Foreign Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2016

[Tamara Guttman]

Thank you very much for your question and for your comments. It's a hugely important point.

I can comment a bit anecdotally. It's not always easy to achieve. One example is when we began work to deliver on a commitment from 2014, where Canada committed $10 million to addressing sexual and gender-based violence in the context of the Syrian and Iraq conflicts, to be able to identify local partners in areas where violations are occurring, and where it is safe for those NGOs to act, and where our support for them isn't putting anyone in danger. It's not easy; I will be frank about that.

We often work with a combination of international actors as well as local ones. There is a distinction between the actors who are delivering direct assistance, humanitarian and victim assistance, and those who might be doing other things, such as education, and the justice aspect, and investigation.

Through Canadian funding we are supporting investigation of sexual violence and sexual crimes in conflict. There are a number of projects. One involves a group called Justice Rapid Response, which is headed by a Canadian. That helps to set the conditions to gather evidence and to build capacity of how to do that. It's quite difficult, including the ability to have the will or the ability of the victims to come forward particularly when there are social, ethnic, or religious constraints they feel when identifying themselves. It does prove difficult, but the principle of trying to bring the solutions as locally as possible is important, and we do strive to do that.

[Julie Shouldice]

Maybe I could add a supplement.

An example of a program in particular that we're very proud of, which is supported through the United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, is their work in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. You're probably aware there has been a significant issue in responding to sexual violence in that conflict. That is a program for which we've provided $18 million over five years.

The purpose of the project is to contribute to the reduction of sexual violence by helping to fight impunity for perpetrators and promoting measures to prevent crimes. If we look at what we've been able to achieve since 2006, we have been able to help more than 60,000 survivors of sexual violence to access health and psychosocial care. It's an important part of how we address people who have been affected. There have also been 15,000 who have acquired new skills and consistent income generation activities, so it's about looking forward as well.

More than 800 perpetrators have been convicted of those crimes.

[Tamara Guttman]

If I may, I apologize for taking the microphone again.

There's a recent example where Canada has been supporting prevention and follow-up to sexual violence in Guatemala for some time. There has been recent publicity around some convictions surrounding that, and we're pleased to have been able to assist even in a small way. To see that come through to that end is unusual, unfortunately, but it is gratifying.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much.

I asked the question particularly to underline the importance of ownership over the process, in that local populations have that. It's often the case in so many of these conflicts that there's a sense—whether it's a perception or reality, or you know, perception is reality—the solutions are imposed from the outside for dealing with conflict or post-conflict. That's where things can go off the track.

All too often that happens, and I think it's critically important we keep an eye on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

That is the end of that for the Liberals.

We'll go to Mr. Clement.

[Tony Clement, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Thank you, Chair. It's nice to not be at the witness stand for this stage of my political career.

Thank you for being here and for being a part of our discussion.

I guess I still have a Treasury Board hangover because my question is going to relate to—and you did allude to this, and I know you're doing a review of the policy—how we measure success. How do we look at the benchmarks of success and make sure they're modern and make sure they are for the 21st century?

My worst fear is that we, and I'm not saying that you do this; I'm sure you don't and there's evidence that you don't.... What we don't want is to say that we're successful because everybody whom we give money to is happy with the money that they get. I know that's not your position, but that would not be helpful to the taxpayer nor to public policy success.

Are you going to consult widely on new benchmarks? Are you going to look at behavioural sciences, and nudging, and some of these new trends and new ideas? How do we modernize our targets? How do we modernize our assessment of whether they're reached?

[Tamara Guttman]

I'll see if my colleagues have anything more to add on that.

This will be a critical part of these consultations that we do to update our national action plan, as we seek to constantly improve how we measure results in our assistance, whether it's development, security, or stabilization.

In some cases things are easy to measure: the number of people trained, and so on and so forth; percentages of women in police or peacekeeping forces and things like that; assistance handed out; and the number of victims who have come forward—obviously, these sorts of things.

A lot of this area is very hard to measure because you're building capacity, but you're also building confidence. That's sometimes a very personal thing, how you help women and girls in communities to feel able to participate, to raise their situation of crime or violence. Again, you can measure how many people you get to a training session. It's not as easy to measure the effect of that training, but we do.

I would like to defer to my development colleague to speak a bit more formally to the sorts of metrics that are used there. Your point about a modernized and more innovative way to do this is absolutely critical. We'll want to speak widely to people in consultations about that.

[Julie Shouldice]

Perhaps I'd add two things. We are building performance measurement frameworks around all of our priorities, which help us to go beyond the output indicators that Tamara was just talking about and allow us to look more for metrics at the outcomes and results-based levels.

We also are committed, through our terms and conditions, to have regular evaluations. That allows us to look, in a broader sense, at what we're achieving and learn some very valuable lessons from the work we're doing. As we manage for results all the way through, which is something we're incredibly committed to, it allows us to see beyond the output indicators but also what the project has been able to contribute as a whole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Go ahead, Peter, you have a couple of minutes left.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

After the Haiti earthquake, Canada and the world responded magnificently in the immediate emergency and recovery operation. Things haven't gone very well since. Given many of the failures in the overall reconstruction, governance, and restoring the rule of law, how have the successes been with regard to the issues involving women and girls?

[Tamara Guttman]

It's an excellent question. I wish I had a very good answer for you. I don't believe I have a lot of detail on Haiti in front of me. Again, I'll defer to my colleague if we have anything on that.

Certainly, it's an aspect in our training of the national police in Haiti and so forth. I'm not in a position today to give an assessment on behalf of Global Affairs on how that has gone. If you would like, we'll certainly be able to return with some information. I apologize that we're not prepared on that item.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Hélène.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I will be very quick.

Speaking of funding, I am wondering whether the funding for the Guatemala program, which you mentioned, was interrupted at one point. Are you still funding that program?

[Tamara Guttman]

We have a number of projects in Guatemala. As for my program, the Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force, START, there is always a project under way in order to prevent violence and support victims. We have carried out a number of projects over the past few years. START carries out short-term projects. The funding is not ongoing because we go by project. In terms of development, things are different. I’m not sure whether we have the details regarding Guatemala, but I can say that START has been there fairly constantly.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I was also wondering about the GPSF, global peace and security fund. Is there any news regarding the fund?

[Tamara Guttman]

It's a different topic than the one before the committee today, but since I'm responsible for the fund, I'm happy to answer to the best of my ability.

The proposal to renew the stabilization and reconstruction task force under the global peace and security fund is a matter of consideration for the government. I would not want to pre-empt whatever decision they may take on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you. Now we are on to the last three minutes, and that will be the end of our time this morning.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

The 2013 global study on the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 recommended an earmarking of 15% of peace and security funding to programs whose principal objective is gender equality and women's needs.

Maybe this question is for Mr. Anderson. With an eye to the future, given the very new commitments made today by the ministers, are there any thoughts on how we might action that in the programs being put forward?

[Anthony Anderson]

You forecasted my answer to a certain extent. Yes, we will take all of these things under consideration. We're very aware of this figure of 15%, and our colleagues in civil society remind us of it all the time.

There are several issues, things that critics have suggested we should have done over the last five years in the plan. Again, we're very aware of them, this being one of them, dedicated funding being another, and a couple of others.

We're going to have a look at all of these and see how it comes out.

[Tamara Guttman]

If I may, I'll also just add that, for Canada, we support the idea of mainstreaming gender issues into all of our various forms of assistance, not just isolating the issue as gender on its own but ensuring that we're always supporting that to whatever degree through our project work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

With that, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses. We very much appreciate your spending that little extra time. That probably wasn't on your agenda. Also I want to apologize for the workout with your arms because of the malfunction. That wasn't part of the plan, but I guess a little exercise for all of us doesn't hurt.

Thank you again. We very much appreciate the time you spent with us.

We're going to go in camera for a few minutes, so would the committee members stick around for a couple of minutes. We have a budget to look at, and I have a couple of things I want to get your feelings about. It shouldn't take long, and we'll go from there.

Those who shouldn't be here are dismissed, and the rest of you can stay. We'll take a few minutes off and then come back.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]