Status of Women Committee on Dec. 7th, 2010

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

I just have a few minutes.

My question is, how do you determine for which forum you use the language? Do you agree with the writer of this e-mail that there's a significant impact on Canadian policy in asking for the changes that have been accepted internationally and in use for some time? You say they're not a change, so is there an impact on the use of them internationally? Because a concern about using them is clearly articulated here.

[Caroline Leclerc]

I can't speak to any impact that this e-mail would have had on foreign policy, as it pertains to the mandate of Foreign Affairs and it comes from Foreign Affairs.

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

I'm asking about CIDA.

[Caroline Leclerc]

In terms of CIDA, because the terms are used interchangeably, there has been no change in policy or programming because of the use of one or either of these terms. Our gender equality policy is still valid, and it's actually being implemented very actively throughout the department.

You will see reflections of that in, for example, the thematic strategies that were announced over the last year and a half. For example, in terms of food security, there is a component for women; in terms of children and youth, the implications for women are very well reflected; and it's the same thing in our secure economic growth strategy. So each of these thematic strategies brings out the gender equality component.

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

I have a question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

That's it. I'm sorry, Ms. Neville.

Madame Boucher, for the Conservatives.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Good morning.

I would like to ask my colleagues for unanimous consent to have access to the e-mail before it is translated. Do you agree? I would like to have it in English. I must ask for it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

According to the process, the clerk cannot distribute it unless it is translated.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Yes, but I have the right to ask for unanimous consent.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I'm going to ask for unanimous consent now, then.

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

There's no unanimous consent. I'm sorry.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I can't read it in English; I want to have it in French.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Well, I tried.

I have two questions. I am going to be sharing my time with Lois Brown. You know that Mr. Kessel negotiated for Canada, in Rome, for gender equality in 1999. People should keep that in mind.

Ms. Leclerc, you said that since 1999, there has been a change in how things are expressed. You have been at CIDA for a number of years. Have you seen many changes over the years at CIDA? In your experience, has this happened in the past? Is it normal for CIDA to change the terminology to reflect current reality? As a result, is it reasonable to think that these changes occur periodically?

[Caroline Leclerc]

Thank you.

I would just like to clarify something. I cannot say that I have observed any changes. However, I do note that in 1999, the gender equality policy recognized both terms, both of which were in use and interchangeable. Since 1999, both of these terms have been recognized in CIDA policy.

As for the vocabulary in the articles in question, I have to say that I have not seen any change in terminology in CIDA's policy or programs.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

The fact that they are interchangeable has not in any way changed CIDA policy, whether it refers to sexual equality or gender equality. You are saying that they are interchangeable, under your policy, they mean the same thing.

[Caroline Leclerc]

That's right.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, that was the question I wanted to ask.

Ms. Brown, over to you.

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

Thank you very much.

I just want to read something for you. Obviously I don't have to submit it in both English and French. I'd like to read from the words of Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Union, on the occasion of 10 years of the European Women Lawyers Association, in Brussels, June 3, 2010:

I am happy to say that equality between women and men is also strongly affirmed in the provisions of the new Lisbon Treaty. Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union affirms “a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail”. Article 3 says the Union shall promote equality between women and men. Finally, Article 8 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union specifies that this aim is to be pursued in all the Union's activities.

These are not just lofty intentions. Gender equality has become part of the EU's daily perspective. This approach has a name: “gender mainstreaming”. It is not new. It was already included in the Amsterdam Treaty. But perhaps it deserves to be better known still among men! Myself, I will be meeting with the gender equality ministers of the trio-Presidency (Spain, Belgium and Hungary) next week to discuss gender mainstreaming in the context of the European Council's work.

I ask this of Ms. Leclerc. This is a recent speech. It was made in Brussels in June 2010. This is the president of the European Union who is making these statements. If the international community is already using this terminology, does it not make sense for Canada to use the same international language?

As Mr. Kessel said, these are based on international instruments. We don't create our own language. They are international instruments that we copy and use in our language. Does it not make sense that Canada use that terminology?

[Caroline Leclerc]

You make a very valid point. As an official, I don't think I could give my personal opinion, but I think your point is very valid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Now we'll go to Mr. Desnoyers, for the Bloc.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome everyone.

My first question is for the CIDA officials. We are talking about a change in vocabulary. You say that it is interchangeable and that changing the words used in speeches is purely cosmetic. Will CIDA be adopting these changes and changing its documents? Will CIDA be changing its approach to NGOs working with CIDA in the field by adapting its documents to reflect the language currently used by the government?

[Caroline Leclerc]

I am not sure I understood your question, but since the terms are interchangeable, there is no change in our dealings with our partners.

[Luc Desnoyers, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

You say they are interchangeable. Ms. Breton-Le Goff said that all reference to impunity and justice had disappeared. If I understood correctly, you are saying that you will be keeping the words “impunity” and “justice” in your documents dealing with NGOs.

[Caroline Leclerc]

As far as the terms applicable to CIDA programming are concerned, there has been no change.