Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 5th, 2019

[The Chair, Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)]

Good morning, everyone. I would like to call to order meeting 125 of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

This is also our first session on the new study, which we will begin today, on Canada's support for international democratic development.

With that in mind, I would like to welcome our first two witnesses. We have Christopher MacLennan from the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. He's the assistant deputy minister, global issues and development. We also have Shelley Whiting, director general, office of human rights, freedoms and inclusion.

We will ask you to provide your testimony. Then we will open it up to the members for questions.

Mr. MacLennan, please begin.

[Christopher MacLennan, Assistant Deputy Minister, Global Issues and Development, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development]

Thank you very much. I will provide a brief statement on behalf of the department. Then both Shelley and I, obviously, will be very pleased to take any questions you might have.

I will mention off the top that I am assistant deputy minister responsible for, basically, the development assistance aspects of Canada's involvement in democracy promotion. Shelley is more involved on the foreign affairs side, which has to do mostly with our diplomacy and democratic promotion through other means.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss our support, past and present, to democratic development. Promoting democracy abroad, as everybody here is aware, has been a long-time integral part of Canada's foreign policy and international assistance, but as the 2007 committee report noted, despite remarkable progress, in their words, “the continued forward march of democracy is no sure thing, and that in the current environment retreat is threatening progress.

I think this is truer today in 2019 than it probably was in 2007. Indeed, the growing threats to the progress of democratic development 12 years ago have now resulted in an overall retreat in democracy, according to most experts.

Popular discontent has appeared in many countries as a result of the failure of these governments to provide effective solutions to important and legitimate domestic issues such as unemployment, a lack of opportunity, inequality and mass migration. Moreover, malicious actors, including authoritarian regimes and their proxies, have increased their efforts to shape public opinion and perception so as to undermine democracy and more broadly the rules-based international order.

While foreign interference is not new, its impact has grown in scale and speed due to cheaper and more accessible digital technology and data. As a result, we have seen declining citizen confidence and engagement in democratic institutions, growing distress between governments and civil society, and the manipulation and discrediting of political parties and their processes.

Of particular concern is the shrinking civic space, one of the key pillars of democracy. The largest democratic declines have taken place in the areas of civil liberties, freedom of expression, freedom of association and assembly, civil society participation and media integrity. It is in this context that we're working today.

For its part, Global Affairs Canada has adapted. In 2013, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade were merged, which has resulted in a consistent use of government tools to promote democracy.

Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Development have now both made the commitment set out in their mandate letter to defend the values of inclusive and accountable governance, including through the promotion of human rights, gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls, peaceful pluralism, and inclusion and respect for diversity.

In June 2017, the government adopted its feminist international aid policy, which emphasizes inclusive governance focused on democracy and political participation, human rights and the rule of law for all citizens, regardless of their gender identity or any other aspect of their identity. This policy underscores the Government of Canada's commitment to provide inclusive and human rights-based development assistance as recommended in the committee's 2007 study.

Global Affairs Canada supports a wide range of programs and initiatives in all regions of the world to promote inclusive governance. In working with a wide range of partners, we leverage the expertise of Canadian NGOs, multilateral organizations and international institutions, and the engagement of grassroots civil society. What we do and who we do it with depends a lot on local context; we often have to adapt and seize on opportunities as they arise.

Through a feminist approach, the government is giving priority to the leadership and political participation of women. For example, it is working with the Interparliamentary Union to strengthen women's decision-making in parliaments and increase the capacity of parliamentarians—women and men—to adopt gender-sensitive reforms and laws.

In countries like Indonesia and Kenya, Canada supports the equitable access of marginalized or vulnerable groups, including youth and persons with disabilities, to participate in electoral processes.

In addition, Canada is providing up to $24 million to support electoral observation missions in Ukraine in preparation for the 2019 presidential and parliamentary elections, as well as to support longer-term and sustainable electoral reform.

Globally, programming focused on inclusive governance in areas such as government and civil society, democracy and political participation, and the rule of law and human rights totalled approximately $293 million in 2017-18, with approximately $170 million channelled specifically to promoting democracy.

As mentioned previously, Canada's efforts in this domain are not limited to international development assistance. As part of its feminist foreign policy, Canada has taken actions to strengthen democracy and resilience in peaceful and inclusive societies, at both the international level and through our work through our network of missions abroad.

In the G7, Canada has been a vocal supporter of democratic values. As part of our 2018 presidency, we spearheaded a joint declaration with G7 members that held up democracy as critical in defending against foreign threats. At the G7 summit in Charlevoix, leaders announced the G7 rapid response mechanism. This mechanism strengthens G7 coordination in identifying and responding to diverse and evolving threats to G7 democratic processes. The coordination unit is hosted in Canada on an ongoing basis.

Furthermore, through our broad network of diplomatic missions, Canada engages government officials of other like-minded states and civil society partners to advocate for and provide support to democratic development in those countries. Depending on the context, this is done through quiet diplomacy or through more public and open dialogue. This includes Canada's support for international election observation missions, including the deployment of hundreds of Canadians in recent years as observers, and co-sponsoring resolutions on human rights defenders in supporting their participation in international fora. Our missions are also provided with the “Voices at risk” guidelines to support and protect human rights defenders.

In conclusion, Global Affairs Canada welcomes the committee's interest in what we all agree is an important priority area.

We look forward to taking your questions.

[The Chair]

Wonderful. Thank you very much.

We are going to begin with MP Alleslev, please.

[Leona Alleslev, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC]

Thank you very much for being here today.

This is certainly an important topic, and it's somewhat disconcerting. You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that democracy is in retreat.

We continue to invest and our investment hasn't drastically changed over the last 12 years.

If we continue on this path, what level of confidence do we have that the outcome will be different? Can you help us to understand the critical performance indicators? How do we know that the efforts we're making are achieving the objectives?

[Christopher MacLennan]

This is a very difficult space to work in. In international development, everybody knows that we work in some of the most difficult places in the world with what is, relatively speaking, a very small amount of money to make a difference.

There are some types of development assistance where the opportunities are pretty direct to understanding what an investment will get you in terms of a return on your dollar. For example, when we invest in vaccinations, we have a clear understanding of how much the vaccination costs and what you get in return, which is a life saved if that person never contracts the disease.

This is fundamentally a different type of programming. Every country has a different culture, different understandings of governance, and all governance, as we understand in Canada, of course—

[Leona Alleslev]

That's very fair, but I'm sorry, I don't have much time.

Of course, we understand the challenges. That's why we have experts like you to deal with those challenges. We need to be able to tell Canadian society that we're doing the right thing but that our investments, our efforts, are in fact achieving objectives and outcomes.

Can you please help us to understand how we are measuring that and, if democracy is in retreat, what are we doing differently that will achieve a different outcome?

[Christopher MacLennan]

One of the things we're doing is placing a greater focus on working to ensure that there is a greater understanding at local levels, and a greater inclusion at local levels of a broader group of participation. In some of the places in which we're working, obviously the democratic space has been constricting. What we're trying to do is open up that democratic space.

We are doing that by ensuring that all communities are able to take part in democratic processes. For example, we're providing support to local women's organizations through the women's voice and leadership program to allow them to advocate on behalf of women's rights, including their right to take part in political processes. We are also working with LGBTQ groups to help them understand and exercise their rights within the context of the countries in which we're working.

The overall question of the retreat of democracy is obviously taking place at a global level, in terms of some of the Freedom House indices and whatnot. That's a really difficult indicator to move, because it's operating at a global perspective. What our programming attempts to achieve is to work at local levels, working directly with governments that are willing to work with us to strengthen their institutions, whether it be judicial institutions, their audit functions, to try to promote a better understanding of democracy.

[Leona Alleslev]

Is there any relationship to peacekeeping operations and the role of setting the foundation for you to be able to go in and do that work? I don't like the term “peacekeeping”, because of course it's a little bit archaic and presumes that's there peace and war, but have you noticed whether the dramatic decline in peacekeeping operations has been having an effect on that shrinking democratic space within which you're trying to operate?

[Christopher MacLennan]

We've already mentioned how difficult it is to work in many of the contexts. When you're working in a fragile state, it's even more difficult. Security, obviously, is the number one priority. It's difficult to have any type of good development result in a place that is so fragile that the security of its citizens is not maintained and that there's no stability. Peacekeeping is critically important.

That being said, there are many other ways as well of helping the stability of a country. Sometimes it's not necessarily, as you mentioned, a “peace-war” type of problem that's the problem of the fragility. It might also be environment related or drought related. Obviously, all of these factors contribute to these problems. That makes it a much more complex issue to deal with.

[Leona Alleslev]

So, in your mind, you would argue that those two do need to go together. Stability and security are precursors to the ability to work in that democratic space.

[Christopher MacLennan]

Obviously, to do any development assistance you require an environment that is stable and secure to the greatest extent possible. That being said, we work in very fragile contexts nonetheless. You actually can accomplish stuff in very fragile places; it's just much more difficult and requires a different approach.

[Leona Alleslev]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

MP Vandenbeld, please.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you very much for being here for what is a very important and timely study.

You mentioned, Mr. MacLennan, in your opening remarks that you believe the 2007 report of this committee, which recommended a large-scale entity in Canada that would coordinate and be a framework for democracy promotion, is even truer today than it was in 2007. Can you explain why you feel that way?

[Christopher MacLennan]

I think what I said was that in terms of the situation in the early 2000s which led to the House of Commons recommendation, the situation today is probably.... The demand for those types of institutions is probably higher. I have to admit that I don't know if it's necessarily a new institution that's required. I think what we need to think about is how the situation has evolved. In the early 2000 period we were still on that high of what's called the third wave in democratization and a belief that all countries were on a track to eventually become democratic. In the 2000s came the first signs that maybe that wasn't quite true. That's why you saw an uptick in the recognition that we needed more political approaches, for example, support to political parties and whatnot.

I think today we've seen that it was true what was happening in the 2000s. There's definitely a need to evolve the way we're doing our things and to really think closely about what's required to make the difference.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Obviously, long-term presence when you're doing democracy promotion in a country is very important. Many countries have dedicated entities of some sort. I'd like to define “democracy” more as the institutional development: legislative capacity building, political party support, elections, working with the institutions. Where does that actually sit within Global Affairs right now?

[Christopher MacLennan]

It sits in a couple of places, but the majority of that type of spending lies with our bilateral programming, our country-level programming with individual projects according to country context and local context. We also have some programming through our peace and security operations.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In 2005 something called a democracy council was created. It actually brought in a lot of the NGOs and other actors that were working in this field to try to perform coordinating functions. Does that exist now, or what happened to that?

[Christopher MacLennan]

It does not exist, to my knowledge. I'm sure the people who made up the council still exist and their interest in the issue exists, but I don't think the council has met in a very long time.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Is there a space somewhere within Global Affairs where all of the things Canada is doing with regard to democracy promotion and institutional promotion are in one place, i.e., a place where the best practices can be found, where there's a policy piece to it, and where the capacity building and the technical assistance can be coordinated? Is there a place where this can happen within Global Affairs right now?

[Christopher MacLennan]

The way I would describe it, the way we're organized at Global Affairs for the purposes of development assistance, is that under my team we're responsible for all of the sectoral policy advice and sectoral coordination. My team is responsible, in this case, for inclusive governance and democracy.

However, the budgets exist for this in the bilateral programming, and they take advantage of opportunities as they arise. What they do is that they follow the policies we devise and then institute them through their individual programming choices within the country context.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You mentioned that there's $170 million specifically for democracy promotion, but we know, of course, that democracy promotion writ large includes a lot of things, such as civil society and that sort of thing. How much of that is actually dedicated to institutional capacity building?

[Christopher MacLennan]

That's a difficult question. We'd have to probably see if we can give you that answer.

Basically, of the two numbers I gave you, one is larger and is what's called inclusive governance, which includes a broad variety of things. One example I'll give you is support to an audit office in a country, maybe in their agriculture department. That's not considered democracy promotion, but it is a governance activity.

The specifics of the democracy promotion speak to some of the things you're talking about, such as legislatures, parliaments, elections and whatnot. Is it all institution building? Not necessarily, but it's the smaller number, I think, that you were referring to.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

So there's really no—

[Christopher MacLennan]

It's not a dedicated envelope, which I think is an important thing to recognize. There's no dedicated envelope of spending. Instead, there are the bilateral programs and other programs to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. That's the reason you see the number go up and down from one year to the next.