THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 6, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met this day at 11:30 a.m. to study the 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 of the Rohingya); and to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs); and to give clause-by-clause consideration to Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week.
Senator Wanda Elaine Thomas Bernard (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. Before we begin, senators, is it agreed that communications be authorized to take photos during the hearing this morning?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Now I would like the senators to introduce themselves beginning with the deputy chair.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, from Nova Scotia.
Senator Hartling: Senator Hartling, from New Brunswick.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, from Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Omidvar: Senator Omidvar, from Toronto, Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: And I am the other deputy chair, Salma Ataullahjan, from Ontario.
The Chair: Today we are pleased to welcome the Honourable Bob Rae, Special Envoy of the Prime Minister to Myanmar.
Our committee studied the human rights situation of the Rohingya in the fall of last year. Today we are pleased to be receiving an update from Mr. Rae on the situation, who tabled his report entitled “Tell them we’re human”: What Canada and the world can do about the Rohingya crisis on April 3, 2018.
Mr. Rae, you have the floor. Thank you.
Hon. Bob Rae, P.C., C.C., O.Ont., Q.C., Special Envoy of the Prime Minister to Myanmar, as an individual: Thank you very much, senator. It is a great pleasure and honour to be here. I appreciate the chance to answer your questions.
My presentation this morning will be quite brief because I think you have had an opportunity to see my report. What I will do today is just add a couple of points to the key issues that I tried to identify in my report.
The first is that the Government of Canada has responded to my report in statements made by the Minister of Global Affairs and the Minister of International Development. On the basis of what they have announced, it is clear to me that the government is taking the report and, more importantly, the situation of the Rohingya in Bangladesh and Myanmar seriously, although I still believe that the recommendation that I made for an even longer-term and larger commitment makes sense. I hope very much that the government will continue to listen and to engage with other like-minded countries and the United Nations organization in responding to the depth and seriousness of the crisis.
As you know, the rainy season has begun. With the beginning of the rainy season, the situation in the camp becomes even more serious. I have described in both my interim report and my longer report that we need to fully appreciate the difficulty facing this particular camp because it is makeshift. It was a response to an emergency situation, and its geography and makeup only make it more difficult for us to provide the kind of assistance to the refugees that is required. It is a deeply troubling humanitarian situation.
With respect to the humanitarian situation in Myanmar, again, as you will know, the UN has signed an agreement with the Government of Myanmar, which is something we have been pressing for. The actual wording of the agreement has not been made public, but both the UNDP and the UNHCR have signed the agreement.
The key question I identified in my report of access to the north of Rakhine State would appear to be addressed in that document. More important than the document, of course, is what happens on the ground and what decisions are made every day. It needs to be understood that Rakhine State is under the control of the Myanmar military. As you know, there is this unique relationship in this government between the civilian government and the military. The country was under military dictatorship from 1962, and the military remains in control of key ministries, key departments and key security operations, and they do not report to the head of that party with the most seats, and the head of that party is, of course, Aung San Suu Kyi.
On the question of the political changes that will be required, I think the key problem is that there is now strong acceptance of the Kofi Annan report by the civilian Government of Myanmar, but the commander-in-chief has never embraced the Kofi Annan report, and that remains a challenge. I think that will continue to be a substantial challenge.
On the issue of accountability and impunity, the prosecutor for the ICC has indicated that she would like to hear arguments from a number of parties about whether the ICC can exercise jurisdiction with respect to the one crime of forcible deportation on the argument that the crime of forcible deportation is completed in this current situation in Bangladesh.
Bangladesh, as you know, is a signatory to the Rome Statute, and Myanmar is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, so with respect to the ICC saying we have jurisdiction, that is an issue on which they are hearing arguments in the next few days. We will know, I think, in the relatively near future whether or not the ICC takes jurisdiction.
On the other questions that I identified in my report as to possible avenues, I think there is a much stronger working consensus among a number of countries that the gathering of evidence has to be done in an organized, systematic fashion. I have been quite encouraged by what I have heard from a number of different governments about their willingness to engage. In fact, I don’t think it is appropriate for me to talk publicly too much about what is happening with respect to that because the gathering of evidence is not something that is a political exercise. It is a legal exercise. But I am satisfied that people are taking it very seriously. I think there is much to be hoped for in that department.
Of course, the key question is finding a tribunal to which to take the evidence. That is the challenge that we have: Where does this evidence go, and what can it be used for? That is a conundrum we are all trying to wrestle and deal with. We are making progress, however, on the issue of evidence gathering.
The Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission will have completed its work in September. They are making an oral presentation to the Human Rights Council in Geneva this month, but the final report won’t be available until September. As you know, the General Assembly session starts in September, so I am sure this will be the subject of great interest and concern.
I had the opportunity to attend the meeting of the Security Council in which the Security Council members reflected on the trip that they made a couple of weeks ago. I had a chance, as well, to attend some meetings with Ambassador Blanchard on where we saw things moving and how we would like to meet with other countries, and that was a very positive visit and meeting that we had. We have had a number of other meetings since that time.
Officials in the Department of Global Affairs are following up quite assiduously on the creation of an informal working group that Canada will be very much a part of.
Also, as you know, Minister Freeland discussed this issue with her colleagues, the foreign ministers of the G7. I have been advised that the Prime Minister will be discussing this issue directly with the heads of state of the G7, which is meeting in Charlevoix this weekend. I think we will get some sense of what the reaction to that is from the communiqué that will come out at the end of that meeting.
This has been a challenging assignment for me. It has challenged not so much my mind, which is still going strong, but it is more emotional than anything else. This has been a very gruelling, emotional experience. I can’t quite describe adequately to you the extent of the humanitarian crisis in Bangladesh and the sense that we are in a desperate race against time to make sure people are safe. I fear we will lose lives, and it is not something I can take easily.
Second, the situation of the Rohingya population inside Myanmar — and there are still several hundred thousand people who have not left — is still very precarious. It’s precarious more because of the climate of hate that has been created in the country over a very long period of time. The basic human rights of the Rohingya have not been respected, their political rights have not been respected, and they are now the largest stateless population in the world. In the world in which we live, to be stateless is to be without a place and without rights, without an ability to move, without the freedom of mobility, without freedom of speech, and without an ability to speak your mind and to know where you will be tomorrow. That is the tragedy we are facing.
Finally, I think we need to put this into two big contexts, which I tried to do in my report. The first is the extent of the world refugee crisis, which is extremely serious. It challenges the world in a way we have not been challenged since 1945. This will be the subject of a great deal of debate at the General Assembly in the fall.
It is a very real challenge to the world order, because host countries are being asked to do a lot and are not receiving anywhere near the kind of assistance that they need from the rest of the world. It poses a real deep challenge to them, and to the condition and position of the refugees themselves.
The other issue is the fact that China and India are the major regional powers in the area. Canada, as you will appreciate, is not. One of the most frequent questions I get when I travel to the region, which I have done now four times in the last year, is why are you here? What makes you think Canada has anything to offer? On my fourth trip, there was greater credibility in our coming back again and saying, “We are still here. We are still interested, and we are still engaged.”
That is why I have attached such great importance in my report to this principle of perseverance and presence. We have to continue to be present. Canadians have to understand that if we want to play a role, it will cost money and it will take time, patience and a willingness to be present. That is one of the most critical points I would keep coming back to.
Finally, the fifth point in my report was that we have to listen to the Rohingya people themselves. In any agreement between Myanmar and Bangladesh, the party that is absent from the table is the Rohingya people themselves. You will appreciate, as people involved in the political process, that when you go into a situation, you immediately start asking yourself, “Who are the leaders here? What are the political forces at work within the community?” For a long time, we to recognize, the political voice of the Rohingya has been squelched by the fact that they are living in a military dictatorship and in a political context where they are not certain of who will listen to them and what will happen if they actually speak their minds.
Slowly but surely, political voices are being heard within the Rohingya community; we hear them here in Canada, London, Paris and in different parts of the world. The important thing is that they be heard in Myanmar and in Bangladesh, and that those voices be respected and listened to carefully.
I know the minister has met a number of times with the Rohingya leadership in Canada, as have I. That is helping to make a difference in terms of the emerging situation.
I will leave my report at that. I appreciate very much the opportunity to be here and to speak with you. I look forward to any questions or comments you might have.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rae. We have a list of senators who have questions to pose. We’ll start with a deputy chair.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you, Mr. Rae, for being here. Thank you for the time you have taken to look at this issue.
We met last when you were in Bangladesh, and we all realized the daunting task of getting to the refugee camps and getting the Bangladeshi government to listen. You have been back many times since.
I have so many questions that I will try to put my words in such a way that I can ask as many of them as I can and then let the other senators ask questions. If need be, I’ll go on the second round.
We realize Bangladesh has huge challenges. In conversations with the foreign minister when I was there in early April last year, I raised the issue of the trafficking of young girls. He said, “We are aware of it. We will be keeping an eye on it.” Yet, now we hear reports of vans pulling into the refugee camps and young girls being picked up. That is one issue.
The other issue is getting the Myanmar government to recognize their attitude toward the Rohingya people. It is just not right — and I am being mild with my words. Aung San Suu Kyi is being strongly supported by India and China. I think that has given them the liberty to act the way they do. I don’t know if you want to comment on that. In conversations I had last spring, a political spokesperson even refused to acknowledge the word “Rohingya.” He looked at me and said, “No Rohingya.” That’s all he had to say to my question.
Mr. Rae: On the first issue, yes indeed, there is a lot of evidence of trafficking. There are also a lot of other issues. There is the drug trade, which is a significant problem. A refugee camp is 750,000 people in a very small space, with people with no money and no means coming from a country where there is a significant history of drug trade, Myanmar, and where the route goes right up through Cox’s Bazar into Bangladesh and India. So, yes, the drug trade is a huge issue, and human trafficking is a huge issue, particularly the trafficking of young girls.
I would remind you that in the camp, after six o’clock at night, all of the aid workers go home. The sun goes down, and there’s no electricity. So you have 750,000 people living literally in the dark. There is a police force and an army that are present that provide some degree of security, but anything can go on. It’s a very difficult situation to control, deal with and respond to.
We have identified the question of the position of women and girls as one of the key priorities for Canadian policy in the camp. I know that if you invited Minister Bibeau to come, she would talk a lot about how they’re actually making that a priority in terms of the aid projects that receive money from the money that the Canadian government is putting forward.
On the question of the attitude to the Rohingya, it is a real problem. The problem is that the entire political narrative of the Myanmar political establishment is that the Rohingya are not an ethnic group that is included inside the constitutional family. Their argument is that the Rohingya were brought in by the British and that they are not “native” to Myanmar. That history is contested by the Rohingya themselves and by a number of other scholars, who say, “No, Rakhine Muslims have been living in Rakhine for centuries.” Whether they were living in that large a number is another debate, but we are here to deal now with the current reality and not simply with the historical debate. Of course, the argument, as well, is that “Rohingya” means, “I am a person from Rakhine” in the dialect of the Rohingya. The Myanmari say, “Well, that’s the whole point. You are using a word with which you are immediately establishing your status.” That is why the word is contested and objected to.
I don’t believe anyone should back away from the word for one simple reason, and that is that people can call themselves whatever they want to call themselves, first. Second, there is no denying the historical fact of the Rohingya presence in Rakhine State and in Myanmar. You can’t pretend that it’s not the case. It is the case.
I had a meeting with a general a few months ago, and he used the word “Bengali.” I said, “Don’t use that word because that word is as argumentative as anything else that you could say because that word basically says they’re not here; they don’t belong here.” Of course, the Bengalis themselves, the Bangladeshis, in modern parlance, do not consider the Rohingya to be part of their country. They don’t consider that the people who left a long time ago and have been living in Rakhine State for 170 or 200 years are members of the Bangladeshi community. That’s why you have this stateless phenomenon. Nobody wants to say, “These are our people.” Geographically, historically, the Rohingya are a people who are native to Rakhine.
There are other people who live in Rakhine. The Rakhine Buddhists live there. The kingdom of Arakan has been there for centuries. I understand all that, but you can’t deny the existence of a people.
Senator Ataullahjan: I think that is the crux of the problem. When we were in Bangladesh, we saw Myanmar refuses to recognize them, and the Bengalis would say, “They are not Bengalis.” So they are truly stateless.
That brings me to the issue of girls and women. You say that Canada is very committed to the women, that girls and women are a priority for us. There were mass rapes, and there were women who got pregnant. What has happened to them? Do we have any figures on the children born out of those rapes?
Mr. Rae: If you go back nine months, the births are happening now, in this period of time. There is an effort being made by the doctors in the camps to keep careful note of the births and of who is being born. But you will appreciate, senator, that it is an extremely difficult and sensitive issue. There are some reports of terminations of pregnancies having happened because the women knew that they had been raped and, therefore, didn’t want to have the children. There are also issues around whether or not the women would necessarily tell their husband, if they are married, that they are pregnant with the child of a Burmese soldier.
My own view is that it is a sensitive subject, but, from the point of view of gathering evidence, if genetic testing could be done — that is to say, if one had the permission to do it — that would be an objective piece of evidence that would not necessarily prove that there was not a consensual relationship but would certainly add to the picture as to what happened.
What a Canadian person thinks about what might or could happen has nothing to do with whether or not a woman is going to consent to that being done or to those tests taking place. Those are difficult issues that have to be handled with great sensitivity on the ground by the people who are there.
There are certainly reports of a significant bubble, an increase in the number of births, starting about a month ago.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Mr. Rae, for being here, and thank you for the exceptional work that you continue to do in the field of human rights. It really is making a difference. I know sometimes you probably feel like you are putting your hand in the water, and what difference? You are making a difference.
Your report was excellent. Words can’t really do justice to it, but you being here is very helpful. In the report, you say:
Rohingya refugee crises are not new. Unless this crisis is handled in a different way, there will be more crises, with more violence, loss of life, and hardship to come.”
We have been seeing crisis. Canada has been extremely good to bring Syrian refugees. I have spoken to them, and they have been in camps. It has been very challenging for them. Now, we have the Rohingya. What do we do? These crises seem to keep coming, and we have people who are in dire straits. How do we make things better? What can the international community do?
Mr. Rae: I think the key, senator, is that most people who have been looking at this for some considerable time would say that the best answer is for people to be able to go back to Myanmar, but to go back in a way that is different than the way they have gone back before, that is to say, no ambiguity about the path to citizenship, no ambiguity about their security, no ambiguity about their rights and their position. They can send their kids to university. They can have an education. They can be part of the constitutional future of Myanmar. But I have to say that, while the Government of Myanmar has indicated that, yes, people can come back, that is what has happened before. People came back, and when they came back and there was no change, then their position became even less certain and less secure.
That’s why I think there is a sense among a number of people, particularly the UNHCR, that they need more clear signs that things are actually changing on the ground.
As I mentioned to you before, there still is a very large Rohingya population in Rakhine. If the government really wanted to prove that this time was going to be different, then they would be taking steps immediately to deal with the situation of the Rohingya who are now in Rakhine, most of whom have no ability to move around. Many thousands of them, tens of thousands of them, are in IDP camps. They have no freedom of mobility. Their kids can’t go to university. They get a very indifferent education in the camps that they are in, and they may have a citizenship card but it doesn’t matter because they still can’t move around to do anything.
So that has to change. If you asked me, “What if that doesn’t change?” I would then say we’re in a different situation than the one that we’re currently in. The one we’re currently in is where we — and when I say we, I mean the international community, the UN and others — are trying to create the conditions with the governments of Myanmar and Bangladesh that will allow for the safe, dignified, secure and sustainable return of the refugees. That’s the official position that we’ve all agreed to.
Of course, as a reality that might not work, and if it doesn’t work, I think everyone, including Bangladesh and all the countries, will have to think to themselves about what the other options are. I can’t pretend that things are necessarily going to improve. Right now in Myanmar, there are other significant conflicts. There’s a major military conflict in Kachin State, located far north on the border with China and which has a large Christian population.
There is major fighting in Chin State, the next one over, which borders India, and there is still fighting going on in Karen and in other smaller states on the border with Thailand.
It’s not a picture where one can say the peace process is unfolding and everyone is just waiting for this to be resolved and then we’ll get to a new constitution. That’s not where we are right now.
Senator Cordy: I’m also on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we’ve heard of situations in camps — though not this camp — where babies are born in the camp and become adults and they’re still in the camp. That’s not what we want. They are stateless, and you’d like them to be returned, but conditions, as you just stated and as you state in your report, are not safe for their return.
It’s not in the report, but you’ve indicated more in your comments that it’s not just in Rakhine; it’s also all around it. How is that done? Is that done internally with outside help? How do we ensure that it becomes a safe place for the Rohingya people to be back in their own country? Because as stateless, saying they’re at a huge disadvantage is an understatement, but it really is a huge challenge.
Mr. Rae: The lead international agency is the UN High Commission for Refugees. They have the principal responsibility for giving word, and there’s now a Special Envoy of the Secretary-General who is soon going to be visiting Myanmar. I’m sure that one of her top priorities will be to discuss with the Government of Myanmar how one goes about creating the conditions on the ground that will lead to the safe return.
It’s not simply a domestic decision by Myanmar. The first principle is that any return has to be voluntary, so the people that have to be persuaded that it’s a good idea to go back are the Rohingya themselves. This is why I say you have to listen to them. Right now, they are not going back. They’re not moving. You have to ask yourself the question: What is it going to take to persuade them to move? That, I think, is something we’re all watching and listening to very carefully.
Senator Cordy: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Mr. Rae, for being with us. I don’t think you appreciate how much we appreciate your work on behalf of not just Canadians but, in fact, the world. I take great hope that you are going to be our voice of conscience and a voice that will continue to force us to be present.
I have a couple of questions. Because of the state of things in Myanmar and in the camps, one does get overcome with a sense of hopelessness and helplessness. I wonder if you would comment on what could be interpreted as two signs of progress or hope. I would like your comment on them.
The first is that this week the Prime Minister of Bangladesh is in Quebec for a meeting for the G7 pre-meetings and to raise the issue of the Rohingya refugees with heads of government. I would hope that something comes of it, but I’d like your comment on that.
The second is that given the situation of protracted displacement that we may well be looking at — think of Kosovo and now think of Cox’s Bazar, where people may be born and grow up and become adults in that one place of displacement — do you think that the Global Compact on Refugees, which hopefully will be signed sometime this year, shows a glimmer of light and hope in terms of bringing other nation states to the table for sharing responsibility with Bangladesh as one example of what could happen?
Mr. Rae: I don’t subscribe to the view that the situation is hopeless. Almost by definition I don’t believe any situation is hopeless.
Sometimes they are very difficult, and sometimes you can see how few options there really are, but there still are options with respect to what’s happening in Bangladesh and the condition of the camps and what’s happening to the Rohingya. There are things we can do. All of us can do some things that will actually make a difference.
In fact, President Roosevelt used to say we have nothing to fear but fear itself, and the same thing is true for losing hope. It’s the worse thing you can do because we don’t have the luxury of despair in the world today. We have to keep fighting to move things ahead, no matter how difficult the situation is.
I will be meeting with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh on Monday morning in Toronto at her request, and I look forward to talking with her about what is being done and what she thinks can be done and the ability to move ahead. I think Canada has made good progress with Bangladesh in cementing a strong relationship. I’ve been at many meetings between foreign ministers, and I’ve been in meetings with diplomats and with a number of officials, and they all, I think, speak to a very close working relationship between our two countries in terms of how that can proceed.
But I think the thing that Bangladesh needs to hear from a number of different countries is that we are not going to let you face this issue on your own. Now, there are some things Bangladesh can also do that will help the situation. If you talk to relief workers, they will say there’s a very challenging bureaucratic process that has to be gone through in order to get assistance into the camps and in order to get people into the camps, and we’ve been through many different requests and interventions. Our High Commissioner, Mr. Préfontaine, is an outstanding public servant and works night and day to make sure that Canadian supplies are getting in and Canadian volunteers are allowed access, and we work very closely with the top agencies to allow that to happen.
On the second question, my short answer would be yes, I do think that the Global Compact is essential. I think it’s regrettable that the United States has said that they’re not going to be part of either the Global Compact on Refugees or the Global Compact for Migration. I think that’s deeply regrettable, but it’s part of a broader problem that we have with American foreign policy at the moment. I think we have to soldier on and do our best. Others have to fill gaps, and we all have to work together to figure out how we’re going to deal with the crisis.
I don’t have to tell you there are more refugees today than there were at the end of the Second World War. The numbers are even greater when you consider the numbers of people who are internally displaced and have not left their country. I think it’s a huge problem.
I can remember when Mr. Guterres appeared before our house committee that I was a member of when he was the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. He predicted the problem of all of the combat, the wars that were taking place, the significant issues of climate change and other issues that are forcing people to move and leave, which are creating this issue of mass migration and the additional question of refugees. They are different things; mass migration is different from the refugee issue, but the refugee issue is huge.
Senator Ngo: Thank you, Mr. Rae. I have a couple of questions. We know that Myanmar signed the agreement with the United Nations in May in order to repopulate voluntarily to Myanmar. What is your assessment of this agreement?
Second, do you think that Aung San Suu Kyi is in a position to influence the military in order to ease or end this conflict?
Mr. Rae: I’ll give you my view as directly as I can. The agreement is better than no agreement, but the key to any agreement is the execution. I’ve seen more MOUs, agreements and documents of various kinds that have been signed. Those aren’t really the issue; the issue is whether you are actually going to execute this agreement and do the things you need to do in order to get to where enough confidence will have been created that people will say, “It’s now okay to go back.”
I don’t think there’s a full enough appreciation inside the Government of Myanmar as to how much actually has to be done as opposed to has to be said — they are two different things — before that confidence will be there. That confidence will not come from a single speech by the state councillor. It will not come from waving a document around and saying that we at the UN are all on board together and it’s time to come back.
That will not do the trick. It has to be based on the confidence people have that they will not be subjected to attacks from anybody, that they will be protected, and that they will actually have a clear and undeniable path to political inclusion, which, in my opinion, includes citizenship.
So there’s still a lot of detailed negotiation that has to go on in order to allow this to happen. We’re not there yet, no.
Senator Ngo: That’s where my second question comes in. Is Aung San Suu Kyi in a position to influence the military? We know the commander-in-chief is in control. Do you think she has influence? What is the commander-in-chief’s position?
Mr. Rae: The commander-in-chief has not, first of all, embraced the Kofi Annan report. The state councillor has and the government has. The government has said, publicly, that they want to take everybody back, and they are determined to implement the Kofi Annan report.
The commander-in-chief has not expressed those thoughts. In fact, he’s done and said many things that lead one to believe that he’s very skeptical about whether complete repatriation is possible or desirable. That is how I read some of the things he’s done and said.
The nature of the challenge is to say, “If everybody is on board, then show us how everybody is on board. Let’s see how serious everybody is about that path.”
For example, on the question of citizenship, the stated position of the leadership of the Rohingyas in the camp is that they will only go back once they have citizenship. That’s not simply a national verification card, which is a card that says you can work and do stuff, but you’re not yet a citizen. On the other side, the Government of Myanmar says that the NVC is a staging point that takes you, eventually, to the possibility of citizenship.
I’m a negotiator. You need to figure out how to get the two parties closer together on that critical issue so that they can actually see, in a very transparent way, the path to citizenship. I can certainly see the argument from the Myanmar government: “We can’t say that everybody is automatically a citizen,” because it may well be that somebody would try to get in on the basis of a claim that they had always lived somewhere when, in fact, that isn’t the case.
Every country in the world goes through a process of verification before you get your passport or before you’re approved for whatever. You can’t say that there will be no verification process. No country is going to agree to that. But you do have to say the verification process has to be clear, transparent, reasonable and timely. There has to be an agreement that, at the end of that process, there will be citizenship.
That was the original bargain struck in 1948, and that’s the bargain that’s been broken. That’s what we have to recognize as the problem.
Senator Ngo: How do you want to get the commander-in-chief into this process?
Mr. Rae: It’s a process of political engagement, which is why in my report you’ll note that I take a different path than some have done in that I say that it’s not time for broad-based sanctions or distancing ourselves from the engagement with the government in Myanmar, including the military. I argue quite strongly in my report that we have to engage with everyone, with all elements of the government. It doesn’t mean we do military training. It doesn’t mean we sign a military agreement. But it does mean we understand that the military is a political, economic and social force in the life of the country. If we’re going to be effective diplomatically, we have to engage at least to the point where we can see we’re meeting with them, talking with them and that we’re not just keeping everybody at bay.
I differ with some people who say you can’t ever talk to the military because they have done some terrible things. The fact is that you have to negotiate with all sorts of people you don’t agree with. You may not even like how they’ve behaved, but you have to negotiate in order to get somewhere.
Senator Ngo: Thank you.
Senator Andreychuk: Thank you, Mr. Rae, for being here. This is not your first venture to try and negotiate. I recall the Tamil-Sri Lankan situation and the frustrations you had there. It seems the lessons out of that are patience and persistence. I’m glad you put those in because we often have a crisis, we deal with it and we move on. That’s part of the problem with the Rohingya situation: We look at it, and then our eyes turn to the next crisis. So you’re there to remind us.
Part of the thing I want to focus on, and which I think you have explained very well both in your report and in your comments here, is about the refugee camps. The dynamics there are no different than they are in any crisis — how vulnerable the people are in their camps, sometimes from their own leaders as well as outsiders.
Some of what I’ve been hearing in other countries is about the fact that the two entities that will ultimately solve it are Bangladesh and Myanmar. They are the two countries which have the levers, ultimately. Some people say not to put so much pressure on the civil government because that could topple them.
What is your take on that? We understand the military; we understand their role. Some people are quite harshly commenting that we should be putting more levers on the civilian government because they probably have some but they haven’t expended them on the Rohingya crisis. On the other hand, our eyes are turned on this crisis, and the situation in Bangladesh is not reassuring in a democratic way in that it’s increasingly marginalizing opposition, et cetera.
How do those larger issues work into it?
My final question is around China and India. How do we leverage those two countries to understand that destabilization of the region will ultimately fall on them and their communities?
Mr. Rae: Those are really good questions. One thing I would say is that if you wait around for a perfect democracy in Myanmar or Bangladesh, you’ll be waiting around a long, long time. All countries have imperfections and problems and issues. I got an email today from a group saying, “How can you be doing so much work with Bangladesh when there are significant problems of civil liberties and the leader of the opposition is in jail and all kinds of other issues?”
My view is that you don’t ignore those things, but you also say, “We have to deal with what we have to deal with.” We have a government that’s been elected. We have to deal with them. The same thing is true of Myanmar. We have a civilian government that’s been elected, and we have a military that’s played a critical role in the country since independence. So you have to deal with them. As I said, it doesn’t mean that you agree with them or that you condone any bad things that have taken place and are taking place, but it means you have to be able to engage with them and learn and figure out how to move the situation.
I agree, actually, that the key issues are Bangladesh and Myanmar, the two of them together, and those, like China and India, who feel very strongly that this is their region and that the West can just butt out and that other countries can go home and let them deal with it. I don’t think that’s the way the world works anymore. I think that there are issues and standards and ties and connections between us, for example, and the Bangladeshis that go back a long way. We have a huge Bangladeshi community in Canada. There’s no way that we can turn around and say, “We’re not going to listen to their concerns because that doesn’t matter, and that part of the world doesn’t really concern us.”
We’ve gone beyond that position in international law and, I think, in diplomacy, but what it requires is an appreciation that we really have to engage with China and India — and Japan, for example, who is a major financial donor in Myanmar and in Bangladesh — and really try to understand what exactly is the regional sensibility. The more you explore it, the more you realize that it’s a very complicated landscape. It’s not that everybody simply wants you to go away. It’s that they want you to listen to some of the lessons that are there.
To tell you personally, the best lesson that I got from anyone in taking on this job was from the foreign minister of Indonesia. I went to see her in Indonesia before I made my first trip to the camps because I’d heard that she had had a strong relationship both with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh and with Aung San Suu Kyi. I said, “What advice do you have for me?” She said, “I have two pieces of advice. The first one is listen,” which is a challenge for me, as you may know. But I’m learning, and I’m getting better at it. The second one is, “Don’t lecture them, but, rather, ask them to do what they say they are doing. Ask them to actually do what they say they have agreed to do.”
For example, one of the things that I think we have to keep going back with the Myanmaris about is to say, “Okay, you say you’re going to implement.” To be fair to Aung San Suu Kyi, she appointed Kofi Annan, and then Kofi Annan agreed and said, “But I want half the group to be Myanmaris. I want it to come from within as much as from me.” It was a combination of international and national figures. Then, the report came down, and she said, “I accept the recommendations of the report.” You say, “Okay, you accept them. Implement them. Do them. How can we help you to implement them? How can we insist in helping you do what you say it is that you want to do?”
That’s a much more effective way of engaging than is lecturing people. At our worst, as Canadians, we can do that. We can really scold people a lot. We need to think about how effective that is on its own. It isn’t really very effective. What is effective is listening and really persisting in our engagement.
I want to just reinforce something that you said. In the modern world today, we don’t pay attention enough to the fact that it takes time to solve problems, and it takes persistence to solve problems. It takes knowledge of history, culture, the internal dynamics of a country, and it takes a lot of persistence because we tend to forget. Particularly in the world of modern communication, everybody wants to say, “Well, we have to have a press release. What’s your deliverable today? What’s your deliverable tomorrow?” You have to be patient and recognize you’re not going to have a deliverable today or tomorrow.
If somebody were to say, “Mr. Rae, you have gone there four times. What have you achieved,” I’d say, “Well, I’ve written a report. I’ve pushed governments to do more than they’ve been prepared to do before. I think we’ve established some good lines of communication with a number of different countries.” I think you can say that’s been a worthwhile effort, but, if you were to say “Well, we expected you to have done this, this, this and this,” you sort of say, “Well, that’s not the way it works. It takes longer than that, and it takes more persistence.”
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much, Mr. Rae. Thank you for being here and for your knowledge, your work and your patience. And hope, because I think that’s really important in our world, to think that you’re saying about the number of refugees being so high, and I think it’s going to increase.
We had a witness a few months ago who talked about his family situation there and the deaths of some of his family. That impacted us a lot. You said it affected you emotionally. If you were to tell us so that we can make sure other Canadians know, what are some of the things that you would say to us about those impacts, those emotional impacts, that would kind of make it real for Canadians here?
Mr. Rae: I guess I would mention three. One was a meeting that I had in the camp, on my first visit to the camp in the fall, in which I said, “I’d like to have a chance to meet with people in smaller groups.” So they allowed me and one or two others to come with me — women — to listen to women talking about what happened to them in their villages. I think you’ve seen the reports, but when you think about how it really is a crime against humanity to use rape as a weapon of war — because, in the history of warfare, we think of war as being between standing armies, where people know what the rules are. There are rules of combat, and there are rules of engagement and rules about how you treat prisoners of war and rules as to what’s going too far. Since the establishment of the Red Cross in the middle of the 19th century, we’ve created standards and the Geneva Conventions, and we’ve gone through a long period of time where we’ve done this. I think what’s happened, in particular, in the last number of years is that these are wars that affect civilians and are directly impacting civilian populations in the most brutal, brutal ways. I think that that is something that I will carry with me forever.
The second: And I’ve told the story. My report is called “Tell them we’re human.” I’ve told the story many times, where a man I talked to was very articulate, very controlled, very much in charge of his emotions. We had a very good conversation about what had happened to him and the discrimination that he’d faced and the struggles that he had had to get to university, the struggles that he’d had to do things. As I was saying goodbye to him, I said, “I’m reporting to the Prime Minister. What would you like me to tell him?” He grabbed me and he started to cry. He held me for a long time and he said, “Tell him we’re human.”
One of the things about hatred and the process of crimes against humanity and genocide is that it is about dehumanizing people and pretending that they are not human so it is okay to kill them. You can wipe them out. They are not really people. They are just something else. That is the path to breaking these things down and to killing people. It’s terrible.
I have to tell you the camps are full of young people. The thing that I felt, as a father and a grandfather, is these are just kids.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you for your humanity, Mr. Rae. It is very much appreciated. Thank you for sharing that with us, however difficult it was for you and for us.
I have two questions building on some of the questions that have already been asked.
You listened to the Rohingya. Are you hearing the same things or divergent things from the Rohingya people about their wishes for their future?
Second, building on Senator Andreychuk’s question around levers, I am always interested in levers, particularly internationally. The commander-in-chief, who seems to be a powerful character, seems to be key — I totally agree with you on that — in engaging, wherever and however we possibly can and with whomever we possibly can. In your observations, who or what do you believe are the influencers or levers that may help move that important leader forward in the direction whereby that safe context for full citizenship will be in place for the return of the Rohingya people?
Mr. Rae: On the first question, it would be fair to say that there is what I would call an organized position of the Rohingya leadership. They put it out in a number of documents, and it is well publicized as a list of 10 or 12 demands.
Generally speaking, there are two points which I think are strong. One of them is this demand for citizenship; the other is the demand that the return has to be protected.
When I probed that, it’s clear that they are drawing an analogy with Kosovo, where, you may recall, the return of the Kosovars to their homeland was done under direct NATO protection, and it was a military engagement. It was in the context of a long history of military engagement between NATO and Serbia, and so on. I think that is very much in their mind as that was the moment at which the responsibility to protect was in place and people said, “Okay. We will protect you. You will go back in.”
Again, I am not universally loved for saying this, but there is no appetite that I’ve been able to detect anywhere for direct military engagement with the military of Myanmar. General Min Aung Hlaing has said publicly that if anybody thinks that the people are going to return under the protection of troops, this will be the beginning of another Vietnam War. They are drawing a line in the sand on their sovereignty and their military obligation to provide for the security of their own people, and they will not accept the presence of foreign armed troops on their soil. At the moment, that is their position.
When I talk to the government of our country and other governments, I ask are you interested in engaging in a military exercise? They just shake their heads no. I think that is an area where there needs to be a continuing dialogue with the leadership of the Rohingya to say that for a whole bunch of reasons, this is very difficult and will not happen in that way. The UN can’t do it on its own. It is the member states that determine whether that kind of thing will happen. We have to be blunt in our assessment as to the likelihood of that happening.
The other point is that within the camp, when you talk to people privately without a whole lot of other people around, you will find a much richer variety of views about what it would take for them to go back. You hear, “Well, I would want to make sure I got my land back and I was able to work as a farmer and trade my product in the marketplace. That I am willing to do.” And men — and this is not totally representative — but those who had a job, farm, land or cattle will say, “I want to go back and get them because that is worth a lot.” Women who have been subject to violence, not so much. I haven’t seen any huge willingness to go back.
The kind of conversation which allows you to determine what is opinion is very interesting. What you should also know is there are actually groups that are polling. They are asking questions and are trying to get in and get a sense of what is the opinion in the camps. What is actually happening? That information is being shared with governments and with others. I think it is very helpful, but as much as we all watch the world of polling, all of us are also subject to wanting to have a conversation. Tell me, give me a sense of what you think your options really are. I think that is what we have to do much more of.
The last point I would make is it is a well-known historical or social fact that a diaspora, once it is created, is frequently more militant than the people who are actually on the ground in the area themselves because they are living it every day as opposed to people who have left and who have a view about what should happen. That actually is being replaced by events all the time. I think that is something that, as Canadians, we are very aware of and we should be very aware of it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Rae. Senators, I am sorry, but there will not be time for another round. My apologies for that.
Senator Ataullahjan: I would just like to say two sentences to Bob Rae, please.
Mr. Rae, I want to thank you. This has been one of the most powerful testimonies we have heard in Human Rights for a long time. Thank you for showing that we are all human and what we do takes a daily toll on us. I thank you for that.
The Chair: Mr. Rae, I want to thank you for giving us your time this morning. More importantly, I want to thank you for the work that you have done and for the work that you continue to do.
As we’ve heard from your opening remarks and from your responses to senators’ questions, this isn’t finished for you. The work is continuing.
I also want to thank you for reminding us of the emotional cost of doing this work. I believe the Prime Minister made a great choice when he chose you as the Special Envoy of the Prime Minister to Myanmar. Thank you for your work.
From today, I will most remember your statement: “I don’t believe any situation is hopeless.” You went on to say, “We don’t have the luxury of despair.”
Thank you for reminding us of all of that, and thank you for your passion and compassion that you bring to this work and for your time with the Senate committee today.
Mr. Rae: Thank you, senator. I appreciate it very much. I did not come here with the intention of becoming as emotional as I did for a moment, but I appreciated the opportunity to share the full range of the experience, and I appreciate very much the opportunity to do that.
As you know, my mandate as the Special Envoy will conclude at the end of June. Some of you have asked me what’s next, and I don’t know what’s next. You should probably ask Minister Freeland and even the Prime Minister whether they have any other plans, but if they do I don’t know what they are.
The Chair: If you were to request that the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights made a recommendation, what would that be?
Mr. Rae: Well, I don’t think a life appointment is appropriate. I sent a message to the minister the other day saying I’d like the chance to sit down before I complete my term to discuss what the next steps might be. And she responded quickly to say that is something she would want to do. We will see what that produces.
The point is that this is now a shared obligation of Parliament and the government. There are many opportunities for engagement and for action on the part of the committee and on the part of others. I would encourage everyone to remain vigilant in terms of looking at the situation.
The Chair: Thank you. Your being here today has helped us tremendously.
Honourable senators, we will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of two bills: Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week, followed by Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If at any point a senator is not clear on where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. We must do our utmost to ensure at all times that we have the same understanding of where we are in the process. Before we take up an amendment in a clause, I will be verifying whether any senators had intended to move an amendment earlier in that clause. If senators do intend to move an earlier amendment, they will be given the chance to do so.
One small point: If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that, in committee, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but rather to vote against the clause standing as part of the bill.
I also wish to remind senators that, if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the cleanest route is to request a roll call vote, which provides clear results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we can proceed.
We are starting with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-309, An Act to establish Gender Equality Week. Is it agreed that the committee proceed to cautious consideration of the bill?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: It is done.
Senator Dawson: I want to thank the committee for their promptness. We really want to pass this before the end of the session, so it is important we deal with it early, as you know. The clock is ticking, and the third week of September is coming quickly. I had no choice in choosing that week, but it happens to be the week of my birthday, so thank you very much. I appreciate that as my birthday gift.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will now go to consideration of the next bill, Bill S-240, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (trafficking in human organs).
Senator Andreychuk: I was unable to be here when you had the witnesses. For clarification and the record, were the officials of the Ministry of Justice invited to come before the committee? If so, what was their response?
The Chair: I missed one of the meetings myself, because I had to be away, but they were invited and they declined.
Senator Andreychuk: Okay. Thank you.
The Chair: Any other questions?
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-240?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Ataullahjan: I have an amendment.
The Chair: Senator Ataullahjan has an amendment.
Senator Ataullahjan: I move:
That Bill S-2 be amended in clause 2, on page 2,
(a) by replacing line 1 with the following:
(a) obtains an organ to be transplanted into”;
(b) by replacing line 8 with the following:
“moval of an organ from the body of another”;
(c) by replacing line 14 with the following:
“tion with a person who removes an organ”;
(d) by replacing line 20 with the following:
“pates in or facilitates the obtaining of an organ”; and
(e) by replacing line 22 with the following:
“ing that organ transplanted into their body or”.
The Chair: Senator, would you like to explain for the members who weren’t at the meeting and didn’t hear the witnesses?
Senator Ataullahjan: This is based on the testimony we heard from the witnesses.
Senator Cordy: There was some confusion about what the definition of “tissue” was, so the witnesses felt that “organ” would be preferable. The title of the bill is just dealing with “organs.”
Senator Ataullahjan: Specifically, you are going into the gamut of it.
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Your second amendment, please, senator.
Senator Ataullahjan: I move:
That Bill S-240 be amended in clause 2, on page 2, by adding the following after line 18:
“(1.1) For the purpose of this section, informed consent means consent that is given by a person capable of making decisions with respect to health matters and with knowledge and understanding of all material facts, including the nature of the organ removal procedure, the risks involved and the potential side effects.”.
This was another issue that kept coming up. “Informed consent,” as I pointed out at the testimony, was used in the assisted dying bill. We said we should have it in here. We were told it is not normally used in the Criminal Code, but it was used in that bill.
Senator Cordy: It was just to provide clarity to what “informed consent” is, because we heard stories from Mr. Kilgour and Mr. Matas about it happening without informed consent.
The Chair: The purpose here is to include “informed consent.”
Senator Cordy: Yes.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in this amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Carried. Senator Ataullahjan?
Senator Ataullahjan: I move:
That Bill S-240 be amended in clause 2, page 2, by replacing line 28 with the following:
“imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years.”.
This is in line with the maximum sentence that you would have for aggravated assault. We also clarified that, in the end, the sentencing is up to the judgment of the judge. He or she has the ability to see what kind of sentence, but we’re just going in with the maximum for aggravated assault, which is 14 years.
Senator Cordy: That came about because of testimony?
Senator Ataullahjan: Of testimony that we heard, yes.
The Chair: Are there any other questions or comments on this amendment?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in this amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We have one more.
Senator Ataullahjan: I move:
That Bill S-240 be amended on page 2, in clause 2, by adding the following after line 28:
“240.2 A medical practitioner as defined in section 241.1 who treats a person in relation to an organ transplant must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report to the authority designated by order of the Governor in Council for that purpose the name of that person, if known, and the fact that the person has received an organ transplant.”.
Again, this was based on testimony that we heard. In the provincial guidelines for reporting, if you have victims of gunshot wounds they have to be reported. It’s just, again, what we heard.
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions on the amendment? No?
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in the amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Ataullahjan, for those amendments. Now we’ll go to clause 3.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Hon. Senators: Carried.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report? No.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, as amended, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
That is both bills. Thank you and congratulations, all.
(The committee adjourned.)