Foreign Affairs Committee on Feb. 28th, 2019

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

No. Ukraine is, as you know, almost a case apart because of the Canadian Ukrainian community. The utility of having a large stand-alone Canadian mission there as well as of staffing the OSCE electoral observation mission makes a lot of sense.

One of your earlier comments in a previous panel spoke to the fact that we have other diasporas in Canada, and so there may also be a utility to replicating this with some other countries. This is always a challenging thing. Diasporas themselves are extremely political, and this fact increases the challenges to doing stand-alone Canadian missions, but there is a utility to it.

I could go further in that regard. We've done this now for decades. We continually reassess at the end of every stand-alone mission whether it made sense, whether it was value-added in a process both in house and with Foreign Affairs. We've always come to the conclusion that it absolutely was. One of the lessons to be learned was also that perhaps we need to think about replicating this with other countries in the world.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Excellent. Thank you for that.

I can confirm that it's not just the numbers, but often you don't need the same number. You have 500 observers, almost, starting back with the first one in 2004. You didn't need all those hundreds of translators, because diaspora communities—in Ukraine, it's Ukrainian and Russian languages that are spoken, etc.... There's that element, and the cultural understanding that they bring.

In 2006, I was observing the parliamentary elections in Crimea as part of the OSCE and after a long day quickly went to the hotel to shower and change. I saw all my colleagues in the hotel lounge. It was members of the diaspora who actually showered, changed and went back out. They bring, then, a very different energy at times. I've seen this over and over in different places. They bring a different commitment to democracy when it's their ancestral homeland.

Venezuela was referred to earlier, and you touched on it. Clearly our hearts go out to all the people suffering currently under the regime in Venezuela; hopefully, in the future there will be opportunities.

How much lead time and what sort of resources would be required to provide an organization such as yours, CANADEM, a chance to gear up for a country in which they haven't, as in the past in Ukraine, done these large observer missions?

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

One of our strengths, being an NGO, is that life is a lot simpler for us than for civil servants. We have very pared-down rules and regulations for ourselves, so we can turn on a dime and can do these things literally in days.

Having said that, election observation has changed dramatically over the past couple of decades. It's no longer an issue of putting in a whole bunch of short-term observers just to observe the election day; it's a full cycle. That means having long-term observers. That's a key component.

Also, following on your earlier comments, the full cycle means that it doesn't end once the election is over. You don't just issue a report and then stop your work. One of the strengths of the Canadian Ukrainian community is that not only do they bring energy to election observation, but they also work on these files in a lot of different ways between elections. That's where the real heavy lifting comes in democracy promotion. Election observation is critically important, and the long-term observer component is becoming more important, but it's the follow-on activity.

For those who are interested, I think you're going to be very pleased with the way in which Mission Canada did this go-round, come next fall when both elections are over—the presidential election and then the parliamentary election.

We're looking at ways to keep this energy going between this fall and the next set of Ukrainian elections in four years. This is something we're all working at trying to figure out: how we can have a more “bang for the buck” process for this than just showing up for short-term missions.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Clearly we can't do this everywhere around the world, but perhaps regionally and continentally we can decide on countries of focus. There's also the whole question—and it was referenced in one of the previous slides—of the dollars spent and the outcomes. It's such a difficult measure. I made an argument back in 2004, made the case for a large contingent of observers at that time, and I just pulled a number out of the air, saying that every dollar spent will save us $100 spent on security if we don't get this right in the future.

That continues to be the case in Ukraine. We've resourced this particular mission well. You've indicated there are follow-up opportunities.

Are you resourced well enough for this mission? Perhaps you can give us a quick update on how things are rolling out on this particular mission, because you have people on the ground as we speak.

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

It's rolling out very well. We already have 50 long-term observers with Mission Canada out there, the Canada mission. We also have another eight over at the OSCE, run by the OSCE. Right now the selection process is just culminating for the short-term observers. They will start deploying in a couple of weeks.

It's going very well. This is extremely well resourced. There are always bells and whistles. One of the bells and whistles that we're actually going to fund ourselves is to look at mapping capacity over the next four years in the larger Canadian civil society—Ukrainian Canadians and others—for ongoing work in their own right back in Ukraine.

This is one of the things we're looking to do ourselves. That's not funded, but we think it's so important we're going to figure out how to fund it ourselves.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

MP Duncan, the floor is yours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you to all three of you.

I look forward to invitations to your events. I've been here for 11 years, and it's the first time I've heard of the group.

I think it was you, Mr. LaRose-Edwards, who raised this issue. I'm wondering if you think this committee—if we decide that there needs to be an new entity—should potentially be recommending two things.

You're both obviously already doing good work. We've heard from a number of Canadian organizations that are already doing incredible work. We've also heard some from the UN and some from the United States and Europe. Do you think, as the first step in deciding whether to form another group and what exactly its mandate could be, there would be value in doing some kind of gap analysis, analyzing what entities are already out there and the kind of work they're doing related to either the creation of democracy or better delivery of democracy, including all the entities we talked about before, addressing corruption, ensuring justice and so forth? Could you then give some clarification on what is the core need for this group?

Along with that, could you give some kind of recommendations and clarity on whether there's intent to replace everything that's out there, or recognition of the continuing need to support the good work that is being done by the other groups, having got a better understanding of the difference in their roles? I'm curious to get your feedback on that.

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

That's a lot for us to handle.

CANADEM's history has followed this track. Initially we had an annual funding of a $147,000. After a while we proved ourselves and we got more funding. Our biggest funder for the past four years has been the British government, because we've proved ourselves to the British government and they fund us big time.

That's always my preferred way to go. The big bang always sounds good, but the big bangs are hard to do. You have to pass legislation. Where do you get the funds? How do you staff it? All that takes a lead time.

Meanwhile, you have existing organizations—Parliamentary Centre, ourselves—that can start scaling up and doing things. That also allows you to look at CANADEM and say, “Paul talked a good line, but he actually can't quite deliver, so you know what? We won't keep funding them, or we'll keep their funding at that level, or the contrary.”

You have a lot of organizations in Canada that have the potential to scale up to be strong performers. You then identify four or five of them that can be major champions for Canada out there.

One of the things NGOs can do—and you've touched on the question too—is help to maintain a distance. Well, NGOs, depending on their leadership and their staffing, have a lot of independence. They do things the way they think is the right way, and they have that independence.

I don't know if that wrapped up enough of the issues, but I know Jean-Paul probably has something to add in here as well.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

That's helpful.

[Jean-Paul Ruszkowski]

One comment you made is to make sure that the organizations that are functioning are not disturbed or distracted by the creation of a new organization.

I am very biased. I think the Parliamentary Centre is very well positioned to do a lot of work. So is CANADEM. It's the idea of preserving what assets we already have.

I also agree about the complexity of getting something bigger done by way of legislation. I'm very disappointed that we lost Rights and Democracy, but who says this could not happen again? The idea is really to preserve the assets we have, make sure they are properly funded, that there are clear multi-year programming efforts and that we are looked upon as partners and not as some marginal groups in the eyes of Global Affairs Canada.

[Maureen Boyd]

Can I add one little thing?

In 2007, you made the recommendation for two bodies. Nothing has happened, and that's what is concerning. We're feeling, let's go incrementally; let us get some money.

We have figures here that we can hand out, but they're in English only. If you would like to, you can come and get them afterwards. They show that in comparison with other countries, Canada does not fund very much in terms of official development assistance, and much of it goes, as we pointed out....

Whether it's because it's easier for Global Affairs to give it to the United Nations, because then they don't have to monitor the money afterwards, or for whatever reason, we're not being funded at the same level. From the point of view of the board of directors, we're spending an awful lot of time chasing money when we could be doing a lot more in promoting democracy abroad.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Do I have more time?

[The Chair]

You have 30 seconds.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Neither of you has really responded to my question.

I think the starting point is that the proposal for a new group isn't in any way to say that we don't think the existing organizations are doing anything. What's necessary as a first step is to clearly define where we think the value is in the existing institutions that Canada decides to continue funding and then identify what the gaps are. These are likely what that group would do.

One value I would love to have people speaking to—and we won't have a chance for more witnesses—is that when an entity is established independently as an NGO or incorporated as a society, they can accept funds from the public or from private corporations, but if you were created as a government entity, you cannot necessarily.

I think, then, there are many issues we need to look at, but I really appreciate your input.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

We will now move to MP Sidhu.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, all three of you, for sharing your wisdom and experience with us.

I will go to Mr. LaRose-Edwards first.

You appeared in front of this committee 13 years ago. What has changed in those 13 years? Has the change been positive or, with technology changing around the world, do you think the change is going in a positive direction? How do you explain the change, if you see any change?

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

Certainly, on the the big scene.... I'm actually an optimistic person in this regard. I think the world is moving forward very well. People are paying more and more attention to democratic issues, and so in the big picture I think things are going well. There are many organizations out there that are doing democracy promotion and are doing a great job.

Back here in Canada, I'm not so sanguine. For the last 13 years Canada has actually moved backwards in many different ways. Our funding has come less and less from the Canadian government. As I said, our biggest funder for the past four years has been the British government.

We've been putting in proposals in which we've started to take off our logo, because we're coming across as too Canadian. I'm so annoyed that we have to even think of doing that. If you're seen as just Canadian.... Of the 48,000 people on our roster, 60% are non-Canadians, most from the global south, but we still have a lot of Canadians.

Things have actually moved forward in the world, then, but have either stayed the same or perhaps moved back a little bit in the Canadian context.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Can you give me a couple of areas in which we can help your organization do better in the future?

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

I agree with Jean-Paul on this one. Consistent funding would be helpful. I don't mean unexamined funding—hold our feet to the fire—but there has to be funding. There's also a feeling, and perhaps it's a Canadian disease—I've witnessed this over my full career—that once an organization starts to become medium-sized, we start to say, “Let's push it down again; we don't want to be too big out there. Let's fund NDI.”

Okay. Why don't we have our own NDI? We have some incipient NDIs in Canada—the Parliamentary Centre and others.

We don't tend to push forward our own.

I look at the Norwegians. The Norwegians and the Europeans back up their NGOs in the field. We don't get that backing from Canada, because Canada views this as maybe not being appropriate.

I'm going around a circle on this one, but I think that Canada could be more sure of itself and make better use of its funds. It just needs to get out there and take some risks.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I have a second concern I'd like some light shed on.

Your organization has been working with the United Nations and the European Union on projects related to security sector reform. What are the links between democratic development and security reform?

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

They're intertwined, obviously. Also, I'm a big fan of the UN. I think the UN is extremely important. We need to strengthen the UN by getting more qualified people in there. I always view individuals as the ones who make change and make reform.

I think, then, that we need to strengthen the UN, but we shouldn't assume that the UN always has it right. Parts of the UN are terrible. I've been on staff with various parts of the UN. Some are fantastic, and other parts are terrible. Canada, however, has gotten into the mode of simply cutting a cheque to the UN and saying, “Here's $120 million. Good luck.” We don't track it and we don't see how well they spend it. Some parts of the UN deserve that kind of largesse, and other parts don't.

I don't know whether that answers your question.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Well, if I hear you right—

[Paul LaRose-Edwards]

But, yes, the UN brings a lot of these issues together, and that's the utility of multilateral relationships.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Jean-Paul.

[Jean-Paul Ruszkowski]

May I just say something?

This may sound a little crude, but I'm not in favour of outsourcing Canadian values. That's fundamentally my point. If we want to have an image in the world and we want to continue having the good brand we have, we have to be behind it and take charge of that brand and not be afraid of being Canadian.