Evidence of meeting #59 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was language.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:50 a.m.
Director General, International Organizations, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Madam Chair, if I might just--
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Excuse me. Before you answer, do I say your name as Mr. Angell or Mr. Angel?
11:50 a.m.
Director General, International Organizations, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
It's like Angel, Madam Chairman, which is very difficult to live up to.
11:50 a.m.
Director General, International Organizations, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Madam Chair, just by way of--
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Excuse me, Mr. Angell, but I am addressing Mr. Weetman. My question is for him. If you would, Mr. Weetman.
11:50 a.m.
Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
If I remember the question, it was about how many time before May 7, 2009, I had requested meetings with officials to discuss these issues. I don't believe there were any occasions, because, as the e-mail makes fairly clear, we were dealing with these on a case-by-case basis.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
All right.
Mr. Angell, you say there is no difference between the terms “equality between men and women” and “gender equality”, whereas Ms. Gwyn Kutz and Mr. Weetman seem to believe the opposite. In fact, in the email he sent you, he says: “Gwyn Kutz and I discussed the use of the term “gender equality” with representatives of MINA who informed us that the preferred term was rather “equality between men and women”, which is in fact weaker than the terminology used internationally (as well as being more awkward and less-user friendly).”
If I understand correctly, some of you feel that there is no difference and others feel that there is.
11:50 a.m.
Director General, International Organizations, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Madam Chair, I cannot speak for Ms. Kutz, but the discussion that Mr. Weetman mentioned confirms, following my analysis regarding the United Nations and legal advice from my colleagues, that there is no difference between the terms. But Madam...
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
All right.
Mr. Angell, Mr. Weetman and Ms. Golberg, as well as sending us the names of the people who briefed you for this morning's appearance, I would also like you to table all of the documents used during the course of that briefing, concerning both the questions that you might be asked and the suggested answers.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
11:55 a.m.
Director General, International Organizations, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
We will certainly be very pleased to do that, Madam Chairman.
But just by way of explanation, Mr. Weetman is a rotational foreign service officer. As with all of us, we change assignments every year or two or three. It's only as a member of the minister's office, during a very small portion of Mr. Weetman's career, that he would have had occasion to convene meetings of this type or really to be part of any discussion of this type, because as you see from the distribution line in the memo that several members have referred to, it's generally directors general who get convened for these types of discussion.
Mr. Weetman is a brilliant officer and he'll be a DG soon, but he isn't yet, and in the course of his career, he would not normally have participated in these discussions. So I don't think Mr. Weetman has the information, aside from that brief window when he was in the minister's office, to respond to the committee's question on that.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Thank you.
I would like to remind everyone and Mr. Nickel that if Mr. Nickel wishes to intervene at any point to answer a question that he feels he has some answers to, he could just indicate this by putting up his hand, and I will notice that he wishes to speak.
Thank you.
The next question goes to Ms. Mathyssen, for five minutes.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Weetman, I want to come back to the infamous memo. It says, “Some of the changes suggested by [the minister's office] are more than simply stylistic changes”. For example, the change from impunity for sexual violence to prevention of sexual violence “changes the focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention”.
You go on to say that you discussed the term “gender equality” with the minister's office “to be informed that the 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)”.
I'm wondering...in the course of these discussions, did you advise the minister's office about the problems with these changes? If so, did the minister's office give you reasons for going ahead anyway?
11:55 a.m.
Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Of course we discussed these issues and discussed what might be the impact of these changes in language, and we had follow-up discussions with the minister's office to explain what the difference would be, for example, between saying “impunity” and “prevention”, and these were very productive discussions. The goal was to find language that appropriately and accurately communicated the policy of the Government of Canada.
These discussions happen all the time. They're ongoing. As you will have seen from other documents that were tabled by Mr. Kessel, language such as “international humanitarian law” is currently used. Language referring to accountability and bringing perpetrators of violence to justice is used.
11:55 a.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
We've heard concerns expressed, though, by Amnesty International and Mr. Alex Neve, by the Canadian coalition for the rights of the child, and by Professor Errol Mendes, who is a professor of international law at the University of Ottawa. And their concerns, I think, are consistent with the concerns we've heard expressed in the NGO community and among members here.
Yet there's this insistence by the Government of Canada to water down our approach, our international approach. It seems to have concerned you at the time. Are you no longer concerned about this?
11:55 a.m.
Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Madam Chair, my sole concern was to ensure that our language accurately and efficiently expressed the policy of the Government of Canada, which is decided by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Ultimately, for example, in this letter, it's the minister's signature going on the letter, and it's up to the minister to determine what language he would like to use to express his policy.
The departmental officials were providing advice on what we thought would be the most accurate language to communicate the policy in terms of the audience we were communicating it to, and there were ongoing discussions.
Noon
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, but it still seems to me that this policy is out of step with the rest of the world, and that worries me very much. In terms of all of the testimony we've heard, we're out of sync with other countries, like, for goodness' sake, the Philippines, Chile, Sweden.... Is it not a concern that Canada could be so much out of that international sphere that is concerned about the child soldier and concerned about women and sexual violence?
Noon
Liberal