Evidence of meeting #40 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was international.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
That's why I said I'm not worried about the article, only the specific change.
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
That's true, and I appreciate that.
I would then take a look at the type of language that is being used. The minister says that he expresses:
Canada’s profound concern over recent reports of sexual violence against women and children in a village in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC):
Canada is deeply concerned by allegations that members of two armed rebel groups raped more than 150 women during a July 30 attack in the province of North Kivu in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. MONUSCO, the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, is investigating the incident.
Canada reiterates its condemnation of the ongoing violence in the eastern DRC, including sexual and gender-based violence, and remains greatly concerned for the safety of the population there, especially women and children. We call on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and ensure the protection of civilians.
Of course, the same line that I read earlier, which was to say that we're calling on the DRC
to take concerted measures to prevent such criminal acts and to ensure that those who commit serious violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law are brought to justice.
I think the various groups of concern that you expressed in your question, in terms of what is the language we're using, what is the kind of expression of concern, how does this government articulate that, are brought together in this 2010 press release. That is the position and the policy today of the Government of Canada.
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
With all due respect, I don't think you've answered my question. Let me put another one to you, because on August 5, 2009--
Liberal
Irwin Cotler Liberal Mount Royal, QC
I will be very quick. I'm referring to what the minister himself said. He said:
In some circumstances it's semantics. In other circumstances...we're going to be changing policies so that they reflect what Canada's values are and what Canadians said when they supported us during the last election.
I don't regard foreign-policy specific justice-related concerns were a matter at issue in the elections. I'd like you to tell me what the minister said, when he said we are making changes to reflect changed policies that are based on what Canadians were telling us in the last election.
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I know that you wouldn't expect me to interpret the words of the minister—they would be in his head—but I can suggest that you take a look at what the minister has said subsequent to that, and if you take a look at what the Government of Canada is doing--
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Irene Mathyssen
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off.
Thank you.
Madame Boucher--sorry, she's not here.
Madame Demers.
Bloc
NDP
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Good morning, Ms. Demers. How are you?
Good morning, sir. Good morning, madam. You said earlier that the terminology has not changed. That's what you said in the beginning. You also said that our committee relied on an article from Embassy.
I would like you to explain this to me. The article was written a year ago. If the words have not changed, if nothing has changed, since we are still using the international terminology, what brought this article forward and why is it so important for people to talk about it now? Before we heard from the opposition, I personally had not seen this article. Could you tell me whether it's true that the terminology has not changed?
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It's a strange kind of dialogue we're having. In one respect, I'm being asked to explain if the language has changed, and I said it really hasn't, and the engagement hasn't changed. Then I'm also being referred to this article that says certain things, as press articles may. You know, I have to say that after 27 years of providing advice to government, we note newspaper articles with great interest. We look for the valid points and the accuracies in the ones that we can. My view in this case, as a suggestion to this committee, is not to be stuck on the article, as Mr. Cotler has suggested, but to really look at the actions of the government. I don't think any of us can rely entirely on newspaper articles. I think we have to rely on actual facts, and I think we have actual facts in front of us. I will leave those actual facts for the committee, for its record.
Conservative
NDP
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Kessel and Ms. Bejzyk.
I will not refer to any other Embassy articles from 2009. Instead I will refer to a 2010 report by the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action and the Canadian Labour Congress, which still represents a few million people. So I think they have some credibility, you will agree.
These two organizations stated that the changes in the terminology of foreign policy could indicate “a wilful disengagement to implement international standards, including international humanitarian law and women's rights standards”.
Even Mr. Stephen Brown, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa, believes that terminological changes show the evolution of government policy, since they apply to one department and one government agency—DFAIT and CIDA.
So I am not taking that from Embassy, but from a report that was written in 2010, not in 2009, which traced the progress made by DFAIT. So this is not just based on an article written in a magazine that you consider obscure, and an article that you would also like to define as obscure, but it is rather based on organizations that have followed the evolution of the terminology over the past four years. They really show how policies have been shaped over those few years and how words have disappeared, how words have changed, how terminology has changed, and what that actually meant on the ground.
As my colleague said earlier, by changing words, we change how policies are put into practice and how women and children are actually protected. By removing the word “impunity” in the Republic of Congo, we are taking away from women who are raped daily yet another way to protect themselves. We are taking away from these women yet another way to make themselves heard and be defended.
So, when you are telling us that we should not take this seriously because it's just an article from Embassy and then I read the report by the Canadian Feminist Alliance, I tell myself that we'd better listen and take it seriously before it gets out on WikiLeaks.
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more. I think everything you've said is essentially how the government has been acting, based on its international obligations, how we've been trying to be very clear about what we are doing. In fact, I'm not the only person speaking to committees of Parliament or the Senate at the moment. Last night, my colleague, who's responsible for Afghanistan, was appearing before the Senate Committee on Human Rights, speaking about the human rights of women in Afghanistan. On December 2, one of my other colleagues, Elissa Goldberg, whom you may be aware of, will appear before the House Subcommittee on International Human Rights to discuss sexual violence against women and children in peace operations, fragile states, and conflict situations.
I think Canada has a good story to get out there. The narrative is one of caring and strategic application of our values, and I don't think we have anything to apologize for. The impact we've had on Afghanistan is astounding, and the impact we are having in places where we can is really worthwhile listening to.
There is no question that some people may have different views. Certainly the focus of the discussion here today in this group, very narrow as it is, is about terminology. I'm here to tell you that the terminology remains unchanged, and that the actions of Canada have not changed either. This group could have a much broader discussion about the vast plethora of discussions that come out of international organizations, or even domestic ones, but for the narrow discussion that you have given us to look at, I would say that the story of Canada is a good one.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Irene Mathyssen
Thank you very much.
Finally—and I hope you can help us here—is it mandatory for Canadian overseas personnel to have training on the UN Security Council Resolution 1325? If so, could you please provide the committee with those training materials? We'd appreciate having a look at them.
Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Melanie Bejzyk will respond to that question.
Legal Officer, UN, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
I can respond in a general sense that officers, including me, not just at missions abroad but also at headquarters, receive quite extensive training. Actually one of the mandatory courses at this time is a human rights course. That includes elements of human rights policy as well as human rights law. Unfortunately, I can't speak to whether that resolution is actually specifically mentioned or not. As you can imagine, time is always a matter, and we try to include all the prominent and most important aspects of Canadian human rights policy, including those pertaining to the rights of women. That's the best I can do in terms of speaking to it. That resolution came about after I received my training, but certainly I'm well aware of it. Many individuals were consulted on that policy, and they were given not only the specific classroom training but the very awareness of what our department is doing. That resolution is well known by officers in our department.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Irene Mathyssen
Thank you. Certainly the human rights piece is quite significant.
I'm wondering about gender-based analysis. Is there any other substantive form of GBA training that is mandatory for DFAIT employees? If so, what training are they provided, and how do we know that this is being done? Is there accountability? Is there follow-up in regard to gender-based analysis? Again, any documentation or training materials that are available would be very much appreciated, if you could forward those to the committee.
Legal Officer, UN, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Thank you for your question. I think it's an important one.
We'd be happy to provide you with some materials. Unfortunately, we weren't prepared with those materials today, as the focus was on terminology. Certainly if you're interested in finding out about the kind of training that officers receive, we'd be happy to provide you with that information.
NDP
The Vice-Chair NDP Irene Mathyssen
I appreciate that.
It seems to me that since it's very clear that terminology, the way we speak of issues and of situations and of people, is of profound concern, there would be more attention to it in regard to any discussion of terminology. I'm a bit disappointed, but I certainly do appreciate your commitment to forward materials to us so that we can have clarity on that.