Evidence of meeting #131 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was countries.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
What would be expected from the country of Canada if we chose to ratify it?
5:10 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
What would be expected of Canada would be for Canada to continue to be a leader in the global refugee regime, and it would be up to Canada to decide where it's in Canada's interests to manifest that leadership.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
What are you hearing in terms of how Canada would manifest that?
5:10 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
There are four ways that Canada contributes to the refugee regime. One is financial contributions to UNHCR, second is resettlement numbers, third is in terms of its global involvement in discussions and fourth is the way that it acts in individual situations.
I think what I'm hearing is that it would be great if in response to the question of the U.S. withdrawal, Canada's contributions to the UNHCR and its resettlement numbers went up, but then there is also a recognition that this is not a reasonable expectation.
I think the hope is that there is more value to the global refugee regime for Canada to play a leadership role than to be a cash machine.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
It would do two things.
You have a lot of refugee-hosting countries that have invested confidence in the process, and it's an opportunity to demonstrate that collective action works.
Second, it gives normative legitimacy to ideas that have been in the working for a long time.
5:15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
Such as linking humanitarian and development responses, engaging the World Bank in responding to the needs of refugees in host communities, and refugee participation in decision-making. These are ideas that have been working. We've done it in some places.
What would change is that it gives a basis upon which we can do that in not just a few places, but in all places.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Professor Milner.
On the question around the definition, it sounds to me that it didn't change that much, but let me just ask you about some specific aspects. With respect to the definition of a refugee, are domestic violence, gang violence and LGBTQ rights still included in the definition with the compact?
5:15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
Yes and no. When the compact was written, some of these questions of who counts as a refugee.... The UNHCR guidelines, for example, on persecution as a result of gender identity and sexual orientation are not accepted by all states. If you put that overtly within the document, you'd have countries like Egypt objecting to it.
The way it was framed is that the definition of “refugee” reflects the current guidelines and policies, so all of the progressive understandings in terms of gender-based violence, violence from non-state actors and persecution based on gender identity and sexual orientation are referenced, but not in an overt way that states would see that as being an encroachment on their obligations under the 1951 convention.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
On the question of Canada's role, you mentioned the importance of what we can do within the international context.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
I think it's fair enough to say that Canada is not the World Bank. We don't have a bottomless pit of resources. That said, Canada can play a role, given the position we're in, and likewise with resettlement. Geography and the nature of where we are prevents us from resettling a lot of people.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
The global community does look to Canada, though, to play a leadership role on both those fronts. That is to leverage other international countries and communities to play their role, is it not?
Can you expand on that?
5:15 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
This is where there's a very specific recommendation of something this committee can explore.
The easy answer is to devote more money. With the global compact, we have a new way of thinking, of linking development and humanitarian responses. Canada already has engagements and assets devoted to major refugee-hosting countries and regions. In 2008, when it was leading on protracted refugee situations, Canada said that before starting to devote new resources, we should look where we have existing assets. Is there a way we can align and demonstrate impact with existing assets and use that as a way, exactly as you say—of demonstrating the value of collective action and bringing other actors on board?
Once you demonstrate success with existing assets, it provides a much better evidence base from which you consider how additional assets would result in additional outcomes. It's the leadership role, the convening role, but it's really making sure that there's that evidence base in aligning existing assets to maximize outcomes.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Earlier, the Honourable Allan Rock presented. One of his suggestions is for Canada to make changes to garner resources from what he called “crooked foreign leaders” and to have those frozen dollars redistributed to humanitarian causes. Can you comment on that suggestion and recommendation?
5:20 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
I'm aware of the idea; it's in circulation. I'm not the most enthusiastic supporter of the idea, for three reasons.
First, I think the political questions in dealing with refugee-hosting countries and countries of origin.... I know this has been discussed with some leaders involved in the Libya situation, for example, and they say that if this is where Canada goes, it could easily come back on Canada politically, with the idea being that this is being used as an excuse for not committing Canadian resources, so there's an optics question.
There's also a question of distraction. The level of resources that could be secured through the leveraging of frozen assets wouldn't fully address the gap we see in funding and it wouldn't be the access to resources that we would hope. I heard the end of the Honourable Allan Rock's comment that there may be value in the deterrent, that there's ultimately some form of accountability introduced for those regimes that cause displacement.
However, in the politics of it and the resources that would be accrued through it, I don't see it as a priority that can leverage the greatest change in the functioning of the refugee regime.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Would that not be the case if that's the only tool in the tool box, so to speak? Should we be looking at all these different options? To me, for Canada to take a leadership role in this regard does not mean that Canada can step back with respect to our contributions toward humanitarian aid, as an example. We need to continue to do that work. Just because you have one thing going doesn't mean you can step away.
5:20 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
Absolutely. I fully agree with that. I think in terms of a very broad range of options.
The concern I have is in some of the ways it has been discussed. It's not a panacea. As it contributes to an accountability framework, it's quite important, but when scarce political will and resources are committed in rebuilding trust and leveraging change and developing partnerships demonstrating the value of a rules-based international system, I would put it lower on my list of priorities.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
It's fair enough to say it's not a panacea. These are very complex issues involving many different countries, so I'm not sure if there is a panacea anywhere. Multipronged approaches would be wise, I would think.
On this question, and I wonder whether you want to weigh in, we talked about the United States and the current situation there. I think the politics in the United States have changed significantly, most importantly impacting the migrant community. I don't think anybody can pretend otherwise.
In your estimation, is the United States still a safe third country?
5:20 p.m.
Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)
The important way to answer that is in the context of action that's taken in response to the situation in the United States. There are definite concerns that should be raised in terms of the protection environment that's in the United States. The question is what it does to Canada's global reputation and Canada's ability to engage in dialogue with a country like Kenya.
If Canada adopts more restrictive approaches to the arrival of 50,000 individuals crossing our border.... There are questions to be asked about the way the response has been coordinated and communicated and what have you, but if Canada responds in a particular way to that movement, what ability does Canada then have to speak to Uganda to encourage Uganda to remain open to the arrival of 800,000 refugees from South Sudan?
In terms of the very specific question of whether I think the United States is a safe third country, I think there are clear and important questions that need to be asked, but I would encourage the committee not to see that question of the safe third country agreement in isolation from Canada's ability to have moral leadership in the international community and in the global refugee regime more generally.
5:20 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Nothing ever works in isolation, as we know—certainly not in politics. However, I do think that the global community is looking at Canada, given the position we're in and the reputation we've earned. If we don't stand up to a situation that's happening right next door to us, where people are being displaced, domestic violence is not deemed to be a valid refugee claim, gang violence is not deemed to be a valid refugee claim, then how can we stand on the international stage and say that we want to show leadership and rally the other communities to come together to make a joint effort in this regard?
