Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 11 - Evidence - February 20, 2007
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 20, 2007
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs met this day at 5:59 p.m. to study on the effectiveness of Canada's promotion of democratic development abroad; the role of the Parliament of Canada in this context.
Senator Hugh Segal (Chairman) in the chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, we have quorum, so we would like to proceed if we can.
[Translation]
Welcome to this session of the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the very first one concerning our new order of reference dealing with the effectiveness of Canada's promotion of democratic development abroad and the role of the Parliament of Canada in this context.
Senator Corbin: Mr. Chairman, I checked the agenda and the notice of meeting. I wonder if the Committee would accept to add a third item; in fact, there are already three items on the agenda. I would like to add a fourth one. Do I have the agreement of the Committee to do so?
[English]
The Chairman: Yes, as a point of order, I think our colleague, Senator Corbin, wants to speak to the addition of another item to the agenda.
Senator Corbin: I would like to add a fourth item, miscellaneous business, to the agenda.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there any problem? If not, we will add « miscellaneous business » as item 4 of the committee's agenda.
[English]
We have the honour today of welcoming Mr. Vidar Helgesen, Secretary-General of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, also known as International IDEA. International IDEA, based in Stockholm, is an intergovernmental organization that supports sustainable democracy worldwide. It works together with policy- makers, donor governments, UN organizations and agencies, regional organizations and others engaged in democracy building. Its areas of expertise include constitution-building processes, electoral processes, political parties, democracy and gender and democracy assessments.
Mr. Helgesen is International IDEA's Secretary-General and has been since 2006. His remarkable career includes, among many things, being the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs in Norway and Special Adviser to the President of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
Mr. Helgesen, welcome to the Senate of Canada. I think it is quite appropriate in our departure in this reference with respect to the role of parliaments in the development of democracy abroad that we benefit from your advice and counsel. We will give you a moment to make some introductory comments and then have questions from the committee.
Honourable senators, with respect to section 14 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, I want to note for the record that I believe I have a private interest that might be affected by the matter currently before the committee. The general nature of the interest is that I sit on the board of directors of International IDEA as a pro bono member. Therefore, I have just made the declaration of private interest regarding my directorship and, in accordance with rule 32.1, the declaration shall be recorded in today's minutes.
Senator Corbin: We are honoured that you are here.
Vidar Helgesen, Secretary-General, International IDEA: It is a pleasure and an honour to be invited to this hearing. It is also a great pleasure to have Canada as a prominent member of International IDEA and to see such an interest in the promotion of democracy.
At this point in time, there is a need for more effort and there is also a need for new thinking and approaches in democracy promotion. The picture globally, in terms of democracy promotion, is somewhat more complex than in the rather optimistic years following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the third wave of democratization.
If we look at the larger 20-year or 30-year perspective, no doubt news is positive; but over the last few years, there have been more complexities. There has been a setback for democracy and democracy promotion in certain regions and countries.
The prominent U.S. researcher, Tom Carothers, talks of the backlash against democracy promotion. Freedom House recently published its annual report, pointing out that there is a decline in democracy and human rights standards.
There are some critical issues that need pointing out. One is polarization. There is increasing global polarization, not least with regard to the Islamic world, but also beyond that. This affects democratization, partly because democracy promotion has been, rightly or wrongly, equated with the situation in Iraq and also the continued lack of resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This has caused many to talk about Western double standards and hidden agendas behind democracy promotion, which affects the field of democracy promoters.
Another issue is increasing frustration in many regions — in particular, I would say, in Latin America — with the lack of social development resulting from democratization, the lack of ability of democratic institutions to deliver on development. There is frustration in a number of countries, such as in Africa, that democracy is seen as skin deep only and a as way of perpetuating a privileged situation for elites, rather than as something taking ground.
Third, there is also competition when it comes to hegemony for traditionally democratic Western states as models for economic development. We see China emerging as a very important actor throughout the world, not least in Africa and in other Asian countries as well. Their investments, their interest-free loans and aid programs add to what we also see in an increasing self-confidence of oil and gas-producing autocrats. The picture is more complex; there are some elements of more comfort for autocrats.
Over the last years, we have seen between 20 and 30 countries introducing more restrictive legislation on non- governmental organizations, NGOs, and civil society. The time is ripe for new thinking and more effective approaches for assistance.
There is now an almost universal recognition that democracy cannot be imposed from abroad, that it must grow from within society. Where then does this leave democracy assistance? How can you effectively assist in democratization from the outside without being seen as imposing solutions?
I would like to look at some specific fields of democracy building and how international democracy assistance can better support local and national efforts.
Let us look first at elections. Some 20 or 25 years ago, the mere holding of an election was seen as democracy. There was little focus on standards and what actually constitutes a proper, free and fair election. There has since been considerable development of norms and standards in this area, and there has been much international observation — and still is — to encourage and ensure respect for those norms and standards. Elections have been more professionalized and have improved.
From the donor perspective, we believe the next step is to move beyond supporting election observation. That would still be necessary, but we should move toward more emphasis on strengthening national capacities for managing elections.
If not only the first election is to be successful but also the second and the third, then in a transition phase you need to ensure that there is national capacity to manage the elections professionally and with integrity. That cannot be ensured by election observation. There is a need for a more developmental perspective. I am happy to say that in our effective electoral assistance agenda, as we call it, CIDA is a key player. It has adopted this policy and spearheaded it; so has Elections Canada.
Another very important issue is political parties. There is no functioning democracy, with a possible exception of one or two micro states, without functioning political parties. Today, political parties are universally distrusted. I am sorry to say that among politicians and parliamentarians. One of our board members from the Netherlands says that in the Netherlands, statistically there are now more active criminals than active politicians. People are really losing faith in political parties.
If this is a problem in Europe and Western countries, it is an even bigger problem in newer democracies, where there is much lamenting of political parties as being corrupt, leader-centric, top down, out of touch and not able to present real policy alternatives.
There has been increasing emphasis on political party assistance over the last years. Some of that has been effective, some less effective. There is recent critical assessment of it as having been too cozy and not touching on the real key challenges facing political parties and that political parties should face up to. There is a need now to look into what constitutes effective political party assistance, because there is no doubt that there is a need for assistance to strengthen political parties.
Similarly, a continuing challenge is women in politics; there is still gross under-representation of women in politics worldwide. That is also a problem for democracy.
Another area increasingly popular in transition situations is the area of constitution-building processes. Countries coming out of conflict or countries wanting to transform the state seek to build new constitutions. If constitutions are to be effective and owned by citizens, they need to be developed through real, consultative processes. There is a tendency for such processes to be too short and too elitist and, therefore, to not take hold and not take the time needed.
The most successful constitution-building process acknowledged is probably the South African one, and that took six years. In Bolivia today, they have a time plan of one year for the constituent assembly, and eight months into that assembly they are still arguing on procedural issues. Obviously the timing issue is critical.
In supporting democracy, there is a need to realize the need to take time. Democratic transitions following conflict or democratic revolutions are compressed in time. Developments of institutions that in Western countries took several decades — organizing elections, building parties and constitutions, building an effective parliament and procedures for it, rule of law institutions, effective local government that has evolved over time — is supposed to be achieved in present day transitions in a very short period of time, and that is in countries with limited resources. If such processes are to be successful and owned by national actors, the international community and donor countries not least need to realize the need to take time.
Here is a dilemma which is very relevant to Canada with its considerable record in peace-building efforts. In peace building and in democratic transitions following conflict, there is a need for a certain momentum to sustain the peace and to ensure that actors do not go astray, but democracy building on the other hand takes time. There is a balancing act that is not easy. In these situations, the international community and international democracy assistance need to recognize the time needed to build sustainable democratic institutions and processes; they need not only to accept that but also to encourage the taking of time for such processes.
Democracy building is fundamentally political. It is not about technical, institutional solutions, it is about developing political processes and political culture. That takes time. In order for democracy to take root, be more than skin deep and have actors willing to defend it and to own it, that time factor and ownership factor are absolutely critical.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Helgesen. There are organizations that operate as government departments and NGOs in various countries, and you were kind enough to mention CIDA and the work they do on the ground. There are also organizations that respond directly to Parliament or to Congress, such as the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in the U.K. or the National Endowment for Democracy in the U.S. I think it is fair to say that the latter groups tend to focus on the political parties in the target countries, believing that they are the most important infrastructure for genuine democratic development.
Do you have a view as to which instruments have worked better than others? I realize that countries have specific circumstances that will change the nature of the difficulties and the challenge, but generally from your vantage point at International IDEA, can you say what works better and what does not work so that Canada might best direct its focus to be as efficient as possible?
Mr. Helgesen: It is hard to say that one model works better than the other. All institutions in this field have failures and successes. Clearly, there has been an overemphasis on the executive branches of government and an underemphasis on the legislatures and political parties.
The political party issue is on its way up on the agenda; the role of parliaments and legislatures still has a way to go. In particular, aid donors and UN agencies working on development have a tendency of interacting with governments. There has been much focus on executive branches. From a democracy promotion standpoint, that is not sufficient, because it could contribute to cementing unhealthy practices. Checks and balances are important and, therefore, support of parliaments and political parties is essential.
Senator Downe: Your presentation was very informative. Thank you.
What activities does your association undertake in Burma to try to rectify that horrendous situation there?
Mr. Helgesen: We have no direct activities in Burma. Since we are an intergovernmental organization, we need to work with consent from the government in question. Getting consent from the Government of Burma to do democracy work is difficult.
We have publications and material that we consider and treat as global public goods, some of which have been translated into Burmese. It is fair to say that it is not the junta that is the target group.
Senator Downe: Do you do any training of Burmese officials who are exiled from the country?
Mr. Helgesen: Based on books on the relationship between conflict resolution and democratization, which is what the situation in Burma is about, we have had training sessions. I am not sure whether we organized them directly but they have been based on our material, yes. We will have a seminar in Stockholm on Burma in a couple of week's time.
Senator Downe: Is this on the topic of Burma?
Mr. Helgesen: Yes, based on a new book by Dr. Thant, who is the grandson of the former UN Secretary-General. He has recently written a good book on the topic of Burma.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for coming here this afternoon. If I understand International IDEA, and I am a few years out of date now, you promote the discussion of foreign policy with an emphasis on democracy and other issues. Am I correct on that, as a preface to what I want to ask you?
Mr. Helgesen: Yes we have democracy promotion as a mandate.
Senator Andreychuk: Is your funding from governments?
Mr. Helgesen: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: Are you based in Stockholm still?
Mr. Helgesen: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: There was some talk about moving but you are staying there?
Mr. Helgesen: Yes.
Senator Andreychuk: We are studying the effectiveness of Canada's promotion of democratic development abroad and the role of the Parliament of Canada in this context. How do you think we could structure that study? What emphasis should we put on it? You have touched on that in some of your preliminary remarks. We have worked more with executives, in other words governments, than we have in promoting parliamentary democracy or supporting it, particularly if I look at Africa. Our emphasis has been government-to-government infrastructure and institutions, but we have not spent as much time in supporting party politics or parliamentarians until very recently.
With that background, what would you say would be the critical points that we should look at if we are to review Canada's effectiveness?
Mr. Helgesen: First, an international perspective is important, because Canada will not be effective unless it is working in partnership with other actors. There are assets that Canada can bring to the table. It can bring its multilateral credibility, its credibility in peace building, and its strengths in federalism. Certainly Canada has a lot to bring to the table in conflict resolution processes and constitution-building processes.
Your election commission is very strong. CIDA is comparably strong on legal and judiciary reform in the international development community. You have an active parliamentary centre. There are many good elements to build on.
At the more conceptual level, I think it is important to explore the relationship between a development approach and democracy approaches. Democratization, democracy building and democracy assistance are not the same thing as development assistance.
We have done a mapping of political parties worldwide, their legal frameworks, funding, et cetera. In Africa, when we asked political parties how they went about making policies and presenting them to the population, the response we got from several was that it was not that important because policy was covered by the poverty reduction strategy papers, the PRSP, which is the donor community's instrument for coherent development assistance. These instruments are good for managing aid and working between donors and governments; they are good strategy papers. Still, if they are limiting the scope for political discourse and limiting competitive politics between political parties because they see no difference in the policy they can offer because it is run by donors anyway, then we have a problem.
That is just one example. I am putting it relatively without nuance, but it is important to look into what sets democracy assistance apart. I mentioned some of that.
Senator Andreychuk: In 1994, there was a joint committee between the House of Commons and the Senate studying foreign policy. At that time, the debate was whether one looked at the economic factors in economic stability and democracy would flow, or did you work on democracy, and that was the traditional China and Russia question. Where do you stand on that debate now or is it relevant anymore?
Mr. Helgesen: If you look at the ranking of the 10 countries in the world that are envisaged to have the highest economic growth this year, you will find one and a half democracies among the 10 countries.
There is a much more questionable link between economic and political freedom than there used to be. I think democracy assistance will have to take, as a starting point, that democracy is a value in its own right. Even if there is much to argue that democracy is better in the long term for economic prosperity, I think the main issue is that democracy — letting people be free to organize, to speak and to run for office — is essential in its own right rather than trying to argue for democracy with an economic angle.
Senator Johnson: How successful have international democracy assistance programs been in encouraging the advancement of liberal democracies in Eastern Europe, Central Europe, Africa, Asia and the Middle East?
Mr. Helgesen: These are different contexts. Central and Eastern Europe have largely been successful not least because they actually had institutions in place that were not too different from Western institutions, even if they were called Eastern, and the magnetism of the European Union has been instrumental both politically and economically.
Democracy building efforts in Latin America and Africa have been quite successful, if you look at the number of new democracies over the last couple of decades. Still, there is a long way to go, because many of the institutional solutions and many of the democratic processes are at a rather superficial level.
There is a big issue when it comes to the Middle East. Democracy-building efforts have not been so effective because it is hard to find and access the right entry points. One therefore cannot speak of success in that part of the world.
In Asia, there is still a long way to go as well.
Senator Johnson: You mentioned that women are under-represented worldwide in all our parliaments. Have you worked in any countries or do you know of any countries where there are quotas? I believe Argentina and Kenya have them. I am not up-to-date on which countries do, but there is probably more representation there. Do you promote women's representation as a concept for increasing parliamentarians?
Mr. Helgesen: We do not promote solutions in any individual context.
Senator Johnson: What do you think of that as an idea?
Mr. Helgesen: We have the best mapping globally of quotas, and we can point to ways quotas have worked in advancing women's representation and what quota systems work best if the political choice of the country is to go for quotas. There is it no doubt that quotas can work and can work well but there can be quota systems that work very well or less well.
Senator Johnson: Can you tell us of a country that has one and what it has done?
Mr. Helgesen: If I am not mistaken, Peru has one, and I think you are correct that Argentina has one. India also has a quota system in which the requirement on parties is for one out of three candidates to be of each gender. That has had an effect. There are also some situations where there is a quota, but the parties still put the women down on the list so that those being elected are basically men. The technical solution, if one wants to go that route, is obviously critical.
Senator Johnson: Is there a specific role that Canada could play in terms of providing democracy assistance that differs from either the American or the European approach?
Mr. Helgesen: Canada has a very good potential of bridging what is today a considerable gap between American and European approaches. Looking at democracy approaches from the U.S, the European approach is toothless. Looking from Europe, the American approach is counterproductive. This is not a productive situation. There is a need to look into ways of bringing these together because if democracy promotion by the main donor countries is to be effective, they should have more or less the same approaches. Canada, with its good neighbourly relations with the U.S. and with a high degree of credibility both with multilateral institutions and in Europe, could certainly play a role in that.
I am not sure what a uniquely Canadian approach to democracy promotion is and I am not sure a uniquely Canadian approach is needed. The values that Canada stands for, the solutions Canada has and the credibility Canada has will certainly add considerably to the international democracy assistance.
Senator Corbin: Were France, Great Britain and the United States ever members of your organization? I am thinking especially of France and Great Britain, because the U.S. has its own thing going. Would it be good for those countries to join the institute?
Mr. Helgesen: None of them is or has been a member. At the outset, there was some sounding out of the U.S. and considerable interest arose in some circles for them to join. However, the U.S. joining multilateral organizations is a long-winded process, and it did not materialize. The U.K. has been signalling an interest in joining but no such membership has materialized thus far. France has never been on the agenda.
We have considerable funding from the U.K. for program activities in both Sudan and Nepal. Whether it would be a good idea for them to join is up to them. We have no limitations in that sense. We want to maintain a balance between regions. One of our assets is having members from all continents, and in a global context where it is vital to demonstrate that democracy promotion is not coming from the North or the West, that balanced membership is important. Apart from that, I am not in a position to make judgments on any particular country.
Senator Corbin: According to our research notes, you currently have 24 members. Is that correct?
Mr. Helgesen: Yes.
Senator Corbin: Is that the limit or is the door open for more members?
Mr. Helgesen: The door is definitely open for more members to join. The latest addition was Switzerland in 2006.
Senator Corbin: Are there any conditions attached?
Mr. Helgesen: There is the condition that member states need to be committed to democracy.
Senator Corbin: That is it? Is there no commitment in terms of money?
Mr. Helgesen: There is a strong moral commitment in terms of money but not a legally binding commitment.
Senator Corbin: Are any of the current members not contributing financially?
Mr. Helgesen: In my recollection, Uruguay is not contributing financially but has pledged that they will do so from this year forward.
The Chairman: Mr. Helgesen, I will not get into it in great detail but I would like to refer to a recent International IDEA publication distributed to political parties in South Asia on the challenge of change. I want to deal with one specific reference that, given that I am a Conservative, strikes me as particularly relevant. I make no reference to your political affiliation in this.
The publication says that a durable and robust party system in a country depends not merely on how a ruling party manages state affairs but also on how it allows the opposition to function, accommodating its views, conducting elections, complying with results, et cetera.
In the building of democracy, can you give us a sense of where the appreciation is for the role of the opposition, specifically in the emergent democracies? Often we hear in various circumstances that there is a governing party that has right, left, centre, east, west, north, agricultural, urban and other interests, so the notion of a multi-party system is a Western creation. It is interesting, but not necessarily relevant. Our colleagues in the People's Republic of China often take that view, when they talk about their political system. As they are now competing in Africa and elsewhere with increasing spheres of influence, can you give us your sense from IDEA's perspective on where we are with the notion of letting oppositions oppose and letting them be part of the system in some way?
Mr. Helgesen: The recognition of the role of the opposition is weak in a great number of new democracies. Some parties have come to power because they were in power before transition, then reformed and remained in power, and some parties have come to power as the result of liberation movements with immense popular support and then have remained in power, where the understanding of the role of the opposition is quite limited. At times a government will allow the opposition to be heard on the airwaves for a period of time before the elections in order to demonstrate that they have free and fair elections, but the playing field is not level at all.
This is definitely a critical issue for democracy. In those situations, the opposition has a sense that they have no responsibilities and that their only obligation is to do what they can to sabotage government actions. It is a polarized situation, often with a political culture of winner takes all, which needs to be overcome. Our approach to overcoming that is to engage political parties in all-party dialogue. We did that some years back in Peru when we managed to get the parties together to agree on a political party law. We did that in Nepal as part of the study on political parties.
Having political parties in power and out of power agreeing on the basic rules of the game is absolutely essential. In my view, more focus on the role of parliaments and the role of political parties will add to an understanding of the role of the opposition.
The Chairman: Mr. Secretary-General, I thank you on behalf of the Senate of Canada. I know you were en route to Canada for other purposes and we are delighted that you could fit us in. We wish you well in your visit to Canada and in the work of your organization. Your testimony will help the committee to structure its study on democratization worldwide.
The committee continued in camera.
The committee resumed in public.
The Chairman: Colleagues, if we can reconvene, let me report that I have filed with the clerk a letter of resignation as chair of the committee effective tomorrow. I am doing so at the request of our own leadership on the minority side to facilitate other changes that need to be made in the management of the government's respective obligations on various committees. I will circulate a copy of that letter to all members of the committee and to my own whip, whom I am delighted to see here. I am still chair until midnight tonight, based on my letter. I have been informed by my whip that I can stay on the committee, so I look forward to working with the new chair and continuing to work on the references.
I wish to express my appreciation to colleagues for their understanding and tolerance during what has been an interesting year and, particularly, if I may say so, to the staff of the committee, who put in yeoman's work on behalf of the deadline we addressed last week.
If I may say a word to the deputy chair and my colleague Senator Corbin on the steering committee, they have been tolerant of the new boy who had a lot to learn. Thank you very much.
Senator Corbin had a " miscellaneous '' matter he wished to raise.
Senator Corbin: I yield to Senator Stollery.
Senator Stollery: There have been rumours about your resignation as chair. I must say that I am personally not inclined to accept your resignation as chair because I want to say publicly that you have been a very good person to work with. We have just tabled an extremely successful report, which concluded our two-year study on Africa. I realize that you came in at the end of it, but I am very sorry that you are stepping down right after we have tabled our study.
In my 35 years in Parliament, I have never heard of changing chairmen mid-session. I checked with some authorities when I first heard that this might happen, and there is no precedent for changing chairmen in the same session. The whole idea for stability in the Senate is that we have these negotiations at the beginning of a session and then, when another session comes along, we have other negotiations. In view of the fact that you have been an important part of the Africa report, it is unacceptable that you should have to resign right after we have experienced one of the Senate's better moments of the last little while.
I do not know what my colleagues have to say. I know that Senator Corbin has been looking into this development. If you do not mind, I would like him to say a word.
Personally, I am prepared to say that I am not accepting your resignation. We have not finished this discussion yet, but that is my view at the moment.
Senator Stratton: For the record, I was chair of the Finance Committee a few years back, and I resigned the post and was replaced by Senator Murray in the middle of a session.
Senator Stollery: So what?
Senator Stratton: Senator Stollery had said he knows of no precedent. The precedent is as I have stated.
Senator Stollery: May I then clarify what I said. Yes, it happens if a chairman dies or becomes ill or there are some important reasons. I do not know what happened at the Finance Committee, but I can tell you that that is why we have such difficult negotiations at the beginning of every session.
As you all know, I chaired this committee in the last session of Parliament. I have been part of the committee for many years, and I would say that I reluctantly gave up the chairmanship to Senator Segal. However, it was done at the beginning of the session, when it is supposed to be done. There were the negotiations. I am a team player. Negotiations take place.
I want to emphasize that I think it is wrong. Senator Segal says — I do not think I am misquoting him, and I have nothing but respect for him — that it is at the request of the Conservative leadership. To dump the chairman just as we have a major publicity campaign going on to promote our important report on Africa is something that I am not particularly taken with.
I do not know what my colleagues have to say about it, but I think that Senator Segal has now developed experience. This is a difficult committee because we are dealing with subjects in other countries mostly — foreign trade and foreign affairs. It takes a while to get on to it, and Senator Segal has been extremely loyal to the committee.
Senator Corbin and I are on the steering committee and meet regularly with Senator Segal. I have the highest regard for him. I never met him before he came here to the committee. I am not saying that in a political sense to embarrass the government or the opposition; I just think that it is wrong.
Senator Dawson: As they say in French, I was flabbergasted. We had many discussions here at this committee for weeks about the fact that it is very nice to write a report, but we have to sell it afterwards. We have to be able to communicate what we believe and sell to the government, the media and the opinion makers that we believe in our report. All of a sudden we are told that the chair of our committee, who was going to carry the most weight on selling that report, is now being replaced, probably involuntarily. I am not inventing this. I am not saying this for political points.
I had the same experience a few months ago with the Transport Committee. Senator Fraser came in with a report at the end of the session. She was promoted to Deputy Leader of the Government and stopped being the chair of the Transport Committee. Her report fell — boom. There was no follow-up. For those of you who were in the house today, she brought it up. As a member of the committee, I can say that when she left, the committee did not take the ball and carry it afterwards.
I think there is an important communications problem here for the committee. I stand in the same position as Senator Stollery.
On another level, the class of 2005 only had one committee chair, and we feel that we are being cheated if we have to lose the only one we have. It was a very good year.
Senator Campbell: As you know, Mr. Chair, I am not a member of this committee. I am filling in for Senator Mahovlich. I went out for coffee, got jumped by the CBC and was asked about my thoughts regarding your resignation from this committee, which was the first time I had heard about it. The question was whether this was a result of seniority. My answer was that I would be hard-pressed to find in either party someone with as much seniority as you have in government, in foreign policy, or with the knowledge of how everything works.
I find that this is classical; it is the ongoing ideology versus reality. My worry is this: Is this a purge of Progressive Conservatives? Is Senator Oliver next? He is a chair of a committee that I sat on. Is he the next one to be purged? I think this is outrageous.
I will vote for Senator Mahovlich, Mr. Chair. I will not accept your resignation. I think you should stay here. I think you have done a good job. I have talked to a number of colleagues. I have listened to you in the Senate and I think you are the best person for the job.
I do not understand this decision. It does not make any sense to me. You get someone decent and your own party takes you out. There is something wrong here.
The Chairman: Senators, you have put me in a very difficult situation. I am appreciative of the kind words that have been said, but I believe in the adversary system between the two major parties in the Senate. When my leadership asks me to do something, I do it and I do it voluntarily. I am not being forced to do it.
I support the burdens that the leadership has with 21 members versus 68 members on the other side, which is no one's fault in this room, and to manage as best they can in that circumstance. I am afraid the letter of resignation I have submitted stands. I will not withdraw that letter. I will stand by it. It is then up to the committee to decide how to proceed.
We have a meeting scheduled tomorrow to deal with democratization, with witnesses scheduled. Colleagues will have to decide how to proceed at that time. I will be here as a member of the committee, but not as chair because that resignation has been submitted.
Are there any other matters?
Senator Corbin: I accept most of the comments that have been made by my colleagues. I am quite disappointed personally because of the excellent working relationship we have had. We have resolved most issues amicably in the interests of the whole committee.
I find it incredible that this would happen. When the parties negotiated to spread out the responsibilities among the various senators, not only did we discuss which party would have which chair, but tied to that was the name of the person who would occupy that chair for the session. You are intimately bound as a person to the chair that you occupy. That was part of the deal.
Now, if that deal between parties is today torn up because you are being forced to resign, then everything is on the table, not only in this committee but in other committees as well. I do not think we should accept that.
I will not quote rules and precedents; I looked at them very closely. A bad precedent does not make a good precedent. You always have to take into account the specific circumstances surrounding incidents as they happen. However, like my colleague Senator Dawson — I had the word on the tip of my tongue before he used it — I am flabbergasted. This is no way to run a committee.
Mr. Chair, you have initiated a number of motions that the house has accepted and referred to this committee. You say that you will continue to work on these motions; but, as chair, you had the additional responsibility of focusing ahead and directing research on our behalf, of ensuring that things come out in proper form and in due course. You have an onerous responsibility. I am not prepared to go back to square one on these things. If you are not there, I am not sure I want to stay on the steering committee myself.
There was a deal; there was a firm understanding, realizing that we have the numbers on this side, but that is not the kind of game we have been playing. We have been accommodating and that works both ways; once you have a deal, you respect it.
I do not think we can replace you this evening. Your resignation comes into effect at midnight, as you state in your letter, so there may be no other issue before us than a motion for adjournment.
Senator Stratton: First, we now have two precedents for resignations of chairs during a session, as Senator Dawson has said, with the resignation of Senator Fraser from the Transport Committee.
Senator Dawson: No, it was a change of government. I am sorry.
Senator Stratton: No, it was a change in leadership.
Senator Corbin: It was a change of leadership and government.
Senator Downe: Is Senator Segal being promoted?
Senator Corbin: Senator Fraser got a promotion.
Senator Stratton: My point is that there is always a reason behind things.
Second, the leadership negotiates leader to leader — no one else is involved.
Senator Corbin: The caucus is involved.
Senator Stratton: In the original deal, the negotiation is leader to leader and then it is taken to caucus. No names are attached to who gets what chairs — not on our side. There may be on yours, but on our side, no names are attached to chairs or deputy chairs.
Senator Stollery: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I think that Senator Stratton is dissembling a little bit.
I have been involved in these things for a long time. When it comes to seniority, I think I am actually the third most senior person in the Senate at this point.
There is the Selection Committee; there are negotiations; there are discussions in our caucuses. I am sure Senator Stratton would not want to leave the impression that this is just the two leaders getting together and sorting it out, because that is simply wrong. I myself was involved in the negotiations over this committee when we gave the chair to Senator Segal because, after all, I had been in the chair for many years.
This is not a game. This is an important legislative body. We do not go around inventing rules, ruining people's reputations and criticizing people unnecessarily. This committee has been very collegial for years now. We take care of each other. We are a policy committee; we are not a committee that is particularly partisan.
I remember, not long ago — I am sure Senator Stratton will remember — when we approved the softwood lumber bill. If we were going to be difficult, we could have tied it up for quite a while.
The idea that Senator Segal suddenly arrived as chairman of this committee without serious talk between the leaders and between the caucuses is not really true. I do not know about your caucus, but I know that in our caucus talking about committee chairs, deputy chairs and all the rest of it is a pretty big item.
Senator Segal has been a loyal Conservative, as I have been a Liberal, for many years —
Senator Smith: A Progressive Conservative.
Senator Stollery: A Progressive Conservative for many years.
Senator Stratton: So was I, so was Senator Oliver and Senator Johnson.
Senator Stollery: We have just completed a major report on Africa, which has been well received and which Senator Segal has been very helpful in publicizing. The idea that he must resign tonight at midnight is ridiculous and unparliamentary.
I was around here when some serious parliamentary games were going on. I was a member of the House of Commons — like some people here — for quite a few years in difficult situations. When you start playing around with the rules and the procedures, there are always terrible consequences for the people who start it. It does not work. We have rules and procedures for a reason — so that the place can function. This committee has been functioning very well under the chairmanship of Senator Segal.
An Hon. Senator: Hear, hear.
Senator Smith: At midnight, for whom the bell tolls.
The Chairman: Colleagues, I thank you for expressing your views on the matter. Under the normal rules of procedures, the clerk will be seized with his obligation starting tomorrow.
I would now entertain a motion for adjournment.
Senator Corbin: Before you do, what is the business for tomorrow?
The Chairman: Tomorrow we will be hearing from two witnesses who have been called to appear on the democratization issue, Leslie Campbell from the National Democratic Institute and David Donovan from the Centre for the Study of Democracy at Queen's University, who has been active in places like the Middle East and Eastern Europe with respect to democratization.
Senator Corbin: Are you telling us that there is no opportunity between now and midnight for another steering committee meeting before you leave?
The Chairman: I will be glad to meet with the steering committee if we have other issues to sort out. I will discharge my duties until midnight tonight and be helpful in any way I can.
Senator Corbin: I would suggest that the steering committee meet after this meeting.
The Chairman: That is fine.
Are there any other comments, colleagues? Thank you all very much.
The committee adjourned.