The whole aspect of what constitutes internally displaced peoples, or internally displaced persons, is important because one can look at it individually or collectively. When one looks at the Yazidi example, it's a collective thing where there's no individualized persecution per se that has to be there.
I agree that the conventions as presently framed are outdated and almost stale in the sense that the nature of conflict—and we're all aware of what's happening, through the media and others—has evolved and unfortunately changed to a point where we can't see a foreseeable time when it's going to be diminished. You're right that there are tens of millions of people who are internally displaced, but the magnitude of the problem shouldn't detract from our energy in terms of addressing these issues. When one looks at the Yazidis, and one looks at the Afghani Sikhs, they're clear examples of what happens when we come late to the table with proposed solutions.
I think Canada has to be proactive. Hearkening back to what I indicated happened in 2005, it's a little over 10 years ago, but it was our Prime Minister and our government that advocated strenuously for the responsibility to protect. There hasn't been a consistency in terms of that advocacy, and I'm not just singling out Canada, but around the world. Collectively, nations that are forward-looking can advance these types of causes. I think internally displaced persons are worthy of protection, and it should not be this legal fiction that they have to cross borders and cross boundaries, and then, and only then, does it become our problem to address. The European migration situation is a prime example. If we cannot go and secure protection for individuals above and beyond refugee camps that are temporary in their home countries, then people will seek refuge. I think it is a moral obligation on Canada's part to address the inadequacies of international covenants and conventions, and move expeditiously.