Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of March 7, 2012
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 7, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:28 p.m. to study and report on the establishment of a "Charter of the Commonwealth" as agreed to by the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Perth, Australia, in October 2011, and its implications for Canada.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We have had a delay due to the fact that our witnesses are members of Parliament in the House of Commons and there was a vote. I am told there is another vote by the house, so our witnesses have very limited time. With the concurrence of the committee, I am suggesting that we start. They will do their presentations and as many questions as they can.
I would ask the witnesses to give me a heads up when they have to leave. You can signal that you need to go down to the other place. We cannot extend after that because we have another panel by video conference at distance, so we have to keep to our timetable also.
We are the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We are seized with a study and a report on the establishment of a charter of the Commonwealth as agreed to by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth, Australia in October, 2011 and its implications for Canada.
We were asked by the minister to do a consultation on the feasibility, advisability, and any other advice we can give with respect to a proposed charter for the Commonwealth.
Before us today are Mr. Russ Hiebert, Member of Parliament and Chair of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Canada, and Mr. Joe Preston, a Member of Parliament and on the executive representing the Canadian region on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is not unknown to the members here, as several of us have been long-standing members of the executive and of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
We are told that a charter might have some benefit to the CPA, but perhaps you would also have some thoughts from your work as to the advisability of a charter of the Commonwealth, in what form, and of what use it might be to parliamentarians that you represent. Welcome to the Senate.
Russ Hiebert, M.P., Chair, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — Parliament of Canada: Honourable senators, I would like to thank you for asking my fellow CPA member and I to address the committee as part of the study on the establishment of a charter of the Commonwealth and its implications for Canada.
First, I will pass along some background on the CPA and on interest in the establishment of a Commonwealth charter. As many of you know, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, or the CPA, dates back to 1911 when it was founded as the Empire Parliamentary Association. Since this time, we have seen the CPA evolve. It adopted its current name is 1948 and its membership has expanded to include 175 legislative bodies worldwide, encompassing approximately 17,000 parliamentarians at the federal, provincial and territorial levels.
The CPA provides a valuable means through which legislators in the Commonwealth countries can consult each other on a regular basis, foster cooperation and mutual understanding, and promote good parliamentary practice. The CPA works to promote and enhance parliamentary democracy by building knowledge and understanding of democratic governance among Commonwealth countries. It organizes conference, seminars and workshops, publishes and disseminates parliamentary information, promotes effective management of legislatures and encourages the exchange of knowledge and skills among its members.
Canadian parliamentarians play a strong role in carrying out this educational mandate. As one the Commonwealth's relatively older parliamentary democracies, we have the ability to share our experiences, successes and challenges with emerging and developing democracies.
The richness of Canada's experience as a parliamentary democracy allows our legislators to share their insights on a broad spectrum of issues, helping other Parliaments to make well thought out and effective decisions. Now I would like to turn to the development of the draft charter we are currently considering.
The latest meeting the Commonwealth Heads of Government took place in Perth, Australia in October of 2011, and I accompanied the Prime Minister to that meeting. In Perth, it was agreed that a charter of the Commonwealth be established. The Commonwealth has no constitution, per se, and as such its core principles and values have been set out in a number of different documents. Forty years ago the purpose of the Commonwealth was outlined in the 1971 Singapore Declaration as being to promote world peace and support the United Nations, individual liberty and egalitarianism, opposition to racism, opposition to colonialism, the eradication of poverty, ignorance, disease and economic inequality, free trade, institutional cooperation, multilateralism and the rejection of international coercion.
Twenty years later, the Harare Declaration of 1991 reaffirmed much of the Singapore Declaration, and another 20 years on we are again revisiting the question of what the Commonwealth stands for.
I believe the willingness of the Commonwealth to ask itself this critical question about its raison d'être is a reflection of its maturity and depth as an organization. From our perspective, the Eminent Persons Group recommendation that a charter of the Commonwealth be established was welcome news. This endeavour to create a unifying document for the organization, and the broader project of renewal within the Commonwealth, are extremely important pursuits. The draft charter before us outlines the values and aspirations of the Commonwealth. These values include: peace and security, economic growth and development, multilateral global relationships, democracy, good governance and the rule of law, equality and human rights, and the strengthening of civil society and the media, among others.
These are fundamental principles and we believe that Canadian parliamentarians, and indeed parliamentarians from across the Commonwealth, can play an important role in implementing and upholding them. Canadian parliamentarians are already on the forefront of promoting the very values and aspirations expressed in the proposed charter. There are sections of the new charter that I believe move the Commonwealth forward and I would like to mention a few of them.
The draft charter talks in article 10 about the "sharing of legal materials" and in article 15 about mutual support where "peace building is needed." Canadian parliamentarians are already assisting other members of the Commonwealth by sharing our knowledge and experience with them. The draft charter makes explicit the need for such cooperation, and I can only see it growing in the future. Then there is article 23 of the draft charter which states:
. . . in the face of serious or persistent violations of the values expressed in this charter, silence on the part of Commonwealth is not an option.
It remains to be seen what the reaction to this article will be during the consultation period. As it is written, it would seem to impose upon Canada, as a member of the Commonwealth, a positive obligation to speak out when the charter of the Commonwealth is being breached. A number of questions pose themselves in this regard. Must Canada speak with the Commonwealth as a collective body or can it speak on its own? Will it matter if the Commonwealth country in question has agreed to the terms of the charter or not? What will constitute a serious and persistent violation?
As with other areas of international relations, it may take time for a body of precedence in this area to accumulate. The Eminent Persons Group has also recommended that a commissioner for democracy, the rule of law and human rights should be appointed to provide well-researched and reliable information simultaneously to the Secretary General and the Chairperson of Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on serious or persistent violations of democracy, the rule of law and human rights in member states, and to indicate approaches for remedial action.
Until now, this role has largely been played by the Secretary General, but it is clear that an arm's length officer — not unlike our Auditor General or Information Commissioner — would be better positioned to investigate violations and make recommendations. Clearly, this new commissioner will need a code of conduct to work with, and the proposed charter is a logical place for such a code to be enumerated and agreed to by all member nations.
Going forward, the charter could provide an innovative roadmap to help Commonwealth countries target areas for improvement, channeling our shared history and heritage towards a shared future of effective, democratic governance. I also believe that this exercise also presents us with a valuable opportunity to not only renew and reinvigorate the organization, but also to develop a vision for where the Commonwealth should go in the future. The already enumerated objectives in the draft charter — such as increasing respect pour individual rights and building our democracies — have always been worthy goals of the Commonwealth. They will continue for into the future, as they should.
However, as was pointed out by one member of the Eminent Persons Group, simply restating the all right enumerated objectives and aspirations of the Commonwealth does not by itself add value. If the charter is to have real value and relevance, it must embrace a vision that moves our member nations forward in areas where we are not already focused.
The Eminent Persons Group report suggested that at national consultations like these — such as the one your committee is currently engaged in — proposed recommendations for the Commonwealth Heads of Government should be considered.
Therefore, I would like to propose as a recommendation that we place a greater emphasis on two economic objectives that are enumerated to some extent in the Singapore Declaration, which I have already referred to, but have not received as much attention in our recent Commonwealth discussions and initiatives as they might.
The two objectives are free trade and, under the rule of law, the protection of property rights, particularly copyrights, patents and trademarks. Promoting and protecting property rights across the Commonwealth will facilitate investment in and prosper all our member nations. A Commonwealth-wide focus on freeing trade may produce positive results for Canada and our fellow Commonwealth nations that we would not achieve through our current bilateral negotiation model. A new focus on free trade and property rights will lead to greater economic opportunities for the whole of the Commonwealth and a brighter future for all our people.
I would welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Preston, do you wish to add anything?
Joe Preston, M.P., Member, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — Parliament of Canada: I will speak briefly. Mr. Hiebert covered most of the conversation about the development of the charter. I thank you for the work you are doing in having the look at the development of the charter.
It has been said in the documents that we must do as much as we can from a consultation point of view to develop the charter. He mentioned the Singapore Declaration and the declaration from Harare. He did not mention the Latimer Principles but he did mention others that the Commonwealth have brought forward over time to measure ourselves and, if you will, to encode ourselves. We need to keep those in line.
However, as member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I have a view of the charter being the value set of what the Commonwealth will look like. As a parliamentarian in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, it will be our job to work among the other value-setters, the members of the Parliament in the other nations, who come along with the charter, and help them in areas of new democracies and new parliaments do that job, as well as help them with the education process as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has for 100 years.
We must also be there somewhat — as was mentioned — as referees, to point out when we can do better and when other parliamentarians can do better. We do that one-on-one — it is our belief that is the best education piece there is, and the true role of parliamentarians in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
I will leave that now to your questions.
The Chair: Mr. Hiebert, one of the criticisms heard in other countries is that it is not a charter; it is really about values and rights. If it is such, would the entire Commonwealth embrace it? If it does, how do you implement it when certain members fail?
Senator Segal before us said it would be a document that could be used for new entries. I think the preoccupation from others is: What if we do not live up to these values that we say? What is the implementation? The record has been less than stellar in the past for implementation.
Therefore, how do you believe this charter, as you have described it, with the additions — and I thank you for the clarifications, which are innovative here before this committee. They are helpful. Regardless, how would we implement this since it is an aspirational document and not one capable of implementation?
Mr. Hiebert: As I referred to in my remarks, we do have other historic documents: The Singapore Declaration and the Harare Declaration. This charter updates that to some degree. At the end of the day, it is not a constitution with binding mechanisms. It is a charter. It is a restatement of values that we all believe each nation should support.
I believe by bringing it forward at a time when we are also considering adopting a commissioner that could enforce these values, we are basically saying we recognize that we might need a police officer to police how well we are doing here. However, we need a "Criminal Code" that will bind ourselves to certain standards. Instead of relying on the Singapore Declaration or the Harare Declaration, we are saying that we agree that this is the common code of conduct that we will participate in, and the commissioner will use that as guidance in terms of evaluating whether we are staying within the lines.
That is one of the benefits I see, in addition to the points I have already made. Although it is not binding, per se, we bind ourselves by signing on to it and I think that is a good thing. When we restate these are the principles that we all agree on, it is just helpful.
The Chair: It increases the moral suasion.
Mr. Hiebert: Yes, and it allows the citizens of the Commonwealth to go to their respective parliamentary leaders and say, "You signed on to this document that says I have freedom of expression, I have freedom of association, the freedom to participate in this democracy and, frankly, that is not exactly what you are letting me do right now." Therefore, it is part the moral suasion, as you said.
The Chair: I have long list of questioners. Do you now know when you might be called back?
Mr. Preston: Ten minutes.
Senator Downe: I will defer to other members due to the long list and short time.
The Chair: I would not want you to do that.
Senator Downe: They only have 10 minutes, unless they come back. I will pass.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I have three short questions that are important. First, what is the measure of comparison between parliamentarians from the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Secretariat?
Next, how can this proposed new charter facilitate closer cooperation between the two? And finally, as Canadian members of Parliament, are you satisfied with the level of effectiveness of the Commonwealth as a world organization?
[English]
Mr. Preston: The relationship between the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is exactly as it sounds: The Commonwealth is made up of heads of state and governments. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, although complementary to that, is made up of parliamentarians from those states, some of them even being in opposition.
There is a drastic difference. If a charter were to be established, I see a far greater ability to work together because, as it stands now, obviously if I go somewhere from a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I am not representing government; I am representing our parliament. Through what we are calling "moral suasion," I can certainly have conversations one-on-one with other parliamentarians about ethical issues, but I cannot speak on behalf of our government at that place.
That would be where I would go with it.
Mr. Hiebert: You did a good job of explaining the difference. I will answer the second question, which was related to closer relations. Anything that would require governments to pay more attention to the values that bind us together will help parliamentarians, absolutely. Remember that they still have to play a role in passing legislation and a role in holding their respective governments to account. If they, too, can point to these documents — to this charter, or this updated values document — I absolutely think it strengthens their ability to do their job.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: And you, as Canadian members of Parliament, are you satisfied with the level of effectiveness of the Commonwealth as a world organization?
[English]
Mr. Preston: Yes, I believe I have seen democracy in different formats around the world by being a member of this organization, but I think it is a forward-thinking, forward-striding organization and can be called that.
Mr. Hiebert: I agree. I think it does a lot; certainly at the CPA level, we do an awful lot. We not only visit countries but bring many parliamentarians to Canada to help educate them about what it means to be a parliamentarian. The feedback we always get is an expression of incredible gratitude for the work we do.
I think they are effective organizations. Do I think they have greater potential? Absolutely; I think there is much more that could be accomplished through these organizations and this document will help along those lines.
Senator D. Smith: I am also on the CPA executive. Last week we had here Professor Schabas, an expert in international law at Middlesex University in the U.K. with particular expertise in human rights. He actually has a Canadian background. In commenting on it, he made favourable remarks about the references in the draft to bona fide democracies with free elections and also human rights being enforced by the rule of law. He mentioned three areas he thought were missing. I will state them and you might want to jot them down.
The first was the UN concept that came out in 2001 of the responsibility to protect, which is basically an obligation on states to protect vulnerable populations and minorities from ethnic cleansing and things like that.
Second, he raised the fact that there was no reference to Aboriginal rights in there.
Third was the importance of international justice and accountability for atrocities. As an example, he made reference to the International Criminal Court.
Those are the three areas he felt were missing. Perhaps you could comment.
The Chair: I understand our witnesses have five minutes so you may wish to answer quickly.
Mr. Hiebert: The first one, the UN concept of the responsibility to protect, is a worthy recommendation to consider. It would be a good addition and would fit well with the document.
Item three, accountability for atrocities, is a little more challenging. We are talking about expanding the power of the Commonwealth to move to this commissioner, which is a significant step beyond where we have been in the past. If you look at the history of the organization, there have been relatively few times when the CMAG group of foreign ministers has taken steps to push people outside of the organization or hold them to account. I do not think it is realistic to try to move to an International Criminal Court standard in one step. That is going a little too far.
Mr. Preston: They are all admirable things to add. As you continue with this process, you will have other people come forward with other things that may be left out on the boundaries. That is the answer. The reason we are having this good look at this charter as we move forward is to try to include things that could fit. Would all these fit at the end of the day? I am not 100 per cent sure, but let us keep doing the digging. It is good to look at answers from other sources.
The Chair: I will ask Senator De Bané and Senator Johnson to put their questions. If we have time, I will have the answers, but if not, I would appreciate them in a written form.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Hiebert, the heads of Commonwealth countries agreed to the EPG's charter recommendation. In the 2011 CHOGM communiqué, leaders stated, and Canada of course agreed to it, that there should be a charter of the Commonwealth as proposed by the Eminent Persons Group, embodying the principles contained in previous declarations, drawn together in a single consolidated document that is not legally binding. Then, of course, the different countries were asked, as we are doing today, to study all that.
Your position is quite different from what I have read, which is part of the consensus.
Second, as you know, Prime Minister Mulroney was one of the main drivers of la Francophonie in 1986. He was a critical player to put that in place. They established la Francophonie, gave it many structures, and in their charter said the association of national Francophonie sections are recognized as the consultative body of the heads of state.
Do you not think that if you had such a legal underpinning to the parliamentary association of the Commonwealth where you would be recognized as the consultative body, it would help your parliamentary association?
Senator Johnson: What about the consultation process of the proposed charter? Have you started that? When would that start? I am talking about in the Commonwealth. Also, how is it going in this respect? What do you do if you do not get an agreement on a charter?
Mr. Preston: I will take that one from the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. We have started the discussion there also. At the international level we are having that discussion, and again in Tonga in April there is another group of the executive where that will be a discussion we will have.
At this moment we can have the discussion two ways, amongst ourselves and that organization or, as we are having it here, discussion within our own countries. As many of you have found, some of the best conversations take place on the sidelines at some of these meetings, with individual parliamentarians from other countries, asking them where they are on their consultation and reminding them of their need to go forward with it, too. It is not just us, but we will ensure we have discussions on the international stage about the consultation process for this charter also.
Mr. Hiebert: Consultations are happening in the U.K., Australia and other countries as well as what is happening here. I appreciate, again, the invitation to be here to speak and to address this issue. Thank you very much for your attention.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hiebert and Mr. Preston. I am not compelled to apologize too much for the crispness, as you have the same tradition on the other side and you are just feeling the brunt of it as witnesses as opposed to members of Parliament. Thank you for your indulgence. Please add to your testimony, as I will ask the senators to add any further questions to continue this dialogue.
Next, we are delighted to hear from two witnesses via video conference, and one is here with us in Ottawa. We have a time limit of one hour, so I will ask our presenters to make short opening statements, because we would like to enter into a dialogue of questions and answers.
I am delighted that we have Mr. Richard Bourne, Senior Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the School of Advanced Study at the University of London. Mr. Bourne, you wore many other hats, and certainly your relationship with the Commonwealth is well known at this table and elsewhere. Your human rights initiative is still one talked about and valued by colleagues across the world and within the Commonwealth.
We also have Mr. Arthur Donahoe, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Shall I tell them you are joining us from Florida? He is, as noted, the former Secretary General, Speaker of the Nova Scotia Legislature at one time, and served admirably for many years as our Secretary General in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.
From my own personal relationship with both the Commonwealth and the CPA, Mr. Donahoe, you worked very diligently to bring the two organizations together in consultations and dialogues, and that will be helpful to us.
Here in Ottawa with us is Mr. Nick Hare, Former Commonwealth Deputy Secretary (Development Cooperation). He has also been in many capacities serving Canada abroad and here — I believe in CIDA and DFAIT. Am I correct? Yes.
We have three very important witnesses who really demand an hour of our time individually, but we are under a time constraint to deliver a report. Please forgive us that we have compressed you in the time. As old hands, you will know how who handle this rather well.
I will turn to Mr. Bourne for an opening statement, then to Mr. Donahoe and to Mr. Hare.
Gentlemen, welcome.
Richard Bourne, Senior Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, as an individual: Thank you very much indeed, senator. I am very honoured to be invited to give this video evidence to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
I should start by saying that I am no great enthusiast of the proposed charter — the draft that has been circulated — principally because it does not seem to go much further than the Trinidad and Tobago Affirmation agreed to by heads in 2009. In one or two specific respects, this draft charter goes backwards. There is nothing in this draft relating to freedom of expression and freedom of the press and the media. It is also weaker in the area of local democracy of concern for local government in our member countries.
The danger appears to be that quite a lot of time will be spent on a hortatory document of an aspirational nature. It does not do as the United Nations charter does, which is provide a list of duties and organizational structure. For example, it does not say that leaders of the Commonwealth normally meet every two years; that ministers of — for example — education and the law meet regularly, and foreign ministers as well; that there are structures, including a Commonwealth Secretariat, serving the political and economic needs; that there is a Commonwealth Foundation serving civil society; and that there are some extremely significant other Commonwealth bodies, such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Commonwealth Business Council, et cetera.
Therefore, in terms of clarifying for readers and particularly for younger members of the Commonwealth, I do not really feel it does that job very well. Again, I am a little worried about the pressures that seem to be applied to produce this document quickly. It is certainly getting some attention in your country and mine, but I am worried that, in many of the developing countries of the Commonwealth, it will not receive the same kind of attention and, therefore, there is a slight risk of a document being dumped down on a significant number of members, both states and peoples, in the Commonwealth.
Finally, in the short presentation, I would say that there seems to be some confusion between a document that is a document coming from the peoples of the Commonwealth and a document that is really just agreed upon by governments. These are two rather different things, and I think there is some confusion in the wording, which suggests that this is a popular document agreed upon by the people. There is some wording mimicking the American Constitution, and it does not really reflect the reality, which is, on the whole, that this is something that has been put together initially by the Eminent Persons Group, secondly, by governments. Also, it does not really provide very much forward progress, in my view, for the Commonwealth as an international institution that is not very well understood.
I would like to see a very brief thing that could be of use to young people. A few years ago, the Commonwealth Foundation prepared something called CommonGround aimed at teenagers. There is a shortage, I believe, of easily understood material about the Commonwealth. However, I am a bit worried about this particular document.
Arthur Donahoe, Former Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, as an individual: Honourable senators, I have been asked to present my views on the recommendation that a charter of the Commonwealth be established, and its implications for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association from a Canadian perspective. Some of what I have to say will echo comments made in Mr. Hiebert's presentation earlier this afternoon.
The CPA, as I am sure you are all aware, marked its one hundredth anniversary last year. The Parliament of Canada has been an important member of the organization from its inception, and Canadian provincial and territorial legislatures have also been and continue to be active participants. At the intergovernmental level, Canada is the second largest contributor to the Commonwealth.
I certainly do not intend to trace the history of the CPA except to say that from modest beginnings, it has grown to an organization of over 17,000 members, with branches in over 170 parliaments and legislatures in most of the countries of the Commonwealth.
As it is funded by its member branches, it operates independent by from, but in collaboration with, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Foundation, and other Commonwealth organizations.
CPA headquarters are located in London, from which the international activities of the organization are planned, coordinated and executed. I had the great privilege of serving as Secretary General, or CEO, of the CPA from 1992 until the end of 2001. I remain the only Canadian to have held that position.
During my time in London, I was frequently called upon to speak to visiting parliamentarians and outside groups about the Commonwealth and the CPA. Most often I would begin my remarks as follows: The Commonwealth is a voluntary association of sovereign, independent states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and cooperating in the interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.
These words will be recognized as the opening sentence of the Harare Declaration to which Commonwealth heads of government had committed themselves just one year before I became CPA's Secretary General.
I would then go on to say that the Commonwealth has no charter, but that its members promise to adhere to certain fundamental principles set out in various declarations adopted over the years by Commonwealth heads, especially at Singapore in 1971 and Harare in 1991.
I have sometimes heard criticisms leveled at the Commonwealth that not all its member countries were living up to the principles to which they had agreed to abide. One of the shortcomings of the Harare Declaration was that it did not include a mechanism for sanctioning members who failed to abide by its terms. This defect was remedied at the 1995 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM, at Auckland when the Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme was adopted and the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, or CMAG, was established. More recently, the Latimer House guidelines on the relationship between parliament, the executive and the judiciary, and stressing the importance of gender equality and the role of women in public life, have been agreed to.
Now, some 20 years after the adoption of the Harare Declaration, the Eminent Persons Group has recommended the establishment of a "Charter of the Commonwealth." I have had an opportunity to read the Eminent Persons Group's draft charter and believe that, for many reasons as set out in the group's report, adoption of such a document would be beneficial for the Commonwealth and its member countries. I will touch briefly on only two of these reasons.
First, the charter would act as a codification of the fundamental principles set out in the many Commonwealth declarations, and would be the culmination of work that has been evolving since at least 1971.
Second, as the Eminent Persons Group points out such a charter would enable the Commonwealth to become more people-oriented and provide enhanced relevance to an organization, which is not widely understood and appreciated by citizens of its member countries.
I also believe there is merit in considering the option referred to by the EPG to consider an expanded charter, to make it more of a constitutive document, which sets out the Commonwealth's objectives, founding principles, criteria for admission and continuance of membership, its organs, office bearers and decision-making process, and its external relations. Perhaps I am echoing some of the remarks my friend Richard Bourne has just made.
As the Eminent Persons Group recognized, to do this would require the widest possible consultation but inclusion of these matters would, in my view, result in a more comprehensive and unifying document. It may be that now is the time to do the exercise in full. In any event, adoption of a charter would more easily guide and focus the organization's work, and further its aim of working in the words of former Commonwealth Secretary General Don McKinnon:
. . . as a trusted partner for all Commonwealth people; as a force for democracy and good governance; as a platform for global consensus building and as a source for practical help for sustainable development.
I will be pleased to try to answer any questions which committee members may have.
Nick Hare, Former Commonwealth Deputy Secretary (Development Cooperation), as an individual: I will endeavour to be reasonably brief, and I have cut out about five paragraphs. Nevertheless, I will stick to my text in certain moments. It has been 12 full years since I set foot in Marlborough House, where the secretariat is, so I might be dated in my views, but I am sure that will be acceptable in the Senate.
I was very impressed by the work undertaken by the Eminent Persons Group. It is an outstanding and far-reaching document. I felt for some time that this kind of in-depth study was long overdue. It is important that taxpayers need to be clear about the benefits of membership, and for that they need to have an understanding and knowledge about what the Commonwealth stands for, what its objectives and priorities are or should be, and what services are available. The EPG has raised these issues in spades.
However, it is very important that this charter be gotten right. This series of witnesses you are calling will help, but I am sure once the Commonwealth brings together the views from its various members, quite a different charter will be put before us.
The draft as it stands is an excellent document in terms of drawing together the many inspirational beliefs, values and aspirations that successive landmark meetings of heads have agreed upon. In its present form, I do not see it as the user friendly charter that is needed in this time, in the context of the spirit of reform the EPG promotes.
I agree with others that as a practical matter eight pages is too long to garner the attention it deserves in the context of promoting a revitalized Commonwealth. Our own oft cited Charter is own two legal-size pages and that is perhaps why it is often referred to.
Bear in mind the need for reaching consensus among all 54 member states. From personal experience, I have always found that short is always better in achieving a successful negotiation.
In the matter of inspirational versus aspirational — and I know the committee has discussed this — why not maximize the art of the Commonwealth possible by having just enough of the former to inspire the promise of the latter. A clear annunciation of realistic aspiration objectives would also spark the interest in the badly needed debate around the Commonwealth's raison d'être, enjoyed by larger and better known international organizations.
I have two specific suggestions.
For each of them you can ask me to write the formulation of how they would appear in the final draft. The first relates to a practice in the Commonwealth which is both a blessing and a curse. You will have noticed that in the rendition you have with the eight pages, there are multiple quotes from many meetings. Basically, that means the Commonwealth is all things to all members. It is a bit of a syndrome which means that you cannot, in a 54-member organization — which likes to meet by consensus — keep adding things, because if you do not you will never get consensus. This brings me to my recommendation. As resources are the key to the art of the possible, the Commonwealth could do so much more if member governments ensure their resolutions were funded.
The charter, crass as it may sound, could help with this difficulty that impacts regularly on the secretariat's work and potentially on the Commonwealth's credibility. This is by including, on the aspirational side of the equation, a pledge whereby members undertook to provide the necessary means and support of those values and aspirations that heads of governments solemnly resolved to uphold.
I say that for a practical reason. Every time there is another decision taken by heads, or a proposal that is passed on to the secretariat, you need the resources to implement it. Everyone looks behind them and assumes those resources will come from someone else, some other party. You basically have a whole lot of broken promises as a result of this system.
Let us ensure that if we are going to do all these marvelous things that indeed they also pledge, when the time comes, resources for what they have undertaken the secretariat to do.
The second suggestion is I was very much struck by the quote by Her Majesty that was chosen by the Eminent Persons Group in the introduction to the report which said:
The Commonwealth is not an organization with a mission. It is rather an opportunity for its people to work together, to achieve practical solutions to problems.
This definition that has been used from Her Majesty speaks directly to the problem-solving nature of the mandates of the Commonwealth's functional cooperation programs, one of which I had responsibility for: the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. It is a highly flexible mechanism that provides a wide range of targeted or gap-filling technical assistance, funded entirely on a voluntary basis by the entire membership which totals around $40 million annually.
For many Commonwealth countries, in particular the smaller ones, the functional cooperation programs are considered one — if not the most important —benefit of membership, and the most valuable expression of the Commonwealth partnership. I was delighted to note how readily the EPG acknowledged this fact, as reflected in the following extract from the report in the charter on functional cooperation:
With so substantial a proportion of its membership being developed in countries, the Commonwealth is well placed in our view to position development in its broadest sense at the heart of its work.
A little further on it states:
The potential of the Commonwealth in this is unrivaled.
Well, bravo EPG; you got that absolutely right. Since the functional cooperation programs are seen as such a key benefit by so many countries and supported voluntarily by them directly, my suggestion is do you want to consider giving them greater prominence in the charter, than implied in the almost passing reference in paragraph 21 of the current draft which simply aspires to give practical assistance and technical aid, et cetera. Besides, Her Majesty would like that.
I would be happy to answer your questions.
Senator Downe: Mr. Bourne, I thank you for joining us today. You indicated the consultation on the charter may only be happening in a few countries. I see that you are the senior fellow on commonwealth studies; obviously you would know this; but why, in your opinion? Is it a matter of resources in the countries that are not participating in consulting their citizens or is it a lack of interest?
Mr. Bourne: It is two things, really. Both of those apply. One of the problems is the lack of existing knowledge about the Commonwealth so that people do not know where to start. Also, in very large countries — I am thinking of India in particular — there is a risk of having a small consultation in Delhi, when of course the population is spread over a very large area. I think there can be an equal and opposite kind of problem in very small states. As you know, the majority of Commonwealth member countries have populations of less than 1.5 million, and some of those are stretched over archipelagos in the ocean. I think there are considerable technical problems.
Although the aspiration to consult widely is a good one and the democratic one, and in keeping with the Commonwealth's often-espoused values, in reality, I am very concerned that this is not happening. In some countries maybe there is not enough government or indeed civil society push to make this happen. It is obviously very helpful when parliamentarians take a lead in consulting their constituents about these issues, but I am concerned that there is not a great deal of consultation and that a rather rushed schedule is perhaps pressing for a decision, in September of this year, it has been suggested, when actually the reality of consultation and the need then to achieve compromises and a new document, a shorter document or a different type of document, we may not have time for.
Senator Downe: I have a follow-up question. You indicated it could be a lack of existing knowledge among citizens about the role of the Commonwealth. Are the leaders of the Commonwealth just trying to enhance the organization or are they trying to define a role for the organization in a changing world?
We have a lot of overlapping responsibilities. We have an association here of mostly former colonies of the United Kingdom. Because most of these meetings require the head of government, in the case of Canada it is a wonder the Prime Minister is in the country — he has to attend the Asia Pacific Forum, NATO meetings, UN meetings, the G8, the G20, la Francophonie and Commonwealth. In most cases you cannot delegate a minister.
Is there any opportunity to reduce the number of these organizations? The Commonwealth is really duplicating in many cases what other organizations are doing.
Mr. Bourne: They are and they are not. Clearly, the Commonwealth and the Francophonie are two quite different organizations with different memberships. There is a small overlap, but it is only a small one.
In terms of NATO, obviously the great majority of Commonwealth states were effectively non-aligned during the Cold War, and only a very small number belonged to NATO.
You are correct; what you are putting your finger on is very important — namely, the burgeoning amount of international diplomacy that has developed. Circa 1950, the Commonwealth was almost alone as an international organization. The United Nations was still in its infancy, and although NATO was coming into existence, there was not this plethora of bodies demanding the attention of a head of government. In my view, the Commonwealth has got crowded out. You are right in saying that the Eminent Persons Group wanted to do two things. It wanted to re- energize the Commonwealth and help find it a new or more impressive and useful role in the 21st century, but at the same time trying to mobilize resources. I do not just mean money here, but public interest, political interest, the interest of leader writers on newspapers and opinion formers on television.
The whole EPG effort was designed to make the Commonwealth, to use the expression, fit for purpose, in the 21st century. It would be very sad if it falls down at early hurdles.
Almost half of the EPG recommendations were actually deferred at Perth. The contentious one, for a commissioner for democracy, the rule of law and human rights, I personally am very keen to see something of that go through, because if it does not, it will help make the Commonwealth charter look rather void and hypocritical.
The Commonwealth is suffering from a lack of interest at heads-of-government level, possibly a lack of energy at the institutional level — Commonwealth Secretariat, Commonwealth Foundation — and also this terrible crowding out, the sheer competition of modern global diplomacy.
Senator Downe: You indicated the commissioner of democracy. That is the same mandate that the Council of Europe has — rule of law, democracy and human rights.
Senator D. Smith: I believe some of you were listening in to our interview with the members from the CPA here. I did go over some of these points. When I first looked at the draft charter, I thought that there are many good things in there, and for us I think the most important things are the definition of a bona fide democracy with free elections, and human rights have to be in there enforced by the rule of law.
A lot of it almost fell into platitude stuff. I would like to see the words down a bit. One of our witnesses, of whom I did make a couple of notes, made very good points, and said that one of the things that was missing was the responsibility to protect concept that came out of the UN in 2001, which was an obligation on states to protect vulnerable populations from ethnic cleansing and things like that. Of course, the Commonwealth never did anything when Idi Amin did what he did back in the 1970s, which was bad stuff, but he was not booted out either. At least, South Africa had the good sense to withdraw from the Commonwealth when the issue of apartheid had not been dealt with.
Another one is references to Aboriginal rights. I will not get into the International Criminal Court, which would be a very hard sell, but on those issues of responsibility to protect and Aboriginal rights being referred to in there, do you have any thoughts as to those two issues?
Mr. Bourne: Is that question addressed to me or to one of your other witnesses?
Senator D. Smith: Any of you can comment, if you see fit.
The Chair: Mr. Donahoe, I think that may be addressed to you, because it was in response to some experiences that the witness pointed out. You would have had that link between CPA and Commonwealth. Give it a go, and then whoever else wishes can jump in.
Mr. Donahoe: I just want to say that what is becoming a little clearer to me, and I just had a chance to turn my mind to this exercise in the last week or so, is that the document that is being considered is deficient in many respects.
Senator Smith referred to Idi Amin. There is no way that any head of state that behaved nowadays the way Idi Amin did then would last in the Commonwealth. The country would have been CMAG'd and suspended from membership in the Commonwealth. Things have improved considerably over the years.
As I tried to indicate in my remarks earlier, the Commonwealth is an evolving organization. It is a step in the right direction to adopt a charter, bearing in mind that the charter that is being considered is capable of being strengthened in many ways, including in the ways in which you mentioned, senator, putting in a concept of requirement to protect member countries and referring to the fact that in many countries Aboriginal rights are important and need protection.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I have a question for Mr. Donahoe and another one for Mr. Bourne. I will ask both my questions and each can think of his answer.
First, my question for Mr. Donahoe: in the 26 countries that make up the Commonwealth, there are countries that are well-developed and others that are less developed. In your opinion, what can the parliamentarians of these developed countries do to foster mutual aid and to contribute to making all these countries equal?
My question for Mr. Bourne is: if the Commonwealth Charter is not created perfectly and adopted, do you think the survival of the Commonwealth could be jeopardized?
[English]
Mr. Donahoe: During the course of my time with the CPA, I visited in a Namibia. We visited a vocational school. I had a badge on me which said, "Arthur Donahoe, CPA, London."
The principal of the school was showing us around and I started talking to him. He said, "Oh, you are from London." I said, "Well, I live in London now but I am a Canadian." "Oh, you are a Canadian! Come, come, let me show you something" and he took me to a classroom that was filled with computers and he said "These are the gifts of the Government of Canada through the Commonwealth."
His whole attitude changed towards me. If I might say so with due respect, Mr. Bourne, he originally thought I was British. In any event, this is just a small example of the way in which the developed Commonwealth countries assist those that are less developed. I am sure Mr. Hare, through his experience with the Commonwealth Secretariat, could tell hundreds of stories similar to the one I have just recounted.
Mr. Bourne: If I may answer, also, I completely agree with what Mr. Donahoe has said. The sense of mutuality and solidarity within the Commonwealth is real, particularly in practical matters of development assistance.
However, could the Commonwealth survive without a charter? Of course; it has survived a good many years without one so far. As Mr. Donahoe said when he was talking about the Commonwealth some years ago, he always made the point that this was a voluntary association that did not have a charter. I know that a charter is not a treaty, and the Commonwealth will still be a non-treaty body, but I think that, certainly, some governments that are a bit cautious in this area worry a little bit about making the charter more like a United Nations charter with obligations, commitments and an arrangement within the structure, which they would say is a move away from the rather flexible arrangements and evolutionary arrangements of the Commonwealth.
Mr. Donahoe has teased me about being British. I have to say I am from one of the two Commonwealth states that does not have a written constitution, and some of those from New Zealand and United Kingdom could argue that one of the advantages of not having a written constitution is that you can make changes all the time and where the Parliament is able to pass acts of Parliament. For example, in our case, we were able to achieve devolution for Scotland and Wales, which a written constitution might have made difficult.
Therefore, it is not an absolute no-brainer to say that the Commonwealth has to have a charter, but if we are to have one, I think it could be rather better than the one on the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Hare: My impression is that yes, the Commonwealth would survive without this charter, precisely for the reason that has just been given, that is that we did not have one at the beginning of the Commonwealth. Perhaps if we don't do our job well, there won't be another.
Regarding the Commonwealth role of establishing equality among countries, there is a relatively big program for a small organization like the Commonwealth. It provides technical assistance for the poorest small countries, those that are developing. You will see that at practically all meetings, since it is the only fund really dedicated to that, this issue is on the table. There are experts within the secretariat who are responsible for helping the most impoverished countries receive ad hoc aid, where big institutions like the World Bank are not able to, because for them, a project that is not worth two or three million dollars is not a real project. Our specialty is providing ad hoc aid to those who cannot obtain it easily.
[English]
Senator Johnson: Dr. Bourne, I found your comments very helpful and I am wondering if you could comment on what you spoke about with regard to the idea that the proposed charter needing to be strengthened to address concerns that you had with regard to young people. I find that a critical thing that has to be addressed in terms of our younger populations in all the Commonwealth nations.
My son attended a Commonwealth school in England — the London School of Economics — and met all kinds of Commonwealth students. I know from that experience how they felt about being part of the Commonwealth, but I think every generation has to be engaged again. That leads me to your other comment about the peoples of the Commonwealth and not the governments.
Mr. Bourne: I think that the understanding by young people of the Commonwealth in the kind of capacitive world in which we now live is vital to its future. At the moment, many schools in many countries say nothing to their students about the Commonwealth. Therefore, it could be very valuable to have a fairly-easily understood, short document at a level that young people will follow and be enthused by.
As I mentions, about three years ago, the Commonwealth Foundation produced such a document called CommonGround. It did not have the kind of distribution that I believe it should have had but it was aimed at precisely that purpose.
In terms of public awareness — and we are going a little bit way away from the charter here — there are a number of things, such as the Commonwealth Games. Frankly, they are more popular and more publicized than Commonwealth heads of government meetings, and can provide a springboard for understanding about today's Commonwealth.
There are a number of things. In Canada, I know there have been mock Commonwealth summit meetings. The same kinds of things have happened here in the U.K. However, again, they are not very widely distributed around the Commonwealth.
It is important to create opportunities for young people to engage with the ideas of the Commonwealth to realize the very substantial differences between being Prime Minister of Canada and being Prime Minister of Vanuatu or Kiribati, which are very small states. Although they are theoretically equal within the Commonwealth, the huge disparity in resources between states of this degree of difference requires one to understand what diversity actually means.
Senator Johnson: Could we not take longer to do this if it is necessary? All three of you could answer that question. What is the pressure to do it so quickly, as was pointed out by Dr. Bourne?
Mr. Hare: I suspect it is public knowledge, is it not, as to why there is some pressure on it to be done quickly? I had better ask the question before I try to answer the senator.
The Chair: Are you talking about our study? Our study goes into the minister's hands where the foreign ministers have agreed to meet on a certain date. It is not a cut-off date in any sense, the heads of state meeting. We are responding to it and so will the minister. We are not the pressure point; we are the facilitator. I do not know, Mr. Hare, whether you can answer it, or Mr. Donahoe or Dr. Bourne, why there seems to be this need to do it in the coming year, why it is not a three-year exercise or something like that. We can speculate but I have no facts. I do not see any hands popping up.
Mr. Donahoe: I am very much out of the loop as far as current developments in the Commonwealth are concerned. I have been retired from the CPA for a little over 10 years. Until earlier this afternoon, I was not even aware that there was a deadline for the completion of the exercise that will lead up to the possible adoption of a charter.
The Chair: That is really not where our focus will be. They may set time frames for themselves; it is an efficient way to do it. It is something that will need to be done before the next heads of government meet. Obviously, we work back from that. The foreign ministers are given so much time and we were given the time. We may say that there should be more time for a parliamentary debate, but we are rather privileged, as I understand, to be the only parliamentary committee studying it anywhere in the Commonwealth. We have a pretty good start; we will answer it that way.
Senator Wallin: I have a quick comment for Mr. Bourne, who used a wonderful phrase. I thought if you could turn that phrase into a paragraph, it would help focus our minds. You talked about whether or not the charter for the Commonwealth is fit for purpose. Could you just expand on that for a moment?
Mr. Bourne: It is a question of what purpose is being aimed at here, and there have been different purposes. I believe the purpose in the mind of the former prime minister of Malaysia, who chaired the Eminent Persons Group, was to provide a description of the Commonwealth. Others have thought that it would be to provide some new aspirations. Others have said it is really just a collection of existing commitments, although that was what was claimed for the Trinidad and Tobago affirmation of principles back in 2009.
To make the charter fit for purpose, as I say, it was seen by the EPG as part of a total package to modernize the Commonwealth. I think they were hoping also through this to generate more interest amongst the 54 member states and therefore to encourage governments but also the people to get more involved in the Commonwealth at a very competitive time for international institutions.
Senator De Bané: The strategic plan of the secretariat comprises the values pillar and the development pillar. What is the budget of the secretariat for the development pillar and all of the different programs — scientists, development aid, experts, et cetera? What is the budget that the secretariat has to implement its development pillar?
The Chair: That may be a bit of an unfair question because the witnesses, as you know, have stated on the record where they are and how many years ago they were involved. Mr. Hare may give it a try because development was his area. He may still be tracking it. If not, we will get it as background.
Mr. Hare: The overall budget for the development work in the secretariat is approximately $40 million a year, of which Canada provides about half. The secretariat expenses on the other side of the fence are about $25 million a year. I think that is correct. Do you mind if I turn my head to an expert over there?
Canada's expenditure on the official side of the coin, the secretariat costs, is about $13 million.
Senator Mahovlich: Our earlier witness, Ross Hiebert, the Chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, mentioned that he would like to see in the charter a copyright bill and property rights. I have been a senator now for 14 years. We have been trying to amend a copyright bill and it still has not been done. I do not know about your country, Mr. Bourne, but if you are going to try to get a copyright bill, it will not be done for a while. Do you agree with me?
Mr. Bourne: Yes, senator. There are some things that are frankly too difficult to achieve consensus in 54 states. One of the problems with this charter is that, because of the difficulty in getting agreement on very tangible things, the charter has moved into the area of rather vague statements to which very little concrete action can be attached. This is one of the problems.
The Chair: To follow up on that, we have heard from one Eminent Person and we will hear from another. We have heard from government officials. There seems to be a difference of opinion on what the charter is. Is it for new entrants? Is it the rules to abide by? Is it a constitution to manage yourself and what you do? Is it aspirational?
Perhaps one of the duties of this committee in its study would be to focus the heads of government, particularly through our minister, and ask, what do you want to do? You are trying too much within a charter.
Another question I would put is that there has been, and certainly not from Canada, Australia or U.K., but from other countries, those that are engaged, a feeling that it is really a charter of rights in disguise. That has set some countries not to be as enthusiastic on proceeding efficiently with this constitution. What advice should we give our foreign minister to move this project forward in a way that embraces all countries and does not look like an Australian drafted it and a Canadian is supporting it, but Vanuatu, Zambia and Kenya have a role in this and it is theirs? It is a broad question. What is the practical way we can point them to get something done with their good intentions?
Mr. Bourne: It is quite difficult. I was present at a consultation in London a week ago where it was plain that a number of participants thought it was or should be a charter of rights, but actually I do not think that was one of the key purposes, although, as I mentioned, compared with the predecessor document, there is actually some backsliding as compared with the 2009 Trinidad and Tobago affirmation of values and principles.
I see it more, as it currently exists, as a statement of what the Commonwealth's main aspirations are. It does not really say very much about how it will fulfill these aspirations. For example, the important existence of CMAG as a rules committee is not really covered in this draft. The role of other elements in the Commonwealth is not covered in the draft.
In order to get agreement it will be quite a hard negotiation. However, I think if a little bit more time was allowed and there was not this rush to get it all agreed by September of this year, a better kind of document — and possibly more than one document — could be achieved. I think maybe a short document that young people could understand, and a longer more constitutive document of the kind that Mr. Donahoe has referred to, could be achieved as well. However, at the moment I think we are falling between various stools.
Mr. Donahoe: I agree completely with what Mr. Bourne has just said.
Senator Downe: On funding, I wanted to be clear, you indicated that we are paying roughly half of the development funding — which I believe you said was $20 million — and we are contributing $13 to the Commonwealth Secretariat. That is a total of $33 million.
Mr. Hare: I only have partial figures in front of me which relate to the development cooperation side of it. However, we do have, I think if I could ask —
Senator Downe: I am just curious as to what total funding Canada is contributing to the Commonwealth.
Mr. Hare: It would be about $20 million.
The Chair: This is not the way we wish to proceed, Mr. Hare.
Senator Downe: I asked the question because the figure we heard earlier was —
The Chair: No, I think we should get those figures, but I do not think we should get them from the department through Mr. Hare.
Senator Downe: As long as we get the figures, because we have different figures now.
The Chair: Mr. Hare knows his development portfolio and tracks it well, but we will get the figures that are requested. Perhaps we should get all of that on record: the funding and where it goes and in what form. If we can request that from the department it would be helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My question is for Mr. Hare. He left the Commonwealth Secretariat 12 years ago, and I imagine that when you spend a significant part of your life working somewhere you have an interest, you follow things. Have you noticed, over the past 12 years, whether the Commonwealth has improved or deteriorated?
Mr. Hare: There is always change. All of a sudden, we have a charter to discuss, and that is a certain type of change. I was very surprised, when I read this, that many of the issues we discussed 12 years ago are still present today. There seems to be a pretty clear will to address them or to find another way of operating.
However, I am not there. My little guide is this now, which is a big improvement. It covers practically all the issues within the Commonwealth, regarding cooperation and more.
One of my issues is that, if you look at the number of recommendations contained in the report, you get an idea of just how far we could go to change the Commonwealth if we so desired. But essentially, it remains the same institution that has done more or less the same job and is still just as useful. In my opinion, it is a jewel because the Commonwealth does things differently from other large international institutions.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My final question is directed to each of the witnesses. In your opinion, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the draft charter?
[English]
The Chair: We have about one minute for an answer before we must conclude, if anyone has a pithy comment to make. Mr. Hare has his hand up.
[Translation]
Mr. Hare: It is too long.
[English]
That is my pithy comment.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Too long to answer?
Senator Nolin: No, the document is too long.
[English]
The Chair: We have come to the end of our time. We are almost as large as the Commonwealth. We have covered — from London, from Florida and from Ottawa — three very different perspectives and experiences. However, I think the committee will agree with me that your collective understanding of the Commonwealth has been very helpful for us in our study. We may reach out to you for more information, but at this time thank you for taking the time. Your knowledge is very much appreciated.
(The committee adjourned.)