Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue No. 11 - Evidence - November 16, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 16, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:35 a.m. to study issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (Topics: Gender Based Analysis in the making of federal policy and legislation; and the human rights situation and defections from North Korea).
Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, senators.
[Translation]
Before we begin, I would like all of the senators to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Toronto.
Senator Hubley: Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, senator from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Andreychuk: Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
The Chair: My name is Jim Munson. I'm an Ontario senator.
Today we're continuing this fascinating and very important look at gender-based analysis in the making of federal policy and legislation.
A few weeks ago, we were in the midst of a great conversation, learning a lot, but then we had technical difficulties both from Brussels and Vancouver, so today we will attempt to continue those discussions. Today our witnesses are Shelagh Day, Co-founder of the Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action, and Chair, Human Rights Committee; and Mary Collins, European Women's Lobby, Senior Policy and Advocacy Coordinator, appearing by video conference from Brussels. Joanna Maycock was with us before but could not appear today.
Ms. Day, could you briefly describe your work and your advocacy, and then we'll move to Ms. Collins, and then we'll be open for questions.
Shelagh Day, Chair, Human Rights Committee and Co-Founder, Canadian Feminist Alliance for International Action: Thank you very much. I would like to make some opening comments bringing us back to where we were before.
First of all, I want to say that this subject matter is a matter of urgency, and I really appreciate that this committee is studying it. It's extraordinarily important. Right now, it seems to me that Canada can be a model for the world in doing this particular job right. I can't think of time when that's more needed than it is right now.
As I mentioned to you last time, Canada has fallen on the UN Gender Inequality Index from first place in 1995 to 25. The latest statistics since we talked previously are from the World Economic Forum, and Canada is now rated on gender equality 35th out of 144 countries. We can do better than this and the moment is now.
I made the following points last time and will make them again quickly and add some answers about where Canada needs to go.
First, one of the weaknesses of the system as it is now is that it's forward looking. In other words, it assumes that we're starting from a status quo of equality. That is not the case. We need a system that is looking at government programs, laws and services overall in order to ensure that in fact what we're delivering in Canada is equality.
Second, there is no overall plan here. In other words, the government doesn't have a plan with priority areas where it says, "Here are the things we're going to focus on in order to be sure that we're moving towards equality for women.''
Last time I said that there appeared to be no plan for gender budgeting or gender review of tax policy — vital areas about revenues and spending where women's equality issues are immediately affected. However, I must change my comments because Minister Morneau, in his November 1 fiscal update, promised that he will submit Budget 2017 and all future budgets to a gender-based analysis of budgetary measures. This is wonderful news. This is excellent news. And the questions then follow: How is it going to be done, when is it going to be done and will women be able to participate in the analysis that's going to happen here? There are many questions that he raises but the threshold comment that I make is that this is very good news and something that very much needs to happen.
I also pointed out that there is no human rights framework for the gender equality process that we have in place, so what we have at the moment seems to be entirely disconnected from our human rights obligations. I think that's a very fundamental threshold error in our approach to this particular work.
I also said there is no clear process for input from women's civil society organizations and feminist academics. There is a huge pool of expertise there that needs to be drawn on. It's also not clear to me where the leadership for this project of moving women's equality forward in government programs and services lies. Again, there doesn't appear to be an accountability mechanism or independent oversight of the process so that we can actually measure what's happening and see whether or not we're having the right outcomes.
Now I want to move to making some recommendations about how we might fix these things. One of the things I'm concerned about is that we seem to be making the mistake of thinking that the gender-based analysis process is the thing itself. It's not the thing itself. The thing itself is the equal outcomes of government policy programs, laws and services, and we make a mistake if we think that the process is itself the end goal. It's the means for us to get to where it is we want to be and how we want to live up to our human rights obligations.
Here are some of the things that I think would help us. First, we have to credit expertise on women's equality issues. This is not work for amateurs. In order to achieve equal outcomes in programming and services and laws, there needs to be a partnership between those with a specific content knowledge and those with expertise about diversity and women's equality. The current process is treating the equality analysis as though it's something that anyone can do if they've been through an online course on gender analysis and that the gender analysis will trickle up and inform practice. In fact, I think there is real knowledge and expertise required in order to carry out effective equality analysis, and the government should be valuing and creating centres where this expertise resides and can be drawn on.
Second, I think that the principle on which the government's equality analysis rests is the fulfillment of the domestic and international human rights obligations that Canada has embraced. It's not efficient or legitimate for gender-based analysis to be undertaken as though it's separate from and in a distinct silo from Canada's undertaking to fulfill the rights of women, including of course indigenous women, disabled women, women of colour, immigrant women, under the human rights treaties that Canada has ratified. In other words, gender-based analysis — and I've already said this — can't be just about process; it has to be about the outcomes that will lead to the fulfillment of the human rights of women that we've embraced and the human rights of women in all our diversity.
Third, we have to decide on leadership and responsibility. It's still not clear to me, as I've said, who is in charge of women's equality analysis and outcomes. It's a bit postmodern at the moment. Power seems to be everywhere and nowhere. I think this is an overall government responsibility and the responsibility needs to lie at the top.
Historically, the Status of Women ministers have not had the clout. They still, in my view, do not. I have reviewed Minister Hajdu's mandate letter, and she still does not have the responsibility to actually be the leader and the stopping point for the buck on this particular issue. It needs to lie at the top of the government organization.
There needs to be an overall plan. What is the government going to do to advance women' equality in the decade from 2016 to 2026? What are the commitments, steps and outlines? We need that plan so that everyone — the public, the government, the members of Parliament, the senators — can see what it is we're doing, what we plan to do and how we're going to get there.
We have the opportunity of the CEDAW review. Since I was here last, I've been in Geneva for the review of Canada by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women. That's the first review of Canada's performance under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women since 2008. On Friday, November 18, their concluding observations will come out. We have an enormous opportunity, then, to take the concluding observations of the CEDAW committee, the first in almost a decade, and to really examine them and to look at whether or not there is the basis there for a real plan for government in terms of what we look at as priorities and how we move forward.
Finally, I would mention accountability. The Status of Women Committee recommended a commissioner for equality. I think this is a good idea, as I think it's a good idea to pass legislation that makes gender-based analysis mandatory. We need some more oomph in this process. There needs to be accountability and a transparent assessment of what is working and what's not and an ability to undertake equality audits of particular programs or services, perhaps in conjunction with the Auditor General, and to provide access to civil society organizations so they can obtain and provide information about the impacts of government practices and programs.
Those recommendations that came from the Status of Women Committee — to pass legislation to make it mandatory and create an oversight body — are good recommendations.
I also want to say two quick things about examples that are case studies in the sense of how gender-based analysis is working or not working at the moment.
First, we have Bill C-26, which is about the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. It was raised in Parliament recently and has been raised by unions and women's organizations that the dropout provisions in the Canada Pension Plan, which have been intended to compensate women who take time out of work to look after children, are not in the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan. They're in the regular Canada Pension Plan but they're not in this new expansion. That's something that should concern us all because women's patterns in work, of course, are different and that extra dropout was provided precisely in order to recognize and compensate women for the time that they spend out of the work force looking after children. Was this picked up? Was a gender analysis done of this? If so, where is it? What was the result of it? This is the kind of thing that the gender-based analysis process as it is now should be catching and should be providing us answers about.
My second example is new proposals to amend the Indian Act. You may very well know that there are new proposals to amend the Indian Act in light of the Descheneaux decision in Quebec. However, the new proposals to amend the Indian Act will still not eliminate all the sex discrimination in the Indian Act. Again, it seems to me that this is something that should be picked up by a gender-based analysis inside government because it seems as though we may be about to pass another set of amendments to the Indian Act that still don't remove all the sex discrimination. Has there been gender-based analysis done of this? If so, what's the result? Who has done it? Where is the report on it? I note that this committee, which dealt with this matter in 2011, asked specifically to receive early indications of any new legislation that would be amending the Indian Act.
I think these are two case studies where we can try to determine what is happening with the present system, what has happened with these particular issues and why we have not identified the sex discrimination that seems to be going forward.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Day. That is wonderful evidence for us to pursue here as we prepare our report in the next few weeks.
We'll now go to the European Women's Lobby in Brussels: Mary Collins, Senior Policy and Advocacy Coordinator. Welcome to our Senate committee here in Ottawa.
Mary Collins, Senior Policy and Advocacy Coordinator, European Women's Lobby: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for inviting the European Women's Lobby back to your meeting today. We're very honoured to be here. I send apologies from Joanna Maycock who, unfortunately, wasn't able to come. At the last hearing, I think she gave you quite a bit of information about what's happening in Europe, and I should say that they are very similar issues to what's happening in Canada.
Globally, what we can say now is that women's rights are under threat, and when women's rights are under threat in the global space, all human rights are under threat. There is a real urgency now to ensure that gender equality is put back into the driving seat because we are facing here in Europe and globally a rise in conservative forces that are having a huge backlash and detrimental effect on women's rights. There is a real danger that we will actually go back and unravel 50 years of progress we've already made, so I would like to really congratulate you for putting this issue on your agenda and for really sitting down and having a real debate about it.
What Ms. Day gave in terms of concrete examples is actually positive. In terms of the budget for 2017, I want to say "well done,'' because that's the kind of progress that we really need to see.
In terms of the European context, we have a very solid institutional and legal framework on gender equality. In terms of the EU, in the treaties of the European Union, equality between women and men is a value, an objective and a mission. What you call "gender-based analysis,'' we call "gender mainstreaming,'' but we have to say that, unfortunately, it's not happening in a systematic way that we would like to see.
At the end of the day, as Shelagh said, it's not about the process; it's about actually bringing about transformative change. The process has to enable us to see what kind of change is coming around and whether it is, at the end of the day, a transformation.
It is about very strong leadership, and we believe, sitting on this side of the Atlantic, that Canada is really the country model that we are all aspiring to. You have a very clear commitment from your Prime Minister to ensure that gender equality is very much a part of policy of Canada. He sees it very much as a vision. We're very hopeful that we will truly have a model that we can look at globally. It really is important that there is strong political leadership, and we believe that you have that.
Gender mainstreaming is a long-term goal; you're in it for the long haul. As Shelagh said, there needs to be very clear responsibility. It is long term. You need to put the resources into it, and you need to look right across whole institutional structure at different policies to actually make sure that you have a very strong gender equality objective as an outcome. Gender mainstreaming then becomes your tool and analysis to do that.
For us, one of the key areas, particularly today, is gender budgeting. I'm happy to hear your own budget in 2017 will actually be gender budgeted, because in today's situation, particularly following the financial crash of 2008, we're experiencing very much here in Europe an austerity-driven framework, which is having a huge impact on everyone, but particularly on women. There are cuts in public services, but women are also the main workers in these public services as well, so they're losing their jobs and salaries are being frozen. There are a lot of different policies in terms of work-life balance also that are being stalled.
It is important that gender budgeting makes economic sense and to say, "We have limited money to invest in our public services, so we must do that in a very smart way.'' "In a very smart way'' means having a gender analysis and a gender mainstreaming process through that, because that means smart spending and smart economics at the end of the day. I am happy to hear that you're about to start that procedure next year.
In terms of the accountability, as Shelagh pointed out as well, we very much share her view that you have to have accountability mechanisms in place. That means Parliament's scrutiny as well, and it also means ensuring that you have the input from women's organizations, feminist organizations, and academics and economists on the ground. There is a wealth expertise out there and it would be such a waste of resources not to use it.
In terms of civil society, women's organizations here in Europe are calling out to be consulted in a meaningful way. There are a lot of resources that we can share and a lot of resources we should be sharing, because it's in the interest of everyone to actually ensure that we get this right.
We would say that we have our international commitments — CEDAW and also Beijing. Beijing for us and for all women worldwide, more than ever now, is not only a very strong political commitment but a set of commitments that have been made over 20 years ago now but which remain relevant today. We must make sure that everyone across the board is ensuring those commitments will be met, even if there are new and emerging issues that have come on our table today. But Beijing remains a backbone and a reference that all policy-makers at every level should really be taking into consideration.
Another issue in Europe for the moment is the refugee and humanitarian crisis. We're working hard to ensure there is gender mainstreaming in the responses and policies being put forward to ensure that women who are fleeing for their lives, alone or with children, actually get the responses and that their needs are met throughout this crisis. It is something that is overlooked.
Despite the fact that we may have a very solid institutional framework and legal commitments, at the end of the day we still have to always ask about the gender mainstreaming. "What about women? How are you ensuring that there is a gender perspective in the different policies and responses that are there?'' I'm trying to say it's something that is not ad hoc. It cannot be done in isolation. It is a long-term commitment — in it for the long haul — and it is something that will be of benefit to all.
We see it working, and we have some good examples that I'm sure you also have in Canada. Some very good local examples of gender budgeting exist in cities like Vienna, where the needs of both women and men have been taken into consideration in urban development, city development, transport, child care and elderly care in different service provisions. Actually, you can deliver for everyone because everyone benefits when you have a strong gender equality framework that's driving those policies, particularly where the money goes. We really need to see and follow where the money goes and to have a very strong gender equality and gender mainstreaming approach within that.
There are other examples as well in terms of training. I think at the last hearing Joanna Maycock may have given you the example of France. When the new French government came in some years ago, there was specific gender mainstreaming training for all of the ministers, including the President. It was very targeted and effective because it meant that at the beginning of the mandate, with the different areas of policy, we were able to see how gender does matter and is really important to bring into every single area of policy. It's not something that is a secondary thought; it's something that has to be built in right from the very beginning. It has to be in the driver's seat rather than something that's siloed, because that's one of the dangers as well. You need to have your ongoing mechanisms and accountability systems in place to ensure that it does actually remain a long-term goal.
We're fortunate in Europe to have a European Institute for Gender Equality. Within that framework, every two years we have updates on a gender equality index that provides information in a number of areas and compares different countries as well in terms of how they're progressing or not progressing in relation to gender equality, whether it's with regard to work, money, knowledge, time, power, health, intersecting inequalities or violence against women. I would say that index is a very good tool because it actually gives us a sense of whether we're progressing as a European society in terms of gender equality in these different areas. We can compare countries as well.
What we've seen in the last 10 years is that gender equality in Europe is actually stagnating and that progress is very slow. There is a real urgency in Europe, but I think worldwide now, that we actually ensure that gender equality is back in the driver's seat and that we have a strong political commitment from the leadership, which, looking from this side of the Atlantic, we believe you do have in Canada. We will be looking to you as well in terms of ensuring that we're all moving in one direction.
I think I'll leave it at that for the moment. I can come back for any specific questions or issues.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Collins and Ms. Day. We have a lot of questions. We'll start the conversation and questioning with Senator Nancy Ruth, who has led the charge on this particular study, and we thank her for that.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you both. You've both focused on how important outcomes are.
Ms. Day, you've suggested that the government should create centres for GBA expertise. Can you flush that out a bit more for me and tell me if that's both inside and outside of government? It's one thing to have these experts outside, but at some point we parliamentarians have to take some responsibility for this. In my experience, when GBA was done in the Finance department, one of our Senate committees asked questions but didn't get answers. We got fluff.
We keep trying to push the civil service, but it has not produced the outcomes you or I desire, so I'm looking for other ideas. I would like to know what this is and what else would be in your plan besides this component of centres.
Ms. Day: Thank you very much for that question. I think there are probably a number of places inside the government where such expertise should reside, certainly in Status of Women Canada. I think Status of Women Canada in this whole process has been seen to be a trainer, a supporter, a facilitator and a networker but hasn't been seen to be a centre of expertise. I think that needs to be fostered inside Status of Women Canada. Other departments need to be looking to them to say, "We need your expertise. Come here and advise us. Tell us what to do in this particular circumstance, not foster us, not support us, not train us, but come and deliver to us expertise.'' So that's one thing.
We could talk about centres of expertise on the outside. There are various ways of thinking about that. Status of Women Canada used to have a policy research fund that actually fostered outside policy research, which was excellent and known around the world. That somehow disappeared. We could revive that. I think that would be an excellent move.
But more than that, I think we need a kind of structure that isn't here, so I'm going to repeat some things that I've already said. The leadership for this process is not clear. The actual requirement that it be done is not clear. That's why I say I actually believe in legislation. We've been doing it on a voluntary basis for 20 years and we've had no result that we're happy with. We have to, therefore, think that voluntariness just isn't working.
The immigration ministry has said to us it's the one department where it is required under law to do this. It said it being mandatory under legislation sharpens the mind. I believe that that's the case. If we want to see this happen, it needs to be mandatory for all the departments, and there needs to be a structure in place to ensure that that occurs.
Again, I would say we need oversight here. We need some independent oversight, an office or a commissioner of equality that can in fact be overseeing this process and picking up things that are not happening. We should think about what Mary Collins is talking about, which is what kind of indicators we should be developing to actually show us whether or not we're moving in the right direction.
And I will say this over again: We need a plan. What's the plan for government? What are we going to do in the next decade? What are the areas of priority we can look at to see what needs to change in order to move Canadian women further in the direction of equality? What can the federal government do over the next decade in order to make sure that happens?
It's not simply a matter of monitoring new programs that come along and putting them through some kind of internal process. It's also a matter of having a directed, clear plan for what we're going to do.
I think all those things are missing.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What would be in that plan? What kinds of things? There has been a plan with eight objectives in it, but it doesn't seem to have helped much in terms of outcomes. What would be in your plan that's different?
Ms. Day: When I say a plan, I think what I mean is focusing on very specific things. What do we need to do in order to change access to justice for women in Canada, for example? What's the federal government's contribution to that? What can the federal government actually do to improve women's access to justice?
I would say there are some very concrete things that can be done there. Again, I think we need to look at specific areas and determine what we are concerned about. What are we going to do about the gender wage gap? What is the federal government's contribution to that gap, to stopping it, to closing it, look like? Let's identify some priority areas.
I think the problem with what we've called a plan is that the things that are in it have all been process. I think what I'm talking about is some very concrete things here. What can we do to close the gender wage gap? What steps can the federal government take, over what period of time? How will we do that? It's that kind of concreteness that I mean when I talk about a plan.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Collins, could you add to that, too? Are there any countries you know of where legislation, when it's tabled in Parliament, is accompanied by a gender-based analysis of that legislation? Are there such countries in Europe?
Ms. Collins: Yes, indeed. First of all, in terms of the European Union itself, you know the European Commission makes legislative proposals that go to the European Parliament and European Council to be adopted. Any time there is a proposal on specific issues — and this is the problem, it's only seen to be on specific issues — there is what we call a gender-impact assessment.
For example, for the moment, on the table there is what we call a work-life balance package in terms of should there be a directive law on paternity leave? Should we be improving the maternity leave provision, et cetera? That was submitted to a gender-impact analysis. The problem is that the gender-impact analysis would only look at certain things, for example, cost. How much will it cost? How much will it cost if there is to be a paid paternity leave, if we're going to extend maternity leave, paid maternity leave, et cetera? It only looks at that, and it doesn't actually engage in the consultation process that goes beyond the cost factor alone.
We have expertise on the ground. There are gender experts in women's organizations, in the feminist movement, feminist economics. There are so many; there's a wealth. That kind of consultation, a meaningful consultation, would give you a very good sense of a gender-impact assessment of what a piece of legislation would actually mean and what impact it would have, not only from a cost factor but also from a societal factor.
That is the problem, is to look and see is it actually going to increase gender equality, equality between women and men, or is it going to stagnate it or mitigate it? These are the kinds of things that need to be taken into consideration in gender-impact assessments. So while it is there, it still isn't sufficient. It doesn't go far enough because it only takes into consideration one factor, one type of factor. So that's one example.
I'd like to go back to the example on the pensions. In Europe, practically every country is reforming their pension systems for the moment, and there is no gender-equality analysis. There is no gender mainstreaming perspective at all in that. We know that in Europe, for example, the average gender pension gap is 40 per cent. Despite the fact of calling for even a gender-impact assessment because the cost to society of women aging and being poor is actually very costly at the end of the day, there isn't a gender-impact assessment in those areas of policy.
It's not systematic, and where it does happen, it's still very limited. There are examples like that. I'm trying to think off the top of my head, but I'll give you another example. There is the European Investment Bank, which is dealing with 70 billion euros in investments. They have no gender equality perspective; they have no gender equality strategy; they've no gender equality plan. Now, that's 70 billion euros that have been invested in Europe with absolutely an absence of any gender perspective whatsoever. Now, that is just a waste also of resources, and it's telling, the fact that we're not doing this in a systematic way.
So coming back to your question, yes, there are examples, and we certainly will be happy to send you some examples as well of how gender-impact assessments actually take place, but it's not happening systematically, and that's what we need to do because at the end of the day, what's the question? The question is how do we actually advance equality between women and men for the benefit of society as a whole? It is a question of social justice, of human rights, but as a whole. That's the question that should be guiding and leading into our gender-impact assessments and mainstreaming.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What is the role of parliamentarians in that?
Ms. Collins: If I come back to the example of the work-life balance package, so to speak, the European Commission, prior to making its proposals, will carry out the gender-impact assessment, and that will be accompanied in the proposal it will be making in terms of the outcome of that.
It goes to Parliament; Parliament discusses it and will be adopting its position on it. Parliament can accept that the gender-impact assessment that the commission has provided is the one that it's going to be based on, or furthermore, it can decide itself that it's not mandatory to do it. Parliament can decide to actually deepen the gender-impact analysis or to carry out another form of analysis.
So again, it's not systematically going through the system, and there's no mandatory requirement on the Parliament to carry that out because it has been done prior, if you like, by one of the institutions. So that is also an issue.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Day said she thought the authority — this is what I understood — line is not clear. It could reside with the Minister of Status of Women. That's one possibility. You're saying there is no firm demand on the part of parliamentarians to insist that this be done.
One of the things parliamentarians are supposed to do is to hold the civil servants to account on various bills and pieces of legislation. What role do you see for us?
Ms. Day: First of all, I want to clarify. I am not saying this responsibility should lie with the Minister for the Status of Women. I think it should lie at the very top of government. In other words, I think it lies with the Prime Minister or the Privy Council. I think it's an overall government responsibility. I don't think the Minister for the Status of Women has ever had the clout or the power to actually carry this mandate. I think that's part of the problem that we've had. I think it has to lie at the very top of the government organization.
Second, I think that the role for parliamentarians is an extraordinarily important one. Parliamentarians are the carriers of the public interest, and the people are there precisely to make sure that the government acts in the public interest. I think your role is extraordinarily important. I think you are watchdogs and advisers and absolutely crucial here, which is, as I understand it, part of the reason you're actually examining this particular issue today. What you do here and what you say back to government and the profile that you give this issue is just extraordinarily important, and your ability and willingness to stay on top of it and to guard it and to watch over it as things develop is supremely important, in my mind.
I would just like to add to that that I think that, as I've said, the opportunity of the CEDAW review and the concluding observations that will come out of it on Friday are another opportunity for parliamentarians to actually look at Canada's record on fulfilling the human rights of women and to be speaking to government about that record and what needs to be done about it. I think we have an opportunity, an opening, a lever here. It would be enormously important, in my view, if a House of Commons or a Senate committee took up these concluding observations and actually reviewed them and held hearings on them, because I think they are extraordinarily important and an opening for all of us to think about what direction we're going in and what a plan would look like, a real concrete plan. I think the role of parliamentarians is crucial.
The Chair: We will continue to do that. I would like to get all the senators involved in this conversation. We have about 20 more minutes. We'll go to the deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: I thank you both for being here. Most of my questions have been answered, but I would like to ask you a question, Ms. Day. What are some of the best practices that have worked in the private sector or in other countries that the Government of Canada could adopt?
I would also like to ask you about the National Housing Strategy, once you answer this question.
Ms. Day: That's a hard question for me to answer. I'd be interested in what Mary Collins has to say. I'm not sure that we have really excellent answers yet on how to do this. We're still working on how to do that. I'm sorry that that's the case and that I can't point you to something that is immediately satisfying to me as an excellent example.
The housing strategy will be very crucial. In order to make the housing strategy and the poverty reduction strategy work for women, it will be extraordinarily important that there is true consultation and real examination of the needs of women to do with housing, which are different in some circumstances, as are the needs of particular groups of women — and a real incorporation of those into a National Housing Strategy.
I would say the same thing for the poverty reduction strategy. Poverty affects women in different ways and particular groups of women in different ways, and that really needs to be taken into account if those strategies, which we're so looking forward to and which are so important to the country, are going to work in ways that are effective for women and men.
Ms. Collins: There are some good practices, definitely. The question to ask when we're looking at good practices is what are the factors that make them good practices? What actually makes a difference?
We have various good examples and good practices in different parts of Europe — in different areas, as well. For example, there is gender budgeting. We're back to the budgeting issue, because at the end of the day, money is important. It's power as well. It's about how we allocate resources and how we distribute our wealth. There are some really interesting examples, like the city of Vienna. The city of Vienna is a big city, but you can also find some excellent examples in smaller municipalities.
There are factors behind that when we look and ask, "Why does it work there and doesn't work here?'' There's awareness, a commitment, leadership and a plan, and there is a long-term strategy, because we're in it for the long haul. It is about transformation. We can't expect transformation to happen overnight. It does take time. But the time and commitment will really make a big difference.
It is also about empowering women. If we have laws and different things in place but women themselves don't actually realize these are real tools that they can seize and use, it won't be very meaningful in their lives. It is about making a difference.
If you look at the factors behind some of these good practices, they're because an enabling environment has been put in place. It has been down to strong leadership from the top and actually making gender equality a priority. We're talking about half the population. This is absolutely crucial to the world we live in, to the city we live in, to the county we live in and to the municipality we live in. We want to make sure that everybody benefits, because at the end of the day, that's what it is. It's not about saying that women only will gain. It's about saying the whole society is going to gain. It's about ensuring that money is being invested into those services that everybody can use. If it's child care, it's not only for women. Care is a collective responsibility. It's also about saying men, too, can actually engage in that.
Those are the factors: leadership and resources, which are not only financial resources but human resources as well. It is about making sure you have the right people. It comes back to what Shelagh said about having the experts and working with the financial departments, because they're not used to working together and looking at finances, budgets, et cetera, from a gender equality perspective. So it's putting those kinds of expertise together, then it really works.
Leadership is important, and also the long term, and the legislation. I will give you another example. We have at the moment on the table in Europe a proposal for a directive called European Women on Boards, which is about having a quota system of women in publicly quoted companies. In some countries, that directive hasn't passed yet, but some countries actually took a lead and said, "Before any directive comes in, we're going to think about putting in place our own legislation,'' which was the case in France. The whole situation changed dramatically in a very short space of time.
Once you have the factors that create this enabling environment, you can actually make it happen. I would be happy to send you some more specific examples of the good practices that we can identify in different areas and countries in Europe. We would be very happy to send that to you afterward, if that would be helpful.
Senator Ataullahjan: I would be happy if you could send us something because you talked about a plan, but I would like to know what specifically is in that plan that makes it work. I would like to get more information on that.
Senator Hubley: Welcome to you both. I was going to follow up on Senator Ataullahjan's question, because when we're looking for ways to do things, if there is expertise out there either in the private sector or in other countries, then that would be very helpful.
I'll just move quickly to another question. The Prime Minister had charged each of the ministers with a mandate letter that they were to fulfill. It probably wasn't a new idea, but it's a very public idea here now in Canada that these mandate letters exist. Getting into the leadership issue, I'm wondering if that would be an avenue and that any kind of gender based analysis should be a priority in those mandate letters.
Ms. Day: The mandate letters are wonderful because they have, as you say, made it very public what specific responsibilities have been assigned to ministers. It was a very positive move on the part of the new government to issue those mandate letters and to make them public in that way.
I also agree that putting something into every minister's mandate letter to indicate the responsibility of that minister for gender equality in all of their programs, services and new developments would be a very important thing to do.
That's not the only thing, though. I don't think that's a substitute for making the gender based analysis mandatory, nor is it a substitute for ensuring that, at the top of government, there's an overall responsibility for gender equality outcomes.
I looked at Minister Hajdu's mandate letter on this particular subject, and I confess that, when I looked at it carefully, I was a little bit disappointed by how there is some cautiousness in the language. She's been told that her overarching goal is to ensure that government policy, legislation and regulations are "sensitive'' to the different impacts that decisions have on men and women.
Well, I'm not sure that gives her the kind of authority we are actually looking for in this process. I've already said I'm not sure she's the one who should be assigned the authority because I think it needs to be at the very top, but I would like when we're talking about authority for some clearer language than that.
Senator Hubley: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I think Ms. Collins has a response to your question as well.
Ms. Collins: Thank you. I want to say that I fully support that. That's a good practice, having a mandate letter, in terms of making it visible and putting on the table straight away that this is expected to be part of the mandate. I hear it's not enough and it's not a substitute. I think you've set in place a process, and the accountability to being transparent about it kicks in. It could be up to you to say, "It was in your mandate letter. One year on, where are we? What have we done?'' And it's from there that the plans and priorities can actually emerge.
I think it's a very good practice and a very good process. It makes it visible, puts it on the table and sets it at the core of policy right from the very beginning. That's good leadership, but it needs to be maintained and followed up.
Senator Gagné: Thank you so much for your presentations and being here again today.
Ms. Collins, you mentioned in your presentation the refugee crisis and how the different governments around the world are responding to it. What is your opinion pertaining to the policies in place in order to welcome more women, children and families?
Ms. Collins: Thank you. First of all, I think the crisis is a humanitarian disaster because we every day see thousands of women, children, men as well, drowning in the Mediterranean. There is at the European level a real attempt to put in place safe routes and to have a welcoming policy, but it's being countered by many difficulties by some governments at the national level, which is really making the humanitarian crisis an absolute disaster.
At the European Women's Lobby, we have been running a project for the last couple of months, since the beginning of the year, called Women and Girls' Voices on the Move. We carried out this project with the Women's Refugee Commission in New York, where there have been onsite visits to transition camps in different countries, particularly around the Mediterranean border.
What we have seen and what is coming back from the women themselves is a total lack of sanitation, for example, where basic amenities and basic services are not being put in place. Women on the move, whether they're coming from their own country and then transitioning into different European countries, are actually being faced with horrific cases of violence, and therefore, we believe there is no gender equality perspective in this humanitarian crisis. Part of our project is to put pressure as well to make sure that there will be and are services put in place in camps.
There have been some horrific stories. I think as European society it's very shameful to see what's happening. With women, and particularly girls, we have heard lots of stories and testimony of women who have been in the camps and who met other women. There have been stories of young girls disappearing. It really is horrific.
Part of our response to that as well is to say that we actually have to have not only a gender equality perspective but to also put in place measures in terms of violence against women. One of our recommendations is that the Istanbul convention on violence against women would actually also be adopted by the European Union. Within that framework, it gives measures in terms of violence against refugees and asylum-seeking women as well. So we're keeping a close eye on that, but there is still a lot of work to do.
We are monitoring that very closely and working with our member organizations in the different countries and the different agencies to make sure that women's needs — not only their needs but their perspectives. They too can actually be shaping their present and their future as they make very dangerous journeys from their homelands to hopefully countries of safety in the European Union. I hope that answers the question.
Senator Ataullahjan: Ms. Day, how can we ensure that Ottawa, in its promised national housing strategy, includes the needs of women and girls? Fifty per cent of the homeless are women. What they face is different from what men face, such as sexual harassment and sexual violence, and they have longer lifespans. The failure to have a national housing strategy that looks specifically at the needs of women quite often is a matter of life and death for these women.
Ms. Day: I agree, and we know that there are specific needs of women that have to do with housing. Some of them arise at the time of relationship breakdown, and that has always been a moment in women's lives that, for one thing, is particularly dangerous and particularly hard to deal with when one of the things that many women need to do is find a safe and affordable place for themselves and their children separate from their partner.
For women — I've seen it over and over again and we've seen report after report in Canada saying so — housing is absolutely crucial to women's ability to actually establish themselves separate from a violent or abusive partner at that particular moment. Women have a pattern of returning to violent and abusive partners precisely because they cannot find safe and affordable housing for themselves and their children.
If we're thinking about a national housing strategy that will work for women, that is an example, and I don't think it's the only example but it is something that very much has to be taken into account. We need to look at what kind of housing, where, when and how. Can we make sure that women who are trying to escape violence have the capacity to quickly obtain safe and affordable housing for themselves and their children?
Part of what I think we haven't been clear enough about is that the surrounding social policies around violence against women are absolutely crucial in our ability to make women safe. Sometimes I think we talk about violence against women as though it has mainly to do with police and the justice system, when in fact it has everything to do with how we've devised our surrounding social policies — housing is one of them — in order to ensure that women can be safe and can establish themselves separately from a violent or abusive partner. That's one example. I can think of other examples.
If we talk about shelters, for example, which is a form of housing, one of the things that women in Canada say is that there are not enough of them and that stays are only for limited periods of time. The moment you're trying to transition out of a shelter into longer term housing — and this is what I have been talking about — is very difficult because there is very little what is called second-stage housing, and finding affordable housing at that moment is particularly hard.
The other thing in terms of a housing strategy is taking into account that women's incomes are lower than men's. What can women can afford to spend on rent when they're old or single, what kind of housing they can actually afford because they just have lower incomes, is also something that has to be taken into account if we're going to have a fair national housing strategy, one that serves the needs of women as well as men.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We're almost out of time, but we're receiving a great deal of enlightenment today on the issue. However, I was curious about our conversation about gender mainstreaming, as it's called in Europe, and cities like Vienna, and you came back to Vienna. I would like to understand what has happened and what has worked in Vienna that has made Vienna a better place for conducting this gender mainstreaming. I have to touch on what's happening in Vienna, just to close on that, please.
Ms. Collins: I would suggest that you visit Vienna as well, but having said that, what's really changed is the whole environment, transport and child care, for example. There is a whole different approach to child care. That's one of the real main differences that have been made in the last couple of years, but also the whole transportation system, providing safe transport, cars and wagons for women as well. Lighting, urban development — a whole lot of different initiatives have come into place.
What I think is the most important thing is the ownership that both women and men believe and feel that their city belongs to them. There is a real sense of shaping and ownership of their own city, so really bringing the city back into people's lives. That's what has made the huge difference.
There are other things, and I would be happy to send some more detailed information about specific initiatives, but at the end of the day, that's what it's done. It has really brought the city back into women's and men's lives. They feel it belongs to them.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I would appreciate if you would send some of those things because those are the kinds of examples one can use if we're discussing GBA and all those issues, because I think a lot of men don't get it. I am certainly getting it, and I'm really enthusiastic about this study that has been led by Senator Nancy Ruth.
I want to thank you both for coming today and thank you, Ms. Day, for coming back. You've given us more information for our study and recommendations. As parliamentarians, we do have the human rights of people at our doorstep, and we will follow up on some of your recommendations.
Moving to the next part of our agenda, the Human Rights Committee had a report called The Forgotten Many that dealt with what was taking place in North Korea. We haven't forgotten you.
Audrey Park is with us today to give us insights in our follow-up to the human rights situation in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the treatment of North Korean defectors. We want to thank Senator Yonah Martin for being tenacious on this issue. When we put out our first report on this, we got a lot of reaction from around the world with human rights organizations and others who have a great deal of understanding of what has happened and is continuing to happen in North Korea.
Ms. Park, you're here as an individual before our Human Rights Committee, and the floor is yours. Please go ahead, and we'll have a few questions for you after you have done your work. Welcome.
Audrey Park, as an individual: Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, respectful senators. Thank you for having me today and giving me this great opportunity to share my story with you today. My name is Audrey Park. I was born and raised in North Korea, currently living in South Korea. I'm doing my masters in Seoul.
When I was six years old, in 1996, the North Korean great famine started and millions of people died of hunger and typhoid fever. I remember my family had only one meal a day, a small bowl of corn and vegetables. I was always hungry, so I said to my mom, "I want more corn,'' but her responses were always the same. She said, "When the new year comes, you can have more rice, as much as you want. I promise.'' But I knew she was lying to me because she made the same promise to me the year before and the year before that.
Like most North Koreans, my parents tried hard to survive during the famine, but the conditions in North Korea were getting worse and worse. North Korea used to have a food distribution system so people got daily supplies from the government, but during the great famine, the government cut off everything, even the water and electricity systems. My family had to drink the water from the river every day.
The saddest thing was that my parents got divorced on my eighth birthday. That was the most traumatizing birthday I have ever had.
After the divorce, my mother took care of my younger sister and me for several months, but she could not make enough food to support us, even though she worked very hard in the black market. So my mother decided to flee to China to get help from Chinese relatives and make money in China to support her family. But she had to make a heartbreaking decision to leave my younger sister with my father, since she was only six years old, too little to escape to China.
After crossing the frozen Tumen River between North Korea and China, my mother and I finally met Chinese relatives. I was very happy when they came to see us because I thought they were going to take us to a safer place or give us money.
But my mother's cousins introduced us to traffickers instead of helping us. That's because Chinese police do not recognize North Koreans as refugees, so my relatives would have been fined about $10,000 once the police found or arrested us. This was why they did not allow us to stay with them.
My mom had no choice, so she accepted to go with the Korean-Chinese brokers, but the brokers separated me from my mom because they said they wanted to sell me to couples without children. At that time, I was only 10 years old. I still remember that I was confined in an old Chinese house, where an elderly but clever Chinese lady watched me all day to ensure I did not run away. I was very scared, so I cried every day and night.
As a 10-year-old girl, I was so worried about being abandoned by my mother. However, my mother did not give up on me, even though the brokers forced her to leave me. I know she fought with the brokers for many days and nights. When I was finally reunited with my mom, she kissed me and said, "Remember, no one can separate us.'' She was as strong as she has always been.
My mom and I lived in China for seven years, but we were repatriated to North Korea three times by the Chinese police. The first repatriation happened to us when I was 11 years old. Chinese police officers took us across the bridge between North Korea and China. I was so scared that I almost cried out. I remembered hearing about my neighbours in North Korea who were sent to concentration camps when they were repatriated from China. I was so horrified I could feel my legs trembling.
I really wanted to hold my mom's hands at the moment, but I could not because we were handcuffed, so I looked up at her face. She didn't say anything to me but I could hear her voice in my mind: "Do not be afraid. Stay conscious, and stay alive.''
Once we were repatriated, we were sent to a labour camp. That was the gloomiest part of my life. I remember we only had corn husks with salt water to eat. So many people were suffering from starvation and related diseases. During the day, everyone was forced to work on construction sites and farms. During the night, we were forced to memorize the great leader's words in the name of re-education, again and again.
I witnessed men being beaten savagely, women forced to abort their half-Chinese babies, and kids like me who were so exhausted so we just laid down on the floor like a pile of dead trees. I was too exhausted, but my mom always encouraged me not to give up — to stay alive and stay focused. I know I could not be here today without her love and encouragement.
After being repatriated to North Korea three times, my mother and I came to the conclusion that China could not be our safe home, so we decided to go to Mongolia to seek asylum.
I remember vividly how freezing cold it was when I crossed the Gobi Desert in order to go to South Korea. It was so awfully cold that the water inside my backpack was frozen and my feet were so frostbitten that it took two years to be cured. There was nothing in the desert, not even a bird or tree.
The worst part was that we could not find Mongolian soldiers, even though we crossed the barren desert for 14 hours. But we were very blessed, because after 14 hours, Mongolian soldiers eventually stumbled upon us, and we were finally South Korea-bound.
After gaining South Korean citizenship, I have come to realize that freedom has its own price. I have faced new challenges such as competition, capitalism and identity issues. Adjusting to South Korea was not easy, and it took me almost five years to be confident with my new surroundings.
I felt I was always alone, but when I look back at the journey of my life, I was not alone at all. My mom has been my rock, and my Han Chinese stepfather cared so much about my education that he sent me to elementary school in China. In South Korea, my friends from college and church have helped me overcome identity issues and cultural barriers.
Now I am in Canada, and I have been surrounded by amazing people who are willing to support North Koreans. Because of their love and help, I can be here today.
Canada has become well known among North Koreans, and many of us are willing to apply for asylum in Canada. However, according to current law, there is no way for North Koreans to stay or obtain refugee status in order to come to Canada. Therefore, I sincerely hope that Canada will be an option for North Koreans and Canada can accept them as refugees.
The last message I would like to leave with you is that my story is not special. I am just one of the 23 million North Koreans living today. There are still many mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who are hiding in China, Russia, Southeast Asia and other places who need your help and support. Please do not forget them; do not give up on them.
Thank you for having me and listening to me.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Park, for your very powerful testimony before this Human Rights Committee. You are obviously aware of our report that we will keep pushing as much as we can. Having experienced a couple of journeys into North Korea personally, I am quite empathic to what you are saying and really have an understanding personally of what you have told us today.
Senator Martin: Thank you, Audrey, for your testimony and sharing your story of great courage. During the report process, one of the things that we discovered is that there are more women that are defecting or escaping from North Korea. You spoke about you and your mother and some of the dangers or risks and that finding freedom can be with a price.
Would you talk a little more about what's happening in North Korea and whether it's China and other places that pose greater risks for women? What are those challenges for women?
We just, in our previous panel, heard about what's happening in Europe and the plight of vulnerable women and children who are escaping conflict zones. I think this is a very important region of the world. In North Korea, what's happening to women and young girls like you that makes life so difficult within North Korea and what happens once you escape?
Ms. Park: Thank you, Senator Martin. North Korea is a patriarchal society; it's really a male-dominated and male-centred society. So men can be the head of family, but women are not being promoted in society, and they are not seen as leaders of society, even though their abilities and capacities are better than men.
In North Korea, during the famine, women were responsible for domestic economics. That's why more women were working in black markets and more women escaped to China to seek for food for their families.
Also, I would like to mention about the domestic violence in North Korea. As I mentioned, since it is a patriarchal society, the men do not treat women with dignity. There are many cases where women are beaten by their husbands and brothers.
I witnessed a lot when I was young when I was in North Korea. We didn't really know that there are such rights, women's rights. It's really hard for women living in North Korea.
Also, once they escape to China, since the Chinese government doesn't give us any legal status and documents, brokers try to capture North Korean women along the border areas. Once they find us, they try to bring us inside China, to mainland China, to force us to marry Chinese men.
The process was so inhuman, because brokers and those men are bargaining about the prices. The price goes with the age. The younger you are, the higher the price you can be sold for. When my mom and I were being sold, I felt like we were a piece of product, like clothes, like we were in a market. That was really humiliating as a human.
Senator Martin: You mentioned your journey that has led you to Canada, and you have been here a few months. You said that North Koreans are becoming more familiar with Canada. I would like to ask in what ways Canada can play a very positive role in addressing the human rights issue and the opportunities for North Korean defectors to be able to be here in Canada. What have you found about Canada that has been very positive and helpful?
Ms. Park: First of all, yes, many North Koreans are aware of Canada. I think Canada has well-established immigration and refugee resettlement processes and programs, and there are many NGOs and private sector workers who are willing to help refugees. That's why I think many North Koreans are trying to come to Canada to gain refugee status.
Second, officially, Canada is not an enemy of North Korea. When I was in North Korea, I didn't really learn about Canada, so staying in Canada and living in Canada, we are not really defectors from North Korea. We are just refugees. North Koreans feel more secure and more relieved. That's why Canada is a good place for North Koreans.
Also, because of that, I hope the Canadian government can open a door to bring North Koreans to Canada and send messages. By doing that, I think it not only helps North Koreans to live in a better place, a safer place, but it also can send a message to the North Korean government: stop abusing human rights. Stop abusing women and children.
I've been in Canada for almost four months. I think Canada is a huge, beautiful country. That means Canada has more capacity to receive and resettle refugees.
Also, Canadians respect diversity and peace. As a North Korean, I feel safer living here. Here, it doesn't really matter where you are from. As long as you work hard and study hard, people treat you equally and respectfully. That's my impression of Canada.
Senator Ataullahjan: Ms. Park, thank you for your compelling testimony. Your testimony is a tribute to your mother's courage.
I have to ask you what happened to your sister who was left behind. We've heard that the families of defectors who make it across suffer a great deal. Was that the case with your family too?
I also wonder about the food situation in North Korea. We hear there is not too much available. What can you tell us about food distribution and the issues they still have with food in North Korea?
Ms. Park: Thank you, senator. Food distribution, I would say, is a public welfare system that most communist countries used to have before they collapsed. We used to get everything from the government, such as corn, oil, even school uniforms. During the famine, that system was collapsed.
As I remember the process, my father, because he's the head of the family, got food tickets for the family from the government, and the tickets say the amount of food, the kilograms of food we can get from the food distribution centre. So my mom would bring the tickets to the distribution centre to get that amount of food. That's how they supported us. Of course, that food was not enough for survival, but at least we had something to eat.
I would like to say that this system is not free. It's not free welfare. It's kind of like wage or salary. So my parents work for the government, and instead of giving us money, like here, they give us tickets so we can get food from the distribution centre. So everything is really controlled by the government.
Senator Ataullahjan: Your sister?
Ms. Park: My sister. Yes, we left her behind, but two years ago we were able to bring her to South Korea through brokers, so right now she's living with us. She's safe. She's happy. Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you for your testimony. It has given us some perspectives we haven't had before.
We've heard from others, certainly in my own work, that once you leave, you can't go back, but you went back three times. The brokers are there. They're obviously known to North Korea and China. Is it your feeling, that everyone knows it's happening and everyone is profiting from that broker system?
Ms. Park: From the network system. Yes, I think so. Since the great famine — it has been over two decades. Human trafficking systems have been established along the border area, even inside China. I agree with you that brokers are taking advantage of this system. One reason for that is the Chinese government. If the Chinese government gave us legal status, those brokers wouldn't take advantage of that and we wouldn't be victims of the system.
Also, we didn't go back voluntarily. We were caught, and we were sent back to North Korea.
Senator Andreychuk: What were the consequences to your family by going back? Were there any consequences?
Ms. Park: Any consequences, yes. I would say before 2000, the North Korean government viewed all defectors as political criminals. So once you were repatriated, the government would punish three generations in your family, even your friends, your relatives and your neighbours.
After 2000, what happened is millions of North Koreans fled to China because the situation hadn't changed, so the government could not punish all the families of the defectors. They started to punish only the person. By punishing, I don't mean just detain you for a few days and then let you go. It's not like that. As I mentioned, we were put into labour camps, and the government started viewing us not as political criminals but as economic criminals. That's why my family was not put into any camps.
Senator Andreychuk: You said that when you were in South Korea, there was some discrimination. Could you explain that?
Ms. Park: Discrimination, yes. South Korea and North Korea have been separated for over 70 years. The culture that we had and the accent that North Koreans have are totally different from South Koreans. So when we talk with a North Korean accent, South Koreans right away figure out you are from North Korea.
So because of the history, because of the war, older generations view us as allies of the enemy because we used to be communist. We used to live in a communist country, so older generations are really upset and mad at us. For the younger generation, because they didn't really experience the war and they don't really understand the history, they just view us as foreigners.
There are so many misunderstandings between us. For example, I personally experienced one small discrimination. One day I tried to apply for a scholarship. I was told at the last minute, so I just folded the application like this, but it was supposed to be flat, not folded. But I folded and submitted it. And the person, he was old, the one who received my application, he read on the application that I was born in North Korea so he knew I was from North Korea, and he said, "Oh, you shouldn't do this because in South Korea it's not our culture. In South Korea, no one would have folded an application like you. You should learn.'' Basically because you are North Korean, you don't understand the culture. That's a small example of the discrimination.
Senator Meredith: Thank you for your compelling testimony. I was really moved by what you had to say. A couple of things struck me with respect to how you were treated when you were in China and dealing with those individuals who handled you, I see it in my mind in terms of those individuals who were in these slave houses, and they were treated as pieces of meat. Again, you talk about the age and that those who were younger and stronger were sold for more money.
This has been emotional for me, as well as for my colleagues here, but for the benefit of my colleagues as well as those who are watching, I'd like you to tell us what you observed with those other individuals who were in this same situation as you were in China, dealing with these traffickers who would capture you and try to sell you for a higher price and so on. Tell us a bit more about that.
Then I want to talk to you about reaching South Korea and assimilating into society. You referenced the discrimination you faced, but tell us more about what you observed. I know you were 10 or 11 at the time.
Ms. Park: Yes. The people living at the border area are ethnic Korean Chinese. That means they speak Korean like us, so we can communicate and interact with them. Those people are living there, and once North Koreans cross the border, men especially are waiting along the Tumen River. Once we cross, they know we are North Koreans.
They would suggest to us, "Do you want me to report to the police, or do you want to go with us?'' So for us, it's no choice, because once we're repatriated, we will be punished. We have to say that we will go with them.
Also, many ethic Korean Chinese, especially females, are coming to South Korea to work or marry South Korean men. I would say many Korean ethnic men need more females, because more females are leaving the country. So we kind of take the place of ethnic female Chinese Koreans' place. Especially younger women — like teenagers or in their early 20s — are sold into prostitution and as second wives for rich men. Because we do not have any legal documents, we couldn't say no.
When I was in labour camps, I've heard from many women who are in their 20s. Most of them have had experience of being sexually assaulted and violated and sold into those prostitution markets. That's what I know from my experience.
Senator Meredith: When you reached South Korea, you talked about your faith and being in church and how that helped you. Can you elaborate on how that strengthened you in terms of just what you would say to those other women who are coming to South Korea or escaping to other parts of the world — how that really was something that strengthened you and helped you cope with the trauma that you'd gone through?
Ms. Park: Yes. Before coming to South Korea, I was not a Christian. I didn't really believe in God. I didn't go to church. The reason I went to church in South Korea is because I wanted to have friends. I didn't have friends. I went to church to make friends, but I didn't believe in God.
Everybody told me that God is a loving God. For me, that was really hard to believe — that God is love. I was kind of refusing that God really cared for North Koreans. If he loved North Koreans, there wouldn't be a famine or many people wouldn't have died of hunger. So I just couldn't believe that.
Because of my church people, my friends, even with my North Korean accent and the cultural barriers between us, they just accepted me as I was. I think that's why I was able to open my mind to South Korean society — to South Koreans.
I was trying really hard to ask God: "If you are a loving God, how come you can leave North Koreans like that?'' I still don't know the answer. Right now, I am a Christian, and I believe that God has his own plan. That's why I'm working so hard to share my stories with people and to push for more countries to help North Korea.
Senator Meredith: You've been courageous, and we commend you for that. Senator Martin has asked about your time here in Canada and how you've been welcomed, as well as the focus Canada should have. With your story, you said you are not unique; there are hundreds of thousands of others who are going through this.
For the sake of the committee, what should we be doing now? We talk about relations with China. We talk about these kinds of issues that we need to press. Can you give us two points, as I wrap up my questioning — and possibly go on second round, if there's time — just what should we be doing now?
Ms. Park: What should Canada do right now? I hope Canada accepts more North Korean refugees and brings North Korean refugees to Canada.
Also, I hope Canadian government is working with those NGOs and organizations in China, Thailand, as well as South Korea and Canada, to support them to help North Koreans. Even though the defectors in China cannot come to Canada directly, the situation of living in China is really depressing and repressive. We need more people to help them and support them. As well, through diplomatic conversation, dialogue, I hope Canada can persuade the Chinese government to not deport us, to please give us legal status in China.
We are not asking for money. We're not asking for free food. We are willing to work really hard in China, but just give us legal status.
Senator Meredith: Thank you so much. I appreciate your testimony.
The Chair: Before we go to Senator Ngo, as we're working in real time here, interestingly, we just received the government's response to our report of June 30. It's quite an extensive response. I'm not so sure if it's the response we want, and I know that Senator Martin will lead the charge in terms of reaction after we have time to assess this report. There are good words there, but I'm not so sure about the accepting of more refugees, but we will continue to do our work on our Human Rights Committee.
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your strong emotional testimony. You mentioned that some North Koreans also arrive in Russia. Can you tell us the situation of those Korean defectors in Russia and what kind of situation they are facing vis-à-vis the Russian government?
Ms. Park: As I heard from my friends, in Russia, North Koreans can be divided into two groups, I think. One is defectors who crossed the border voluntarily, so they are defectors. Also, there are many workers sent by the North Korean government, so they are working in Russia, working in forests in Russia, but they are receiving really small amounts of money. Most of the money is taken by government, so their conditions are very difficult. That's why those workers, North Korean workers, try to defect to other countries than Russia.
I have one friend from Russia who was working for a Russian company, but he defected to the South Korean embassy in Russia. He could not come to South Korea directly, so he was sent to Germany first, and in Germany the South Korean government helped him take the airplane so that he was able to come to South Korea.
I don't know exactly what the Russian government's perspective is on North Koreans, but as far as I know, there are no defectors that are sent to North Korea by the Russian government.
Senator Ngo: This is new, because previous testimony before us never mentioned Russia at all, so that's why I am surprised that this has come up. I think we should go a little further on this one, because if we have somebody in North Korea and in Russia as well, we should mention this in our report and whatever we can do. This is the first time we have heard this.
Ms. Park: Yes, in South Korea, there are many people who used to be workers in Russia.
The Chair: Russia had a big influence in North Korea. In North Korea I think the word was juche, self-reliance, and the North Korean government had this philosophy under Kim Jong-il that he could do anything, and self-reliance was the catchphrase for all North Koreans when it wasn't really self-reliance. It was reliance on the East Bloc — East Germany, Russia — so Russia had predominance in North Korea. It would be natural that when things began to fall apart in certain parts of the Soviet Union, that there would be Russian defectors, I guess.
For those who may be watching this committee meeting, our Senate report is on our Senate committee's website. You can take a good look at that. It is called The Forgotten Many and we did have that out on June 30, and this is an important follow-up to that.
I have kind of a difficult question. There are so many groups in this country that would like to do good things in North Korea. There are individuals, clergymen and others who have gone to North Korea to do good things. There is a group that I'm associated with that is thinking of going to help out those in North Korea who have intellectual disabilities, who have problems, and there may be an opportunity for that group and other groups to go.
I know where your heart is; we heard it today. Is it good to engage North Korea on any level, or does the government there use it as propaganda, even though these groups are interested in helping others in a way that the programs have worked in this country? I know it's the hermit kingdom and it's not the hermit kingdom for nothing, but should the door always be closed or should we be trying in our own compassionate way to be doing something, or do you feel that we will be used?
Ms. Park: I think in changing in North Korean government and reforming North Korean society, we need many strategies. First, we have to help North Korean refugees and support human rights; but at the same time, is there any way to change the government's perspectives so that they can open doors for the world, so that they are willing to reform their system?
I think we should get engaged in North Korean domestic politics, for example. I do not support tourism because those tourists can only go to Pyongyang, which is different than from where I am from. Also, I encourage that if Canadians wanted to go to North Korea to help, you should go to the rural areas, not Pyongyang, not the capital. Go to rural areas to see the real face of North Korea and help those people in the rural areas, to strengthen them, to encourage them.
It's not only a food crisis but the problem of North Korea is also civil rights. They don't understand what civil rights are and what kind of rights they should enjoy. Canadians can go to those areas to educate people, to support people, to tell them, "You have these rights.'' But how can we do that? We have to discuss more about the means and ways, but if Canada can do that, I absolutely support going to North Korea.
The Chair: It is very delicate, isn't it, because you are taking a chance when you do go.
We will close with Senator Martin.
Senator Martin: I have a request of Audrey. Just in light of what we have heard — I knew that you would be providing insights from your personal story — I feel like there are so many areas that have piqued our interest that we should in some way explore. I would ask you after your testimony today to submit in writing your added recommendations to our report that was already published.
We have received the government's response. I haven't seen it. That too will be a public document, and it will be important to get your input on just those areas where we wouldn't have insights. You could perhaps shed some light and say, "This is an idea. This is something that could be possible from a Canadian perspective.'' You are here in Canada. You're not a Canadian, but knowing what you know based on your experience in Canada and your life in Seoul, South Korea, I think your suggestions will be very welcomed, because everyone wants to try to help.
I feel like I have so many more questions about what more we should be trying to understand, but thank you so much for your very compelling testimony and your answers today.
Ms. Park: Thank you, Senator Martin. Absolutely, I would like to help. If there is anything I can help with, I would like to do that.
I've read the previously published report by the Senate committee. I would like to add one thing to that report. There are many orphans in China, and those children are between Chinese men and women. The Chinese government does not recognize those children as their own citizens, so many of them do not have citizenship in China. That means they cannot go to school in China. They are like invisible individuals.
I'm hoping that the Canadian government can push the Chinese government to at least please recognize them as their own citizens. I'm really worried about their future, because when they are grown up, they cannot work or go to school in China, so their life will be like ours. They don't have a place to go in this universe, so I would like to add that point for those children.
The Chair: Just before we end this testimony, you wanted one clarification, Senator Ataullahjan?
Senator Ataullahjan: I want a clarification that these children you're talking about are the children of Chinese men and North Korean women?
Ms. Park: North Korean women, yes.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
The Chair: You are one voice today but you're not the only voice. We want to assure you of that. We have a very compassionate Human Rights Committee that I think represents the face of this country. We would like to have you come back again sometime with others with a public response to the government's response to our report. If you don't like it, say it publicly, and you don't have to be delicate. You can speak out. That's what this country is about.
We are truly honoured to have had you with us today. With that, I thank you, and this session is adjourned.
Ms. Park: Thank you so much.
(The committee adjourned.)