Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 6th, 2018

[Ramez Ayoub]

The second point you mentioned, with regard to refugees, is that politics plays an important role in the results. How do we assess the integration of the refugees in terms of quality? I use the word quality, but it also includes quantity, expressed in years and generations. The first generation of refugees is actually not perhaps the best integrated, given that, in some cases, the refugees arrive as mature adults. However, the situation is different for the second and third generations.

How can we determine whether our plan for refugees involves quality?

[Prof. James Milner]

That's another excellent question.

I know time is limited. You may have encountered this in the context of Tanzania, where you've had Burundian refugees present since 1972. They spoke Kiswahili. They had local businesses. De facto, they were integrated, but in the absence of legal status they weren't able to perform the citizen functions of being integrated.

This is an issue of great debate in terms of economic integration. I'd point you to the work of the Refugee Economies project at the University of Oxford. You may have come across it in preparations for your time in Uganda. I would point to the debate in terms of legal integration versus social and cultural integration.

The simple answer to the question is that the measure of integration depends on who you ask and what interests they want to advance in that argument. Since the 1970s, there's been a rich debate on the conditions under which the presence of refugees and refugee assistance programs contributes to the local economy. Part of integration is being able to contribute to the economy, to be able to invest in the local economy, and to perform citizenship rights.

The simple answer is that legal status is the clear benchmark measure of integration—having durable legal status—but beyond that there are the social and cultural questions of integration, and this is debated in Canada as much as it's debated in Kenya.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel is next.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In terms of where the agreement is at right now with its most recent draft, how does this compact define refugees? More specifically, what changes have been made to that definition in the context of previous agreements, such as the Geneva agreement and whatnot?

[Prof. James Milner]

That's a great question.

The process in coming to the text of the UN global compact has two parts. There was annex 1 in the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants from September 2016, and that adds fairly generic definitions of who is a refugee and what have you, mostly in line with the 1951 convention. It started the clock on a two-year process of consultations in Geneva on a program of action for implementing annex 1, the CRRF.

It was in those conversations that—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Could you just spell out some of the acronyms you're using every once in awhile?

[Prof. James Milner]

CRRF is the comprehensive refugee response framework. This is annex 1 of the New York declaration.

When it went to New York, it started this two-year process. The idea was that we have this comprehensive refugee response framework, and now we need a program of action to implement it. This is where 193 member states plus NGOs—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Just for time, because—

[Prof. James Milner]

Simple.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

—we only have a few minutes, can you just talk specifically about where the most recent draft is at in terms of refugees?

[Prof. James Milner]

There was an effort within consultations in terms of where IDPs fit in this. One of the big questions is whether IDPs fall between the global compact on refugees and the global compact on migration. Second, what about individuals who move as a result of climate change?

There is a paragraph in the global compact, paragraph 12, that says in the text moving its way through the General Assembly right now—let's see if it's intact at the end of next week—that the primary focus of the global compact on refugees is refugees, but that the model of the global compact is also applicable to other populations on the move.

This is something that a number of states, UNHCR and civil society did because of concern from refugee-hosting states in the global south that these obligations are not only applicable to refugees, but now to a whole other population. As the Honourable Allan Rock—who's here—said, by 2050, 250 million people will be moving as a result of climate change.

There was real hesitation for refugee-hosting states to take on more obligations. This was compromise language to be able to say that through practice and over time, there's a parallel discussion in terms of governance and response to IDPs. There's a parallel discussion on governance in response to those who move as a result of climate change.

There is a hope that over time and through practice, the mechanisms of linking the humanitarian and development responses, of working with displaced populations and host communities, and of empowering refugee women and girls and refugees to participate in the governance process will be there, but it's very ambiguous within the document.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Right now in the draft, if I were to summarize, is it the same sort of definition that would be in the 1951 convention, or has it been expanded?

[Prof. James Milner]

They've done a bit of both, so it's a bit of a non-answer.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay.

[Prof. James Milner]

In the introduction it says that this applies to refugees, who are defined in the 1951 convention and is defined in regional agreements. They list all the various places where we have seen...The 1951 definition isn't the same as the [Inaudible—Editor]

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That's a lot of.... If I'm communicating this to somebody, is there a simple way or a simple spot in that agreement where a refugee is defined? If you were going to say that to somebody who has no background on immigration at all, how does the compact define a refugee?

[Prof. James Milner]

The compact doesn't define a refugee. If I were to summarize it, I would say that if you read through all the legalese, what the global compact says is that a refugee is someone who has crossed a border for fear of persecution or generalized violence. It takes that shorthand definition.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

What you're saying is what has been expanded is the definition of “persecution”.

[Prof. James Milner]

Sorry; say that again.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

If I were to simplify it, what you're saying has been expanded in the compact is the concept of persecution.

[Prof. James Milner]

It hasn't been spelled out clearly, because there is—

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay. Just on to the next question, my understanding is that the concept of resettlement has been very clearly expanded in the agreement. Am I right? I understand that the whole agreement is to share burdens, but that concept has been significantly expanded in the agreement. Would that be a correct summary?

The article I'm looking at says that apart from being a tool for protection of and solutions for refugees, resettlement is also a tangible mechanism for burden and responsibility-sharing, allowing states to help each other's burdens and reduce the impact of large refugee situations on host countries.

The compact seeks to expand the definition of resettlement support—let's say language training, affordable housing and that stuff—to now what I would say are international wealth transfers between nations.

Would that be accurate?

[Prof. James Milner]

No. On that very specific point, I'd say no. That definition of the three functions of resettlement comes from 2001 with the global consultations and the agenda for protection, so that's already been adopted.

What you see in the global compact on refugees is all of the efforts in the evolution of global refugee policy over the last 15 years. There has been an effort to codify it within the global compact. On the functions of resettlement, that's been around since 2001.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Briefly, how would Canada's responsibilities change if the global compact on refugees were ratified?

[Prof. James Milner]

It wouldn't change any specific obligations on Canada, because it's a non-binding, non-legal agreement.