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.
Prof. James Milner
I was just going to say that I think that speaks very much to the question of having coherence between our domestic policy and our international policy and ensuring that Canada has moral authority, which enables Canada to demonstrate that leadership and, frankly, benefit from the global standing that comes from being a leader on such a global issue.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Milner, for being here today.
I read with interest your comments on iPolitics this January about the situation facing the Rohingya in Myanmar. Specifically, they were about how the past influx of Rohingya into Bangladesh, followed by pressured or forced repatriation to Myanmar without ensuring their safety and addressing the root causes of that issue, has subsequently led to a large-scale issue. It appears that this cycle may repeat itself. I certainly oppose an involuntary return and believe that in addition to safety, the issue of citizenship and the rights that come with it must also be addressed. That's a very big issue.
Could you address what needs to be part of a voluntary and lasting return for the Rohingya, and what Canada and our allies should do to encourage it?
Prof. James Milner
Thank you. It's a really important question. I would underscore that it's not limited to the question of the Rohingya. As you would have seen in Tanzania, it's very similar to the Burundian refugee situation. This is the third time in my lifetime that we've seen a major flow of the Rohingya from Bangladesh, and likewise the Burundians into Tanzania.
I think, really, three things are necessary.
First and foremost—and this is something we're learning—responses to refugees don't purely mean that they physically return home but that there is a stable process of reintegration. It goes back to the question of what integration and reintegration mean. It's reliable legal status and recourse before the law, but also the ability to provide for a livelihood in terms of economic opportunities, land rights and the rest.
Second, I think it speaks more generally to the way we approach the Rohingya and the way we approach most refugee situations. It's been demonstrated over 25 years that taking a purely humanitarian approach—providing basic needs to refugees while they're in exile and hope beyond hope that eventually they'll go home—doesn't work. This is the need to link not just the humanitarian and the development responses, but in the case of the Rohingya it's very much linking the humanitarian and the development with the diplomatic, with the governance, with all of the questions in terms of how the international community engages with the core commitments of the UN charter.
The simple answer, in terms of where Canada can lead, is not to look for the quick exit on the Rohingya situation, but to recognize that it's not just addressing the urgent humanitarian needs, which are clearly there, but also to engage in a process of dialogue to realize the principles of the UN charter in terms of fundamental freedoms and access to citizenship rights within Myanmar.
Now, it seems laughable to say, “Let's have a conversation with the regime in Myanmar in terms of citizenship rights.” This is an issue that long predates any of our engagement in this particular refugee situation. It goes back hundreds of years. However, until there is a point where that threshold of being able to enjoy meaningful legal rights has been met, we cannot say that any return is purely voluntary.
Liberal
Salma Zahid Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Thank you.
My next question is about your presentation in 2016 for the stakeholder panel ahead of the UN Summit for Refugees and Migrants that looked at lessons from past efforts to resolve large and protracted refugee situations.
I was interested in your comments on the International Conference on Central American Refugees and specifically on how regionally developed priority projects, such as investing in health and education facilities in Guatemala and labour market integration in Costa Rica, with $420 million in funding, helped make the program a success in integrating returnees and improving the conditions that can lead to migration. It was noted at the time that this could serve as a valuable lesson to be applied elsewhere.
Have we learned that lesson, though?
Prof. James Milner
We're getting there. A question like that makes my eyes sparkle, so thank you.
What we had at that time in history were two real successes and a massive failure. The two real successes were the CIREFCA, the process in Latin America, and the response to the Indochinese. What we find with both of those responses is that they weren't just responding to the refugee situation, but very actively asking these questions: Which states are involved? Who are the actors involved? What are their interests? How do we leverage the interests of states? What do states want? How do you formulate a response that engages with the very reasonable interests of states and with the protection needs of refugees?
In Central America, what that meant was a regional response that linked development approaches and humanitarian approaches, which was in some cases returned. In a lot of cases, it was the investment of development funds so that nationals and refugees both benefited from the investment.
In the case of the Indochinese refugee situation, the Socialist Republic of Vietnam wanted back into the international community, so there was a very overt discussion of what Vietnam would be able to return in 1989 in exchange for that recognition.
In the case of the Indochinese, there was very much a discussion of regional politics. Resettlement was the lead solution there. In Central America, it was still regional politics, but the response was very different.
That was unlike the International Conference on Assistance to Refugees in Africa in 1981 and 1984, where it was purely about how much money we could raise to make the situation of refugees less miserable. That went nowhere. It went nowhere because it wasn't linked with the interests of key actors.
The lesson we're starting to learn from that, in a very tentative way, is what we see in the global context, which is that it's not just humanitarian responses: It's linking the political, it's linking the diplomatic, it's linking development, it's linking the economic.
Going back to the question of what the tools are in our tool kit, those are the tools we have in our tool kit, and Canada is well positioned to align all these different forms of international engagement to leverage outcomes for refugees.
Liberal
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
I have one quick question.
When we want to engage state actors in helping, many of the state actors we want to help are governed by despots or people who act with impunity. How do we rationalize this need to engage state interests with the very real problem that the very people we need to engage and whose interests we need to align are people who are acting with impunity and causing the problem?
Prof. James Milner
That's an excellent question. My simple answer, in the interest of time, and not to be facetious, is let's start with those actors with whom we can have a good-faith conversation about change. We're not going to be able to do it everywhere at once, but I believe there are opportunities where we can start. I would be happy to follow up and discuss what those situations are.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Very good. I think that's the end.
Thank you very much, and thank you for your patience with us at the beginning.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
We will adjourn now and reconvene on November 20.
The meeting is adjourned.
