2

Selected Key Themes Addressed in IPU Assemblies

Reform of the IPU

The IPU should seize the opportunity of the forthcoming review to reorganize itself. It should never lose sight of the original aim of discussion in pursuit of peace. — Senator Nathan Nurgitz, 1991

The IPU is a very large organization; not surprisingly, at times its size can make it bureaucratic and cumbersome. Despite this, it has shown flexibility over the years in adapting to evolving world circumstances and the changing needs of its growing membership. Major reforms have addressed areas such as the functioning of its assembly and committees, its budget and governance, and its future role as the world organization of parliaments. As described below, the Canadian IPU Group has taken an active part in many of these reform efforts.

Financial Governance and Accountability

In 1994 (Paris), during the meeting of the Twelve Plus Group, Senator Peter Bosa drew attention to the IPU’s growing operating costs. In particular, he noted many double-digit increases in some expenditure categories over the previous four years, even though inflation rates in Switzerland – where the Union’s Secretariat is located – had been quite low. The Group asked him to relay these concerns in a letter to the IPU President. The letter urged the President “to direct the Secretariat to put an immediate freeze on its current expenditures and to review every aspect of its financial operations with a view to proposing a plan of action to achieve savings and restraints.”

In 1997 (Cairo), Canada and other delegations expressed concern about a proposed increase in membership fees. Again, Senator Bosa stressed the need to reduce costs, asked for a re-examination of the Union’s budget, and proposed a motion to design a budget “to live within our means.”

In 1998 (Moscow), Canada raised questions about the decision-making process regarding construction of new headquarters for the IPU Secretariat in Geneva: members were not given sufficient time to reflect on the project and consult national groups. Later that year (Windhoek), Senator Gerald J. Comeau noted that the Canadian Group had previously requested a breakdown of assembly costs in order to shed some light on the Union’s finances. To date, however, it had not received the necessary comparative data, and this made it difficult for the Group’s members to take an immediate position on the construction project under discussion. Senator Comeau emphasized that the Canadian delegates needed to have adequate information to justify a request to their Parliament for a contribution to the project.

More recently, Senator Donald H. Oliver was appointed internal auditor for the IPU’s 2006 financial statements. In 2007 (Nusa Dua, Bali), he presented a report prepared in collaboration with Mr. A. Quawas from Jordan. The report expressed satisfaction with the IPU’s financial performance in 2006 and with the presentation of its financial statements. To improve financial governance, the authors recommended that the financial regulations be amended to limit transfers between budget headings, suggested that new reporting standards be adopted for staff benefits, established a deadline for publishing an internal finance manual, and encouraged the Governing Council to consider appointing a salaried internal auditor.

Since 2010, Senator Oliver in his capacity as a member of the IPU Executive Committee has had an active role in ensuring the Union’s longer-term financial stability. A notable outcome of his efforts was the creation in 2011 of a Sub-Committee on Finance of the IPU Executive Committee with a mandate to review the IPU’s budget and expenditures with the aim of identifying savings and efficiencies. The sub-­committee’s work in 2012 prompted a 10% reduction in members’ contributions to the IPU.

Gender-Neutral Language and Gender Indicators

In 1994 (Paris), the Union decided to review the terminology of its statutes and rules to ensure gender-neutral language. The Coordinating Committee of Women Parliamentarians proposed that this task be undertaken by a small working group with representatives from four national groups, including Canada. The working group was chaired by Senator Lise Bacon and included Sue Barnes, MP, and Pierrette Ringuette, MP. Canadian IPU members were well placed to take a leading role in this work because it is standard practice in Canada to ensure that statutes, regulations and government documents use gender-neutral language. Handbooks and guidelines produced by Status of Women Canada and the Canadian Department of Justice were used to determine appropriate terminology. The assembly accepted the amendments of the working group in 1996 (Istanbul).

In 2004 (Geneva), in her capacity as a member of the IPU Executive Committee, Senator Joan Fraser proposed the analysis of the Union’s budget from a gender perspective. In 2005 (Manila), she pushed via the Gender Partnership Group for the inclusion of specific gender indicators in the IPU’s budget. Later that year in Geneva, the Secretary General made a commitment to expand and develop additional gender indicators for all IPU programs.

Membership

Early in 2000, the Union proposed that its members be “national parliaments” rather than “national groups.” The proposal was “designed to reflect more adequately the existing institutional link between the national parliaments of sovereign States and the IPU as their world organization.” Canada objected to the proposal because it would have forced the Canadian Group – and several others, for similar reasons – to withdraw from the IPU solely because Canada’s parliamentary system does not allow Parliament to join associations or groups. Due in large part to the Canadian Group’s insistence on the need to preserve the rights of existing national groups to remain IPU members, a proviso to that effect was agreed upon in 2001 (Havana).

This particular example shows how the IPU reform process — if left unchecked — could affect the full participation of the world’s parliaments in IPU activities. And this is why I encourage you to pay close attention to the question of IPU reform. — Senator Sheila Finestone, 2001

Mission and Vision

The IPU Strategy 2012–2017, adopted by the Governing Council in 2011 (Bern), places considerable emphasis on values and ideals such as those that Canada has actively promoted at the IPU ever since Canadian parliamentarians first began attending its meetings in 1900. It is a testament to the hard work and dedication of these individuals that the IPU is now well positioned and better equipped to address the challenges of today’s rapidly changing geopolitical environment.