Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 7th, 2019

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you for coming today. I just want to correct the record. The Rights and Democracy organization was cut by the former Harper government. The then foreign minister, John Baird, cut that organization, because he said he wanted to find efficiencies. For a $1.9 million organization in a $300 billion budget in a $1.7 trillion economy, I don't know where the efficiencies are. But being non-partisan, I'd like to ask you a more important question.

When we talk about demographic governance, there are certain elements from the the past that still exist, where there's fluidity of borders and ethnic tension and tribal warfare. Those elements have always been there, but there are new elements emerging. I'm talking about the Visegrad nations specifically, where you have political entities that are weakening institutions even in the guise of being democratic.

You also mentioned the rise of social media, which we never saw before. More importantly, and this is a question nobody has effectively answered yet, the biggest thing—and you talked about internally displaced people—has to do with climate.

There are certain structural problems we can fix. We can go in and can make countries more peaceful. We can put in institutions. We can create the economic opportunities that populations require and put in a monetary system, a fiscal system, a system of taxation that any country requires, but there's one question that we have not answered. In those countries where the population is being internally displaced because of climate change, how do we impact democratic governance?

[Thomas S. Axworthy]

Climate change is one of the contributing factors to disruption and stress and one that every society will face, specifically what one will do when desertification of the land, floods, and extreme weather occur. Every country will face that.

We've talked about China. China is threatened by climate change, almost more than anybody else, because as the sea level rises, it will affect their cities that are all along the coast.

However, I'll make this argument. Where environmental or planetary concerns put burdens on peoples across the board, how do you respond? Is the sacrifice equally shared? Is it equally communicated? Are individuals or minorities blamed for the problem, when it is caused by the collectivity putting too much CO2 into the atmosphere?

One of the tremendous advantages of democratic systems, in dealing with stressful crises, is that the element of representation allows one to talk freely about how a burden is shared. My argument is that pluralism and democratic systems can sometimes soak up resentments that can be expressed and, therefore, if we had a world where there was more democratic governance, it would be a world that would be better able to respond to and share the sacrifice that is necessary as a result of the degradation of the atmosphere caused by humanity.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Axworthy, the reason I ask that question is that we are talking about countries where there is no system of democratic governance. However, the key geopolitical point is the fact that we now have established democracies that are being weakened by the internal displacement of people. We can look at Brexit. We can look at the rise of populism in Italy and the rise of the far-right in France. I'm sure you've observed the latest Swedish elections, where the Swedish democrats.... Also, in Germany.... Not only do we have issues with those countries that have weakened systems, but also those established countries are now feeling the attack.

What's the process going forward? If you were to advise us as a committee, where do we put our resources to be more efficient in making sure that not only do we stem the tide of what's happening there, but also that the established democracies do not rise up in a negative way?

[Thomas S. Axworthy]

I have two quick points, Chair.

The first—and you've put your finger on one of the largest issues in international politics—is that we know that prevention is better than emergencies, but to get the world to actually work on preventive diplomacy and preventive measures is one of the most difficult things, because, alas, our systems seem to respond to crises. They don't really work in a forward manner.

The problems in Syria were advertised long before the Syrian civil war. In almost every area, there are people, like international crisis organizations and so on, who are forecasting problems, but to get states to move on that—we have a former representative from Global Affairs—and to get states to look at the prevention agenda, which is an investment agenda when there's not a crisis and to persuade the public that's important to do, that's a real difficulty in democracies.

On your second point, you're absolutely correct. We are seeing an ebb tide in established democracies that work on these issues because they're bedevilled by internal divisions around immigration, migration and refugees at home. That's all the more reason, Chair and members of the committee, for Canada, at this point in time, to take the lead. We have to offer some encouragement and optimism to the democratic community around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

On that note, we shall conclude the first of two panels today.

Gentlemen, I just want to thank you both for your very thought-provoking comments and with that, we shall suspend for two minutes while we get our new panellists in place.

We are suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Members, we will resume.

Before we begin our second panel, and with the agreement of all parties around the table, I will say this. We learned yesterday with great sorrow that Paul Dewar, a man who had graced this particular committee, had died after a battle with brain cancer. It was a loss for Canada and for the cause of human rights around the world. In his honour, I want to take a moment to ask MP Hélène Laverdière, a colleague of Paul's—indeed he was her predecessor as the critic for the NDP—to please reflect on Paul.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak about a colleague who was well liked across party lines; he had friends in all parties. Our colleague played an absolutely enormous role on this committee.

I remember, among other things, that he was the one who insisted that our committee conduct a study on child labour abroad. Today, we are talking about democracy and human rights. He was always the first to stand up to promote democracy and human rights, and to work on issues such as blood diamonds.

He took the message of federalism to the four corners of the earth. He was a very strong member in this committee and in Parliament, but also on the ground. He had an easy rapport with people. He had exceptional courage. At the end of his life, he showed that courage again by creating a new foundation to encourage the involvement of young people. This is a lesson we all need to learn.

We will miss Paul enormously, as will everyone who knew him. I want to take this opportunity to extend my condolences to his wife Julia, his two sons, and to everyone. His spirit will live on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you.

I know you speak for all members of this committee in sending our condolences, thoughts and prayers to his family.

With that, I would like to ask us to rise for a moment of silence in Paul's honour, please.

[A moment of silence observed]

Thank you.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Chair, if I may, could I just say a quick couple of words about the passing of Mr. Dewar?

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

I think it's important now.... I asked MP Laverdière because she was a colleague of his. We do have witnesses waiting, so if you don't mind, we can move on with the committee business.

We shall now begin our second panel with Kevin Deveaux, president of Deveaux International Governance Consultants Inc., as well as Pearl Eliadis, human rights lawyer from Eliadis Law Office, who's joining us from Montreal. Mr. Deveaux is joining us from Bangkok, Thailand.

With that I would ask you to provide your testimony, please, starting with you, Mr. Deveaux. We know that sometimes these international video links fail us midway through.

Please proceed.

[Kevin Deveaux, President, Deveaux International Governance Consultants Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and honourable members.

Let me start by quickly setting the table as to my background, so you have an understanding of where I'm coming from through my presentation.

I am a lawyer based in Eastern Passage, Nova Scotia. I was an MLA in Nova Scotia for four terms—nine years. For four of those I was the House leader of the official opposition. Twelve years ago, I left that work and started working full time in the area of international parliamentary development and political party assistance.

In that time, I've had a chance to work mostly with the United Nations Development Programme. In recent years I've also worked with the American government, the British government, the European Union and the Swiss government. I've worked with more than 50 parliaments around world and with MPs from more than a hundred countries.

Having said that, let me take a few minutes just to talk about the last report in 2007, which I'm sure you've all had a chance to see. I had the opportunity back then [Technical difficulty—Editor] my political career to make a presentation before your previous colleagues on the same committee.

Having read the report in July 2007, I can say that I agreed with almost all the recommendations. In particular, the two that I want to focus on today are recommendations 12 and 15.

Recommendation 12 recommended the Canadian democracy foundation as an overall organization that would provide democracy assistance. Recommendation 15 recommended the establishment of a centre for multi-party democracy.

Let me talk now about some of the key points I'd like to raise. Please understand that my focus is based on my experience working for international organizations in the area of democratic governance. I've done almost no work for a Canadian organization, but given the number of countries I have worked in and the amount of work I've done, I would have expected to see more of a Canadian footprint globally.

As I said in 2007.... I think if you have my written report in front of you, I do have the specific quote that is in the report from that year. Generally speaking, I just want to say that from my experience over the last 15 to 20 years of doing this work in one form or another, I rarely, if ever, see Canadian organizations or Canadian-funded projects through other international organizations in the area that I work.

I said it in 2007 and I still think it's the case. Canada is not a serious player in the areas of democratic governance, particularly around political governance, which is what I focus on.

There might be one exception and that would probably be Ukraine. It's a place where we have probably invested a significant amount of resources—primarily through American organizations, I understand—but overall, the activity in this area is....“limited” would be a nice way of putting it.

The second point I want to make is that since 2007, there is less leadership being presented at a global level—thinking of new ideas and creating innovative approaches. For awhile, in New York, when I was the UNDP's global adviser on parliaments and political parties, there was a process by which UNDP, the World Bank, and DFID from the United Kingdom came together with other implementers and were providing thought leadership on a biannual basis. We were presenting new approaches and new ideas and sharing information. In the last five or six years that's no longer happening. UNDP and the World Bank no longer have global footprints, or even global advisors. The resources have really almost contracted to some extent.

I think there is an opportunity for Canada in both political party assistance and parliamentary development. I think there's a real opportunity for someone to step forward and show leadership. The United Kingdom is trying to do that to some extent. If you haven't seen it, back in 2015 the International Development Committee of the House of Commons in the U.K. came out with its own report on parliamentary strengthening. That report really promoted the idea that the United Kingdom needed to have its own version of the American foundations, like NDI and IRI.

Since that time, they've put a lot of money into the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. If you haven't had a chance to engage them as a committee during this study, I would encourage you to do that. At the moment, though, I would say that they are in the process of expanding their physical presence, though I haven't necessarily seen the impact on the ground of those engagements. There is a space there. There is a vacuum. There is a void. I think there is an opportunity, if Canada were to step forward in the coming years, to be able to provide that leadership at a global level. From a Canadian perspective, I think that it is unique. I see in many of the countries where I work that the fact I'm from Canada does mean I provide a different perspective from what people are hearing from other countries, whether that's the U.S., Canada, Australia, France or the European Union.

My final point is this: Whereas in the last recommendation they talked about a separate political party centre, a multi-party democracy and a separate democracy foundation, I think all of the work needs to be combined into one institution. This would allow—and I speak from my experience in formulating projects and implementing projects—for a Canadian institution, a large institution that would be able to work sectorally with Parliament, political parties, media, civil society, elections and local government. All of that can be done at a sectoral level but it also creates opportunities for cross-sectoral work. I think that would be critical to any success.

Again, as I said in 2007 and as I still think is the case, Canada should identify a core group of countries; this time I would say 15 to 20. We should invest deeply in them and become the leading donor in the area of democratic governance in those countries. Then I think we also need to ensure that invest in them for the long term. I think it is important to reflect that engaging in democratic governance—supporting transitions when people and governments are ready to transition to democracy—is something that takes a long time. It's not going to happen overnight. We need to be prepared to invest heavily in select countries and to do it over the long term, in order to ensure that we can have the results and impact that we want from that investment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Eliadis, we'll move straight to you.

[Pearl Eliadis, Human Rights Lawyer, Eliadis Law Office, As an Individual]

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, thank you very much for the opportunity to address this important topic, Canada's role in international support for democratic development.

I'm going to be focusing particularly on the establishment of a new arm's-length Canada foundation, or an institution like that. I also want to echo the comments we just heard. I think one institutional focus for this work rather than a multiplicity of splintered mandates is the way to go.

I also want to start by perhaps giving you a sense of where I'm coming from and my perspective in this work. I am a lawyer, as you heard, but I have an unusual practice. I don't represent individual clients anymore. I work mainly at an institutional level with the UNDP, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I've also worked with the European delegations of the European Union in a number of countries. I've worked in four sub-Saharan African countries, including Rwanda after the genocide, in setting up two of the three institutional pillars that marked the unity government's mandate in the post-genocide period, as well as in Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya, and central Asia, Southeast Asia and China.

My remarks are going to be divided into two main categories. The first is a high-level overview of areas where, in my view, Canada can provide significant added value in the area of democratic development. I also want to talk a little bit about lessons learned for setting up an arm's-length institution like a Canada foundation, if I can use the term that was in the high-level briefing document.

I would like to begin by emphasizing the central importance of human rights in any discourse involving democratic development. I know there was language to that effect in the 2007 report. Interestingly, it was absent in the high-level document that was circulated.

Most people take the position that human rights are buried in, subsumed in or implicit in democratic development. That is not a view necessarily widely shared everywhere. I do think that Canada has a unique perspective, both in terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the international instruments and international law principles that Canada seeks to abide by and to contribute to as part of its international commitment and legacy.

The first point I want to make, obvious as it may seem, is that any institutional initiative like this be clearly and explicitly grounded in human rights as well as in democratic development. It should not only be attentive to human rights, but actually have explicit and focused attention on human rights as the central raison d'être of any institutional strategy promoting democratic development. In my view, the two must go hand in hand, and it should not be assumed or implied that democratic development necessarily brings with it an appropriate focus on human rights. I would point out that now more than ever, perhaps, this is extremely important. We're seeing a number of so-called democracies starting to witness the erosion of the rule of law. Freedom House, as some of you may know, just came out with its report stating that we're witnessing a retreat of democracy and democratic values at a global level.

I think we should all be alarmed by that, but at the same time see the opportunity for Canada to renew and indeed establish its commitment.

The idea of what democracy means changes depending on where you are. I know that might sound alarming to some, but the reality is that there are lots of different views about what democracy is. There is no single, established international instrument that determines what democracy is, beyond free and fair elections, of course. On the other hand, there are international standards around what human rights means, and I think the two must go hand in hand.

This brings me to another area where I believe Canada adds value, which is in building stable, transparent institutions.

I was involved, as I mentioned earlier, in the Rwandan government. I helped to set up and strengthen the human rights commission in that country in the post-genocide period, as well as the unity and reconciliation commission, which was modelled to some extent on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Canadians, including myself, were central in those initiatives. It was the same with the Ethiopian ombudsman organization of the Ethiopian commission; the Sudanese commission, which, as you might imagine, is struggling; and a number of other institutions worldwide.

I would echo the remarks that we just heard. Of all the countries I've worked in, Canada was certainly not the go-to country—though I think “irrelevant“ is too strong a word—in any of the rule of law projects I was involved with. Nobody ever said, let's go see Canada, in any of the institution-building projects I was involved with. They said, let's go see Sweden, let's go see the Netherlands. I mention Sweden and the Netherlands because it's easy to brush aside the critique I just made by saying, of course, the United States is bigger, of course, the European Union is bigger. But when you start to deal with countries that have institutions such as Sweden's SIDA, or the RNE—the Royal Netherlands Embassy— and others, it's quite clear that Canada has been dwarfed.

I would also agree with the earlier statement that there are specific countries where what I said that is not true. These are countries, such as Ukraine, and, I would add, Afghanistan, historically at least, and currently Haiti. However, other than with them, Canada continues to punch well below its planned weight.

If I may bring a particular example to the fore, Cameroon is an area where, it seems to me, Canada could have significant value to add. We are not a colonial power. Both the International Crisis Group and Freedom House have identified Cameroon as one of the top 10 areas of risk and concern and international conflict. Canada is nowhere in that regard. Global Affairs continues to take the position that this is a conflict in which bad things happen, not recognizing the serious problems that have been raised. It is important to recognize that this is an area where Canada could, because of its tradition of bilingualism and bijuralism, offer something to a country like Cameroon that very few other countries can. Those are areas where we could add value beyond simply adding to a pot of money at a geopolitical level—although, of course, that should not be discounted.

I also want to talk briefly about the fact that institution-building is important from the top down, but also that it's important to work from the ground up. You need to have both. Canada has unique expertise and something to offer in response to an idea that has been circulating in the international development community, namely, enabling civil society and working in a human rights-based framework to ensure that civil society organizations are supported and enabled. Of course, when I say “civil society”, I mean civil society organizations that are grounded in a human rights framework—so I don't include the Ku Klux Klan, for example, as a civil society organization.

This is a non-partisan exercise. This is the reason why I think a Canadian foundation would be well-placed to do this kind of work.

I think I have a couple of minutes left. I just want to make a couple of remarks about what this entity, institution or foundation, might look like.

It's important for us to learn from our mistakes. The Rights and Democracy debacle and controversy may have happened under the previous government, but the seeds of it were sown, I think, by the government that created it in not allowing it to be meaningfully at arm's length. That means you need to have real independence. You need to make sure that the political exigencies of the day are not such that organizations can be either corrupted or presided over by persons whose background does not suggest their presence in an organization like that. In order to ensure that political and partisan concerns are met, the organization would probably need to be fully endowed from the get-go, as opposed to receiving ongoing streams of funding. The IRPP in Montreal, for example, was fully endowed and has been able to continue to exist on that basis. There is precedent for this.

In closing, I would urge you to ensure that whatever institution you set up is meaningfully at arm's length—financially at arm's length—and that its governance structures are at arm's length from whatever political party happens to be in place at a given time.

Perhaps I'll close with a similar remark to my predecessor. Despite our self-description as champions at the international level, Canada has not been batting even close to average. We have a real opportunity here to change that, and I congratulate the committee for taking this initiative.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much to you both for your testimony.

We shall now move straight into our questions, beginning with MP Kusie, please.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I'm very fortunate to have been at Global Affairs Canada for 15 years, and I now serve as the shadow minister for democratic institutions.

Mr. Deveaux, you talked a lot about a lack of leadership that we've seen since 2007. Certainly while the work on the ground is absolutely important, leadership always starts from the top. We talked a little in the previous panel about relationships and approaches to relationships.

It's very interesting. I even think of the comparison of something such as our leaders' trips to India, where the relationships and the perception of those trips between the Prime Minister and my leader, Andrew Scheer, came across very differently, both abroad and within India, and certainly within Canada.

That moves me to Cuba. I had the good fortune of serving as policy adviser to Mr. Kent when he was minister of state of foreign affairs for the Americas. It was very interesting. At that time, the Conservative policy regarding Cuba was that we only engage with dissidents.

Similar to the spirit that my colleague, member Vandenbeld, has taken with this great initiative, I really was looking at the broader perspective, because I recognized that if Canada weren't there, certainly who would be? Well, it would be Russia filling the void; it would be China filling the void. Even though Brazil had just recently won the World Cup and the Olympics, I could see that it was not nearly as strong a developed democracy as it was getting credit for at the time. Of course, this was 2009.

That said, when our Prime Minister, for example, laments the death of a dictator and his close relationships with that family, does that affect the work you do on the ground?

Mr. Deveaux.

[Kevin Deveaux]

The short answer is that my work is done for other organizations, multilateral organizations, mostly the UNDP, UN Women, and World Bank, so I'm able to distance myself from any of the political machinations happening in Ottawa.

To me, what you're hitting on, though, is something like Cuba. I haven't had the chance to work there, but I've worked in Turkmenistan and in Uzbekistan, two countries that are also fairly closed off, it's fair to say, and unreformed in some ways, particularly Turkmenistan. The best way that Canada can show leadership there is not always to be the one in the front, because there are always going to be challenges and perceptions of any country, coming forward, whether it be Russia, U.S., Canada, or Brazil. However, there are ways that you can do that through multilateral organizations.

Again, if Canada were consistently engaged in the UN at the agency level, and not necessarily worrying about whether it will get a seat on the Security Council, which I don't think has much bearing and much impact, but if we actually invested in agencies such as UNDP and UN Women and through them, where they have that neutral position, to be able to put the pen in the door, to be able to begin to open up and show and share knowledge, that eventually would build something as reforms come about and could be a way of doing it. It would allow us to build relationships indirectly through other institutions, while at the same time being able to actually begin to support the reforms we envision.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

I'm certain that the committee could spend another study entirely on United Nations reform, but it's certainly a very critical and relevant organization within our world, without question.

Moving forward from my previous question, it has been said in the media by certain academics and leaders that Canada has few friends left in the world since its new leadership. Unfortunately, our current leader has been referred to as things such as “little potato”, which he believed was endearing when in fact it was actually perhaps more insulting.

Mr. Deveaux, you talked about 2007 and the historical values that set the idea for this project, a very worthwhile project indeed—and again I commend my Liberal colleagues for bringing forward this Conservative Harper-era initiative. How would you compare the approaches towards democracy internationally between the previous Conservative government and the current Liberal government, and what lessons can we learn from 2007, here today, to help us in this current environment?

[Kevin Deveaux]

Look, my point in my presentation was the same as it was in 2007, and I believe it was a different party in power then. My point is that Canada is non-existent to a great extent in the area in which I work—political governance. I don't think that has changed since I started doing this work in 2001, when it was another party in power.

I don't think it's a partisan issue. I think it's a matter of...as a country. To be brutally frank about our country, we have a tendency to say, “Oh, someone else will do that. No one really wants to hear from us.” I think there is almost a lack of confidence. When I go out there and I'm talking to people, I can assure you that people want to hear the Canadian perspective. They really do. We need to be a little bolder and little more confident, particularly now more than ever, given some of the other countries that have been doing this work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Michael Levitt]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to MP Vandenbeld, please.

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

Thank you very much. I'll be directing my questions to Mr. Deveaux.

Kevin, it's good to see you again. I recall the years that we spent working with the global programme for parliamentary strengthening with the UNDP and, actually, your words about that and the fact that there is a void right now internationally in this area.

I know that at that time, GPPS was really building the best practices in a field that had not previously really had norms and practices. Right now, Canada is uniquely positioned, I think, to be able to do this kind of work. You referred to it as an opportunity for thought leadership.

I would just like to put to you that while Canadian organizations or Canadian funding may not be as present as before, Canadians are. I think that we see that around this table, and we see that in the experiences that you, I and others have had. Most of the work that I did prior to being elected was for multilateral organizations, American organizations. Only once did I work for the Parliamentary centre. Most of the work of Canadians, however, is outside of Canadian organizations. In fact, in one case, I was hired by NDI, an American organization, using Canadian funds. They hired a Canadian to go in and do the project.

Could you maybe talk a little bit about that, because the expertise is there? We have the international credibility. As Pearl mentioned, we haven't been a colonial power. We understand the two different legal systems. We understand Westminster democracy. This is why organizations like NDI and IRI are hiring Canadians, yet we are not within the sort of framework where we can actually really pursue this from the perspective of Canadian values. I'm wondering if you might be able to elaborate a little bit on that.

[Kevin Deveaux]

Thank you, Ms. Vandenbeld. It is good to see you again, even if it is halfway around the world.

I thank you for bringing that up because it is true, and I think I raised this in my 2007 presentation as well. Even though the Canadian organizations are not out there and Canadian funding at times is scarce—more than at times, but most of the time—there are many Canadians doing this work.

I'll give you a very personal example. Next week, I'll be in Malaysia. Malaysia's first change of government in 60 years was last year. They came to the Americans and asked if the latter could help them—NDI, IRI, and then there is another organization called DAI, which is working under USAID. As for me, I'm going there to work with the Americans because it's a Commonwealth country and their system is not one that the Americans have much expertise in, but they look to Canadians.

Elizabeth Weir, for those who may know her, is a former MLA and leader of the NDP in New Brunswick. She is doing work with NDI there. The Americans often turn to Canadians.

I always recall that NDI, in my time working for them, was probably made up of about one-third Canadian employees, so there are plenty of Canadians doing this work, absolutely. It's a matter of harnessing those resources under the Canadian flag. I really do believe that most of us would be honoured to be able to do that.

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

You refer to this line of work as political governance. That's very specific to particular institutions, parliaments, political parties and members of Parliament. Why is it important to do that kind of work specifically?

[Kevin Deveaux]

I think this picks up on what my colleague was saying about civil society. I look at it as demand and supply side. You have, in the case of working with civil society, what's very important—building their capacity, having them advocate, having them collect and aggregate the voices of citizens and advocate towards government. On the other side, you have the supply. All of you around the table know very well what that is. You need to be engaging civil society. Committees need to be functioning. Committees need to be holding public hearings. We take them for granted in Canada, but the fact is that in many countries they don't exist.

Again, I'll use the example of Malaysia, where I'll be going next week. They've had a parliament now for more than 60 years, and yet they have almost no functioning standing committees. It's only with this change of government that they're talking about changing that. There was no place in which the public could provide input.

By building the capacity of Parliament, by building the capacity of political parties, you're creating a supply that's demanding that advocacy and demanding citizen input. When you do that, you end up having a better dialogue and you end up having political dialogue. You will be less likely to have conflict, and those voices who aren't normally heard have a better chance of being heard.

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

One thing that you recommended we actually heard from some of the other witnesses—that is, the need to be on the ground long term, not just to fly in with a consultant and then leave again. That constant, long-term, sustained presence really requires a larger overarching kind of agency or funding mechanism to do that. I think you recommended 10 to 15 countries.

Why is it so important that you stay on the ground and present, not just project to project but actually with a long-term presence?

[Kevin Deveaux]

I think there are two reasons, which I think I talked a bit about in my written submission. Obviously, if you're going to invest in a country and democratic reform, it will take time. It will take more than one electoral cycle. You'll need to be building champions within Parliament, within parties, within civil society. You'll need to be building independent institutions like electoral commissions. If you're doing all of that, it can't be done in two or four years. I think we all realize how long it takes to build democracy. In the case of Canada, it's been, what, 180 years almost?

The other part is that if you have an umbrella organization at the global level, and they're doing thought leadership, research and identifying new ideas, you want to be working at the local level and the national level to be testing and piloting that. You want that link so that if you have identified potentially new and innovative ways of working and creating and developing and supporting, you have the ability to test that in certain countries. If you're only there in the short term, you won't be able to measure the impact of that.

So if you are going to have a vertical organization, from global to regional to national, I think you'll want to be able to ensure that it's in place and that you have the architecture that allows you to test and try new ideas.