Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 19th, 2019

[Ed Broadbent]

The act creating Rights and Democracy had that as a requirement. There was an annual report that went to Parliament. The institute was audited by the Auditor General annually as well.

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

[Inaudible—Editor] always all for parliamentary oversight.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Finally, in terms of the track record, Mr. Broadbent, you said that often the countries were held...and that we looked at the gap between their constitutional underpinnings and the reality on the ground. How did we assess the reality on the ground? Was it working in partnership with Global Affairs or Foreign Affairs, or was it specifically done by Rights and Democracy?

[Ed Broadbent]

It was a mix. Especially in the early years, when Joe Clark was foreign affairs minister, there was active emphasis on human rights in developing countries. The embassies collaborated with us and had their own independent assessments. When we would go into a country, or when I would, we would check with the Canadian embassy to get their assessment, frankly, of what was going on for sure. Normally, there was a very constructive interplay. We would report later, too. It was a unique institution that Canada had.

Part of its reason for success, I think, was that we are not a big power. We are not the United Kingdom. We are not the United States. Even though my position was as an appointment of the government, a Privy Council appointment, we managed to be seen for what we were, legally independent of the government. We were not accountable, except through Parliament, to the government on a day-to-day basis at all, and we didn't run into suspicion, if I can put it that way, from NGOs or governments. There was no confusion that I was speaking for the government, as it wasn't the case. The independence was respected, but the connection with the government—I'll come back to that again—was very useful. The fact that I was in one sense institutionally representative of the Government of Canada opened the doors that would otherwise not be open to many NGOs, for example.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

We will now move to MP Vandenbeld, please.

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

Thank you very much.

It's very good to have you back on the Hill, Mr. Broadbent. We could probably be here all morning asking questions.

I will be asking my questions to specifically Ms. O'Neill, because I would really like to delve a little bit more into the gender specific, the equality, the inclusion, and the complementarity of that with what we're talking about in terms of institutional development. When you think of political parties, when you think of parliaments, when you're looking at things like democracy, it's not immediately evident how this intersects with the feminist international assistance policy. We know, however, that if you don't have those inclusive institutions, if you don't have those voices of all members of the population represented, if you don't have the institutions right, you can't actually have gender equality in a particular geographic area.

If we created some kind of entity focused on democratic development, not just specifically women's participation in those institutions but also the structure of those institutions themselves, how would that actually contribute to the feminist international assistance policy? Perhaps I could ask you to elaborate on that.

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

Exactly as the speakers in the previous session mentioned, some of the biggest challenges we're seeing right now are with the most fragile or perhaps regressive democracies. I believe they call them shallow. They are the ones who have taken steps at an architectural level very quickly and have either not had the cultural change underpinning them or been genuinely inclusive. There is a quick-fix option that I think we're seeing that is not resulting in sustainable results.

What does that mean for women's representation, women's inclusion and its connection to this issue? Specifically to your question, if there were to be an institution set up, I would, number one, want to ensure that it's not very narrowly defined as being only, for example, political party strengthening or candidate strengthening. I think it has to be, as many other speakers have referenced, broadly inclusive of civil society. It would also be crucial that staff there understand, and the programming reflect, a really sophisticated understanding of different contexts and different ways and different responses for supporting women, i.e., when they are appropriate and when they are not.

A great deal of study and scholarship experience has been gathered on, for example, saying that different types of quotas are more likely to work in different contexts. We need to make sure we understand that. We need to understand the different types of support that women's civil society networks are more likely to need to receive than either mixed or primarily male-dominated civil society networks. We need to have a level of sophistication and understanding about how to do this embedded in any institution.

I think Canada's far better placed to do this than almost any other country I have worked with. I mean, we have members of the Canadian Armed Forces who know how to do gender-based analysis plus. The national action plan was generated through your committee, overseen through this committee, and done with massive consultation across the country. There are people who have the expertise on this and who can do more than say that women's rights are important and we must protect those as a means of ensuring inclusion. I'd say there should be a real depth of expertise and a professionalization of that service within any future institution or set of institutions.

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

I noted in your testimony you said that gender equality is not a side issue, that it's actually core when you look at economy, at security. You talked about the costs of not doing this in terms of terrorism, criminality, the lack of security, refugee flows. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

Sure. It's always been very difficult to quantify the cost of exclusion, but we're seeing that there's a strong correlation between countries that behave in ways that are, over time, costly to us—as you were saying, generating refugees, not playing by the rules in terms of trade internationally—and the ways they treat women internally. There are many different studies—and I'd be happy to point them out to the committee—to help substantiate this fact that it is no longer something that we can say is just a side issue, or is just nice to have. Rather, it's crucial.

Finally on that point, I'd say our enemies or our adversaries are very much understanding this point. They're understanding the power of women and of gender dynamics to advance their cause. They don't call it GBA+. They don't call it a gender analysis, but terrorist groups are recruiting women very deliberately. The majority of Boko Haram's suicide bombers are women. The majority of those are girls, child soldiers. There are numerous organizations pulling away from democracy that have understood the potential for women to help them advance their objectives. They're being much savvier about the way they do that. I think we need a response that's equally thoughtful.

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

You mentioned also in your testimony the specific targeting of women human rights defenders, women political figures. Is there a different or even more specific way that women are being targeted in these institutions and women in politics are being targeted?

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

Yes. Some of the first ways that women experience the shrinking of space for their work is through a reduction in freedom of movement, a suffocation of space. They're either less likely to be able to assemble internally within the country and meet together or to travel internationally. They get increasing amounts of physical threats online. They're being publicly defamed at a much higher rate, especially with their honour and their integrity being attacked. It's also much harder now for international organizations or governments to get money to organizations of women human rights defenders. There are escalating ways that these groups are being increasingly targeted.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

Just as a reminder, Ms. O'Neill, if you want to send in any additional reports for consideration, please send them to the clerk and we'll make sure that we add them as part of the study material.

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

I would love to. Thank you.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

MP Duncan, please.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much.

Of course we'd like to have everybody here all day long. The most important discussion that should be going on is about building democracy.

By the way, Ms. O'Neill, of course you're fabulous, because you're from Edmonton, as am I.

Your testimony is raising lots of interesting questions in my head, and I'd be interested to hear both of you respond to this—particularly Mr. Broadbent. Mr. Gershman reminded us that the National Endowment for Democracy was not founded by government. It was founded through NGOs, and they set the terms and objectives for the organization. The federal government simply funds it.

That raises a question in my mind. Is it really going to be an independent organization if the government creates it? What do you think is the best direction to go in for establishing this to make sure that it is arm's-length from government?

[Ed Broadbent]

If you look at the Rights and Democracy act, you can see that very careful attention was paid to this question about the tenure of appointments, the accountability of the institution to Parliament—not just to the government—and the representation of non-Canadians on the board that came into being. All of these measures contributed significantly until right at the end, when it was a disaster.

To be candid, Mr. Harper's government.... The only time there was a sort of government departure from neutrality happened when Mr. Harper put a number of highly partisan people on the board. This led to very serious conflicts within the institution about priorities. The net result was, well.... The then president died of a heart attack, as a matter of fact. It was a terrible situation. The government then just abolished it. I would put down that the reason for this is that it was the one and only time a government moved to put a partisan shape on the board, which any government can do, of course. Up until then, whether it was a Conservative government or a Liberal government, there was no attempt by any government to interfere in any way, either by stacking a board or by issuing directions.

To get back to your question, it can't be foolproof. It can't have legislation that will be permanently protected from a government if a government decides to do something that is inappropriate.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do you believe the appointments to this entity should be by government...?

[Ed Broadbent]

Well, that's what they were in the past and there was consultation between the government and opposition parties. The government still made the decision, but there was serious consultation with the leaders of opposition parties to try to make sure that the appointments that were coming had some direct or indirect experience in human rights, for example, or activism of some kind, and were acceptable to all of the parties.

I have no apprehension in principle about the government making the appointments, as the government makes the appointments to the Supreme Court and by and large we've had a very impartial Supreme Court, certainly in terms of ideological orientation. Nothing's foolproof, but if you have a good act and then the government acts in good faith and in consultation with other parties, I think it can work.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Ms. O'Neill, I wonder if you could speak to this, and then you, Mr. Broadbent.

There's one thing that puzzles me. I think there is some interest in the current government in re-establishing such an organization, yet the Global Affairs budget right now doesn't see judicial development, democratic development, human rights, women's rights and so forth as working together. They're all separate lines in the Global Affairs budget and, in fact, democratic participation in civil society is given next to nothing.

Does the creation of this entity also mean that we need a rethink within Global Affairs and within the government, and how would they work together? That's a small little question.

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

My biggest concern, should there be the creation of an institute, would be to ensure that it wouldn't absorb too much funding away from local civil society organizations and networks. I can see a lot of compelling reasons why it would be useful for coordination and enabling the benefits that comes from arm's-length government.

I also thought that the earlier point about the act of symbolism of this right now, at this moment in time, is powerful, but I'd want to ensure that we wouldn't redirect too much funding, and that we wouldn't see, as I mentioned earlier, democratization as solely within the purview of that one institute. It's always a trade-off in these types of issues between mainstreaming and targeting funds, and I always want to see both. I want to see elements of support for democratization as core to various other line items.

I'd also like to see more funding very specifically for civil society and human rights organizations and networks, particularly women-led ones, as FIAP and the women's voice and leadership program have proposed. I think Canada has taken a huge step forward on that. I always like to see more, but it's a significant recognition thus far and I'd like to see that sustained.

[Ed Broadbent]

I would agree with all of that.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

We will now go to MP Graham, please.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Ms. O'Neill, in your opening comments you mentioned something about wanting to touch on technology but not having the time to. Do you want to touch on technology now?

[Jacqueline O'Neill]

Very briefly on technology, I really commend the committee, because I know that in the past you've talked about technology and this issue, recognizing its importance, and also recognizing that many of us talk about technology as though it's so-called gender neutral, as though it's something that's a great equalizer and it affects men and women in the same way. Again, I would love to unpack that.

For women, especially women democracy activists, technology can be really positive. Number one, it helps organize and helps overcome some of the barriers that I just mentioned in response to MP Vandenbeld about restrictions on movement. Technology is a way to overcome that. Civil society often needs permits to meet, to gather and to assemble more than 11 people at a time or something like that. It allows women to organize in a way they weren't able to do before.

It's also a very important way to bring young women into governance. I often tell the story about a friend in Tunisia who started a website, an app, to track Tunisia's constitutional drafting, and literally line by painstaking line she got consultation from young people. Her app ended up having more followers than the entire Tunisian national soccer team. When we're talking about getting young people involved in politics, transparency and oversight, it could be really useful.

It can also help share lessons globally. Solidarity is important and the sharing of good practices matters.

However, it also has a very negative potential impact for women specifically and for democracy promotion specifically. I don't need to tell all of you in this room the way that, number one, it can contribute to the external influence on elections, and the level of vitriol or backlash that men and women can face. Often much of it targeted at women is highly sexualized and is targeted at their honour and their place in families and communities.

I'd say that as we are supporting democratization worldwide, part of what we need to make sure we're doing is to ensure that we are supporting women with digital security training, data security, managing their online presence, etc.

I think we need to be wide-eyed about it, and like everything else, recognize that there are gender dimensions to even something that seems relatively innocuous from that perspective.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

It leads to my next question quite well, which is how do we deal with players in established democracies, the people who are already there, who want to subvert it through things like gerrymandering, voter suppression and fake news, which are all technological? How do we deal with internal threats to democracy?

This question is for both of you.