Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 1 - Evidence - April 12, 2010
OTTAWA, Monday, April 12, 2010
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4:02 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 Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security).
Senator Janis G. Johnson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are monitoring issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations. We are pleased to have Henri-Paul Normandin as our witness today. He is Canada's Deputy Permanent Representative at the United Nations in New York. Welcome to our meeting this afternoon. I am glad you could join us. We will now proceed to hear your presentation.
[Translation]
Ambassador Henri-Paul Normandin, Deputy Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am very pleased to be here today to contribute to the committee's deliberations on an issue that is important to all of us.
A few of my colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade appeared before you in September. At that time, they explained that Canada's approach to the women, peace and security agenda is carried out in four ways: first, by developing an international normative framework; second by conducting advocacy; third, by ensuring compliance and implementation with respect to resolutions; and fourth, by building capacity. The work we are doing here in New York at the Permanent Mission of Canada is carried out in close cooperation with the United Nations and is in keeping with the government's four pillars of intervention.
Basically, I intend to tell you about the work being undertaken by the Permanent Mission of Canada. After my presentation, I would be happy to discuss issues with you, answer any questions you may have, and listen to your comments and suggestions.
To give you a good idea of the work that Canada is doing in New York, I will start with an overview of how the United Nations is organized around this issue. The committee has already heard from three key players, namely, David Haeri from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, Anne-Marie Goetz from UNIFEM, and Rachel Mayanja, the Special Advisor on Gender Issues to the UN Secretary-General. They are three of the key stakeholders, but there are others as well, and I will identify some of them.
First of all, on matters related to mediation and peace processes, we work with the Department of Political Affairs, a major stakeholder. The United Nations is a large family with many different units, including the UN Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict. This group, which brings together 12 UN entities, agencies and programs, coordinates UN activities to make it easier to implement resolutions. They are an important partner for us.
Various UN agencies do a lot of work in terms of training, including the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.
In addition, the General Assembly established a Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, known by the abbreviation C34. I have the privilege of chairing the committee's working group. We meet for a few weeks every year. Our annual session has just come to a close, and one of the topics that the group focuses on is the issue of women, peace and security.
Last, but not least, is the Secretary-General himself, who plays an active role in this file with respect to sexual exploitation and abuse by UN staff. He has set out a zero tolerance policy and ensures its oversight.
Now, I would like to draw your attention to a more recent development, in particular. With the recent adoption of resolution 1888, the Security Council called on the Secretary-General to create a new position within the United Nations, that of a Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict. The Secretary- General has just appointed someone to the recently created position, Margot Wallström of Sweden. She began work on April 1 and is in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as we speak.
That is an overview of the various stakeholders within the United Nations.
[English]
Bearing in mind all these various players, what does Canada do in this context at the UN? First, Canada contributes to a normative framework. By now, you are familiar not only with Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security but also the more recent Resolution 1880 on the situation in Côte d'Ivoire adopted last year. There are two resolutions dealing with sexual violence, Resolution 1820 adopted in 2009 and Resolution 1888 adopted more recently. All these resolutions, by and large, provide a respectable normative framework at the UN, if I can put it this way.
Canada has contributed to this normative framework all along. Canada was on the Security Council in 2000 when Resolution 1325 was enacted, but we have continued to contribute to this framework ever since. The most recent example is Resolution 1820 on sexual violence.
Pushing forward a new idea at the UN requires a lot of work — advocacy, consultations, et cetera. Canada and a few other countries organized a major seminar last year at Wilton Park in the U.K. with the military and police to determine how the military and police can contribute to addressing issues of sexual violence and more broadly, women, peace and security. The seminar was instrumental in mobilizing the political will to go forward with more work on the normative front. It contributed significantly to the adoption of Resolution 1820, which was a landmark resolution. Why was it a landmark resolution? For the first time, the Security Council recognized that sexual violence in conflict can constitute a threat to international peace and security. That violence can trigger a host of interventions from the Security Council.
I mention this point to indicate that Canada has been a contributor to the process all along on the normative front. Much has been accomplished and we are in a respectable situation.
However, a normative framework is not enough. More work needs to be done on several fronts. The second area of Canada's intervention in New York is in the field of advocacy. Advocacy is accomplished in several ways. First, a group in New York called the Group of Friends of Women, Peace and Security, or the Friends of 1325, was created by Canada a long time ago and comprises about 30 or so countries that are committed to the issue of women, peace and security. We also invite non-governmental organizations and a number of UN agencies to join. That group here in New York is the core group that promotes and advocates for the implementation of the normative framework.
We meet regularly. For instance, when the Security Council has a debate on women, peace and security, our group meets a few weeks before the debate, first, to share information and, second, to coordinate our positions so that when we speak in front of the Security Council we have common messages to pass on.
That is one example of the type of work we do. As a recent example, a few weeks ago, on the margins of the Commission on the Status of Women, we had a meeting here with the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders. This global network is currently conducting a study on the financing of Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, to see what financing is available, what the gaps are, and so on. We were pleased that, as part of this meeting held here at our mission, we had Senator Nancy Ruth and Senator Losier-Cool, as well as three members of Parliament, in this room from which I am speaking to you. The senators and the MPs contributed to this discussion. That example is a recent one.
Looking ahead, one important thing happening these days on the front of women, peace and security is that the UN has started to develop a set of indicators to see how these resolutions are implemented in the field. Next Monday, right in this room again, we will host a meeting of the Group of Friends of Women, Peace and Security. Our main guest will be Rachel Mayanja, whom you have met. She will talk to us about the way forward on the indicators.
Still looking ahead, as you know, this year is the tenth anniversary of Resolution 1325. Our Group of Friends is the locus to discuss the activities that will take place in the fall on that front. Beyond those activities of the Group of Friends, our mission also carries out specific ``démarches'' on specific cases. I will give a few examples.
Last year, in the case of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, we went over to meet the UN mediation team to press them for greater inclusion of women in the peace process. To put it bluntly, we also warned them at the time that, as part of the peace process accords, there definitely should not be any amnesty for perpetrators of sexual violence. We raised that flag and we told them that we will monitor the situation to ensure it does not happen, as it has happened, unfortunately, in the past.
As a final example, only two weeks ago, the new United Nations African Union envoy for Sudan was here in New York, so we met with him. I encouraged him to take steps to include women in the peace process. Then, in a private conversation afterwards with him, in more diplomatic terms of course, I said: ``Mr. Gambari, rest assured that the next time you come to New York, I will ask you what you have done and what has happened on the front of involvement of women in the peace process in Darfur. I will monitor you. Please come to us with a good story.''
These examples are of the type of advocacy work we do. What is that advocacy for? Ultimately, it is for implementation of this normative framework.
That point leads us to the third broad area of our work here: implementation. I mentioned before that the normative framework we have is a respectable one. However, the big challenge on the front of women, peace and security is implementation.
Let me start by sharing with you one statistic that you might have heard before, but I think it is worth mentioning loud and clear. United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM, recently conducted a study of the participation of women in peace processes. Where peace processes are available, they found that only 7 per cent of the participants in are women. I think that statistic is a cause for concern, and shows that we have a long way to go in terms of implementation.
This being said, a number of things are being done. First, most peacekeeping missions in the field now have gender advisers who look after those issues. It is the case, for instance, in Timor-Leste, Chad, et cetera. In the case of the DRC, where challenges are huge in terms of sexual violence and women, peace and security, the UN team is working closely with the national steering committee to try to encourage better implementation. The team is looking at the data and indicators to see how things are applied in the field.
The last thing I will mention on the front of compliance and implementation is that the people in the field who are responsible for implementation, or who have a role to play in implementation, are civilians, military, police and so on, so last year, when there was a debate at the Security Council on the issue of sexual violence, Canada sponsored a group of female police officers to come to New York. They addressed the council on what they are doing in the field with respect to women, peace and security and sexual violence, what is possible, the challenges, and what can eventually be replicated elsewhere. That conversation was a ground-breaking one at the Security Council.
We also took the same female police officers who had experience in the DRC, Liberia, Haiti and the Sudan, and we had a round table with a number of actors to discuss the same thing so as to encourage greater implementation.
That leads us to our final broad area of intervention, which is developing capacity. For implementation to take place, both the UN and the national governments need to have the capacity, knowledge, tools, et cetera, to move forward. Over the past few years, we have had a number of capacity development initiatives. For instance, we have been funding — amongst others — a number of UN agencies as they train their own staff. I will mention one recent example: You may know that Canada is a member of the Peacebuilding Commission. In particular, we chair the group that looks after the Sierra Leone configuration.
Recently, on the margins of the Commission on the Status of Women, we held a workshop to assist the government of Sierra Leone to launch their national action plan on Resolution 1325. Of course, in the context of Sierra Leone, that resolution is relevant for them, and we wanted the issues of women, peace and security to be part of the broader peace- building efforts currently taking place in Sierra Leone.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, there you have an overview of the work we are doing in New York. I would certainly say that, over the years, we have been able to work together to develop a solid normative framework, but the challenge we face is in implementing it.
As I mentioned, Canada helped to develop the normative framework, and today, our efforts are mainly focused on implementing resolutions. Obviously, all of this takes place in the broader context of Canada's efforts here at the UN, particularly, the government's agenda on freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.
Now, I would be pleased to discuss issues with you, answer any questions you may have and, especially, hear your comments and suggestions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Normandin.
[English]
My colleagues will ask questions but to begin with, I want to thank you for the presentation. It covered very well a lot of the areas we are looking at.
Can you tell me what additional UN mechanisms can be put into place to ensure that the implementation of UN Resolution 1325 is proceeding? For instance, has Canada ever considered advocating for a special task force, rapporteur, representative of the Secretary-General or some other mechanism to provide more of an independent oversight on how the implementation of the UN resolution is working, and then report back to member states? Perhaps a mechanism exists already.
Mr. Normandin: Yes, a number of the building blocks that you refer to are being put into place. A representative of the Secretary-General has been appointed recently to address those issues. Her focus will be sexual violence, but we hope that her work will incorporate broader elements of the women, peace and security agenda. At long last, we have one advocate of the United Nations to deal specifically with those issues.
Reporting, so far, is not good. That is why work is being done now on indicators, among others. It was through the recent Resolution 1889 that we asked the Secretary-General to develop a set of indicators on women, peace and security, so this conceptual work is only beginning. Those indicators will help us have a better sense of implementation.
Still on reporting, the recent Resolution 1889 also strengthens the reporting mechanisms. It asks the Secretary- General to report regularly to the Security Council on matters of women, peace and security.
In terms of other mechanisms, the group of UN Action Against Sexual Violence, which I referred to, is active but its work could be more effective. There is still work to do on that front.
Last, but not least, on the whole sector of training, some training is provided now by the United Nations — some sponsored by Canada — but more of this training is necessary.
If there is one area where significant gaps need to be addressed, it is the area of participation of women in the peace process and mediation efforts. I referred to the statistics a little earlier. One of the faults lies with the UN itself. The UN's mediation teams are not equipped; they do not have the awareness, the knowledge, et cetera, on how to involve women in the peace process, and a lot of work must be done on this front.
All that is to say that some building blocks are in place but they must be developed and refined further, and ultimately, they must be more effective in the field in particular, because that is where things matter.
The Chair: I have one further question. Things are moving along and I know the appointment of Margot Wallström is excellent. What is her reporting time wise in terms of reporting back to you or the Security Council on her work?
Only 7 per cent of those involved in negotiations or peace talks are women, as you stated from the UNIFEM study. She will report back, but are other women involved in discussions with her at that time?
Mr. Normandin: The position is new, and she only started her work. Her reporting line is directly to the Secretary- General. That reporting line is clear. Of course, reporting directly to the Secretary-General, she has access to all the other parts of the UN system — the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, et cetera. That access is clear.
What is not so clear at this point is how exactly she will report to the Security Council — how often, and all these details. All these details have to be worked out.
Her first appearance at the Security Council will be April 27. By that time, she will have returned from her trip to the DRC. That is the first time we will hear from her directly, but again, it is not yet clearly defined how she will report, how often and so on.
I think you can rest assured that in the case of Canada, we will work with her and monitor this work closely, advocating for an efficient and regular way to report. However, this work is in progress and has yet to be completed.
Senator Jaffer: Ambassador, first thank you for your remarks. I want my colleagues to know that you led this issue in our country while you were here, and everything I know about it was from you since I was working for you. I am happy that you are presenting today.
There are so many questions and I have a limited number I can ask. With the chair's permission, I will send written questions that perhaps you can enlighten us on.
I am glad to see that we were in the forefront of Resolution 1820. I have been to a number of places in the world recently and have felt the angst in the women's community. I am sure this issue came up when you discussed this resolution. Women feel that Resolution 1325 was an empowering document. It at least gave us a resolution to refer to bring us into the peace process, the decision-making process, and to point out there needed to be more envoys.
Resolution 1820, Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1889 are again taking the traditional approach of making women the victims. It is felt that to cluster Resolution 1325 and the other resolutions I mentioned is again pointing to women as the victim rather than as an enabler, a person who is at the table. I am sure you had discussions on this issue. Can you enlighten us?
Mr. Normandin: Thank you, Senator Jaffer, for your question. I am pleased to see you here.
Yes, those issues are part of our discussions. The advantage of the recent Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1889 is that, to some extent, the resolutions have teeth, with the appointment of a special representative, with the development of indicators, with stronger reporting and so on.
However, you are entirely right to point to this issue, which is that in conflict, women should not be looked at only as victims or as passive actors and potential benefactors of whatever may happen out of a peace process. They have to be part of the peace processes. They have to be at the table. They have to contribute; they need to have input.
This participation of women in the peace process is why this particular dimension of the broader agenda of women, peace and security is so critical. I think this area is the one we have been the weakest in so far. That participation is where work needs to be done, and yes, women complain that they are not part of these discussions.
We met with NGOs recently who work in the DRC in particular. Interesting experiments are taking place in the DRC in terms of participation of women, but not enough of this participation is happening. Unfortunately, it is easier to say than to do. If we are dealing with warring factions, who are the people who hold the guns and have the power, et cetera? It is often the men.
Who are the women we will seek to involve in the peace process? Who are the women that can be recognized as having some degree of legitimacy and influence? It is not clear. It is difficult for people on the ground to identify and organize this participation. I think you were part of this process a few years ago along with us when we were dealing with Darfur. Who were to be the women to come to the table to represent the women of Darfur? It is difficult to identify them.
This difficulty is definitely part of the equation. Much more work needs to be done. We are not yet good at identifying them collectively. It is easier said than done. However, we need to keep working at it. One key intervention point is to strengthen the awareness and capacity of the UN mediation teams and peace process teams to identify and engineer the participation of women.
Unfortunately, I do not have a clear-cut answer because the area is complex. However, you are right to point out this particular dimension of the broader agenda.
Senator Jaffer: That was exactly the argument when we brought women to the Abuja peace process regarding Darfur. You and I had no difficulty finding the women. What is needed is the will.
You said you met with the Armed Forces at Wilton Park. When I worked on this issue, guidelines and everything were sitting at the UN. We saw many books setting out guidelines of what the Armed Forces needed to do, but there was no implementation. I am glad the Wilton Park seminar happened.
What is the difference since Wilton Park? Are some of these policies set by the UN being implemented? How is the world different for women since the passage of Resolution 1325?
Mr. Normandin: What has progressed — I will not say radically changed — since Wilton Park and Resolution 1820 in the last two years is a greater awareness of the issues by key actors. I refer, in particular, to the sense among more military and police that this resolution is part of their work. Unfortunately, not all, but more, of them are aware.
Training has continued to improve over the years. There is more training and it is improving.
You referred to all these books of guidelines. They are being further developed. We have to see this issue in a broader context. It is not only about women, peace and security, but protection of civilians in conflict situations.
A few weeks ago in the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, we had a bit of a breakthrough. The issue of protecting civilians remains sensitive. Some military and police believe it is part of their mandate. Others see it in the mandate, but are unwilling to move forward.
To make a long story short, the committee had a debate about the issue. Two years ago the words ``protection of civilians'' were taboo in this committee. We have decided this year to give a mandate to the secretariat to develop guidelines. The guidelines will be called something else, but they will be guidelines on the protection of civilians. They will include how to deal with women better.
You put your finger on the key item. What has changed in the field for women? Certainly, it is not enough yet. Building blocks are being put into place, and they are having an impact in the field.
An area of encouragement is more female police officers. The female officers we spoke to in Liberia and other places tell us that they see more women coming forward to tell them about their situation and to complain about it, et cetera. That sign is positive. More women willing to come forward with complaints will lead to more action. Female police officers are beginning to be more active, and act as somewhat of a protection force.
Things are happening, but the real difference for women in the field is not yet enough. That is why we have to continue.
Senator Baker: Ambassador, this committee is seized with an order of reference to study United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and to examine Canada's role with particular reference to Canada's implementation of the resolution.
You have been doing an excellent job. I learned that you have chastised the Security Council for not having enough teeth every time you speak to them, according to the record. It is, perhaps, our job to chastise the Canadian government regarding implementation.
I want to ask about the word ``implementation.'' I have an institutional memory that goes back to the early 1970s. We passed a law to implement all resolutions of the Security Council — not other resolutions passed by the United Nations. However, Security Council resolutions must be followed by the member countries of the UN charter, is that correct?
Mr. Normandin: Yes, it is technically correct.
Senator Baker: You are a lawyer. Technically, a Security Council resolution must be carried out by a member country. That is in article 25 of the charter.
This resolution we are discussing is a Security Council resolution. The United Nations Act was passed by the Canadian Parliament in 1985 to provide the mechanism for implementing all resolutions of the Security Council. There are only four clauses in the bill. The mechanism established was by order-in-council. The Canadian Parliament has instituted two other enabling pieces of legislation for the Security Council since then. This resolution we are talking about fits under the United Nations Act of the Canadian Parliament.
Order-in-council is one way to enact the entire Resolution 1325. We can enact it into law by order-in-council if the government wishes. Do you agree?
Mr. Normandin: Thank you for your question and your comment.
I hesitate to enter into a legal discussion of the implementation of Security Council resolutions. It is beyond my field of expertise.
Senator Baker: I understand that. Within the meaning of Resolution 1325 and the parameters of NGOs and all member states, it has come to be known that ``implementation'' means an action plan. Do you agree?
Mr. Normandin: Action plans are referred to in the Security Council resolution.
Senator Baker: We have two ways of implementing. You mentioned the Friends of Resolution 1325. I understand that the original friends were three Nordic countries: the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Canada. All those friends except Canada have either an action plan or they have used their mechanism of order-in- council to implement portions of Resolution 1325. Canada has not.
I do not know if you want to answer this question. We are coming up to the tenth anniversary. It is October 2010. As you say, Canada stands out as being the great advocator, but we also stand out as being the one country that advocated so much and yet did not implement within the meaning of this resolution.
Do you want to comment?
Mr. Normandin: Thank you, senator, for your question and comments.
The implementation of Resolution 1325 rests on a number of elements, and it calls on countries to take a number of measures and a number of actions. Besides the elaboration of a national action plan, I think we have to ask ourselves the question: What is a national action plan for? We need a national action plan to provide resources, provide support, develop capacity, provide training, support the training, and so on: to provide all these various pieces of the puzzle in a way we have been doing.
Therefore, I take your point, but I think the key thing here is that we have been active in delivering and in implementing these various measures being called for. We have probably done than many others.
Second, the resolution encourages us to develop strategies. In a way, we have done that in that we have identified a number of activities we do, and that support others in acting. All these activities are taking place in a significant way and probably much more so than in many other countries.
I also point out that, at this point in time, only a minority of countries have national action plans. National action plan or not, Canada has a strategy in place and we are much more active in real terms than several other countries.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you, ambassador. Following up on Senator Baker's question, when you are implementing these parts of the action plan in and around the UN, does anyone ever raise the issue that Canada does not have an action plan? Does the lack of an action plan affect Canada's credibility to comment?
Mr. Normandin: Honestly, my answer is ``not really.'' It has been mentioned a few times, but it has not affected how effective we are. I think everybody recognizes how much of a leadership role we play.
The short answer is not really; not in a significant way. Again, I remind senators that Resolution 1325 asks us to develop national action plans and/or strategies. Again, we are delivering on all of this resolution.
The bottom line is that people tend to look at what we are doing in reality and in practice much more than whether we have something called a national action plan.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Is that true for the countries who are the Friends of Resolution 1325?
Mr. Normandin: Yes; even in the Group of Friends, several countries do not have a national action plan.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I want to understand more about the process of how this resolution is implemented. The Security Council passes the resolution. It comes to the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, or this resolution came to DFAIT. How does DFAIT relate to other departments of the government, such as the Department of National Defence or the RCMP? What mechanism do you use, how have you used it, when did you use it and what has been the outcome of using it?
Mr. Normandin: Thank you for your question.
In terms of how this work is coordinated in Canada, my colleagues in Ottawa are better placed than I to describe this process in detail. However, yes, DFAIT is the centre point of all this work and it liaises significantly with DND and Canadian International Development Agency. I am not sure about the RCMP. This coordination happens in Ottawa.
Here in New York, we have staff from CIDA, DND and the RCMP in our mission. They are involved in our work on women, peace and security and our work on sexual violence. They are all participants in the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which I referred to, where issues of peace, women and security are discussed. They participate in discussions. We had discussions recently, not only on women, peace and security, but on protection of civilians. They are part of those discussions. We work as a team here at the mission in New York involving the representatives of these various departments.
Back in Ottawa, I know there are coordination mechanisms, but I ought to leave this subject to my colleagues in Ottawa to describe in greater detail. I was there years ago but not anymore.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am aware of that fact. Part of our concern, and why we have this study, is that it has been difficult for us to find out how these linkages work: who implements them; how those links work in New York with the RCMP, DND or whoever; and what impact they have, if any, back home?
For me, trying to figure out this rat's nest has been crazy. Even when DFAIT comes before us, their answers are not as precise as I am comfortable with. It makes me wonder whether there is any point in Canada having its own person responsible for the implementation rather than a bit of a department here or someone in another department there. However, I do not know if there should be one individual with the secretariat responsible for the implementation both within Canada and outside of Canada.
What do you think?
Mr. Normandin: Here in New York, there is no big mystery in how we cooperate. We are members of the same team in a modest-sized mission. We interact on an ongoing basis. There is no formal mechanism within the mission.
Senator Nancy Ruth: How does the public know that? How do they know what is happening?
Mr. Normandin: I will leave the public in Canada to my colleagues in Canada. However, here in New York, the NGO community — all the key actors and players here in New York — are familiar with the work of our mission. They come to our meetings and they see us and chat with us, so it is not really an issue here in the New York community in terms of what the role and structure of Canada is. They see us active, they hear us and, in a way, here it works.
In terms of representing Canada in New York on the issue of women, peace and security, essentially it comes under the two ambassadors, including myself. We have a team including Chantale Walker, who is active. All the staff here are accountable to the ambassadors and, at a higher level, we are the representatives of Canada on the issues of peace and security.
Senator Nancy Ruth: If Canada becomes a member of the UN Security Council shortly, can you see Canada taking a greater role in pushing Resolution 1325?
Mr. Normandin: I am glad you mentioned the UN Security Council. You may see behind me our nice little banner of propaganda for our inclusion in the council. I see potential. Traditionally, Canada has contributed to the UN Security Council both in the management of specific crises and countries, and in the development of various thematic issues. There is potential for us to continue to play a role.
The Chair: We have only 10 minutes and two more questions. Can you come back on the second round?
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you, Mr. Normandin, for being here and for giving us this information.
My colleagues have talked about Canada's implementation of Resolution 1325 as a national issue within Canada. I want to ask you questions about Canada's role in moving the United Nations forward on this resolution.
It seems to me that the resolution was put forward so the United Nations will move the international agenda of women in conflict forward. In your implementation strategy, you talk about involving women after conflict in taking roles in the governments. However, in my discussions with many leaders, once a Democratic Republic of the Congo occurs, once the rapes occur, it is almost too late.
How do we go beyond that strategy? As one of the women said to me, rape does not start with a war. It starts before; it is ingrained in the culture. It is acceptable behaviour before the conflict, and it was not addressed fully.
What preventive actions are we taking in countries that may be heading toward conflict, or in countries where the debate is not as lively as it is in Canada?
Mr. Normandin: This issue is, of course, part of a broader problem — that of violence against women more generally, in situations of conflict or not. On this broader agenda of violence against women, the United Nations as a whole — and Canada as part of this whole — is active on this front. Various programs are in place by the United Nations, programs of awareness building, capacity development and so on implemented by various UN agencies.
The United Nations has programs from the United Nations Development Programme and UNIFEM, for instance, which are implemented in various countries — not necessarily ones in conflict, but countries generally — to address those issues, such as training of judges, strengthening of NGOs, et cetera. Much work happens on this front through the United Nations and also bilaterally; Canada does quite a bit of work as well.
The Secretary-General has taken particular interest in this issue. A big campaign is taking place at the United Nations specifically on the issue of violence against women.
Is this campaign having an impact? I would say yes but a modest one. The problem of violence against women is a large one internationally; even in Canada, we still face issues. However, all these programs of awareness training, capacity development, prevention and so on are having a modest impact in a number of countries.
When it comes to conflict, I am absolutely with you that we should look at the issue not only in an advance phase of the conflict or after a conflict, but also during a conflict. That is why there are various mechanisms to try to protect women during a conflict. That is why we are training our military and police so that they have better techniques to protect women.
A classic example, in the case of Darfur, is violence against women often happens when the women leave a camp for internally displaced persons, IDP, to fetch wood. If the military from the peacekeeping mission organize convoys or checkpoints at the right time of day, the military might be better able to protect women during the conflict. Those sorts of tools and techniques are being developed, tried and implemented, but more of this work has to happen.
I come back again to the key point, the involvement of women in the peace process. When I referred to it, I did not mean simply once peace has been declared and a peace agreement has been signed. Peace processes take place during a conflict so as to create peace, to develop ceasefire arrangements and so on. It is at that early stage that women have to be involved, and not enough of this involvement is happening now.
Senator Andreychuk: I understand the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Africa was planning to have a branch or arm led by women who had been in conflict, and the women would be directly responsible for shaping training programs, et cetera. My understanding was that Canada might become involved in that arm. Do you have any information on that plan? If not, perhaps you can send it to us at a later date.
Mr. Normandin: I am not sure what specifically you refer to. The only two things that come to mind are the special representative who was appointed recently, Ms. Wallström. A broader issue is talk about creating a UN gender entity, which would group the various parts of the UN that deal with gender. That plan is in motion. There is still work to do but that plan is in motion. I do not know if this initiative is the specific one you refer to.
Senator Andreychuk: I understood a specific Africa initiative was taking place, which would involve women who had been in the direct conflict and who had suffered that violence. The women have now come out through it and want to be part of the process of training within Africa for the Africa region. If you have any information on that initiative, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Normandin: I will take my cue from you and look into the issue.
Senator Mitchell: I appreciate greatly, as we all do, what you are saying. It is clear you are accomplishing a lot of work, for which I congratulate you. Without meaning to be negative, I want to focus on the work that is not being done because so much needs to be done and the problem is far from any adequate resolution.
You mentioned that the military and police are more aware of Resolution 1325. That has not been my experience. I have been on the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence and I have questioned practically every senior military official to appear there. Almost without fail, they are not familiar with Resolution 1325, or they are only vaguely familiar with it.
I may be wrong, but I am certain there is no official, focused training on that resolution for forces deploying. What that situation can underline is that there is not a powerful motivation in the government to change it. It seems easy to prepare an action plan but it has not been prepared. Can you tell us why?
Mr. Normandin: First, on the military being more aware and involved, again I speak from a New York perspective, both with respect to the Canadian military police and the UN ones. I can tell you that here in New York, the military and the police who work here in this embassy are aware of these issues; otherwise they would not be working for me. Here, they are seriously involved in those issues. My previous military adviser participated in that meeting in Wilton Park, and contributed to it. Here in New York, involvement in those issues is happening with the Canadian military and the police.
I was also referring more broadly to the UN military and police. For instance, we have had a number of meetings here in New York that involved military force commanders from other countries who were here in New York and who talked about those issues of women, peace and security and sexual violence.
We probably would not have seen this discussion five years ago. It was not on their agenda; they were not knowledgeable about it. Now some of these people right here in New York not only have an understanding but are advocates of those issues.
We use them in a number of meetings to say the issue of involvement of women is not only for civilian women to take care of; it is also an issue for the military and police to take care of. We see more of that involvement now than we did a number of years ago. Again, I do not want to pretend that all the military and the police in the UN system have this degree of awareness and commitment, but there is more now than there was in the past.
Second, in terms of the national action plan, I want to specify here that Resolution 1325 called for a number of measures, but the idea of national action plans came after Resolution 1325. It was called for by the Secretary-General when he presented one of his reports to the Security Council. It was his proposal that national action plans be developed.
Again, in the grand scheme of things, it is not a case of Resolution 1325 equals national action plan or nothing. National action plans are part of a broader undertaking and were proposed by the Secretary General at a later point.
Again, I will leave to my colleagues in Ottawa to answer what is happening there.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned that in the absence of a national action plan, there is a strategy. How formal is it? Is it in writing? Does it require reporting mechanisms? Is it something that you can submit to the Senate committee?
Mr. Normandin: The strategy is the overall collection of things we do. We have not elaborated a strategy per se at the mission in New York. It is part of the approach, requests and direction from Ottawa, for example, provide this training or do that, et cetera. The strategy is more of that nature.
Senator Mitchell: Of all the things you do in your position, what portion of your time and your staff's time is allocated to Resolution 1325?
Mr. Normandin: That is difficult to say because, at the United Nations, we deal with a breadth of issues from the management of outer space to ocean bottom fishing and any crisis in between. As a rough estimate, I might spend 10 per cent of my time on issues of women, peace and security and sexual violence, exploitation and abuse. It is difficult to say.
Regarding your previous question about our strategy, we submitted to the Secretary-General in 2008 a submission on Canada's implementation of Resolution 1325. You will find the key elements of our approach or strategy in that document.
The Chair: Thank you, ambassador. It has been wonderful to have you. Thank you for appearing before us this afternoon. Your answers were excellent.
Maybe you can spend 11 per cent more of your time to involve more women in the peace process, especially during times of conflict.
Mr. Normandin: Thank you, chair and thanks to all of you. It was a pleasure.
The Chair: I want to welcome Jill Sinclair to our committee this afternoon. She is Assistant Deputy Minister, National Defence. As the ADM (Policy), she is the principal source of defence policy advice.
We welcome your presentation today. Please begin.
Jill Sinclair, Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy), National Defence: Thank you, senators. I am delighted to be here. I know you have a copy of my statement. I will trot through it because I sense from the previous session that there is a lot of desire to discuss issues. Therefore, you do not need me to read the statement in front of you, but I will walk through it quickly.
[Translation]
First of all, I apologize for not being available when the original request was made last November, but unfortunately I was ill for several weeks. I appreciate your patience and understanding.
[English]
I am pleased to be here with you today in the tenth anniversary year of Resolution 1325. I hope it goes without saying that, in keeping with the core values of freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law, Canada takes seriously its commitment to Resolution 1325. I want to give you a sense of where DND fits into this picture. As I said, I will not follow my notes assiduously.
Obviously, Resolution 1325 is a key instrument in contributing to the implementation of our UN Security Council resolutions. The resolution falls within the broader ambit of the protection of civilians in armed conflict, and it falls within the broader ambit of the declaration and program of action from the 1995 Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, as well as our commitment to the many issues that relate to women, peace and security.
As you heard previously from my colleagues at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and, most recently, from Henri-Paul Normandin today, our national implementation strategy for Resolution 1325 addresses the four key themes that Mr. Normandin walked you through: norms and standards, advocacy, compliance and implementation and capacity building.
With the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade as the lead, a whole-of-government approach has built, or is building, a community of commitment around Resolution 1325. I listened carefully to the questions that Senator Nancy Ruth and others asked about that approach, and I am happy to try to address it from the point of view of DND.
Let me tell you where we fit in the policy branch of the Department of National Defence. As the Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy), my organization is the principal source of defence policy advice for DND, and the organization is a conduit and focal point for whole-of-government approaches into DND and from DND out to the whole-of- government community.
The policy group's responsibilities include, amongst other things, providing an analytical basis in policy options, as well as advice and support in the formulation and execution of defence policy; advice and support on international defence relations, obviously, in support of the Department of National Defence; and also we manage a small Military Training Cooperation Program, which is designed to build capacity in partnership for peace nations and a number of developing countries.
In addition, one of the group's key responsibilities is the management and support of Government of Canada's defined objectives of our bilateral and multilateral defence and international security relations, including our representation at multilateral forums. You heard from Mr. Normandin that we have someone who sits at the permanent mission in New York. We have a mission at the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. We also represent Canada at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN, Regional Forum and the Organization of American States, when defence-related issues come up.
Whether in the form of formal interdepartmental committees and working groups or daily contact and interaction at the working level, our group at DND is in regular and close contact with counterparts of DFAIT. We are mirror images of each other. We also work closely with our other government department partners, particularly CIDA, Public Safety Canada, the Privy Council Office and others. This enables us to both feed our views and perspectives into the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and the whole-of-government community as well as ensure that DND is aligned and working in support of whole-of-government priorities and objectives.
We are attuned to all the significant decisions and resolutions made at the UN, both because of our working relationships here in Ottawa and also because of our contacts with the missions directly abroad.
For example, during the negotiation of Resolution 1325 in 2000, I was at DFAIT. I can tell you that DND and the Canadian Forces were consulted frequently on the resolution and provided useful insights based on operational experience of CF personnel in complex and troubled conflicts, such as the Balkans, that became part of Canada's negotiating position as we developed an approach to Resolution 1325.
For us to have a consolidated response within the Department of National Defence and across the Canadian Forces, we also have a lot of interdepartmental consultation. We also most often lead this interdepartmental consultative process. Our consultation involves a variety of organizations within DND and the CF; both policy and operation, civilian and military. This involvement ensures that all the implicated parts of DND and the CF have an awareness of the current state of issues, such as resolutions on women, peace and security.
An interdepartmental meeting that I or one of my colleagues in my group might share can include the Judge Advocate General, the Strategic Joint Staff, the Chief of the Land Staff, et cetera. For example, the Chief of the Land Staff provides strategic guidance to the land force doctrine in training systems, as well as to our Peace Support Training Centre. I believe you heard from representatives of these two organizations last October: Colonel Horn and Lieutenant-Colonel Poirier. In that appearance, they outlined some of the training and approaches used by the CF to prepare soldiers for deployment and also as part of their regular training as CF members.
I had hoped to be joined today by a colleague from the Strategic Joint Staff, but he is sick. There is a range of questions I can address and a range that is operational that I may not be able to address directly. However, I assure you I will take those comments and return to you with answers.
Although the specific resolutions, say Resolution 1325 or Resolution 1820 by name, are not always individually highlighted in training, the themes of the resolutions are mainstreamed and incorporated into training. Soldiers are trained to do the right thing. I think you heard this information from the CF representatives here. I think the overall spirit of the resolutions as it fits into the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law is part of the overall training approach of the CF.
When conducting international operations, the CF follows all the provisions of international law. Being party to these laws includes respect and the protection of women and children in zones of conflict. Again, as the senator mentioned, the United Nations Act makes UN Security Council resolutions law. There is no debate on that point.
DND and the CF recognize, both in training in the classroom and in the role-play exercises — and there is extensive pre-deployment training — that civilians, particularly women and children, are disproportionately and adversely affected by armed conflict. This recognition has an effect on the peace and reconciliation that we are trying to build and promote when we go out into missions. There is also an awareness of the role that women play in the maintenance and promotion of peace and security in the post-conflict peace-building.
I will conclude these brief opening remarks. Please forgive me for crunching them. The policy group I direct will continue to work to provide the policy support to ensure that Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces are in full compliance with Resolution 1325. Also, the policy group will continue to work, not simply through the United Nations, but through NATO, which is our military alliance, as well as in other settings, to ensure that CF best practices and our own experiences infuse the work of these organizations.
The purpose of a policy framework — work we had launched late in 2009 — is to develop a comprehensive approach to looking at Resolution 1325, Resolution 1820 and other resolutions.
Thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this afternoon.
[Translation]
I would be pleased to take your questions and hear your comments.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. We have a round of questioners and I will begin. How is Canada implementing Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820 within its government departments and agencies and through the channels of foreign policy, diplomacy, development, defence, international justice? How successful have you been?
Ms. Sinclair: I can answer only for the Department of National Defence. Regarding the tenets of Resolution 1325, I think the awareness of the role of women in peace and conflict, sexual violence and conflict, is greater than it was a decade ago when we put this resolution forward.
On training modules, you heard from my colleagues at the Department of Foreign Affairs. We are promoting training through international peacekeeping training, peace support operations training.
In terms of inculcating the culture and values around Resolution 1325 and the Canadian Forces, both as part of their regular training but also as part of pre-deployment training, issues concerning the impact of conflict on women, gender and conflict, sexual violence, as well as issues like child soldiers are routinely part of pre-deployment training and also part of regular CF training.
I do not know if I have answered your questions sufficiently. The answers are restricted to the Department of National Defence.
The Chair: Of course; when the ambassador spoke, he talked about the involvement of women in the peace process, and my colleagues have been asking germane questions in this respect. However, the ambassador made the point of saying women must be involved in the peace process but more importantly, they must be involved as well during conflict. Do you have any comment on this point with respect to the work you are engaged in?
Ms. Sinclair: There is no question that women must be involved throughout these processes. How successful are we at integrating women? Think of some of the contemporary conflicts we have seen. One comes to mind, which is Afghanistan. Here we are dealing with cultures where the role of women and their rights is different from ours. We have about 400 female Canadian Forces personnel serving in Afghanistan in 2010; that is the number I have. Dozens and dozens of civilian women are taking part in our mission in terms of the peace-building, development and reconstruction. They are bringing that face of women as a full and integrated part of a team that is out there doing tough work in a difficult situation, providing female interlocutors for Afghan women. I think the demonstration effect is extremely important.
Here I will talk a little bit about the work being done to train the Afghan police. There are famous photos of female police women in Afghanistan. This work is groundbreaking; but changing those attitudinal sets, I could not even begin to comment on how long that will take.
If I can add a final word on that subject, though, in previous work I have done — and I do not want to rely too much on my past, as opposed to my current, job — we can bring in women. In the Middle East and in Darfur, we have seen how we can bring in women; we can see in the conflicts in Central America and in the peace process in Cambodia, there are always women's voices that are ready to be engaged if the space is made for them.
Senator Mitchell: I want to step back one step to say that my experience, as I stated to the earlier witness, has been that the military is not aware of Resolution 1325. Your answer — and I think perhaps one of the earlier witnesses answered the same thing — is that we are taught to do the right thing. I have a couple of questions from that answer.
One is, how hard is it be to be explicit about Resolution 1325, Resolution 1820 and Resolution 1888 in the training of the military, and not leave it up to something that can be construed as vague? Will Resolution 1325 be much more powerful in its instruction to the military at all levels if it is less vague, and if the military understands that it comes from the United Nations and the import of it coming from the United Nations?
Ms. Sinclair: I think there is room to be more explicit. Having said that, in preparation for this appearance, I conducted an informal poll of several people at various rank levels. Interestingly, while Resolution 1325 did not trip from their tongue, they knew that there were new provisions, that there were new norms, around women and peace and security issues. In that sense, I think that the resolution is permeating the thinking.
I referred briefly — and it is not in my written statement, so forgive me for this omission — but one of the things we have launched is to put in place a policy framework for DND, which will, among other things, seek to be more explicit about these resolutions — not so that people know the numbers, but so that people understand that the protection of civilians and women in armed conflict is a given.
I think that understanding is inculcated throughout the Canadian Forces — as is the special role of women and children. Resolution 1325 took us many steps forward. It was designed to separate out deliberately, women in conflict and in conflict zones. Absolutely, I think we can be more explicit and we can be more powerful. I think we will be pushing on an open door with the Canadian Forces community, with the training community.
There is explicit reference in the human rights modules that are taught to Canadian Forces personnel that talks about Resolution 1325 by name. In terms of pre-deployment training, all personnel that are deployed on missions receive several modules of training on gender issues and violence against women. In terms of our peace support operations, we have what is called a military observers course. There, in addition to walking people through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is a section on disarmament, demobilization and reintegration that talks about the role of women and the role of women in the peace-building process. I think the resolution is starting to insinuate, but yes, we will try to make it more explicit.
Senator Mitchell: Can we see copies of those modules?
Ms. Sinclair: Absolutely.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned women in the forces — the police and the military in Afghanistan. I have been there and seen them and, but I am interested in knowing if there is something explicit in our training of the military and the police in a place like Afghanistan about Resolution 1325? Are we asking them to do the right thing?
Ms. Sinclair: My information is that there is nothing explicit at the moment on Resolution 1325. However, on international human rights norms, without making excuses for anyone, think about where we are bringing some of these trainers. There is a fundamental literacy issue. There is so much we are bringing forward, and to introduce the idea of the dignity and respect that needs to be accorded to women, this idea is something that is radical in that setting.
Many of you are familiar with our work in Afghanistan. We have our mentoring and liaison teams. We work in partnership with the Afghan National Security Forces. Human rights, international human rights norms and standards are part of the work that our guys and gals do.
Senator Mitchell: You mentioned you do have good relations with DFAIT; I understand that. It is DFAIT where I think the locus of the development of this Resolution 1325 action plan resides now with a couple of capable people. Do you have someone official in your department who is the contact with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade on the Resolution 1325 action plan?
Ms. Sinclair: Yes, my desk officer is here with me, and I have one of my directors, the director of our peace operations division. I also have a director general, so we have an interface from the DG down to the working level on this issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. It is their peace operations — I think it is failed states division; I have forgotten what the acronym stands for.
Senator Mitchell: That group works with Elissa Golberg?
Ms. Sinclair: Yes, almost every day on one issue or another.
Senator Jaffer: I know in your other job you were familiar with Resolution 1325. I am puzzled. We were at the forefront of pushing Resolution 1325, and today I hear you say — and I do not put any fault on you except where we are as a country — we do not even mention Resolution 1325 in most of our training, and that mostly the men will do the right thing. If that was the case, then why do we have Resolution 1325?
I have great anxiety based on what I have heard from you. We will be celebrating 10 years. We do not even have training. I am anxious because since Resolution 1325, we have had Resolution 1820, Resolution 1888, Resolution 1890 and Resolution 1825. What is happening to all those resolutions if Resolution 1325 is not even in the training manual yet?
How is Resolution 1325 translated to our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan besides them knowing what the right thing is? Do they receive separate gender training?
Ms. Sinclair: I hope I did not make it sound as if Canadian Forces personnel do not receive training on the issues to which Resolution 1325 relate. When I said Resolution 1325 as a term of art does not trip off their tongues, they might not be aware of the resolution itself. However, the intent, spirit, purpose and role of women in armed conflict — the issues that Resolution 1325 addresses — are incorporated and mainstreamed into training. This training addresses international humanitarian law, laws of armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the role of women, peace and security. Those issues are absolutely part of the training.
I would like to have had one of my military colleagues here to tell you about how this resolution is communicated from commanders in the field to soldiers. However, all these manuals are available including the codes of conduct established for Canadian Forces personnel. For those of you who have been in theatre, the little cards that soldiers carry tell them what it means to do the right thing. It is not amorphous. The training is absolutely thorough.
I hope I have not given the wrong impression that soldiers have no sense of these issues and their responsibilities, or how to act if they see violations of women or discrimination in the field. Soldiers are trained in these areas, but Resolution 1325 as a UN Security Council resolution is not omnipresent in their mind. I do not want to mislead the committee by saying that it is. Do the Judge Advocate General, Chief of the Land Staff and all the people in senior leadership know about this resolution — are they aware of it? Yes, they are. I did my own informal poll before I came here.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That awareness is a vast improvement over the last two years because they did not know when they appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Ms. Sinclair: Maybe that appearance helped to concentrate their minds. I think Resolution 1325 has momentum, as well as Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1889. This is not a static situation. It is a dynamic situation for the international community. The norms are growing, and demands on security services to be sensitized and to be sensitive to these issues are growing.
Senator Jaffer: I understand that Resolution 1325 is not used, but you say training is provided. Are manuals developed for the training? How many hours of training are provided? Is training on a regular basis or a one-time, one- hour training?
Ms. Sinclair: I will defer to the people that provide the training to give that detail. The two colonels that appeared previously mentioned that training is a lifetime activity for Canadian Forces personnel from their basic indoctrination and beyond, whether they go to staff colleges as officers or continue as non-commissioned members.
I do not know how many hours they receive. Pre-deployment settings and basic training cover issues of international humanitarian law, the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Senator Jaffer: Are you in charge of policy?
Ms. Sinclair: Yes.
Senator Jaffer: As a person in charge of policy — any policy that is set — how do you see that it is implemented?
Ms. Sinclair: It is done through inter-departmental and intra-departmental processes. Part of the work I alluded to on developing a policy framework for heightening awareness and ensuring full implementation of Resolution 1325 at DND is something we foster. We implement it by bringing all key senior players to one table and discussing how to implement it with them.
Much of Resolution 1325, and even Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1889, were not a one-way transmission of what has come from the delegation in New York to us, or from Foreign Affairs to DND. The process is iterative. We fed into the development of both resolutions. The experience of the CF and the Department of National Defence, writ large, is as part of the process that produced these resolutions. The processes are not abstract processes disconnected from one another.
Once a resolution is passed by the Security Council, how we implement it and ensure we have the sharp focus to which Senator Mitchell spoke regarding implementation going forward is a role of the policy group. That is what we are working to do.
Senator Jaffer: What are you putting in place to ensure the resolution is implemented?
Ms. Sinclair: A policy framework.
The Chair: We have five more people to ask questions. Perhaps some of the questions that Senator Jaffer asked can be addressed in written replies.
Ms. Sinclair: Yes.
Senator Zimmer: Ms. Sinclair, you are absolutely right on all these issues regarding their importance. However, an infrastructure is required before that. One challenge is ensuring that women are integrated into the formal decision- making process. It is only one thing to have the right policies and positions.
I was in Afghanistan last year with the Standing Senate Committee on National Defence and Security, and observed many things. Women are not necessarily high ranking members of the Armed Forces, political parties and governments. Women do not have the power and the position to influence policy. It is almost a moot point.
How can we speed up the process to ensure women have influence in the decision-making process in those areas?
Ms. Sinclair: This issue is out of my purview so I can give an assessment only as an interested observer. In Afghanistan — many people around this table have been there — we are starting from far back in giving women a space where they can legitimately have a voice. For example, look at the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the role women play in it in bringing forward women's issues, which were never spoken of previously. I do not know if that example qualifies as influential in your view, but the commission is beginning to raise voices, which is an important first step.
Integrating women into decision-making processes is where you would want to speak with my colleagues from the Department of Foreign Affairs. They promote peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction. Integration is about societal changes in many cases. Having countries sign and implement Security Council resolutions is an important first step.
I do not think I have answered your question.
Senator Zimmer: No, the question is almost hypothetical. When we were there, we observed buildings under construction over the line. They were building a bakery for the men and a weaving shop for the women. It was as if they were still segregating the roles. Women were not allowed to work in the bakery, but can weave. The change is a cultural one. It is one thing to have the correct policies and positions, but women also need the authority and power to influence those policies. It is a learning curve.
The Chair: Keep in mind the purview of the witness' expertise. The clerk tells me we have had answers to some of your questions by the military, in former testimony evidently. Ms. Sinclair will also ensure we receive the answers again.
Senator Jaffer: I want to put on record that when the military appeared, they said Ms. Sinclair would answer these questions.
The Chair: I was not chair then, so I cannot respond. However, we can check.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I am upset about the phrase, ``do the right thing.'' It is a phrase I have heard all my life. It is the kind of thing my father would tell me to do if he thought I was disobedient.
I cannot believe that a group of soldiers, most of whom will be male, will understand ``doing the right thing'' in the same way I understand that phrase. I am upset that Security Council resolutions are not named, not clarified and not talked about rather than general amorphous discussions on human rights in terms of the way we treat women and children, et cetera.
As the head of policy, I would like you to change that policy. I think Canada has an international obligation to make our soldiers aware that we are part of a whole wide world of people dealing with the resolution. If our soldiers do not know that resolution because it is not named, how will they know it? If you do not name it, you cannot claim it. Please do what you can.
Mali is one country where Canada provides military training for Africans, right? Do we name Resolution 1825, Resolution 1820 and all the others or not? Do we talk only about ``do the right thing''? I am sure the right thing means something different to soldiers in Saskatchewan and soldiers coming into Mali.
That is my problem with the phrase. That is an example of the problem.
Ms. Sinclair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That is not my real question.
Ms. Sinclair: Again, I am sorry that the officers, when they were here, were not able to answer your questions on the hours of training and all of these details.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We do not think they knew. That is our problem.
Ms. Sinclair: There are curricula and modules, and the committee can get these items. You can see for yourself what they are. The training of Canadian Forces personnel is extraordinary thorough. To say ``do the right thing'' is not a rhetorical statement. I think it has been summed up too simplistically by me and others.
It is inculcated in them to respect international human rights law and standards and the United Nations Charter. A lot of the best practices of our forces have fed into the things that have resulted in Resolution 1325, so the training is not at all an abstract notion.
I noted the question about the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre. We will provide the answer. In response to your question about Mali, the peacekeeping centre in Mali has an explicit training session on gender, violence, women, peace and security, and the session talks about Resolution 1325. The Mali peacekeeping centre has benefited from the expertise of Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. I believe you have had witnesses here from the PPC. In the international training, the training our department funds, the reference to Resolution 1325 is in the human rights curriculum that is taught. There is specific mention of Resolution 1325.
I did not want to give you the sense that everyone is running around talking about Resolution 1325. Are they sensitive to the issues of women, peace and security, and the situations in conflict zones? I believe they are, but I think you want to hear from folks who are out in the field and who do the work.
Our responsibility is to feed into the development of the policy, and to take the policy and ensure it is implemented through the DND and CF communities.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Let us step back from Resolution 1325. My question now relates to the process of becoming informed as a policy person within your department. Can you describe the process the Government of Canada uses for notifying departments about United Nations obligations and the implementation of departmental responsibilities with respect to those obligations? How do you hear about the obligations and what do you do?
Ms. Sinclair: The process is iterative. For example, when we created Resolution 1325 or when we create a new initiative, DFAIT pulls together all the interested departments and tells us they are exploring an initiative on whether the world should have green curtains, as an extreme example. Everybody feeds into the debate. It is not simply a download.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Do you hear about the initiative from the Privy Council Office? Who tells you about this initiative?
Ms. Sinclair: If it is a foreign policy initiative, it is the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. They will pull everyone to the table and say, we are preparing for G8 and discussing initiatives. These are our ideas. What are your reactions and views?
Every department, including the Department of National Defence, goes away and comes back with the implications for their department and says, we think this is a good idea, or you could do a bit more here.
Everybody feeds into the development of policy; no one department creates policy on its own. A department can initiate and be a lead department. DFAIT is for things that relate to Canada's life abroad. From the inception, the policy is developed around an interdepartmental table.
In terms of the obligations and departmental responsibilities, as we feed into the development of policy positions, we think about obligations and responsibilities. Once a resolution is passed in the United Nations Security Council, for example, it does not come as a surprise to the implicated departments because they have been part of the process throughout. They have always been thinking of implementation or, if a department thinks it cannot be implemented, they think of how they can ensure it does not happen. That is the policy process around town.
There is a lead department and PCO plays the role of ``challenge function'' and convener. However, PCO leaves it to the lead department to take the initiative, shape things and help to bring the whole-of-government piece together.
[Translation]
Senator Brazeau: You said that our men and women in the armed forces have a good understanding of resolution 1325 and received related training. Could you elaborate on that understanding? What kind of training do they receive before being deployed to conflict zones, for example?
Ms. Sinclair: If you do not mind, senator, I will respond in English.
[English]
I will read from notes about pre-deployment training. You asked about what people do before being deployed. All personnel who are deploying on missions abroad, whether long-term, like a six-month deployment in Afghanistan, or short-term like a deployment into a mission to help the Israelis and Palestinians in the peace process receive instruction on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This instruction includes laws of armed conflict; ethics; rules of engagement; the impact of all types of human rights violations, including impacts on women and children; gender in conflict; sexual violence; and child soldiers.
If people are deployed into an area where disarmament, demobilization and reintegration is a major part of their work, they receive specific modules of training on the child soldier issue with regard to how to treat child soldiers if they encounter them. The pre-deployment training is specific.
Senator Jaffer: You were here when Ambassador Normandin spoke about the Wilton Park process. It is a policy think tank in the UK. He said there was real excitement there and it was a learning process. Are you aware of Wilton Park and what policy implementations were made within DND?
Ms. Sinclair: I cannot tell you about the cause and effect, but I can find out. As Mr. Normandin said, there was representation from DND at Wilton Park, and we fed into the development of that agenda.
Senator Jaffer: We would appreciate that information.
I am still at a loss and I need your help, assistant deputy minister. You are the principal source of defence policy advice for the Department of National Defence. As the policy person, what policies are you setting in place for Resolution 1325, Resolution 1820, Resolution 1888, Resolution 1889 and Resolution 1825 specifically? I do not do your work. What does a framework mean and how is it implemented?
Ms. Sinclair: The work we are doing is specifically to bring focus to those resolutions. It is a plan for action, the process itself of discussing and developing a policy framework; it raises consciousness, brings people up to speed with issues and provides a table for people to raise questions and discuss the issues. The process is part of changing policy thinking, enabling policy implementation.
The framework will have recommendations, and we are working through this process in consultation with our colleagues on the operational side. What can be done with regard to training? What more can we do in all aspects of our making the defence institution, both the civilian and military, more aware of what Resolution 1325, Resolution 1888 and Resolution 1889 are about? That is what the framework is.
Senator Jaffer: You heard Mr. Normandin speak about the strategic plan that we have. Do you have a strategic plan within DND to look at these resolutions?
Ms. Sinclair: The resolutions are already captured in the training that is delivered, either explicitly or implicitly. The policy framework is designed to go that degree deeper, broader and more focused. That is what it is.
I heard Mr. Normandin talk about his strategic plan. We have not called it that; we have called it a policy framework. The difference is a question of lexicon, not intent.
Senator Jaffer: This is a rumour that if our military leaves Afghanistan it may go to Democratic Republic of the Congo. You who are forward looking, with the terrible situation that exists for women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are you looking at that situation, or have you started work on how to train our men and women to deal with this horrible situation that they will be entering, especially around sexual assault and mutilation? Are there policies being set to prepare our men and women to go there, or not yet?
Ms. Sinclair: I cannot speculate on that one. I hate to give you that answer but I cannot.
The Chair: Can I ask you a question, Ms. Sinclair, before we conclude this evening? A lot of questions have been asked about exactly where within the Department of National Defence the priority for this resolution lies. You mentioned framework to Senator Jaffer. When might this framework be ready, and what kind of analysis is prepared by the departmental officers when looking at international security developments to take into account the issues pertaining to women, peace and security?
Ms. Sinclair: We are working on the framework now. I do not want to give you a time frame that I cannot meet subsequently, but this process is a several-month process, not a long process, because the work is already under way. We are not working from a tabula rasa; we are starting from a high level of knowledge, consciousness and awareness, and we are building on the work already done.
On the analysis of international security development, we prepare a lot of that analysis ourselves but we also rely heavily on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for their analysis. We do not provide analysis in the abstract at the Defence department. We have come to an understanding, as the Government of Canada, on the issues that Canada must address and the best policy approaches going forward. It is something we feed into and lead in certain ways, but we also do it in close cooperation with the Department of Foreign Affairs.
The Chair: Thank you for appearing before us tonight. I hope you have enjoyed the questioning. You have added to our repertoire of findings on this subject. We look forward to you making sure that everybody in the Canadian Forces knows about Resolution 1325.
Next, we will hear from Carolyn McAskie, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa. We are pleased you are able to appear this afternoon.
Carolyn McAskie, Senior Fellow, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Thank you, chair. I will make a few remarks and then I will be happy to answer questions.
Honourable senators, passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was a revolution at the time, but that was ten years ago. I see the context of the resolution as part of the realization that war and its solutions go beyond the political and military. They must be addressed at the level of humanitarian development — economic and social — and human rights interventions. One obstacle to the resolution's implementation is the fact that the realization is not translated into reality. War and security situations are still dealt with too much at political and military levels rather than at the broader human level.
That being said, real progress has been made in ten years, but with real problems in implementation. I am no longer directly involved in these matters, so I will be a little out of date. I was a former special representative of the Secretary- General in charge of Burundi operations, and one of the first people to alert the Security Council to the issue of rape in the eastern Congo in 2002-03. Therefore, I have strong views on what needs to be addressed to overcome obstacles to implementation.
I believe the answers lie in two strands. First is the social context in which these events take place. Second is the political will to address the issue based on the will to understand the full range of the problem, and the will to apply the appropriate level of support and resources. My comments address a number of questions. I can attempt to cover other areas as well in response to questions.
Resolution 1325 deals with participation of women in peace processes. We are learning that women approach matters of peace and security differently than men. This issue is not necessarily fully accepted. I have been involved in a number of discussions and seminars lately; the research is there. The argument against has always been yes, but there are more women warriors, and more women co-opted that are willing participants in war and even terrorist activities.
However, we are all aware of numerous examples of women who are advocates for peace in many conflicts around the world, from high profile cases such as Northern Ireland and the Middle East to forgotten crises such as Angola, Mozambique, Liberia and Burundi in the past.
Women have proven time and again that, at the table, they are more likely to be focused on issues than on the power dynamic of their male counterparts. They build ties across factions and build reconciliation structures. Examples are Uganda, Burundi and other countries. Women are less corrupt in building peace and more transparent. They are committed to their communities in working to sustain peace. Their absence from peace processes often means not only that their issues are ignored with disastrous consequences, but also that the peace processes are incomplete and less effective without their participation and contribution.
The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue in Geneva is partnering with the Norwegian government in the Oslo forum of international mediators. The center has run a series of studies and seminars in Africa and Asia. A meeting will be held in Oslo that I will attend, and I attended the Nairobi forum in November. They have done a lot of work in this area. I would be glad to refer you to some of their work.
I mention the need to recognize the overall cultural context in which these issues take place. One problem that bedevils discussions of women, peace and security is the schizophrenia in the minds of the drafters of resolutions such as Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820 on violence against women in wartime. The very governments that sign calls for action are themselves often perpetrators of injustices they are calling to be addressed. For example, these resolutions and related calls for action to prevent sexual abuse by peacekeepers or to condemn acts of rape in wartime fail to recognize the cultural context that allows this behaviour to emerge.
It is true that war not only exacerbates these behaviours, but also, as is now recognized, implicitly plans and incites these behaviours as an act of war. It is impossible to deny that these behaviours are rooted in the fact that many societies accept or insist on inferior and subservient roles for women. They silence women and refuse them a role. They fail to acknowledge their contribution, refuse them education, trade them like a commodity — whether for marriage or exploitation — and deny them access to, or control over, their children.
It is impossible to address the issues of women, peace and security without recognizing this cultural context. Civil society has continuously advocated for reference to this broader context in the drafting of UN resolutions, but member states control the drafting. I believe this situation is one of the main reasons we are stalled on implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325. While there are many examples of country-level action driven for the most part by concerned women, silence remains at the highest levels of global governance about the true nature of discrimination against women.
Let me interrupt myself for a moment. You will recognize that I am no longer a civil servant. I would not have given this speech two years ago. We can go with our heart once we are retired.
Unfortunately, these issues are still a joke to many men, a joke they can get away with. At best, the issues are simply not understood. I have heard men that I thought were more enlightened and that believe in the most directive behaviour possible when it comes to bringing negotiators from all parties to the table behave in the most reticent way when it comes to supporting women's efforts at social change. Women's participation is still seen as an issue subject to cultural sensitivity. Oddly enough, many of us hear this issue more from men and not from women.
One way to address this issue is to bring the Security Council discussions on women, peace and security closer to the human rights discussions of women's rights as human rights that take place in other fora. The issue is first and foremost an equality issue. It is imperative to have decision-makers understand it as such.
My next point is on the question of the need to enable the UN resolutions. The Security Council, when it passes a resolution to mandate peacekeeping operations, has the authority to assess all member states of the UN and their contribution to the budget of running a mission. In this manner, the Security Council currently raises $8 billion to fund its operations, and puts over 100,000 people, troops and civilians in the field on an annual basis. In addition, when the Security Council passes resolutions condemning specific state actions, it includes in the resolutions the sanctions that will be applied if the states or parties fail to comply.
Why, therefore, in the resolutions relating to women, peace and security does the Security Council make a call for action without allocating funds for its implementation or indicating any consequences for non-compliance?
Telling UN organizations and other parties to do more is not enough without enabling them with the tools, resources and backing of governments. To be fair, it must be recognized that some of the calls to action on women, peace and security are broad and, therefore, not readily identified as issues that can be funded or sanctioned. However, the resolutions identify specific actions such as asking the Secretary-General to implement the plans of action and, in the case of Resolution 1820 on violence, asking the Secretary-General to develop protection mechanisms. In none of these cases are funding sources identified.
Paragraph 8 of Resolution 1325 calls on participants to ensure that a gender perspective is added to all peace negotiations, but when peace agreements are signed, do UN negotiators insist on the full implementation of this provision? UN negotiators are not allowed to sign on to peace agreements that include amnesties for things the UN does not like — all the bad stuff. The UN negotiators are not allowed to initial those agreements. Why should the UN negotiators not be authorized to refuse to sign ones that do not address elements of Resolution 1325? Here is a clear issue on which greater pressure and even sanctions can be applied.
One of my colleagues, a former senior member of the U.S. Department of State under Bill Clinton and now the vice- president of the International Crisis Group, which is headed by Louise Arbour, by the way, tells the story of how pleased he was to see the truly gender-neutral nature of the first Angola peace agreement in the early 1990s until he and his colleagues realized on the ground, as he was an ambassador on the ground, that gender-neutral meant that gender was ignored. No women were at the table, and issues of gender-based violence were not excluded from the general amnesties, so women's suffering was not addressed. As well, issues important to women in the reconstruction were not addressed, for example, roads were cleared of mines but not the fields where the women work, so that many people were killed or injured when returning to work.
I have always advocated that we ensure that future discussions of this issue and the council lead to follow-up resolutions that have more teeth, that have funds allocated to their implementation and that have sanctions specified for non-compliance.
The appointment of the special representative under Resolution 1888 is a good example of having more teeth, but if we compare it to the resources and the authority given to the special adviser on children and armed conflict, we still have a long way to go.
Ambassador Normandin referred to the gender discussions ongoing in the UN for the creation of a new gender organization. Well, these discussions are not ongoing; these discussions have been going on for five years with no outcome. This idea was launched in 2005, from the High-level Panel on System-wide Coherence in the UN, which was included following strong pressure from member states such as Canada. We can be proud that Canada played a strong role in the recommendations to upgrade the UN structures and to rationalize all the bits and pieces of the UN that deal with women's issues under a large entity with proper funding. Five years later, we are still not there. There is no doubt that the existence of a coherent structure within the UN to manage and fund gender issues can provide a useful vehicle to advance specifically the recommendations and resolutions such as Resolution 1325. I strongly recommend that responsibility for Resolution 1325 be given to the new entity once it is created.
In terms of other solutions at the field level, my last two years in the UN from 2006 to 2008 were to assist the new peace-building commission in getting up and running, and the peace-building architecture has been set in place to develop specific and strategic approaches to support countries coming out of conflict in staying the course for peace. I will not go into detail here on that particular entity, but I will be happy to answer questions. It is a little off topic.
We now know that conflict situations can change gender relations drastically, in many ways for the worse, but there can also be benefits or at least opportunities that must be grasped. Whereas we know that women can become fair game as they are unprotected during times of disruption when the norms of society do not apply, women can also be thrust into situations where they take on new roles to protect themselves, their families and their livelihoods. We can take advantage of these opportunities; in fact, we must. Often women risk finding that an end to war means only that they are pushed back into old roles and their experiences are ignored or discredited.
I have always believed there is a need to create a balance and more strategic alliances between civil society actions advocating and driving change at the grassroots, on the one hand and, on the other hand, the need to enable systemic reform through supporting those working for reform from inside the system. My own experiences lie within the system, and I have often been frustrated by occasions when those in the activist community look at all of us as faceless bureaucrats. We need a two-pronged approach with a much better alliance between civil society and the formal structure.
Efforts are needed at international and national levels to ensure change. We need to start by looking at where many of the women leaders in the system have come from. I have often quoted the Canadian experience, which decided four decades ago to consciously recruit more girls out of universities to entry level positions in government, and the fruits of that decision have paid off. Canada is much better represented in terms of women in senior positions, and I remain a firm advocate of affirmative action for that reason.
Can we apply these principles at the international level? To break the deadlock, we need to identify existing senior people in the system — men and women — to take up the cause. The current new United Nations Secretary General has said on numerous occasions he is committed to placing more senior women in top posts, but there is no doubt that he is hampered by the heavy politicization of these processes. Moreover, many governments nominate only male candidates.
Regarding the question of putting more women into senior positions in peacekeeping, when I was finishing up at the UN, there was a whole team of women at the Assistant-Security-General level, and many of them had reasons why they could not go abroad. Reasons were that the postings were at non-family stations, they had young children and so forth.
On the ground, we need more women in positions of political power. I do not need to tell this particular group about those problems, and I will not go into my arguments on them.
In the poorer countries, we need to find ways to support women entering positions of power. In Burundi, it was written into the new constitution and the peace accord, and, as a result, there were twice as many women parliamentarians in Burundi than we have in Canada. These women received cabinet posts, and the government appointed women not only in a token way. The justice minister was a woman lawyer with a track record, and it was the same in health and in other areas. This kind of affirmative action is important.
However, in the UN, progress on women's senior participation is negligible. Before I came here, I looked up the names of the heads of missions. There are thirty-one missions, and with special representatives of the Secretary- General and the deputies, we are talking about a hundred people. Three heads of mission are women, two political deputies are women, and two development deputies are women — not a good total.
I also looked up the Security Council resolutions for 2009, and I opened up about 20 country-based resolutions on the UN website — Liberia, Somalia, Sudan, Timor, Afghanistan, et cetera. I looked at how many resolutions refer to actual women's issues and Resolution 1325. Half a dozen or so make a reference to Resolution 1325 in what is called the ``preambular paragraphs.'' In the substantive action paragraphs, one or two had a reference to the protection of women. Only one, Resolution 1880 on the Côte d'Ivoire, dealt in detail with the participation of women in the peace process. Therefore, if Canada is to be on the Security Council, we at least have to start writing better resolutions.
I will wrap up by saying a couple of words on the issue of protection of civilians under which the international community is trying to address the issue of protection of women.
On Saturday, I was in Montreal at a seminar of the University of Montreal on peacekeeping and peace-building. One of the people there was Brigadier-General Thompson, our Canadian Forces Chief of Staff for land operations. He described his own efforts to build up the security-to-civilian ratio in Kandahar; he said the ideal was one security person to twenty population. Security persons include local police, not only external actors.
By this standard, the UN forces in Ituri province in the eastern DRC should be 500,000. The number is 18,000 for the whole country, and we blame the UN because they are not providing enough protection. We are not giving them the resources to provide it. We have not a clue what it takes to address these issues.
Let me also throw in here my own sadness that Canadians do not participate in UN peacekeeping missions. Here we are dealing with women, peace and security, and what is Canada doing? We are not putting our troops into those missions for starters. That is one issue we might look at.
As far as Canada is concerned, yes, I think we should have an action plan. I agree with Mr. Normandin that we are doing a lot even though we do not have the action plan. The people in New York are working hard; we are visible and active.
However, having an action plan is like being Caesar's wife: We have to be virtuous and we have to be seen to be virtuous. The action plan helps us to be seen to be virtuous. I believe in the symbolism of these things; that view is a personal one.
We need a clear centre of responsibility in New York, and that is where I think the new gender entity comes in. We need the funding and we need the context of support for women's issues. We have cut funding to all the women's groups in Canada at the same time. Will we now support the international women's issues? We need a balance there.
Let me stop there. We need to be realistic but I think there is a lot more that can be done. I am sorry if I have taken too much time.
The Chair: Thank you, you were excellent. You have so many accomplishments in your résumé. What can I ask you that you do not know?
I want to follow up on what you said about the number of women in UN senior positions, the number of women generally, as the ambassador also talked about, involved in conflict resolution. Can you give us an evaluation of the UN's success to date in mainstreaming gender issues and perspectives in its work? Can you give us your view on that issue?
Ms. McAskie: It varies depending on the issue. The UN is a complicated place. The UN Secretariat is focused on the political and security agenda. There, to be honest, I think they have a long way to go before the concept of gender is mainstreamed. That has to come from the top level.
The top level, by and large, is male-oriented, and the people surrounding the Secretary-General are men at the top level. The heads of departments, with the exception of one or two, are men, and there are not many women in senior positions.
There is a much better record in the development agencies like the UN Development Programme, UNICEF, UN High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Food Programme.
The Chair: Not at the top level?
Ms. McAskie: At the top level. The head of World Food Programme is a woman; the head of UNICEF is a woman; the head of UN Development Programme is a woman and, of course, the head of United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM, is a woman — it has to be. Sorry, guys, you cannot apply for that job.
The Chair: Do you see any policies or practices that can be improved with regard to mainstreaming, outside of the development agencies you have mentioned, to reach the higher levels?
Ms. McAskie: A lot of it is attitude, chair. The Secretary-General makes the right noises — I will appoint more women. In his first year or two, he appointed one in Liberia. I discovered it was because the president of Liberia is a woman and she told him he had to send a woman. There are a couple more now.
It is hard for him. There are not obviously women in the process. The men are there at the table. In the past, the old boy network was operating.
As a head of mission, I was one of only about five or six in the history of the UN. However, when we dig down, at this meeting I attended of women mediators in Nairobi that was run by the Humanitarian Dialogue Centre for the Oslo Forum — and I have been involved in these issues — I was blown away by these women that they had found. These women had worked on both sides of the Uganda conflict, women who had crossed over to work with Joseph Kony so that they could bring him to the table and bring the issues to the table, incredibly brave women. They are out there.
They have to be found, but then they have to be trained. They are not necessarily UN diplomats. They do not necessarily have the university background or the international experience, but they have the skill, the smarts and the experience in the trenches.
The Chair: Do you know whether the UN is planning to train the African Union in its peacekeeping operations on Resolution 1325 and Resolution 1820?
Ms. McAskie: My understanding is that these resolutions are included. The UN brings in a lot of organizations that help, including Canadian organizations like the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. They are involved in the training of African troops, funded by Canada, the UN and the Germans, et cetera. A lot of work is taking place, but whether Resolution 1325 is a flag under which everyone marches, I would not go that far.
The Chair: Are you surprised Canada does not have an action plan or has not engaged in one?
Ms. McAskie: Not many people do. I think the issue now is — I am sure you will come up with recommendations — to make a strong recommendation that whatever the reasons we have not gotten there, we do it now.
I believe in the symbolism of these things. I am not a bureaucrat for nothing. I believe if we have the right processes and strategic structures in place that hold people's toes to the fire, and if we properly use these tools, they can help bring progress. They are useful. They are not the only tools but they are useful.
Senator Jaffer: I want to thank you for coming; it is a real privilege to have you here with us. I know I speak for all my colleagues that we are proud of what you accomplished for us when you represented the UN.
I will play a bit of a devil's advocate. You said that a real bugbear for you was that we do not participate in the UN peacekeeping. We provide resources, for example we provided resources in Darfur, but they were limited resources.
The argument that was used when I was around there was that we are able to do a more effective job with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so we are playing a role. I want to hear your view, if you are able to say.
Ms. McAskie: I am delighted to give my view. That subject was a topic of the seminar in Montreal on Friday and Saturday. One of the drafters of Brahimi Report, William Durch, was there; Jean-Marie Guéhenno, former head of peacekeeping was there; Paul Heinbecker, Canada's former ambassador in the UN was there; and Brigadier-General Thompson was there. It was a thorough discussion.
I recommend a report that has been recently released by the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, CDFAI. It is called Whatever Happened to Peacekeeping? It was written by Joceyln Coulon at the University of Montreal. If you Google Jocelyn Coulon and peacekeeping report, it will come up. It is a brilliant report; it is a summary of UN peacekeeping, Canadian involvement in peacekeeping and why Canada should go back to peacekeeping. I fully support the report 100 per cent.
In the report, he says that there have been many UN missions. The studies put out by the Human Security Centre at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver have shown the extent to which the number of wars have been reduced around the world due to a number of reasons, including international mediation, but also UN peacekeeping.
The Canadian military views UN peacekeeping in a certain way because of what happened in Rwanda, Somalia and Bosnia. Those are three examples out of 50 or 60. We remember the bad; we do not remember the good.
We have gone into NATO because we know people there. We like to work with our friends. The Americans support NATO. We like to work with the Americans. There is nothing wrong with that. However, we have done it at a time when we have also pulled out of the United Nations.
Most western countries have stopped participating in UN peacekeeping operations. They then criticize UN peacekeeping, saying these operations are run by people who do not know what they are doing. I do not feel they have a right to make such criticisms without participating.
There is a feeling I have after reading the press and hearing recent political statements that too many people in Ottawa think the UN is some ``other.'' The UN is us. We created it and we ignore it at our peril. It is the only truly international mechanism for peace and security. Either we want it to work or we do not. If we do not, that situation can have a serious and negative consequence for Canada and the Western powers.
NATO is not necessarily more effective. It is better equipped and it is better at delivering the sharp end, in the military sense. There is no question about that. I had lunch with some NATO ambassadors in Brussels once and they asked why we do not love them in New York. I told them that they walked away from the UN and then criticized it. One can only criticize them if one is part of it.
There is no reason why NATO cannot work in coalitions within the UN, and provide assistance to it. This situation is changing, by the way. President Obama has talked to troop-contributing countries in the UN and said the United States will be back. He has not said how or what that means. The Canadian military likes to follow the U.S. military.
I heard again the rumour that the Congo is next. It is interesting. Students at the University of Ottawa asked me in a lecture I gave on Thursday if that was true. I said I did not know. I recently came back from two months in Mexico. What do I know?
It is important for Canadians to go back into the UN and help bolster it. The concept of peacekeeping in the UN between 1995 and 2005 is night and day; it is unrecognizable. For the Canadian military to be stuck in the 1995 view of what the UN is all about is nothing short of wilful blindness, in my view. Given the experiences the Canadian military has built up over the last few years, I think they will be a tremendous asset to UN affairs.
Senator, you say, however, that we pay our share to the UN and whatever. Sure, we pay our share; yes, we help out a bit. However, where were the NATO members when the Security Council passed a resolution for a UN mission in Darfur? There was press for years about the hellhole that Darfur was. A resolution finally passed through the Security Council and the head of peacekeeping could not get a single attack helicopter out of any Western government. He could not provide lift, did not have enough troops and the troops he had did not have the lift to take them there.
The Western countries said they like NATO better and yet they are prepared to criticize the UN on Darfur. There is a major disconnect there.
Senator Jaffer: I could say so much because I was involved in that issue. However, I want to talk about something I have been struggling with, and you mentioned it. I think we can make recommendations on the issue. You mentioned Joseph Kony and the women, and we all know Betty Bigombe's work.
My theory is that women normally want to make change work out of the system. You said many times that you are not within the bureaucracy so you can say something. Women do not tend to be within a bureaucracy, so they are not appointed to the UN. We need to create a place for women who are the activists to come into the UN.
You worked with those women in the work you are doing. Can you share with us how you think we can involve them because their countries will not appoint them.
Ms. McAskie: We have to be thorough in our investigations in identifying these women and helping to train them in filling in the gaps in experience, background and training. Then, we have to put pressure on the UN; we have to bring a few countries together to put pressure on the Secretary-General to bring in women. The Secretary-General is the secretary of the member states of the United Nations, and certain United Nations member states have more power than others. If they tell him to do something, he will listen.
I do not mean that in a negative sense. It is his job to be sensitive to the needs and desires of member states. It is the way organizations work.
As I said, there is a follow-up process. I will go to Oslo in June for the annual mediators' forum run by the Norwegian government. The forum will look at the outcome of these studies of women peace administrators and peace mediators in Asia, Africa and other places around the world. The forum will come out with strong recommendations. I suggest you follow that process. There is a website: www.osloforum.org.
I suggest that Canada take a look at Norway. You have heard this before. A country of 3 million people has managed to put money strategically into peace and security in a way that makes an enormous difference.
The Chair: Thank you so much. I agree about Norway.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. McAskie, thank you for coming. Besides suggesting that we, in our recommendations, have an action plan on Resolution 1325, what else do you suggest we put in our recommendations? Good, you have a list!
Ms. McAskie: When I finished, I said a couple of quick summary points. I will elaborate on them. At the end, I put ``Canada'' and ``action plan'' there. It was great coming at four o'clock, by the way. I was able to see Mr. Normandin and Ms. Sinclair. They are my friends and I admire their work, but it gave me a chance to think about a few things.
It question is an excellent one, senator. I noticed that the civil servants were a lot more deferential than I am but please do not think I am not.
I think we need a clear centre of responsibility, both in the UN and in Canada. I think it is important. These things cannot be left only to the individual will of different parts of the system. In the years I worked for the Canadian government, I saw the whole issue of women's responsibility for women's issues come up and then fade away, and there is a problem there.
The problem goes back to what I said at the beginning about the social context of how women's issues are dealt with. Women's issues are secondary. They are not only seen as secondary but are dealt with in a secondary way. We still do not get it. Resolution 1325 is not about the fact that we need more women at the table and that women are raped in war.
Resolution 1325 cannot be implemented unless we understand that women and men are not equal partners in society, anywhere in the world. In Canada, we have made enormous gains. Therefore, we forget there is still an issue there. Canada could be leading the world because of what we have achieved in these areas. However, instead we listen to outfits like REAL Women that say men includes women. Why do they not call themselves REAL Men, then? I am quoting someone else; that idea is not original.
I think we still need a watchdog, and a senior one at the cabinet table, senators. We need a strong watchdog, a watchdog with teeth and money, and we need it in the UN.
Going back to what I said about the resolution, peacekeeping missions and resolutions have hundreds of thousands, if not billions, of dollars attached to them. Women, peace and security have zero dollars attached to them. Requests to governments have sanctions attached to them. Women, peace and security have no sanctions attached to them. The other thing we can do is push hard to have this gender entity up and running in New York.
The Peacebuilding Commission came out of the same summit document, 2005, and we were criticized because they took six months to be up and running after the resolution. With the gender entity, they do not even have a proper resolution in five years. It is appalling.
Canada can certainly put more women at the peace table; we can make an effort to find women, and not only Canadians but women from around the world, and we can support the women who are there.
I will conclude with one little beef. When I was head of the Burundi mission, I was the only woman in the system with a mandate from Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. I was the only Canadian head of mission in the system. At the time, Canada was co-chair with the Netherlands of the conference on the African Great Lakes. Burundi was to be the first success story coming out of that process. I thought I had friends in Ottawa. I came to Ottawa and went to see Bill Graham, whom I had known when he was chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and who was then Minister of National Defence. I went to see Pierre Pettigrew and friends in Department of Foreign Affairs and the Privy Council Office. I said it does not look good at the UN that they were giving me nothing; no development, and no political and military support. I said, send me a couple of people. I have five battalions. None of them speak French, let alone Kirundi. I have a whole slew of military observer positions; you could fill two, three, four or five, or you could give me political support or development money.
I received nothing — zero. I came back twice and asked. We do not have a history of supporting our own in the international system, but maybe we can start by supporting some of the women out there.
Senator Mitchell: This discussion has been interesting.
Not to beat the proverbial dead horse, but I am interested in how we can structure, if we had a plan, the implementation and administration leadership of Resolution 1325 in Canada. You mentioned the need to have intense units in Canada and the UN.
Would you put the units in a given department? Would you make it a secretariat? Would you make it a special officer unique to Parliament? What departments would you have as representation, and how would you bring in involvement of non-governmental organizations and expertise from the private sector?
Ms. McAskie: It is not something to which I have given a lot of thought. Ideally, I would like to see it run out of a status-of-women-type operation, but I am realistic enough to know that position has not had, in the past or the present, a lot of clout. Also, if they have diffuse responsibilities, they have no responsibility.
I would put responsibility more in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade than in the Department of National Defence because the issue is political, and it is about political will. Prior decisions would have to be made that we would be prepared to put money into it. If we have a UN Security Council resolution that does not mandate and assess budgetary contribution from member states, then it depends on voluntary funds from governments. Perhaps you can ginger up the Dutch and the Norwegians, and maybe now the Americans, given their greater interest in the UN, and a couple of other countries and create a fund to implement Resolution 1325. You can do a lot with small amounts of money.
If you create a responsibility centre in the government, you need to provide it with money that it then could pass through the UN coffers. You also need to think about how these resolutions are drafted. If Canada wins election to the Security Council, you can make that one of the government's objectives.
I remember being at the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA, at the time that Canada was about to be elected to the Security Council last time. There was an interdepartmental process that worked out what our big objectives were, and that was when we launched the whole human security objective. That process has been a raging success and Canada is on the map for it.
What will be our big objective when we join the Security Council? I do not know because I am not privy to discussions inside government. It does not have to be one objective; it can be a series of them. You can add women, peace and security to that list for our tenure on the Security Council.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in climate change. There is evidence that climate change is creating wars, and wars have a different impact on women than they do on men. Are you aware of literature that addresses the issue of differential impacts on women due to climate change, even without war?
Ms. McAskie: I do not have anything obvious at my fingertips, but one can point to what is happening with agriculture in Africa, for example; the increase in droughts and use of land and water, et cetera. There is so much.
I am a bit of a cynic about this issue now — not a cynic because I am an optimist, and I believe in hope in the world, or we would not be where we are. However, it would not take much more than the cost of a week's worth of the war in Iraq to fix those problems.
People say that when we come out of Afghanistan militarily, we will spend our money on governance. We will not put $11 billion into development in Afghanistan. There is no such thing as the peace dividend. From my peace-building years in the UN, one of my favourite quotes was, ``Eight billion dollars for peacekeeping?'' In relation to how much money the world spends on war, $8 billion is not a lot of money, but in relation to what it spends on peace-building, it is a tremendous amount of money. How can we create a peacebuilding commission and not give it the ability to invest the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to sustain the peace and prevent us from having to come back again in five years?
The money is not there. Louise Arbour gave a brilliant speech on economic and social rights as human rights. She made the case that until we see those things as rights in the same way as we see political security issues as rights, they will not have the same importance, and women's issues are at the bottom of that list.
Senator Jaffer: My question relates specifically to gender-building. You have already mentioned the help you received from Ottawa, so you have answered my questions about the amount of money being spent on peace-building, but we are asking you if there are specific things we can do. You said Canada can look at helping women. What do you suggest specifically? You were there on the ground. Besides providing the resources — I understand that — what specific things can we do?
Ms. McAskie: You have to have the balance right between providing help and supporting the local efforts. I think one of the most important things is to underpin the ongoing local efforts, and not to be the knight in shining white armour that comes in afterwards. At the same time, we should not be modest about the extent to which we can help. As for the voices that say this issue is a Western women's liberation thing, the women do not tell us that when we are on the ground. They are desperately looking for the kind of help we can bring.
We can divide the types of help into two categories. One is the tremendous social change that comes from investment in women's health and education, and we are not investing nearly enough in that area. If we invest in women's health and education, then the change comes through their participation, and then the specific help you can provide is in protecting women and their children, helping them to set up their own advocacy groups and helping them to change their local laws. However, in some countries these things are deeply, deeply cultural and it is difficult for external actors to do it.
There are still countries where people do not even try to start, but in Africa, there are plenty of women's movements that have made enormous change. Mauritania recently voted unanimously to abolish female genital mutilation because of women's groups in West Africa that have swept across the Sahara. It has taken a long time, but they made this change themselves. However, they might have made it faster with the right kind of support and funding, but change is happening and we can identify these things.
I am one of these people who become terribly upset at headlines stating ``Development has failed,'' Abolish the aid agencies,'' and ``Dead aid.'' It is lack of development that has been the failure.
I do not know if any of you have read Paul Collier's book, The Bottom Billion. He says instead of the developed and the developing world, the issue now is that of the 5 billion people who live in the developing world, 4 billion, 80 per cent, live in countries where progress is happening. Some of them are still poor but live in countries like India and China where progress is happening. However, 1 billion of them, 20 per cent, live in parts of the world that are going down the tube — progress is going the other way — and 75 per cent of those people live in conflict situations.
In the 1980s and 1990s with the structural adjustment debates, we started putting our development aid money into countries prepared to meet standards of governance and performance, and no one was talking about how to bring certain countries up to a performance level. These were the countries ruined by the debt crisis. Does anyone talk about the Third World debt crisis anymore? We talk about moral hazard. There are no bailouts, thank you very much. However, when it was Wall Street, the bailouts were there. When it was the Third World, it was compound interest and cutting back on health and education. We brought these countries to their knees and we could bring them back.
Thirty-five billion dollars a year went into aid in Africa and its development has failed. Six hundred billion dollars went to General Motors, or whatever it was, and trillions went into Wall Street in a week. For people in my kind of business, it is crazy-making. I cannot make sense of that situation, and then people say development has failed. What development? Sorry, I will stop.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question to Senator Jaffer's comment and your remarks when you talked about giving women support in these countries and about education and health. What is the situation, in your experience, in terms of the rape and sexual violence that is so widespread in areas of armed conflict? How are women coping now in your experience? Is there any more support? You say they are receiving support from each other, from other countries and from other women. Is anything improving?
Ms. McAskie: Many organizations on the ground are trying to deal with rape and sexual violence, but again the organizations are underfunded and under-resourced. My comment earlier about protection of civilians, and the ratio of security people to the population, is the case in point. The difficulty with Eastern DRC is that there are so many armed elements, all of whom are fighting different fights. In 1999, the Congo was called the Third World War in Africa. Now it is contained up to a point and the rest of Congo has started to move in the right direction.
Another book you should read is King Leopold's Ghost if you want to know about Western responsibility for hell in Africa.
The Chair: What can countries do about this violence? Do they need special forces to deal with this situation?
Ms. McAskie: A member of the Canadian Forces, Stephen Tremblay, and a soldier in the United Nations Organization Mission in DR Congo, MONUC, is running a project in Eastern Congo to provide cellphones to the villages so people can call for help. Many projects like that are going on. A study said that one problem is there are so many projects going on that we are funding project personnel. I am skeptical when I read these reports because they cannot penetrate and infiltrate these areas without a lot of personnel and without security personnel, so it is difficult. All you have to do is ask MONUC — there are a number of projects. If you look on the humanitarian website called ReliefWeb, there is an appeal for the Congo that includes appeal for funding for projects to address issues like sexual exploitation, so the information is there, and the New York office can certainly provide you with that information.
Senator Brazeau: Thank you for being with us this evening. Your presentation was informative. First, you mentioned cuts to women's groups. I consider myself a fierce defender of women's rights and in particular, Aboriginal women's rights. When I hear that this government has made funding cuts to women's groups, I will take the opportunity to correct the record because this government has funded 69 per cent more women's groups than in 2006, and out of the 69 per cent, 41 per cent of those women's groups received funding for the first time.
As well, the Status of Women Canada in 2006 received funding in the amount of $24 million, and for this fiscal year, 2009-10, they are receiving $31 million, which is the largest funding amount Status of Women Canada has received. To name a final example, since 2008, 117 women's groups have received funding of $2 million or more to tackle violence against women. I thought I would pass that information on for the record.
My question relates to the national action plan, which some people support and others question. Some members opposite support it. Let me take off my partisan shoes for a second because I remember an action plan called the Liberal Party Red Book of several years ago that highlighted a number of promises and was a way to move this country forward. Unfortunately, that national action plan called the Liberal Party Red Book did not go anywhere and was not fully implemented. You mentioned yourself that oftentimes — and I do not want to put words in your mouth — you see action plans as symbolic.
I am not in disagreement with action plans but action plans have to be implemented, acted upon and exercised, so I do not share your view of symbolism with respect to action plans because we know where that view can lead.
In your past work, and in your opinion, do you have any thoughts with respect to why an action plan was not developed for the half decade since Resolution 1325, for example, was adopted in 2000?
We have talked about a lot of action plans in the last couple of years but we did not talk about national action plans from 2000 to 2006. Do you have any thoughts on that period?
Ms. McAskie: No, I was working for the UN at the time, not for the Canadian government. I have no idea. However, I know that the subject in New York was not often spoken of. I do not know what the timing was of the drafting of action plans by other member states but, to be honest, it is only in the last two or three years that I have heard about them.
My sense is that the issue was probably dead, and now everyone is trying to crank it up. There are always a few more active states that are first out the door. It so happens that we were not one of them. I think there is lots of room to catch up.
When I say these things have a symbolic importance, I do not mean that they are only symbols. I mean that we should not only be out there doing good things, we should be saying what we are doing. It is like giving a speech; tell them what you are going to say, say it and then tell them what you said. The action plan puts the issue on the table. It means that two years from now people can hold them to account. If they do not have one, they can still do the good work or not. If they have one, then they have to play catch-up to make sure they complete it.
Senator Brazeau: If we focus on the implementation by the Canadian government of Resolution 1325 for example, there is no action plan — a written action plan per se — but we have heard witnesses say that progress has been made. Again, that is up to interpretation in terms of progress being made, but if we are hearing that progress is being made, if progress has been made in the last few years without an action plan, then why the need for one?
Ms. McAskie: I think more progress can be made if we have one. It is a personal view. I cannot prove it empirically. It is purely a personal view.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Brazeau, and thank you so much again, Ms. McAskie, for appearing before us today. I am so happy you came and expressed yourself, especially as you are retired, and I am glad you mentioned, above all, the role of the UN in our lives and in Canada and in the world. I agree with you, the UN is a critical body for us to support with peacekeeping and, of course, on the promotion of women again to a Secretary-General position. Is that not our goal?
Ms. McAskie: That would be nice.
The Chair: Colleagues, that ends our hearings for today. Thank you everyone for appearing.
(The committee continued in camera.)