Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 9 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Monday, September 14, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 2:08 p.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: United Nations Human Rights Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security).
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I see a quorum and we can convene as the Human Rights Committee this afternoon to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations.
Under that large topic we had chosen to look at the issue of the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. We will also cover other issues and resolutions, but in the main we will start with Resolution 1325 and move to Resolution 1820, but our concern has been that while we know there are international and national instruments and policies supporting those that are affected by conflict, in the main those affected have been women and children in areas of conflict. The objective of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 was to integrate women into pre- and post-areas of conflict, and during issues of conflict, so that women and their role are understood, and women are supported during times of conflict. Perhaps the leadership of women can take on more of a preventive role, as opposed to a post-conflict role of picking up the pieces after lives are disrupted and families are hurt.
The issue that the Senate will look at is the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. We want to hear from those who have worked in the field, either in support of Canada's initiatives both by government and through non- governmental organizations, but we also want to look at the United Nation's strategy for implementation of this resolution. We want to look at the roles of other countries, both countries that perhaps are not directly affected by conflict and also, particularly, to hear from those who are directly affected by conflict in the countries where the conflict has arisen.
Unfortunately, as many people will say, we can pick many, many countries. Entirely too many conflicts are still raging that affect the daily the lives of women, children and men in those communities. We will start our study with witnesses who have spent time thinking about the issue and have been involved in these resolutions. We are grateful to our witnesses today who have come to kick off our study.
I have before me, from the North-South Institute, Jennifer Salahub, Researcher, Conflict Prevention Program. Welcome.
As an individual we have Tanja Bergen, Research Assistant to Dr. Erin Baines of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia. I know Dr. Baines wanted to be here but, with scheduling, could not. Perhaps there will be another opportunity. I am sure you will give us the information we need to start.
From the Canadian Council for International Cooperation we have Surendrini Wijeyaratne, Policy Analyst, Peace-building and Humanitarian Response.
We have three well-qualified witnesses to start our study.
[Translation]
Jennifer Salahub, Researcher, Conflict Prevention Program, North-South Institute: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you all for coming to this meeting and for giving me the opportunity to speak to you today.
[English]
As the chair mentioned, I am a researcher with the peacebuilding and conflict prevention team at the North-South Institute, an independent think tank based here in Ottawa. Together with partners in southern countries, I conduct policy-relevant research at the nexus of security development and gender.
I will focus my comments today on the evidence that comes out of the work of North-South Institute, NSI — related to UN Resolution 1325. My time is limited, so I will move through my prepared comments.
The Chair: It is limited because we like to ask questions, as senators. However, we have translation to consider so do take sufficient time.
Ms. Salahub: I will take a deep breath and slow down.
I will leave more time for questions, and if we run out of time I would be happy to come back to discuss these matters further.
NSI's recent work has focused on sustainable peace-building and security-sector reform — in particular policing — and gender-equal access to justice. Within these themes, there are four main lessons from our work for Canada's implementation of Resolution 1325.
First, in places like Haiti, Canada has been doing great work and seeing promising results in promoting gender equality through its dedicated gender funds, such as the Fonds Kore Fanm. As well, the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, has been a global leader in developing tools for mainstreaming gender throughout its programming. However, neither strategy is sufficient. Particularly in conflict-affected states, Canada should promote gender mainstreaming, support civil society organizations working to protect women's human rights, and establish specific gender funds to support programs aimed at ending violence against women and increasing women's political participation.
My second lesson is that, in places like Southern Sudan and Burundi, security forces like the police are often seen primarily as threats by local populations — particularly women and girls — rather than sources of security. Processes to reform the police, the military and other security forces are underway but do not do a good job of integrating a gender perspective.
Canada is involved in supporting some of these processes through the Canadian Police Arrangement. While Canada has made excellent progress over the past several decades in making domestic police forces more representative and more responsive to women's needs, many women — particularly marginalized women in Canada — continue to be left out. If Canada is to help developing countries to build gender-sensitive police forces, it needs to invest in building more gender-sensitive police forces at home too.
Third, while we know much about women's experiences in conflict and its aftermath, there is still much work to be done in this area, both in terms of research and awareness-raising.
As I am sure colleagues from the bureaucracy will confirm later today, policy is most effective when based on solid evidence. To develop evidence-based policy, Canada should prioritize and fund policy-relevant research on issues surrounding women, peace and security, particularly the collection and analysis of sex-disaggregated data on these issues. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade used to support this type of work and could easily do so again.
Fourth, to support the continuation of Canada's successes to date and to help develop and implement better policies and programming in the future, Canada must develop, make public, fund and fully implement a national action plan for the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325. This plan should be a whole-of-government plan with equal participation from all relevant departments and it should include clear benchmarks and responsibilities. It must include significant, dedicated resources — both human and financial. It should be done transparently and in partnership with Canadian civil society organizations.
[Translation]
And I will leave it there so that we have a little more time to answer any questions you may wish to ask us.
[English]
Tanja Bergen, Research Assistant to Dr. Erin Baines, Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Columbia, as an individual: Greetings, chairperson and honourable senators. I am here also representing a research-based advocacy organization; the Africa Canada Accountability Coalition, ACAC. This past summer we worked with Dr. Erin Baines, who is in her seventh month of pregnancy and was not up to making the flight.
This summer we worked with Dr. Baines at the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the University of British Columbia to produce a report — which I believe has been shared with you — called `The Worst Place in the World to be a Woman': Canada's Role to Stop Rape in the DR Congo. This report examines Canada's current and historic involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC, and puts forth a series of Canadian-specific recommendations to address mass rape and sexual- and gender-based violence in the eastern region of this country, which has been called the worst place in the world to be a woman and the rape capital of the world.
Today, I will premise my remarks on the report's recommendation to discuss why and how Canada should and can pilot its full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 in the DRC.
A whole-of-government approach is needed to implement this resolution. This need is evident because Canadians — in particular the Government of Canada — have played major roles in the DRC from peacekeeping to diplomacy, aid and investment. Canadians have been involved since Congolese independence in the 1960s. Though these involvements have impacted Congolese women and girls, both positively and negatively, Canadians have collectively built a foundation of Canadian experience and knowledge that now enables Canada to utilize diverse mechanisms, specifically Resolution 1325, to address mass rape and other forms of sexual and gender-based violence in the DRC.
Canada can employ several strategies to accomplish this implementation. It can invest locally and support the DRC's vibrant grassroots that is working to promote women's rights and halt the conflict's brutal impact on women. Canada can promote transparency and ensure that Canadian investment in no way contributes to the conflict, which has a disproportionate impact on women and girls. Finally, Canada can work from within our borders and on the international stage to end impunity for war criminals, some of whom reside within our own borders.
We must denounce loudly mass rape and sexual- and gender-based forms of violence by using available resources to help bring an end to the social structures that encourage the impunity that literally kills women in the DRC.
Now is the time to implement these strategies because there are several unique opportunities that Canada can capitalize on immediately to support Congolese women and girls. Canada harbours alleged war criminals from the Congolese conflicts. Allowing these people to walk our streets with impunity denies justice to Congolese people, particularly the women and girls who have been impacted disproportionately by this conflict.
Furthermore, impunity is lethal. It prevents people from disclosing their rape status and seeking life-saving medical care and psycho-social support. Canada must work from within its borders and through international institutions like the International Criminal Court to end impunity. This will save women's lives. It will also fulfill our responsibility under Resolution 1325 to put an end to impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, including those relating to sexual violence against women and girls.
As you are aware, Canada is currently campaigning for a spot on the United Nations Security Council, UNSC, for a two-year term starting in 2011. With support from the Canadian Rights and Democracy organization, Congolese women's groups have released a statement recently calling for an UNSC-led international commission to investigate crimes of sexual violence in the DRC since the official end of hostilities in the second Congo war on July 1, 2002.
By addressing the demands of Congolese women, Canada would fulfil its commitment to Resolution 1325 that calls for UN Security Council missions to take into account gender considerations and the rights of women through consultation with international and local women's groups.
Additionally, in 2011 the DRC will hold national elections. Currently, Congolese women account for a meagre 7 per cent of elected officials. Under Resolution 1325, as you know, member states are called on to encourage increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions. Canada provided significant political and economic support in the 2006 Congolese elections, and should do so again in 2011.
In addition to Resolution 1325, Canada can leverage recent changes in the Congolese Constitution that affirm women's entitlement to equitable representation in national, provincial and local institutions to promote women's participation in the democratic process.
Finally, reputable grassroots and international organizations are working to engender the democratic process in the DRC. Congolese women, children and families would benefit greatly if Canada helped to increase women's participation in the democratic process in the DRC by supporting these organizations.
Implementing these strategies will require the goodwill of the Congolese government. Unfortunately, recent Canadian policy in the DRC has eroded Canada's credibility to engage in Congolese peace-building initiatives. Additionally, Canada has little political representation throughout Africa's Great Lakes region. Burundi, Uganda, Rwanda and 13 other countries are all represented by the Canadian High Commission in Kenya.
Conflict in the DRC, especially in the east, is intertwined with the economic, political and social circumstances in the Great Lakes countries that border it. Canada must renew the mandate of the Canadian Ambassador to the Great Lakes region to re-establish the political presence needed to facilitate contributions to peace-building processes.
In conclusion, Canada should be compelled to support Congolese women because of our history. We have participated in almost every peace process since the 1999 ceasefire that officially ended the second Congo war. We have sent peacekeepers to the DRC since the 1960s, and we are the largest non-African investor in the Congolese mining industry, which is known to fuel conflict.
Moreover, Canadians should be compelled to support Congolese women in civil society who are doing a heroic job of promoting peace and fighting for their rights, despite living in a region where every 36 minutes, an atrocity occurs, such as one of the following described by Stephen Lewis: Three-month-old infants and 80-year-old women are raped; militias, who have HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, are dispatched to rape entire villages; women are held as sex slaves for weeks, months and years; women are forced to eat murdered babies.
For these reasons, the DRC is morally and practically the logical pilot country for Canada to make a concerted effort to fully implement its commitments to Resolution 1325. I look forward to your questions and comments.
[Translation]
Surendrini Wijeyaratne, Policy Analyst, Peace-Building and Humanitarian Response, Canadian Council for International Cooperation: Thank you for giving us the opportunity to appear before the committee today.
[English]
Canadian Council for International Cooperation, CCIC, is an umbrella organization of humanitarian and development agencies, labour unions and faith and solidarity groups that operate overseas. Many of our members work in conflict-affected countries, such as Afghanistan, the Congo and Sudan, to give you a few examples.
Today, I will focus my remarks on the role of women in peace processes or peace talks.
In 2000, the United Nations Security Council adopted UN Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. The resolution was the first of its kind in the Security Council to call explicitly on member states to include women's rights, gender equality and women's participation in all peace and security initiatives of the council, and these initiatives include developing and implementing peace agreements. The resolution has proven to be a valuable tool in advocating for, and bringing, women to the negotiating table. Yet most peace processes are still designed and dominated by male political and military leaders.
Women continue to be severely under-represented in peace talks and negotiation efforts today. This under- representation applies equally to women as mediators and facilitators, which includes women who generally come from the international community, as well as women who are representatives of parties to conflict and women representatives from civil society organizations and community groups from conflict-affected countries.
To give you examples, I will share statistics that have recently come out of the United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM.
In a study conducted by UNIFEM recently, in 11 peace processes studied by them, only 7.6 per cent included women's participation. Only 2.4 per cent of signatories to peace agreements are women. No women have ever been appointed as a chief or lead mediator in UN sponsored peace talks, although they have been appointed through the African Union or other regional bodies and have held senior positions within the UN, but not as a lead mediator.
Out of 300 peace agreements for 45 conflict situations over the last 20 years, only 18 have actually addressed sexual violence issues. Of these 18, only six agreements mentioned sexual violence as a prohibited act, and only two included monitors to prevent sexual violence.
Of the five positions in the UN mediation support standby team, a new body recently created for rapid deployment for support of mediation initiatives, only one is a woman; and none of the mandates, including the mandate for the one woman on the team, explicitly include gender equality and women's rights.
The failure to include women in negotiations means that issues such as sexual violence and women's inclusion in development and political processes are often neglected in peace agreements and, therefore, also in the vital post- conflict rebuilding stage.
Women's omission in peace processes also means that their capacities and skills often go under-recognized or unrecognized, and these capacities and skills are integral to that vital rebuilding stage I mentioned.
Women are willing and capable actors for peace; we know that. The question is: Why do we not see more women in peace processes? There are at least three main impediments to their involvement. First, there is a lack of will, both from parties to conflict as well as sometimes from mediators and international facilitators, to include women and gender advisers in peace talks.
When gender advisers are included on mediation and facilitation teams, they can provide invaluable legal and other gender advice. They can also act as focal points for vulnerable women's groups seeking to feed into the negotiation process but may not be directly included in a formal political negotiation.
Second, there is a lack of dedicated financial resources to support women. Women's participation and effectiveness in peace processes is fundamentally influenced by the extent to which specific funds are provided to support women's capacity-building and their sustained participation in dialogue initiatives.
Budgets developed to fund peace talks and other dialogue efforts need to fund, specifically and amply, gender advisers, women delegates to talks, women in negotiating teams, capacity-strengthening initiatives in negotiations to build up the negotiation capacity, as well as the participation of civil society and expert women in dialogue initiatives.
Third, there is often a lack of an enabling environment for women's effective participation. I stress "effective participation." The strategies and approaches for supporting women's participation in peace processes need to cater to the specific conflict context. Perhaps most importantly, support to women's groups needs to be long term and sustained during the ups and downs that occur during political negotiations. These negotiations can go sometimes on for years and decades.
Given these challenges, what can a country like Canada do to support effective participation in peace processes? I have two principal recommendations. First, Canada should increase its overall capacity to support peace processes, including by developing a clear policy framework and clear funding pockets earmarked for support to peace talks. This capacity should include developing and making public an action plan on Resolution 1325, which you heard about earlier from Ms. Salahub.
Within the overall policy framework for support to peace talks, it should be made clear that in any initiative supported by the Canadian government, a priority will be given to including women in peace negotiations or peace talks; and that advocating against sexual violence and the prohibition of sexual violence will be included in all ceasefire and peace agreements.
Second, Canada already funds a mediation support unit at the UN. Canada should leverage its support to funding this unit, to become a strong advocate for creating a specific gender adviser position within either the mediation support unit or the mediation standby team. Canada should be prepared to fund this position in collaboration with other donors over the long term.
I will stop my remarks here and welcome any questions you may have.
The Chair: I thank all of you for your presentations. We are looking for practical strategies that we can recommend, so you are providing the factual situation, and then practical steps as follow-up.
Before I ask a few questions, Ms. Bergen, you said something about embassies that we need to clarify. You said there was only one embassy in Kenya. Since Africa is one of my areas of concentration, I respectfully disagree with what you have said. I do not know whether I understood what you were saying or took it out of context.
Ms. Bergen: The embassy in Kenya is the High Commission. I think it represents a total of 16 countries. I obtained that figure from the website of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada. However, there is an embassy in Kinshasa, which is about a thousand miles away from the main conflict. From what I understand, that embassy focuses on gender balance and it also addresses mining contracts.
It has several roles, but Uganda, Burundi and many of the regions in the Great Lakes where the conflicts are intertwined with the Congo do not have political representation.
The Chair: They do have political representation in absolutely every country because political councillors have been assigned. The councillors may not be resident to the countries, but there is a Tanzanian high commission, Kenyan high commission, South African high commission, Zimbabwe high commission and Kinshasa, as you pointed out, so we should get our facts straight.
Ms. Bergen: I was referring only to the Great Lakes region.
The Chair: We will ask our researchers to provide the senators with the actual representations and the capacities from each country. One can argue that there should be more representation and that it should be resident. If you obtained that information from the website, we should ask the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to come and let us know what is meant by that.
I have a question first and then I will turn to the list of questioners.
The United Nations resolution was adopted by absolutely every nation, and every nation should be bound by it. We will be looking at Canada's role. I know that Canada was one of the first to begin to talk about, and incorporate, Resolution 1325. Why is there such hesitancy around the world to deal with Resolution 1325 and the plight of women? Is it cultural? Is it historic?
Ms. Bergen: Perhaps one of my colleagues can follow up. I conducted most of my research in the Congo. Around the world, women face inequality everywhere. With peace talks in the Congo, when they tried to bring in women, their presence was not welcomed. It was not seen as their role; it was not seen as proper for them to be there, so that is definitely an issue women face around the world. As to specific countries, there is a long history of gender inequality in the Congo. That is where my research was conducted. I do not feel comfortable speaking to other places.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: In most countries around the world, especially in conflict-affected countries, women's rights and gender equality are seen as a lesser priority. The lower status of women in all these countries makes it difficult to raise these issues to the level of importance of other issues, such as security. In the Security Council, even with Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820, it is difficult to have these issues given sufficient weight. Historically, there has been a tendency to see gender equality and women's rights issues as soft issues, sometimes as humanitarian issues, but not necessarily as security issues that are related to, and impact, international peace and security in conflict situations. There needs to be a greater mobilization but also greater funding — these issues tend to come back to funding — to support specific initiatives for women's rights in conflict situations.
Ms. Salahub: Thank you for that question. As I look around the table, I am pleased to see at least four women senators. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is the number sitting on the Human Rights Committee. However, I am sure that Senator Jaffer, Senator Nancy Ruth and Senator Martin can testify to the fact that they are rare among the Senate of Canada, a country that has strong democratic institutions.
I am sure that Ms. McInturff from Peacebuild can provide us with the statistics for women's political representation in this country, which is at 23 per cent in the House of Commons. If I am not mistaken, that is lower than both Rwanda and Afghanistan although both those countries, if I am not mistaken, have quota systems in effect.
This small anecdote demonstrates that this problem is not unique to countries in conflict. When you extrapolate that problem to situations of state fragility where the state institutions, political parties and democratic process is weak, and there is a lack of funding and a lack of support from the international community, combined with a history and a cultural perspective that devalues women, we begin to understand and unpack the situation that leads to Resolution 1325 becoming less and less of a priority both for the developing countries in conflict, or conflict-affected countries that we are looking at, but also for Canada's support to those countries and to international processes to support them.
The Chair: Perhaps I am leading to the point that there are two fronts upon which we have been working in the past decade or so. One is the International Criminal Court — the Arusha court, the courts in Sierra Leone and Bosnia — where it has been identified that rape will be constituted as a crime, and those perpetrating it will be held accountable. There has been some margin of success using the international criminal law stream.
Resolution 1325 is working on the politics — the structures of nations and the community. Are these structures working in parallel and are both necessary, or should we put our efforts into saying that those who commit the crimes in conflict, including rape, should be charged? Should we put our resources there, strengthening the International Criminal Court? Should we strengthen the fund for women and ensure that, despite the fact that for centuries rape has been a weapon of war, it can no longer be used as such, and make its use intolerable through absolute prohibition through the international court systems? Alternatively, do we use Resolution 1325 and work at the politics to strengthen institutions and communities?
Ms. Bergen: I would argue that they are two sides to the same coin. Why can rape happen? It happens because women's equality and rights are not respected. Until we see that women, particularly in the Congo, one of the worst places in the world to be a woman, can credibly stand up in Parliament and in peace talks and have their rights, opinions and voices respected, the same problems we see time and time again will pop up. Gender equality has existed so long in the Congo; why do we see it taking such a violent form right now? I would argue it is fundamental inequality that permits rape. Unless women are out there speaking, and it is societally accepted to the politics that women's equality needs to be respected, you will see it happen again. I would say a proactive stance needs to be followed up with prosecution, investigations and an absolute end to impunity.
Senator Mercer: Thank you for being here.
Our first presenter talked about gender-sensitive police forces abroad and at home. This initiative makes a lot of sense. My question is what countries, if any, are doing a good job now? Is there any place we should look to that has done a good job on this front?
Ms. Salahub: Thank you, senator. I personally challenge the northern paradigm of policing in regard to gender sensitivity in general. If you look across the board, comparatively, Canada is not doing a bad job. We are doing a pretty good job. You can question the RCMP representative later this afternoon, but our police officers who join International Civilian Police, CivPol, missions, such as the one in Haiti, receive gender sensitivity training. Many women are working with these missions.
I am in touch with a female RCMP officer working with women police officers in Southern Sudan. We are doing some good work. This is not to say we cannot do more and better good work.
Australia has a higher representation of women within its police forces. I am not sure how that situation came to be, but that police force might be one place to start looking. I know we have excellent relations with Australia so I am sure they would be happy to share their experiences with us.
The U.S. also has a higher representation of women in its police forces than Canada. I do not know the specifics of their training programs for CivPol deployments.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: I will respond quickly to the previous question; not the policing question.
In terms of whether we support Resolution 1325 or increased international criminal prosecutions for rape and sexual violence, they are two sides of the same coin. I want to share a lesson we learned here in the Canadian community of non-governmental organizations that have been engaged in advocacy around Resolution1325, and also engaged in communication with women in Afghanistan, Congo, Sudan and Uganda. These NGOs have been working around Resolution 1325 issues for a long time. That lesson is not to use the language of Resolution 1325 because it masks many issues. When we talk about Resolution 1325, we are talking about women's political participation, women's rights and the increased presence of women in the judiciary, the security sector and peacekeeping troops. All those things are linked to being able to undertake increased criminal prosecutions. If there are no women investigators, lawyers and judges, investigating sexual violence becomes difficult. Women will not report cases of sexual violence to male counterparts. Oftentimes they are hesitant to do so. In certain cultural situations it is difficult for them to do so. Unless all those things go hand in hand, we will not see a meaningful advance in terms of women's rights in conflict situations.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank the three of you for coming on such short notice.
I want to know if you are aware of which federal department or agency is the main agency responsible for the implementation of both UN Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820. Do you have any input? Does the department or agency consult you as to what measures the government should implement?
You have talked about Canada playing a role. Obviously, from the fact that we are meeting, we also believe that Canada should play a role. It would be useful to us if you could be more specific but not necessarily today.
Should we play a role with more money? More money is good, but what do you mean by more money? What should it be used for? Specific recommendations would be useful. You do not have to give them today, but I would appreciate it if you could forward them to our clerk.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: As to which federal agency is most appropriate, it would be multiple agencies. It would be the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, on the development side. It would be the Department of Foreign Affairs through their Global Peace and Security Fund on the diplomatic side. It would also be the Department of National Defence, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, for example — recruitment in Canada and training our peacekeepers and our Canadian Forces such as those deployed in Afghanistan, in terms of pre-deployment training on gender issues.
This responsibility is shared across departments. It has been one of the difficulties in fulfilling the meaningful implementation of Resolution 1325 in Canada.
In terms of consultation, a consultation happened two to three years ago on a national action plan on Resolution 1325. The consultation was done quickly with a small group of Canadian civil society organizations here. We have not heard of this action plan since, and where that consultation has gone. I will speak for myself; perhaps other agencies around the table might have a different response.
Over the last two years, I have not heard much talk of endorsing, implementing or approving an action plan here in Canada, and I have not been consulted on that action plan.
In terms of specific recommendations, I think a strong one is to be true to Canada's role in the world. A niche area that we could support is a specific gender adviser role within the mediation support unit or the mediation standby team.
Canada has been a strong funder of UN mediation-led efforts, so it is incumbent upon us to be an advocate for that position.
Ms. Salahub: Thank you for that question, Senator Jaffer.
On which department should be the lead on the implementation of Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820, I agree with Ms. Wijeyaratne. This implementation should be a whole-of-government approach. There may be a need for a leadership role within that approach, and that task falls to the Department of Foreign Affairs at the moment. I personally feel, and my research has shown, that there is a strong role for CIDA to play, given the absolute wealth of important and tested experience and information that is held in CIDA through its gender advisers, gender specialists and its work with women and on behalf of women.
I would love to see that role extend beyond even the three or four organizations and departments that Ms. Wijeyaratne mentioned to include Justice Canada, Elections Canada, the RCMP and the Department of Finance. There is a role for all those organizations to play in promoting Resolution 1325 and assisting Canada's full implementation of its commitments.
I also took part in the small consultation several years ago that Ms. Wijeyaratne spoke of. It was organized through a group in the Department of Foreign Affairs that since has been rolled into the human rights policy group, if I am not mistaken. Chantale Walker was part of that process at the time. I do not believe she was the head of that group but she definitely shepherded the process through. My last information is that she has since moved on from the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Like Ms. Wijeyaratne, I have heard little since that consultation process. It was led by an external consultant, who I believe was tasked with writing a report and drafting the national action plan, but I have not seen anything substantive since that time.
On the last point, as to Canada's role, in my presentation I made specific comments that I have shared with the clerk. To pick up on a particular one, Canada has accomplished great work in terms of supporting specific gender funding. I have heard through the grapevine that gender funds, particularly the gender fund in Pakistan, have been cancelled. This is a real shame. These sorts of funds target issues and provide direct, discrete, concerted support to women's groups and civil society organizations promoting women's human rights.
I have done work in Haiti, where they have had an extremely successful gender fund, in addition to mainstreaming gender throughout all their programming.
I can leave with the clerk work that I have done on women's political participation in Haiti. It is a shallow piece of work but it points to some of Canada's successes. I would like to see more of that work.
Ms. Bergen: For Canada's role on the international community, we want to be the upholder of human rights. We want to back up our proud history with human rights. We have to be pragmatic and look at country to country. As Senator Andreychuk so rightly mentioned at the start, the need for Resolution 1325 is different amongst countries, and the need is huge. So many countries need it.
We need to ask ourselves where we have been, who we have a relationship with and how that relationship has been defined. What can we do feasibly in a given circumstance, and then from there, where do we want to go? We cannot be in every single country in the world. We have to be smart about where we should be, and how to use our resources to get the most bang for our buck. From there, we need to ask what we want our role to be, and look at defining it from there.
Senator Jaffer: What kind of role are we playing in Afghanistan and Haiti? Are you aware — and you may not be — whether we have gender funding specifically in Afghanistan? I am not so concerned about Haiti. You mentioned the defence department. What role is the Department of National Defence playing in Afghanistan with regard to Resolution 1325?
Ms. Wijeyarantne: I will think about that one a little bit.
Senator Jaffer: If you do not have the full answer, you can provide it later to the clerk.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: Your government representatives, later this afternoon, might be best placed to speak specifically to what measures the Department of National Defence is taking in Afghanistan with regard to Resolution 1325. A question I would have for them, for example, is around Canadian military forces pre-deployment training, as well as cultural sensitivity training in terms of working with Afghan women, and what kind of training they have received on Resolution 1325.
I believe your question was more around specific projects or funds in Afghanistan. At one point in time, in the earlier part of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, there was an emphasis on women's empowerment rights. Again, your government representative will be better placed to speak to that point. I believe the government has shifted focus from that emphasis a little bit, in part due to the difficulty of working on women's rights issues in Afghanistan.
There are strong women's civil society actors in Afghanistan: women's networks, local grassroots women's groups, that Canada has worked with, if not directly through the Canadian government, through Canadian NGOs and civil society groups that partner with those organizations on the ground. However, there is a difficulty working with them, given Canada's military position in Afghanistan. That relationship is difficult for organizations on the ground to balance, because Canada is seen as a foreign military force there. That situation can sometimes impact what we can do in terms of working with grassroots women's groups.
Perhaps I will leave the answer there. If I was not clear, please ask me again and I can be more specific.
Ms. Salahub: Building on Ms. Wijeyaratne's comment, my experience in working tangentially with the Afghanistan Task Force, ATF, out of CIDA on issues of gender equality has been that gender equality was a focus for quite some time, and about 15 months ago it was dropped as one of the main priorities. Other priorities were being pushed forward. Gender equality programming, of course, was still being mainstreamed in all of CIDA's work because it is part of CIDA's mandate, but there was no longer a specific focus.
With the Shia Personal Status Law that came to light earlier this year, there has been new focus within the ATF at CIDA. However, I defer those questions to the government representatives who will be here later this afternoon, because they will have greater and deeper knowledge than we have.
Senator Jaffer: May I clarify something that Ms. Bergen said in her presentation? Ms. Bergen said that in the DRC, in addition to rape, now we have forced cannibalism; am I correct?
Ms. Bergen: There have been instances of it, yes.
Senator Martin: I want to thank all of you for your presentations and for being a strong voice for women in Canada and around the world. It was difficult to listen to some of the examples you cited, since this subject touches me personally. I was born in Korea, and there is an issue that is not resolved with the victims of World War II: the women who, at this time, are dying, one by one, of old age. They were enslaved sexually, and it was a brutal experience for all of them. They were my grandmother's age group, and I know some of the women myself.
I use that example to bridge into my question. I listened to the different strategies that you mentioned, but I did not hear education mentioned as a specific strategy, although I know we all agree that it is important. I say that as an educator — I was in the school system — and also as an example of what I have been through. My grandmother was widowed young, and because of war and having lost everything, she had no opportunity to be educated and she was disempowered. My mother also had to survive several wars and was not able to pursue her education.
In many of these countries, parents emphasize education for the next generation. I am an example of someone who was able to be educated in Canada and how education, in itself, is the most empowering tool.
Education is a United Nations initiative. Canada can play a great role. In Afghanistan, for instance, girls are going to school, and that experience has been one of the most empowering changes for that country. I have taught some of the Afghani girls in my classroom, and they talk about the changes that they have seen.
I did not hear you talk about education, but I know the approach is multi-pronged. I do not see it as two sides of the coin; it is a multi-pronged approach that we must take as a whole world, education being one of the most important elements. Education would be preventative, and it would empower people in the midst of chaos, war and whatever exploitation is happening.
What is your response to focusing on this education piece; the importance of that strategy and what we can do to address the issues that you mentioned today through education?
Ms. Salahub: I will answer first and then let Ms. Bergen speak specifically to the DRC, because she is the expert here.
Canada is doing excellent work on education. It is unfortunate that our colleague and friend Jackie Kirk could not be here today to speak to you. She was killed in Afghanistan a little more than a year ago. She was the expert on education and emergencies. I am sure she could have taken up all three hours telling us how to do that better, and the importance of education.
My casual observer comments are about how we educate — ensuring that it is secure and that we are educating in a way that is empowering to young women and girls but that is also respectful of the context. If you look at the way education programming rolls out in Afghanistan, it is different than the way it rolls out in Sudan or in Haiti.
The other idea that pops into my mind is the question of school fees, particularly in places like Haiti or many parts of Africa, where they are prohibitive. About 80 per cent of education in Haiti is non-public, private education, with fees, run by non-governmental organizations or private companies. I am sure you all recall the frightening images and stories of the school that collapsed about a year ago because of the rains. It was a poorly built school, and several hundred children were killed.
Security is not only the security of the physical infrastructure but also security in terms of travelling to and from school. This is a major challenge for girls in Afghanistan, in places where roads are insecure and mines have not been cleared. There are cultural restrictions on their ability to travel. It is not safe to go alone. They are not allowed to go without a male family member, for example.
All these issues need to be taken into consideration when we look at education as a means of empowerment in a situation of state fragility and low-level or sometimes high-level conflict.
Ms. Bergen: Also with regard to education, there is a structural weakness in Resolution 1325, whereby we assume that if women simply attend peace talks, they are equipped to do so and their mere attendance will help them further their rights. If women have been consistently denied education and they show up at peace talks, where some of the men have been able to attend European schools where they have been able to learn to read, women are at an inherent disadvantage there. It sets them apart right away as having a weakness. Education is so important in that sense; so that women can participate effectively in peace talks. Resolution 1325 is furthered by promoting education because women are given the ability to participate equally and effectively in these talks and in democratic processes.
Senator Martin: Perhaps education is something we should all focus on as a world community. This issue is universal, and all countries can do something about education.
You talk about political participation. Through education, we can empower young girls to think about law, policing and all the careers that men are in, so as a world community education is the preventative — the proactive strategy we can all implement.
I reiterate or echo what Senator Andreychuk said about Canada being one player, but we can take a lead in education because we have one of the best education systems in the world.
The Chair: We must move on because we are short of time. At this point we are starting the dialogue. Resolution 1325 is an issue we will look into. We are starting with these panellists today because they have some background, and I will to warn them that, at the end, they will probably be asked to comment and come back so we will have more opportunities to talk. This meeting is a start to point us in the right direction of our study.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am curious about you having met with the Department of Foreign Affairs, with Chantal Walker. The report was to be written by an outside report writer and you have seen nothing. Do you have the capacity to go back to the human rights division of the department and ask them what has happened, and if nothing has happened, why not?
Ms. Salahub: I will defer to Ms. Wijeyaratne.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What kind of negotiations have you had? Where are the blockages?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: The last time I asked that question was a couple of years ago, and the response I received at that time was that a draft had been circulated. There was a small group of civil society organizations that saw the draft and commented on the draft. A meeting was held on that draft, and then the draft was submitted upwards within the Department of Foreign Affairs as well as within other departments through this interdepartmental working group that had been set up to approve the draft.
I heard that the process had stalled there. The draft was sent up for approval but there had not been an official response on whether that draft would be adopted, endorsed, or whether it would become official policy or simply a guiding internal framework.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is your understanding that there is an interdepartmental group that includes the Department of Justice, CIDA, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Department of National Defence?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: Until two years ago there was an interdepartmental group.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you know if it was cancelled or it disappeared?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: I have not heard anything about the group over the last two years.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Would you have heard if it existed?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: I believe someone in this room would have heard if it were still active; if it still existed and was still conducting civil society consultations. If it exists only as an interdepartmental group and is no longer engaging with civil society, then I would not necessarily have heard of it. If the group had been engaging with civil society, I think one of us within this room would have heard of it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Given all your contacts all over the world and in the UN, do you have any evidence at all that there is any direction in the government moving towards having a national whole-of-government action plan; and is the government also doing things in the United Nations to encourage other countries to implement Resolution 1325? What gossip have you heard?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: There was an expectation a few years ago that Canada would have an action plan on Resolution 1325. I believe we had committed to that plan.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Where did we commit to that plan?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: I believe there was a statement within the Department of Foreign Affairs. Perhaps you can ask the government panel about that this afternoon. This statement was in response to the UN Secretary-General's call a few years ago for countries to develop action plans on Resolution 1325, or some kind of implementation framework. Over the last two years, I have not heard gossip or rumours about Canada and Resolution 1325.
Ms. Salahub: I wanted to second Ms. Wijeyaratne's lack of information in that I have heard nothing about where this National Action Plan on Implementation of Resolution 1325, which they were calling the NAPI, has gone.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: It turned into the CAPI.
Ms. Salahub: That is right; Canada's Action Plan on Implementation of Resolution 1325. Yes, there was a brief civil society consultation and then it disappeared into the ether, and despite calls and groups of us coordinating on these issues, notably through the Gender and Peace-building Working Group of Peacebuild, to promote and push for this plant, we have not heard anything. There has not been any uptake of this plan.
Senator Nancy Ruth: To go back to my first question: Do you feel you have a capacity or the legitimacy to go back to this human rights division and ask them where the issue stands?
Ms. Salahub: Concerning the capacity, I think we have been doing that. At some point other priorities come up, and one realizes we are not getting anywhere and we have other work we need to do as well, so in short, no on that question. To the legitimacy, the answer is yes, but again, when we meet, with this incapacity of our government counterpart or inability to give that information, or when there is no new information, one begins to understand that this path is fruitless and our energies are better directed elsewhere.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If this path is fruitless, you have come up with a list of suggestions of things for Canada to do. What do you expect from this Senate committee to help you with those suggestions?
Ms. Wijeyaratne: Even though there has not been official approval of this action plan that we know of, there still needs to be an action plan to guide Canadian foreign policy, development policy and defence policy on Resolution 1325. Given that there has been a draft and that there was initial consultation, I think it is legitimate, and the right time, to ask for that process to be adopted once again, especially given that next year, in 2010, it will be the 10-year anniversary of Resolution 1325. There will be greater international mobilization around the resolution. There might even be newer efforts within the Security Council for women, peace and security issues, so it is a timely piece for Canada to take up again.
Ms. Salahub: I agree in terms of what this Senate committee can do. You are opinion leaders, and to re-energize this process and to be leaders within the political class is an important role to play. To draw attention to this issue that there is an opportunity to make a mark, and for Canada to be a real leader internationally on something that we have strong capacity to assist with, both within government and within civil society, is an opportunity not to be missed.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It is a pleasure to hear of all your hope for this country.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, it is inspirational and it is good to hear. First, I would like a general impression from each of you, if possible. We have been dancing around this subject. We learned moments ago that this interdepartmental meeting group may not be working on civil society issues, women's issues, any longer. I believe you mentioned earlier that the focus in Afghanistan on women's equality and women's issues has been diminished. Someone else mentioned that the specific funding that was attributed by the Canadian government to equality issues in Pakistan has been stopped. We saw in Embassy three weeks ago that there is a strong suggestion that they expect, if you believe this, that the Department of Foreign Affairs will now change its language from international humanitarian law to international law; from victims of sexual violence to preventing sexual violence, and from gender issues to men's and women's issues, which of course does not cover all gender issues.
It seems to me that we are dancing around this issue, and something is happening here that I would like to hear you say. Has the government's position on these issues begun to diminish over the last several years in a way that is beginning to limit dramatically the contribution Canada is making internationally on this front?
Ms. Salahub: Senator Mitchell, you are asking me to put myself out there politically and I am not sure my vice- president will be pleased.
We do not have an international policy statement from this government, and absent that statement, it is difficult for those who are not taking these decisions to have a clear picture of where Canada's foreign policy is going. The evidence is beginning to show that Canada, as a country working internationally — how can I put this diplomatically — is burning its political capital internationally and not replacing it.
I would say, over the last 30 to 40 years, Canada has been a strong supporter of promoting first, the women in development, then the women and development, and now the gender and development approaches. Those approaches are not specific to Resolution 1325 but they are intimately linked. Those approaches demonstrate our capacity to understand these issues and to think about how to support women's roles meaningfully, both in peace processes and in conflict resolution and reconstruction. In recent years, we have been riding on that capacity, so there has been no reinvestment and our principal is being diminished, if I can use an economic explanation. That is my take.
Ms. Bergen: All the language changes are harmful, and I will narrow in specifically on impunity and justice. From my understanding, instead of talking about impunity for victims of rape, I should say, survivors of rape. Instead of talking about access to justice for survivors of rape, we talk about prevention of rape. In the Democratic Republic of Congo specifically, that is exactly like talking about HIV/AIDS without talking about sex. We are not tackling one of the fundamental causes. In the Congo, it is often common for survivors of rape to be blamed for the rape, instead of the perpetrators of rape. Women are forced out of their home and away from their families and their security net — their safety net. That reaction forces them to turn to survival sex. If they have HIV/AIDS, or are at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS, they might not seek medical care, because by disclosing their rape status, they could be thrown out of their community. They have to decide, do I talk about the fact that I have been raped and risk being thrown out of my family, which would also limit access to medical care?
Within our own borders, we have alleged war criminals from the Congo. Desire Munyaneza, a Rwandan was convicted in the Quebec court recently, and he is not the only one. I have this information from Dr. Philip Lancaster, who was Roméo Dallaire's military assistant during the Rwandan genocide. He has been back to the Congo as part of disarmament, demobilization, reintegration and repatriation, DDRR. The alleged war criminals are in Quebec. Apparently one shops at the same grocery store as Senator Dallaire. The fact is that these people are within our borders and we are not actively seeking to investigate and prosecute. By not talking about justice and impunity, we are contributing directly to the social structures in the Congo that literally kill women. I cannot emphasize that point enough. Those social structures kill women. It is harmful to women and their children and to their families.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: I support what Ms. Salahub said. We can say that between 2001 and 2003-04, there was a good deal of mobilization activity and momentum energy around women, peace and security issues and around women's rights in conflict situations. Since then, we have not seen that same level of energy on those issues.
Senator Mitchell: We need someone in government at a senior level who is specifically charged with this responsibility. I would say a minister. It might not even be a bad thing for a Prime Minister to say, this will be my personal project.
If you had to pick a ministry, which one would you pick? Which ministry is appropriate to take this responsibility?
Ms. Salahub: It is difficult because much of the gender equality expertise is housed within CIDA — you will note I do not say "equality between women and men" — but the political connections to places like the United Nations are housed within the Department of Foreign Affairs. The answer depends on the approach to be taken, and this approach would come out of the national action plan. At what level is Canada choosing to engage? That answer would help determine which department is best placed to lead, although I come back, again, strongly, to a whole-of-government approach. Resources within a variety of government departments should contribute, and can contribute, to the benefit of any programming.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: One benefit to having the Minister of Foreign Affairs as the lead on this plan is that the portfolio is a senior level. Many of these issues are held within CIDA's mandate and the development mandate, but what if we are thinking about engaging at the international level or the UN level?
My background is more in peace and security issues. Are we looking at engaging in issues around peace talks? Canada has a tremendous record in terms of its support to the Darfur peace talks, Uganda peace talks, peace talks in the DRC and early-stage dialogue efforts in Afghanistan. If we want to see greater women's participation in those types of initiatives, then certainly the Department of Foreign Affairs is the natural place for that work.
Ms. Salahub: Through other work I have done, I know there is a program of champions for official languages across government. A program similar to that one could help coordinate promotion and focus on Resolution 1325 in an across-government and whole-of-government approach.
Senator Mitchell: Do you mean a similar program?
Ms. Salahub: Yes, I mean a program of Resolution 1325 champions to draw attention to, and be resource people for, the focus on Resolution 1325.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There would be many people.
Ms. Salahub: Yes, we would have them in each department; exactly.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Under a minister?
Ms. Salahub: Yes, the minister would be the champion of the champions, as it were.
The Chair: I have to cut the debate here. Senator Brazeau, you have the final question.
Senator Brazeau: In your opinion, what do you think is the biggest shortcoming in terms of a lack of implementation of Resolution 1325, and what needs to be done right now to generate momentum to move forward on a strategy to implement Resolution 1325?
Ms. Salahub: To respond to your first question, senator, the biggest shortcoming is the national action plan, and the only way to move that forward is to put some political will behind it.
Ms. Wijeyaratne: I will add, briefly, political will plus dedicated funding resources to implement it.
Ms. Bergen: Agreed.
The Chair: I am not speaking for the committee, Ms. Bergen, but you have alleged that we have war criminals in Canada. It is the duty of Canadians to come forward. We cannot prosecute by rumour and gossip. First, that approach hurts people who are not war criminals, and second, it does not take the matter to where it needs to be dealt with in order to say there are war criminals.
If you are alleging that you know someone who shops somewhere and is a criminal, I urge you to contact the Department of Justice. We have legislation for just that purpose. Having worked for many years on different issues, including Holocaust issues, et cetera, I know that we need evidence, and we need the people to come forward. It can be equally harming when someone else alleges someone else is a war criminal and they are found not to be, so I urge caution. Because we are being taped and heard, I want it understood that I think it is the position of all parliamentarians — the issue is not a partisan one — that if we know of people who should not be in Canada and should be prosecuted, then I would encourage your networks who you say have some information to bring it forward to the government. That is the only way we can deal with the matter. I want that information on the record. I am sure you understand that, but I am not sure all the viewers do, and so therefore I put that on the record.
I thank you all for coming. Your presentations have been extremely helpful to thinking about practical methods by which that we can further the goals and aims of Resolution 1325. If you have anything further to add, positive suggestions or otherwise, please contact the clerk to provide written material, or perhaps we will have an opportunity to continue the debate.
I thank you for being brave and being first on the list. My colleagues have often said that we should start with the groups in Canada that are already thinking about, and working on, the issue before we turn to officials for their positions. We have done that today. You have armed us with good information so that we can begin our dialogue.
Honourable senators, in today's hearings we are looking to our witnesses to give us some advice on what areas Canada should be involved in and where Canada can place its best efforts with respect to Resolution 1325. Particularly we look to what this committee should continue to study, what focus on Resolution 1325 would be most helpful to ensure that women in development and in conflict issues have the best resources we can give and the best of the attention on conflict issues.
I am not going to restate what I said before, but it is the women who find themselves in conflict that is the focus of Resolution 1325. Other issues around Resolution 1325 can be helpful, and we want to make sure that our study focuses where we believe the emphasis should be, and you are here to tell us what that might be.
On this panel we have, from Amnesty International Canada, Ms. Lindsay Mossman, a campaigner from the human rights section; and from Peacebuild, Ms. Kate McInturff, who is the coordinator of the Gender and Peacebuilding Working Group.
Welcome to you both. I know both organizations have probably the longest history that I am aware of with Resolution 1325. We have limited time, and I am sure you will find the points that we need to address in Resolution 1325.
Lindsay Mossman, Campaigner, Women's Human Rights, Amnesty International Canada: Thank you, and good afternoon honourable senators and fellow representatives of civil society organizations. Amnesty International Canada welcomes the opportunity to speak with you today, and the committee's decision to undertake this study. I thank you for inviting me.
The study is very timely, given the recent debate at the Security Council on Resolution 1820 on sexual violence and armed conflict. The report of the UN Secretary-General prepared for that debate, and the expectation of a new UN Security Council Resolution on women, peace and security scheduled for September 30, which is intended to make operational Resolutions 1325 and 1820.
The full implementation of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 is essential to improving international security and ending sexual- and gender-based violence. In an upcoming report on Chad, Amnesty International Canada has documented how the lack of justice for crimes of rape and other forms of violence against women and girls had led to a culture of impunity. The weak Chadian legal framework, lack of judicial personnel in Eastern Chad and lack of political will by local authorities to punish perpetrators of sexual violence has resulted in further violence and exacerbated the conflict.
Despite the UN presence and the introduction of a new police force to the region, violence against women and girls remains high. There is a clear need for the strengthening of local and national justice systems to ensure justice and reparations for survivors. This is a key issue for Amnesty International.
The full implementation of Resolution 1325 — and I will add Resolution 1820 because it falls under that fold — includes the need for full and adequate participation and representation of women in all aspects of peace processes, including peace negotiations and reconstruction and rebuilding efforts.
Effective protection measures and services for survivors of sexual violence, including adequate medical and psychosocial care, are essential elements of the response to cases of sexual violence and armed conflict. The need for better documentation of cases of sexual violence must also be met with better services for survivors and survivor- centred justice, which focuses on the safety and dignity of survivors, including their right to restitution and full reparation.
The Government of Canada has in the past championed the work at the UN on women, peace and security, including during Canada's membership on the Security Council when Resolution 1325 was unanimously adopted. There is a continued opportunity for Canada to provide leadership in ending impunity for sexual violence and supporting justice mechanisms to ensure that perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence, are brought to justice.
Canada must continue to support international justice mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court. Canada should also provide support for strengthening national justice systems, including through training and supporting international initiatives.
The Government of Canada should also renew leadership around the call for the arms trade treaty to end the fuelling of violence through the proliferation of small arms in conflicts around world.
Canada should support the creation of a high level UN position, such as a UN special representative to the Secretary-General on women, peace and security and support a new gender equality body at the UN, both of which will be discussed in the coming weeks. There must also be a clear link between any new agencies and high level positions and the current human rights mechanisms of the UN to ensure that efforts are coordinated and to prevent duplication.
Canada must develop gender sensitivity training for Canadian personnel, including personnel deployed to peace operations and for personnel trained by Canadian peace-building initiatives. This training should include methods for recognizing and responding to reports of sexual and gender-based violence and should clearly outline protocols for ensuring the safety and dignity of survivors, providing access to necessary medical and psychosocial services and bringing perpetrators to justice.
Canada should increase the representation of women in the Canadian personnel deployed to UN peacekeeping efforts and increase support for programs focused on gender mainstreaming and peace operations.
Canadian leadership at the UN on women, peace and security requires leadership here at home, including the full implementation of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 in Canada. As a next step, Canada should develop and implement a national action plan, of which you have heard much, in collaboration with Canadian civil society organizations. Such a national action plan must cover all issues incorporated in Resolution 1325, including efforts to end sexual violence and armed conflict, as well as increasing the number of women in peace-building efforts at all levels and ending impunity and strengthening justice systems.
Amnesty International Canada has been involved in the development of national action plans in other states, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with the Government of Canada. Amnesty International Canada encourages Canada to continue leadership abroad by taking necessary steps to implement Resolutions 1325 and 1820 domestically.
We would be pleased to provide further information or to answer any questions at this time or further on in the course of this study.
Kate McInturff, Coordinator, Gender and Peacebuilding Working Group, Peacebuild: Good afternoon. I work for Peacebuild, which is an umbrella organization for NGOs, individuals and researchers working on issues related to conflicts. In particular, I am the coordinator of the gender and peace-building working group, which was involved in the civil society consultations on the national action plan in November of 2006. I would be happy to answer questions about that inasmuch as I am able to.
Thank you to the committee for inviting me, and thank you to the committee for bringing your attention to this issue. In times of financial crisis and indeed flu pandemics, the needs of communities far away seem all the more distant. However, right now, Canada's most significant investment of people and money abroad is in a country severely affected by conflict: Afghanistan.
Further, Canada continues to have commitments to a number of other countries affected by violence, including Sudan and Haiti. Women and girls make up in some cases more than one-half of the population of those countries.
So why is it important to implement Resolution 1325? In brief, when women are at the table, women's needs and rights are on the table. There cannot be sustainable peace and development without addressing the needs and rights of one-half of the population.
I would like to speak to some specific issues and make some specific recommendations about how Canada can address those issues. The first issue is training. Our troops and police are exceptionally well trained. In fact, they export that expertise to other national armies and police forces. However, they themselves, as far as I know, have no mandatory training on Resolution 1325, nor do they have any mandatory training that gives them the specific skills needed to respond to sexual violence. I will provide an example of the difference that can make.
We organized a round table together with Pearson Peacekeeping Centre last week, and we had Major-General Patrick Cammaert, who was deputy force commander for MONUC, the UN peacekeeping operation in DRC. He described an incident where he drove by an internally displaced persons camp and saw a number of his troops sitting on and around an armoured personnel vehicle. He said: It's not rocket science. They need to get out of the car and patrol the IDP camp; that is where the rapes are happening.
Therefore, what is the recommendation? There should be mandatory in-person training on Resolutions 1325 and 1820 for police, military and civilian personnel involved in peace operations.
Another issue with respect to women and peace operations is that training is not enough. There need to be women on the ground and making decisions at headquarters. To give another example, a positive example, the UN police chief in Darfur requested specifically from Pearson Peacekeeping Centre that they be given training on how to prosecute crimes of sexual violence. Their peacekeepers were asking for this training. They were faced with this crime, and they simply did not have the skills they needed to prosecute.
One thing that became clear was there also needed to be women there. The skills were needed, but so were the women. Why? Because women and girls, and indeed boys and men, who have been affected by sexual violence in many cases will be more comfortable speaking to women.
Currently, Canada has excellent rates of recruitment of women. Seventeen per cent of Canada's combined regular forces and primary reserve are women. However, as far as I know, there are no goals set for retention of women or for women at senior military ranks. That is something that I think would be important towards addressing this issue.
With respect to women at the peace table, my colleague Ms. Wijeyaratne, spoke rather extensively about this. All I will say is that I reiterate support for the recommendations she made. Women make up a minute percentage of signatories and participants in peace negotiations. The absence of women at those tables has a profound effect.
I will give you one example of the positive effect of women at the tables. Carolyn McAskie, the UN Assistant Secretary General for Peacebuilding support notes that in Burundi, women participated in peace processes, which resulted in the integration of gender equality in the framework for democratic governance and peace building. It resulted in quotas in the peace agreement and the new constitution of Burundi. As a result, 30 per cent of all parliamentarians and seven of 20 ministers are women. This is the kind of difference that can make.
With respect to recommendations, Canada must act to ensure that women constitute at least one third of all parties to peace processes; they represent one-half of the population.
With regard to the use of sexual violence in armed conflict, this is an historical phenomenon, as the senator pointed out. We have seen this with the "comfort women" in Korea. We have seen this throughout history.
At the moment, it is particularly epidemic. In DRC, we are now seeing armed groups reporting explicitly that they are using sexual violence as a weapon against civilian populations because they are unlikely to be prosecuted for it. Hundreds and thousands of civilians, their families' and communities' are destroyed with no recourse to justice and little likelihood of reconciliation.
My colleague, Ms. Bergen, has given an example of what happens if sexual violence is not dealt with in peace negotiations. I want to give an example of what happens when it is. In post-genocide Rwanda, rape was defined as Category 1 genocide. International and national recognition of rape as a crime has set a precedent for addressing ongoing acts of sexual violence.
With respect to recommendations for Canada, Canada must oppose amnesty provisions for those responsible for planning and committing systematic sexual violence in armed conflict. Canada must support, politically and financially, both international and national justice for victims of sexual and gender-based violence.
Canada must increase the human and financial resources committed to providing health care, psychosocial and legal assistance and support for economic and social reintegration for survivors.
Someone asked a question about whether we are losing our capacity. We do have some capacity here and we have shown leadership on these issues in the past. Gender advisers and gender focal points provide key resources for effective programming and policy development. They ensure that even in the absence of gender-specific benchmarks, Canadian programming responds equally to the needs of men and women, of girls and boys. For example, although the benchmarks for Canada's commitments in Afghanistan are not gender desegregated, because the Afghanistan Task Force has gender advisers, they are able, at some level, to ensure that the programming carried out with Canadian money in Afghanistan is, at least in some cases, responsive to the different needs of men and women and the different needs of girls and boys.
On the less positive side, funds and staff positions that were previously committed specifically to women, peace and security at the Department of Foreign Affairs have been folded into a general human rights policy envelope. That human rights policy envelope includes a mandate to address women, peace and security. Here you would need to question the representatives from Foreign Affairs because I cannot say this for certain, but my understanding is, since that time, about a year and a half ago, no projects focused specifically on women, peace and security have received funding. This may be a case of something being crossed and cut rather than cross-cutting.
Canada must continue to support gender advisers and gender focal points within the responsible agencies and departments. Canada must reinstate funding specifically earmarked for projects on women, peace and security. Canada must reinstate staff positions specifically devoted to the development of policy on women, peace and security. Canada must provide regular monitoring and reporting mechanisms for the implementation of Resolution 1325.
To ensure our continued commitment and coordination, Canada must implement a strong national action plan in consultation with civil society on Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820. We must implement a whole-of- government plan with demonstrated commitment from senior leadership. Such a plan must include new resource commitments, a performance measurement framework with specific targets and indicators, and clear allocation of responsibilities.
Thank you again for your time and your interest. I welcome the opportunity to answer your questions today and would be happy to come back at any point in the future to discuss this with you.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you very much to both of you for your articulate presentations.
Canada can be proud because we were instrumental in bringing about Resolution 1325. Do you think that our vision has changed since 2000? What has happened?
Ms. Mossman: In terms of the work that Canada is doing at the United Nations, a lot of that good work has continued. The challenge is implementation, and it is a real shame that Canada has championed these issues abroad but does not seem to be implementing Resolutions 1325 and 1820 effectively at home. That is one reason why we are calling for the national action plan. Our colleagues at Amnesty International are surprised that Canada does not have an implemented national action plan.
Particularly around justice issues, which are my focus today, Canada has also played a strong international role in the past. Our concern is that approach has been waning, and we need to see renewed commitment both internationally and at home.
Ms. McInturff: I echo Ms. Mossman's comments and those of the earlier panel on this issue.
The only thing I would add is that from the point of view of organizations working outside of the government, we cannot always tell what is happening behind the scenes. It is clear that there are individuals who are very committed to this issue at all levels. There is a level of expertise in our government, and as others have said, there are instances of past leadership on this issue.
The thing that I would most look for would be the allocation of resources and tying performance and evaluation to achieving the goal set out in Resolution 1325.
Senator Jaffer: Ms. Mossman you brought up an important issue about Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820 being applied at home. I would like both witnesses to comment on the status of our national action plan. In addition, I would like to hear comments on what we are doing here in Canada. We do not have conflict, happily, in our own country, but we do have women who are affected by conflict who come into our country. How are we empowering those women? How are we assisting them? Are we using Resolution 1325 or are we just working within the same processes of immigration to help those women?
Ms. McInturff: Senator Jaffer, I may not be the best person to answer that question. I do know that sexual assault centres and rape crisis centres, organizations that provide frontline services to refugee and immigrant women, have been confronted with immigrants who have been traumatized by war-related sexual violence. These frontline services are responding to that need and developing frameworks for responding to that population. They are setting up programs in high schools here in Ottawa, working with immigrant services organizations to respond to the needs of those populations, which are different, and to respond to the way that those populations interact with service providers, which is also different.
Are they using Resolutions 1325 and 1820 per se? No. Are they doing the work and meeting those objectives? Yes. They are doing it in a responsive manner. You would have to ask the people working in those organizations, but I do not get the sense that they are following any national level directive in doing that work. They are being responsive and, I would add, extremely innovative in their responses.
Senator Jaffer: I assume you are talking about the NGOs and their response. What leadership is our government playing in helping the NGOs and these communities? Can you comment on the national action plan?
Ms. Mossman: In terms of service providers, within Amnesty International my work focuses on women's human rights, and mostly internationally. In the last two or three years, we have seen a clawback on women's rights and funding for women's rights and women's equality here in Canada. We have commented on that in the past. Our organization is concerned with the recent Foreign Affairs language changes around gender equality or inequality between men and women. These changes may have resulted in policy changes at Foreign Affairs.
I will leave the question about the status of the national action plan to Ms. McInturff.
Ms. McInturff: I was not in my current position when the consultations with civil society took place on the Canadian action plan for implementation. I do have the documents, and that consultation took place in November 2006, and the results on the NGO side was a report with some specific recommendations. I would be happy to pass those documents on to the committee.
There is a letter with NGO signatories making the kinds of recommendations which we have all made here about how that plan would look.
I have a timeline which indicated that, following these consultations, the draft national action plan, the final document, would be released March 8, 2007. Obviously, that did not happen. I certainly have not been contacted for any further consultations, since becoming the coordinator of the gender and peace-building working group in the fall of 2007. I do meet with colleagues at Foreign Affairs who have had the file for women, peace and security, but it has generally been to talk about particular projects. The things I have heard as recently as last week were simply statements that the action plan is being worked on. I do not know the nature of that work.
Senator Mitchell: I have a general question first. I have thought that if ever there was a reason to be in Afghanistan, and I know it is controversial, it would be because of the way women are treated so brutally under a Taliban regime. A professor of these issues said to me recently that men are treated brutally as well, but it seems to be particularly directed against women.
If the West removed itself from Afghanistan and it descended again into what it was, is there anything that international agencies and governments could do o enhance the rights of women, or is it just a waste land and lost? Is Resolution 1325 out of the realm of possibility if we are not there?
Ms. Mossman: The best way I could respond is by putting us in the situation that we are in, rather than imagining a situation that we are not in. Canada is in Afghanistan. That is where we are. Rather than commenting on whether we should be there or how we got there, I will leave that.
Senator Mitchell: You are not answering a hypothetical question.
Ms. Mossman: No. As Amnesty International, we stay away from those questions. It is important for us to deal with the issues at hand. What is clear is that because Canada is in Afghanistan, we have an opportunity to ensure gender equality in all of our post-conflict operations. It is clear that if we do not have a gender-sensitive approach to that work in our peace-building operations, then the long term is challenging in terms of development that ensures gender equality. That is clear.
What we also know is that it is not just international organizations or international forces that are in Afghanistan doing work on gender equality. There are many women, girls and organizations on the ground that have been doing that work for years. There is an opportunity for us to partner with those organizations and to work with the expertise that is already on the ground.
The challenge, of course, is that by doing so, we must ensure the protection of those women and girls. It is clear that if we cannot protect them, we have a real problem. We cannot involve civil society actors in Afghanistan without providing adequate protection for them. In Kandahar, for example, in the last few years, three very high level women have been killed because of their human rights activism.
For Amnesty International Canada, it is important that we recognize that already there are many actors on the ground doing that good work. Canada has an opportunity to engage with them but we must also guarantee that the mechanisms are in place to provide them with adequate protection in doing so. Resolution 1325 should be implemented in all of our operations in Afghanistan.
Senator Mitchell: Do you think it is being implemented?
Ms. Mossman: A lot more needs to be done. Many of the recommendations that came out this afternoon would put us well on our way to achieving that, particularly around training and funding particular programs to ensure adequate gender mainstreaming of all of our operations, especially around benchmarks and evaluations. That is a quick answer.
Senator Mitchell: That is a good answer. One of the frustrations that I feel, as do many others, is that it is not that hard to do given the size of the bureaucracy. It is a question of focus. If some minister says, "I am going to do this," it can happen in 15 minutes and it can change the lives of many women around the world.
Ms. Mossman: We need to see that kind of leadership here at home. The other challenge is the ongoing question about whether this is a development issue, for CIDA, or something for Foreign Affairs or National Defence. It is clearly for everyone. The other challenge is that there have been many times when gender and women's issues are seen as a development issue only and that is one of the challenges for implementing Resolution 1325. We need to see this as a security issue and an issue for Foreign Affairs. It does not mean that our wonderful colleagues at CIDA should stop doing the work they are doing, but this is implicated for everyone. We need to see our colleagues at Foreign Affairs taking this up more wholeheartedly.
Senator Mitchell: We also need to see its implications for how we approach things in Canada. We are good, but we are not perfect.
I forget which one of you mentioned the need to be supportive of international and national laws upon which these perpetrators of rape can be brought to justice.
Are there not right now international laws that can be invoked? There is the international court, but is that just too cumbersome or specific? What specifically would you need to do to address what you have just said?
Ms. McInturff: To use the example of the DRC, which we heard about earlier today, there are International Criminal Court prosecutions going on there. There is also a fairly progressive national criminal code, which defines sexual violence as a crime, but there is no implementation of those laws. I would say that it is not a question of either/ or. We need to see the International Criminal Court working in the realm it works best in, and prosecuting the decision-makers responsible for the strategies of the use of sexual violence in conflict and for other kinds of crimes against humanity, but also to support the justice system. In the DRC, if a woman or a girl is willing to take the risk of being disowned by her family to speak about this kind of crime, is willing to risk being shunned by her community, is willing to risk the perceived humiliation of speaking about this crime, if she is able to find someone to listen to her, and if that person is able to assist her in seeking justice, she still has to pay to have her case heard by the national justice system. Then, if — and this happens extraordinarily rarely — the judge in the case finds in her favour, she has to pay again to have the sentence executed. If the court finds that she is due reparations, for example, she has to contribute further financial resources.
Again, Congo is a large country. There are not means to access justice in every locality. Every time something like this happens it costs financial resources, but it also means travelling through insecure areas over long distances with no roads.
Here is a place where we would provide support to the judiciary, support for infrastructure, support to the women's organizations accompanying the survivors of sexual violence. We can see development, Foreign Affairs and security actors working together to ensure these women receive the care that they need and also the justice that they deserve.
Ms. Mossman: I would add that accessing justice has to go hand in hand with accessing services. That is the same for collecting data or information about cases of sexual violence. We cannot simply collect information about sexual violence without offering services for survivors as well. We need to be able to strengthen national justice systems.
Support for the International Criminal Court is welcome and should continue. That is one mechanism where the laws are in place for rape, or other crimes of sexual violence, to be considered a war crime, and that is very important.
At the national level, though, if the laws are not in place, they need to be put in place. That is a long process but it needs to happen. Second, it needs to be implemented. There is real need for strengthening national justice systems, as there are many challenges to accessing justice. Much of the content of many of our reports on rape and sexual violence in armed conflict, particularly around the DRC, and in our upcoming report on Chad, is a lack of justice and a lack of will to prosecute even when the laws are in place. I brought copies of the reports with me, not enough for the whole committee, but I will leave them with the clerk. I am happy to provide more information as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: While we are talking about reports being submitted, I hope, Ms. McInturff, you will submit what you said you had materials on.
I want to go to this kerfuffle about DFAIT changing its language, in particular, the phrase "international humanitarian law." What difference does it make to both of you, or to NGOs working in this field, to have the word "humanitarian" removed?
Ms. Mossman: That is a good question. Alex Neve is better placed to answer that question. Certainly, the challenge for us is that "international humanitarian law" has very specific meaning in the international community, and so removing that language may have serious policy implications. I will not go into specifics, but I will follow up with you on that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Give us an example.
Ms. Mossman: I am not a lawyer, so I would speak more specifically about some of the policy implications around changing the gender language, which has been my focus at Amnesty International Canada. In terms of humanitarian law and the responsibility to assist civilians, if the country is unable or unwilling to do so, there are some real changes around "international law" having less specific meaning than is outlined under international humanitarian law.
In terms of the responsibility of states to respond to humanitarian issues, including conflict, I will not be able to go further into detail.
Senator Nancy Ruth: You said "international humanitarian law" has different understandings.
Ms. Mossman: In my understanding, "international humanitarian law" has very specific meaning.
Senator Nancy Ruth: For whom, and from what?
Ms. Mossman: For states, in terms of having signed on to international conventions. "International law" is a much more general term.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is it based on case law?
The Chair: We can go back to some of our reports. It is not a question of the language of international humanitarian law, because that is a topic. There are specific conventions and treaties. That is what we go to. Some are lumped together under human rights and some are criminal law, some are civil law, et cetera. We will be delving into this language.
We are up to 110 nations coming together and saying that certain offences are crimes and this is how they will be prosecuted, and that no one is exempt; that includes both the president of the country and an ordinary citizen. That is the start of some accountability and getting at the issue of impunity.
We can ask DFAIT what they are doing, how they are changing, and what their intent is. Then we can call some people to see if they agree or disagree with that. That is the start of the debate.
I think we will get some information for all of the members of the International Criminal Court. I would ask you to read our previous reports on the other legislation under our initial reference, because it enumerates all the treaties and conventions. They enumerate how they are applied or not applied, and the Criminal Code sections that we had to implement to give effect to the ICC. That broadened our capability of charging in Canada for crimes within those specific categories. That would be helpful background.
Ms. Mossman: I am happy to follow up with more information on that issue. The concern that we have is not insofar as the Canadian government has made those changes. The concern is that if the changes in language are set to denote a change in policy, then we have some real concerns about the way in which that was done and what the implications are. It is yet to be seen whether there have been long-term policy changes in terms of the Canadian's government approach internationally on a number of these issues. The concern is that there may be broader-sweeping policy changes underlying the language changes. I would be happy to follow up on that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: There was a famous American nun, theologian, Rosemary Radford Ruether, who, in 1972, said that language is the power of the ruling class to define reality in its own terms. Therefore, I have no doubt that changes in language lead to other changes.
I want to go to your comments in Embassy, August 19, 2009, regarding the business of switching from "gender equality" to "equality of men and women." I do not want to talk in particular about your issues around gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered, but about women and Resolution 1325.
In section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the phrase "equality of men and women" is used. Given that that language is in our Constitution, how would you relate your comments and your concerns around women in Resolution 1325, either survivor women in Canada or in any other country in the world?
Ms. Mossman: My comments to the magazine were particularly around the issue of gender-based violence. The concern there is that gender-based violence is carried out under a number of reasons, but particularly in cases in which gender norms are seen to have been transgressed or to ensure that those gender norms are transgressed in order to achieve an aim, for example, crimes of sexual violence carried out against men and boys, or against women, in such a way as to break up social norms and community norms. I hope I am being clear.
Gender is very fluid. The language around men and women may or may not, as you well know, have policy implications. I cannot comment more specifically on that.
The concerns that I have raised do stand. If there are policy changes, then those need to be put forward in more open discussion. That is the concern. It is not so much suggesting that the language is inadequate; it is suggesting that the language does not reflect the approach that the Canadian government has taken internationally prior to this, so why has there been such a change and why has it been done in this way? Those are the concerns we are raising as an organization.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you.
The Chair: I thank the witnesses. We have run out of time.
We seem to have zeroed in on 2006 and a meeting that took place. Resolution 1325 came into being in 2000. Could tell us what your involvement was between 2000 and 2006, either as an organization or with the government, so that we have the full background?
We seem to have zeroed in on this meeting and the consultations with the NGOs in 2006. It would be interesting to know about your involvement and your work before that, both independently and with the government. I am not asking that you provide this information now. If you have time to send this to us, it would be helpful as background.
I thank you for your expertise and your commitment to the topic, which is evident. We hope that our work in this study will have the same benefit and be of the same quality as yours has been. Thank you for coming and for continuing this debate with us.
We now have before us from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Mr. David Angell, Director General, International Organizations Bureau, amongst other titles.
As you heard from previous questioning, we are uncertain where the responsibility for Resolution 1325 lies within the government. We know that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has an important role. Welcome.
David Angell, Director General, International Organizations Bureau, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. Briefly, the coordinating responsibility on Resolution 1325 resides with the Department of Foreign Affairs. Two colleagues from the department join me: Elissa Golberg, Director General of the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force; and Jim Junke, Director Human Rights Policy division, but the work around Resolution 1325 involves a number of partners across government. We are joined, for example, by Nadia Kostiuk, Regional Director General from CIDA, and by Chief Superintendent Barbara Fleury from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Department of National Defence is also involved in this issue. It is an issue what has engaged a number of partners across government.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this committee with information concerning the Canadian government's implementation of the women, peace and security agenda. With the agreement of members of the committee, the introductory remarks that I will deliver will be a little longer than usual. In effect, we are delivering one statement on behalf of government departments instead of three separate statements on behalf of the departments that were invited. My colleagues and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
This month marks the tenth anniversary of the first UN Security Council Resolution on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, Resolution 1265. This resolution marked a turning point. For the first time the Security Council spoke to the protection of people and not convoys, and agreed that these issues were central to its peace and security mandate and not tangential.
In the year that followed the adoption of Resolution 1265, the Government of Canada actively supported from within the Security Council, Namibia's stewardship of Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security, adopted unanimously in October 2000. We played a strong role in developing a sister resolution on children and armed conflicts.
Resolution 1325 was the first Security Council resolution to deal exclusively with women and armed conflict and built squarely upon the protection of civilians agenda I spoke of a moment ago.
Canada has since reinforced these linkages and has worked to ensure that practical follow-up is actively pursued at the UN, at regional organizations and in specific country contexts.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, the Government of Canada is committed to promoting freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. In line with this commitment, Resolution 1325 does not mark the beginning of the Government of Canada's attention to the issue of women, peace and security. Our efforts to implement Resolution 1325 — and now Resolution 1820 on sexual violence in conflict — are grounded in the overall promotion and protection of women's and girls' human rights and equality within the framework of the 1995 Beijing declaration and platform for action, and Canada's obligations under the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the convention on the rights of the child, and other international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law instruments.
Since the adoption of Resolution 1325, various federal government departments have been engaged in implementation work, including the Department of National Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. An important amount of work is also done through the support we provide to civil society organizations, and partnerships of UN agencies and regional organizations. DEFAIT acts as the Government of Canada's focal point for the implementation of Resolution 1325, ensuring coherence and appropriate coordination among the related federal departments.
[English]
The Government of Canada's commitment to the women, peace and security agenda sits firmly within our core values of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. It is a deliberate lens, not a haphazard or random addition to existing efforts. Our focus is on ensuring that women's concerns are met, that women are equal participants in efforts to prevent and resolve conflict and rebuild their communities, that women can achieve equality with men, and that peace and security activities benefit all members of society, women and men, girls and boys equally.
In essence, our approach focuses on the four key themes of the resolution: the protection of women's and girls' human rights; the representation and participation of women and local women's groups; the training of deployed personnel on the protection, rights and particular needs of women and girls; and the integration of a gender perspective in all aspects of peace and security activities.
Canada's approach to the implementation of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 addresses these themes in four ways: first, developing and advancing international norms and standards; second, conducting advocacy; third, ensuring compliance and implementation; and fourth, building capacity. As such, our approach is both multi-dimensional and multilateral.
I should like to spend a few minutes outlining some of the recent efforts Canada has undertaken under the four key themes of the resolution. First, with respect to the protection of women's and girls' human rights, as the chair of the working group of the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, Committee C-34, Canada played a leading role in developing the recently adopted United Nations Comprehensive Strategy on Assistance and Support to Victims of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by United Nations Staff and Related Personnel.
Canada also strongly supported and played a leading role in encouraging the development of the UN inter-agency standing committee plan of action to address sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian contexts.
In Peru, Guatemala and Colombia, Canada has funded the activities of grassroots women's organizations that seek to bring perpetrators of crimes to justice and seek reparations for gender-based violence during armed conflicts.
In eastern DRC, where sexual and gender-based violence has been pervasive, Canada, through CIDA, has contributed $15 million since 2006 to support a multilateral effort to help victims of this crime. This initiative helps tens of thousands of victims of sexual violence through medical care, psychological support, access to civilian justice and socio-economic reintegration. Nevertheless, this issue of sexual violence in DRC continues to present a significant challenge to the international community.
[Translation]
In May 2008, Canada co-funded, along with the U.K., a Wilton Park conference entitled "Women Targeted or Affected by Armed Conflict: What Role for Military Peacekeepers?" This groundbreaking meeting focused on the role of military peacekeepers in addressing sexual violence, and resulted in an inventory of good practices for peacekeepers to use in protecting civilians from sexual violence. It also underscored that those entrusted with protection must have the knowledge and training required to effectively fulfil this role. As a result of the meeting, the UN is currently undertaking a study on the best practices of peacekeepers in preventing widespread and systematic sexual violence in conflict. The discussion also paved the way for Resolution 1820 on sexual violence which was adopted the next month.
[English]
With respect to the representation and participation of women in peace processes — for example, in peace making, peace building, peacekeeping — Canada has likewise pursued both country-specific and systemic change. For instance, in Sudan, as the deputy chair of this committee knows well, the Government of Canada undertook efforts to increase the engagement by Darfuri women in the inter-Sudanese peace talks on the conflict in Darfur held in Abuja from 2004 to 2006. I believe it is not an exaggeration to say that Canada played a pivotal role in that regard, and the deputy chair of this committee in particular was a driver on that effort.
Canada provided technical assistance to the African Union and to the parties to the conflict on how to integrate women's rights and equality concerns into the peace negotiations and on strengthening the participation of women in the Darfur peace process.
[Translation]
Canada is assisting UNICEF to roll out mobile mine risk education (MRE) teams in Sudan. At present, nearly half of MRE team members are women who have been trained to deliver messages and information on the risk of land mines and unexploded ordnances to internally displaced persons, returnees and school children.
In Nepal, Canada has supported the formation of more than 40 women-led community peace groups, which have proven to be effective vehicles for reconciliation and local conflict resolution.
Canada has also contributed to our registration process for ex-combatants through which 2,000 under-age fighters, some of them girls, will receive access to rehabilitation services.
In Haiti, Canada, through CIDA, has provided support to significantly increased respect for women's rights and participation in political and civic life by improving the effectiveness of activities, organizations and institutions in Haiti devoted to promoting, protecting and advocating women's rights.
Specifically, this support has aimed to assist those who are involved in combatting violence against women and who promote the exercise of citizenship among Haitian women and their participation in the organs of power.
[English]
In Afghanistan, Canada has deployed a gender adviser to the ministry of the interior to assist in the development of policies and programs aimed at increasing the representation of women in the Afghan national police. This project has had tangible success in raising awareness about women's rights among police and in introducing programs into policing, such as a family response unit and a pilot female patrol in a women's park.
Since its inception, Canadian support to the Microfinance Investment Support Facility for Afghanistan, a national microfinance program, has exceeded $100 million. Canada continues to be its lead donor. MISFA has assisted more than 445,000 Afghans obtain small loans and saving services across 23 provinces of Afghanistan, and more than two thirds of the recipients are women.
At the global and regional level, Canada has invested important resources in helping the UN's Department of Peacekeeping Operations — DPKO — and the African Union in undertaking practical follow-up on the provisions of Resolution 1325 in terms of doctrine, planning, training and deployment of military troops and police.
In terms of Canada's deployments, 8 per cent of Canadian police personnel currently deployed in peace-support operations are female.
Canada is undertaking recruiting efforts to increase the representation of women police officers in missions. We do so with the full awareness of the positive impact this can have on the host country's perception of the role of women in peace and security. Canada also encourages other countries to increase their representation of female police officers in missions abroad.
Canada most recently supported the participation of current and former women officers from the United Nations police in the Security Council's open debate on women, peace and security held on August 7 of this year.
Canada also hosted a round-table discussion on sexual violence in conflict with these same female officers. The panel included female officers with experience in the DRC, Liberia, Haiti and Sudan, who recognize that the value added of female UN police is reflected in the increased confidence of victims to report cases as well as in small changes to cultural attitudes towards the role women can play in rebuilding societies.
With respect to mediation and to the role of women as special envoys, there remains considerable work to be done. In the May 2009 UN Security Council debate on mediation, the Canadian government expressly drew attention to the imbalance between the number of men and women in senior mediation posts and requested that concerted efforts be made across the UN system to remedy this situation, calling on member states to nominate women candidates trained in mediation.
I bring to the committee's attention the fact that out of only eight women ever appointed to the role of special envoy within the United Nations system, one was a Canadian who served with distinction as the senior UN envoy and head of the successful UN peacekeeping operation in Burundi.
[Translation]
Under the third pillar, training of deployed personnel on the protection, rights and particular needs of women and girls, we have undertaken the following efforts, among others:
Canada has supported the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre in the development and delivery of two courses on sexual and gender-based violence intervention, prevention and investigation; these courses have been offered to 60 African police personnel currently deployed to the joint United Nations and African Union mission in Darfur: known as UNAMID.
The training of primarily female investigators as well as their male counterparts will enhance UNAMID's capacity to accurately report and illustrate the nature and scope of this violence in the mission area.
In March 2009, 33 police officers currently serving with UNAMID graduated from a sexual and gender-based violence training course. Canada's role in the training of the police officers served to meet Canada's commitment to our G8 partners to building global capacity for peace operations.
Furthermore, this role also reflects Canada's strong commitment to African development and peace and security. Canadian Forces and civilian police personnel receive pre-deployment training on the protection, rights and particular needs of women and on the importance of involving women in all peacekeeping and peace-building measures; this is what we term gender-equality training.
This pre-deployment training also covers issues such as codes of conduct, sexual offences, human rights, cultural customs, international humanitarian law, human trafficking, and the concerns of female combatants. All Canadian Forces personnel in Afghanistan receive this training. Additionally, civilian personnel deployed to fragile states by federal government departments, such as DFAIT and CIDA, also receive such training.
[English]
Finally, with respect to integrating a gender perspective into all aspects of peace and security activities, the Government of Canada ensures that all project funding addresses both gender equality results and the manner in which women will participate in planned activities.
For instance, all projects received by DFAIT's Global Peace and Security Fund are reviewed to consider what measures will be taken to ensure that the interests and needs of women, men, girls and boys will be addressed in the planning, implementation and evaluation of the project.
Proposals and results matrices undergo a peer and interdepartmental review from a gender perspective, including questions of targeting, participation and access, and specific training is provided to project staff.
Through our permanent mission to the UN in New York, the Government of Canada established and chairs the Friends of Women, Peace and Security group. This group is a coalition of UN member states formed in 2000 to promote the implementation and resolution of Resolution 1325 through information sharing and advocacy aimed at advancing women, peace and security issues within and outside the Security Council.
Key events held by the friends group include meetings with various UN officials to maintain pressure on the UN system to implement the resolution and various ambassadorial-level meetings to prepare for open debates at the Security Council on this issue. In his September 2008 report on women, peace and security, the Secretary-General stressed the catalytic role this group has played in mobilizing inter-governmental action in support of Resolution 1325.
In addition, the UN Peacebuilding Commission, of which Canada is a member, has been called upon by Resolution 1820 to play an important role in ensuring the full participation of women in peace-building processes and to address sexual violence committed during and in the aftermath of violent conflict.
Since February 2009, Canada has been chair of the Peacebuilding Commission's country-specific configuration for Sierra Leone, one of four countries currently on the commission's agenda.
Our leadership role at the Peacebuilding Commission has given us the opportunity to ensure that gender concerns are integrated into all aspects of the peace-building process for the countries on the commission's agenda.
[Translation]
The most recent plan for the commission's engagement with Sierra Leone was unveiled at a special session co-hosted by Canada at the UN in New York in June 2009, and highlighted gender as one of five key issues which will need to be addressed.
Canada will continue to promote more involvement of women in elections, governments, human rights protection, security and other key areas essential to the peace-building process.
Canada is providing support to efforts in Sierra Leone by the international women's tribune centre to facilitate consultations between women's groups and government on how Sierra Leone can concretely implement Security Council resolution 1820.
There still remains a great deal of work that can be done at the peace-building commission to better meet its responsibilities under Resolution 1820.
The upcoming five-year review of the peace-building commission will offer an opportunity to ensure that principles of gender quality are well incorporated. Members of the committee may be interested in a related UN resolution, passed by the Security Council in August, which will help to protect children, including girls and young women, living in conflict zones.
The new Resolution, 1882, will ensure that the secretary general monitors and reports on incidents of rape and sexual violence against children.
[English]
In conclusion, implementation of Resolution 1325 is a work-in-progress, both within Canada and at the United Nations. With the tenth anniversary of the adoption of Resolution 1325 approaching next year, the 1325 community has been engaging in some international stocktaking.
On the positive side, there have been some remarkable accomplishments by the many dedicated actors who pursued the promotion and protection of women and girls' rights, including Canadian civil society organizations.
However, Resolution 1325, and now Resolution 1820, still has no dedicated UN institutional mechanism to support its implementation. The Government of Canada has said repeatedly over the years that Resolution 1325 needs a UN monitoring mechanism; it needs a senior level UN individual dedicated to advocating for it; and in field missions, we need dedicated gender expertise.
Canada strongly supports ongoing efforts by Security Council members to further the implementation of these resolutions. For example, we are actively supporting negotiations led by the United States for a follow-up resolution to 1820, expected to be adopted before the end of September.
We are hopeful that this next step in the Resolution 1325 agenda will lay the groundwork for more specific efforts to address sexual violence. It is clear that in order to achieve concrete change on the ground, Resolution 1325 must be fully implemented. Efforts around Resolution 1820 and its follow-up are an attempt to do exactly this.
The Chair: Thank you for the overview of the progress made to date by the Government of Canada with respect to Resolution 1325 and the subsequent resolutions.
I am pleased that you noted the work of our deputy chair, Senator Jaffer who was not only instrumental in the work in Darfur, but also instrumental in bringing the issue of Resolution 1325 to our study here in the Senate. Senator Jaffer, I will turn to you first.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you, Mr. Angell, and all of the witnesses for appearing here today. Our committee certainly sees us working closely with you because we believe that the issues that are close to your heart are also issues we want to work on.
Before I begin, I want to acknowledge the work of Mr. Angell. When we were a member of the Security Council, we were very much aware of the tremendous work you did to give birth to Resolution 1325. The country as a whole and women around the world are appreciative of the extensive work you did on behalf of all of us.
After flattery come tough questions. It is not flattery; it comes from the heart. Mr. Angell and other witness, we appreciate the work you do. Ms. Golberg has also done tremendous work in Afghanistan.
We have heard that you had consultations with civil society in 2006 on the national action plan and since then, there have been no consultations with civil society on the national action plan. I would appreciate hearing the status of the national action plan.
You clearly said that the Government of Canada has said that the UN needs senior level individuals dedicated to advocating Resolution 1325. Who are our senior individuals in government advocating Resolution 1325?
Mr. Angell: Thank you for the kind remarks. Indeed, Ms. Golberg, and a great number of officials and successive ministers across government have worked hard on this issue.
With regard to the national action plan and the consultations, there was indeed a period of close consultation with civil society. That was followed by a period of work in-house. Very considerable work has now been done in drafting and preparing a national action plan. The document is not yet completely finalized, but in the meantime, the implementation of actions relating to Resolution 1325 is continuing. The national action plan, the document itself, is a work-in-progress.
With regard to the leadership being provided on this issue, the key minister is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is given the coordination role of the ministers and ministry on this issue.
Senator Jaffer: I am glad that there has been progress made on the draft national action plan. Is there a draft that will be shared with civil society?
Are you planning further consultations with civil society and when will this plan be ready for us to see?
Mr. Angell: I am not certain that I can provide an answer to that question at this time. Very considerable work has been done. We are in the process of finalizing the document, beginning the process of approvals, and exactly how that process will play out naturally differs from one document to another. I would not want to predict how this particular document might be handled.
Senator Jaffer: Between 2002 and 2006, starting with Senator Wilson, we had envoys on Resolution 1325. If I am not mistaken, we had people dedicated to working only on Resolution 1325. What is the structure now? Where in the department are Resolutions 1325 and 1820 and related resolutions? Who is in charge within the department and what gender analysis are you doing within DFAIT around these issues?
Mr. Angell: The responsibility for this issue within the Department of Foreign Affairs is the multilateral group that includes both the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, which plays an active role on this issue, and the international organizations Human Rights and Democracy Bureau, which also plays an active role on this issue. The Human Rights Policy Division has had a particular lead historically and remains active. We work closely with our missions in New York and Geneva. In view of the chairmanship by Canada, for example, of the Friends of 1325, the mission in New York works as a seamless extension of the multilateral group on these issues.
Senator Jaffer: To put it bluntly, who is the Chantale Walker in the department? Who is in charge of Resolution 1325? Where do we go with specific questions? I understand it is divided between different departments, but is there a separate group of people just working on Resolution 1325?
Elissa Golberg, Director General, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force Secretariat, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: DFAIT has had some internal reorganization over the course of the summer, so the locus has shifted from Ms. Walker, and there are now two, both within my bureau and within Mr. Angell's bureau. In Jim Junke's shop, Mr. Junke would be your bellybutton to push on women's human rights issues. Within my shop, it will be a gentleman called Michael Kaduck in the new peace operations and fragile states policy unit that has been established within the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force.
Within START, issues related to peacekeeping, peace building and Resolution 1325 would be addressed, and then other broader questions related to human rights issues continue to be addressed within Mr. Junke's office, so the two of them work together to ensure we are addressing these issues effectively.
Senator Jaffer: That is helpful as the two bellybuttons are here today. When we started in 2000, there was great consultation with civil society, and we set up a committee that included government departments, civil society and parliamentarians. It was the first of its kind in the world.
What will the structure be now and what projects will you participate in? I listened to what Mr. Angell had to say, but besides that, what projects are you taking under the new human rights policy fund?
Ms. Golberg: Within START, the Global Peace and Security Fund is the locus for funding within the Department of Foreign Affairs on projects related to women, peace and security. Historically it was the Glyn Berry Program and now has been absorbed within the larger GPSF portfolio.
Over the course of the last several years, we have consistently been allocating funds against the different issues that come up within Resolution 1325, including devoting funds specifically focused on Resolution 1325 activities both in Canada and in New York.
I do not foresee that changing just because we have had an internal reorganization. So far this fiscal year, for 2009- 10, we have disbursed almost $300,000 related to projects on women, peace and security. I do not want to prejudge because projects can fall through the cracks, but we already have another equivalent amount in the project pipeline. We will continue to do those kinds of activities.
We have projects set up for Sierra Leone and our work on the Peacebuilding Commission. On follow up to Resolution 1820, we will be doing a regional consultation with a number of African countries on their experience with peacekeeping and peace building missions and we will be doing similar projects in country-specific areas that are priorities for the Government of Canada.
The internal reorganization was finalized only two weeks ago, so we are trying to figure out how some of these specific coordination mechanisms work. There will definitely be consultations with civil society. It is part of our approach to this issue, and I do not foresee any changes to that approach. It is just a question as to how we will organize ourselves internally to be able to engage.
Senator Jaffer: When you have those consultations, will you send notice to the clerk of our committee?
I also want to hear from Mr. Junke. Since 2006, have you had discussions with civil society on this issue?
Jim Junke, Director, Human Rights Policy Division, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: We are undertaking a comprehensive review of how we develop these consultations with civil society more generally and on this issue. That is one of the three things that I am tasked to do in the coming year in terms of what I do for my work plan.
We have just begun to formulate our policy or an idea on this. Once we are further along, we will come back to civil society. We are working it out internally and, of course, with other partner departments and then we will go to civil society. We are intent on developing a fairly comprehensive consultative mechanism.
Senator Jaffer: Why would you need to know how to consult with civil society? Our country has been doing well in that regard. I am confused. I just need clarification. I was clear on what you are doing overseas, but what are we doing in Canada to raise awareness on Resolution 1325 and working with civil society? I hear since 2006 and now it is 2009 there have been no consultations on Resolution 1325. What are we doing within Canada?
Ms. Golberg: There have been consultations since 2006. There is ongoing dialogue. Certainly Chantale Walker has undertaken discussions with colleagues within Canadian civil society that work on this issue, and then we have separate discussions on individual issues within Resolution 1325. There is the umbrella of Resolution 1325, but then there are also specific issues. There have been discussions, for instance, around sexual- and gender-based violence. We have had consultations with the humanitarian assistance community within the context of the Policy Action Group of Emergency Response, PAGER.
Mr. Junke meant that now that we are going forward in our new structure, how do we want to organize the discussion around Resolution 1325? It is top of mind for us as we approach an anniversary year. We need to think about what kinds of activities we want to do around commemoration and both Mr. Junke's team and mine have to make plans around that event.
Senator Jaffer: Could you please provide us with what consultations you have been doing with civil society and on what part since 2006 and what you will be doing in the near future?
Mr. Junke: The consultative mechanism I am speaking about, because we are the Human Rights Policy Division, is a broader consultation. This was the nature of the reorganization. We are trying to focus strictly on international policy, and we have divested the program delivery side of things, a lot of the detailed programming work, to Ms. Golberg and her people.
In terms of those consultations, we are going forward and trying to look at how we can be more effective on the Human Rights Council on these issues, how we can be more effective in Third Committee of the General Assembly on these issues, especially as we need to do follow-up for our Universal Periodic Review going forward, and in 2011 there will be a review of the Human Rights Council. We are looking at those bigger issues, and within that context we will address Resolution 1325. I am all of one month on the job, so I do not have detailed project knowledge.
The Chair: Perhaps you can you follow up a debate that we continue to have in Canada about the need to involve Canadians in civil society and to involve civil society in the countries in which we work. If you are going to reorganize and have a different structure, at some point I would like to know how we will engage the civil society. Let us take Sierra Leone where there are indigenous NGO groups; their voices need to be heard. Will this be part of your thought structure? We had a debate in CIDA; do we consult with civil society here or do we consult overseas, and if we do it, how do we put it all together? I would like to know how you will be doing it now.
Ms. Golberg: In the priority countries where we will be doing projects related to women, peace and security, we have specific initiatives that help us do that. For instance, for Sierra Leone, because Canada is chair the special configuration within the Peacebuilding Commission on Sierra Leone, we have a specific project that will be launching within the next month or so that will engage both women and men to discuss their experiences as a result of events that occurred over the last several years within that country. There is a direct engagement of civil society to understand their experiences.
We have done similar projects in Colombia and Haiti. In those countries that are identified as priority fragile states, we have initiated specific activities in order to solicit this kind of feedback from civil society. START is just a small part of what the Government of Canada does in conflict-affected countries.
Nadia Kostiuk, Regional Director General, Southern and Eastern Africa Directorate, Canadian International Development Agency: The issue of consultation is one dimension of the challenges and complexities that are involved in working in this area. As you rightly say, we need to get all actors to address this issue at the same time. Women are under-represented as decision-makers and sometimes it is even difficult to find fora in conflict-affected areas where we can meet with them and consult with them, but we very much try to.
The other challenge is data collection. Sometimes it is very difficult to track exactly what is happening so that we have a baseline set of information so we know what progress is being made. Furthermore, sometimes we find that the national justice mechanisms in the country in which we are working are very weak, so we cannot flow through from identifying a problem, dealing with it, and making sure that the people perpetrating some of these offences are prosecuted and dealt with properly.
Having said that, the glass always half full for us. For example, the project we have in the DRC involves three UN organizations, over 20 Congolese NGOs, a number of ministries, including the Ministry of Health, Justice and Security and also other governments. It is a concerted effort that involves the key beneficiaries, but how do you help the beneficiaries have more power and influence over what happens to them both now and going forward?
In the projects that Mr. Angell mentioned in Nepal and Sri Lanka, we are working with women s to give them the tools to help empower them to do what they need to.
I was in South Sudan late last year meeting with an amazing group of women in Juba. I was so heartened. They were laughing at themselves because they were learning about logical frameworks, inputs, outputs and outcomes. They were doing it to write proposals to get funding to do what they saw needed to be done in their communities.
With that kind of momentum, sometimes we are just along for the ride and we can help them with sources of funds. That is what I would say about the issue of consultation. It is key, and it is not easy.
Senator Mitchell: I am concerned with the management of this process. I think you can see there is some concern here that, first, it is now allocated to three people and so people have some responsibility. Who is the senior person responsible for these responsibilities? Who would the deputy minister or the minister in that department, hold responsible if that plan is not done? What date has that person given this planner by which to have that plan done? What is the specific management relationship there and what is the date? It will not ever get done unless someone knows they have to get it done by X date and that they know it is they who will be held responsible for getting it done by that date.
Mr. Angell: A critical mass of work has been done on the national front. The issue is sufficiently vast that more work could always be done, but let me assure you there has been no lack of seriousness concerning this issue. There has been an enormous amount of work invested in the development of the national plan.
In terms of the most senior official, in terms of day-to-day accountability, that would be Ms. Golberg and I. We report to a group of assistant deputy ministers who in turn report to a group of deputies, all of whom are seized of this issue, and it is taken very seriously.
Senator Mitchell: Clearly, much of what a department does and how it feels about issues and priorities comes from what a minister is talking about and his or her passions. Has the current minister ever given a speech on Resolution 1325, if you know, and/or does he speak about it at departmental meetings? Is it on his mind? Is he worried about it? I know it will not likely happen or it is difficult to make happen unless the minister is involved.
Mr. Angell: The issue of protection of vulnerable groups is taken very seriously. Yes, I have heard the minister speak of this issue. In terms of day-to-day responsibility for this file, Mr. Junke is four weeks into it. I am about three weeks into it. Ms. Golberg is about seven weeks into it. Our collective corporate memory is not particularly deep, but the underlying issue of protection of vulnerable groups is something that has been addressed.
Ms. Golberg: Resolution 1325 encompasses a range of issues. Has the minister specifically given a speech on Resolution 1325? No, not to my knowledge; however, he has spoken to sub-issues related to Resolution 1325. For instance, during the upsurge in violence in Sri Lanka over the course of the spring and summer, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a number of public statements with respect to the importance of protecting civilian populations and making sure that displaced individuals had access to appropriate remuneration. The minister has spoken to similar issues with respect to Afghanistan. Minister Cannon has publicly addressed sub-issues within Resolution 1325 in a variety of different ways over time. However, to my knowledge, there has not been an opportunity for him to speak specifically on Resolution 1325 to a particular committee or at a particular event.
Mr. Angell: By way of postscript, of course Canada, at the minister's instruction, speaks very actively at every opportunity on this issue before the Security Council and did so as recently as last month, explicitly at the instruction of the minister.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Should Canada go back to the Security Council? Do you think Canada would actively engage other nations in pushing forward the implementation of Resolution 1325? Is it your best guess that that would be something Canada would do, as a member of the Security Council?
Mr. Angell: Senator, we are working very hard to be elected to the Security Council. The minister has reaffirmed the importance that we attach to that membership. The minister has framed our bid for membership in the Security Council in terms of Canada's historic willingness to do its share and more on the international stage. The minister has framed our bid in terms of our commitment to values such as human rights and democracy. Given the commitment to human rights, given the historical Canadian engagement on this file, and given Canada's continued leadership through the chairmanship of the Group of Friends, for example, at the United Nations, I think it would be reasonable to infer that the answer would be yes. However, if we are indeed elected to a seat, there would need to be a comprehensive determination of how best to take advantage of that opportunity, and that, of course, would not happen until after the vote took place. Therefore, by definition, this discussion has not happened yet, but given the government's commitment to action on this issue; I would be very surprised if we were not active.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you. It is very nice to have heard your speech and to have the text, because it is like trying to catch an amoeba on what is happening in government around Resolution 1325. Some of the NGOs have also talked about a whole-of-government approach and that they want departments such as the Justice Department, and others, involved in this resolution.
I would like a response from you as to whether, in this draft plan that is coming up, there is any movement to a more whole-of-government approach. I come from the NGO world, so I tend to have a lot of sympathy there.
If they were involved in consultations up to 2006, Mr. Junke, and your draft plan is almost ready, will there be a select number of NGOs brought back just to have a look at the plan before DFAIT makes its final decisions?
Mr. Junke: Senator, the draft plan is not almost ready. We are consulting internally. As I mentioned, we will then look to other departments to round out a framework for consultation. Then we will speak to a core elite group of NGOs to get their views on whether this makes sense, and then we will take it from there, so they will be involved along the way.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are we looking at a two-year time frame?
Mr. Junke: No. I have to complete the draft plan by March 31, at the latest. That is our performance year.
Senator Nancy Ruth: A big year, 2010.
The Chair: Unless our committee recommends a fast track.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to go to the training before deployment for the DND and what you are doing in the RCMP. Can you tell us what kind of training the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would get? If there are manuals, could we see them, both for DND and DFAIT?
Chief Superintendent Barbara Fleury, Director General, International Policing, Royal Canadian Mounted Police: I can speak on behalf of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In terms of the training our peace officers are given when they go on missions, first they are given training at our basic academy in Regina, which includes training on issues of bias- free policing, harassment, code of conduct, ethics, et cetera. Then, when they are selected to go on mission, they are given specific training dealing with these issues. Reference is made to the two UN resolutions in the training they are given when they go on missions.
As far as the manuals go, I would have to check. My expert is telling me we do not actually have manuals in terms of the training. I could give you a syllabus of the types of subjects that are discussed when they go on training, so you would have the block of the sessions and the topics they receive in terms of the training.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is the material in your syllabus similar to what DND would be doing? Do you work together in terms of the educational programs for training your men and women?
Ms. Fleury: Much of the training we do mirrors the UN's training, because it is a UN mission. Some of our people will get similar training. We ensure that we do not provide the same training as the UN. If they are given a course on a specific issue, we ensure that we do not duplicate our training. We consult extensively with the Department of National Defence, particularly in our mission in Afghanistan. However, in terms of the similarities with regard to training, I am not sure of the training that DND provides to its people.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am not sure either. It will be great to receive whatever material you have in terms of a syllabus or manual.
The Chair: Before you leave that issue, it would be helpful to mention that the point is: Do you, in written form, in any of your instruction manuals, use the term "Resolution 1325"? Not the substance of sexual harassments, et cetera, which I think you need, obviously, but do you particularly identify the UN's leadership in that resolution and how we are obliged to be part of that process? That is what we are looking for, if you have it in writing. The steering committee has asked to call DND because of our NATO involvement and the training. This is a heads-up to them that we would like to see their manuals too.
Mr. Angell: On the issue of the national action plan, just a point of clarification. The task to the Human Rights Policy Division is to ensure that by the March 31, there is a plan in place for the next stage of public consultation. The Human Rights Policy Division cannot, by definition, control any approvals process or any discussion that senior management might want to continue. The deadline for the tabling of the national action plan is not ours to control. What we can commit to it having the design in place for the consultation arrangement.
Senator Jaffer: How many hours of training are given? Where do the people receive their training? Is it continuous or one-time training?
Ms. Fleury: That specific training is given as part of a block to all the people who go on a mission. The length of the session is maybe an hour or two, dealing with issues that include gender-based violence, ethics, code of conduct, and specific reference to the UN Resolutions 1325 and 1820.
Senator Jaffer: I do not want to put you in a position of guessing. Can you please provide the committee with that information?
Ms. Fleury: Yes. We will provide the syllabus, which includes the number of hours for each of the training sessions.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Finally, there has been all this fuss about the use of the word "gender" changing to "equality between men and women." In your speech, "gender" was used more frequently. I am wondering if this change will have any impact on how you view issues around Resolutions 1325 or 1820, or around anything. What is all the fuss about?
Mr. Angell: I will invite Mr. Junke to speak to this in a moment. Our focus is ensuring that action is taken with relation to these issues, and that is happening. I am not aware of any difficulty that we are having in expressing ourselves. Indeed, our focus is on action, and that action is certainly continuing.
Mr. Junke: The position on these issues has not changed. As a government, we have consistently sought to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls and to seek to address this form of violence through a comprehensive, multi-sectoral approach centring on prevention, investigation, prosecution and punishment of perpetrators. We try to focus on concrete action to eliminate all forms of sexual and gender-based violence.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is great. It is nice to hear. Thank you.
Senator Mercer: I would like to thank all the presenters for being here today. I must say that I am new to the committee, but I have quickly come to the frustration level. In listening to the people from the NGOs who presented earlier, and then hearing a number of references to the national action plan and Mr. Junke telling us he had a date of March 31, I felt pretty good. However, then we were told that that was a plan to have the next phase of the plan rolled out.
I suggest that when you go back to consult with the NGOs, Mr. Angell, as you suggested that you might, that you might also want to come back to this committee and use it as a sounding board. Not I, but others around this table are experts in this field and could help finalize a plan.
In your statement, on page 3 in the English version, you said, with respect to the DRC, that through CIDA you have contributed $15 million since 2006 to support a multilateral effort to help victims of this crime. You go on to say that this initiative helps tens of thousands of victims of sexual violence through medical care, psychological support, access to civilian justice and socio-economic reintegration.
There are two words missing from your statement: "prevention" and "protection." I find it interesting that you did not mention those words. I would also like to hear your comments.
Perhaps our friends from CIDA would be able to give us the measurables of the investment of that money in helping the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo. We want to see some improvement at the end of this, and that is a lot of money. I know we are not the only country involved, so I suspect that multiples of that money is being spent. How do we measure our success? How will we measure how we are helping protect the young women and children of that country?
Ms. Kostiuk: Thank you for the question. This is a joint project involving UN agencies, the government, NGOs, civil society and also, for example, the Government of Belgium. We are working in the worst affected areas of the DRC, namely the Eastern provinces of North and South Kivu close to the Rwanda-Uganda border. So far, 1,026 political and community leaders were met, and 1,074 community representatives were trained. Medical care was provided to just under 20,000 victims, 19,428; 1,531 victims received legal support; 9700 judicial cases were treated; and 446 judgments were pronounced. This is in the broader frame of this project and a comprehensive approach which does deal with prevention and community awareness, medical care, psychological support, socio-economic integration, family and community reconciliation and access to justice.
Is it easy to do? Not at all. This is an area in which transport is difficult, communities are fragmented, and people are moving across borders constantly. In that context, I hope you will agree that the results that are being worked on and will continue over time are real and tangible. I will give you a September date. These numbers change all the time, because the project is evolving as we go along, but we think we are actually helping to achieve a sustained approach to dealing with this issue in a very complex part of the world.
Senator Mercer: The real measurable will be when we can see a decrease in sexual violence against women and children. I do not know how we measure that. It is important to treat the victims, and that is a primary concern, but if we do not fix the problem, this cycle can go on forever.
Ms. Kostiuk: Yes, and you point to the importance, as the senator said earlier to dealing with prevention and community awareness. I also go back to the point I made earlier about data. In these environments, it is difficult to establish a baseline, but that is something to which we pay a lot of attention, and that allows us to have some sense as to how progress is taking place and what the challenges are along the way.
Ms. Golberg: Prevention and protection are very important points, and I certainly would not want you to have the impression that they are not a high priority for us. Canada has been involved in the UN mission in DRC, MONUC, for quite a long time. MONUC is the acronym for United Nations Organization Mission in DR Congo.
Mr. Angell referred to the tenth anniversary of Resolution 1265 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. DRC is one of the UN missions that has an explicit Chapter 7 mandate to protect civilians, which means that MONUC is expected to take actions to deal with these kinds of issues. It is an issue that MONUC has struggled to deal with, but it is one that the mission is quite seized with, and seized with in part because of Canada's continued focus on it. For instance, MONUC is explicitly mandated to try to protect civilians before they are put at risk. There have been a number of efforts within MONUC to develop a series of protection strategies, so that the contingents, both military and police, are positioning themselves in order to mitigate the incidence of sexual violence. There have also been efforts to follow up on any incidents that have been done by peacekeepers themselves, which is a slightly different issue but equally important.
We have been focusing on ensuring that MONUC has the resources and people to do what needs to be done in order to address issues of protection and prevention. We have also deployed 12 Canadian Forces personnel to MONUC, which includes personnel that are in the rule of law section, specifically aimed at addressing issues of follow-up to instances that might occur. They are working with Congolese officials to help enhance the national corrections and the national justice system, again, to ensure that any perpetrators of violence against the civilian population are brought to justice.
There is a range of things that we are doing with respect to the UN peacekeeping mission in addition to the aid work that CIDA has been investing in.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you all for being with us this afternoon. I have two questions. My first question is with respect to the friends of women group that was established in 2000. The way I see it in the presentation, this seems like a significant group at the UN level in terms of advocating for the implementation of Resolution 1325. Since its inception, have any progress reports issued or tabled with respect to its progress? What types of discussions are being held with different member states? What are different member states doing in terms of their implementation? What are some of the best practices and some of the barriers that we face?
Mr. Angell: The Friends of Women, Peace and Security, like a number of other such friends groups at the UN, operates, in effect, as an informal working group. Such groups bring together, usually at ambassadorial level, the countries that are willing to put in extra effort to see progress achieved around a particular issue. To my knowledge, they generally have not issued reports as such, although occasionally some groups will write letters or engage formally with the Secretariat, but most of the work is done informally.
I made reference in my intervention to the characterization by the UN Secretary-General of the efficiency of this particular group as a catalyst, but I am not aware of any formal reports as such that have been prepared about it.
Senator Brazeau: How many member states take part?
Mr. Angell: I think it is about 13, but the membership is not necessarily fixed. As milestones are approached, it may expand. During perceived quieter periods, it may contract. For example, the council has been very actively seized on the situation in DRC. Around issues such as that, you may see a surge in participation. On a regular basis, there are a good dozen, very active countries engaged.
Senator Brazeau: Second, with respect to a concern that I now have with the internal consultation or engagement process that you are doing internally, from my experience, the Department of Foreign Affairs has a consultation or engagement process with Aboriginal groups and NGOs with respect to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the Organization of American States draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. They are brought in, and I am not going to say if the process is good or not, but the point is there is at least a process. I am hoping that the department is not developing two different sets of consultation or engagement processes on these important issues.
Ms. Golberg: By virtue of the nature of Resolution 1325, there will be multiple consultation mechanisms because different issues need to be addressed at different segments of civil society. The resolution itself pulls together a whole range of issues, so we will be engaging different constituencies depending on the issues that need to be discussed. When we want to pull them all together, as was done a few years ago with respect to a specific document, I do not see that changing. As a result of internal changes, we just need to figure out how we will manage that, but there will not be a change in the fact that we will continue to be engaging Canadian civil society on these issues. They are an extension of our ability to follow up on these issues.
Mr. Junke: We have limited capacity; our NGO interlocutors have limited capacity, so part of the challenge is figuring out how we can be most effective with our time. If you have 30 or 40 issues to address, not everyone is interested in all 40 issues. You have multiple mechanisms to do that, to be effective, and that will be part of the consultation process in trying to scope it in a way to make most effective use of our mutual time and we are getting the expertise addressed to issues we need. That is the ongoing challenge.
The Chair: You said that the Government of Canada has repeatedly requested a UN monitoring mechanism. I believe that is true in all the human rights. We pass so many conventions and the mechanism is self-reporting with each country saying what it has done. It often is a good news story rather than a balanced news story.
Is the reason we are pushing for the UN monitoring mechanism that it will draw together a way of assessing what countries are doing or assessing whether in fact on the ground we have helped individuals who are the subject of the conflict; in other words the women who have been abused, the children who have been abused? Will we be doing that or will we be creating another mechanism for countries to report how well they are doing? I say that with a slight cynicism.
Having been part of that process, if 200 countries are coming forward saying the good news story they have done, Canada has to put forward what it does well. However, that does not get at the symptomatic problems where we would be much better off — what happens in conflict situations — to examine what are our pluses and minuses to see if we can overcome the minuses.
My pitch is that I hope the UN monitoring mechanism is for the people rather than for another arena for nations to put on their best face.
Ms. Golberg: You have a definitely have a sympathetic ear amongst officials. When we talk about a monitoring mechanism, we hope it would be a monitoring mechanism with teeth, not unlike what was done with children in armed conflict. There you have an individual who speaks on behalf of those who have been most affected. Subsequent mechanisms have been established within the Security Council to "name and shame" countries that are not fulfilling their obligations with respect to children.
This issue is currently being discussed in New York as to what could such a mechanism look like, how would such a mechanism be different from the special adviser to the Secretary-General on gender issues and whether there needs to be something separate, for example, specifically with respect to sexual violence. It is an issue debated amongst council members and as you know, Canada is not a current member of the Security Council. Obviously, we have offered our opinions to the council and it is debating these issues.
Mr. Angell: This is an issue that is being discussed within the Security Council in the context of what we hope will be a resolution adopted before the end of this month or early next. It is very much a live issue on the council agenda. Ms. Golberg referred in passing to the evolution of the council's approach on children in armed conflict, the creation of a mechanism with teeth. We are hoping that something analogous is done with regard to women, peace and security.
The Chair: To all who have come forward today we appreciate that you have been able to present us with your notes. I hope this is the start of a dialogue. We intend to play our role, which is an oversight role of the government, and hopefully we will give you our best insights as to how we can further Resolution 1325 into some real realities. Thank you for coming this evening.
Senators, that concludes our hearings today. The steering committee has met over the summer discussing this issue and we will continue to do so. We have a steering committee. The focus has been what Senator Nancy Ruth provided for us a long time ago, something practical rather than theoretical. We want to move the yardstick ahead, so any good ideas or any witnesses you may have to further Resolution 1325 would be helpful.
(The committee adjourned.)