Status of Women Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Earlier, my colleague Mr. Malo put a question to Ms. McInturff in order to find out when she first saw the light, at what point she realized that these changes were happening. I would like Ms. Bulger to pursue that, because it seems important to know when in the international community, in NGOs or other organizations, people realized that changes had been made. I also think that in the field, with MATCH International on site, there were even more people who realized the effects of the changes, and when these were made.

Could you continue on that topic, please, Ms. Bulgar?

[Kim Bulger]

Thank you.

Let me just take a moment to talk about getting materials to the committee. MATCH is no longer in existence so I'm not sure how we could do that, except maybe through somebody submitting an ATIP request. Because there is no office, there are no materials; the office is shut down.

In 2009 I hadn't been at MATCH long. I started in the spring of 2009. Shortly after I arrived, our project officers noted that CIDA had stated that within all written documentation it had to be “equality between women and men”; the words “gender equality” weren't to appear in any proposal. That was in 2009, around the late spring or early summer.

As well, in this other concept paper that we put forth, it wasn't that women couldn't submit proposals, but that within the proposal women couldn't be the drivers, just to make that distinction. I don't know whether that makes a distinction for you.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

How long before this did MATCH International have activities on the ground, and for how long before did that organization make subsidy applications that contained the terms gender equity and gender equality?

[Kim Bulger]

Well, MATCH had been in existence for 34 years, so the term “gender equality” has been in existence for a number of years—and maybe somebody else on the committee can speak to that—because it was more comprehensive and inclusive term that noted the power differences and the cultural and social distinctions of gender equality, versus the former term.

I'm sorry. I can't give you an exact timeframe. Maybe Kate...?

I don't know if you know or anybody else knows when the terminology changed, but the term “gender equality” was seen to be more progressive.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Even if international legislation was amended, the term continued to be used over the years, I presume?

[Kim Bulger]

Yes, and it's consistent with the international norms used throughout the development community.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

MATCH International always obtained funding for its projects?

[Kim Bulger]

Yes, and just to make a point: this concept paper where it was noted that women couldn't be the drivers was outside our core funding from the partnership branch. So it was different funding.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

And that is when you realized this?

[Kim Bulger]

The usage of the term “equality between women and men” was happening at about the same time. It was almost concurrent. So anything we were submitting had to use the term “equality between women and men”. This other process was happening almost simultaneously. It was a concurrent process where we became aware that there were shifts in language.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Several other organizations in the field were experiencing the same thing as your organization?

[Kim Bulger]

Yes. It seemed the discussions around other agencies funded by CIDA had the same request for those agencies not to use the term “gender equality” in their proposals.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

It was CIDA specifically who asked you to stop using those terms?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

If you could, give a quick answer.

[Kim Bulger]

Yes, it would be the public servants, the bureaucrats within CIDA.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

We'll go to Ms. Brown.

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

Madam Chair, I would just ask that our witnesses submit to the committee the articles they are basing their assumptions on so we can see as a committee the definitions and where they have accessed all of this. I would like to reflect on that myself

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

So it would be anything available that Ms. Bulger and Ms. McInturff have that are not part of research....

If you could just table them with the committee, that would be great. Thank you.

Is there anything further?

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

No.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Okay.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This is a rather circuitous discussion we're having. I think I asked this question earlier, but I would still like your comments on how the changes in language reflect more systemic changes in the department. I think you both touched on it.

But I would also like to comment on something else and table an article. I wasn't here last week, but I gather the committee was criticized for quoting Embassy magazine. I will table this article, wherein the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated that language was designed to move the country's foreign policy in a direction decided by the government. He said that government actions were what mattered. He went on to say: We've been elected to govern the country and the government of Canada puts forward, sets forward its objectives, its policy objectives as it does in any other department. And it is up to the departments to execute the policies.... And that is exactly what we are doing.

He also said that “if anybody is not happy with these policies that we're carrying out, well all they have to do is go and run in the next election and get themselves elected and support a policy that is different from ours”.

My question is, in your mind, how does language reflect the changes in policy and capacity within the department?

[Kate McInturff]

Let me give you a specific example. If you have positions within the Department of Foreign Affairs called gender advisers or specialists in gender-based analysis, gender equality focal points, or gender focal points, that means when you put someone in that position there's an expectation that they'll have expertise in that area.

If there's a position referred to in terms of human rights--which I believe is what has happened in the human rights policy division, although you would have to ask them because these processes aren't totally transparent to me--as a human rights adviser or someone who does human rights analysis, you may have someone in that position who is extremely expert on the protection of civilians, for example, but may have no expertise in international norms and laws related to gender equality.

I understand that Ms. Bejzyk said specifically on Tuesday that those people would be giving advice to our foreign service officers about international norms and laws related to gender equality and women's human rights. So a change in language around the position can lead to a change in the expertise of the person in that position, which affects the kind of advice our foreign service officers might be getting.

That means our foreign service officers, who are extremely bright, well-educated, and well-trained people, may have a gap in their knowledge. At best, that gap could result in the kind of miscommunication Ms. Brown spoke about around “high speed” versus “higher speed”. Then, in interactions with other members of the international community, there could be miscommunication because the language being used is different. But at worst it could mean that they just don't have the tools at their disposal, because of the lack of expert advice on these issues, to engage substantially in building these norms.

On these norms around the protection of women, the response to gender-based violence, and women's equality and gender equality, it is rare that we have economic sanctions or send in peacekeepers--on occasion, but very rare. Mostly these norms are built through international cooperation, international consensus, international dialogue, naming and shaming, discussion, and incorporation and reiteration of the language in these norms. That process can be undermined if people aren't using the same language.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

We have finished the third round. I wouldn't mind asking a quick question, if that's okay.

Absolutely, we agree that words are important. Right now in my own media there is this furious debate going on in terms of the decision of one school board in the province of B.C. to rename the winter holiday the Christmas holiday. As I say, the debate is sort of big and furious, with all the connotations around whether it's right or wrong....

I think when you live, sleep, and breathe a certain sort of international standard and language, you have this expectation around what the language is and what the proper language is. For example, if I were in my constituency and talked about gender equity, a lot of people would be much more comfortable and familiar with and would understand the concept of equality between women and men. It would be easy for them to understand, whereas if I started to talk about gender equity, some of them would think I wasn't talking in a way that made sense.

So it depends on where you're delivering a speech. My constituents would understand the concept of equality between women and men if I were delivering a speech in my riding. Do you believe I should use the term “gender equity” all the time to start to shift the norm and the concept within that riding? Or should I use language that the people would be more likely to understand? I guess that's my question.

[Kate McInturff]

I wish I could say that there were documents that came out of the United Nations Security Council, for example, that were readily comprehensible to a broad public, but there aren't. None of these documents, whether they deal with gender equality or anything else, are written in language that I think would be readily understandable to the average person. They are international instruments. They're, in some cases, legal documents.

Communicating in terms a broad public understands is very important, and a great deal of my own work has been to do popular language versions of these norms and explain in words that people understand what they mean and how they impact their everyday lives. There is a difference between the kind of language we use when we're speaking in a public forum to a general audience or to the media and the language used in official policy documents, such as the national action plan or a presentation by the ambassador to the Security Council. Those are different audiences, and they have different implications.

Looking at what Ambassador Normandin says at a reception at the UN mission to an audience of women's organizations—and I've seen him give those speeches—there the imperative is to communicate with the people you're talking to in terms they can understand. Looking at speeches he gives to the UN Security Council, part of the imperative there, as a representative of our government, is to position our government on that norm. Part of that has to do with whether or not you reiterate the language of that norm.

There are different contexts with different implications.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

To take that through, if the norm is “children in armed conflict,” which I understand it is, then it is appropriate in those settings to be talking about “children in armed conflict”, because of what you just stated, as opposed to “child soldier”. Is that fair enough?

I've done the same as everyone else--I've left with you 15 seconds. Sorry.