Status of Women Committee on Dec. 2nd, 2010

[Kate McInturff]

Let me speak to the first question on the language changes and what the impact might be on the lives of women and girls.

I'll give you an example of a woman who I've had the pleasure of working with. Her name is Justine Bihamba. She is a woman from the Democratic Republic of Congo, from the eastern part of Congo, where there has been ongoing conflict for over a decade. One of the tactics of that conflict is the use of sexual violence.

I don't think I can put into words the kinds of horrific acts of sexual violence that have been perpetrated against the people of that region. Her work is to assist the victims of sexual violence, those who live through the attacks, and to attempt to prevent, as much as she is able to, incidents of sexual violence.

There is a link between prosecuting crimes of sexual violence and decreasing sexual violence. If we prosecute it, then we send a message that it's not legitimate, and there is a fear of reprisal. There is a documentary made about her work. In it, you see her go into a police station, where a police officer has just let someone go who was accused of rape. She says to him, “I know that you know you can't do that, because I know you went to that training course on the prosecution of sexual violence and the end of impunity for sexual violence”.

She can say that and she has that leverage with him because he went to the training course. He understood his duty, and she understood his duty in those terms, with that language. That gives her the leverage to attempt to make a difference in the lives of the women and girls who are experiencing immense suffering. That's a small anecdote to clarify how language changes can lead to real impacts on the well-being of those living in conflict.

The spark of the change, I can't speak to. As I said, I was an academic and I haven't been doing this work for the many decades that some others have, so I don't feel that I can give you a good answer. I can only tell you what is the case now, and that's what I've tried to do.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

When did you realize that? What event specifically led you to wonder about this, and to observe this change?

[Kate McInturff]

I can answer from my own experience.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Yes, that is what I'm after.

[Kate McInturff]

This isn't a comprehensive analysis. In my own experience, I noticed the changes that occurred during the reorganization in 2008 at Foreign Affairs. I should say that I became aware of them because I was part of an organization that was applying for funding.

This organization had applied for funding before, and we became aware that the money that previously had been earmarked for women, peace, and security was no longer earmarked in this way. We were competing with people working on several different areas. In fact, we were encouraged to work with someone who worked with children and armed conflict, and to submit a joint project, which we did.

That's when it became clear to me. We noticed that the people we had worked with before were not there anymore and that their positions were not being filled by other people. The positions were going away.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

The NDP's spot will be reserved until Ms. Mathyssen gets back.

No one from the Conservatives would like to speak?

We'll go to our third round with Mr. Simms.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Hello to everyone. It's the first time I've been here in quite some time. It's as lively as usual.

Welcome to our guests.

To start, for the record I would like to say that tomorrow being December 3--I'm from Newfoundland and Labrador--we're swearing in our first-ever female premier. I don't know if this makes history or not, though I suspect it does, but there are three political parties in Newfoundland, and all three--NDP, Liberal, and Progressive Conservative--are led by women.

[Applause]

I talk to people about it, and a lot of people, instead of saying “way to go” or “congratulations”, say, “About time”.

I don't know if my question is germane to the material in front of me, but it's something that has always occurred to me about language. It's not so much about language in describing a policy, but language about condemnation.

Just two days ago, I read an article about a woman who was executed in Iran. What I noticed was that the language to condemn this was just not strong enough to me. I found that some of the countries, including our own.... Is our country as strong as others in condemning these actions? It seems to me that the charges that were brought upon this person--which she was convicted of and died of--were the result of situations of relationships she had with men, being subservient to men, and so on and so forth, for whatever reason--religion or anything else.

It just struck me that it just wasn't harsh enough in our condemnations, and to me, that's a question of language, not just the action that followed. Could you comment on that? Is that something you've looked at within a study or informally?

[Kim Bulger]

I think it does matter. If we look at the circumstances in which the government shows its outrage, I think we're all kind of...we know it. I think what's happening--and I may be skirting your issues--is just the parallels between how we have traditionally coined women as madonnas or the polar opposite, and now with children as criminals or victims.... Doing that really doesn't show the complexity of people and of women's and children's lives. It doesn't show the whole spectrum.

I agree with you. I think the language we use when we condemn really connotes when we're really offended by something and when we're mildly kind of annoyed. That's what particularly bothers me about the prevention part of the sexual violence thing. Prevention is a bit in the health spectrum; it doesn't have the judicial kind of model or undergirding necessary for recourse dealing with sexual violence. To me, prevention sounds like such a mild-mannered way to deal with sexual violence and the brutality that women experience.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

That's it exactly, because I'm reading this, and I'm thinking this woman was executed because of a social norm, not even for a crime that she perpetrated or for taking someone else's life. And yet I'm reading this on page 6. Is that our fault to a certain degree, as far as awareness is concerned?

[Kim Bulger]

I think it's again a question of who matters. I think it was out west--and maybe some of the MPs know this better--but how many aboriginals committed suicide before it became even a news story? If that would have happened to white middle-class men, it would have been front page news. I think it does go back to who matters in this world, in our lives, and in our communities, and who doesn't, and who gets headlines and who doesn't. I agree with you: for that to be on page 6...it's an outrage, really.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

You have 20 seconds.

[Kate McInturff]

I can't speak to Canada's responsibility on this, and I haven't studied the issue of condemnation, but I can say that one of the primary ways in which international norms come into force is through naming and shaming.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Is there no one from the Conservatives for the next round?

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

Let me just respond to that, Madam Chair. I don't really have a question, but to follow up on condemnation, certainly our government has made every attempt in the situation in Iran to condemn Iran for the actions they have taken, particularly as they relate to Ms. Ashtiani, who was condemned.

Certainly there have been people of high profile who have taken issue with this. Megan--I am sorry, but her name escapes me at the moment--the woman from Indigo Books, along with the wife of the Prime Minister, took a very strong stand on that, so I believe that--

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

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

No, no. I am just saying that as Canadians I think there is a responsibility to condemn these actions, and certainly words are used to condemn those actions, and I believe we have, Whether it gets a front page profile or not is not within the purview of the government. It is media that make that decision.

It would be really nice if we could see some of those things brought to the forefront, but without our own media.... We have freedom of the press here, and we value freedom of the press as Canadians. So seeing that on page 6...it should sadden all of us that it isn't getting more profile.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

We will now go to Madame Demers.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

You had a point of order, Mr. Simms?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

I'm sorry. Did you have a point of order?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

No. I wanted to make a point of clarification, if it's okay to respond to that. Can I?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

This is not a debate between members.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I understand. Was that an official...?

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

That was her five-minute time slot, for which we allow some latitude concerning how people use their five-minute time slot as long as it's focused on the topic.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

I understand. I apologize.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Cathy McLeod]

Madame Demers, we'll start you over.