FAAE Committee Report

Recommendation 1

Canada should continue to provide assistance to democratic development abroad, based on a broad conception of democracy that includes attention to the system of governance as a whole, the full range of international human rights — including socio-economic and cultural rights — and the full participation of citizens, including the most disadvantaged, in the processes of democracy. Over the long term, Canadian policy on support for democratic development should also aim to improve the quality and sustainability of democracy in the recipient countries.

Recommendation 2

Canada should invest more in practical knowledge generation and research on effective democratic development assistance. This should be available to inform the work of the Canadian government itself — notably involving DFAIT’s Democracy Unit and CIDA’s Office of Democratic Governance — and that of other donors as well as of non-governmental practitioners. To that end, several options should be considered for supporting independent research in a coordinated way that can benefit policymakers and practitioners. These options could include a Democracy Partners Research and Study Program under the International Development Research Centre along the lines suggested by the Parliamentary Centre and a centre for policy in democratic development along the lines suggested by George Perlin.

In particular, policy-relevant research should focus on issues of continuing critical importance in the democratic development field, notably:

·        The need for local leadership of the democratization process and attention to the local dimensions of democratic development;

·        The need to ensure that democratic development is affirmed as a universal right and value consistent with the International Bill of Human Rights;

·        The need to integrate democratic development assistance within the larger processes of social and economic development in other countries, and to a poverty reduction agenda in those countries receiving ODA;

·        The need to benefit from the experience and expertise of non-governmental organizations active in the field of democratic development assistance;

·        The need to improve the coherence and coordination of democratic development assistance both within donor countries and on a multilateral basis;

·        The need for more regular, and realistic, evaluations of the effectiveness of democracy assistance funding and the need to evaluate in a more regular and realistic manner the effectiveness of the democratic development assistance strategies being pursued.

Recommendation 3

Given the weaknesses that have been identified in evaluating the effectiveness of Canada’s existing democracy assistance funding, the government should commission an independent evaluation within one year of all public funding provided for this purpose, with the results to be tabled in Parliament and referred to this Committee. The proposed evaluation could be undertaken by an independent panel of experts selected following consultations with all parties in the House of Commons and the approval of this Committee.

Recommendation 4

Increased Canadian public-sector support for independent research and knowledge generation on effective democratic development assistance, as addressed in Recommendation 2, should encompass staying abreast of the activities of other donor countries, including of their NGOs and experts in this field, and continuous learning from their experiences.

Recommendation 5

The independent evaluation of all existing Canadian public funding for democratic development proposed by the Committee in Recommendation 3 should include a complete picture of what is being done, by what organization, for what purposes, and according to a common understanding of what is considered to be democratic development assistance. This complete picture should be seen within the larger framework of the official development assistance policy pursued by Canada.

Recommendation 6

The independent evaluation of existing Canadian democracy assistance funding that we have proposed in Recommendation 3 should include an assessment of those sectors in which Canadian democracy aid has been most effective, and in which Canadians have the greatest capacity to contribute their skills.

Recommendation 7

In terms of actually deploying Canadian expertise abroad, the evaluation should ascertain whether there is coherence among all publicly funded activities being undertaken by Canada.

Recommendation 8

In addition, recognizing that global needs in this complex field are vast, the evaluation should provide some indication of which countries might most benefit from a concentration of Canadian efforts.

Recommendation 9

Accompanying its comprehensive written response to the recommendations in this report, the Government should outline a comprehensive “whole-of-government” and “whole-of-Canada” policy framework on Canadian support for international democratic development. This framework should as a minimum:

·        Commit to making support for democratic development a key priority of overall Canadian international policy;

·        Set out a broad conception of democratic development and common Canadian policy objectives in this field;

·        Commit to providing multi-year funding sufficient to address those policy objectives and to finance the instruments chosen to implement them.

Recommendation 10

The government should ensure that all government activities in the area of international democratic development are carried out on a coherent basis.

Recommendation 11

The government should ensure that CIDA, through its Office of Democratic Governance, makes available to Canadians as much information as possible on what CIDA funding is accomplishing in the area of democratic development. Moreover, the government’s plans for the independent evaluation of Canada’s aid program should take into account the Committee’s recommendations calling for a comprehensive independent assessment and evaluation of all existing Canadian support to democratic development.

Recommendation 12

The government in consultation with all parties in the House of Commons should establish an arms-length Canada foundation for international democratic development or equivalent having the following key elements:

·        The foundation should be established by Act of Parliament and, while maintaining its independence from government, should report to Parliament annually through the Minister of Foreign Affairs;

·        There should be a multi-year commitment of resources to the foundation sufficient to put Canada among the world leaders in the field, with funding provided either by annual appropriations or as a one-time endowment;

·        The foundation should be governed by a board of directors appointed by government on the basis of all-party consultations;

·        The foundation’s board should be representative of the Canadian community of practice on democratic development, should include representatives of Canada’s democratic institutions and political parties, which could be current or former Members of Parliament, and could include some representatives from countries in which Canada has major democratic development assistance programs;

·        The president of the foundation and the chair of its board should be chosen by the board itself not by the government.

Recommendation 13

The Canada foundation for international democratic development should be a participant in the enlarged Democracy Council as discussed in Chapter 6 and should co-sponsor with the Council at least annually a public conference on Canada’s approach to democratic development.

Recommendation 14

The Canada foundation for international democratic development should also be the means to support the generation of better knowledge and evaluation to assist the work of the community of practice. It would provide funding to a centre for policy in democratic development as suggested in chapter 2, preferably operating as a subsidiary part of the foundation. Furthermore, the Canada foundation for international democratic development and the Democracy Council should collaborate on a public website which would make available to Canadians information resources on important issues in democratic development, the results of relevant research findings, country strategies, and evaluations of the effectiveness of Canadian democratic development assistance.

Recommendation 15

The Parliament of Canada, following consultations with all parties represented in the House of Commons, should consider setting up a centre for multi-party and parliamentary democracy, with a parliamentary mandate and with funding provided through the arms-length Canada foundation for international democratic development. Such a centre should start with modest funding and be re-evaluated after two years. Following that, the centre might be able to program on a multi-year basis similar to that of the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy, ultimately aiming to reach a level comparable to the NIMD. The board of the centre would include representatives from all parties represented in Parliament.

Recommendation 16

As part of advancing democratic development, Canada should provide more support for civil society-based initiatives from the local to the global level that utilize Canadian civil-society experience and that aim to increase grass-roots citizens’ participation and strengthen democratic accountability.

Recommendation 17

Canada should support expanded democratic development initiatives in the areas of education at all levels, exchanges and training, provided that the specific programs can demonstrate their effectiveness and sustainability over the longer term. Further examination and funding should come through the independent Canada foundation for international democratic development that we have proposed.

Recommendation 18

Canada should provide more support for freedom of the press through the development of free and independent media as part of democratic development, paying particular attention to strategies for, among others: assisting such media in contexts where they are under pressure; reaching as many people as possible including in rural and under-served areas; harnessing Canadian expertise in this area and exploring the potential of new affordable communications technologies. Increased funding should come through the Canada foundation for international democratic development on the basis of a rigorous assessment of project proposals as to their effectiveness and sustainability.

Recommendation 19

The independent evaluation of all Canadian support for democratic development that we have recommended should also assess the effectiveness of multilateral channels to which Canada provides funding. That evaluation should guide appropriate funding levels.

Recommendation 20

Recognizing that the future challenges of democratization processes involve governance at the level of international organizations, as well as in national and local settings, the Canada foundation for international democratic development should include these dimensions within its mandate, and should consider related proposals for support from Canadian non-governmental bodies and civil-society groups working in this area.

Recommendation 21

As part of the essential role of a reformed and strengthened United Nations in global democratic development, the Parliament of Canada should give favourable consideration to the establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly.

Recommendation 22

In light of the establishment of the United Nations Democracy Fund (UNDEF) as part of UN reform proposals in 2005, Canada should consider whether to become a donor to UNDEF.

Recommendation 23

Taking into account the expertise and experience on democratic development that has been accumulated by Canadians working in this field through multilateral organizations, Canada should make an effort to tap into this pool of knowledge in furthering its own approach to democratic development.

Recommendation 24

Canada should ensure that it engages in democratic development assistance with the benefit of detailed realistic country assessments that include the identification of credible and accountable local partners who must drive forward the democratization process within their countries. The preparation and updating of such objective assessments could be undertaken by an arms-length centre for policy in democratic development (as discussed in Recommendations 2 and 14) funded through the Canada foundation.

Recommendation 25

Canadian support for legitimate local democratic efforts within authoritarian and semi-authoritarian regimes will require detailed and updated knowledge of the circumstances for democracy assistance in the countries in which Canada chooses to focus its efforts. Objective country assessments could be undertaken by an independent centre for policy in democratic development as funded through the Canada foundation for international democratic development that we have proposed.

Recommendation 26

Canada should work towards effective strategies that link democracy-building and peace-building in emerging democracies under situations of conflict or post-conflict. These strategies should pay particular attention to Canada’s role in supporting the development of sustainable governance institutions and processes, including those of sound public administration, functional political parties and parliaments.

Recommendation 27

Recognizing that the circumstances of “failed” or “fragile” states are the most difficult and complex for democratic development interventions, Canada should concentrate its efforts in countries where it is already heavily invested with much at stake, and where it is capable of making a difference by sustaining high levels of democracy- and peace-building assistance over long periods of time.

Recommendation 28

There is at the same time a consequent need for more and better applied knowledge and learning based on independent realistic and updated country assessments. The Canada foundation for international democratic development through the centre for policy on democratic development that the Committee has suggested should be involved in the preparation of such assessments.