Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 13th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Obhrai.

Perhaps on the same thing, is it possible to have that type of governance at more of a local level, or municipal or county level? We're not necessarily talking about the whole country.

[David Donovan]

Sure. As we saw with our study in Taiwan, I think the local level is where democracy really takes root. It took a long time to build up democratic values through local elections and the elections were really what drove the democratic transition. People came to rely on the elections as an outlet for political expression and over time different opposition factions learned how to use the elections to their favour and eventually that trickled up to open presidential elections.

On your point, which is why can't Afghanistan develop their own indigenous democratic form of government, I called my paper “Afghanistan: Democratization in Context” specifically because I wanted to reference the fact that Afghanistan does have experience with liberalization and certain democratic aspects. Before 9/11 and everything, they had their own process of developing loya jirgas, and parliaments, and this sort of thing.

What I mean when I say they are building from scratch is that they've gone through two or three decades of sustained conflict where all of those reforms that they had developed on their own had been basically washed away. I don't know the exact figure off the top of my head, but I think there are four million or so Afghan refugees who have left the country since the 1960s and 1970s. So when I say starting from scratch, I don't mean there's no tradition of liberal values or human rights or democratic values. It's just that today, at this point, all those gains have been washed away, so we have to start building again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Donovan. That pretty well concludes the time that we have available for you to be here. We appreciate your attendance and your frank answers and your presentation.

I would encourage all committee members that if they haven't seen his paper, not just the statement but Transitions to Democracy--Afghanistan, which, as Mr. Casey has referenced, is a very good study, a very good read, please do read it.

We will suspend for a few moments to give our guests the opportunity to leave or to leave the table and we will welcome our other guests. Let us do this as quickly as possible please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I call this meeting back to order. I remind you that we have committee business on the schedule today, which we'll try to take around 10:45 or 10:50.

In our second hour we're pleased to have the Honourable Warren Allmand, president of World Federalists of Canada; and Fergus Watt, executive director. We'll also hear from the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, Naresh Raghubeer, executive director; and Mr. David Harris, who is not a stranger to Parliament Hill and the security issues we face.

These presentations are in conjunction with our study on democracy.

Mr. Allmand, please begin. Welcome back. It's always good to have you here. You know the way we operate. You can make opening comments, and then we'll have some questions from our committee.

[Warren Allmand, President, World Federalist Movement--Canada]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on behalf of the Canadian section of the International World Federalist Movement, let me say we appreciate this opportunity to contribute to the committee's examination of Canada's role internationally in promoting democratic development.

I'm making this presentation not only as president of the World Federalists of Canada, but also based on my experience of 31 years as a member of Parliament, and five years as the president of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, now known as Rights and Democracy. I'm also on the boards of CANADEM, the international civil liberties monitoring group; and the aboriginal rights commission of KAIROS.

The World Federalist Movement of Canada is one of the 35 national and regional citizen-based world federalist organizations. World federalists support the application of democratic federalism to world affairs in order to advance the rule of law and promote a more accountable framework of global governance.

Today we'll touch on four subjects as briefly as we can: the international political context for democracy promotion; the essential principles and constituent elements of democratic development; some observations and guideposts for Canadian policy and programs, including the role with civil society; and democracy promotion and democratization of global governance institutions.

I now call on Fergus Watt, our executive director, to speak on the international environment for democratic development.

[Fergus Watt, Executive Director, World Federalist Movement - Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Many of your witnesses, as well as some of the expert commentators published on the democracy promotion section of the Foreign Affairs Canada website, have remarked that democracy promotion has become such a controversial vocation for governments.

President Bush has been outspoken about the importance of spreading democracy as a cornerstone of his foreign policy, but in many parts of the world democracy promotion is associated with regime change or other unwelcome interferences in the daily lives and security of citizens.

We do not want to dwell on this aspect; it's obvious. However, the point worth highlighting is the continuing broad international acceptance of democracy as an ideal form of governance. Even while the activities of some governments in the name of democracy promotion have become more controversial, the underlying support among the world's citizenry for democracy itself continues to grow.

The standing committee's background document for this study on democratic development includes a list of questions under review. One we note in our brief is the question about whether the world is moving toward acceptance of global principles of democracy, similar to the development of international human rights standards.

In the appendices to our brief we reference a study by Professor Roy Lee at Columbia, who is also the former director of legal affairs at the United Nations. His study comprehensively documents the growing acceptance by the international community of the principles and practices of democratic governance. This may be helpful for your research staff in preparing the report. I believe it's one of the most comprehensive documents on the normative growth and acceptance of the principles of democratic governance.

[Warren Allmand]

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, what do we mean by democracy, and what are we trying to accomplish by democratic development?

At Rights and Democracy, where I was president for five years, democracy was much more than free, fair, and regular elections. In evaluating democracies, we had developed ten indicators: firstly, free, fair, and regular elections, including a multi-party system; second, full respect for all human rights, including minority rights and gender equality; three, full respect for the rule of law; four, an independent judiciary; five, an independent legislature; six, an equitable distribution of wealth; seven, control of the military and police by the civil authority; eight, public accountability and an ongoing process for consultation; nine, transparency and access to information; and ten, a free and active civil society.

Consequently, we don't have an ideal democracy when a freely elected majority suppresses a minority, when a freely elected majority does not respect the rule of law, or when they corrupt the justice system.

Briefly, we would define democracy as a political system that is based on the freely expressed will of the people that fully respects the entire family of human rights. Democracy is a political system through which human rights achieve their full expression. Democracy should not be confused with good governance nor with a free market economy, both of which might be desirable but not essential elements of democracy.

It is our view that you can't have democracy without human rights, and you can't have human rights without democracy. Human rights and democracy always advance together.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes the principles of democratic elections in article 21, freedom of expression in article 19, and the freedom of peaceful assembly and association in article 20. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes the same rights, but more explicitly in articles 1, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, and 27. They are also included in article 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights, under the OAS, and in the American declaration on human rights in article 20. The Vienna declaration of 1993 stated in article 8 that “Democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.”

Therefore, this broad concept of democracy should be the goal of democratic development, if we are serious about implanting a true democracy in other parts of the world and in our own part of the world.

The second question is, what are the methods of pursuing democratic development? As stated above, the best approach to democratic development is based on the premise that full respect for the entire body of human rights is a necessary condition of a fully functioning democracy.

At Rights and Democracy, we developed a three-step framework approach to democratic development. The three steps are as follows.

First is a study on the status of democracy in a specific country, using the ten indicators I mentioned, to evaluate the democratic situation in that country.

Second, a report on this study is distributed to a wide range of civil society representatives and government officials in the country concerned, who are then invited to discuss the report at a conference, where they can criticize, modify, or add to the provisions in the report. They then agree on a set of recommendations flowing from the study in the conference that are geared to improving the democratic situation in their country.

Third, steps are then taken to program the implementation of the recommendation from phases one and two. The implementation of various recommendations will be assigned to different civil society and government offices, including international ones.

A high priority in the process is the development and strengthening of civil society in said country. An active and free civil society is a key element in determining whether an effective democracy exists. To have a strong democracy, we must have a deeply entrenched commitment to human rights and democracy to the extent that civil society will defend and promote these rights against any attack by governments or other power elites.

We define civil society as the sum of all non-family institutions that are autonomous and independent of the state, and capable of influencing public opinion and policy. This would include NGOs, unions, churches, business associations, universities and academia, professions, media, and political parties.

It is fundamental that this democratic development process should only be pursued with partners in the target country, and through their invitation. A certain level of cooperation in the host country is essential, and priorities must be set within those countries.

In this context, I strongly encourage that this standing committee recommend to the Government of Canada that it also incorporate in its democratic development policy robust procedures for consultation with civil society, both in Canada and internationally.

Democratic development should be a specific objective of Canadian foreign policy. It should be coordinated by some central office in the government, but may be carried out by Canadian government or civil society agencies such as — and these are only examples — Elections Canada, CIDA, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Radio Canada International, and then on the civil society side, NGOs, unions, churches, professions, and also by parliamentarians through their various interparliamentary associations and international exchanges.

It should, of course, be carried out, as I said, with partners in the focus country. It may also be carried out multilaterally, through the United Nations, the Organization of American States, the Commonwealth and Francophonie, the OSCE, and others.

Democratic charters have been developed by the Commonwealth. You have the Harare Commonwealth Declaration of 1991 and the Millbrook Commonwealth action program on the Harare Declaration of 1995, by the Francophonie; the Bamako Declaration of 2000; and by the Organization of American States, the Inter-American Democratic Charter of 2001, which got its start at the conference in Quebec City; and also, of course, by the Council of Europe.

The Organization of American States also has a unit for the promotion of democracy, established in 1990 and adopted as the Washington Protocol in 1997.

I will now go to Fergus for something on the context of international organizations.

[Fergus Watt]

Thank you.

The last section of our presentation focuses on the importance of an enabling international environment for democracy promotion.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights reminds us, in article 28,

Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

There are a number of historical examples we might point to. For example, the European Union has expanded horizontally, bringing in more countries, and vertically, becoming itself gradually a more democratic pan-European institution. The OSCE, following the end of the Cold War, when democracy was spreading to the countries of the former Soviet Union, itself deepened its institutional basis and created a more effective parliamentary assembly, its commissions, and so on. So the international enabling order is important in terms of democracy promotion multilaterally.

Democracy promotion is often considered as an activity affecting governance at the national level only; however, the enabling international environment, as I've said, is one that not only promotes democracy, but is also becoming increasingly democratic. Increasing adherence to the principles of democratic governance nationally proceeds in lockstep with the democratization of these international institutions above the level of the state.

I guess the benchmark internationally for this line of analysis was the former UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali's agenda for democratization. There's some discussion of his document in our brief.

Lastly, I would mention one possible initiative that parliamentarians here may want to consider. There is a campaign under way to create a more fulsome parliamentary assembly at the United Nations, and a conference is being organized in Geneva this fall under the patronage of Mr. Boutros-Ghali himself. There is an appeal that some 318 parliamentarians from over 70 countries have signed. I believe one or two members of this committee have signed it. That is appended to our brief.

That is just one example of ways in which parliamentarians can be involved as well in the deepening of democratic institutions multilaterally.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Watt.

[Warren Allmand]

I just have a short conclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Okay, very quickly.

[Warren Allmand]

In conclusion, I think we must recognize that if we are to promote democracy abroad, we must continue to improve it at home. We cannot convince others when we continue to tolerate racial profiling, security certificates, or the marginalization of aboriginal peoples, the disabled, the mentally ill, and the elderly. In other words, if we're going to promote democracy abroad, we have to continue to improve it at home.

Finally, we must promote democracy as a universal value, not just a Canadian or western value. As I mentioned before, democracy is already a key value in the International Bill of Human Rights, which is supported by over 150 countries of the world out of 191 in the United Nations.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

We're always working to improve our democracies at home. I noticed you mentioned a lot of different groups. You didn't mention the Senate, but maybe we'll pick up on that later.

Mr. Raghubeer, please.

[Naresh Raghubeer, Executive Director, Canadian Coalition for Democracies]

My name is Naresh Raghubeer. I am the executive director of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies.

I brought 20 copies of my presentation with me. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, they were not translated into French this time, but I've left them with the clerk.

First of all, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies would like to thank the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development for the opportunity to meet with you this morning, as you undertake this major study of Canada's role in international support for democratic development around the world.

Joining me today are David Harris, senior fellow for national security with the Canadian Coalition, and Clement Mugala, founder and director of Trace Aid. Both Mr. Harris and Mr. Mugala will be prepared to answer questions following our presentation.

Before I begin, allow me to tell you a little about the Canadian Coalition for Democracies and Trace Aid.

Founded in 2003, the Canadian Coalition for Democracies is a non-partisan, multi-ethnic, multi-religious organization of concerned Canadians dedicated to national security and the protection and promotion of democracy at home and abroad. CCD focuses on research, education, and media publishing to build a greater understanding of the importance of national security and a pro-democracy foreign policy.

Clement Mugala is the founder and director of Trace Aid. He has worked throughout Africa as a senior executive in state companies and has been a witness to different types of unethical business practices perpetrated by African bureaucrats, politicians, suppliers, and contractors. To quote Mr. Mugala:

While in public the government gave an appearance of commitment to fighting corruption, in reality, these same politicians were at the forefront of looting the national treasuries and stashing the stolen money into the banks accounts of the developed countries.

While the Canadian Coalition for Democracies supports Canada's willingness to help those in genuine need around the world, we are concerned about the effectiveness of Canada's development assistance and the lack of accountability to the Government of Canada and to the Canadian taxpayers whose money is being spent.

CCD is also concerned about the refusal of CIDA to acknowledge deficiencies in its aid program and its lack of willingness to demand accountability from governments that actively work against the interests of Canada and her democratic allies. Beyond our concerns of Canadian aid dollars being wasted as a result of corruption and poor management, we're even more concerned about those situations in which Canadian tax dollars may actively be used to promote hatred and incitement to violence and to undermine Canadian interests.

CCD is also concerned that CIDA, with a budget of over $3.1 billion, is not prepared to establish effective strategies for promoting good governance programs that encourage responsibility, accountability, transparency, as well as the advancement of Canadian values of rule of law, free media, independent judiciaries, open and accountable government, gender equality, equal treatment and respect for minorities, religious freedom, and free and fair elections.

To address our concerns, let us look at a few examples.

On supporting corrupt governments, according to the international policy statement released by the previous government, Canada was prepared to focus the majority of its financial assistance on 25 countries. These are the countries of CIDA's aid programming. Of these nations, Freedom House identified 19 as dictatorships or unfree nations. All 25 were identified as nations where corruption is rampant.

Not only did such facts fail to deter CIDA's investment in these countries, but little to no effort was made to oblige local governments and aid agencies to demonstrate that moneys reached their intended recipients and produced intended results.

The lack of accountability and transparency runs counter to the Government of Canada's recent commitment to accountable government, as expressed through the Federal Accountability Act. Not only is CIDA acting irresponsibly with regard to its programs, it is demonstrating a flagrant lack of respect for Canadian taxpayers and an indifference to the plight of the needy, both of which run contrary to the spirit and intention of government policy.

On supporting China, last year Canada provided approximately $56 million in foreign aid to China, a country with the world's largest army, a GDP of $7 trillion, and 700 missiles aimed at peaceful democratic Taiwan.

A fair amount of foreign aid was directed to training communist Chinese judges, who rule in a communist system of state-controlled law. There can be no rationale or reasonable excuse as to why Canada continues to train Chinese judges, knowing full well that these state-appointed judges are and can only be responsible to Beijing first and foremost.

Rule of law does not exist for Chinese or foreigners. The Chinese government, through its courts, actively persecutes minorities such as Tibetans and Falun Gong practitioners. State-enforced punishment includes forced re-education, physical torture, imprisonment without trial, and execution for the purpose of for-profit organ harvesting.

It is useful to note that unlike China, democratic India has of late declined aid as the basis of its economic and social progress. India recognizes that strength and prosperity are a result of using foreign aid as a means to build essential infrastructure and institutions, not a perpetual right that invariably leads to permanent dependency.

On Arab Palestinian aid, Canada has provided over $390 million to the Arab Palestinians since 1993. CIDA's continuing investment from its limited resources into providing for Palestinian development is a textbook example of betraying hardworking Canadians. Over the past 14 years, the return on Canadian aid to Palestinians has little to show in terms of gains for freedom and democracy. Sadly, our aid has done much more to perpetuate a terrorist death cult and internecine warfare as various factions seek to outdo each other in hatred directed at Israel, the lone oasis of values that Canadians cherish in a part of the world where those values are under siege.

Should Canadian tax dollars support President Mahmoud Abbas, who governs under a charter that calls for the annihilation of Israel and whose armed faction, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, is designated as an illegal terrorist organization in Canada? Should Canadian tax dollars fund UNRWA, whose connections to incitement and violence are well documented?

With respect to focused aid, CIDA can draw upon the history of Canadian aid disbursement. This history indicates that wide and non-strategically focused aid disbursements have been inefficient, ineffective, and provide little evidence that such provision of aid, anywhere, has broken the link between dependency and constraints on freedom and democracy.

Canadians generously contributed the amount of $425 million in emergency assistance and development funds to the Asia tsunami victims in 2004-05. To date, Canadians cannot be provided with a clean audit of where and how these funds were distributed and what measures of success follow as a result.

An example of focused and sustained aid would be to help Afghanistan recover from the ravages of war to its people and society. CCD counsels that the Government of Canada, through CIDA, make Afghanistan its top priority in the greater Middle East and South Asia region, complementing the sacrifices of our brave soldiers in the NATO-UN mission to Afghanistan.

Focused aid by CIDA to a few carefully selected countries where our assistance can make the critical difference in breaking vicious cycles of dependency and non-democratic rule would send a message that Canadian assistance is not untied. In other words, Canadian aid will flow to countries where people and government become committed to overcoming poverty and build free and open societies. This will also meet our own accountability test and advance the cause of democracy, freedom, and hope for women and children, who are often the first to suffer.

In conclusion, CCD sees the work of this committee of Parliament to be extremely important. This is especially so given the over $3.1 billion managed annually by CIDA and the Government of Canada's policies and statements about accountability and transparency.

We acknowledge that CIDA is implementing a new four-part agenda for aid effectiveness, which includes a strategy focus of aid programming; strengthening program delivery; effective use of the agency's resources, including strengthening field presence; and clear accountability for results. However, this initiative does not satisfy the reasonable test of political, bureaucratic, and parliamentary accountability required under the Federal Accountability Act.

All of this leads CCD to call on members of the standing committee for the following:

First, ensure that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development has the authority, as recommended by the Honourable Justice Gomery, to retain research personnel and legal administrative staff and experts as needed to monitor the work of the department.

Ensure that all aid provided by the Government of Canada meets the accountability requirements of the Federal Accountability Act.

Ensure that the Auditor General of Canada is able to follow aid dollars and independently audit all recipients of aid, whether domestic or international, government or non-governmental.

Ensure that the Canadian development assistance does not support corrupt governments, bureaucrats, or those who support, glorify, sponsor, or promote terrorism.

Ensure that recipient nations justify and obtain approval for aid from their parliaments before Canadian development assistance is released.

Direct CIDA to take to heart the example being set by India as a democratic reformer and adopt in full measure the idea of development as freedom, based on India's experience promoted by Amartya Sen, the Nobel Prize winner in economics.

Direct CIDA to support local NGOs that advance the strategic aims of development as freedom and direct Canadian development aid to be disbursed as an incentive to recipient countries to advance freedom.

Focus Canadian development aid on a few nations, such as Afghanistan, where we can make a valuable and effective contribution.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you to both groups for your presentations.

We will go to the first round. Mr. Eyking, please.

I would like to suggest too that we have committee business. We will only get in one round, so make sure your questions are succinct and we can hear the answers. There will only be one round.

Mr. Eyking.

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

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. These documents have not been translated into French. Why?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We just received them this morning.

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

You have just received them. It might have been worthwhile to hear the witnesses once their documents had been translated.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Yes. We will get them translated as soon as possible.

Mr. Eyking.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is changing from the start. I wanted to ask Mr. Allmand quite a few questions, especially about the trip we just came back from.

My role is CIDA critic, and I really have to address some of your comments on CIDA and your constructive criticism of CIDA, because we are concerned about CIDA. Our funding is increasing every year, and we're hoping that over the next few years we'll be up to $5 billion, but my sense from you is that more money is not going to help the situation and that CIDA is in need of a total overhaul, the way it's managed, the way it distributes funds.

Can you elaborate on that? Should we be following other models in the world, other countries? If we're going to focus on fewer regions and give more money, is that...? Apparently it's not the right way to go. I think you even mentioned how many regions we are going to help that have dictators, that you are almost implying are a waste of time. Can you elaborate on some of that, where we should be going with CIDA? Does it need an overhaul? Is there a better model?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

I'll address the first part and the second part regarding dictators and so on. I'll refer to my colleague, Clement, to help address that, based on his first-hand experience.

In terms of a model we could follow, Norway targets its foreign aid and its programming to a few specific countries. Norway has invested heavily in Sri Lanka and Kenya to build democracy and freedom there and it has invested heavily to promote a peace movement or a peaceful dialogue between the two parties in Sri Lanka. I think we could look at other nations and learn from them.

With CIDA aid as it is expanding, I think the Parliament of Canada owes Canadians and itself the role of ensuring that CIDA funding falls in line with the Federal Accountability Act, which was just passed, and that all CIDA aid can be audited and tracked by Canada's Auditor General to guarantee accountability to Canadians.

In terms of the domestic situation with aid and certain countries, I'll ask--

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

To follow up on what you said, even though it sounds like the right thing to do, accountability for every dollar spent by the Canadian taxpayers, do you see a danger of it hamstringing aid going out where CIDA would be so concerned about every dollar that there would be no risk out there any more, that we would go with the safe--is that a concern?

[Naresh Raghubeer]

Sir, the federal government spends over $600 billion annually, and there's no great concern when the Auditor General is obliged to audit that amount of money. Parliament has just approved the Federal Accountability Act, which raises the bar for accountability for all departments of the Government of Canada. It shouldn't raise any alarm or any concern to want to apply those same standards to CIDA.

[Clement Mugala, Canadian Coalition for Democracies]

To be very brief and to the point, the aid is addressing the symptoms. It's looking at what the problems are, including health issues, education issues, and things like those, but it's not addressing the fundamentals. The fundamentals that have been spoken about by Naresh are issues of transparency, accountability, responsibility, corruption, and all these things.

If you look at CIDA, they have their programs and their statements on what they want to do, but you don't see evidence of them doing those things. For example, they talk about strengthening the accountability of institutions, but when you look at their aid, it's going toward things that don't strengthen those institutions.

At the end of the day, what you are saying is that you have a system that's corrupt, but you give it money and you expect it to deliver. In some cases, you know CIDA gives money to institutions that they can't audit for some reason. Because CIDA can't audit them, Canadians will never know how the money was used.

In short, what we're trying to say is that you should deal with the fundamentals, and then development aid will be effective. We support the idea that we should increase aid, but aid should be given in such a way that, although it's increasing, it's made effective. It has to reach the people for whom it's intended, and you have to be able to see the results of the aid.

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Is that it? Do I have any more time?