Status of Women Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Good morning. I'd like to begin. We welcome our witnesses, and we're very grateful that you've taken the time to be here to answer our questions.

With the indulgence of the committee, since I am the only New Democratic Party member, I would like to be able to ask my questions as usual, in the usual time slot. As always, I will be very strict with all members of the committee regarding time, particularly the member for the New Democratic Party.

Again, thank you for being here. You have 10 minutes. We'll begin our first round of questions after you're finished. It's seven minutes for each caucus, and that includes both the question and the answer.

Mr. Kessel.

[Alan H. Kessel, Legal Adviser, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Alan Kessel. I am the assistant deputy minister, legal, for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I don't have a presentation this morning. We are certainly available to take any questions the committee may have.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you very much. That will certainly allow for substantive questions.

We'll begin our questioning with the Liberal Party, Madam Simson, please.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today with respect to the language changes as they relate to women in our foreign affairs policy.

The briefing notes we were given by the committee clerks and analysts say that there's a rather significant change in two areas, particularly with respect to how they could potentially affect women. I'm really curious as to what you think the impact will have.

The term “gender equality” and the term “child soldiers” are going to be stricken from the language employed by Canada's foreign service.

First off, is there any country that has deviated from these terms?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Maybe we could just go back a little bit, because I think I'm at a disadvantage here. I'm not aware of a change of policy. You've expressed that you're basing your position on the work done by Laura Munn-Rivard. Is that the document that I have as well, which is the analysis that you have before you?

I note that the analysis is based entirely on the Embassy magazine/newspaper.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You're saying that's not going to occur?

[Alan H. Kessel]

No. What I'm saying is that I'm unaware of.... You phrased your question as if there is an actual change in policy in the Government of Canada.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No, a change in the terms.

[Alan H. Kessel]

No, there are no changes in terms.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

So “gender equality” and “child soldiers” are in fact not going to be stricken from the language?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Nothing has been stricken.

In trying to prepare for this, I read what you had before you. I just try to put myself, or maybe you put yourself, in the position of, say, a professor at university. There seems to be only one reference in your analysis that you have before you.

I don't see any reference to a review of speeches by ministers or positions the Government of Canada has taken internationally. I don't see anything with reference to our website. I don't see reference to any Government of Canada expressions, other than a reference to a newspaper article.

I can certainly help you build on what we are doing. I would suggest that this is not entirely adequate. I can leave you with the documents that I'll be chatting to you about this morning. If you like, I can certainly follow up on those questions.

But the simple answer to your question is no.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

So there is going to be no change or rebranding in those terms?

[Alan H. Kessel]

There is no rebranding. There's no change. The government--

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No, there isn't going to be? They're not contemplating it? I guess I'm at a loss as to where this would come out of thin air without any basis. Why would Embassy magazine print such an article if the government wasn't contemplating, in some respect, changes to those terms?

[Alan H. Kessel]

I'm a public official, not a politician. I wouldn't base my entire analysis on what a newspaper says. I'm sure that newspaper articles get written about each member in this room. I'm sure you found some of it valid and some of it not. I'm telling you that the article you based your entire meeting upon is inadequate.

I can help you. I'll run through the areas of what we do, if that would be helpful.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That would be helpful.

[Alan H. Kessel]

The answer to your question is no.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

The committee would probably have to call witnesses from the magazine to find out where they got this information.

If you could just go over what you offered to do, I'd appreciate it.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Of course, it's entirely up to the committee to decide if it wishes to analyze the magazine further. I would simply state that there has been no change in the terminology that the Government of Canada has used. It hasn't changed since the terminology was used under the Liberal government, and it certainly hasn't changed under this government.

The language we use is based on international instruments, and it's those international instruments that dictate our terminology. We don't create our own terminology. When you're talking to individuals in a colloquial setting, you will use different kinds of language. For instance, you just raised the issue of child solders. “Child soldiers” is not a concept that appears in an international instrument. It's “children in armed conflict” in the international instruments. “Child soldiers” is just a colloquial term. We tend to use the accurate terms used in the international systems. These are the terms that we negotiated on behalf of Canada. We use those terms, and we use them diligently. Those terms are hard fought for. Those terms have strong meaning, and we stick with them. Any watering down of those terms would be undermining what we had negotiated.

We use all those terms. We use “gender equality”. We use “children in armed conflict”. Minister Guergis, at the 54th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women in Beijing, the Beijing Plus Fifteen, said that:

...as we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the Beijing Platform of Action, let me stress Canada's unequivocal continued commitment to gender equality. We view gender equality and the empowerment of women not only as a goal in itself but also as a fundamental step in achieving all the Millennium Development Goals. The United Nations has an important role to play in accelerating global progress towards achieving gender equality....

Clearly, a minister of the crown has referred to that. There were some suggestions that perhaps we weren't as keen on bringing individuals to justice on crimes against humanity. I would point to an August 2010 note from our minister, the Hon. Lawrence Cannon. In part of this note, expressing deep concern over the safety of eastern Congolese civilians, he said:

Canada once again urges the government of the DRC, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to take concerted measures to prevent such criminal acts and to ensure that those who commit serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law are brought to justice.

Two of the points in the article, for instance, the suggestion that humanitarian international law will not be used, are absolutely wrong. I'm going to leave these with the clerk. These can go into the record. In fact, I would ask that they go into the record so there is some accuracy.

The term “international law”—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you. I'm sorry, but we are out of time.

Perhaps we can move on. We would, of course, like to see the tabling of those documents that you've offered.

Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, sir. Good morning, madam.

I am not a member of this committee. I am a member of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, and we have undertaken a study on sexual violence against children and women in countries in conflict.

We had two experts before our committee last week, Ms. Joanne Lebert from the Human Rights Research and Education Centre at the University of Ottawa, and a female researcher and analyst from the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. One of the things they both mentioned was that the concept of “gender-specific” has been eliminated, and that we no longer talk about gender equality, but rather about equality between men and women.

This really has an impact. The notion of gender-specific can no longer be used as a measure and indicator to assess programs that show whether or not they have met the targets or objectives set by the government.

I would just like to quote Ms. Lebert on this topic. She said that she was really worried about this because it was not only a question of equality. Equality is important. But the question of gender is also really important because it is a question of identity. If we take out the concept of identity from analyses, we cannot understand the power relationships that exist between the members of a community. Without this type of in-depth analysis, it is very difficult. We need good analytical tools, so that we can get information and better understand the situation.

Along the same lines, in the action plan proposed by the government to follow up on the United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 on sexual violence, we can again see the same thing happening. Nowhere in the action plan is there any reference to gender-specific. It is a bit worrisome.

As I said earlier, this is a vital measuring tool. Eliminating or taking out this concept is problematic for the Department of Foreign Affairs.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Thank you, madam.

I will try to explain the position of the Canadian government.

I would suggest that the committee...and I'll table this too, the resolution that Canada leads, and has led in the past, in the Human Rights Council, which is accelerating efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, ensuring due diligence and prevention. Of course, this is signed onto by many countries. Maybe I'll just quote from one of the paragraphs. It specifically refers to:

Recognizing that power imbalances and structural inequality between men and women are among the root causes of violence against women, and that effective prevention of violence against women and girls requires action at all levels of government, the engagement of civil society, the involvement of men and boys and the adoption and implementation of multifaceted and comprehensive approaches that promote gender equality and empowerment of women, and integrate awareness, education, training, political will, legislation, accountability, targeted policies and programmes, specific measures to reduce vulnerability, data collection and analysis, monitoring and evaluation, and protection, support and redress for women who have experienced violence.

So I appreciate the concern--

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Sir, what are you referring to?

[Alan H. Kessel]

What I'm saying is that the language and terminology that is being used by the international community and that Canada continues to use includes both of those concepts. So I think the Government of Canada is encompassing all of the concepts that we have traditionally used and that the international community uses. This is a resolution that is passed by consensus every year. I'll table that as well for the committee.

In terms of the concern that you expressed with respect to that language, we have an example of where Canada does use them. I think that is perhaps the best example of the international community using the same language to express concerns about this issue.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I am a little worried about this. I have been in Parliament for six years. But I am wondering whether, over the past three years, there has been a global dialogue in order to suddenly change, reform and eliminate concepts we have always worked with and have been sensitive to. When we fiddle around with semantics, we sometimes change the whole meaning of the words and make them weaker. We even change the essence of the debate.

For example, in the action plan proposed by the government with respect to resolution 1325, there are many principles and wishes. Yet the people from the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre, who are specifically trying to implement policies to combat violence against women, to ensure safety, and to send trained people on the ground, told us that they would no longer receive funding in 2012 and that the program would no longer be extended. We also realized that there was no funding anticipated in the action plan for this purpose.

It looks like the government is increasingly changing the rules in the things it is proposing to us. We want to look good, but, at the same time, we no longer have the tools required to turn words into action.