THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 3, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 11:30 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on Canada’s interests and engagement in Africa.
Senator Peter M. Boehm (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, my name is Peter Boehm. I’m a senator from Ontario, and I’m the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.
[Translation]
Before we begin, I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Gerba: Welcome back, Mr. Chair. Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Welcome. Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Greenwood: Margo Greenwood, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you very much, colleagues. I want to welcome everyone who may be watching us today on Senate ParlVU across the country.
Today, we’re continuing our study on Canada’s interests and engagement in Africa. For our first panel, we have the pleasure of welcoming, from Global Affairs Canada, Jacqueline O’Neill, Canada’s Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security. Ambassador, welcome back to the committee. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today as we continue our study.
To support the ambassador, we welcome Caroline Delany, Director General of the Central, Southern and Eastern Africa Bureau, who joins us today for the third time, if I am correct, on this study; Susan Steffen, Director General, West Africa and Maghreb Bureau, who marks her fourth visit, so that makes you the record holder; and Pamela Moore, Executive Director, Peace and Stabilization Program Division, International Assistance Partnerships and Programming, who I think is new to this committee on this study. Welcome to all.
[Translation]
Before we hear your remarks and proceed to questions and answers, I would ask everyone present to please mute notifications on their devices.
We are now ready to hear your opening remarks, Ambassador, which will be followed by questions from senators. Ambassador, the floor is yours.
[English]
Jacqueline O’Neill, Canada’s Ambassador for Women, Peace and Security, Global Affairs Canada: Good morning, everyone. Thank you, chair and this committee, for your sustained focus on Africa. As you can see, and as the chair kindly introduced colleagues, there are four of us here from Global Affairs today, and we’re here in the hopes we can give you answers to as many questions as possible. But not to worry, we have only one opening statement; I promise.
[Translation]
The last time I appeared before this committee was November 2, 2023, almost a year ago. Since then, I have been to Ethiopia — including Tigray — to Kenya and to Mozambique, including the province of Cabo Delgado, a region affected by the conflict. I also had the immense honour of working directly with Sudanese women trying to end the horrible suffering caused by the war in Sudan.
I am prepared to share with you my thoughts following those official trips and other experiences I’ve had during my time in office.
I am also delighted to announce that, this past March, the Government of Canada unveiled its third National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security. It is the first of its kind in Canada to get cabinet approval.
It involves more federal partners than the other two national plans: nine departments and one agency in total. What is absolutely essential is that the plan maintains our unique and valuable relationship with civil society. The action plan contributes to our national and international efforts, including those in Africa.
[English]
Women, peace and security, or the WPS agenda, as it’s often called, has deep roots in Africa. In fact, it owes much of its existence to the leadership of African women themselves, a fact that is now intentionally obscured through ever-increasing disinformation campaigns, largely originating from Russia and beyond, that falsely and insultingly claim that women, peace and security is a Western notion being imposed from the outside.
The UN Security Council Resolution 1325, the foundation of this agenda, was led by Namibia in the year 2000. South Africa’s Naledi Pandor, who served as foreign minister until June of this year, played an instrumental role at that time from within civil society. Kenya’s Wangarĩ Maathai was the first African woman to win a Nobel Peace Prize, in 2004, and the first laureate to emphasize the nexus between climate, security and women, which is now a major focus of women, peace and security around the world.
The African Union, or AU, was the first multilateral organization to name a high-level envoy on women, peace and security, which gave Canada, in some ways, inspiration for my role and being the first country to name an ambassador for women, peace and security. For a long time, Africa had more countries with National Action Plans on women, peace and security than any other continent. There are now 34. Four regional organizations have launched action plans, and all this contributes to 109 countries in the world that have these approaches.
Apparent in the advocacy by women and, in particular, young women across the continent and in many of our refreshed National Action Plans and other strategies on women, peace and security, is the extent to which Canada and Africa face shared or similar threats to peace and security, and the importance of women’s full and meaningful inclusion in addressing them. These shared threats include the impacts of the climate crisis, migration, disaster management, war and conflict, food security crises, radicalization and terrorism, and online cyber attacks and targeted disinformation.
[Translation]
The policy frameworks of the entire continent reaffirm the identity of many African countries as contributors to world peace and security and multilateral partners. The African continent is home to the greatest number of UN peace support operations, involving many countries that are among the largest contributors of troops and police forces to the UN.
Peacekeeping training centres are based in many African countries. I was greatly impressed by the one I recently visited in Nairobi.
[English]
There is much for Canada to learn from African countries and vice versa. Like elsewhere, there remains a gap in Africa that is far too big between policy frameworks and their implementation, with many challenges only worsening, but the women, peace and security agenda, in particular, is potentially a transformative one with many determined, courageous champions across the continent.
We look forward to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, ambassador, for your opening statement.
Colleagues, I want to advise you that you will have four minutes in the first round. That includes the question and the answer.
I also want to acknowledge that we’ve been joined by Senator Mary Robinson of Prince Edward Island and Senator Mohammad Al Zaibak from Ontario. Thank you for joining us.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you, witnesses, for being here today and for the work you do on behalf of our country.
As authoritarian regimes, coups and military governments gain influence in the Sahel, how do we ensure the women, peace and security agenda remains central to peace efforts in these regions, particularly with the reality and the impact of a Russian presence, which is undoubtedly a disconcerting factor for all?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you for your question. Certainly, there’s an increase in authoritarian governments around the world, and we’re responding in many similar ways, first and foremost by continuing to work with civil society and the voices within who continue to advocate for democratic processes, for the strengthening of service delivery, response and inclusion in planning and responses, and by ensuring that Canada supports organizations and leaders within the region who are calling for accountability from their own governments, in particular.
I don’t know if my colleague wants to add anything else on the Sahel, specifically.
Susan Steffen, Director General, West Africa and Maghreb Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you for the question, senator.
After three weeks on the job in West Africa, I think the main thing that I can say in terms of keeping some of the things that Canada holds dear, including the women, peace and security agenda, on the table is that we remain — we’re staying — in the Sahel. Our diplomatic representation is staying there, despite many challenges, and it is staying open to discussions with interlocutors, which is a bit of pragmatic diplomacy and constructive engagement, if I might say so, and that we continue to have conversations. Even though we disagree fundamentally with many of the things that the governments and quasi-governments in those regions are doing and are advocating, we remain open to discussion with them because if you close the door, you can’t make any progress.
Senator Ravalia: If I can just shift gears a little, what initiatives has Canada launched this year to ensure that its development assistance remains attractive and competitive, particularly in countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe, where Chinese investments are growing very rapidly?
Caroline Delany, Director General, Central, Southern and Eastern Africa Bureau, Global Affairs Canada: Thank you, senator.
Speaking of this year, what I can say in terms of our investments and our engagement on the continent is that they continue to be guided by the Feminist International Assistance Policy.
In Zambia and in Zimbabwe, we don’t have a bilateral development program, but, like many countries, they are recipients of programming through multilateral channels as well as through Canadian NGOs. In Zambia, in particular, we are in the order of the seventh top donor, if I remember correctly, and so even without a bilateral program, it’s quite a significant engagement.
We’re also engaging with countries like Zambia, in particular, through the international financial institutions, or IFIs. Zambia is one of the countries that is quite heavily indebted to China and is in negotiations with China as well as with the Paris Club on how to manage their debt situation.
As a member of the IFIs, Canada has an opportunity to also engage through those institutions in terms of being able to support Zambia’s ambitions with regard to investment in infrastructure and elsewhere.
Zimbabwe is a bit more difficult for me to speak to. We don’t have significant amounts of programming there. We have an embassy in the country and engage with the government in Zimbabwe to talk about things like governance and reconciliation processes and so on, but there is not a significant development investment.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator MacDonald: Good morning, witnesses.
In October 2022, Canada hosted the first Canada-African Union Commission high-level dialogue, in which Canada announced over $37 million in project funding to support African Union priorities. This announcement included proposed funding for WPS-related projects, such as strengthening women-led community reconciliation in the Oromia Region of Ethiopia, engendering conflict-sensitive approaches to peace building in Ethiopia.
I have two questions: What measurable outcomes have we seen from these investments so far, particularly in such an unstable region? How can we assess whether these funds are effectively contributing to long-term peace and reconciliation, and what steps are in place to ensure accountability in tracking the success of these initiatives?
Ms. Delany: I can speak specifically to Ethiopia.
Ethiopia is a country that is definitely going through some peace and security challenges. One of Canada’s largest international assistance investments is in Ethiopia.
The approach that we take there is to recognize that there’s a variety of ways that we can counter instability in the country. This includes addressing the underlying drivers of the conflict itself. In the past, Canada has, for example, supported the national dialogue process in the country. We monitor closely where the government is going on transitional justice to see how the policy develops with regard to that.
We’re also engaging specifically on peace and security, so Canada is providing $14 million through the United Nations Development Programme, or UNDP, for the demobilization exercises ongoing in the Tigray province, following the civil war there.
What is most important and most interesting there as well is the significant number of women ex-combatants who are part of that process — in the order of 11% — and so it is an opportunity for Canada to influence the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, or DDR, process as well from a WPS perspective.
In addition, one of the things that we look at is also resilience programming. Canada is a significant funder of social safety nets in Ethiopia, both in urban and rural areas, and we think this is really important to be able to support citizens so they feel that they can weather the ups and downs of climate change, the economy and these sorts of things.
One thing that Ethiopia has done quite recently is that they have matched their exchange rate to the market rate, instead of it being controlled by the central bank. This is a good thing from a macroeconomic stability perspective, but it is not often easy for the average citizen to weather the changes in the exchange rate, and programs like the social safety net can make a big difference with regard to supporting communities to be able to navigate through that. That’s through both cash transfers sometimes and food transfers and food for work.
Pamela Moore, Executive Director, Peace and Stabilization Program, International Assistance Partnerships and Programming, Global Affairs Canada: I could add one point, if you would like, to complement that. Global Affairs Canada also has dedicated peace and security programming, so we use the different funding tools of foreign affairs to implement some of the programming in relation to the topics that you’ve spoken about.
We’ve devoted specific programming to accountability, as mentioned by my colleague, supporting accountability mechanisms and looking at identifying some of the violations that have occurred in the context of the conflict. We also have dedicated programming for women peace builders in Eastern Africa and other parts of Africa, including Ethiopia, which is dedicated project funding for women peace builders.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome to our witnesses. It’s always a pleasure to have you here and see some familiar faces.
My question is for all of you. African women are the world champions of entrepreneurship, with 27% in business for themselves. They are responsible for 65% of the continent’s wealth, so their role is absolutely central to the region’s economy. How does the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security you mentioned take into account women entrepreneurs and their empowerment?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you for the question.
The plan does not specifically focus on women entrepreneurs.
[English]
What it does focus on is the environment that enables women to have the time, the resources, the education and the physical stability to follow their entrepreneurship. It talks about the relationship between economic stability and peace and security, but it does not focus specifically on women entrepreneurs.
Ms. Delany: I can give some examples in terms of how we do support women entrepreneurs, particularly in the agricultural sector.
Most women, at least in the areas that I cover in Southern and Eastern Africa — the smallholder farmers are mostly women, so being able to support them in terms of access to markets and things like that is one of the main components of a lot of our programming on the continent.
I can give an example of Mozambique, where 80% of Mozambicans are engaged in agriculture, and there are very high rates of malnutrition. SOCODEVI, a Canadian organization out of Quebec, works with women-led agricultural co-operatives to support them with better seeds, better fertilizer and training, and we’ve seen significant increases in terms of their yield and their ability to access supermarkets in the cities to be able to sell those yields.
South Sudan is another example, where we work with War Child and CARE Canada to support farmers, including women and girls. This is also climate-focused in terms of supporting climate-smart agriculture, recognizing the significant changes in South Sudan as a result of climate change and being able to support farmers to make those adjustments so their yields are more resilient to the changes in climate.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: That’s very informative. Thank you for the information.
Internationally, have you found any best practices that Canada could learn from? Connections are often made between peace, security and the economy. Just yesterday, one of our witnesses talked about highly educated young people who are unemployed. That is likely the case for women, too. Are there practices we could learn from?
Ms. O’Neill: Definitely, there are many practices we could learn from. I could mention a few that exist internationally, as you say, but in Africa.
[English]
I mentioned I was in East Africa recently and was able to meet with a number of groups that talked about both Canadian support and their initiatives early on in a conflict and then longer term. One of the successful practices — my colleague just mentioned it — was Canada’s support for the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of combatants following the conflict in Mozambique.
How that relates to the economy is through a few things. First, they specifically set out from the outset to identify that there would be women combatants. It seems as if it should be an obvious thing. We know that around the world there is usually an average of at least 10% of women in any fighting force, so it was about ensuring that they planned ahead for women combatants. They had livelihood programs, processes and training opportunities that were customized to women based on what those women said they wanted. We see in other processes sometimes that women are given stereotypical roles for training as hairdressers, seamstresses, et cetera, but it’s not necessarily based on the skills they have or the vision they want, so they get training that translates into longer economic opportunities.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you all for being here today. It’s greatly appreciated.
In terms of the government’s approach to partnerships in Africa, I think we all know that public consultation is very important, and we had, as I understand, a public consultation that took place for around a month that finished in mid-September. What sort of responses did we get, and what was the engagement like from the African diaspora in Canada, particularly women who could, perhaps, give good insight into the women, peace and security agenda?
Ms. Steffen: Thank you very much, senator, for that question.
The Africa strategy has been under way for a while, as you know. We’ve spoken to it at this committee before. There were early public consultations on the economic cooperation angle that had several iterations. There was a public consultation through a portal, and there were some separate focus groups and discussions with a variety of interlocutors. Most recently, we had a month-long online consultation that engaged on a broader set of issues on top of the economic issues. I have to say they were both well attended, and we had a significant number of inputs.
In terms of engaging with African diaspora groups, first of all, the online consultations were open to anyone who wanted to engage. We also then encouraged our networks to be aware of the online consultations, and in that way it brought forward a lot more input from a variety of interlocutors.
We engaged with a number of associations, including the Canada-Africa Chamber of Business, which has many entrepreneurs of African origin — that’s just an example — and many women entrepreneurs as well, and a number of other business associations that have women entrepreneurs as well.
On the peace and security front, you heard yesterday from a few of the academics who were also engaged in those consultations. What we heard from them was that our interlocutors, both Canadian and African, want more Canada on the continent — I think you heard the same thing yesterday — that the trade and investment angles of our engagement need to be bolstered. That is part of the discussion we have had at this committee as well. We also heard that the peace and security angles of Africa are interwoven throughout everything that Canada should be doing in terms of both being aware of it and ensuring that we are doing no harm and contributing, as well, to an improved environment.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. This is still a reasonably new ambassadorial position. Inside the work you’re doing, are there resources that you have had to shift or changes that you’re doing as this important role continues, or is there support you need and don’t have?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you for the question. I always appreciate it when someone asks about resources as well.
The thinking or the theory of change behind this position and appointment is one that made a lot of sense, which was to have someone with a title that gives you access and can get you indoors, et cetera, but is not the sole part of the government or department that is intent on delivering on this work. We have the National Action Plan that spells out how it’s everyone’s responsibility.
I am there and try to think of myself as a force multiplier, champion, amplifier of what has been done, but I don’t want us to have so much concentration of resources in any one part of the government or any of our departments, because we need to ensure that this work is distributed and is part of everyone’s job.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our witnesses. Ambassador, you referenced the AU in establishing position. One of the themes we’ve heard from a number of witnesses is positive commentary about the development of AU in regional organizational structures. Can you give us a taste of how those structures are helpful or used by you and the department as opposed to bilateral or traditional, multilateral structures?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you. I can give you two examples. One is the African Union, my approximate counterpart there. Her office, with Canadian support, has created what they call a Continental Results Framework on Women, Peace and Security. I mentioned there are now about 34 countries in four regional organizations with National Action Plans.
What they tried to do was to bring more coherence to them so that within each ministry and each country, they’re not tracking different things; they don’t set up ways of collective reporting that doesn’t tell you a story more broadly. That has been helpful, and it has helped build capacity. Some governments actually track gender-disaggregated data, for example. It set a bit of a minimum standard of what doing this looks like in different contexts, with, of course, a great deal of complementarity.
Another thing that the African Union has supported and set up is what is called FemWise. It is a network of African women mediators. It is in response to many African women talking about the important roles they play mediating between communities at subnational levels. However, as we all know, when peace processes are often called, they tend to be former heads of state, sometimes individuals without significant mediation experience, or those with well-known names, which perpetuates a cycle. So FemWise has attempted to elevate the importance and the role and visibility, and formalize and elevate the work of these groups.
A challenge, however, is getting them deployed and getting them called upon to mediate. There’s progress in that sense, but we still want to see more of them doing the work that they’re engaged in.
Senator Harder: Have you given a thought to how the structure of the WPS could be used in some fashion or adjusted in the context of having an approach for children, or do you just view that as a subset of WPS? Given the challenge of demography in Africa, it would seem to me not too soon to think through what the structures we could incorporate are. Is there a model here that you should be exploring?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you. I certainly think about it and have thought about it thanks to numerous groups that have raised the issue.
There are a few points. There are some good practices and some areas for improvement. The key point distinguishing between youth and children is something that we hear a lot. We don’t view children, peace and security as a subset of this work lest we aggregate women and children in an unintentionally infantilizing way. But we do hear a lot of connections about youth, peace and security, and we have had a lot of collaboration between those organizations, including getting a Security Council resolution. There are now a couple of National Action Plans on Youth, Peace and Security in the world, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or DRC, being one of them.
Senator Harder: Has that given impetus for Global Affairs to think of its coordination in a different fashion?
Ms. O’Neill: Yes.
Senator Harder: Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of our witnesses, those returning and those new to this conversation. This question is for Ambassador O’Neill, and anyone else can jump in as well.
Today and in a previous appearance here at this committee, you highlighted Canada’s support for African women in peace negotiations through initiatives like the Continental Results Framework. Could you provide an update on the progress with this framework? Could you also tell us more about the experience in Sudan that you mentioned earlier, making reference, if you could, to measures you think Canada can take to ensure that women’s participation in peace and security has not just a symbolic but a real impact on the outcomes of peace agreements?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you for those three questions. I’ll start with Sudan because it is emblematic of what is going on. Very briefly, the U.S. government with its co-hosts Switzerland and Saudi Arabia and along with its partners — the U.A.E., Egypt, the African Union and the United Nations — convened what they hoped would be peace talks on Sudan in Switzerland about a month ago. They hoped that the two primary belligerents — the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces — would come together and focus on three things: cessation of hostilities, increased humanitarian access and a monitoring or enforcement mechanism. One of the parties did not show up. The groups continued to stay there, and they focused on increasing humanitarian access.
The U.S. mediator very much wanted to not replicate what we see everywhere else, which is inviting to peace talks the parties that created the war in the first place and giving them a disproportionate amount of power to set the terms going forward. He worked with his counterparts in the U.S. State Department, who worked with us to support a group of Sudanese women from across the country, including many young women, to be in Switzerland and to be consistently trying to influence the negotiations. They met directly with the groups, but they were not officially part of the negotiating process. As always, they raised a number of extremely important things, for example, making sure that sexual violence was part of a cessation of hostility, so raping women would be considered a violation of a ceasefire. They talked about a broad range of issues.
What was essential there is that they were a diverse group, they had a number of connections back to their communities, and they had international support of mediators and facilitators. They still, however, were not at the table, which is why Canada is trying to support a broader process of civilian-driven political engagement so that we don’t replicate this process.
Perhaps I can turn to Ms. Moore to say we tried to use Canadian titles, influence and access to reinforce that specific set of peace negotiations as well as supporting a ground effort by civilians.
Ms. Moore: We complement our policy engagement that the ambassador has spoken about with project funding. Through our peace and security project funding, the Peace and Stabilization Operations Program, we can do things like, in this case, funding this organization that was supporting civilian voices, including 40% women, who in the Sudan conflict were bringing together the views of a diverse group of civilians on what should happen to inform the peace process. What we try to do is give project funding to give that extra voice to these civilian groups.
Senator Greenwood: Welcome to all of you. I was really interested when you spoke earlier in your opening remarks — this is for all of you to answer — about the disinformation or misinformation that some countries are promoting particularly around women’s participation in the women, peace and security initiative. I wondered if you could talk a little more about how you are addressing that, because that can be a huge detriment.
I don’t know if this would enter into it, so forgive my naïveté, but I’m thinking about the recognition and revitalization of women’s roles in communities and those sorts of things. If you could share your thoughts on that please.
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you. I’d absolutely love to, given, as the senator emphasized, that it is an extremely important issue, and it’s growing. It is one of the things I hear about most consistently when speaking with civil society and political actors around the world. It’s a huge threat to security and very much an issue within Africa.
I want to be really clear: When we say “disinformation,” of course, it is deliberately sharing information with malicious intent. When we talk about “gendered disinformation,” it is about exploiting norms, stereotypes, stigmas and taboos that tend to target women. They usually claim that women are promiscuous, they are prostitutes, they are dumb, they’re weak, they are bad mothers. They are meant in that way. It is different from the “regular,” much more commonplace online harassment that so many women are now experiencing because it is structured, complex and coordinated. It often originates from state actors, non-state actors. I mentioned Russia at the outset. We can trace quite a lot back to Russia.
As it relates to Africa, a number of countries use artificial intelligence, bots, “deepfakes” to try to influence outcomes of specific processes where a country has a specific stake in one or another, or to undermine institutions broadly — by sharing negative narratives about the West, for example.
As an example from the Sudan talks, every morning we would wake up, and the women we were working with would be online and trying to decipher what accurate videos were versus what “deepfake” videos were. Because people were creating videos saying it was a massacre of one group by another, trying to incite something. Almost every one of them had their names released. They were called prostitutes. They were called much worse. Their families’ names were released. And their mere act of trying to seek peace for their own country led them to be vulnerable and exposed to this type of work, which then gets amplified sometimes by individuals but sometimes by organized campaigns.
It is a huge issue, and it is very much not only just — not to discount — misogynists, alone in their rooms, who hate women; it is very much a systemic effort at undermining democracy and getting women out of public spaces.
The Chair: I would like to ask a question as well. It is basically an extension of Senator Gerba’s question and comment earlier on about best practices. The Feminist International Assistance Policy of Canada has been in effect for seven years, more or less, as I recall. Your position, ambassador, as you have explained it — you have also been around for a significant period of time, not to belabour the point.
Do our best practices figure into discussions that the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, might have on the more traditional official development assistance, or ODA, side in terms of getting assistance and providing support to women’s grassroots organizations in Africa? Related to that, if we have some influence, is that showing in the actions of other donor countries?
Ms. O’Neill: I can speak to the second part about it showing in the actions of other donor countries. Perhaps my colleagues can speak to the OECD influence on official development assistance.
Women in communities are telling everyone the same things. Many of us are doing our best to listen and adapt our processes. One of the most significant things we hear — and that you are very well aware of — is that women-led organizations, networks and movements want to decide their own priorities. They need flexible money, and they need money that is predictable so that they can plan over a longer term.
We are seeing some countries increase this approach. I don’t know if we are at best-practice state yet. We are constantly trying to get there. We are shifting our approaches to funding, as you well know. I hear this often in the case of developing National Action Plans: You see much more on increasing not just the amount of money but the type of money and the ways that money flows to women in civil society. I could list probably two or three dozen countries that have now included that type of language in their National Action Plans, recognizing that it is not just who they target but how quickly the money gets out the door and beyond.
I don’t know if anyone can speak to the official development assistance, broadly shaping.
Ms. Steffen: I can speak briefly to the OECD Development Assistance Committee, which, as you know well, reviews the development assistance portfolios of its members on a regular basis, and Canada is up this year. So this will be an opportunity to have a peer review of the way that we do things, which is then a public document. Like I said, it happens every five years. They will visit at least one of our programs on the ground. I believe it is an African country that is up as an example of what we do. I think they will do a desk review of another one. So stay tuned because I think there will be some interesting lessons that come out of that peer review, and we’ll see how that goes.
The Chair: May I ask, Ms. Steffen, when you expect the peer review to be concluded?
Ms. Steffen: I believe that it is this fall. I know it is within the next few months that the visits will happen. The review itself is a regular thing and will be presented in Paris in June if it follows the same schedule as last time. I can confirm that later.
The Chair: Yes, that’s about right. Thank you. That’s useful information for the committee.
I can see I have reached my time limit, too, just in case anyone was wondering. We’ll go to round two.
Senator MacDonald: Last month, at the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation, China pledged US$50 billion in loans, aid and investment, including $140 million in military aid. China also said it would train 6,000 military personnel and 1,000 police officers in Africa. Fifty-one African states attended this conference. That’s almost every country in Africa. Given China’s poor human rights record and its increasing military aid and training in Africa, how do you foresee the WPS agenda being impacted?
Secondly, what strategies can Canada pursue to ensure that its own assistance and values-driven diplomacy are not undermined by China’s growing influence on the continent? Or are we increasingly fighting a losing battle?
Ms. O’Neill: Thank you for the question. It is something we think about a lot.
If I can share broadly, there are a lot of mixed feelings, obviously, among Africans about Chinese investment and its increased role. They see the increased infrastructure and the timeliness of it and perceived respect for independence. But many increasingly also see Chinese support as emboldening non‑democratic processes, which undermines their work. They see growing corruption. They see frustration with the nature of much of the extractive industries that are participating. Many of the activists and women, peace and security advocates I engage with see a very systematic undermining of the global norms and systems around which they have hooked their advocacy; they have advocated to their own governments; they have pursued the realization of their rights.
To your point exactly, I read a stat preparing for this meeting that 80% of China’s peacekeepers are deployed in Africa, and China itself deploys more peacekeepers than all the other permanent members of the Security Council combined. So they have presence on the ground. They have also just displaced Russia as the largest arms supplier to sub-Saharan Africa.
What we hear very consistently from women is that the transactional nature of significant investment is much more widely known and being called for what it is, but it often emboldens those who are already in power. One of the things they ask us is to continue to engage in dialogue, discussion, to be present, be there and not cede space and not cede our intention to give support with some of the conditions — we would name them — associated with it, because they see that as a spiral that is only going to be worsening.
Ms. Delany: I can add on strategies. We can think about the audience as being at different levels, from people to civil society organizations, or CSOs, to governments. When it comes to values-based diplomacy, one of the opportunities we have is to work and demonstrate that we are allies to civil society organizations that are advancing human rights within their own countries.
The issue of LGBTQ, I think, is a really good example where because of issues around misinformation and disinformation, as well as the reality of wanting to be able to support the aspirations of Africans themselves, the best way for us to support advocacy on LGBTQ on the continent is to be an ally to CSOs that are doing the advocacy themselves; not saying from a distance what we think should be happening on the continent but instead supporting the human rights defenders and advocates who are working to pursue those human rights within their own countries.
We can also recognize that there are a lot of interests that we have in common on the continent with different governments. Mozambique has been on the UN Security Council, or UNSC, for the last two years, and they put women, peace and security as one of their priority areas for discussion when they were chairing the UNSC. Every year or two, we work with Zambia on co‑sponsoring a resolution on child, early and forced marriage. So there are a lot of areas in which we share these values, and we can pursue them on the international stage.
I think it is also important to demonstrate respect and interest in working with the countries where we are not always aligned and don’t necessarily have the same opinion. I think South Africa in the context of the war in Ukraine is a good example. We don’t have the same view on that issue, but there are avenues for us to dialogue with South Africa in terms of how they understand that context and what they might be able to contribute in terms of finding a solution.
The Chair: I’m sorry to interrupt this very interesting exchange, but we are out of time and, in fact, have gone over time on this one. Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: As you know, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo has been in the throes of violent clashes for over 30 years, to the complete indifference of the rest of the world. Yet, according to the UN, there are a record seven to eight million internally displaced people, and women and girls are victims of extreme violence in the region.
What are you putting in place to support women in the region and further protect them? You mentioned Sudan, but I’d like to know more about what you’re doing in that region.
[English]
Ms. Delany: I’m sorry. I was trying to find my answers for a second. Was it just the DRC or Sudan as well?
Senator Gerba: Only the DRC.
Ms. Delany: Thank you. The situation in eastern DRC is extremely complex. One of the things that I think is most important in terms of our advocacy is a consistent message from Canada to call on all parties in the region to refrain from supporting the non-state armed groups that are operating there. Canada is a significant contributor in terms of both our development programming and our humanitarian assistance to the DRC.
With regard to women’s organizations, I can give the example of the Women’s Voice and Leadership Program that we have there. It is run through the Carter Center, for around $9 million. This is one of the programs that works directly with women’s organizations, supporting them to advance their own interests in the country, both through direct funding — so that they’re able to run their initiatives and their own advocacy — and through long-term training and mentoring.
I think this is also a good example related to Senator Boehm’s question around supporting organizations from a feminist perspective, because by supporting their capacity, we are also supporting those organizations to be able to receive funding and to operate in other contexts as well, not just with regard to the Canadian funding.
In the DRC, that programming also supports women’s organization networks and advocacy on feminism.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Does Canada play a role internationally on that particular issue? Beyond what I’ve just heard, you play a role with women locally. Internationally, however, no one talks about the DRC or the conflict that has been raging there for over 30 years.
Does Canada contribute internationally to multilateral institutions?
[English]
Ms. Delany: As with many of the conflicts we see on the continent, the approach we take is, for example, through the Human Rights Council, through our own advocacy with like‑minded organizations, through statements. We monitor closely, for example, the Group of Experts reports that come out on a semi-annual basis with regard to the situation in eastern DRC.
On this one, the mediation process has several different tracks. One is through Angola, with the president and the foreign minister playing an active role with regard to trying to support negotiation between the two. We are not involved in that, but it is an example of one we follow quite closely and have indicated that if there is room for support, we would be open to do so.
Senator Coyle: Something that two of you have said has prompted this question. Executive Director Moore, you talked about complementary project funding when Ambassador O’Neill spoke about the work in Sudan. Director General Delany, you spoke about general development assistance in agriculture, et cetera, in Mozambique and whatnot. I’m more curious about the general development assistance and the relationship, if any, that you are seeing or that you are tracking between development assistance, development partnerships, investments — between those types of relationships, partnerships, investments — and peace outcomes or, at least, conflict prevention outcomes, either anticipated or unanticipated. I think that is something important for us to understand, if you are seeing anything or if you are tracking that.
Ms. Delany: These are great questions, and it is one of the most challenging things to measure. But I think it is also the kind of thing we ask ourselves and try to pursue deliberately. As you know, in the Feminist International Assistance Policy, peace and security is an action area, and it is open to the entire department. It is not specific, for example, just to international security programming, which is what Pamela Moore’s team is responsible for. This gives us an opportunity on the development side, in particular, to pursue programming that might be longer term and looking specifically at the underlying and driving factors that might cause instability.
I’ll use Mozambique as an example. In northern Mozambique, there is an Islamic extremism-inspired insurgency. One of the things we did there a few years ago was to identify a small amount of Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus programming, so, for example, looking at a program that recognized that in the capital in certain neighbourhoods the population had doubled as a result of inflow of internally displaced people, or IDP. And it had doubled in communities where the host communities were extremely vulnerable themselves and had a significant amount of poverty there. The resilience of those communities to absorb that many people wasn’t as high as we would like it to be.
We did an urban planning project, which sounds so mundane, but the urban planning project that we did with UN-Habitat was specifically a participatory planning process with IDP communities and host communities around what can help these communities live together in this very stressful environment. The project was $2 million. There were eight small community infrastructure projects that were designed based on specific input from the communities on what would make their lives easier. I don’t have an example there in terms of a direct link between that project and a peace outcome, but I think that kind of programming is needed to ensure that you don’t have further deterioration of a very fragile conflict.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We are out of time on that segment.
Senator Greenwood: This is a follow-up to my original question. I wanted to give you time to talk about some of the actions that Canada is taking to address this misinformation. I think in your other questions you have answered some of this as well, so if you could talk a bit about that.
Ms. O’Neill: A gift of time. It is a complex thing, so we need to work in a range of different ways. We certainly recognize it happens in Canada and to Canadians as well.
One of the most important things we hear constantly about what works is training on media literacy for young people, especially, to be able to discern fake news, what is artificially created, what is not, and what reputable news sources are. That is consistently the case. In Ukraine a few months ago, I met with a number of groups, including several that Canada supports, that are specifically, as they say, “debunking” some of the fake news and disinformation that comes out. They say most consistently it’s on raising general levels of media awareness.
Another big element particularly acute in Africa is the digital divide, and Caroline Delany was just talking about differences between rural and urban communities, the degree to which disinformation can amplify in places where there is greater access to technology. There is a strong digital divide and a strong gender digital divide where women and girls tend to have significantly less access to online sources to be able to research to counter disinformation.
Another big element is gendered differences in literacy. In a lot of rural areas, people aren’t even literate to receive this information, so we are supporting radio programming to be able to counter disinformation in ways that can access people. We’re trying to work that way, but I have never seen a system work where you take it claim by claim and try to refute them. It is broadly about engaging with people about critical thinking and ensuring that we’re practising that. That’s what we are trying to support, but it’s hard.
Ms. Delany: The department does engage in its own social media campaigns, and they are often designed with a specific message in mind to counter other messages. It is at a very macro level, but it’s partly to get our own message out there and see that it’s there. Our heads of mission are super active, as are our embassies, on social media and trying to use the different platforms used in those environments. Facebook, for example, is much more popular sometimes in some African countries than X.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, Ambassador O’Neill and our other esteemed guests for being here, providing your remarks and sharing information with us.
We often hear that Russia is a major supplier of weapons and armaments to Africa. What other countries are also known for providing weapons and armaments to continue to fuel the conflicts in various countries on the continent?
Ms. O’Neill: We can speak to this with respect to different regions. I think I just mentioned that China has now displaced Russia as the largest arms supplier in sub-Saharan Africa. We hear about imports of drones from a range of countries, including Türkiye. Without going down a list in ranked order, it is an issue that significantly perpetuates both conflict and gender-based violence within communities that is not conflict related.
Ms. Delany: In certain regions where there are conflicts, there will be regional interests that are also deciding to support one side or the other, and they might be providing weaponry in pursuit of their own interests in the outcome of that particular conflict.
Ms. Steffen: One thing that I will add to this conversation is there is the import of new weapons, but there is also a significant circulation of existing weaponry, particularly small arms and light weapons. As one conflict abates, both the personnel and the weapons are available to move to a different place to continue the fighting. It is big business. Frankly, in some cases, these are jobs for young people who don’t have other opportunities, which gets back to Senator Gerba’s point about the importance of entrepreneurship and people having a livelihood.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I’m afraid we’re out of time.
On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank our witnesses from Global Affairs Canada today: Ambassador O’Neill, Directors General Steffen and Delany, Executive Director Moore and your very talented team, which I know has been observing behind you. I would like to thank you for all the work you do and for your responses to our questions.
Colleagues, we will continue our study of Bill C-282 next week.
(The committee adjourned.)