Foreign Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2007

[Kevin Deveaux]

Well, of course. For Canadians within Canada—and I think Ms. McDonough raised this in the last hour as well—we have a lot of issues here at home that we need to deal with. But any time Canada as a national government is going to talk about democratization development, it needs to consider the whole process.

It isn't just about development. Obviously that's good in itself, but at the same time, we also have to recognize that it's part of our foreign policy. It has to fit into an integral component of our foreign policy, and as part of that I would suggest that things like access and cost-effectiveness need to be considered as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Deveaux.

Mr. Obhrai.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Thank you.

Very quickly, first of all to John Williams, of course I'm well aware of GOPAC and your contribution. Good job. I just want to say that. Carry on. We're very happy that you've taken on this task from this organization.

It's having an impact. In my talks with parliamentarians, both in east Africa and the rest of the world, they are recognizing the importance of the role of parliament as you have stated and their own responsibilities, which they have to do. Of course they are facing insurmountable odds at times, corruption and everything, but slowly and surely we'll climb the mountain. We have to take those steps, which your organization is doing. So I want to commend you, John, on that.

To Kevin, while I'll agree with you that some changes are required to some things, I will not agree with you at all in saying that Canada's policy and work by Canadians has not been done in the past. I have sat in this committee for almost seven years and I've seen a tremendous amount of work being done by Canadians, whether they are inside Canada or outside, on foreign policy. We came back, and contrary to that, because we don't have 0.07%—which Alexa will keep saying—I will tell you, we do have the respect of a lot of countries around the world and a lot of aid organizations for our expertise and the way we have been delivering it.

You mentioned something, and I agreed with you before, that there were 104 countries. CIDA is now focused on 25 countries to make sure that there is what you want to call this thing.

So I think we should pat ourselves on the back too. We should not constantly say that we haven't done it. We have done a great job, and it is recognized. But there's always room for improvement, so we'll carry on with this room for improvement and with the study of democratic development. There is room for improvement, so we'll move in that direction on this thing.

That said, I don't have much more to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Casey, we'll go to you.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Something that's puzzled me--and I've been fortunate enough to travel around a little—is that, especially in the African countries, they call themselves democracies, but they're not really democracies. In my view, they're dictatorships with a token parliament. The parliamentarians are paid a lot of money, but they have no staff, no authority, no access to information, and no accountability to the government. They're still called democracies, and they're still called parliaments. They use that to access international programs and international recognition.

Is it possible to have a grade of democracy or to recognize that some of these democracies aren't really democracies? Is that a possibility? It really strikes me when I go to these places that parliamentarians have no tools to work with. They have no access to information, no free press, nothing. It strikes me that it's a figment of their imagination that they're democracies. What's the answer?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Williams.

[John Williams]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Casey is right: many countries that call themselves democracies are that in name only.

Democracy means that a government is held accountable. That's the fundamental concept. Here in Canada corruption is under control because governments are held accountable. All through the developed world there are parliaments that hold governments accountable. That is democracy. It's not the fact that you have a building where people meet and vote to give their president or prime minister what he wants. It's the fact that they're held accountable publicly before the people through an independent media. When that doesn't work, the whole system falls apart.

Therefore, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman—and I agree with much of what Kevin has said—we should be supporting the democratic development of the institution. Strong leaders can be constrained only by strong institutions. We have to build the institution of parliament, which is the only institution that has the power to fire governments and so on.

Therefore, I think we should, as Canadians, be putting money into organizations such as GOPAC that identify the reform leaders in any parliament. No matter how much corruption there is, I believe there is somebody in every parliament that believes in honesty, integrity, ethics, and probity. We need to help them.

Some people are putting their lives on the line here. I think of the chair of the anti-corruption commission in Nigeria. When I talked to him, I asked whether he was a little apprehensive. He said that yes, he would be assassinated, but that it's better to die young for a good cause than to die old and have done nothing.

These people need support because they're trying to do something: build democratic accountability. That is why with GOPAC, which is reaching right into the parliaments and finding these people, bringing them together, and giving them tools, education, support, and so on, something can be done.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Other than GOPAC, what organizations could work at this in the same direction?

[John Williams]

There's an organization like GOPAC that engages parliamentarians. There's UNDP and others that engage the support mechanisms, the training of parliamentary personnel, and so on in trying to provide the model legislation and the UN Convention against Corruption.

I'm not aware of any organization besides GOPAC that actually engages the parliamentarian and brings together the reform-minded parliamentarians who want to see something get better.

[Bill Casey, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Do you think organizations like the United Nations should recognize that some countries that pretend they're democracies aren't?

[John Williams]

The United Nations as an organization comprises governments. For them to go around with scorecards really isn't going to achieve very much. They need to be doing things. Because they're an organization of governments, they are never motivated to look at themselves. That's why we have to build parliaments. As I said, strong leaders can be constrained only by strong institutions, and that means parliaments. Corrupt governments are not that interested in fostering a healthy strong parliament that's going to hold them accountable. In fact, it's the opposite. Therefore, the UN is not the vehicle.

The UN supports GOPAC. Again, with the support of the UN, we held a conference in Jordan back in December. Mr. Ulrich was there. At the same time, they held a conference of state parties on the UN Convention against Corruption to engage parliamentarians to push for legislation on the UN Convention against Corruption. At the same time, the countries that had ratified the convention were trying to expand the number of countries that would ratify it.

They have to go hand-in-hand: governments and parliaments. Parliaments, in my opinion, have been far too weak; they've been ignored, underfunded, and dominated by their executives. That has to change if we want the world to change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Williams.

We'll go to Madam McDonough.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There are three questions I'd like to ask, and there's never enough time. But I really want to thank Kevin Deveaux for making it clear that we're talking here not about either/or but about both/and.

I think it's quite frightening, actually, if we would envision an allocation from the existing pathetically, woefully inadequate allocation to meet our ODA obligations redirected to the projects you're here talking about. Yet it would be absolutely ridiculous for any of us who have had the privilege, as elected members, to travel and see on the ground what's happening in many countries not to recognize that corruption is a very serious problem. There's no question about it.

To try to get at this a little bit, I'd like to take the example of Kenya, where we have just visited. The single biggest devastation to that country today is the HIV/AIDS pandemic.

Bill Casey, help me here. There is a parliament of I think 314 members—it's roughly the same as ours--in which there is not a single member of parliament who will have the words “HIV/AIDS” come off their lips, let alone advocate on behalf of a devastated population, most of whom are dying of HIV/AIDS or are living positively with HIV/AIDS or are seriously affected because someone in their family is. Certainly many in their community are. Yet not a word is uttered. It is never mentioned in parliament.

Meanwhile, you have funds allocated on a constituency-by-constituency-by-constituency basis for constituency-related programs and services that are absolutely 100% at the discretion of parliamentarians. We heard accounts—and I met with people on several occasions who gave testimony--of how those funds are 100% controlled by the elected member, with no accountability. And in many cases it is not even made known to the constituents. Where the constituents have tried to get at the money and ask for transparency and accountability, they've clearly been shut out. In one case, I was told by a very reliable source whose testimony was confirmed by others, where the constituency funds were made available in some cases, the elected member asked for a cut of the money as a condition of getting the money.

I guess my question, in that scenario, is this: Where do you get started on the relationship-building to move forward with democratic development without a single, solitary person in Parliament who's prepared to speak about transparency and accountability or to speak about the single greatest devastation that's happening to people's lives in Kenya?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madam McDonough.

Go ahead, Mr. Deveaux.

[Kevin Deveaux]

Thank you.

That's a challenge if they're not even willing to say the words. I guess part of it is that I believe in a holistic approach. So start with the political parties. Start with the youth within those political parties.

I've heard others in reading testimony to this committee, and I think I want to reiterate this point: democratization development can't be done in the short term; it has to be done in the long term. If nothing else, start with the younger members of political parties, where they are eager to learn, and work with them. Maybe it will take time, but in five years or ten years you're going to have a process by which you're going to have political parties that are ready to talk about these issues.

At the same time, I think there are political parties that aren't in power right now that will be eager to get to power. They would be prepared to work as they need to in order to win elections. Kenya does have elections, and therefore I think there's an opportunity to work with the parties in Parliament in that way.

Third is the civil society. If you have a robust civil society that is funded in a way that it's able to expose these kinds of things--MPs who have funding that is completely discretionary--I think you can begin to build a system that is much more accountable and will therefore require accountability in parliamentarians.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Williams, do you want to comment on that?

[John Williams]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. McDonough is right that it's very difficult. In Kenya, for example, I believe members of parliament are paid $165,000 U.S. a year. That's enough to get anybody along quite well in Kenya.

John Githongo, as you know, was the chair of the anti-corruption select committee. He had to flee for his life, and is now supported by IDRC here in Canada, and will be here later this year.

Where do you start? I believe that in every parliament there is always somebody who believes in honesty and integrity. They may have their head down, because it will get shot off if they put it up too high. I remember Musikari Kombo, who is going to be running for president in Kenya and is a member of GOPAC. He is trying to speak out for honesty and integrity. The previous president, Mr. Arap Moi, tried to discredit him by giving land to his son so that he could show that he was involved in corruption.

It's a very difficult situation. When there's one person wanting to stand up against a whole government, with all the powers that government has, it is a dangerous game, truly a dangerous game. That is why they need to know who their friends are, not only in the country, but around the world.

There's a big difference, as you know, between elected members and the support mechanisms that we have in a parliament. They both have to be improved. This is why GOPAC focuses on the elected members. There are many other programs, and perhaps there should be more, to support the technical support of parliamentarians so that we have the resources.

Musikari Kombo, when I first met him from Kenya, and he was a member of the opposition at the time, said his total resources were access to one of two telephones on the wall in the hall, and most of the time they don't work. That's it. You think about what we have so that we can hold the government accountable: we have access to information, the right to call witnesses, and so on and so forth, all in a public domain, reported when necessary. Contrast that with access to two telephones for the whole country--no stationery, no office, no staff, nothing.

Now we have a president who ran on an anti-corruption agenda, and it's falling back. But we cannot afford to not keep trying. We must keep trying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you so much.

The thing I have appreciated about this is that we've heard from three separate groups this morning, from the Canadian Bar Association and from Mr. Deveaux, who is an individual but who has a long tenure in working with this, and it hasn't been just our group as the only one that can do it. Mr. Williams says that we need more groups, like Mr. Deveaux, the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, those types of things that are laying the groundwork. It's so many different pieces of the puzzle.

We appreciate you coming and giving us a little snapshot of how you are involved in this kind of thing. I know that as we've looked at democratic development, all these little pieces somehow start to fit together. I hope that is what we see happening here. Thank you for being here.

We are going to suspend very briefly. We're going to move into committee business. We have two or three motions that we want to look at, and also another piece of business that we need to take care of very quickly. We would ask you to come back here very quickly, maybe not even to leave our seats. We can thank the witnesses at a later date. Don't leave and thank everyone, or we'll never get back here.

[An hon. member]

We're here for you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

All right.

Committee, we want to move into committee business as quickly as possible. Before we come to the motions—I think there are two or three notices of motion that are here—we want to, just for way of planning— There is a conference on democracy that is sponsored by the Democracy Council in Ottawa on February 15. We need a motion from this committee if we are going to make application to go over to the Congress Centre, where I believe it's being held.

There are a number of different groups that are being brought in, including the speaker of Georgia, who will be making a presentation at noon hour, who would like to speak to us just of how they have watched democracy develop in Georgia. There are a number of different groups that will be there making representation. We have an opportunity as a committee to swing over there, at least for the two hours that our committee would normally meet. But we do need a motion in order to do that.

Madame Lalonde.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

When is the meeting scheduled to take place?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

February 15.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

On February 15th?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mrs. Angela Crandall]

Yes. I believe all Members received an invitation Monday.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

I'm sorry, but I didn't see it. I read a great deal.

I don't have a problem with that. I can move—