FAAE Committee Report

Democratic Development Supplementary Report

Conservatives welcome the engagement of the Foreign Affairs Committee with the issue of Democratic Development. We believe that Canada can play a much greater role in democratic development, and we share the finding of the committee that the current government’s lack of action in this area has been a disappointment. While we agree with the goals of this report in engaging in democratic development, we also believe that the report should have included discussion about how inclusive democratic development must include particular attention to the challenges faced by religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities.

This report argues that Canada would be well-served by a government-funded organization operating independently of government, which has the resources to fund activities which relate to democratic development. It argues in this context that democracy and democratic development should be broadly defined, including such things as support for political parties in other countries. Although reporting to Parliament, this organization would operate independently. Although consultation with opposition parties is encouraged, the majority report still proposes that appointments to this body be made by the government.

Many Canadians would be concerned about the possible implications of this particular framework. In practical effect, it would give license to a small group of government appointees to distribute taxpayer funds to foreign advocacy groups and political parties, without clearly defined objectives and without meaningful political accountability. An annual report to Parliament is not going to be that effective if Parliament does not have a meaningful mechanism through which to instruct the entity in response to a report and on an ongoing basis.

Should a council of “wise people” be able to distribute taxpayer funds to political parties and advocacy groups outside of Canada, with limited meaningful accountability? We would suggest that they should not.

A better alternative model would be an entity within the Department of Global Affairs, with its own ambassador-at-large and some independent stature, but ultimately accountable to the Minister and aligned in their actions with the priorities of government. This was the model used for the Office of Religious Freedom. An office embedded within government can speak publically on issues related to its mandate, inform the rest of government operations, and fund its own projects on the ground in other countries. It is not at risk of “going rogue”, and it operates within a clear line of accountability for its spending and actions.

One major issue in the area of democratic development around the world involves the challenges faced by religious, ethnic, and linguistic minorities. Ultra-majoritarian movements which deny the fundamental rights of minority communities and seek to limit their security and their participation are a growing problem everywhere and a key driver of democratic decline. Even without these movements, intercommunal tensions can contribute to democratic decline by leading some people to see undemocratic political structures as the best or the only way to protect their communal interests. The majority report discusses the gender dimension, but it fails to delve into the particular challenges involving any other marginalized communities. We recommend that this committee hear testimony about and delve more deeply into these issues in the future.