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.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
Again, to use the example of our ambassador in New York, if he were speaking to the Security Council, I'm guessing very strongly that he would use the term “children in armed conflict”, because he would be at a debate on children in armed conflict.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
Thank you.
Ms. Mathyssen, we're through our third round, but I would expect that you want some time to wrap up.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
I appreciate that very much, Madam Chair.
I will say that the report is tabled, and I'm very pleased to have had that opportunity.
Forgive me for having had to leave. I have been told that you had some recommendations you were in the process of making. I believe they had to do with gender-based analysis and so on. Of course, we're very much interested in the accountability piece, because I think it's already been stated in many ways that when ministers of the crown stand up and speak, the words and language they use sets out government policy, not just for Canadians but for the world.
I'm wondering about those recommendations you might have.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
Thank you.
Again, I have a long list of recommendations, but the recommendations I could make that would require no additional financial resources would be, first of all, that there be positions specifically earmarked as specialists or policy advisers on gender equality. As I said in response to one of the previous questions, if the position is defined as being about human rights policy, you may have someone who is very expert in other areas of human rights policy. We should have those people, but we also need to have people who can speak to gender equality norms.
Second is that we implement the recommendation provided by the Auditor General in her report on gender-based analysis, which is that we conduct gender-based analysis of policy and programming.
Third, which is again a recommendation from the Auditor General's report in 2009, is that gender-based analysis be part of the evaluation of the programs tasked with implementing those international commitments to gender equality so that the success or failure of a program is defined, in part, in terms of the outcome of that analysis.
Again, this speaks to the accountability piece. Not only do we have the analysis, but when programs are deemed to have been successful--or not--part of the term, for programs where it's appropriate, where we're dealing with international norms related to gender equality.... Their success and failure is measured in part on the success or failure of the implementation of these norms related to gender equality in things like the government's own national action plan on women, peace, and security.
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
I appreciate that. It is up to countries like Canada to set the example, to set the stage. If we want to see improvements for women in Afghanistan and the situation in which they find themselves and their children, we have to be prepared to step up to the plate. I'll leave it at that. I don't want to repeat questions that have already been asked.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
I have only one more speaker, and that's Madame Demers. Then we'll go in camera for some committee business.
Bloc
Nicole Demers Bloc Laval, QC
I have one last question for Ms. McInturff or Ms. Bulger.
If in the Republic of the Congo a young woman goes into a police station to tell a policeman that she knows that he released a person who was accused of rape and that he had no right to do so, what difference does it make if Canada changes its terminology and talks about prevention rather than about responsibility and impunity? What difference does it make for that woman in the Congo if Canada has changed its terminology? She can still go to the police station and remind the policeman that he took part in the training session and that he knows that that man is guilty. Explain to me why the young woman could not act in the same way as she could before.
Executive Director, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action
I know that Ms. Bulger mentioned the changes around the term “impunity”--is that right?--in relation to sexual violence in DRC. With that example, as part of the international community that is engaged in security reform, if the training.... Let's imagine that Canada was offering this training or was part of a group of countries offering this training to police and other members of the security sector in Congo. If that training didn't use the term “impunity”, then in fact there would likely be no discussion of impunity. I mean, if you're not using the term, I don't know what else you would say.
That would mean that when Justine walked into the police station, in the example I gave you, there might have been a different result. She's not tall and she's shouting at a big guy with a gun in a setting where there are armed forces. There's regular violence occurring. She's saying to him that he knows he can't do this, that there cannot be impunity for sexual violence, and that it means he must prosecute people for this crime. If that term and the norm and values embodied in the behaviour embodied in that term aren't there, then it would be perfectly reasonable for him to say that it depends, that there are conditions, that sometimes it's okay. It would be the opposite of impunity to say, “In some cases, we let people go, because you have to understand the context”. That's the difference I can see it making.
Former Executive Director, MATCH International, As an Individual
I'm not sure of the exact process, but I think countries come up on a rotating basis. Every four years or so, people feed into the human rights issues that they're concerned about, and it's taken to the UN. I think there are different levels to intervene on: the individual, the community, the policy, the politics, and international relations. In respect of the brutalities and situations of violence, Canada has an opportunity to feed into the country's record, and that is vetted in the appropriate place at the UN.
I think it does matter. It's a matter of collecting the information and ensuring that it's fed into the proper places, and that the people responsible are named and shamed. That can happen at multiple levels.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
I would like to thank both witnesses.
Ms. Mathyssen, do you have a last question?
NDP
Irene Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
No, I would only like to say that this provides some balance, and we desperately needed balance in this discussion.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Cathy McLeod
I'd like to thank both witnesses.
We'll suspend for two minutes and go in camera for committee business.
[Proceedings continue in camera]