Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 26 - Evidence - May 6, 2013
OTTAWA, Monday, May 6, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 4 p.m. to monitor issues related 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 Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable Senators, I call to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights in this 41st Parliament.
Our committee has received from the Senate the mandate to examine issues relating to human rights in Canada and overseas.
[English]
As a reminder to those watching the committee proceedings, they are open to the public and also available via webcast on the parl.gc.ca website. You can find more information and the schedule of witnesses on the website, under Senate Committees.
Honourable senators, as you know, we are conducting an update on the implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 and its successor resolutions on women, peace and security.
[Translation]
Resolution 1325 was adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on October 31, 2000. It deals with the impact of armed conflict on women and girls and, more specifically, calls attention to their special needs during repatriation and resettlement, and for rehabilitation, reintegration and post-conflict reconstruction.
[English]
In September 2009, our committee commenced its study on the implementation of the resolution, which led to the tabling of a report, in November 2010, entitled Women, Peace and Security: Canada Moves Forward to Increase Women's Engagement. This report was supported by a subsequent report, tabled by our committee in December 2010, entitled Training in Afghanistan: Include Women. Canada's National Action Plan, entitled Building Peace and Security for all, was released on October 5, 2010. The committee welcomed the development of the plan and recognized that it followed the framework outlined in the UN Secretary-General's 2010 report to the Security Council on women, peace and security.
However, the committee was also of the view that the Government of Canada should take a more rigorous approach to evaluating its efforts to meet the goals outlined in the United Nations Security Council's resolutions on women, peace and security.
Accordingly, the committee's report included recommendations that the plan be implemented with clear targets that each specific action in the plan is intended to reach and time-bound indicators corresponding to the realization of these targets.
We also recommended that the Government of Canada allocate clear, dedicated and multi-year budgetary resources toward the implementation of its action plan. Although Canada's National Action Plan states that DFAIT will compile an annual report of Canada's progress in implementing the UN Security Council's resolutions on women, peace and security, no report has yet been made publicly available.
My name is Mobina Jaffer, and, as chair of the committee, it is my pleasure to welcome you to this committee. I will now go to the deputy chair, who will introduce herself, and then the other members will introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: I am Senator Salma Ataullahjan, and I represent Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Harb: Mac Harb, Ontario.
The Chair: Let me introduce our first panel. I would like to welcome, from Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Marie Gervais-Vidricaire, Director General, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force. I can say to my colleagues here that she certainly has a lot of experience over many years, and we welcome her here to the panel. Jim Junke also has many years of experience on these issues, and he is the Director, Human Rights and Governance Policy Division.
From National Defence, we want to welcome Major-General Michael Day, Director General, International Security Policy.
From the Canadian International Development Agency, we have a friend of the committee, Lilian Chatterjee, Director General, Thematic and Sectoral Policy, Strategic Policy and Performance Branch.
We welcome all of you. We see your presence here as a partnership in working on these difficult but very important issues. I understand that there will be two presentations, one from Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada and another one from National Defence.
Marie Gervais-Vidricaire, Director General, Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Good afternoon. I thank the committee for the opportunity to update you on the progress that the government is making on the implementation of Canada's National Action Plan on women, peace and security. It has been two and a half years since the government announced the Canadian National Action Plan in October 2010. The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, along with the Department of National Defence, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, has been active in meeting the commitments under the action plan and, therefore, helping to advance UN member states' obligations under Resolution 1325. Where possible, our departments are working together to maximize the effectiveness of our efforts.
I am pleased, today, to be joined by Major-General Michael Day, Director General, International Security Policy at DND, who will give brief opening remarks as well, and Lilian Chatterjee, Director General, Thematic and Sectoral Policy, Strategic Policy and Performance Branch at CIDA, who will be pleased to respond to any questions you might have related to CIDA's work to implement the National Action Plan.
I am also joined by my colleague Jim Junke, Director, Human Rights and Governance Policy Division, and we will be pleased to answer any questions related to DFAIT's work.
DFAIT has been active in implementing the action plan in three areas upon which I will briefly report to you today as follows: Establishing the structures and processes, within DFAIT and interdepartmentally, to manage the implementation; engaging internationally and within Canada to promote the women, peace and security agenda; and programming to promote the tenets of women, peace and security in conflict-affected and fragile states.
The first area is structures and processes. Within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the office for leading and coordinating women, peace and security issues is located within the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, which we call START. It is responsible for policy development, the deployment of civilian experts and programming with respect to Canadian interventions in conflict-affected and fragile states, such as Haiti, Syria and Afghanistan.
Women, peace and security matters are integrated into all aspects of this work. We have instituted regular training on how to implement a gender-based approach for all START officers and more targeted training for selected officers to develop in-house expertise. We also offer this training to officers in other DFAIT bureaus and government departments to ensure a whole-of-government approach to implementing the action plan.
START chairs and regularly convenes a women, peace and security working group of DFAIT divisions, as well as an interdepartmental working group including DND, the RCMP, CIDA and Status of Women Canada.
We report progress on implementation issues at senior levels through the interdepartmental START advisory board, which I chair.
The government will table in Parliament, before the House rises this spring, the Canadian National Action Plan's annual report for the fiscal year 2011-12. This will be the first annual Canadian National Action Plan report and, as such, has required a considerable the effort by departments and agencies to produce a comprehensive account of the government's WPS activities. We believe that this will be of interest to Canadians and to the international community. The report is in its final stages, and we would be happy to provide the committee with a copy once it has been tabled.
[Translation]
Upon the announcement of the national action plan, we reached out to like-minded countries and organizations such as the United Kingdom, the United States, the Netherlands, NATO and the European Union.
We have built a useful network by which we share experiences and lessons on WPS (women, peace and security) issues of mutual concern. This bilateral work complements Canada's ongoing role as the chair of the Group of Friends of Women, Peace and Security at the United Nations, where we work with like-minded countries to promote the women, peace and security agenda, including at the Security Council. Canada played a leading role with G8 countries, the outcome of which were strong commitments by leaders and foreign ministers in 2012, and the landmark G8 Prevention of Sexual Violence in Conflict Declaration by G8 foreign ministers in April, 2013. This declaration recognizes the importance of the involvement of women in decision-making processes.
Our diplomatic posts continue to promote the women, peace and security agenda with host governments and civil society in countries of concern such as Libya and Afghanistan.
WPS programming: Through the DFAIT Global Peace and Security Fund and the Canadian Fund for Local Initiatives, we continue to sponsor police and other civilian deployments and projects promoting the WPS agenda.
For example, since the 2010-11 fiscal year, the global peace and security fund has disbursed more than $18.6 million for projects where WPS issues were addressed in whole or in part. Among other results, this work has allowed us to increase the participation of women in political processes and in conflict prevention initiatives in Nepal, Sierra Leone and Tunisia; to promote and protect the human rights of women and girls by assisting in the development of host country laws and institutions, supporting education on women's and girls' rights, increased access to legal and recovery services for women and girls who are victims of sexual violence, and support for advocacy on protection and prevention issues in countries such as Afghanistan; to strengthen the capacity of women's organizations, lawyers, human rights defenders, and state prosecutors to investigate and litigate cases of sexual violent crimes committed against women who are victims of armed conflicts, such as in Colombia. It has also allowed us to deploy police and other civilian experts to investigate crimes of sexual violence in such countries of concern as Libya and Syria.
[English]
I would be pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. We will have questions after both presentations.
Major-General Michael Day, Director General, International Security Policy, National Defence: Thank you and good afternoon. Obviously, I am delighted to be here this afternoon to update you on the discussion of our department's progress in implementing Canada's National Action Plan for the Implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution on women, peace and security, and to address any questions you may have.
The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces are committed, together with our partners in other government departments, including DFAIT and CIDA, to fully implement the UN Security Council Resolution on women, peace and security, such as UNSCR 1325, 1820 and follow-on resolutions. We recognize the legal, ethical and operational imperatives of following through with this in our daily life and on deployed operations.
At DND, the coordination of women, peace and security issues is the responsibility of our team in the international security policy division. We do this in collaboration with other groups in the department and the Canadian Armed Forces, such as our Strategic Joint Staff, our Chief of Military Personnel, Canadian Joint Operations Command and, of course, the three environments, to name just a few. Holistically, it involves every part of the organizations of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. Together, we work to feed this effort into the whole of the government community's efforts, led by DFAIT, to implement the action plan and to report on our activities.
From a National Defence perspective, implementation means making sure that the training provided to the Canadian Armed Forces members deploying on peace support operations as well as the training that DND and the CF provide to other countries through our Military Training and Cooperation Program, reflect how conflicts affect women and men differently and how this needs to be addressed for legal ethical and operational reasons. It also involves having policies in place that promote the participation and representation of women in decision-making, as well as the protection of the human rights of women and girls, in particular the prevention of sexual violence.
Our department also promotes the women, peace and security agenda by our work through international organizations such as NATO, including sending a DND representative to participate at the NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives and reporting on Canada's activities in this body. In fact, DND has chaired this committee in the past and will seek to do so again in the future. At last year's NATO summit in Chicago, the allies recommitted themselves to the cause by endorsing a strategic progress report on the mainstreaming of UNSCR 1325 and related resolutions into NATO-led operations. This is reflected in the everyday conduct of NATO operations around the world, including places such as Afghanistan.
We also do our part to encourage discussions on these issues within civil society. For example, our defence engagement program has provided funding to support the sixth annual workshop for Women in International Security, bringing together academics, students and practitioners for an exchange of ideas on the relationship between women and violence as one of the defining features of international security.
Although it is but one aspect of the implementation of these resolutions, I would be remiss if I did not highlight Canada's place as a leader in terms of the role of women in the military. Currently, women make up 14 per cent of the Canadian Armed Forces when taking into account both regular and reserve force members. While this is a significant achievement, we recognize that it is still a ways to go from our longer term objective of 25 per cent. Women are eligible to serve in all military occupations, including combat. They were proven in Afghanistan, not only as participants but also as leaders. Today, they serve in a variety of roles in international missions from the Sinai in Egypt, to the Democratic Republic of Congo, to Afghanistan. Therefore, while we recognize there is still much left to be done on the integration of women to the Canadian Armed Forces, we are very proud not only of the progress we have made but also of the female leaders we currently have serving.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the committee today. I would be pleased to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question for clarification. The committee recommended in its report that the Government of Canada allocate clear, dedicated and multi-year budgetary sources to the implementation of its action plan. I heard you say that the action plan will be tabled at the end of the session. I know that you cannot tell us what is in it, and I respect that very much. However, are you looking at the committee's recommendation or will it be in the form suggested by the committee with clear targets; the intended target of each specific action of the plan; and time bound indicators corresponding to the realization of these targets?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: During the first years of implementation, we will establish the baseline data and identify areas for improvement in the mid-term review, including the possibility of targets. With regard to the resources that you raise, Madam Chair, I would say that Canada's action plan provides a policy framework that applies to programs and activities of the government, which in total are valued, as we know, in terms of billions of dollars. I referred in my opening remarks to some dedicated funding to some specific projects with our Global Peace and Security Fund, but of course the government as a whole is doing a lot more. I know that my colleague from CIDA can address that as well.
The Chair: In your paper, you have said that you are increasing the participation of women in political processes and conflict-prevention initiatives. I have spoken to women from La Paz, Sierra Leone and Tunisia — from Tunisia, a few weeks ago — and they do not feel included. I am now going to be able to share this with them. Can you give us specific examples of what kind of participation you are helping Tunisian women with?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: I could provide the committee with a list of specific projects we have undertaken in the case of Tunisia, but I think it is in terms of women's participation in the electoral process. In the case of Afghanistan, for example, we have worked on issues related to women's rights and trying to help some young women lawyers to work within their communities to make the women more aware of their rights and trying to respond to some of their concerns. In terms of specific projects, I would be pleased to provide the committee with a brief description after this session.
The Chair: Not so much looking at specific projects but as to how you are enabling political participation. Thank you. I appreciate your providing that to us.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentation. The chair asked part of my question. This committee presented a report on the role that the Government of Canada could play in supporting the promotion and protection of women's rights in Afghanistan. This was as Canada's mission to Kandahar was ending, and our contribution was going to be refocused on the NATO-led mission. In that report, the committee recommended that the Government of Canada include advancement of women's rights as one of its five priorities for Afghanistan post-2011. Now that we are in 2013, can you comment on whether women have been engaged in Afghanistan and what Canada's role has been?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: I will speak for DFAIT and then I will turn to my colleague from CIDA to speak about what CIDA has been doing.
Definitely, engaging women has been the priority for us. We have supported the implementation of an innovative and dynamic public engagement plan to educate and encourage religious and community leaders in women's rights and to promote a positive societal change. We have also supported capacity building of civil society organizations, including women's organizations, to deliver both program development training in terms of including advocacy and monitoring capabilities, program formulation, reporting for accountability and transparency, as well operational training, including finance, accounting and human resources, all of this in order to help to build capacity. There is still quite a lot of work to be done in that respect, so we have to help women to help themselves, to organize themselves.
Lilian Chatterjee, Director General, Thematic and Sectoral Policy, Strategic Policy and Performance Branch, Canadian International Development Agency: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan. The protection and advancement of women's rights has been, and continues to be, a key pillar of Canada's engagement in Afghanistan. Canada will continue to work to ensure that there is no backsliding on the visible progress of Afghan women over the past decade. You are probably aware of the Tokyo Declaration and Mutual Accountability Framework, which provides parameters for the relationship moving forward between donors and the Government of Afghanistan, founded on progress towards governance commitments, including anti-corruption measures and effectiveness, and bringing the issue of women and girls to the forefront.
You asked for some examples. I can give you some progress that is very visible. School enrollment for girls has grown from zero in 2001 to a current total of approximately 2.9 million. More than 7.4 million children are now enrolled in formal school. The number of teachers has increased to more than 172,000, 30 per cent of whom are women. In Afghanistan's last national election in 2009, 406 female candidates competed for 249 seats in Parliament. Women now make up 27 per cent of Afghanistan's parliamentarians. Canada's renewed engagement in Afghanistan will build on these successes by focusing on results for women and girls in our development work. CIDA will continue to support specific efforts that improve infant and maternal health, increase girls' education and women's literacy, as well as advance the rights of women and girls and enhance their role in decision making.
You had also asked about women's and girls' participation. Tying it to the example in Afghanistan, as part of the contribution for the 2009-10 election, Canada worked with the Afghan partners to promote women's participation as voters and candidates. Campaign training to 248 women candidates from 31 provinces enabled them to compete in the 2010 parliamentary elections. Twenty of the sixty-nine women elected to Parliament had attended the CIDA-supported campaign training.
In 2011-12, CIDA supported President Karzai's commitment to engage women at the Bonn conference in Afghanistan by supporting five female delegates to participate at the Bonn conference on transition. The Afghan Women's Network participation focused on transition in the peace process and enhanced awareness and understanding among the international and Afghan participants of women's priorities and concerns.
Another example is a non-Afghanistan example. CIDA's support for women's organizations among border-based ethnic opposition groups in the Burma border areas has helped increase women's representation in leadership positions, from a baseline of 7 per cent in 2006 to 16 per cent in 2012.
Senator Harb: I wanted to ask a general question. Normally when UN resolutions are adopted, countries go along with it, but someone has to almost be a champion in order to verify whether countries are complying with the resolution. If you were to go to, for example, any country you want to pick, where would you think there is awareness of UN Resolution 1325? Which countries are aware of it? Can you name two or three countries that have awareness of it and where in fact there are some activities in those countries?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: That is an interesting question. I think the awareness has increased considerably over the last few years. I remember that 10 years ago, when I was working on these issues already with Senator Jaffer, we were advocating and we had to raise the awareness. I am not saying that the work is done; on the contrary. However, I think there are many countries that have a national action plan. Canada is not unique in that respect.
When you look at the recent declaration, for example, of the foreign ministers of the G8, to think that the foreign ministers made a point of issuing a separate statement, for example, on sexual violence in conflict, which is related to this agenda that we are discussing today, I think is a sign that these issues have come to the top of the agenda.
I referred to a number of Western countries, but I think that in Africa, Latin America and Asia, the awareness has increased quite a bit. Canada is chairing the Group of Friends of Women, Peace and Security at the United Nations. I could give you the composition of that group. Countries from various parts of the world are part of that group of friends. The group of friends is trying at every opportunity to promote the issue, the agenda, making joint statements, making national statements and so forth. There is a really positive story to be told there. The problems are such, when you look at the situation in Syria or in DRC or even in Afghanistan or other countries, that a lot of work remains to be done.
Senator Harb: In your estimation, who specifically at the United Nations, which department at the United Nations, is sort of saying, "Okay, Country A, tell us what you have done. Country B, tell us what you have done. Send us a report?" It strikes me that it is sort of, "Okay, we have the resolution. Everyone out the door, and we will see what happens."
From the look of it, even many developed countries, it seems, when they go to developing countries with aid programs of some sort, have not really incorporated into their process the gender or the level of participation of women post-conflict or in conflict countries. None of it seems to be systematic in terms of what they are doing in there.
I suppose the issue is not that they are failing but the fact that there is no adult supervision on the file, from the look of it, at the United Nations specifically when dealing with country donors in developing countries. Can you comment on that?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: There is an expectation that all member states of the United Nations will abide by the resolution and the obligations that are in it. However, in terms of the mechanisms to ensure that people are abiding, we have a special representative of the secretary general for sexual violence, for example, who will certainly look specifically at what some countries are doing or not doing in terms of protecting women and preventing these abuses. Canada is certainly very supportive of the effort of the special representative, and so are other countries.
In terms of you saying essentially that those not respecting their obligations are not really taken to task, I think they are. Many times, when there is a debate in the Security Council to tackle a specific situation, the issue of women will be raised and the situation of women and the rights of women and so forth. Does it have an impact? It is not always the impact we would wish to see. When the issue of the situation of women is raised with regard to the DRC or we have in mind Syria now, a lot remains to be done.
Perhaps Mr. Junke can address the reports on human rights that are considered by the council on human rights, which would also be a place to raise these issues.
Jim Junke, Director, Human Rights Policy Division, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada: Yes. In terms of the broader policy context, UN Women is the lead UN agency for women's rights. They do not deal specifically only with this issue, but they of course are the lead UN agency. There are many other UN specialized agencies that work for compliance of countries. The office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is obviously very active. We have this universal periodic review process where countries are taken to task in this area and other areas. We are active and intervene in every other countries' UPR. We have just had our own. It is in a four-and-a-half year cycle.
Also, in the context of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, they just held a huge session with over 8,000 delegates in New York in March, and the theme was violence against women. They reached a consensus resolution. Another instrument is the Human Rights Council. We lead on the violence against women resolution every June. We are at the point where we have a consensus of over 90 countries from across all regions, all faiths and all kinds of cultures.
There are many ways that we work on this issue. It is not always in the context of conflict, but very frequently.
The Chair: I have a supplementary question. Thank you for your explanation, but I am a little concerned, Mr. Junke, about this. We are not looking at violence against women specifically on this. Resolution 1325 is about women, peace and security. I think my colleague Senator Harb was asking about women, peace and security. Violence against women is a different issue. I think he was looking at what was happening with the very specific five resolutions on women, peace and security and not the issues of violence against women. Am I mistaken?
Mr. Junke: I was just trying to provide the policy dimension.
The Chair: It did not answer his question.
Mr. Junke: I was trying to.
Senator Harb: I am fine.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for coming before us and updating us. I know that the resolutions have had some effect, particularly within the military. I was fortunate to have briefings as a parliamentarian at NATO five years ago that would not have heard of the resolutions, and now they are incorporated and being used. I think progress has started, so I commend our response and NATO's response.
In that light, Senator Jaffer and I had the opportunity of getting a briefing on the forces that are now working into Mali, and certainly at the top levels they were aware of the resolution, particularly 1325, and pointed out how they are incorporating it into their systems. It is spreading out, and I appreciate that.
I see the gains on the military side, but I do not see the gains in the countries that have been pointed out by you, Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire, such as in Syria and DCR, and 1325 was to bring attention to the particular difficulty of women in conflict — pre, post and during. I do not know whether we have made any movement. The condemnation factor has been used, and it has brought in the human rights review and pointed it out elsewhere. To what extent is it being used as a lever for discussions with these countries at the national level? It seems that the conflicts arise, and the international community is talking about it, but the countries involved seem not to be responding at a national level at all, except in rebuttals that are statements made at the UN. It has not, to my understanding, taken hold in national governments.
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: Part of the difficulty we are facing is that in the countries that are in conflict, the situation of women is such that what we really need is a cultural change. This is what we are trying to achieve through the various programming we have been doing, to try to build up women's capacities and the women's organizations.
As far as Canada is concerned, we make a point of raising the issue of women in our interventions in the Security Council and in other fora where specific situations are being discussed because it is very much in our mind and we know that we have to continue to advocate.
I agree with you, senator, that, in many of these countries experiencing conflict or emerging from conflict, it does not come naturally to include women in the solution or, during the conflict, to think specifically about the challenges that women are facing. We have to remind them. I would mention, for example, that recently there was an international conference at Wilton Park with regard to Syria and how the opposition is envisaging the future and so forth. In a context like that, countries like Canada reiterated the importance of including women in the planning for the future and for women to be part of the solution. It should not be only men looking at what needs to be done once the conflict is resolved.
Maj.-Gen. Day: If I could just add to that, to use the two countries that you cited, it is obviously problematic to force them to recognize that, given the situation they face on the ground. However, if we look to some previous conflict areas, Afghanistan being the one that Canada perhaps knows best, I think there is some reason for an understanding that the inclusion of these issues at the very core of post-conflict is actually central to the resolution not only of the root causes of that conflict but also as part of the solution to change that society. I would be dubious that we would be able to force a change in such regimes as Syria and the DRC but would want to believe that, when given an opportunity in these places that we do get a chance to move into as a whole government or as Foreign Affairs, CIDA or National Defence, these issues become central to the solutions themselves. That is where I think you would find, in those two particular countries, somewhere down the road, some room for — optimism might be too strong a word — at least an opportunity.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentations today. I apologize for being a little late getting here.
In October of 2010, when the United Nations Security Council resolutions were released, DFAIT had committed to publishing an annual report of Canada's progress in implementing the UNSC resolutions with respect to peace and security and to making this report publicly available.
I wonder if you can confirm for me if, in fact, that report has been published and if there have been one or two or how many?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: The first annual report on the implementation of the resolution should be tabled before the end of the current session, so in the coming weeks. We are in the final stages of preparation. As I indicated at the beginning before you arrived, senator, we will be pleased to provide the committee with a copy, of course, once it has been tabled.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much. My second question is for Major-General Day.
Of the 14 per cent of women in the makeup of the Canadian Armed Forces, as you mentioned in your presentation, I am wondering what the representation of women in a leadership role would be?
Maj.-Gen. Day: Thank you. I am afraid I cannot break that down, but I will obviously undertake to get you the specific data. I can break it down to what service they work in — the air force, et cetera — the number we have involved in combat roles and the changing of that. I do not have the data on hand with regard to leadership positions, but we can certainly research that and provide it to you.
Senator Hubley: I would also like to know how you classify leadership roles. Are they Major-Generals, or are they just —
Maj.-Gen. Day: God help us if that was the case. I would say it is much broader than that. We would define it by three things. We would define it by rank, which means that you legally have leadership responsibilities to your subordinates. We would define it by appointment, given what job you are currently filling. We also recognize, in the Canadian Forces, that not all leaders have either rank or appointment. Some of the most effective leaders are those that take the initiative themselves. Therefore, the metrics that we will provide to you will give you a breakdown, probably by rank and appointment, but will not actually recognize some of our more effective leaders, certainly at the junior level, that have their own initiatives and do their own things, et cetera. Neither will that appointment recognize exactly what they do. The great example I will give you is that, a good friend of mine, General Christine Whitecross, just came back from Afghanistan last year. She was employed as a general officer in NATO, and her job was, quite frankly, on the communications side of the house. At first glance, that appears to be impactful enough. I would report that as a number on the deployment.
What it does not reflect is that, during General Whitecross's time in Afghanistan, based on her own cognizance, she created a women's forum that she chaired to help with women's rights, et cetera. We will give you the metrics. I am always afraid that hard numbers are quantitative but not qualitative, and they might not sufficiently unpack the overall influence that we have. However, we will give them to you regardless.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much.
The Chair: One of the things that I am very proud of, as a Canadian, is the work that our police forces have done in investigating rape and in teaching local police forces to investigate rape. I know that our police did an exceptional job in Darfur. In fact, they still have Canadian police set up to investigate rape.
Are we continuing to have the police help in areas of conflict, with things like investigating rape? Are those kinds of programs continuing?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: Through the Canadian police arrangement, Canada continues to deploy a number of officers every year. I would say that the RCMP has a very good training program and ensures that the officers deployed are well aware, sensitized and well informed on all of these issues of women, peace and security, more specifically the issue of sexual violence. It depends a bit on the role that they are playing because, if you look at the police officers deployed in Haiti, we have quite a number of them at the moment, about 100. They have different tasks. It depends a bit on where they are.
In the DRC, for example, we have a Canadian police officer who has the number two position in the police contingent. In such a position, I would imagine that he has a key role to play with regard to looking after this particular issue of sexual violence and rape, which is, unfortunately, rampant in that country.
The Chair: Major-General, I have a question for you. I am sure you have read our report on Afghanistan. One of the things that we were very anxious about was that, when our role changed from combat to training, the training component include women, peace and security. Canada's approach focused on four main themes: Children and youth; security; the rule of law and human rights and regional diplomacy and humanitarian assistance. I understand those are the four areas you were focusing on.
The committee recommended, in 2010, that the Government of Canada add the advancement of women as a separate priority. My question to you, Major-General, is: How has the advancement of women been included as a fundamental element of Canada's current engagement in Afghanistan?
Maj.-Gen. Day: Thank you. I can only obviously speak to the military side of that. I would like to my colleagues to mention something else as it applies to their responsibilities.
As my opening comments alluded to, the Canadian Forces engagement in Afghanistan, much like everywhere else in the world, recognizes three components of engaging on this particular issue. One is, obviously, the legal responsibilities that we all hold, and that is well reflected in the security resolution. The ethical issues are things that, obviously, any human being has a responsibility for, but, operationally, that is given as a tremendously powerful tool to be able to translate, in a meaningful way, to a culture that does not, essentially, hold the same historic view and progression of women's rights, security, et cetera as Canadians do.
The effective manner in which we have been able to communicate this, because it is central to our understanding of how to prosecute a counterinsurgency campaign, is to explain it to senior Afghans in that light. It is difficult to explain, culturally, legally and ethically, to someone who has been brought up in a different culture based on hundreds of years of tradition why they should change. However, when you talk to a professional military member or a police member and can translate the very same actions with an operational input and a positive impact, that actually has traction.
The Chair: More specifically on the UN Security Council Resolution on women, peace and security, I understand Canada's role in training Afghan National Army soldiers at the Kabul Military Training Centre. How do you do the training? I could spend the whole day talking about cultural sensitivity, which we do here in Canada. It is not something I would really buy into. In particular, how does the female training battalion further Canada's implementation of Canada's National Action Plan for the Implementation of the UN Security Council Resolutions?
Maj.-Gen. Day: I ran the training of Afghan security forces for 13 months. We have a series of specific courses targeted towards different levels of leadership, starting at the recruit level and going all the way to senior staff college. It deals with those courses and has adopted a female recruitment program where we run specific schools designed physically and in terms of the curriculum to increase not only the participation but also the effectiveness of women in the Afghan security forces.
Right from the start, you are taking young Afghan men, because predominantly their forces are men, and explaining to them the different procedures they are supposed to follow, so they have actions on a daily basis that are reinforced. These are not singled out on a daily basis, as opposed to women-specific. However, each course that runs has a specific component that ensures that women's security and safety is part and parcel of that. You will find that throughout the Afghan security force progression model — every course at every level.
In terms of the specific activities we take with regard to women, we have identified relatively early on that you need to run segregated courses, unlike Western militaries where we run integrated courses at every rank level in every environment. We do that so that the women feel empowered to ask questions, become involved, learn the skills and not take a step back.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Major-General Day, you have been talking about training male soldiers and women soldiers so they do not step back. First, how do you measure whether you have been successful in teaching them whatever it is you are intending to teach? When we started the study some years ago, it came to our attention that the training unit was something like half an hour long. We were not particularly hopeful that learning would stay. How is it reinforced? How is it learned?
Second, when you are working with the Afghan soldiers, are they aware of the Afghani laws in respect of violence against women and women's security? Sometimes we train people but they are not aware of their own laws and constitutions.
Third, I was curious about this woman's forum. You talked about a general at a women's forum. Who were the women; what was the purpose of the forum; what were the goals and how successful was it?
Maj.-Gen. Day: With regard to the Afghan awareness of laws, I would say that at the senior leadership level, there is complete understanding, 100 per cent, of the laws that apply to their country and a sensitivity to the specific laws as they apply to women, quite frankly because it is a central pillar of NATO's approach there. In fact, many of the ministerial advisers in both the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Interior Affairs — the two main security departments — are senior female officers from Great Britain, Canada and the U.S. We give them tangible examples. I have had, as many of my peers have had, countless discussions about the centrality of this issue. I have 100 per cent confidence that there is.
As you walk down through the rank structure, you need to understand that most of the soldiers are completely illiterate. Their understanding of any of their laws is incomplete at best. To single out that they would not have an understanding of laws as they apply to the area we are discussing today would be correct. They do not have the understanding or the exposure, but it is no different than their understanding or exposure to a vast majority of their laws, so it is not only an issue about women, security, et cetera.
This gets better as the population becomes more literate because the forum we use to teach literacy actually uses the rules and regulations of the Afghan Security Forces. It does double duty because as we teach them to read, write and understand, we teach them the rule set based on the rule of law that we expect them to abide by. However, this is a multi-generational process. We should be very careful in expecting a short-term win on this because we are "harvesting" 30 years of the Taliban's education system.
My colleague spoke to the difference in schooling. In 2001, there were thousands, but all boys. Now, there are millions. In 15 to 20 years' time, this semi-literate society will have as its core understanding of the rule of law a black letter law as opposed to a customary judicial law. We have a ways to go on that.
You expressed concern about 30 minutes. I was not sure whether I clarified the 30 minutes. Was that on the curriculum for our courses or the Afghan courses?
Senator Nancy Ruth: It was our courses, for which this committee asked to see the training module.
Maj.-Gen. Day: I have looked through some of those. Certainly, it is restricted to a certain period of time, but that would not be fully reflective of what is embedded in all the experiential pieces. It remains essential to that, as do all of those rule-of-law pieces.
I am not sure whether I know an effective way, apart from direct observation, to know whether we are seeing a change in behaviors and cultures to measure that at the moment. Certainly, the incidence of integration would be one measurement, and how many people are being attracted to the profession would be another measurement. I will undertake to come back to the committee on that. I do not think we have the kind of metrics that would be truly reflective of the situation.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Are you intending to make such measurements if you do not have them?
Maj.-Gen. Day: Yes. We talked about adopting in our action plan some baseline fundamentals before we start to look at how we can measure that. We believe that is under way.
Senator Nancy Ruth: That would include the report that is coming up from DFAIT, would it not?
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: The report is before all departments.
Senator Nancy Ruth: It would be interesting for the military to know what the country has said in its report so that they understand they are not acting as sole agents in one particular sector of Canadian life.
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: If I may, the report on the national action plan will reflect the activities of all departments that I mentioned.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I understand that.
Ms. Gervais-Vidricaire: Yes. The contribution is prepared by DND but is integrated by DFAIT, which has the responsibility for coordinating the report as a whole.
The Chair: You will send a clarification if the training is still half an hour. Is that correct, Major-General Day?
Maj.-Gen. Day: Yes. On the women's forum question, I will ask Major-General Whitecross to give us that. She has done a little work on this after her tour. I will forward that to the committee as well.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Was it with Canadians, Afghans or NATO troops? Who was it with?
Maj.-Gen. Day: It was with Afghan troops. When Major-General Whitecross was there, she engaged a number of other senior female officers in NATO and directly engaged Afghan communities and other senior female Afghan leaders to talk about her experiences, how she has moved through and what they can do within their society.
Senator Ataullahjan: I have a quick question. Canadian police are training local police in Afghanistan. I would like to know if any female officers are helping to train. Do you have a number?
Maj.-Gen. Day: I do not have a number, but when I was there, they had quite a few female officers not only from Canada but also from a number of other nations. This has traction in Afghanistan because of the operational imperatives around searching and everything else culturally. It resonates with Afghans that they need female officers to participate in operations to help search females, their quarters, et cetera. We worked.
We have worked quite hard to have a female representative. I do not have the specific numbers at the moment. That falls outside, obviously, Defence's domain. They all worked for me over there, but I am sure we can update our numbers on that.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I thank all four of you for being here. As you can see, the committee is very engaged with this issue. We look forward to studying the national action plan report when it is tabled and we look forward to working with you in the future.
I will introduce the next panel. I would once again like to welcome, from the Pearson Centre, Dr. Ann Livingstone, who is not new to this committee. She is Vice-President of Research and Learning Design. I also welcome, from the University of Winnipeg Global College, Dr. Marilou McPhedran, Director, Institute for International Women's Rights; from the International Civil Society Action Network, Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, Co-founder; and from the Initiative on Quiet Diplomacy, Barry Parkinson, Associate.
We are pleased to have you here today. I know that all four of you will be making remarks. May I ask that, as much as possible, you stick to the five minutes. As you can see, there is much interest from senators to ask questions.
Ann Livingstone, Vice-President, Research and Learning Design, Pearson Centre: Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for the invitation to share some thoughts about women, peace and security with you this afternoon. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart and to the work that we do, and it is one of the areas of expertise for the Pearson Centre.
As my time is short, I will do the following: provide a brief overview of our work in implementing UN Resolution 1325; discuss Pearson Centre's work in support of Canada's National Action Plan; frame my comments around the themes of prevention, participation, protection and prosecution; and then conclude with some key recommendations.
The work of the Pearson Centre supports Canada's National Action Plan and we look forward to the Government of Canada's report when it is released. As a past recipient of government funding, the centre has contributed to the implementation of the government's commitments on women, peace and security, and has accomplished this by ensuring that our gender-specific activities, which are conducted primarily overseas, directly support the objectives and targets articulated in the plan.
Let us look at prevention first. In its report from November 2010, this committee found that while progress was made in implementing 1325 and addressing SGBV internationally, much remains to be done. One of the key areas identified in the report was the need to further integrate the differential experiences of women, men, boys and girls in peace, security and stabilization operations. Of particular note is the importance of this task with reference to security forces, specifically among the rule of law personnel.
With funding from DFAIT, the Pearson Centre has been at the forefront of key initiatives that seek to do just that. For example, in 2012 we supported the police and gendarmerie services in Burkina Faso and Benin to develop gender policies that will guide the deployments in peace and security operations. We also supported Sierra Leone's police in conducting a review of their policy on peace and security operations from a gender perspective. We fully believe that as these policies are used to prepare police, gendarmerie and other rule of law personnel for international service, the benefit is accrued to the domestic institutions as well, and that this is an excellent value proposition.
In Latin America, we have worked with 12 peace and security operations training centres to increase women's representation in field operations and to develop gender-sensitive training curricula.
The centre has also been working to strengthen efforts to prevent violence, including sexual violence, against women and girls who are affected by conflict and marginalized during the post-conflict peace processes. A major part of this work was focused on promoting the security and rights of women and girls through training courses and workshops.
It is vitally important that Canada advocates for the active and meaningful participation and representation of women and local women's groups in peace and security activities, particularly in the peace processes. As I mentioned in my testimony last year, it is imperative that the international community recognize the link between women's economic and political participation and ability to be at the table during the peace process. Currently, when peace processes are undertaken, only 3 per cent of the negotiators and mediators are women. This has a significant impact on the ability to put economic, political and social needs of women at the forefront of a discussion.
We are pleased that in Latin America, for example, female participation in our activities has been 25 per cent or higher. This should be viewed as an accomplishment, given that women's participation in those areas is substantively lower. This participation rate is the result of our continuous engagement with partners.
The centre welcomes Canada's recent G8 commitment to contribute $5 million this year to help prevent conflict- related sexual violence and to respond to the needs of victims. While preventing all forms of sexual violence is an important goal, initiatives must continue to protect the safety, as well as the physical and mental health, of the women and girls. We are seeing other countries heighten their efforts in this regard. For example, the U.S. Department of State recently committed funding to support protection and health initiatives for women and girls in refugee and internally displaced camps throughout Africa and Latin America.
Without a strong, functioning security and justice system in place to facilitate the arrest, detention and prosecution of perpetrators, a culture of impunity with regard to violence against women and girls will remain.
While the centre fully supports the G8 initiative and views the need to end the culture of impunity as a laudable goal, without a robust and fully trained justice chain, there is little likelihood for success. Ending impunity cannot be achieved if police are not trained in proper response techniques, such as securing a crime scene, taking witness statements, keeping notes, and knowing how to respond to the victim's and survivor's emotional state. If investigators are not fully trained in the art and science of forensics and investigative techniques, they will not be successful in having evidence to give to courts. If courts do not have legal codes at the domestic level that articulate sexual violence as a crime, it is difficult to prosecute. If corrections facilities are lacking and if detention for sexual violence crimes is not a punishment available to the courts, then the perpetrator is freed, and the victim and survivor often confront their attacker on a daily basis. How do we end a culture of impunity when the justice chain is broken or, at the very least, poorly trained?
In conclusion, I would like to leave the committee with three considerations as it moves forward with changes to the delivery of international assistance, including collaboration with Canadian companies overseas.
First, it will be important that consideration be given to how changes in policy will impact women and girls. The government should continue to guarantee that women and girls will have access to the economic opportunities that are created by trade and economic policies.
Second, the government should ensure that the creation of opportunities for economic development do not impede or create additional barriers for women and girls. We know that trade and access to economic opportunity is critical in advancing democracy, and I suggest that women's leadership is vital.
Finally, the government should continue to ensure that its collaboration with Canadian companies abroad does not inadvertently result in insecurity or conflict that disproportionately affects women and girls.
Marilou McPhedran, Director, Institute for International Women's Rights, University of Winnipeg Global College: I want to begin by thanking Madam Chair and all the members of the committee. There are quite a few familiar faces to me around the table. It is a great pleasure to see you all again.
I have a few basic facts to set the context. There are 1.5 billion people living in conflict-affected and fragile states. About 70 per cent of fragile states have seen conflict since 1989. Basic governance transformations may take 20 to 40 years and should be planned for accordingly. Approximately 30 per cent of official development assistance is spent in fragile and conflict-affected contexts. The countries that are considered fragile states are also the countries furthest away from achieving the millennium development goals.
For today's presentation, I want to set the context starting in the 1990s with the UNDP Human Development Report of 1994, going to a point about engendering the "responsibility to protect" doctrine with 1325, taking a quick look at the Canadian national action plan of 2010, referencing the new deal regarding engagement with fragile states 2011, and looking at the revised Dutch national action plan set for 2012 to 2015, ending with some reference to the Secretary-General's report of March 2013, and also two quick references to educational initiatives and implementation strategies both here in Canada and international.
Part of my presentation is going to rely considerably on colleagues with the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders, and I want to welcome Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini and know that we will complement each other in some of the information we share with you. The GNWP is hosted by ICAN.
The impact of the UNDP 1994 Human Development Report really charted a new course because it was the first report to bring vigorous criticism of the generally accepted realist paradigm of state-centric security. It emphasized individuals as opposed to states, and it defined human security as safety from the constant threats of hunger, disease, crime and repression, and protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions to the patterns of our daily lives, whether in the home, in our jobs, in our communities or in our environment.
With regard to the "responsibility to protect" doctrine, the work that has been done through the International Women's Rights Project at the University of Victoria, which I used to lead, and also now the Institute for International Women's Rights at the University of Winnipeg, which I now lead, there are four key areas where 1325 can be and is being used and could be used much more to integrate gender with the R2P doctrine. The first is the participation of women in peace processes. The second is gender training in peacekeeping operations. The third is the protection of women and girls and respect for their rights that go significantly beyond the racialized recognition of rape as a weapon of war that we found in the first report in R2P funded by Canada, the very highly regarded ICISS report of the 1990s. The fourth is the gender mainstreaming in reporting and implementing programs and policies on conflict, peace and security. Those are the four key areas where we get a lot of rich sources from 1325 that can overlay and engender the R2P.
For the Canadian national action plan 2010, I want to echo the recommendations of this Senate committee's 2010 report. We need indicators with specific target benchmarks for each indicator and timelines for achieving them. We need detailed analysis of the more complex and qualitative aspects of women in situations of armed conflict in government annual reports, and we need clear, dedicated, multi-year resources attached to the national action plan. I would add to that recommendation that this needs also to be included in the annual reports to Parliament and to the people of Canada.
"A New Deal for engagement with fragile states" begins with one of the following statements:
We recognise that the success of our combined effort depends on the leadership and commitment of the G7+ group of fragile states supported by international actors. We also recognize that constructive state-society relations and the empowerment of women, youth and marginalised groups as key actors for peace are at the heart of successful peacebuilding and state building. They are essential to deliver the "New Deal".
Then we need look at what is actually happening with the new deal, which has really gained quite a bit of traction since 2011, and some would argue more rapidly and successfully than traction for 1325 implementation. Well, the truth is that gender issues are largely absent despite their status, and reflected in the quote I just gave, as a cross-cutting theme for the new deal. The new deal places emphasis on country leadership, local ownership and multi-stakeholder collaboration, so it is particularly important that women's voices are heard and create the space to drive forward a more inclusive agenda. As the new deal evolves and is put into practice, it also represents a significant opportunity to implement and incorporate the strengths of Security Council Resolution 1325.
By way of a brief comparison, I would like to make reference to the new Dutch national action plan beginning 2012 through to 2015. I will also quote from that:
This NAP is a collaboration between government, civil society organisations and research institutes. It has been signed by no fewer than three Dutch government ministries, four research institutions and over 30 civil society organisations. The partners' contribution has not been limited to a signature, however. Many people have contributed to the development and writing of this plan. The NAP is thus based on many sources of knowledge and experience, and it is designed to be both ambitious and feasible.
Then the plan goes on to state very clearly and proudly:
No other NAP in the world can rely on such a broad support base.
During the Commission on the Status of Women meetings this past March in New York, the Secretary-General released his mandated report under Security Council Resolution 1960 entitled "Sexual Violence in Conflict." At paragraph 6 of that report, he highlighted emerging concerns, including perpetration of sexual violence against men and boys, the plight of children born as a result of rape and the practice of forced marriages by armed groups. They looked at the nexus between sexual violence and illicit extraction of natural resources, between sexual violence and displacement of civilian populations, between sexual violence and inadequacy of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of security sector reform efforts.
I am an affiliate of the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders I have already mentioned, and this is a coalition of 70 women's groups and other civil society organizations from Africa —
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt, but you are at the nine-minute mark. In order that we can hear from everyone else, can you please conclude?
Ms. McPhedran: Yes, I will close with my brief recommendations.
For international and Canadian educational initiatives, let me suggest that the committee look closely at what is needed to train the next generation of women peacebuilders. Let me give you two quick examples of what might be possible there.
One is a course that is under development and that is being designed to be available free online and also to be part of a capacity-building program. This is in the early stages of development, but we are working with the UN-mandated University for Peace in Costa Rica, with the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders and with a number of research institutes in Canada to develop this course.
Lastly, a more local example from Winnipeg, where I am based, is the Voice of Women for Peace Camps for girls, which will be running this summer. In Winnipeg, we have teamed up with the Girl Guides of Canada. There is a new Women, Peace and Security badge under development, which guides will be able to earn as part of their programming.
Barry Parkinson, Associate, Initiative on Quiet Diplomacy: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
The adoption of Resolution 1325 was a great achievement. We can all be very proud that Canada had a seat on the Security Council at the time and that Canada continues to support the resolution. However, we also know the difficulties of getting from declaration to effective practice. Many of the analyses since the adoption of 1325 pointed to the worsening of the gendering of peace processes.
On the resolution's tenth anniversary, IQd, the Initiative on Quiet Diplomacy, responded to this challenge by producing a set of guidelines for implementing particularly the participation pillar. Our premise was that gender sensitivity in conflict situations will not occur in the absence of women's effective participation in these processes. We aimed to contribute something modest but clear, effective and practical. We would very much like to acknowledge the funding of the Dutch NGO Cordaid and the U.K.'s Department for International Development for the funding they provided us for these guidelines.
We have been pleased with the reception that the IQd guidelines have received, and we have sought to have them distributed widely to people working in the field. To this end, we have been translating them from the original English into French, Spanish, Arabic and Russian. The English text is freely available on our website, which is iqdiplomacy.org. We hope to have the translation up soon. I think copies of the guidelines have been distributed to you all.
[Translation]
I sent the French translation by email; I hope it has been distributed to you.
[English]
If you have a look at the guidelines, you will see they follow a very simple structure, addressing separately the challenges of policy and practice. They respond to recurrent challenges in the field and offer some possible actions, indicating identified issues and some obstacles and recommendations. There are some notable practices that we have as tips and hints, basically.
The guidelines are not a panacea; we know that. They are not a magic wand. However, we do hope they can help well-intentioned actors to overcome obstacles and achieve the desired result, namely, the effective participation of women at all levels. This is, quite clearly, essential for bringing 1325 to fruition.
As a follow-up to the publication of these guidelines, IQd, again with the support of Cordaid, has been carrying out scoping exercises in South Sudan and Burundi. The aim of these exercises is to see whether the guidelines may be proven effective through selective piloting. Again, we are focusing on the participation pillar and we are looking at meaningful qualitative participation. These recommendations will be shared with Cordaid and some other NGOs, as well as some interested governments, including Canada.
Our current work has helped to impress upon us the interconnectedness of the various pillars of 1325: prevention, participation, protection, and relief and recovery. However, whatever the value of the analogy, these are not really pillars. They are interconnected and entwined. They rely on one another and they support one another.
With this in mind, we were pleased to see the recent Canadian announcement about supporting the U.K.'s G8 initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict zones and addressing the needs of survivors. It is clear to us that there is a direct relationship between women's participation in peace processes and in public life writ large. There was a reference to the political and economic status of women, the relationship between women's participation and the threat and actuality of sexual and gender-based violence. It is, at its simplest, a two-way street. No one is likely to be an effective participant if they are under threat of violence, and questions of sexual and gender-based violence are not likely to be addressed if women are not effectively participating at the table and if there is not a gender perspective at the table.
Sexual and gender-based violence is a weapon used against women and communities, on the one hand, but it is also the consequence of many complex factors within societies and as part of conflicts. It is very well established that it is a consequence of conflict, but it is also a contributing factor in fuelling and perpetuating conflict.
In order to address this, a broad and comprehensive approach has to be taken. We strongly encourage the Government of Canada and its G8 counterparts to take a strong, broad and comprehensive approach to this important initiative.
I know we are short on time, so I will leave it at that, but I am happy to discuss this further and to answer your questions.
Sanam Naraghi-Anderlini, Co-founder, International Civil Society Action Network: Thank you for inviting me to speak to the committee. Canadian leadership has always been an important piece of this agenda, precisely because Canada was on the Security Council at the time of the adoption of the resolution and also because Canada championed the Human Security Agenda, which is one of the framing elements of the Women, Peace and Security agenda. I also wanted to honour the chair of the committee for her own leadership in this work, given her role as envoy to Sudan and bringing the voices of women into the process there. It is about individuals taking action, and I think that is something we should recognize.
I wanted to tell you a little bit about ICSAN, the International Civil Society Action Network. We are a recently formed NGO, since 2007. Our mandate and our mission is to promote women's voices, inclusion and effective participation in the promotion of peace, security and justice in countries affected by closed political space, transition and conflict. Much of our approach is on the question of participation and finding the spaces to bring women's voices into the process.
I have some material here for you. One of the things we do is that we are producing gender, political and security briefs regarding countries in the Middle East and North Africa, because we found that a big gap in all the discourse was that the information did not exist. We did not know what the gender dimensions of security and political issues were. Unless we have this information, it is very hard to make policies or programs. I can share that with you, as well as other material that we have.
I want to focus my comments today on the participation pillar, because I feel that in the last few years, so much of this agenda has now become dominated by the question of sexual violence and conflict. That is a very important element. It is a critical element that needs to be looked at. As well, it is important that we do not relegate women to the question of women as victims, especially passive victims, and forget about their role in terms of shaping the agendas and processes that we have in place, the essence of the Women, Peace and Security agenda, which is that women wanted a voice in the processes and structures that make those decisions.
It is also the most exciting element, because often we look at this question of women as if it is devoid of politics and diplomacy. Actually, this is really about looking at how diplomacy has changed and how the nature of warfare has changed. Peace and security, especially related to war-affected countries, has always been in the realm of the military and the political elite. In the 1990s, we started seeing the need to engage non-state armed actors, because the nature of war had become civil wars and internal conflicts. We did not used to like to talk to guerillas, rebel groups and so forth. We often labelled them as terrorists that one does not talk to. Yet, in the 1990s we started talking to them, precisely because we needed to end hostilities, and they were often involved in the hostilities.
Today we see that we fund and we build capacities. Whether it is the Lord's Resistance Army that we try to engage with, or the groups in Darfur or elsewhere, we enable them to be effective negotiators in peace processes. However, it is really important that we do not create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I will give you an example of a recent finding coming out of the World Bank. In the eastern DRC, they have been interviewing militias that have been involved in perpetrating sexual violence.
The early findings are that some of the smaller militia groups, when asked why they engage in sexual violence and rape, say that it is because the international community cares about this issue, making it a way for them to get attention and have their voices heard. In other words, our attention to violence and forms of violence is actually creating a self- fulfilling prophecy in places on the ground. We have to be careful about that factor. As much as we need to have them to end the hostilities, it does not mean we should be delegitimizing and ignoring non-state, unarmed groups — civil society, if you want — on the ground working for peace and choosing to do it without weapons. That is where we find women to be most prominent.
We do not have a methodology for bringing civil society to the table. Often we say: Who are they? Who do they represent? Are they elite? Are they grassroots? We have many reasons to exclude them, but the only way they could be included is if they start picking up weapons and becoming very violent. Then we would invite them to the table. So long as they are not violent and are being constructive in their engagement, we tend to marginalize them.
A paradigm shift needs to happen: bring non-state, unarmed actors to the table for the negotiations around transition and peace. It is becoming even more urgent. If we look at the transitions that we see in the Arab states, who were the actors? They have been young people and women on the streets. We have not had effective ways of engaging with them, so we tend to exclude those very voices of change on the ground. There needs to be a significant rethink of how we engage with civil society. Those of us in the international NGO community are working on these issues. In the case of Syria, we have a number of initiatives, which I would be happy to tell you more about.
This also relates to new research that has come out. Between 1989 and 2004, of 40 conflicts and 80 peace agreements signed, one third involved some level of civil society involvement. In those cases, we saw a 67 per cent reduction in the rate of failure. Where civil society has been involved, the chance of failure is reduced significantly, primarily because civil society can hold its actors accountable. We have the research to back this up; it is just coming up with methodology.
Resolution 1325 gives us the policy framework, which came from women on the ground, as we know. We have good practices in terms of examples from Northern Ireland, South Africa, Liberia, and even Afghanistan and Iraq, in some ways; but we need to push this further and make it more systematic. We are stuck in a realm of ad hoc practice, amnesia where we have had good practice but do not build on it and make it better, and apathy. Triple A equals ad hocery, amnesia and apathy. We owe people, our society and the people affected by war, a bit more.
I want to end my comments with a few thoughts. You talked about the UN earlier. At the United Nations Department of Political Affairs, much of the initial sensitive work around mediation takes place, envoys are selected and engagement is initiated. They have one person who deals with gender issues. They do not have any senior teams or people who engage in this, whereas the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operationshas four or five people at least. There is a disparity in resources provided to the different entities in the UN system. As much as UN women are important in this process, it is at the political level that we need the attention, resources and accountability. It is a mixture of two things.
In terms of recommendations, I want to mention that there is an evolving initiative to look at developing a gold standard for more inclusive, gender-sensitive peace processes. How do we do it? What are the criteria for bringing civil society voices? What are the structures and examples that we have had in the past? They exist but we simply do not systematize them. How do we make sure we apply these principles to Syria, Afghanistan and the DRC in the immediate term? This is work that Canada certainly could support if it chose to.
We need champions in relation to different countries. In the case of Syria, for example, it would be extraordinary to see Canada and others joining together and hosting civil society forums or bringing the voices of civil society to the donor conferences, where so many of the discussions are taking place and decisions are being made.
Norway, for example, has taken a leading role on this agenda, as has Holland. The United States and the U.K. are being strong advocates on the sexual violence agenda. We need Canada to reclaim its leadership role and to help us bolster the question of women's participation in peace processes. It would make a tremendous difference. As I say, you can lead by example.
The Chair: I thank you all of you. It has been very interesting. As you know, this committee has been looking at issues of resolution 1325. I believe we will be at another stage once the government files its report at the end of this session.
I would like to hear from about how you see this committee providing oversight to the Canadian national action plan after the release of the first report? What should be the mechanism put in place by Canada to assess its progress? What indicators and actions in the Canadian national action plan should the committee look at implementing?
Ms. McPhedran: I would like to respond by giving more specific examples of the current work with the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders, with an emphasis on monitoring and reporting, and to acknowledge with appreciation that Canada, through DFAIT, is a significant funder of this capacity-building at the most local level. The focus has evolved into a focus on local leadership.
The Chair: How can this committee do the oversight?
Ms. McPhedran: This committee could identify more clearly the nature of the work that engages in indicators being developed and monitoring being conducted by civil society and endorsing the models that are either well developed or in development. At the core of this is the leadership and engagement of civil society, in particular women leaders. As Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini said, we need the endorsement, recognition and articulation of details so that this is much better understood and the committee can see this as a key strategy for implementation.
Ms. Livingstone: I would tend to agree with my colleague that one of the most critical things you can offer us is a fairly clearly thought-out roadmap where we have accountability and milestones, and where we understand what we mean by "evaluation." We tend to evaluate things without knowing why, where, or how it is to be used. Evaluation is far more than a tick in the box.
This committee could be quite helpful in laying out those indicators, milestones, objectives and consequences for not meeting what we say we are going to do. That would be helpful to the community.
Mr. Parkinson: I hate to be in complete agreement with everyone else, but it would be something like that. I have heard you speak about how people in politics can make space for voices from civil society within political structures. Something like that would be very useful — as Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini said, having champions to bring CSO voices to the table. It can be not only within donor conferences but also within political processes.
Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini: It would be amazing to have the voices on the ground heard here. I will give you an example. Afghan women are very concerned because the NATO Afghan transition plan had no indicators of women's protection as part of their planning for the withdrawal.
As much as we value our input, it is important to see what the output is and the outcomes for the people we are hoping to support.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentations. I have an observation. I am having trouble with the statement that men rape women to bring attention to a war.
We all know that, through the ages, rape has always been used as a weapon of war. Before, there were ways of getting attention. Fighting wars because they wanted attention. I am having a hard time believing that statement.
My question is on the role of men. We know it is crucial to engage men in the process as potential supporters of the agenda related to 1325, so what is being done, in the local and international context, to engage men and boys? I was going through the paper this morning and reading about the elections coming up in Pakistan and about this village of 8,000 where the men decided that the women would not vote. I am always of the opinion that, when we talk about women's rights, we cannot ignore men and boys' rights too because they have to move alongside. If we educate the women and do not educate the men, these women, as we are seeing, will not go against the wishes of their husbands, sons and brothers.
Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini: Just on the question of whether men are raping, my example was from the eastern DRC. It is new research, where they actually talked to a militia group. I am just using that as an example in terms of how we might actually be making the situation worse in some ways.
In terms of the local and international levels, we are seeing a number of different initiatives. At the local level, the Global Network of Women Peacebuilders, for example, is working with provincial councils, mayors and others in terms of bringing the issues to the table and implementing them, at the local level, in areas where conflict has affected the population more. Once you bring it to that level, they understand it and are much more supportive because they are dealing with the population itself, with widows and so forth.
We have colleagues in Sri Lanka who are working with police forces in the northern areas, engaging the police on the framework and asking them what the most concerning issues are. Gender-based violence is one thing that the police came up with in Northern Sri Lanka, and they are now coming up with their own strategies of how to engage women in communities and address and reduce domestic violence. There are multiple levels that we are seeing at the local level.
At the international level, we are seeing some champions, but, to be honest with you, I think a lot of the problem in terms of not moving forward sits at the international level, with policymakers who have a tendency to relegate. When we say women's participation, they say it is their culture; that is why women are excluded. They are making assumptions about cultures and so forth that might not be based on fact.
Mr. Parkinson: At the local level, often the local leadership is male. Showing local leadership how sexual violence, violence against women and abuse of women's rights generally is ultimately disadvantageous to them will be different in every context. For instance, there is a group I know in South Sudan who went and talked about women's rights with local chiefs. Although local chiefs in South Sudan are not exclusively men, they are generally men. What these local chiefs ended up doing was getting together and deciding amongst themselves to have a uniform standard for dealing with violence against women. It actually seemed to take off. This particular group lost their funding. They could not follow through, so we do not know where it ended up. It is an interesting idea and one that I am actually trying to find some support for.
Ms. Livingstone: At a very practical level, since that is where I am going to deal, this was an issue in training. Who was going to give the gender unit? Was it going to be the girl, or were we going to find a man to stand up and say "This is important because it is a security issue. This is important because it is an international standard issue. This is important to the military and police because, in your ethical modeling and your leadership modeling, you have to understand the role of women and men together." To have the guy stand up, give the lesson, field the questions and negotiate the scenario was a seachange for any of the men in the classroom audience. At a very practical level, we thought we needed to have the gentlemen give this lesson because it would elicit a great deal of conversation in the classroom but more conversation out of the classroom, at the end of the day. That is what we did at a practical level.
Ms. McPhedran: I will add to that with an example that is somewhat different, and that is placing the emphasis on co-leadership with men and women leading the workshops, convening the meetings. I brought some photographs, which I did not realize I could not convey, of Burundi, Nepal and Sierra Leone, where that is the model that is being used at the local level. It is not, in some ways, perpetuating the image of men in leadership roles but building positive and constructive co-leadership models and demonstrations of the success of that model.
If I might jump to Canada for a moment, although there is a substantial difference between the amount of inclusion that has resulted from Canada's National Action Plan compared, for example, to that of Holland or some other countries, we do have enough scope, within our National Action Plan for this committee and for other elected representatives to make the point that engagement of civil society in Canada is most welcome. There are a whole range of initiatives taking place. Sometimes, just being able to gather the information and endorse and recognize the efforts being made by Canadians, consistent with the vision of the National Action Plan, is a way of strengthening the connections between civil society in other countries in conflict zones and civil society in Canada.
Senator Harb: Thank you very much to all of you. You have made some excellent presentations. From the look of it, every one of you seems to agree that a lot still needs to be done. These are baby steps, and there is a lot to be done.
Something struck me about the involvement of women in post-conflict. Normally, my understanding of the process is that, when you have warring factions and a peace process that takes place, you bring the warring factions to the table. I have not really seen any conflict anywhere where the warring factions are led by warlords who are women. It is conceivable that, when you bring them to the table, you will not see any women at all. It does not matter whether you look at a Doha meeting that takes place. Wherever you look, 99.99 per cent are male.
You said something, Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini, that was very interesting, that unless women take up arms and become a warring faction, the chances are slim that they will be at the negotiating table. There is something I want to ask you. Would you not believe that the mediators, most of the time, whether they are UN agencies or a country of some sort with a power, are the ones who should insist on having women at the table post-conflict?
Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini: Thank you. If we leave the notion of peace to warring factions, we will just end up with warring factions. Why should warmakers know anything about peace? That is why the paradigm shift is needed.
The mediators can play an important role in this, and we have many guidelines about what mediators should be doing. It has been endorsed by the UN Secretary-General. We have the resolutions and so forth. They are not necessarily held accountable. It is very much personality driven. Sometimes they are interested, and things will move. Sometimes they might have a team, and the team will engage it. They now have a standby team of mediation experts. I was their first gender and inclusion person. We made sure that, for example, Somali women were in the last round of negotiations in the Somali process, and they negotiated as women, even though they are across different processes. It is still a work-in-progress, but there is a lot that we can do to make it a bit more systematic. There are different models of how we have had more inclusive processes in many countries. It really should be that we look, as I say, at the nature of the process as opposed to thinking that the old ways are the way to go because the old ways, frankly, tend to lead us to failure anyway.
Senator Harb: Is it your position that one of the things Canada should do is to push for the establishment of a system of accountabilities? As you kindly stated, there seem to be no indicators, per se, that someone can oversee whether or not we are meeting what we have set out to do. In the absence of institutional capacity in post-conflict countries, which is pretty well the same across the board, there is a lack of institutional capacity to really defend, to protect and to ensure equality of the sexes.
In a sense, at the highest level, which is the UN or whoever, we need to set up a system of accountabilities whereby we have indicators and someone who will challenge on an annual basis the different actors, members of the UN, on whether or not they are meeting their obligations. Is that something you see Canada pushing for?
Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini: I think every actor has their role. The UN has its role, and they should be playing that, and member states, to the extent they are doing bilateral work, should be doing it, as well as national governments and so forth.
To your point about lack of capacity, a country coming out of war needs all hands on deck. To leave 50 per cent of its talent pool aside in the name of culture is a waste of resources. We saw that with Afghanistan. The Afghan women knew more around how to deal with education, health and so forth than a lot of the war lords did. It is counterintuitive, if you want, but we need the women there because they have so much capacity and commitment to making the peace work.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you, presenters. I want to blend something that Mr. Parkinson and Ms. McPhedran said, but I will put the question to Ms. Livingstone, as I know her background very well. I think we need all the actors that Senator Harb has been pointing out, and 1325 and these resolutions came to the United Nations out of a desperation that we were going from conflict to conflict and things were not changing. We have led ourselves into conflict because women were not taken into account. Perhaps it would have been different in these countries if we had done the preventive work. I read 1325 to say there is a whole bunch of work that needs to be done in our country and in any country to incorporate women in the decision-making process at whatever level. Then, of course, during the conflict, the issue of using violence, particularly against women and children, has been noted, and more recently even about boys and men in that violence. There is a role for all of us there.
Coming out of a conflict, it seems to me that we can give some broad examples. We can set in structures and have accountability, but what I have been hearing is that we have not listened to those women who have lived through that process. One of the most reassuring things was to visit the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre, where women who had actually been the subject of violence and had been in the conflict zones were now developing these programs, not us from Canada, not the Dutch and not the Norwegians. They look at civil society and government structures somewhat differently, but they know their countries and their answers. I am wondering whether there are more places like the Kofi Annan centre that are starting to look at how to deliver civil society according to the definition of what civil society is in one village and one country. For example, we put forward some broad national guidelines, but we know implementing something in one province is different than in another province. Have we gotten to that level? I was really excited about what the Kofi Annan centre was doing, and I am wondering whether that model is now being used elsewhere.
Ms. Livingstone: In our work with the Kofi Annan centre, we did use that model that blended the external — I hate to say "subject matter expert" — the external consultants who came in to help build capacity within the Kofi Annan centre. As their capacity was enhanced and grew, then we were able to step back. I think that is a very good model. As all of my colleagues have said, it is a way to blend a depth of knowledge and intimacy about what happens in a conflict and post-conflict environment that I do not always understand. I think blending what I bring to the table with what my colleagues on the ground bring to the table is the best way. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time, energy and effort and a great deal of long-term commitment, because we are talking about fundamentally generational change. I think the Kofi Annan model works very well.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for your presentations. Ms. McPhedran, you opened your presentation by stating that 1.5 billion people live in fragile states. I would like to keep that in mind, but I was interested in your attempts of outreach and engaging the next generation. I can certainly commend you on choosing the Girl Guide organization to do that. However, as valuable as that will be, I am wondering, within those fragile states, would such a program be able to be implemented, or how close are we to educating that next generation in some of those states?
Ms. McPhedran: I want to thank you for that question because I posed two quite different examples. The example in Canada was the Girl Guide example, and we do not see that as transferable to conflict zones at this point in time. It is the matter of raising awareness and leadership capacity among the next generation of young Canadian women that that example was directed to.
However, to the question of capacity building of women leaders in conflict zones, that is where this new project that is under development comes out of my guest professorship at the University for Peace earlier this year. A colleague co-taught a course with me where we focused on the Security Council resolutions and how they were actually being implemented. We combined elements of diplomacy with advocacy. As part of that, we brought in guest lecturers by Skype, both ambassadors as well as advocates. For example, Her Excellency Elissa Goldberg came in from Geneva and spent an hour with the class talking about these issues. Similarly, we featured Dr. Nana Pratt from Sierra Leone and Bandana Rana from Nepal. These are senior women leaders.
This idea of the need for capacity-building and leadership training does not have to be tethered to a university credit course but has the quality, thought and preparation so that we actually believe we can be running parallel credit course as well as non-credit course and be able to find a way to offer online for free a lot of the modules that we are developing. This is the vision, this is the dream, not yet funded but nevertheless.
The idea here is that those astonishing women in conflict zones who have done so much say themselves, "We need to focus on the next generation, and we need the support to do that." They of course have already identified in most cases where they see tremendous potential, but the resources are very limited.
The point I was making today —
The Chair: I am going to have to cut you off. I am sorry. We have one more question, and we have almost run out of time.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Livingstone, a number of us have been concerned about the changes in CIDA that have to do with collaboration with mining corporations in particular. You raised this issue, so I am interested that you wanted to make sure that it would not cause conflict. Could you tell me what is the background that made you say that and what your fears are about? I am happy to have anyone else chip in later.
Ms. Livingstone: The Pearson Centre, as you may know, has come recently to be involved with the extractive industry through the voluntary principles for security and human rights, which we think is an important initiative to ensure that governments, companies and the non-government pillar are very much committed to the voluntary principles. My reason for saying that was the voluntary principles initiative and the voluntary principles for security and human rights do compel companies to think about how they begin the engagement process in a sector before they even put the first stake in the ground, community profiling, who is there, what the needs are, what the consequences might be, what is the impact on the environment and what is the impact on the social environment. I think that has to be continued. That is why I raised it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What is your concern about CIDA being involved in this?
Ms. Livingstone: I do not have any concern with CIDA being involved in it necessarily. What I have a concern about is that it is an interaction that is challenging. It is a change in policy for some people. From our perspective, it is simply highlighting the fact that there is going to be a relationship, how best to manage it, how best to have accountability, how best to monitor and evaluate and ensure that those companies that have signed on to it and governments that have signed on to the voluntary principles are maintaining their commitment.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Livingstone, Ms. McPhedran, Mr. Parkinson and Ms. Naraghi-Anderlini, for being here. We have learned a lot from you, and we look forward to working with you in the future.
Is there any other business? No? Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)