Status of Women Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[David Angell]

I will respond very quickly, because the rest may have comments.

I would just make the point, Madam Chairman, that as recently as Monday, the minister said at the Human Rights Council on this issue of impunity, for example, that Canada was among the first to call for the referral of the situation in Libya to the prosecutor of the ICC to help ensure that those responsible for ordering and carrying out these atrocities are held accountable, so it's actually against impunity, Madam Chairman, and it was a statement by the minister on Monday of this week.

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

Because he missed the boat on Egypt.

[Elissa Golberg]

Madam Chair, if I could--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

You have 30 seconds, Ms. Golberg.

[Elissa Golberg]

Thank you.

Just to add to what Mr. Angell is saying, I will say that Canada is at the forefront of issues pertaining to the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the promotion and protection of women's issues in situations of armed conflict, and dealing with issues pertaining to children in armed conflict. We're recognized as such by all of our allies. We're recognized as such by the United Nations and by other international organizations.

It's our effect on the ground that demonstrates this is the case: the kinds of policies we pursue, the kinds of programs we're investing in, and the kinds of specific advocacy we do on a case-by-case basis in response to certain circumstances.

David has pointed—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Golberg.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Tweed, for the Conservatives.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our guests for being here today.

Obviously I'm a relatively new member to the committee. I've sat in on a few of the committee hearings, but this is the first one in this regard.

I feel that it's an interesting comment the opposition makes, that would challenge a person in your level of responsibility for not raising these issues, because I think that's exactly what I've seen you do. In the comments and in the e-mails you've sent, you raised an issue within the department to get a resolution. That, to me, is what your job is, and then it is to take that forward and implement it as you're directed to. It would seem to me you should be thanked for raising this issue and making everyone aware of it.

Because words are very sensitive, as Ms. Neville has said. I often think of the new world of texting and e-mails. If you don't hear the emotion, sometimes you take a whole different interpretation of the word. We have to be cautious about that, because it does reflect how the world views us and how we view ourselves internally.

I read the e-mail that you wrote, Mr. Weetman, and it talks about the changes in the terms from “gender equality” to “equality between men and women”, and suggests that it takes away from the internationally used terminology.

Yet when I read Mr. Kessel's view, when he appeared before this committee, there is a difference. Can you explain that difference for the committee members?

[Jamieson Weetman]

Certainly.

As I think I pointed out at the beginning, I'm not an expert on gender equality or on a number of the issues raised there.

That is essentially me editorializing. That is, in effect, me showing that I wasn't aware of all the issues.

That's exactly why we had the discussion afterwards--not only to make sure that senior officials, such as David and Elissa, were aware that these were common language suggestions that were being made, but also to inform myself and people in my office, such as Mr. Nickel, on how this language reflected and conveyed Canadian policy.

We have heard from Mr. Kessel that the terms are used interchangeably at the UN and other fora. He's the expert on international law and on this terminology, and I respect his understanding there.

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

Thank you.

Further, you've mentioned that the terms are interchangeable in many uses, and you've verified that they are used by the United Nations, both terminologies. Does DFAIT continue to use “gender equality” in the policy documents?

[David Angell]

Yes, we do continue to use the term “gender equality”. In fact, as Elissa points out, it's on our website.

So yes, it certainly is actively in use, sir.

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

And in interventions it's used that way?

[David Angell]

Yes, it's used at the United Nations and elsewhere, including in the resolutions for which Canada has the lead in managing the negotiations.

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

So in terms of the definitions, as you see it, or as you utilize the words, if I were to use “gender equality” in one phrase and then “equality between men and women”, people reading that document would have no question as to the differences, or--

[David Angell]

The audience at the United Nations would view the terms as entirely interchangeable.

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

The UN Inter-Agency Standing Committee, or IASC, in its gender handbook on humanitarian action and gender guidelines for gender-based violence interventions in humanitarian settings, defines gender equality as equality between men and women, and refers to the equal enjoyment by women, girls, boys, and men of rights.

Again, that's understood in the terminology when it's used internationally?

[David Angell]

Yes, that is the case.

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

That's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have a few seconds.

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

That's fine, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You're fine? Okay. Thank you.

We go to another round now, a five-minute round.

Ms. Simson for the Liberals.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to address something that one of my colleagues across the way, Mr. Tweed, had to say about thanking you.

Of course we absolutely do thank you. I think the misunderstanding is that the committee had exactly--precisely--the same concerns you voiced in this e-mail: language concerns.

We were assured by Mr. Kessel in his previous testimony that they weren't even taking place, so you have to understand that I positively do thank you, Mr. Weetman, because there are changes taking place and they are alarming. There were almost two dozen senior officials from various departments in on this e-mail.

I'd like to go back to the meeting on May 24. Your e-mail exchange says that there was a “positive” response, a need for this meeting, and you say there were six or seven people. The purpose of the meeting was to develop a “coordinated departmental” plan--a plan.

Could you elaborate on what the plan was? Were there any documented minutes of the meeting? Was anything put into writing as to what the planned approach on these arbitrary changes was going to be?

[Jamieson Weetman]

If I recall from the meeting.... As I said, we had hundreds of meetings over the two years that I was there.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Is there a record? It says that a “coordinated” plan was going to be developed. Was it just sitting around having coffee or was it in writing--yes or no?

[Jamieson Weetman]

There was no plan developed after this. There were discussions on the best way to convey our advice to the minister's office. There may have been a few follow-up e-mails, and there were certainly conversations between officials and the minister's office afterwards to discuss some of this language, but there was no document created that was a plan, no.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

So you didn't develop an overall plan, even though it said that Mr. Nickel had the same concerns that it was being seen on a broader base and that there was definitely a need for this meeting?

So nothing was formalized?