Status of Women Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

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

Today we have summoned certain witnesses to appear before this committee. These witnesses are David Angell, director general, international organizations, human rights and democracy bureau; Elissa Golberg, director general, stabilization and reconstruction task force secretariat; and Jamieson Weetman, deputy director, west and central Africa relations.

By video conference, as you know, we have the High Commission of Canada to India. We would like to thank the Deputy High Commissioner, Jim Nickel, for being here.

We know that it's some unearthly hour for you back in India, Deputy Commissioner, so we appreciate the time you've taken.

It is my understanding that none of the witnesses have an opening statement.

Am I right, or has this been changed?

[David Angell, Director General, International Organizations, Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

No, that's correct, Madam Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Angell.

We will begin, then, with the question-and-answer period. This is a seven-minute round. As you know, this means that both the questions and the answers will take seven minutes.

I'm going to begin with Ms. Simson for the Liberals.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for appearing today.

As you may or may not be aware, DFAIT originally turned down this committee's request to have you appear, which is why the committee was required to use its power of summons.

As the chair pointed out, this committee began a study last fall on ministerial interference in the language being used at DFAIT. The changes requested by the minister's office included the dropping of the word “humanitarian” from the phrase “international humanitarian law”, and the removal or changing of references to gender-base violence, child soldiers, human rights. Those are just a few of the examples.

This issue was first brought to light in an article in Embassy magazine that was based on information they received in an e-mail that was drafted by Mr. Weetman, which the rest of you received.

With that, my first question is for you, Mr. Weetman. You in fact did craft the e-mail of May 7?

[Jamieson Weetman, Deputy Director, West and Central Africa Relations, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

That's correct, yes.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Okay.

In that e-mail, you outlined your concerns--which, by the way, I think most committee members here share--that the Minister of Foreign Affairs office...there was a tendency of late, at the time that was done, in 2009, to remove or change language in letters, speeches, and interventions on multilateral meetings.

In the e-mail you stated that “Some of the changes suggested by [the minister's office] are more than simply stylistic changes.” You implied, and I quote, that “some changes are not consistent with accepted [Canadian] policy”.

Could you give the committee details on the types of changes that were taking place; how that would reflect...where they're not just stylistic changes; and, possibly, whether this practice is still occurring?

[Jamieson Weetman]

Thank you very much for the question, Madam Chair.

I should preface my answer by saying that, first of all, I'm not an expert in any of these subjects here. I'm not an expert on gender equality, on international humanitarian law, or on children in armed conflict. My role in the minister's office was to facilitate dialogue between staff of the minister's office and officials within the department to ensure that the best advice was getting to the minister's office.

In this case...and I think some of the nuance has been lost, in some way, over the last few hearings on this issue. In my e-mail, what I was referring to was suggestions of changes that the minister's office was inquiring about. These weren't directions for changes. This was the start of a conversation. There are very often conversations taking place between the minister's office and officials who are experts on the issues to decide on the most appropriate language to use to accurately and efficiently express Canadian policy.

In this case, a number of requested language changes were coming up on several occasions. Various divisions and bureaux were seeing these kinds of requests and were asking for a bit more information behind this. We decided that in our office, which is the departmental unit, the most efficient way to proceed would be to have a larger meeting with a number of different bureaux so that we could talk through the common requests and we could make sure that we were able to give the minister's office the best advice on the best language that could be used for Canadian policy.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I understand that; however, it seems to me there was some degree of alarm or concern, because you further state in this e-mail that so far you've largely been “managing” these issues. Managing indicates to me that it could potentially be problematic or that there was some concern on some level. And obviously, the individuals who were included on this e-mail exchange.... You know, when you have the director general of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian ambassador to Norway...you have some senior people who are all seeing the same thing, or you have enough of a concern that you wanted to find out if they were seeing the same thing. Is that correct?

It was fairly senior; this wasn't just a little e-mail to friends.

[Jamieson Weetman]

Madam Chair, habitually in the departmental unit in the minister's office we dealt with senior officials simply because we didn't have the time to deal with every official in a department. There's a lot of traffic going through the minister's office, and we needed to make sure we were using our time efficiently.

In this case, we felt that if we brought together particularly directors general and directors, this would be the most efficient way to have a conversation about the kinds of language changes that were being suggested to everyone.

Yes, we were handling these on a case-by-case basis before. If it's helpful—

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

But it obviously accelerated, because you felt that there needed to be a coordinated departmental approach to this issue. So it was becoming an issue, based on who I've seen copied in that e-mail. Then there was a call for a meeting, which brings me to my next question.

It's our understanding that there was a meeting on Thursday, November 21, at DFAIT to discuss these issues. In your e-mail you said, “The purpose of this meeting is to ensure we are clear on the issues we are facing and that we have a coordinated departmental view.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Weetman, that indicates to me--and I know it's the written word--that there was definitely concern on your part and on the part of several others in that e-mail exchange that this language change was, quote, an issue. Am I correct?

[Jamieson Weetman]

We deal with many issues there. We're always trying to coordinate departmental officials and departmental advice. There was indeed a very productive meeting, as indicated in this e-mail.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

How many were at that meeting?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Simson, this is your last question, because we have run out of time.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I just need a number.

[Jamieson Weetman]

If I recall—and you have to remember I had thousands of meetings over the two years that I was in the minister's office—there were maybe six or seven individuals at that meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Simson and Mr. Weetman.

I now go to Monsieur Desnoyers, for the Bloc Québécois.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to our three witnesses.

My colleague mentioned that there was a great deal of concern regarding all of the changes in terminology being made. You said yourself that you wanted to examine the matter carefully. You brought the major players to the table to talk about the situation and how you could address it. Earlier on, you also said that your objective was to facilitate dialogue between the Minister's office and the other units in the department.

So, here is my first question. The issue of violence against women in the DRC has been raised many times. Several areas where we are now sensing a change at foreign affairs significantly affect women. That is why the committee is concerned with this whole approach.

Foreign affairs speeches dealing with the DRC used to mention violence and impunity. Now, the emphasis is more on prevention, although we know full well what is happening on the ground. After all, Mr. Weetman, you brought people to the table who could confirm that. In reality, however, the talk on the ground is about displaced persons. Wars like these bring with them major acts of violence, especially towards women. The first people to be displaced in a country are very often women and children.

We cannot be afraid of telling it like it is in situations like that. When you look at speeches at the departmental level, you can see that the language has changed. Those terms are not longer in use. A number of NGOs have come here to confirm that trend in your department.

I would like to hear your views on that. Was an action plan put in place as a result of the meetings that you had? What action was taken to improve dialogue between the Minister's office and everyone else, to use your expression?

[David Angell]

Madam Chairman, if you'll permit me to, perhaps I can lead in responding as the official responsible for human rights at the ministry.

I just want to reassure the committee that no policies or changes to the practices on language use at the department have been imposed. We can refer you to some recent statements. For example, the minister made a statement on February 25, on the issue of impunity. The word “impunity” was not used, but the ideas were clearly expressed.

Let's go back to Canada's role in the issues raised by this committee. For example, in reference to the issue of violence against women, not only has there not been any change in departmental policy, but we remain committed to leading the charge, specifically on the Human Rights Council resolution, on that specific issue. Canada continues to chair the negotiations and plays a key role in that process.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Then why are NGOs telling us the opposite of what you just said? I am referring specifically to the language used in serious conflicts, in Africa or elsewhere, such as in Rwanda or Burundi where women were systematically attacked.

We know that words play an important role in describing these conflicts. Why is no one using those words any more? NGOs have told us that. You are saying the opposite; but Mr. Weetman convened the meeting to look at how they could change the language or wording to propose different approaches at the departmental level in order to facilitate dialogue, if I understand correctly.

[David Angell]

If I may, Madam Chair, the language has not changed. We have read the proceedings of your meetings, and I know that some NGOs have made lists of the words used. For us, it is important to communicate to specific audiences. The words change according to the audiences. What we want to do is ensure that we are using the clearest language possible for the people listening to us. For example, in a UN context, we use language that matches the conventions.

As regards the meeting that was convened, attendance was entirely consistent with that type of meeting. The officers identified as the addressees are the directors general who head up the various units in the department involved. It was our responsibility to liaise with our colleagues.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Why hold this meeting if you say that there is nothing to change? Mr. Weetman just said that he wanted to look at the situation in order to improve dialogue. My reading of the situation is that, often, when a government is in power, it wants to make changes. In other words, to use different terms to match the policy it wants to establish. You say that the language did not change. Mr. Weetman told us that meetings are held to discuss these matters to see how to facilitate dialogue with everyone at the departmental level.

[David Angell]

Madam Chair, there is dialogue on all aspects of Canada's foreign policy. What is important is the key phrase used by one of the committee members—that this is done on a case-by-case basis. The situation that Mr. Weetman was responding to stemmed from the fact that there were two, three or four dialogues underway at the same time. He wanted to bring the players involved together for a discussion. That is all there was to it. Nonetheless, Ms. Golberg is the expert on Canada's work in the field, and she can answer the questions that have been raised.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much, Mr. Desnoyers.

We will move on to Madame Boucher, for the Conservatives.

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

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming to meet with us.

As you know, we are looking into this matter. Members have all questioned to some extent why certain NGOs have appeared before us to say that the language has changed and that things have changed on the ground as a result.

I would like to know if, as a result of those discussions on better terminology, changes were made or not. Did that actually have an impact on what Canada is accomplishing on the ground? In other words, have there been repercussions on Canada's actions internationally because we talk sometimes about gender equality and sometimes about equality between men and women?

[Elissa Golberg, Director General, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force Secretariat, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As regards Canada's operational commitments, we are very active diplomatically. We are very involved at the United Nations and in other international arenas in promoting the protection of civilians and gender equality. We contribute to normative development. As Mr. Angell said, Canada is leading the charge on several UN resolutions and in other international organizations.

On the ground, we continue to provide resources to operational programs set up to protect women's rights for projects focusing on violence against women. Commitments have been made to strengthen the capacity of people working in peacekeeping operations to encourage them and raise their awareness of the importance of gender issues and violence against women. That is what we are doing in the DRC, Afghanistan, and in several countries. So has that changed our work on the ground? I would say that we are very active throughout the world in promoting the protection of women, men and children who find themselves in conflict situations.