Status of Women Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Chair, I would suggest that this is a problem, because departments are required to do GBA. I think we may be at the centre of some of the problems here.

The UN Security Council resolution set out clear responses in using or involving children in armed conflict. When Mr. Kessel was here he said the term “child soldier” was colloquial, yet I think for many people it has a real connotation.

When I think of children involved in armed conflict, I think about those poor victims who get caught up in a battle or who are marginalized from their community or who are orphaned. “Child soldier” connotes something very specific to me, that is, a child grabbed and forced to do things that no human being should be asked to do, a child being forced or compelled, because he or she is a child, to do quite horrible things.

That brings me to the case of Omar Khadr. The Canadian Coalition for the Rights of Children advocated for Mr. Khadr. They were very clear that, because he was 15 years old, he was a child soldier. Yet when it comes to Mr. Khadr, the Government of Canada took a very hardened position. They insisted that he was not a child soldier. I'm wondering if the change in terms of “child soldier” now being “children involved in armed conflict” had anything to do with the Khadr case. Does that change not minimize or downplay Canada's obligations to Mr. Khadr in regard to his childhood at the time that he was captured?

[Elissa Golberg]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I don't in fact think that any of us, unfortunately, are in a position to be able to respond to that question from a substantive perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Is Mr. Nickel able to do that?

[Jim Nickel]

No, I'm afraid not. I think that question would best be answered by Mr. Kessel, the department's legal adviser.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Nickel.

I'll now go to Madame Boucher from the Conservatives.

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

I am going to give my time to Mr. Tweed because I asked my question previously. So I will let Mr. Tweed have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Certainly.

Mr. Tweed, go ahead.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thanks again, Madam Chair.

When I think back, in history we change terminology for many reasons. Sometimes the words of the past are not the words that are acceptable today. We change them for various reasons, be it for political reasons.... I think it was an interesting question that was asked about how we speak to our constituents, how we speak to other members of Parliament, and how we speak to the bureaucracies within. I know for myself that when I'm listening to details on a bill it tends to go right by you, because what you're really interested in is what it actually means, and not necessarily all the words that surround it.

To go back first to the question where I left off, has the change or the use of different words been raised with anyone from the international world? Does somebody say “we don't understand what you're saying when you bring that phrase forward” or is it well known and accepted?

[David Angell]

Madam Chairman, as the official responsible for the United Nations, I can say that to my knowledge, no, there has been no such approach made. There's no such suggestion of lack of understanding by our partners.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I suspect that other members of the United Nations interchange phrases and words that probably don't raise a question in our minds either, in the sense that when we hear them, we understand what the discussion is about.

[David Angell]

Madam Chairman, that is correct.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

It would suggest to me that you have not been given any instruction to change policy. Is that correct?

[David Angell]

That is correct.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

After your discussion on using or inserting this terminology, was there any further discussion about sticking with just this one phrase or, in appropriate sentences or at appropriate times, using both or either?

[Elissa Golberg]

I think we should probably be clear that you're speaking specifically with respect to gender equality.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Just to the phrase, yes.

[Elissa Golberg]

Yes.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That seems to be what this whole meeting is about.

[Elissa Golberg]

There were other terms that were referenced, so with respect to that specifically, that's true.

I should say in terms of a point of process that if requests are made, if they do signal that there might be a change afoot, and if the bureaucracy would like to flag for the minister's office that they might in fact lead to a change, there is a process for handling that. As Jamieson said, that's where the dialogue takes place. That's where we go with a back-and-forth discussion with ministers' offices to say that if we did approach it in that way, “here are the potential ramifications of it”. If there are concerns, those are raised through the office of the deputy minister.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Can you briefly discuss the policy regarding gender equality, international humanitarian law, and child soldiers, and whether there are any changes that you've been given direction on, any policy changes in that area?

[Elissa Golberg]

I haven't seen any specific policy. Again, as Jamieson noted, we deal with these on a case-by-case basis. For instance, in the context of a speech that we're writing for the UN Security Council, we have particular phrases that are in there.

If there's a question that comes from the minister's office, which has happened in the past, there is then a process of going back and forth, wherein the officials explain why we have decided to use that particular terminology, what the context is, and what the implications are of using that terminology. If the minister's office comes back and says that they would instead prefer to use different terminology and they explain the reasons for that, we figure out whether or not it makes sense for that particular context. If there's still a concern at the end of the day on the part of the bureaucracy, we go through the office of the deputy minister to raise it with the minister directly.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

That sounds very familiar to any MP's office. I suspect that after a letter is written they obviously reread it to make sure that the words are appropriate and mean what they're trying to say, as opposed to being interpreted differently.

Ms. Neville complimented you on your action plan. I think she spoke glowingly about it. I know I'm not going to give you a lot of time, but can you briefly give me the real highlights of it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I don't think so, Mr. Tweed. We have two more seconds in your time, and Ms. Golberg will be sending that to the committee anyway. Thank you.

We've come to the end of the witness participation, and because we have some work to do in terms of business, we will go in camera for that.

We want to thank Mr. Nickel for being here.

I gather that it's about 11 p.m. for you now. Thank you.

And I would like to thank--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]