Foreign Affairs Committee on April 12th, 2016

[The Chair (Hon. Robert Nault (Kenora, Lib.)), Liberal, Bob Nault]

Colleagues, I would like to bring this committee to order.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) we're going to continue on with our study on women, peace, and security.

Before us for the next hour are the representatives of the MATCH International Women's Fund, the Nobel Women's Initiative, and the Women, Peace and Security Network of Canada.

For the record, I would ask you to give us your name and your title. I'm not sure I have a title, but I guess they assume I'm running the committee for now. I assume you have decided who will go first. We will let you introduce yourselves and then we'll get right into the presentations.

Colleagues, we're going to try to stick to the hour for each. We'll talk later about our insistent votes on Tuesday afternoons that are causing us a little grief, but we'll figure that out as we go.

Ms. Tomlin will start.

[Jess Tomlin, Executive Director, MATCH International Women’s Fund]

Good afternoon, my name is Jess Tomlin and I'm the executive director of the MATCH International Women's Fund.

[Diana Sarosi, Manager, Policy and Advocacy, Nobel Women’s Initiative]

Good afternoon, my name is Diana Sarosi and I'm the manager of policy and advocacy at the Nobel Women's Initiative.

[Beth Woroniuk, Steering Committee Member, Women, Peace and Security Network – Canada]

Good afternoon, I'm Beth Woroniuk and I'm a steering committee member of the Women, Peace and Security Network of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

Ms. Tomlin.

[Jess Tomlin]

Thank you.

Honorary members of the standing committee, I would like to thank you first for the depth and attention that you are giving to this issue. My name is Jess, as I've mentioned, and I’m the executive director of the MATCH International Women's Fund.

This review is timely. Just last week, UNICEF reported on the 98 young women in the Central African Republic who were sexually tortured by UN peacekeepers. Just last month, globally recognized human rights, indigenous, and environmental activist, Berta Cáceres, was gunned down in her own home in Honduras. Berta had four children.

The stakes are high for women in conflict. I am here today to share stories from our partners around the world in the hopes that their experiences will be considered as you review Canada's foreign policy as it relates to peace and security.

This is an area where my colleagues and I hope to see the Canadian government take immediate action. I know those sitting with me today agree that the world welcomes Canadian leadership in this area, an area that is so fundamentally tied to the universality of human rights.

The MATCH fund has supported women's movements globally for 40 years. Our funding comes entirely from individual Canadian donors. We channel these resources directly into women’s organizations that are led by women for women and girls in more than 25 countries. We believe that brave women working at the grassroots are the most catalytic in bringing about change for women and girls.

I would like to share with you this afternoon two short examples from our partners in Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo to help illustrate the realities for the women working at the grassroots to bring about peace.

Nubia Sanchez is the director of our Colombian organization, working with women affected by sexual violence, displacement, and forced disappearance after decades of armed conflict. Over the past year, the organization has directly supported more than 200 women with legal assistance and psychological support. As you can imagine, her organization's work to uncover the truth and demand justice is seen as a threat to conflict parties.

At 9 a.m. last Thursday, Nubia received an anonymous phone call. I can share with you an excerpt from Nubia's message to us that we received from her last week. A man, who did not identify himself, called her and said, “You are Nubia, right? Well, it doesn't really matter. If you aren't, I am leaving this message anyway. Stop agitating about the conflict victims here in Tumaco or there will be trouble. I know your son. It would be really sad if something bad happened to the kid. I don't want to see you around anymore”.

Before Nubia could say anything, the man hung up. This is just one of a series of well-documented threats. No progress has been made in the way of investigation. Colombia's national protection unit has not provided any additional minimal security measures, like surveillance cameras or reinforcement for their doors.

By contrast, Julienne Lusenge engages local women's groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo. She works with them in conflict prevention, peace building, and supports more than 1.7 million women who were raped by armed combatants. Sexual violence in conflict in the DRC has received international attention with the 2014 U.K. summit, which was attended by many governments, including Canada.

In addition, just a few months ago, Julienne was asked to testify at the UN Security Council. Yet Julienne and women leaders like her still haven't received stable funding for their necessary efforts. Julienne's work is tiring enough. She tells me that she dedicates most of her time raising $5,000 here and $5,000 there when hundreds of women come to her every week to talk about or receive services for the rape they have experienced.

These women highlight the issues I bring before you today: first, the overall funding picture for grassroots women's rights organizations; second, government accountability for involving and funding women in peace processes; and third, the importance of the role of and protection for the women human rights defenders who are most at risk.

Allow me to expand on these three critical issues. Let me first address the issue of funding for local women's organizations. Local women's organizations, just like here in Canada, know their context best and can creatively rethink approaches to disrupting power dynamics and demanding state accountability.

They often do this with volunteers and on shoestring budgets. The average annual income of a grassroots women's organization working in the global south is $20,000 U.S. a year. In sub-Saharan Africa, that figure drops to $12,000. Of these organizations, 48% never receive core funding for day-to-day necessities such as staffing, lights, the Internet, and security. Also, every month, one in five close their doors due to financial shortfalls. This is in spite of significant donor prioritization in the last decade for women and girls, whether for maternal and child health or economic empowerment initiatives.

Here is the challenge. Women working at the grassroots have not seen the financial impact of these high-level commitments because, in reality, women's organizations are often not eligible to apply for calls for proposals due to their smaller budget size and the funders' requirements for sophisticated operational and monitoring systems that don't align with the realities on the ground.

In addition, women's organizations often work across a range of intersectional issues. While the emphasis may be on supporting survivors of rape, many organizations often will be delivering integrated health programming, reproductive rights programming, and supporting leaders in how to engage in the peace process. This recent trend in project-based funding and a requirement for narrow deliverables have left these organizations often ineligible because of either their size or their broad community-based approach.

Herein lies the opportunity. Canada can be a leader in extending high-level commitments to women and girls beyond multilateral agencies and international organizations. According to Canada's most recent report to the OECD, the Canadian government allocated $5.19 million to women's organizations and institutions in 2013-14. If Canada were to expand development and humanitarian assistance to local organizations led by and for women working on the ground, this would significantly impact the essential work happening at the grassroots. This could be a national funding instrument that is accessible to women's rights organizations, as well as an earmarked funding mechanism within this for women's organizations that are working on peace and security issues.

I'd like to speak specifically about the importance of involving women in the peace process. Data on the women, peace, and security sector confirms that financial resources have fallen significantly short of government commitments. According to the OECD's DAC, only 2% of aid to the peace and security sector targeted gender equality as a principal objective. This is due to a lack of prioritization and, again, to the absence of aid tailored to reach grassroots groups.

Where is the opportunity here? Canada can build in regular, substantive consultations with civil society—like you are doing right now and I applaud you for that—within the country and internationally, that taps into civil society networks of women at the local level. This parliamentary hearing can be an annual event. Imagine the impact of concrete, regular consultations led by Canadian policy-makers with women in the field, with women peace builders, and with women's rights activists. I daresay that might qualify as feminist foreign policy.

Finally, I want to touch on the role of women human rights defenders and our obligation to protect them. Women, peace, and human rights activists often find themselves caught in the crossfire between armed groups and the state. These are ordinary people who work at great personal risk to defend the rights of their communities. Nubia Sanchez and Berta Cáceres are just two examples of women human rights defenders who work at the front lines and who face violent threats against themselves and their loved ones. They are often accused of treason. They and their families are threatened. It is a sad reality that they often pay with their lives. In 2015, 156 human rights defenders were killed or died in detention.

I implore the committee to see your efforts as essential to realizing human rights in practice and as a key contribution to the broader agenda of women, peace, and security that we are discussing today. That is the opportunity here. Women human rights defenders themselves tell us that it is not only about keeping them safe, but ultimately about sustaining the organizations and movements they are involved in so they can change the situations that put them at risk.

Canada has the opportunity to show leadership in the company of only a few other progressive nations, such as the Netherlands and Norway, and to demonstrate commitment to making the protection of human rights defenders a foreign policy priority.

This testimony would not be complete without stressing UNSC resolution 2122, which speaks to the importance of providing the full range of services to women affected by armed conflict, including life-saving measures for women when pregnancies result from rape.

As you can see, there are many opportunities, and I thank you for the opportunity to share some of those with you today.

There is no reason that Canada cannot be a foreign policy leader that funds women at the grassroots, that insists on the participation of local women at the peacemaking table, and that protects women human rights defenders in their important work.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Sarosi, you have the floor.

[Diana Sarosi]

Thank you so much, first of all, for the opportunity to address you today.

This is indeed a welcome and timely study and we are very honoured to contribute to its findings and recommendations. The Nobel Women's Initiative is led by six courageous women Nobel Peace Prize laureates. Together they use the prestige of the prize to support women activists and movements across the world. The Nobel Women's Initiative has been supporting women peace builders around the world for a decade. We have supported survivors of sexual violence in Colombia to ensure their needs are included in the peace process. We have supported women in the DRC to provide services to survivors and rebuild their communities. We have supported women in Burma to do community training on the importance of women's participation in the peace process from which they have been barred till this day.

We are now supporting Syrian women who are struggling to participate meaningfully in the Geneva peace talks. Many of these women would make excellent witnesses to this study and we would be happy to facilitate their participation here.

This foreign affairs committee study on the women, peace, and security agenda is timely as we have just marked the 15th anniversary of UN Security Council resolution 1325 last October. The UN “Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1325”, which included consultations with thousands of women peacemakers, found that there's a crippling gap between governments' commitments and actual political will and financial support.

Key findings of the study include the comprehensive normative framework that has been developed, especially on sexual violence in conflict. Less has been achieved on women's participation. Progress continues to be measured in firsts rather than in standard practice. There's a worrying lack of funding. Only 54 member states have national action plans for the implementation of 1325, and the rise of violent extremism has led to increased threats to women.

Clearly, business as usual is not what's going to solve today's complex emergencies and conflicts in places such as Syria and Yemen. We need new ways of thinking and doing, and the “Global Study on the Implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 1325” does exactly that. It provides us with a road map of what the new ways of operating should entail. What is so revolutionary about the women, peace, and security agenda is its recognition that women's security is integral to the security of states and vice-versa. Evidence shows that societies with greater gender equality are more peaceful societies. This means investing in gender equality and women's empowerment is the means to peace.

It is mind-boggling that the international community has made so little progress in the last 15 years when it comes to women's participation. The women, peace, and security agenda recognizes women's participation as crucial to building sustainable peace. Evidence compiled in the global study shows that the participation of women at all levels is key to operational effectiveness, success, and sustainability of peace processes and peace-building efforts. Further, studies show that in cases of women's participation and strong influence, a peace agreement has always been reached. Women's participation also correlates with a greater likelihood of agreements being implemented, yet with each new process under way, women literally have to knock down doors to get inside.

Based on progress reports of the Canadian national action plan, much of the Government of Canada's efforts in terms of women's participation has focused on first, increasing women's inclusion in military and policing operations; second, increasing female officials at its missions abroad; and third, supporting the UN in developing a roster of qualified women to be staffed in senior positions.

Little effort has been made in terms of women's participation in peace processes. In terms of conflict areas, most of the participation reporting in the C-NAP progress report has focused on Afghanistan. With other conflict countries lagging behind, this points to personal commitment rather than government policy.

There is much more Canada can do to ensure women's meaningful participation in peace processes, and here are three overarching suggestions.

First of all, Canada must play a greater leadership role in promoting increased participation of women and ensuring their access in all stages of peace processes. As we are seeing with the current Syria peace process, women face severe obstacles to meaningfully participate in the talks. While they've been assigned an advisory body role, they continue to lack influence and resources to independently engage.

One problem of the current Syria talks, as has been with all other talks, is that it followed the usual method—men designed and set up the process first, and then brought women into a process where most of the decisions are made by a small group of men. According to the global study, there have been very few cases in which women's participation was an integral component of the design process. Generally women's participation is seen as a technical add-on, in a little tick box, once the process is designed and under way. But women must be part of these processes from the design of the preliminary talks, throughout negotiations, as well as implementation.

The Colombian case has been hailed as the best process yet, in terms of women's participation, but we are still very far from what the global community aspired to with UN Security Council resolution 1325. Due to pressure from women's organizations, the Havana peace negotiations included special gender advisers for both sides of the table and the gender subcommittee. However, at the highest level of the negotiation process, you only see one woman.

Now, as Colombia moves forward toward implementation of the peace agreements and the ceasefire, what the under-representation of women at the peace table means in practical terms is a high level of tolerance for ongoing violence against women, particularly against Afro-Colombian and indigenous women, with a 100% impunity for cases dating back to the conflict. Women's groups are now pressuring the government and the UN to include sexual violence as a breach of the ceasefire agreement. Without women at the table, sexual violence will not be properly addressed, and tends to proliferate post-conflict, as can be seen in Liberia and DRC.

Some key recommendations for Canada on concrete steps to promote women's participation include the following: speak out consistently, publicly, and at the highest level on the importance of women's participation as a matter of rights and effectiveness; hold envoys, mediators, and negotiation parties accountable to international norms and commitments; facilitate the participation of women, including provision of logistical support and security, particularly in the early stages of peace negotiations and the implementation of agreements and ceasefires; and hold regular consultations with women to learn about their challenges and collectively find solutions to bring them to the table.

Secondly, Canada must play a key role in strengthening women's movements. Based on the research of 40 case studies, women's inclusion was mostly initiated and achieved via concerted pressure by women's organizations, rather than by conflict parties, the mediators, or the organizers of the negotiations. This is true in the case of Syria, where it was the collective effort of local, national, and international women's organizations that pressured UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura to carve out a role for women in the talks and appoint a women's advisory body.

Research also demonstrates that it is women's movements, not individual women, that have the means to influence the talks. In too many cases, token women are appointed without any meaningful engagement. This was the case in the Myanmar peace process, where two women were appointed who did not have the force of a movement behind them to influence the talks. Yet women's organizations are consistently underfunded, under-resourced, and operating at great personal risks. The global study identified the failure to allocate sufficient resources and funding as perhaps the most serious and unrelenting obstacle to the implementation of the women, peace, and security agenda. Women's organizations need consistent, significant, and reliable funding.

In terms of recommendations for Canada, first, Canada must develop a funding mechanism to ensure that resources reach women's organizations and movements. These mechanisms must include easily accessible, multi-year core funding for women's organizations, with dedicated funding going directly to grassroots organizations. Canada must earmark a minimum of 15% of all funding related to peace and security for programs whose principal objective is to address women's specific needs and advance gender equality, as called for by the UN.

Canada must also develop a protection strategy for its missions to support women peace builders around the world facing significant threats as a result of their work. While increased funding is one means of protection, Canadian officials must publicly stand up for the women in their countries and demand accountability for threats against them. Such a strategy must include regular consultations with women's organizations and support for their participation in national, regional, and international forums.

Thirdly, Canada must strengthen the national action plan on the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325. The national action plan is a means to set out an ambitious policy directive that ensures that women, peace, and security commitments are reflected across the full range of international policies.

A mid-term review of the C-NAP conducted by Inclusive Security found it was seen as not significantly influencing Canada's overall policy direction with respect to conflict-affected and fragile states. That's tragic. We hope that the second edition of the C-NAP will live up to its potential.

Here are our recommendations.

The C-NAP must set out a vision for Canada's engagement in the world, not just in conflict and post-conflict, but also to prevent conflict. One of the four pillars of the women, peace, and security agenda is prevention. The C-NAP must be positioned as a policy directive to achieve that vision with clear goals, results, and indicators upon which to measure success.

As part of the drafting process, extensive consultations of women in conflict areas as well as key international players working on women, peace, and security must be held, and their views reflected in the new C-NAP. Canada must also take a more holistic approach in addressing all four pillars of the women, peace, and security agenda, building on their interlinkages and recognizing that women's status in peace will determine their experience in war.

Canada must provide a dedicated budget for the C-NAP, including funds for staff as well as accountability mechanisms. Canada must appoint a high-level champion or special envoy that is staffed and resourced to oversee the implementation of the C-NAP, and most importantly, its vision.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to the Women, Peace and Security Network-Canada.

[Beth Woroniuk]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, as well, to the committee for undertaking this important and timely study, and for the invitation to appear before you today.

By way of introduction, I'm a volunteer with the Women, Peace and Security Network-Canada. Our network is made up of over 65 Canadian organizations and individuals, and we have two objectives. The first is to promote and monitor the efforts of the Government of Canada to implement and support the United Nations Security Council resolutions on women, peace, and security. The second is to provide a forum for exchange and action among Canadian civil society on this same theme. We operate as volunteers with no office, no budget, and no paid staff. Many of the Canadian organizations appearing before you for this study are members of our network.

Over 15 years ago, when the Security Council passed resolution 1325, there was much optimism. Yet you have heard from others that progress in implementing resolution 1325 and the following-on resolutions has been slow. Today's armed conflicts are complex, with multiple state and non-state actors. With the prevalence of conflict-related sexual violence, we often hear the lament that it is more dangerous to be a woman in today's wars than a soldier. Women generally play minor roles in political decision-making and the security sector. Humanitarian assistance in post-conflict situations often fails to address the different needs and priorities of women and men, boys and girls. Governments are quick to make pronouncements, yet slow to invest resources.

I could go on. I think it is important to return to several key insights and advances that are at the heart of the women, peace, and security agenda. These elements still hold great potential and provide us with a starting point to revise Canada's approach.

First, the Security Council resolutions recognize and highlight the crucial link between the security of women and the security of states. They legitimize attention to the rights, protection, and participation of women and girls, not just in their own right but also as key dimensions of both peace and security.

What is truly path-breaking about the women, peace, and security agenda is its challenge to rethink the way we approach security and armed conflict. Activists have long told us, and now researchers have confirmed, that there is a clear link between the position of women and girls in a society and whether or not it will engage in violent conflict. We have to move from seeing women's rights as something that we'll get to when more important issues are resolved to a crucial factor that is interwoven with conflict prevention and conflict resolution in the first place. Unfortunately this insight appears to have been lacking in Canada's approach to women, peace, and security up to now, as these issues are often treated as a sideline or marginal concerns.

A second and related insight that my colleagues have also touched on is that women's participation is linked to effective peace building and conflict resolution. From Liberia and Uganda to Northern Ireland, Yemen, and Colombia, there are numerous examples of brave women who organize, resist, and work for peace. They do this despite facing great dangers and many threats. It is now clear that investing in these women, in their organizations, and in their movements is an effective conflict reduction strategy.

As my colleague mentioned, a peace agreement is more likely to be reached and to last longer when representatives of women's movements are included. There are also numerous examples of women's groups mobilizing to support a peace deal once it is signed, yet women are often seen as secondary and optional players.

Wazhma Frogh, an Afghan women's rights activist, recently spoke of women from a community bringing a warning of extremist recruiters approaching young men in their home communities. When they brought their story to a government minister, he laughed at them and did not take them seriously. Several weeks later, the same young men launched an attack on a public bus and killed 32 people.

In addition to being marginalized, you have heard from my colleagues that women's grassroots organizations receive little support from the international community to carry out their crucial work. In a survey of civil society organizations conducted last year for The Global Review, respondents noted the lack of resources as a primary barrier affecting the effectiveness of their work.

A third key element in the women, peace, and security agenda is the growing legitimacy granted to civil society organizations in ending armed conflict. The resolutions have paved the way for the broader inclusion of civil society organizations, in general, in peace processes.

It is not just those with the guns who are entitled to be at the table. We have to make sure that those with a stake in building peace, those who represent all facets of the population, are present. As many women's rights defenders are saying, “Nothing about us without us”.

There are many issues that I could explore, but given the mandate of our network, I will focus my recommendations on Canada's national action plan, or C-NAP.

Our first recommendation is that Canada's updated national action plan should be a key policy directive. If Canada is to be a leader on women, peace, and security issues, then the profile of our national action plan must change. As was cited earlier, the mid-term review of C-NAP found that it was perceived as not significantly influencing Canada's overall policy direction with respect to conflict-affected and fragile states. In other words, we need to move our national action plan from the margins of our approach to armed conflict and have it play a more central and influential role. The potential of the women, peace, and security agenda cannot be realized if C-NAP remains marginal, relatively unknown, and invisible in broader discussions and diplomatic initiatives.

Our second recommendation is to ensure that Canada's national action plan covers the full range of women, peace, and security issues and involves all relevant government departments. There are frequent references to the four pillars of the women, peace, and security agenda. These are, one, conflict prevention; two, women's participation; three, protection or attention to conflict-related sexual violence; and four, the importance of women's rights in relief and recovery. It is vital that C-NAP address all four of these issues in an interrelated fashion. This would correct an earlier imbalance in our approach, which tended to downplay the importance of conflict prevention and women's participation.

You have heard numerous recommendations regarding the breadth of issues that C-NAP could and should address, and we encourage you to recommend a comprehensive approach, recognizing the interrelationship of these issues. To address these themes effectively, C-NAP requires the participation of the full range of relevant government departments. Global Affairs Canada, the RCMP, and DND participated in the first C-NAP. We recommend that this be expanded to include Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Public Safety Canada, and the Status of Women Canada.

We look forward to the testimony of the RCMP and DND for this study. Both of these departments report successes. However, it would also be interesting to know how the RCMP is responding to concerns regarding the treatment of women within the force and recent reports of sexual misconduct by officers in Haiti.

Regarding DND, it is important to have a public briefing on the recent chief of the defence staff directive on integrating Security Council resolution 1325 and relevant resolutions into Canadian Armed Forces planning and operations, as well as to hear progress on addressing the concerns raised in the Deschamps report on sexual abuse and harassment in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Our third recommendation, and this should be no surprise, is to dedicate sufficient resources. A commitment without resources is not a commitment. The first C-NAP had no allocated budget, and it was difficult to calculate the level of spending on women, peace, and security initiatives with the information in the progress reports. We urge the adoption of a specific target for women, peace, and security investments. Canada could follow the lead of the United Nations and set a target of 15% of development assistance in fragile contexts and peace and security funds to have gender equality or women's empowerment as their primary objective. This type of target would also require improved attention to gender equality markers to track and report on these investments.

We strongly support the case made by other speakers to substantially increase Canadian funding going to women's rights organizations. These organizations need substantial and predictable core funding in order for them to carry out their vital work.

Our fourth and final recommendation is to ensure that the national action plan includes robust accountability mechanisms. Even the best policy requires accountability checks to ensure that it is fully implemented. Members of our network have expressed concerns regarding the usefulness of C-NAP progress reports. These have been consistently late. For example, the 2014-15 progress report has yet to be released, so we're a year into another fiscal year without this report.

Reporting tends to focus on listing activities rather than understanding impacts, and the reports lack clear data on investments and investment trends. For example, it is impossible to tell if the government is investing more resources now than before the C-NAP was established. Therefore, the next C-NAP should include a results-based framework and relevant indicators. There should be regular, timely, and public reporting that includes full financial information.

On the positive side, since January of last year our network and Global Affairs Canada—START within Global Affairs—have hosted three joint meetings. This has fostered communication and facilitated a constructive exchange of views. We urge the continuation of these consultations. As well, the new C-NAP should be based on extensive consultations both within Canada and with women in conflict-affected countries.

In conclusion, the moment is right for Canadian leadership on women, peace, and security. We know what needs to be done. This is an investment, not just in strengthening women's rights but in improved peace and greater security. The original promise of the women, peace, and security resolutions is an appropriate place to start.

I'd like to leave you with the words of Dr. Alaa Murabit, a Canadian physician who is a women's rights activist in Libya.

Last October, Dr. Murabit addressed the UN Security Council during the open debate on women, peace, and security. She stated:

When the Security Council finds it unthinkable to address a crisis without addressing women’s rights; where humanitarian responders have full funding for their gender-specific services; when women grassroots leaders find their work fully funded and politically supported; when it is unimaginable that peace talks be held without women’s full engagement; only then will the full potential of 1325 be realized.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you very much for your reports and your recommendations.

Colleagues, we'll go to questions.

I think we have enough time for two rounds, so we'll start with Mr. Kent.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thanks to you all for your testimony and your advice, particularly in the area of the next incarnation of C-NAP. I think some of the advice was very well-grounded and bears consideration by the government going forward.

Given that the United Nations is the agency most often responsible for security on the ground in conflict, post-conflict, and peacekeeping situations, I'm sure you were as troubled as I was when I read an article last month in The New York Times by a long-time official in this area and in post-disaster areas like Haiti. He gave a very long list of reasons why he had decided, after all these years, to resign from the organization. One of the most telling examples had to do with the peacekeeping force delegated to the Central African Republic. Against the advice of many groups, grassroots organizations on the ground, the soldiers from the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of Congo were sent in. Since then, for almost two years, they proceeded to systematically abuse and rape the very women that the United Nations had sent them there to protect. One of those peacekeeping groups has been removed in the last couple of months, but the other is still there.

I'm wondering whether you would attribute this to systemic dysfunction within United Nations' peacekeeping in some parts of the world. This is not a new story, certainly, in Africa. Is this cynical politics, or Is it the result of male decision-making, disregarding the probable reality on the ground? Or is it all of the above?

The question is to all three of you.

[Beth Woroniuk]

Thank you for the question.

I agree very much that this article caused a great ripple through many circles in New York at the United Nations and around the world because it was very much a call for support for the UN as it engages in reform processes. I think it's doubly important at this moment when Canada is looking to re-engage with the UN to be part of those general discussions on how the potential of the UN can be recovered from some of the bureaucratic problems.

In terms of your specific question on sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers, I think there has been great concern over the last while about the inability of the United Nations to address this. This is one thing where we do congratulate the Government of Canada for speaking very strongly on these issues in international forums and urging greater attention to this.

I wouldn't presume to have a full analysis of the origins or the causes of this conflict. I think they're rooted in many things, abuse of power. They are also related to some of the general causes of violence against women and girls in general, that they are seen as secondary subjects and not of as much value, so you have that interwoven with who carries the guns and who holds the power.

Then you also have on top of that some of the dysfunctionality of the peacekeeping and how it's structured and the reluctance to listen to whistle-blowers in this context.

Unfortunately, it's a very sad situation and hopefully one that more will be done to address as we move forward.

[Diana Sarosi]

I agree with everything that Beth just said.

The one thing where the world in general is still falling short is in the prosecution of these kinds of cases. It doesn't matter whether it's the UN or state or non-state armed groups, prosecution has been very slow. It was only last month that for the first time an army general was prosecuted at the ICC for sexual violence in conflict.

Again, that points to, first of all, a lack of resources for people on the ground to do the initial collection of evidence. In many cases, again, women's organizations are doing that, but don't have the resources to do it properly or safely. Then, there is a lack of resources moving all the way up the chain. A lot of information needs to be collected to bring any of these cases to court. Again, that's where an investment would be good for women's organizations.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I guess you would agree that this speaks to the fact that the UN report last year, I believe, showed that less than 4% of troop personnel and less than 10% of police personnel in all UN peacekeeping missions were women. Would you recommend that in peacekeeping, for example, Canadian troops or police officers sent to peacekeeping missions should engage with grassroots organizations on the ground, perhaps broaden their responsibility, change their mission description to achieve some of the ends that you talk about with regard to supporting the grassroots organizations, which are underfunded, under-equipped, and understaffed?

[Beth Woroniuk]

I think a context-by-context and mission-by-mission clarification has to be made there, because there is a real danger in many cases to women on the ground if they relate to and associate with military forces. You have to be very careful in how that's spelled out and how that's done and what the different roles are for that.

I think it's important to increase the number of women in peacekeeping forces, in civilian police, in peacekeeping missions. That's one issue, but then we have to be much more cautious about the relationship between those peacekeepers and local populations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

I will go to Mr. Levitt now.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

First of all, thank you for coming here today and speaking before the committee. Hearing from all three of you really shed a light on this issue for us.

Again, I want to thank the honourable member from the NDP for bringing this particular line of study to us.

While I was listening to you, there were four Ps that stood out for me and ran across your presentations: the importance of participation and increasing women's participation through effective funding; protection of women human rights defenders—I think the stories of Nubia and Berta really made clear the severity of the issues that are taking place around the globe; prevention of sexual violence in conflict zones; and then, underlying it all, positive outcomes towards peace that are possible with more participation by women in the process.

For me—again, I like things to be fairly linear—this just shines a light on that, and I thank you.

In terms of the particular question, Beth, you addressed this, but I want to come back to it a little more in-depth. It's progress indicators.

C-NAP has been criticized for the difficulty there has been in reporting on its indicators and how well they measure success. Inclusive Security's assessment of C-NAP implementation and the Women, Peace and Security Network's December report on Canada's national action plan both pointed this out.

I'd like to ask where you think specifically the deficiencies might be. Given the renewal of C-NAP that is going to be taking place, how can we improve it? How can we make it better? How can we make sure that things are going where they need to go, and that we can build on a solid foundation?

[Jess Tomlin]

I know that Beth will want to weigh in on this, and she really does have some important, substantive recommendations.

I would just say that you are not alone in terms of framing this conversation. There is an incredibly diverse and knowledgeable expert base of support in Canada who would be more than happy to support you in framing these recommendations—the people at this table, but there are many others. There are 50-odd organizations within the Women, Peace and Security Network alone.

As a broad-based recommendation, I really encourage you to have that conversation broadly and tap into this incredible knowledge that has been working both centrally and at the margins for the last decade.

[Beth Woroniuk]

The first thing we have to do is establish what it is we are trying to achieve within the time-bound period, so we start with the results, and then we go to the indicators used to track those results, rather than starting with the indicators. That's one of the problems with the current C-NAP. There are a number of indicators, but then there is no analysis of progress, of how they relate to what it is we are trying to do.

I think if we look at short-term and longer-term indicators and results, that's something. What are we spending, and how are we dedicating our resources? One of the big indicators that I use is this. When women, peace, and security is not the main topic under discussion, does it come up?

When we are talking about what our strategy is vis-à-vis Islamic State, or what our policy and priorities are in South Sudan, do some of the issues on the women, peace, and security agenda come up? That is a measure of how much we are taking it into consideration as a core framing, guiding policy directive.

[Michael Levitt, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Canada has recently been elected to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. In your opinion, what kind of impact will this have on Canada's agenda in WPS for the next few years?

[Beth Woroniuk]

I think this is a great opportunity for Canada.

One of the challenges with the women, peace, and security agenda is to bring in some of the other human rights instruments, such as the Beijing declaration and platform for action, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the Commission on the Status of Women conclusions.

I think Canada's participation in the commission is a great opportunity to bring these rights-based instruments together and have a broad influence in other areas, so that when we are talking about climate change we can explore the nexus between women's participation, women's rights, climate change, and security. Being on the commission allows us to enter into some of those debates and learn from other countries in a meaningful way.

[Jess Tomlin]

If I could add to that, I think it's fantastic. You have a standing ovation over here for the bid, and you have civil society's support completely.

I think what's interesting is the opportunity to be influenced and to be influential across the complexity of these issues. We're coming in there and we're talking about the status of women, but within the context of the women, peace, and security agenda. Otherwise, as Canada speaks about its role in 2016 in being a leader in women's rights, particularly in the global conversation, this is an opportunity to really position women's rights as a top strategic priority.

We have an incredible amount of work that's happening and that can happen within the women, peace, and security agenda. We have programs within the maternal and child health agenda, as well as smaller but also very robust programs in relation to early forced marriage and female genital mutilation. All of these are very timely issues of global importance that can all be within a broader women's rights strategic priority, where the government could have tremendous impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Nault]

Thank you.

We'll go to Madam Laverdière.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you for joining us today. Those three presentations have addressed some key issues regarding the participation of women. I found the issue of funding particularly interesting.

Small organizations in Saskatchewan and in Alberta are having a hard time with the fact that, based on the current Canadian policy, there is a bidding process or very complex processes. That makes their lives very difficult and access to funding challenging. So I can only imagine how hard the situation is for a small women's organization from Guinea-Bissau. Personally, I think the issue of core funding must be examined.

I prefer not to talk too much about my personal experience, but the fact remains that I have spent 15 years with the Department of Foreign Affairs, which is when I truly discovered the Women, Peace and Security Network. I was then responsible for developing human security policies. That was part of our policies.

You are saying that this is not really part of the main policy direction. But I am wondering whether something can be done to raise more awareness about the effectiveness of women's participation in peace-building processes and to talk about it more in our representations, our missions abroad. There are regular reports about the Afghanistan mission because people are interested in it, but that does not apply to other missions.

Can concrete action be taken to ensure the message circulates throughout the organization, the Department of Global Affairs, the Department of National Defence and elsewhere?