Status of Women Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

[Caroline Leclerc]

In terms of the impact of using “gender equality” or “equality between women and men”, no, there were not. Whether we used one term or the other did not have implications for the way that policy evolved.

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

Okay, but I still have to underscore, Madam Chair, that what ministers said, what governments said, affected policy in terms of Canada's behaviour on the international scene.

I'm going to switch gears here.

Madame Breton-Le Goff, when Ms. Neville was asking questions about the interchangeable use of language, you had your hand up, but you didn't get an opportunity to speak. I would like to give you that opportunity.

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

Thank you, Madam.

As Mr. Kessel said, it is true that in international treaties, terms like “the equal right of men and women” are used to refer to non-discrimination. These terms are found in the international covenant on civil and political rights, and similar language is used in the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, as well as in the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.

What matters is not necessarily the interchangeability of the terms, but rather what comes with the term. It's important because that is what may raise questions about gender, and may, for example, challenge the social and family roles assigned to each sex. Take, for example, a text of the United Nations Commission on the status of women. It is entitled The equal sharing of responsibilities between women and men, including caregiving in the context of HIV/AIDS.

The debate had to do with the responsibilities of men and women within the family unit. What is the upshot? It is not just about a formalistic equal sharing of tasks between men and women, with the men doing 50% of household tasks and the women doing the other 50%. No! It's about questioning the traditional roles assigned to each sex, roles which are ultimately forms of power in relationships between the sexes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

Ms. McLeod is next, for the Conservatives.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think I want to bring this down to its being a study on language changes at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. Again, I believe we only have three areas around which we've perhaps heard concerns. For two of the areas—gender equity and the equality between women and men—I am very comfortable with the interchangeable use, and I hear strongly that it's not impacting programs, policies, or where we're going as a country. As to the words around the international...the children in armed conflict, again I think that has been very well described.

I guess my final comment or point is the discussion around “impunity” versus “prevention”. I talked to the lofty goals of prevention. I think it's absolutely incredible that anyone could suggest that there's anyone in this committee or in Parliament who is not absolutely horrified and who does not believe that Canada should be doing everything they should in terms of some of the things that are happening in the Congo, for example.

So I guess I would put that final language around “impunity” versus how we talk about “prevention”, and of course, to me prevention is a big envelope, and under it are all sorts of different strategies around how you ultimately prevent such horrific abuses in countries. Could you maybe talk a little bit about that particular aspect?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Only superficially.... I'd like to bring to your attention CIDA's strategy on securing a future for children and youth. The strategy has three paths for action, and the third path is that of ensuring safety and security of children and youth.

The strategy does a really good assessment of the impacts of “conflict and fragility” on women and on children. It's a core part of the strategy to address safety issues for women and children in conflict areas. It is something that is very relevant to CIDA programming, and that is part of our current policy and programming as we implement the children and youth strategy.

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

I have no more questions, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

We have an opportunity to go to a third round for three minutes. We're due to finish this particular part of the meeting at 10:15 and then we have committee business to do for the next half hour.

I will extend it for three minutes. If you do not have any more questions to ask, you could pass. But I think we have some people who have put their names forward.

Ms. Neville, for the Liberals, three minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

My question is to Ms. Breton-Le Goff. I missed part of your presentation, and you may have spoken to this—you have spoken a little already—but I'm wondering if you can elaborate further on the language of “gender equality” versus “equality of men and women” within the context of international humanitarian law.

[Prof. Gaëlle Breton-Le Goff]

Within the framework of international law, gender equality goes beyond a mere bookkeeping equality that would aim at establishing, for example, quotas for the representation of women in a parliament or within the armed forces, or peacekeeping forces.

Gender equality will require, beyond a purely numerical analysis, that we review the nature of the functions of these women who were permitted, for example, to have positions within the armed forces or to discharge responsibilities within mediation teams, for instance, such as those that were implemented by the Secretary General of the United Nations or in the operational commands of the United Nations. There is a common command, and then, of course, there are national military contingents.

We want to know the real criteria that allow these women to occupy positions of responsibility that are equivalent to those occupied by men in general. Now, we know, especially in the context of the peacekeeping forces, that the military world is extremely virile by nature. In fact, it greatly glorifies heroism and courage, the courage being that of a soldier bearing arms.

In military history, the role of women has been considered of very little value in wars or in conflicts, apart from the role that they have sometimes played as nurses, for example, or sometimes as spies.

Let us go beyond the anecdotes. Gender equality does not merely consist in having the same number of women and men in a contingent or a command, it means having women occupying positions of equal responsibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I have Ms. Brown, from the Conservatives, for three minutes.

Please make sure you fit that in. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I was just looking something up.

Ms. Leclerc, I wonder if you can tell us who the minister for status of women was in 1999?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I can answer that: I was.

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

Thank you very much.

Has there been any change from the language that was used in 1999 to 2010?

[Caroline Leclerc]

In CIDA policy and programming, no.

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

You tell us there has been no change in language use or the outcome. Mr. Kessel told us there's no change in language or the direction.

You know, the sign of a good teacher is always that you can say the same concept many times until people grasp the concept; when you're working with children, oftentimes you have to go over the same material from a multiple number of angles to get the point across.

I guess what we're hearing here is that we've heard from you and we've heard from Mr. Kessel that there's no change. I just wonder how many times we have to say this same...you can't take yes for an answer. I just wonder how many times we have to say this: that there's no change in policy, there's no change in direction, and there has been no change since the minister was in place in 1999.

Thank you. It's just a comment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

You're right. That was not a question. That was a comment.

Madame Demers for the Bloc.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, let me remind my colleague that I have worked in the field of education. It is certainly an environment in which I have been fortunate enough to participate, and where she has not been. I know that there are good teachers and I know that there are bad teachers. I know that some teachers use time-tested methods and others do not use them. I know that there are teachers who use science and Ms. Breton-Le Goff has certainly used some very well-tested science to tell us what she knows about the changes that have been made and reported. It is not sufficient for two persons to say that there has been no change to conclude that there was no change. Madam Chair, let me submit to you that there has certainly been change, because far more than two people have told us that change has taken place.

Ms. Leclerc, we were told that in 2009, some changes were made in the CIDA subsidy applications and that you changed the applications by asking the organizations to strike out the term “gender equity”. Is it true that you asked the organizations to strike out the term “gender equity” from applications for subsidies?

[Caroline Leclerc]

I could not confirm this information.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Ms. Leclerc or Mr. Bélec, could you tell us why MATCH international stopped receiving subsidies from CIDA after 34 years, in 2010?

[Caroline Leclerc]

I can neither comment nor confirm this decision.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

As opposed to what Ms. Brownce told us this morning, you cannot tell us much about this.

[Caroline Leclerc]

I cannot discuss this subject.