Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 9 - Evidence - Meeting of March 8, 2012
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 8, 2012
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:35 a.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: Today the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is pursuing its examination 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.
This morning, from London, via video conference, we have with us, from the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Secretary-General himself, Dr. Kamalesh Sharma.
Dr. Sharma, you are well known in Canada and your work in the secretariat is well known to us, as well as your eminent history, if I can call it that, the positions you have held in the past. We were delighted when you were appointed the Secretary-General. We look forward to working with you from our parliamentary point of view. We thought, as we were doing the consultation on behalf of Minister Baird for Canada, or at least the start of it, that we should touch base with the secretariat, because you were involved with the Eminent Persons Group, the heads of government, and now at this point. We need your information and advice and we have some questions for you.
Dr. Sharma, I am pleased that you put this as a priority. We thank you and appreciate this opportunity to meet directly with you on this. The floor is yours to give us any opening statements, and I know senators have questions. Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
Kamalesh Sharma, Secretary-General, Commonwealth Secretariat: Thank you, chair. You are most kind to welcome me so warmly. I am delighted to be able to speak to the committee members, particularly as Canada and the Commonwealth have been joined at the hip from the very beginning, the London Declaration in 1949. Canada was one of those instrumental in creating the modern Commonwealth. As we have grown as an institution, Canada has been a main player as we have gone along, which created a secretariat for the first Secretary-General. In all the work that we have done on elections, we had strong support and financial backing and encouragement from Canada. I know that the contemporary importance you attach to the Commonwealth is reflected by the fact that Senator Hugh Segal was on the Eminent Persons Group and has been appointed now by the Prime Minister as special envoy for renewal. There are many other projects, contemporary ones, like creating a portal in which the Commonwealth family can interact with each other at all levels. I have gone to Waterloo myself personally and have spoken to high technology teams there and am delighted that Open Text is collaborating with us in developing this and Canada is taking a lot of interest in it.
Canada also came up with the suggestion that we should be ahead of the curve as far as education is concerned, which is a crucial sector for us, and the Commonwealth of Learning is based in Vancouver. It is useful to recall that many of the facets that are so public in the Commonwealth are actually contributions from Canada. The symbol you see behind me, the flag of the Commonwealth, was a Canadian suggestion. Canada was also the country that came up with the format of our summits, which we call CHOGMs, that a retreat should be at the heart of the meeting of heads.
For all these reasons, both in the past, in the building of this institution, and in making it an institution of the 21st century, responsive to the needs of the times and for the citizens of the Commonwealth and the young people of the Commonwealth right now, more than 50 per cent of us, in all of these endeavours, the Commonwealth has been a partner. I am particularly gratified and delighted that I am able to speak to committee members and convey my appreciation in this way.
The Chair: Mr. Sharma, thank you for that opening statement. I will lead off with a number of questions.
We have been asked to do a consultation. The heads of government contemplated a national consultation and I think the wise decision was to leave it to each country to do it in their own way and to incorporate the people into it. We know that there have been initiatives in Britain and Australia. Australia has an interesting mechanism about international activity that the government has to respond to. Consultation nationally, they are equipped to do and they can do it efficiently. Canada does it more traditionally and that is why we are here. We are pleased there is a parliamentary wing to it.
Can you tell us whether in fact there are consultations going on in each and every one of the countries, and perhaps some of the models they are using? The time frames are rather short. If you have an initiative, one has to move efficiently or it dies on the Order Paper, as we say around here; however, if you really, truly are going to consult with the community, that is a process where you have to give due consideration to those who have to respond to you. You cannot simply say, "What do you think of the Commonwealth and how to change it?" You have to lay the groundwork and give them time to reflect, to answer back.
In some ways, the two questions are: Are there people doing it differently that we should know about? Is this going to be a true consultation from all countries or just a few? Are the time frames that you are looking at realistic?
Mr. Sharma: The suggestion was one of the recommendations that came from the Eminent Persons Group. The EPG wanted to heighten the impact, increase the profile and strengthen the networks of the Commonwealth. The EPG thought that the charter could be one of the ways in which this could be done. They were very clear what they wanted to achieve by this. They recognized that the strength of the Commonwealth has been its ability to respond according to circumstances and challenges of the time without being overly restricted or bound too closely by a set of directions, technicalities or terms of reference that would prevent this from happening.
The strength of the Commonwealth always has been that it moves forward with the times and takes decisions that are appropriate for the times, whatever the area may be.
They were very clear on the fact that it should not be a document that is legally binding. They wanted in this way to demonstrate that involving the people in the consultations makes it into a people's charter, as well as an intergovernmental charter. The heads have approved of it and have blessed it, but each country would then engage in any way they wish in order to bring the inputs back to the table.
We have many declarations, starting from the Singapore Declaration, Harare Declaration of 1991, Aberdeen Declaration, Latimer House Principles, and most recently consolidation of our values, as well as raising our values four years ago in Port of Spain called the Affirmation of Commonwealth Values and Principles.
All of these documentations are there. What the EPG did was to cull and select from these documents those portions that they felt would be useful in a consideration of this charter. That document already exists. It is for each member state to look at that document and see how useful it is.
We have been reminding member states that there is a deadline to all this, which is the end of March. I have written twice to the heads in this way. The first consideration of this will be when the officials of all member states meet in London in April. I know that many of the countries have started this process — the one in London, of course, I participated in, and that was done by having a free invitation for civil society and the NGOs to come and give their views on the charter. We heard all kinds of views: it should be shorter, it should be longer, it should not be duplicating things, it should be aspirational. I think in the end it will be required for the government here when they meet the officials to say, "This is the sense we get from our consultations." We will get a similar sense from the many other member states. They have been talking to me about how they wish to do it. There are too many member states for us to keep track of as to how they are doing it. Some of them felt they could do it online, put the charter online and let it be known. Many of them think a meeting with prominent NGOs in civil society, people in their countries, is something they would like to do.
The Chair: Senators, I would like you to ask one question, and then I can put you on a second round.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Secretary-General Sharma, are you satisfied with the running and effectiveness of the Commonwealth Secretariat, as compared with other global and intergovernmental organizations?
[English]
Mr. Sharma: I think the Commonwealth has had a truly enormous impact, and since you have asked me that direct question, I must say that I am satisfied with the global value addition and the great global good that the Commonwealth has made. At the same time, all institutions in the world today are being asked what contribution they are making to the world in contemporary times. The exercise that we are currently engaged in, which was started in the secretariat, which was assisted enormously by the work of the EPG, is the exercise of reform and renewal so that we are more fixed for focus in contemporary times, are able to make a contribution that is expected by the people.
We have a fixed timeline in order to make recommendations in this regard. The leaders have given us the staging posts. The foreign ministers in New York, in September of this year, are going to consider our recommendations. One of the principal recommendations is to try and prioritize where you can make a global difference, deepen your work in that. Find other more innovative ways of doing other work, but we want to make an equal contribution across the spectrum in what we call the three Ds.
One is democracy, which the rule of law, human rights, institutions of democracy. Another is development because we know that development and democracy go hand in hand. If you strengthen one, you strengthen the other. Our member states work with enormous respect and trust for the contribution we can make, and we must be equal to be able to be asked to help them further. The third is diversity. We are in a compacting and globalizing world, and the Commonwealth is a unique organization in the variety that it contains, and in the world today there are so many dividing lines culturally that we can make a contribution of collective living in harmony and in peace with each other.
In all the three Ds, I think we have to make a greater contribution. We have been a great global good, but I feel we can be an even greater global good in contemporary times.
Senator Wallin: As you have heard everyone make a series of proposals that it should be shorter, it should be longer, as you said, aspirational, a mission statement, whether this document should provide rules for entrance or expulsion. I am wondering if, at the end of the day, it is not just the process itself that will help you achieve the desired goal, that you really just need to have people talking about this again in a world that is so competitive with so many other international bodies that reflect the same kind of objectives, the three Ds, as you have laid them out.
Mr. Sharma: The process certainly is most important. They wanted this process. They did not want to make a charter and then say here is the charter on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We know the process of consultation will give all points of view and a variety of views. The challenge is for us to see the points of convergence on which we can move further. We have tried to help out by having for the civil society, even on our website, a copy of this. We are happy to receive their suggestions and make them available to member states as well.
Right now, since we are in the initial phases, the process has been welcomed by the peoples of our countries. They still themselves are wondering what they want to recommend as a group or as a result of this consultation. They want two, three weeks to do it, and I think we have to wait until the officials come in April and each country gives us a sense of the totality of opinion they want us to do and how it should be moved further.
Senator Finley: Thank you for your introduction. I do not want to sound antagonistic. I am not; I am a sweet guy. I have a problem listening, over the last few days, about how we are going to sit and work out what we are going to do, and working out what we are going to do will be probably how we are going to prioritize how we will do it. There seems to me a lot of talk, a lot of people wandering around, but so far I have not really understood.
As I say, I am not being antagonistic. It could be just my innate Scottish brain.
Where does the Commonwealth organization fit in a world where we already have a multitude of organizations and talking heads and people meeting together and issuing statements and what have you? I am always confused by someone who claims that their operation is "values based" because I am never quite sure, ever, what those values are.
I wonder if you could tell me where you see or where you think this Commonwealth organization fits in the world geopolitical structure.
Mr. Sharma: Thank you very much, senator. You are absolutely right to be questioning. This is a questioning we do among ourselves here as well.
Let me give you some examples whereby I hope the contribution we make globally becomes absolutely clear. There is a credible organization called the Mo Ibrahim Foundation, and that has a governance index for good governance and the rule of law for Africa, which is greatly respected. In the last ranking that this organization did, out of 54 African countries, of the first 8 in the rankings, 7 were from the Commonwealth. I would like to suggest to you that this cannot happen by accident. It is because of the sedimentation of the values of the Commonwealth over time that it has been possible, that in all the parameters that these countries are judged by it was possible in the first stage for 7 to be from the Commonwealth.
The second example I wish to give you is what has happened in various regions of the world. What we have been able to do in the Commonwealth has enabled the member states to do that for their own regions. For instance, in Africa, the new partnership for Africa in the NEPAD and the peer-review mechanism was something they were able to do because the locomotive function of the 18 countries from the Commonwealth were able to say this is what we have done in the Commonwealth, it works. The peer-review mechanism that exists here in the Commonwealth, which now is working very well in Africa, therefore, is related. CARICOM and the Commonwealth are almost overlapping. Almost all of the values and democracy templates that exist in the Caribbean owe to the Commonwealth too.
In the Pacific, I was told by many ministers that the Biketawa Declaration was actually a reworking of what the member states had done in the Commonwealth. When you referred to values-based organization and how it, this is how it works in practical terms for countries and in regions.
I want to the give you a third example. In today's world, we have seen that you cannot have a world community that has failed states and weaknesses within itself, even if it is of a small country. Our uncivil society is globalizing as rapidly, innovatively and as imaginatively as the civil society is. We know that if you have one failed state, you can have piracy as a consequence, which becomes a global industry. Another one becomes a home for terrorist groups. A third one becomes a diversion for narcotics and a fourth one for small arms.
The Commonwealth throughout has been consistent in saying, as an organization for small states, that in all considerations of multilateralism and internationalism, you have to be equally mindful of everyone.
Now with regards to the G20, I want to pay tribute to Prime Minister Harper. In effect, it all started when he invited me and my counterpart from the francophonie to visit there and talk about how the Commonwealth can act as a bridge between the 90 per cent of the countries that are out of the G20 and talk to those who are 90 per cent of the world's GDP as to what their concerns are. Now we are the most credible organization and the one most engaged with the G20, the working group on development and at the political level. I have met the heads of government going forward, and now I have been told I am to be invited by Mexico.
There are many examples I can give simply to illustrate things. I see the problem you have. This is a problem that many observers have. We are not an organization that describes in its own title what we do. People simply have to know about us more, and I think we have a responsibility to do it. I appeal to you to kindly do it in Canada, because The Globe and Mail is something that you have access to, as is the CBC. We can do it as leaders of our own countries, as the Commonwealth family and the secretariat — all of us can work in making this much better known.
I am sorry, but it is an important question, so I am taking some time in answering it.
I must give a fourth example. People normally do not judge us by the effect we have had on other organizations. Under that question, the highly indebted poorer country methodology of the IMF was a Commonwealth idea that they adopted. The resilience and vulnerability study in today's world at the World Bank was a Commonwealth idea. The teachers' protocol accepted by UNESCO was a Commonwealth idea. The health workers protocol accepted by the World Health Organization was a Commonwealth idea.
We are a huge enabler of the world because of what we are. Our representativeness — whatever we say to ourselves is already a global idea and we must express this a little bit more deliberately moving forward.
Senator Finley: Thank you and thank you for your passion.
Senator D. Smith: We have had several witnesses. Some similar themes keep coming back. Some think it is a bit too long; some think there are several pages of platitudes in there — maybe the important stuff gets lost in the middle of platitudes and we should keep it simple.
I think the things that virtually everyone agrees are on that Commonwealth members should be bona fide democracies with fair elections, where you have basic human rights, freedoms of speech and things like that, that are enforced by the rule of law.
However, a couple things that have been pointed out as missing — we have heard of quite a few, but I would like to get your reaction on two in particular — are the responsibility to protect vulnerable populations and minorities, which was a UN declaration in 2001; and that there is no reference to Aboriginal rights here, which in Canada, of course, is a real issue.
What is the rationale for this deadline being so soon? I think a couple of points like the ones I just mentioned are things that we should try to work on and get in there. We seem to be under this deadline. I just do not understand why it has to happen so suddenly, which I think might prevent better discussion of these fundamental elements that should be in there.
Mr. Sharma: Certainly. I should emphasize that the concerns you have expressed — I can assure you — are already expressed in some of the Commonwealth declarations or the other to which the Commonwealth has subscribed. The idea of the charter was to consolidate this in a different way with participation of the people.
If you look at the affirmation of Commonwealth values and principles from Port-of-Spain, the kinds of things and concerns that you have mentioned are there.
The reason I think the heads gave us such a short period of time to attend to this is that they do not want to lose momentum. There were 106 recommendations. Of those, 30 were accepted. We are working for on another 50-odd with financial implications and others. However, they want this to be finished within at least one year of the decision being taken, which means the deadline has to be the September meeting of the foreign ministers in New York.
It was for the foreign ministers themselves to look at the state of play going forward. Canada as a country is represented in the task force of the ministers — Minister Baird is there. In June they will meet and take a view on where we are.
I can assure you that if there is a concern, for instance — and I am speculating now — that we need more time, I think many of the principles about which you are concerned would not be lost because they are already there. They are to be still expressed in the charter in a certain way; that is true. However, the way we move will be decided by the ministers. It is very difficult at this point in time when member states are still consulting and wondering what it is they can say to each other when they meet in April to predict how this will pan out.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Secretary-General Sharma, do you support the Eminent Persons Group's second recommendation to establish a commissioner for human rights, democracy and the rule of law?
Do you see that as a helpful measure or as a duplication of powers?
[English]
Mr. Sharma: One thing is absolutely certain. The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group has a strengthened mandated to look in a very scrutinizing way, as far as serious and frequent violations are concerned, at specific fields like political space — how open is it? — space for media — how open and free is it? — and the independence of the judiciary — how much a democratic constitution is being respected.
It is very clear that if I as Secretary-General, through my good officers, am to do justice to this mandate, I will have to strengthen significantly the resources that exist right now in the secretariat in the area that you have mentioned: democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. I am engaged in doing that right now.
Senator Wallin: I have a similar question to my colleagues on the theme that a lot of the EPG report seemed to be based on the sense that the Commonwealth was failing in its goals and purposes, and was losing relevance on issues like human rights, rule of law and democracy because of the behaviour of members and the inability to do much about that.
Mr. Sharma: Senator, I did answer that question in a way in the last answer that I gave. We have, as I said, in an earlier answer, created a sedimentation of values that are visible for the whole world and that has been our lasting contribution.
We are also now mandated to be more searching about how effective we are as an interlocutor with member states and helping them build their capacity and their institutions on a simple calculus. Earlier, we used to take, for instance, a military coup or the abrogation of a democratic constitution, which was akin to pointing out a train wreck after it happened. The heads and the ministers said, "While you are heading for that kind of catastrophe, why is it that we should not engage with you and work more with you?"
The whole act has now been lifted and so my good offices will become more purposeful. The amount of statements that I will make will be more and people have noticed that that is the case. The rapidity of the response with which we must act must increase. People have noticed that has happened in the Maldives. When the problem started there, my team was already on the ground. We had a teleconference of all the ministers who decided to send a delegation. In a matter of a few days, that delegation was there. The ministers met physically in London and approved my recommendation that we needed a special envoy. The envoys were there within a week. We are acting now with a sense of purpose and a sense of engagement and with a different rhythm than was the case previously because the member states themselves want to do it in this way.
In the end, the crucial thing is the ownership of an idea and the depth of the ownership of that idea by member states. Now we have it and, as a fateful servant of the member states, I am giving it implementation.
Senator Wallin: Thank you very much.
Senator Finley: My question is kind of a follow-up to that of my colleague Senator Wallin. I go to some of the recommendations from the eminent persons group. One of the things that they talk about, including, perhaps, in the charter or in the modus operandi, is the criteria for admission to and continuance of membership in the organization, which is not, as I understand it, a treaty organization.
How would you recommend writing a charter that would somehow bind the people or the nations that are part of this? How would the organization enforce, if you like, implementation of the decisions, or the judgments, or the criteria that you make? Do you follow what I am saying?
Mr. Sharma: Yes, I do, but the implementation agency that we have is really the ministerial action group.
The strength of the Commonwealth is that you follow, with goodwill, sincerity and commitment, voluntarily as a member state that which you have committed yourself to. It is because these member states did that in Africa, for instance, that they can be in the first stage in the manner in which they are.
In the charter, the heads made it absolutely clear that it will be a non-legal charter. In the end, it will be an aspirational document that points the way forward. That is a huge sign posting collectively by the civil society, by the private sector, by the government, as to what they want this great family of nations to be in the 21st century.
How much you want to observe that is left entirely to you, but I would suggest to you that the intention is very clear that the member states wish to do that. Our program for institutional strengthening includes, for instance, strengthening the election commissions, the human rights commissions, the way legislators work with Commonwealth parliamentary associations as a partner, or with grassroots democracy with the Commonwealth local government forum as a partner, walking together and helping our member states voluntarily and, above all, the help we give to the national human rights institutions. All of these demands are on us because the member states are serious about following the prescriptions which they have subscribed to.
Senator Finley: Thank you.
Senator D. Smith: To go back to the point I was making earlier about the deadline that is coming pretty soon, I think at the parliamentary level we are just getting rolling on getting input.
I think it is more important to take one more year to get it right rather than meet some public relations deadline, regardless of whether you have it right. I think it is more important to get it right. Some of these things, which are valid points, should be looked at. Hopefully, some of these fundamental elements should be in there. Does one more year really matter? I do not think it really does. I think it is more important to get it right.
Maybe you can react to that.
Mr. Sharma: The view that you have expressed is a view that we have also heard. It is possible that after a consideration of all the presentations that are made by member states, a recommendation may be made that we should give ourselves a little more time. There are many more recommendations that we approved and we will approve. A view will be taken on them and it is possible that the member states may say that in order to do a job that is seen by our people to have been a job which was equal to the challenge, let us give ourselves more time. Let us not rule that out by any means.
Senator Johnson: Thank you for appearing today. Your comments are extremely useful in our inquiry.
It was suggested to us yesterday that in the charter that you have worked on, you want to establish a Commonwealth spirit. You have talked about aspiration and that you want to make it a people's charter. Could you tell me bit about how you propose to engage youth in a more major way in the work being done to bring this charter about? Will it help build bridges?
Mr. Sharma: Thank you, senator, for raising something that is very close to my heart and something which is absolutely central to the Commonwealth societies. I have been to countries where I have put to them the question: How many people in your society are 29 or under? I got the reply, "About 70 per cent." Our mental habit is to look at a society as consisting of adults with young people in it. However, most of our member societies have young people with adults in them and this is shrinking all the time. Whether or not youth gets a faithful representation in the charter — and I am sure that they will because most of the people being consulted are young people — we have an ambitious plan starting this year. It is a full spectrum of doing justice to the main population component of the Commonwealth, which is young people — and I must add here women as well. Today is International Women's Day. On the eve of Commonwealth week, I have been to an event where we have, once again, said that there is no more work more important to the Commonwealth than the centrality of women and young people.
There are various aspects of youth work. One that is extremely important is democratic leadership. I think if you have a deficit of leadership in societies, who is it that will take charge of the spirit of democracy? The second way is entrepreneurship and youth enterprise. We talk about young people and we encourage them not to be job seekers, but how do we empower them to be job creators? We have to look at our university and school systems and what we do from the beginning in order to make them feel like people who can stand on their own feet. Our banking bodies, trade bodies and industry bodies are very adult organizations. Whenever I travel, I visit them and I tell them you have an obligation to be conscious of what you are doing with the youth, for instance in the banks, commercial banks, to have credit lines without financial collateral and you figure out a way in which these projects must be a success.
There is youth professionalization, giving certificates to youth and youth mainstreaming, which is to tell cabinets and heads of government what is the litmus test of the money that you are spending and how much of it is going to empower young people and empower women. All of these are going to be addressed by us starting this year in a comprehensive way. You will be very happy to know that we are going to bring the affairs of young people in our organizations right into centre stage.
Senator Johnson: I am very pleased to hear this and thank you for mentioning the women. That was going to be my next question.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Sharma, as you know, the charter of la Francophonie recognizes formally that the National Association of Parliamentarians has been recognized as a consultative body of the heads of states and heads of governments.
Could you envisage a formal recognition of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association?
Mr. Sharma: The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, or the CPA, is a very closely associated organization in the Commonwealth family. In fact I was at a reception only yesterday with them. We will be working closely in moving forward with a new agenda, because some of the messages that are given are appropriate for the secretariat or the Secretary-General to give but many of the messages need to be given at the peer level. How do you constitute your committees? How do you manage the chairmanship of your committees? How do you manage the composition and chairmanship of the most important of your committees, like public accounts and foreign policy? What is the position given to the chief of protocol in terms of not only protocol but the importance accorded to them when outside visits take place?
All of these are our messages that are most effectively given at peer-to-peer level. That is why I should also add that in the field of electioneering — and the next meeting of the Commonwealth election network will take place in June in Canada itself — which is another peer level body that we have constituted, with all the challenges that election commissioners have, should be met jointly in order to encourage and strengthen all of them with best practice and assistance. In this way the parliamentarians are an important body and the CPA has already been an allied organization for a very long time.
Senator Johnson: My other question was related to women. You mentioned it in your earlier remarks. Do you have anything to add on that score in terms of their future and their involvement? There are many involved now, are there not, considering it is March 8, International Women's Day?
Mr. Sharma: On International Women's Day, I have been reflecting on where we can add value globally. Discrimination against women is the oldest prejudice of mankind, and I use the word "mankind" advisedly. I think there is also good news apart from the intractable areas that we hear about all the time. The conscience of the world is awakening and it is across the board. For instance, when a body like Goldman Sachs says it wants a program called "10,000 women," that says a lot about what we call mainstreaming, which is not a patronizing or a window-dressing attitude towards women but a mainstreaming attitude as equal participants in your political life, in your economic life and in your social life.
We are engaged in the Commonwealth in looking at those areas where we can truly add value in a world where so much is already happening. One of those strengths already demonstrated in our case is called gender sensitive budgeting. We are the only organization where the Ministers of Finance have met and discussed gender sensitive budgeting, not the Ministers for Women's Affairs.
The second strength we have is in legislation, particularly domestic violence, and helping to legislate at least getting that in place. A further strength for us is women's entrepreneurship. In a meeting in Bangladesh three Bangladeshi ladies came up to me and wanted their pictures taken separately. I sensed a plot and I got all the three of them together and asked them what was going on and why were they coming one by one, why could they not have come together. They were each flabbergasted and did not know that the other two had come to me as well. All three gave the same answer. They said but for the Commonwealth they would not be entrepreneurs today.
Obviously we are doing something right in women's entrepreneurship. These are three or four areas of strength we have. Rather than spreading ourselves too thinly we should make a big difference in the areas where we are able to, but also be strategic partners with the others.
I am not in favour of ruling out any area of engagement with women, but we can do it with others and bring value as a Commonwealth.
Senator De Bané: Mr. Sharma, the project under way, the charter and all that, is essentially to consolidate what already exists in different documents. Would it not be a good idea to seize that opportunity to formally recognize the linkage, the relationship of the CPA with the association of heads of states and government?
I have read all the documents. There is not a linkage between the parliamentary and the executive branch. In view of everything you have said, is it not a good idea to recognize that reality formally?
Mr. Sharma: The CPA is an accredited organization of the Commonwealth and there is already a linkage between the heads in programs, in summit and the CPA. In fact the CPA is unique in this respect by being afforded an opportunity to be present in meetings of the heads when many of the organizations are not.
Right now, with Sir Alan Haselhurst, I am also discussing that in future programs we can do more than we are doing already. We have decided in principle that the CPA should also be engaged at the people's forum, which meets simultaneously with the youth forum which also meets at that time, and with the business forum and make a contribution there.
We are very alive and active. As for the requirement of getting them engaged in Commonwealth activities right now, as the charter was mentioned once again and my time is drawing to a close, the senator said that a lot of what is to go into the charter is already available. This is true of course. If you look at the affirmation of our values and principles, at first look that really does contain anything you would wish to have in the charter.
The one difference is that this exercise is a popular exercise. Here the heads wanted to say that we want the charter to be described as a people's charter, because the people have been involved in it, and give the very clear signal that the Commonwealth is not an intergovernmental body. Let us recall that in 1965, when the secretariat was created — and Canada had a lot to do with it when that happened — the Commonwealth Foundation of civil society was created at the same time.
This was an extraordinary step of prescience and statesmanship to recognize civil society at a time when, in many societies, it was looked at with skepticism. Therefore, the leaders now are mindful of saying that this is not a charter that we have given ourselves as heads of government; this is a charter that the people, including us, have given ourselves. Therefore, it has a certain value of being a document of that nature, even if it tends to repeat the values which have been articulated earlier.
The Chair: Mr. Sharma, I want you to reflect on this point, because you keep saying it will be a people's charter. I think the countries of the Commonwealth have gone through a real transition from countries with dependencies to independence. Through that process, there have been struggles. There has been, from time to time, at the start of independence and during the course of their countries, the need to have a new constitution.
I think the people are well aware that they need to be consulted. There generally is a group that crafts it and drafts it with all the lawyers. Then it is generally parliamentarians and civil society who go out to the communities and discuss the constitution, what is in it, and then the people vote. I think they are used to that, whether you are in Vanuatu or Canada.
Here you are proposing a charter, a people's charter, where they do not get a vote, they do not have a say. How do you reach every citizen? It seems to me the validity of a charter, association or document is important, but I think it can be embraced by the people. However, to say that the people will this charter leaves these gaps: they never voted for it, there has not been an education process, nor perhaps should there be.
What I have heard you to say today is perhaps it should not be a people's charter. It is a charter where, from time to time, leaders become accountable to their people that they have lived up to the principles. That is a totally different consultation, a totally different way of looking at what this charter could be and how meaningful it could be to the Commonwealth.
I throw that out for you to ponder, if you wish to reply later, but I have been struggling with how to reach Canadians. They, from time to time, know the good works of the Commonwealth, because you have acted. However, for us now to say let us have a charter that you embrace that is your charter is a task that does not lead to a conclusion where they will have ownership. They will only have ownership if they can say what their leaders are doing well.
In the international field, to use a model of consultation that works for constitutions is not a good fit, in my opinion. I am hoping that we will be part of a process to suggest what would give legitimacy to the heads of government in the Commonwealth in a process that renews the commitments, even though they are not binding. I think the only way it can be binding is by the heads of government looking for assurances and the people looking for accountability from their leader. That is my limited pondering, from all the witnesses, and the task that has been put on our shoulders here to try to help the Commonwealth in its renewal.
Mr. Sharma, you have done an excellent job, as you always do, in taking us to a high road in a commitment to the Commonwealth, and you have given us some ideas. I very much appreciate that you took the time, personally, to be part of this consultation. I thank you on behalf of the committee members.
Mr. Sharma: I am privileged. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Honourable senators, we have invited today the secretary-general and the adviser responsible for cooperation from la Francophonie. As our audience should know, Canada belongs both to the Commonwealth and la Francophonie. We have invited our colleagues in la Francophonie to come before us to speak about their charter, their organization. We have assured our witnesses that we will not be putting questions to them about the Commonwealth. It is a courtesy that one will not speak about the other.
As you know, the Commonwealth is our anglophone counterpart and la Francophonie is our French part. They have started and have been developed in different ways, but it is instructive to Canadians to learn lessons from one organization to the other. We as senators will pull the two together, and I assure our witnesses that we will not put them on the hot seat about the Commonwealth.
With that assurance, I am very pleased that have today from la Francophonie Mr. Pierre de Cocatrix, the Chief of Cabinet of the Secretary General; and Mr. Eric Pelletier, the advisor responsible for cooperation.
Gentlemen, we started our studies with our previous witnesses with any opening comments, and then we have very active senators who put many questions. Welcome.
[Translation]
Pierre de Cocatrix, Chief of Cabinet of the Secretary General, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is an honour for me and my colleague Éric Pelletier to be joining the Senate of Canada by video conference today. We are pleased to provide you with some insight into the Charter of La Francophonie, as well as other information that may be helpful to you.
I would like to begin with a short presentation on the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie and a few introductory remarks, after which I will ask my colleague Éric Pelletier to briefly outline the institutions within the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
Then I would like to speak to you about the Charter of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, particularly the political activities undertaken by the Secretary General of La Francophonie, Abdou Diouf. My colleague will then discuss the cooperative efforts being led by the Secretary General of La Francophonie.
Madam Chair, would that approach be suitable?
The Chair: Perfect.
Mr. de Cocatrix: Great, I will begin. I wanted to give the senators some background information on the Francophonie itself. Of course, some senators are already quite familiar with what I am going to say, so I want to apologize in advance. It is important for you to know that the Francophonie is first and foremost an international organization made up of 56 member states, state and government members, as well as 19 observers, for a total of 75 states and governments.
The Francophonie zone represents almost 900 million French-speaking residents, and of those, 220 million speak French fluently. I would also point out that French is the ninth most-spoken language in the world. Of the Francophonie's 75 states, approximately 60 per cent of that population is under 30 years of age, so a fairly young population.
I also want to share with you that there are nearly 900,000 French teachers worldwide. Africa has the largest number of French speakers, with nearly 100 million speakers in the member countries.
I will end with a few statistics on the 75 member states and governments. They are spread across all five continents, and together, they represent a third of the United Nations' member states, thus a significant presence.
Lastly, French is the official language in 32 of the 75 member states and governments within the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. There you have some background information, Madam Chair.
I will now hand the floor over to my colleague Éric Pelletier, who has been an advisor with the Cabinet of the Secretary General for nearly three years now, and who has been made available to Canadian authorities.
Éric Pelletier, Advisor responsible for Cooperation, Organisation internationale de la Francophonie: Madam Chair, with respect to the institutional structure of the Francophonie, it comprises a specific number of government institutions, some of which came into being before the Charter of La Francophonie was adopted and provided a better way forward for the entire French-speaking world. When it comes to the institutional Francophonie, first you have the Conference of Heads of State and Government, which meets every two years. As you know, the last time the summit was held in Canada was in the fall of 2008.
Immediately after the Conference of Heads of State and Government, we have the Ministerial Conference of La Francophonie, which we call the ministerial conference and which brings together the ministers responsible for the Francophonie. For instance, Bernard Valcourt is the minister responsible for the Francophonie within the Canadian government, as you probably know.
Next in the structure comes the Permanent Council of La Francophonie, which consists of the personal representatives of the heads of state and government. The council meets at least twice a year and, during summit years, three times annually.
Then enters the role of the Secretary General of La Francophonie. A bit later, when we cover the Charter of La Francophonie, we can take a more detailed look at the powers of the secretary general in fulfilling his role.
Under the direction of the secretary general is what we call the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, which is recognized as an international organization under international law.
There is also the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie, an advisory body to which a number of honourable senators belong.
The Francophonie also has four main operating agencies that undertake a wide array of human activities. The first is the Academic Agency of La Francophonie, which has a presence in over 90 countries and comprises nearly 800 member institutions.
The second operating agency is TV5 Monde and TV5 Québec Canada, which, as you know, are television networks that showcase the voice of French speakers on all five continents. These networks are available in nearly 200 million homes around the world and reach some 55 million viewers on a weekly basis.
The third operating agency is the Senghor University of Alexandria, a unique university that trains African public servants in the principles of modern governance, human rights and so forth.
The fourth and final operating agency I want to tell you about this afternoon is the International Association of Francophone Mayors, which as you are probably aware, was established a few years ago by former Quebec City Mayor Jean Pelletier in cooperation with former Paris Mayor Jacques Chirac, before he became the President of France.
On the subject of the Francophonie's institutions, I also want to point out the two major ministerial conferences established in Dakar, Senegal: the Conference of Education Ministers of French-speaking Countries and the Conference of Youth and Sports Ministers.
The institutional structure of the Francophonie has evolved over the past 40 years. The best example of that is the creation of the Conference of Education Ministers of French-speaking Countries in the 1960s when the Francophonie was institution-oriented; the summits did not come until much later.
On that note, I will now hand the floor back over to my colleague, who will outline for you the main points of the Francophonie charter.
Mr. de Cocatrix: Honourable senators, I will now say a few words on the Charter of La Francophonie. First, I would like you to keep in mind that the Francophonie, as Mr. Pelletier pointed out, was created in 1970, in Niamey, when a certain number of states came together to attend a summit that gave rise to the Agency of Cultural and Technical Cooperation. As you no doubt recall, the agency was created on the initiative of Léopold Sédar Senghor, Mr. Diori and Mr. Bourguiba, who were subsequently joined by Norodom Sihanouk, the King of Cambodia.
The four founding fathers of the Francophonie inspired the Francophonie movement and were responsible, at the institutional level, for the creation of the Agency of Cultural and Technical Cooperation in 1970. I will not go over every detail of the organization's history, but one of the main developments came 20 or 25 years later, in 1997, with the Summit of La Francophonie in Hanoi. There, a number of heads of state and government expressed the desire and the need for a new dimension, a political dimension, in addition to the existing cultural and technical component. That is where the political organization of the Francophonie was truly born, with not only the adoption of a charter, but also the creation of the position of the Secretary General of La Francophonie.
You will recall that the first Secretary General of La Francophonie, before current Secretary General Abdou Diouf, was the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Boutros Boutros-Ghali.
That gives you some background on the political dimension of the Francophonie. Clearly, the charter lays out the powers that are within the secretary general's mandate. I will repeat something that Secretary General Abdou Diouf likes to tell us often: he balances on two feet, one foot is planted in the political realm, while the other is planted in the cooperative realm.
In a few moments, I will describe the political component, and my colleague will cover the cooperative component.
I will not list every single article in the Francophonie charter. The Hanoi summit provided the impetus for the organization's political involvement. Institutionally speaking, the process came full circle in Antananarivo, Madagascar, where the ministerial conference adopted the key instrument — the Charter of La Francophonie — that, to this day, governs the organization and all the institutions Mr. Pelletier mentioned.
The political actions of the Francophonie are embodied by the secretary general, who drives those efforts. He is the organization's spokesperson and official representative on the world stage.
He makes all the decisions in these matters, as well as those of sitting summit chairs. The most recent summits were held in Beirut, followed by Ouagadougou, Bucharest, Quebec City and finally Montreux. As you know, the next summit will be taking place in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
That represents the bulk of the political actions. These decisions are based on the political environment both inside and outside the territory of the Francophonie itself.
For instance, crises are ongoing in certain parts of Africa and other countries. The secretary general is responsible for keeping informed of all developments through his official representatives dispatched abroad. Special envoys are sent on site to keep him up to date.
He recently dispatched a mission to Madagascar. Togo's former prime minister has been tasked with carrying out this mission on behalf of the secretary general to advise him of developments as they occur in Madagascar. You are probably aware that Madagascar was suspended from the political activities of the Francophonie. The Francophonie was of the view, however, that it was better to support the transition authorities to help restore democracy in Madagascar and eventually the nation's power within the bodies of the Francophonie.
With respect to the special envoys, he can, of course, provide alerts to the sitting summit chair, currently held by Switzerland.
He maintains close ties with the chair of the Ministerial Conference of La Francophonie and may, at any time, request a meeting of the ministerial conference or even a special meeting of the permanent council if the political climate in a state warrants.
That gives you a brief overview of the secretary general's political actions. As you can see, honourable senators, one of the secretary general's primary functions consists in undertaking political activities. That political action is entirely in keeping with the missions mentioned not just in the Charter of La Francophonie — as set out in a few very specific articles, which you can readily consult — but also in a document of paramount importance to us, the 10-year strategic framework adopted by heads of state and government at the 2004 summit in Ouagadougou. That framework spans the entire decade since the Ouagadougou summit, taking us to the end of 2013, when the competent authorities will once again be called upon to adopt a new strategic framework defining the new missions of the Francophonie.
As you know, the Francophonie has four main missions. I would still like to remind you of them: first, promoting the French language, and cultural and linguistic diversity; second, promoting peace, democracy and human rights; third, supporting education, training, higher learning and research; and finally, enhancing co-operation for sustainable development and solidarity.
Madam Chair, I know that we only touched on the political action carried out by the secretary general based on a mandate issued by heads of state and government, but I will be able to answer more specific questions later on.
I would now like to move on to the second component, co-operation. My colleague, Éric Pelletier, will go over that aspect.
Mr. Pelletier: I will quickly go over the co-operation aspect, which is facilitated by the secretary general. The secretary general's charter sets out a very specific role with regard to the enactment of the will of heads of state and government in terms of the Francophonie's multilateral co-operation. The Francophonie's multilateral co-operation is certainly an important area that absorbs almost 50 per cent of all our financial resources. It is an initiative that enables the secretary general, through the co-operation council, to bring together all the operating agencies of the Parliamentary Assembly of La Francophonie and the OIF. The objective is to enable those agencies to jointly plan the Francophonie's co-operation and solidarity actions based on the priority areas set out in the 10-year strategy document, as well as in all the other important documents that guide the secretary general in the performance of his or her duties. We could be talking about the Bamako Declaration on democracy, rights and freedoms, or the declaration that was signed in Saint-Boniface, Manitoba, on human safety and the conflict prevention. Finally, that enables the secretary general to provide the heads of state and member countries with a report on its activities that is usually useful because it implements a broad range of our priorities.
As part of his duties, the secretary general is in charge of appointing an OIF administrator, who is second in command in the Francophonie's institutional structure. That person is in charge of carrying out and facilitating multilateral intergovernmental co-operation actions and handling, under the secretary general's authority, all the administrative and financial activities involved in the management of a large organization.
Finally, the OIF carries out actions involving multilateral policies and co-operation in order to build active solidarity that benefits the citizens of member states and governments. The respect of cultural and linguistic diversity, and the promotion of the French language, peace and sustainable development are an important part of those actions.
It is the secretary general's duty to assess the outcome of a given action and suggest remedial mechanisms while ensuring the harmonization of the programs and actions of all operating agencies and the PAF.
Finally, the secretary general also has the mandate to invite civil and francophone society to meet every other year, usually following a summit. Those meetings provide civil society with an opportunity to speak out on the topics of debate for heads of state and government and their recommendations regarding those topics. Civil society can also support the OIF and the operating agencies in the implementation of the various resulting programs.
Madam Chair, honourable senators, I know that we have already taken up a lot of time, and I also know that you probably have questions. We will end our opening remarks here, so that we can answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: You covered so much ground that I thought there would not be questions, but it is no surprise that senators want to ask questions.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: It was a real pleasure to hear from both of you. I have a quick comment to make before I ask my questions.
When you talked about the history, Mr. de Cocatrix, you did not mention the important summit of the Francophonie held in the late 1980s in Paris. You only quickly mentioned the Quebec City summit, even though that was a memorable and very important time for Canadians, parliamentarians and French speakers living in Canada. You look at the history of the Francophonie beginning with the implementation of your charter in 1996. The charter was revised in 1997, in Hanoi, and later in Madagascar in 2005. That was a little side note.
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Charter of La Francophonie?
Mr. de Cocatrix: Thank you for the question. I would like to begin by clearing up a small misunderstanding. As I had only five minutes for my presentation, I could not possibly talk about the whole history and all the Francophonie summits. We are the first to say that, regardless of the location, the summits have always been very well received. They have also been appropriately influential. I mentioned the 2008 Quebec City summit, which was a great success. I hope you can forgive me for not discussing that further.
You asked me what the current strengths and weaknesses of the Francophonie charter were. I would like to begin with the strengths.
The current version of the Francophonie charter, adopted at the 2005 ministerial conference, in Tananarivo, finally put the finishing touches on the whole institutional dimension of the Francophonie, which has been going through a somewhat undefined evolution since 1970. That evolution has not been sufficiently controlled and has taken several different directions. We now have two parallel organizations. We have the Intergovernmental Agency of La Francophonie and the OIF, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. That difference in direction has been especially felt since the Hanoi summit, which encouraged the political dimension.
The current 2005 Francophonie charter is very beneficial because it makes the institutional dimension clearer. Today, that charter, which governs all the institutions, delineates the institutions and defines very clearly the secretary general's prerogatives and the organization of summits and conferences. It also defines the secretary general's action and co-operation prerogatives.
As the Chief of Cabinet of the Secretary General, I can say we are convinced that the current charter meets the organization's present needs, although there is some room for improvement.
I will now talk about the potential weaknesses. The charter may contain a few parts that could have been worded more clearly, with five or six years of hindsight. However, history cannot be changed. We have our Francophonie charter, which is doing fine. I think that all the stakeholder institutions feel that the Francophonie charter, with its few parts, is precisely the kind of document that helps clarify matters and provide the secretary general with a very clear mandate, which epitomizes not only the organization, but also all the Francophonie operating agencies. The Secretary General, Abdou Diouf, is not just the head of the OIF; he is also the Secretary General of the Francophonie, as a whole.
That is a quick answer to your question about the strengths and weaknesses of the current Francophonie charter.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Thank you. A Francophonie summit was held in 1986. The one you mentioned, in 2008, was not the only summit that has been held.
Mr. de Cocatrix: A Francophonie summit was held in 1986, here, in Paris. Since then, summits have been held every other year. You are right to mention that. Quebec City was one of the sites, but so was Moncton. There were also other meetings, like the Maurice summit, and so on. I could not talk about all of them, but you are perfectly right to bring that up.
[English]
The Chair: We did not expect you to cover all of the area, and I did impose a tight time limit on you. I appreciate that there is more interest and appetite for exploring than we have time, so we will do the best we can.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Gentlemen, thank you for your very interesting remarks. I have a substantive question, but I would like to begin with a more administrative one. What is your annual budget and how many employees do you have?
Mr. Pelletier: The organization's total budget is about 80 million euros, 50 per cent of which is absorbed by the Francophonie co-operation component.
We have about 325 employees here in Paris and in our regional representations around the world.
Senator Nolin: Now for my substantive question. You understood the exercise the Commonwealth heads of state have invited us to. Since the Commonwealth is made up of countries whose similarity lies in — to use an expression you like when referring to the use of the French language — the use of common law, that British tradition of precedent, where conventions have a virtually constitutional value.
I am trying to reconcile that British reality with your own, which I would describe as more republican, where everything is written down, everything is provided for. You actually explained it very well when you showed — in your opening remarks and in your answers to my colleague's questions — the importance of the charter and evolutionary achievements. I would refer to them as "statutory achievements." They may be international, but they are nevertheless statutory.
Therefore, all of the Francophonie is organized, in terms of timelines and structure, around the authorities provided for in those documents. However, that is not the case in the Commonwealth's anglophone community.
Perhaps the Commonwealth countries looked on the other side of the fence and saw that the Francophonie had something they would also like to have.
I would like to hear any advice you could give to a group of countries mainly guided by the British tradition of precedent and convention. I think that, as a French person living in the European Union, Mr. de Cocatrix, you can certainly understand the duality, the bijuralism involved in some areas of co-existence with other countries, such as your British neighbours.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Nolin, I did suggest that the witnesses did not have to answer questions about the Commonwealth. Having heard Mr. de Cocatrix, I think he can answer the question without violating the rule about the Commonwealth. Perhaps you can reflect from a francophone point of view, as you pointed out, the strengths of the varying systems where the structures are important. Has that given la Francophonie levers that perhaps a convention base or common law base would not have.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: That is exactly the point of my question.
Mr. de Cocatrix: Thank you, honourable senators. That is a fairly delicate question, but I am very glad Madam Chair clarified it, although it is still difficult for me to answer.
With your indulgence, I have something of an answer. First of all, I am not French. I am not from France, and I have nothing to do with the European Union. I am a Swiss citizen, since I am a Swiss diplomat. My government, like the Government of Canada, made my services available to the Office of the Secretary General.
There are several advisers and senior officials at the office, but our main duty is the multilateral component. I am not speaking as a Swiss citizen.
We are entirely aware of that situation. We just hope that the economic crisis we are going through will end in the coming months and years. That is why we are counting on big countries, such as Canada, France, Quebec — the government — Switzerland, but also other countries, such as Monaco and Luxembourg, to join us in this great mission that is the will of heads of state and government.
Éric Pelletier will want to add to my remarks.
Mr. Pelletier: I must say that the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie is not alone in this. Many other international organizations are going through a similar experience. Over the last few years, our organization has undergone a major transformation. That transformation enabled the organization to focus on its value added in its co- operation actions to which the Francophonie adds a unique element, together with other international organizations. We could not mention this earlier, but the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie has over 31 co-operation agreements with a number of international organizations.
Earlier, we mentioned the Commonwealth, but the same goes for organizations such as UNESCO and UNICEF. Our priority in those kinds of operations is to ensure that our value added, when combined with that of our partners, enables us to implement missions for citizens, for countries we are helping. So, yes, the situation is difficult, but I think that the administrator and our secretary general are also very committed to exploring the various options with international partner organizations, and even partners that can sometimes contribute to our charity or private-sector programs. They can also benefit from advancing our cause. I think that is something we share with the whole international community right now.
Mr. de Cocatrix: My colleague Éric Pelletier's comments on value added are correct. He is absolutely right. Madam Chair, I would like to reiterate that, despite a relatively small budget, our value added is not bad when compared with that of other international organizations. It is exactly in terms of that value added that the secretary general and the whole organization were able to make the institution more efficient, and cohesive, and more visible on the international stage, especially over the course of the past decade. It is precisely that value added that gives the organization its influential authority.
You know that, even with limited means, the direction of things can still be influenced considerably. That being said, the organization could do with some additional financial resources. We would, of course, be able to take on and carry out more missions. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for this opportunity to learn a little more about the organization of la Francophonie as we study the Commonwealth. Your work on behalf of Canadians and other members of la Francophonie is very valuable to us. We are televising these discussions, so, by your presence here today by video conference, many more Canadians are learning about the Francophonie and will help the Canadian government and parliamentarians in la Francophonie to put forward your message.
You have underscored for me that many of the values that the Commonwealth pursues are shared with la Francophonie because they are universal values that we subscribe to. We are interested in how to maximize the inputs from Canada in a meaningful way for the citizens of Canada. You have certainly given us a different perspective, one that we should know about and will reflect on how that may or may not impact on the Commonwealth. Your contribution has been valuable, and we appreciate the time that you have taken.
Senators, we are adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)