Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 24 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3), the committee is meeting today on its study of the current state of civic resilience in Canada. We will go in camera later to consider the report of the actions of the longest ballot committee.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. I ask all in-person participants to consult the cards on your table to prevent audio feedback injuries. As a reminder, if you're on Zoom or in person and wish to speak, please raise your hand.

I would like to welcome today's witnesses. I would also like to thank them for their patience and for rearranging their schedules as votes happened.

From the Democratic Engagement Exchange, we have John Beebe, director. From MASS LBP, we have Peter MacLeod, principal, who's attending by Zoom. From Resilient Societies, we have Maiwand Rahyab, founder and chief executive officer.

All three witnesses will have five minutes to deliver their opening remarks. We'll go to Mr. Beebe first.

You have five minutes.

[John Beebe, Director, Democratic Engagement Exchange]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is John Beebe, and I am the founder of the Democratic Engagement Exchange at Toronto Metropolitan University. We are a non-partisan organization with a clear mission to build a vibrant and healthy democracy in Canada.

Today, I want to offer a simple idea: It is time to build a public health system for Canada's democracy. We can have the best vaccines, the leading research and the most sophisticated tools to fight disinformation, but without trusted frontline staff to deliver them, we cannot stop the foreign interference threatening our sovereignty or address the algorithmic polarization undermining our social cohesion.

The good news is that we are building on the basis of strength. As a proud new Canadian who cut his political teeth in the United States, I am grateful for what we get right. Voting is easy; elections aren't swamped by dark money, and we don't gerrymander. All of these things are critical elements of a healthy democracy that we must continue to protect.

However, democracy depends on more than procedures. It depends on people. Around the world, we see healthy democracies eroding, and Canada is not immune from this.

Voting is the lifeblood of any democracy, yet participation in provincial and municipal elections has reached historic lows. It was as low as 16% for youth in the most recent Nova Scotia election.

At the same time, our social fabric is fraying. We are experiencing an epidemic of loneliness and social isolation, particularly among young people. A recent YMCA study found that nearly 70% of young Canadians now report a lack of belonging in their communities. We are no longer looking at a mid-life crisis in Canada. We are looking at a youth crisis, whereby those under 30 are the loneliest and least happy members of our society. This matters, because when people feel disconnected from one another, they become vulnerable to the polarization and manipulation that authoritarian actors exploit. These actors don't need to destroy our institutions; they need only weaken the trust holding us together. Yes, we can blame anti-social media platforms, but the regulation of the platforms, while important, is not enough. We must offer young people, new Canadians and all community members an alternative.

This is where civil society acts as our democratic immune system. The exchange partners with thousands of community organizations, which are the trusted messengers and the glue of our communities. We provide them with free training and tools like our vote pop-up, which demystifies the voting process for first-time voters. We've trained thousands of librarians, settlement workers and student leaders to facilitate conversations and teach people how to vote. They do this off the side of their desk because they are passionate, but we can no longer rely on the goodwill of these unsung heroes. Right now, our democratic front line is underfunded and overstretched.

When we support this work, it creates a virtuous cycle. In every province and territory, we hear the same thing. People crave safe spaces to belong and be heard. When they find their community, they engage. When they engage, they vote, and their confidence in our institutions goes up.

At a moment when toxic online discourse is rampant, and students, friends and neighbours are avoiding conversations on the issues they care about because they're too political, creating these opportunities is essential. I'd like to share one story that illustrates this experience.

I was invited to join a workshop run by frontline staff we had recently trained. Noor ran a cook and learn program for new Canadians, who were mostly older women from South Asia. As part of the workshop, they had an opportunity to learn about the three levels of government, discuss issues they care about and make a representation of their ideal democracy out of playdough. At the end of the workshop, I asked the participants if they enjoyed it and found it valuable—after all, they were there to learn about cooking and have a chance to socialize, not talk about Canada's democracy. They had one simple answer: Yes, because this was a safe space to talk about the issues that matter to them and engage in our democracy, which was something they desperately wanted to do.

These conversations strengthen the health of our communities and our democracy, and this is why I am here to express our strong support for the Canadian democracy fund, with a $20-million annual investment. This model would be at arm's length and non-partisan, similar to how we fund the arts, sciences or Elections Canada itself.

This investment is modest compared with the costs of treating the disease of democratic collapse after it has already taken hold, and its impact will be significant. It will help unlock the potential of community organizations and local leaders in communities across Canada, and it will provide a foundation for deeper commitment from private philanthropy. This critical investment in our communities is what we need at this moment. Ultimately, the strength of our democracy isn't measured by who wins. It's measured by who participates.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

I'll now turn to Mr. Rahyab.

[Maiwand Rahyab, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Resilient Societies]

Chair Bittle and honourable members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to contribute to this important study.

In my experience, democracies do not decline overnight, and civic space rarely closes all at once. It weakens gradually when trust declines, participation narrows and citizens begin to feel their voice no longer matters. I have seen this process up close. Before seeking protection in Canada three years ago, I worked for many years alongside civil society organizations in Afghanistan and in other fragile contexts in which civic space was repressed. These experiences taught me something fundamental: Societies remain resilient when citizens stay engaged, organized and hopeful.

My name is Maiwand Rahyab. I am the founder and CEO of Resilient Societies, a Canadian organization dedicated to protecting civic space in Canada and globally.

Canada remains one of the world's strongest democracies, with a vibrant civil society. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, Canada is among the very small group of countries with open civic space. However, we should not take our democracy and our freedoms for granted. Building civic resilience now is the best way to protect it for the future.

Civic resilience is not built by governments alone. It is built by societies. Resilient civic spaces depend on citizens who participate, volunteer, organize, create, debate and hold institutions accountable. They depend on a strong civic ecosystem. This ecosystem includes community organizations, journalists, educators, artists, universities, philanthropies, volunteers and responsible businesses. When these actors are active and connected, civic resilience grows. When civic life weakens, societies become more vulnerable to polarization, disinformation, declining trust and attempts to silence dissent.

Canada, like many other democracies, faces real pressures. Trust in institutions is under strain. Polarization is increasing. Digital disinformation is reshaping civic discourse. Activists, journalists and diaspora communities face transnational repression and social marginalization. Strengthening civic resilience, therefore, requires harnessing the agency and energy of society itself while ensuring that people can participate freely and meaningfully.

I would like to offer three recommendations for the committee's consideration.

First, Canada should develop a national civic resilience strategy to strengthen civic participation and rebuild social trust. Backed by strong political will and financial resources, such a strategy should centre the agency of the people and bring together national and provincial governments, civil society, academic institutions, cultural leaders and the private sector to support the institutions and networks sustaining civic life.

Second, Canada should build on the inaugural Ottawa Civic Space Summit, which takes place next month in Ottawa. For 2027, Canadian civil society organizations are planning to launch an annual Canada civic action week to celebrate and strengthen civic engagement across the country. Such an initiative will mobilize communities, schools, universities, artists, volunteers, civil society organizations and businesses to engage citizens in civic dialogue, community service and democratic participation. Parliament should encourage and recognize such initiatives at the municipal, provincial and national levels.

Third, Canada should strengthen its role as a civic refuge. Canada is home to one of the world's largest communities of exiled journalists, human rights defenders and pro-democracy leaders, who have been forced to flee as civic space closes globally. While many have found safety here, they often remain vulnerable to transnational repression and face barriers that prevent them from contributing and participating in civic engagement in Canada. By fostering an enabling environment in which civic actors can contribute with safety, voice and agency, Canada can strengthen its own democratic life while demonstrating global leadership in defending human rights and civic space.

Civic resilience ultimately depends on people and participation. It grows when citizens believe their voices matter and when societies invest in institutions and networks that enable participation.

Canada has an opportunity to strengthen civic resilience by empowering its citizens, supporting a vibrant civic ecosystem and standing alongside those defending civic space in Canada and around the world.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Thank you so much.

I turn now to Mr. MacLeod for five minutes, please.

[Peter MacLeod, Principal, MASS LBP]

Thank you.

I am very pleased to speak to the committee on a topic so vital that I published a book about it last month. The book is called Democracy's Second Act: Why Politics Needs the Public. Most everything I want to say this afternoon is captured in the title.

First, liberal democracies are struggling not only because they're under immense pressure from foreign adversaries but also because our democracies have stopped evolving. They are leaving too many people feeling excluded and angry, like passive spectators rather than active and indispensable participants in our local and national life.

We should be proud defenders of everything we've achieved: responsible government, universal suffrage, an independent judiciary, fair and free elections and the peaceful transfer of power. Democracy's first act has delivered peace, security and voice to millions in this country and beyond, but it's not the end of our story or of our democratic evolution.

This brings me to the second half of the title, “Why Politics Needs the Public”. This should seem self-evident, and I know members of this committee are here because they believe passionately in public service. However, we must concede that the relationship between politics and the public is not as strong or as healthy as it might be.

We know this because of the long-term trend in declining voter turnout, the hollowing out of riding associations and your political parties and, of course, declining trust and confidence in government and public institutions. These trends aren't unique to Canada, but this makes them no less dangerous.

At some point over the last 50 to 60 years, governments everywhere have come to treat their publics more as risks to manage than as society's most critical resource. However, people are smart: They know when they're being managed, talked down to or kept at a distance. We are preoccupied by measuring whether people trust government; I would challenge the committee to flip the question and consider whether governments really trust people.

All of this matters because civic resilience requires what the great American educator and thinker John Dewey called democratic fitness. Democratic fitness is the sibling of civic literacy, the idea that we should all know how a bill becomes law or how governments are formed. However, more than knowledge, which is surely needed, democratic fitness is about moral courage, agency, voice and the experience of personal and collective efficacy.

We can build this fitness, like any muscle, only with exercise, and I would argue that our democratic fitness and our civic resilience decline when there are fewer opportunities to work together and exercise the skills of citizenship: disagreeing agreeably, accepting trade-offs in the pursuit of larger aims and thinking long-term as stewards of the public interest.

Democracy's second act is fundamentally about building our civic resilience by asking more of people than simply their dollars and their votes. If our democracy is struggling, it's because it is encumbered by the tyranny of low expectations and the corrosive belief that people are too ignorant, apathetic and self-interested to do more.

Where do we go from here? If liberal democracies are to thrive, we need a sea change in our understanding of modern publics and the role of parties and government. The purpose of democratic institutions must be more than sustaining the edifice of democracy; it must also include building vibrant democratic publics.

My co-author and I argue that healthy democratic publics are three things: informed, engaged and productive. Fortunately, when we look around the world, including here at home, we can see the contours of democracy's second act coming into view.

This looks like Norway's independent media trusts, which help ensure that citizens have access to a range of quality news sources and opinions, from the local to the national.

It looks like statistical agencies such as the National Science Foundation, which traditionally has measured what people know, not only what they like or dislike, and taken this as a mandate for public education and communication.

It looks like the citizens' assemblies of Ireland, which have been used to change their constitution not once but three times in the past decade, inspired in part by Canada's own early experiments in deliberative democracy.

In parts of Belgium, randomly selected members of the public can sit on committees just like this one. Rather than finding it awkward or distasteful, parliamentarians there see it as a benefit, bringing new voices and perspectives to the table. As one Belgian MP put it, you always behave better when you have guests in the house.

It looks like Sweden, which, like many Nordic countries—

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'm sorry, Mr. MacLeod, but I will have to cut you off. We're over time. Hopefully, you can put more of your recommendations within the answers you give to questions from members.

Just as a warning, members, I will be a bit more strict on time than I typically am.

On that note, we'll turn to Mr. Van Popta from the Conservatives.

You have six minutes, please.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Thank you.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and for their patience with us as we dealt with some political issues in the House of Commons today.

Mr. Beebe, I'll start with you. As you gave your testimony, I noted your observation that political engagement, particularly among younger people, is lower and probably going in the wrong direction. I find it ironic that the more social media we have, the less social our society seems to become. This is not really a question; it's just a comment, but it is the basis of my next question.

A number of you noted that voter turnout has been going down. There was a record high of almost 80% in 1958 with John Diefenbaker's landslide victory. These days it's typically less than 60%, sometimes even less than 50% provincially. It's definitely heading in the wrong direction. When I knock on doors during campaigns, I often ask people if they follow politics. They often go, “I'm sorry. I don't, really.” This is their choice. We want an engaged public, but they have a choice about how engaged they want to be. I wonder if you could comment on that.

I have some quotes from your website. You state, “The promise of democracy is that everyone has a voice in shaping the future they want for themselves, their families, and their communities.” You go on to say, “People who are least likely to participate are rarely disengaged by choice. They are excluded by design.” In the last provincial election, 40% of British Columbians decided not to vote. Did they not vote by choice or by design?

[John Beebe]

I completely agree with you on the social media piece. This is why I'm trying to get everybody to call it “anti-social media”, because it really hasn't proved to be social media as a bonding piece.

The question of how people are participating and why people are participating is critical to the work you're considering and the work we're doing. We've seen that when people feel a sense of belonging in a community, they do engage. They do vote. They do participate. This is the key to the health of our communities. It's why so much of the work we're pushing for and supporting is really creating those safe spaces in our communities for people to come back together—in person.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

I agree with that and I respect that. You gave the example of new Canadians in a cooking class. It's a nice example, but 40% of British Columbians chose not to vote. These aren't all new immigrants who don't know the system.

[John Beebe]

Exactly. I think what you've experienced at the door is too often that people are feeling as though politics is now a space that feels toxic. How do we help undo this in a way that invites people into the conversation? That's the key issue we're looking at. I think it's by working with our trusted local organizations, which help to rebuild those civic spaces and bring people in.

I think, for those of us who were lucky enough to grow up in our communities with family and friends who talked politics, that's great. We're very likely to be involved. For those folks who didn't, we have to find ways to engage them.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Good.

I also want to talk about another democratic institution: our court system. There seems to be a lack of confidence there. I thank the analysts for the nice report they put together, which shows that only 48% of Canadians trust our criminal justice system.

This is reflected in an article I read in the National Post on March 6, just a couple of days ago. They quote a Macdonald-Laurier Institute study: “Rising crime, mounting delays and inconsistent enforcement have created a widening gap between expectations and performance”. Perhaps you could comment on that—on the importance of an engaged and resilient society's having a justice system that people can have confidence in.

[John Beebe]

It's a super interesting piece. It's not something we necessarily come up against in our work, with people raising that concern, but you're exactly right. How do we build confidence in our communities and institutions, such as our courts? It's a virtuous cycle that we're trying to establish.

One of the key ways is getting people who are more knowledgeable and engaged to have those conversations with other people in their community in order to learn about people's experiences. However, I agree with you. It's a big challenge we need to address.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Do I still have a minute?

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

Yes, it's about a minute.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

I want to talk about an example of people being very engaged. You might disagree with them, but they were certainly engaged.

This was the so-called “freedom convoy” a couple of years back. These were independent citizens coming in and expressing their views to the government. The government disagreed with them and shut them down. You know all about the Emergencies Act. It has just come through the Federal Court of Appeal. The court disagreed with the government and said that these people have the right to express themselves.

Your comment addresses the heavy-handedness of a government shutting down people who want to be engaged.

[John Beebe]

I am not a legal expert and don't pretend to have an understanding of the different arguments about whether it was the right place to be.

I will say that one interesting thing about this community was people coming together to express their views with a sense of community, which they clearly had. It had a sense of belonging and a sense of people sharing their views—whatever one's views are on the particular subject. It was about people coming together around things they cared about. This, ultimately, is how democracy is supposed to work.

We want to encourage people to come together around things they care about and create those spaces, but in such a way that they can talk about things with each other.

[The Chair, Liberal, Chris Bittle]

I'll have to interject there. We're over time.

We'll turn to Madame Brière for six minutes.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the three witnesses for joining us. Their testimonies were really quite insightful.

I would also like to thank my colleague for moving the motion for this committee study.

The witnesses' work reminds us that we have concrete ways to strengthen citizen participation and to rebuild the bonds of social trust, despite the decline in democratic vitality. I would like you to give us, the government, some concrete examples of how we can strengthen citizen participation. A number of studies show that trust among citizens is just as important as trust in the government. How can we strengthen this horizontal trust in increasingly diverse societies?

I think that all three of you can answer my question, but that Mr. Beebe could respond first.

[John Beebe]

Thank you.

The core issue is trust among community members. The opportunity to do this is based on our civic institutions, which have been eroding in our communities. This is why it's critical to reinvest in those opportunities and create space for people to have those conversations. We have to make it acceptable for spaces like libraries, YMCAs and community institutions to host those pieces.

Honestly, it doesn't come easily, because people are uncomfortable having those conversations. We can do it in ways that might sound out of place in this community—ways that are fun and build communities on shared values and the things that bring us together. We can start from a place of shared values—the things we all care about, such as our families, our neighbourhoods and our friends. If we can start from those places, we can also have the more challenging conversations about the places in which we disagree.

It's something that all of you do in your work. It's about ways of being intentional about this and encouraging our civic institutions to take up the mantle and take it on.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Rahyab, would you like to add something?

[Maiwand Rahyab]

Sure. I have a couple of points.

First, emphasize the idea of shared values, and focus on that.

Second, as Canadians, as communities, we need to come up with our story of Canada and our shared narrative of what it means to be Canadian. What priorities, stories and narratives become our collective vision as Canadians for the future of the country?

Once those are shared among different communities, it will help bring a sense of unity, trust and cohesion among community members.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. MacLeod.

[Peter MacLeod]

Thank you.

I would make two very brief points. First, we need to be very clear, when we talk about civic resilience, what it is we're talking about. Second, we need to have much more comprehensive measures of this thing. I agree that horizontal trust is absolutely vital.

Canada does many of the right things. We just don't do any of them at the scale necessary to make an impact. Certainly, when we think about young people, one of the best ways in a country as vast and diverse as ours is to find programs that allow young people to mix and move around the country to experience different ways of living, different ways of connecting. The government at various times, from Encounters with Canada to Katimavik and beyond, has invested in these programs. Sadly, we're not in a moment in which they have enjoyed continued investment.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

In the Hogue commission report, definitions of “civic resilience” were laid out on paper. I would like to know your thoughts on these definitions.

Canada is also responsible for principle 3 of the Paris Call, which concerns civic resilience. As a country and as a co‑lead for this principle, Canada is doing many things. Do you think that this will lead to any concrete results or recommendations?