House of Commons Foreign Affairs and International Development Committee

Submission: Canada’s Role in International Support for Democratic Development

Kevin Deveaux – President, Deveaux International Governance Consultants Inc.

KEY TAKEWAYS: • Canada is not a significant actor in democratic development • Canada still needs a central institution to manage and promote its democratic development work • The global community needs Canada’s leadership now, more than ever, on democratic development • One institution should work in all sectors of democratic development, allowing for sectoral and cross-sectoral programming

Thank you for the invitation to make a submission to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development as it considers “Canada’s Role in International Support for Democratic Development”. This written submission reflects much of what I intend to say during my oral submission scheduled for Thursday, February 7 to the Committee.

Background I have had the honour of working in the field of democratic development for nearly 20 years, having worked directly with more than 50 parliaments and with MPs from more than 100 countries.1 The focus of my work has been on support to parliamentary development and political party assistance, though I have also engaged in other democratic governance fields, including anti-corruption, women’s political empowerment, rule of law and electoral assistance.

I was one of the submitters to the previous report of this Standing Committee entitled Advancing Canada’s Role in International Support for Democratic Development that was published in July, 2007. In that report the Committee made a number of recommendations, but for purposes of this submission I will focus on the recommendations related to the following:

• Recommendation 12: Establishing an independent Canadian Democracy Foundation through an Act of Parliament that reports to Parliament. • Recommendation 15: Establishing a Centre for Multi-Party and Parliamentary Democracy based on the Dutch model

I was pleasantly surprised when the 2007 report was published that I had been quoted on a number of occasions to support the findings of the Committee. My submission, at that time, focused on a few key points:

1 A short bio and summary of my career can be found in Annex 1 to this Submission

1. There are many Canadians working for NGOs and multi-lateral organizations in the field of democratic development, yet, as a government, Canada is not a significant actor in this field; 2. A new institution should be established in Canada to manage and promote our unique perspective and to manage and create knowledge with regard to democratic development; 3. Such an institution should focus on a core set of countries with significant funding to allow Canada to be a major player in those countries with regard to promoting democratic reforms; and 4. Consider the Westminster Foundation for Democracy as a model that could be applied in Canada.

In particular, with regard to the first point, I note from p. 105 of the report:

One of the things I want to say from being in the field is that Canada is not a serious player in the area of democratization development. When you look at countries such as the United Kingdom with its Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the Americans with NED, NDI, and IRI, the Germans with their Stiftungs, and others, most people would say that Canada has not even begun to present itself at an international level in the areas particularly of parliamentary and executive and political party development.

What Has Changed Since 2007 (or Not)?

Since 2007 much has changed in the field of democratic governance, while much still remains the same:

Canada is still not a serious player in democratic development. I would not change anything in the statement I made before the Committee in 2007 (quoted above).

I have had the opportunity since 2007 to work for almost all of the major actors in democratic development, from UNDP to NDI to International IDEA, WFD and NIMD. My work has taken me to numerous countries working on the formulation, implementation and evaluation of democratic governance projects, and I am hard pressed to identify any Canadian funding or institutions working where I have been engaged.

Some Canadian institutions will come before this Committee and tell you of their great work and the amount of funding Canada is contributing, but I would ask this Committee to scratch beneath the surface and they will see that such work is either not impactful or is provided in a disparate manner that prevents a Canadian footprint to be established.

2 There is a lack of global leadership in defining the standards and best practices in the field of political governance.

With regard to parliamentary development, until 2015, there was strong global group that was providing thought leadership and promoting new and innovative ideas for parliamentary reform and support to parliaments that were transitioning to democracy. This was led by the World Bank, UNDP, USAID and the UK Department for International Development (DFID). This group spearheaded regular, biennial meetings of parliamentary development actors to discuss new approaches to their work.

That leadership is no longer present and there is now a void in global leadership in parliamentary development. Neither the World Bank nor UNDP currently have global parliamentary advisers or programmes. The UK has attempted to fill some of that void through increased funding for WFD. This is a result of the UK House of Commons International Development Committees 2014 report on parliamentary strengthening noting the need for the UK to have its own flagship parliamentary development programme.2 However, to date, it is observed by many that WFD has increased its footprint globally, with a rapid expansion of regional and national offices, but there has been limited results with regard to thought leadership in the field.

Therefore, now, even more than in 2007, Canada’s leadership in this field is necessary. Even more so as the Canadian perspective on parliamentary development is unique from that of other countries and is highly sought after by beneficiary parliaments and MPs.

Political party assistance remains a niche area of work with almost no global coordination or thought leadership.

Compared to other areas of work in democratic development, political party assistance is much smaller in both the funds allocated and the number of countries in which such work is conducted. This is because it is often seen as the “third rail” of democratic development, given the fear from donor countries that they are interfering in and picking winners in democratic systems.

However, the work does have value, as political parties, like it or not, are an integral part of a democratic system. When it is done correctly, party assistance can have a greater impact than other areas of work. In short, it is high risk, but also can create high rewards.

Yet, as in 2007, there is a lack of global leadership in this field. The National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) has in recent years put some effort into thought leadership, but there is little, if any coordination between institutions working in party assistance.

2 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmintdev/704/70402.htm

3 Again, if this were an area where Canada could step forward with a coherent approach and significant resources, it would be appreciated by the international community.

Canada still needs a Democracy Foundation, but it must have a mandate that ensures all aspects of democratic development are addressed together.

In 2007 I told this Committee that the WFD model is one that should be explored for Canada. However, since that time I have had the chance to conduct a serious of evaluations of WFD from 2013-15. What I discovered was that the WFD is flawed. In the early 1990s WFD was originally established as a sister-party assistance programme – funding was given directly to UK political parties to work with like-minded parties in other countries. It was only ten years later that the parliament and civil society work was added to its mandate and the two aspects of its work were forced into a “quick marriage” that, to this day, has never fully been worked out.

If Canada is to increase its engagement in democratic development, it needs a central institution, but it must cover all aspects of democratic development, including parliamentary development, political party assistance, electoral assistance, civil society development, media support, and local government development. By working holistically, such an institution can build sectoral expertise while promoting the need for cross-sector programming to achieve democratic reforms.

This work should also include a number of cross-cutting issues, such as women’s political empowerment, anti-corruption measures, inclusion for marginalized groups and human rights.

4 Such an institution can work at three levels:

Global Level: Canada can and should be a thought leader in democratic development by commissioning research and promoting practical piloting of such work. It can incubate innovative approaches to such work that can be shared with other actors in the field.

Regional level: Canada can identify two-three key regionals in which it will invest its resources to be a leader in democratic development. It can be a facilitator of knowledge sharing and peer-to-peer exchanges amongst national democracy advocates in those regions.

National Level: As noted in the 2007 report, Canada needs to focus on a core set of countries (perhaps 15-20 countries) and invest enough resources in those countries to be the leading partner for democratic transition.

Conclusion The democratic landscape globally has not been fortunate in the past twelve years since the Committee produced its first report on democratic development. This may be changing, given some significant changes in some countries in 2018 (e.g. – ; Armenia). But Canada, which has a strong reputation as an effective federal, democratic state needs to step up its game. If the world needs more Canada, then Canada must be prepared to invest in global engagement.

Canada can be a leader in democratic development. It already has the human resources scattered throughout numerous democratic governance institutions, yet it lacks a coherent, managed approach to this work that could result in focused support in select countries with global thought leadership. With a more strategic approach to the funds it is already investing, Canada could be the leader democracy advocates the world is seeking.

5 Annex 1: Kevin Deveaux Biography

Kevin is from Eastern Passage, . After graduating Osgoode Hall Law School in 1989, he practiced law in Ontario and then Nova Scotia as a Crown Prosecutor. After the Westray Mine Disaster in 1992, he worked for the Nova Scotia Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Council in drafting the revised Occupational Health & Safety Act and regulations for the province.

In 1998 he was elected to the Nova Scotia House of Assembly as the MLA for Cole Harbour- Eastern Passage, a seat he held until 2007, having been elected four times. While in the House of Assembly he was the Official Opposition House Leader during two minority governments from 2003-2007.

In 2007 Kevin resigned his seat and joined the Development Programme (UNDP) as a Senior Technical Adviser for its parliament project in . In 2008 he was promoted to be the global Parliamentary Development Policy Adviser for UNDP, based in NY, where he managed a global parliamentary programme and supported more than 60 national parliamentary projects.

In 2012 he stepped down from his post at UNDP and returned to Canada where he established Deveaux International Governance Consultants Inc. In the past six years he has worked with a number of democratic governance implementers, including UNDP, UN Women, UNODC, the EU, USAID, NDI, the World Bank, International IDEA, the UK Foreign& Commonwealth Office, DFID, NIMD and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation. His work has included foundational political analysis and project formulations in , , Fiji, , , , and .

6