---

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

EVIDENCE

---

OTTAWA, Monday, April 15, 2024

The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights met with videoconference this day at 5:02 p.m. [ET] to examine such issues as may arise from time to time relating to human rights generally; and, in camera, the Government Response to the Fourth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights entitled “Human Rights of Federally-Sentenced Persons”, tabled in the Senate on June 16, 2021, during the Second Session of the Forty-third Parliament.

Sébastien Payet, Clerk of the Committee: Honourable senators, as clerk of your committee, it is my duty to inform you of the unavoidable absence of the chair and deputy chair and to preside over the election of an acting chair. I am ready to receive a motion to that effect.

Senator Omidvar: I nominate Senator Pate to chair this meeting.

Mr. Payet: It is moved by the Honourable Senator Omidvar that the Honourable Senator Pate take the chair of this committee. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Mr. Payet: Agreed. I declare the motion carried. I invite Senator Pate sorry to take the chair.

Senator Kim Pate (Acting Chair) in the chair.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you, Senator Omidvar.

Good afternoon. I’m Kim Pate, a senator from here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe. It’s my privilege to chair this public hearing this afternoon.

Today we are conducting a public hearing of the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. I would like to begin by acknowledging the land on which we gather is the traditional ancestral and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation. I will now invite my honourable colleagues to introduce themselves.

Senator Omidvar: Ratna Omidvar, senator from Ontario.

Senator Simons: Paula Simons, senator from Alberta, Treaty 6 territory.

Senator Arnot: David Arnot from Saskatchewan. I live in Treaty 6 territory.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.

[English]

Senator Cordy: I am Jane Cordy, senator from Nova Scotia.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, and welcome, senators, and welcome to all of 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 two panels. In each panel, we shall hear from witnesses, who have been asked to make a five-minute presentation, and then the senators around this table will have a question-and-answer session.

I will now introduce our first panel. I wish to welcome our first witness via videoconference, Irena Vojácková-Sollorano, Deputy Director General for Management and Reform ad interim, International Organization for Migration. Please make your presentation.

Irena Vojácková-Sollorano, Deputy Director General for Management and Reform ad interim, International Organization for Migration: Thank you very much for inviting IOM to this honourable panel. It is a pleasure to give you an overview about IOM’s work and also IOM’s experience in the area of displacement and human rights.

I will begin my intervention by outlining the relationship between forced displacement and human rights violations. IOM sees the gravest violations of human rights as a feature of displacement but also a driver of displacement and a reason for its prolonged continuation. For example, systemic gender-based violence can be a catalyzing factor for displacement, especially when it is perpetrated with this purpose, which unfortunately happens relatively often.

Human rights violations are also a core driver of recruitment into violent extremism organizations. Survivors and witnesses of human rights violations suffer from economic and social harm, impacting their resilience, quality of life, livelihood prospects and trust in their communities and institutions.

Human rights violations are also central features of the insecurity that can impede durable solutions for the displaced. They lead to a loss of trust in the state, erode social cohesion and impact efforts to stabilize communities. The lack of secure living conditions and weak or unstable community structures can also elevate the risk of opportunistic gender-based violence.

As part of its efforts to identify solutions to displacement, IOM continues to prioritize work on protection and the reporting of human rights violations. Integrated into IOM’s specialized work on protection, IOM has developed unique approaches on human rights, due diligence and responses to grave violations that support IOM staff in addressing human rights violations through a continuum approach. We welcome the opportunity to share details of this work.

We have been asked to give examples from a few countries. I will start with Gaza. Since the attacks on October 7, we have had grave violations in Gaza. We have had more than 30,000 people killed, including 13,000 children and 220 humanitarian workers. This situation is a grave violation not only of human rights but of many other international legal instruments. IOM’s work is focusing on supporting UNRWA, as IOM does not have a presence in Israel or in the Palestinian territories. We are purely focusing on supporting UNRWA. We have several staff seconded to UNRWA and supporting them. On this, we are ready to support all kinds of sectors, depending on the need that arises and as access is possible.

The next example is our work in South Sudan, where we have a very strong presence. The situation in South Sudan, with 2 million IDPs, 2.3 million returnees and 9 million people in need of assistance, is a great challenge for the whole humanitarian community. IOM has reached 2.1 million people with assistance, and we continue to do so. We also support the neighbouring communities, especially in Sudan. Specifically with Canadian assistance, we were able to provide support to 2,500 returnees from Sudan to South Sudan, and we continue to provide this assistance.

The next example is Bangladesh, specifically Cox’s Bazar, where the Global Aid Network Canada is currently funding a multisector project focusing on improving infrastructures to improve access to services. We are doing capacity building there to NGOs and skills development, especially to vulnerable Rohingya refugees who might then use these skills to have opportunities to be resettled or to use any other migration pathways.

The last example is Venezuela. That means it is Venezuelan nationals. About 7.7 million Venezuelan migrants and refugees are outside of Venezuela, mostly in Latin America. Cross-border displacement and mixed movements from Venezuela continue, with limited spontaneous returns. Canada is a key player in the regional response to Venezuelans and has provided generous funding for IOM and other humanitarian organizations. The funding of $12.5 million is for projects focused on humanitarian assistance and protection.

With this, I would like to finalize my presentation, which should have been just three minutes. I don’t want to stretch it much over, but I can elaborate on the examples that I have brought forward. Thank you so much.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano, for your presentation.

Before asking and answering questions, I would like to ask committee members and witnesses and everybody in the room for the duration of this meeting to please refrain from leaning in too close to the microphone or to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact the committee staff in the room.

We’ll now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you have five minutes for your question, including the answer.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Madam Vojácková-Sollorano.

I want to ask about the situation in Sudan. It wasn’t that many years ago that South Sudan was the source of many refugees who were coming to my part of Canada. I’m curious to know this: Are things sufficiently stable in South Sudan so that they are able to handle an influx of refugees from Sudan, or are some of these refugees who are coming people who had been from South Sudan who are now returning?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Unfortunately, the situation in South Sudan has not improved much. As a result of the extremely violent situation in Sudan, we have former South Sudanese who went for work to Sudan and are now returning to South Sudan. It is challenging because we have people who have lived in Sudan for up to 10 years, and now they are returning to South Sudan where they have no livelihoods, nothing. It is a difficult situation because people are trying to get across the border, and they are all gathering in small towns where there is no capacity for further transportation. They are just fleeing the violence in Sudan.

Senator Simons: What percentage of the refugees leaving Sudan for South Sudan are South Sudanese either by birth or by descent versus people from the north who are also fleeing violence?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Most of the people returning to South Sudan are South Sudanese.

Senator Simons: Okay. I would assume in some ways that may make it easier in the sense that they may still have family or connections or even property?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: It’s an evolving situation. The impasse is the transport, the logistics, so that they can get back to the communities where they came from. However, we don’t know how far they will be able to be integrated because the situation is also very dire. We now have an impasse with them all at the border in Al-Rank town, and we have challenges there to transport them further onwards.

Senator Simons: Are people also going to places like Chad, Egypt and Tunisia as well?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes.

Senator Simons: Thank you very much for the work that you and your organization do.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you, Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano.

First, I am proud to comment that Canada was a founding member of the IOM in 1951. I’ve looked at your reports. Congratulations to you for helping us reach our national aspirations on the resettlement of the Syrian refugees and the Afghan refugees. We could not have done it without you.

The IOM is all about safe and orderly migration, but migration, as you know and as we know, is no longer safe, nor is it orderly. To some extent, it is not just countries that are in conflict, like Sudan or other places. It is the behaviour of receiving countries. For example, Türkiye is being paid by the EU to stop the mobility of refugees from Türkiye into other parts of Europe. Italy is planning to outsource processing to Albania. The U.K. is trying to do the same with Rwanda. Pakistan is deporting refugees, including those whom we have accepted to come to Canada but, because of paperwork, I imagine, they are actually being deported back to Afghanistan.

How should we understand this new context? What role can the IOM play in returning the first principles of migration: safe, orderly, sensitive to children and gender and all those other noble principles that we put out?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Thank you very much, first, for acknowledging the strong historical relationship between IOM and Canada and the principles of safe and orderly migration. From the onset, whenever we became engaged, this was the principle for IOM, and it continues to be so, namely, to promote safe and orderly migration.

Canada understands the concept of migration — unfortunately, few countries around the world do — and has a migration policy. We have always promoted the concept of each state having a migration policy, even if the migration is not large, so that if the situation changes, one has instruments to deal with it. European countries were not keen on doing that; unfortunately, we now see the results. It is not only Europe. It is most countries around the world. They do not have a migration policy.

Now, because of the big challenges everywhere, we see that governments are starting to communicate with us about migration policies. How can we address the impasse that is happening, even people leaving or people arriving? We are discussing with many African countries, with some Asian countries, where people are leaving. We say that they need to address this. This is what I elaborated at the beginning. It’s human rights violations that drive people away.

All of this is a complex matter. It is not just having border management. So far, many countries have reduced their migration management to border management. It is much more complex. Unfortunately, we had to wait until all these disasters happened until the governments started to seriously discuss migration management.

We are very grateful to Canada being one of the examples that we are always quoting as realistically looking at migration and providing several legal migration pathways. It is not only one. It is not only resettlement and not only labour migration. There are many other instruments that Canada continues to elaborate on. This is what we are now encouraging many countries that are interested in migration policy to work on.

Operationally, we are very much bound by our principles that we are not involved in any forced movements of people, but we are assisting people who are in distress. We assist migrants who might have been deported but then are in dire situations. On site, we might assist them. We are also continuously, in cooperation with the UNHCR, discussing with the governments, before deportations happen or any of these displacements, so that this is being consulted on. Each case has to be looked at, and it cannot be just a group dismissal of migrants.

I hope that this answers your question, but I would gladly elaborate.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you. I’ll wait for a second round. I have a lot of questions for you, ma’am.

Senator Arnot: Thank you for coming today to the committee.

You have played a number of key roles in international organizations focused on migration and humanitarian efforts. Can you tell us how the IOM balances immediate humanitarian needs with long-term migration management strategies in your operations? More particularly, I would like to know how you balance the need for immediacy with the order that the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration aspires to achieve.

If you have time, I would like you to give us advice as to what you think this committee should be calling upon the Government of Canada to take some immediate action on. What priorities would you set, if you could? Thank you.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Thank you very much. That is a very complex question that will be difficult to respond to in a brief way. We are what is called in the UN the nexus between humanitarian and development. This is what we are also applying in migration.

I can give you an example of our humanitarian assistance. If we provide humanitarian assistance to stranded migrants in Libya, this is immediate assistance to save their lives. Then we offer them voluntary return to their home. Some of them take this offer. Then we assist them in their home country and home community, while at the same time working with the home countries and governments to address the situation of why people are leaving or why smugglers can so easily lure people into these situations. We are connecting the humanitarian to the cause of how people got into this situation. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible. Governments are not always ready to discuss with us, but we always aim at going to the source of displacement.

With regard to what the Canadian government could do, I think it should support this nexus, these activities that connect immediately after humanitarian assistance to stabilize communities. This is important. On one hand, there is stabilizing communities, but then also providing assistance to governments to actually manage migration.

For example, we are also having discussions with Senegal. Senegal, with the new government, is now in a very positive situation there with a government that wants to do things differently, and that is looking at why so many Senegalese are leaving and how they can deal with it. This is where we are advising as to how to address the situation, how to identify the communities where people are leaving from and how to address this, but also what kind of legal instruments to have and to create legal pathways to give people opportunities to migrate. They don’t have to migrate forever. They can create these migration relationships.

Senator Arnot: Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you, director general, for attending today.

When I was the envoy to the whole of the Sudan, I had a lot of experience working with the IOM. Of course, your work is exceptional, but I’m disappointed that the IOM is not working in the Sudan now. Can you explain why not? The situation of Sudan is, I think, in many ways worse than South Sudan.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes. Thank you for this question.

It is really unfortunate, but it has a lot to do with funding. It is not an IOM decision; it is the funding situation. We have many crises around the world which are not being looked at by donors and where we know that assistance is needed. However, our fundraising efforts have not been as successful as they should be, and Sudan is one of these cases, unfortunately.

Senator Jaffer: Just to understand this better, what you are saying is that the donor countries are not funding Sudan as they used to before. Is that correct?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes.

Senator Jaffer: I want to also speak to you about the expansion of the Safe Third Country Agreement affecting migrants coming to Canada and being returned. Does the IOM get involved in that at all?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Could you elaborate on this so that I understand what the Third Safe Country Agreement is?

Senator Jaffer: A short way to explain it is, for example, if somebody comes from the States to Canada, somebody who is an immigrant in the States and then immigrates to Canada, they are sent back to back to the U.S. — much to my disappointment, but that’s a different question — because the U.S. is seen as a safe country. Is the IOM dealing with that situation? Not with the U.S. but just generally.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: No. These are bilateral arrangements between countries, and especially the U.S. and Canada have never asked us also to be involved.

Senator Jaffer: I want to ask you a question about Uganda. I’m from Uganda; I am Ugandan born. Uganda is responding to a massive influx of refugees, one of the fastest growing in the world. The country hosts the most refugees of any African nation — 1.2 million — and is the third-largest refugee hosting nation in the world. There are now one million South Sudan refugees in Uganda. The vast majority of them are women and children. Given the influx of so many refugees into Uganda, does IOM help Uganda resettle them elsewhere?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: IOM is very active in Uganda. When it comes to resettlement, we are always offering as long as there are resettlement countries. The moment resettlement countries are ready to take refugees, we are there to assist them in Uganda as well, yes.

Senator Jaffer: When you say you’re ready to assist — I’m curious — do you have any programs just for women and children to be settled in countries? Just women and children?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: No. Not just for women. Resettlement depends on the resettlement countries. We can promote it, but it depends on the resettlement countries. So far, we don’t have any countries that are taking just women and children.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: I’d also like to congratulate IOM for the work it does, Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano.

On Wednesday, after nine months of negotiations, the European Parliament passed the Pact on Migration and Asylum. Many people have weighed in on the document, the first of its kind across the European Union.

How do you view the pact? Does it provide an effective response to the migration issues the European Union is currently experiencing? How should Canada draw inspiration from it or, conversely, distance itself from it?

[English]

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Europe has passed something that, on one hand, was long overdue. I elaborated on it at the beginning. Europe was, for a long time, resistant to have any European concept of a migration policy. It is unfortunate that it had to come to this humanitarian tragedy at European borders for Europe to come together and creates a compact. The compact has many elements which, on one hand, are very practical and, on the other hand, are very general. We are still analyzing what this will mean because each European country also has a very different situation. This compact will mean something different for each country.

I don’t think that Canada has to go in this direction because Canada already has a migration policy and already has principles in place. It just needs to adjust to the situation as the migration situation is evolving.

This is a very Europe-specific situation. We think the debate should have happened 20 years ago, and then we wouldn’t have needed such radical statements as we have now because many things could have been prevented, and also the population would have been ready to understand what is happening. Now we have the document. We will now analyze and see how each EU member state will apply it, because we consider that each EU member state will have their own way to interpret it.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you for your answer. Earlier you mentioned what could be done or what you do to help migrants return to their own countries. You talked about ways to help them return. Could you give us more details about strategies that could help limit or better structure migrations before the migrants have left home?

[English]

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: You would like me to elaborate on our concept of voluntary return or voluntary-assisted return?

Senator Gerba: Yes, exactly.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: This is a concept that we have developed since the 1980s when we saw that, all over the world, migrants were stranded in situations with no way out. We would counsel them and tell them, “These are the opportunities that you have. These are the possibilities that you have. One of them is to return home if it is safe.” Naturally, we will not encourage people to return to a country where we know that they will not be safe. We show them the opportunities that are there because many migrants are stuck in between legal systems, in between countries where they cannot stay. The longer they stay in these situations, the worse their own situation and the situation of their family becomes. Voluntary return is one of the options, but only if it is safe.

We also insist that we don’t do just the voluntary return but that we do assisted voluntary return. That means that, upon return, we assist the returnees and their families and their communities, depending on the situation. This is a service that we offer all over the world.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for all the work you do and that IOM does around the world. I’m sure there are times that you feel like you’re putting your hand in the bucket of water and you take it out and look. So, thank you so much.

I am a substitute today on this committee, but I served on the Human Rights Committee. Sometimes you hear witness testimony that you remember forever. For me, it will be the testimony of Bob Rae, who is now our ambassador to the UN. At the time, he was the special envoy for Canada for the Rohingya people. He talked about what was happening in Myanmar. He talked about speaking to people one on one. He went over there on several occasions, but one time he spoke to somebody and said, “When I go back to Canada, what do you want me to tell Canadians?” The man said to him, “Please, tell them that we are human.”

We’re looking at millions and millions of people around the world who are displaced and people who are migrants. Sometimes, when numbers are that huge, it’s hard to put a face on it. How do we put a face on all of these migrants?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: It’s also a question of how we look at these situations. If we say two million migrants are stranded somewhere, that means two million individuals have a family and community. Each of them set out with a dream, and somebody sold them a solution to their dream, which was wrong. Everybody comes with a very different story.

When you are elaborating on Myanmar and the Rohingyas, when the displacement of the Rohingya especially to Bangladesh started in the early 2000s, it was actually the current Secretary General, who was at the time the head of UNHCR, António Guterres, who at that time was asking governments to please help resettle these people because they cannot return home and they cannot stay in Bangladesh. Nobody listened because it was a community that was not known, there was little knowledge about it and no resettlement country was ready to take them. This is just one group that we are talking about. We have these groups — so many of them — all over the world.

Helping through resettlement is one thing, but it is putting pressure from the beginning on governments that do this to their own people and not letting it escalate until it is basically impossible to communicate with governments, as we have now in Myanmar.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for that.

You spoke about the new migration — I think that was the terminology you used — and you did say that Canada has principles in place for migration and for migrants. Are the principles that are in place, not just in Canada but in many other countries, actually working for new migration? What changes do we have to make to help these people?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Maybe I said “new migration,” but I thought maybe “new migration flows” that are there.

Senator Cordy: Okay.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Migration is still the same. People leave because they go after a dream or they flee because they have to leave their country for different reasons. The majority of migrants actually migrate in a regular way and they know what they are doing. The ones who are really displaced and are being abused by smugglers and traffickers are the ones that need our assistance, and they need our assistance, ideally, before they leave home. Identifying communities where the smugglers go, where they are recruiting people, where the traffickers are catching the dreams of people and telling them to sell everything and to go — this is where we have to address it. Make sure that the humanitarian assistance is on the way, but we need to have preventive strategies in place. Therefore, the analysis of these flows is very important. It is not just helping the individuals but understanding where they come from, how they came to be in this situation and to address it at the source. This is important.

When it comes to Canada, Canada has always been rather innovative in looking at different ways of supporting immigration for different groups. I’m aware that now there are also debates on how to expand the pathways. We would very much like to contribute to this discussion or assist with the knowledge that we have, because maybe you think there are many other countries, but there are very few countries who have this understanding of migration. One has to continuously analyze it, look for new ways and adjust it to new situations. Canada is one of if not the most innovative country in this sense. Thank you for doing that, and please continue.

Senator Cordy: Thank you for that. Thank you very much also for your work.

The Acting Chair: Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano, I also have two questions before we go to round two, with the indulgence of the committee.

One is picking up on some issues you raised, but also following up on Senator Cordy. First, what is the impact of the IOM’s work in terms of gender-based violence in Cox’s Bazar? Also, to what extent do you think women and girls avoid camps or other sites where they might receive international assistance due to the fear of gender-based violence? When I was in Syria last summer, I heard this very issue, and you have mentioned it. If you could elaborate on both of those two points, that would be great. Thank you.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes. Unfortunately, this is happening even in not-closed societies. Of course, as closed a society is, as closed a community is, the more we see gender-based violence. This is, unfortunately, somehow always the case.

Cox’s Bazar is a community where the people have nowhere else to go. They don’t have the option to go somewhere else. We are there, as are many other agencies, with awareness programs and instruments to minimize the opportunity for gender-based violence, let’s put it that way. We have many instruments there. It is not only training, not only for women, but also for men and for the whole community, to create more community understanding so that the community protects each other. There are many elements to what we do. However, completely eradicating it is still a dream.

I don’t know which camps in Syria you were in, but if you are referring to the ones in northeastern Syria, that’s a very different situation. Basically, none of the UN agencies or NGOs have proper access there. We know that horrible things are happening there. We are very much aware, but we have no way to have any influence on the situation there. I have served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary General in Iraq for two years, and we have received Iraqis who were returning from these camps, and the stories were really horrible, but we have no way to have any influence on these camps, unfortunately.

The Acting Chair: In other countries, do you have any idea of how many women are not going into the camps because of these fears?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: It always depends on the situation, because most camps are in areas where there is nothing else around so they don’t have an opportunity to go somewhere else. Where they have opportunity, there is no preference to be in a camp. It’s very rare that there is a preference to be in a camp. For most, if there are opportunities, especially women, they go out of the camp. If it is legally possible and if it’s viable, we definitely support that, because camp situations are the last situations that we want people to be in.

The Acting Chair: Thank you.

We will now go to second round, four minutes each.

Senator Omidvar: I would like a quick reflection from you, if you can, quickly — you have a reflection; I don’t know if it can be quick.

In comparing the situation of the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh to the situation of the Venezuelan refugees in different parts of Colombia and Venezuela, in Colombia and Ecuador, we have regional partners that have come together. They have reached an agreement called the Quito agreement, and they are working towards normalizing some of these conditions so that Venezuelans are able to work and send their children to school. Then you have the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Frankly, the world seems to have abandoned them, and there’s nowhere for them to go but into the sea. I shudder to think about that. Do you believe that regional arrangements of the kind that Colombia and Ecuador have created are a pathway to the future? If so, what role does Canada have in encouraging these regional arrangements? We are looking for recommendations to Canada.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: The Rohingya situation is very different. First, in their own country, the Rohingya were already a minority that was, to put it mildly, not treated equally. The level of literacy in the Rohingya community is very high. The community is very close. I am aware that ASEAN would be the regional solution, but even within the ASEAN states, they cannot even have a discussion about it. It is very different.

We always look at regional solutions because that’s the best. Bringing people to the other side of the globe is the last resort. While the regional solution is always the best, under the current circumstances at this point in time, I cannot imagine that this situation will change in the region.

Naturally, Bangladesh has many of their own challenges not only absorbing the Rohingya but also it is culturally and religiously challenging. It’s very challenging. Many of the Rohingya have been going to both Malaysia and Indonesia. At the beginning, Indonesia was quietly absorbing them, but now there are too many. There are now protests in Indonesia against the Rohingya because there are too many.

The governments cannot come to any solution, or they haven’t had any discussions at this point in time. They are not ready to discuss how to address it. It’s a situation where we just don’t see anybody contributing to a solution. As you were saying, it’s a forgotten community. We did not forget them, but the world is moving on. Unfortunately, that is very tragic.

Senator Omidvar: Thank you very much for that comment. It highlights the isolation of the Rohingya refugees.

This work that we are doing will result in a series of recommendations to the Government of Canada. My time is up, but I have heard you say that Canada should be proactive and not reactive and that Canada should continue to innovate with multiple pathways. If you can think of other recommendations that Canada should own, please do send them to us. Thank you.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you for your patience in answering our questions.

I was very much interested — let me know if I didn’t get it correctly — when you said that there aren’t many pathways for women with children to come out of refugee camps. Is that correct? Is that what I understood you to say?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: No. I meant that most refugee camps or camps, also for IDPs, are in isolated areas. To go out is even more dangerous than to stay there. However, if they are closer to communities and they have an opportunity to live outside of the camp, this is always much better and preferred. We also support that as long as legally it is viable.

Senator Jaffer: I didn’t mean that, but my question wasn’t correct. I meant that it’s hard for them to emigrate, say, to come to Canada, from the camps. I ask you that because when I was practising lawyer, we convinced the Chrétien government to have a special program to bring women and children from camps into communities. I should know this, but is that program still operating? From the way you are talking, I don’t think it is.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: You mean into communities in the neighbouring communities?

Senator Jaffer: No, say from Sudan. Even when I was the envoy, we brought women and children from camps into Canada on their own.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Oh, to Canada, yes.

Senator Jaffer: Do those programs still exist?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: I am not aware specifically of them, but I know that, for humanitarian reasons, there are always opportunities for individual cases to be brought to Canada and that Canada is much more generous in this than other countries. If we see women who are in a specific situation and Canada is open to receiving them, especially single mothers with children, then yes.

Senator Jaffer: As you know, we are looking at this situation. If you were helping us with a recommendation, what would the recommendation be on how we can help more women and children? You may not be able to tell us now, but can you send that to the clerk? That would really help us. You are on the ground, and it would really help us to recommend to our government how we can bring more women and children in need into this country.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: It is natural, for humanitarian reasons, to have the possibility to be resettled in Canada. Many women have received help from Canada in this way, and it has saved their lives.

There is another way, which is to support projects where we work with the men in the communities. On one hand, we have to protect women, but we have to start at the source of this. We need to work with the men in these communities to make them protect the community, and women represent 50% of their community. That is where assistance is definitely needed, yes.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: I’d like to hear your thoughts on the violence being perpetrated against women in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where 6.9 million people have been displaced. Given that IOM operates in several provinces there, I’d like to know if you have any recommendations to make or anything to tell us about these women. They are in vulnerable situations, they face violence and their children are also internally displaced. Why does the international community seem to have forgotten about this place when IOM is very active there?

[English]

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Thank you for raising the Congo situation. This is the country where we have the highest number of reported and statistically proven cases of violence against women. It has been going on for many decades in the Congo. IOM is present there. Where we have access to communities, we are doing whatever we can on prevention and also on direct assistance. To be honest, it is very difficult. It is extremely difficult in the Congo because of the overall societal situation there.

Our assistance is also very much limited by the funding that we receive. The IOM being a project-based organization, we have very limited resources of our own. Everything we do, direct assistance, is always based on project funding. It depends on how much funding we receive as to how much assistance we can provide.

The areas where we are in the Congo, this is where we traditionally were. We are committed to staying there. We hope that we will be able to stay, because the situation is, unfortunately, getting very tense in the Congo. We fear that the situation will get worse. But we are committed to staying where we are with the communities and to continue to assist.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: If you had a recommendation to make to the Canadian government about this part of the world, a country where the situation is among the most dire for women, what would it be?

[English]

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: On one hand, we have to be realistic. What is it that we as an international community can do? One thing is to be able to stay and continue doing what we are doing at this point in time. This is already a success. Because of the tense situation there, it is already a success to be there. The community sees that we are there. As long as we are there, they feel more protected.

The political situation is something very different, and there, we don’t have much influence. As you know, the Blue Helmets have been sent home, and this has now opened the playing field for violence from many angles. I don’t want to elaborate on the neighbouring countries, but we fear that things will get worse.

What is important is to support us so that we can stay and deliver where we are. In the Congo, this will be a success if we can do that and if Canada openly supported us in this.

Senator Simons: I wanted to return to Venezuela, if I could. The UNHCR indicates there are about 300,000 officially recognized refugees from Venezuela, but, of course, there are millions more people who are migrants. Yes, we would say economic migrants, but I don’t want to minimize the economic chaos that they are leaving behind.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes.

Senator Simons: I’m wondering what the challenges are when you have such a large population of displaced people who have self-selected to leave because of the economic crisis in their country, who may at some point wish to return to Venezuela, but, in the meantime, are swamping the countries around them in Latin America and the Caribbean. What are the challenges of dealing with what is a truly migrant community as opposed to convention refugees?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes. Based on our account, there are 7.7 million Venezuelans displaced in the region outside of Venezuela.

Senator Simons: The UNHCR says only 300,000 or so are refugees.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: These are refugees. These are people who have been recognized as refugees, but we have 7.7 million displaced Venezuelans in the Latin American region. This is a lot of people.

You were saying people might wish to go home. The moment the situation is better at home, all of them will go home. The refugees will be the first ones, because refugees have always the dream to go back home. The moment it is possible, they want to go home.

This situation is where we need to help to stabilize the communities where they are. For them, it’s also preferable to stay in the region and not migrate further. They migrate further only if the region does not absorb them sufficiently. The goal should be to help the countries in the region to actually stabilize the communities. It will be much better for the region and for the migrants than migrating further, unless we have extreme cases of humanitarian assistance where it is needed where people cannot survive because of their specific situation. The majority of people are able young people, young families that are ready to work, that are ready to settle and to stay where they are once they get the opportunity. Supporting the countries in the region to stabilize these communities and to give them opportunities to stay will definitely be the preferred option. Also, I know that Canada is supporting that. This would be the priority.

Naturally, we will still have thousands of people who will look for other ways, but when we look at 7.7 million people, if we achieve 80% of them staying within the region and able to find livelihoods there in one way or another, that would definitely be preferred. Returning home, once the situation allows, will be much easier.

Senator Simons: It would be in the selfish interests of the United States and Canada to do a better job of helping those other countries to integrate.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes, definitely.

Senator Simons: There is a finite number of people from Burma, Congo or Sudan who are going to come to the United States, but to get from Venezuela to the United States is much simpler, and to avoid that kind of mass migration north, it is in blatant self-interest to keep people safe where they are.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Yes.

The Acting Chair: In February 2024, the United Nations Security Council heard that famine is almost inevitable in Gaza — we’re seeing that play out — unless aid is scaled up and that at least 576,000 people face catastrophic levels of deprivation and starvation. Could you please talk about the extent to which this humanitarian crisis disproportionately affects women and girls and what steps you think the Government of Canada could take to prevent this situation from worsening?

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: It definitely disproportionately affects women, girls and children. We know that more than one third of the people who died in the past months were children.

There is always fear to call it a famine, but once famine starts, it’s difficult to stop it because it’s a physical process that happens. Even when people get food, they cannot absorb the food anymore. The WHO has made several reports about that.

With regard to what Canada can do, I know that Canada has a way for family reunification and a type of resettlement. I think this is something that would already help in this situation. This would be the most feasible thing to do, to unify family and extended family, if this were possible, to negotiate that they can exit Gaza and that they can join their relatives in Canada.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Basically, we are awaiting what the humanitarian community will be allowed to do. As we stand today, that is the only thing that we can advise. Yes.

The Acting Chair: Thank you very much, and thank you, Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano, for your presentation. I want to especially thank you because it’s a very late hour for you overseas, and we very much appreciate that you stayed and participated into your night. We appreciate your input.

Ms. Vojácková-Sollorano: Thank you. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you.

I will now introduce our second panel. Each of the witnesses have been asked to make an opening statement of five minutes. We shall hear from the witnesses and then turn to questions from senators.

Via videoconference, please welcome Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Director, Women’s Rights, Human Rights and Refugees Program, Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. Welcome, Ms. Norman. With us at the table today, please welcome Dr. Jason Nickerson, Humanitarian Representative to Canada, Doctors Without Borders. Welcome, Dr. Nickerson. I now invite Dr. Norman to make her presentation, to be followed by Dr. Nickerson.

Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Director, Women’s Rights, Human Rights and Refugees Program, Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, as an individual: Thank you so much. I’m very honoured to be given the opportunity to present my testimony today.

My geographic area of focus more than 14 years of research, teaching and public engagement has been the Middle East and North Africa, so that is where I will be focusing my remarks.

More than a decade after the 2011 Arab uprisings, the Middle East and North Africa continues to face unprecedented levels of displacement. In the minutes I have, I’ll talk briefly about four aspects of this.

First, the war in Syria has been the biggest driver of human-caused displacement in the Middle East over the last decade. The presence of Syrian refugees is almost a forgotten situation, but there are more than 6 million Syrians who do not feel they can return home, and the situation in host countries remains precarious. Türkiye continues to host more than 3 million Syrians, and the 2023 earthquake and the presidential election re-aggravated tensions between citizens and refugees. Lebanon continues to host one refugee for every four citizens, and refugees and poorer host communities are disproportionately impacted by the worsening economic situation. There has also been a pronounced rise in xenophobia toward Syrians in Lebanon over the last several weeks, increasing fears of violence. While not facing the same economic crisis as Lebanon, 80 percent of Syrians in Jordan live in poverty. In terms of recommendations, Canada should encourage these host countries not to forcibly return Syrian refugees, as doing so could restart cycles of violence and repression, ultimately making the possibility of future conflict more likely.

Second, I’ll talk about Sudan. The ongoing civil war in Sudan has displaced more than 8 million individuals over the last year. Today is actually the anniversary of the beginning of that civil war. Roughly 1.8 million people have sought protection across international borders, and of those, more than 450,000 have crossed into Egypt. Egypt’s recent currency depreciation, coupled with record inflation, means that these arrivals face a challenging economic environment as well as a securitized political climate. Those who have been lucky enough to cross to Egypt have had to focus on making a temporary life there, with little access to assistance and difficulty securing housing. Yet, rather than supporting the NGOs and grassroots efforts attempting to help these newcomers, financial aid — especially from Europe — has gone toward securing borders, thereby further entrapping refugees in Egypt.

Third, I’ll briefly discuss Gaza. The scale of internal displacement in Gaza is unprecedented, with 80% of the strip’s residents, 1.9 million people, forced to leave their homes. The situation is also unique in that Gaza residents have, quite literally, nowhere to go. The vast majority of the strip’s two million inhabitants were first forced to flee into its southern half, primarily to Khan Younis, before being forced to flee again to Rafah Governorate, which is now hosting more than half the strip’s population. The city of Rafah, which is on the Egyptian border, was home to only 280,000 residents prior to the war, and its current overcrowding has led to a severe shortage of shelter, food, water, and sanitation facilities. The UN and aid organizations have described the provision of assistance to internally displaced persons, or IDPs, in Gaza as “impossible.” When even those fleeing to areas deemed safe by Israel are killed and as the death toll has climbed above 30,000 individuals in just six months, one can understand why Palestinians feel they have run out of options.

Finally, I’ll address growing concerns about the impact of climate change, which is compounding pre-existing displacement challenges. For example, Iraq has one million IDPs who will be impacted by rising temperatures and drought. More than 90% of Iraq’s population is dependent on the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers, which are at historically low levels. In Yemen, there are more than four million IDPs, in addition to one million refugees and asylum seekers from the Horn of Africa. Climate change was a dire issue in Yemen prior to the civil war, but the weaponization of water over eight years of fighting has exacerbated the acute famine in Yemen and prolonged conflict. Women and girls have been especially affected, as they are usually responsible for gathering water, leading them to undertake unsafe journeys into conflict-impacted areas, with greater exposure to land mines.

To address these many issues, wealthy countries like Canada should focus on increasing opportunities for mobility, whether through humanitarian visas, private refugee sponsorships, educational opportunities or work permits for those forced to leave their countries. Canada should also ensure that these individuals have access to permanent residency and an opportunity to rebuild their lives and contribute to their new home.

Furthermore, Canada should focus its aid efforts on supporting organizations that assist asylum seekers and refugees with local integration and mitigating the impact of climate change. Canada should take strong steps to ensure that its assistance does not go toward enhancing border security, thereby empowering repressive actors in recipient countries.

I’ll stop there, and I am happy to answer questions on these topics. Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you, Dr. Norman.

Jason Nickerson, Humanitarian Representative to Canada, Doctors Without Borders: Good evening, senators, and thank you for having me here.

As a medical humanitarian organization, Doctors Without Borders, or Médecins Sans Frontières, or MSF, regularly responds to forced displacement emergencies, working with communities who are exposed to violence, conflict and, increasingly, climate change, forcing them to flee for safety or out of necessity. Our role is to provide life-saving medical care.

We are increasingly witnessing alarming gaps in response to large crises of forced displacements in places like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, known as D.R.C., and Sudan which, today, marks one year since conflict engulfed the country, displacing millions internally and into neighbouring countries, such as South Sudan and eastern Chad, which has become the largest host country to the Sudanese refugee population and where the humanitarian response remains inadequate.

A multitude of crises could be discussed. I want to focus my remarks on three emergencies that I think are important to bring to the committee’s attention in order to consider Canada’s response. Each of these is a distinct crisis but share striking one similarity: They are all characterized by slow global action despite rising humanitarian needs.

In North Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, a conflict linked to the resurgence of the M23 armed group has lasted more than two years. This has massively aggravated the decades-long conflict in this province and is today also impacting the northern part of South Kivu province. No fewer than 2.5 million people are now displaced in North Kivu, more than one third of its population. Since the very beginning, the international humanitarian response to this crisis has been completely inadequate. Despite some improvements, many people are still living in undignified and unsafe sites where they lack adequate and safe drinking water, food, sanitation, shelter and health care.

MSF is responding to this crisis through multiple ongoing emergency projects, but the needs are absolutely immense. MSF-supported hospitals and health centres have received influxes of war-wounded patients, including with gunshot wounds and injuries from explosions. We are particularly alarmed by the shocking levels of sexual violence. In 2023, MSF-supported clinics provided care to 20,556 survivors of sexual violence in North Kivu. In some of our clinics, we are seeing an increase in sexual violence this year above what we saw in 2023. Canada needs to act.

I want to also draw the committee’s attention to the deplorable situation facing the Rohingya population in Bangladesh, Myanmar and Malaysia. I was recently in Bangladesh visiting an MSF project in the Rohingya refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar, which is a fenced camp that today is home to approximately one million people. It’s the largest refugee camp in the world. MSF is the main provider of health services inside the fenced camp where people who have fled violence and persecution today find themselves contained and with limited or no rights to employment, education or livelihoods and with no clear solutions being proposed. I was also in Malaysia where our teams provide medical care to Rohingya people fleeing violence in an uncertain future in the camps in Cox’s Bazar, yet they arrive in Malaysia to face the reality of a lack of legal protections and safety. Thousands find themselves arrested and held in detention centres, largely for immigration violations which they have no legal recourse to correct.

With the war in Gaza and the forced displacement crisis that it has created, over 1.7 million people in Gaza, representing nearly 75% of the population, are estimated to be forcibly displaced and living in unsafe, unhealthy conditions. Our teams are witnessing a reality today that people in Gaza are deprived of essential items such as food, water, shelter, fuel and electricity, as well as health care, due to Israel’s siege of the entire Gaza Strip. Supplies allowed to enter for the displaced population has been negligible compared to the immense needs. Malnutrition is surging. Communicable diseases are spreading. Clean water is scarce. Thousands of patients need access to complex medical, surgical and rehabilitation care that is no longer available in Gaza, and they require urgent medical evacuation. Minutes matter when lives are on the line.

MSF continues to call for an immediate and sustained ceasefire now as we witness the suffering of Palestinian people caught and displaced by a conflict that blatantly ignores the rules of war. Our call for a ceasefire is a humanitarian one, emphasizing that, given the way the war is being conducted, this is the only viable path for being able to reach people in need.

I want to close by thanking the committee for looking at this issue and for the role that Canada can play in responding to the urgent needs faced by people who are forcibly displaced. At a time when much of the world stalls or looks away amid rising humanitarian needs, our hope is that Canada can have the moral courage to rise to the challenge. This includes committing to fund international humanitarian assistance in tomorrow’s federal budget and using Canada’s full diplomatic power to push for constructive and meaningful solutions to these crises. Whether in D.R.C. or Bangladesh or in Gaza, minutes matter for people who need urgent medical care. MSF will continue to respond to the needs of people affected by crises. We’re calling on Canada to continue to step up, too.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair: Thank you to both of you for your presentations. We’ll now proceed to questions from senators. Colleagues, you have five minutes for your question, and that includes the answer.

Senator Simons: I didn’t mean to keep jumping on people, but I’m really fascinated. I am not a usual member of this committee, but in the two meetings I have sat through, this is the first time that climate change has been brought up as some motivation for mass migration. We are so used to thinking of migration prompted by war, prompted by other kinds of natural disasters that are of the moment, but I would love to hear from both of you about what will, long-term, be the pressure of climate change for mass migration around the world. It can be a prelude to war, an instigation of war, but it can also create the famine conditions that cause people to flee where they have lived for generations.

Ms. Norman: Thank you so much for that question. It’s something that everyone working in the migration-and-refugee space is increasingly asking about and interested in. It is affecting us right now but will increasingly affect us and the displacement situation globally going forward. There is a lot to understand further about how exactly climate change will impact migration.

The understanding now is that it will predominantly impact internal migration, forcing people to move, for example, from a rural area or an area impacted by flooding to a more urban environment. In that urban environment, there are things like resource scarcity or impacts on social services or access to electricity and these types of things that could be put under strain. That could then cause social tensions. It’s these sorts of nuanced factors that we worry could lead to increased conflict and, eventually, maybe, also displacement across international borders.

Here is just one small example to illustrate this that really impacted me personally, I found out just a couple days ago that I had lost a friend who was killed by a militia in the conflict in Sudan in a contested border region called Abyei. He had fled the conflict and was living in Juba but went home to visit relatives. Individual militias from another neighbouring region that was pushed out of that region because of flooding moved into Abyei, and that led to a conflict that ultimately killed 95 people in this one particular incident. That’s an example of how we think the impacts of climate change could relate to conflict and thus also relate to displacement.

Senator Simons: I’m so sorry for your loss.

Dr. Nickerson: We’re also in the process of untangling exactly what the relationships are between forced displacement and climate change. I think that the best explanation that I can offer is that thinking of it as a crisis multiplier is an important sort of mental framing and tool because people flee for a variety of reasons.

In some of our clinics, particularly in Central and South America where we have medical clinics along different migration routes, we hear of people who are fleeing simply because the lands that they used to grow food on and areas where they had lived for generations are not usable anymore as a result of climate change. That creates an economic pressure that forces people into an impossible situation. If you’re not able to grow food, earn money and support a livelihood, what option are you left with?

There are other equally complex kinds of interrelationships between how land is used and what that means for shaping communities and so on. We are all very much aware of the fact that this is a crisis multiplier and something that we will have to pay close attention to in the coming years.

Senator Simons: While all the focus has been on Gaza, I think Lebanon, the knock-on effects, really worries me. With the bombing of Jerusalem on the weekend, I’m sure I’m not the only person who is very concerned about what this portends for the Middle East.

Professor Norman, I wish you the best of luck. If there is a second round, I would like to ask more about the situation in Lebanon.

Senator Jaffer: Thank you to both of you for being here.

I have such a short time, so I will start with you first, Dr. Nickerson. Doctors Without Borders does tremendous work, especially helping women on the ground and culturally, not only in those areas but culturally all over the world. What happens to them is almost seen as their fault. I’m taking you back, but I think sometimes the situation is the same in the Sudan. When men went to bring wood, the boys were killed. Mothers risk their girls going out because they get raped — how I’m saying this is horrible — but they come back. I saw the tremendous work your organization did.

First, I want to convey to all the people who are working in these terrible conditions, especially in Kiev, in Sudan, in Rohingya camps and in other places, from your organization and others — I’m not limiting it — about the tremendous work you do. I don’t know if people know what you do and how much you respect the dignity of the women who come to your group.

You can’t carry this on forever in the sense that — I know you have the will to do so. However, there’s a such a lot of gender abuse of women. Where do we go from here? I know it’s a pie-in-the-sky kind of question, but it’s hard to see what happens to women in refugee camps.

Dr. Nickerson: Thank you for your kind words and the question.

We have made great efforts to incorporate a comprehensive response to sexual and gender-based violence in our programming around the world. By “comprehensive,” I mean a medical response — for example, post-exposure prophylaxis for infectious diseases, vaccinations, and also a psychosocial response. We have psychologists, social workers, and so on, who are core elements of our programming.

I’ll say two things to answer your question. First, health systems around the world also need to be integrating sexual and gender-based violence programming into their basic package of health services. This needs to be accessible to everyone everywhere because we know that sexual and gender-based violence is a massive problem everywhere on the planet.

Second, we experience and witness significant gaps in protection services and access to justice and legal supports. We are here to provide, as I say, the medical and psychosocial care, but there are immense gaps once that element is in place. People need access to safe shelter. In many cases, they need access to protection services so that they are not returning to the community where their abuser or perpetrator very well may be. That’s a huge gap in many places around the world. We need to be looking at this as a holistic and comprehensive response to sexual and gender-based violence. Unfortunately, that protection element is too often not implemented.

That, of course, is all in response to sexual and gender-based violence. There is a massive, massive need to enact effective prevention programs as well so that this isn’t happening in the first place.

Senator Jaffer: You may not have the answer today, so if you can please send it to the clerk. As you know, we are doing this study. If we were going to ask the Canadian government to give support in X — I’m not going to tell you what — what would it be? You may need time to think about it. I know the Canadian government does a lot with this issue, but I don’t think it does enough because the problem is so big. What do you suggest? Perhaps you can write that in, or start today and then continue.

Dr. Nickerson: Sure. I’m happy to provide a slightly longer response.

First of all, I want to acknowledge that the Canadian government has provided a lot of funding for sexual and reproductive health and rights programming around the world. I’m just going to acknowledge that and say that’s a good thing.

As I mentioned in my opening statement, there is a rapidly widening gap between needs and available resources. I’m not suggesting that Canada needs to be the sole source of closing that gap, but mobilizing other donors to close that gap and meet the needs and actually stand up to their commitments is one piece of it.

Many of these problems are political crises. As humanitarian organizations, we are there to respond to people’s needs. Doctors can’t stop bombs. We can’t stop wars. These are political crises that require political responses, so there is a role for effective Canadian diplomacy in resolving these crises in the first place.

Senator Jaffer: If you do get a chance, convey to Doctors Without Borders of the tremendous work they do in Gaza.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you to the two witnesses for being here today.

According to UN estimates, around half of all refugees in the world are women. In addition to their vulnerable position, as you yourself put it, in North Kivu, for example, displaced women are exposed to gender-based violence and sexual violence, and they need more attention and special protection.

I think you said earlier that your organization could not do much about the conflicts at the root of the displacements. Which initiatives for protecting women refugees do you feel have worked elsewhere and could be replicated in places like North Kivu or Sudan? This question is for both witnesses.

Dr. Nickerson: Thank you for the question.

[English]

As I say, in North Kivu, we have seen this widening gap, and it is true around the world. I’m not sure that people realize how significantly humanitarian needs have grown around the world. We are looking at more than 360 million people who are in need of humanitarian assistance. It’s something like a 30% increase inside of one year. We have talked about multiple forced displacement crises in the context of this discussion alone.

There are a number of things that are underpinning the inadequate response that we are seeing. I have to be honest in saying that funding is simply one of them. There is a massive gap in funding. As I say, it’s not that we should expect Canada to be the sole source to fix this problem, but certainly mobilizing the donor community to respond to neglected crises in Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the Rohingya camps in Bangladesh, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Sudan or Chad. The international community simply needs to step up.

Funding is one piece of it, but implementing effective programming also depends on humanitarian access. We need to be able to access populations in distress and in need, and they in turn need to be able to access us, so there is still a role for effective humanitarian diplomacy to create and protect humanitarian space, and also ensuring that effective programming is being implemented by the international community. That includes a focus on local organizations. Particularly in the sexual and gender-based violence space, a lot of the protection services that are offered for survivors of SGBV are provided by local communities. We do a lot of work to work and engage local feminist organizations, women’s organizations, shelters and so on, because they are often the ones who are most effective at providing shelter, legal supports and that sort of thing. Hopefully, that helps to answer the question.

Ms. Norman: To echo the first set of comments, I think that there is a lot that can be done around localization and supporting smaller organizations that are doing so much to help women, especially women who have, maybe for the first time, become heads of households because they crossed international borders and their husbands, spouses or other male family members weren’t able to. We can think of the situation in Ukraine. That’s certainly very pronounced. As another example, I was in Egypt last summer doing research as many Sudanese women were arriving. For the most part, Sudanese women were being allowed to cross with children but men were not being allowed to cross from Sudan. We see this pattern globally. In a lot of cases, women are being thrust into new positions where they don’t have the same kind of supports they had previously and where there isn’t necessarily the infrastructure in place in terms of international assistance to support them. The organizations that are doing the most work are usually run by refugees themselves or by smaller organizations on the ground. They have the most knowledge as well, because they know what the challenges are and they know what women and children might need. Finding ways to more readily fund those organizations, I think, will help tremendously.

Also, there is ensuring that programs that are put in place, if they are coming from international organizations or from donor countries like Canada, actually meet the needs of women. As one example, in Jordan, there was a program put in place to try and help Syrian women in Jordan find employment so that they could help support their families, but the kind of employment that was being offered to them was in factories that were very far away from their homes and there wasn’t childcare provided. In actually filling those roles and getting formal employment to these women, there was this disconnect between the needs of the women and what was being offered. These organizations that are more readily in touch with refugees will be the ones that have the best knowledge about the most effective programs and how these women can actually be supported.

[Translation]

Senator Gerba: Thank you.

[English]

Senator Omidvar: I wish to thank Médecins Sans Frontières for their incredible contribution to the safety and security of people who have no voice.

My question is for Ms. Norman. Would you comment on the conundrum of voluntary contributions to UN agencies, in particular the UNHCR, the IOM, UNRWA and others? Whilst the UN receives dues that are mandatory, its agencies are still subject to voluntary contributions. In fact, these voluntary contributions can be earmarked by donor countries for specific locations — in other words, approving support to refugees in one part of the world and denying support to refugees in other parts of the world. How can we move from voluntary contributions to mandatory contributions, and what role do you think Canada has to play in such an ask if it were to take the lead?

Ms. Norman: Thank you, senator. That’s an excellent question, and a very difficult one, as you well articulated.

You’ve hit the nail on the head exactly in terms of some of the challenges that these international organizations face in terms of contributions being voluntary and earmarking towards the refugee and displacement situations that have the most publicity and get the most attention and thus the donor countries and other individual donors might want to most readily fund to the neglect of very serious situations elsewhere that need funds as well.

I’ve written about this, and it’s no easy ask. These organizations and the funding structures were set up in a time period when support for the international system was so much stronger and when it was possible to demand mandatory contributions. That international support, I would say, is waning, maybe with the exception of countries like Canada. Canada is in a strong role to support rethinking the way that these international organizations are structured, but garnering other countries’ support in that regard will be no easy task at a time when, year after year, the funding needs are not met, as the other speaker discussed.

In particular, with UNRWA, this is one of the biggest challenges because it’s entirely voluntary contributions — 100% — and so it’s very subject to these political whims. This is true with what happened on October 7 and the allegations, although some of the funding has been restored via countries like Canada but not yet from the U.S., where I am based. Moving away from a model where an organization is entirely subject to these political whims is critical to ensure life-saving assistance to millions of individuals in the case of UNRWA and Palestinians. Of course, other organizations, like the UNHCR, that do equally important work for other nationalities of refugees are also critical.

Funding these international organizations is one aspect, and if increasing contributions is something that is just not politically feasible globally, then there are other solutions to addressing displacement, including increasing resettlement numbers, helping to move people from countries that are under-resourced, where most refugees in the world live to countries that are wealthier, such as Canada.

Senator Omidvar: I want you to please confirm for us that Canada does not earmark its contributions to the UNHCR or the IOM.

Ms. Norman: Sorry, I don’t actually know that because I’m U.S.-based at the moment. It sounds like you know more than me in that regard.

Senator Omidvar: I don’t know more than you. I just have an assumption. Perhaps our library can confirm that for us.

The big challenge is launching this campaign for mandatory contributions at a time of incredible need, with 370 million people in distress. How we move from charity to sustainable financing is, I think, a big question for this committee.

Ms. Norman: And an important one, so I certainly support that move.

The Acting Chair: I noticed our analysts have taken note of your request, so thank you.

Senator Arnot: Thank you to both witnesses. My first question is to Dr. Nickerson, and I have a second question for Dr. Norman in the second round.

Sir, you have extensive experience in global public health policy. How do you assess the current state of global preparedness for managing humanitarian crises caused by forced displacement? That’s a very general question, but more specifically, you have experience in the field with various crises. Could you share your insights on the challenges of delivering health care in conflict zones and how Doctors Without Borders navigates those challenges? Can you please describe the nature of the challenges and if they have changed in recent years or been more acute in any particular area?

If you could advise the committee on how you would triage Canada’s support and involvement in humanitarian crises, what would the immediate action be that you would recommend? If you could speak directly to the Government of Canada, what would you tell them the priorities should be, given limited resources?

Dr. Nickerson: Those are big questions.

How do I assess the general state of readiness to be able to respond to humanitarian crises? I will go back to one of the things that I said earlier, which is that I’m not sure that the world fully realizes the scope and the scale of the emergencies that we’re talking about.

As I mentioned, it’s the one-year anniversary of the start of the conflict in Sudan. We’re looking at millions of people who are forcibly displaced, including millions of people who are forcibly displaced into South Sudan, which is a country that has been affected by armed conflict and humanitarian crises of its own for decades, as well as into the Central African Republic. I was in Central African Republic in 2022. I can tell you that access to health care is extremely limited. Similarly, it is a country that is affected by crises. People are displaced into eastern Chad, where access to humanitarian services is woefully inadequate.

What is the state of the global system to respond? We’re stretched. We are extremely stretched. The needs are incredibly high, and these are complex crises where people’s needs are covering health care, water and sanitation, access to food and basic livelihoods. Children need to be in school and have access to education. There’s a multitude of things that need to be responded to in multiple, simultaneous crises.

Now, I’m a health care professional, so I tend to look at these things through that lens, and, again, considering the kind of global public health implications of these crises, we continue to be quite alarmed that — particularly coming out of a global pandemic — we continue to see smaller outbreaks of infectious diseases that go unresponded to. The world has not caught up on the gaps in basic things like measles vaccinations or diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccines. Right now we are responding to the largest outbreak of diphtheria on record in West Africa, and, similarly, we have responded to measles outbreaks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Nigeria and so on that have hundreds of thousands of cases.

I’m painting quite a bleak picture here, but the reality is that there are significant needs, and people are fleeing and seeking safety, and we have to find some way of adequately responding to these needs.

Now, in terms of the messaging to the Canadian government in support of humanitarian crises, I am going to frame it in a positive way and speak about something quite positive that the Canadian government has done, and that’s in its response to the Rohingya crisis. I was just in Bangladesh. I was in Malaysia. I was in the camps in Cox’s Bazar, talking to Rohingya people but also to the international community that is there.

This is a forced displacement emergency where Canada stepped up. It appointed a special envoy. It has a Rohingya strategy that makes several recommendations, and Canada has played a significant leadership role, not only as a donor — and, again, that’s important — but also as an engaged country that has been pushing and trying to find solutions, and it has been engaged in advocacy to create humanitarian space and facilitate humanitarian responses and do a number of different things.

That is what Canada needs to be doing more of — finding this way of being a good humanitarian actor, not just as a donor but actually looking for that way to play a useful diplomatic role that allows us as neutral, impartial and independent humanitarian organizations to do our thing, but recognizing that there is a role for countries like Canada to play on the diplomatic stage as well.

Senator Arnot: Do you have any insight as to why Canada stood up so well in Rohingya as opposed to other areas? What can we learn from that? What’s behind that motivation that produced a better result?

Dr. Nickerson: That’s a great question.

I didn’t make the decision, obviously. I don’t have the answer to that, to be honest. I think that it’s really worth some reflection, because the Rohingya strategy was renewed once. It came to an end — to the best of our knowledge — at the end of the last fiscal year. We have been saying that it should be renewed in, hopefully, tomorrow’s federal budget. It’s a response that the Canadian government enacted, and I think it would be a moral failure to walk away from the Rohingya people, particularly at a moment where the international donor community is, frankly, withdrawing and turning their attention elsewhere.

Having that more comprehensive framework that empowered humanitarian diplomacy as well as humanitarian funding to principled humanitarian organizations that can go and do the work and deliver the services, there’s something there that I think is really worth reflecting on, because these forced displacement crises are obviously complex, as I say. There’s a service delivery need, obviously, but these are also political crises that require political solutions, and that’s not the role of the humanitarian community. That’s the role of political actors and states.

Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.

The Acting Chair: I would also like to ask a question. It relates to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, and the impacts of cessation of funding. I’m curious what impact that had when donor countries withdrew humanitarian aid, particularly for Gaza, and what safeguards either of you are aware of that have been put in place since January to strengthen oversight, accountability and transparency, not just there but throughout the humanitarian aid sector? Who would like to start?

Ms. Norman: I can start, if that’s okay.

The U.S. is the largest contributor to UNRWA, so if the U.S. does not restore its funding, it’s not clear that the agency can continue to operate, even though other countries have restored their funding, such as Canada and others in Europe. The statement put out by the U.S. administration was that it hopes that the mandate of Palestinian refugees can be effectively folded under the UNHCR’s mandate so that UNRWA can stop its operations.

I think it’s important to remember that UNRWA has been politicized since its inception, effectively, so for more than 70 years by both Palestinians and Israelis or others involved as well. It’s seen sometimes by Palestinians as being this operation that perpetuates their displacement. It’s viewed by Israelis as being on the side of Palestinians. There have been fears because it operates in Palestinian refugee camps, especially in earlier decades when there was a lot of advocacy and militancy, sometimes, in those spaces. It has a long history of being contentious, but it, nonetheless, operates as, effectively, a quasi-state, as some have said. It provides important educational and medical services, and there really isn’t an equivalent replacement for that right now. The UNHCR does not do that. It does not provide those state-like services. It’s not really possible to equate them.

It’s not clear what would happen should UNRWA cease to be able to operate because of a lack of funding. In the occupied Palestinian territories, in the West Bank and in Gaza, it has effectively — otherwise, because Israel operates as the occupying power, Israel would have to provide those services should UNRWA stop providing them. There isn’t a clear back-up plan should it cease its operations. That is the real fear, especially in this moment when there is such a dire need of Palestinians in Gaza, as articulated in this session, that it would further exacerbate all of the things that we discussed: famine, complete lack of shelter, et cetera.

The Acting Chair: Thank you.

Dr. Nickerson: I don’t have specific comments on how UNRWA operates and controls and the things that it has. We simply just don’t have visibility on that as an outside independent organization, so I can’t comment on that.

What I will say is that we tend to focus on the logistics of the reality in Gaza, and that’s obviously important. There is also the political reality of it. But establishing a supplement or alternative to UNRWA de novo or from scratch in this moment is simply not realistic. It’s not possible; it’s not plausible. There needs to be multiple border entries and certainly an escalation of humanitarian assistance coming in. There also needs to be a means of delivering that to the people once it crosses the border and enters into Gaza. As I say, there is a political reality to that, and there needs to be clear assurances of safety and an ability to move humanitarian assistance and patients and supplies and so on in and around. There is a safety and security element of this, but there is also, clearly, a logistic component to it that would be very challenging to re-establish.

Senator Simons: As I mentioned, Dr. Norman, I wanted to come back to the question of Lebanon. Canada has a very large Lebanese-Canadian population in Edmonton where I live and in Ottawa where I am now. There are very large Lebanese communities. People have been reaching out to me, whether by writing to my office or speaking to me when they meet me, about their concerns about relatives who are in Lebanon and who they have been unable to bring to Canada at a time when they are really worried about the spillover effects from the situation in Israel and Gaza, the spillover effects from Syria and whatever is happening with Iran, with Lebanon caught in a vice. What can you tell us about the situation that you and your colleagues are seeing in Lebanon right now?

Ms. Norman: Thank you for your concern. I can understand the concern of your constituents.

Lebanon has been on a downward trajectory for several years now, whether the economic situation, the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis, the incredible inflation, inability to buy basic goods, medical supplies, and, of course, as you mentioned, these other displacement situations, including the long-standing presence of Syrians and also internal displacement in Lebanon as a result of, as you said, the Hamas-Israel conflict and the implications that has had for southern Lebanon, individuals fleeing from southern Lebanon towards Beirut and other parts of the country to try and escape conflict, effectively, even though that’s not getting the same kind of international coverage as the conflict in Gaza.

Canada can continue to provide the immediate, life-saving and critical support and aid to various institutions in Lebanon. UN agencies operating there also are propping up the state in various ways and injecting needed aid and cash into the economy.

It is a very worrying situation. We are seeing now reports of Lebanese nationals but also other nationals, including Syrians, fleeing by boat from Lebanon to Cyprus or anywhere they can get to, effectively, which is not a pattern that has existed prior to the last couple years. That speaks to the desperation that Lebanese nationals and other individuals living in Lebanon are feeling now in regard to the economic and social and sort of on the precipice of possible conflict, the squeeze that they have been feeling. It is a very worrying situation for everyone residing in Lebanon, whether they are Lebanese or otherwise.

Senator Jaffer: I don’t know if you can help with this. You are in Canada. What really concerns me is compared to what Senator Simons says, Lebanon and Türkiye get millions of refugees. Compared to that, we get very few refugees, and yet, Canadians really react to refugees, like the Quebec crossing and all that. What can we politicians do to get across your message of the dire need of people? People don’t leave their home just because they decide one day they want to go to a better place. There is no better place. All places have their issues. I am a refugee myself, so I can say that with absolute conviction. Your home is always the best. Is there anything we politicians can do to change that mindset a bit?

Dr. Nickerson: I think this came up in the previous panel. People are people. They are not numbers. We need to be humanizing this discussion, both in this context but also in public dialogue.

Dr. Norman mentioned that people are fleeing situations by boat. This is something that we see in many places where we work. We run a search and rescue boat on the Central Mediterranean because there is a necessity to do so. People are fleeing a cycle of violence in Libyan detention centres. They have ended up in a Libyan detention centre because they were fleeing a situation generally of violence in another country. They find themselves on the Central Mediterranean in flimsy boats, and thousands of people have drowned. People are making these journeys out of desperation. These are impossible choices that people are making.

When I was in Malaysia in February, it’s a very similar story. There are Rohingya people who arrive in Malaysia, some of them by boat, many of them also by land routes, which are incredibly dangerous. People are fleeing conditions in the Cox’s Bazar refugee camps as well as in Myanmar, where they are subjected to violence, oppression, a lack of rights and no opportunity.

When you talk to people about what they want for the future, I can’t speak, obviously, for the community, but so many people tell us and told me that they want to go home. This is fundamentally what we all want. People want to go home and have access to their land, to freedoms, their rights and to dignity. We need to find a way of humanizing people. Talking about numbers is important for people to understand the scale, but, ultimately, these are people who are seeking very basic freedoms and a better life for themselves and for their families.

Senator Jaffer: I hope some people are listening to you.

Ms. Norman: When I normally talk about this topic, I’m not speaking to those in Canada because, as Dr. Nickerson said earlier, Canada really is not only pulling its weight but probably doing the best work in this space globally when we look at how countries receive and treat and advocate for refugees and displaced people.

That said, Canada can also push back against what other countries are doing, including, as was just mentioned in the previous comments, those detention centres in Libya. Those are EU-funded. When Canada speaks with its partners on this issue, you can push back against what other countries are doing in terms of preventing asylum seekers — those so desperate that they will make a journey across the Mediterranean Sea and then are intercepted and returned to a country like Libya — from seeking asylum, which is a guaranteed right under international and domestic law.

It is the same in the United States. I am located in Texas, and this is an issue along our southern border with Mexico. It is worrisome when you think about some of the actions that Canada has taken, like the resigning of the Safe Third Country Agreement with the United States, because this issue is so politicized in the United States. The asylum system here is not functioning well. To equate Canada and the asylum system of the U.S. is no longer a reality. To be able to return those who are seeking asylum in Canada — and they have crossed the border into Canada — to the U.S., where one could argue they don’t have full rights or protection, is a worrying trend and something that will probably need to be revisited after the possible results of the 2023 election here later this year.

Lastly, if we’re talking about possible solutions, one way to address displacement globally is through refugee resettlement. It sounds like everyone is quite familiar with that, but it’s worrying to see that Canada’s projected numbers for resettlement for refugees will be dropping in 2025 when the needs, as both Dr. Nickerson and I have been articulating, are so great worldwide. Thank you.

Senator Arnot: Dr. Norman, you have commented on the effectiveness of the international community’s response in the Syrian refugee crisis, particularly in terms of integration and resettlement policies. I would like you to amplify that a bit, if you can.

Second, you publicly critiqued the Afghan resettlement process. What lessons could be learned from your observations in both of those situations? What do you see as best practices? How should they be developed and implemented in a future world?

You’ve given four clear recommendations in your opening statement. If you were to advise the Government of Canada, would you want to expand and triage that list?

Ms. Norman: Thank you so much.

The first question was about a continued response to Syrian refugees. This is something I have followed closely over the last decade, especially after 2015 when Syrians began arriving in Europe and the situation really changed. Of course, there had been millions of Syrians in neighbouring countries in the Middle East prior to that, but when they started to arrive in Europe, then the situation with funding began to change.

A criticism that I and others have raised is the way that assistance was given to countries from Europe to countries like Türkiye, Lebanon and Jordan especially, who hosted the largest numbers of Syrians and continue to host them, because a lot of this money did not necessarily go toward long-term integration. A lot of it went toward border security to ensure that Syrians would not be able to travel onward towards Europe, once again, as they had in 2015. It also went towards these types of programs that, in rhetoric at least, talked about integration — whether it’s economic or social, et cetera — but didn’t necessarily take the needs of refugees into account in terms of how they could follow up to ensure they were able to get work permits, for example, and really contribute to the countries that they were living in. We have seen this long-standing population of Syrian refugees who aren’t fully integrated, who don’t have full access to the labour market or schools or education, hospitals, et cetera, and it’s been going on 13 years at this point.

The reality is, as I said in my opening remarks, that many will not be able to return home because the regime continues to be in place in Syria. They do not feel that they are safe or that their families will be protected, and they are left in this limbo. Longer-term plans toward integration need to continually be on the table and the kind of xenophobia that we see rising in Lebanon right now, or that we saw rising in Türkiye last year with the earthquake and the elections, needs to be mitigated against. That may be where a country like Canada can play a role.

There was a question about Afghans. That was with respect to the speed of that operation to help get Afghans out of Kabul when the fall of Kabul happened. Refugee resettlement organizations and other advocacy organizations had been warning the Biden administration since it came into office — so for nine months prior — that this was going to happen and that they needed to have a plan in place. The actual execution took place within a matter of weeks. Arguably, more people could have gotten out than did. That was where the criticism came.

The bigger criticism now is that Afghans who have come to the United States under that operation, through humanitarian parole, still do not have access to long-term residency in the United States. That is really shameful because they were our allies for years, as were their families. They were brought to the United States with the promise that they would be able to stay here and integrate. Instead, they are having to go through this overburdened, long process of seeking individual level asylum rather than being granted blanket access to long-term residency.

I’m sorry, could you remind me of your last point?

Senator Arnot: I wanted to give you a chance to amplify your points, if necessary. You made four big points right in your opening statement about opportunities for mobility; access to permanent residency, which you just talked about; and assistance for effective local integration.

Ms. Norman: Okay. On the point of opening pathways, Canada has been moving in this regard in line with the aims of the Global Compact for Migration of 2018 to provide additional pathways for those who are displaced to be able to come to countries like Canada. If it doesn’t come through original or traditional government-sponsored refugee resettlement or even private resettlement, it might be through things like other humanitarian pathways or educational opportunities. I think that’s going to be increasingly important as other possible avenues, including possibly to the U.S. given what might transpire over the next year, may no longer be viable. Canada can maybe try to help make up for some of those lost opportunities that might come about as a result of that.

Senator Arnot: Thank you very much.

Senator Omidvar: Let me pick up on something that Senator Jaffer said that resonated with me. I, too, am a displaced person, and I too know that home will always pull you back because that is a normal human desire. There are so many displaced people in the world who require help and — I’m pragmatic about this — no country will agree to massively increase the numbers of resettled refugees. We have heard that Canada is in fact decreasing those numbers.

Given that statement, Dr. Norman and Dr. Nickerson, would you agree that it is best for Canada to encourage regional arrangements, let’s say through the ASEAN countries vis-à-vis the Rohingya countries, or through what Colombia and Ecuador have crafted through the Quito agreement to normalize Venezuelan refugees and, to some extent, what Jordan is trying do? Do you not believe that instead of uprooting people from places where the weather is different, the culture is different and the language is different, should we focus more of our efforts in keeping them safer in the regions and at some point managing a safe return? It just begs the question.

Ms. Norman: I think that regional solutions are one part of the solution. I don’t think it has to be a one or the other question or answer. I think that, especially as we talked about at the beginning of the session in regards to climate change, regional solutions are being put forward as probably the most likely way to address climate-induced displacement, or displacement partly induced by climate change. We have regional protection mechanisms like the Cartagena Declaration or the OAU Declaration that actually already provide for ways to find protection for climate-induced refugees because they are more expansive than the 1951 definition. They include things like fleeing natural disasters or fleeing generalized violence, in the case of Venezuelans. There are regional protection mechanisms that are very important, and it’s not to disregard them, but I don’t think those need to come at the expense of keeping up traditional resettlement patterns, and certainly not minimizing resettlement patterns, as we’re worried about in the case of Canada and I am worried about in the U.S. context in the coming year. We can look to all these solutions.

You are right that, of course, individuals — I shouldn’t say “of course.” Many individuals will want to return home if it’s possible, but we can also look at these incredibly protracted situations — Syrians are just one example I have talked about, but there are a dozen protracted situations, or more, around the world, where it seems increasingly unlikely that people are going to be able to return home anytime soon or in their lifetimes. There needs to also be measures in place for people to integrate locally, if it’s possible, if it’s politically feasible, and maybe there are certain ways that that can be incentivized, whether it’s through funding or otherwise, but that can still be coupled with traditional opportunities for resettlement, whether it’s because you have family members somewhere else or whether it’s because you are particularly vulnerable and need that opportunity for resettlement.

One doesn’t need to come at the expense of the other. We can continue to push for international solutions and regional solutions and hope that conflicts will resolve and people will be able to go home.

Dr. Nickerson: To add to that, I think there is an important distinction. I’m sure that you would agree with me that whatever option is put on the table needs to be voluntary and dignified. People in affected communities need to be consulted about what it is that they want.

Earlier there was mention of the situation in Libya with the detention centres and so on, and the reality that there has been a tremendous amount of European funding that has gone into supporting the Libyan Coast Guard and some of these detention centres. There is a note of caution in there that countries like Canada need to pay attention to in the sense that regional solutions need to not be conflated with policies of border externalization and containment. There is a real potential there for a slippery slope of sorts. The externalization of borders and people being told that they need to stay somewhere and that they can’t access certain asylum pathways and so on because they need to stay in a region or a country or something is, frankly, an affront to people’s dignity and the right to seek asylum and to seek safety. In the context of Libya, we have seen that go terribly awry.

We are one of the few international organizations that has worked inside the detention centres in Libya and have had medical programming there for several years. Several of those programs or projects are winding down because of a lack of access, but just to say the conditions have been absolutely abhorrent.

Whatever solutions are being put on the table, we need to keep in mind the reality that it needs to be through consultation with the affected communities and it needs to have principles of dignity and voluntary choices put at the centre of it.

The Acting Chair: Thank you to our witnesses. I want to sincerely thank both of you for attending and for participating in this important study. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Honourable colleagues and guests, the public portion of our meeting is now over. We shall suspend this meeting for a few minutes and then continue in camera to discuss a draft agenda.

(The committee continued in camera.)