Status of Women Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study on language changes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Today we have two groups of witnesses. We have an individual witness, Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff, associate professor, department of law, Université du Québec à Montréal. Then we have officials from the Canadian International Development Agency: Michel Bélec, acting executive director and head of legal services; and Caroline Leclerc, director general, strategic planning and performance reporting directorate.

As you know, you are allowed 10 minutes for an opening statement. I will give you a two-minute notice, if you look up, so that you will know how much time you have left. It's my understanding that CIDA will not be making any opening remarks, so Madame Breton-Le Goff will begin. After you've finished, we will just move into the question-and-answer section.

Madame Breton-Le Goff, go ahead, please.

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff, Associated Professor, Department of Law, Université du Québec à Montréal, As an Individual]

Good morning, members of the committee.

As you know, several newspapers, but mainly the weekly Embassy, have, over the past summer, documented the changes in terminology used in Canada's foreign policy.

Included among the more notable changes are the following: the disappearance of the expression “human security” and its corollary the “responsibility to protect”, or “RtoP”; the replacing of the expression “international humanitarian law” with “international law”; the replacing of the expression “child soldier” with “children in armed conflicts”; the replacing of “gender equality” with “sexual equality”, “equality between the sexes” or “equality between men and women”; the disappearance of references to gender-specificity or of the term “gender-specific” itself, in other words, to gender, and, lastly, the disappearance of justice and the fight against impunity as regards victims of sexual violence, and this is specifically reflected in the national plan of action which was unveiled just last October.

If I may, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to give my presentation in two parts. First, I will tell you about the results contained in a small study on the implications of these terminological changes, and second, I will address the potential consequences of these changes.

Concerning what these terminological changes really mean, I have to say that this was rather difficult to document. However, I have been able to establish a couple of trends. To do so, I decided to concentrate on official statements made by Canadian diplomats at the Security Council when it was debating the situation of women, on the one hand, and, on the other, the statements made at the UN Commission on the Status of Women. Further, I limited my study to two themes in particular: first, sexual violence and the fight against impunity, and then gender and gender-specificity. I also chose to work with statements which had been made over the past three years.

Here are the results. During the Security Council debate on women, peace and security in 2008 and 2009 at the Security Council, the Canadian representative to the United Nations insisted on the necessity of ending impunity linked to war crimes, in particular regarding crimes involving sexual violence. He referred to the provisions of resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, which dates back to 2000. He also invited other countries to work with the International Criminal Court to prosecute serious crimes, including those involving sexual violence.

In August 2009, the Canadian representative drew attention to the fact that “amnesty clauses within peace accords, which can be interpreted as exempting perpetrators of sexual violences from being held accountable, directly contravene Resolution 1820 (2008)”. This was a very strong message, given the way diplomatic language is used at the United Nations. The emphasis on the fight against impunity was then renewed in October 2009.

However, when you look at other statements which were made on the same subject, this time in October 2010, you realize that Canada's message has changed. There is no more talk of justice and the fight against impunity. Canada is now emphasizing the participation of women in the peace consolidation process. There is but a passing mention of the primacy of law. This change is all the more worrying because on October 13 last at the Security Council, the discussion dealt with the development of indicators to measure the implementation of resolutions 1325, 1820, 1888 and 1889. But among the indicators related to protection, the Secretary General of the United Nations clearly focused on indicators linked to the prosecution of crimes involving sexual violence.

I have to say that Canada's statement at the Security Council clearly reflects the Canadian plan of action on the implementation of the Security Council's resolutions, which, as you know, was unveiled in October 2010.

If you take a quick look at the plan, you will see that Canada's response to the implementation of the resolution, including the fight against sexual violence, is chiefly based on three things. The imposition of codes of conduct, the training of military and other personnel on women's issues, and peace and security, and evidence contained in diplomatic cables regarding serious violent crimes committed against women by Canadian officials.

Further in the plan, there is only a single reference to the legal and security system, and this reference is worded in an extremely vague and abstract manner.

Then, on October 26, 2010, at the UN Security Council, the Hon. Bev Oda (Minister of International Cooperation), took everyone by surprise when she called on countries to investigate and prosecute crimes involving sexual violence. At the same time, she also supported the creation of a list of experts in investigations and prosecutions.

If you look at what was happening at the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, you will see that, on March 5, 2009, Canada declared that the elimination of violence against women was one of the three pillars of Canadian policy, but Canada never provided details about what this meant. Further, nowhere in its statement was there a mention of gender equality or the necessity to take gender specificity into account.

This marked a change compared to the statements Canada had made in 2008. It was also very different from what was said in front of the same body, or at the same session, in 2009, by Switzerland and Sweden, who both insisted on the importance of applying gender-based analysis in policies aimed at fighting discrimination against women.

However, I must recognize that, when Australia spoke on behalf of the group comprised of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the expression "gender equality" was regularly used, and forcefully so, and it was also said that impunity for crimes committed against women in conflicts "could not be tolerated".

So to conclude this inventory, I will present you with a fact which may seem anecdotal, but which basically speaks for itself. The Canadian plan to implement the Security Council's resolutions refers to "equality between men and women", as opposed to what the Hon. Bev Oda said in her speech, when she cautiously referred to the equality between women and men. As I said, this is just an anecdote, but as far as the Canadian plan is concerned, there is no mention of gender, nor of gender specificity. On the contrary, the language refers to taking the needs of women and girls into account. What this means exactly as far as policy is concerned remains to be seen.

What impact will this have? First, in the area of foreign policy, it is clear that our partners feel we are changing our policy. Perhaps—I cannot say for sure, we will have to ask political scientists—we are losing credibility. What I believe is happening is that we may be relinquishing our position as international leaders on this subject.

As for the advancement of women's rights per se, it is not enough to focus on prevention when it comes to preventing sexual violence or helping the fight against sexual violence. You just have to read, for example, the Human Rights Watch report entitled "Soldiers who rape, commanders who condone", to realize that there is no real fight against impunity, that training is not enough to eliminate violence, especially in countries or conflicts where violence has become endemic and has basically become a routine matter—in other words, it has become part of the fabric of society.

As a matter of fact, the Belgian plan provides examples of concrete policy options or good practices which can be developed.

The other problem—and I will end with this—is that, when you talk about sexual equality and not gender equality, not only are you ignoring an entire segment of the population, including homosexuals, lesbians and transgendered people, but you are also discounting the analysis of those things which underpin discrimination against women, that is, the power dynamic which underlies the social and family roles of men and women.

Equality is not a matter of accounting; rather, it involves a change in mentality and a change in society. So if we choose to talk about sexual equality instead of gender equality, it is because we have chosen to ignore, or to not question, the social, family, cultural and even professionnal reasons for discrimination.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Madame Breton-Le Goff.

We now move to the question period. This period has seven minutes, which includes the question and the answer. I will ask you to please remember that.

I will begin with the Liberals.

Ms. Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for appearing here today. This is a very important study for the committee as it relates to women.

For my first question, I'm going to go back to last Tuesday. Alan Kessel, from the Department of Foreign Affairs, appeared before our committee and stated, “No, there are no changes in terms”, at DFAIT. On Thursday we had witnesses who gave the committee countless examples of speeches, statements, and documents that have been produced by DFAIT over the past few years that specifically omitted the terms “gender equality”, “child soldier”, and “international humanitarian law”.

Michelle Collins, formerly of Embassy magazine, was kind enough to provide me with a copy of an e-mail to share with the committee, which was sent by Jamieson Weetman, a senior official at DFAIT, to nearly two dozen other DFAIT officials in May 2009. Individuals who received this e-mail included assistant deputy ministers, directors general, directors, and many other senior officials at DFAIT, including the witness who denied there were any changes, Mr. Kessel.

The e-mail states, “Some of you will have already noted over the past few months the tendency” of the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs “to change or remove language from letters, speeches, interventions at multilateral meetings, etc.”. I would like to start by tabling this e-mail for the committee and then ask our witnesses if they think an e-mail of this nature demonstrates that senior officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs were aware of the language changes that were taking place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Could you give that to us, Ms. Simson? Thank you.

Do you have a question, once you've tabled it?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I do. I asked the question.

Do you have a response?

Do you think an e-mail of this nature, where they express concern, would indicate that the Department of Foreign Affairs was aware that this was a deliberate action?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Leclerc had her hand up first.

[Caroline Leclerc, Director General, Strategic Planning and Performance Reporting Directorate, Canadian International Development Agency]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We wouldn't be able to comment on these matters pertaining to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Madame Breton-Le Goff.

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

Listen, I don't work for that department.

I'm not working at DFAIT, so I have no idea. I guess people should have received it. Did they read it? I hope so, I'm sure. I don't know. I cannot comment on that.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Actually, what they did do was convene a meeting, because several bureaucrats within the department were concerned. They'd been observing this over the past couple of years and they didn't see any tendency for it to stop. In fact, it accelerated.

I know that it may be a little bit of speculation, but if it were being done that way, wouldn't that indicate that the department itself was aware it was going on?

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

I cannot answer that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I think it's pretty difficult for either group to answer that question, Ms. Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Okay.

This e-mail gives many examples of changes from the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In “a standard docket response” regarding gender issues in the Democratic Republic of Congo, changes include, and I quote: “removing the term 'impunity' in every instance”. The author notes that some changes suggested by the office of the minister “are more than simply stylistic changes”. The author notes, for example, the sentence cited above changes the focus from how there is justice for victims and there are victims of sexual violence to “prevention”. What they had said was that “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”, as opposed to “impunity for sexual violence”.

How do you think those changes affect Canada's foreign policy, if they do at all?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Breton-Le Goff, I think the question was for you.

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

What becomes very clear when you read the national plan which came out in October, is that, in fact, everything which has to do with justice for the victims—including access to legal institutions, to the strengthening of judicial capacity, as well as the presence of women in the legal system—everything which deals with supporting the legal system, and the mechanisms involved in the legal system, for example—none of this appears at all in the national plan.

Further, if you look at the proposals contained in the Belgian plan, you see that there is a big difference. The Belgian national plan sets out extremely concrete actions. It states that Belgium:

- Will support initiatives involving women with regard to access to the legal system, which will encourage women to file complaints, which will offer them protection and shelter; - Will support the strengthening of the legal system in every country where Belgium is participating in an international mission; - Will support initiatives which strengthen the position of women (succession rights, ownership, training, forced marriages, etc.) [regarding ownership]; - Will support the International Criminal Court.

These actions could not be more concrete, and this is what the Belgian government is proposing. In fact, it has already begun to implement these measures on the ground.

As far as Canada is concerned, you might know—and Ms. Leclerc from CIDA could certainly speak to this—that there is a project to address the issue of sexual violence, which has already received $15 million in funding.

However, unless I'm mistaken, this fund or program will end this year. Will it be renewed or not, and under what conditions?

The other problem with Canada's plan is that, when you look at the details of the actions which the Canadian government lays out, they mostly seem to focus on training. An inventory will be taken of the training given to people on the ground, and then it will be assessed.

We have between 8 and 11 military personnel in the Democratic Republic of Congo with the MONUSCO mission. How in the world is this training going to change anything? Really, is this what is going to improve the situation and prevent sexual violence from being committed on the ground?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We'll now move on to Madame Demers, for the Bloc Québécois.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you very much for being here, Ms. Breton-Le Goff, Ms. Leclerc and Mr. Bélec.

You have opened the door for me, Ms. Breton-Le Goff, so I will ask you a question immediately before I forget.

Ms. Leclerc, will the $15 million fund for the prevention of sexual violence be renewed? If so, under what conditions?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for asking the question. Unfortunately, I cannot give you an answer, but I will gladly consult with the department and send you the information regarding that specific fund.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you.

Ms. Breton-Le Goff, your statement was very interesting. If I was an average citizen sitting in my living room, reading the papers and watching the news, and if I learned that there were changes in wording and terminology, I would not understand and I would not notice a change in policy. I could not imagine that the government was making any major policy changes. If I was an average citizen, if I was not an active feminist, if I did not read the paper and if I was not on top of current events, I would not see any kind of change whatsoever. Calling a “child soldier” a “child in an armed conflict” from now on is indeed a change, but a small one. Talking about the equality between men and women, rather than gender-based equality, is a very subtle change for the average citizen.

However, it goes much deeper than that. But when Mr. Kessel appeared before the committee, he made it clear that this did not represent a change in the government's policy.

Why do you think the government wants us to understand that there is no change in its policy, when, in your opinion, these are major changes?

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

I scanned Mr. Kessel's testimony. He said, among other things, that this was not a real change, because Canada was just adopting the official terms which appear in international conventions. It is true that, in international conventions, there is no reference to “child soldiers”; rather, the expression used is “children in armed conflicts”. However, these conventions deal exclusively with the recruitment and participation of children in conflicts. Therefore, whether you call them “child soldiers” or “children in armed conflicts”, it amounts to the same thing.

Where the new terminology is important, in my view, is that when you talk about “children in armed conflicts”, you are referring to both the children who are participating in armed conflicts, that is, the children who are carrying weapons, and the other children who are the victims of conflicts, and who are thankfully in the majority. Therefore, the emphasis is less on the phenomenon of child soldiers and their eventual criminalization, or the fact that child soldiers cannot be prosecuted unter international law anymore, and more on the fact that these children are victims of war.

When this happens, there is a shift towards the international rights of children, what is in the best interest of the child, the obligation to protect children, and so on. I am not saying that this is not the case already, that we do not say these things about child soldiers, but it amounts to eliminating any and all reference to the criminalization of children and the fact that they cannot be prosecuted.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Does the same principle apply with regard to rape and impunity? For example, a witness told us that in the Democratic Republic of Congo, when Congolese police officers were receiving training on how to deal with Congolese women who had been raped, they were taught about the concept of impunity. If we remove the word “impunity” from their vocabulary, it won't be mentioned anymore in their training. If it is not mentioned anymore, it won't be part of their training. So when a Congolese police officer arrests someone who has committed rape, if you don't talk about impunity, then you don't have to deal with it.

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

I trained Congolese police officers in Beni and Butembo. I talked about impunity. I trained police officers on the application of the 2006 law on sexual violence. I helped create it as an international consultant.

Bear in mind that in the field, women's non-governmental organizations that are leading the combat against impunity have been talking about combating impunity for 10 years already. If, in international programs, namely in bilateral aid or as part of Canada's involvement in combatting sexual violence in the DRC, we eliminate vocabulary on the issue of justice and combatting impunity—which is absolutely essential for NGOs on the ground—we are undermining their efforts somewhat.

What do we have? It is indeed true that the Belgian government is investing heavily, namely in mobile courts. This is a court system where judges go for a week at a time into the countryside to rule on all cases of sexual violence. You are aware that one of the DRC's problems is displaced people, and, by extension, travelling to the desired place. The department which deals specifically with sexual violence at MONUSCO and the Belgian government put a system in place. At one point, it also received CIDA funding. This system of mobile courts makes it possible to administer justice.

In a country where there is an unbelievable amount of impunity, in the DRC, most of the time, action is taken against low-ranking soldiers or little people, and not the main people responsible. Taking action for visible and accessible justice is extremely important.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Ms. Leclerc—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Madame Demers, I'm sorry. You're going to have another round. Don't worry.

We'll have Ms. McLeod for the Conservatives, please.