Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue 12 - Evidence - October 30, 2014
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 30, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, to which was referred Bill S-219, An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War, met this day at 8:30 a.m. to give consideration to the bill; and to examine and report on how the mandates and practices of the UNHCR and UNICEF have evolved to meet the needs of displaced children in modern conflict situations, with particular attention to the current crisis in Syria.
Senator Mobina S. B. Jaffer (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to the twentieth meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights during the Second Session of the Forty-First Parliament.
[Translation]
Our committee has been mandated by the Senate to study issues pertaining to human rights, both in Canada and abroad. My name is Mobina Jaffer, and I am the chair of this committee. I am pleased to welcome you to this meeting.
[English]
Before I continue, I would like my colleagues to introduce themselves, and I will start with our deputy chair, Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Good morning. Senator Nicky Eaton from Ontario.
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas from Alberta.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth from Toronto.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Today we are looking at Bill S-219, An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War.
This bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Ngo, who is originally from Vietnam, and he's the sponsor of this bill. We have him as the first witness this morning. Senator Ngo, may I please ask you to make your remarks.
Hon. Thanh Hai Ngo, sponsor of the bill: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Honourable senators, I am pleased to be here this morning to speak about Bill S-219, An Act respecting a national day of commemoration of the exodus of Vietnamese refugees and their acceptance in Canada after the fall of Saigon and the end of the Vietnam War.
It is with great appreciation that I appear before you with the hope of earning your support for this commemorative bill that seeks to recognize April 30 as the day marking the end of the fall of Saigon, commemorating the Vietnamese boat people's saga, and recognizing the fundamental role played by Canadians who welcomed thousands of Vietnamese refugees with open arms. As I expand on these important things, I hope to shed light on how meaningful the recognition of this important day would be for Canada and the 300,000 Vietnamese Canadians who trace their roots and history to the boat people saga.
I am confident that this commemoration day would bring the attention of all Canadians to the events and the suffering that followed the fall of Saigon after the Vietnam War in 1975. It would also shed light on the fundamental role that Canadians played in rescuing and welcoming thousands of the Vietnamese refugees who now proudly celebrate their heritage and freedom in Canada.
The Vietnam War was driven by opposing ideologies between two very different political systems. This prolonged struggle between North and South Vietnam was an attempt by the communist north to invade the democratic south in order to bring South Vietnam under its rule. After long battles and endless losses for both sides of the war, the fall of Saigon took place with the capture of the capital of South Vietnam by the People's Army of North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front on April 30, 1975. This dark day marked the end of the Vietnam War and the beginning of the communist state ruled by a one-party communist regime.
For Canadians of Vietnamese origin and for the wide Vietnamese diaspora now living abroad, April 30 depicts the day when South Vietnam fell and the beginning of their journey to freedom. After the Vietnam War, over 65,000 Vietnamese were executed and over 1 million Vietnamese were sent to prison and re-education camps, where it is estimated that around 165,000 died because of retribution by North Vietnamese communists.
The years following the fall of Saigon, from 1975 to 1996, were known to be the largest mass migration in modern history, with more than 1.5 million people leaving their war-torn country in search for freedom. What was unique about the Vietnamese exodus was that, unlike most other forced migration that often displace through mountains and deserts, the only route for escape for Vietnamese fleeing the country was by navigating the sea. This is why this group of refugees has become known to the world as the ''boat people.''
Many Vietnamese people had to sail in rickety, broken boats from the South China Sea, where they faced constant, unimaginable peril. They had to navigate not only through deadly storms but also through disease and starvation. The primary causes of death of the boat people was drowning, attacks by pirates, murder or by being sold into slavery or prostitution. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, over 250,000 people perished in the seas looking for freedom.
Honourable colleagues, Bill S-219 is not only about commemorating the refugees that lost their lives during the exodus; it is also a recognition and an expression of gratitude to Canada for welcoming so many refugees with open arms.
With the passing years, Canada's role during the post-Vietnam War era has often been forgotten. This is truly unfortunate, because without the warm and caring effort of thousands of Canadians and without the leadership, support and cooperation of federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as Canadians, international refugee agencies, non-governmental organizations and religious groups, the movement of such a large number of people under such urgent and difficult circumstances would not have been possible.
Some countries turned the boat people away, even when their boat of refugees managed to reach land. So these refugees often had to travel further away from their homeland and settle in Canada, France, Australia, United States and the United Kingdom. The United States accepted 823,000 refugees. Britain accepted 19,000; France accepted 96,000; and Australia and Canada accepted 137,000 each.
Following the growing migration of Vietnamese refugees, Canada developed a private sponsorship program, where it would seek the assistance of voluntary organizations, churches and groups of at least five adult citizens who could sponsor and provide for a refugee's family through their church for a year. For each person they sponsored, the government accepted another refugee under its own care.
In July 1979, the Canadian government, under then Prime Minister Joe Clark, made the historic announcement of a target figure of 50,000 Vietnamese refugees to be admitted to Canada by the end of 1980. In February 1980, the government then announced that the admittance figure would be increased from 50,000 to 60,000.
[Translation]
Following the fall of Saigon in 1975, thousands of Canadians opened their homes and their hearts to more than 60,000 Vietnamese refugees who desperately needed a place to rebuild their lives. Canadians from all walks of life showed no hesitation in answering the call and contributing to the huge international effort to find safe havens for those refugees.
Of the 60,000 refugees taken in by Canada between 1979 and 1980, about 26,000 were sponsored by the government, and 34,000 were hosted by private organizations, individuals and relatives. Over the course of the next decade — from 1982 to 1991 — more than 80,000 Vietnamese refugees came to Canada.
In 1986, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees awarded the Nansen Refugee Award to the people of Canada for their major and sustained contribution to the cause of refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees awarded Canadians the Nansen Award for the extraordinary efforts they invested in helping Indochinese refugees. This was the only time an entire country received the award.
Without the generosity and humanity of Canadians, I never could have had what I have today — an opportunity to live in a great country where I can benefit from freedom and democracy, and defend them without fearing for my life.
[English]
Bill S-219 would not only remember the sufferings that followed the fall of Saigon; it will also commemorate the achievements of Vietnamese-Canadians concurrently to highlight their new chapter in Canada.
For the past 39 years, every year, on April 30, Vietnamese-Canadians gather to remember a day of loss of their country and a new beginning. We remember April 30 as Black April Day because it represents the sad day we lost our country, our family, our friends, our home, our freedom and our democratic rights. It also commemorates a day of loss and grief.
I myself arrived in Canada with other Vietnamese refugees in a moment of great need. Canada welcomed us after we lived through a devastating war, suffered in refugee camps, and endured long boat trips to escape a place we could no longer call home. Like many others, I had to struggle and work hard to establish myself and my family in a new environment.
The Vietnamese boat people who escaped from Vietnam after the conflict have had an immense and positive impact on Canada. Vietnamese immigrants and refugees integrated quickly and extremely well into the fabric of their new homeland. They now proudly contribute to the Canadian multicultural mosaic.
My honourable colleagues, the Vietnamese-Canadians' journey and arrival to Canada are part of our national heritage. Since their establishment, they have made immense economic contribution to their adopted country. Many of them are now lawyers, doctors, judges, movie directors, artists, journalists and so on. Canada is now home to more than 300,000 Vietnamese-Canadians, 100,000 in the GTA alone, now with three proud generations who celebrate an important heritage in a great nation.
Without Canada's generosity and humanity, neither myself nor thousands of Vietnamese refugees could ever have achieved what we have today. We are now allowed to live in a beautiful country where we can enjoy freedom and democracy as proud Canadians.
In closing, this bill officially recognizing April 30 provides Vietnamese-Canadians with an opportunity to remember the suffering of their past, allowing them to officially express gratitude to Canada, and enabling them to advocate on behalf of those in Vietnam who don't enjoy the basic human rights and religious freedom we enjoy here.
In 2015, the Vietnamese-Canadian community will celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the boat people's resettlement to Canada. It is my hope to have this bill passed in time to acknowledge their milestone celebration.
Finally, I would like to share, and I wish to share, that I intend to move amendments to this bill in this committee at the appropriate date. After careful consultation and consideration, I believe it is appropriate to change the short title of this bill from ''Black April Day'' to ''Journey to Freedom Day.''
[Translation]
I believe it is appropriate to change the French title of the bill from ''Jour de l'Avril noir'' to ''Journée du parcours vers la liberté.''
[English]
These amendments would illustrate the gratefulness Vietnamese-Canadians express towards Canada and acknowledge the will and courage of the boat people.
Indeed, April 30 depicts a dark day that shook the world and forced millions of Vietnamese to leave their war-torn home in search of safety and freedom. However, I believe these amendments would bring focus to the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese boat people who lost their lives at sea in an attempt to pursue freedom.
Honourable senators, freedom isn't free, and the boat people paid for their freedom with their perilous journey.
It is with these brief comments I humbly ask for your support as we move Bill S-219 forward to recognize Vietnamese-Canadian heritage.
Thank you very much. It will be my pleasure to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Senator Ngo, for being here. I wanted to ask you about Project 4000. The City of Ottawa recognized Black April Day this year due to its involvement in Project 4000 in the early 1980s. What is Project 4000 and what effect has it on the city of Ottawa today?
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your question. Project 4000 is a project spearheaded by former mayor Marion Dewar. At that time we had the boat people arriving with such mass migrations, and the City of Ottawa, including other cities in Canada, accepted 4,000.
What we had to do first was to find churches, non-profit organizations and private sponsors to sponsor these people. The Government of Canada accepted them with the condition that for each family sponsored privately by a church or non-profit organization, or by ordinary Canadians, the Government of Canada would accept another refugee family. If you sponsored one family, the Canadian government would accept another family under its own care.
At that time I was the president of the Vietnamese association in Ottawa. I even travelled to Almonte and talked to the churches, to the priests, to the ministers and so on and asked them to sponsor Vietnamese refugees at that time.
With the 4,000 people at that time and the population of the city of Ottawa at that time, the number of the Vietnamese increased up to about 6,000 to 10,000 people. But later on, because of the work and job situation, more of them moved to Toronto. The older generation like us moved to Montreal because we speak French, and, at that time, I think it only 1 or 2 per cent went to Alberta and British Columbia.
Senator Eggleton: You mentioned changes. You did spell out one of them, which a more positive title for the bill. Are there any other changes you are proposing?
Senator Ngo: No, I didn't say anything political in the preamble; I just referred to the suffering of the Vietnamese refugees, the recognition of their journey, the recognition of the Canadian government, and so on. The Vietnamese diaspora overseas call April 30 ''Black April Day'' because ''black'' means the darkest day of their lives. They don't know anything else so they call it ''Black April Day.'' When I spoke to them about introducing the bill, they said to do it as ''Black April Day'' because everybody knows about it. I told them that the bill is only not for the Vietnamese diaspora but also for the Canadian people.
After consultations I asked if we should change it to ''Journey to Freedom Day'' because we escaped and we have our freedom here in Canada? I think they all agreed that it was a good term. So anywhere we have the words ''Black April Day'' in the title, it will be changed to ''Journey to Freedom Day.''
Senator Eggleton: Yes, ''Journey to Freedom.'' It seems to be encompassing other refugees perhaps at other times. Is it part of your intention here to make this more recognition of refugees and the plight of refugees in general? There have been other circumstances in Canadian history where we have taken in large numbers of groups of people who are refugees. I don't know that we have named any days for those, so is this an opportunity here to make this broader and inclusionary?
Senator Ngo: Thank you for your question, senator. This was particularly for the recognition of the Vietnamese refugees. The day they started is April 30. They have this exact date because that's the date they lost the country.
Senator Eggleton: Right.
Senator Ngo: Other refugees have a continual influx. They leave daily, for example, in Libya and Syria. They don't have an exact day for their departure. This bill reflects the situation for the Vietnamese diaspora in Canada and overseas.
Senator Eaton: Senator Ngo, did you come over in 1975? Were you a boat person?
Senator Ngo: Unfortunately, the boat people started only in 1979. I came here in 1975. I came here as a refugee. I was in Bangkok at that time. I worked for the Vietnamese embassy in Bangkok. After the fall of the government, however, we became stateless; there was no recognition by the government, or whatever. I stayed there until May 27.
From April 30 to May 27, I am the person who went to the Thai ports where the boats escaped from Vietnam came. I helped them to secure their landing rights and to ensure that the Thai government would accept them temporarily, because at that time even the Thai government didn't know what to do with the Vietnamese refugees. I communicated with the Thai government officials and asked them to accept them as they were and then we would proceed from there.
At that time, the majority of the Vietnamese escaped to Bangkok, to Thailand. After that they went to Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Singapore.
The Chair: Senator Ngo, as you are aware, we have had a number of people write to us about issues on this bill. One of the things we have been asked is: Will this affect our relationships with Vietnam?
Senator Ngo: The diplomatic relations between Canada and Vietnam have existed since 1974, when the government of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau recognized the existence of North Vietnam, although in 1973 Canada was one of the countries in the Paris Accord.
This bill has nothing to do with the diplomatic relationships between Canada and Vietnam. If you read the preamble, you will see that I tried my best and did not put anything political in there regarding Vietnam and Canada. I just said let's recognize the exodus the Vietnamese people and the sufferance, the loss at sea, and so on. I never put anything political in this bill.
If someone is saying that it will harm diplomatic relations between Canada and Vietnam, well, the people who oppose the bill by saying that mostly come from the Vietnamese embassy in Canada. They also had an interview in Embassy newspaper and everything they said in that article is not true. If you look at the bill, I didn't mention hatred or the atrocity of the North Vietnamese toward the Vietnamese people in South Vietnam; I didn't touch on any of that. If they said that, I don't think it's true.
The Chair: Can I ask you to elaborate on passing this bill? What will it mean for the community? What's the importance to the Vietnamese community?
Senator Ngo: For the Vietnamese community, it will acknowledge the day that they lost the country, the day they left Vietnam to come to Canada and the day Canada accepted them with open arms.
Basically, this is the day when all the Vietnam refugees will think, ''I'm the lucky one because I came here and Canada accepted me with open arms.'' They wish to express their gratitude to Canada, and so on. Those are the things that the Vietnamese people would like to express and they have done it every single year.
The Chair: Senator Ngo, I want to thank you for your presentation and for taking this initiative. I'm sure we will hear again from you. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Honourable senators, on May 6, 2014, the Senate passed the following order of reference: That the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights be authorized to examine and report on how the mandates and practices of the UNHCR and UNICEF have evolved to meet the needs of displaced children in modern conflict situations, with particular attention to the current crisis in Syria.
The conflict in Syria has triggered one of the most appalling humanitarian and refugee crises in modern history. Of particular distress is the impact on the situation of children. An estimated 3 million children are internally displaced in Syria and 1.2 million are refugees abroad. Millions of children are out of school, separated from their families, in need of protection and in need of medical care, both physical and psychological. Displaced children are also at greater risk of poverty, abuse, neglect, violence, exploitation, trafficking, child marriage and forced recruitment into armed groups.
Canada is a significant financial contributor to both the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and the UNICEF children's rights and emergency relief organization. Both of these organizations have been working on the ground to provide relief for millions of Syrians who have been affected by the conflict. The organizations have had to use their limited resources to respond to the changing humanitarian needs that have arisen from modern protracted conflict. As a result, their mandates and practices have had to evolve accordingly.
What the committee is looking for is not specifically just what is happening in Syria; rather, since the world war, the mandates of the UNHCR and UNICEF have changed. We want to hear from witnesses as to how they see the mandates have changed, whether the process has been correct, and should the mandates evolve. What we are really studying is the mandates of the UNHCR and UNICEF.
To begin our hearings today, I would like to welcome, from Refugees International, Jeff Crisp, Senior Director for Policy and Advocacy, by video conference. I understand you have some introductory comments, Mr. Crisp.
Jeff Crisp, Senior Director for Policy and Advocacy, Refugees International: Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much indeed for giving me this opportunity to address the Canadian Senate's Human Rights Committee. My name is Jeff Crisp, and I represent Refugees International, an independent and non-profit advocacy organization based here in Washington, D.C. Previously, I worked for the UNHCR, the UN refugee agency, for more than 25 years.
In the few minutes allotted to me this morning, I would like to identify some of the most important characteristics of the enormous refugee crisis that has been provoked by the cataclysmic armed conflict in Syria.
First, the refugee crisis has unfolded at an astonishing speed and on an almost unprecedented scale. In just three years, well over 3 million Syrian citizens have been forced to seek sanctuary in other states. Another 6 million have been forced to abandon their homes but remain displaced within the borders of their own country, while countless thousands are trapped in besieged towns, unable to move and in desperate need of humanitarian assistance.
Second, the Syrian refugee emergency has taken place at a time when the international community is struggling to respond to a spate of other crises that have erupted in different parts of the world, most notably in the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Ukraine and, of course, most recently, Iraq. With respect to the last of these countries, the past few weeks have witnessed the arrival of some 800,000 people in the northern region of Kurdistan, where winter is rapidly approaching. The international humanitarian system is being stretched to the limit by these emergencies, with money, relief supplies, logistical capacity and experienced aid workers in increasingly short supply across the world.
A third aspect of the Syrian refugee crisis that I would like to underline is the enormous impact that it is having on those countries that have admitted the largest numbers of refugees. Lebanon, for example, a politically and economically fragile state at the best of times, has given refuge to well over 1 million Syrian refugees, who now constitute some 25 per cent of the country's population. As many observers have remarked, it is as if the entire population of Canada had moved to the United States in little more than 36 months. Needless to say, this influx has placed serious pressures on scarce resources such as housing, water supplies, waste disposal systems and public finances. It also threatens to exacerbate Lebanon's deeply rooted sectarian tensions.
Given the scale of the refugee influx in Lebanon and other states in the region, it has become evident that international assistance must go well beyond the distribution of tents, blankets, stoves and other relief items. Large-scale support of a developmental nature is now urgently required to enable the countries and communities that are hosting such large numbers of refugees to cope with the influx. Without such support, it seems highly likely that Syria's neighbours will, as Lebanon has just threatened to do this week, close their borders to new arrivals and thereby deprive people of the ability to escape from the terrible human rights violations taking place within Syria.
At the same time, there is a need to provide the refugees with livelihood opportunities. In my recent visits to the region, Syrian refugees have explained to me how they thought that the armed conflict in their homeland would be over in a matter of weeks or months, allowing them to return very quickly to their country of origin. It is becoming increasingly clear to them that the war is likely to continue for an indefinite period of time. Even if peace did eventually return to Syria, the level of destruction that the country has suffered is so great that many refugees would find it extremely difficult to immediately return and reintegrate there. With their own resources depleted and the level of international assistance available limited, it will become increasingly important for the refugees to find work to support themselves and to contribute to the economies of the countries that have given them sanctuary.
A fourth characteristic of the Syrian exodus that I would like to highlight concerns the location of the new arrivals. The word ''refugee'' often conjures up images of sprawling camps, their residents accommodated in tents and being provided with their basic needs by a host of different aid agencies, but that is not the case with respect to the Syrians. At least 75 per cent of the refugee population are accommodated not in camps but have taken up residence in cities, towns and villages across the region, living alongside the Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian, Lebanese and Turkish people. This situation creates a number of challenges. How do aid agencies manage to identify, count and register such widely scattered populations? How can local health systems be reinforced so that they can address the needs of both local people and the new arrivals? How can the refugees themselves, especially those with particular vulnerabilities, such as older and disabled people, find out about the assistance services and advice that are available to them?
While I have focused so far on the Middle East region, a fourth point I'd like to make is that the Syrian refugee crisis is steadily being globalized. Confronted with the overcrowded conditions that exist in many host communities and unable to find regular or decently paid work, it is not surprising that a growing number of refugees are looking for a future further afield. Significant numbers of Syrians have already arrived in countries such as Bulgaria and Sweden. A growing proportion of the people making the hazardous journey across the Mediterranean from North Africa to southern Europe are Syrian citizens. As the refugee crisis persists, such movements seem certain to increase. Indeed, on a recent visit to the coastal city of Alexandria in Egypt, it was difficult for us to find a single Syrian refugee who did not mention their ambition to leave the country and to make their way to Europe.
Fifth, and finally, I would like to shine a spotlight on the terrible impact that the Syrian crisis is having on the country's refugee children. Many have suffered serious trauma as a result of the circumstances that have forced them to leave their own country. They have undertaken arduous journeys to find a place of refuge. They are now living in unfamiliar surroundings, with little idea as to what their future might hold. Their conditions of life in exile are increasingly grim. Boys are being taken out of school so that they can work for a pittance in demanding and dangerous jobs so as to contribute to the family budget. Girls are being subjected to early marriages or confined to their homes because of the high risk that they will become the victims of sexual violence of exploitation. Whether these young people eventually return to Syria, remain in the country that has given them asylum, or move on to another country, it will be essential for them to have the education and training that will allow them to become peaceful and productive members of society.
Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to conclude with a few words with respect to the way that Canada can help to address this growing refugee crisis. First and most evidently, my organization, Refugees International, encourages Canada to persist with the generous amounts of funding that it is already providing to organizations such as UNHCR and UNICEF. In this respect, we count on Canada's long-standing commitment to multilateralism and to humanitarian action.
Second, and to repeat a point I made earlier, we urge Canada to use its influence to ensure that development actors, such as the World Bank and the UNDP, become more substantively engaged in the Syrian refugee situation. At the same time, Canada's own overseas aid program might be used to support those countries and communities that have admitted such large numbers of refugees over the past three years.
Third, as one of the world's leading resettlement countries, we feel that it would be appropriate for Canada to admit a quota of Syrian refugees, especially those who are at particular risk in the places where they have taken up residence. With well over 3 million Syrian refugees in total, a Canadian resettlement or humanitarian admission quota would, of course, just be a drop in the proverbial bucket, but it would provide a lasting solution for those refugees who are in greatest need and would also send an important signal to the major host countries that they are not being left to cope with the crisis alone.
As António Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, commented just two days ago at a fundraising conference in Berlin:
There is a need for much stronger commitment to burden-sharing by other countries, allowing Syrian refugees to find protection beyond the immediate neighbouring region.
The Chair: Thank you very much for your remarks. Now we will go to Mercy Corps and hear from Mr. Matt Streng, Senior Youth Development Advisor. He is also joining us by video conference.
Matt Streng, Senior Youth Development Advisor, Mercy Corps: Good morning, honourable committee members. Thank you for inviting me to testify before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights on the needs of children displaced by the Syrian crisis and for the close attention you've paid to this complex and protracted crisis.
I'm the senior advisor for youth development at Mercy Corps, a global humanitarian and development non-governmental organization that responds to disasters and supports community-led development in more than 40 countries around the world. Mercy Corps has been working in the Middle East and North Africa for over three decades, and we currently run and manage programs in nine countries in the region.
In response to the Syrian crisis, we implemented programs inside Syria, as well as in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. We are implementing these programs with the generous support of donors, including the important contributions of the Canadian government and their Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in support of our program is entitled Advancing Adolescence in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria and through coordination of a broad range of multilateral and civil society partners under the umbrella of UNICEF's No Lost Generation initiative.
Half of the 6.5 million internally displaced and over 3 million refugees impacted by the Syrian crisis are children under the age of 18. Notably, nearly one in every four of these children is an adolescent between the ages of 12 and 17. Today, I would like to focus my remarks on this particular population.
Mercy Corps believes that Syrian refugee and host community adolescents represent a critical cohort that warrants particular attention and investment. Adolescents lack sufficient psychosocial support, education and skills-building programs. They continue to miss critical educational and life milestones, denying Syria and the region of the productive, wage-earning youth and adults it will need to mend a torn society and build back a broken economy. To lose this generation of productive young people would be a missed opportunity with significant repercussions. By investing in this generation now, we can support them today to start building their futures tomorrow.
Today, many of the nearly 400,000 adolescent Syrian refugees ages 12 to 17 continue to perform adult roles they are not prepared for, roles that expose them to serious risk. While this may help families survive in the short term, it will be a great expense to the future security and development of adolescents in the region.
Adolescence is a time of rapid cognitive, emotional and social growth in a child's life, and it is critical that we provide the right support at the right time.
Over the past year, I led assessments in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan, meeting with Syrian host community adolescents and their families and remotely supported our teams conducting analysis in Turkey and Syria. Mercy Corps initiated this five-country study to better understand the conditions under which Syrian refugee and host community adolescents are living and their plans for the future.
This study has informed strategies to ensure adolescents, both boys and girls, emerging from childhood and on the threshold of adulthood, are not falling between the cracks. For example, our research finds many adolescents are losing hope as a result of being out of school for years and unable to work legally. They risk isolation from their families and host communities, and lack tools to deal with conflict constructively.
This is not only affecting Syrian refugees but also Lebanese, Turkish, Iraqi and Jordanian youth. With Syrian adolescents, we found a sense of humiliation was pervasive and often involved physical violence. Adolescent boys regularly experience humiliation through physical and verbal abuse at school, on the job and in their communities. Many are losing hope and see armed groups as a way to protect themselves and others and gain respect and pay.
Inside Syria, one boy told us, ''I want to grow up and become the leader of an armed group. I want to get used to bearing arms to protect my mother and siblings.'' Outside of Syria, many boys said they would rather return to Syria to fight and die with dignity, than to continue living in humiliation.
Adolescent girls are more likely to experience physical and social isolation and early marriage as they wait for families to get daughters out of camps and reduce financial strain. One young girl living under siege inside Syria told us, ''I am tired, suffocating and don't know what I want. We no longer have dreams and have forgotten to think about ourselves.''
To help these adolescents meet other long-term needs, it is imperative that the donor communities shift gears and develop an integrative strategy that moves beyond the basic provision of humanitarian assistance to include development activities. There are a number of concrete steps that Canada can take now to help young people caught in the middle of this crisis. I would like to leave the committee with three key recommendations.
First, we need to prioritize integrated programs that target adolescent refugees and their peers in host communities, as well as adolescents inside Syria. Of the one-in-four Syrian refugees under the age of 18 that are adolescents, only one in 30, or 3 per cent, have received vocational and life skills, education and/or psychosocial support as of May of this year. We recognize that our current efforts and the investments made by the international and host country community are well below the level of effort we need to turn this generation of adolescents into peaceful and productive citizens.
Second, we need to work with local and national partners to increase alternative and flexible learning options for adolescents. While recent gains in enrolment show that 50 per cent of refugee children are now in school, adolescents are under-represented in these gains. It's time to mobilize resources to find innovative ways to educate adolescents at scale. Besides financial assistance, we also need efforts by the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to work with host nations to support the transferability of educational and vocational certificates. Advocacy for and delivery of certified programs in non-formal school settings has the potential to allow for larger numbers of adolescents to be provided with more specialized support.
Third, we need to expand employability with vocational skills training. Low-wage and low-skilled work is a recipe for ongoing abuse and violation of the rights of young workers. We need to work to create a safe and equitable work environment, while also scaling efforts to build the skills that will make adolescents productive members of their communities, regardless of whether that community is in a host nation or back in Syria.
The first three years of the Syrian conflict eroded 35 years of development in Syria and it is starting to erode development in host nations. We have to start reversing this trend by supporting adolescents to achieve the key developmental milestones that will help move the region closer to a peaceful and productive future.
In conclusion, I would like to say that through Mercy Corps' work and partnerships in the region, we have been humbled and touched by the grace and dignity of Syrians, as well as by the generosity of their regional hosts, despite the many profound challenges they face. We are also heartened by the unwavering faith of Syrians everywhere that there will be a peaceful resolution. It is with that goal in mind that we continue our work in the hope that soon this dreadful crisis will be over.
I wish to sincerely thank the standing committee for its focus on this tremendously important issue and for extending me the privilege of testifying today.
The Chair: Thank you very much for both of your presentations. We have questions for you, and I will start off with the first question.
On June 9, we had Andrew Tabler before the committee as a witness, who said:
. . . NGOs, given the crisis in Syria and the way it has evolved, will play an increasingly vital role in overcoming the rigidity of the international system when it comes to the provision of aid to weakened states like Syria
My question to both of you is this: What are the respective strengths and weaknesses of UN agencies and non-governmental organizations when providing human assistance in a conflict zone?
Mr. Crisp: In most refugee situations, international organizations such as UNHCR work in close partnership with the NGOs. In fact, NGOs frequently act as implementing partners for the United Nations. There is a close partnership already, and I think that enables both organizations to make the best use of their respective advantages.
Clearly, UNHCR is well equipped to mobilize considerable amounts of resources and funding from the international community, but at the same time it is a very large organization with the usual constraints associated with large bureaucracies. NGOs tend to be nimble and quicker, and can be on the spot perhaps earlier on in the crisis than the United Nations.
The key to the situation is forging effective partnerships that draw upon the strengths of both organizations at the same time.
Mr. Streng: I would agree with much of what Mr. Crisp said in terms of the ability of the NGO community and the UN bodies to coordinate. I also echo what he said in terms of being nimble and able to respond in certain areas that perhaps the United Nations cannot.
Mercy Corps, over the last two years, has been able to provide life-saving assistance within areas of northern Syria much more easily than perhaps the United Nations could have directly. We feel that negotiating within those rebel-held areas has been a strength of ours as an NGO and that that might present challenges to the UN structure.
Tied into the mission of Mercy Corps is the ability to work with civil society and support community mobilization. We very much rely on local partners and building municipal level capacity over the long term. We do that through local partnership. NGOs are well placed and strategically placed to provide that type of support for lasting sustainable development, as well as immediate needs being met.
Mr. Crisp: I can add briefly to that. I totally endorse what my colleague from Mercy Corps said about the ability of NGOs to relate much more closely to civil society and national NGOs and the U.N.
I want to draw your attention to one more area of the Syrian crisis. We know that substantial amounts of resources are coming into the region from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, but the results coming in from that part of the world are not coordinated normally through the UN system. It is difficult to assess where that money is coming from, where it is going to and how it is being targeted in different sections of the refugee population.
Not only in the Middle East, but this is going to be a growing phenomenon in recent years, namely the involvement of so-called nontraditional donor states. I think the international community has to do a bit more thinking about the way they can be brought in to the humanitarian picture in a more coordinated manner.
The Chair: We will now go to the deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: I thank both of you for your presentations this morning. My first question is for you, Matt Streng. You have worked with UNICEF in Jordan to integrate children from camps and urban areas into public school systems, which has the added benefit of aiding marginalized Jordanian children living in the areas that are struggling to support their residents and refugees. Are you doing similar programming in other host countries? How are they handling the pressure to deliver services to both residents and refugees?
Mr. Streng: Thank you very much for the question. Mercy Corps' focus to date has been primarily in working both with adolescents and children inside of refugee camps, as well as in host communities. As was mentioned earlier by Mr. Crisp, a vast majority of refugees are residing in those host communities in towns and villages. Our focus has recognized the limitation of formal schools, government schools, to absorb the number of refugees who need to return to school.
Our focus has been more on trying to establish, reinforce and build up certified non-formal education options for both children and primarily adolescents, who are more likely to be out of school than younger children. We are doing that in Jordan and in Lebanon, and we are beginning to do that in Turkey and in the Kurdish region of Iraq.
To clarify, most of our efforts recognize a gap in access to education as a result of national education systems having limited capacity to absorb the influx of Syrian refugees. This obviously puts a strain on the quality of education for Jordanians, on the host community children as well as in other nations and on teachers. We can assume that the quality of education is dropping in these countries due to this additional strain and burden on the educational systems.
We feel that in order to educate young people at scale, there is the need to refocus attention on non-formal options — whether those be purely academic with certified academic diplomas, as well as vocational and employability-type training that will allow adolescents who will be the first to be asked to return or, in their host communities, to help build back and establish longer term development. We feel there needs to be reinforcement and additional focus in that area.
Senator Ataullahjan: Mr. Crisp, you have worked primarily with women and children affected by the conflict. How does the situation of girls and women refugees differ from host country to host country? What is their situation once they reach these countries and what have they been doing to survive?
Mr. Crisp: I don't think there are any fundamental differences in the situation of refugee women and girls in the respective host countries. Obviously there are some local differences, but the problems that both I and our colleague from Mercy Corps have mentioned are prevalent throughout the region: risk of sexual exploitation; sexual abuse; children being forced into early marriages as a means of contributing to the family budget; and girls, particularly adolescent girls, not being able to attend school or participate in education or even undertake livelihood activities.
When I was recently in Egypt, we heard from a number of refugee women that they didn't want their daughters to be out in the marketplace or out doing work because of the risk of sexual violence and abuse. I think the problems are common across the region. As Matt has indicated, I don't think there's any sign they will lessen in the weeks, months and — hopefully not, but it is probably the case — years to come.
Mr. Streng: An assessment we did recently inside Syria noticed that adolescent girls, in particular, are performing additional roles that young males would traditionally perform inside of Syria. Young Syrian males inside of Syria are concerned about being recruited both by government forces into the government army, as well as by rebel forces. They tend to keep a very low profile and adolescent girls are being asked to go out and perform some of the daily tasks that adolescent boys had previously done. As you can imagine, it puts them at heightened risk and exposes adolescent girls to a greater degree, because they are trying to provide safety or limit the risk that adolescent boys are facing.
Just recently in the news, we recognized additional efforts by the Government of Syria to increase their recruitment of young males who have gone through obligatory military service. They are trying to build up backup forces, as they describe them. Young Syrian males inside of Syria are trying to keep a very low profile or they will be trying to leave in the near future or having to choose between government forces or rebel groups.
Senator Andreychuk: Both of your presentations deal with the issues this committee is struggling with. You have characterized all of them as systems. I have just come back from Jordan. I understand that there it is an evolving situation from day to day and week to week. Neither the political organizations, governments nor the NGOs really know what is going to happen in two weeks, so they're struggling after the fact as this situation in Syria evolves.
For a country like Jordan to take in 1.2 million Syrians in such a short time has really put a strain on them, and 80 per cent of those are not in refugee camps. We heard over and over again from NGOs and government that they're not equipped; they don't have the resources; there are water shortages; and it is destabilizing their countries because, as they're trying to move forward and develop their countries, they're using a lot of their resources and goodwill to assist the Syrian refugees and, in fact, Iraqi refugees at the same time.
You say you need to coordinate and you need to do everything. Isn't it time to look at this entire issue, particularly in Syria, differently than we did before? For years, we looked at refugees and defined refugees in camps, and now we're finding they're not there. The young people, as you pointed out, the 80 per cent that are not in refugee camps, are entitled to go to schools, but the teachers are simply being told two shifts, one for the Jordanians and one in the afternoon for the Syrians, with the same pay. The unbelievable pressure on the professionals, on the services, is at the straining point. I'm wondering if we don't need a new look at this.
It also is a strain in that young kids are going into what I would call the black economy. They're working, but they're not being recognized. They can't come out and get the training that you are talking about, the skills or education.
It is really very basic. What I saw was just sheer survival. The overall response from the Jordanian government has been unbelievable. I wonder if many other governments could have done what they're doing at the moment to support the refugees within their own historical context.
Should we be using the same instruments and the tools that we have had since 1948, or should we start to look at some other way to deal with this migration?
We still seem to have the idea that there will be some political solution to Syria, when with every month it would seem it is a long-term issue with no immediate political solution.
Mr. Crisp: You are absolutely right to point to the volatility of the situation and the fact it is very unpredictable as to what might happen in the immediate future. With respect to the volatility of the situation, let me just link that back to what I said about border closures. It is very difficult for UNHCR and other agencies to actually know how many people are going to arrive on a given day, because border control techniques are changing from day to day. One day, there may be thousands of people flooding across the border, and then the next day or the next week there may be far fewer people coming. This obviously makes planning and contingency extremely difficult for the agencies concerned.
In terms of the refugees being outside of camps, this is the new reality. It is particularly obvious in the case of the Syrian refugee crisis but, globally, over the last 10 or 20 years, there's been a steady drift away from refugees being accommodated in camps. Much more frequently, they take up residency in urban areas in the host communities. I know my former colleagues in UNHCR are grappling with this problem.
Camps were never an ideal approach. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that living in a camp is a very negative experience for refugees, but there was a certain kind of predictability about refugee camps as to how they're constructed and designed and how you provide them with basic needs. When you have such large numbers of people scattered across such large areas of the whole region, this is really requiring the international aid community to rethink how they go about their usual business.
One thing we can say is that perhaps one of the saving graces of the Syrian refugee crisis has been that the surrounding countries are generally middle income countries. We're not talking about Chad or Central African Republic. A country like Turkey, for example, has substantial capacity and resources. We have to give credit to all these countries for actually using their capacity and resources on behalf of the refugees.
At the same time, we have to remember that, even in these middle-income countries, there are some extremely poor people. On a recent visit to Jordan, we went around visiting some poor Jordanians. We found an interesting situation there where the government was requiring aid agencies to provide 75 per cent of their aid to refugees but 25 per cent of aid to the poorest Jordanians in order to make sure that the poorest Jordanians didn't suffer from this massive influx of Syrian citizens.
That is quite an interesting model for the future. If you only focus your assistance on refugees and ignore the host community, then there's an obvious potential for tension and even conflict between the two groups. This has been predicted widely by many commentators in Lebanon. So far, we are pleased to say it hasn't really happened, but there is always a risk. If you don't pay attention to the host community, then the risk of tension and conflict with the refugee population will certainly tend to increase.
Senator Eggleton: This certainly is the largest refugee crisis in recent history, with millions of people displaced in their country or outside of their country. As UNICEF has said previously, Syria is now one of the most dangerous places on earth to be a child. I don't know how many children totally are affected. A number of them are displaced within their country, a number of them outside the country, and some of them —
The Chair: There are 3 million outside and 2.1 million internally displaced, and 10,000 killed.
Senator Eggleton: And 10,000 killed. What does that represent as a percentage of the child population of Syria? Do either of our witnesses know the answer to that? That must be about half the children, I would think.
Mr. Streng: I do not know the exact percentages. I don't have that available.
Senator Eggleton: It is a huge number, I would think, a huge percentage.
Let me focus on Canada's contribution —
The Chair: Senator Eggleton, it is one third of all the Syrian children.
Senator Eggleton: Okay.
Julia Nicol, Legal Affairs and National Security Section, Parliamentary Information and Research Service, Library of Parliament: That was back in May.
Senator Eggleton: Both internally and externally?
Ms. Nicol: That was just internally. You are talking between 30 and 50 per cent.
Senator Eggleton: It is indeed a dangerous place for a child.
Let me talk about Canada's response here. Canada is noted to be the sixth largest donor in terms of total funding. These are funds that go to UNHCR as well as UNICEF. I don't know whether there are any more up-to-date numbers on those.
One particular area I want to focus on is how many refugees we're taking in. Earlier this morning we talked about refugees who came from Vietnam back in the late 1970s. Canada at that time took in 60,000 refugees, 34,000 of them by private organizations and 26,000 had Canadian government assistance. I can remember going back even prior to that when we took in massive numbers of refugees from Hungary after their political crisis in 1956.
As of July 2013, the Government of Canada announced that it would sponsor 200 people. The Minister of Immigration, in March of this year, estimated that of those 200, 10 had arrived. They're willing also to look at 1,100 Syrians under the private sponsorship of refugee programs. These are paltry amounts. This is a disgraceful response to this huge crisis that exists.
Let me ask the two people who are witnesses this morning: For a country the size and richness of Canada, what number of refugees should we be looking at? Since we took in 60,000 in the 1970s from Vietnam, we have added to our population and we have added to our wealth, and all that we're talking about is a couple hundred, and we haven't come close to that. How many refugees should Canada be taking in?
Mr. Crisp: You are absolutely right in saying that back in the 1970s and 1980s, resettlement was the primary solution for Indo-Chinese refugees from both Vietnam and Cambodia. The political circumstances at the time allowed that to happen.
Unfortunately, political circumstances have changed. Refugee asylum and immigration issues are quite a toxic issue politically in many countries. You have only to look at the European response to the Syrian refugee crisis where, despite constant pleas on the part of UNHCR and the High Commissioner himself, countries in general, with the possible exception of Sweden and Germany, have come up with paltry numbers. To the best of my knowledge, my own country, the United Kingdom, has managed just 50 places, which is only a quarter of the 200 you mentioned for Canada.
We have to be realistic. As I said in my comments, I don't think we can expect resettlement to provide the solution for a large proportion of such a significant refugee population, but symbolically it would be important for a country such as Canada to show that it is prepared to admit some refugees and thereby lessen the burden a bit on the host countries that have taken so many in.
In terms of giving you a specific number, I'm reluctant to do so, because I'm not so familiar with the Canadian refugee resettlement program and its current size. Perhaps whether existing quotas could be reoriented to give a larger proportion of resettlement spaces to refugees from Syria, rather than from other countries. That is just something you might want to look into.
Senator Eggleton: How many are being taken in by Sweden and Germany?
Mr. Crisp: I think Germany is offering up to something like 20,000. A lot of those who went to Sweden managed to get there independently rather than coming through the resettlement route, so it is a somewhat different situation.
In general, the whole European response has not been up to the level that we, as Refugees International, or UNHCR and the High Commissioner, would have expected, especially given the geographical proximity of Syria to Europe. It really is in Europe's back door. It is much further away from the United States and Canada, and the European response has been very disappointing.
Similarly, you may have seen recently that my own country, the U.K., said it wasn't going to support more search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea because rescuing refugees coming across from North Africa would simply encourage more to do so. That's leaving a situation where states are basically saying these refugees can perish at sea and we're not going to lend a hand in order to rescue them, which I find quite disgraceful.
Senator Eggleton: I take it there's also insufficient money. If we're not taking in refugees, then that means we have to deal with these problems where these people are. That is not so easy in the case of the ones in Syria. In the case of the ones that are outside of Syria, what is the response of the different governments to the funding requirements to help provide services to help them in the situation that they're in? Is it falling short?
Mr. Streng: I would say, yes, I do think it is falling short, given the scale of the response, the burden and the stress that it is putting on those host communities. More can be done.
There was the question earlier about is there a need to restructure or to rethink how we respond to these issues, in particular the mention of the trend away from refugee camps to host communities. At Mercy Corps and more widely we need to think about how communities can build longer-term resilience to these types of shocks.
For example, we need to work with host governments at the community level to build these systematic changes that will allow for them to absorb these large numbers or not new numbers, but to deal with the numbers they currently have and that will likely stay. Although it is a fluid and changing environment and there are many unknowns, we know this will persevere and these numbers will likely last. With the current military response, it is likely to extend this in terms of a longer-term insurgency inside of Syria and potentially in neighbouring countries. I think that is a reality. Reframing our thinking and our ability to respond, and building resilience within these communities and structures to absorb this number of refugees is critical.
To the point made around social cohesion, Mercy Corps is trying to avert tension and conflicts now, knowing that the tension is rising and the stress on basic services and utilities will only continue to rise. More can be done by the international community, but I agree that while Canada and Europe can do quite a bit more to absorb these refugees, our focus, energy and investment is better spent supporting neighbouring countries to absorb their current reality. That is where I think the bulk of these refugees will continue to go and will remain.
Mr. Crisp: With funding, you can look at it in two ways. On the one hand, the amount of resources mobilized over the last two to three years for the Syrian crisis is quite impressive. As I pointed out in my presentation, we have to remember that Syria is not the only crisis in the world. We have had massive displacement in the Central African Republic, in South Sudan; Ukraine is now proving to be particularly problematic; and in Iraq, as I mentioned, enormous numbers of people are being displaced. The overall response to this spate of recent humanitarian crises has been quite impressive. At the same time, as our colleague from Mercy Corps has just mentioned, despite it being so impressive, it is still not adequate to meet all the needs simply because of the sheer scale of the exodus.
Colleagues of mine were in Lebanon recently. They came back reporting that aid distributions are already being cut because the funding available is not sufficient. When you have such large numbers of people in such serious need, with absolutely no immediate prospect of them finding a lasting solution to their plight, one really wonders what is going to happen if assistance is to be progressively cut in the months and years to come.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Streng, the refugees are different coming out of Syria than the African refugees that we have had to deal with. Therefore, the definition of refugees is also coming into some conversation.
I saw that the refugees coming out of Syria were those who are coming out of villages and who have minimal skills, et cetera. At the same time, businessmen with resources are also becoming part of that movement out of Syria. They have integrated into neighbouring countries, which sometimes has been a benefit to those countries, but also is perhaps another tension.
Are we seeing a different mix of capabilities in the refugee population? Perhaps the term ''refugee'' is not the best. ''Displaced person outside of their own country'' might be a better term.
Mr. Streng: That is a very good question. I would hesitate to change the term, because there are varying degrees of need regardless of the resources available to people leaving Syria at the time that they leave. Many who are leaving with resources are quickly depleting those resources and, within months, are finding themselves in similar situations as those who left Syria left without those resources. Your status can quickly change from one of having resources to one of depleting those resources and having limited resources.
You are correct that many of the Syrians leaving Syria are highly educated, highly capable and have skills they can apply both inside and outside of Syria. With our program in particular with adolescents, we feel that many of these resources are available within local communities and they need to be mobilized. These are assets and skills that are currently lying dormant and are not being put to use. We can do much more in terms of mentoring, training and mobilizing these assets and resources to skill up adolescents who will be called into action in the next three to five years.
We do need to recognize the level of skills leaving Syria and take advantage of those skills that are available. At the same time, this presents quite a bit of a threat to host communities who are dealing with their own high rates of unemployment. There is increasing competition for low-wage, low-skill jobs, and that will continue to be the case. However, we need to find some way to mobilize these assets and resources behind the longer-term development agenda or we will not be taking advantage of the potential and capacity we have at our hands. They're very knowledgeable within these host communities.
That's a very good question. I do think we can do more to mobilize resources that are leaving Syria. Again, though, I wouldn't propose a change in the term. Even though someone leaves with resources, those can be quickly depleted quickly and they find themselves in great need outside of Syria.
Mr. Crisp: I would totally associate myself with those comments. I don't think there's a necessity to change the terminology. The Syrians fall very directly within the framework of the 1951 refugee convention, and it would be confusing to try to come up with different descriptions for this group of refugees.
In terms of the skill base of the Syrian refugee population, we have been there before to some extent with Iraqi refugees who came out after 2003, who were also relatively well educated and skilled. The reality of the situation over the last couple of years has been that agencies have been so busy coping with the day-to-day demands of the influx that it has been much more difficult to sit down and think, ''Okay, what skills have we got within the refugee community and how can we make best use of them?'' As long as the influx continues, that will be a challenging task indeed.
At the same time, as our colleague just pointed out, it is very easy for us to sit here in Washington or in London or somewhere else and say that these refugees should be given the right to work and be allowed to enter the labour market. Clearly, there is a risk they will act as competition for local people, and there is already evidence that wages are being driven down by the willingness of Syrian refugees, including Syrian refugee adolescents and children, to work below the existing market rate.
The whole question of livelihoods and the right to work is an absolutely central one to the future of the situation but, at the same time, there are some very deep sensitivities around it that have to be taken into account.
Senator Eaton: You have certainly let us know during your presentations how the need for refugee help and the different kinds of refugees has changed very much since the end of the Second World War. If you look at the Arab spring, if you look at the Ebola crisis, if you look at the parts of Africa and now the Middle East, it seems to me that the piece that's missing in this is the political influence. The UN is supposed to bring people together and solve political differences. Has the political part of the UN been giving you enough support?
There's just so much money and so many volunteers. There's just so much one can physically do in different cultural and climactic circumstances. It seems to me the big piece in the puzzle that's missing is political will to solve the problems. Bashar al-Assad is still there. How long is the world going to let this problem continue? There's so much we can do. Can you both the comment on that, please?
Mr. Crisp: If you look at some of the recent statements made by the High Commissioner for Refugees, he's been saying time and time again that humanitarian action can save lives, but it can't solve political problems. He's also pointed to the fact that the system of global governance that was set up at the end of the Second World War, with the creation of the United Nations, is basically failing. Conflicts are breaking out all over the world, and nobody seems to have a real idea as to how to resolve those problems and how to bring about reconciliation between people who are fighting each other at the moment.
Referring back to my reference to Canada and its longstanding commitment to multilateralism, I think Canada could play an extremely valuable role in highlighting the importance for political solutions to be introduced and to point out the limitations of humanitarian action.
The Chair: We have found your presentations very helpful to our work. May I ask that you please reflect further on the mandates of the UNHCR and UNICEF? If you have any further thoughts as to how those mandates can be improved, if you could let us know, we would really appreciate your continuing assistance in our study.
Thank you for your presentations, and thank you for making yourselves available. We will now adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)