Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Human Rights
Issue no. 3 - Evidence - April 13, 2016
OTTAWA, Wednesday, April 13, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:31 a.m. to monitor issues relating to human rights and, inter alia, to review the machinery of government dealing with Canada's international and national human rights obligations (topic: the human rights situation and defections from North Korea).
Senator Jim Munson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators are welcome again to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Before I begin, I would like to have all of the senators introduce themselves. We'll start with the deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning. I'm Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Martin: Good morning. Yonah Martin from B.C.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Hubley: Good morning. Elizabeth Hubley, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Cordy: I'm Jane Cordy, and I'm from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: I am the chair of the committee. My name is Senator Munson. I am a senator from Ontario, but my heart is always in New Brunswick, where I come from. This is a good burden to share.
Before we start with our witnesses, we just have one piece of housekeeping. You have before you the text of an order of reference that we would like to submit to the Senate for our study on the settlement of Syrian refugees. Could I have a motion that we ask this from the Senate?
Senator Cordy: I will move it.
The Chair: Good.
[Translation]
Today, as set out in the general order of reference of our committee, we will be considering the human rights situation, and defections from North Korea.
[English]
On our first panel today, we will be hearing from government officials. We are glad to have you with us from Global Affairs Canada — I have to get used to that. My reporting days go back to External Affairs Minister Mitchell Sharp, and External Affairs is in my head forever as a younger reporter in those days. But Global Affairs has a nice ring to it. We have Christopher Burton, Director, Northeast Asia Division; and Susan Gregson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific. And from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we have Sarita Bhatla, Director General, Refugee Affairs; and James McNamee, Acting Director General, Operational Management and Coordination.
We would like to have your opening statements, and then we will move, of course, to questions. This is a very sensitive issue that we are discussing, but it is a very important issue.
Who would like to lead off this morning? Ms. Gregson? Thank you very much.
Susan Gregson, Assistant Deputy Minister, Asia-Pacific, Global Affairs Canada: It is my pleasure to be here today to discuss North Korea on behalf of Global Affairs Canada.
North Korea has been making the news since the beginning of this year, first by conducting a nuclear test on January 6 and then by launching a ballistic missile on February 7. Global Affairs Canada considers the development of nuclear weapons and their delivery systems to be a grave threat to international security. Minister of Foreign Affairs Stéphane Dion immediately issued statements strongly condemning North Korea's continued proliferation activities.
Last month, on March 2, in response to the recent provocations, Canada co-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 2270. This resolution imposes significant sanctions on North Korea and was unanimously adopted by the Security Council. It is designed to pressure North Korea to halt its reckless behaviour, abandon nuclear weapons, resume the Six Party Talks and redirect the resources it currently spends on weapons of mass destruction to address the humanitarian needs of its people. Canada is now taking steps to implement the new sanctions against North Korea into Canadian law.
[Translation]
Due to North Korea's pattern of aggressive actions, Canada has a controlled engagement policy toward that country. Under this policy, official bilateral contact with the North Korean government is limited to discussions of regional security, the human rights and humanitarian situation in North Korea, inter-Korean relations, and consular issues.
[English]
In addition, in August 2011, the Government of Canada adopted economic sanctions against North Korea under the Special Economic Measures Act. These were in addition to existing Canadian sanctions passed under the United Nations Act. Canada's sanctions include a ban on all imports from and exports to North Korea, with certain humanitarian exemptions.
[Translation]
Despite preoccupation with the security situation on the Korean Peninsula, Global Affairs Canada has continued to address the human rights and humanitarian situation in North Korea. The accounts your committee have heard in the past of widespread, systematic and grave violations of human rights are deeply troubling. Global Affairs Canada has sought to raise awareness of this disturbing situation over the past several years, urging North Korea to abide by international human rights standards and to allow visits by UN special rapporteurs.
[English]
In March 2013, Canada co-sponsored a Human Rights Council resolution that established a commission of inquiry to investigate the systematic, widespread and grave violations of human rights and renewed the mandates of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
At the United Nations General Assembly in November 2014, Canada co-sponsored a resolution that took note of the findings of the commission of inquiry's final report. It urged North Korea to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens and emphasized the need to ensure accountability for perpetrators of human rights abuses.
Additionally, Canada co-sponsored a resolution on the situation of human rights in the DPRK at the UN General Assembly in November 2015. This resolution called for accountability, including with regard to any potential crimes against humanity. Canada believes the international community must continue to bring attention to these violations and abuses in North Korea and has supported all efforts to this effect in multilateral fora, including, most recently, at the March session of the Human Rights Council.
Regarding the humanitarian situation, North Koreans continue to cope with the same challenges they have faced for the last several decades — absence of the rule of law, international isolation and widespread poverty.
[Translation]
In response, between 2005 and 2015, Canada provided over $28 million in humanitarian assistance to the international response in North Korea. These contributions are channeled multilaterally through trusted partners, not to the North Korean government. Canada is among the top five bilateral donors responding to humanitarian needs.
[English]
Global Affairs Canada has also provided humanitarian assistance to North Korea through the Emergency Disaster Assistance Fund, which is administered by the Canadian Red Cross Society. The most recent such allocation was made in August 2013 to provide immediate assistance to 20,000 people affected by flooding.
[Translation]
Canada is also contributing to the international response through support to United Nations efforts. On January 29, the UN announced the allocation of $8 million US to provide life-saving assistance for 2.2 million vulnerable people at risk of malnutrition in North Korea. Canada is among the top 10 donors to this fund.
[English]
Mr. Chair, Global Affairs Canada will remain engaged on North Korean human rights, humanitarian and security situations and will work with our international partners to help resolve these grave challenges. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Ms. Gregson.
Sarita Bhatla, Director General, Refugee Affairs, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: My name is Sarita Bhatla. I am the Director General of the Refugee Affairs Branch at the Department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I would like to thank the committee members for the opportunity to appear before you today.
[Translation]
I would like to speak to you briefly about Canada's experience with regard to North Korean refugee claims. Canada's refugee programs reflect our obligations under international conventions such as the Refugee Convention and Convention Against Torture, as well as domestic law, such as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[English]
Canada has two refugee program streams. The first is the In-Canada Asylum System. This program is available to people who are in Canada and have a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country. All eligible claims are referred to the Immigration and Refugee Board, a quasi-judicial tribunal, which decides each claim based on its own merits.
As part of the determination process, the Immigration and Refugee Board must consider whether the claimant has access to protection in another country, which is a ground for exclusion under the refugee convention.
With respect to claims from North Korea, a few years ago the department commissioned an expert opinion on the nationality law of the Republic of Korea, specifically as it relates to the citizenship status of nationals of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
The report concluded that North Korean citizens are automatically eligible for citizenship in the Republic of Korea, or South Korea, from birth, with few exceptions.
[Translation]
The exceptions included naturalized North Korean nationals of non-Korean ethnicity; North Korean nationals who have voluntarily taken on the citizenship of a third country; and North Korean nationals who can trace their Korean lineage only through maternal descent prior to June 14, 1998.
[English]
Once in South Korea, North Koreans can apply for citizenship and demonstrate their intention to reside in South Korea.
The report also noted that the Government of South Korea provides support for cultural reintegration and financial support to assist in integrating North Koreans who seek protection in South Korea.
I would also like to highlight that the number of people from North Korea who have sought protection from Canada has fluctuated from several hundred to less than a handful.
The year 2012 was a unique year. Approximately 720 claims were filed that year, which was pretty much the maximum. This coincided with the creation of a pilot project to support the objectives of refugee reform and safeguard the asylum system.
[Translation]
As part of this Reviews and Interventions pilot, the department detected a trend, which suggested that there was potential for concern regarding the credibility of claims from North Korea. Most of the claimants already enjoyed South Korean citizenship, and travelled to Canada or the Unites States on a valid South Korean passport.
[English]
Since that time, asylum claims from North Korea have steadily decreased, with 150 claims submitted in 2013, fewer than five claims in 2014 and none in 2015.
Turning now to Canada's resettlement program, there are three streams whereby refugees overseas may be selected. These include government-assisted refugees who are usually referred by the United Nations Refugee Agency and who are solely government supported; privately sponsored refugees who are identified and supported by the private sponsors in Canada, often family members; and blended visa office-referred refugees who are referred by the United Nations Refugee Agency and jointly supported by the government and private sponsors.
[Translation]
Refugees from overseas are selected by visa officers, who must take into consideration protection needs, security, criminality and medical admissibility. In addition, they must determine whether the applicant has a reasonable prospect of resettlement in another country.
[English]
In the case of North Korea, as with the In-Canada Asylum System, Canada considers South Korea to be a durable solution for North Korean nationals seeking resettlement.
This concept is also enshrined in Canada's immigration and refugee protection regulations, which prohibit issuing a permanent residence visa to a foreign national seeking refugee protection who has a reasonable prospect of resettlement in another country.
The underlying premise is that Canada's resettlement program focuses on those most in need of protection in a third country.
[Translation]
Moreover, pursuing a future close to home can often be seen as the most fitting protection solution for a refugee.
I would now like to invite any questions you may have. Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for your testimony. We have two other senators who arrived after the formal introductions. I would like you to introduce yourselves again. I know who you are.
Senator Andreychuk: This is like school: You arrive late and you are pointed out, is that it?
The Chair: Yes. That is it.
Senator Andreychuk: I was at another meeting. I would like that on the record. Raynell Andreychuk, Saskatchewan.
Senator Ruth: Nancy Ruth, from Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: My question to you, Sarita, is how can North Koreans successfully claim refugee status when they have access to South Korea and have a passport already? If they want to move on, how can they successfully claim refugee status in Canada?
Ms. Bhatla: If they are in Canada, they can apply through the Immigration and Refugee Board. Each claim is looked at on its own merits. That would be the answer if they are in Canada.
In terms of resettlement overseas, again, if a case is referred for resettlement by the UNHCR, we would take a look at that case. Generally speaking, North Koreans are seen as having access to a durable solution in South Korea — most of them; there are exceptions, of course — so they are not typically seen as requiring resettlement in a third country. That is the key, to some extent; there are many refugees in the world who have no access to any third country, and in that context it might be more difficult for North Koreans seeking a resettlement space.
The Chair: Senator Martin, I know that you have great interest in this subject. I took the liberty of putting you down second.
Senator Martin: Building on what Senator Ataullahjan is asking, you have explained that North Korean defectors would have an option to go to South Korea. There are those exceptional cases, so if we look at those and there are defectors who safely make their way to a third country, like Thailand, for instance, can Canadian officials be on the ground in Thailand at all, or is it only through the referral of a UNHCR official? If there are North Korean defectors who for various reasons would like to have a third option — the United States is one option, and South Korea is the closest and fastest option — how could Canada potentially be a third option? And currently, what do we have in place in a country like Thailand for North Korean defectors to make their way to Canada, if that would be one of the best options for them?
Ms. Bhatla: Thank you for that question.
Our current legal framework requires that for those who are resettled to a country like Canada, resettlement is the third solution. The idea would be that the return to the country of origin is usually the best-case scenario. In this case, obviously that is not an option. Local integration is the next best option, with resettlement as the third option.
Under our current legal framework, resettlement is the third option, as I stated. We don't have people on the ground, resettlement officers, who look at cases that are not referred by the UNHCR. You wouldn't have officers looking for people to resettle. We are usually referred cases. I don't know if that answers your question, but you wouldn't have people on the ground taking applications, if that is what you are getting at.
Senator Martin: In essence, there isn't that option for North Korean defectors at this time. I understand that Canadians are not on the ground. However, if there were a need, and this is what we are studying — we heard from a North Korean defector who talked about Canada as being a very desirable option and why some North Korean defectors would not want to be in South Korea, which is so close to North Korea, under the current circumstances and more recently with greater provocation from the North.
You may not be able to answer this because it would be a hypothetical situation. If we were to create this third option, how could that happen? You don't need to answer that, per se, but right now there isn't an option for North Koreans in a country like Thailand, if they were to find themselves in the detention centres, to go to various places. Canada is not an option for them at this time. I think I have answered my own question because I know the situation. If I may, that was more of a comment.
I would love to ask a question to the officials from Global Affairs Canada. With the recent provocations and activities, are there concerns? Has Canada analyzed the situation on the Korean Peninsula? We have heard from witnesses previously that there are eminent changes, sooner rather than later. I am hearing it from other sources or reports. Could you talk about what your department is studying currently and what concerns you may have about what is happening in that region?
Ms. Gregson: Our department is constantly looking at the situation in North Korea. Obviously, from the perspective of my branch, we follow the activities on the ground. We look at the social situation, the economic situation, and the political situation. We are watching closely the elections that are going on in the Republic of Korea right now. With our colleagues in the security branch, we look at the kinds of issues around nuclear activities in the DPRK, in particular this year because there have been so many in the early part of the year. We are watching that with great concern.
The answer to your question is yes. In addition to the concerns I mentioned, we keep a close eye on developments in the peninsula.
Senator Martin: In the event of a potential change and a potential flood of North Koreans that South Korea could not handle all at once, is Canada in a position to play a role? Is there anything that we could do if something were to happen suddenly?
Ms. Gregson: That is a hypothetical question, so I kind of hesitate to go there. Whenever there is a situation, a crisis anywhere around the world, we work closely with our partners in other departments to make sure that Canada has a coordinated response that is appropriate for Canada in terms of the crisis.
Senator Ngo: I want to follow up regarding immigration. We know that North Koreans seeking asylum in Canada would be considered citizens of South Korea. Because of that policy, North Korean defectors do not meet the status of refugee under the UNHCR, which is a precondition to come to Canada.
We heard in testimony two weeks ago that some North Koreans arrive in Bangkok, where they have been arrested. The Thai government does not deport them but holds them in the detention centre. Since they do not have refugee status under the UNHCR, they cannot be accepted into Canada, so they stay in the detention centre.
First, what can Canada do to assist those refugees who are in the detention centre? Second, the detention centre does not let them out, and the UNHCR does not come to interview these defectors, so how can they get status as refugees so that they can be admitted to Canada? My next questions are for Global Affairs Canada after this.
Ms. Bhatla: You have highlighted a tragic and difficult situation from a number of perspectives.
To clarify, under Government of Canada policy, every case is looked at on its own merits. That is very important to emphasize with respect to the Immigration and Refugee Board process as well as the resettlement process. There are exceptions as there can be compelling circumstances. However, you are correct in saying that, generally speaking, North Koreans are seen to have a durable solution in South Korea — most, of course — by UN agencies and by many countries.
To answer your question specifically about what Canada could do with respect to what is happening in detention centres in Thailand, to a large extent I would say that a more diplomatic approach could be taken. Anything that we do with respect to refugees would necessarily entail, for example, coordination with the governments there. It would involve talking to Thailand and working with other like-minded countries if there were something more concrete that we could do.
From a refugee protection perspective, it might be particularly difficult for a number of reasons, including, for example, working with the Thai government to secure exit permits. There are a number of practical operational challenges that would have to be looked at.
In terms of the policy or the approach, the current framework doesn't allow for anything other than a case-by-case basis. It is not to say that the Immigration and Refugee Board would never accept a case or that there would never be any case because cases that have extremely compelling humanitarian or compassionate considerations could be brought to our attention. Nothing is completely black and white. However, generally speaking it would be a challenging situation for the Government of Canada to deal with, certainly with respect to protection in Canada, that is, to come to Canada for protection.
Senator Ngo: The question I am asking is because the North Koreans still in the detention centre in Bangkok cannot be approached by the UNHCR. The Thai government doesn't let them go out. They don't know what to do. They are stuck in there. They cannot apply for refugee status because, according to what you say, they are not considered refugees. What do we do? Do Canadian officials raise the issue here and then go to the detention centre to try to figure out what to do? Do they ask the UNHCR to hold interviews and consider their cases or something like that? I have been there. Nothing happened. The Canadian Embassy didn't even touch on it. I went to see the Thai government, and they said it was because of UNHCR.
Could you elaborate, please?
Ms. Bhatla: From my perspective, in my current position, you've highlighted some of the extraordinarily difficult situations that we come across in the world with respect to refugees. I cannot speak specifically about the situation in Thailand for North Korean refugees, because I'm not an expert on that.
Generally speaking, though, if the United Nations refugee agency is not able to access a population, it could be arguably more challenging for a state to be able to do so.
So in terms of the context that you've described, it's very difficult to have access to a population, as you have noted, and if the UN can't get in, it's a challenging situation.
Senator Ngo: I have to ask more questions. I am not satisfied with the answer. The question here is that the UNHCR does not have the responsibility to go to the detention camp to interview. It has to be pushed by foreign governments like Canada, the United States and so on to let the UNHCR say, "Look, we know certain people are in there. We have an interest in these people. Could you please go in? Or Canada may suggest that there are the refugees — or those in detention camps — to have the interviews with the UNHCR, and that's what I'm talking about.
Can we do that if we have the requests?
Ms. Bhatla: The requests from whom?
Senator Ngo: From the Canadian people for the group here to say, "We know three, four or five people are in the North Korean detention centre. Will you please look into it?''
Ms. Bhatla: If there were any concerns from the committee, we would look at any of them; if there were any particular situations that you wanted to bring to our attention, we would consider that.
The Chair: Please go ahead, Ms. Gregson, but we have five senators on our list and we have 20 minutes. I would like to get everybody in on a second round.
Ms. Gregson: From a bilateral relations perspective in terms of how we deal with the Thai government, we consistently and regularly bring to their attention their obligations under international humanitarian law, as well as their obligations under the United Nations refugee convention. We do so on a regular basis, most recently during my own visit to Thailand in March this year. I raised this issue, not specifically with regard to North Koreans, but with regard to foreign detainees in general.
Senator Hubley: Welcome, witnesses, and thank you for your presentations.
This is for Ms. Bhatla, and it's about the dramatic decrease in the number of claims filed in 2012, down to the case in 2015 where, I believe, there were none. That certainly had been reported in the media. I think in 2013, the Toronto Star reported that Canada's policy toward North Korean defectors changed and that fewer were being accepted into Canada. It was also reported by VICE News in 2015 that 2015 represented the lowest acceptance rate of North Koreans as refugees.
Do you attribute that to South Korea — that they have automatic — or that they enjoy South Korea? That seems very dramatic, but is that the case?
Ms. Bhatla: I would emphasize again that it would be on a case-by-case basis. We don't have a policy whereby we say you can't get refugee status because of this or that reason. The IRB, which is an independent quasi-judicial tribunal, looks at each case on its own merits. When it looks at each case, it considers all of the factors. One of the factors is the extent to which that applicant could have sought protection somewhere else.
The other issue is looking at the documentation. For example, if someone arrives on a South Korean passport, the IRB could determine that they are coming from South Korea, where they had protection. You see what I mean?
So that might be the kind of issue that would come up. The IRB adjudicator would look at the facts of the case, including all of the documentation, which might even have transit routes. The IRB also gets considerable information from their own research branch about the country conditions from which the refugee came, whether through a third country or the country of origin.
It would probably be best for the IRB to speak directly about how they determine those claims, but all of those kinds of factors would be taken into account.
Senator Hubley: I have one more question. Of all the sanctions put in place — and there seem to be many organizations that promote a better relationship within the country — can you judge the effectiveness of those by the number of people leaving the country? Are you satisfied that all of these sanctions are doing the job that you want them to do?
Ms. Gregson: That's a very difficult question. It's a good question, but a very difficult one. Each time there is a provocation on the part of North Korea, the international community, including Canada, will look at what an appropriate response is. These sanctions are the best tools we have at our disposal to try and effect change in the country.
Senator Cordy: My question actually is a follow-up to Senator Hubley's question. What kind of new sanctions will be implemented as a result of Resolution 2270 against North Korea? North Korea is already isolated internationally, so what kinds of things does Canada do and what kinds of things do other countries do? They are already isolated, so I'm not sure — I don't know. I guess I'm feeling the same thing that Senator Hubley is.
What will additional sanctions do that other sanctions have not already done? This has been a problem for a long time.
Ms. Gregson: It is an issue. As I stated earlier, we impose sanctions with the hope that they will have the intended effects. We believe that we are, to an extent, influencing behaviour, but that's difficult to measure.
I don't know whether my colleague wants to add anything.
Christopher Burton, Director, Northeast Asia Division, Global Affairs Canada: I can provide a couple of examples.
Resolution 2270 is global in its scope; it applies to all members of the United Nations. They all have a responsibility to enforce it and implement it in their domestic legislation. That means that, in some cases, obligations that Canada has already taken on through our domestic legislation would become more widespread and that Resolution 2270 will be bringing other countries' sanctions up to a level that's similar to ours in terms of the ban on imports and exports.
Additional measures would also apply to Canada. For example, the resolution prohibits the teaching of certain subjects, such as nuclear physics, to North Koreans, and that would apply not only within the borders of each country but would apply to each country's nationals. That is something that doesn't currently exist in Canadian legislation.
There are also, for example, rules about North Korean ships and aircraft being able to use ports and airports in other countries, and a wide range of other measures.
Senator Cordy: When you look at Resolution 2270, which Canada co-sponsored, it's a positive resolution. It's supposed to be global, so all UN countries are supposed to abide by it, and the UN has been very good at providing assistance because of the widespread poverty in North Korea. Is it really global, and is it making a difference? Are the resolutions making a difference? Because we all feel very good when we read the resolutions that have been passed, but we still turn on the TV every night and hear about the horrendous things happening in North Korea.
Ms. Gregson: I would say these are the tools that we have at our disposal to attempt to influence the behaviour of another sovereign country. We've certainly seen evidence of slight improvements in terms of starvation and so forth over the last years, but are those directly in response to the sanctions? We don't know. All we can do is try our best to curtail the activities of North Korea in the hope that that will influence its behaviour.
Senator Andreychuk: There is nothing unique about how we handle applications from Korea vis-à-vis North Koreans than in other areas of the world. In other words, the rules have not been changed or modified; they have been applied on the immigration.
Ms. Bhatla: That's correct.
Senator Andreychuk: Do we have any idea of how the North Koreans get to Korea? Is it via China or directly? Because I hear stories of people who are desperate to get out and can't. They are very watched and controlled, and yet some people get out, and they are not going under the fence or at the border; they are getting out by other means. Are we tracking that? Are we aware of what North Koreans have made it out? Are they a unique, special or persecuted group in some way, or an advantaged group that may have been travelling? We used to have the Cubans when it was sports; they would be landing on our doorstep. How do they get themselves out of North Korea, in light of what I'm told, which is that it is almost impossible?
Ms. Bhatla: We would not be tracking that information. You will hear witnesses, I'm sure, who will be able to speak directly on that, but we don't have any evidence-based information or any migratory flow analysis to provide.
Senator Andreychuk: All of the sanctions and all of our activity and our good intentions have very little sway in North Korea; we know that. The Chinese have the greatest sway. Beyond imposing more sanctions through the UN, to what extent are we encouraging China to use better efforts in attempting to invoke some change in North Korea?
Ms. Gregson: We are dealing with behaviour of a sovereign state. In the international community, including Canada, there have been conversations with countries that we think might have more influence with North Korea to try to exercise that influence, but at the end of the day, again, it's influencing the behaviour of another state.
We hope and believe that the UN resolutions and the measures Canada has enacted will have an impact, and we hope that that will continue over time. As I said before, it's very difficult to influence behaviour.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Bhatla, we have heard that 70 per cent to 80 per cent of those leaving or getting out of North Korea are women. Of the 720 that came into Canada, what was the gender breakout of them?
Ms. Bhatla: I don't have that information with me, but I could provide it to the committee.
Senator Nancy Ruth: What is behind my question is that since this seems to be an issue in this particular refugee place, and since Canada has commitments to all kinds of UN resolutions and gender-based analysis, is there anything in your department that would encourage some responsiveness to women and girls fleeing North Korea? How do you deal with the gender issue, or do you?
Ms. Bhatla: The best way to answer that is to explain more about the IRB process. It might be a good idea to bring the Immigration and Refugee Board in to discuss some of the specifics of how they do the determinations. I don't know what the existing tools are within the IRB, but there is a great deal of sensitization of the members with respect to gender issues and specifically women at risk. That may answer your question.
Senator Nancy Ruth: I would be interested in seeing the statistics.
Ms. Bhatla: Sure.
Senator Nancy Ruth: For Global Affairs, given that on March 16 the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea noted there is talk of a peace treaty with Korea to replace the armistice, to what extent will resolutions like 1325, on women, peace and security, in the following resolutions be part of Canada's response in those negotiations within the international community? What kind of impact on women and girls do you think it might have in North Korea?
Ms. Gregson: I'll ask my colleague to get into a little bit of the detail, but of course we do have a gender-based approach to our work. If you are referring to the negotiations and the Six Party Talks, Canada is not part of that process.
Senator Nancy Ruth: We have influence on other countries and such things in the UN.
Ms. Gregson: Of course, within the UN system we do consult with our colleagues and share information.
Mr. Burton: I can add very little. We are not aware of negotiations toward a peace treaty on the Korean Peninsula, but peace on the Korean Peninsula would certainly be hugely beneficial from a gender perspective, among other perspectives, because of the persistent threat that that frozen conflict represents for both Koreas and for the wider region.
Senator Jaffer: I have been very concerned with some of your answers, but there isn't time to pursue it now. The one thing bothering me is that you keep talking about the UNHCR definition, and years ago many of us did a lot of work in expanding the UNHCR definition to include gender-based guidelines.
Do you apply the gender-based guidelines to your work in expanding the definition of UNHCR? If not, why do you not use the gender-based guidelines, which is to expand the definition of who is an UNHCR refugee when it comes to abuse of gender?
Ms. Bhatla: Are you referring to the guidelines that the IRB uses?
Senator Jaffer: The IRB uses it. Why are you not using it?
Ms. Bhatla: We're not the ones who are actually making the determinations. I'm trying to understand the question.
Senator Jaffer: I know you don't make the determination. You've already said, and that's why I'm irritated. You already said that the UNHCR defines who is a refugee, but — and that's something, chair, that we might want to look at as a recommendation — Canada expanded that definition. If Canada expanded it and if the IRB is applying it, why are you not applying it?
Ms. Bhatla: I have to confess I'm trying to fully understand the question. In terms of the definition of seeking protection, let me differentiate between the convention definition. The UNHCR has a definition, the convention definition, which you know. Canada embedded that definition into its own legislation, but, when we refer to "protected persons,'' it applies to those beyond the definition that is strictly the UNHCR's, such as those who might be sent back to torture or gross human rights violations or that sort of thing. In that sense, yes, Canada has a broader definition, not of what a convention refugee is but what a person in need of protection is. Now that definition is embedded in our legislation, so what a visa officer abroad or what an IRB official will be doing is looking at the parameters of our legislation on what constitutes a person in need of protection.
In terms of how you apply the determination, that wouldn't be in legislation or regulation; that would be more of an administrative guidance or that sort of thing. So, certainly, from a policy perspective, the department is very sensitive to issues with respect to the differences in impacts on women and men. We have had, for example, for a very long time, our program, the Women at Risk program. That's a specific program, but, quite frankly, our visa officers are trained to consider a number of factors, including gender issues.
I think what you're talking about is training and sensitization and guidelines for visa officers, in which case those issues are considered.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I know we have run out of time. I'm sorry. I'll make the request.
I'd like to ask you to let us know how often the gender guidelines are applied when the visa officers make the decision. The reason I'm a little agitated is that, in previous testimony, we heard that there are more Korean women who leave, and when they go to South Korea, they have challenges in South Korea. For the same reason they've left the North, they have the issues in South Korea.
The second issue is this: Do we look at, when we make the decision, the gender guidelines? My third question to you — and I know we have run out of time — is that I understand that the Women at Risk program is hardly being used, so I would like you to let the chair know how often the Women at Risk program is being used. I understood that that program is almost not being used now. I would like it if you could provide the information to the chair.
The Chair: Would you have closing remarks?
Ms. Bhatla: Just quickly. Certainly, I can get you the information. With respect to the Women at Risk program, I will look into the stats. However, what I would caution against is that, in some ways, I wouldn't be surprised if the Women at Risk program is used less — and I'm not going to speculate on this — than it may have been in the past precisely because we don't need a dedicated program and it has been incorporated into the overall. You might have many women at risk coming into Canada, as determined by visa officers, who are not tagged or coded under the Women at Risk program. So the stats will be limited, but, in our response, we can certainly explain how that works.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, once we get the response, we may want the witness back.
The Chair: Absolutely. We want to thank you very much for a great deal of enlightenment here. It will add value to our report, and we certainly appreciate your candour and what you have told us today. We appreciate it very much, and we'll have our report out very soon because it's such a sensitive issue that Canada should be paying attention to.
Thank you very much.
Welcome back to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. We have been having quite a discussion amongst senators, and, of course, our previous witnesses from the Government of Canada.
On this second panel today, we are delighted to have, from HanVoice Support Association, Christopher Kim, who is the Executive Director; and from Amnesty International Canada, Alex Neve, Secretary General. I understand that Mr. Kim will begin. Welcome.
Christopher Kim, Executive Director, HanVoice Support Association: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. First, I would like to extend a warm thank you to the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for undertaking this study on a very important issue and, of course, for inviting HanVoice to offer its comments with regard to the North Korean human rights crisis.
Before I dive into the subject, I just wanted to offer a brief disclaimer. I currently work as an immigration lawyer — no surprise: a lawyer with a disclaimer — with Fragomen (Canada) Company, which is the Toronto office of Fragomen Worldwide, the world's leading provider of immigration services, globally. At the outset I want to make sure that the views stated today are my own, in my capacity as executive of HanVoice, and are not reflective of the views of my employer.
About three weeks ago you heard the testimony of a prominent North Korean refugee activist, as well as two well- regarded experts on North Korea. These experts spoke at length about the protracted human rights crisis that has stained the Korean Peninsula since the 1950s and that has included systematic human rights abuses perpetrated by one of the last totalitarian regimes in existence today.
In its landmark study on North Korea in 2014, the United Nations commission of inquiry stated that:
The gravity, scale and nature of these violations reveal a State that does not have any parallel in the contemporary world.
Going further, the commission of inquiry found that some of the most egregious human rights violations reached the level of "crimes against humanity,'' urging the international community to refer this situation to the International Criminal Court. In fact, of the 11 acts comprising a crime against humanity as enumerated by the Rome Statute — the foundational document governing the International Criminal Court — the commission of inquiry found that North Korea's systemic attacks on its citizens satisfied 10 of the 11 acts, leaving out just the crime of apartheid, which could be easily disqualified given the homogenous ethnic composition of North Korea.
As a result of this human rights tragedy, a secondary crisis has emerged: the North Korean refugee crisis. Though the number of North Koreans that manage to flee number just a few thousand per year — 70 to 80 per cent of them being female — the journey to safe haven for those very few is a perilous one. China routinely conducts sting operations to infiltrate refugees, round them up and repatriate them to North Korea, where these escapees face certain torture, imprisonment and, at times, execution.
In the early 1990s North Korean refugees had three main escape routes once they arrived in China: via the Mongolian border; claiming asylum at foreign diplomatic missions in China; and via routes through Southeast Asia, which typically included Thailand. Unfortunately, China has effectively neutralized the first two options, leaving Southeast Asian countries such as Thailand as perhaps the last remaining path to freedom for North Korean refugees.
The numbers passing through Thailand peaked at nearly 3,000 per year in 2009. However, since Kim Jong-un has come into power, the North Korean regime has made deliberate efforts to prevent defections, and we are now seeing the lowest numbers of defections in more than a decade, at just over 1,000 per year. The Thai authorities, for their part, do not allow North Korean refugees to settle in their country. In fact, upon arrival, and as we heard from previous witnesses, they are detained for illegal entry and held in detention facilities in Bangkok.
Though Thailand doesn't repatriate North Koreans back to North Korea, those who make it this far are left with very few options. Currently, there are only two countries that accept North Korean refugees out of Thailand: South Korea and the United States. I will speak to those two countries now.
North Koreans have been able to access the United States' asylum system ever since the passage of the American's North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004. However, in just a decade of efforts to assist North Korean refugees abroad, the United States has admitted fewer than 200 North Korean refugees as a direct consequence of its prohibitively long processing times. This has left South Korea as the sole de facto option for needy North Koreans, with approximately 30,000 North Korean refugees having resettled there.
I submit to the standing Senate committee that this is an area which deserves more attention and due consideration from Canada. It is an area which many activists, including this study's witnesses, Hyeonseo Lee, Jack Kim and Adrian Hong, have identified. Indeed, when the great Justice Michael Kirby, chair of the UN commission of inquiry, testified in front of the House of Commons Subcommittee on International Human Rights on June 9, 2015, he pointed to refugee resettlement as an area which Canada could more actively pursue.
As you may already know, South Korea's constitution identifies all persons living on the Korean peninsula as South Korean nationals. This broad language stems from the fact that, technically, South Korea and North Korea are still at war. This unique situation has resulted in a major legal impediment with respect to the ability of North Koreans to access the overseas refugee systems, including Canada's, and it has been a barrier to resettlement referrals by the UNHCR, which the prior witnesses spoke to.
This interpretive issue was addressed in the Americans' North Korean Human Rights Act, which explicitly allowed for asylum claims from North Koreans abroad despite the wording of South Korea's constitution. However, without the benefit of such legislation here at home, the only way Canadians can get involved with resettlement of North Korean refugees at present is for the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada to intervene and carve out a special program for North Koreans who are otherwise caught in refugee-like situations. This public policy program can be created using the minister's discretionary powers under section 25.2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These discretionary powers have previously been used to assist other displaced populations in similar refugee-like situations, such as the stateless Vietnamese in Thailand and the Philippines, as well as Tibetans in India. These special programs have mirrored Canada's acclaimed Private Sponsorship of Refugees Program, which allows private citizens to sponsor needy refugees abroad.
In closing, I would like to leave you with a final thought and remark. In an isolated country more than 10,000 kilometres away there are more than 24 million people trapped in one of the most brutal, repressive political systems in existence today, one which the UN commission of inquiry likened to Hitler's Germany. They do not know that on the other side of the world, there is a small room of freedom-loving individuals who are thinking of them this very instance. Yet, here we are, participating in this very important study.
As a lawyer, I must admit that I truly appreciate knowledge for the sake of knowledge, but I appreciate even more when knowledge leads to justice and action. My hope today is that I have brought to the attention of this committee one tangible way that all Canadians, from public servants to private citizens, can get involved in assisting lost and voiceless victims of the six-decades-long crisis.
I look forward to your questions, and I thank you again for having me here.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kim. We noted your suggestion and proposal of the idea for the Minister of Immigration to intervene and carve out a special program for North Koreans. They are caught in no person's land, so to speak.
Mr. Neve, Amnesty International Canada.
Alex Neve, Secretary General, Amnesty International Canada: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It is a pleasure to be with the committee today, albeit for such a grim topic.
The state of human rights in North Korea can be summed up in one stark and simple phrase, and that is that North Koreans suffer denial and violations of virtually every aspect of their human rights every single day.
North Korea most frequently captures international headlines, makes it onto UN agendas and is taken seriously in national capitals when border tensions ramp up with South Korea or when there are concerns about North Korea testing and firing missiles and other security-related issues. All are obviously important, but there has long been far too little global attention paid to the unrelenting, dismal state of human rights in the country, which is what I will focus on with you. I am doing so because these are the issues, of course, that are at the very heart of your specific issue of concern, and that is the plight of North Korean refugees.
I would like to draw your attention to four areas of concern: Arbitrary arrests and detention; freedom of movement and refugee protection; privacy rights and free expression; and international action.
First, with respect to arbitrary arrests and detention, as you will well know, hundreds of thousands of North Koreans remain detained in political prison camps and other detention facilities in the country, and the conditions are abysmal. They are subject to systematic and widespread gross human rights violations, including torture, ill treatment and forced labour.
Many of those held in the camps have not been convicted of any internationally recognizable criminal offence but are often detained on spurious guilt-by-association allegations such as being related to individuals who are deemed to be threats to the state.
North Koreans who have fled the country report that arrests have increased recently in the country. Much of that relates to recent tightening of border controls on people and goods. The arrests often take place simply to punish people for exercising their rights, as a crackdown on the private market economy or for extorting bribes.
As you will know, those imprisoned include foreign nationals — and obviously the committee will be aware of the case of serious concern for the Canadian government, the imprisonment of the Pastor Hyeon Soo Lim. Amnesty International has documented regular cases of detention of other foreign nationals, particularly South Koreans.
Freedom of movement: While it is exceedingly difficult to escape from North Korea, and I'm sure you have heard testimony about that, thousands continue to make the journey. During the first 10 months of 2015, the South Korean government reported the arrival 978 North Koreans in South Korea — just as one measure. The North Korean government has intensified efforts to halt the outflow of refugees from the country. Extra land mines, for instance, were planted along the border with South Korea to prevent North Korean soldiers from deserting and fleeing into South Korea. Notably, the numbers of people crossing into South Korea have been lower over the past several years for a variety of reasons, including tighter North Korean border control.
Beyond South Korea, Amnesty International Canada has long documented, going back many years, serious concerns with respect to the plight of North Korean refugees who have escaped to China and are often detained and forcibly returned to North Korea, numbering in the hundreds over the years. The Chinese government has an agreement dating back to 1986 allowing this. Truly, these returns are in direct contravention of China's international obligations with respect to refugees. Once returned to North Korea, refugees face arrest, imprisonment, forced labour and torture.
There are also concerns now about new extradition arrangements with Russia, which will undoubtedly facilitate returns from Russia. As you have heard about from my colleague here and others, Amnesty has documented concerns about North Korean refugees in many other countries, Thailand being an obvious example. The options for North Korean refugees are few. Clearly, this area invites Canadian leadership.
Privacy and free expression: Extremely little information about the true human rights situation in North Korea makes it out of the country and thus is available to the outside world. That is why much of Amnesty International Canada's recent research with respect to North Korea has begun to focus on the stranglehold on communications and information flow in and out of the country. We see it as central to breaking the paralysis around many of the human rights problems in the country. It has become clear that the digital frontier is the latest battle ground in the North Korean government's attempts to isolate its citizens and obscure information about the heinous human rights situation in the country. Absolute control of communications is a key weapon in the authorities' efforts to conceal details about North Korea's dire human rights situation. The meaning is twofold: North Koreans are deprived of the chance to learn about and from the outside world while at the same time being suppressed from telling the outside world about the grim human rights situation in the country.
Of course, North Korea is not impervious to the mobile and digital revolution tsunami that floods the rest of the world. There are now more than 3 million mobile phone subscriptions in the country. Nonetheless, North Koreans are denied systematically their right to freedom of expression and their ability to make calls out of the country. This particularly amongst family, friends and colleagues where some members of the grouping have been able to make it out of the country and are then completely unable to remain in contact.
It means there is a growing illicit trade in smuggled phones and SIM cards, which commonly have come to be known as "Chinese mobile phones'' because they are used primarily by North Koreans living near the Chinese border to access Chinese mobile networks. A special unit of the state security department for covert intelligence now uses sophisticated monitoring devices to detect those mobile phone users who try to make calls out of the country. Those who are detected are arrested, and many face charges of treason.
A whole network of brokers: There are always individuals ready to prey on people's desperation — this has been established. They are willing to arrange calls for North Koreans on these smuggled Chinese phones with family members abroad. They charge exorbitant fees, and the individuals are put through perilous journeys just for the delight of having a few seconds or minutes on a phone with a foreign national. Listen to the following brief account:
Working with one of these brokers, a young woman, Choi Ji-woo, undertook a perilous journey with a broker into the mountains in the desperate hope that she could talk to her parents, who had fled from North Korea. These are her words:
Sometimes we walked all night to cross a mountain. There was no way around it, and we had to move at night, not during day. We couldn't use a flashlight, and it was pitch black. I couldn't see a foot ahead of me. If I could just hear mum and dad's voice one more time. If I could know with certainty that they were alive, I'd die happy. When the broker made the call and I heard my dad's voice, I just thought: "He's alive, he's alive!''
That is the reality for people in North Korea struggling to maintain contact and have information from outside the country.
The last area I want to touch on is international scrutiny. Remarkably, it is only in the last few years that the UN's human rights machinery has finally caught up and taken a serious look at the widespread human rights violations that have been North Korea's daily reality for decades. As you know, a landmark commission of inquiry was established by the UN Human Rights Council and reported in 2014. That is very significant. An annual resolution on human rights in North Korea does continue to come before and is passed by the UN General Assembly. Remarkably, the commission of inquiry report on North Korea's human rights situation has been discussed twice now at the Security Council, in December 2014 and 2015, representing historic breakthroughs. The Office the High Commissioner of Human Rights has opened a field office in South Korea focused on documenting and gathering information about human rights violations across the border.
All of that is progress; but the North Korean government continues adamantly to refuse to cooperate with the UN and other international human rights monitors, including denying access to North Korea for the UNHCR Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Sadly, governments that would have some influence here do not put the pressure on North Korea to turn that around.
Where does this leave Canada? I will end with two points, although I am sneaky because one point has a couple of sub-points.
Clearly we urge Canada not only to maintain but also to strengthen significantly efforts to work multilaterally in all settings where there are opportunities to advance a strong agenda for human rights in North Korea. That certainly includes the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly and, from the sidelines, at least until 2021, the UN Security Council.
Central goals in those multilateral efforts should be the following: first, follow up on implementation of the commission of inquiry recommendations; second, press for access to North Korea for human rights experts, like the Special Rapporteur and international groups like Amnesty; third, joint efforts with respect to cases of detained foreign nationals, which is difficult work where we need to work more closely with other governments if we are to resolve those cases; and, fourth, a coordinated international response to the worrying situation with respect to refugees.
The second point is to take on a leadership role in raising the serious concerns I've pointed to about free expression, privacy and access to communication. Amnesty has a new comprehensive report on that called Connection Denied. We are increasingly of the view that advances on that front can play a central role in tackling North Korea's human rights crisis more widely; and we need some international champions to do that.
The Chair: Thank you very much for that testimony.
Before we get on with the questions, I would like to acknowledge the presence of one of our newest independent senators, Senator Ratna Omidvar. Thank you for being here. Of course, you are free to ask a question.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you for welcoming me.
The Chair: Let us move on to questions.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for that compelling testimony. My colleagues, Senators Nancy Ruth and Jaffer, have already spoken about the plight of women, so I would like to hear about that.
We have heard that a lot of the North Korean defectors are women, and they are often susceptible to human trafficking, sexual exploitation, forced labour and marriage. How are the whereabouts of these women tracked, if possible, and by whom? How do we help them out of exploitative situations? Are they able to make their way out safely and legally into another country?
Mr. Kim: In terms of how they are tracked, most of how we get our information about North Korea is through the testimony of North Koreans who have managed to escape and found safe haven in a country like South Korea. The Ministry of Unification in South Korea, as well as the Refugees Foundation — both South Korean government entities — does surveys to discovery some of this information and to find these testimonies. Of course, the UN commission of inquiry went through 320 testimonies to form their report.
What was your second question?
Senator Ataullahjan: Do they ever get out safely and legally to other countries?
Mr. Kim: Legally, they have been able to go to countries, such as South Korea. There are now just under 30,000 refugees in South Korea, and the United States has 200. From there, we know that there are other countries that have accepted some refugees through the inland claim system. That has included Canada in the dozens or perhaps hundreds, Germany and the U.K. They are starting to float around there.
In terms of actual direct access to the refugees who make it to Thailand, for instance, it is only the United States and South Korea that accept those refugees.
Mr. Neve: I would add that I think your question points to that larger concern about what the difficulty there is in obtaining reliable information about North Korean human rights concerns in a wider sense, and it absolutely applies to this specific concern about refugee profiles, refugee women in particular. It is so difficult to get that information, because there are so many blockages at all stages, because people have so much fear.
As Chris is highlighting, it comes down to anecdotal information, information gathered when there is an effort through a research or UN process. But I don't think we have a systematic way of ensuring that information is gathered.
I've briefly highlighted the recommendation that Canada consider trying to lead a coordinated international effort around North Korean refugees, bringing some like-minded states together to begin to think of some coherent responses that we could push forward jointly. Gathering information and having access to good details about the profile and numbers of refugees would be central to them.
Senator Ataullahjan: Mr. Kim, you just used a word that almost sent chills down my spine: "They float around.'' That is a horrible way for anyone to live — just floating around. It seems there are a lot of people lost in the system. I don't know whether people don't care, are unwilling to help or are unable to help.
Mr. Kim: A lot of that complication comes, again, from this tenuous situation between North Korea and South Korea where they are stuck in a legal limbo. They are North Koreans, sure, but they don't have any documents. They flee within an inch of their lives. Then the South Korean constitution still recognizes them — all Koreans on the Korean peninsula — as South Koreans.
So, where do they go? A lot of them have ended up in countries where they'd have to turn to — for instance, in Canada — humanitarian and compassionate claims. They are not here on the merits of the refugee claim; they are here on the merits of other circumstances. That is why I use the word "float.''
Senator Martin: It seems that the definition of "refugee'' by the UNHCR designation protects those refugees who do need protection, but it excludes North Koreans who need the protection because of the legal limbo that they are in.
I'm wondering about the recommendation you made about what Canada can do — possibly one of our obligations as a country to really embrace such vulnerable people to our country. Could you expand a bit on the proposed program? Could advocacy groups like HanVoice Support Association or Amnesty International Canada partner with the Canadian government in such a program?
Mr. Kim: Absolutely. To begin with, I will read subsection 25.2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act:
The Minister may, in examining the circumstances concerning a foreign national who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act, grant that person permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria . . . .
That is kind of the language that has been used for the minister to use his discretion to open up "special policy'' programs. Examples of that, again, have been stateless Vietnamese who have been stranded in Thailand for decades and in the Philippines, as well as Tibetans in India who have been accepted by India, who aren't perhaps stateless but who need another home.
That is the type of forward, outside-of-the-box thinking we can use in this situation without changing what it means to be a "refugee'' and without changing the UNHCR's "durable solution'' requirement as forming part of the definition of that refugee.
In terms of whether there are other organizations that could assist with the implementation, we at HanVoice have been in direct contact with the implementers of the Project Tibet Society, which is for the Tibetans in India, as well as VOICE, which is a Vietnamese organization, that have implemented this type of program, pretty much taking on the role of implementation partner or sponsorship agreement holder. It is a similar type of role.
So we do have people who are already looking into this kind of program. Perhaps we will bring forward a proposal to the minister soon.
Mr. Neve: I would echo that it is important to remind ourselves that there is a long history in Canada of creating exactly these kinds of programs. It has been done for particular nationalities over many years, recognizing that there are, for a whole variety of reasons, circumstances in a country that, yes, don't fit cleanly the definition of "refugee'' from the UN convention but that are nonetheless compelling and represent a group that Canadians want to respond to. There is certainly a long record of that.
Amnesty International Canada has often collaborated with the Canadian government around those programs in the past, but not centrally. The central partnerships really come from the ethnocultural groups that will obviously be the source of the greatest number of referrals. Our focus differs; for instance, we often become aware of human rights defenders, journalists or other people of a particular profile — women at risk, often in the past — who have individual reasons why we think there is urgency around their case. Then we will work with the government to try to have their case accepted under that program.
Senator Martin: A previous witness — Ms. Bhatla — said there was a record number of claims in previous years, in that 150 claims were submitted in 2013, fewer than five in 2014 and none in 2015. That potentially leads us to believe that since South Korea is an option, we have fewer people wanting to claim refugee status in Canada. Is this reflective of the legal limbo that defectors find themselves in and the fact that we have no access to the refugees in Thailand or anywhere else? Are these numbers reflective of less need or something else?
Mr. Neve: Let me make a general comment about refugee numbers, and then my colleague will make a more specific observation around these statistics.
We can never draw the conclusion that when numbers go down with respect to refugee claims from any part of the world, somehow that means problem solved — the protection concerns aren't there anymore. In this particular instance, South Korea has ended up being an absolutely fine option. We have to recognize that very often numbers are going down because the message has gone out and communities realize it's no longer worth it; deterrence and control measures are having their effect. That's very often what is behind this, more than a sense that a particular refugee population doesn't need to turn to Canada anymore.
Mr. Kim: I would echo Alex's comments. In 2009 about 3,000 North Koreans transited through Thailand, and now it's just over a thousand. Those numbers have dropped, not because of a cessation of circumstances within North Korea. In fact, about a month ago, the North Korean government threatened that its citizens should start preparing for a new arduous march. That was a reference to the famine in 1990 which killed millions of North Koreans. When you look at the broader picture, those stats are not reflective of what is happening in North Korea. Things could be getting worse.
Senator Martin: There is limited access. The legal limbo does not allow North Korean defectors to make their way to Canada in any shape or form, very few.
Mr. Kim: That's right.
Senator Andreychuk: Mr. Kim, the other programs on Tibet and the Vietnamese, if we were to develop a program, and since those that defect from North Korea go into South Korea and have citizenship, and there are significant numbers over the years who are there, how does one include or exclude those already there with Korean citizenship but who may choose to apply? How do we discriminate? How do we choose? Or are we looking for those who have made it to countries other than South Korea?
Mr. Kim: There has been some interesting case law in the federal courts on the grey status of North Koreans vis-à- vis the South Korean constitution. I believe there is a 2011 Federal Court case, Kim, where essentially the court decided that unless North Koreans are willing and show a deliberate desire to go to South Korea, we can't just apply the constitution to them all; therefore, they were allowed to claim refugee status in Canada, because they had never been to South Korea.
That same logic can apply to North Koreans who are in countries like Thailand who don't have any status. It's fair to say if they have gone to South Korea they have made their choice; but the ones in limbo in Southeast Asian countries, they haven't made a choice, and I don't know if it's fair to say that the constitution should apply automatically to everyone.
Senator Andreychuk: That's my point. You would exclude those who made the choice of South Korea, where the significant numbers are. Would it open an avenue for those to now apply and say they wish to come to Canada? Would we have to treat them equally, as those who may be sitting in detention somewhere in Thailand, or any or country? That's where I'm not clear how we would approach the situation.
Mr. Kim: I would recommend that we focus on the neediest. If we are going to have private sponsors in Canada assist people, we want to make sure they are the neediest women and children, preferably, who are in precarious, dangerous situations, such as the detention centres in Bangkok.
If we got the UNHCR involvement, even in a non-official capacity, it would have to be with respect to the neediest population.
Mr. Neve: I would echo that. Whenever it comes to a special program about refugees, two of the considerations that should be at the top of our list are risk and families. For that reason, I don't know that we should unequivocally prohibit individuals who have taken the step of settling in South Korea from accessing the program. It would probably be a higher standard they would have to rise to.
If there were specific concerns and considerations about either the risk factor, which I totally agree will be of paramount concern for refugees who are still in places like Thailand, but family issues. We know when it comes to refugee settlement and integration, for instance, focusing on family reunification is important. There may be some of those refugees who have come through South Korea who have strong family ties in Canada, and maybe not of the type that easily allows for sponsorship but nonetheless should be taken into consideration.
Senator Andreychuk: I want to go back to your point on communication being the key into North Korea. For years we thought if we could just get information into North Korea that they might make choices, sort of reminiscent of what we thought in the Soviet Union. Of course, we used Radio Free Europe in those days. Eventually the information was helpful, but it was the economic situation and the governance that drove the collapse of the Soviet Union.
With the new technologies, are you saying it's a different situation for allowing information in and getting information? It may have a different impact than it did before. We are putting sanctions on, and yet others are coming into North Korea, like the marathoners from all the countries. Is that good or bad? Does it weaken or strengthen our case?
Mr. Neve: It is worth considering that in the digital age this whole realm of information and access to it and what that means resonates with how that debate has played out over the decades in a variety of contexts, but does have different dimensions as well.
It is so interwoven into the fabric of how humans live their lives on all fronts, including on the economic and commercial front. Even the extent to which, as you're saying, in other parts of the world it was maybe through economic links and trade considerations and business opportunities, and with that flow a lot of change came. We now live in a world where digital information and access to that kind of technology is at the very heart of how our world operates commercially. It's all part of one picture.
Of course we see it as a two-way flow of information that's of concern. We absolutely need to see this tackled because, yes, it means that information more meaningfully and regularly flows into North Korea, but it is also about getting information out more reliably.
With the issue of sanctions, when we talk about sanctions against any country, we focus only on targeted sanctions against key officials. It doesn't mean we oppose it, but we are not proponents of wider sanctions and boycotts, including marathons or travel bans. We have spoken in the past about the need to target key officials, individuals who are responsible for human rights violations.
The Chair: Why should we treat North Koreans differently from other refugees in allowing them to stay when they have another country of citizenship, which is South Korea?
Mr. Neve: As I said earlier, we have a long tradition of recognizing that we need a multiplicity of different responses to refugee situations. The North Korean refugee situation today is one of very grave global concern. We're never going to be at the forefront, and the vast majority of North Koreans will be content with and seek refuge in South Korea. Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that we are suddenly going to be opening ourselves up to a flood of thousands of North Koreans, but to recognize that we can and should play a role in making sure there is a meaningful global response to this crisis, particularly given that there is a significant Korean community in Canada, and therefore we have connections and responsibilities that flow from that. The numbers are never going to be that significant. I don't think there is anything inappropriate about us stepping up and doing something special, given the special nature of the refugee situation.
Mr. Kim: I would just add that the North Korean human rights crisis has gone through three generations of dictators. It is a six-decades-long crisis where, finally, we have a UN commission of inquiry report that really expounds on the gravity of the situation.
If Canada were to play a role, it would just be in recognition of that fact, that this is a protracted human rights crisis. Many of the different international organizations and countries involved are most concerned about security. Canada can play a role as a leader in the human rights area, and I think that's important.
The Chair: Having been to North Korea twice, I certainly understand what you are saying and have a great deal of empathy and feeling for your thoughts.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much for allowing me to ask a clarifying question.
Is there any information in your facts and evidence around the presence of particularly vulnerable groups, such as gays and lesbians, who are seeking protection from the system in North Korea and would, therefore, maybe not choose, for various reasons, to go to South Korea and, therefore, are in a particularly difficult situation?
Mr. Kim: Anecdotally, I only know of one, and they came out quite recently in South Korea. They said that they had always known, but they never had a term to describe what they were feeling while they were in North Korea. I suspect that a lot of them don't fully realize what rights are afforded to them until they have escaped and have had some time to process. I wonder if opening up another country like Canada might assist some of them who, with more access to information, now do have more of a sense of where they stand in terms of the deprivation of their rights.
The Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you both for being here.
We are back now with our third panel of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, and we're studying the human rights issue in North Korea. We have been at this for a few weeks, and the testimony has been very strong and very passionate and very thorough. We appreciate all the testimony we have had thus far.
On our third panel today, we have, from the Light Korean Presbyterian Church, Ross S. Lee, the former Volunteer Committee Chair; and from KCWA Family and Social Services, we have Monica Chi, Executive Director. Mr. Lee, I understand you're going to open up the conversation.
Ross S. Lee, Volunteer Committee Chair (Former), Light Korean Presbyterian Church: I would like to sincerely thank the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights for carrying out this study on the human rights situation and defections from North Korea and for inviting me as a witness to share the valuable and memorable experiences that I have gained by working with North Korean defectors.
My involvement with North Korean defectors began four years ago, in January of 2012, while I was serving my three-year term as the volunteer committee chairperson at Light Korean Presbyterian Church.
Having arrived in a new country with no connections, with limited resources at hand, and while facing a language barrier, it was only natural for the North Korean defectors to find their way to a Korean community and churches. There are well over 100,000 Korean-Canadians living in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area and more than 200 Korean churches. Light Korean Presbyterian Church is the second-largest Korean church, consisting of about 3,000 members. Light Korean Presbyterian Church was formed in 1984 and, under the leadership and care of Reverend Hyeon Soo Lim, it grew not only in size but in its presence in missionary work.
We have hundreds of church members participating in short-term mission trips every year, reaching out to countries like China, India, Tanzania, Mali, Haiti and the Dominican Republic, to name a few. We also have a medical team comprising doctors, dentists and medical practitioners reaching out to countries in need.
Many North Korean defectors came to Toronto between 2008 and 2010, and by the end of 2011 there were about 150 North Korean families attending our church alone. Our Ephraim family group, led by Pastor Hwang, provided the care and assistance needed for their settlement and social engagement. To better accommodate and to strengthen the level of care, our church implemented two actions.
The first action involved utilizing the church family group system that was already in place. Our church had over 130 small family groups, each group consisting of five to six families. Each of these family groups was asked to adopt one to two North Korean families into their family group. Small family group sizes had many benefits. Small groups were able to welcome and receive new members on a much more personal level, resulting in stronger bonds with the members. Weekly meetings became their place of gathering and open communication where they discussed family and social problems they were experiencing. Through their family group they received moral and spiritual support through worship and prayer.
The second action involved creating a more structured system to better serve the North Korean families. Our volunteer committee was assigned to take on this task. Through a special meeting prepared by the church, 47 volunteers were recruited and divided into five groups to provide interpreting, translation, transportation, sharing used household goods and mentoring services.
Many of the volunteers were full-time university students and working adults. At times there were challenges in finding a suitable volunteer, especially when the help was needed during weekdays and working hours. To resolve the issue our committee hired a part-time assistant whose duties included being stationed at the Canadian immigration office from 9 to 12 on Mondays and Tuesdays to assist any North Korean defectors needing help with the refugee application; to take defectors to assigned shelters after the application; to attend social meetings, usually every three months; to attend their medical checkup appointments; and to attend Canada Border Services Agency meetings once a month during their deportation process.
In the course of two and a half years while working with our committee, the part-time assistant helped countless numbers of North Korean defectors, more so than anyone I know. In recent years most of the North Korean defectors have been removed from Canada due to changes in the immigration legislation which, unfortunately, captured most of the defectors. The few that were eligible to lawfully remain have been successfully integrated into Canadian society and have become contributing members of the church. They will most definitely serve as role models and leaders to future defectors should a program to settle North Korean defectors in Canada be established.
In closing, our church has recently adopted a Syrian family of six, and I look forward to the day when we could do the same for North Korean families once more. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lee. Ms. Chi, you have the floor.
Monica Chi, Executive Director, KCWA Family and Social Services: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak before you. KCWA is a charitable organization established in 1985. Formerly known as the Korean Canadian Women's Association, over 31 years of service the organization's mandate has expanded beyond women's issues. While KCWA is open to serving individuals of all ethnic backgrounds who are refugee claimants, convention refugees, permanent residents and naturalized Canadians, we have a special mandate to support ethnic Koreans in Canada.
Our current mandate is building the Korean-Canadian community one person at a time. We receive funding from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, the Ministry of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the City of Toronto. Last year we served approximately 5,318 clients and had 12,243 service contacts with them.
KCWA has 14 board members, 16 fully bilingual employees and 340 volunteers. In recognition of its efforts to help Ontario build stronger diverse communities, we were awarded the Newcomer Champion Award in 2010 by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration.
In terms of what we do, broadly speaking, KCWA provides settlement and family services. Our settlement program aims to support newcomers in making informed decisions about settlement and to increase understanding of life in Canada. We provide needs assessment referral services, assistance with federal and provincial health care programs, Canada Child Tax Benefit applications and others. We also provide employment support services to assist newcomers to effectively navigate the Canadian labour market. For this we provide support for resumé writing, job searches, career counselling and connection with professional mentoring groups.
With regard to refugees, who tend to have previous experience with trauma, the process of resettlement can be just as traumatic as the initial trauma due to challenges and barriers they face in their new society. Essential to the process of recovery is a positive settlement experience in the new host country. To assist in overcoming these barriers, KCWA's resettlement services include giving expert information and orientation, interpretation and translation referrals to the government and community resources to support the initial settlement, all in the language that they speak, which would be Korean.
Based on our experience, North Korean refugee claimants' English language skills are far lower in comparison to immigrants from South Korea. To give you an example, many reported not being familiar with the English alphabet as they had never had a chance to learn. Also, unlike immigrants who generally connect quickly and easily with their local communities and faith groups and come to Canada with their families, North Korean refugee claimants tend to be isolated as many of them would have had to leave their families and everything else behind.
They also tend to have psychological barriers in building trust and making connections in the new country. Trust requires time and consistency to develop, both of which are difficult to achieve within an already stressed system possibly further damaged by experiences before entering the country. Therefore, it has been crucial for counsellors to provide culturally sensitive services with these barriers in mind when working with North Koreans.
In addition to settlement and resettlement services, KCWA provides family services, including individual, couples, family and group counselling. Topics can range from stress and anger management, communication issues and parenting skills training.
Our experience informs us that often those with past experience of trauma or people living under significant pressures face additional psychological stressors during post-arrival resettlement. These factors, when not addressed properly and in a timely manner, add to the risk of family violence. This is why KCWA also provide a specialized domestic violence prevention and treatment program for men, women and their dependents. While KCWA provides expert knowledge and services to assist the resettlement of refugees, we believe that the successful integration of North Korean refugees is linked to the local communities and support systems that are available to them.
For example, through my own church I am involved in a sponsorship committee trying to sponsor a Syrian family to Canada. Through this experience, I see that there are parts that even with the best intentions of service providers such as KCWA, we would not be able to provide. The church is mobilizing its entire congregation to volunteer to welcome them at the airport, assist in driving them to doctor and various other appointments and open our homes to provide a truly welcoming community for the refugee family. This human touch in building new, trusting relationships, as Mr. Lee just shared, together with professional services provided by organizations such as KCWA with an expertise in settlement, is what will make the resettlement of North Koreans in Canada a Canadian success.
KCWA will work with local communities like Mr. Lee's church and Canadian sponsors to help individual North Korean refugees successfully resettle in Canada. Also, for long-term success we will engage in sponsor orientation and community-wide refugee awareness training.
Given the grave humanitarian crisis of people suffering in North Korea, North Korean defectors are waiting for help in places like Thai refugee detention camps, and Canada could do more to respond to the call. In 1979, in response to the Indo-China refugee crisis — sometimes referred to as the boat people — Canada became the first country in the world to create a system for private sponsorship of refugees abroad by citizens. As a Canadian citizen I am proud that Canada still remains the only country in the world to have this option that calls on the compassion of citizens to respond to this crisis abroad.
As was recently observed by the recent wave of enthusiasm and compassion shown by Canadians from coast to coast in response to the plight of Syrian refugees, I believe that Canadians are willing to welcome those in dire need. It is my sincere hope that the same opportunities would open up for North Koreans as well.
The Chair: We'll open questioning with the deputy chair, Senator Ataullahjan.
Senator Ataullahjan: Ms. Chi, given that a high percentage of defectors are women and that a fair number of these women have experienced some form of exploitation upon defection to China, does KCWA offer any services or programs of assistance to North Korean refugee women who have experienced exploitation prior to coming to resettlement in Canada?
Ms. Chi: Yes. Our statistics show that a high percentage of the defectors are women. Our statistics over the past three years indicate that it is the case for women who have come to KCWA seeking support. We provide services that would address the special needs and challenges that women have had to face in places like China. We have treatment services that address PTSD and support them as they try to build their lives in Canada.
We have noted that often some of the services requested in the past have been linked to health. We collaborate with immigrant health services to provide health care to these women without proper ID. We collaborate with immigrant health services to provide assessments and treatment for women with STIs as well. It is a wraparound service not only for women experiencing PTSD and domestic violence in the past but also for health care and training them on how to parent and make connections with their children. I have observed that women who have experienced abuse have a difficult time making meaningful attachment and connections with their children. We provide parenting skills training so they can connect meaningfully with their children again.
Senator Martin: Mr. Lee, you mentioned that there are over 200 churches in the greater Toronto region, yours being one of them. Can you talk about some of the other organizations and churches that either have provided such support to North Korean defectors who were here in the past or have the capacity to do that? Would the fact of so many churches be one of the strengths of the Korean community to work in support of such a program if North Korean defectors were to resettle in Canada?
Mr. Lee: The biggest church in Toronto is Young Nak Church, where they have a similar program. I know the person who was in charge of providing equal services there. The other churches I am not aware of, so I cannot make any comments.
Senator Martin: I am trying to understand whether there is already infrastructure in these churches in the GTA that may be able to step up and work with KCWA and the Government of Canada and others in support of the program. I appreciate that you can't personally answer for all churches.
The program that you offer is quite detailed and comprehensive — a real wraparound program as well. How did you develop such a program? Was it on a trial-and-error basis? Was there a team that sat down and did that? Would you explain a bit about the program?
Mr. Lee: As I mentioned, our leader is the Reverend Hyeon Soo Lim. His heart is entirely on North Korea. He gave us our committee and the direction as to what we should do and how we should go about it. He understood that the need was urgent. We had other committee members, and we sat around and started to brainstorm about how we could help.
Typical services include interpretation, translation and transportation. Under the circumstances, that is no surprise. They are services that anyone can do. However, having the heart and wanting to help was a big part in setting up the program.
Senator Martin: Ms. Chi, you talked about some of the same services offered, but you also said in your testimony that you are on a committee supporting a Syrian family and that you see where these community groups can play a certain role. Could you expand on that?
Ms. Chi: Yes. In my experience working as part of the church, I see that there are different roles that the citizens or community church groups can play in welcoming a refugee family to Canada and the specific roles that a service provider like KCWA can provide. For example, KCWA provides expert knowledge or accurate and reliable information about settlement services or accessing government services or community resources. We would not be able to go to the airport and pick them up from the airport.
My experience as a community member and Canadian citizen trying to sponsor a Syrian refugee family is that the relationship would be complementary in the sense that the church mobilizes the entire congregation. For example, let us say a church has about 3,000 congregation members, which is the case for my church. It would make an announcement to mobilize the entire congregation so that they would volunteer from A to Z for a period of one year, which is the commitment for the sponsorship groups to support the refugee family, starting from welcoming and picking them at the airport, helping the refugee family to connect with settlement services like KCWA, introducing their children to the refugee family so that they can have a playdate together, helping them to register for school, and driving them to doctor's or teacher's appointments.
They may not know how to drive or get around the city. These are things that the KCWA or any other settlement agency would have a limitation on in adding to the human touch. That is where church programs, like Ross indicated, play a very important role in working together with service providers to truly welcome the refugee family to Canada and make them part of an inclusive community.
Senator Martin: You have worked directly with North Korean defectors. We know there are fewer numbers because of the legal limbo, et cetera. Why should Canada have such a program? In your experience working with defectors, do you seem them as a unique group? I know you are ethnically Korean, but did you notice vast differences? Could you speak a bit about why this is a special vulnerable group that Canada should be looking at?
Ms. Chi: As the previous witnesses have indicated, in my experience, North Korean refugees are quite special. Many of them are women who have fled vulnerable situations and so may have a difficult time trusting. When working with our counsellors, many of them have indicated that they have experienced — in North Korea, they have a difficult time opening up about their personal lives and family. Everything is monitored by the government, because it's an authoritarian state. For them to live in South Korea is very difficult because of the geographical proximity. Many who have come to KCWA have indicated that they appreciate the freedom that they have in Canada.
In our experience, they have been quite vulnerable, especially because they have had to go through so much in terms of transit from North Korea to different countries. As indicated previously, they have a high rate of STIs and other health issues. They also indicate that while living in North Korea, it has been difficult for them to access health care services.
For various reasons, I think Canada has a lot to offer for this very particular population.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I just noticed our list got longer. I normally wait until the end, but, Mr. Lee, I was intrigued by your statement, because it was the first I have heard of what you said, which was that in recent years most of the North Korean defectors have been removed from Canada due to changes in the immigration and citizenship act. I haven't heard anyone before say "due to changes'' in it. Then you said something about most of the defectors, but a few were eligible to say.
How come some were allowed to stay? Why were they allowed to stay and the others were told to leave? That is brand new for me.
Mr. Lee: Personally, a member of another church that I know — a mother with one kid. I don't know the details, but she was granted permission to stay. There is another family that I know of who are very active in church, helping out with church work and so on, and I know that they received their rights to stay. I don't know the exact details.
Senator Martin: It seems case by case.
Mr. Lee: Yes, case by case.
The Chair: It will be interesting for us to pursue this, too, because we haven't heard "due to these changes'' before, and I think it is an important part of our issue on resettlement here.
Senator Ngo: This question is for both of you. In your line of work for many years, what unique difficulties would North Koreans experience as refugees in Canada as opposed to the United States?
Second, what are the challenges that North Koreans face in resettling in Canada?
Ms. Chi: I can speak to that. Based on our experience working with North Korean refugees seeking KCWA support, as indicated previously, we have noted that a huge barrier in resettlement would be their language. Many would not have the knowledge of English required to integrate into Canadian society successfully. It was not rare to see people who did not know the English alphabet. That is a good example of the level of command that they have — so the unique challenges that they would experience if they were to come to a country such as Canada.
In addition to that, we have noticed that, unlike the South Korean immigrants who come to Canada and know what the basic laws and regulations of law-abiding citizenship look like, many North Koreans don't know that corporal punishment is not allowed in a country like Canada. That's because North Korean refugees are from an authoritarian country where there is a dearth of information of that kind. For example, many North Koreans would get involved in cases of — well, they wouldn't know how to appropriately discipline their children.
I think that is related to psychological difficulties that they experienced and also their lack of information that, in a country like Canada, corporal punishment is not allowed.
So we would get calls from front-line workers at the Children's Aid Society asking us to come and provide culturally sensitive education because they kept getting phone calls. Or they would have to investigate North Korean families who were getting involved in domestic violence cases. We would have to go and explain that often those North Korean refugees lacked information about this.
Through such training, CAS workers were able to understand the different challenges and work together rather than judge and with the solution being to apprehend the child. So through this training and more awareness, and us supporting both CAS and the North Korean families, they were both able to work together. That has been our experience.
Senator Hubley: A quick question first to Mr. Lee: Toronto has the largest population of Koreans in Canada, I would say.
Mr. Lee: That is right, yes.
Senator Hubley: To that end, can you share with me how many new Korean families or persons from North Korea would have come to your church in the past few years?
Mr. Lee: During 2008 and 2010, as I have mentioned, a great number of North Koreans came to our church; almost every week, I was able to see new families attending the church. Lately, I have not heard of any new North Korean families attending our church.
Senator Hubley: What about your funding? Is it strictly within your church; is it through contributions in your church?
Mr. Lee: Yes. The funding that we receive to hire the said assistants was provided by our committee funded on our own.
Senator Hubley: I might ask Monica the same. You mentioned 5,318 clients last year. Would they have been new Canadians? Would that number have indicated that they had just been immigrants from North Korea?
Ms. Chi: The stats given previously — last year — the 5,318 includes convention refugees, refugee claimants, naturalized citizens, as well as permanent residents — so all the clients that we have served.
Specifically with regard to North Koreans, in 2015-16, we served 219 convention refugees and 167 refugee claimants.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you for doing the work you do.
I am interested in something that hasn't been spoken about. Over the years, I have often heard that people who come to Canada from communist nations have a great deal of trouble integrating into Canadian society in an entrepreneurial or get your own job, don't be dependent on the food bank way. How do you deal with this issue with North Koreans, and how does it come up?
Ms. Chi: That hasn't been entirely our experience. These are people that were refugee claimants and have been granted refugee status. So they would be provided government assistance for a period of time, and that would help them to settle in Canada. They would rely on government assistance to live for a period of time.
Our experience has been that, while there are people that need to rely, for appropriate reasons, on government assistance, there are also people who are willing to not rely on government assistance. In fact, there is a sentiment that because they are given a new opportunity, they want to stand on their own two feet. So they come to KCWA for assistance with employment.
In 2015-16, the highest rate of their service breakdown was in tax and tax report. They are interested in contributing to Canada, as 25 per cent of their service requests at KCWA have been tax related. People do want to learn English, and they do want to contribute because they recognize that they have been given freedom to be citizens, which they didn't have a chance to be before. That has been our experience. Of course, there will always be people that do need to rely and want to rely. However that is not wholly our experience.
Senator Omidvar: I think both of you and the speakers before made a suggestion that, if Canada's regulations were changed, private sponsors would step up to help North Korean refugees as much as they have stepped up to help Syrian refugees.
My question is this: Part of the success of the Syrian sponsorship movement is that it has spilled beyond churches into book clubs, walking clubs, school associations. Do you think the people of Canada know enough about North Korea to have this outpouring of public support?
Ms. Chi: I believe the previous witnesses have indicated the lack of public awareness about the issue of North Korea. At least, my experience as a public citizen has been that when North Korea is mentioned, it is usually in the context of inappropriate, politically incorrect jokes, or rather, unfortunately, it has been misguided by the atrocities of the regime. However, I believe that, similar to the Syrian refugee crisis, the media did play a role in educating the public citizens. I think, with media support, the public awareness grew beyond churches. One of the things that we would need to consider would be how do we effectively engage the media in order to make this a Canadian concern so that a similar kind of compassion is shown for North Koreans.
You are absolutely right. For this to be a success, it has to be beyond just the Korean community. It has to be beyond just the churches. It has to tap into the compassion of Canadians.
The Chair: We do want to thank you both very much for testifying before us today. This has been a fascinating day of testimony, with government officials, Amnesty and others. You have added a valuable component to our study. We will have a report, and we are going to make sure that Canadians, through a news conference of some sort, do have a better understanding of what is taking place in North Korea. Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)