Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 21 - Evidence - Meeting of February 5, 2015
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 5, 2015
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:29 a.m. to study security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy and interests in the region, and other related matters.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, good morning. I want to advise that the witness for our second panel, which would deal with our other reference, could not attend today so we will have only one panel today.
We're studying the security conditions and economic developments in the Asia-Pacific region, the implications for Canadian policy and interests in the region, and other related matters. We have before us from The Border Consortium, Ms. Sally Thompson, Executive Director; and Mr. Duncan McArthur, Partnership Director. From Inter Pares, we have Mr. Kevin Malseed, Program Director; and Ms. Rebecca Wolsak, Program Manager.
I understand that Mr. Malseed will present first. You have already indicated to me that you understand we will proceed to questions from senators after the presentations. Welcome to the committee.
Kevin Malseed, Program Director, Inter Pares: Thank you all very much for inviting us here today. I'll introduce myself, Kevin Malseed, and my colleague, Rebecca Wolsak. We're both program managers at Inter Pares, a social justice NGO based in Ottawa.
Inter Pares has been supporting local civil society in Burma and neighbouring countries for over 20 years. For the past 15 years, we have been managing CIDA and DFATD's only non-multilateral programming related to Burma. In June 2014, Rebecca appeared before this committee alongside some of our long-time health partners, led by Dr. Cynthia Maung, who we brought to Canada to study Canada's federal public health system in the hopes of developing something similar in Burma.
Today we're here to introduce another of our key partners, The Border Consortium, or TBC. Since the mid-1980s, TBC has been the primary channel of all humanitarian aid to Burmese refugees in Thailand alongside significant aid to internally displaced people in Burma. TBC is now a key player in Burma's transition by preparing for the potential return of refugees and sustainable solutions for internally displaced people. This involves navigating the complex landscape of a quasi-military government in Burma, a military junta in Thailand, various non-state armed groups, fragile ceasefires, and a human rights situation that improves one year only to worsen the next year. T
Today we have with us TBC's Executive Director Sally Thompson and Partnership Director Duncan McArthur who will tell you how their work is responding to changing times in Burma. If you add these two together, they represent at least 40 years of experience working in this very difficult context.
The Canadian government has been supporting TBC's work through Inter Pares for well over 15 years now, and though not their biggest funder, it has been one of their most stable and flexible. However, right now, our five-year DFATD funding is ending. Canadian funding for refugees and displaced people through TBC ended in December 2014, and funding for the health partners you recently met will end in a few months. Our funding for women's rights, human rights and independent media is also ending.
Inter Pares submitted a proposal to DFATD in May 2014 in the hope of carrying this important work forward through Burma's transition, but it has now been over eight months and we have no indication yet of any decision. For the moment, TBC's work does not receive Canadian funding this year. With an election coming in Burma and a need to build a more pluralistic democracy there, we can only hope Canada will decide to support such vital work through this crucial period.
Sally Thompson, Executive Director, The Border Consortium: I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you very much to Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade for inviting us here today to present more about our work and the situation facing refugees internally displaced in conflict-affected communities in Burma and Thailand.
TBC is an NGO based in Bangkok. Recently, we opened an office in Yangon to support the transition of our local partners and the future return and reintegration of refugees and the internally displaced. In 2014, our program reach was support to nearly one quarter of a million refugees, IDPs and conflict-affected communities in southeast Burma, all through community-led programming. As Kevin outlined, we had been receiving funding from CIDA towards our program for the last 15 years. Currently, we have a budget of just under $30 million per annum to support food, shelter to refugees, capacity-building on community management, and recovery and rehabilitation of internally displaced and conflict-affected communities in southeast Burma.
Three years ago, we began our preparations for return with the ceasefire agreements of the ethnic armed groups, as it brought with it this hope of optimism after decades of conflict in southeast Burma. But we have to say three years on that in spite of the surprised pace of reforms and the political reforms on the ground, the momentum has stalled. Currently, the progress of ceasefire negotiations towards a nationwide ceasefire agreement is stumbling. The initial enthusiasm and momentum raised and the energy for and hope of return are in a moment of real hesitancy at a critical time.
In Thailand, there's also been change. The military coup last year brought in the military, and we have to say that it is a game changer in the country. It is a change in order. While the Thai military has confirmed that there will be no change in refugee policy, we are seeing an enforcement generally of policy as the military seeks to gain legitimacy. The relationships between Thailand's and Burma's armies are strengthening. Clearly a friendship is building.
For the refugees, where we have 110,000 in camps, we are supporting food, shelter and community camp management. There is no change in the policy, but it is a very simple policy: It is temporary asylum, confinement to camps and it means no work outside the camps.
However, all stakeholders — the Thai military, the Burmese government, UNHCR, refugees and non-state actors — agree that the current situation in Myanmar is not conducive to a return of refugees.
What has all this meant for the actual population movement from the camps? Over the years, we have seen a gradual decline in the population, largely the result of resettlement to third countries, including Canada. Canada has taken just under 5,000 refugees for resettlement during the period.
We have seen not only resettlement in the last year but also small-scale returns to Burma. About 4,500 people left the camps to go back to Burma, but this was largely for scoping visits. People were going back on a temporary visit to look at the situation back in their villages. What was it like? Where was the army? Would they be able to get access to their land? What was the situation for livelihoods for a harvest? Those were their questions. Over this year, some of those people will come back to the camps where they left their families, and we will learn more about the situation inside.
We also saw some 3,500 refugee departures to Thailand. They left the camps and went somewhere into Thailand, most likely to seek work in the migrant communities so they can support their families in the camps to complement the very basic assistance they receive.
What is the refugee perspective? Why are they not returning yet, given that ceasefires are in place?
Well, for them the army is still in their villages, and essentially they fled from the army. They want protection and security. They don't have that trust in the authorities. Their confidence in the peace process and cease-fire negotiations is very, very low, so they lack — generally, after years of fleeing from the army, suspicion is very deep inside and it will take years to build that confidence and trust.
It is not just about where the army is; there are also other obstacles, particularly lack of access to land and livelihoods. Fundamentally, the key concern is protection and security.
What does that mean? If they're not returning yet, it gives us time to prepare. In the camps we've shifted the focus from care and maintenance to how we can get people more self-reliant, shift their thinking so they start to take more initiatives to do more for themselves, because the day they go back to Burma they will have to hit the ground running and re-establish their livelihoods as fast as they can. So the emphasis from the humanitarian community has been to hand over responsibilities to refugees and to get them to do more for themselves. For us, we have been focusing assistance towards the most vulnerable in the camps.
But with the military coming into control in Thailand, we have seen enforcement of policy, restrictions on the camps. This policy of confinement to camp has meant restrictions of movement. This has limited their opportunities and possibilities to go outside of the camp to get work and find ways to support them and their families. Inevitably we're seeing increased aid dependency as people are having to remain within the confines of the camp.
Just as we are seeing this return in the clock, if you like, back towards aid dependency, we're seeing the donors moving away from refugees. After 30 years, there's donor fatigue and a lack of interest from some areas, but also there are other competing crises around the world, not least Syria.
Perhaps one of the issues for the donors is there aren't the mechanisms to deal with protracted refugee situations. By and large we are competing in the same humanitarian pot as a protracted refugee situation for an immediate emergency crisis like Syria, like Typhoon Hainan. And these are unrealistic comparisons. We're not in an emergency in the refugee camps; we're at a point where there is an end in sight. We're very close to there actually being a solution. We are very close to refugees being able to return back to Burma, back to their homes.
This is where we want to say to people that we have to commit to stay with it, to see it through with the refugees so that we can say this is a job well done, and we can actually say this is a success story whereby refugees were empowered. They became more self-reliant. They took more initiatives. They have basically been responsible for their lives for the last 30 years in refugee camps, and now we're going to see when they go back to Burma that they will be able to contribute and reintegrate with communities that never left, to contribute to the rebuilding of those communities.
My key message to Canada today is to say that we're looking for a commitment from donors to see this through with the refugees because we believe that the future, the solution, is there. There is a real hope that very soon there will be a possibility for refugees, after decades of conflict, to go back to their homelands.
I would like to end there and open the floor to questions. My colleague is Duncan McArthur, who leads the programs, particularly with our conflict-affected communities in the southeast. We are looking to provide support to those communities now so that they, too, can rehabilitate and feel ready to welcome back refugees and the internally displaced when they do return.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for the presentation. There are perhaps two points that you could clarify as we have new committee members since we started this study.
First, what is the involvement of UNHCR or other international agencies? In other words, the status, legally, on the international plain would be helpful to both our audience and to the senators.
Second, there certainly has been information coming out of Burma that in the areas they would resettle into, there are people resistant to their return. How is that going to be managed?
Ms. Thompson: Indeed, the border is a unique situation. By and large, UNHCR has been responsible for refugees. They are the coordinating body for all services for refugees, both humanitarian and protection.
What happened on the Thailand-Burma border was that for 14 years the NGOs were responsible for all the coordination of humanitarian services. UNHCR came in later and they have the mandate for protection only, so we work in partnership with UNHCR. UNHCR is protection and the NGOs, under their own coordinating body, are responsible for all the humanitarian services, food shelter health education.
UNHCR, however, is the mandated lead when it comes to voluntary return for refugees. We will be coordinating with UNHCR as we look toward ensuring that conditions for a voluntary return are in place before that should be promoted. We are working with UNHCR, and they have already developed a strategic road map towards a future voluntary return of refugees.
Perhaps Duncan would like to comment on how we're handling this. We're very aware that the potential for social conflict is indeed very real because of the people in communities who stayed behind.
Duncan McArthur, Partnership Director, The Border Consortium: Thank you to the committee for giving us your time today.
Before going on to that, I will add a little to the response about UNHCR. It does mean that we cannot access multilateral funds through the UN system; Canada and the other governments will be contributing to UNHCR. It cannot be used for support for food, health care, education, shelter for the 110,000 refugees in the camps, which is why we need these bilateral fundraising arrangements to be in place. It is a unique situation globally.
With regard to the second question about the resistance or otherwise of communities that have stayed back and the perceptions they may have that refugees have been spoiled or have run away and didn't have to stick it through the hard times, I think primarily it is a homogenous community. There are different ethnic groups, but the refugees will be going back into the same ethnic areas. They have relatives back in those areas, extended families. To some extent, it is not as bad a situation or as grave a threat as could be perceived, with the exception, perhaps, of the Muslim population in the camps, which is about 8 per cent of the total refugee population.
This brings in the broader hate speech and vilification against the religious minorities, the Muslim population in Burma, that we have seen stoked over the last couple of years by ultra-nationalist Buddhist monks in particular.
Targeted at the Rohingya originally in Rakhine State, it has spread over the last couple of years to a more generic religious discrimination targeting Muslims across the country. For this community, it is not just an issue of how the ceasefire or peace process pans out. It also looks at how we build up this tolerance and get over this kind of religious discrimination in much the same way that the peace process is trying to get over the ethnic discrimination and ethnic chauvinism that has been targeted against ethnic minorities for the past few decades.
Senator Ataullahjan: I have a rather long question dealing with the dire situation in Burma, the horrific human rights abuses and the migration of the Rohingya. What is the reaction of the average Burmese person? Are they aware of the situation in the country or are these types of stories censored?
We saw that in December the UN General Assembly passed a resolution asking Burma to amend its citizenship laws. Did that change anything?
Mr. McArthur: Just to clarify the question, is it about the perception of refugees, the situation in Burma, or about the perception of people in Burma about the situation for refugees?
Senator Ataullahjan: With the human rights abuses of the Rohingya, is the average Burmese aware of what is happening, or are their stories censored in the media?
Mr. McArthur: There are a couple of answers. The first one is that the abuse and the marginalization of the ethnic minorities, the Rakhine community in Rakhine State, cannot be forgotten either. It is kind of a situation of an abused community then taking out frustrations on another more marginalized community. I think that is probably the solution; recognition that both the Rohingya community as well as the ethnic Rakhine community are struggling to deal with decades of abuse and marginalization.
Having said that, there is also a fear that there will be an infiltration of Islamic terrorists, jihadi terrorists, into the destitute situation in Rakhine State. I think this kind of narrative is what the ultra-nationalists have been trying to promote.
That has gotten media play. That is the main narrative that is being distributed throughout the country, with the exception of some courageous independent media that have been trying to recognize the rights of the Rohingya as humans regardless of their categorization as citizens or not.
On the issue of citizenship, a verification process has been ongoing in Rakhine State for the last few months, based on where people are actually eligible under the 1982 citizenship law. That is ongoing. We're not sure exactly how many people will be recognized under that verification process, but there are expectations that it will be a significant proportion — maybe not up to a half of the Rohingya population, but maybe over a quarter. So there are some government mechanisms in place to try to recognize or verify Rohingya's status under the existing citizenship law, but it is not going to be enough to address the full statelessness claims of the population.
Senator Ataullahjan: Have there been legitimate investigations into human rights abuses? We heard stories in the news of legal action being threatened against individuals accusing the Burmese military of wrongdoing or of threats made to members of the media. Has any action been taken?
We have seen how they have treated the UN envoy with great disdain. Now we're hearing that some of the newspapers are playing the politics of fear. Where is all this going to go?
Mr. Malseed: Definitely in terms of the human rights situation, most analysis says that in 2014 the human rights situation actually went more backwards than forwards.
In terms of issues like the Rohingya, the government and even other political parties to a large extent seemed to be pandering to this sort of anti-Muslim feeling that is widespread in the country.
Bringing in the element you raised of what an ordinary person in a village is saying, I had a lot of experience in villages where Buddhists, Muslims, Christians lived side by side for decades or a century. There was a certain amount of segregation. Maybe they didn't intermarry very much, although they did sometimes. But there wasn't violence. There wasn't this kind of tension. So a lot of this is a bit of a vicious cycle because you get ultra-nationalists trying to fan these flames, and then you get some of the political and military leadership jumping on that wagon, feeling that maybe that will be the way to go in the next election.
With regard to your question about issues for journalists, definitely journalists have been protesting that conditions have been worsening for them. There was talk about removal of censorship on the media that didn't actually go as far as people were hoping. They just replaced pre-publication censorship with post-publication censorship, meaning that if you publish an article the government doesn't like, they can revoke your licence to publish, which forces you to a position of having to self-censor, which can be even worse. More and more, they have been arresting journalists who report on stories they don't like. There was even one case of the army executing a freelance journalist in October who they captured when he reporting on the armed conflict in the ethnic states.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I want to begin by congratulating all four of you on the important work you have done and are still doing. Congratulations and thank you.
According to the 2014 Human Development Index of the UN Development Program, UNDP, Burma is ranked one hundred and fiftieth out of 187 countries. UNDP estimates the rate of poverty in Burma to be 26 per cent, which is twice as high in rural regions — where 70 per cent of the population lives — and even higher in border regions.
What would you say are the most urgent development needs in Burma, aside from the lack of access to land you mentioned in your presentation? I would like to know what other urgent needs exist there.
[English]
Ms. Thompson: Thank you very much for that question. To actually add to this, in southeast Burma today, IOM did a study on employment and 70 per cent of households in the southeast have a member of the family working in Thailand to support the family back home. This has serious implications for a short-term return of refugees or the internally displaced. There simply aren't the livelihoods and opportunities there for people to pursue.
I think generally, yes, we would back up that the level of poverty in the index is such that it is forcing people to leave areas. Therefore, the remaining people are the most vulnerable; they're the dependents and the older generation looking after grandchildren. By and large the working population, who you need in that particular area to be able to build up support services, whether it is through health education, are currently working outside in Thailand. This is key.
One of the fundamental issues is there is no plan. There is no strategy. There's no clear development strategic plan. There's no coordination of how to develop the southeast.
The first block is still that it has to be related to troop movements in the southeast because it still generates a climate of fear for people. Although travel restrictions have been lifted so that people have more access to markets, in turn it is bringing more, shall we say, speculators, local authorities and new commercial interests into areas, so land grabbing has become a key issue in this area.
Whether it is returnees or communities who stay behind, where they are just at a point now where they feel they have more freedom of movement, they're actually seeing land grabbing. They're losing their land at a time when they need it the most.
Mr. McArthur: In 2012, TBC published a household survey of over 4,000 households in the southeast, which concurs basically with what you were just saying. We found 59 per cent of households in conflict-affected areas were impoverished and unable to meet their basic needs. That concurs with the UNDP assessments of 25 per cent in areas that weren't affected by conflict and more than double in those that are affected. That was followed in 2013 by a EU- funded survey in Kayah State in the southeast, which was trying to address the exact issues you raised: What are the priority needs? Are there any quick gains to be made? The findings showed that the needs were across all sectors and geographic areas, that there was no quick fix to be made, and that no sector was more disadvantaged than another. It was cross-cutting education and protection.
I would also go back to an assessment of one of the former UN resident coordinators from a number of years ago about causes of chronic poverty. It basically summarized three key causes: first, the lack of accountability and transparency in governance; second, systematic and widespread human rights abuses; and, third, the protracted conflict exacerbating impoverishment of the population in ethnic areas.
In terms of a development agenda, it's almost an irony, given the potential for Burma as a resource-rich country. With this reform period in the conflict-affected areas, one of the great benefits, the progress made, is a reduction in the restrictions on movement. It has meant that farmers have had greater access to their fields and to markets to strengthen their livelihoods. It has also meant greater access for commercial interests to go into the conflict-affected areas in search of resource extraction, increasing the competition for land and livelihoods not only for existing communities but also for returnees or potential refugees or internally displaced communities coming back. We have this dynamic of growth versus development, but in the interests of economic growth, the possibilities for poverty alleviation are actually being undermined.
Mr. Malseed: When you look at conflict and land issues, part of the reason that the ceasefire processes have been largely stalled is that the government approach is to say, "We just need to stop shooting and then we'll have economic development, and then we'll talk about politics and division of powers or federalism." The ethnic opposition groups say, "No, we have to talk about that first, otherwise development is just going to mean all the central government cronies and companies can come in and grab everyone's land and do what they want because there is no legal framework and there is corruption at all levels of government and the military."
When we talk to people from communities, they say that because of that, they need these ceasefires to incorporate some sort of political resolution on questions like resources and protection of land rights. They're very concerned that there's essentially no rule of law, especially in the rural areas. The military operates with impunity. One example that also relates to a previous question is that when farmers try to protest after their land is confiscated, they're attacked by the military and arrested and thrown in jail.
There was a case in the middle of last year. Women in Chin State held a demonstration after a military person raped a local woman. They asked that this person be brought to justice, but it was not he who was brought to justice; it was the demonstrators who were arrested and sentenced for demonstrating against military rape. You still have this kind of impunity that allows these abuses to happen.
In addition, with these ceasefire processes, most people think that under a ceasefire the military presence would decrease, whereas, in fact, when ceasefires are created in Burma, the state army sends in more troops, fortifies its camps and stockpiles them to increase its military presence because it can get away with that under the ceasefire. This in turn tends to lead to more tensions, which often result in the ceasefires breaking down.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: You brought up human rights at some point, but I think you know that a national human rights commission was recently created in Burma. Do you think that commission is a mechanism that could be a very effective way to promote human rights?
[English]
Mr. McArthur: One of the constraints is the way that it was established in the first place. I believe the Paris Principles are about the establishment of national human rights commissions. In Burma, the executive hand-selected and appointed the members of the National Human Rights Commission. Over the past couple of years, it has constantly acknowledged that it has been receiving referrals and complaints, but it doesn't have the capacity to follow up on those, so it has been referring back to the local authorities against whom the complaints have been raised. There remain some fundamental concerns that the National Human Rights Commission is a paper tiger and doesn't have the teeth to address the culture of impunity that prevails.
Senator D. Smith: When you mentioned land grabbing, it made me think of Toronto and Vancouver, but I won't go down that road.
I commend the priority of human rights on your agenda. I know that one of the primary goals is with regard to the refugees from Burma being able to get back there. It almost strikes me, and maybe you can tell me if I'm correct, not that long-term military governments are desirable, but when you have two military governments, they have a better rapport with each other than before. Does that seem to be the case in terms of being able to get some of these Burmese refugees back under acceptable conditions due to the fact that you have two military governments in the short term? Is there a little more rapport between the two rather than when only one is a military government and the other one isn't?
Ms. Thompson: Certainly, it's true that there's more rapport between them. Indeed, General Prayut Chan-o-cha, the current Prime Minister in Thailand, meets regularly with the top-level military in Burma, and every time they meet, return is on the agenda.
From a refugee perspective, of course, this only serves to increase the anxiety that there may be a premature push- back. The danger is that their future is being decided by top-level military. The key to any sustainable return is involvement of the communities in these decisions because it's not just about the top-level military. We're talking about conflict-affected areas with non-state actors who will be fundamental to the future sustainability of those areas and refugee return.
Our worry is that, yes, as the relationship between two military governments increases, the actual opportunity for communities and other stakeholders to be involved in those decisions becomes a much greater challenge. That's what we've got to work on.
Senator D. Smith: On the human rights side, do you have a feeling that these two military governments have some appreciation and recognition of minority religious groups and their human rights? Are human rights on their radar screen minimally? How would you react to that?
Ms. Thompson: We have to say that from a military perspective, if there is a ceasefire agreement, they see that as peace and they don't see the other issues. If there is no fighting, their thinking is that you can have return. They don't look at all the layers.
Senator D. Smith: The human rights issues.
Ms. Thompson: Yes.
Senator Demers: Thank you for those who have not been there, including myself and others. The big picture you presented is of a troubled world, as mentioned by some of our senators, obviously working very hard on human rights.
I have to ask a question. There should be elections in 2015. Is it possible to have an election without corruption? What role will the minority groups, such as Karen or Rakhine, play in the upcoming parliamentary election?
Mr. McArthur: The best hope for the elections is they will be free and fair enough. We're not expecting them to be free and fair elections, but it's just how much is the enough. There are concerns, particularly if we look at the way the last elections played out in terms of registering to vote before the elections. How much that will be tainted? How many people who think they are turning up to register to vote will actually end up having that used as their vote or taken away from them? That's a nationwide problem.
In conflict-affected areas with ethnic minorities, areas of possible refugee return, elections need to be perceived in the context of federalism and the ethnic struggle for greater self-determination within a union. There's no push for secession from Burma. That's very clear from all the ethnic leaders. In many ways the struggle has been not only for democratic struggle in Burma, but also for greater recognition of the ethnic minority rights.
In the context of the peace process at the moment, which is primarily looking at that relationship between the constituent nations of the state, the elections scheduled for the last quarter of this year do put some time pressures on creating this nationwide ceasefire agreement, and then starting the political dialogue to follow.
We shouldn't forget the bilateral ceasefires, which started in 2011. In many ways, the focus on trying to get some composite nationwide ceasefire agreement has taken the pressure off implementing those bilateral ceasefire agreements, some of which were quite significant, including with the Karen National Union, the KNU, were quite significant. Quite a range of issues were addressed, but there hasn't been the follow-up implementation.
So in terms of the elections coming up now, it does mean that even if there is a nationwide ceasefire agreement in the next few months, we're not going to get into any substantive political dialogue to address those fundamental issues about the causes of ethnic conflict until the next administration.
Senator Demers: Thank you for your answer, sir.
In 2015, what recommendations should Canada make for Burma's next Universal Periodic Review? That's coming up. Obviously we're in 2015, so what could Canada do to better? Canada is very strong on human rights. What role could we play?
The Chair: I think you mean at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.
Senator Demers: Yes, thank you.
The Chair: As long as that's clear.
Mr. Malseed: Well, to try to touch on that, I'd like to start with something related to your first question, which leads into that.
When you look at the upcoming election, one thing you could look at as an indication of how the election might go is the nationwide census that took place in 2014. This was the first census in decades, and it was hoped that it would be able to help identify needs. From the start, it was racked with controversy, particularly around Rohingya and other Muslim populations. The Rohingya in particular were excluded from the list of ethnicities. Under pressure, the government said it would allow them to self-identify during the census, but it reneged on that promise. What happened was when census-takers would go to Rohingya households, the moment they identified themselves as Rohingyas, the census takers would walk out and those people were not counted.
In addition, in several of the ethnic areas that are close to any kind of armed conflict, the census did not take place. Instead, they had expert estimates of the population that would be there. A lot of people are concerned they will do with the census what they did in the past, which is to overstate the preponderance of the Burman population and understate the ethnic groups. We'll see if that happens.
When you look at elections, the same thing could happen. It's possible they could use security concerns as a way to block the election happening in areas where the government party is not supposed to do well. A lot of this really comes down to constitutional reform. This is, I think, one area where Canada can have a strong voice.
As a federal country, in Burma a large part of the population, particularly the ethnic population, has expressed a wish for a federal union. This was promised right upon independence in the 1940s but was never fulfilled. Now the government pretends to have a somewhat federal system, but they don't actually give any power to the states and they control those governments. Right now you need constitutional reforms in that direction.
When you look at the election, a lot of civil society and ethnic people are in a bit of a quandary as to how to react to the election, how to behave, because in one sense they're hoping the election will change who is in power. On the other side they're saying that under the current constitution, this election is only partly meaningful. The current constitution reserves 25 per cent of parliamentary seats in both upper and lower houses for the active duty military. The key government ministers are appointed by the military commander-in-chief. More significantly, the military is not answerable to the government. The government does not control the military. The military does not have to report to the government, not even on how it spends its budget. The military is empowered by the constitution to take over power at any moment where it feels the country is under threat.
While everyone is calling for this to be changed in the constitution, the military leaders have said, "We will defend the constitution as it exists," which really means, "We will take over the country if anyone tries to change the constitution." So that's a big start of the stalemate, and that's what is undermining the election and could be one key issue Canada could address, along with some of the human rights issues, like land issues.
Mr. McArthur: If I may add a little bit, one of the strengths of the Universal Periodic Review is that the Human Rights Council invites submissions from civil society for making their deliberations. One of the strengths of Inter Pares programs, which the Canadian government has been supporting, is the role women's groups, farmers' networks and human rights defenders play in not only national policy debates but informing the international community. The Universal Periodic Review is an excellent opportunity for those voices to come out.
Senator Oh: My question is based mostly on religion. Approximately 89 per cent of the Burmese people are Buddhist, with roughly 4 per cent identifying as Christian, 4 per cent as Muslim and 3 per cent from the minority religious sects. What role does religion play in Burmese society, and in what way does religion intersect with politics in Burma?
I remember a few years ago that 2,000 monks demonstrated and disappeared. What happened to those monks?
Mr. McArthur: It is a timely question because at the moment the Parliament in Naypyidaw is addressing a race and religion bill. It is actually a series of four bills that have come out and have been propagated by the ultra-nationalist Buddhist movement. You would have seen in the report of UN Special Rapporteur for Human Rights to the General Assembly in December, as well as more recently, last month, after her visit to the country, she expressed concerns that all four of these bills are fundamentally undermining rights of women, rights of freedom of expression, rights of freedom of religion. It's a very cosy link between the military, which still has significant control of the Parliament — it is a very quasi-civilian government — and these ultra-nationalist movements.
I think we can still say that it's a real splinter in the vision of a multicultural, plural-rights-based society that we are hoping for and working towards, on one hand, together with the government and the ethnic armed groups in the peace process, and then on the other hand you still have this religious discrimination and vilification which is now being debated in Parliament and potentially to be passed into law.
Senator Oh: I believe the military junta, the majority are very sincere Buddhists. They practice Buddhism. I suppose Buddhism and power don't mix.
The Chair: I think that was a statement rather than a response or a question.
Senator Cordy: I was going to ask what Canada could do, but you answered Senator Demers' question very thoroughly. Thank you for that.
I would also like join with Senator Fortin-Duplessis in thanking you for the tremendous work that you're doing in that area. It really is helping, slowly, step-by-step, but thank you for being there.
I'd like to talk about reintegration from the camps. Ms. Thompson, you spoke about it and others touched on it. The camps have been around for 30 years. Are they the same people? If that's the case, there are children who have grown up within the camps. Is that, in fact, the case?
Ms. Thompson: Over the years, about 250,000 people have come through the camps and about 90,000 of those have gone on for third-country resettlement. Yes, we are now seeing that half the population is actually under 19. For many of them, they were born in the camps. They've never known a life back in Burma. When it comes to returning, we wonder if they will even go back, because they don't have that direct link.
When it comes to reintegration, at the moment we're trying to bring people from inside into the camps to talk, to exchange, and to allow people from the camps to go inside, to meet with the communities inside to understand what it is like now to live under the current Burmese regime. We want to gradually build understanding, whether it's with farmers and agriculture, looking at natural resource management, different ways to bring the two communities together to learn about what both sides have been through in the last 30 years.
Yes, they are the same population. Some of them have been there 30 years. The majority has perhaps been in there now somewhere around 10 to 15 years, but half of them really have never had a life in Burma at all.
Senator Cordy: So you are working on the challenges that that entails, because if that's your life, then it sounds terrible to say it becomes comfortable, but that's the life that you've known. So you are working at exposing them to —
Ms. Thompson: Yes, indeed, because one of the factors of returning is that it is very hard for people. They're going to be returning to basically zero. They're going to have to start again from the beginning, and they've been used to a life. The camps are peri-urban settings. They have had access to health care, education and markets. When they go back to Burma, those things have yet to be developed in many of the areas, and the market may be a day's walk away.
There are many issues, which is why for young people, will they go back to subsistence rural agriculture when they've never known a life of agriculture?
These are things we have to gradually look at, the kind of skills that are relevant, because in the camps they have a huge range of skills, whether it's health workers or teachers.
One of the key things is getting documentation, accreditation, recognition of the levels of learning that students have achieved, the qualifications that a teacher or a laboratory technician has. We're trying to build links with the Burma vocational training authorities to try and recognize the existing training and levels of learning that have been achieved so that when they do go back, it is recognized.
Senator Cordy: You also spoke about the need for involvement of stakeholders in the reintegration. Does that include the refugees themselves?
Ms. Thompson: Yes.
Senator Cordy: Does it include other bodies?
Ms. Thompson: It should include just about everybody that you can think of.
Senator Cordy: A big group.
Ms. Thompson: It is. I think the key, though, is it is also about the non-state actors. It is not just the local governmental authorities. It's also about the non-state actors and their local community leaders. It's about the ethnic political leaders. It's about that dialogue between all parties that is key. It's not just an agreement between central Naypyidaw and the Thai government. What is key is on the ground between local communities, local health authorities, the local educational authorities, so that everybody is engaged in it, yes.
Senator Cordy: That's really good.
You said also that momentum has stalled and you spoke about donor fatigue. Is that the momentum coming from outside agencies, government agencies, including Canada?
I thought I also heard you say that the people themselves are getting nervous about real change happening in light of the military and their decision making. How do you overcome that malaise or loss of momentum?
Ms. Thompson: By actually seeing things changing on the ground. We have to keep going to effect change on the ground in these areas where these people are from so the refugees can actually see it. It's not about the high-level agreements. It's not about the parliamentary agreements. It's how does that trickle right down to the ground to effect change for people in their day-to-day lives? That is what they need to see.
That's how you overcome the anxiety, if you like. It's about giving people confidence. They see it by what's actually happening on the ground, from doing.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: According to the document you submitted, the funding you are currently receiving is ending in the spring. In practice, you are in limbo and don't know what will happen. Can you remind us what annual amounts your organization receives from the Canadian government and tell us about your request for renewal? I am also seeing that you would like the government to commit over the next five years.
How do you feel about this? When you met with officials, did you think that there would be no reduction, at least, and that you were highly likely to receive a five-year commitment? Should the news not be as good as you were hoping and the funding was reduced or you received only a one-year commitment, how would that impact your work?
[English]
Ms. Thompson: Thank you very much for that most important question for us.
We're actually at the very start of our visit today. We will be meeting tomorrow with DFATD and some other government officials. Rebecca has recently returned from a field visit with DFATD to the border.
I have to say that at the moment we have no indication that there will be any ongoing funding at all. We previously were receiving for the TBC component over a million dollars a year, and we do need that. This year we have a significant shortfall. We currently have a shortfall in our funding for 2015 of US$3.3 million. If we don't get that funding, we will have to reduce the rations in the camps for the refugees even further. That sends out the message from the point of the refugees, are we trying to push people back to an early return? Yes, we do need it. We don't have an indication.
In terms of the refugee program, we are looking for a five-year commitment, but in terms of the refugee component, we see that as being front-loaded in the first one, two years. The latter half is much more focused on the recovery of the southeast, into the communities in the southeast.
It is nuanced, if you like. I will ask Inter Pares because they are responsible for the submission of the overall package to the government; but, yes, at the moment we have no indication of whether it is likely or not. It makes it very difficult for us, in our planning, to know where to go.
Rebecca Wolsak, Program Manager, Inter Pares: I can add specifically to your question. We are currently coming to the end of a five-year program, which is just over $15 million from CIDA, now Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development. We put in a proposal for another five years last May and have not heard anything yet.
[Translation]
Senator Rivard: I hope you can obtain the money you need in the next budget.
I am asking this next question out of curiosity. About 25 years ago, a large and populous country, Ceylon, was renamed Sri Lanka. Burma is now called Myanmar. We see Myanmar on maps. Do you know why what worked for Sri Lanka does not work for Burma? Companies sometimes go bankrupt and start over under a new name. Why don't Canada, the U.S. and France recognize the new name of Myanmar?
[English]
Mr. Malseed: Yes, this has been the subject of years of debate between people both in Burma and internationally. To briefly explain, the name change to Myanmar was carried out in 1989 by a thoroughly illegitimate military junta. It was done at the same time as they changed the names of many of the states, cities and towns in the country. This was a name change from British colonial-imposed names to Burmese language or Burman language names.
Both the pro-democracy and ethnic oppositions rejected this name change on two main grounds. The first was that the military junta had absolutely no mandate to impose such a change, and they felt that accepting this name change would be a de facto recognition of the military junta as legitimate. The other main ground was this was seen as "ethnic Burmanization" within Burma. In Burma, 40 per cent of the population is of non-Burman ethnicity. In 60 per cent of the country's physical territory, these minority groups make up the majority of the population.
It is a very multi-ethnic country. This is partly why people really want federalism. To change the names of everything, including the names of the states named after the ethnic groups themselves — for example, to change the name of Karen State, which is a name the Karen used, to Kayin State, which is what Burmans call Karens but Karens don't call themselves — was seen as kind of ethnic cleansing.
The UN accepted the name Myanmar, but a lot of countries sympathetic to the pro-democracy movement did not. That's why you get Canada and the U.S. still using Burma, except, I think, in direct formal communication with the government there.
Senator Ataullahjan: Just listening this morning, a very bleak picture of Burma is emerging. They're not expecting elections to be free or fair. Do you feel that the government will still be controlled by the military after the elections? What does that mean for reforms that were made in the country prior to 2014? What does it mean for the work that you do on the ground, for which I commend you?
Ms. Thomas: I might like to start with a little sentence we keep hearing that everything is different but nothing's changed. Essentially, when we say "nothing has changed," it is about the mindset of the military, that they're still there. It is the same people.
You may have a Parliament in session, but actually who controls? It is the military. It is still the same people and it is the same mindset. That will always be of concern. It is there on top of everything.
Mr. McArthur: To follow up on your question about the role of the military after the elections, in the current session of Parliament, a constitutional amendment bill is being debated after a couple of years of being in development, and it basically tinkers around the edges. There aren't any substantive changes. The main demand that the opposition and civil society were advocating for was to change the article 436, which is about how you change the constitution so the military wouldn't keep its veto. That hasn't been included in the bill that has been submitted to Parliament.
The Speaker of the lower house has indicated that once this bill gets passed, it will be put to a referendum by the middle of the year, which like the previous constitution was put to a referendum in the days after Cyclone Nargis struck in 2007. We expect that to be a rubber stamp.
The Speaker has also indicated there wouldn't be any implementation of the changes in the constitution until after the elections and the new administration takes power. It is quite clear that the military's role in Parliament and in government will remain the same, at least until the next administration.
Having said that, we don't want to downplay the historic importance of having had at least quasi-civilian elections and a government come to power after the 2010 elections. Perhaps the best-hope scenario we have at the moment is for gradual and incremental change. That's why it is so important that we keep the focus, in terms of the peace process, not on a nationwide ceasefire agreement per se, although that's an important component, but on the momentum towards substantive political dialogue about all the causes of conflict, all the political causes about the constitutional reforms, about the security sector reform, about land rights, et cetera.
It is also why the importance of keeping the monitoring and keeping the role of, for example, the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma and not getting that normalized into a generic position.
One could point to lots of examples where small steps have been taken. I don't want to underestimate or downplay the significance of those steps, but it is about keeping the momentum going so that people can build confidence towards more substantive change happening.
That fits into what we see as the importance of making sure that refugees volunteer to return and are given space and time with support so they don't feel like they're being pushed back into a situation, because that will only create more complication and more tension. There is the potential to create local grievances in the host communities they're going back to if they don't feel they have been given the opportunity to make that decision of their own right rather than because they can't survive anymore in the refugee camps and they have no choice but to return.
Ms. Wolsak: One of the sentiments that I have been hearing from the civil society that we work with is there isn't as dramatic a change happening as perhaps the international media is portraying. But we're not going to sit around waiting for that change. We're going to monitor the situation. We're going to push for a change, but we're also going to concretize our vision for the future.
For example, the health workers that some of you met in June have been talking about wanting a federal union for a long time. They recognizing, what does that actually mean in terms of national public health care? How do they want to see a national public health care system? They're working on drafting policies and working on concretizing these visions. In some ways that stall in progress is a real useful moment for groups.
The Chair: I would like to thank all of the panels today. You have certainly covered an area that we needed to cover in our study. Some committee members have already expressed their appreciation for the work that you have done in this area.
On behalf of the committee, I would add that you have been one of the few groups that have done a consistent monitoring of Burma. That richness and depth of understanding is certainly valuable to this committee and to Canada. Thank you for being here today.
(The committee adjourned.)