wanted a small college in a safe environment where they were going to get a good education and where he didn't have to worry about them every day. I said Simon Fraser. I'm sure I've offended everybody else at this table who has a pet college or university, but he had two of his sons go there. The NAMBC has organized a Canadian Alumni of Mongolia organization, and we are about to hand it over to a self-governing board of landed Mongolian immigrants in Canada.
Finally, on the Toronto Stock Exchange, this mining company went to Hong Kong, and if there is a greater visibility for Canada, then more of them are going to come to Toronto. This is globally competitive now, and it's important to persuade foreign mining companies to list in Toronto and not in Hong Kong, Shanghai, London, New York, Chicago, or wherever. It is important to preserve the status of the Toronto Stock Exchange.
That's just a quick answer to a very good and very deep question, and those are some of the advantages I see.