Status of Women Committee on March 3rd, 2011

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

And virtually...that advice came simply on process?

[David Angell]

There is often, Madam Chair, some role-playing, some anticipation of types of questions, but it was simply the usual preparation for any appearance before a parliamentary committee. Many of us, Madam Chair, don't have much experience in appearing before Parliament, so we have a unit that assists officials when they are called upon to perform that function.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Could you provide us with the names of those individuals, please, either now or in writing? I would appreciate it very much.

[David Angell]

Certainly, Madam Chairman.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

My colleague was speaking about the submission from the Feminist Alliance for International Action and, as I say, I'm having a hard time reconciling some of what you're saying here today. They provided a very comprehensive brief and did extensive analysis. I've looked at the graph--I'd be happy to provide it to you if you haven't seen it already--on the use of the phrase “gender equality”, the use of the word “gender”, excluding the use of the word “gender” and the phrase “gender equality”, and the total uses of the word “gender”, including it as part of the phrase “gender equality”. Canada, in each of those categories, referenced gender, gender equality, or whatever, once, and in one instance, twice.

They did extensive research here, and when you take a look at what the other countries have done, you'll see that there is significant use of the words “gender equality” or “gender” in whatever form. I'm looking at an example to give you. In Belgium, it was a total of 95 times; in the Netherlands, a total of 123 times, and in Sweden, 51 times.

How is it compatible, these different uses of language between Canada and other countries? Because quite clearly, based on their analysis, we're out of step with what other countries are doing.

[Elissa Golberg]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the question.

I reviewed the FAFIA testimony and I thought it was a bit like comparing apples and oranges insofar as what we should be focusing on is the content of the action plan. She was specifically referring to Canada's national action plan on women. She was--

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

She was. I'm sorry. I should have told you that.

[Elissa Golberg]

--comparing it and contrasting it to that of other countries. Canada is one of the latest countries to come out officially with a national action plan. In fact, we've gone further than most of the other international partners. We are the first country that has in fact integrated indicators into our national action plan.

What I focus on more, and what we focused on more, including in our discussions with civil society in the drafting of the national action plan--and we engaged more than 500 stakeholders in its development--are the actions in the action plan. Again, if you look at the terms used in some of the documents of our other close allies, you'll see that in many of the circumstances we're saying exactly the same thing, except that instead of using the term “gender equality”, in some instances we utilize the term “equality between men and women, girls and boys”.

Page 3 of our action plan explains what we're getting at with respect to equality within the context of the national action plan. I think that might be helpful in order to contextualize what we it was that we were seeking to get at. I hope it would address the committee's concerns.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Will you be tabling that information with us, Ms. Golberg?

[Elissa Golberg]

We'd be pleased to. It's certainly available on the website in both English and French.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It's in both languages.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

If I might comment, the action plan is a very fine document, and I commend you, Ms. Golberg, on the work that has been done, but as we all know, language matters. I appreciate your comments, but in the context of this memo and in the context of what we are hearing from community groups--and I appreciate that you are doing the best you can do with what you have to do it with--I do submit that language matters, and it's unfortunate that we cannot use the language that's used more universally in other countries.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

I will now go on to Ms. Grewal for the Conservatives.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be sharing my time with Ms. O'Neill-Gordon.

My question is for Mr. Angell.

Mr. Angell, can you give us some examples of how Canada is defending and promoting the rights of women at the United Nations, particularly where the rights of women are under attack, especially in places like Iran or Afghanistan?

[David Angell]

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

My colleague, Elissa, may want to amplify my remarks, as she has particular knowledge of Afghanistan.

But with regard to Canada's activities at the United Nations, we remain in the forefront of countries engaged on human rights. We're not currently a member of the Human Rights Council; we've just come off the council recently, but even as an observer we are exceptionally active.

With regard to Iran for example, Madam Chairman, for the eighth year now we've led a very high-profile resolution in the UN General Assembly on the human rights situation in Iran, a resolution that we believe is very helpful in sending a strong signal of encouragement to human rights defenders in Iran. In addition, we are very supportive of a resolution currently before the Human Rights Council to establish a special mechanism with regard to Iran. Our minister has been extremely vocal in expressing concerns with regard to the human rights situation in Iran.

A number of statements have been made; in fact, a very high number of statements have been made, including some very recently. So on the issue of Iran, Madam Chairman, we're at the forefront of the international community in expressing concern with regard to the human rights situation.

[Elissa Golberg]

With respect to the situation in Afghanistan, I can speak in particular to some of the things that Foreign Affairs is doing. More broadly, of course, the Government of Canada has been a strong and consistent advocate with respect to the rights and needs of women in Afghanistan. Our embassy in Kabul, as well as the work that's done by our civilian colleagues and our military colleagues in Kandahar, has been advancing and promoting the rights and needs of women.

We've done things like deploying legislative drafting assistance, for instance, around laws that might affect women. We've funded programs related to family law training and women's rights training. We deployed a gender and police adviser into the Ministry of the Interior in Afghanistan. We've done a range of activities in Afghanistan to advance the rights and well-being of women.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

We'll go to Ms. O'Neill-Gordon.

[Tilly O'Neill-Gordon, Conservative, Miramichi, NB]

Thank you.

I want to thank you for being here with us today. I know that you have done a lot of work in this area and I appreciate all the work you have done. I'm also glad to hear Ms. Golberg say that Canada has gone further than the other countries have and that we are strong in many areas. I appreciate that work as well, because I know that our government wants to be strong in all areas.

Discussing terminology is one thing, but we want to speak about concrete actions to advance the rights of women. Perhaps I'll ask Ms. Golberg if she can tell us about the action plan announced by MInister Cannon last fall for the implementation of this resolution 1325 on women, peace, and security, and what does this mean in concrete terms?

[Elissa Golberg]

Thank you very much for the question, Madam Chair. It's a subject that's near and dear to my heart. I'm always happy to talk about the national action plan, since it was a labour of love. The national action plan is Canada's response to the variety of resolutions developed by the Security Council over the last decade.

Resolution 1325 was the first resolution by the Security Council that established for the first time the importance of recognizing the need to take into account equality between men and women and girls and boys in situations of armed conflict. It makes sure that the international community pays attention to these issues. It makes sure that the United Nations system takes due account of these issues: that peacekeeping operations integrate a gender perspective; that we make sure that women have access to peace processes; that women's rights are advocated; that we address issues related to justice; and that perpetrators of violence and sexual violence against women are held to account. There has been a series of follow-on resolutions over the last 10 years that have further strengthened the original framework set up by resolution 1325.

Our national action plan has been drafted to try to respond to the framework the United Nations has set out by bringing it into the Canadian context. It aims to make sure that we enhance our overall effectiveness and accountability on issues related to peace operations, peace building, and mediation--our programming interventions--in, for instance, development contexts or post-crisis contexts. It essentially emphasizes three things: participation of women and girls in peace processes and conflict management; the protection and promotion of their rights; and equal access to humanitarian and development assistance.

The action plan does this in a number of ways. It advocates for Canadian officials to promote norms and standards. It talks about our role in terms of advocacy. Training and analysis are sub-components of the action plan. It lays out a series of actions we're going to have to take to improve the training we provide to staff across the government who are deployed in these contexts. It also talks about specific program and policy activities we're going to do. If anything, it's a very ambitious plan.

And this is something I have said to other committees that I've had to testify before recently: this is not one of those instances in which the government came out with a plan and could already tick off all of the things. This is a plan that is going to make us stretch quite significantly. We're not yet in a position to implement everything we've put in the plan. It's going to take a lot of hard work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Perhaps we could make our answers a little more concise. We went well over time on that round.

We'll go to Madame Demers, for the Bloc Québécois.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the witnesses for coming.

Mr. Weetman, how long have you been with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade?

[Jamieson Weetman]

I've been with the department now for about eight years.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Eight years.

How many times, before May 7, 2009, have you had to send an email to your peers and to your colleagues to express your concern regarding the terminology used to refer to human rights, child soldiers and international humanitarian law?

[Jamieson Weetman]

I don't recall. I know that there were a few e-mails exchanged on this subject. There were also conversations in person. There were meetings.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Prior to May 7, 2009, you never had to call on your colleagues to specifically discuss a rather impressive number of suggested terminology changes?