Evidence of meeting #41 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 foreign.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
No. What I'm presenting here is based on the evaluation of—and I don't have time to do the math—47 speeches from the minister; three open debates on women, peace and security; six statements on international law; 10 speeches on human rights—
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
—20 national action plans—
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Lois Brown Conservative Newmarket—Aurora, ON
Is any of that same terminology used in 47 speeches of previous Ministers of Foreign Affairs...?
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
I didn't do comparisons to previous ministers, and I'll tell you why. I think the important question is whether or not our current policy is in step with the international norm-building on these norms. That's why I did the comparison of national action plans. So I looked at 19 other countries' national action plans on women, peace, and security, compared to our own.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
Thank you so much.
We're on to our second round, which will be a five-minute round.
We will start with Ms. Simson.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank both the witnesses for coming. This has been a much more informative session than Tuesday's. I did lead off the questioning, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with a change in policy.
My question related to terminology—and I have the testimony here— and how a change in terminology could affect or could indicate a change in policy, upon which the witness, Mr. Kessel, launched into an attack on the analyst and was extremely rude, demeaning, and insulting in his testimony. That's precisely how I see it. There was no antagonism on the part of my question. I greeted him as I would any other.
I'd like to pick up on what my colleague Ms. Demers said, because now we're into a situation where, quite frankly, it wasn't misleading--what Mr. Kessel had to say was totally inaccurate. In a subsequent article in Embassy magazine, the minister himself is interviewed and admits to the fact that the terminologies have in fact changed.
Because Mr. Kessel was so abrasive and so utterly defensive, I'd like both of you, one at a time, to elaborate a little bit more on what this potentially could mean to Canada on the international stage with respect to the child soldier, and also international humanitarian law, and on the fact that “humanitarian” has been dropped from usage or is used a lot less.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Former Executive Director, MATCH International, As an Individual
Again, I think it just seemingly looks like Canada is not the compassionate leader in terms of our international reputation. I think, as mentioned before about the child soldier, our generosity seems to be eroding in both these instances by taking out the word “humanitarian”, as as well not linking “soldier” with “child”. I just think our international reputation as a compassionate, caring country that traditionally has been a pioneer in terms of well-being, human rights, and peacekeeping and that kind of thing is diminished.
It's unfortunate, because I think we've really enjoyed a well-respected reputation. I think to continue that, to build on our past...I don't think we can get there by becoming more ruthless, uncaring, and mean-spirited.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
Michelle Simson Liberal Scarborough Southwest, ON
Ms. McInturff, just before you answer the question, I did have one request. Is there a possibility that you could supply us with the full list of the speeches and any documents with respect to dates? Because I'd be curious as to when this really started occurring and if we're seeing an acceleration...if you wouldn't mind.
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
I would be happy to supply them. I would need a couple of days to arrange translation.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
9:40 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
I'll just clarify, too, a point from the previous discussion: that what I did here was quantitative. It was counting. It wasn't a question of opinion; it was just math.
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
9:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
I'd be very happy to provide those.
What does this mean for Canada on an international stage? Well, what I would say is that in my opinion—and I should say that I'm not a lawyer, but I do have some experience with norm-building—one of the really important ways in which international norms come to be accepted and put into practice is through the reiteration of those norms.
You'll see this at the beginning of most Security Council and other UN resolutions. They begin by citing and recognizing previous norms—and I'm out of time. This reiteration is very important, and reiteration in the same terms of the previous norms, so we don't really undermine—
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
We will have time to pick up on that train later if the questioner so chooses.
Madame Boucher, five minutes, please.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Good morning, ladies. I apologize, I've lost my voice.
This is very interesting, although very disturbing, as Ms. Demers was saying. When Mr. Kessel came here, and I don't want impugn his motives, he did say that the terminology had remained the same, both under the Liberal government and the current government. In addition, Ms. Michelle Simson asked you to provide certain speeches, in both official languages if possible, so that we can see what the terminology was at the outset and whether changes were made.
That is what you asked for, correct?
I am going to ask you for the same thing, but from 2003 to 2010. I want to make sure...
9:45 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I don't think the committee can assign research tasks to witnesses. If we want additional research done, then I think it's up to us to ask our Library of Parliament researchers to do it.
Thank you.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
Sylvie Boucher Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
I'm going to ask the researchers to... That would help us to understand what you have been saying to us from the beginning. Perhaps it would also help us to better understand certain other things. We need to obtain the speeches of all the ministers of Foreign Affairs and International Trade from 2003 to today, to at least verify the terms that they used.
Since this seems both very interesting and very disturbing to me, I'm going to ask you a question. I suppose that you have heard and read a lot of speeches in the course of your research. When a minister delivers a speech and repeats the same terms often, does that necessarily mean... How can I explain what I'm thinking? If there is a change in the terminology used by their department...
Even we MPs, when we address the House, sometimes use the terms that we are most familiar with. According to you, if we don't always use the same terms, does that necessarily mean that there has been a change in policy in a department?
9:45 a.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
I think the first thing I would say is that I'm not really the best person to answer that question. That's really a question for people who have experience working with the cabinet and within those departments. The public servants would be better positioned; they have experience with that connection between the minister's speeches and their own work. I'll leave it at that. I don't think I'm qualified to answer that question.
9:50 a.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. McInturff, earlier, in the reply you gave to my colleague Ms. Nicole Demers, you said that to your knowledge, this change in terminology has or will have important consequences for women and girls.
I would like you to provide further detail on that aspect of the reply you gave to Ms. Demers.
I also have another question to ask you. Afterwards, I will give you the rest of the time to reply to it. I'd like to know what sparked this realization for you. At what point did you realize that there had been change in terminology and that that change had brought about important changes, as you were saying, for women and girls?