Category: Uncategorized

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

Annual Financial Statement 2024 to 2025 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2023 to 2024 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2022 to 2023 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2021 to 2022 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2020 to 2021 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2019 to 2020 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2018 to 2019 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2017 to 2018 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2016 to 2017 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2015 to 2016 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2014 to 2015 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2013 to 2014 Fiscal Year
Annual Financial Statement 2012 to 2013 Fiscal Year

Learning to Engage: Experiences with Civic Engagement in Canada

Overview

by Miriam Wyman, David Shulman and Laurie Ham

Over the last decade it has become clear that there is a growing risk of “disconnection” between government and citizens. Research tells us that citizens are increasingly concerned that their democratic institutions are out of sync with their values and interests. Moreover, citizens strongly believe that there is a growing gap between their actual and desired level of influence in government decision making. As one citizen stated, “I don’t think unless you work trying to get your government to be democratic and to work with you … that you discover the kind of pain you feel when you find out you’re invisible.”

The new millennium is marked by reflection on the very nature of civil society, democracy and social cohesion. The Commonwealth Foundation has invited Commonwealth countries to join them in an exploration of ways to strengthen, promote and encourage the wide variety of citizen initiatives that make up civil society and that, therefore, strengthen social cohesion, democracy and citizen engagement in societal development.

This report explores the Commonwealth Foundation’s questions about the roles for citizens and governments in a good society by examining six Canadian experiences with civic engagement. Each case study involves different sectors of society, and different key players, goals, processes and outcomes. Each touches on long standing policy issues within Canada. The case studies detail how players have come together – or failed to – to engage one another and work toward finding creative solutions to sometimes overwhelming and complex policy situations. Many of these experiences highlight obstacles to a trusting relationship between government and citizens. At the same time, they point to steps that can be taken on the part of citizens and governments to recreate their relationship and allow for meaningful, mutual engagement. Of note, none of the case studies provide a neatly packaged outcome.

Six case studies are considered, involving three different kinds of situations:

1. Government-initiated Engagement: The government has actively sought input for its policy-making role and, in doing so, has reached out to the public in organized and well-defined ways with specific parameters placed on dialogue and discussion.

Immigration Review: In 1994, public backlash against immigration policy was at an all-time high. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration called for extensive public consultation and, in doing so, created a capacity for the public to critically and constructively analyze and engage in this complex policy debate.
National Forum on Health: During the early 1990s, federal support for Canada’s countrywide health care plan, Medicare, appeared to be waning. The health care system was perceived to be in crisis, and the public was deeply concerned that their treasured Medicare was being steadily eroded by deep funding cuts and an indifferent government. In 1994, the Prime Minister established the National Forum on Health to inform Canadians and to advise the federal government on innovative ways to improve the health care system and health of Canadians. The ensuing engagement process illustrated that Canadians were ready to roll up their sleeves and do constructive work.

2. Citizen-initiated Engagement: Citizens have attempted, with varying degrees of success, to engage governments in finding solutions to longer-term and often overwhelming problems that require the co-ordination of many different levels of government. These situations demand solutions that are creative and multifaceted.

Sydney Tar Ponds: Sydney, Nova Scotia, is home to the largest toxic waste site in North America. Coined the “National Shame” by the federal Minister of the Environment in 1996, the “toxic witch’s brew” is a result of almost a century of baking coke for steel-making, decades of raw sewage pumping, and landfill leachate from an unlined municipal landfill. After two disastrous and costly attempts at clean-up, expansive media coverage, community action, and commitment from all levels of government, in the early spring of 1999 there was finally movement in the direction of cleaning up the Tar Ponds.
Nunavut: On April 1, 1999, after almost three decades of painfully slow negotiations, Canada’s map was fundamentally changed as the Northwest Territories were divided and Nunavut, “our land” in Inuktitut, was born. Nunavut is a manifestation of the Inuit land claim, the largest land claim ever settled in Canadian history. It is the result of the Inuit’s persistence, patience and pragmatism, and comes at a crucial time for aboriginal groups in Canada. Currently, many aboriginal groups are involved in their own negotiations with the federal government for, at the very least, a recognized and legitimate voice in resource decision-making and, at the most, self-government or self-rule.

3. Citizens in the Global Arena: Citizens have struggled to find a voice and create civic space for themselves in debates that transcend national borders and involve ill-defined jurisdictions, such as international trade and domestic financial markets.

Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Over the past fifteen years, Canadians have discussed and debated the consequences of globalization as the federal government entered into two far-reaching, international trade agreements. Exhausted by defeat in their campaigns against the Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canadian non-governmental organizations were not sure if they could muster up the support and energy to mount another campaign against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI). Slowly, however, the issue ignited across the country as Canadians started to ask: Why is this deal being negotiated behind closed doors? Who will benefit from this agreement? What does this agreement mean to Canadians? How can I have my voice heard? The debate that has ensued across the country articulates some of the questions and concerns that Canadians have not only with the MAI, but also with increased trade liberalization and globalization as a whole.
Regulating Financial Services: When the federal government announced a review of the regulatory framework for financial services, a number of non-governmental organizations came together to engage the federal government and financial institutions with a proactive agenda of desired changes. Subsequently, when two of Canada’s five major banks announced they were merging, government had no choice but to respond to citizens clamouring to be involved in the merger debate. The mergers were proposed in an environment of increasing public dissatisfaction with lower levels of service, higher user fees, branch closures and enormous bank profits. These announcements sparked an intense, year-long discussion across the country, which highlighted the varying capacity of citizen groups to participate fully in long-term policy processes involving transnational players. However, a number of non-governmental organizations were able to use this time of intense public and governmental focus to advance constructive methods of improving financial sector accountability and create civic space for financial consumers.

Ultimately, this report begins to articulate questions, and some of the answers, surrounding the issue of trust. These questions include:

How is capacity built within governments so that they are better able to respond to citizens?
How is capacity built within the population for more effectively engaging governments?

This report is organized in the following way:

Section 1 describes the Canadian federation and Canada’s system of governance.
Section 2 investigates six Canadian experiences with engagement including examples that are government-initiated and those that are citizen-initiated. Following each case study, several questions regarding effective engagement are explored. The case studies have taken place in a political context that is both unique to Canada and its federation and also shared to varying degrees with other Commonwealth countries.
Section 3 considers an alternative model for mutual engagement that addresses many of the shortcomings of other engagement processes.
Section 4, the final section of the report, puts forward action steps for more effective mutual engagement.

Action is recommended in four areas, as outlined in Table 1, that will contribute to building a culture characterized by mutual, respectful engagement and to the creation of just, prosperous and caring societies. They are: building capacity, setting the ground rules, reporting and evaluating results, and making it easier for citizens to engage governments.

Table 1: Actions for Effective Mutual Engagement

Building Capacity
Governments and other organizations conducting citizen engagement processes maximize the use of teachers, students and educational technology in order to offer authentic opportunities to learn about participation, policy formulation and deliberation.Governments provide training grants to organizations that wish to more effectively engage in ongoing policy processes. Specific decisions concerning resource allocation should be undertaken in collaboration between citizens and governments.Educational institutions strive to make their training programs for the non-profit sector more accessible to community organizations by reflecting their resource and staffing constraints when programming and scheduling.

The Public Service Commission and the Canadian Centre for Management Development assume a position of world-wide leadership in preparing Canada’s federal public servants with the skills to foster effective and meaningful relationships with the public.

Setting the Ground Rules for Mutual Engagement
Set the scope and timelines for all consultation processes in collaboration between governments and citizens.

Make deliberative techniques, such as study circles or dialogue groups, central to all engagement processes.

Governments establish, in collaboration with community organizations, performance guidelines and standard operating procedures for engagement processes.

Reporting and Evaluating Results
Government build provisions for deliberative and trust-building activities into annual reporting and annual budgets so they are clearly accountable for their commitments to increased citizen engagement.

Governments establish a function in the office of the Auditor General that conducts regular audits of citizen engagement activity and makes findings known to the public in accessible formats.

Public broadcasters, as part of their annual reporting to government, report on the range of activities they have undertaken to promote civic participation and mutual engagement.

Making it Easier for Citizens to Engage Governments
Elected representatives become actively involved in engagement processes as part of their constituency activities.

Governments consider using existing activity centres, such as Canada Employment Centres, Human Resource Access Centres and public libraries, as sites where information about engagement activities and access to the Internet are made available. At these sites, citizens have access to assistance in negotiating new technologies to help them to retrieve information about government activities and contact and interact with the public service or elected representatives on-line.

Governments facilitate the creation of independent Citizens’ Associations in various sectors.

Governments and citizens explore current models that are demonstrably engaging citizens and governments in ongoing communication.

A national body should be created to provide tools, processes and assistance to citizens and governments as they apply the skills of effective mutual engagement.

NEWS RELEASE

Canadian report a resource for global democracy

August 31, 2000

Citizens around the world want to rewrite the rules of democracy, says a new report from the Commonwealth Foundation.  In the complex dance of governance, citizens want to be equal partners with governments.  And for both partners in the dance, there’s an often-steep learning curve.

Learning to Engage: Experiences With Civic Engagement in Canada is Canada’s contribution to the Commonwealth Foundation’s Civil Society in the New Millennium project, a joint exploration by more than 40 Commonwealth countries of ways to strengthen democracy and people-centred development in the new millennium.

Written by Miriam Wyman, David Shulman and Laurie Ham, the report details six uniquely Canadian experiences in citizen-government relations, experiences that resonate on an international scale.  From immigration, Medicare and indigenous land claims to toxic waste, bank mergers and the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, Canadians and their governments are carving out – with varying degrees of success – ways to engage with each other on issues that lie at the crux of civil society.

But the report isn’t simply descriptive.  Nor is it limited to a Canadian audience.

“Learning to Engage is meant as a tool for citizens – and governments, for that matter – around the world to use to build space for deliberation, discussion, and debate,” said Shulman, Director of the Democracy Education Network. “It addresses issues that have an enormous impact on the day-to-day lives of citizens everywhere, and articulates the first, concrete actions towards rebuilding trust and partnership between citizens and governments.”

“Citizens are disenchanted with a perceived narrowing of the space for public discussion,” said Wyman, “while multinational corporations and international financial organizations wield increasing amounts of power.”

“Recent events – like the demonstrations in Seattle at the World Trade Organization meeting, the APEC pepper-spray scandal in Vancouver, protests against the IMF in Washington – tell us that citizens don’t have productive ways to deal with government and other decision-making bodies. Instead, frustrations build. Learning to Engage suggests strategies for governments and citizens to work more effectively together.”

“We are seeing the emergence of a global democracy movement to balance a global capital movement,” said Colin Ball, Director of the Commonwealth Foundation.

Further plans to promote global democracy are in the works. Based on recommendations from the Civil Society project, the Commonwealth Foundation has initiated the Citizens and Governance Programme, designed to generate, support, and learn from practical initiatives by citizens and their associations in order to advance healthy civil society and good governance. In Canada,

Learning to Engage has been supported by the Canadian Policy Research Networks, a national, not-for-profit research institute with a strong record of research in citizen engagement.  CPRN’s mission is to create knowledge and lead public debate on social and economic issues important to the well-being of Canadians.

– 30 –

Author Contact Information:

Miriam Wyman,
Practicum Limited
Commonwealth Foundation, Citizens and Governance Programme Team
Tel.: (416) 413-0347
E-mail: miriam.wyman@utoronto.ca

David Shulman
Democracy Education Network
www.democracyeducation.net
Tel: (416) 761-1552
E-mail: info@democracyeducation.net

From Venting to Inventing

Overview

When citizens feel alienated, cynical and disconnected from their governments, discontent is a natural response. At the same time, this discontent can generate new kinds of engagement between citizens and governments — venting can become inventing. In Canada, citizen’s desire for increased participation has sparked significant citizen-led initiatives for change.

From Venting to Inventing examines three case studies, all reflecting citizen initiatives which have emerged over the last decade as a response to three deeply rooted concerns: a perceived lack of democracy, a challenge to government inaction, and a deep desire to strengthen and expand civic space .

This project builds on the work undertaken in Learning to Engage: Experiences with Civic Engagement in Canada[1]. In undertaking to respond to the key questions of the Commonwealth Foundation’s Civil Society in the New Millennium Project, Learning to Engage looked at three key links in civic engagement:

• Citizens’ access to government
• Citizens’ access to resources
• Citizens’ access to each other

From Venting to Inventing looks primarily at ways citizens are creating to engage one another, and tries to assess the extent to which they are succeeding in strengthening their voices in governance at local, national and international levels. It examines three experiments with citizen-led initiatives to expand and redefine democracy. In each case, citizens have worked to have stronger, more effective voices in decisions made in their respective communities. These cases are not closed. They are dispatches from the frontiers documenting new ways of engaging civic space. Their applicability goes far beyond Canada.

The first case examines efforts in 1990 to establish direct democracy at the municipal level in Rossland, British Columbia. This study takes places in the context of a broader movement to create permanent structures which empower citizens at local levels. It is part of the larger struggle between competing forces of indirect and direct governance, between our parliamentary legacy and our “homegrown,” North American impulse to more direct democracy.

The second case involved Web Networks, an internet-based network for activists, created in the late 80s. Web Networks continues to provide on-line space as well as tools for alternative organizations to build their capacity as social change agents. The Internet has emerged as a potent technology for transforming civic space. This study was selected to examine the ways that the Internet is shaping citizen participation — and vice versa — and its impact on civil society.

The third case examines the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) as an example of the ways that large summits involving governments, NGOs and citizens and parallel people’s summits are redefining both the context and manner in which decisions are made. The rise in “summitry” over the last decade (including Rio, Cairo, Beijing, Seattle, Quebec, Genoa, Kananaskis) raises important questions about the extent to which citizen-initiated efforts around these events expand democracy in lasting ways. Since Rio was the summit meeting which redefined participation, it is an important model from which to draw insights related to citizens and governance. [2]

Analysis of the cases is focused on an assessment of the extent to which these experiments have become permanent features of the political terrain in Canada. The central questions of the project include:

• How are citizen organizing to strengthen their voices in political decisions?
• How are citizens attempting to rebalance relationships of engagement with their governments?
• How are citizens’ efforts translating into better institutionalized commitments to increased citizen involvement in governance?

In all three cases, the answer to these questions appears to “Yes … but.” On the positive side:

• Citizens in Rossland won the right to initiate and ratify municipal laws, and used this new tool to press their local government to adopt bold measures in water quality and environ-mental safety.
• Through its training and programming efforts, Web Networks made it possible for citizens to use information technology to engage each other on important local, national and global issues.
• Canadian civil society organizations used the preparations for the Rio Summit to gain unprecedented access to the levers and resources of policy making and to create widespread networks with one another.

At the same time, these achievements are tempered by some of the less successful outcomes of these initiatives:

• Citizens in Rossland are making relatively little use of their referendum opportunity to participate in municipal governance.
• Web Networks’ effectiveness was hindered by financial difficulties due, in part, to the fact that they misgauged the real needs of communities — and perhaps, more importantly, by the inability to recapture the vision and excitement of their early days and apply them in the new and vastly changed electronic world.
• The “Rio Way,” for all its strengths, could not withstand subsequent shifts in events and players which led to a withdrawal of resources and access over the past decade. More importantly, it was overtaken by enormous changes in the global corporate trade agenda which seems to have overtaken concern for sustainable development.

In all three cases, a number of fault lines are evident. There is a clash between the new tools and their use. There is a clash between the desire for greater diversity in participation and the disunity that results before unity can emerge. And, there is a clash between the rhythm of innovation and the rhythm of democracy.

Each of these cases has much to say about the ways that citizens are trying to strengthen their voices in decision-making, to achieve more balanced relationships with their governments and to create more permanent features of the political landscape. There is no question that “[C]itizens want a deepening of democracy to make it more direct and participatory.”3] However, citizens are not the only players and too often, their efforts with respect to governments are unrewarded.

In each of our cases, citizens have clearly demonstrated their willingness to come together, to identify the common good and to take action. There are countless such cases around the world. Citizens are organizing in creative and committed ways to strengthen their voices in political decisions and to are working hard to rebalance relationships of engagement with their governments.
Are these efforts translating into better institutionalized commitments to increased involvement in governance? Unfortunately, the answer is an unequivocal no. When we began this study, we were hoping to find that if citizens were active, democracy would be strong. These studies are telling us something else. What we see is a stark picture of the chasm between citizens and governments.

We have seen that citizens are doing many — if not all — of the right things. And, it is not enough. Civil society alone does not create strong democracy. What we have found is that democracy can be weak even when citizens are active. Even when civil society is active, engaged and energized, there must be a framework that entrenches their engagement in the governing and decision making institutions of their lands. It seems that this is where the most important change must take place. Only with changes in the ways that citizen involvement is institutionalized will democracy be strong.
These experiments emerged from a period of civic innovation. All grew out of the sense that something different was needed to strengthen citizen’s voices in governance — and all three experiments demonstrated that something different was possible. Nevertheless, they have not been able to reverse the weakening of democracy in Canada. For all their efforts at inventing, Canadians are back to venting.

---

[1] Learning to Engage: Experiences with Civic Engagement in Canada was prepared by Miriam Wyman, David Shulman and Laurie Ham for Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN) as Canada’s National Report for the Commonwealth Foundation’s Civil Society in the New Millennium Project. It can be found at www.cprn.org.

[2] The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), or Rio plus 10, took place in Johannesburg, South Africa in August, 2002.

[3] Barry Knight, Hope Chigudu & Rajesh Tandon. Reviving Democracy. London: Earthscan Press, 2001, 164.

NEWS RELEASE

New Report calls for mandatory public input

October 1, 2002

TORONTO – Strengthening civil society in an effort to deepen democracy is not enough, according to a new report for the Commonwealth Foundation. From Venting to Inventing, a report for the Commonwealth Foundation’s Citizens and Governance Programme, argues for entrenching citizen involvement in the decision-making processes of the state.

Written by Miriam Wyman, Canadian member of the Commonwealth Foundation’s Citizens and Governance Program Team, and David Shulman, Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network, the report uses three case studies to highlight how strengthening civil society and increasing citizen engagement does not necessarily lead to deeper democratic practice.

The case studies examine efforts to establish direct democracy at the municipal level in Rossland, British Columbia; the work of Web Networks, an internet-based network for activists; and the 1992 United Nations Conference of Environment and Development (UNCED) which redefined decision making among governments, civil society organizations, and citizens. Through these case studies, the report addresses the following questions:

• How are citizens organizing to strengthen their voices in political decisions?
• How are citizens attempting to rebalance relationships of engagement with their governments?
• How are citizens’ efforts translating into better institutionalized commitments to increased citizen involvement in governance?

“Citizens are doing almost everything possible to make their concerns known and it’s not enough. There has to be a formal requirement for listening,” notes Miriam Wyman.

Co-author David Shulman explains, “We need to do for public consultation what we’ve done for elections. Instead of leaving it to governments to consult the public on a voluntary basis, we need an entrenched process that obliges governments to engage citizens on a systematic basis.”

The report challenges the wisdom of focusing only on strengthening civil society as a means to deepening democracy.

Democracy can be weak even when citizens are active. Liz Rykert from Meta Strategies, comments that “this report fills an important void in terms of intent and actuality” with respect to addressing the paradox of a strong civil society and a weak democracy. From Venting to Inventing makes a case for mandatory public input in government policy making so that the voices of ‘ordinary’ citizens can be heard.

Project results will be presented this week at the first National Conference on Dialogue and Deliberation in Washington, D.C., and later this month at the Montreal International Forum on Global Governance 2002 (G02).

To see an Overview of the report, click here, and to see the full report (300 K, PDF format), click here.

– 30 –

Author Contact Information:

Miriam Wyman,
Practicum Limited
Commonwealth Foundation, Citizens and Governance Programme Team
Tel.: (416) 413-0347
E-mail: miriam.wyman@utoronto.ca

David Shulman
Democracy Education Network
www.democracyeducation.net
Tel: (416) 761-1552
E-mail: info@democracyeducation.net

NEWS RELEASE

Global Integrity Report Ranks Canada 8th Out Of 55 Countries in World’s Most Comprehensive Assessment of Government Accountability and Integrity

Gifts and Donations Loopholes, Secrecy, Lack of Merit-Based Appointments Process and Lack of Strong Enforcement Agencies the Main Weaknesses in Canada

Wednesday, January 30, 2008

OTTAWA – Today, the international organization Global Integrity released its 2007 Report on the results of the world’s most comprehensive, detailed assessment (using more than 300 indicators) of national government accountability and integrity (especially anti-corruption measures) in 55 countries, including Global Integrity’s first reports on Canada and China.  In past years, Global Integrity has also assessed the national governments of another 21 countries, for a total of 76 country reports.

The report details what it will take to build real democracy and create genuine stability around the globe, and is available on the Global Integrity website at:  http://www.globalintegrity.org

Each national government is assessed by Global Integrity’s in-country experts by providing answers to Global Integrity’s 304 questions in its Integrity Indicators Scorecard.  The Scorecard is divided into six categories (with 23 sub-categories in total), as follows: 1. Civil Society, Public Information and Media; 2. Elections; 3. Government Accountability; 4. Administration and Civil Service; 5. Oversight and Regulation; 6. Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law.  Duff Conacher, Coordinator of Democracy Watch, was the Lead Researcher for the section of the report on Canada.

Canada’s federal government ranked 8th out of the 55 national governments (none of which received a “Very Strong” rating), behind Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania, as well as the U.S., Spain, Japan, Italy (with Bulgaria, the U.S. and Latvia comfortably in the “Strong” rating tier, while Spain, Japan, Italy, Romania and Canada just barely made it into the “Strong” rating tier).

The assessment concluded overall about Canada that (To see the full report on Canada, click here):
“Canada offers a good environment for media and civil society, as well as inclusive and well-regulated elections. However, significant gaps exist in Canada’s governance performance, most notably in legislative and judicial accountability measures.  For instance, assets worth less than 10,000 Canadian dollars (US$9,843) are not required to be disclosed by legislators, while asset disclosure forms of Senate members are kept confidential.”

and also that:

“In Canada, the extent of the executive’s control over appointments to
the judiciary puts the nation alongside Kenya and Mexico as having a “Very Weak” rating for judicial accountability.”

In Global Integrity’s category-by-category rankings, Canada had its worst rankings in categories 6. Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law (15th overall, worse than countries such as Jordan, Bulgaria, Costa Rica, Romania, Latvia, Argentina, India, Vanuatu, Kenya and Ukraine) and 3. Government Accountability (13th overall, worse than countries such as Latvia, Bulgaria, Romania, Malawi, Philippines, Peru, Pakistan and Colombia).  Canada had its best rankings in categories 2. Elections (4th overall), 4. Administration and Civil Service (6th overall), 5. Oversight and Regulation (6th overall) and 1. Civil Society, Public Information and Media (8th overall). “Canada’s federal government has significant loopholes in its government accountability system when compared to other countries, and has a lot of work to do to become the world’s leading democracy,” said Duff Conacher, Assistant to the Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network, and Coordinator of Democracy Watch.

– 30 –

For more information, contact:
Duff Conacher, Assistant to the Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network, and Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: 613-241-5178

2008 Global Integrity Report
E-mail: info@democracyeducation.net

NEWS RELEASE

Global Integrity 2008 Report Drops Canada From “Strong” to “Moderate” Level in World’s Most Detailed Assessment of Government Integrity and Democracy

Donations, Gifts and Lobbying Loopholes, Secrecy, Lack of Merit-Based Appointments Process, Arbitrary Election Calls, Lack of Judicial and Senate Accountability and Weak Enforcement Agencies the Key Problems with Canada’s Federal Government

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

OTTAWA – Today, the international organization Global Integrity released its 2008 Report on the results of the world’s most comprehensive, detailed assessment (using more than 300 indicators) of national government accountability and integrity (especially anti-corruption measures) in dozens of countries, including Canada.  In total in the past few years, Global Integrity has assessed the national governments of more than 90 countries.

The Report details what it will take to build real democracy and create genuine stability around the globe, and is available on the Global Integrity website at: http://report.globalintegrity.org

Each national government is assessed by Global Integrity’s in-country experts by providing answers to Global Integrity’s more than 300 questions in its Integrity Indicators Scorecard.  The Scorecard is divided into six categories (with 23 sub-categories in total), as follows: 1. Civil Society, Public Information and Media; 2. Elections; 3. Government Accountability; 4. Administration and Civil Service; 5. Oversight and Regulation; 6. Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law.

As in the 2007 Global Integrity Report, Duff Conacher, Assistant Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network and Coordinator of Democracy Watch, was the Lead Researcher for the section of the 2008 report on Canada.

Canada’s federal government just barely maintained its top 10 ranking overall of the national governments that have been assessed since 2006, none of which received a “Very Strong” rating.  However, because of increasing problems with government secrecy and lack of enforcement of key government accountability laws, as well as with the arbitrary 2008 federal election call by Prime Minister Harper, Canada dropped from the bottom of the group of governments with a “Strong” rating down to head the group of governments with a “Moderate” rating.

As a result, of the national governments that have been assessed since 2006, Canada still ranks behind Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland and Romania, as well as Germany, Israel, Japan, Spain, and the U.S. (with Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland and the U.S. comfortably at the “Strong” rating level, while Germany, Italy, Japan, Romania and Spain just barely made it into the “Strong” rating tier).

“Canada’s federal government has significant loopholes in its government accountability system when compared to other countries, and has a lot of work to do to become the world’s leading democracy,” said Duff Conacher, Assistant to the Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network and Coordinator of Democracy Watch.  “Government integrity continues to be undermined by loopholes that allow secret donations to some candidates and to political party trust funds, and allow for excessive government secrecy including secret, unethical lobbying, and undermined by Cabinet patronage appointments, arbitrary election calls, lack of judicial and Senate accountability and weak government accountability lapdog agencies.”

Overall, while Canada’s Legal Framework mark increased from 89% in 2007 to 90% in 2008 (as the Access to Information Act was expanded to cover 50 new government institutions and the new, stronger Lobbying Act came into force), its Implementation mark dropped from 70% to 68% mainly because of an overall weak government accountability law enforcement record.

As a result, Canada’s overall mark dropped from 81% in 2007 to 80% in 2008, enough to drop it from the Strong level down to the Moderate level.

In Global Integrity’s six categories in its Integrity Indicators Scorecard, Canada had its worst scores in categories (To see the full report on Canada, click here):

• 3. Government Accountability (Weak at 64% overall, especially in the sub-category of Judicial Accountability with a Very Weak Score of 31%);
• 4. Administration and Civil Service (Moderate at 76% overall, with a Weak score of 61% in the sub-category of Civil Service Regulations), and;
• 6. Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law (Moderate at 77% overall, with a Very Weak score of 58% in the sub-category of Law Enforcement).

Canada had its best scores in categories:

• 1. Civil Society, Public Information and Media (Strong at 87% overall, with a Very Strong mark of 92% for media freedom overall);
• 5. Oversight and Regulation (Strong at 87% overall, especially in the sub-category of national government auditing with a Very Strong mark of 94%), and;
• 2. Elections (Strong at 86% overall).

– 30 –

For more information, contact:
Duff Conacher, Assistant to the Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network, and Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: 613-241-5178

2008 Global Integrity Report
E-mail: info@democracyeducation.net

NEWS RELEASE

Global Integrity Report lowers Canadian federal government’s score from 80 to 75 — Weak enforcement of Accountability Act’s loophole-filled rules the main reason for drop in democracy rating

Canada drops from 11th to 19th out of 100 countries assessed since 2007 — A “Real Accountability Act” needed to end secret donations, gifts and lobbying; excessive secrecy overall; patronage appointments; conflicts of interest; arbitrary election calls; lack of PM, judicial and Senate accountability and; to strengthen whistleblower protection and good government enforcement agencies

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

OTTAWA – Today, Global Integrity released its 2010 Global Integrity Report which dropped Canada from 11th to 19th out of the almost 100 countries evaluated since 2007.  The Report is the world’s most comprehensive, detailed assessment (using more than 300 indicators) of national government accountability, integrity and democratic process, and measures the strength of key laws and enforcement records up to the end of 2010.

“As the Global Integrity Report makes clear, Canada’s federal government has significant loopholes in its democratic process and government accountability systems when compared to other countries, and weak enforcement in many areas, and so has a lot of work to do to become the world’s leading democracy,” said Duff Conacher, Lead Researcher for the Canada report, and Coordinator of Democracy Watch and Assistant Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network.  “Government integrity continues to be undermined by loopholes that allow for dishonesty, secret donations to some candidates and to political party trust funds, conflicts of interest by policy-makers, excessive government secrecy, secret, unethical lobbying, and is also undermined by Cabinet patronage appointments, arbitrary election calls and a flawed voting system, and lack of Prime Minister, judicial and Senate accountability and weak whistleblower protection and government accountability lapdog agencies.”

“Democracy Watch and the good government coalitions it coordinates call on all federal parties in the new Parliament to pass a Real Accountability Act to close the dozens of undemocratic and accountability loopholes in the federal government,” said Conacher.

Each national government is assessed by Global Integrity’s in-country experts by providing answers to Global Integrity’s more than 300 questions in its Integrity Indicators Scorecard.  The Scorecard is divided into six categories (with 23 sub-categories in total), as follows: I. Non-Governmental Organizations, Public Information and Media; II. Elections; III. Government Conflicts of Interest Safeguards and Checks and Balances; IV. Public Administration and Professionalism; V. Government Oversight and Controls; VI. Anti-Corruption Legal Framework, Judicial Impartiality, and Law Enforcement Professionalism.

None of the national governments that have been assessed since 2007 have received a “Very Strong” above 90 rating.  In Canada, increasing problems with government secrecy and weak enforcement of key ethics and government accountability laws, as well as the 2008 arbitrary election call and the 2008 and 2009 shutdowns of Parliament, have lowered Canada’s federal government from the high-“Moderate” score of 80 in 2008 to the mid-Moderate rating of 75 in 2010.

Overall, the main problem with Canada’s federal government is that while it has enacted almost all the laws needed for an effective government integrity system (and so receives a Strong overall score of 90 for its Legal Framework), loopholes and flaws in the laws, and weak enforcement, undermine the system (so that Canada received Weak overall score of 61 for its implementation of the laws).

Canada has its worst scores in the following categories and sub-categories:

• III. Government Conflicts of Interest Safeguards (Weak at 64 overall because of loopholes in rules and weak enforcement by Ethics Commissioner, and especially bad in sub-category III-3: Judicial Accountability with a Very Weak Score of 32 because of patronage appointments to federal agencies, boards, commissions and tribunals, and lack of effective conflict of interest enforcement for all types of judges and commissioners);
• IV. Public Administration and Professionalism safeguards (Very low Moderate at 71 overall, with a Weak score of 62 in sub-category IV-1: Civil Service Conflict of Interest and Political Independence safeguards because of lack of independence and effective conflict of interest enforcement, and a Weak score of 63 in sub-category IV-2: Whistle-blowing Protections because of flaws in the law and weak enforcement by Integrity Commissioner), and;
• sub-category VI.-2 Anti-Corruption Agency enforcement record with a Weak score of 59 because of weak enforcement records by the Ethics Commissioner, Commissioner of Lobbying, Integrity Commissioner and Senate Ethics Officer, and lack of key powers for Information Commissioner, Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Canada has its best scores in the following categories and sub-categories:

• II. Elections with a overall Strong score of 83;
• V. Government Oversight and Controls of finances with an overall Strong score of 82, and;
• Sub-category I-2 Media’s Ability to Report on Corruption with an Strong score of 88.

– 30 –

For more information, contact:
Duff Conacher, Assistant to the Coordinator of the Democracy Education Network, and Coordinator of Democracy Watch
Tel: 613-241-5178

2010 Global Integrity Report
E-mail: advocacyskills@democracyeducation.net