Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 8th, 2025

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I'd like to delve a bit more into what you were saying about how the preference for people is always to want to return home. We talk about numbers of people who are displaced in leaving their countries, but what are the numbers for people who are returning? Are there certain areas, other than Syria, where we do see returns, but returns to safety, not returns because they're being forced back?

We're looking at a lot of the current ones—Sudan and Afghanistan—but there are obviously long-time displacements. I'm thinking of the Rohingya and others who aren't discussed as much anymore, but who are still outside of their home country and displaced.

Could you give us a sense of the numbers who are returning and the numbers who for long periods are not able to return, with no foreseeable future of being able to return and where these areas are in the world?

[Tracey Maulfair]

When we talk about the number of returns, we're talking both about refugees and about IDPs. That number has gone down by 5.4 million this year. When you talk about IDPs and refugees, these are people who have gone back to their homes. Three million of them are in Syria. The others, I've already discussed.

Unfortunately, we don't have so many large success stories these days. Conflicts are protracted and don't become resolved, which is why I also spoke about the way to actually stop displacement and to have people return home with peace. It's working on the root causes, like Gauri said. That's really where we need to go, because many people are remaining in displacement for longer periods of time. If we don't address that, people are going to continue to move.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I wonder, because it's intuitive to me, but not necessarily to everybody who's watching, about this link between development, conflict prevention, migration and refugees. The idea is that if there is in fact sufficient development—not just humanitarian aid, but development—that could have a huge impact in terms of the numbers of refugees that are arriving not just in neighbouring countries, but also distantly, in Europe and North America. Could you maybe delve a bit more into that connection between aid and migration?

[Tracey Maulfair]

I think that right now we're watching it unfold in Syria, where we've seen that over three million people have gone back to their communities. Now, they're not going back to functioning communities. They're not going back to houses that were as they left them. In many instances, they're having to dispute if they're even their houses, because other people have occupied them.

This is where the development community and the humanitarian community really need to come together, and both need to be funded to do this, obviously. If you work on the development side and can work on the reconstruction of the very basic things—on the schools so children can enter into schools and on ensuring there are roads—then the humanitarian side can really help people with the more direct building of social networks. If we don't succeed in this in Syria, people may move again, and the millions of people who are outside the country won't return.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

In fact, that is also conflict prevention in terms of the next—

[Tracey Maulfair]

Of course, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

I would like to invite Ms. Tamara Kronis to take the floor for five minutes, please.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Maulfair, I'd like to start with you. You've spoken eloquently about how important the funding that Canada provides is to your organization.

Of course, we know that there are $2.7 billion of cuts in foreign aid coming to this global space. There is of course, in Canada, the full range of views about that—whether it's too much, too little, not enough or not at the right time.

I'd like to ask you a few questions about the communications around that. The cuts have been announced. Do you have any sense of how they're going to work in practice?

[Tracey Maulfair]

No, not at this point in time. We understand, as you do, that there will be cuts, and we have had meetings with the government. We work very closely with the Government of Canada—obviously, it's a big partner—but we don't have clarity on what exactly that will mean in terms of the cuts.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Have there been any principles provided to you indicating that the cuts will be made along any particular kind of value system or sense of any sort of criteria?

[Tracey Maulfair]

We have heard, which I think is also in the press, that it will be linked more closely to trade in some ways. We don't know what that means—trying to link the goals together with trade and development. I think we are waiting as well to hear what that will mean, but that is about as much clarity as I have at this point in time.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

When you say that you've heard, did you hear that from the government or through the grapevine?

[Tracey Maulfair]

Both.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

When Secretary of State Sarai was before the foreign affairs committee, I was there, and I asked him a series of questions. I also got the sense, by the way, that it is going to be around trade.

I asked him a series of questions around how the measurement would happen. When they start talking about return on investment for foreign aid dollars, I think we all have our own personal opinions about the appropriateness of that. Have you gotten any sense that they're putting key performance indicators into place or that they're going to be measuring that in any kind of systemic and predictable way?

[Tracey Maulfair]

Not at this point, no. We don't.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

What does that mean for your organization in terms of planning and in terms of the work that you do?

[Tracey Maulfair]

It's challenging because the entire humanitarian funding landscape has shifted substantially since last year. The shift happened very quickly and not just in Canada—I'm talking about worldwide. We're still trying to figure out what that means.

We do know that many countries have shifted towards defence and have put funding there at the expense of humanitarian and development funding. I'm not saying that Canada has done that, but we have seen that in other countries. Very few guidelines, performance indicators or things of that nature have been shared to understand how we would be expected to adapt to that.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Do you have any sense of a timeline for the government around when they're going to figure this out or any kind of indication that there's any kind of guidance coming beyond an announcement?

[Tracey Maulfair]

I do believe there will probably be some guidance, but no, we do not have a timeline for that.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thanks very much for that. I appreciate your candour on that.

I'd like to move to Ms. Faizi to ask you the same questions.

You've gotten an indication that Canada is stepping back. Do you have any sense of where the cuts are going to be made or whether they're going to be made based on any sort of principles?

[Asma Faizi]

Well, one of the major problems is that the cuts are being made at all different levels. As I mentioned, they're being made at the private sponsorship level, even with government sponsorship. Government-assisted refugee numbers are being reduced. I think the temporary workers—all of the numbers are being reduced.

I think one of the underlying problems is the immigration levels in the sense that, if those levels had been increased, then we would be able to bring in more people from all of these different groups that are being impacted.

[The Chair, Liberal, Fayçal El-Khoury]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Kronis.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, the floor is yours for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to begin by saying that everything we are hearing from this group of witnesses is very interesting.

Mr. Audet, I think we can say that there are weaknesses in the international humanitarian response when it comes to contemporary humanitarian crises, population movement and internal displacement.

How should we change our approach to all this? Clearly, as I said, there are weaknesses.

[François Audet]

First of all, humanitarian aid does not have the power to prevent migration. With the organizations and systems we have, including what we are talking about today, humanitarian aid does not have that power.

It is less about resources and more about political mandate and power. We are talking here about forced migration. We are talking about people fleeing war, fleeing extremely precarious economic conditions and climate issues. People are fleeing regions. The humanitarian response is to support and protect these populations in situations of migration.

To answer your question, I would say that, if there were a simple solution, we would have found it by now. However, reducing violence is one way to slow down the exodus and help people stay. That is what we want to do, because, as one witness said, most of the people who leave are hoping to return one day.

Canada can also play a proactive role in reducing violence and combatting impunity. Take Haiti, for example. International aid can have an impact in situations where there is local stability.

As you may have noticed, I am dividing my answer into two aspects: development aid, which has a long-term impact, and humanitarian aid, which seeks to provide some type of assistance to populations in migration situations. International aid actors have never claimed to be able to prevent people from leaving. In the global economy, international aid represents very few resources compared to the immense needs. What international aid does is provide a minimum amount of support to a minimum number of people.

However, population displacement issues are related to political issues, regional conflicts and corruption. If a criminal system takes control of a territory, it results in this sort of displacement.

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

As you said, this is clearly a business. In some places, it is more profitable than the drug trade.

However, there are laws and agreements, such as the Canada-U.S. safe third country agreement, that support criminal networks. I am thinking of the 14-day measure in that agreement. If a person can prove that they have been in Canada for more than 14 days and that they crossed the border irregularly, then they can claim asylum.

From what I have gathered from my contacts on both sides of the border, namely organizations working to defend migrants, this measure is currently being used by cartels. They are smuggling people across the border illegally and keeping them hidden them for 14 days. This allows them to extort more money. What's more, these people are at the mercy of smuggling networks. We often hear about prostitution rings that, unfortunately, take advantage of young women who cross the border irregularly. These women are then kept hidden for 14 days.

Is doing something about this not one way of addressing the problem?