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?