Thank you.
Ms. Simson.
Evidence of meeting #19 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #19 for Status of Women in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I'm looking at our schedule.
Ms. Boucher, when were you thinking we could find the time or find it before the end of the year?
To Ms. Mathyssen's point, there is a relevance issue, because on the last motion, Ms. Wong made a point of saying that we didn't have time to even request a report, and it wasn't even a study. I'm just curious as to how we would fit it in.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I believe that Canada has played a leading role in Afghanistan. I feel that progress has been made. A year or two ago, we had the opportunity to meet Afghan women who were members of Parliament. They had worked long and hard to get to where they were. Our Canadian reality is drastically different. Those women have made great strides.
Monumental efforts have been made by Canadians, especially by NGOs and individuals, and I think it is extremely important, as Ms. Brown was saying, to view these efforts as a very valuable legacy Canada is leaving in Afghanistan. It is important to see the underlying process that has enabled us to help these women become who they are today.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Madam Chair, this week, we will begin a study on First Nations women, and I think it is appropriate to do so. A committee will soon travel to Afghanistan to see how things work over there and how it is going in general.
I am saddened by some things that have taken place. If you remember, Madam Chair, last year, we received representatives of the Afghan government who testified before the committee. A few of those women then went to Geneva. One of my colleagues, who was with me at the committee meeting I mentioned, was also there in Geneva. One of the women sat next to her and admitted that what she had told us in committee was not true, that the situation was not as she had described it, and that they had to tell us these things because they were ordered to do so. At that time, the government was saying that it would like to remain in Afghanistan until 2011. I would really like to know what is going on over there. However, if it's what we want, should we not go there ourselves?
We know that the Department of Foreign Affairs has done away with the section in charge of status of women, the section in charge of gender equity. Since the Department has abolished this section, I was wondering how credible its information on the work done for women is. As for National Defence and International Cooperation, I do not know what more we could learn from them. I would really like us to conduct a study, a proper study though, and go and see with our own eyes how women are living, how girls are going to school. We know that girls are not going to school because they get killed if they do, and schools are being destroyed as soon as they are built.
Madam Chair, I think that it makes no sense to conduct a study if we cannot travel to Afghanistan and if we base the study on the word of the representatives of departments and organizations involved. As we have seen today, organization representatives cannot be forthright with the members of the committee because they are obligated to follow the instructions of their departments. Therefore, it is completely pointless to question them.
5 p.m.
Liberal
5 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a number of comments, Madam Chair. I was going to make the point made by my colleague, Madame Demers. Is it the intent of the mover that this committee should have the opportunity to go to Afghanistan? Because that's the only way we'll get a full and comprehensive picture.
As I see it, the motion is not really calling for a study; it's a report. I'm not quite sure how to put it, but I would like the invitation list to include more than departments and groups that are involved in that work. A number of other people have been over to Afghanistan;I'm thinking of Sally Armstrong and other commentators who have been part of the discussion and the dialogue. Many Canadians have been there. I do want to raise the issue that if we're going to do a study, it has to be an appropriate study, and not a report.
I am also very concerned about the timelines. While I will support this motion, I will not support it bumping some of the other things we have identified as high priority. I think this is further down the way, and I will do it on that condition.
Madam Chair, I also have some problem.... I know that others were consulted by the minister, but I have problems with the work of this committee being directed by the executive branch of government. The committee is the master of its own agenda, so to approve or not approve this.... I guess we are to some extent, but studies, reports, whatever, are not initiated by ministers, even in this new era of ministerial cooperation that we hear about at committees.
I want to put on the record that we should not be directed by ministers in terms of the work of this committee. The ministers in government should be responding to the work of the committees, and I don't see that happening.
I think all of us have had the opportunity, both in Ottawa and in our own communities, to meet with Afghan women. We know the challenges. We know the importance of them having opportunities and we know the many struggles they're having. But I don't want this to be simply a report or a show-and-tell. If we're going to do it, we must prioritize it around the other work we're going to do, and it should be a meaningful study that includes representatives that all committee members would like. But a simple show-and-tell or an infomercial is not the agenda at play here.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
That is duly noted, Madam Neville. Your point about the committee being master of its own decision-making and agenda is well taken.
Ms. Wong.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Alice Wong Conservative Richmond, BC
First of all, I would like to make the comment that when I said there is no time, I meant that if the previous report, which was just passed by you casting your vote, is going to generate a lot of other work, then I wouldn't see it as that appropriate. That is my concern about time.
Also, on the remark that this was directed by the minister, that is totally wrong. I think that what Sylvie just said is with the understanding that the minister herself has gone and the other ministers have gone, and they have given us a report today, all right? We probably understand that we have done a lot in Afghanistan.
I've talked to a lot of women from that community as well, and I think this is the right thing to do. As for talking about the fact that in 2011 our troops are scheduled to leave.... However, the study right now is very timely because of all the work we've put in, and to evaluate exactly what has been done and what value we have brought to girls and women there, I think it is very timely. We'll figure out the challenge of time as we discuss this, but the principle is whether this is worth a study. I think that is, first of all, very important. Then we'll decide the details. So we have to agree on whether we're going to do it and how we're going to do it. We're going to discuss it.
If the opposition doesn't want to study the situation of women and girls, they can vote against it, but for details, and about the how-to, those should come after we have voted yes.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Of course, our schedules are very busy. There is no time limit, but I think that we should conduct this study. We were just saying that we are looking ahead to 2011, and I think that we need to conduct a more in-depth study. I agree with Ms. Neville on that score. We could conduct it in September, but we have to consider all the elements involved. You talked about the government, but Canada has been in Afghanistan since before the Conservatives took office. Our involvement began while the Liberals were still in power.
It would be useful for us to become familiar with all the work that has been done since Canada's NGOs have been present in Afghanistan. In fact, we have talked about NGOs and other organizations. I feel that this study could very well be done here. We just have to find out how Afghan women are doing and to become familiar with all of Canada's contributions, past and present.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Chair.
To Ms. Wong's point again, you did indicate that you didn't feel that our schedule had the time right now. Based on what I'm hearing about a comprehensive study, this in fact will generate a lot of work, a lot of good work, which I can certainly support, but I would want this committee to travel to Afghanistan. I don't want to sit and listen and write a report or see this committee write a report about a legacy. Whose legacy? Whose agenda? I do have a serious concern.
I share the concern of my colleague, Ms. Neville, that obviously, in listening to the minister's testimony today, this is actually being directed by the minister. I have a cause for concern on that.
But if it is going to be a substantive and meaningful study that would involve us being able to travel...while it maybe doesn't get top priority, it's certainly something that I could support.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
I have Ms. Neville, Ms. Demers, Ms. Mathyssen, and Madame Deschamps, and then I have to get this committee to vote on something to do with the budget and our trip on aboriginal women, which must happen today, so I'm going to add no new names. We're going to just call the vote after that, so would everyone please be as concise as possible?
Ms. Neville.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm just going to reiterate my points. I have no problem with supporting this. I do not want it to bump the other business we have. We've identified a number of issues, so I think we have to be sensitive as to when we fit it into the schedule. I want to ensure that this is a study, not a report, and I want to put that on the record.
I also want to put on the record, Madam Chair, that there were direct requests from the minister, not only to you but also to our leader and to our critic on foreign affairs, for this study to happen, so when you talk about ministerial direction, it was certainly there. That is not how I see committees operating. Those are the ones I know of; perhaps there were others.
I will support it, or we will support it, but it's on those conditions that I do so.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, I think that before we undertake any study, we have to commit to working honestly and to working together. We have to make that commitment now. Even today, a person said that she drafted the motion together with the Minister because it is important for the Minister. So, it would appear that the Minister is the one behind the motion. Someone else said that it is not the Minister that's behind it. The Minister asked our caucus to undertake this study. So, the action is being spearheaded by the Minister.
We should at least stop lying to one another if we want to do decent, honest work that will yield results.This needs to stop, Madam Chair. I am saying this now. Mrs. Boucher should consider herself lucky if I vote for this motion. As long as Mr. Calandra keeps acting in this way, I will not vote for any motions moved by Mrs. Boucher. He always behaves in a disruptive manner. He disturbs the committee's work constantly, and that seems to be the only thing that he is intent on doing. I refuse to accept this type of behaviour, Madam Chair. I will tell my whip about his actions, and I will ensure that other whips are told as well. It is just not right.
We have never worked like this before. We have never felt this kind of tension in the committee before. We have always cooperated with our colleagues, but now, we can no longer do our work. We dread coming to meetings because they are unpleasant. Since Mr. Calandra has been with us, things have gotten worse.
Madam Chair, I have said what I had to say. Thank you.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to reiterate that if we undertake this, we must go to Afghanistan, but we cannot undertake it until all the other outstanding work is complete. We have a great many things in process and I would like to see them finished. I would also like to underscore that I would like all parties to have the freedom to choose from a wide range of witnesses to come to this committee and provide their expertise.
5:10 p.m.
Bloc
Johanne Deschamps Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I could go on and on about the issue brought up by the people on this side. Clearly, members of the government, or anyone going to Afghanistan, are entrusted to the care of the military. They are shown a few projects, a few achievements, and the rest of the time, they remain on the base. This study might bring to light a different version of the facts.
I have been working for three months with people who have collaborated on projects in Afghanistan, and what we are hearing from them is not all fine and dandy.The situation is nowhere near as rosy as people claim it is. Those people have worked on projects funded by CIDA, and they had the will to change things. However, we do not know what the results of the government's actions are. There seem to be no results at all. Eighteen schools have been built, but they remain empty because nobody is attending them. Young girls are scared. We are building schools, but we are not helping the government get established. Currently, the key issue that must be dealt with is that of governance.
I find this to be a very complex issue. Considering the way Mrs. Boucher's motion is drafted, it is safe to assume that she was probably instructed by somebody within the government.
May I finish?