THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 3, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 4:01 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Salma Ataullahjan (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon, honourable senators. I am Salma Ataullahjan, a senator from Toronto and chair of this committee. Today we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights.
Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in‑person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. If possible, ensure that you are seated in a manner that increases the distance between microphones. Only use the approved black earpiece, as the former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from the microphone at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you for your cooperation.
I will now invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario, and I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
Senator Arnot: David Arnot, Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Burey: Sharon Burey, Ontario.
Senator Jaffer: Mobina Jaffer, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you. Welcome, senators, and welcome to all those who are following our deliberations.
Today, our committee will continue its study on forced global displacement under its general order of reference. This afternoon, we shall have three panels. In each panel, we shall hear from the witnesses and then the senators around the table will have a question-and-answer session.
With us today, via videoconference, from Global Affairs Canada, please welcome the Honourable Robert Rae, P.C., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York. He is accompanied by Matthew Kimmell, Director, Humanitarian Policy. I now invite Ambassador Rae to make his presentation.
Hon. Robert Rae, P.C., Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations in New York, Global Affairs Canada: Honourable senators, thank you very much for the opportunity to join you today. If I may say so, it is an incredibly important subject, one of growing importance as we see crises deepening, new conflicts appearing and new challenges emerging, including climate change and natural disasters, which are getting worse.
There is always a debate about statistics, but roughly speaking, we think there are now over 110 million displaced people, including 35 million refugees, the rest being people who are internally displaced. We also have a number of forcibly displaced people, and that number is growing because of conflict.
Sudan is probably the biggest displacement crisis at the moment and the biggest protection crisis in the world, and it may also likely be the biggest hunger crisis, with widespread predictions of serious famine potentially starting in the late summer or early fall. As of May 18, there are nearly 9 million people who are forcibly displaced.
In Gaza, we know that 1.7 million have been displaced. There are about 812,000 displaced from Rafah alone and more than 100,000 people displaced in northern Gaza, which is, I would say parenthetically, the reason the government is so strongly in favour of a cease-fire and of the need to get humanitarian assistance into that region as quickly as possible. There are, as you know, negotiations and discussions under way at the moment in Doha to try to achieve a cease-fire, and Canada is strongly endorsing those efforts, including the release of hostages. With the expansion of the conflict in Rafah, for example, there is nowhere else for people to go. There is no safe place at the moment, and that’s what’s creating the crisis.
In Ukraine, there are 3.5 million internally displaced, and over 6 million refugees have left Ukraine. With the recent incursions and brutal attacks on civilians in Kharkiv, we expect this number to grow.
These are recent events, but they’re in addition to some long-standing internal displacements. In Myanmar, for example, we estimate 3 million people have been displaced, 2.7 million forcibly displaced since the February 2021 coup. Myanmar is in the middle of a brutal civil war, including in the state of Rakhine, which is where 1 million Rohingya fled to nearby Bangladesh in successive waves, including in 2012 and 2017. We’re now seeing increased levels of fighting, destruction of property and homes in Rakhine and active displacement of Rohingya people.
We’re very grateful to those people who have taken in neighbours, and there are literally tens of millions of people who have done this in countries that have done it. Despite the challenges that each country faces, primarily the location for people who are displaced is either internally within the country or next door. It’s important for us as Canadians to remember that.
[Translation]
In my role as Canada’s Special Envoy on Humanitarian and Refugee Issues, I advocated for Canada to use its voice to be a global leader in addressing forced displacement. As I noted in my report, the COVID-19 pandemic provided an opportunity for Canadian leadership to address a global issue.
[English]
The Chair: Ambassador Rae, we are having a problem with the translation. Please give us one minute.
Mr. Rae: I can just translate what I just said, if you’d like.
When I was appointed as special envoy on humanitarian refugee issues, I suggested that the COVID-19 crisis was an opportunity for us to start focusing attention on this question of displacement. Unfortunately, it’s become an ever-growing issue as time has gone on.
In 2022 to 2023, we resettled the highest number of refugees in the world. Canada has set a refugee resettlement target of 136,000 people between 2024 and 2026, which includes both refugees resettled through government pathways and 83,000 through private sponsorship pathways. We’re very proud of the work that we’ve been able to do and the way in which we’ve been able to establish a model for resettlement on a permanent basis, which we’re encouraging other countries to adopt. We’ve had a great deal of interest globally for the approaches that Canada has taken. I met last week with Mr. Grandi, who is the head of UNHCR, and we continue to talk about the way in which Canada takes this issue so seriously. He expressed deep appreciation for our efforts.
We have to also recognize that there’s a growing crisis with respect to internal displacement and internal protection systems that are required. We have to also understand that there’s a gap now between those people who are forced to move because of climate change, because of natural disasters and because of conflict, which is by far the largest group of people in need, but they’re not technically refugees. In many cases, they don’t leave the country and don’t fit the traditional 1951 definition. This is a growing problem. I just had a meeting this morning with CARICOM. We discussed the fact that 22 million people in the Caribbean live less than six metres above sea level. We know the sea level is rising and storms are becoming more serious, so the question becomes: Where will this population end up being able to go?
We’re a strong supporter of our multilateral partners. We’ve worked hard to establish really good relationships with the UNHCR and IOM, both here in New York and in Geneva, and, of course, on the ground. We’re trying to integrate refugee and life-saving assistance to vulnerable populations, which also includes internally displaced people. We give funds to the UNHCR and the IOM. We provided UNHCR last year with over $80 million, and IOM received over $20 million. I can assure you that in my meetings with Mr. Grandi and Amy Pope, the question always arises as to what more can we do, because the fact is that problems are growing, and we’re working hard on trying to respond.
We’re also involved in this question on internal displacement by working with the Office of the Special Adviser, and we’re having some considerable success there in finding solutions that bring together people who are displaced, home countries, host countries, and donor communities to see what more we can do together with those who are internally displaced. A question of the voice for refugees and the agency of refugees is critically important. It is very important for us to recognize that everyone who is displaced and on the move is somebody with rights, somebody with opinions and views and experiences, and we have to learn how to take advantage of that.
This is a not problem confined to just one part of the world. We’ve seen recently how in the Americas the issue of displacement and movement has become critically important. I was able to visit the Darién Gap in Panama about six months ago, and I can tell you the plight of those people who are crossing through that very dangerous zone between Colombia and Panama is extraordinary. The rate is running at about 5,000 people per day who are moving.
We’re also going to be presiding over the Economic and Social Council over the next year. We are very proud that Canada is able to take on that role. I will be sitting in that chair and look forward to looking at this issue of internal displacement from that particular point of view. We will continue to work on the Global Refugee Forum, the Global Compact, looking at a whole-of-society approach.
We also have to recognize that the problem and needs are growing and that we can’t ignore one crisis because another has come along. It is very challenging to do this in a way that responds to the needs that people have. The number of crises is unprecedented. Since 1945, we’ve never seen anything like this.
The government announced in its last budget increasing additional $350 million over the next two years to enhance our ability to respond to the growing number of crises. I’m also delighted, obviously, that our mission in New York here has seen its funds officially consolidated so that the work we’ve been able to do so far is work we’ll be able to continue to do and, of course, I express my appreciation to the government for that support.
We’re living in a time that has been described by many as some kind of a polycrisis, by others as an international security crisis. Whatever words we use, I think we understand the phenomenon. It’s, frankly, one thing after another. It’s underlying inequality, tremendously difficult conditions of development and humanitarian issues within many countries, a growing and bewildering number of conflicts both within and between countries, climate change and the continuing growth in the number of conflicts, which themselves are expanding to create. You then have the role of technological disruption, social media and misinformation, all of these things taking place in a context that’s very difficult.
I can only say, senators, that these issues will not go away. They will not be addressed quickly or easily. It requires persistent attention and leadership from Canada, and it requires financial investment that will encourage international cooperation through what we call the nexus approach. What is the nexus approach? It’s very simple: peace and development, peace and security, development and human rights. We can’t solve anything without a view about all of these things together. What draws them together and pulls them together is our common commitment to make sure that we’re paying attention to those who are the most vulnerable in the world.
Senators, it’s great to be with you. I appreciate the opportunity, and I will be glad to answer any questions. If I can’t answer them, I know my friend Mr. Kimmell will try his best to help me. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador Rae, for your presentation.
We will now proceed to questions. Senators, you will have five minutes for the question and answer. We will try to accommodate a minute longer, but not more, because we do have long list.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you to both of you for being here. I know you both have very busy schedules.
I want to start with you, Ambassador Rae. I have worked with you many times in the past, but we all know that you’ve done tremendous service to people around the world and to Canadians. Thank you for your very long service. As the chair said, you look young, but you’ve worked very hard throughout your life. Thank you for your service.
Ambassador, my first question to you is this: In recommendation 2 of your report on global crisis and global response on the Rohingya crisis, entitled Tell them we’re human, you’ve emphasized the importance of mitigating the impact of violent deportation in Rohingya, especially for women and girls. What specific measures can Canada employ within its humanitarian response to ensure the protection and support of this vulnerable group? Also, what can Canada do to welcome some of these people?
Mr. Rae: Thank you for your kind comments, senator. You yourself know very well the kinds of challenges that we face, and your work in Sudan and on the Rohingya reflects that.
I would say a couple of things about the Rohingya crisis. First of all, the situation is worse than when I visited there in 2017, 2018 and 2019 for three reasons. The first is that the critical situation in Myanmar is far worse because of the level of conflict. After the coup, there’s been massive fighting at every level across the country, and destruction is major and dramatic across many different fields. The second is that the crisis in Rakhine has recently intensified. Over the last three weeks, several tens of thousands of people have been displaced and their homes have been burned. This is receiving very little attention in the media, and it needs to receive attention because it really is a terrible crisis. The third is that the conditions in the camp are not improving. The conditions of the million people have not improved. They’re not allowed to work. There’s a limit on how much livelihood they’re allowed to have, and the issue of education remains critically important. For those reasons, we can’t lose our focus on the Rohingya crisis. We do have to pay special attention to the needs of children and women in the camp and the need to continue to provide them with opportunity, and I am continuing, in my own way, to urge the Canadian government and other governments to respond effectively to this.
On the question of resettlement, I discussed this last week with the Bangladeshi foreign minister, and I have to say that there’s still no, in my opinion, sufficient embrace by Bangladesh of the opportunity to resettle people for humanitarian and other reasons into third-party countries like Canada. The United States has developed a small program, the U.K. has a small program, and we have a small program. We need to continue to look at this not as a kind of magic solution to the crisis but to recognize that the long-term solution, which is for people to be able to go home, is increasingly difficult because the situation in Rakhine State is not conducive to a return and there’s an obligation not to send people back into danger. We have to look at finding workable, pragmatic solutions as we go forward. That, for me, is a critical step that we have to take.
Senator Jaffer: Ambassador, you have been in Sudan. I spent a lot of my life as a senator in Sudan. At that time, it felt like the world came together to help Sudan. Now, many Sudanese in the north and south feel that we have abandoned them. We have forgotten about Sudan. Is that a correct impression? What is Canada doing? I know Canada is doing a lot in South Sudan. It also has an embassy in South Sudan, but it pulled its embassy in Sudan itself. It feels like it’s not doing much in Sudan itself. Am I correct, or are people who are saying this to me correct?
Mr. Rae: The challenge in Sudan is that the armed conflict is bedeviled by several factors. Some of the armed groups in Sudan are being armed and supplied by outside actors. Those outside actors are making things worse.
Related to this, across the Sahel, which is the broader region all the way from Senegal over to Somalia, the security situation is not good. The climate change situation is serious. Drought conditions are serious. All of this is making the potential for conflict worse. Again, there are bad actors in the region who are attempting to take advantage of this. They’re fuelling the conflict and not reducing it.
Canada has by no means stepped back. We are continuing to supply humanitarian assistance to the UN agencies and to other NGOs that are working to deal with the level of crisis. The challenge in Sudan, frankly — as it is in Gaza — is that, as long as you have as much fighting going on as is going on, it’s difficult for humanitarian supplies to get through. It’s difficult to deal with the level of conflict we’re seeing that’s hurting people.
I said a bit about this in my remarks, but I do want to ring some alarm bells here, as I did for Myanmar. I want to ring a big alarm bell for Sudan. The threat of a major collapse that will lead to famine there is very real. That means we cannot afford to be lax in our efforts. We have to continue to do even more, working with other countries — like-minded countries and other not-like-minded countries — to try to figure out a way to ensure that there is no humanitarian disaster.
It’s painful to say this, but there are too many disputes going on in the world right now in which agencies and countries that do not have humanitarian objectives in mind are fuelling the conflict, supplying more guns and arms, armaments and supplies, and encouraging the local actors to continue to fight. This is what’s creating the problem. We need to start addressing this question in a direct way.
There have been several good reports that have come out. The Raoul Wallenberg Centre produced an excellent one recently on the situation in Darfur which, as you know, is northwestern Sudan. We have to continue to focus our attention on this.
Senator Arnot: Thank you, Ambassador Rae.
I have a couple of questions for you. I’d like you to, from your experience, outline the key challenges in implementing the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration.
Second, I’d like you to focus on your advice on what your vision is for Canada’s future role in global governance on these humanitarian issues and what recommendations you would make to the Government of Canada to fulfill that vision you have.
Mr. Rae: It’s a big question, senator. I appreciate it very much. I have to say a couple of words on this.
First, the two Global Compacts — one on migration and one on refugees — that were negotiated under the leadership of Louise Arbour and endorsed in a series of meetings in Geneva a few years ago, and are now being renewed and looking at this, are an effort to bring countries together to try to manage these issues. The trouble is, for all the reasons I’ve given, they’re getting worse. They’re not getting any better.
The problem of orderly migration is the key. If we don’t provide for ways of responding to the needs of host countries that are taking people in on a temporary basis, if we don’t assist countries that are dealing with internal displacement to try to find solutions to that internal displacement that will then encourage more reasonable approaches to this, then we will end up seeing more and more people simply moving, on the move, going wherever they can go. Many of the routes they follow are extremely risky and dangerous. There are human traffickers, gangs, what I loosely call bad actors — which includes some states and some non-state actors — who exploit people. They exploit women and they exploit children. They do terrible things.
My approach to this is to say it’s not just one thing we have to do. We have to understand this issue of displacement and movement, without order, in a chaotic way, is a profound threat to the security of the world. It’s a threat to the security of many governments. It leads to the downfall of governments if they can’t provide services or satisfy the local population that they’re dealing with their needs as well as the needs of newly arrived people. There are many tensions that are created.
When I visited the camp in Bangladesh, my breath was taken away. You have a million people who have suddenly arrived on people’s doorsteps. That is being repeated over and over again in many different situations. I read out these vast numbers. Put it in the context of people living in Regina, Saskatoon or any city in Canada. It would lead to chaos if, suddenly, you said there are a million people on the doorstep. What are we supposed to do? It would lead to incredible social disruption.
Instead of just saying no, or saying we’re going to block the border to everybody, you have to develop a way of settling people and making sure the places where people settle make the most sense, providing as much opportunity for people to work and get education where they are because, without work and education, you have no opportunity to create social order or protect human rights. That would be the foundation.
The bad news, senator — among other pieces of bad news — is that this is going to cost money. Generally speaking, it means that in our responses to these crises, we have to look at our budgets and say we need to respond in a thoughtful, effective way. The alternative to that is a dangerous outbreak and an increase in global insecurity as we try to find the longer-term solutions that will actually work.
Senator Arnot: Did you have a chance to answer the second question, which is your vision for Canada’s role in the future and what we need to do and what recommendations you would have about getting ready to meet this situation, which is going to be continuous, as you point out?
Mr. Rae: One of the things we need to do is link up what we do at home with what we do abroad. This is something I know the government is committed to doing. I was a provincial premier in another life, as you may remember. Our cities are struggling. Our mayors are struggling. We need to get Team Canada working together inside the country to look at how we deal with basic housing needs of the population, basic needs for jobs, training and education, and understand that, almost regardless of what happens out there, Canada will continue to be a country that receives and accepts a large number of people every year because of our economy. Our economy needs this level of engagement with the world. We have to understand that it has to be a joint effort of all our governments so that none of this comes as a surprise and we’re prepared for the level of insecurity that we’re seeing in the world.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I thank the witnesses for being with us today. Ambassador Rae, it’s always a pleasure to see you.
My question is about contributions to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR. In November 2023, the representative to Canada was here, and she explained that only 36% of UNHCR operations were funded last year, even as the number of displaced persons around the world grew to over 114 million. Witnesses told the committee that contributions would have to become mandatory, as they are for peacekeeping operations. What do you think of that idea?
Mr. Rae: Generally speaking, Canada’s approach to UN budgets is a positive one focused on what the country can do to ensure that the global response will resolve a problem. As you’re well aware, the UN budget is recognized and accepted. We always send our contributions in January. We’re among the first five countries in the world to discharge that obligation. The needs are growing, and the conditions are increasingly difficult, not only for the refugee agency, but for all agencies. What we heard from the high commissioner is the same as what we would hear from the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNICEF or the United Nations Development Programme. Everyone has made it clear that there isn’t enough money.
However, some countries, including our friends in the United States, have trouble making their contribution, which is why there’s currently a liquidity problem in the UN’s budget. This issue must be taken seriously, but there will always be problems because of countries that don’t contribute or do so very late in the year. In general, Canada has no objection to a responsible budget that meets the needs. We also make voluntary contributions. The UN budget is made up of funds collected by the UN, but some states make voluntary contributions. Canada is always among the 10 largest contributors, and I continue to believe that this is a crucial demonstration of leadership on our part.
Senator Gerba: Should Canada be more active in advocating that contributions be made mandatory instead of just voluntary? We went to New York recently, and we observed how badly the cuts are affecting the whole organization.
You also talked about other UN organizations. Do you have specific recommendations to remedy the UN’s structural funding deficits?
Mr. Rae: We play an important role, especially with our partners in New Zealand and Australia, the Five Eyes. We are working very closely with the secretariat. When I took up this position almost four years ago, I had a very positive meeting with the Secretary-General to talk about structural issues in the budget. The problem for us, as Canadians, is that we’re not alone in the world, and other countries have to be on board: Japan, the United Kingdom, China, India and so on. We have to work hard to find solutions that everyone can agree on.
In general, Canada has been more in favour of budgets that reflect the problem. We do need accountability and budgets, though. In Canada, people need to understand that development issues and the humanitarian aid budget can’t be avoided. There are costs associated with living in a world where security doesn’t exist.
Of course, we want governments themselves to formulate a clear response to the problem. We also have to find ways to work within a budget. I can assure you that issues relating to the budget and the needs of humanitarian organizations are among the main things Canada advocates for because we want to encourage other countries to join these efforts and make them more effective.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Ambassador Rae, for being with us today.
We are at the tail end of our study, and we have heard from a lot of expert witnesses. I’d like to test out some of the recommendations that I’m grappling with in my own head. The first one is about climate migration. You’re absolutely right that it isn’t covered by the UN convention, but Professor Hathaway suggested to us that the UN Convention on Statelessness could be an opportunity to situate climate migration and climate refugees within that convention. I’m wondering what you think about that proposal and Canada taking the lead in situating climate migration and climate refugees within the Convention on Statelessness.
Mr. Rae: I think it’s worth exploring and worth reflecting on. We all need to understand — as you do, senator — that in today’s world, to be stateless is to be homeless. It’s to be without a place that’s your own, without a place where you can express yourself fully as a citizen. We need to look hard at whatever ways we can find to deal with the question of what climate change is doing and how climate change is pushing.
I think it’s also important to understand that it’s not just climate change. When somebody is moving out of a village in Darfur, is it climate change? Is it conflict? Frankly, does it matter which one of those it is? We need to understand that it’s a variety of things that are creating this condition.
I wouldn’t want anybody to think that there is a magic legal bullet that will solve this problem; there isn’t. We have to keep pushing on the edges — the international courts are helping in this record — in recognizing that people are forced to move because of climate change.
There are whole countries that can disappear in the next 50 years because of climate change and nation states that will no longer be able to survive because of the impact of rising sea levels. When that happens, there are some profound legal questions about what happens to that country. Does that country disappear? Do those people lose their citizenship completely? Is there no other way to deal with this? Canada has been very actively participating in discussions with many countries about this real question. It’s not an academic question; it’s a real question. Professor Hathaway and others have really contributed to this discussion, so I would certainly encourage looking at that as something that’s worth exploring.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Ambassador Rae.
I like the language that you used. You used the “nexus approach.” I think that has some real currency, because we tend to think about refugees and the UNHCR, but that is not the limit. We heard another recommendation from the former ambassador to the UN, Canadian Ambassador Allan Rock. He advised us to look at instruments that could support host countries — instruments that are in the hands of the World Bank, the IOM, preferential trade agreements — and bring those to bear on financing the reception of refugees by host countries. You and all of us in this room know the countries that are in distress: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Colombia, Ecuador, et cetera. I won’t weigh in on the Middle East situation, but I think those are the main hot spots. We’re not sharing the responsibility with them appropriately. What do you think about this nexus approach bearing in on host country support?
Mr. Rae: If I’m not mistaken, I referred to this in my two reports that I did on the Rohingya as well as on the future of humanitarian and development responses. Ambassador Rock is absolutely right.
What’s interesting is that it’s actually happening. At the beginning of last week, the World Bank announced a $700-million allocation to Bangladesh, specifically to deal not just with the camp but with the camp and with the region around the camp. We have to deal with this potential for conflict between camps, displacement areas and host communities. We have to understand that many host countries are facing severe financial and other problems as the result of a sudden arrival of people simply turning up on your doorstep, as I described it to Senator Arnot.
The other reason we have to do it is that refugee camps used to be thought of as short-term places — places where people would go for a short time and then move out. That’s not happening now. The average length of time in a camp is very long. Some of these categories that we’ve been weighed under and have seemed to fit the bill at a certain time in our common history no longer work.
When we look at the refugee situation — I’m quite excited about where we have been able to go with this — Canada has been working with refugees in camps, with residents in camps, with host countries and with donor countries to create a dialogue that actually looks at what we can really do to address this question. It’s not just a legal issue. It’s not just about the legal categories. As I said before, it’s about looking at peace and security, human development, and, broadly speaking, human rights and the legal structures. You can’t ignore any one of those things; you have to put them all together. I know it’s an approach the government adopts. We are now in favour of this. We are talking directly with international agencies about the need for them to be more involved in dealing with the needs of fragile states and with conflict areas. That’s an interesting change that the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the multilateral financial institutions are all looking at as we deal with this question.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, Ambassador Rae, for joining us.
Senator Omidvar said she wouldn’t weigh in on the Middle East, but I’d like to go there a bit.
Mr. Rae: Sure.
Senator Pate: When I was in Jordan and then Syria over the last few years, the issues you’re talking about and the seeming abandonment of the international community in many respects really struck me. In addition to what you’ve already said, I’d like to provide an opportunity for you to add to it: What are some of the key recommendations you think this committee could make that would be of assistance in moving forward on some of the initiatives that Canada is already either taking leadership on or could take leadership on?
Mr. Rae: Senator, I’m glad to.
Let me just challenge you a little bit about abandonment. It’s very natural for people to feel, “All the headlines are about somewhere else and they are not about us, so the world is abandoning us.” I think it’s important for everyone to appreciate the fact that Canada, in Jordan, for example, has been a consistent partner with a very strong approach, and that is to say, in the case of Jordan with the displacement from the Syrian conflict, “You’re taking in more people. How can we help you deal with that?” How can we help them with education, training and in a different kind of contract or bargain that they are making with people who are coming? Unless the neighbouring countries take this on, then the problem just gets spread all over the place. We are putting lives at risk and forcing people to go on the water or across deserts, and none of that makes any sense.
So that is our approach. I just described it a little bit with Senator Omidvar, and I would say it’s true with respect to the Middle East. We have a clear policy. We want a cease-fire. We want a two-state solution. We want to allow people to become citizens of a country that is their own. We also want security for the state of Israel and for people to be able to live together without conflict.
The changes that will be required in the Middle East in order to do this are huge. Countries will have to learn how to live alongside each other and find ways of providing and strengthening mutual recognition and respect. We’ll need active programs of providing work and opportunities. I keep coming back to the importance of education and work as being key — the economic solutions involving jobs for people and opportunities for people. Every successful experience in dealing with a refugee issue involves giving people the ability to work. If they can’t work, you’re marginalizing people. People in the UNRWA camps are not allowed to work locally. The only employer in the camps is UNRWA, nobody else. They can’t get any other work. They can’t work outside the camps.
We have to deal with some of these issues over time to make sure we’re dealing with a problem in a way that has a chance of success. A success story worth looking at is what’s been happening in Türkiye. Türkiye has done a remarkable job with the Syrian refugees who came into their country. Yes, they got money for it from the European Union, and they have continued to insist that others have to burden a share, but it’s only right that we not say to countries that are next door to a political crisis, “Well, that’s too bad. You’ll have to sort that out.” That’s not the way we should be doing things. We have to find ways of providing support to countries that are going through this transformation. That’s the kind of approach I would support.
Senator Pate: When it comes to Syria, when I was in the autonomous administration, I probably wouldn’t describe the role Türkiye was taking in the same way at all.
Mr. Rae: No.
Senator Pate: That’s really where the discussion about abandonment was in terms of the international community not stepping up in terms of both holding those accountable but also leaving the Kurds to really try and carry the ball on so many of the issues. That’s what I was referring to, just for clarification. Thank you for your input.
Mr. Rae: Just to clarify, senator, I was referring to those Syrian refugees who have left Syria and gone into Türkiye when I was talking about the way in which the Turks have stepped up. I’m not referring at all to the very complex issues around the conflict in northeastern Syria where, yes, it is complicated, and yes, there are continuing issues about the ongoing international obligations to people who are living under extensive bombing and real damage to their communities. You’re absolutely right about that.
The Chair: Ambassador Rae, something you said caught my attention. You said that we have to respond in a thoughtful way. Do you think the world is responding in a thoughtful way to the various crises around the world, or are we getting too used to seeing violent scenes, bodies being carried, covered up and limbs being blown away? We are seeing that on our screens daily. Are we beginning to accept that that’s the way the world is? And is donor fatigue setting in?
Mr. Rae: I don’t think there’s any excuse for fatigue. I don’t think fatigue is a luxury we can afford at the moment. The problems are getting worse. At that point, you don’t throw up your hands and say, “Oh, my dear, nothing we can do. It’s hopeless.” I go to many countries — Haiti, for example, and many other places — and people say, “Oh, it must be hopeless,” and I say, “Not at all.” There is a path. There are absolutely paths to be followed. The question is: Are we willing to step up?
We have conditions now in the world that are as serious as we have seen since 1945. Abandonment, fatigue, isolationism, I-don’t-care-ism, not-my-problem-ism — these are all things that are just useless as motivators for good conduct and motivators for change. We have to stick with this. This is the world we’re in. We don’t have a choice. If we don’t step in, others will, in the worst possible way. If we throw up our hands and say to the Ukrainians, “It’s tough, it’s too much, we’re tired and there’s nothing more we can do,” that is the worst possible attitude, and it is something that we really have to work against as Canadians.
It is not possible for us to find solutions on climate change or on the question of refugee movement and displacement of people if we take an isolationist or a narrow position. It is simply not possible to address these questions without added willingness to commit, not just from us but working with a lot of other countries. To give into this fatigue, I think, would be a tragic mistake of enormous proportions for our country or for any other country.
The Chair: I asked you this, Ambassador Rae, because, like you said, it’s a tragic mistake, and we saw this happen in Afghanistan, if you remember. We have seen what has happened. The Taliban came and have taken over. Do you have any hope for Afghanistan?
Mr. Rae: We have to. I won’t get into an argument about what happened. All I know is that one of the biggest mistakes we can make is thinking that there are countries that are too far away to care about and it doesn’t matter what we do, so we might as well give up and let somebody else move in. We had 25 years invested in that country — not just Canada but countries around the world. We need to understand that that country is now being ruled by a tiny minority, which has never been elected, chosen by or voted for by anybody. They were just allowed to walk in and take over. They are basically practising gender apartheid and abandoning half their population. That can’t be good. That’s not good for the people of Afghanistan, and it’s not good for the people of the world. In the course of doing that, they have created a humanitarian crisis in their own country of Afghanistan, and they have exported it to all of their neighbours and the rest of the world. We understand that when we decide that we have had enough, rest assured that somebody else will never have had enough because they have plans. Those plans cannot be allowed to succeed because they are bad for the human condition. They just create terrible ongoing problems.
We’re working hard in trying to find ways, with the UN, with the United States and with other countries, to figure out how we can turn the tide in Afghanistan, but we’re certainly not going to abandon the women and children of Afghanistan. That’s something that I could not fathom if we were to even contemplate such a thing.
The Chair: Thank you for mentioning gender apartheid. I have a motion on the floor of the Senate currently asking this government to recognize what’s happening as gender apartheid.
Senator Jaffer: Continuing along similar line to Senator Pate’s question, Ambassador Rae, we saw 4 million refugees going to Türkiye from all over — Afghanistan, Syria. Some camps that I visited in Türkiye were amazing, and some people live in the town. We have seen in Jordan the tremendous population that came from Palestine. In fact, there are more Palestinians than Jordanians, if I’m not wrong.
When we get a few refugees, for example, from the south, Canadians think we have too many refugees and that we should stop the flow. I’m really amazed by that. The number we get is really insignificant compared to other countries. What can we do to change that mindset?
Mr. Rae: It’s important for us to understand that this has to be a conversation, not a lecture from anybody — certainly not from me. It has to be a conversation in which we engage with people. I was elected many times in my political life, and I’m fully aware of the range of opinions that people have and the feelings that people have on the question of demographic change, migration and all of those issues.
We have to appreciate that the story we have to tell as a country is actually an incredible story where we have done everything we can to regularize movement and migration, provide people with jobs and training, and we can’t lose sight of that. We can’t take our eye off the ball. We have to say that if we can keep building housing, providing opportunities to work and keep working on all of the human rights and social legislation and all of the changes which the provinces have carried out and that school boards are engaging with all the time, it’s a good story. It’s not a bad story; it’s a good story.
Look, for example, at the private sponsorship of immigrants, which has gone on for generations in Canada. I know many Canadians whose parents and grandparents came to this country because some other family in Canada said, “Yeah, you can come, and we’ll take care of you for the first couple of years.” They slept in people’s basements, they slept in their houses, they stayed with them, and then they eventually got on, they got a job and they integrated. Those are wonderful stories that we should be telling as a country.
We have to change the narrative not by turning it into a Disney movie but by talking about the reality of the country. The story of our country is not a story of being ransacked by foreigners; it’s a story about our success.
The Chair: We are literally down to the last four minutes. Senator Omidvar and Senator Gerba, maybe I can get both of you to ask your questions, and then Ambassador Rae can answer.
Senator Omidvar: I want to query you on the increasing trend in Canada towards layered protection, which is what one of our witnesses described it as — again, new language. We have layered protection for Ukrainians, a different system for Afghan refugees and a different one for family reunification from Gaza. Is this the way to go, different strokes for different folks? The question often is asked: Why are Ukrainians treated in this way and Afghans treated in another way? Perhaps you could think about it and get back to us. Is it politically or policy-wise the best way to go to meet every crisis on its own terms and respond to it on its own terms, or should we follow the parameters of the convention? That’s my question.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Ambassador Rae, as you know, the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been experiencing violent clashes for almost 30 years now. The world hardly seems to take notice, even though the UN reported a record seven million internally displaced people. MONUSCO will be completing its withdrawal this year.
What are your thoughts on this crisis?
Does the United Nations have a clear approach? Is it doing anything to address the crisis? Given the critical humanitarian situation in these regions, what immediate measures should the Government of Canada take with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
Mr. Rae: Senator, I have to say that I completely agree with the question you asked because there are problems that, to be frank, haven’t received the same attention from the international community. It’s true that MONUSCO made an effort and that the Security Council decided on other approaches. The African Union asked us to give it an opportunity to do more than find political and regional solutions adapted to the changes and complex opinions in the region.
That’s much more important than trying to insist on a so‑called military solution. There’s a whole debate going on right now. At the United Nations, the future of the peacekeeping troops is at issue. Canada is fully involved in that discussion.
Together with the African Union and the countries in the region, we have to find a solution that will bring about stability, which hasn’t existed for the past 30 years. I don’t have an easy solution. All I can say is that the Congo issue is of vital importance to Africa and the world. It matters to us as Canadians because of immigrants who want to come to this country. It’s an important issue.
[English]
On the question of layered migration, you’ve touched upon what is a sensitive and important question for which I don’t have a magic answer. I think governments respond in good faith to crises as they arise. We all know about the Boat People. We know, prior to that, about the arrival of Hungarian refugees in 1956 and Czech refugees in the late 1960s. We respond to situations as they come up. There’s no avoiding that need. There’s never a perfect policy answer, but as you go, you need to remember that everyone is looking. This question of the layered approach is not only one that affects Canadian opinion and the feelings of Canadians; it’s a question that affects the opinion of other countries, saying, “Wait a minute. What about us? What’s our situation?”
I don’t think it’s for me to get immersed in that level of a detailed response except to say I know this is something the government is trying to respond to as effectively as it can, given the almost unique set of circumstances that we face: the aggression against Ukraine by the Russians and the appalling human rights and humanitarian situation in Venezuela which led to the movement of six million people out of Venezuela, now more, across the Americas.
My final point would be that the world is complicated. I would encourage you not to look for a one-off magic solution or here’s the one thing that will fix this problem. We have to give some folks allowance for flexibility. In doing so, we also have to recognize that there will be a need for some pulling together of some policy approaches so they can become clearer for Canadians and people can address them as well.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador Rae, for agreeing to participate in this important study. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated. We thank you for your years of service to Canada. We will probably be talking to you in the near future when we start another study.
Honourable senators, I shall now introduce our second panel. Our witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from the senators. With us at the table, from Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, please welcome Manon Brassard, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, and she is accompanied by Roger Ermuth, Executive Director. I now invite Ms. Brassard to make her presentation.
Manon Brassard, Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: Thank you, Madam Chair, for inviting me to appear before the committee. It is always a pleasure to talk about the work of the Immigration and Refugee Board. As you mentioned, with me today is Roger Ermuth, our Executive Director.
The IRB is Canada’s largest independent, administrative tribunal. We make decisions in immigration and refugee matters, and we have four divisions within the IRB: the Refugee Protection Division, RPD; the Refugee Appeal Division, RAD; the Immigration Division, ID; and the Immigration Appeal Division, the IAD.
Three of the four divisions finalize their decisions in a timely way, maintaining high-quality standards and keeping pace with intake. The Refugee Protection Division maintains its quality standards, but the growing intake of claims poses an operational challenge, so my remarks this afternoon will largely focus on the RPD.
[Translation]
I’d like to provide a bit of context by going back a few years to when the pandemic hit.
Very few people came to Canada then in search of asylum. During that time, the Refugee Protection Division, the RPD, got through the backlog by holding hearings virtually, a practice we’ve kept to this day because of the flexibility it provides.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, said that Canada was one of the four countries that was able to reduce its inventory during the pandemic.
By the end of the 2021-22 fiscal year, we reduced our workload from 93,000 cases to 54,000, which is an adequate inventory for us to function at full capacity.
That’s an important point, because our permanent funding enables us to finalize 50,000 asylum claims per year.
[English]
In 2023-24, our goal was to finalize 52,500 decisions. With a bit of temporary funding, we finalized 55,300 claims. The average wait time was 14 months. This year, we plan to finalize 60,000 claims.
What is different today compared to the pandemic years is the sheer volume of new files. We saw a surge of intake last fiscal year, and we received 156,700 new claims. Mexico, India, Nigeria, Haiti and Türkiye represented last year’s top countries of intake.
Since January of this year, we have averaged 740 claims being referred to the IRB every working day. That is outstripping our processing capacity. Our expected average wait time of actionable cases, so cases we can actually put on the schedule, as of April of this year is 18 months. This is not surprising. The UNHCR reports in 2023 that there were 110 million forcibly displaced persons worldwide, and I understand they updated the number last week so it’s even higher now.
All that is to say that after I took on the role of chairperson last July, it didn’t take long for me to realize, with the team, that we needed to maintain our ability to render fair decisions despite the growing intake. We need to do something about that. While additional resources are welcome, we also need to change the way we work at the IRB, so we’re looking to focus more on our clients, being all the appellants, the refugee claimants, the persons concerned, and work on easier access to the tribunal for people when they’re not represented and for their representative when they are. We need to simplify our processes and use more plain language. We need to update our technology and make our portal accessible to not only counsel but the claimants themselves so that they know where they stand. We need to invest in our employees to make sure that they are able to intervene with claimants and their counsel effectively and that they can use the tools that are at their disposal.
I’m committed to making the board more resilient and increasing our capacity to process more claims faster, while never compromising on the quality and fairness, recognizing that the future will hold new challenges that we can’t yet foresee.
With this, Madam Chair, thank you for your time, and I welcome questions.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you to both of you for joining us in person. It’s sincerely appreciated.
At another committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, which is examining divisions in the BIA, we heard from Jason Hollmann, Director General of the Asylum Policy Branch, who told us:
The in-Canada asylum system has been strained by a surge in asylum claims, leading to lengthy processing times and backlogs, resulting in prolonged uncertainty for applicants.
… This has meant that thousands of claimants are facing long wait times at multiple points in the process.
He didn’t say anything that you didn’t say. He did put some numbers on the table.
You need to be efficient and need to use technology and all of those good things. Is it possible to be both fast and fair?
Ms. Brassard: I think it is. In the things that I’ve mentioned, how we do triage, it’s internal, and how we schedule, it’s internal. I was surprised to hear that we’re doing scheduling on spreadsheets. With these kinds of numbers, we need to update, so we’re improving our Excel sheets. We need to improve on that. A lot of the expeditiousness of things has to do with what we can do internally. The fairness is how we train our members and the guidelines we provide them on how to hear, consider and evaluate claims. That doesn’t change. So yes, I believe that we can be faster and that we can continue to be just as fair.
Senator Omidvar: Can you comment on advice that we received from Professor James Hathaway from the University of Michigan, who testified at this committee that a group-based assessment of one’s refugee status could lead to being both fast and fair? He gave the example that we do not need a $25,000 hearing to figure out that an Afghan woman is a refugee. Most refugees, he said, do not require the system that you have, which is with all the bells and whistles. Can you tell us whether you’re using group-based assessment to facilitate hearings?
Ms. Brassard: We don’t call it “group” because we don’t go out and say to everybody or a thousand people in front of us, “You are all in.” But we do have a task force. There are countries such as Afghanistan, where we know the country, we know the country conditions and we know the profile of the claimants, and we will process those a lot faster without a hearing, or if there is a hearing, it will be a much shorter one, focused on one or two determinative issues. So we do it. About a third of the claims that we hear go through that process. It’s not a group per se, like a predetermination, but it goes a lot faster.
Senator Omidvar: May I examine that against the highest source countries you mentioned, so Mexico, Nigeria, India. Can you tell me if group-based assessment is used for these countries or not? I suspect not.
Ms. Brassard: The countries for the task force are Iran, Türkiye, Afghanistan and Venezuela, and we have Pakistan. They aren’t necessarily the top 10 countries by means of intake.
Senator Omidvar: I understand. Thank you.
Senator Arnot: It seems to me you have a lot of challenges.
I have two quick questions. How do you manage the financial challenges associated with the high volumes of cases, especially with the recent increases in the number of claims and appeals? How much more resources do you require to effectively remain impartial and fair?
The second part of the question, on that same issue that’s been raised about impartiality and fairness, is, how is that done, especially with the increased complexity of the issues and the pressures of all the numbers that are coming in?
Ms. Brassard: If I may start with the last question, we’ve increased the number of RPD members deliberately because we recognize that we need to face the incoming intake. We train them. They have, at the outset, eight weeks of training that goes from the theory to mock hearings to listening. Then there is coaching, a sort of mentoring that is done so that they’re not left to their own devices. We have strong legal services that can give them legal advice in training in monthly updates but also as they are rendering reasons. In reasons review, they get the benefit of solicitor-client privilege advice on their reasons. That helps a lot in making sure that they understand, that they master the complexity of the files, but that they are also able to render decisions. They get very good at it and get a lot of experience as we continue to train them.
On the resources, as a public servant with a 35-year career, I know that money is part of the solution, but it’s not the only solution. We need to improve the way we do things.
Senator Arnot: That’s what you’re focusing on, the improvement of the processes.
Ms. Brassard: Trying to improve the process, but also making sure the investment we make in training is best used and that it’s best suited for the members. So yes, reallocation of resources and looking at technology to ensure we can reduce some of the more transactional costs, that we do the same thing from coast to coast and that we manage our inventory nationally so that we reduce the cost of doing it a bit differently in Montreal from Toronto from Vancouver, so streamlining. Saving money gives us the ability to bring in more decision makers and more support for the decision makers.
The financial challenge is there, no doubt about that, but I think we owe it to Canadians to show that we use the money that we have in the best way and that we meet the expectations put on us number-wise. We’re set out to do this many, and we will do this many and a bit more.
Senator Arnot: You’ve been there since 2023 —
Ms. Brassard: No, I’ve been here since July, so not a year yet. Ten months.
Senator Arnot: I thought you had 24 months in, but it’s only 10. Anyway, I understand what you’re doing. I’m wondering how you measure against the goals that you’re setting — which are quite high, and I understand that professionalism — and how do you adjust to the findings of the measurements?
Ms. Brassard: We have a quality framework. That’s really important, because with the number of decisions we make, we need to make sure we have consistency and quality decisions.
Every two years, we do a quality assessment. It’s done by a third party. We publish it, and it’s on our website. We look at — we being that third party — timely and complete and pre-proceeding readiness. They look at respectful proceedings, focused proceedings, reasons that state conclusions, that look at the determinative issues, not 55 not-so-relevant things but really the crux of the matter, that the findings and analysis are there and that they justify the decision, and that the reasons are complete, intelligent, transparent and intelligible.
We repeat it for the four divisions every two years. We look at the marks that we get. The RPD got 97% in terms of the sampling. We were sorry not to get 100%, but we need a bit of room to manœuvre and improve. The quality is really important. Without quality, a tribunal has nothing. It doesn’t matter that we have the numbers if we don’t have quality decision-making.
Senator Arnot: Or credibility.
Ms. Brassard: It’s credibility to the people who appear before us: that they get a fair decision, that they’ve been heard, that we’ve listened and that we’ve given them a decision that is in accordance with the law and the case law. Whether they like the outcome or not, because that happens between the four divisions, they understand it.
Senator Arnot: I appreciate the goals you’ve set. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Welcome, both of you.
In a series of articles published in 2023, the Quebec newspaper La Presse reported on certain concerns relating to interference in the decisions of commissioners tasked with evaluating asylum claims. According to a survey conducted in Quebec, 47% of commissioners responsible for evaluating asylum claims stated that their independence had been attacked at least once, and 27% said they had made a decision that conflicted with what they really thought at least once.
What are your thoughts on that? What measures might be taken? What recommendations might be made to ensure that commissioners can make their decisions fully independently?
Ms. Brassard: First, I’m not familiar with that particular series of articles. I would say that, when I meet with commissioners, when they start their jobs — I meet with new commissioners who are starting their training or just taking the oath — I talk to them about independence. Whether they say yes or no is entirely their decision. We make tools available to them. They have a binder, they have training, and they have legal services to support them, but, at the end of the day, the decision is up to them.
I tell them that genuine independence is what they feel if the decision makes the papers and they are comfortable with that decision, heart and soul. That’s what it means to have independence as a decision-maker. We have nearly 400 decision-makers in the Refugee Protection Division. They get training and evaluations. It’s also our duty to ensure that decisions are consistent with the law.
If a commissioner’s decisions are being overturned regularly by the Refugee Appeal Division, we would talk about that. Is there a training need? Is there something the commissioner doesn’t understand about a given issue? There would be a conversation.
I’m sure you’re aware of the Consolidated-Bathurst decision, which allows members of a tribunal to have conversations about certain subjects. Tribunals can go one of two ways. It’s not unusual for members of a tribunal to belong to two different schools of thought about a particular subject. What I ask people to do is have conversations with an open mind. Not a blank page; an open mind.
Then, it’s up to them to make their decision. Their integrity is at stake when they make a decision that they believe to be correct given the circumstances.
Senator Gerba: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Pate: You were here for the previous panel. In terms of climate refugees, do you have numbers on how many more people we are seeing who have been displaced largely because of climate issues and fleeing countries where it is more inhospitable?
My second question is very different but was sparked by two things. You mentioned most of your hearings are online now. When I was in the new Surrey detention centre operated by the CBSA, as well as the most recent one opened in Laval, we were advised that it was the insistence of the board that there be proper hearing rooms placed in there. In fact, they have quite an infrastructure, as well as video rooms, but to date those hearing rooms haven’t been used. I was curious as to whether you will be notifying them they can get rid of those rooms, use them for something else, or how you’re approaching issues like addressing the rights of those individuals to be heard when it’s virtual. We know many of them have language issues. We went and met with many individuals there. Many of them had no idea about what “right to counsel” meant. They didn’t have money for lawyers, they would tell us. Many of them talked about having real struggles finding legal counsel, even once it was explained that they would be provided, and they had great trouble filling out applications and that kind of thing.
I’m curious what kind of measures the IRB is taking to ensure some of those fundamental due process entitlements are being honoured.
Ms. Brassard: On the virtual hearings, the pandemic was a game changer in that, although, when I was at the IRB the first time, 35 years ago for 15 years, I was the now equivalent of the deputy chair of the immigration division, and we were doing video conference hearings at the time. The pandemic brought the practice of Teams hearings, if you want, for the vast majority of hearings we have. It was the conditions under which we could proceed. We have done surveys. We continue to survey people. The feedback we get is that it’s the preferred method of hearings for the vast majority of claimants and counsel. It offers us, of course, some flexibility. We can have an interpreter who is in Toronto for a hearing in Montreal and can use that same interpreter in the afternoon to do a hearing in Vancouver. From that point of view, it’s a way that actually makes sense.
Now, our practice notice says that, if you want a hearing in person, you’ll get it, pretty much no questions asked. That’s why we insist on having hearing rooms that are workable. In some cases, it might be the better way to ensure that a person has a fair hearing. It’s important that we have them, but they don’t need to be huge. They just need to have the facility, the mics and the ability to have everybody but the interpreter in person so that we have the technology to have that interpreter being able to be effective. Yes, we insist on having proper hearing rooms. It doesn’t need to be that many, but we need to have enough to not have to say no to do a hearing or a detention review on time because we can’t.
We support individuals in many ways. We trained all of our members on how to assist particularly people who are not represented. We have designated representatives. Some of them we will pay and hire. We have a list, a roster. That is usually for an unaccompanied minor or someone who does not understand or appreciate the nature of the hearing. If it’s a family of five, parents and three kids, a parent will usually be the designated representative.
We try — and I say “try” — to have plain language in our guides and forms. It’s always a work-in-progress. We can always be better at that. As soon as we think we are good, we can improve.
On the RPD and IAD, we have national documentation packages. We do virtual ready tours for the RPD to be able to see what to expect when you have a hearing. It’s helpful whether you’re represented or not. Even with counsel, if you’re interested, you can go and try and find it.
The IAD, the Immigration Appeal Division, has informal resolution pathways and readiness meetings with appellants. They are a smaller number, though, than the refugee side.
We do our best to ensure that people, if they want to have counsel, have counsel. That being the case, not everybody chooses to have counsel.
On climate refugees, as you know, the definition has five grounds, and climate change is not one of them. I don’t have any numbers to give you because it’s not a ground to claim refugee status. Whether they come from regions that are inhospitable, we don’t have stats on that.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: You briefly touched on this in response to Senator Pate’s question. Can you tell us about the practices you have in place to support displaced people with specific needs, such as unaccompanied children, persons with disabilities, survivors of torture and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence?
Ms. Brassard: I will start with the unaccompanied minor. I already talked about the designated representative. We have a guide on our website. The guide is what we expect of designated representatives. It’s a fairly long list. It starts with, of course, meeting with the person, but making sure that they understand their situation, being able to advise or to instruct counsel, find counsel, instruct counsel. When we can, when we are aware of it, if the person is in front of the board in more than one instance, if possible, we will give the same designated representative.
Persons with disabilities will really depend on the nature of the disability. Of course, the fact we are going virtual sometimes helps. People are in their own environment or in the office of their counsel. That being said, our offices are accessible. Our locations are accessible.
If there is an issue of mental health, inasmuch as we are made aware of it, the person can also have a designated representative.
You mentioned torture and all other types of serious harm. We train our members to be sensitive on those issues. We have guidelines on the topic. They have delicate work. They have to decide whether a person has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the grounds. They have to be satisfied by the evidence. They are trained on how to get to that evidence in a way that is respectful and compassionate so that they don’t re-traumatize the people in front of them. Counsel can be of assistance in doing that as well. That’s why our members will take time. They will prepare the case ahead of time so they know what to anticipate to make sure they proceed effectively but fairly and respectfully of the person in front of them.
The Chair: Thank you.
We were in Costa Rica and met with people who were trying to cross and were refugees. Some of them didn’t directly say what they had been through, but you could read between the lines when they spoke about what they had experienced. Are you getting a lot of women who have faced a lot of sexual abuse along the way as they make their way into safe countries?
Ms. Brassard: That is a difficult answer for me to provide. The hearing will generally focus on the country of persecution, not necessarily the path and the journey. That’s applying the legislation. A fear of persecution is vis-à-vis the country of habitual residence or nationality. Therefore, we will assess the claims against that country.
However, for someone who had a particularly difficult time coming and being in a mental state that would be difficult or more vulnerable, we also train our members on making sure that, when they have vulnerable persons in front of them, they know how to act, how to ask questions and potentially even, if required, go with the designated representative to ensure that the person has the help to understand what it is that they have to establish during the hearing and make sure we don’t re-traumatize the person.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you again, Ms. Brassard.
We want to drill down to some recommendations. The in-land asylum system is a big part of what we in Canada do. Can you tell us what the average cost of an average hearing is?
Ms. Brassard: The PBO gave numbers on that, and we tried to put forward our portion of their numbers. That being said, we’re not sure of their methodology. I’m not questioning it; I’m just saying we are not aware of it. We have tried to do an estimation with our methodology that might not jive entirely with them, just to put some caveats around it. They calculate an average of $16,000. We think we’re a little less than $5,000, at $4,900.
Senator Omidvar: Maybe the PBO is figuring in the appeals, post-hearing, or is it just —
Ms. Brassard: I don’t know. They might be figuring the whole cost of the system, but that’s how we calculate our costs.
Senator Omidvar: I heard you talk about technology.
Ms. Brassard: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: I agree with you that upgrading technology would create faster and possibly more efficient systems. On a grade of 1 to 10, what do you give the IRB for the use of technology?
Ms. Brassard: That’s a hard question. It would be no more than 6.5. I don’t want to be unfair to the team. People work very hard, they are very committed to their work and they believe in the work of the board. We all do at the IRB.
Senator Omidvar: I understand.
Ms. Brassard: They are very professional and dedicated. They make things work with imperfect systems. We have a system that’s a little bit slow. We are working on it now. It just has way too much data in it, so we will retire or archive some of it and make it better. For our triaging, we have good criteria. It’s a little difficult to be much more systematic about it.
Our systems were made for numbers or intakes much lower than what we have. That’s probably why — I know I’m going to hear about this tomorrow — my grade is a little low. It’s because of the challenges that we are facing. Otherwise, it worked, and it has worked for 35 years. They have improved the system for the last 35 years.
We also have to work with MyCase, which is the name of —
Senator Omidvar: Yes, I know.
Ms. Brassard: — and we are hoping to make it available to claimants themselves during this fiscal year. It’s a matter of the credentials, as you know, to log in to make sure we have the security, the two key credentials.
We are able to do virtual hearings. That’s a feat, given the number of hearings that we’re doing every year.
Senator Omidvar: I’m hearing you say, Ms. Brassard, that with more sophisticated use of more sophisticated technology, your average cost of hearing would decline. Am I right in paraphrasing it this way?
Ms. Brassard: There’s a cost to sophisticated technology, so I always hesitate in promising reductions. We would hopefully be faster.
Senator Omidvar: Okay.
Let me pivot to legal advice.
Ms. Brassard: Yes.
Senator Omidvar: Anecdotally, I hear about asylum claimants who are not appropriately represented or who have bad or no legal advice. What’s your observation about their legal representation? How could we improve that so they get good legal representation and you’re able to work on a case in a nimbler manner?
Ms. Brassard: When there is an outrageous situation with counsel, and there are very few of those, we make sure the law society is informed. Fraud, misrepresentation, coming up with false evidence, the egregious things — we go to the law society and let them do their work vis-à-vis those lawyers.
There are about 3,000 lawyers or legal representatives who appear before us. That’s a lot.
Senator Omidvar: These are all lawyers, not immigration consultants? I just want to confirm that.
Ms. Brassard: There are some consultants in that as well, but we have appearing before us consultants who are accredited by the college.
Senator Omidvar: Right. I remember that, yes.
Ms. Brassard: It’s fairly formatted and well established. They go through courses. I think McGill was one of them, and Queens and Université de Montréal are the two —
Senator Omidvar: How could we ensure that the legal advice they get is better? What could we say in our report about the legal advice available to asylum claimants?
Ms. Brassard: You might want to inquire around legal aid. Sometimes they, like us, face a huge number. If we get 156,000 cases last year, the lawyers also got them, so there’s an issue of time for them as well. That’s one aspect of the work. The other is some counsel — a few — take an enormous number of cases.
Senator Omidvar: That’s good to know.
Ms. Brassard: An enormous number of cases. Forty-two have about 30,000 claims. Forty-two counsel, not all lawyers. Three, I think —
Senator Omidvar: Forty-two counsel.
Ms. Brassard: On 30,000 claims.
Senator Omidvar: That is unbelievable.
Ms. Brassard: I’m not saying they all give bad advice. I’m saying that their workload is so big that they need to find ways — and maybe they have. For us, the impact is really time. We can’t schedule them because they have so many cases. I’m not saying they are bad counsel — far from it. I’m just saying it creates an issue for us in terms of getting to the claimants. I’m as concerned for the legal advice to the person we have in front of us now as the 156,000 at the end of the queue who need to come in front of us.
You have probably already asked the legal aids from Ontario, Quebec and B.C. who do a lot of the work. They are very dedicated people. I was just at CBA a couple of weeks ago. They spend an enormous amount of time trying to help each other train, and they do mentorship at the same time. They do a tremendous amount of work.
The quality of the work also depends sometimes on the results, and if you think you didn’t get the results you wanted, maybe you’re not happy with the advice.
Senator Omidvar: I understand that the budget implementation act has allocated additional money from the federal government to legal aid societies.
Ms. Brassard: I believe it has.
Senator Omidvar: That will help, but the issue of 42 counsel having — let me think about that. Thank you for your responses to my questions. I appreciate it.
Senator Arnot: I have a couple of questions. You said that you did 55,300 hearings last year.
Ms. Brassard: And finalization decisions of the RPD.
Senator Arnot: How many of those applicants were successful in their application?
Ms. Brassard: It is 69%.
Senator Arnot: Second, looking forward on a go-forward basis, I understand what you’re doing with the resources. You’re trying to be practical and efficient with the taxpayers’ money, but at some point, you will reach a maximum capacity, so you will need more resources. What financial planning initiatives are critical for the IRB to handle the potential increases in caseload due to global displacement trends, which we see to be on the rise in an almost geometric progression? What do you do there?
The last question is, what recommendation do you think we could make to assist you in your work and the goals that you’ve set for the organization?
Ms. Brassard: The board, before I arrived, had been working on its funding model and trying to build scenarios to cost, so more of this, less of that, to make sure that we optimize our resources. We are finalizing that, hopefully, in the next few months, and that gives us a sense of our optimal capacity. I’m not saying maximal, because optimal is maintaining the quality, the fairness and the efficiency. We need to keep all of those things in place.
With that, at the appropriate time, we make the representations to explain the kinds of resources we need to do this, but remembering it’s always as part of a bigger package. There’s refugee determination, but there’s a whole system, and if intakes increase, it’s a situation, and if intakes decrease, it’s a different situation. We are also trying to be — “nimble” is a big word — reactive and responsive to varying factors.
Senator Arnot: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, I want to take this opportunity to thank the witnesses for appearing before us. Your testimony will be very helpful to our deliberations and to the study.
Before we go on a short break, I would like to inform the honourable senators that on May 14, Senator Pate and I attended a virtual meeting regarding the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the IPU, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The human rights self-assessment tool kit aims to offer an opportunity for parliaments to identify good practices, gaps and lessons learned, as well as to enable them to chart a course of action to ensure better awareness and mainstreaming of human rights in their work. It was developed with the help of 10 MPs who champion human rights in their countries. We learned that there are 148 parliaments that have human rights committees, and the other parliaments don’t. I think the membership is around 179, so there is still some work to be done. I wanted to share this with you because the IPU informed us that the Senate Human Rights Committee is one of the committees that they keep an eye on because of the work that we do.
I was also invited to meet with the Council of Ontario Universities’ Strategic Communications Council on May 16 to speak about RIDR’s Islamophobia report.
I thought it was essential to share this information with you today to remind ourselves of the importance of our work and its far-reaching implications, considering certain conversations going on in the other place with regard to abolishing the human rights committee. I thought it was important, and I wanted to share that with you.
Honourable senators and guests, the first public portion of our meeting is now over. We will suspend this meeting for a few minutes and then resume in camera to discuss a draft agenda. We will then reconvene in public around 7:15 to welcome our final witness.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Honourable senators and all those following our deliberations, I remind you that our committee is resuming this evening under its general order of reference.
I shall now introduce our third and final panel of the day. Our witness has been asked to make an opening statement. We shall hear from the witness and then turn to questions from the senators.
With us at the table, please welcome Oleksandra Matviichuk, Ukrainian human rights lawyer and Chairwoman of the Center for Civil Liberties, which, I think most of us know, was a Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2022.
We are delighted to have you. Please proceed with your opening statement.
Oleksandra Matviichuk, Chairwoman, Center for Civil Liberties: Thank you very much for providing me the floor. It’s a huge honour for me to address this distinguished audience.
I am a human rights lawyer and, for ten years, my team and I have been documenting war crimes in this war that Russia launched against Ukraine. We united our efforts with dozens of organizations from different regions and built a national network of local documenters throughout the country, including the occupied territories. Working together for the two years of full-scale war, we jointly documented more than 72,000 episodes of war crimes.
Russian troops are destroying residential buildings, schools, churches, museums and hospitals. They are attacking evacuation corridors. They are torturing people in filtration camps. They are forcibly taking Ukrainian children to Russia. They ban Ukrainian language and culture. They are abducting, robbing, raping and killing civilians in the occupied territories.
Russia uses war crimes as a method of warfare. Russia attempts to break people’s resistance and occupy the country with a tool that I call the immense pain on the civilian population. We are documenting not just violations of the Geneva and Hague Conventions. We are documenting human pain.
I want to focus on the crime of the forcible deportation of the Ukrainian population to change the demographic composition in Ukraine. Crimea was a test site where Russia conducted an experiment to integrate the occupied territory. The components of this experiment are the forced imposition of Russian citizenship, the substitution of the Ukrainian population and organized repression to maintain people in a situation of inferiority.
Immediately after the occupation of Crimea, Russia set a course to displace the active part of the population from the peninsula and replace it with citizens of the Russian Federation from different regions through controlled migration. According to official statistics, as of January 1, 2019, the population growth in Sevastopol as a result of migration from regions of Russia was an unprecedented 17%. At the same time, the repression makes the flow of people leaving the Crimea continuous.
Russia multiplied the results of this experiment in other Ukrainian territories that they illegally captured, and people in occupation have no tools with which to protect their rights, their freedom, their property, their lives and their children.
Russia organized the forcible deportation of children. They arrest parents in filtration camps and give their children for adoption to Russian families. A clear example is the story of Yevhen Mezhevyi from Mariupol, who was separated from his three children by the Russians when he failed to pass the filtration. Russian legislation allows adoptive parents to change not only the name and surname but also the year and place of birth of the child, so tracking the fate of Ukrainian children after adoption is quite problematic. Yevhen was released after months of illegal detention. He was able to find his children and stop the adoption process. His eldest son says that, after his father took them away, the other children who were in his group were given to Russian families.
These actions are widespread and systematic. It’s proved by warrants of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court for President Putin and his child rights commissioner Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova.
These actions reveal the genocidal intent at the heart of Russia’s invasion. Russians are carrying out a deliberate policy to erase the Ukrainian nation. That’s why they established the whole system of forced re-education of Ukrainian children as Russians in the occupied territories. That’s why they organized the process of forcible adoption of Ukrainian children to Russian families to bring them up as Russians.
I ask the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights to issue a report on the forced deportation of Ukrainians, in particular the deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia as part of a deliberate policy to change their identity. Ukrainian human rights organizations are glad to assist with it. Canada can take a lead to create and implement a mechanism for harmonizing sanctions policy in the context of individual countermeasures due to the deportations, forcible transfers and unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of Ukrainian children, at least at the level of the member states of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children.
It’s also important to facilitate the adoption of a UN General Assembly resolution on the legal mechanism for the return of Ukrainian children and to urge the Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict to grant the status of abducted child to all displaced Ukrainian children until the confirmation of other legal status in order to monitor and assess their situation.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Matviichuk, for your presentation.
We will now proceed to questions from the senators. You have four minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.
Senator Arnot: Thank you very much for coming today, and thank you for the good work of your organization and the recognition of the Nobel Peace Prize for your work.
As a leader in legal advocacy against war crimes, what are the key strategies your organization is pursuing to bring international attention and legal action against these violations? What methodologies and challenges are involved in documenting these human rights violations?
You have given us two things that you think we could do. I will open it up. Is there anything else that you would like to see this committee do to aid you and the work you’re doing?
Ms. Matviichuk: Thank you very much for these questions.
I will start with challenges. We are faced with an unprecedented number of crimes, which means that we are faced with an unprecedented level of human pain. Sometimes, I personally feel that this pain burns me out. I was unprepared, even with all my knowledge, all my experience, all my work in the field, for such level of atrocities.
The second challenge is that we face an accountability gap. There is no international court that can prosecute Putin and those surrounding him for the crime of aggression. All the atrocities that we are now documenting are as a result of their leadership decision to start this war. I ask the distinguished members of the Senate to help Ukraine and to raise your voice in favour of establishing a special tribunal on aggression as an international court in order to overcome Putin, in unity and according to international law.
About key strategies our organization used, as I work directly with the victims affected by this war, I know that they see justice very differently. For some victims, justice means an opportunity to see their perpetrators behind bars. For other victims, justice means to get compensation, and without this, they will feel unsatisfied. For other victims, justice means just to know the truth of what happened to their beloved ones. For other people, justice means an opportunity to be heard and to get public recognition that what happened with them and their family is not just immoral but illegal. Our strategy is to build a comprehensive justice strategy and appropriate infrastructure to reach all these needs. This strategy has different elements: how we have to increase capacity for the International Criminal Court; how we have to establish a special tribunal on aggression; how we have to contribute in a registry of damage to provide all victims of this war the rights for compensation; and how to strengthen the national system, because the vast majority of crimes will still be their responsibility.
Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much, Ms. Matviichuk, for being here and sharing your thoughts with us.
We are not unaware of what is happening in Ukraine. Canada is standing with Ukraine in a very steadfast manner. In February of this year, our Minister of Global Affairs announced a coalition between Canada and Ukraine specifically on the return of children who were taken. Can you tell us if you see this bilateral approach between Canada and Ukraine — I believe at least 30 other countries have signed on — as a sign of progress and success in your mission? Would you like to add something to this effort that the Canadian government is making?
Ms. Matviichuk: First of all, let me express my sincere gratitude to the people in Canada for taking the lead in this international coalition for returning Ukrainian children. It’s a very sensitive problem in Ukrainian society. Ukrainian authorities unofficially identified more than 19,000 children, and we managed to return only a few hundred from this 19,000.
Establishing this international coalition is very central, but just the first step. The question now is, what is the strategy? What is the activity the members of the coalition will conduct? Will they be able to synchronize their actions? Will they be able to play different roles in order to achieve the common goal?
In my previous remarks, I mentioned three points that I think will be important for members of this international coalition to do. Canada can be a lead to activate these steps, but if I may, I will also focus on one problem we face in Ukraine and which is probably not very visible for the international community. Millions of Ukrainians are suffering, and among these millions are children. For children, it’s very difficult to cope with this horrible reality without psychological assistance. We lack psychological specialists in Ukraine. Foundations that deal with children who are affected and injured by the war say that we have to establish programs in Ukrainian universities to raise the new specialists because it will be people who help the children, not just infrastructure and not just other resources. The question of returning children to normal life is very dependent on concrete specialists who will be on the ground working with them.
Senator Omidvar: Could you explain to us the special tribunal on aggression that you are calling for? Where would it be situated? What about the governance? Do you see it being established under the auspices of the ICC or the ICJ or something else?
Ms. Matviichuk: Thank you for this question.
Let me start with the problem. The problem is that there is no international court that can prosecute Putin and those surrounding him for the crime of aggression. Even the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction to prosecute the crime of aggression in the situation of the Russian war against Ukraine. That’s why we have to establish a separate court, separate from the International Criminal Court or the UN Court of Justice, to fill this gap which we face at the current moment.
Why is it important? If we want to prevent wars in the future, we have to punish the states and their leaders who start such wars in the present. This is a common logic, but the problem is that in the whole history of humankind, we have only one such precedent. It was the Nuremberg trials. All other tribunals, such as the Yugoslavia or Rwanda tribunals or the Special Court for Sierra Leone, they prosecuted perpetrators because they killed each other not according to the rules. We need to establish a court which prosecutes people for starting a war.
I emphasize the modality of this court because now, in this core group of dozens of states that discuss the establishing of a special tribunal, there is a discussion of whether or not we will establish such a special tribunal as an international court or as a hybrid court and what the difference is. If we will establish such a special tribunal as a hybrid court, which means that it will be part of a national system, this court will have no power to overcome immunity, which Putin has, according to international law. Frankly speaking, I have no argument to explain to people in Ukraine or people in Canada that we will invest enormous amounts of money, time and resources to establish a court to prosecute the crime of aggression, and this court will have no power to prosecute the main responsible person. That’s why it’s so important to create it like the international court.
You asked about the place. The place is negotiable. I know that Netherlands already provided their interest in hosting such a special tribunal, and the governance will depend on the statute of the special tribunal. It’s also something which can be developed with countries that will contribute to the establishment of such a special tribunal.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much, and thank you for all of your work. It is our honour to be able to meet with you.
I’m curious as to which of the countries have already agreed to this special court and what kind of measures are being taken. What are the next steps that you see that we could be recommending, for instance, to our government?
Ms. Matviichuk: The modalities of the special tribunal are now discussed in a core group of 40 states. Unfortunately, among those 40 states, there is very little representation from countries of Africa or Latin America, for obvious reason. I hope that it will improve in the near future.
When we speak about the next step, let me tell you about the previous step. The previous step was establishing, last year, the International Centre in The Hague, which is responsible for investigation of the crime of aggression, and five countries delegated their prosecutors to work in this special centre. That means that when a special tribunal is established, there is no necessity to start the work from scratch. It has already existed in this international centre that conducts the investigation in line with international standards.
What will be the next step? It’s very easy to imagine that Russia will establish their own special tribunal. Russia can invite Venezuela, Syria, North Korea, Eritrea, Iran and turn the whole idea of justice into absurdity. That’s why we have to establish this special tribunal in the premises of an international organization, to prove its legitimacy. The priority is the UN, but it means that we have to get two-thirds majority of votes of members of the United Nations, which, unfortunately, for the current moment, is not possible. That’s why the Ukrainian government and Ukrainian civil society are trying to work on a parallel track to establish such a special tribunal on the premises of international regional organizations. I mean the Council of Europe, which can be a solution in this situation.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I believe you answered part of my question about the International Centre for the Prosecution of the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine, the ICPA. I’d like to know about the first phase, which started in 2023. Is it doing a good job? If not, what exactly would this special tribunal you’re talking about creating or would prefer to see contribute that would be completely different from the one that was created in 2023? Are you going to try to convince certain actors who are currently being influenced by Russian disinformation to get on board with this special tribunal?
[English]
Ms. Matviichuk: Thank you for your question.
I can’t comment on the effectiveness of the work of this international centre that was established in The Hague because they keep the secrecy of investigations, so we have no access to material. This is normal. We can evaluate the effectiveness when they open the case and finish their investigation, and in the future we will see whether or not they collect appropriate evidence to prove the crime of aggression in the international court.
As to the meaning of the special tribunal, let me allow myself to answer your question from this perspective. All this hell which we now face in Ukraine is the result of total impunity which Russia enjoyed for decades, committing horrible crimes in Chechnya, in Moldova, in Georgia, in Mali, in Libya, in Syria, in Afghanistan, in other countries of the world. Russia has never been punished. Russia believes they can do whatever they want. We must break this circle of impunity. What justice means and what impact justice has is sometimes not visible for people because they think that justice has an impact on the past because you punish perpetrators for something they have already done, or they can think that justice has an impact on the future because it delivers a clear message that if you commit the same thing, you will be prosecuted. But justice has an impact on the present. Justice can strategically change reality.
What do I mean? We are only starting appropriate legal procedures to create such a special tribunal. We will send a signal to Russia that this time they will probably not avoid responsibility. If just a part of Russians start to doubt, that means that it will have a cooling effect on the brutality of their actions. When we speak about large-scale war, this cooling effect results in a situation where we can save thousands and thousands and thousands of lives. This is the impact of justice on the present, which we sometimes don’t understand. That’s why it’s so important to create the special tribunal now and not to wait until whenever and however the war will end.
The Chair: Senator Omidvar has already said this. The Parliament of Canada has stood very strongly by the side of Ukraine, and as we find sometimes when other conflicts come to the forefront, other countries where there’s conflict, they are moved to the back pages. We in the Senate and I know the MPs also in the House of Commons have consistently talked about the situation in Ukraine. I want you to know that the senators stand in support with you, and that’s why we were so delighted to welcome you to our committee today.
You talk about disinformation and how that is used. How does one counter the disinformation? We are talking about Russia. It’s such a huge country with so many resources, and we saw that consistently. As someone who is very familiar with the conflict in Afghanistan and what went on over there, the people of Afghanistan are still dealing with what the Russians left behind in terms of cluster munitions. One third of the children killed in Afghanistan are still killed by that, and that’s a fear that I have for Ukraine. We have to counter their disinformation. We also have to see what they are leaving behind, because I think there is going to be a long road of recovery for Ukraine.
Ms. Matviichuk: Disinformation is a huge problem, not only because it raises hate, which is a fuel for any war on the planet, but because it is a driving impact to encourage some concrete types of international crimes. Let me provide an example.
Putin openly says that there is no Ukrainian nation, there is no Ukrainian language, there is no Ukrainian culture, that we are the same people as Russians, and then on official Russian TV channels, in the media, these words are interpreted in the way that Ukrainians have to be either re-educated as Russians or killed. For 10 years, we have been documenting how these words converted into horrible practices when Russian troops deliberately exterminated active people on the ground — mayors, priests, journalists, musicians, entrepreneurs, any people active in the community — how they deliberately destroy Ukrainian cultural heritage, how they ban Ukrainian language and culture.
When I speak about forcible deportation of Ukrainian children, it’s not just war crimes; it’s an element of this genocidal policy because, as I already mentioned, these children are brought up as Russians. I know genocide is a crime of crimes. It’s very difficult to prove it, but there is no necessity to be a lawyer to understand that if you want, partially or totally, to destroy a national group, there is no necessity to kill all the people. You can forcibly change their identity, and their entire national group will disappear.
Disinformation campaigns and this work of Russian propagandists has to be prosecuted at the level of the international court. This week, we, with our partners, the largest human rights network called International Federation for Human Rights, will present our submission to the International Criminal Court. We have analyzed hours and hours of video of Russian propagandists, and we will present to the International Criminal Court these claims to genocide and these words that open a path to the most horrible atrocities that we are now documenting.
The Chair: Thank you.
In the immediate term, what can we do, as a Human Rights Committee? What would be your ask of us? What can we do?
Ms. Matviichuk: You can do a lot.
Let me refer to the words of Russian human rights defender and journalist Vladimir Kara-Murza. He recently published, from jail, an article about the sham election in Russia. He ended this article with a powerful sentence. He said that sometimes the most powerful thing is just to say the truth.
You can make a political statement. You can call things what they are. In this informational part of the war, when faced with Russian propaganda, it’s important to say the truth.
I’m not a person who can provide you the priorities. You know better. But you can introduce legislation, and you can also make an impact on the Canadian government, advise them what they can do as a leader of this International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and even in a broader scope, in order to achieve justice.
I don’t know what I can concretely propose to you other than what I mentioned in my testimony. But let’s be honest: We need your assistance. Please do assist. This will be my request. We’re faced with something that can’t be solved within national borders. We really need your support.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senators, any other questions?
On behalf of the committee, I want to sincerely thank you for appearing before us at such short notice. As you embark on your speaking tour, we wish you well. I know that the Senate of Canada has not forgotten about Ukraine, and we’ll never forget about the struggles of the Ukrainian people. I thank you for being here before us and for advocating for the rights of the Ukrainian people.
(The committee adjourned.)