Status of Women Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Jamieson Weetman]

That's correct. Nothing was formalized. We thought it would be a useful meeting, and there were meetings afterwards. It helped facilitate the conversations between officials and staff from the minister's office.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Okay. With regard to the e-mails you referred to, I'd like copies of the subsequent e-mails. Could you submit those to the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Ms. Simson, I just want to say, you referred to Mr. Nickel, and Mr. Nickel is there. Did you wish him to respond to your reference?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I would like copies of the e-mail exchange after.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

The clerk would require those copies for all of the members of the committee to look at.

Would you please send them?

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Mr. Nickel, I do apologize. Did you have the same concerns Mr. Weetman had with respect to the changes that were being made?

[Jim Nickel]

The purpose of the meeting on the 21st, as Mr. Weetman has described, was to ensure that we had a clear understanding between the minister's office and departmental officials on appropriate language or the most effective language to communicate Canada's policy in these issue areas. So the goal of the meeting, again, was to ensure that we were effectively and accurately communicating Canadian policy in various fora, whether in ministerial correspondence or statements in international fora, for example.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Would that have been just with respect to language? The reason I'm saying this is that this isn't interchangeable. With respect to the DRC file, “impunity for sexual violence” was changed to how the Government of Canada “urges” the DRC “to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”. That's watered it down.

The other thing about this particular letter is that references to gender-based violence are removed. In the DRC, it has been reported in the media, rape is actually a weapon of war, so removing any references to gender-based violence isn't a language thing--it's a watering-down of Canadian policy. The concern seems to be not just with these so-called interchangeable words, but with the actual content that is not consistent with Canadian foreign policy.

[David Angell]

Madam Chair, on the issue of the DRC, again, the argument that we're making is that there has been no change in policy and there has been no change in words. With regard to DRC, for example, the minister issued a press statement only on February 25 in which the minister states very clearly, “Canada encourages the Government of the DRC to pursue its efforts to ensure that individuals who commit major violations of international humanitarian law and human rights are held accountable for their actions”.

On December 16, our ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech that was approved by the minister's office, made exactly the same statement with regard to the use of sexual violence:

Canada welcomes the jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals that confirms that rape and sexual violence can be war crimes and crimes against humanity. Individuals responsible for these crimes must be brought to justice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Mr. Angell.

We have gone well over time on this one.

I now go to Mr. Boughen, for the Conservatives.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I add my voice of welcome to those of my colleagues and thank you folks and Mr. Nickel for being with us.

I'd like to come back to the language question. Anyone on the panel may answer this.

Is it always the case that, no matter what the audience, we describe foreign policy issues in the same way? For example, in your experience, would the minister use exactly the same language in a letter to a constituent that he would use in a speech to the United Nations? Or is there leeway to describe the same issue in different ways? In other words, through the magic of language, does it change depending on the venue or where it's being produced?

[Elissa Golberg]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Certainly from my own experience what I can say is that we've seen that how you respond to.... As I said to Ms. Mathyssen, depending on the fora you're in, that determines how you decide to articulate a given point.

So we'll say certain things in certain ways at a forum like the United Nations that we might not articulate in the same way in a letter to a constituent or a letter that comes into the minister's office. That's simply because sometimes we use terminology that's very technical. Technical terminology doesn't always get the ideas across to people in a way that it would if we unpack it. For instance, that's why sometimes we use “equality between men and women, girls and boys”, because if we use other terminology, individuals might not understand exactly what we meant.

So the terminology we choose to employ depends very much on the forum in which we happen to be participating.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Is that it? You have about three minutes left.

Madame Boucher, would you like to...?

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

I would like to ask one question, Madam Chair.

We have talked a lot about terminology and the changes in terms. There are a lot of people trying to catch everyone out on this issue.

What was the reaction of your colleagues at the Department of Foreign Affairs on the suggested changes to the terminology?

[David Angell]

Madam Chair, our position is that there is no change in this regard.

The reaction to the meeting called by Mr. Weetman was that it was a normal meeting. As Mr. Weetman has stated, the meeting was part of a discussion that was ongoing. It is our job to provide advice on the implications of various options. That is the context within which the meeting took place. It was a perfectly normal meeting.

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

You said earlier that there had been some changes and that you had often had meetings about some of them. We need to adapt. Canada is at the forefront of many things.

On February 25, the Hon. Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, stated that Canada encouraged the conviction of high-ranking officers of the Congolese Armed Forces. We are talking about human rights and international humanitarian rights. So the terminology has not changed all that much.

[David Angell]

Madam Chair, according to our analysis, the terminology has not changed and there is no policy suggesting that the sentences should have changed.

[Elissa Golberg]

That being said, if there are differences...

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm sorry. We are out of time on this one.

I will go to Monsieur Desnoyers for the Bloc Québécois.

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

Madam Chair, first of all, I would just like to be clear about one thing.

Mr. Angell, although Mr. Weetman has been in this position for only a few years, I hope that the fact that he dared to chair a meeting like this one will not be held against him. You said that he may one day be a director and that you hoped that this would not weigh against him. You said that in an arrogant fashion.

You say that there has been no change in the approach to the various regions because different words are being used. However, since the Conservatives have been in power, we have noticed that ministers no longer use words such as “violence against women”, “gender-based violence”, nor do they use the words “gender”, “equality” and “gender equality” in their speeches.

Has the government really changed the directives or changed the labelling to reflect its conservative policies, which are more to the right? Have there been any directives issued in that regard further to discussions that you have had with the minister?

Mr. Weetman said earlier that these meetings were designed to improve the dialogue with the minister. I imagine that the minister had some things to say on the matter.

[David Angell]

Madam Chair, I apologize if I was arrogant when responding. That certainly was not my intent. French is not my mother tongue and it is possible that I may have said something without meaning to.

Madam Chair, as for the directives, no directives were issued to change the language used.

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

Why do we no longer find these words in the speeches? We no longer find expressions such as gender, equality, violence against women, gender-based violence in the minister's speeches. Something is happening somewhere along the line. There must be a directive somewhere that states that speeches are no longer to contain these words.

[Elissa Golberg]

I do not know what information you are looking at. I know that Minister Oda and Minister Kent used those words in prepared speeches that were given a few months ago at the United Nations and before the organization...

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

I am referring to Lawrence Cannon, David Emerson, Maxime Bernier. I am referring to those individuals.