Status of Women Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I would ask our officials, Monsieur Bélec and Madame Leclerc, whether they have had an opportunity to read the transcripts of our previous meetings.

You've also had an opportunity to hear Madam Breton-Le Goff. Can you tell us if what you've heard today and read in the previous transcripts reflects reality from your perspective?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have reviewed the transcript of the appearance of Mr. Kessel. We have also read the articles from Embassy. The majority of the facts, or the allegations in the articles, and the substance of Mr. Kessel's testimony, pertained to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They're not immediately relevant to CIDA. If you had any specific questions with respect to terminology at CIDA, we could probably address them, but otherwise, the issues raised are not really within our mandate.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I heard Madame Breton-Le Goff talk about Minister Oda in some of her testimony earlier. Are there any comments you'd like to make about her testimony?

[Caroline Leclerc]

No.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay. I know that we're into some word counting. I believe that everyone already has the statement of the Honourable Helena Guergis at the 54th session of the United Nations and the addresses of Minister of State Kent. As I go through them, I see that the words seem to be very interchangeable. The analysts have these already in terms of doing their word count, so again, we'll look at where we end up.

From my perspective, it comes down to three terms that have created concerns. One, of course, is “child soldier” or “child in armed conflict”, which we seem to have had a good discussion around. It really relates to the international language and how it's used. The term “child in armed conflict” is used in formal settings, but “child soldier” can be used in more informal settings.

To me, a more lofty goal is “prevention” of sexual violence in some of these countries. Absolutely, “impunity” is important, and when you train soldiers, you need to talk about impunity, but is prevention actually our more lofty goal?

The third term, of course, is “gender equality” versus “equality of women and men”. I haven't picked out any other terms that are of concern.

Could you speak to those again, perhaps, Madame Leclerc?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Perhaps the one we can speak to, which is very relevant to CIDA policy and programming, is gender equality and equality between men and women.

You were right in saying that these terms are used interchangeably in CIDA policy. On our website, the page on gender equality actually starts with these words: “Equality between women and men or gender equality--”. It points out that this term is used interchangeably.

Also, if you go back to CIDA's gender equality policy, which has been in place since 1999 and is still valid--it was just revitalized about a year ago--the policy states, “The goal of CIDA's gender equality policy is to support the achievement of equality between women and men to ensure sustainable development”.

You will see those terms used interchangeably in CIDA policy and programming documents.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

So having indicated that the language is more or less interchangeable, I think part of the premise is that by changing the language--which, as I say, I'm not sure has actually been changed--we're also in some ways not being very respectful of moving the agenda forward.

So can you talk about what Canada has done recently to advance the cause of women, and do you believe that the interchangeable terminology of gender equity or equality between men and women has interfered with these initiatives?

[Caroline Leclerc]

I can try to address this question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have a minute and a half to do so.

[Caroline Leclerc]

I'll be very quick.

Our appearance today was a bit last-minute, so I did a lot of research last night on our website and in our policy documents to see whether I could find any truth to these allegations. I actually found that our gender equality policy and our programming on gender equality is as vital and vibrant as ever. The policy was evaluated in 2008, and the agency just issued an action plan to address some of the weaknesses found in the evaluation.

The evaluation findings were quite positive. Canada is still seen as a pioneer in promoting gender equality worldwide. Gender equality is a cross-cutting theme throughout all of our programs, projects, and policy.

What we've done in our action plan is improve some of the tools we have to do gender-based analysis in order to identify results throughout all of our projects and programs and to find a way to better promote gender equality with some of our partners--for example, through core funding. So I don't think we would have noticed any sort of dampening of CIDA's leadership in gender equality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you. We still have about 20 seconds, if anybody...? No?

Then we'll move on to Ms. Mathyssen for the NDP.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

However, I would like to go back to the e-mail that Madam Simson made note of, because, quite frankly, as much as I welcome CIDA here, I have a feeling that we have the wrong people here. We need to have political personnel, because this seems to me to be very political.

As I said, I'll go back to the e-mail. It says, “Some of the changes suggested by oMINA”--meaning language related to human rights, child soldiers, international humanitarian law--“are more than simply stylistic changes”. It goes on to say, “So far we have largely been managing these issues as they come in on a case by case basis”.

To be quite frank, I feel as though I'm being managed. I feel very strongly that there is an exercise going on in regard to lowballing the impact of these changes when we should be very concerned about them. Having said that, I do have some specific questions.

My first is to Madam Leclerc and Monsieur Bélec. I have a document here talking about CIDA's overall financial resources for gender equality. It says, “CIDA's total of GE investments (both GE-specific and GE-integrated programming) was $793 million or 4.7% of the $16.9 billion in CIDA-managed ODA between 1998 and 2005”.

I'm wondering what it is now. What is the investment in terms of gender equality right now? Do you know?

[Caroline Leclerc]

I wouldn't know the number specifically. Actually, that's part of our action plan. Something we've already done is to introduce a better way to be able to track investments in gender equality, and you can imagine the challenges of tracking a sector that is cross-cutting. In tracking the gender equality component of a program in education or in health, you are sort of double-counting the money every time. We have the system in place now to improve the tracking of our resources.

I know that before the system was put in place there was well over $1 billion of CIDA spending annually that was either gender specific or that had a gender component. That would be about 40% of CIDA spending. What I should probably do is go back to the department to see whether the information you're requesting is available. We could provide this to the committee.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I would appreciate that. I think that might be helpful.

I'm looking at another document. This was provided by FAFIA. It's basically a list in reference to the national action plan on United Nations Security Council resolutions on women, peace, and security. The list talks about how countries use the phrase “gender equality” or the word “gender”, and the total uses of either that term or the phrase. For example, the Netherlands makes reference to gender 123 times in its literature; Switzerland is at 42; Uganda, 129 times; and for Canada, it's twice.

Is this significant? Is this something that should raise a concern for this committee, this fact that the word or the phrase is missing from the terminology of those acting on behalf of Canada?

Madame Breton-Le Goff, have you any comment?

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

Yes, I think that is significant, if only internationally, as regards the countries we traditionally work with.

We have solid partnerships, namely with Holland, but also with Sweden and Belgium. Not using the same language that has been put in place over the years is not insignificant internationally. The term "gender" was not accepted overnight. Having it accepted was a long process. It started with gender mainstreaming at the United Nations. Next, the biggest battle on accepting and introducing the term "gender" in an international document took place at the International Criminal Court.

I remind you that when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was negotiated, the Canadian delegation was one of the delegations that actually defended including the term "gender" in the Rome Statute. That was in 1998. Twelve years later, what do we see in official documents? The removal of the term "gender". That is the first sign internationally.

I must also add a word about the need to conduct more in-depth studies on how that translates, practically speaking, in the implementation and definition of policies.

For the time being, personally, I cannot comment on that issue.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

It's interesting—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I'll comment, then. It's interesting that the fight seems to have gone out of us, even in the face of what can only be described as horrifying evidence of sexual violence in places where there is conflict. I find that most disturbing.

I'll ask my other questions later, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We're going to a second round.

[Michelle Simson, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Excuse me, Madam Chair, I don't mean to interrupt, but I think it's probably timely. I'd like to table a motion with respect to this particular study we're currently on.

It's based on the fact that--

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Excuse me, Ms. Simson. We will table the motion until after this round, because it's out of order now. We have witnesses and it's not appropriate for them to be here when we debate a motion.

The second round is for five minutes. Again, questions and answers are included.

We will begin with, for the Liberals, Ms. Neville, but before Ms. Neville begins and before you set the clock, Clerk, I just wanted to suggest that Ms. Leclerc made it very clear what she could answer from her department. I think we should therefore ensure that if we wish to get responses from the two witnesses from CIDA, we should be asking them questions pertaining to CIDA and CIDA's language and agenda, rather DFAIT's, which they cannot answer because they're not from DFAIT.

I just wanted to comment on that if you want answers. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not sure whether.... I'll go ahead, and you can decide.

Thank you for being here. My apologies for being late. The little green bus was slow, to put it mildly.

On this notorious e-mail we have that was the basis of the Embassy magazine article, I want to quote something from the author of it. He said:

And only this morning...

He names the colleague. It continues:

...and I discussed the term 'gender equality' with oMINA, to be informed that the current 'lexicon' is instead 'equality of men and women', which actually takes something away from the internationally used terminology (as well as being cumbersome and awkward).

He then goes on to say:

It is...not entirely clear to us why oMINA advisers are making such changes, and whether they have a full grasp of the potential impact on [Canadian] policy in asking for some changes to phrases and concepts that have been accepted internationally and used for some time.

There's a lot more I could quote, but I won't.

I guess my question is for CIDA. Is the language of “gender equality” now--as opposed to “equality of men and women”--used interchangeably? You referenced it earlier, but is it used interchangeably in CIDA? What are the implications in terms of the international language and international world if it is?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the question.

Yes, you're right, as I have stated earlier, it is used interchangeably in CIDA policy documents. It's also—

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

Can I interrupt you for a moment? When did that change come about? Is it recent? Is it 2002, 2006, 2010...? When did this change come about?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Well, I'm not sure it's a change, but CIDA's gender equality policy has evolved over 30 years. I think our first guidelines on women in development were adopted in 1976. The current policy on gender equality came into place in 1999 and it has been in place since then. This policy has moved from women in development to gender equality as a way to achieve equality between women and men. We have been using these words interchangeably since 1999.

It is on our website, so you will see both of these terms in our communications tools. I wouldn't know when this text on the website that says “gender equality” or “equality between women and men” was put up. But certainly—I've been at CIDA five years—I've seen these terms used interchangeably.

It really depends for us in which forum we are. In some places we'll use “gender equality” and in some places we'll use “equality between women and men”. So it's probably, for us, just for ease of communication.