Evidence of meeting #18 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was democratic.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Maureen O'Neil  President, International Development Research Centre
Jean-Louis Roy  President, Rights and Democracy (International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development)
Robert Miller  President and Chief Executive Officer, Parliamentary Centre
Jean-Marc Hamel  Member, Board of Directors, Parliamentary Centre
John Graham  President, Board of Directors, Canadian Foundation for the Americas

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Bonjour. Welcome.

It being 3:30, we will call this meeting to order.

This is the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, meeting number 18. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our study on democratic development. This is the committee's major study of Canada's role in international support for democratic development around the globe.

As you know, we are examining all aspects of Canadian policy and activities in the field of democracy assistance in the light of the international challenges of democratic development. The study will also examine international democracy assistance in a comparative perspective, with a view to benefiting from the experience of other donors and other donor countries.

The committee is particularly interested in learning about approaches to support for democratic development that have shown demonstrable success on the ground.

The purpose of the committee's study is to submit a report of its findings, with recommendations to the Canadian government on future policy directions in this area.

That being said, today we are very pleased to have with us Madam Maureen O'Neil, president of the International Development Research Centre, as well as Jean-Louis Roy, president of Rights and Democracy, the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. We welcome you here.

As the committee knows, we are having two meetings. This first portion goes until 4:30, at which time we will suspend and welcome some other witnesses. At the end of that period, we want to reserve 15 minutes for committee business.

First of all, we welcome our witnesses. You have the floor. If your presentation is more than ten minutes, we'll try to jerk you back a little and go into a line of questioning.

Welcome here.

3:30 p.m.

Maureen O'Neil President, International Development Research Centre

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am delighted to appear before your committee today. And I am pleased to have the opportunity to tell you about the important work being done by Canada's IDRC—the International Development Research Centre.

IDRC is a crown corporation that reports to Parliament through the Minister of Foreign Affairs. An international Board of Governors, consisting of 11 Canadian and 10 international governors, eight of whom are from developing countries, is appointed by the Governor in Council on the advice of Cabinet.

For 35 years now, IDRC has been all about applied research in the natural and social sciences and finding innovative yet practical ways to help those in the developing world help themselves. IDRC is not about wishful thinking. It's about hard data and results.

For example, a major development problem related to agriculture is the low technology adoption rate among poor farmers. IDRC has for over a decade supported an approach that works to address this problem. Called participatory plant breeding, this method brings together the scientific expertise of agriculture researchers with the traditional knowledge of local farmers in order to improve plant yields, while at the same time conserving biodiversity. Results help improve food security for countless rural areas.

You will find more details about our results in the information kits we have provided you today.

My main message today is that research in developing countries can foster democratic development. It does so in four ways.

First, research is the foundation for open inquiry and debate. Freedom of expression, inquiry and open debate are the foundations for a vibrant democracy. The freedom to conduct and publish research, and have it publicly debated without fear of reprisal, speaks volumes about the state of democracy and human rights in a country.

Freedom of expression and inquiry are also crucial for encouraging the innovation that every society must create in order to have long-term development and growth. Societies cannot benefit from technologies developed abroad unless they have their own research capacity.

Secondly, research expands the range of practical solutions to enduring problems. Research broadens the range of practical solutions available to citizens, organizations, and policy-makers. Research highlights trade-offs, maps the complexities of problems, and gives voice to different perspectives. Research inspires debate and helps citizens think through difficult questions. Research feeds innovation.

For example, an IDRC-supported study by Tanzanian researchers on the introduction of insecticide-treated bed nets for malarial control--even before Sharon Stone publicized it--and improved allocation of health care expenditures saw a 40% fall in child mortality. The tools developed by the project researchers and piloted in health units in two districts are now being applied all across Tanzania.

IDRC also supported policy research in South Africa to help its transition to democracy. This included supporting research by South Africans on writing a constitution, on local government, and on trade and competition policy. Several of the first cabinet ministers in the newly democratic South Africa were involved in this research, including Trevor Manuel, now the minister of finance.

Funding developing country partners who have a stake in arriving at solutions to problems ensures ownership of research results. Indeed, research results from IDRC's applied research have sometimes been so convincing that governments are willing to invest their own time, effort, and money into using and applying them on a wider scale. In this way, a small initial investment from IDRC leverages much bigger downstream investments by others.

An IDRC project in Colombia in 1974 developed an improved tri-colour middle upper-arm circumference tape, called an MUAC tape, a sample of which is provided in your information package. This tape is now used by ministries of health, the WHO, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, and many other groups as a standard tool for measuring child malnutrition rates, especially for rapid assessments during droughts and famines.

Third, research helps hold governments to account. Research provides evidence for supporting political accountability and unbiased judiciary and open and robust political institutions that safeguard citizens' rights. For example, in Guatemala IDRC supports a judicial observatory that brings together judges, defence lawyers, prosecutors, and human rights activists to monitor problems facing the criminal justice system in Guatemala. A report on local trial procedures created an uproar in justice circles in Guatemala, but it resulted in the creation of an administrative centre to better manage the criminal courts.

In Senegal, IDRC supported an NGO, called Forum Civil, to study corruption in the health sector. The findings, showing widespread corruption, received broad coverage in local media and stirred debate on how to change the system. The president of Senegal then publicly acknowledged the seriousness of corruption in the public services.

IDRC has also worked with the private sector, including Microsoft, to improve communications in the developing world. And better communications technology also helps foster democratic development.

Finally, research is the basis for evidence-based policy-making. IDRC has worked with the parliamentary centre, and you're going to be hearing from Bob Miller later this afternoon. We've worked with them to research the depth, distribution, and extent of poverty in west Africa, this information now being used by parliamentarians to debate proposed strategies to reduce poverty in their countries.

More recently, in June of this year, IDRC, along with the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Parliamentary Centre, brought a group of Afghan parliamentary officers to visit and learn about Canada's parliamentary system. Democracy assistance policies should be based on sound research, but rarely are. This is one of the main drivers behind the creation of the Democracy Council, and Minister MacKay spoke about this when he appeared before your committee. This mechanism brings both the Department of Foreign Affairs and CIDA together with several arm's-length organizations to share lessons learned and better understand what does and doesn't work in supporting democratic development. And we're happy to be a part of this council.

Each of these activities underlines the necessity of basing policy choices on solid evidence. Mr. Chairman, research is important for democratic development. It is the foundation for open inquiry and debate. It expands the range of practical solutions available. It can help hold governments to account. And it is essential for evidence-based policy-making. Canada's IDRC plays a key role in promoting research for development and democratization.

Thank you very much.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you, Ms. O'Neil.

Mr. Roy, you have 10 minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Jean-Louis Roy President, Rights and Democracy (International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development)

I just said, Mr. Chairman, to Maureen that I would say that I'm in complete agreement with everything she said, but I may add two or three things.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We are delighted to be here, and there are three reasons for that. The first one is that the topic that has brought us together is at the core of the mandate of Rights and Democracy, which, as you know, was created by Parliament in 1988.

The second one is that I believe it is necessary for us in Canada to periodically discuss what the country is doing to support democracy in the world.

The third one is that I am very anxious to see the assessment of our partners—IDRC and others—of the state of democracy in the world.

I think we have to say, at the outset of our work and deliberations—that's what we feel—that we live in a world that has moved substantially toward democracy in the past 30 years, and that the geopolitics of the world has been changed by democratic values. That's the case in Central Europe and Eastern Europe, that's the case since the 1980s, in Latin America, and that's the case, in a more limited way, in Africa. Some very large Asian countries have become democratic, like Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc.

The international political agenda is still one of growth and expansion of democracy in the world. No other item should take precedence today, in my view, internationally, for the reasons we have just heard, be it for research or for other reasons related to fundamental rights and freedoms.

I have already told this committee and I will not go over it again, we, the members of Rights and Democracy, have a vision of democracy that has as one of its essential elements all of the human rights that are recognized under international law and by the United Nations, as well as by governments that have signed and ratified the international instruments.

Mr. Chairman, your committee has asked us a lot of questions. I will try to summarize them into four questions and to provide two or three partial answers to each as a way of setting the stage for our subsequent discussion.

The first question you asked was the following.

Is the world moving towards acceptance of the global principle of democracy, similar to the development of international human rights standards? We have answered in our brief with a cautious positive answer--a cautious yes.

If we look at what is going on at the United Nations--the creation of a democracy fund at this level, the creation of a conference on failed and restored democracy, the electoral process that is sustained by the United Nations and other elements that you know better than I do--at the global level, the notion of democracy and the actual--

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Please excuse me for one moment.

I'm having a few people signal that they cannot pick up the interpretation in French.

Could we have a test from the translation booth?

It's coming now.

My apologies, sir. You can pick it up where you were.

3:45 p.m.

President, Rights and Democracy (International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development)

Jean-Louis Roy

You'll give me one minute more.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

You have a minute and a half.

3:45 p.m.

President, Rights and Democracy (International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development)

Jean-Louis Roy

Thank you very much.

I was trying to say that democracy has changed our world and that we can answer with a cautious yes the question of whether the world is moving towards acceptance of the global principle of democracy. I was making a grand tour of the world to indicate where democracy.... If you look at the map of the world as it was 30 years ago and look at the map of the world as it is today, you'll see quite a change. It does not mean that we have to stop working; it means that we have to increase our activities, and I hope that Canada will do just that.

We mention in our brief, in the context of this globalization of democracy,

New requirements flow from this globalization of democracy. I see the reports of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other groups that, a bit like us in Canada, work in the field of promoting democracy. Given that democratic values has become global values, I think we need to come up with a new language. Democracy is no longer just a western thing. It has been internationalized by India, which made democracy its political system sixty years ago. Fragile democracies have now been established in large Islamic countries like Malaysia and Indonesia. Democracy has been established in all parts of the world, in all cultures of the world, in all spiritual and cultural traditions of the world. We can no longer do as we did 25, 30 or 50 years ago and export democracy. That would be an absolutely radical mistake.

I am building on what Maureen O'Neil has just said. We must therefore work together with our partners in countries that are seeking to consolidate democracy in their land or establish it where it is absent. That is a very profound change that we have to pay very close attention to.

Moreover, in the first phase of democracy, when it was

in its Euro-Atlantic confines, in a way,

it was a democracy of relatively rich countries.

Democracy is now established, in the majority of cases, in poor countries, in countries with huge social and economic problems. In terms of the work of promoting democracy in the world, we have to go beyond the mere assertion that democracy equals political rights.

Democracy must from now on be identified with full recognition of political rights and the accountability that goes along with it, of course, but also recognition of social rights and economic rights.

In major surveys in Latin America and in Africa, people living in democratic poor countries asked us what democracy actually brings. They know it brings significant political values like freedom of speech, freedom of movement and sometimes vague access to a new form of more independent justice, but people expect more than that. They expect employment, housing, access to food and water, policies that back up the fact that having this new relationship between citizen and state—this control over the state, in a wa —will be gradual, but will solve their problems.

Mr. Chairman, you have asked many difficult questions, and I do not know whether we will have enough time to do them justice. Nevertheless, I would like to say a few things about civil society. I work in an institution that, since its creation, has done a lot to promote the link with civil society.

A little earlier, I spoke of other groups around the world. I do not think that anyone will appear before you and say that it is possible to build democracy. However, there is a deep connection with civil society organizations in the countries where we are present. A democracy is built by its citizens. It is they who maintain democracy and who fight for it. And the work has to be done every step of the way.

I would hope that we could go a bit further. That is why I spoke about civil society. In Canada, we have a vast experience in the relationship between the state and civil society. I am wondering whether we should not reinforce the ties between civil society and public authorities, both here in Canada and abroad as part of our cooperation programs.

You spoke a little earlier about Senegal—why should governments discuss issues amongst themselves, without the presence of civil society organizations? People in many states, in the other world, do not trust the dialogue between governments because they feel that such dialogue is conducted at a level that excludes them, and the ensuing policies will never benefit them.

I therefore hope that we could push a bit further with regard to the role of civil society in our negotiations to build the new political systems.

For the reasons I raised a bit earlier—I will say a few words, you can find more information in our submission—I would really hope that the committee, as part of its consideration of Canada's work to support democracy around the world, include the important contribution from the private sector, the businesses who use their resources, budgets, finances, research teams and assumptions to go and spread democracy around the world.

There is a debate being held in the world today. A round table on corporate responsibility is afoot in Canada's major cities. Having worked in this area over the past 20 years, I believe that investments are very important. Investments play such an important role in development, private investments have such an impact on the lives of people and societies! We see it in Asia today, in South Asia, in India and in China. We have to reflect on the impact of these investments. Particularly with regard to the respect of rights and democratic values.

Lastly, Mr. Chair, I believe we have to recall something that we all know—sometimes, it is better to repeat things—that half, or exactly 50% of the world population, is under 25 years of age. There are 1.2 billion humans between the ages of 10 and 19. In all those countries where we work, in all those countries in the South, populations will increase over the next few years, and the dominant age group will be composed of people between the ages of 10 and 25. We have to speak to these young people about democracy, we have to find innovative means and have real programs to give them.

For example, I am thinking of a micro-credit bank to support projects by young people in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere. Such initiatives would allow them to play an active role as citizens, to develop the political culture of their countries, to speak about the institutions, to raise awareness of their conditions, etc.

Mr. Chairman, we really do not have enough time. And yet I would still like to give a quick response to the very important question that you have raised.

Where should Canada concentrate its efforts in the future?

This is not something you can answer in two minutes. However, I believe that Canada has a very important obligation, which is to ensure that the idea of democracy building continues to be part of the international agenda.

Canada is a member state of the UN, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie and, on a more regional level, of the OAS. It takes part in APEC and has an impact on the African Union. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that a country like ours ensure, whenever possible, that the question of democracy continues to be part of the international agenda, discussions and projects.

In line with what I said earlier, Canada should review some of its policies, particularly the policy of the past few years with regard to the justiciability of social and economic rights.

Democracy builders in poor countries are mostly democrats, and countries like Canada have to find a way to indicate their interest in the issues that you raise:

What is democracy delivering in terms of social and economic evolution and in terms of social and economic change? We have to say something about that. It's at the centre of our discourse.

Time permitting, I will address issues related to world geography later.

At the start of our meeting, you asked a question dealing with the type of approach to adopt, or best practices. In preparation for our meeting, I read all the reports from the major international groups. I mentioned some earlier on. There are five recurrent ideas in the reports of those international groups who are in the same line of activity as we are, and with whom we often cooperate.

Democracy cannot be built from the outside. It must be from within in order to be sustainable.

First of all, as part of their work, all groups look to integrate, give meaning to and embody the idea in a concrete manner.

Second, each country is in a unique situation. In fact, our practices as well as those of our Canadian partners differ from those of Westminster, the High Commission and the National Democratic Institute. We have to be very careful to avoid adopting somewhat prefabricated models and believing that democracy can be built in Egypt the same way as it could be in Vietnam or Zimbabwe.

Everyone says the same thing over and over:

The western model and system are not perfect. We have to take into account the fact that there is a plurality of situations, a plurality of heritage, and a plurality of social and economic situations in the world.

I should add that the surveys made in Latin America are very clear on that. There is now developing in our world

A mistrust toward foreigners and toward us. The Arab world, for instance, is a bit wary of us for obvious reasons.

We are working in Africa as you are, Ms. O'Neil. Our African partners prefer seeing us work with African researchers, to work in cooperation with their centres and call on their expertise. There is a sort of mistrust out there, and this should lead us to pay extra attention to the models that we sometimes try to impose.

The third idea that is somewhat widespread is:

the specific nature of knowledge creation and transfer from this part of the world to the rest of the world.

A number of national and international institutions working in the development field have recently understood that it was absolutely necessary to have staff members who speak the language and are from the countries in which those institutions are active. Some work can only be done from inside the country, not outside.

The fourth and second-last idea is the following:

long-term commitment. It's nonsense to go to Vietnam for two years. Our Danish partner is there since ten years. They plan to be there in the next fifteen years. They have been able to enter into the system. I will not speak for them, but they have been able to go very far in the judiciary system in building cooperative programs because they have been there and have built trust with their partners.

Monsieur le président, I will be very pleased if the committee, at the end of its work, recognizes what I mentioned previously, the youth engagement, the youth capacity. At Rights and Democracy we have created networks of Rights and Democracy delegations in 40 Canadian universities. We are now twinning each of those delegations with two delegations somewhere else in the world. They build joint plans, joint projects, and it's beautiful to see what the young people from Morocco and Sherbrooke, from McGill and Kenya, from Afghanistan and the University of Alberta are building together. There is a wealth of ideas that they have inside of their own culture, their own sphere of activities, and I think we have to look at this very carefully.

Concerning the Canadian apparatus, the structure that we have, Maureen referred to the Democracy Council. We are part of it also. We have seen this experience developing for a year. We hope that the experience will evolve, and we'll be very pleased if the experience of the Democracy Council evolves into the creation of a regroupement of arm's-length, independent institutions, so that the Parliamentary Centre, yourself, Rights and Democracy, and others can organize our work together, see ourselves altogether, see what we have in common, what needs we have, and then have with Canada, with the Government of Canada, meetings to discuss with them.

I would hope also that the committee will look at, if such a thing exists, the interdepartmental committees that this government may have to see that what CIDA is doing, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and other departments, is convergent, and to see also between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments what kinds of committees you have. Some reports are prepared in this city, but it needs the input of all governments. We would like very much to see the committee look at those mechanisms that you have at the governmental level.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you.

And thank you both for the prepared documents that you have left with our committee. We are preparing to do some travel to some of the other donor countries.

I would suggest in regard to the recommendations of Madam O'Neil in regard to research and certainly the recommendations of Mr. Roy—he has two very specific recommendations at the end of this document—that all members of the committee go through this before you travel, because I think it's excellent background.

We're going to go to the opposition side: Mr. Patry.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

I'll share with Mr. Martin.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

And share with Mr. Martin? Okay. Five minutes.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC

My question is for Ms. O'Neil, whom I would like to congratulate on her research work.

The theme of the last Sommet de la Francophonie, which has just closed in Bucharest, was “The role of information technology in education”. In your presentation, you said that IDRC was working with private sector companies, including Microsoft, to improve communications in developing countries, an initiative that could improve economic development, job creation, democracy, etc. However, developing countries currently face a huge literacy gap, a problem that is particularly pronounced among girls.

With the advent of new communications technologies, available only in urban areas, at the expense of rural areas, do you not think that we are careering toward a digital gap, in other words, do we not risk widening the gap between the regions and increasing poverty? Is basic education, particularly that of young girls, being sidelined for the sake of new information and communications technology projects?

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Yes, Madam O'Neil?

4 p.m.

President, International Development Research Centre

Maureen O'Neil

I do not believe so. New technology can also play an important role in basic education. In Africa, for example, organizations such as SchoolNet Africa use new technologies to train school teachers because, as you know, this is a task that, among others, has been complicated by the AIDS epidemic.

Telephone networks and telephony devices, some of which are better than the cell phones we use here, are also available. This infrastructure is extremely important, not only for agriculture and education, but also for the health sector.

We have provided funding to research networks in Uganda that use Treos and BlackBerrys to gather data on health in very rural regions. They then share this data with the major health and medical centres, something that was previously not possible.

New technology improves public services, including education and health services. It is also of great use to farmers, who now have much greater access to market information. For example, a woman will no longer have to undertake a long journey to a particular market if she is able to ascertain that she could sell her produce for a better price at another market.

To my mind, the ability to communicate serves not to cleave a gap, but rather to bridge that which already exists between urban and rural areas.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Merci.

Mr. Martin, you have one minute for questioning. Would you rather wait until the second round?

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I thought it was ten minutes.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

No, it's five minutes.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

I'll wait. You were only going to give me two and a half minutes?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

No, you get five minutes the first round.

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Keith Martin Liberal Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Oh, I see. I'll wait for the next round then. Thank you.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Madame Barbot, go ahead, please.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Vivian Barbot Bloc Papineau, QC

Ms. O'Neil, Mr. Roy, I would like to thank you for your extremely interesting presentations.

Mr. Roy, let us take the example of a country which, while it may have its problems, is not war-torn, a country where things are going fairly well. Given the importance of working at the grassroots level, it is reasonable to expect that the citizens of such a country would be involved in helping their fellow countrymen.

I recently saw a program on avian flu that showed a witch doctor carrying out voodoo ceremonies on chickens. It highlighted the huge disconnect between the witch doctors and the scientific knowledge of the country's medical doctors, who disavowed such ceremonies.

How do you reconcile, at the grassroots level, the faith that the communities have in the supernatural exorcism powers of the witch doctor, whom they believe can protect them from avian flu, with the scientific data? I assume that this is the sort of situation that you are confronted with in your work.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Mr. Roy, go ahead, please.

4:05 p.m.

President, Rights and Democracy (International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development)

Jean-Louis Roy

Mr. Chairman, I must apologize for an earlier oversight. I wanted to extend greetings from Janice Stein, the president of our board, who could not be with us today because, as you know, Yom Kippur is an important celebration. I would also like to introduce you to the vice-president of our board, Mr. Wayne MacKay, from Halifax, who is a well-known Canadian lawyer and professor of law at Dalhousie University; Mr. Lloyd Lipsett, senior assistant at my office; and other colleagues whose presence is testament to their interest in your work.

Your question is very important and relevant in all countries and regions, except Europe, perhaps Japan, Canada, the USA, etc. Spirituality and traditional culture are still very present around the world, and continue to play a central role in people's lives, often influencing how they behave.

It is therefore important to find means to enter into dialogue with these people, particularly with opinion leaders. When it comes to democracy, the most important factor is education, education and more education. It is imperative that people go to school, yet too few do. Fifty per cent of the world's population is under 25, and 1.3 billion people are aged between 10 and 19. As it stands at the moment, nearly 200 million children will never even spend one day at school. Yet, at the same time, we nowadays talk about building democracy, developing the market economy, and so forth. Education is key.

My next point relates to what Maureen said earlier. People cannot influence societies that are not their own. It is therefore imperative to work with people who have great influence in their society, and who can educate people by talking in simple terms about issues that affect peoples' lives, people who can get to the heart of the matter. It is important to preserve the positive aspects of their heritage while filtering out those that are less beneficial.

I am increasingly convinced that our policy must also experience what I refer to in my brief as our “Copernican revolution”. We have to completely reassess our understanding of the world because it has undergone profound changes.

Let us take the example of women's rights. Which country has done the most, in terms of legislation, to advance women's rights? I believe the answer is India. The constitutional amendments introduced in India in 1992 requiring local and provincial governments to reserve one third of seats for women changed the agenda regarding education for young girls, public health, housing, sanitation, etc.

We have carried out several studies on this subject. A major conference on democracy in Asia was held in Toronto in June. It was attended by several Indian experts with experience in this field, including Ms. Gopal Jayal, who, although relatively unknown here, is very famous in Asia. With the support of a large team, she worked from 1992 to 2005 to bring about this constitutional change. Their analysis shows that the fact that, in two thirds of Indian states, one third of those elected to local and regional governments, and thus able to participate in public debate, are women has had a considerable impact.

Of course, there are problems, but we can learn from them.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson

Thank you.

I just want to remind everyone that these five-minute rounds are for both the questions and the answers, so let's keep our questions fairly concise, so we can hear as many as possible.

Mr. Obhrai, go ahead, please.