Status of Women Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's not very long.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The letter states:

Dear all:

Some of you will have already noted over the past few months the tendency from oMINA to change or remove language from letters, speeches, interventions at multilateral meetings, etc., on such interrelated issues as Child Soldiers, International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights, and R2P. A recent example is a fairly extensive set of suggested revisions to a standard docket response on DRC. Suggested changes to this letter include removing the term “impunity” in every instance (eg “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever is necessary to put an end to impunity for sexual violence” is changed to “Canada urges the Government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”). Furthermore, the word “humanitarian” is excised from every reference to “international humanitarian law”. References to gender-based violence are removed and every phrase “Child Soldiers” is replaced by “children in armed conflict”.

Some of the changes suggested by oMINA are more than simply stylistic changes. For example, the sentence cited above changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention. And only this morning, Gwyn Kutz and I discussed the term 'gender equality' with oMINA, to be informed that current lexicon is instead 'equality of men and women', which actually takes something away from the internationally used terminology (as well as being more cumbersome and awkward).

So far we have largely been managing these issues as they come in on a case-by-case basis. However, Jim Nickel and I have been wondering if it might be necessary for a more coordinated approach, as these issues interest a number of different bureaux, and are recurring fairly frequently. It is often not entirely clear to us why oMINA advises on making such changes, and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on [Canadian] policy in asking for changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time.

We would like to know whether you might find it useful to meet with us to discuss these issues as a possible precursor to a meeting with oMINA staff. I do not believe the requests from oMINA to make these kinds of changes to language will diminish. It will be useful for us to know here when oMINA-suggested changes are not consistent with accepted [Canadian] policy. The ultimate objective would be to work with oMINA to find language that is more palatable to them and which also accurately reflects [Canada's] policy approach.

It is signed by Jamieson Weetman, from the ministry of international affairs.

I've read it so that we can move on with the motion, because this explains the motion, and then we don't have to have everyone not knowing what it's all about and we can do this more effectively and efficiently.

Now, Ms. Simson, your motion, please. I'm going to read it in English and French:

That the Committee extend its study on language changes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade by two (2) meetings;

That, for the first meeting, the Committee invite Jamieson Weetman, David Angell, Elissa Golberg, Jim Nickel, and Gwyn Kutz, all current or former officials from the Department of Foreign Affairs that were aware of the language changes; and

That, for the second meeting, the committee invite the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ross O'Connor, former Foreign Affairs Policy Advisor in the Prime Minister's Office, to explain why the government made the language changes.

Ms. Simson, would you speak to your motion?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me.

Ms. Neville, you wanted to just put your name down? All right.

Sorry, Ms. Simson.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

The reason I wanted to bring this motion forward is that last Tuesday was an absolute and total waste of the committee's time.

The witness who appeared.... And I understand that I was only elected in October 2008, but I've never sat on a committee where the briefing notes and suggested questions were leaked to the witness, and where the witness, Mr. Kessel, spent almost the entire time critiquing and in fact making a mockery of the work of the analyst of our committee. He suggested that we had inadequate information with respect to even holding the meeting. It was perhaps the most insulting exchange that I've ever seen. That would constitute requesting one meeting.

Today, with the exception of Ms. Breton-Le Goff.... And I'd like to remind the committee that the study is on the language changes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, not CIDA. And I think it's clear. We then went back and did our homework. We got hold of the author of the magazine article, who was kind enough to produce evidence. Mr. Kessel himself is on that exchange and clearly grossly misled this committee and also mocked it when he did it.

I do believe that it merits.... To my way of thinking, despite what Ms. Brown says, yes, they may be saying it enough times, but we have evidence that changes are taking place in Foreign Affairs that their own bureaucrats are unhappy with and are trying to raise the red flag about.

I think this is a very important issue and, as such, I think requires further study, and we need witnesses who are really salient to the subject at hand.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Neville, your hand was up.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I have a question for you, Madam Chair.

I'm pleased to support the motion, but I'm wondering if there's some futility in it. We're asking for the Minister of Foreign Affairs to attend this meeting. We've asked for several ministers to attend at this committee and, to date, to the best of my knowledge, we've not had a response. I have no problem extending an invitation, but are we extending an invitation to be snubbed yet again?

Can you report on whether we have heard from any of the other ministers and--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

So you're asking a question with regard to the invitation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs that's in Ms. Simson's motion.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Well, we're asking for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I'm asking whether any of the other ministers we have invited have responded.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The only minister we have heard from has been the Minister for Status of Women Canada when we asked her to come to the committee to—I'm just reading carefully—“explain the manner and criteria by which funding is distributed by Status of Women Canada through each of the Women's Community Fund and Women's Partnership Fund”. We got a response from the minister that said she had received the letter. She has yet to give us a date to appear. Now, I would like to remind the committee that the letter was written on June 7.

We also have letters written on September 23 to the Minister of Justice and to the Minister of Health asking them to appear: to explain what the Minister of Justice intends to do with the $11 million that was transferred to his department, and to ask the Minister of Health to appear before the committee to explain what she intends to do with the money that was transferred to her department for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

I have spoken to the whip, as I said earlier on, who promised me that there would be at least a courtesy that said “thank you, I got your letter”. We have received neither the courtesy nor anything else.

I repeat and I reiterate here to this committee that this is totally unacceptable. It is not a case, Ms. Neville, of being snubbed. It is a case of a minister having to be accountable. That's a word that is used. That is why committees of Parliament exist: it is to ask ministers to be accountable.

They come to committee to be accountable. This is not a political committee; it is a committee of Parliament, duly made up of all of the political parties. When a minister refuses to even acknowledge the letter, I consider that to be a case, first, that the minister obviously does not care about Parliament and has no respect for Parliament and has no respect for parliamentary committees. And it's rude not to even respond and say, “I got your letter and I couldn't care less”—at least that would be a response—or whatever.

We have had no response at all from these ministers, and that has been now going on for two and a half months. This is unacceptable. I can tell you that as a minister I would not take two and a half months; I would respond to any letter from any standing committee within a week. It is just good manners. It just shows respect for Parliament and parliamentary democracy, which is in this room right now asking a minister to be accountable for moneys that were accepted by this House when it accepted the budget.

This is something that concerns me a great deal. I will tell you that I agree with you that we probably will not get the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but I believe that we should ask ministers to continue to be accountable, and so I will accept Ms. Simson's naming of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to come and speak to this issue.

Now, is there anybody else to speak to this?

Madame Boucher, is it to speak to the motion?

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

No. I want to talk about the letters.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Go ahead.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

You know that we spoke to the whip. The whip also spoke to you. This morning, I will go back to see him again to be sure that you will get an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I have to suggest, Ms. Boucher, that you have been excellent in taking this message back, and the whip has at least been fairly responsible by speaking to me about it within 24 hours of your speaking to him. So I am not faulting anybody in this committee. I'm suggesting that ministers have responsibility to be accountable. Thank you for your help in getting this done, but it should not be the case that we should have to have you go off and speak for this committee, because the committee by itself is a part of the parliamentary institution.

Is anyone else speaking on this motion?

Ms. Cadman.

[Dona Cadman, Conservative, Surrey North, BC]

I was going to follow up with what Ms. Boucher said. Is it Justice, Health, and Foreign Affairs that you haven't heard from?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

No, to date I have written to Justice, to Health and to the Minister for the Status of Women. It was all to do with responding to the $10 million in money that has been set aside in regard to violence against aboriginal women, how that money is being spent, and whether it has been distributed to these three departments. This is an accounting for moneys that have been okayed by Parliament.

But I think Madam Neville was speaking to the issue now of whether we should bother to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I think we should bother, because it isn't about “bothering”; it is about ministers understanding their role and their responsibilities. So I think we should continue to ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to come and present on this issue as well. That's it.

Now, is anybody speaking to the motion? If not, I will call—

Ms. Brown. Is it to the motion?

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

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is probably a very unusual suggestion to make, but given the fact that we've heard from two departments now that changes in language have not been made and that we've been using the same language since 1999, I think it would be interesting to find out from you, from when you were minister, how those language terminologies came to be used. Would you be one of the witnesses?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I can't remember that far back, and I don't have access to information from the department anymore. Now, what I would like to suggest, though, is that in Rome, this is not a status of women committee. It is not the status of women minister who was there; it was the Minister of Foreign Affairs who presented in Rome, because this was speaking to the foreign affairs component of this.

When I was minister, I can say now, we never changed the language at all. At the United Nations, that was the accepted language, at CIDA it was the accepted language, and it continued to be the accepted language.

I think we need to be very clear what language we're speaking to. The Minister for Status of Women would not be speaking to issues of “impunity” and would not be speaking to issues of CIDA. The minister for CIDA would be speaking to those issues. But it's my understanding that CIDA only spoke to the issue of “equality between men and women” and “gender equality”. The other issues that one is discussing here are issues of taking “humanitarian” out of international humanitarian law, etc., which would directly be associated with the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It is not my understanding that this was ever done in 1998. The only thing that was referred to by the witness concerning 1998 was the interchangeability of language in “equality between men and women” and “gender equality”. That was the only thing that was used interchangeably in Rome.

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

Madam Chair, may I just follow up on that?

I just want to be very sure that.... On the page I have here, which was given to us as the front page from CIDA, the terminology is “equality between women and men”. I just want to be sure that we don't turn that around and keep saying “men and women”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It doesn't really matter--

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

--because if you are saying “men and women”, or “women and men”...I don't know. The bottom line, however, is that I just read a letter from policy, from bureaucrats, at the Department of Foreign Affairs who were concerned that the change in language actually impacted on policy, especially the term “gender equality”. It is my understanding that Mr. Weetman suggested that this changed policy.

CIDA's policy is very different. CIDA is not the group that was asked to appear before us, in any case. They asked if they could come. But they do not deal with some of the other issues we were talking about here because they're not within their mandate.

Ms. Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Madam Chair, I think that the letter that you read out to us is very important.

The fact that Mr. Kessel and all the officials were present at that meeting tells me that they were aware of the changes that were developing. Moreover, the fact that the person signed the letter tells us about the importance given to these changes. This leads me to believe that the changes have been substantial even within the department and that people are aware of these changes.

This is why I believe that we should meet these people. In fact, I am a good student and I want to understand my subject matters so that the teachers can give me an A+. I want to understand and I want to be sure that I am not making any false allegations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

So now what are we going to do? Anybody...?

Ms. Neville. Then I will call the question on this, because we have another motion to deal with.