Evidence of meeting #38 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 democracy.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Good morning, everyone. This is meeting number 38 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, on Tuesday, January 30, 2007.
I want to take this opportunity to welcome everyone back. I hope you all had a merry Christmas and enjoyed spending the holiday time with family and friends.
I want to say a special welcome back to Madame Lalonde, who has had a long—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I can assure you our prayers and our best wishes have been with you, Madame. Madame Lalonde has served on this committee for a long time and is a very valuable member of this committee, so we do welcome her back.
As your chair, I also want to extend a welcome to the new members on the foreign affairs and international development committee. It's good to have new members coming in. I can say with a degree of pride that this committee has always had a very good working relationship with all members of all parties. We've tried in the past many years to work within a consensus, and I think our work has shown that.
We're continuing our study on democratic development. This is the committee's major study on Canada's role in international support for democratic development around the world. Next week our committee will travel to Washington and New York in furtherance of our study. We hope to dovetail on our trip last fall to Oslo and other European destinations. Our committee endures a fairly gruelling schedule when we come back in, yet I'm certain we all place a high value on what we see, learn, and experience on these travels and as we gather here as a committee.
In our first hour today we will hear from the Canadian Bar Association. We have with us Robin Sully, director of international development; John Hoyles, chief executive officer; and William Goodridge, member of the international development committee. We welcome you this morning.
As you know, this is the first meeting back since our break. Hopefully your testimony this morning will help us in our study as we learn more about the importance of the rule of law and the best practices in promoting the rule of law. We welcome you this morning and we look forward to your presentation.
Mr. Goodridge, I understand you have a presentation and that afterwards all members of your group will be open to questions from the committee.
Welcome.
William H. Goodridge Member, International Development Committee, Canadian Bar Association
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, honourable members.
The Canadian Bar Association is happy to have this opportunity today to share our perspective on Canada's support for democratic development abroad. I came here today from St. John's, Newfoundland. I'm a member of the international development committee, but I came here specifically to make this presentation before the committee at the request of the Canadian Bar Association.
Member, International Development Committee, Canadian Bar Association
As most of you know, we're a national organization. We represent approximately 37,000 members. Our members are lawyers, judges, Quebec notaries, and legal academics across Canada. We have had considerable expertise in international development.
Since 1990, the Canadian Bar Association has delivered legal and justice reform and capacity-building projects in 29 countries, including across Asia, Africa, Central Europe, and the Caribbean. In all of these projects we bring our commitment of access to justice through the values of an independent legal profession, an impartial judiciary, the rule of law, and the dignity of the individual.
There are many reasons why Canada should have an interest in promoting democracy abroad: greater economic opportunities, strategic foreign policy interests, and even strengthened national security. But from our perspective, the most important reason for Canada to support democracy is to advance development—that is, reduce poverty and hunger, uphold basic human rights, improve health and safety, and protect the environment.
Of the many questions you've put forth, we are going to focus on three questions today: the appropriate nature of Canada's support for democratic development, lessons from experiences in supporting democratic development, and whether Canada can and should do more.
On the nature of Canada's support, our main message is that the best way to promote democracy abroad is to promote good governance. A critical component of that is the rule of law. Without rule of law, a democracy is simply not sustainable. The two concepts are inextricably linked, and a country cannot improve its fate over the long term without good governance.
So what is good governance? It has many characteristics. It has special values, rules, and, perhaps most importantly, institutions that make decisions and exercise power. Good governance is participatory, responsive to the citizens, transparent, accountable, fair, and efficient. There are many adjectives, but all are important to the concept.
The value of democracy is that it is the best form of government that embodies all of these characteristics, but on its own, democracy is not enough to create good governance. We can look at many examples around the world where they have had free and fair elections but lack good governance, and have not magically improved from an overall development point of view despite the free election.
A democracy can't be effective without rule of law. For example, how free or fair can an election be if electoral rules are not applied fairly, equally, and consistently; if the voting is not publicly available; or if electoral disputes are not resolved by independent courts and judges? So in its most basic form, the rule of law means that everyone is subject to the same law—government officials, legislators, judges, businesses, and private individuals. But it also means that the government is bound by the law. All government action must be authorized by that law. The rule of law means that the laws are clear, consistent, stable, and applied fairly and equally without cronyism, corruption, and patronage.
With this perspective in mind I'll move to the second question we'd like to address: lessons learned from experiences in supporting democratic development. In our written submission we have listed some of the lessons the Canadian Bar Association has learned in the field as an implementer of legal and judicial reform projects, so this morning I'll just discuss a few examples. The report has more details.
The first experience—Wherever we have worked we needed local engagement and ownership to be effective. Canada must support programs that are responsive to local needs and have local ownership. In our view, without these features the programs are likely to fail. Local stakeholders must be involved also in the planning, the implementation, and the monitoring of the programs. In our experience, the most successful approach is one where the local stakeholders are empowered to make choices. An important component of our assistance must therefore be directed at capacity building. Enabling citizens in their own country to voice their position is a far more effective and powerful force for change within that country than having outside foreign advocacy groups or a foreign government attempt the same.
A related point to the local ownership and local empowerment is the need for regional cooperation. I'll give you one example we've experienced through the Canadian Bar Association. In east Africa, the Canadian Bar Association has worked with the law societies of Uganda, Tanzania, and Kenya since 1998. Part of the work there was to build capacity of their law societies so that they could engage, among others things, in more effective advocacy for law reform.
The Canadian Bar Association's regional capacity development workshops drew together participants from east Africa and southern Africa partners. By bringing our partners together, they were able to share experiences, learning from each other as they learned from Canadians, and as we learned also from them. Through these workshops, the Canadian Bar Association has facilitated the development of relationships that have led to continued collaboration among these African law societies. The regional approach gives them a stronger voice than could be achieved individually.
In 2005 the law societies of east Africa and southern Africa joined together in this collaboration and supported the Law Society of Zimbabwe in making a complaint under the African Charter of Human and People's Rights. The complaint was against amendments to Zimbabwe's constitution that violated the right of equal protection of law and the right of freedom of movement. Specifically, in that case it was a law that allowed confiscation of passports by residents of Zimbabwe.
The second lesson the Canadian Bar Association has learned is that we cannot assume that one model will work best. There are many models of legal and justice systems, and different models may work in different places at different times. For example, in most countries, including Canada, the vast majority of people only ever use the formal justice system at the lower court level, the entry level. In fact, most people usually avoid courts completely and use other types of dispute resolution. Paradoxically, at present the majority of Canada's aid aimed at improving justice systems goes into the supreme courts, the law ministries, and other places that actually have little impact on the lives of the poorest and most disadvantaged.
The third lesson the Canadian Bar Association has learned is that the reform cannot be successful without champions in the country. In some cases, the best approach is from the top—that is, through strong political commitment and working with the government and the related government institutions. In other cases, civil society organizations or bottom-up organizations is the better starting point. But in the long term, neither strategy can be successful without engaging the whole range of actors. Activities such as training judges, improving management systems, and supplying computers to courts won't advance justice unless they are accompanied also by bottom-up approaches. The bottom-up approach could include public education about rights, and legal aid to enforce those rights.
As a result, we, the Canadian Bar, recommend that Canada provide more support for NGOs and for civil society development partners overseas.
Let me give you a concrete example of why building the capacity of civil society is so important. In China, the criminal justice system remains rife with incidents of torture, arbitrary detention, and denial of due process. Criminal defence lawyers are on the front line of the defence of basic human rights, and the Canadian Bar Association is currently working with the All China Lawyers Association to mobilize and engage their members in criminal advocacy and reform.
The All China Lawyers Association has used the knowledge of the Canadian justice system and the knowledge of international legal standards, which has been gained through the CBA project, to call on the Chinese government for significant reforms in the criminal justice system, reforms that will directly and positively impact on human rights. It has made proposals to the Chinese government to reform criminal procedure and enhance protection of criminal suspects and defendants. The association is also drafting a death penalty defence guideline that will create a role for defence lawyers in reviewing death penalty cases in higher courts.
So lawyers today in China are a new class of advocates that are using the country's legal system and are fighting for social justice. They are making a small but meaningful change and having meaningful victories that were unimaginable only a few years ago.
A fourth lesson we've learned is that we must keep a long-term outlook. Establishing the rule of law in Canada didn't happen overnight, and we shouldn't expect it to happen any more quickly in other countries, especially countries that have faced conflict or social, political, and economic challenges. Building values takes longer than transferring technocratic skills. The impact of donor supported activities may not be evident for 10 years or more, so we must adjust both the way we plan and design projects and our own expectations. We need to set realistic goals, and we need to ensure that performance measurements reflect that understanding.
The last lesson is that we must develop better evaluative techniques. It is easy to evaluate the impact of a new bridge or a new dam in a developing country, but it is hard to evaluate the impact of legal and justice reform projects. The art and science of performance measurement must be improved. A good first step here would be more sharing of experiences among organizations funding projects and organizations implementing them.
So from some of our experiences we've learned that local ownership and engagement are important, that we need both top-down and bottom-up approaches, and that we need strategic long-term plans and better evaluation.
I turn to the third question we'd like to address, and that's whether Canada can and should do more. And where should it concentrate its efforts?
Canada has a lot to offer. We're a parliamentary democracy with a federal system of parliamentary government and strong democratic traditions. Our constitution, including the charter, has been upheld as a model for other countries. Our legal system, with our mix of common law and civil law, is well regarded. Our lawyers and judges are well respected internationally. Canada has experience in issues such as participatory civil and criminal justice reform, land registry and aboriginal title issues, and restorative justice. These are all examples of the expertise we can share with the world. Most importantly, Canadian organizations have demonstrated the ability to work successfully in a field that requires both political and cultural sensitivity, and it would be a shame to waste these assets and not use them to promote democracy and rule of law around the world.
In terms of how we can go about doing more, we believe that no one existing or new organization can or should do it all. Promoting democracy, building the rule of law, and supporting good governance requires doing a lot of different things in a lot of different areas.
A number of first-rate existing institutions excel in all of the areas we need to work on. Therefore, we recommend that the best approach is to increase the capacity of these existing Canadian organizations to take on a greater international role. This includes improving knowledge and expertise within the Canadian government to produce more effective programming.
Although Canada has the potential to do more in this area, Canadian institutions are significantly hampered by a lack of resources. While the need for resources and expertise continues to grow, funding for Canadian organizations has remained stagnant or fallen in recent years. This lack of resources makes it impossible to follow through with the best practices, which I discussed earlier, such as improving research and evaluation, sharing knowledge, and engaging strategically.
Thank you all for your time.
Our written submission is obviously more detailed, but we are here to answer any questions as best we can.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you very much, Mr. Goodridge.
I want to thank you for your presentation, as well as your written submission, with very comprehensive recommendations laid out so that we can study them.
We'll begin the first round with the official opposition. Mr. Patry, you have seven minutes, please.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Goodridge, Ms. Sully and Mr. Hoyles.
Mr. Goodridge, the CBA acknowledges in its submission that in terms of providing assistance by focussing on the rule of law, there are number of weak areas. The following is noted, and I quote:
Nevertheless, it seems that the majority of justice system aid goes into Supreme Courts, law ministries and other places which have little or no impact on the lives of the poor and disadvantaged.
In terms of the assistance Canada provides to activities in this area, what steps could be taken to rectify this problem?
Member, International Development Committee, Canadian Bar Association
Mr. Patry, initially I would say that while that's not the court with the most impact on the poorest and most disadvantaged, it is still important that as one of the key institutions of the rule of law, the Supreme Court has adequate support and capacity to function.
If we were going to expand our funding, we would expect that the government would allow additional attention—not exclusive of the Supreme Court—to the lower courts and projects that involve more contact with the needy and most disadvantaged. This would include low-cost access mechanisms that already occur in some developing countries for alternate dispute resolution, which in other words are even outside of the entry-level courts.
John Hoyles Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bar Association
May I add to that, Monsieur Patry?
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bar Association
Our experience tells us that this has to be a collective endeavour, working with law societies or bar associations, where the lawyers are engaged with the disadvantaged and have it all come together.
In Mr. Goodridge's example, we've seen our success in east Africa and China. It's been working with the bar association and seeing that things are throughout the system and not just at the top. As we've indicated, this allows for more success.
Robin L. Sully Director, International Development, Canadian Bar Association
I have one last word to add to that. We've approached CIDA, and I guess DFID also. Our approach was to suggest that when we go into a country, we should identify all the actors. So it's not just the bar and the bench; it's also the police, corrections, and academia. We should be going in and looking at the situation to see where we can best interface in bringing all those partners together. This includes engaging the public, which is what we do in Canada—they have a voice.
At some point, we need to have a strategy. You might start at the bottom, you might start with the Supreme Court, but at some point in that vision, you have to see how to pull all the actors together, and we have to know this when we go in.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Thank you.
You said that the CBA also argues that the best means for Canada to contribute to the overall international effort of democratic development is to enhance the capacity of Canadian organizations to take on a greater international role.
Now how can the Canadian government's knowledge and expertise be improved in supporting effective programming in the rule of law?
Director, International Development, Canadian Bar Association
One way is we need to do a lot more research about what works. There's no capacity now, no core funding for many of the organizations that are working in this area.
Some of them are government organizations, such as the RCMP and Corrections. Their mandate is domestic, yet they're being called upon to do international work, although they don't really have the resources—a very important part of which is research.
There's nobody looking into what works and what doesn't work, particularly regarding something that's so critical. The World Bank has done some work in this area, but there needs to be a lot more. So that would inform the government.
Also, the government needs to look to the resources here in Canada and take their experience, because certainly in our funding agency, those technical resources can't be found internally. There is a lot of capacity outside that we need to pull together and draw on in order to inform the government and those of us engaged in this work about how we can do this better.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Patry.
Mr. Wilfert, you have about two minutes.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In terms of the east Africa project, as an example, or China, what measurements do you use in order to gauge success?
Member, International Development Committee, Canadian Bar Association
It's a good question, and a question that I've asked. I see the results because I actually have been involved in the east Africa projects myself, and sometimes the results take a few years to develop. In particular, in east Africa what we have done is attempted to empower the law societies so they have independence from government. That will give them greater confidence and the ability to speak out and represent citizens particularly on civil rights issues or human rights issues.
How do we measure the success? In some cases it may be a small change in the legislation that's empowering the law society. In other cases it will be to observe the law society's stepping up and asserting independence that they didn't have before and taking challenges to government where they think that's appropriate. I guess we have seen some results in particular in Ethiopia, where the law societies of several east African nations challenged the Ministry of Justice in that area to recognize an independent bar in Ethiopia, which actually doesn't exist at the moment.
How do we measure results? I've personally observed some tangible results, some slow steps forward. As far as measuring them on an annual basis goes, it's difficult.
Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Bar Association
If I could just add to that, Mr. Chair, I've been ten years as COO of the Canadian Bar Association. I went to China just when we were sort of getting started on our China project. For the All China Lawyers' Association in those first years to actually bring forward recommendations for change, as was outlined in Mr. Goodridge's comments, would not have been thought of. The All China Lawyers' Association was originally very much attached to the Ministry of Justice. It's detaching itself, and it is more independent. It's not something you can measure by numbers, but you can see it in the way that change is coming.
The only thing I would add is that we have over 800 volunteer lawyers from across the country helping us in this work. There is that enthusiasm and that level of engagement because they see that they can actually make a difference by volunteering their time in these projects.
Director, International Development, Canadian Bar Association
I guess I would add from a management point of view that we do follow results-based management. We do set goals for each of our projects. We do measure those goals. In fact, we've taken a lead in terms of implementing results-based management and managing our projects to obtain results, I think, within CIDA in terms of that reporting. It's a struggle, because these things are not easy to measure. They're not quantifiable. Another problem is, quite frankly, that there aren't resources within these projects to allocate to monitoring and measuring. That's a huge challenge for us. I think it's a huge challenge for anybody who is working in this area.
Bloc
Francine Lalonde Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Thank you very much.
Good morning everyone.
This is an extremely important topic of discussion. Our wish is to provide more assistance to certain countries. We will be in a better position to make recommendations to achieve that goal if you can help us. I would imagine that your guiding principle is that there must be no impunity within the societies of bankrupt countries. You are prepared to assist with the process of good governance.
In your opinion, what should be our top priorities? Clearly, we cannot accomplish everything all at once. Given the lessons learned, what do you feel our priorities should be?
Member, International Development Committee, Canadian Bar Association
Thank you, Madame Lalonde.
In different countries, there will be different priorities. When you select your priorities in a different country, you may see that some levels of change are not possible, or they're not possible in the short term. A small example might be if you're trying to create a democratic election in China. That may be unattainable in the short term, so you are going to dedicate your energies to the civil society organizations, as we are doing right now. So the answer is that it wouldn't be fair to assume that one fix will fit all. There will be a different model for a different country.
I would say that an ideal model would include working both from the top level, the government level, the state institutions down, and at the same time from the civil society organizations, to keep the checks and balances on the authorities, to keep them in line or to challenge them to ensure human rights. So if there were an ideal model, you would be focusing on both levels. Sometimes, for political or economic reasons, that is not possible. So it's a great question, but there's no one magic fix.