Status of Women Committee on Nov. 30th, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Madame, we're over seven minutes. Could you wrap up, please?

We'll have a very, very, brief response from Mr. Kessel or Ms. Bejzyk.

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

To conclude, I would just like to say a few words, Madam Chair.

I would just like to point out the disturbing nature of these changes: for the past few years, “child soldiers” is no longer a recognized term internationally, just like “gender equality” and the concept of “gender-specific”. More basic terms are being used, which ends up depriving us of our resources to fight for human rights.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Thank you. I think the concern you're expressing is something that's always in our minds. It's to ensure that the language we use is as clear as possible, to indicate the interest that Canada has had in the past, continues to have, and will have in the future, with respect to protection of the rights of women and girls. I don't think anything in the performance of the government—either past governments or the current government—would lead you to believe that has changed in any way.

I know the objective of the discussion here has been about terminology. My objective is to show you that the terminology hasn't changed; the policy hasn't changed. The terminology we use is carefully negotiated language that came out of many years of negotiation in international fora.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you. I hate to cut you off, but we've gone well over. As a reminder, too, we do need the documents you refer to in French and English, please

Madame Brown.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank you both for being here today and for sharing this with us. I guess I'm a little bit flabbergasted. First of all, you've said emphatically that there is no change in policy, there is no change in the direction the government is going in with the use of the language, and that we are abiding by the same language that is used on the international front to use the terms that are common for this. I think what I'm hearing today is you saying, “What part of 'no' don't you understand?” That's really what you're saying.

I find it somewhat an affront when there's this constant push, an underlying attempt at ideology to be presented, and obviously what you're saying is that the Conservative government has not done anything to undermine the language that is used, and the language that has been used by previous governments as well.

I guess my question would be, because this committee does have a history of basing recommendations and motions on one opinion, can you speak to the wisdom of a motion being made on one article or one opinion? Would you make a recommendation based on one article or one opinion? You review documents on a regular basis. Would you make a recommendation to the government based on one opinion, to change language that the foreign affairs department is currently using?

[Alan H. Kessel]

I appreciate the question, and I think you also appreciate that it strays awfully close to the difference between political and public officials' roles. I don't do ideology; I simply don't do that. It's not what our public service is about. We provide advice to the government of the day.

What I can tell you is that if I were a professor—I am not a professor, but I certainly went through university—I would not base my entire analysis on one article or one newspaper. I would probably get a failing grade if that were the case. Put yourselves in the mind of a professor at a university getting a paper like that. I'm not questioning what the analysts had to work with. What I would say, though, is that if I only had one thing, I would use my best efforts to find out what else was going on. I would usually go to the very voices I was looking at, and if the voices you're looking at are the current government—ministers, press releases, positions in international fora, positions on websites—that would give you a better idea about what is going on.

So I think the simple answer is to simply go to what people say and to look at what people do, and make your decision based on that.

Thank you.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Kessel, I was in no way trying to put you in a position of having to make policy or justify ideology. Obviously, the minister is the person you would have to listen to and to reflect the language that he is using whenever he is speaking to international organizations or to Canadians. I appreciate the fact that you've been very clear that it is the minister's words that you reflect in the work that you do.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Absolutely. I did not mean to be as clear as I was, obviously. I'm only aware that there's a very fine line between what we as public officials can say and what ministers can say. But what I can tell you is that what I have in front of me, in terms of the words of the ministers of this government and the words of officials of this government, is that they reflect the internationally negotiated language and the policy of this government with respect to the protection of the rights of women and girls internationally.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Kessel.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you.

There is still two and a half minutes left, if someone else in your caucus has a question.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

I don't know that we have any more questions. I think that's as clear as it comes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Then we'll move on to the fourth party.

Again, I would like to thank you for being here. I would like to point out that this is a committee that is very careful and very thorough in terms of its research and its recommendations to the Government of Canada. In study after study, we've been very careful to garner a wide variety of views and opinions.

With that in mind, I would like to ask you if you were aware of the views and opinions of Mr. Alex Neve of Amnesty International, who expressed concern in regard to language as it pertained to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in regard to changing “international humanitarian law” to the phrase “international law”; and the concerns of the Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children in regard to the changes connected with “child soldier” and “children involved in conflict”; and finally, Professor Errol Mendes of the University of Ottawa, who had concerns about the removal of the words “impunity” and “justice” in relation to DFAIT, and the anxiety over specific use of language. Of course, we know under the Rome Statute of 1998 that there was profound concern, or it was stated very clearly, that language, when it comes to international affairs, matters, and it matters significantly.

I wonder if you had been aware of the concerns expressed by those three individuals or institutions.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm very familiar with Alex Neve. I have worked very closely with Amnesty. I've been on the other end of Amnesty's lawsuits against the Government of Canada as well. I'm very much aware of expressed concerns, but I would ask Alex Neve to point exactly to the language that has changed. I could express any kind of concern that I have, and as a person I could do that any day--get out of bed and express a concern. But I would like Alex Neve to actually point to that.

I've just read you language coming out of the mouth of a minister in which he uses the language that this government uses. Alex Neve knows exactly what the meaning of “international humanitarian law” is. It is the law of war. It's the corpus of law that we use, the governance structure that we use in Afghanistan and other places. The term “international law” is much more general.

So I'm very much aware of that. I would ask, if there's anybody who has a specific example to point to, then please provide it to me. But pure conjecture and hyperbole...I can't work with that.

With respect to the other issues of “child soldiers” versus “children in armed conflict”, I think I expressed clearly that “child soldiers” is a colloquial term. The correct term that we use, which is in the actual international instrument, is “children in armed conflict”. Maybe it's just the lawyer in me that likes to use the exact terminology that we negotiated, because everybody agreed to it, all 180 cats that we had to herd in the same direction. When you start using other terms, it makes the lawyer in me just a wee bit nervous. If you wish to use whatever term you like, please feel free. But the Government of Canada will use the language that was negotiated and that we find consistent throughout international discussions and instruments.

I'm not sure if there's another issue that I had to deal with.

On the issue of impunity, actually I'm also at a loss to see where there is a difference between language and what we're doing. I think I also read to you specific press releases and the voices of the ministers where they talk about “bringing perpetrators to justice”. I think impunity and bringing perpetrators to justice are essentially the same thing. So I think yet again I'm a little bit at sea on where the difference is.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. I do have some other questions.

[Alan H. Kessel]

Okay, sure.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

We've also heard from women's organizations, and there's a concern. It would seem that DFAIT has reorganized the unit under which women, peace, and security--that theme--falls. I wonder if you can give a brief overview of the unit—very brief—the priority areas, the human resources that have been allocated, and the funding. I wondered how many personnel specifically and how much funding specifically have been allocated to women, peace, and security.

[Alan H. Kessel]

That's a valid question. Unfortunately, I don't have an individual who can answer it. Our understanding was that the discussion today was going to be about terminology.

I would love to be able to give you a description of the organigram of that area and how much they spend, but I am the legal adviser to the department. I don't run the human rights section. That would have to be a question directed at the human rights division.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Is there someone specific we should call there, or should we just have the clerk ask for someone in the human rights area?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Well, the ADM who deals with the human rights issues and international organizations is Keith Christie. He should be able to give you a breakdown on how much is spent and how many people are in his branch.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

I have another question, and again, it relates to the concerns of women. Do you have specific gender advisers who can look at some of this terminology as it applies to women and give advice? We're very concerned about how all of this could impact women. All policy can impact women.

[Alan H. Kessel]

I'm going to ask Melanie Bejzyk, who is one of the lawyers in our legal branch, to give you an answer on this one.

[Melanie Bejzyk, Legal Officer, UN, Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Section, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you very much.

My name is Melanie Bejzyk. I work in the UN, human rights and humanitarian law section in the department.

Regarding the people who give advice on gender issues and the use of gender language, first of all, our division would provide that kind of advice with respect to compliance with Canada's obligations under international human rights law. That would include gender and equality issues and non-discrimination issues. So that would be me, on the legal side.

On the policy side, our human rights policy division has human rights experts who give advice with respect to all aspects of Canada's compliance with its responsibilities with respect to human rights, and that division also develops policy. The law is the minimum bottom line, but policy can go above and beyond that if that's the choice.

Those would be the two divisions, and in each of those there would be officers assigned specifically to deal with issues of gender equality.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Irene Mathyssen]

Thank you.

Now we're on to our four-minute round. We have gone a little over in the first round, so it's four minutes, question and answer.

Mr. Cotler, please.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree with you that one cannot presuppose a change in policy based on an article in a magazine, so my question is specific with respect to the alleged change as reported in the article, not whether it was the article itself.

I'll quote from the article of July 29, 2009, which reported that changes had been made to “'a standard docket response' of Canada's position with regards to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

The specific reference is:

In the new docket, the minister's office has removed the words “impunity” and “justice” when calling for an end to sexual violence in the DRC, and is instead calling only for efforts to “prevent” sexual violence.

Have those changes been made, as a factual matter? Forget about whether it was reported in the Embassy article or not. Have those changes been made?

[Alan H. Kessel]

Well, the only thing I can refer to, as I have.... As you yourself know, as a minister who has his staff respond to letters, responding to letters is one thing, where you talk to your constituents and others who are interested in a language that is more colloquial.

We certainly advise on the specific legal aspects of it in terms of ensuring that when the minister expresses himself on the issues related to his obligations, he is absolutely within keeping with the Canadian law and the Canadian commitments to international instruments, many of which were negotiated under the previous government.

With respect to the issue of the Congolese civilians and the statement I read out earlier, I'll just read a little more of it.

The Honourable Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs....

This is August 26, 2010, so when you refer to an article that was from 2009, I would suggest that maybe the committee should also take a look at reality that has gone beyond that. There seems to be a kind of frozen-in-time aspect to this discussion.