Evidence of meeting #127 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ned.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Chair  Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)
Anthony Smith  Chief Executive Officer, Westminster Foundation for Democracy
Carl Gershman  President, National Endowment for Democracy
Leona Alleslev  Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, CPC
Jacqueline O'Neill  Global Fellow, Canada Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center
Ed Broadbent  Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute

9:35 a.m.

President, National Endowment for Democracy

Carl Gershman

Look, when I talk about a bottom-up approach and operating at arm's length from the government, I think this needs to be understood that this type of work is complementary to the things that our government does through its official policies and through the development agencies like USAID. Even now, our state department, through the democracy bureau, is funding programs. These are different types of programs. It's complementary. I think ultimately this type of diverse system works. The report I mentioned about bottom-up and top-down that was just done by a European organization doesn't talk about doing it all one way or the other. They recommend a strengthening of the bottom-up approach to complement what is being done by the governments in support of official institutions such as a judiciary and other official institutions in the country.

You need a complex and diverse approach.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

We've known for the longest time that the free world is a free world. You mention the United States, Europe, Canada and Australia; this is the democratic world. It seems that the tie is always there between the government and the private or independent institutions out there. If you were to advise Canada in moving forward, how can we find a way to be more effective in engaging both sides?

9:40 a.m.

President, National Endowment for Democracy

Carl Gershman

One thing that we have started doing in a number of African countries is to try to bring together the private sector, the government and civil society to have a common dialogue and a common approach. This is also something that can be done. The governments want this because they don't, on their own, have the capacity to do that. Again, I think it's a matter of bringing the different players together, understanding the importance of not just having a stable government but a rules-based order and a vigorous growth-oriented market economy. That's the role played by our business institute in trying to encourage that. We also have a labour institute which tries to make sure that the rights of workers are protected in the context of an open market economy.

9:40 a.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

I have one more question.

Both of you mentioned in the introduction that there are some countries that are losing democratic institutions and democracy is actually in a recession, if you will. While we have made some improvements in other areas in the world, if we were to name a bright spot or optimistic area for us to operate in, where would that be? Can you name a few countries around the world where we must capitalize further?

9:40 a.m.

President, National Endowment for Democracy

Carl Gershman

I did, and I really want to come back to this. I think that the transition that is now under way in Ethiopia is the most important transition taking place in the world. This is a country of 105 million people, 80 different ethnic groups. If they can make it work in Ethiopia, it will send a message around the world where the issue of ethnic division is so important. This is one area where Canada should go in right now—I'm sure you're already there in some ways—with whatever instruments you have because you have to move quickly in this kind of a situation.

I've also mentioned Armenia, which has a remarkable transition under way. It got The Economist's country of the year award for 2018. It's a remarkable transition. They are keeping it on balance and they are bringing in new forces.

The Malaysian transition, I think, is also critically important. Canada heard from Anwar Ibrahim when he spoke at the University of Toronto last Thursday.

If we can help make it work in those three countries, I think we will give democracy a shot in the arm.

Then there is also Tunisia, the first Arab democracy, which had local elections in May. They were important in spreading democracy to the grassroots. Tunisia is operating under a democratic constitution. It's a beachhead for democracy in a very unstable and undemocratic part of the world. I think we have to help make it succeed there.

9:40 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you to you both. That was a very interesting hour of questions and answers.

With that, we're going to pause for about five minutes to get our other witnesses ready, but for both of you, please enjoy the rest of your day.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Chair, may I ask a question?

9:40 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Certainly.

9:40 a.m.

NDP

Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB

I'm wondering if Mr. Gershman can send us the citation to the report on top-down and bottom-up approaches. It sounds very interesting.

9:40 a.m.

President, National Endowment for Democracy

Carl Gershman

Okay, but there is a hyperlink to the report in the testimony I sent to the committee.

If you want me to send a separate link to the report, I'm happy to do that.

9:40 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

That's fine. We'll be able to find the link and we'll make sure to distribute the report.

9:40 a.m.

President, National Endowment for Democracy

Carl Gershman

Thank you.

9:40 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

We will suspend.

9:50 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

We are resuming for our second hour of testimony on Canada's support for international democratic development.

We have two guests for this hour of testimony.

With us is the Honourable Ed Broadbent.

Welcome back to Parliament Hill. It's really an honour to have you testifying before our committee.

We also have with us Jacqueline O'Neill, member of the Woodrow Wilson Center.

I want to thank you, Ms. O'Neill, for joining us from Washington, D.C. That's wonderful. Maybe we will get you to begin, because even though it's not too great a distance, these video connections sometimes can conk out on us. Would you please begin your testimony.

February 19th, 2019 / 9:50 a.m.

Jacqueline O'Neill Global Fellow, Canada Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for letting me appear from Washington. It would be cruel to tell you about the weather here today, so I won’t.

Given that I am perhaps just slightly less well known in Canada than the Honourable Ed Broadbent, I thought I'd give you a bit of context on where I come from on this issue.

Several committee members and witnesses have talked about the prevalence of Canadians working in non-Canadian organizations on democracy promotion. Both my husband and I fit that description. He is from Vancouver Island, and after joining the Canadian Armed Forces, worked for the National Democratic Institute. He now works for a private U.S. firm, in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Yemen, Haiti and Iraq. I grew up and went to university in Edmonton. I lived in Ottawa for several years and have spent the last 15 years or so abroad.

I helped Mr. Roméo Dallaire with the Child Soldiers Initiative.

I worked in Sudan at both a UN peacekeeping mission and an all-women university. I also helped to lead one of the world's top organizations focused on implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1325. We've worked with institutions, with more than 30 governments and directly with coalitions of women in Colombia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda and many other places.

I'll just say that I've been lucky enough to see up close some of what works and some of what doesn't with regard to democracy promotion. Quite frankly, I will note that while I've always been a very proud Canadian, living in the U.S. for the last several years and having a front-row view of the erosion of democratic norms here has only reinforced my appreciation of what Canada has to offer on the world stage.

I've listened to all of the witnesses who have testified thus far, from two weeks ago and this morning, and agree totally with their headlines: democracy is under threat; authoritarians are emboldened; and Canada has a unique and important role.

Every speaker has also emphasized the importance of women's meaningful inclusion. What I'd like to do in my testimony this morning is unpack that a bit and discuss how Canada can do that in the smartest way possible, so here's a spoiler alert about my own headlines. They are, one, meaningful inclusion for women, with support for meaningful inclusion for women, is crucial; two, key to doing this well is thinking broadly about the ingredients of democracy promotion; and, three, we should energetically and unapologetically embrace this idea as core to Canada's brand and central to what we contribute to the global order.

I understand that part of objective of this study is to see how the field has developed since 2007. To start, we have important new data. Harvard researchers undertook a massive study and found that the single biggest predictor of whether a country goes to war with itself or with its neighbours is not its ethnic makeup, geographic location, GDP or dominant religion. It's how women are treated. Do they have access to their rights and are they included?

Another study found that even democracies with higher levels of violence against women are as insecure and as unstable as non-democracies. Why would that be? Researchers now propose that what occurs in a home is fundamentally a blueprint for how society runs and governs. If the dominant norm in the private sphere, in the home, is that men's interests trump women's, that differences are resolved with violence and that there is impunity for that violence, it becomes a template for dealing with all other forms of difference, including ethnic, ideological, etc.

Another new indicator of the centrality of women to democratization since 2007 is much more information about the fact that authoritarians have put women activists more squarely in their sights. The committee has heard about the shrinking space for civil society activism worldwide. Again, let's unpack that for a minute.

One of the most credible 2018 reports on the subject said that, by a large margin, women, including women's rights defenders and groups advocating for women's rights, are the most common target in the incidents they recorded. See the murder in Guatemala of indigenous environmental activist Berta Cáceres. See the arrest last week in the Philippines of Maria Ressa, a journalist and outspoken critic of President Duterte.

This weekend, I spoke with a friend in Sudan, who confirmed that women have been the primary organizers and front-line protestors of the demonstrations that have been going on there since late December. She confirmed that women are facing targeted rape and sexual assault and that in the last few days, security forces have taken on a new tactic of cutting off women's hair while they are exposed in the streets.

In terms of women's political representation, where do we stand? As I think you know, about 24% of national parliamentarians globally are women, and that has doubled in the last 20 years. The fastest-growing area has been Latin America. Of particular note for this committee given your interest in promoting youth inclusion has been the fact that among women you see the greatest proportion of young people. About 18% of ministerial posts are held by women worldwide. Right now, there are only about 11 women serving as heads of state.

The trajectory is roughly good with some exceptions, but the overall pace of change is abysmal. How can Canada accelerate that pace of change?

I would argue that it is important to focus on the so-called traditional dimensions of political strengthening, such as building capacities of women candidates and members of Parliament, registering women voters, encouraging women to run and focusing on institutional capacities. I'd also argue that Canada can lead the way by thinking and acting more expansively, that is, by recognizing the connections between democratization and women's participation in a broad range of areas that determine governance. That includes areas like peace negotiations where forms of government are determined, constitution drafting where rights are enshrined or ignored, and non-violent civil resistance movements, which are the linchpins to sparking the democratic culture that Mr. Smith mentioned earlier.

That means playing a deliberate role in conflict environments, which are often the hardest and the messiest, but which also present opportunities for the most accelerated change. This bears out around the world. Of the 30 countries with the highest levels of women's representation, one-third are post-conflict.

In this case, strategic support for democratization means implementing Canada's national action plan on women, peace and security. It means funding the feminist international assistance policy and ensuring core funding for women's rights groups. It means insisting that women be at the table for negotiations in Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela and beyond, and maintaining a holistic perspective about the path to democratization, specifically resisting the idea that spending on defence equates to the only true investment in security.

I'm happy to speak to any of those issues, including technology, which I realize we haven't touched on.

If I may, to close, I want to address a notion that I've heard expressed several times, that Canada may already be pushing too hard or too fast on some of these issues, and that this could be alienating or counterproductive or harmful economically for us at home.

First, I say in response to this that this is no time to treat inclusion as a side item or merely nice to have. There are forces aggressively pulling people away from democracy. They are strong, well resourced and aggressive, and there is a profound cost to not meeting that pull with an equal and opposite reaction. It may not happen immediately but we will experience the costs from states that are more likely to traffic in drugs, weapons and people, to create or harbour terrorists, to enable criminal networks, to generate refugees, or even to suffer pandemics.

Very clearly, the fight for women's rights has never been isolated from the economy or from national security.

Finally, I have seen on too many occasions how people who want to hoard power often use the excuse that some changes that others are seeking are not “culturally appropriate” or are western driven. To be clear, culture has to inform tactics such as the messengers we use. It's a crucial consideration regarding our approach, but democratic values and the idea that women should have an influence on decisions that affect their own lives are not inherently western concepts. In my experience, those who tell outsiders to bring their capital but step back on anything related to power are usually the ones most fearful of being held accountable by their own constituencies.

I think our approach must always be respectful and humble, but we can and should talk about our values. It's more crucial now than ever.

Thank you.

10 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you very much, Ms. O'Neill.

We will now move right along and I give the floor to you, Ed Broadbent.

10 a.m.

Ed Broadbent Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute

Mr. Chairman, and if I may say, my fellow colleagues or former colleagues, it's good to be back here, especially in consideration of such an important subject. I appreciate the opportunity of sharing some thoughts on how Canada can best support democratic development internationally. In particular, I will focus on the proposals made by an earlier incarnation of this committee in the report issued in 2007, in which it recommended the creation of two bodies: an arm's-length foundation for international democratic development and a centre for multi-party and parliamentary democracy, to be funded by that foundation.

I believe that in considering these proposals, the committee can do no better than to review the reasons for Parliament's decision in the 1980s to create the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, which fortunately has since been simply renamed Rights and Democracy, which is a little easier to say. Then, as now, much of the world was in turmoil and our parliamentarians came up with a modest, but effective, proposal for assisting people in developing nations in their efforts to develop democratic societies. In a unanimous report to Parliament, they recommended the creation of a single institution that would be clearly at arm's length from the government and would foster in developing countries provisions of the International Bill of Human Rights, and in so doing, would most effectively establish the foundation for a multi-party democracy. This key idea was accepted by the government of the day, Mr. Mulroney's government, and by the opposition parties, and resulted in the unanimous adoption of the bill creating Rights and Democracy that came into effect just before the election in 1988.

Of particular concern to parliamentarians at that time, as it should be today, was to avoid any form of Canadian imperialism lite, if I may put it that way. Our objective should not be to replicate our form of parliamentary democracy or our Charter of Rights; rather, it should be to foster human rights, which are universally recognized in the International Bill of Human Rights. This includes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the optional protocol on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and finally, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

With this emphasis, it was understood in the 1980s as it is today that many states, for example, in Latin America, have so-called competitive elections, but what they lack is freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom to have a union, freedom of the press, and broadly speaking, the rule of law. As the broad sweep of western European and North American history has shown, the core foundation for a multi-party democracy is a society that embodies in its institutions and practices universal rights, which now include social and economic rights. Without human rights and the rule of law, so-called elections more often than not are simply a sham. With rights in place, however, men and women who were once excluded from the franchise used those rights to organize and demand their right to it. The act creating Rights and Democracy specifically focused on what it said was the need to reduce the gap between what some states are formally committed to, for example, in their constitutions, and what actually takes place within those states.

Since that time and now, many states have signed onto the international covenants but have failed to meet international standards for their implementation. Much of Rights and Democracy's most useful work has been to help bridge this gap between principle and reality, for example in Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Peru, Kenya, Tanzania, Pakistan and Thailand. It was to pick up, as some of the earlier presenters said, a bottom-up approach, not top down. Most often this work was done by the institution with civil society partners in those countries, and it was those partners, not we Canadians, who established the priority for action. In the same countries, CIDA often worked on a state-to-state basis for the same objectives with the government of the day.

I believe it's of great importance to understand that by combining the words “democratic development” with “human rights”, the former was not seen as an add-on to the latter; rather, it was to make clear that the emphasis on rights is precisely what is involved in democratic development. It's for this reason that I do not believe Parliament needs to create two institutes, as recommended by the committee in 2007, one for international development and then another one for multi-party and parliamentary democracy. I believe one institution can suffice.

The principal reason the former Rights and Democracy did not have programs specifically aimed at the development of multi-party democratic states, during my six-year tenure as president, for example, was simply a matter of resources. Considering the global scope of the mandate and the limited financial resources, we thought we should restrict our support to human rights activists and programs. I now believe that with an enhanced budget, one institution would be sufficient, and it could be made clear in legislation that the development of multi-party democracies should be part of its mandate.

Some other suggestions might also be considered in contemplating the content of legislation creating a new institution. It should be spelled out in that legislation, in my view, that the institution is “not an agency of Her Majesty”.

To help ensure all-party support for its work, I believe board members should be appointed after serious consultation with leaders of all the opposition parties. In addition, consideration should be given to appointing up to one-quarter of the board's members from developing countries.

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize how unique the structure, independence and importance of Rights and Democracy were up until nearly the end of its existence. In operating independently of the government, it gained credibility both with international NGOs and foreign governments. At the same time, as a creation of the federal government with its president appointed by Privy Council and having the institutional support of the Department of Foreign Affairs, I as president had more access to heads of government than almost any other international NGO.

It was because of the special combination of independence from the government of the day, yet being on a Canadian diplomatic passport that I was able to seek and obtain meetings with President Clinton, the King of Thailand, and the presidents of Guatemala, Mexico, Rwanda, Eritrea and Kenya, among others. Such meetings and the usefulness they provide for serious human rights action and discussion are simply unavailable to heads of NGOs.

In summary, I believe Canada should help the emergence of more democracies in the world, and do so in part by establishing an arm's-length institution whose purpose is to help facilitate in developing countries the implementation of the rights found in the International Bill of Human Rights.

I'm very much aware that the ideas I've briefly outlined raise a lot of questions that I will now try to answer.

Thank you very much.

10:05 a.m.

Mr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Thank you very much to you both.

We will get right into questions. We're going to begin with MP O'Toole.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you very much, Chair.

It's nice to see you, Mr. Broadbent. I am an MP who now represents part of Oshawa. I grew up in your wider area. We've had some good interactions over the years. It's nice to see you on the Hill.

I like how you positioned potentially leveraging Rights and Democracy and some of the work that's been done now to perhaps build upon and repurpose what has been done rather than starting something from scratch. Do you think that's the better approach, particularly when there's some expertise and there's a bit of a track record? Do you think it would be a setback to create something that would then perhaps run contrary to what another organization is already doing?

10:10 a.m.

Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute

Ed Broadbent

To look back on the foundations is good in this case, because the foundations were excellent.

I didn't work on the committee at the time—I was party leader—but I can say it was a remarkable all-party report in the 1980s, with a lot of enthusiasm, which led to the creation of Rights and Democracy. It had the support not only of the government, but of all the parties in the opposition, and for many years, whether it was in Mr. Mulroney's government, with Joe Clark as foreign affairs minister, or in Jean Chrétien's government, with André Ouellet as foreign affairs minister, there was an arm's-length relationship with the institute, but the emphasis of the institute was on grassroots organizations.

I should add, because it was a big part of the mandate, that women's rights were at the front and centre of our priority in developing countries then, as they should be now.

By the way, all parties were represented on the board, not as MPs, but in terms of their backgrounds. They came from all political persuasions in Canada. It was built on experience, and the institutional work is there. I would recommend the committee look at some of the reasons why it was created and why it was quite successful.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Thank you.

My next question will be for both of you. I'll probably run out of time, so I'll speak and then give you both a chance to answer.

Mr. Broadbent, you mentioned the need for all-party support and an all-party approach several times.

Ms. O'Neill, certainly with your background, working internationally and within the Woodrow Wilson Center...exposing how the International Republican Institute and the NDI make sure they can see themselves reflected within a larger movement.... Not only is that appropriate for our parliamentary democracy, but it likely will mean more buy-in by future governments.

I don't think we've ever tackled it quite that strategically to make sure that all parties can see themselves reflected. Do you think that's critical for making sure this works?

10:10 a.m.

Chair and Founder, Broadbent Institute

Ed Broadbent

I think it is. To be quite candid, I had discussions with Mr. Mulroney when he offered to appoint me as the founding president. For reasons everybody will understand, the board in a broad sense had to be accepting of me going into that position. There were very good and frank discussions about membership on the board that ended up reflecting, as I said, all parties, and which Mr. Mulroney, of course, as prime minister and ultimately responsible for the act, readily agreed to, as did the successor government, the Liberal government with Mr. Chrétien.

The all-party buy-in was a very important reason for its success.

10:10 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

Ms. O'Neill, would you care to comment on that aspect?

10:10 a.m.

Global Fellow, Canada Institute, Woodrow Wilson Center

Jacqueline O'Neill

Yes, I would agree completely and say just two things. One is what we heard earlier about the need for a shared political objective. It's exactly as you're saying. It has to be a political objective that is shared across parties in order for this to be sustainable.

Then, to pick up on something which Mr. Broadbent said in his testimony, the idea about ensuring there are representatives from the so-called global south or developing countries, etc., on the board within the governance structure also ensures both relevance and cohesion and a sense of buy-in and commitment, as well as more direct representation to the service itself, which also increases buy-in over time.

10:15 a.m.

Conservative

Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON

In terms of accountability, might it be something where we try to make sure there's an annual report to Parliament or some mechanism like that so that this isn't just an institution that sits on a shelf and has no active relationship with Parliament?

Are there any learnings there from both of you?