Status of Women Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I'd like to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are doing a study on language changes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

We have two guests with us today. I'd like to welcome Kate McInturff. She's from the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action. Also, Kim Bulger is here as an individual. She is the former executive director of MATCH International.

Welcome. Thank you both for coming. I think you have probably both been at hearings before. You'll have 10 minutes each for your presentation. Then we'll go to questions and answers.

Can we start with Kate McInturff?

[Kate McInturff, Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action]

Good morning. My name is Kate McInturff. I'm the executive director of FAFIA. I'm also the former coordinator of the gender and peace-building working group of Peacebuild. I appreciate the invitation to come to speak to you this morning.

The question before the committee, as I understand it, is one of language. However, as I think you probably know, the issue at stake here is not only the words that come out of our mouths but the actions we perform and the effect of those actions on our common well-being, on the ability of all of us to live lives free from violence, fear, humiliation, and suffering--to live lives with dignity and security.

I'm going to make three points today: first, that there has been a shift away from the use of the term “gender equality”; second, that the changes in language are symptoms of a more significant shift in the human and financial resources that are earmarked for work on gender equality; and third, that there are immediate and progressive changes that can be made to support the work of the government in advancing gender equality internationally.

First let me speak to the language changes.

Public foreign policy statements by the Government of Canada show a strong and demonstrable preference for the phrase “equality between women and men” or “the human rights of women and girls” or just “women and girls” over the phrase “gender equality”. The significance of this shift is that “gender equality” encompasses the social and cultural forces at work in fostering equality or inequality.

I understand that you heard from Mr. Kessel on Tuesday. Mr. Kessel suggested that if he were to put himself in the place of a university professor, he would not find that there was sufficient evidence to support this claim concerning language use. In particular, he suggested a review of speeches by ministers, of government positions, and of government websites.

Well, I have been in the position of being a professor at a university and indeed have taught courses on research methodology, and I have reviewed speeches by ministers, reviewed government positions, and reviewed government websites. So let me take a moment to provide some of the evidence for which Mr. Kessel called.

Of the 47 speeches delivered by Minister Cannon during his term, he makes 17 references to “women”. Minister Cannon makes one reference to “gender equality”, and he does so in the course of offering congratulations to Michelle Bachelet on her new post. He says it when he states the proper name of the UN entity to which she has been appointed; that is, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality.

Number two, none of the stated priority concerns for 2010/2011 on the Foreign Affairs website mentions either “women” or “gender equality”.

Point three, at the three United Nations Security Council debates on women, peace, and security that have occurred between 2008 and 2010, Canadian ambassador Normandin uses the phrase “women and girls” nine times, “women” 26 times, and does not use the phrase “gender equality” once.

Four, in a speech delivered by Foreign Affairs official Peter Kent at a United Nations meeting on peace and security through women's leadership, delivered September 24, 2009, Mr. Kent uses the phrase “women and men” or “equality between women and men” seven times, the phrase “women and girls” three times, the word “women” three times, and does not use the phrase “gender equality" once.

Five, in the six statements delivered on international law, “gender equality” is not mentioned once.

Six, in the 10 speeches delivered by the UN mission in New York on human rights between 2008 and 2011, the term “gender equality” is only used twice, and on both occasions it's used to refer to the proper name of a pre-existing policy document.

Seven, the new national action plan on women, peace, and security contains 62 references to “women and girls”, 10 references to “men and women”, 34 references to “women”, and one reference to “gender equality”, again as part of the proper name of a pre-existing document.

I can go on. I have more lists. I won't go through all of them here, but I'd be happy to elaborate during the question period.

I also want to make an additional point. I understand that Mr. Kessel suggested this usage is standard and part of what countries are doing everywhere, and I want to come back to the example of the national action plan. Canada's national action plan has one reference to “gender equality”, and that is as part of the proper name of another document. I spent some time counting. There are currently 20 national action plans from countries ranging from Chile to Uganda, Sweden, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, the Philippines, and so on.

If you count the usage of the term “gender equality” collectively in these 20 national action plans, you find that “gender equality” appears 139 times, and “gender” appears 1,046 times. The average per national action plan is seven uses of “gender equality”, and 52 uses of “gender” to say things like gender-focused, gender lens, gender-based violence, and so on. So Canada is well below the international average.

On the affirmative side, in the 18 speeches delivered by the UN mission in New York on economic and social affairs between 2008 and 2011, the term “gender equality” is used 12 times--an average of less than once per speech. As well, although gender equality and women's human rights are not part of the Department of Foreign Affairs priority concerns for this year, the DFAIT website does state that Canada's foreign policy priorities include the elimination of violence against women, the full and equal participation of women in decision-making, and the mainstreaming of a gender perspective. Also, as of this October, the Government of Canada does have a national action plan for the implementation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on women, peace, and security, and this plan was developed with input from civil society.

I see all of these as very positive signs.

In conclusion, although the term “gender equality” is used on occasion, there is a demonstrable preference for the language of “women” over “gender equality” in official public and policy statements related to the Government of Canada's foreign policy.

Now, does language matter? Yes. The question of language changes is important to the extent that it reflects changes in the capacity of the Government of Canada to promote the aims of international norms and laws regarding gender equality and women's human rights. I can tell you what those norms are later if you have any questions.

To take the example of Security Council resolutions on women, peace, and security--a file on which Foreign Affairs specifically has the lead--there has been positive progress in achieving the aims it sets out. The new national action plan is a very important step toward ensuring that Canada is making a meaningful contribution in achieving these goals. However, for that document to be meaningful, there must be sufficient human and financial resources, and there has to be a means to ensure accountability for all the arms of government responsible for its implementation.

I have tremendous respect for the expertise and experience of those working at Foreign Affairs. I do not question their commitment, demonstrated in important policy and programming changes and developments over the past years that have had meaningful impacts on the lives of women and girls. I'd be happy to speak about the impacts of some of this programming on the lives of women in the Democratic Republic of Congo, for example.

However, there have been changes within Foreign Affairs that may affect its capacity to implement the new national action plan. In 2008, there was a reorganization of what is now the human rights policy and governance division. At that time, as part of that reorganization, the position of deputy director for women, peace, and security was eliminated. The money previously earmarked specifically for projects on women, peace, and security was made part of a larger pool for which projects under six or seven different priority areas competed. The positions with the specific mandate to provide gender-based analysis were re-categorized as human rights policy positions.

Responsibility for the women, peace, and security file was shifted from the human rights policy division to the stabilization and reconstruction task force, where there is currently one “specialist in women, peace, and security”. Partly as a result of some of the funding changes, there has been a concomitant decrease in the capacity of civil society to be a strong interlocutor and a source of support and innovation on these issues. I'd be happy to speak about that as well later on.

Finally, the national action plan requires accountability from departments and agencies responsible for its implementation. In order to measure the success or failure of the implementation of the national action plan--and indeed all progress on international norms and laws related to gender equality--there must be consistent and expert gender-based analysis of the policy and programming outcomes of the responsible departments and agencies.

However, the 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada on gender-based analysis concluded that there was no government-wide policy requiring departments and agencies to perform gender-based analysis. The Auditor General also found that few of the departments that do perform gender-based analysis can provide evidence that these analyses are used in designing public policy. Thus, both the achievements and the gaps of the responsible departments and agencies appear not to be consistently measured at present.

Moving forward, there are a number of steps that can be taken to ensure that Canada is a leader in achieving the aims set out in its international commitments to gender equality and that require no additional financial resources.

First, there must be positions specifically earmarked for specialists or policy advisers with expertise on gender equality within the departments and agencies responsible for this work. There are people with this expertise within our government, but we cannot depend on the goodwill of knowledgeable individuals when those individuals may be in positions that have an entirely different mandate.

Second, there must be ongoing and consistent gender-based analysis of policy and programming. There is no other way to measure progress or effectiveness.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

We're way over the 10 minutes, if you want to—

[Kate McInturff]

Okay. I'll wrap it up. Can I have one minute?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

We only have two witnesses today, so I think we can be indulgent.

[Kate McInturff]

I appreciate that very much.

So in conclusion, why is this important? Canada's role as peacekeeper and peace builder is central to its citizens' view of their country--and I can give you the sources for this later.

Canada has significant public and private investments in conflict-affected countries, most notably in Afghanistan. Support for Canadian involvement in the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan rests largely on claims that Canada is working to protect the rights of women and girls. The Government of Canada consistently underlines this connection in its own representation of the mission. For example, in over two dozen speeches on Afghanistan made by Prime MinisterHarper, he mentions the rights of women and girls in all but two of those speeches.

There is anecdotal evidence that international norms related to gender equality have been integrated into some of Canada's programming in Afghanistan; however, it is equally evident that this integration is not happening in a systematic way. A particularly striking example is to be found in the current benchmarks for Canada's work in Afghanistan, not one of which is gender specific.

Canada has decided to extend its presence in Afghanistan past 2011. The benchmarks for success of this mission are being defined right now. Public statements thus far indicate that the central mandate of this extended mission will be training. Recent hearings by the Senate human rights committee suggest that our troops receive little or no training that would equip them to meaningfully address the gendered aspects of, for example, security sector reform, demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration programs, and the protection of women's human rights or the integration of women into the security sector.

Training makes a crucial difference—and I'd be happy to talk about how it does—and requests for training are coming from our troops and from people engaged in peacekeeping missions. This kind of knowledge doesn't fit in a holster, it doesn't cost a billion dollars, and it doesn't go boom, but it is essential.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Bulger, please, for 10 minutes.

[Kim Bulger, Former Executive Director, MATCH International, As an Individual]

Good morning and thank you for the invitation. I appreciate the opportunity to come here this morning and speak on this important issue.

The importance of the change in the language, whether it be deemed semantics or policy change within DFAIT and the Government of Canada, is useful to visit, as both have a pronounced impact on women and children and other vulnerable populations in the global south.

I'll try to be brief and not repeat what Kate has said, knowing that there are a lot of things we can't cover in this 10-minute time period.

To illustrate the importance of words.... I feel a bit odd quoting an American male in a Status of Women committee, but Barack Obama connotes the importance of words. He said:

Don’t tell me words don’t matter. 'I have a dream'--just words? 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal'--just words? 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself'--just words? Just speeches?

I think this underlies the importance of words in terms of aspirations of a people. People's political or philosophical values undergird what words we use.

I think the corollary of that is also that words have the power to render people invisible, to exclude people, to retain or sustain an untenable status quo. So I think it's really important that we unpack the meaning of words and also of the policy change.

I'd like to make three points on the language changes as they pertain to why we're here this morning. The first is the issue of the word “impunity” around sexual violence in the DRC and the lack of congruence with the UN Convention known as CEDAW, the convention on the elimination of discrimination against Women--resolution 1820.

Resolution 1325 notes that Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to do whatever is necessary “to put an end to impunity” for sexual violence. It's changed to: “Canada urges the government of the DRC to take concerted measures to prevent sexual violence”. It's a major paradigm shift.

I'll read for you the specific portion of CEDAW that is a much more robust, inclusive, comprehensive notion of women's protection in terms of sexual violence. But I think what's important, too, is the lack of congruence and coherent alignment with international conventions to which Canada is a signatory.

CEDAW's section 10 “[c]alls on all parties to armed conflict to take special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and all other forms of violence in situations of armed conflict”. Section 11 “[e]mphasizes the responsibility of all States to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes including those relating to sexual violence against women and girls, and in this regard, stresses the need to exclude these crimes, where feasible from amnesty provisions”.

I think to relegate it to the prevention of sexual violence really is a major shift. It lowers the threshold of our commitments on the international front. As I say, if we want to have congruence and philosophical alignment with other protocols, conventions, and things we are signatory to, we need to ensure that our language and our policy statements are congruent with that.

Another concern is that it creates a double standard. We heard this in connection with the maternal health issues around the G-8 and G-20, where women in the global south were very concerned and said they were being treated differently and to a double standard: that their rights in the south were different from what women in the global north experience. If we have the rights and protections of the judiciary as that relates to sexual violence, why wouldn't we extend that--quote--“generosity” to them? I think there's a whole double standard.

Third, and this undergirds the whole thing, these language changes weaken our reputation on the world stage. If we are to regain our international status as a global leader in terms of gender equality, we really need to be unequivocal in our principles. We've been unequivocal in other aspects as they pertain to international activities and development, whether it be trade with China or human rights violations with China and other countries. So why wouldn't we be congruent and unequivocal about protecting women's rights and allowing them the robust spectrum of support, from prevention to judicial measures, to deal with people who have perpetrated violence against women?

On the whole issue of gender equality, I think Kate spoke to the issue of power relations, the social and cultural context of that terminology, and how it has evolved from talking about equality between men and women. Again, who's excluded? Who's rendered invisible? Who's not able to participate in capacity development funding decisions? Look at gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered individuals and their experience in certain countries, where they're sentenced to death or imprisoned for their sexual identity. I think this is about making sure that we have an inclusive paradigm and inclusive terminology so that all people are included.

This is a bit of an aside, but I know that MATCH applied for funding, and we were told that women cannot lead any proposal. So it does.... Everybody's open to apply—it's like saying that everybody's open to going to the Ritz—but the criteria certainly do exclude people. And the people we're excluding are the people most in need of protection, support, and capacity development to raise awareness and to change the experience of oppression in the world.

The third thing that really struck me is the removal and the uncoupling of “child soldier” and wanting to basically render children as equivalent to mini-adults. I think this is so regressive. We've spent almost a century talking about child development and about Piaget's milestones in a child's development in abstract thinking notions and other developmental milestones. To go back and treat them like they have the autonomy and independence to make the decisions of adults I think is a major step backwards. I think there's a context when you say “child soldier”, and it is the context of being forced into war, into doing acts that wouldn't happen if they weren't within the context of war.

If it's “voluntary”--I'll put that in quotes too--it may be about survival or about avenging people who have committed atrocities upon their families. So I think there's a whole context you see with the two words “child soldier”. To delink these two words really looks at them within a vacuum and not within the context of war as a determinant of some of these other activities that happen. For young women, too, participating in conflict could be to escape domestic servitude, or violence within the home, and/or being forced to engage in these activities. I think semantics matter, if we kind of unpack what's beneath the intent.

The policy changes I think are doing Canada a disservice in terms of reputation. Also, for the vulnerable groups, whether it be women, children, or other populations impacted by these changes, I think it's really a step backward. I think this is an opportunity. I'm grateful that the committee is taking a look at some of these language changes to revisit what some of these mean, who they impact, and who's being harmed, and to move forth from that. I think Kate gave some great recommendations.

I know that we didn't come here to talk just about the issues of human protection and human security and some of those other language shifts. I'll leave it there. I thank people for the opportunity to speak.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you so much.

We will begin our first round of questions and answers. It will be a seven-minute period for each person.

We'll start with Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me thank both of you for coming here today. You must be particularly brave, because we've heard anecdotally that many organizations are fearful of coming to present on this issue for fear of reprisal. So I say a particular thank you to both of you for being here today.

I have a number of questions. I'm going to put some of them out there, and then if we have more time, I'll come back to them.

My first question is to both of you about the change of language. I realize you're not party to the decisions, but what would you speculate motivates the change of language? I'm interested in your perceptions of that.

My second question is, does the change in language reflect the systemic changes at DFAIT?

Kate, you spoke to it, particularly when you talked about the removal of the position of the deputy director for women, peace and security.

Then I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit more about the importance of the training you referred to.

Kim, I'm particularly distressed by your comment that women cannot lead any proposal. I think that's what you said. I'd like to hear more about that, please.

I'll stop there, and then come back to other questions.

[Kim Bulger]

Maybe I'll speak to the first one briefly.

Ms. Neville, we haven't had an opportunity to know what underlies or motivates the change in language, so it's unfortunate when you see who is being impacted--that is, women. You think, could this be a sexist decision? With the DRC, it's about Africa, so you think, is it about women in Africa? So I wonder if it's an attempt, as I say, to maintain the status quo.

I don't know. It's a hard one to judge, but if you look at the patterns of some of the decisions that are being made, it's hard not to draw other conclusions. If we look at the G-20 decisions about women not having opportunities around choice with some of the funding, and at some of these language changes over time, it's hard not to say that there's some kind of underlying issue around power relations and that African women aren't important. I don't know, but that's what I extract from it.

Second, regarding the issue of women not leading any proposal, we had submitted a region-wide agricultural proposal, an organic gardening thing in the Caribbean. We were specifically told that because women were at the centre of this leadership farming proposal, it would not be accepted, because women could not lead a proposal. It had to be in the three thematic areas. We had incorporated one of the thematic areas, economic development, but we had to revamp the proposal. I think it was the director who told us that women cannot lead any proposal, because it wasn't a priority. So that was the particular experience we encountered.

[An hon. member]

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Madame Boucher.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order.

We invited people to talk to us about terminology. If we have other topics to discuss, that should happen later. Today, our guests are here to talk about the terminology used by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of Canada. That is what we are studying at this time.

[Lois Brown, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I think that if Ms. Bulger is going to make that kind of allegation against the government department, she needs to submit to the committee what the proposal was and the determination of why they didn't receive the funding.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I think I'm hearing two very different things. One is that we need to reflect on terminology. The other is that if we are going to deviate we need to actually be tabling some evidence for what we do.

In some ways, those points of order are sort of contrary to each other, so I will remind our witnesses that we're trying to reflect on languages and perhaps someone will be asking for tabling of documents.

[Kim Bulger]

If I could just.... I think it speaks to the issue of gender equality. It was framed under the issue of gender equality. It was making a point about the difference between gender equality and equality between men and women. I hope that point was clear.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Ms. Neville, we're getting close to being out of time. I think there were some questions directed at Ms. McInturff that we could look towards.

[Kate McInturff]

Sure.

I have no idea what motivates the language changes. I can't speak to that. All I can say is that they are out of step with international norm-building and with the kinds of language being used by countries all over the world to talk about the same set of international norms.

As for training, there's one thing I want to say about training on these issues--which involves understanding what this language means and involves the social and cultural norms that create gender roles--and that is the significant difference between saying “gender equality” and “equality between women and men”. This kind of training is not something being called for only by civil society organizations; this training is being called for by the head of international policing in the UN peacekeeping mission in Darfur. He requested that the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre provide them with training on the prevention and response to sexual violence. This was so successful that they offered a second course and then a third. I don't know if they've offered subsequent courses.

Likewise, Major General Patrick Cammaert, who was the Deputy Force Commander for the UN mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo, spoke about the need for this kind of training and the need for troops to understand, including, as a matter of the language of gender equality, what this means to their mandate, their role, and how they perform their duties. To quote Major General Cammaert, “It's not rocket science”.

His example was this. When he came upon some troops who were patrolling a displaced persons camp in Eastern Congo, they were inside their armoured personnel vehicle. There had been attacks on women and girls on the borders of those camps, and he said they needed to know that they had to get out of their vehicle and walk around the border of the camps. That's what we're talking about, and that's the point at which he said, “It's not rocket science”.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

With the unanimous consent of the committee, Ms. Mathyssen has to go to the House to table our report entitled, “Building the Pipeline: Increasing the Participation of Women in Non-Traditional Occupations”.

Could we switch the order to let her go next so that she gets the time for her round? Is there any objection from the committee?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that very much.

I also want to give my thanks to the witnesses for their presence here, because as Ms. Neville indicated, I, too, have had a very real sense from conversations with women's organizations and those who receive support and funding from the federal government that there is a sense that if you speak too loudly to power you will be punished, that funding will be withheld or you will somehow suffer because of your perspectives and point of view.

I would most certainly hope that this is a situation we're cognizant of and want to change with regard to this country. The one thing about this country that I've always believed, and that I think most Canadians believe, is that there is fairness here and the ability to state opinions without any concern about retribution.

Again, thank you for being here. I hope other groups will be able to come to provide information.

What you're saying is quite, quite different from what we heard on Tuesday. In fact, this committee was admonished, it felt like, for pursuing a subject that some regarded as frivolous. It's very clear to me that this is anything but frivolous.

I'm also interested in the discussion around child soldiers, because this week we've heard some very, very disturbing information about children being transferred to the NDS in Afghanistan.

Canada of course has a duty to protect children from torture. We've signed international agreements to that effect. I think back to the horrific events that took place in Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast and involved the coercion of children. They were compelled to do some dreadful things. Canada's response was that they are children and we must provide the support, care, and therapies needed to make sure they're whole and can become contributing members of society.

That seems to have gone by the wayside. Here, we are talking about a situation involving Afghani children, and of course there is the situation involving Omar Khadr. He was a child, yet he has been treated and is being treated as an adult.

I'm wondering about the legal and political impact of changing “child soldier” to “children in armed conflict”. Can you provide some sense of what that means and how we need to be very aware of it with regard to what's going on in Afghanistan?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Who would like to answer that question?

Ms. Bulger?

[Kim Bulger]

I'm not a lawyer, especially on international law, but from common sense.... in our own country we have an age of majority. We switch from being a child to being an adult and we become responsible and culpable for our actions. We have that cut-off point where we think we're fully matured and we have developed.

To take away the notion...or to delink “child soldier” and not look at the context these children are operating in is treating them as mini-adults, meaning they are accountable and responsible with obligations just from a legal point of view, while not recognizing their vulnerability, dependency, and lack of ability to choose otherwise. There is no choice, obviously, within their circumstances. This is not legal or political, but it's not a very compassionate, rehabilitative way to go, I wouldn't think.

As you mentioned with Sierra Leone and whatnot, there was a more compassionate understanding of the predicament these children were in. There were attempts to try to reintegrate them into society so they would have productive, useful lives, versus rendering them as criminals.

I think that's the difference. Do we treat them as children who need support and help to find their way out of those wars and to deal with all the atrocities, or do we treat them as criminals and put them in jail without looking at the circumstances they live in?

I'm sorry, that wasn't a legal or a political thing; it was more of a social kind of--