Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Your time is up, so let them finish.

[William H. Goodridge]

I agree with you that when you see the basic needs, you'll say, gee whiz, how can we dedicate resources to the higher-level needs—and I say “higher-level” for the rule of law—if we have needs of water and food at the ground level? But the fact of the matter is that you can't have one without the other.

If you turn on the tap and deliver free drinking water but don't have a system of the rule of law with good governance in place, it's not going to continue. In other words, maybe the water will be diverted to the bigger farm, to the commercial farm or the wealthy. You have to turn on the tap yet and find a way to provide aid there, but you also have to have a rule-of-law system such that it will allow the people who are supposed to be getting that water to continue to get it, that it be clean, that you have a labour force that's reliable to fix it and all that structure that supports the operation of a country.

As to whether Canada is meeting its international obligations, I don't think so. I think Canada is a great model internationally, and we shouldn't be smug about how great things are in Canada. The fact is they are great in Canada, but we should be doing more internationally. Just because we have our house in order and have prosperity, and most of Canada has prosperity, shouldn't we be thinking of our neighbours in the global community? I don't think we do enough. The commitment we made 25 years ago was to give 0.7% in foreign aid, and we give—I don't know, maybe half that now.

[Robin L. Sully]

Not even half, yes.

[William H. Goodridge]

So are we doing a lot? No, I think we're a bit smug and I think we should be doing an awful lot more in the global community.

As a good example about whether we are having an impact, take the example I gave earlier about the constitutional amendment in Zimbabwe that all the law societies were upset about. What really triggered it was a lawyer, a leader in the law society of Zimbabwe who was a human rights advocate, a gorilla of a man who had such a high profile in Zimbabwe that he was untouchable by the government. In other words, he wasn't going to be arrested because he was in the paper all the time.

He would take all these cases on a pro bono basis, advocating human rights, gender equality, women's rights, and he would go to court. What sparked this protest was that the government wanted to take his passport. They amended the constitution so that they could take his passport, to muzzle him. When you ask whether we shouldn't be focusing on the other issues, here's a good example, where a lawyer who was speaking up and trying to have the constitution enforced was going to be muzzled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much for your presentation. It's good to be back at this committee when we have these kinds of presentations. We appreciate that you were with us today.

We will also be able to have a record of everything that was said today so that we can look back when it comes to the report we'll be drafting.

Again, thank you.

We're going to suspend for a couple of moments and give our next guests the opportunity to take their seats.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting back to order.

This is our second hour, and we have the privilege of having three guests with us.

First of all, we welcome Kevin Deveaux. Mr. Deveaux is an MLA from Nova Scotia. He is also the house leader of the New Democratic Party. Mr. Deveaux has had extensive experience working within the National Democratic Institute and other institutes. He has spent a lot of time working with different groups and has had some involvement with United Nation groups. Mr. Deveaux is resigning his seat soon and will be taking a position, I believe, with some United Nations organization in Vietnam, working with the less fortunate and doing what he can to help promote democracy and other things there. We welcome Mr. Deveaux.

Also, our colleague John Williams, member of Parliament for Edmonton--St. Albert, is speaking on behalf of the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, commonly known as GOPAC. It has become very well known around the world, thanks, I would add, in large part to the efforts of Mr. Williams. Appearing with Mr. Williams is Martin Ulrich, the executive director of GOPAC. We welcome you both. Before Christmas, when we were working through other legislation, we bumped you, so thank you both for making your testimony available to us this morning.

We'll have opening remarks from both Mr. Williams and Mr. Deveaux and then we'll go into the first round.

Mr. Deveaux, we'll begin with you. Welcome.

[Kevin Deveaux, Member of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the committee.

You were very kind in noting my career change that is coming up, but I wanted to briefly give people some understanding of my background. You noted that I've worked with the National Democratic Institute. I've done extensive work in Kosovo. I've also done work in the People's Republic of China, Iraq, Egypt, Palestine, and Cambodia. As you noted, starting in March I'll be working with the UNDP, the United Nations Development Programme, on a full-time basis, in Hanoi in Vietnam.

My work has been mainly in the areas of governance. When I talk about governance, I mean parliamentary and executive. But I've also done work with political parties, with election monitoring, and with civil society. I wanted to start by saying that I come here not as an academic but as a practitioner. I'm someone who has done this work for a number of years, and obviously, with my change in career I'm committed to it.

So my perspective is one of someone who, on the ground, has been doing this work with governments and with civil society. I wanted to give you that perspective, and hopefully your questions will reflect it.

I want to talk particularly about what's wrong with the current approach of the Canadian government.

One of the things I want to say from being in the field is that Canada is not a serious player in the area of democratization development. When you look at countries such as the United Kingdom with its Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Americans with NED, NDI, and IRI, the Germans with their Stiftungs, and others, most people would say that Canada has not even begun to present itself at an international level in the areas particularly of parliamentary and executive and political party development.

I say that, but I would also want to note that Canada does have—and I think I heard this from the last group as well—a lot of excellent individuals who are doing incredible work, wonderful work. I think that's something we need to appreciate. The other part of it is that there are a lot of organizations within Canada that are receiving money from CIDA and from the government and that are doing good work. I just think it's not being properly presented or sold, and that may be part of the issue as well. From hearing some of the testimony earlier and reading some of the testimony from your earlier hearings, I think those groups are doing good work, but I'm not sure it's being presented in a manner that is being respected.

Let me talk about what I see as a new approach and some of the benefits of a new approach. One is, if we truly invest in governance development, we would have access. As a part of a foreign policy, of foreign affairs, I don't think we can overestimate the importance of access. By providing funding for development in the areas of political party development, civil society development, parliamentary development, executive and judicial development, we would be creating programs that would directly impact the leaders within certain countries.

Of course, in return that creates access. That access would obviously bring leverage on issues of trade and human rights, if we have disputes on a bilateral or a multilateral basis. If for no other reason, consider democracy development as an ability to open doors when we are doing work in those countries, if we need their support in other areas.

I also want to say that it can be very cost-effective. I know from being in the field that for about $2.5 million a year per country, Canada can be not only a major, but the most significant player in a country. That's based on my experiences in post-conflict societies, Kosovo to be specific.So $2.5 million per year per country can give Canada a very good program, probably the best program in many countries. For $25 million a year, for example, Canada could be a serious player in ten countries around the world. If we pick those countries appropriately, based on our history, based on our diversity, I think we can have a lot of impact in those countries.

And of course the obvious one that others have noted in the past is freedom and security. Any benefit, any investment in this area can result in better democracy and more security.

When I talk about this, what is it that I, with my short time, wanted to note? There are two things.The structure that I would recommend is twofold. First, I think Canada needs a funding agency that specifically deals with democratization, that would provide grants and funding to organizations, much as the National Endowment for Democracy in the United States, the NED, does. I think that is a good way of doing it. You'd have an organization that is specifically focused on democratization development, and I think that could work.

Secondly, I'd like to see something like the Westminster Foundation in the UK. Whereas the Germans and the Americans have moved to partisan-based groups, I would recommend a multi-partisan group like the Westminster Foundation, one that would create a situation whereby all the parties could come together to do executive, judicial, and parliamentary development, and election monitoring and political party development. I think that would be good.

Also, I think, through the Canadian version of the NED, there could be smaller contractors or subcontractors as well who could be involved in the process. And I think that is also something that would create competition and would allow for smaller organizations to have an opportunity to provide their expertise as well.

In conclusion, I want to say that Canada needs a made-in-Canada approach to foreign policy. If we're going to do that, then we need democratization development. We need to be able to have the funding that gives us access to the higher levels within government, civil society, political parties, and the judiciary.

Finally, I would like to say that there are a lot of Canadians who are doing this work on a full-time basis. They're doing it for British organizations. They're doing it for American organizations. They're doing it for the UN. They're doing it for the Commonwealth. There is a vast array of Canadians who've built up a lot of experience in this area, and listening to them, talking to them, I know that they often say they wish they could do this for a Canadian organization, that they wish we could have a Canadian version of NDI or the Westminster Foundation.

In conclusion, I would ask you to consider the possibility of a Canadian version of the other organizations. I think it could have a great impact on the world and would allow Canadians to do the work they do so well, which they'd be proud to do for a Canadian organization.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Deveaux.

Mr. Williams, you have ten minutes.

[John Williams, Chair, Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption (GOPAC)]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I believe my remarks have been distributed in both official languages.

First, let me congratulate the committee on its timely study into a subject that is of the utmost importance today.

We are learning again from our experience in some parts of the world that democracy does not come out of the barrel of a gun, nor can we say that democracy has arrived when elections are held that do not produce a parliament and a government that enjoy the confidence of the nation.

You will note that I said “a parliament and a government”. They are two separate and distinct institutions, parliament being the very heart of democracy. Government is the executive, and the executive power is vested in a prime minister or a president with a cabinet chosen by him who serve at his pleasure. Tremendous power is invested in a prime minister or a president; however, in a democracy there is a constraint on his powers: he can only exercise his powers with the consent of parliament, which represents the people.

Parliament is an institution of accountability, not an institution of management. It does not run the government, but it has authority to approve government plans, oversee government actions, and hold government accountable for its performance. Parliaments need to be strong, because strong leaders can only be constrained by strong institutions.

I illustrate this relationship with my hourglass theory. We are all familiar with the standard triangle of an organizational structure. In sovereign nations the people at the bottom of the triangle are served by the public service. The public service in turn is accountable to and takes its direction from cabinet ministers, who serve at the pleasure of the prime minister. This is the standard organizational triangle, which I call the service triangle. There is one person at the top, and it gets wider and larger towards the bottom. But without democratic accountability or constraint that person is a dictator, and society serves the dictator.

To provide democratic accountability, parliaments have evolved as institutions with constitutional authority to hold the prime minister or president accountable for his or her actions. Therefore above the service triangle there is an inverted triangle, which I call the governance triangle. Government reports to parliament, which in turn is accountable through open and independent media to the people at the top.

Parliament, in a democracy, has four fundamental responsibilities: first, to approve on behalf of the people legislation proposed by the government; second, to approve on behalf of the people the budget proposed by the government for it to raise through taxation the revenues needed to run the country; third, to approve on behalf of the people the estimates, which are the line-by-line expenditures giving government the authority to spend specified amounts on specific programs; and fourth—and I think the most important, Mr. Chairman—government reports to and is accountable to parliament.

Given these four responsibilities of parliament, it is easy to see that parliament should be in the driver's seat. In fact, in a properly functioning democracy, ultimate political power is vested in the people. They delegate responsibility for oversight of government to parliament, but retain the right to discipline the members of parliament at election time.

In an open public forum, parliament approves legislation, budgets, and estimates requested by government and holds government accountable for its actions. Parliament also retains the right to withhold consent, to dismiss the government, or to impeach the president.

Government in turn uses the civil service to deliver services to the people and holds the bureaucracy accountable for its performance and delivery of services.

Mr. Chairman, that is the management model, the service triangle, and the accountability model—the governance triangle—of a democratic nation.

Ultimate political power is widely distributed to minimize the opportunity for improper abuse. However, in many countries that profess to be democratic, corruption and abuse of power are out of control. Why? It is because parliament fails in its obligation to be an independent overseer of government and instead becomes co-opted by government into accepting its agenda. The democratic accountability model of the governance triangle cannot work when parliament is shuffled off to the side or is subverted by government.

Too many parliamentarians in the world, if they cannot be won over by government through reasoned debate, can be bought. If they can't be bought, they can be intimidated. If they cannot be intimidated, they can be defeated at the next election through manipulation. If they cannot be defeated, they can be imprisoned, and for the obstinate few, Mr. Chairman, who steadfastly refuse to be co-opted into a corrupt regime, there is always assassination and elimination.

Strong leaders need to be constrained by strong institutions, and the strongest institution in any country should be its parliament, the voice of the people.

Only parliament has the constitutional authority to constrain leaders and governments, demand accountability from them, and dismiss them if they deem it appropriate to do so. No other organization in any country has that kind of power. But too often parliament is a parliament in name only, a puppet of the government, allowing its society to suffer.

It's a simple concept. When parliament fails in its responsibility to hold government accountable, government will fail in its responsibility to run the country. When government fails in its responsibilities, society fails. Therefore parliament is the bedrock. Make parliament work well and society will prosper.

But when parliament fails in its duty of oversight, government will lose its moral fibre, and corruption will set in. They will serve themselves by taxing the poor for their own benefit. They will steal the cash allocated to build schools and hospitals. They will demand bribes from their citizens. They will manipulate the courts and the regulatory agencies for their own benefit. They will suppress legitimate democratic dissent. They will intimidate the media. They will fix elections and thwart the democratic process. They will even change the constitution to keep themselves in power.

The lack of oversight by parliament allows corruption to flourish, and we all know that corruption kills economic prosperity. If you look at the Transparency International corruption perceptions index, you will quickly see an inverse relationship between corruption and prosperity. Economic development, respect for human rights, and the application of the rule of law are all responsibilities of government, but when Parliament fails to hold government accountable, government fails to serve its citizens. Therefore it is up to us as parliamentarians.

Parliamentary independence and democracy around the world are in dire need of some help, and I am pleased to tell you that help is on the way. In October 2002, 170 parliamentarians from around the world gathered in our own House of Commons to create the Global Organization of Parliamentarians Against Corruption, GOPAC. They adopted a constitution and elected a board and executive. I was elected the chair of the organization.

GOPAC has one mission: to make parliaments more effective as democratic institutions of oversight of government. The organization has three pillars to support this mission statement. First is peer support for parliamentarians who are travelling the difficult and sometimes dangerous road of standing up against corruption. Second is education for parliamentarians. We send our young people to university to become lawyers, doctors, engineers, and accountants, but who trains the parliamentarians in the skills of oversight of government? Third is leadership for results. Talk is not sufficient. It is time that we as parliamentarians demanded accountability from our governments and took a leadership role in fighting corruption to ensure honesty and integrity in governance.

Last September, in Arusha, Tanzania, GOPAC held its second global conference, with approximately 250 parliamentarians from around the world in attendance. To provide substance to the organization and demonstrate that we want to provide leadership for results, the conference adopted eight resolutions. Each resolution called for a global task force of parliamentarians to animate debate and promote its adoption around the world. These resolutions range from the institution of parliament, to promoting anti-corruption legislation and international financial transparency.

If we want development, prosperity, peace, respect for human rights, and a serious reduction in corruption around the world, it will only come from internal development of democratic principles within a nation. That is why GOPAC is so important. GOPAC seeks out the reform-minded parliamentarians who are committed to honesty and integrity, to build their skills and political capacity to hold the government accountable.

Development agencies may offer assistance but cannot do the job for them. I am pleased to say that the development community is now seeing democratic development as fundamental to building prosperity. The Government of Canada is also recognizing the same, and I thank them and the Canadian International Development Agency for their support to GOPAC.

I therefore ask that you recognize in your report to Parliament the importance of parliamentary independence in a democracy; that democracy can only be built from within a country, albeit with the help from outside; and that GOPAC is perhaps the best vehicle to reach parliamentarians around the world who are committed to a democratic agenda of ethics, oversight, and probity.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

Mr. Deveaux, we'll go into the first round of questioning. It will probably be a five-minute round because we'll have some committee business.

Mr. Wilfert, please.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming.

Mr. Deveaux, congratulations on your new assignment in Vietnam. It's an area I know quite well.

I'm interested in asking about this idea of a central structure, and you mentioned the national endowment in the U.S. What do you think have been the constraints in terms of us not establishing something of that nature?

Secondly, our approaches tended to be very scattered. For example, in Vietnam, through CIDA, we have obviously worked on judicial issues, as an example, human rights issues, but never a long enough consistent approach, often top down rather than bottom up.

We heard from the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, which indicated, through their international centre for local government, a proposal for $15 million to CIDA to look at issues of governance at the local level, the development of laws at the local level. Maybe you could comment on that kind of approach rather than this top down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Deveaux.

[Kevin Deveaux]

Thank you.

I'll take your second question first. Obviously, local governance and democratization development are the hot topics nowadays and very much tie into anti-corruption as well, the theory being that the more you can provide support and autonomy to some extent at a local level, the more you're able to ensure you can have some controls and therefore you can eliminate corruption. So I believe that anything we can do at a local level can pay off, and the ground level is much better.

As to your question of constraints, I must admit that my work has always been with American or international organizations, so my work is not directly with Canadian-funded organizations, but I will say that my observations anecdotally are that I don't think the system we have in Canada has a lot of respect for democratization as a form of funding. It's much more based on bricks and mortar. It's based on education. It's based on building schools. It's based on health care. Those are very admirable development goals, I agree, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of recognition or respect for the fact that there also needs to be some serious commitment to governance. I have not seen that. That's why I think you need a new organization with separate funding that does have that commitment, because I think the challenge of having to revamp current structures, current organizations, is too much of a challenge.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I was asking as well what kind of mandate you think a new structure should have and what kinds of tools it would need to be effective.

[Kevin Deveaux]

The tools are funding, obviously.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Besides the funding aspect.

[Kevin Deveaux]

I like the concept of Canada focusing on a few countries but investing significant funds in them. Again, from places like Kosovo and others, I can say that $2 million or $2.5 million Canadian can get you to be the most significant funder and can develop an impressive role for Canada in those countries. So instead of a scattergun approach where you may have 30 or 40 countries, I would recommend that the mandate be on intensive support for ten countries or so, so you end up having a significant impact in those countries.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Madame Barbot.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Thank you.

Good day, gentlemen. You recommend the creation of an independent agency to handle issues that concern you. Yet, it seems the trend should be toward having a much more global vision of Canadian aid. You yourself said that maybe Canada should focus its efforts on doing more for one country in particular.

Still on the same subject, you establish a link between corruption and prosperity and it's clear that one is inversely proportional to the other. I'm surprised that you do not establish any kind of connection between corruption and poverty because quite often, even though the people with whom you do business, namely the parliamentarians, are not directly...Often, parliamentarians are themselves poor. Nevertheless, people can be lured by money and by all kinds of things, aside from the need to eat every day. However, because of global circumstances, people often have few options when it comes to escaping poverty.

How do you combine all of these elements?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Deveaux.

[Kevin Deveaux]

I don't want to come here and sound like democratization development is the panacea, that it is the answer to all the questions. But what I can say is this: democratization allows Canada, at the senior official level, whether that be at a local government level or at a national level, the opportunity to provide a perspective that is Canadian. I think that is what's missing.

From my perspective and that of others in the field, Canadians are doing great work, and Canada has something to offer that no other country can. You'll be amazed at how many Canadians are doing this work, particularly for American organizations, because the Americans have a system that is very similar to maybe Latin America but isn't commonly used in Europe, or in Africa, or in Asia. Our system, our parliamentary system, is much more common, and Canadians have a much better opportunity, based on our experience politically, to provide input.

Is that going to solve poverty? Not directly. But what it can do, I would say, is that by creating a democracy—and I think this was said by someone who just presented in the last hour—governance and democracy are very strong indicators of prosperity eventually. This is planting the seed that will eventually lead to a much more prosperous society, a rule of law, and so on, but it starts by development that would work with the senior officials.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you.

Madame Barbot, you have two minutes left.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

I see.

Are we to understand then that democratic development elsewhere is a function first and foremost of the level of development of Canadians?

[Kevin Deveaux]

I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

You talked about having Canadians who work abroad assigned to their area of expertise. Should one of Canada's main international aid goals be the development of Canadians?