Evidence of meeting #106 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was research.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:35 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
There isn't anything that isn't being done. I think women who want to join the military will join the military. They join police forces. I don't see any one thing that can be done.
Of course, addressing the culture and talking about power are really important. It's not a quick fix. Also, what we often don't hear about is a lot of research about the level of sexual abuse and exploitation of women within the military. I think we need to address those issues. You need to fix the institutions.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
It's my pleasure.
We'll go to five-minute questions.
The first questions go to MP Spengemann.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Professor Baruah, thank you very much for being with us. I only have five minutes, so I'm going to be judicious in how I ask my questions.
The first thing I wanted to do is thank you for the value that you're adding to our discussion by unpacking and dispelling assumptions and by focusing on evidence-based research and ultimately policy. I think that's equally important in the social sciences and humanities as it is in the natural sciences.
Are you making the point to the committee that we should move away from a complementarity of instrumental and rights-based approaches in the sense that we sometimes like to use instrumental approaches when it suits us, when we think it will create the momentum or the prop wash?
We also do it on gender equality with respect to the economic contributions. If we had pay equity tomorrow across the globe, I think the evidence is that it would be an economic benefit in excess of $10 trillion, so you pull men into the conversation who haven't previously been part of it. Do you advocate for that, or should we bifurcate and stick with the rights-based approach?
11:40 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
That's a really good question, and I've faced it multiple times.
One thing I feel very strongly about is that even when I'm doing this work and I'm speaking to businesses, for example, whose bottom line is they are beholden to shareholders. They care about profits. We know that. The most convincing argument is the business case. We know that. We know that private sector corporations are going to change when it makes sense; when it makes economics change. When we see corporations changing when they have, it is because it makes business sense. They need a diverse pool of talent. We know there are all these benefits to having women on boards. We know they are doing it because of the business case.
I make a bit of a difference when I'm talking about democratically elected government. I think we should care about equity for the sake of equity. I think it's a bit different when you're not talking to corporations. I think in that context we should care about equity, regardless of what the outcome might look like.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
I think that's super-helpful in this context. Thank you for that point.
I'll go back to peacekeeping for a second.
In my mind three cultures have to be broken down to ensure parity, or at least the approach toward parity in peacekeeping.
The first one is the culture of the troop-contributing country. The second is the culture of whatever coalition is going to gather to solve the problem, whether that's NATO or the UN or some other constellation. The last one is the culture in the host government, less euphemistically the target government.
Is that the right way to think about it? If so, where do you see the greatest obstacles at the moment in the research that you're doing, and at which level? Could you speak from a Canadian perspective, perhaps?
Is it the NATO coalition or the UN coalitions where you have peacekeeping cultures from all around the world coalescing? Then the significance of women being part of it is usually secondary or tertiary or even less frank than that, but then you also have cultures in the countries we're assisting where it may not be helpful culturally to consider putting a woman into a leadership position.
11:40 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
In the research I look at, I think the biggest barrier is the power dynamic in the interface between the peacekeeping operations. I haven't see as much about whether coalitions are a bigger problem than.... That doesn't seem to be the point of friction as much, at least from the research I've done, but I do think that being able to change the perception of peacekeepers...because as I said, a local population where the peace is being kept is as likely to see the uniform as they are to see the gender, so it makes no difference. They're seeing armed personnel. It has the same effect that armed personnel have in many parts of the world. They're not necessarily seen as people who are peacekeepers.
As Canadians we do benefit, I think, from having a slightly different reputation overseas, and I'll admit that. I had a graduate student do research on understanding how Canadians are perceived in Afghanistan. We found that we were perceived a little bit differently from those from other countries that have sent troops, for example, so I think we do benefit from that a bit. However, I do think the culture of peacekeeping is also still extremely formalized, often for security reasons, so I wonder about the conversations about how peacekeepers can build these friendships and these wonderful connections with local populations and how that can happen when most peacekeeping happens in a very formalized context. You're not allowed to leave the base often as peacekeepers. You're not allowed to break bounds after dark, for example, so in these very formalized contexts, how can you actually build peace?
I think we need to create forms for better interaction. I do think some of the grassroots organizations that already exist can perhaps provide that nice intermediary function, can play an intermediary function that can be useful.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
September 20th, 2018 / 11:40 a.m.
Richard Martel Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC
Good morning.
In your November 2017 article entitled, “Short-sighted commitments on women in peacekeeping”, which could be translated as “Engagement à courte vue concernant les femmes dans le maintien de la paix”, you say that one of the reasons why the Trudeau government is making this effort to increase the number of women assigned to peace operations is that he is campaigning for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council.
In your opinion, to what extent does his ambition for diversity correspond to obtaining a seat on the Security Council? Would you say that's the main consideration?
11:45 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
No, I would not. I hope I didn't make it sound as though that is the primary consideration. I think it's part of a broader effort of moving us back towards a different place at the UN, and I appreciate that. There is tremendous power to be had in being in the UN General Assembly. There is tremendous power. I do believe the UN General Assembly is a good forum for Canadians to take Canadian values to. I do believe that. The non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council is something that countries aspire to hold, and I understand that Canada wants that position. I wouldn't suggest that it's the only reason, but it's definitely a part of the attempt to raise Canada's status at the UN. There's no question about it.
In the past 10 years or 20 years, just as a peacekeeping nation, which is a very distinct marker for Canada, that definitely didn't fit, because we were barely contributing any troops, and there wasn't that much activity happening. I think now we are trying to say that we're back. That is very much part of that packaging of our being back. I'm not so cynical as to say that it's entirely a public relations campaign or that it's a grand gesture, but I do think that it is something that Canada is doing to try to raise our status at the UN.
11:45 a.m.
Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC
My next question is broad.
If you had to put in place a plan to increase recruitment and retention of women in the Canadian military, what would it look like?
I know it's a big question.
11:45 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
That is a big question. There is a much deeper reckoning to be had in terms of how militaries operate and how institutional hierarchies and reporting mechanisms operate. It's not a secret that we have issues with women in the military, and in Canada we have issues with the RCMP. This is not a secret anymore.
Unless we really reform our institutions, it's misguided and perhaps even a little dangerous to assume you can just add women to institutional structures as they exist, send them overseas and somehow expect a different result. That's the problem I have with it. An effort to increase women in peacekeeping operations has to go hand in hand with the efforts made by police forces, militaries and the RCMP in Canada to genuinely reform these institutions and make them more democratic and representative. That's the way forward for peacekeeping missions. It can't be something that is just addressed within peacekeeping operations; it has to address all the other institutions.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for your contribution to this. You've really highlighted an interesting way of looking at this, because you've kind of turned this issue on its head. It's important that you did that, because a lot of the discussions about why it's so important to have women in peacekeeping have centred around this idea of...I think your term was “civilizing” the peacekeeping operations, and you've done a very good job of illustrating why it's so important to look at it from a different perspective.
In 2017 Canada hosted the UN peacekeeping conference, at which Minister Freeland announced $15 million as a pilot project to fund women's participation. You commented on this in your opening remarks, but what do you think of where that money was spent? I'm taking it from you that if the environment is correct, then women are just going to want to get involved, but that money was specifically put towards recruiting, training and promoting females. Is that the wrong place to be spending the money?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
No, not at all; that was never my argument. I don't think there's anything wrong. It's actually a fairly small amount of money if you think about it, and they might need more than that. I don't see anything wrong with spending that money on improving women's experiences, training and recruitment. That's not the argument I was making at all.
We should just be cognizant of that attempt to tick so many boxes, namely that it will also make a difference and that it will also be able to transform the institution. That's not going to happen by just making an effort to add more women.
We use a term in feminist research that you can't “add women and stir”. You can't add them, like you would add sugar to tea, and stir and expect a different result. That's what I'm anxious about, but on the face of it, there's nothing wrong with spending that money to improve access to training and make efforts at recruitment. I don't have a problem with that.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
The objective of our peacekeeping study is to present recommendations back to the government. What recommendations would you give us to give back to the government as regards women in peacekeeping?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
I would say to try to change institutional cultures at a deeper level. Changing institutional cultures that foster behaviours like harassment and bullying will make a much bigger difference, because if we leave intact the structures that are problematic, then having more women added to those structures won't actually change the institution. Women in small numbers will either look away or become part of that larger structure.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
That is what you argued in your thesis.
You're arguing from a perspective of diversity—that it's the diversity that's going to make it better—as opposed to the specific gender, because there's no paternal measure to this. Would you argue that broad diversity is just as important as gender diversity?
11:50 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
Hugely. In fact, all the research that has been done, even on peacekeeping operations, suggests that all of those things matter. It matters much more to have race, gender, education, language, nationality all factored in. I think it's really important to think of diversity in intersectional terms—you can be a woman and also be a person of colour, as I am. I think those identities are very important to consider, but then the danger is in assigning specific categories to people. When you read transcripts, for example, from the British when they were in India, they wanted to recruit Sikhs because they said they were a martial race. How offensive is that today, that Sikhs are good fighters because they're a martial race. To me, we would obviously never go anywhere with that argument. I find it a little troubling when that same argument can still be used, because it's an affirmative essentialism about women, and I don't think it does us any good.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you for coming. I found your presentation and your thesis very compelling and interesting.
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Thank you.
You're right on time, Mr. Gerretsen.
MP Boucher, the floor is yours.
11:50 a.m.
Sylvie Boucher Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix, CPC
I will split my time with my friends here, and I will try to do it in French.
I find your comments very interesting. I'm one of those women who think like you. In fact, you say that women should be able to engage in peacekeeping for the same reasons as men, without being charged with civilizing operations or making them more effective.
As a women, I have a little difficulty accepting the use of the word “woman” when making reforms. It gives the impression that we are second-rate. In my opinion, equality is about being a female member of Parliament in the same way as my male colleagues. I don't need a document to use the female gender because I know I am as good as my male colleagues.
Can the fact that we absolutely want to specify gender bring certain difficulties to women who, like me, think we are equal to men?
Gentlemen, I'm sorry, but sometimes I think women are superior to men in many ways, because we give birth for instance.
Can naming gender in a document give women the impression that we are doing it precisely to push them back and lead them where we want?
11:55 a.m.
Professor, University of Western Ontario, As an Individual
I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. When a group of people have been under-represented significantly in an institution, then I think saying we should treat everyone equally doesn't make any sense because that group has been historically under-represented. By that I don't mean that we should be putting people who are not qualified or trained into those jobs. That's where they get into so much trouble with affirmative action in the U.S., for example, because people hear those words and assume that you're going to be putting people who are unqualified and untrained in these positions. Of course we have to make sure that people who are joining these institutions are fully trained and equal, but I think it's that difference between equality and equity.
Sometimes I use the image where you have one person who is six feet tall, one person who is five foot eight, and one person who is four foot 11. They're trying to see something in the distance and looking over a wall. Obviously, the person who is six feet tall has a really nice view, but if we talk about equality, treating people equally, they should all be standing on the same level. If you want to talk about equity, you have to give a slightly higher platform to the person who is only four foot 11 to be able to see it.
When organizations so clearly have one group of people who have been under-represented, I think the equality argument is quite deceptive, in the sense that of course people are equal. Politically, we're equal. But in that particular case, because one group has been historically marginalized, when we start thinking about how we increase diversity in that organization, it's not enough to treat everyone equally, because if you treat everyone equally you're just going to prolong the status quo. You have to make a special effort to give people who have been under-represented.... That's not charity. You're not doing it because these people are weaker or need help. You're doing it to compensate for historical and contemporary marginalization.
Thank you.
