Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on May 25th, 2026

[Michael Lawson]

Thank you very much for that question, because this is also a frequently overlooked dimension of displacement as a context.

This has always been something that should be a very high priority in any humanitarian response and any response to the needs of displaced peoples. As you have said, people who have been forced from their homes are placed in contexts in which they do not have the usual safeties and protections. People are at risk. Women and girls are at particular risk of exposure to gender-based violence.

Even outside large-scale displacement camps, when the humanitarian response is insufficient.... We often find that, for example, something as simple as lighting is not available in a camp, and you suddenly have people travelling at night to go to a latrine that is far away. This is because there are not sufficient resources in place. All these tiny pieces create more and more risk, particularly for women and girls in a displacement environment.

Regarding internally displaced people, we look at Haiti as a displacement example that often gets overlooked in that context. MSF operates a clinic that is dedicated to sexual and gender-based violence in Port-au-Prince. We have seen a significant increase in the number of survivors who are seeking care at our clinic, who have been displaced within Port-au-Prince. We've seen an immense scale-up of displacement within that context.

An absolute priority concern when it comes to any displacement context is this increased exposure to sexual and gender-based violence that puts people at risk.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

I have half a minute. Would you like to add anything else?

[Michael Lawson]

All of these things speak to the fact that we are talking about people who are in a particularly vulnerable space and are exposed to a number of immense risks. The more we see the humanitarian response diminishing in all of these contexts, the more we see all these needs increasing, and we see the risk exposure increasing as well. This is an imbalance that needs to be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Dhillon.

I now invite Alexis Brunelle‑Duceppe to take the floor for seven minutes.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses appearing before the committee today.

Mr. Imseis, as a professor at Queen's University's faculty of law, could you tell us to what extent the international legal framework adequately protects people who are internally displaced?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

In international law, there are two subsets of persons, broadly speaking, who concern the international community. We refer to these people as “people of concern”. There are refugees, and there are internally displaced persons.

The main difference between them has to do with one simple factor: In one group, internally displaced persons, people do not cross an internationally recognized border during the course of their movement. The reasons for movement are similar. As we've heard from testimonies today, there are far more IDPs—internally displaced persons—than there are refugees in the world.

There is an attempt by the international community of states to bridge the gap between these two regimes. That's why we have reference to the New York declaration that was done some years ago. We try to bring to bear the same regulatory framework that exists for refugees under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees in principle, at least, to IDPs. We're not there yet. Under international law, the rules governing how IDPs are treated, what their rights are and what states are obliged to do vis-à-vis IDPs are not one-for-one matches with what refugee law requires.

There is what we call a body of soft law. Here I refer to a series of principles done by Francis Deng. We call them the Deng principles concerning IDPs. There is also the New York declaration, which was done some years ago after the Deng principles. When we read this soft body of law together—and when I say soft, I'm referring to non-binding principles that states would adhere to as a matter of comity, interest, morality and so on—we see the progressive development of a body of rules and norms applying to refugees under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees that is similar for IDPs. They are almost a one-to-one match, though not completely.

My point is that Canada and all states have every interest in ensuring that the body of law that exists as soft law governing IDP treatment under international practice be codified in a treaty of its own, or at least that there be some attempt to make binding these norms as they relate to IDPs.

As a final point, that is not to say that states that are engaged with or faced with an IDP problem do not have binding legal obligations vis-à-vis these people. They do. They're very robust. We see this not only in refugee law principles but in human rights law, such as the 1966 covenants on economic, social and cultural rights; on civil and political rights; and so on. Then we see customary principles of international law that apply to refugees but also to IDPs, most particularly the duty of non-refoulement, that is, not sending somebody back to a place where they have a well-founded fear of persecution.

That's the long and the short of it. I could give a whole lecture on it, but I will spare you.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much for your answer.

In my view, this is the basis of the solution in the short, medium and long term. The challenge we're currently facing, based on what several witnesses and representatives from the groups we've met with have told us, is that major international organizations are unable to function effectively when it comes to defending internally displaced people. The same is true for refugees in general. There are also international refugee rights that are being completely disregarded.

The question we're asking ourselves right now is whether we should create new international organizations. Should we make changes from within? Is that even possible, given the current geopolitical situation? We need only look at the United Nations and the Security Council.

What would allow major international organizations to ultimately reach this solution?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

My approach would be to use what we have and not shoot too far. That is to say, if we attempt to create a whole new treaty, that will be very difficult, because you'll need political will on the part of 193 member states of the United Nations and possibly more if you count non-member observer states of the UN and so on. That requires a great deal of heavy lifting.

The New York declaration, which was passed some years ago, was the product of some two or three years of heavy negotiating on these general principles. We need to back the United Nations on that.

Canada can play a very important role in ensuring that the United Nations bodies that are mandated with discharging their obligation under the New York declaration, such as UNHCR and the IOM, have the human and material resources they need to provide sufficient protection for persons of concern, whether they're refugees on the one hand or IDPs on the other.

At this time, I think all of us would admit that resources are very hard to come by, and there seems to be an increase in global conflict and geopolitical conflict. This is where Canada can step in to fill a gap and play a serious leadership role.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

You may agree with me that the problem we're currently facing is that Canada seems to be following a trend that we are seeing not only domestically but also globally: increasing defence spending while cutting spending on international development. It is as though these two envelopes must be linked in some way, whereas, in my view, they should be treated as completely separate.

Indeed, we are currently seeing a rise in conflicts, an increase in defence spending and sharp cuts to international aid, whether in Europe, Japan, Canada or the United States, in the case of USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development. This places us in a situation that could potentially cause these problems to grow exponentially if all the factors I've just mentioned continue to compound.

How can we get out of this at this point? Is Canada heading in the right direction?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

Based on what you describe, I would say they aren't headed in the wrong direction, but Canada is not alone.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that each of these factors—the rise in geopolitical conflict, isolationism on the part of some of the great powers in the world, the complete undermining of the international rules-based legal order and so on—can be looked at in isolation of one another, and they must not be. Our foreign policy needs to be well-rounded in order to understand that, if we're going to pour money into defence, at the end of that is war, and at the end of war are the internally displaced and refugees. Inevitably, the “problem” or “burden” that needs to be shared, as UNHCR calls it.... The refugees will come back to us. All of these things are connected.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Now I would like to invite Mr. Zuberi to take the floor for five minutes.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here and for the very interesting testimony that's coming forth.

I would like to continue with Professor Imseis along the lines of what you were speaking about, just now, with respect to international law and the regression of its implementation. Where do you see things going into the future with respect to this? How do you see our restoring the respect of it to ensure that it again becomes the guide by which we address conflict and migration, displacement, etc.?

[Dr. Ardi Imseis]

Thank you very much for the question. It's an excellent one.

I must say that I was rather pleased when Mr. Carney delivered his speech at Davos. In fact, I taught it to my students the next day, with much glee.

I was crestfallen, however, some weeks later. It was four weeks later or so when Mr. Carney prevaricated and was not very clear on what Canada's position should be in places like Iran, with respect to the United States and Israel's unlawful use of force there and the aggression against Iran, or indeed in Venezuela, and so on.

The point I'm raising here is that we are only as good as our ability to apply international law universally and treat like cases alike. That is how I would answer the question. I think that Carney showed leadership. The Prime Minister was very good at Davos. The general sense I get is that he understands what's at stake with respect to our relationship with the United States, which is extremely important. However, Canada can show leadership, and if it does, others will follow. Other middle powers will follow and, indeed, the global majority will follow—that is to say the global south. They will see, at long last, a state that takes seriously the international rule of law by applying it universally across the board, regardless.

With respect to internally displaced or refugee populations, a perfect example that's relevant to Canada is the manner in which we correctly and generously responded to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, dealing with the Ukraine refugees who came to Canada. Our neighbourhoods were welcoming; our government was welcoming, and we had all of these temporary visa programs in place—and rightly so. This showed leadership on Canada's part. Juxtapose that, only two years later, against the treatment by Canada—or not, if you like—of the Palestine refugee populations who were affected by what's going on there. Clearly, these are like cases. Both have foreign military occupations, both are the result of aggression and, at least in one case, a plausible genocide, if you take the words of the International Court of Justice seriously. However, Canada was not applying these principles equally and fairly, and that is the problem.

Canada can show leadership, but it comes down to political will. To each and every one of us, are we serious about international law? If we are, we'll do the right thing and apply it universally.

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

You spoke about Palestine just now, Professor Imseis, and I would like to pull Mr. Lawson into this also.

A lot of people ask why people focus on Palestine. In your introductory remarks, you mentioned that this is the longest ongoing displacement concern in the world, on the face of the earth today.

Mr. Lawson, would you like to share some insights as to why that is?

Mr. Imseis, you can do so after.

Why do people raise this issue time and again?

[Michael Lawson]

Do you mean to ask why people raise the issue of displacement in Palestine time and again?

[Sameer Zuberi, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Yes.

[Michael Lawson]

I can only answer that question from the perspective of an organization that provides humanitarian assistance to people who have been displaced, in among other causes, for their need to access humanitarian assistance. I can't speak to why this topic is raised more than any other. I can speak to the fact that it is certainly not the only displacement crisis happening around the world to which we are responding, creating the immense needs that need to be addressed. However, it's important to emphasize that we are talking about a population that does not have anywhere to go. There has not been a response specifically to the displacement needs to ensure that people have access to the care they need and to what they need to survive. In fact, there has been a specific reduction in humanitarian access inside Gaza in particular.

The fact that this is happening in full view of the world, in full view in one of the most covered crises.... As MSF, we have visibility on a number of similar displacement crises and political crises that do not get the attention. The fact that we are seeing in full view the reduction and impediments to humanitarian assistance when the needs are so very clear is perhaps one of the most disappointing aspects of this, and it's why it continues to need the attention that's focused on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Mr. Zuberi.

Now I would like to invite Ms. Cody to take the floor for five minutes, please.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you.

I'd like to direct my question to Meredith Preston McGhie, if I could, please.

Based on your extensive work in mediation between both state and non-state actors amidst conflicts that result in the mass displacement of ethnic communities—particularly in supporting UN efforts in parts of Africa, Asia and Kosovo—what do you think is the biggest threat facing displaced people right now, and what regions are most affected?

[Meredith Preston McGhie]

First of all, it's a huge question.

One of the challenges of ranking the various threats to displaced populations is that we can miss the interconnected nature of these threats. When we look at the levels of displacement—in Sudan, for example, they were noted as four and a half million outside of the country and about nine and a half million internally displaced—we see that the threats are myriad: constant bombardment by drone attacks inside; repeated levels of displacement; sexual violence, both inside the country and within camps; a lot of the exclusions I spoke about in the wider region that young people are facing; the social polarization; the division; the economic hardship; and the trauma that's been discussed by others in the committee. Sudan is just one example. We speak, and testified, specifically about Sudan because of some of the work and research we've been doing there, but you could transplant that experience to the Rohingya in Cox's Bazar. You could talk about this in terms of prolonged displacement in Syria and in Colombia, where we do a huge amount of work—again, it's undercovered as a displacement crisis, but it has one of the largest internally displaced populations in the world.

I think we have to look at the complexity of the layers of what's happening to these populations, the connections between these populations and either receiving communities or host communities where they're staying, as well as how we build them together.

The legal challenges that have been raised continue to be a challenge, but one of the central things that concern me—and you noted my work on mediation and peacemaking—is our failure to make peace. The vast majority of these situations come from conflict and our inability to take a leadership role globally in seeking durable solutions for peace. I would suggest that this is something in which Canada could play a stronger leadership role, not only in terms of supporting civilian-led efforts for peace in Sudan but also within conflict contexts around the world. I think it's a particularly important priority area for Canada at this time.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Thank you for that.

In addition to what you just mentioned regarding peace, is there more we could be doing to prevent armed groups or state actors from targeting critical humanitarian infrastructure?

[Meredith Preston McGhie]

I expect that there is. I would turn to my humanitarian colleagues, specifically, regarding attacks related to humanitarian infrastructure.

What I will say, based on our experiences in Sudan, is that the prevalence of technology, which Ann spoke about earlier.... It's about the use of technology—the use of drones—to attack civilian and humanitarian infrastructure in many of the conflicts we're seeing. Sudan is certainly an example. Ukraine is another. It's something that I think we need to be really seized with.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

In your opinion, how can the government step up its humanitarian efforts?

[Meredith Preston McGhie]

From our perspective at the Global Centre for Pluralism, the question is not just about resourcing and political will on the humanitarian front. Canada has an opportunity to play a role not just in bandaging solutions but also in really looking at how to connect this to durable solutions—the upstream effects of these situations—by focusing on peace and governance efforts. We spoke briefly about Syria. There are huge opportunities right now in the reconstruction process in societies like Syria's. Canada could be playing a leading role to support social cohesion and positive engagement in a post-conflict reconstruction process, one that augments humanitarian responses where we're also providing support.

At a time when there aren't enough resources, we have to make sure the resources in all these different baskets are reinforcing one another so that we don't just have a humanitarian strategy on one side and a peace or development strategy in other spaces. We can make sure we're bringing all of these together as a more cohesive strategy for Canada's foreign policy.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you, Ms. Cody.

I now invite Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe to take the floor for five minutes.