Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights

Issue 12 - Evidence - October 19, 2009 - Morning


OTTAWA, Monday, October 19, 2009

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 10:08 a.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (Topic: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security).

Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, we are here this morning to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations. Under that broad topic of "international machinery'' that we are studying, we are focusing on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325, and other subsequent resolutions on women, peace and security.

This morning we have before us, from National Defence, Colonel Bernd Horn, Chief of Staff, Land Force Doctrine and Training System; and Lieutenant Colonel Perry Poirier, Commandant, Peace Support Training Centre. Welcome, gentlemen. As you understand, and as I am sure the clerk has indicated to you, we are studying the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325. Canada will be in a position to have to file its plans and its actions taken under Resolution 1325 as every country has an obligation to give meaning and force to this resolution.

We have asked you to give us some background and the situation, as you know it on Canada's implementation of Resolution 1325, particularly as it applies to National Defence, both here in Canada and overseas.

Colonel Bernd Horn, Chief of Staff, Land Force Doctrine and Training System, National Defence: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on the preparation of our men and women for operations, specifically the protection of human rights of others. The Canadian Forces places a strong emphasis on educating and training our personnel on matters pertaining to ethical conduct, human rights the Law of Armed Conflict, cultural awareness and the respect of others. Through a combination of foundational and mission-specific training which is continuously reviewed with the aim to adapt and become ever more effective in the changing contemporary security environment, our military personnel remain exemplary representatives of our nation.

For example, on an annual basis, the army conducts ethics training under the auspices of the Army Ethics Programme. This program focuses on doing the "right thing'' and reinforcing Canadian values, specifically respecting the dignity of others. Furthermore, soldiers receive additional training and education on ethics, ethical behaviour and the law of armed conflict while attending a myriad of individual leadership and professional development courses throughout their careers.

From an operational perspective, once a unit or task force is designated for overseas duty, the individuals, as a collective whole, receive additional training and education on the subject issues. Specific to the army's road to high readiness training, which is conducted prior to operational deployment such as Afghanistan, all soldiers participate in Individual Battle Task Standards training that includes the application of cultural and language awareness, Law of Armed Conflict, principles of the use of force, reporting criminal behaviour and rules of engagement. Once they proceed to collective training, soldiers are exposed to mission-replicated scenarios and practice lanes where soldiers hone their tactical techniques and reporting procedures.

A comprehensive lessons-learned process ensures that individuals and the army learn from past experiences and prepare others so that they need not face the same challenges without being as prepared as possible. For major collective training exercises, Afghan-Canadian civilian actors are hired to replicate the theatre operating environment and emphasize, as realistically as possible, all aspects of cultural awareness to our troops, as well as the reporting requirement and chain.

At Exercise Maple Guardian, the culminating collective-training event prior to the Afghanistan deployment, deliberate ethical injects are incorporated into many of the training scenarios and are debriefed in detail, as part of the after-action review process, by the observer/controller/trainer staff from the Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre at Wainwright, Alberta.

In addition, Theatre Mission Specific Training is conducted for key leaders who will be employed as mentors with the Afghan security forces, both the Afghan National Army and police. Specifically, they attend the NATO ISAF Operational Mentor Liaison Team course at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center in Hohenfels, Germany.

Furthermore, for individuals deploying to specific theatres around the globe, the Peace Support Training Centre conducts individual pre-deployment training that ensures individuals undergo refresher training and education, which includes the Law of Armed Conflict, human rights, reporting requirements and procedures, as well as theatre-specific cultural awareness.

Finally, the Canadian Forces has produced a large number of publications that are used on courses. These are readily available for self-development and address the issues in question. You will find samples of those books on the table in front of the stenographers, for the Senate committee's use as it sees fit.

Lieutenant-Colonel Perry Poirier and I are at your disposal to answer any questions you may have on the preparation of our personnel for overseas duty.

The Chair: Thank you. We are concerned about whether you have received instructions to take Resolution 1325 and how it appears in your training manuals and in your actual training. That is the focus of our study. You have mentioned human rights, and that is fair, but we need to know what you mean by the term and particularly what you mean with regard to Resolution 1325. Could you elaborate on that?

Col. Horn: The Canadian Forces understands the importance of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 and does everything in its power to ensure that we respect that as we go forward on operations. When I talk about human rights and about respecting the dignity of others, we train our individuals to recognize serious crimes including sexual assault, rape and any type of sexual dealings with minors. Therefore, our deploying soldiers and leaders understand that they have to take moral action. They have a moral responsibility as ethical warriors to take action to ensure that they either intervene, where possible, to stop such activities, or report those activities up their chain of command so that the appropriate action can be taken.

I will allow Colonel Poirier to speak about the Peace Support Training Centre. That is the one place where they speak specifically to Resolution 1325. In our other training, Resolutions 1325 and 1820 are wrapped up within the whole idea of respecting the rights of others, human rights, and ensuring that people have the liberties and safety they deserve as human beings.

Lieutenant-Colonel Perry Poirier, Commandant, Peace Support Training Centre, National Defence: Resolution 1325 is specifically mentioned in one of our human rights lectures, and it is found within the sectionthat talks about the various groups at risk in a conflict — women, children, the elderly, and personnel that have been caught up in the trafficking of individuals, etcetera.

Along with CEDAW, Resolution 1325 is mentioned as one of the resolutions that support women in conflict. As Colonel Horn said, the substance of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 can be found throughout those lectures and other lectures. However, as far as specific mention of Resolution 1325, it represents one slide in our human rights package.

The Chair: It seems to me that you characterize Resolution 1325 as for women in conflict. Resolution 1325 is a broader concept of assisting women in human security. Has Resolution 1325 changed who goes into a theatre of operation? Has it changed any of your behaviour beyond the awareness of human rights? In other words, do you have more female officers? Have you taken Resolution 1325 to mean conduct not just in the theatre of operations but conduct at home within the forces?

Col. Horn: That is somewhat outside of our expertise. However, as a former director of the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute, I can say that in 2005, we began a symposium based on women and leadership, and specifically operations, which continues to this day. It is a two-day conference where we bring in women speakers, those in leadership and those who have been on operations, to discuss their role, the importance of what they do and what they bring to the security environment.

As well, we have published several books. The In Harm's Way series, for instance, speaks to individual experiences on operations. The Canadian Forces Leadership Institute has included female authors. All these books are in the Parliamentary Library, should you wish to reference them. The institute released a book a year or two ago on women in leadership and operations perspectives. It is a 300-pagebook that deals specifically with the experiences of women.

That is the only expertise I can give you on that subject, as a former director of CFLI. I am not sure what is being done at this point.

The Chair: I have a final question on this round before I go to Senator Jaffer. Have the Canadian Forces participated in any planning to utilize Resolution 1325 with the NATO Secretariat?

Col. Horn: That is outside of my realm of expertise. I am here to speak to the operational preparedness of individuals for overseas deployments.

The Chair: Resolution 1325 is not taken into account in any of your overseas preparation as part of a NATO operation.

Col. Horn: It is taken into account in all of our operations. The idea of ensuring the safety of others, whichever group you wish to say is at risk — the elderly, women and children — is taken into account when we prepare our people. We have ethical injects to deal with what happens in a case where you witness a certain incident involving an ethical consideration, in order to ensure that individuals have exposure to such events. Whether it is a case of rape, sexual assault, enslavement, harassment, beatings, etcetera, we try to ensure that our individuals know that they have a moral right to intervene, act or report as required. This is reinforced not just during pre-deployment training but throughout an individual's entire career.

In terms of what we do with regard to Resolution 1325, as part of a larger human rights issue, respecting the rights of others and ensuring that we do our bit to help others understand that they have an obligation as human beings to respect those rights, we do a lot. Those themes resonate throughout a person's career, with leadership courses, in the books we have published, in the code of conduct and Law of Armed Conflict. Even though you will not see Resolution 1325 or 1820 in bold letters, the intent and the spirit of those Security Council resolutions are embedded in everything we do when we prepare our people to become ethical warriors. We ensure they understand that they must protect those who are at risk, whether domestically or overseas. That is what we do as ethical warriors.

Senator Jaffer: I thank you both for being here today.

I am not aware of who is responsible for what, so if you cannot answer the question, would you contact the right person and provide the chair with a written answer?

I appreciate your presentation. As the chair said, you concentrated more on general human rights. Our study is on Resolutions 1325 and 1820 and the affect of war on women and children. As you know, our country took the lead at the UN.

I have specific questions. First, Resolution 1325 urges member states to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels. Let us take it under your command. What is the exact number of people in the forces at the present time?

Col. Horn: I believe it is roughly around 65,000 at the moment.

Senator Jaffer: How many of them are women?

Col. Horn: I do not have that number at my disposal.

Senator Jaffer: Can you please provide that information to the committee?

As Resolution 1325 urges forces to have more women at the national decision-making level, do you know how many women are in leadership roles in the forces?

Col. Horn: I do not have that number.

Senator Jaffer: Will you provide us with that information.

Resolution 1325 also talks about ensuring that there are mine clearance and mine awareness programs, especially with respect to the special needs of women and children. Do we have specific programs that keep in mind the needs of women and children regarding mine clearance?

Col. Horn: I am not exactly sure what you mean by dealing with women and children. When we look at programs such as mine clearance or any other type of activity that will make the environment more secure for those who live or work in a certain area, we look at it in a global sense, at all individuals who are at risk, not specifically just women and children. Of course, the idea that we have the responsibility to look after those who are most at risk resonates throughout all of our documents, teachings, education and training to ensure that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen are in a position to recognize and, of course, try to intervene or assist those at greatest risk, including women and children.

Senator Jaffer: Let me read to you from Resolution 1325, and perhaps you can provide us this information later. It says: "Emphasizing the need for all parties to ensure that mine clearance and mine awareness programmes take into account the special needs of women and girls . . .''

Do you have any programs that emphasize the special needs of women and girls when it comes to mine clearance?

Col. Horn: We will try to get back to you on that.

The Chair: When you go back, can you say that these were the questions raised and determine who the appropriate person or division should be to reply to that question? If you cannot get it, would you then just reply to us that you were not able to identify the person or division.

Col. Horn: Absolutely, Madam Chair.

The Chair: That way we will know where we can gain this information. That would be helpful.

Senator Jaffer: My next question is on training. Do you have a training manual specifically to deal with Resolution 1325? I have to admit that I was shocked when I heard that there is one slide dealing with Resolution 1325. I hope you did not mean that. We are expected to have a training manual according to Resolution1325. Let me read it to you:

...Member States training guidelines and materials on the protection, rights and the particular needs of women, as well as on the importance of involving women in all peacekeeping and peace building measures ...Member States to incorporate these elements ...into their national training programmes for military and civilian police personnel in preparation for deployment . . .

Do you have a training manual?

Col. Horn: We do not have a training manual that speaks specifically to Resolution 1325. The spirit and intent of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 resonate in all of our education and training. It goes back to the fundamental Canadian societal values about respecting the dignity of others and to the warrior code of conduct, namely, to protect those at risk in hazardous environments. Therefore, to say we have done nothing, as I think you are — there seems to be a bit of a nuance there — that is not the case at all. We do understand the importance of it, and we do ensure that it is fundamentally underlined in everything we do, to the point that after every rotation in the after-action lessons learned process we look at some of the experiences that troops and leaders undertook during that last six month tour. We will look at whether we have addressed that in our training and education. When we prepare the next group of individuals going out the door, we ensure that those specific injects are added to make sure that the individuals going out have seen that at least once in training or are exposed to it. In that way, when they see it in an actual operational theatre they know how to react; there is no surprise and there is no confusion.

Again, the intent of the legislation is in the core of everything we do as part of our ethics training and part of our pre-deployment training for troops.

Senator Jaffer: I did not put the nuance you put. I have taken the training, and I am very proud of the work of our Canadian Forces. However, the UN has given us a specific task to have a training manual on Resolution 1325. My question was whether there is such a training manual, and I understand from your answer, that there is not. Is that correct?

Col. Horn: That is correct, senator.

Senator Jaffer: Resolution 1325, article10, speaks about "...taking special measures to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, particularly rape and other forms of sexual abuse. . .'' I respect what you have said about human rights, but is there specific training on the issue of rape and other forms of sexual abuse, and if so, what is the length and frequency of that training?

Col. Horn: Again, when we do the human rights, those examples are brought up. Those are ethical injects that are put into training. I cannot give you an exact quantifiable number. However, it is underlined in the professional development we do as well as the pre-deployment.

Senator Jaffer: Can you expand on that? Is that the best you can do today?

Col. Horn: What would you like me to expand on?

Senator Jaffer: How many hours of training do you do on issues of sexual violence? How often is this training carried out? Is it carried out just as the troops are deployed, or is it part of the training process? I would like a better idea of what kind of training you give on this issue.

Col. Horn: I cannot give you the exact hours that are spent on that issue per se. However, it is a continual theme throughout our training. For instance, in a unit's normal training program, it has to do a minimum of one day of ethical training as part of their professional development. Issues such as that will come up. It goes back to fundamental rights, namely, protecting human rights and the dignity of others.

As well, the unit, as it prepares for an operation, will go through the individual battle task standards, which every soldier and leader has to pass before he or she is entitled to move on to the next level of training or deployment. Within that, they also deal with Law of Armed Conflict, the code of conduct, and the cultural awareness issues such as human rights. The code of conduct book and the aide-mémoire for soldiers is on the table behind you, and, the 11 rules of the code of conduct are there, and if you look through the text of those books, you will see that those issues are brought up, so that is another aspect where it is done.

Then again, during exercises themselves, as our CMTC, Canadian Manoeuvre Training Centre, sets up an exercise to test the unit and individuals before they go out, a number of ethical injects deal specifically with scenarios such as that. Depending on how the unit will deal with them, if they are not satisfied that the individuals or a leader or the chain of command has dealt with it enough, they will keep reinforcing that process until they feel that it has been handled in a satisfactory manner or the unit gets it. On top of all that is our lessons-learned process. When our allies return from Darfur or Iraq as examples and say that they have learned new things, those lessons are injected into the training systems.

If the whole idea of sexual exploitation of children or women in a theatre is seen as an issue, and it is, then it will be brought into staff colleges, our doctrine and our director of army training. We ensure that we do a review to ensure that those injects are put in at the suitable levels. It is something that is cross-pollinated throughout the system. It is updated continually and troops are continually exposed to it. Again, however, I cannot give you an exact hour spent on the specific issue.

Senator Jaffer: I understand that you are talking about ethical conduct. As I already said to you, I have no issue with that. We are very proud of what you do.

As a committee, we need to know about the current level of awareness of the Canadian Forces personnel regarding the principles and objectives of UN Resolutions 1325 and 1820.

Col. Horn: I can only answer that the spirit of those legislations are well understood by the soldiers and leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Senator Jaffer: MayI please ask that you inquire and get someone to give us a written answer to my question? I still am not able to quite understand. I understand the ethical aspects and I have no doubt that they are implemented, but today we are looking at Resolution 1325.

Col. Horn: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: Resolution 1325 urges members to expand the role and contribution of women in field operations. I think you will be able to help us with this. Is there a deliberate effort by the Canadian government to ensure that women are included in deployments of military personnel?

Col. Horn: Absolutely. We have recognized that women add something and have specific skill sets and attributes that assist us with operations, whether in negotiations, in analysis, or in dealing with other individuals.

I do not have specific numbers, but women comprise a large part of all our overseas deployments. It is a volunteer army. At the same time, women are free to try to go on operations. If they are part of a task force that is designated, they absolutely go wherever possible with augmentation. They are added to the mix. From a simple pragmatic point, the operational temple for the Canadian Armed Forces is so great that we rely on each one of our men and women to carry their weight on operations. They have been doing so in a stellar manner.

Senator Jaffer: When you respond, could you respond to Resolution 1820, No. 6 and No. 7, specifically concerning the training with regard to raising the issues of sexual violence, sexual abuse and rape? The UN resolution asks us to look into what preventive action is taught to the forces before they are deployed. Could you respond to that?

Col. Horn: Yes.

Senator Munson: Colonel, you talked about no surprises in the field. In your opening remarks, you talked about "deliberate ethical injects.'' I know what you mean by that, but it is a military phrase. I do not know if people who are watching our deliberations really understand what it means, but you said they are incorporated into many of the training scenarios.

Can you present a scenario for us that occurs in Wainwright or elsewhere? How long does it take? What actually happens? What is the interaction between the soldier and a person who is role playing a situation in another part of the world? How long does that take to eliminate surprises in the field?

Col. Horn: As an example, on a Maple Guardian exercise, which is the final collective exercise, the troops go through their normal framework, patrolling and trying to assist with the development reconstruction of a certain area. They work in conjunction with local Afghan National Police or Afghan National Army troops. An ethical inject states, "One of the interpreters for the battle group that is undergoing the training says to one of the soldiers, "I have heard that the ANP, the Afghan National Police, have some boys working for them as cooks and cleaners. I have heard rumours that they are being sexually exploited.'' The interpreter will then walk away. A soldier will then have this information. What will he do with it now?

The exercise controllers will be waiting for a report. The idea is that the soldier, based on all the training he has and on his understanding of himself as an ethical warrior to protect those at risk, should go to his chain of command, his sergeant, his section commander and say, "Sarge, the interpreter just told me that the boys we see around the camp might be sexually exploited.'' The sergeant will then go up his chain of command to the point where the company commander or the platoon commander, depending on who is dealing with that issue, will go to the individual acting as the police platoon commander or leader there and say, "We have heard this. We will not tolerate this behaviour. This must stop. Children should not be in the camp.'' He will then go up his chain of command to ensure that it is reported to the higher chains of command to the Afghan government as well as their military chain of command.

It might go to the next point where there might be a scenario of someone, an Afghan, trying to beat a woman. The soldiers who are there see this and they are expected to intervene because that is within their power to intervene to stop the abuse.

After this happens, if the reaction is not what we deem to be sufficient or adequate, the controllers, at that point in the exercise where they look at the reaction, might re-inject it or they might stop it. They might talk to the leadership and say, "Okay, guys, this is what we were expecting. This is what you should be doing in accordance with the code of conduct and with the Law of Armed Conflict. This is the behaviour you should have been doing.'' That is then debriefed to everyone.

There might be anything from an Afghan National Police individual complaining that he has been hazed, or that his pay has been taken, or rumours of sexual abuse. This ensures that we put a practical test to all the theory, education and training. We ensure that they understand the meaning of the words and that they have an obligation to do something. It also provides a vehicle whereby we can reinforce the proper behaviour and we can also correct behaviour that we think might not be as efficient or effective as we would have liked.

Senator Munson: Are you satisfied with the training that the Canadian military has now that those practical tests are working in the field? We have heard a number of horror stories coming out of Afghanistan. I think we understand human rights, but we also understand a male-dominated society, which is Afghanistan, and which, in many respects, has a difficulty recognizing women's and children's rights.

Col. Horn: I do believe our training is very effective in achieving its goals. As you identified, Afghanistan is a complex, difficult environment. Even the soldiers and leaders there only have so much influence over policy matters that are national, sovereign issues. When it comes down to what they can deal with and what they can effectively influence, I do believe we are doing what we need to do to prepare them, and they are doing a stellar job in actually executing those expectations.

Senator Munson: Are there other areas that require improvement in our human rights training? What floor are we on right now in terms of our training?

Col. Horn: From my perspective as Chief of Staff, Land Forces Doctrine and Training System, I believe that our human rights, ethical conduct and protecting those at risk training is outstanding. It is reinforced throughout an individual's career. It is reinforced at the unit and it is reinforced before going overseas. Again, I would direct you to the latest aide-mémoire that we have just put out, "Duty With Discernment'', that lists the 11 principles of the code of conduct, as well as an explanation of what it means to be an ethical warrior.

These are the themes. In Resolutions 1325 and 1820, the whole idea of human rights and protecting those at risk resonates so clearly and it resonates in a very effective, simple format for soldiers to understand quickly, and it goes into more depth in some of our other documents and publications. They underline the idea that soldiers are representatives of this nation; they are — as General Hillier used to say — the "credentials'' of the Canadian nation. As such, they have an obligation to do the right thing. We have put a lot of emphasis on doing the right thing.

Perhaps we have not put a sticker on everything indicating "this is Resolution 1325,'' but we have said human rights, and that includes women and children. They are often the most at risk, we have an obligation to protect them, and we reinforce that in everything we do.

Senator Dallaire: Col. Horn, when Canada acknowledges a UN resolution, how does the content of that resolution make its way to your shop? Are you responsible for writing the doctrine and from the doctrine the tactics, the organization, the equipment and the training?

Col. Horn: There are several ways, sir. ADM (Pol) is responsible for the policy component of DND. They put out the direction required on certain things. They develop the policy required for DND. From the pointy end down at LPTS when we prepare stuff, there are a number of different things that will happen. We participate in working groups, and there are interdepartmental working groups as well.

Whenever there are missions to Darfur, the Congo, etcetera, this is where it is in Lt.-Col. Poirier's domain, we start to look at what package they have to put together to prepare an individual or a group to go into that area. They will deal in working groups. They will deal with other government departments, such as DFAIT, which incorporates other items. Their own individuals will take a look what is important. New legislation is incorporated. That is where they develop those packages specific to what they believe the needs are to prepare an individual to go to those areas.

That is where we get the input. Much of it is also pragmatic, coming out of theatre and coming from those who have been in the area to advise on what needs to be addressed. It comes from what we hear from our partners in coalition countries and from other government departments. We incorporate those lessons into our doctrine, into our training programs, and into our professional development institutions.

Lt.-Col. Poirier: The only differences in training would be mission-specific as to the situation in a particular country. That would be the mission intelligence, the mission background, what is happening in the country, and certainly, if there were key lessons we would reinforce them in training.

Senator Dallaire: You receive a UN resolution that says you have to produce a training book. The United Nations drafts a resolution, Canada ascribes to it, and then it makes its way from the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Department of National Defence. ADM (Pol) then looks at the resolution and sends it to the army for potential action according to a performed policy base. It then comes to you. It is then your responsibility to produce a book or an aide-mémoire, or four hours or two days of specific training. It is then up to you to establish the content and to make the decision of when to give the training. That is the process, is it not?

Col. Horn: Yes, sir.

Senator Dallaire: That would be reinforced by experiences in the field. In cases where the troops have returned and said the training they received on Resolution 1325 or another resolution was insufficient it would be amended, correct.

Col. Horn: That is correct, sir.

Senator Dallaire: You did not receive a specific directive from ADM (Pol) concerning these resolutions. Do you get them generally?

Col. Horn: I am not aware if we did, sir. I cannot answer the second question.

Senator Dallaire: Good. I can confirm that to you, and that is where you should start the exercise of questioning.

The Chair: I think Senator Jaffer has a short intervention as a supplementary to the question you just put. Do you mind?

Senator Dallaire: I did my best not to do that while she was questioning the witnesses.

Senator Jaffer: It is a supplementary question.

Senator Dallaire: I know. That is what I am saying, but go ahead please.

Senator Jaffer: That is the normal way if you have a question.

Senator Dallaire: I know.

Senator Jaffer: Please do stop me if you have a question in the future.

Colonel Horn, you said you were not aware. Would you please inquire and provide us with the answer?

Col. Horn: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: I am following suit with that exact point.

Concerning the policy to employ women in operations, has the army received a specific policy to recognize that it needs to train more women to meet the field operational requirements due to Resolution 1325? I say "army'' because we are honing in on the army and much of what you have described has been army-specific, although those from air force and navy who join a deployed force get that training as well.

Col. Horn: Not that I am aware of, sir.

Senator Dallaire: A UN commander has troops from other nations, troops that come under his or her command, with their own style of training. At times, the UN provides training. Are you aware of any UN in-theatre training from Darfur or Congo on deployed troops on these two subjects?

Col. Horn: Not that I am aware of, sir.

Senator Dallaire: Again, from the UN itself, there is no specific training in that regard, including to troops who come from countries that do not even get to first base regarding the protection of women, let alone countries such as ours that has human rights policies.

Is there a policy to ensure that frictions and problems do not arise in the field with putting women at risk? A force commander would make the policy that there be no fraternization with the local population. Are we following such a policy?

Col. Horn: Absolutely, sir, we follow such a policy.

Senator Dallaire: That policy is based on the principle that women in theatre operations fraternize mostly because they are seeking security. These women may be fearful or looking for money for food for their families. There is the possibility that they would be used for ulterior motives other than human love, and so fraternization is not permitted; is that correct?

Col. Horn: That is correct, sir, and it is not because of Resolution 1325. It is because it is the right thing to protect those at risk.

Senator Dallaire: However, Resolution 1325 was created to bring everybody to the level that we had established. It is already incorporated in the ethos and culture that exist in the forces and, as such, has not been the subject of special training.

Col. Horn: Absolutely, sir, because it is baseline code of conduct for Canadian individuals.

Senator Dallaire: You train officers and maybe some NCOs from foreign countries at your school, right.

Col. Horn: Yes.

Senator Dallaire: They are trained in Canadian doctrines of peacekeeping, peace support and conflict resolution. We also send troops to other countries through the MTAP program, Military Training Assistance Programme, where we are asked by other nations to assist them in building their forces to meet criteria that we consider to be appropriate and in accordance with not only our doctrines but also with UN resolutions.

Do you incorporate these resolutions into your training program in a specific way, both what you are doing in Kingston or the MTAP program — which I know belongs to ADM (Pol) — and the content going into the MTAP program?

Lt.-Col. Poirier: I can only speak to the MTAP program as far as military observers.

Senator Dallaire: Yes.

Lt.-Col. Poirier: As you said, we train at least 24 foreign nationals over the course of four military operations courses that we do here. Annually we will run a course, usually in Africa. This year we will be going to Tanzania for approximately 30 foreign students using their own instructors, but the main staff is coming from PSTC.

The lessons they receive are essentially the lessons that Col. Horn has spoken about over the last 45 minutes including the Law of Armed Conflict, the human rights lectures, etcetera. They receive the same training that we deliver to our Canadian students.

Senator Dallaire: What is the level of comprehension of Resolution 1325 amongst the reservists? What level of training and professional indoctrination do the reservists receive compared to the regular force?

Col. Horn: Senator, I would say it is similar, if not exactly the same. They undergo the same training. When they deploy they undergo the same deployment training. They have the same obligations to undertake the Defence Ethics Programme as well as the Army Ethics Programme. They are exposed to the same material pre-deployment, professional development, as well as career courses, sir.

Senator Mitchell: I am on the National Defence Committee, and so I have spent a lot of time with military and I have been in Afghanistan. There is no question that you reflect what I know about the Canadian military. To a person, there is great dignity, great courage and great decency, and I think that these lessons on human rights that you talk about absolutely have inculcated into the organization.

Col. Horn, you raise something that is the crux of the debate or discussions here and the difference, and that is that maybe you have not put a label on Resolution 1325. I think that is what I would be driving at. If we have learned anything — and we have learned many things in Afghanistan — women's issues are very important. While all human rights are equivalent, women's rights in a place like that are a very special issue. Then you go to the Congo and there is another wrinkle; rape as a weapon in many places. There are, again, very special issues.

I would drive at the need to have that elevated to something with a label on it. I have asked senior military staff, and I am not being critical at all. I will ask what they know about Resolution1325. They have a vague idea about it. It is one thing to ensure we are treating people properly — which every effort is being made to do in a place like Afghanistan when dealing with the population — but another thing to say how do we get that population to emphasize women in the peacekeeping and the negotiation processes.

We have a big role in training the military in Afghanistan, the Afghan National Army and the police. Are they so far from the issues that you could not begin to raise them, or is part of what we train around the issues that would be captured by Resolutions1325, 1825 and 1888?

Col. Horn: Sir, there is so much we must do to try to bring them up to the levels they have to be. We have moved the yardsticks enormously. Much of it is basic professionalism, a lot of tactics, techniques and procedures. As well, the undercurrent of Canadian societal values of respect of others, making sure they treat their personnel correctly, ensuring they treat the population correctly, much of this goes into successful training for co- and counter-insurgency operations. In order for them to get the trust and credibility of the population, which is key — fundamental — to counter-insurgency, they have to respect the population.

We try to inculcate that philosophical tenet in the forces we train. We try to reinforce that they have to treat the women and children correctly; they have to treat the average civilian well or else they will not get his or her support. We absolutely do try to bring them along. How successful are we? It is a very xenophobic culture, heavily rooted in tradition. You can only do so much. You can only do what you can do, but we try.

It goes to the point where, for me, I am somewhat frustrated. Yes, we have not put that tag of Resolution 1325 on there, but everything you are saying, all your concerns, are exactly there. They are core, they are fundamental; they are baseline to the code of conduct of what we do as service people.

We are moving the yardsticks and making people aware. We have not put that tag on it, as such. We are doing that with our allies as well, whether it is in a coalition headquarters where we feel individuals do not have the same outlook or if it is with our Afghan partners. We are trying to push the envelope so that they understand what they have to do to reach that level of respectability so that we can work with them and that they will win the trust of the people.

Senator Mitchell: There is a great deal of evidence that educating women in Third World countries and other things follow as a result of that is one of the most — if not sufficient — necessary conditions for developing a Third World country. It may be one of the great initiatives for creating peace is elevating the status of women in these societies because it does moderate how that society evolves.

Col. Horn: It does. Anecdotally, I have been over to Afghanistan a couple of times now. Every time I speak to the soldiers, one of the ideas that resonates is this whole idea — they all have wives, mothers and daughters — that we are making this place better for the women. Girls are going to school now. We are building schools and protecting them. It is all about that. Soldiers will tell you, yeah, we drove down on the convoy and from the middle of the compound a woman actually waved at us. It is that recognition that those troops are there to do things to advance women's causes. The locals understand it and the troops understand it.

To them, when they lose individuals and comrades, that is one of the underlying, underpinning reasons that they are there doing that, is to make life better for women and children in Afghanistan or wherever they may be. It is core.

Senator Mitchell: Thank you. I know Canada has — as alluded to by the Chair — a responsibility under Resolution 1325 to develop a plan of action. That has not yet been done. It is a responsibility of DFAIT. I think there are some good people there working on it. Have you been approached for input into that action plan?

Col. Horn: No, sir, not as LFDTS we have not, but I am not surprised because that would rest with ADM (Pol).

Senator Mitchell: There is a requirement under Resolution1888 — if I can sort of piggyback on Resolution1325 — that women's protection advisers be appointed in peacekeeping missions. I do not know whether Afghanistan would actually qualify as a peacekeeping mission. Probably not; they may hopefully one day. Are you aware of that kind of position being appointed in any of our plans?

Col. Horn: No, sir.

Senator Demers: I have gone to entertain the troops. They love hockey; men and women. I have spoken to them as well.

You used the word "frustrating.'' It is a little bit frustrating here as well because we ask questions, and we have people appear who are very well prepared — I am not saying you are not — but you have not answered some of our questions.

I sensed the frustration, when I spoke to the troops and became close to people. I shared meals with them and became close to them. I really believe coming out here and certainly back to the province of Quebec and in talking to various groups, there is a lack of people being policed. Do you agree with that?

You said you rely heavily on information. If there is a group of young girls and boys and if someone does not come up and tell one of your soldiers, obviously these boys and girls — and that is obviously very frustrating for you. Much of that is still going on.

One of the things I found in speaking to some of those people — they are wonderful human beings — is that they all have the right intentions. You all have big hearts, and I can speak for the troops, but you do not have enough people. There is a lot of stuff going on there but not enough people. When I hear you use the word "frustrating,'' I can see that you are. We did not get some answers here today because I do not think there are enough people helping.

You have to rely on information. With even soldiers themselves, there is a lot of stress — you know that — drugs and booze. It is a very difficult life with a tremendous amount of stress. With respect to that soldier, when a person provides information about a group of young girls who have been mistreated or raped, that soldier is too much into his thing. I do not think we are policed enough. Do you agree with that? Is there a shortage when it comes to protecting the people who need to be protected?

Col. Horn: Senior American generals document the troop ratio for successful counter-insurgency operation, and that is correct; there are not enough troops on the ground for successful operation.

Senator Demers: I show no disrespect to you because I know you come here with the greatest of intentions, but the problem is deeper than we actually think. I can see that are you answering the questions and you like answering everything but, exactly, there are not enough people on the ground to police. That is why a lot of stuff over there continues. Thank you.

Senator Brazeau: You mentioned earlier that short of having an official manual on Resolution 1325, that the objectives and the principles of Resolution 1325 are included in the training that military personnel receive. You also mentioned that they have generally a good understanding of those principles.

Having said that, if that is the case, are you aware of any concerns that Canadian Forces personnel may have risen with respect to perhaps not fulfilling the mandate or not receiving the necessary training for Resolution 1325? I presume that if individuals know the mandate and the objectives of the UN resolution, they would come forward if they felt that they did not receive proper training.

Col. Horn: At the beginning of the combat tour in Afghanistan and Kandahar 2006, some incidents that came out later in the press and those are the subject of a board of inquiry right now.

The important thing is, as things come up, while individuals are in theatre, we have a lessons-learned team talking to them to find out whether they have been well prepared and whether the training we have given them prepared them well. Individuals might say they did not have enough cultural intelligence; they do not understand what the reporting procedures are; they are not sure what they should be doing in a case such as this. As that information is given to our lessons-learned cell or is reported through the chain of command, it is then quickly integrated into our pre-deployment training, into our colleges and into our doctrines so that we correct it.

When people say there were some issues at the beginning of the tour, I believe you could say what you just described might have been applicable, but now we have become very proficient at catching those things as we have our lessons- learned process in cycle and our reporting injects.

I have not heard from our lessons-learned people or from our doctrines people that we are getting those types of issues coming up anymore. We are still having tactical issues and equipment issues, how we can better use equipment, etcetera. We are no longer getting feedback from individuals, whether leaders or soldiers, saying they are not getting what they are supposed to get in these cultural or ethical circumstances. It is pretty clear now. The code of conduct is clear. Their training in what their obligations are under that code, under the law of armed conflict, are clear now, and we have not heard anyone saying in recent years that there are shortfalls in those areas.

Senator Brazeau: If personnel had a good understanding of the objectives of Resolution 1325, do you believe they would be forthright in raising some concerns if they felt they were not learning the objectives of Resolution 1325 during their training?

Col. Horn: Absolutely. I agree with what you are saying. However, I would go back to what I said earlier. They already would do that because the spirit of Resolutions 1325 and 1820 is core to everything we teach our individuals and everything we train them for. If they do notice anything, such as enslavement, prostitution, exploitation, rape, sexual abuse, beatings of women, etcetera, they will intervene or report if they cannot intervene. They understand that. They will take action right now, and they will voice it up the chain of command right away. They know that fundamentally, that goes against Canadian core values and what they represent and they will not tolerate it.

The Chair: Senator Dallaire now has a supplementary.

Senator Dallaire: Would you say that since Somalia, there has been a deliberate reform in the forces with regard to the whole dimension of not only human rights, but also the application through the leadership structure of the Law of Armed Conflict, humanitarian law and the legal dimensions of Canadian military law in operations?

Col. Horn: Absolutely; without a doubt. With Somalia in 1993 and the early years in the Balkans, there were issues of confusion over rules of engagement and what in fact was the obligation of individuals. As we all remember, in the 1990s, the Canadian Airborne Regiment disbanded. The Somalia Commission of Inquiry came out with 170 recommendations on leadership and professional development that were then put into place. The whole officer professional development program 20-20 was done specifically for the CDS, and many of the books you see behind you are products of issues that came out of some of the deployments in the 1990s to address specifically much of what we are dealing with here today.

The curriculum of our professional development organizations has changed and has been improved as a result of those publications. The whole way we go about things has resulted in a much stronger officer core and CF population based on those experiences. We have learned from those issues of the past.

The Chair: You said that in your manuals, there is the obligation to intervene, as I understood it, when you see violations of human rights such as women or children being abused, etcetera. Is there a difference between the obligation to intervene and the obligation to act?

Col. Horn: There is a moral obligation to act, and that implies reporting and doing something to try to correct the situation. The moral obligation to intervene, where circumstances allow, is not always possible because these are hostile, denied and hazardous areas. It could be one individual who is witnessing something in an area whereby he is outnumbered or the situation is dangerous. Therefore, it is not always possible to intervene. Also, it is a sovereign country, so it depends on all sorts of frictions that might be out there. It is not always possible to intervene. However, there is a moral requirement to act — to report or to do whatever you can to improve the situation and to try to make the situation right.

The Chair: Are we working with the Afghan police and military to pass on those human rights objectives that you have built into your manuals that you say incorporate Resolution 1325?

Col. Horn: Yes. As part of the training we do with the Operational Mentor Liaison Teams, when we send people to shadow, or to try to assist individuals, the primary focus is tactical, to ensure they can do the jobs legally and responsibly. The other element is that they also bring with them the Canadian code of conduct and their values, to say this is what you have to do and why the individuals should do it. The underlying fundamental philosophy of counter- insurgency theory is that if you do not have the support of the population, you can never win. Therefore, if they want to move ahead in the conflict, whether it is ANP or ANA, they have to start to respect the population, from a pragmatic point of view and from the moral aspect of what is the right thing to do.

The Chair: I think having Resolution 1325 highlighted in your manuals would be helpful to the soldier on the ground. It would say to the soldier that not only Canada believes in it but so does the United Nations. Resolution 1325 was introduced to bring all of the nations together to say these are the values that we stand for, this is what we believe, and not just in Canada. When our soldiers are in Afghanistan and elsewhere, they can say that this is not only our standard, but also the standard that the United Nations and all other nations should adhere to.

Col. Horn: Absolutely. That is a valid point.

Senator Jaffer: Canada led the way in the Security Council to say that it is important that Resolution 1325 be part of the consideration when armies are deployed. The reason for Resolutions 1325 and 1820 is that women and children are affected differently when there is conflict.

Is gender-based training done when soldiers are first trained in terms of how women and children are affected during conflict?

Col. Horn: That is wrapped up in our code of conduct of how we deal with people at risk. Of course, women and children are easier prey to sexual exploitation and that point is brought out, along with the responsibilities. Again, this is part of that whole group of individuals who are at risk in conflict zones.

Senator Jaffer: Today you have explained a lot about Afghanistan, because that is where the greatest number of our men and women are. You have also mentioned Darfur. Exactly how many men and women do we have in Darfur at the moment?

Col. Horn: I do not have that number at hand. We will have to provide that information to you.

Senator Jaffer: It is about 60 personnel, right? It is not a great number.

Col. Horn: No.

Senator Jaffer: I understand that most of our men and women in Darfur are training the African Union, correct.

Col. Horn: That is correct.

Senator Jaffer: Are our men and women training the African Union on Resolutions 1325 and 1820?

Lt.-Col. Poirier: I am sorry. I have no idea what they are trained on. I think they are also in Sudan. I am not sure how many are in Darfur. There are also military observers, and we train those military observers.

Senator Jaffer: When are you making inquiries and sending us information, may I also ask that you provide us information on Resolution 1325, article13, as to what kind of planning for demobilization and reintegration we do in considering the different needs of women and children? This will be especially important as we look at leaving Afghanistan. I would like to know what plans are in place with regard to Resolution 1325, article13.

Lt.-Col. Poirier: In the military operation course, DDR, which is disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, is one of the teaching points. Certainly the needs of women, whether they are women combatants or members of the family, are part of that. The military observers are explained their role in the whole DDR process — the fact that there are certain groups that have to be separated, that women could be combatants even though they may not have a weapon, and some of the issues involved in having women as part of the DDR process. That is part of the Military Observer Course, which not all Canadian Forces personnel would get. It is part of a specific course.

Senator Jaffer: That is helpful. As we are now looking at leaving Afghanistan in a combat role, do we have plans specifically to deal with female combatants? You are absolutely right; they may not have a gun, but there may be other challenges. Are we looking at how we deal with women combatants?

Col. Horn: The policy and plans for what happens during the disengagement resides with the Canadian Expeditionary Force Command. That is an issue for them.

Senator Jaffer: MayI please ask that you inquire?

Col. Horn: Absolutely.

Senator Dallaire: I would like to return to the presence of women in the forces and the nature of conflicts in which we have found ourselves since the end of the Cold War. We are in countries where women are treated in an absolutely unacceptable fashion. If you look at Resolution 1325, women are being treated unfairly.

Do you know of an analysis of the introduction of more women into the deployed forces in these countries? It would be interesting to note the introduction of women into these male-dominated societies, where women would be an increased asset in accomplishing the mission, both in the training and in the stabilization.

Col. Horn: I am not aware of any such studies. I know anecdotally that we have found through debriefs that females are oftentimes able to get more information than their male counterparts. There are certain areas where we realize that women must be present because of same-sex checks, but I am not aware any formal study.

Senator Dallaire: It is an extrapolation of Resolution 1325 in the field. For example, there are countries that have created all-women units in order to meet that demand. The Canadian Forces has not gone to that format. Women are employed throughout the forces.

Would you say that the availability of women in the forces to be deployed into such operational scenarios is reduced by the fact that there are not many who are in operational classifications because they are either in other services or in support services that are not necessarily deployed?

Col. Horn: I would have to speculate on that, so I would rather not answer that question.

Senator Dallaire: Thank you very much.

Senator Mitchell: One of the components of Resolution 1325 is that it addresses the integration of women in the post-conflict re-establishment process, the rebuilding process, in negotiations, resolution mechanisms and planning. Perhaps it is too remote a possibility right now in Afghanistan, but it may be of relevance to some extent in other theatres that we are engaged in.

Has any thought been given to how we would promote and organize that process post-conflict in Afghanistan?

Do you know whether there is any general discussion of that in the training program, particularly for senior officers?

Col. Horn: The disengagement and the follow-on are outside of our purview. I cannot answer that question.

Lt.-Col. Poirier: I am not an expert on DDR, but I know that within the principles of DDR, it is recognized that women should be part of the planning process and part of the organization. It should also be known that wherever the DDR is taking place, it is a host nation responsibility. We teach it as principles, but essentially, we need to encourage the host nation to make sure there are women as part of the committee and the organization. It is clearly seen in our lectures that it is important, and therefore we know about it from a point of view of encouragement.

The Chair: We are part of the NATO process, and I am aware that NATO is also struggling with Resolution 1325. I have had the benefit of receiving some briefing from, for example, Norway, where there has been a specific effort to highlight Resolution 1325 in their military. It was a female officer that came to brief us, who was also in charge by her government.

Where would we go to get information on NATO's policy?

Col. Horn: That would be ADM (Pol).

The Chair: That brings us to the close of the session.

Thank you for the work that you do in serving Canada and, as senators have noted, serving Canada well. Our aim with respect to Resolution 1325 is to ensure that we improve and that we deliver what we say in the United Nations environment. As I have pointed out, there is some merit in reminding other countries of their responsibilities. However, in order to do that we have to have our own house in order. That is why we are looking so closely at Resolution 1325.

Thank you for your input. We look forward to receiving the answers to some of the questions that have been put to you, and as I indicated earlier, you can respond to them personally or advise us as to who should be responding, and we can follow up from there.

Thank you for your presence this morning and the information that you have given us.

Honourable senators, we are very fortunate this morning to have McCann Livingstone, Vice-President, Research and Education, from the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. From the International Development Research Centre is Ms. Colleen Duggan, Senior Program Specialist; and from UNIFEM is Ms. Anne-Marie Goetz, Chief Advisor, Governance Peace and Security.

Ann Livingstone, Vice-President, Research and Education, Pearson Peacekeeping Centre: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss, the study you have undertaken to examine Canada's role in strengthening human rights mechanisms, including equality between men and women in selected conflict-affected areas. Your study has particular reference to the implementation of Resolution 1325 and participation in relevant UN conflict resolution and peace mechanisms.

The PPC is a non-governmental organization whose mandate is to make peace operations more effective through research, education, training and capacity building in support of Canada's initiatives. As part of its mission, vision and values, the PPC articulated from its very beginning the principle of a new peacekeeping partnership that was clearly linked to those who suffered most from the violence that was no longer as easily managed as it had been during the previous decades of the Cold War.

Conflict, as you all know, was changing, both in its conduct and in its level of violence; conflict shifted from inter- state to intra-state violence; and civilians, particularly women and girl children, were most affected by these changes.

Boy children increasingly were susceptible to kidnapping and being drugged and dragged and manipulated into child soldiering, and the legacies of these actions are visible to all of us.

At the same time, the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre realized that as much as women carried the weight of conflict, they were generally the holders of the traditions, the family, the culture, and often held in their hands the responsibility for the actual rebuilding of post-conflict environments. As such, they were a treasure to be supported and prepared for helping to rebuild their fractured societies.

With regard to supporting the details of Resolution 1325 and 1820, the PPC's objectives regarding women in peace operations and in support of DFAIT and DND MTAP programs and initiatives can be illustrated by some of the following: Gender issues, as well as ethics, culture and human rights, are mainstreamed into all of our learning activities and learning products. There is no escaping the gender issue by having a short session on that girl stuff, but conflict analysis, role playing, problem solving and integrated mission planning all compel participants to deal with and manage the impact of decisions that mission leadership makes on women and children.

Convening seminars and round tables in partnerships with colleagues provides opportunities to debate and discuss the role of women in peace building, and women's leadership roles in justice and policing and post-conflict reconstruction. For example, a seminar in Brasilia and subsequently in Santiago focused on MINUSTAH in collaboration with colleagues from Brazil and Chile. The Round Table on Police and Gendarmerie in Nigeria co- hosted with ECOWAS resulted in some real changes for Nigeria's police-building program. The recent round table with peace build, funded by IDRC with our thanks, discussed the challenges and opportunities for implementing Resolution 1820.

In August2009, one of the most exciting things we did was sponsor three serving African female United Nations police officers and one former Canadian female United Nations police officer to attend the Security Council open debate on UN Resolution 1820. It was the first time that female UNPOL officers were brought to the debate at the UN Security Council, and it gave them such an opportunity to provide the audience with a perspective from the field. The emphasis was on sexual and gender-based violence, and the impact of that horrific activity on civilians as well as on the police officers themselves.

Hosting a Roundtable on Women in Peace and Humanitarian Operations where women leaders from the UN, Rachel Mayanja, Betty Bigombe, Comfort Lamptey and the AU, all shared their experiences on conducting negotiations and the impact their involvement had on the final outcome.

When invitations are issued to participate in our courses, or when there are UN police courses given, the invitations clearly specify adherence to Resolution 1325 and encourage partners to select female candidates.

In the capacity building projects we undertake, the PPC encourages institutions and organizations with whom it is working to increase the recruitment and deployment of women to peace operations. This is particularly true in police and rule of law programs funded by DFAIT.

As we know, the increased use of rape as a tool of war has resulted in a need for women police officers who can work with the victims to investigate, to gather evidence, to write notes, and to keep good reports in anticipation that there will be justice some day.

Sensitizing the troop- and police-contributing countries through training and capacity building programs is critical to the well-being of personnel who serve in mission. With the changing TCC's and PCCs from the West to the global south, there is urgency in increasing the awareness of the international norms regarding equality between men and women, and the important role women have in integrated and complex peace operations at the peace agreement table, at the financial table, at all tables.

Support to and acting on, with firmness, zero tolerance for sexual abuse, misconduct and violence models the behaviour that is expected in missions.

Delivering all-female courses at the request of countries that are involved in capacity building projects; I must admit that some of my male colleagues shook their head and said, "Oh dear,'' and I suggested that if we understand the culture and if we understand that women are generally passed over from the international training, having an opportunity to be in a classroom by themselves to discuss offers them a chance to exercise their leadership potential, and the benefits are great.

We have delivered seven iterations of a sexual and gender-based violence course as a result of the tremendous need in Darfur — funded by DFAIT — which resulted in 210 participants from 19 countries being trained in sexual and gender-based violence that is so endemic in that mission. One hundred seventy three of the trainees were women who returned to the UNAMID mission and carried out more training for their colleagues, and now the government of Sudan police is asking for more assistance in learning these techniques.

What is the impact? It is difficult to measure impact. We have trained 18,000 people in 15 years from more than 100 countries. However that is not the impact; that is numbers-counting. The impact is in the results that we see. Seven countries that are part of the Africa program figured highest on the list of the 15contributors for UN police officers. In 2008, three countries, Mali, Senegal and Burkina Faso, changed their recruitment laws for the gendarmerie to allow women to serve. This had never been done before. After four years of working in those countries, we think we had a tiny impact on that decision.

PPC is actively engaged in drafting the UN Peacekeeping Operations Principles and Guidelines and is currently engaged in drafting the operational guidance for the heads of missions. This is the Challenges Forum, which is funded by Sweden but has 16 countries around the table including the five top troop-contributing and police-contributing countries.

Increased knowledge and skills, responsibilities and confidence are noted by our participants. As they write on their evaluation forms, "Thank you Canada,'' "God bless Canada,'' "Can I please have some more training, Canada?''

I will close with a story from one of our sexual and gender-based violence participants. At the end of day two of every course we ask our participants to identify one thing they have learned that they did not know before. You can imagine the range of responses. One woman police officer, graceful, tall, stood to her feet. She had been in two UN missions before being deployed to Darfur. Her lesson, spoken quietly and articulately, was that she had learned that as a woman she had human rights and that we all had human rights. I did not know whether to dance with joy or weep with frustration that — after being involved in prior missions — this was her lesson, so I did both. I realized in the midst of celebrating her success there remains much work to be done and Canada and Canada, with its reputation, can lead many more to this lesson.

Colleen Duggan, Senior Program Specialist, International Development Research Centre: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I would like to express my thanks to you for the invitation to speak to you here today on the issue of women, peace and security and Canada's contribution to the implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325.

Since 1970, Canada's International Development Research Centre, IDRC, has been funding researchers in developing countries to conduct applied research on problems identified as crucial to their own communities. For more than a decade IDRC has been supporting applied research on the roles of women before, during and after conflict in a number of countries in the developing world.

I have read over the transcripts of your discussions in September on this issue, and I see that you have actually covered a lot of ground, especially vis-à-vis governmental and non-governmental initiatives in support of Security Council Resolution 1325.

I would like to just change the focus a little bit today and maybe bring to this discussion some issues that have not been discussed.

Over the years, IDRC has participated in a number of initiatives that were mentioned by witnesses in September, including the interdepartmental group on women, peace and security and consultations with civil society on the drafting of a national action plan.

I would like to speak a little bit more about what research can bring to the various dimensions of Resolutions 1325 and 1820, the related Security Council resolutions on preventing and addressing sexual violence.

Our experience in working with researchers in developed and developing countries indicates that well-grounded and rigorous research can influence public policies for the good, particularly during moments of political transition.

I will speak directly to IDRC's role in supporting research on issues of women, peace and security. As time is short, I will focus my remarks on three key research-related issues included in Resolutions 1325 and 1820. These have perhaps not received very wide discussion in your deliberations so far.

The first relates to the importance of using research evidence for informing public policy and debate around efforts to prevent and address sexual violence perpetrated against women and girls during conflict. To date, much of the discussion in the international community has revolved around improving efforts for prosecuting perpetrators of sexual violence and holding conflict parties accountable. As important as these issues are, less attention has been paid to doing something for the victims who must live with the terrible economic, social and psychological legacy of sexual violence. In many developing countries, sexual violence leads to the feminization of poverty, meaning that women and girls are ostracized from their family and support networks and cut off from channels of economic production. Simply because they have been victims they cannot feed their families or go to work.

Recognizing this dilemma, since 2002, IDRC has been supporting research with the International Centre for Transitional Justice. That research examines how post-conflict countries are dealing with the challenges of designing and implementing state-level policies for violence prevention and compensation to victims of human rights violations, including victims of sexual violence.

Case studies have examined the experiences of Guatemala, Peru, South Africa, East Timor, Rwanda and Sierra Leone. Research has also delved into the impacts that conflict violence against women has upon male relatives and families and has looked at opportunities for governments to make use of micro-finance schemes as part of state efforts to repair harm. Findings and recommendations from these projects have been used to influence the Colombian National Commission for Reconciliation and Reparation, for example.

In Guatemala, IDRC has supported the research of a consortium of women's groups in the range of economic and psychosocial measures available for addressing the needs of survivors of sexual violence. Findings from this work have raised awareness in the public on sexual crimes and the need to counteract stigmatization of survivors. It has also influenced the debate around that country's national compensation process and has resulted in an alliance with the ministry of education. Plans are now being laid to commence work on the historic memory of sexual crimes committed during war and in its aftermath.

This is important, because making links between past and current practices around sexual violence is important in a country like Guatemala which continues to suffer from very high, ongoing levels of non-conflict-related sexual violence.

The second area highlights the importance of understanding how other types of harm impact women and girls in different ways. As horrifying and reprehensible as it is, not all conflict violence is sexual violence. Research the world over tells us that women and girls are disproportionately affected by internal displacement, mainly because they have neither the power nor the means to flee over international borders and become refugees. In Colombia, IDRC supported research with the Universidad de San Buenaventura which has identified the institutional responses available to internally displaced women and girls and examined how internally displaced — particularly those from indigenous and Afro-Colombian ethic groups — interpret loss, damages and prospects for assistance from the state. Another research project with the national university is examining the differentiated impacts that land seizures are having upon peasant women. Understanding effects is an indispensable first step for designing appropriate policies for restitution and resettlement.

The third issue of critical importance is understanding the numerous ways that women participate in peace processes and during post-conflict recovery and reconstruction. Understanding the multiple roles of women during and after war, as civil society activists — as heads of family, as politicians and as combatants, just to name a few — underlines the importance of seeing women as agents for positive change and not just as passive victims.

In 2001, as peace negotiations with both the FARC guerrilla and paramilitary groups in Colombia moved forward on separate tracks, IDRC supported a study led by the Universidad de Antioquia looking at how past state programs for disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR) have addressed the needs of demobilizing women and girl combatants. This study has provided policy-makers with important policy choices for programming in Colombia. The same group of researchers has gone on to investigate the obstacles for former female combatants as they move from armed struggle into formal political participation.

In Uganda, IDRC has been supporting research documenting the experiences of girls who had been kidnapped and brutally inducted into the Lord's Resistance Army. Findings have helped to inform the response of multilateral and bilateral donors for strengthening the capacity of national institutions; in particular in the areas of health, education and employment.

In the fall of 2005, Foreign Affairs Canada approached IDRC for assistance with the Darfur peace process, noting that women's concerns were not being reflected adequately in the Abuja peace talks. As an aside, I would mention that two senators here today were involved in that effort.

In that case, IDRC was asked to provide specialist gender expertise and expertise on conflict resolution. While the Darfur agreement was not successfully concluded, important lessons were learned about how women define security, one of the cornerstones of peace in any country, and the importance of engagement on women's concerns early on in peace negotiations. I am delighted to hear that the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre has also recognized that as important and is continuing that work.

I would be remiss if I did not mention the importance that IDRC also attaches to informing evidence-based debate at home amongst Canadians, and refer to the recent meeting on Resolution 1820 that we supported with both Peace build and the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. That was also a very interesting and informative initiative.

In concluding, let me reiterate IDRC's ongoing appreciation for the parliamentary grant, which makes our work possible. I welcome your questions and comments.

Anne-Marie Goetz, Chief Advisor, Governance Peace and Security, UNIFEM: Thank you very much for the invitation to discuss this issue in front of this committee, and thank you for Canada's commitment to this subject.

On October5 of this year, at the ninth meeting of the Security Council on the issue of Resolution 1325, the U.K. began its intervention by saying sometimes, particularly in the U.K., when you are waiting for a bus and it is raining, no buses come for a very long time; and then all of a sudden, all of the buses come at once. That is how we all felt that day, on October5, when we were talking about Resolution 1889, the second resolution in less than a week on women, peace and security in the Security Council.

After a very long time of inadequate implementation of Resolution 1325, we now have a body of four substantial resolutions on women, peace and security. I have actually provided a handout that summarizes the content of these four resolutions, looking in particular at their monitoring accountability and implementation elements, which I will address.

I would ask you to note that what we are seeing in the production of these four resolutions is an evolution in the UN's peace and security architecture as regards to the issue of women, peace and security.

In Resolutions 1325 and 1889, we see a very strong focus on the peace building and peacemaking architecture of the UN, a focus on the Peace building Commission and on the issue of transitions and early recovery. Whereas in Resolutions 1820 and 1888, we see what is perhaps the most striking evolution in the protection of civilians' architecture of the UN, to recognize the role and responsibility of international institutions to protect and prevent women and children from sexual violence. This has implications, of course, for troop deployment, force composition, military doctrine and many of the issues that you discussed earlier today.

In your hearing on this subject on September14, you heard evidence that UNIFEM has been producing data regarding inadequacies in the implementation of Resolution1325. You heard our data on the average number of women in peace processes; about 7.1percent of negotiating delegations are female. That proportion appears to have gone down since the passage of Resolution 1325, which has very disturbing implications for the alacrity with which that resolution has been implemented.

You also heard that one of the consequences — both of the previous speakers mentioned this — of women's exclusion from peace talks is the lack of attention to gender issues, as well as many other issues on which women have a particular perspective within peace deals. Most striking of these exclusions is the lack of appearance of sexual violence itself or gender-based violence in many peace accords.

You heard our research that since the end of the Cold War in 1989, we have analyzed 300 separate peace accords for 45 conflict situations. Only 18 mention sexual violence or gender-based violence in any form, and that is for 10 conflict situations, excluding conflicts where sexual violence was a structured and organized feature of the fighting, such as Bosnia, DRC, Liberia, Sierra Leone and so on. Only one cease-fire has ever been monitored, as far as we know, to monitor for sexual violence, and that is the Nuba Mountain cease-fire in south Sudan.

This all has consequences, of course, for where the money goes after a conflict is over. If women are excluded from decision-making, they do not take part in the Amnesty International commissions, the truth and reconciliation commissions, land and reform commissions and the other institutions that implement the peace.

UNIFEM's research shows that in post-conflict financing, which is very difficult to analyze in the absence of a gender marker, we think the deficit in spending for women's needs is stark. In an analysis of consolidated appeals for humanitarian emergency spending for 23 post-conflict situations — and this involved looking at 17,000 projects over three years, — we found that with the exclusion of food aid, less than 3percent of projects made any mention of addressing women's needs. Of that, less than one-half addressed issues of violence against women.

I have very little time, and I was asked to provide the committee with an update on the implementation of 1325 by UNIFEM, the UN system and member states. This is such a tall order, that I will just focus on areas that indicate prospects for constructive future development.

First, there is the issue of gender expertise in mediation. In Uganda over the past two years, UNIFEM has experimented with the Department of Political Affairs by providing a full-time senior gender adviser to work with a special envoy for LRA affected areas. This adviser was able to forge unity in the Uganda Women's Coalition for Peace and also to assist women locally to bring into the Juba accords what is now considered to be state-of-the-art language, especially in the recovery, reconciliation and justice components of those accords. UNIFEM hopes to continue collaborating with DPA to strengthen gender expertise available to mediators on an in-house standby basis.

This need for expertise, as well as for, of course, better gender balance amongst mediators, was acknowledged in the Secretary General's report of May2009 on mediation and was mentioned by almost every single country speaking at the open debate of the Security Council on October5.

The second element, women's participation in peace processes, which is different from gender expertise, has been mentioned, of course, by the other two speakers. This remains an area where innovation is desperately needed. There have been little modifications to the shape and composition of peace tables over the years, and this is one of the reasons why women are excluded. UNIFEM focuses on working on women's peace coalitions in parallel and track two processes, such as the International Women's Commission for a Just and Sustainable Israeli-Palestinian Peace. Here we have little access to the quartet or occasions where women can influence peace talks.

Sexual violence and peacekeeping has been mentioned to some extent this morning, and this is an area where Canada proved quite important in supporting the evolution of Resolution 1820. You heard last time you held this hearing about Canada's work in supporting the Wilton Park Conference of May2006. UNIFEM and DPKO ran that conference, and we came at it with the conviction that sexual violence was a security and political problem, not as it had been treated hitherto by the council and by the UN as a humanitarian issue.

Jan Egeland, the former Emergency Relief Coordinator said that we leave conflict-related sexual violence to humanitarian agencies, and all they can do is offer a rape survivor a blanket and some food. They can document it and provide for victims but cannot stop it. We need to address this as a political and security issue.

As you know, Resolutions 1820 and 1888 have taken this up completely, and this includes a commitment to revising the very conduct of peacekeeping so that it acknowledges that women as civilians face different security threats in different arenas and theatres than do other civilians. This literally means some of the things you were discussing this morning, such as patrolling at pre-dawn hours between the village and the water point, which is when women are raped, instead of at 2 p.m. on an arterial road near a roadblock.

With respect to sexual violence and mediation, if sexual violence is a security problem, it is also a political problem. It has to be brought up by mediators and in mediation processes. UNIFEM has recently partnered with DPA, DPKO, UNDP — United Nations Development Programme — OCHA — United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs — and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue to bring together very senior high-level peace mediators to ask them: What are the obstacles to addressing sexual violence in peace accords?

With respect to monitoring implementation, Resolution 1325 is striking for the lack of agreed global indicators to show where performance has been positive or is lacking. Unsurprisingly, this is one of the reasons or excuses for the lack of review and action on failures to address and implement this resolution.

Resolution 1889 at last calls for the production of global indicators on Resolution 1325, and this must happen within six months for council review. UNIFEM has been collaborating with UNFPA and the Office of the Special Advisor on Gender Issues to support the development of smart indicators on Resolution 1325. We have been doing this at a national level in post-conflict countries in Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nepal and Côte d'Ivoire, and we have been working on supporting the nationalization of national actions plans on Resolution 1325, which I know is a concern for you.

As you know, of the 16 existing national action plans only six have indicators to track implementation of 1325. Those are Uganda, Liberia, Côte d'Ivoire, Portugal, Austria and the Netherlands. The lack of indicators tells us about a common problem with action plans on Resolution 1325. They are often divorced from realistic implementation or consistent monitoring arrangements, let alone from an effective connection to national security policy. They are rarely adequately financed, if financed at all. They will hardly function as an instrument of national accountability for implementing Resolution 1325 if they do not have indicators, an implementation plan, a budget and a schedule for regular review.

Canada has a lot to offer in terms of supporting the development of global indicators on implementing Resolution1325. The mere production of an agreed global list over the next six months will help to create an impetus for key UN actors and agencies to commit to populating those indicators with data and then monitoring them regularly. This will create pressure on international security institutions to acknowledge problems of poor implementation and inadequate progress.

Resolution 1889, as you also know, has a very important provision asking for recommendations to the council for how it will receive, analyze and act upon the information it receives on Resolution 1325.

I will skip to the end of my presentation and conclude with reflections on the opportunities that are created by the tenth anniversary of Resolution 1325. In the next year, as Resolution1889 shows, there is an appetite for concrete ideas about how to accelerate implementation of Resolution1325. As we have seen, the absence of a gender entity at the UN has hampered full implementation of this resolution. Likewise, the absence of a monitoring mechanism has obscured the full depth of the deficit in meeting commitments to Resolution 1325. It is clear what we all have to do. We must support the rapid establishment of a powerful and operational gender entity to ensure full implementation of Resolution 1325 and, in particular, to provide protection and services to survivors of violence and displacement. We must support the elaboration of an agreed set of global indicators on Resolution 1325 and we must encourage UN agencies to commit to track progress against these indicators.

We must collaborate in recommending an effective monitoring mechanism for the Security Council to track progress and to take action in contexts where there are unconscionable delays and reversals in implementing Resolution 1325. Above all, we must ensure that adequate resources are available in conflict and post-conflict contexts to respond to the needs of women of all social categories affected by conflict. As an aside, as you all know, the Peace building Commission has been mentioned in Resolutions 1820, 1888 and 1889. Canada is a major actor in the Peace building Commission and the Peace building Fund, and UNIFEM's figures on the deficit in post-conflict spending should be a matter of concern for the Peace building Commission to take up.

Coming back to the question of monitoring, we cannot underestimate the impact of data collection and monitoring. It is a truism among those who are interested in the subject that what does not get counted does not count. It is time for us all to count the number of women at the peace table, the number of women raped in war, the number of internally displaced women who never recover their property, the number of perpetrators of sexual violence who are never removed from armies and police, and the number of women human rights defenders killed for their efforts to stand up and be counted.

All of this counts and UNIFEM is counting.

Senator Jaffer: I have some very quick requests and then I will ask my questions.

Ms. Livingstone, do you have a training manual that you use at Pearson?

Ms.Livingstone: We have several training manuals. Every course is specifically designed to meet the needs of the participants. If you are interested in seeing the Sexual and Gender Based Violence course, I would be happy to share that with you.

Senator Jaffer: Do you share this with the Canadian Forces?

Ms.Livingstone: We share it as we can.

Senator Jaffer: Are they using it?

Ms.Livingstone: If they come to us for training, they get it, but they have their own training as well. We do try to collaborate.

Senator Jaffer: The Ugandan study is still a work-in-progress. Do you know when that study will be finished?

Ms.Duggan: It is being consolidated, but I can come back to the committee with that information.

Senator Jaffer: You mentioned three studies. It would be helpful for us if we could get a copy of the Uganda study.

I have a question for all three of you. What is your evaluation of how Canada is doing with the implementation of Resolution 1325 here in our country?

Ms.Livingstone: That is an interesting question, but a very difficult one because we are conflicted in the West about what we mean by gender equity. We are still conflicted about rates of pay for work performed. I believe that we still struggle within ourselves with what that means and that sometimes we put our attention elsewhere, which keeps us from being responsive to our own internal dynamics.

I tend to look at the glass as half-full, and therefore I have to look contextually at how the world has been shaped since the end of the Cold War. I must be mindful that progress is slow and incremental and that if I lose hope on that slow and incremental progress, I will lose total hope.

I think that we have come as far as we can and that we continue to move forward. Of course that is not totally satisfactory, but one could argue that it is better than it was 30years ago.

Ms.Duggan: Resolution 1325 is complex and Canada, like a number of countries, is probably making progress on some fronts and less progress on other fronts. Canada, like most countries anywhere in the world, developed or developing, faces a challenge of moving research into policy-making, which is something that we grapple with every day at IDRC, how we put what we know into practice.

Outside of Canada an issue that has been discussed quite a bit here today is coordination. Resolutions 1325 and 1820 have very good intentions, but the rubber hits the road in coordination among the different UN agencies and in interactions with national governments in these countries. It is never an easy endeavour in regular run-of-the-mill development programming, and the stakes are so much higher in conflict and post-conflict environments. Canada's work in the direction of improved and greater coordination needs to continue.

Ms.Goetz: As a member of the UN it is very difficult for me to comment on any individual country. Canada is the head of Friends of 1325, and in New York and in fieldwork, Canada is seen as a great friend of Resolution 1325, and its role as a leader is very welcome.

Considering your earlier line of questioning, one issue to pursue is setting clear and urgent priorities. In view of the evolution of the UN's response architecture on women, peace and security, there are some areas in which Canada has been decisive in the past and can continue to play a strong role. I will mention three. First is the issue of military doctrine and training, which you have quite rightly been concerned about, because around the world this remains a challenge. The issue of doing peacekeeping differently needs to be addressed. The Wilton Park process provides an extraordinary foundation of how the analytical inventory of existing best practices can be converted into scenario- based training for troops.

The second issue is learning from Darfur and from engaging women in the peace process. Few countries or members of contact groups have seriously brought women to the peace table; that needs to continue.

The third issue is using the Peace building Commission to address post-conflict challenges, especially financing.

Senator Dallaire: The Canadian Forces have not necessarily maximized nor been the best of clients to PPC over the years. That, I think, is to the detriment of the Canadian Forces. As such, I hope that will evolve into a much more deliberate plan. That would facilitate the exchanges that we are talking about in this new era of conflict resolution.

Senator Jaffer's work with the peace agreements in the work in Darfur were exemplary in attempting to get women engaged in the process of peace agreements and security, so there is proof that it has occurred. However, Ms.Goetz, in the UN missions we have seen that it is already difficult to establish child protection officers at the tables. More often than not, they are not invited to any of the meetings. In a number of those conflicts, the weapon of choice is children, child soldiers, of which 40percent are girls.

Do you see the gender dimension, in both the prevention and protection of women, being introduced in a different way, in a more effective way in UN missions than the child protection side has been?

Ms.Goetz: MayI answer directly?

Senator Dallaire: Please.

Ms.Goetz: Thank you for that question. You mentioned the women protection advisers that are in Resolution 1888 — Senator Mitchell mentioned the same thing. This role is intended to be as important and as serious as the CPA; that is, a high-level appointment. However, this is a difficult skill set to fit. It must be someone with military experience and gender analytical capability. I know of only two people in the world at present that have this skill set at an operational level.

Regarding effectiveness, you said that the CPAs have often been marginalized. At a global level, they are considered to be reasonably effective because they work closely with UNICEF on the monitoring and reporting mechanism on child soldiers. They have benefited from UNICEF's high level of operational efficiency in the field.

The difficulty with women protection advisers and with the sexual violence agenda is there is no operational agency on the ground with responsibility for women's rights. This is the bottom line. In the structure and architecture of the UN, this is what has held back Resolution 1325 seriously. There is no overall authority at the HQ level and no operational agency at the ground level. Women's safety and security falls between the cracks of all the different agencies.

We need an authority that is able to organize protection and work effectively with DPKO, but, at the same time, deliver services to survivors. This remains the big question mark around the entire implementation of these four resolutions.

Senator Dallaire: We have spoken about the military integrating into the capabilities and recognition of this dimension, but if we spoke about security forces like the police, have they been more attuned to respond to this significant deficiency or are they caught up in their own procedural methodologies?

Ms.Goetz: To some extent, the latter is true. In Liberia, and MONUC in DRC, there is an effort to identify good practice in protecting women and to try to integrate that in mission training. That is what has happened in MONUC in relation to military work and in Liberia in relation to UNPOL in relation to police.

Senator Dallaire: Resolution 1325, article12, states that there is a need to maintain the civilian character of refugee IDP camps and design them in a way that helps prevent sexual violence. We have seen civilian-based IDP camps in Darfur where the local police, and so on, are raping and killing, left, right, centre, and we are not letting either the CIVPOL or the military in. Is any research being done in trying to respond to something as complex as establishing security without using military police forces in such camps, because they are great places to recruit child soldiers, and so on?

Ms.Duggan: I have seen some research and some programming on training in IDP camps, sort of legal advocates, building on traditional justice systems, and more traditional conflict resolution agents within IDP camps. I have seen some training of those people to get victims to come out, and then to try and then link those people with the formal justice system so that those cases can actually be brought to court, if the victims wish it. As you know, in Darfur the distance between that actually happening and victims actually wanting to come forward and denounce is difficult.

On prevention, no, I have not seen anything.

Senator Dallaire: In Darfur, the Governor told us that Muslim men do not rape. We went from there down to what we saw in the field and the logic of that and the procedures.

How do we get policy changes in this country to move so that we are engaged into conflicts where women are particularly at risk, and where we might want to deploy capabilities, be it from NGOs or others, to assist in those conflicts? You mentioned that as one of the research areas.

Ms.Duggan: The question is exactly what role can research play?

Senator Dallaire: Yes, in engaging policy and policy-makers in this country to this fact.

Ms.Duggan: Some of the work that IDRC supports specifically through our Canadian partnerships unit does focus on working with that. Some of the best research sometimes comes from academia or from the university community, but many NGOs and think-tanks are engaged in their own research. Often, ironically, it is the NGOs or the policy analysts who are more plugged into the policy community and who have the ear of policy-makers. Some of the research that we support is with Canadian NGOs, trying to get them to build bridges with academia, and trying to help strengthen their research capacities. Advocacy is only as good as your research. Good advocacy stands on the platform of good, rigorous research. You want to be very sure about what are you saying. Some of what we do does work with Canadian civil society organizations in that direction.

Senator Dallaire: Last, and I am looking at PPC also, do we see the NGO world shifting gears to move away from anecdotal data and sometimes emotionally-based data to more rigorous and intellectually rigorous data that permits us to change doctrines in operations, change tactics and also change policy?

Ms.Livingstone: I can only answer for the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. We realize that one of the gaps is precisely what we have identified, so we have instituted an evaluation mechanism that follows a participant — a police officer, military person or civilian who has been trained by us — as they go into the field, with the post-course six-month evaluation, and also talks to the supervisor. We evaluate whether we saw an observable behaviour change in this individual when they were doing their gender advising job or their policing job. We avoid the emotionality of data and look at whether this training activity resulted in behaviour change that can be measurable over time.

We have just started that process for the Sexual and Gender Based Violence course. What we are getting back, post- six months, is pretty amazing. I would be happy to bring that to the committee's attention should it be of interest.

Senator Munson: You mentioned 7.1percent of women in peace negotiations and that this figure is decreasing. What will it take to change that decline?

Ms.Goetz: The figure we mention is an average that we have calculated out of 24 peace processes since 1992. We have observed that the average proportions seem to be lower in the post-2000 period than in the pre-2000 period, which has much to do with the composition of warring factions and the types of conflicts that were being negotiated at these different times.

What will it take to change that decline? We need to have a different conception of how to construct the peace table. Currently, peace negotiations are purely between the leaders of belligerent parties and there is almost no opportunity for civil society organizations to engage in the negotiations.

They are some interesting alternative models: Guatemala, Ireland and Darfur. We, along with the Institute for Inclusive Security in Washington, are trying to think through alternative models of constructing the peace table. That is one measure that might help change this. Another measure is stronger domestic constituencies of women demanding participation. This is often hugely problematic in a conflict context, where these constituencies are dispersed in the diaspora and are weak. Yet another measure is more pressure from international contact groups and groups of friends who back up peace processes and finance them.

Senator Munson: The military men who were here earlier described themselves as "ethical warriors,'' which is an interesting term. Looking at the three of you, I do not think you would be using the term "warriors'' in the context of what you are trying to accomplish here, but I guess that is military nuance.

Can you recommend any kind of training to these ethical warriors on human rights and gender issues? Do you think that training lessons are being incorporated into their daily practice?

Ms.Livingstone: When we present any individual who is in a training course with the moral dilemmas that they face, whether the person is a police officer, a civilian humanitarian or a military individual, we refine the critical-thinking skills that must be engaged to make those difficult decisions when they are on the ground.

When I commented that at the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre we have ethics as a crosscutting issue, it is done deliberately to put all of our participants into that framework of how do I decide? What is the consequence on the ground? What is the consequence to me? What is the consequence to this mission? What is the impact that will resonate in the minds of people who may view my behaviour as less than legitimate or less than credible?

By forcing practice in a classroom, we are providing opportunities for people to decide how they will deal with their ethics and how they will make ethical decisions. When we do this exercise, I ask every participant to write down their ethical code and put it in their pocket. That is an interesting exercise. The second activity in the middle of the training program is to, as you make your decisions, pull your ethical code out of your pocket and decide whether you married up well or married down.

Senator Munson: Senator Demers spoke with the military men here about there not being enough people on the ground. I am happy about the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre. It does work, but it can work better, as we all know. You can train and help each other, with your group and the other three groups, but at the end of the day, we will be in a situation where, at least in our understanding, the military men and women will leave Afghanistan in the capacity of a combat role. I feel that there will be gaps in terms of who stays and who protects them and how they are trained on the ground to continue that ethical and moral battle.

Ms.Livingstone: There is a new article by the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations that I would recommend to you, called the New Horizons project of the new peacekeeping partnership, which begins to address this very issue. As peace operations change in their complexity and in their multi-dimensionality, how do we integrate the military, the civilians and the police in a way that we have a response that fits the complexities that face the personnel?

One of the interesting questions that Canada faces is what do we do with the Canadian Forces after 2011? The UN has this notion of "robust peacekeeping.'' That is a challenging discussion. Canada has magnificent experience in Afghanistan. How does it use that experience in places like Sudan or Darfur or Somalia? I do not think the nature of conflict will change, so those lessons learned and best practices become critical to share with the world and to mentor and advise.

Ms.Duggan: Taking off my IDRC hat, from when I was with the UN, the critical issue is also around civilian police. In the past, it has been convenient or it has made practical and pragmatic sense to demobilize combatants and stream them into the police. They are military people. Security is what they do. Let us put them in the police. It is a convenient place to put them and to ensure that they have employment. However, often these people are the last people who should be put in a role of protecting civilians. They are people with human rights records, and we do not have in place rigorous standards for reviewing their records.

You see this being played out now in places like Guatemala, for example, where they have a high incidence of disturbing crimes against women, using modus operandi that was employed during the war. Many people were demobilized and streamed into the civilian police force with no revision of their records.

This is one of those cracks that is easy to fall into, but it is a question that needs to be addressed. That is really the whole post-conflict peace-building question. When the international community has left and the development actors are continuing, civil police training becomes incredibly important.

Senator Mitchell: You are passionate about this topic, and that is an inspiration. As you have been talking, I conjure up a sense of what Canada has done in the world on issues like this in the past. Clearly, we think we developed peacekeeping, and we probably did, but we certainly had a huge role to play in land mines. We did that because we had great leadership amongst the people in our government and great leadership and support from people like you who know about these issues.

While Ms.Goetz said that Canada is respected for our role in the Friends of 1325, I think the case can be made that we have not done very much on Resolution 1325. We do not have a plan. I could be wrong, since I do not hear every speech, but I am not aware of a minister of this government who has spoken passionately about Resolution 1325, and I know it will never get done if no one champions it in Canada. The second step would be that if Canada championed it in the world, perhaps we could have an impact. There are gaps around the world in the application of Resolution 1325, and certainly within Canada.

Could you tell me how many of the responsibilities that fall out for each country Canada has fulfilled? Have we begun to report annually? Are we appointing women's protectors? Do we have an action plan in each case?

Ms.Goetz: As a member of the UN, it is very difficult for me to make a comment unless I can do it across all countries.

Senator Mitchell: How do we compare to other countries?

Ms.Goetz: A group known as the Friends of 1325 has done a great deal on the issue.

I know the national plan is seen as very important, but what is much more important in some ways is that Resolution 1325 is integrated across the relevant government actions and departments so that when the military reports to Parliament, for example, they report on this issue among other protection of civilians issues and so on. When the ministry of foreign affairs reports, they report on women's leadership and peace building.

I have not answered your question directly. I would need to look at it, and Canada would not have had a chance to appoint women protection advisers since that is new, but there are several great opportunities within these new resolutions for Canada. Seeing that a very strong special representative of the Secretary-General is appointed as soon as possible on the prevention of sexual violence is an urgent priority. Developing expertise on sexual violence in military response and preventing sexual violence are areas that need expertise and on-the-ground operational skills.

Developing capacity to track and monitor Resolution 1325 as well as developing some kind of monitoring of post- conflict spending, perhaps through the Peace building Fund and Peace building Commission, are high priority actions that could be taken.

Senator Mitchell: You mentioned that there is no operational authority on the ground for women's protection and no UN authority.

What is the reason for that? Is it just that the UN cannot seem to make that a priority? Is too much political resistance, or is it money? Maybe that is the same thing. Is it because it has not been driven by some country that would champion it?

Ms.Goetz: When it comes to gender issues within the UN, there are four small entities that address gender issues. That is an evolution over time in bureaucratic structure, and it leads to fragmentation and also marginalization. This is just a historic development, and the High Level Pan on UN System-Wide Coherence of 2005 recognized this as a problem and prioritized the consolidation of gender entity to promote gender equality and women's rights.

A General Assembly resolution last month reiterated on this and called on the Secretary-General to take immediate actions to see that this was done. There is movement to create a strong gender entity which is envisaged to have operational capacity and a much bigger budget. The trouble is we do not have the timeline for this. It is not in place yet, but we have to expect, hope for and work to its activation as soon as possible.

Senator Mitchell: If you were the minister of foreign affairs and you decided that you could drive Canada as a leader, as was the case with landmines and Lloyd Axworthy, for example, what would be the five things that you would start tomorrow to drive our leadership and the world on Resolution 1325?

Ms.Livingstone: I would like to defer that question to my colleagues. As an NGO, I am a little uncomfortable with knowing how to answer that question.

Ms.Duggan: I am a little uncomfortable answering it as a Canadian Crown corporation. We are at a bit of a stalemate. I would feel as though I am going out of my area of competence. I am not sure I would be comfortable answering that question.

The Chair: Would you like to withdraw that question?

Senator Mitchell: Not in the least; absolutely not. I do not mean to put them on the spot, but the question is not unreasonable. Canada should lead, and there are ways to do it.

The Chair: There will be witnesses and there have been witnesses you should put that question to.

Senator Mitchell: I will.

Ms.Goetz: I would venture an answer not about Canada but about any country with similar international stature, GDP and global reach.

To prioritize and lead on Resolution 1325, the first action would be to innovate in the peace processes. Engage in peace processes and innovate to ensure that somehow women's voices are expressed, whether or not through direct representation at the table. Second, feminize the uniformed personnel involved in peacekeeping through a concerted campaign of domestic recruitment for any contributed troops or police but also encouraging it internationally. One of the single most powerful contributions countries like Canada could make would be to put together all female or majority female military observation teams, including civilian observers, to observe ceasefires. That would be extremely powerful as a contribution to peace for women. Third, obviously, there is a resourcing and financing issue, so ensure that adequate resources are available and that there is not such a stark deficit for financing women's safety and recovery.

Fourth, I would focus on the issue of decisive prevention of conflict-related sexual violence, including through a profound review of military doctrine peacekeeping practice, not just in training but also in incentive systems. We have not talked at all about incentive systems and what drives the behaviour of peacekeepers on the ground, but I do not know of any rewards for peacekeepers for protecting women and taking decisive action to prevent sexual violence. International awards of that kind can be powerful in inspiring positive action.

Senator Mitchell: Do you mean like a special medal?

Ms.Goetz: Sure.

Senator Mitchell: What an idea. Good thing I asked the question.

The Chair: We have been talking about helping women in conflict situations. It was often said that Resolution 1325 went hand in hand with the International Criminal Court, and we have had now examples and decisions from the international court that say rape is unacceptable and it is a war crime. We are just starting the legal side to what would be the political side, Resolution 1325.

Do you see the two going hand in hand? What is the UN's position at this time? We do not see that linkage very much.

Ms.Goetz: There have only been three dozen people put in jail by international criminal courts and war crimes tribunals for sexual violence, and domestic courts have not done much better.

The issue of prosecution is absolutely critical for stopping impunity, as you know. Resolutions 1820 and 1888 make this a major priority, including the suggestion in Resolution 1888 that a standby task team of judicial experts should be able to go out to post-conflict countries, on request, to support judicial systems.

That is a major area of priority. The ICC does have indictments on sexual violence, and it has had some difficulties in assembling the evidence under appropriate conditions, which shows where another huge challenge lies, and it is another role for international leadership to ensure there is adequate financing and provision for the protection of witnesses and victims, for the enabling of testimony and doing it in a somewhat fast-tracked way. Crimes of sexual violence take such a long time to try and often come to light so late that you generally establish a de facto environment of impunity before you are able to stop perpetrators from repeating.

Ms.Livingstone: One of the interesting lessons we have learned is that for many of our African participants note taking is a skill they do not have because police do not enter courtrooms. Training them to take a note and to write a report with the anticipation that some day they might go to the International Criminal Court or be called there in defence of a victim is new learning for them, and it has been exciting to start that process of basic note taking, report writing and thinking about the future. In the gap time between the ideal and the real, we are teaching people how to take notes.

Ms.Duggan: I remember that linkage was made very much at the beginning with Resolution 1325 and the ICC. The ICC is incredibly important, but it is easy to lose sight of the fact that the ICC and international criminal justice is the last resort, and often we get caught up on preparing cases and bringing them to the ICC. The worst of the worst go there, if we can get them.

Much needs to be done in rebuilding national justice systems because most rape victims will never see the doors of The Hague, will never have the resources to get there or even the courage to bring their stories to light. Redoubling efforts around building national judicial systems and national security apparatus is also very important.

The Chair: Thank you for reminding me of that point. We have said often that the ICC's international jurisdiction is complementary. It is when a state cannot or will not that the ICC comes in, so the national is the front line in that system.

The other point is that the ICC will be most effective when it is seen as a preventive tool as opposed to a curative tool, at there lays the time gap. If it becomes the international standard that it was intended to be, perhaps many things would happen pre-conflict and we would not be looking at the post-conflict situation.

We are some 15 minutes over our time. We thank you for the time you have taken and the perspectives you have brought. It will certainly be very helpful in our work. If we need to call on you again, I am sure that you will give us that opportunity.

We thank you for your input and the written materials; it is extremely helpful.

Ms.Livingstone, Ms.Goetz and Ms.Duggan, thank you.

(The committee adjourned.)