:
Good evening, everyone.
My name is Bibe Kalalu and I am the President of the Angels Refugee Support Group Association, an organization created in Uganda in 2009 in response to the discrimination and persecution of LGBT nationals in Uganda, as well as LGBT persons from the African Great Lakes countries and East Africa.
I am a Congolese refugee and a member of the LGBT community in Uganda.
I want to tell you why LGBT refugees in Uganda suffer a great deal because of their gender identity and the kind of problems this leads to.
First of all, Uganda is an extremely homophobic country where LGBT persons are constantly under tension or subject to prosecution.
In the next seven minutes, I will address four points.
First, there is a lot of discrimination against LGBT persons in the health sector. In Uganda, health services for LGBT persons are very poor, and no hospitals will treat LGBT refugees.
Second, for safety reasons, the refugee community in Uganda does not work with LGBT refugees.
Third, LGBT persons cannot find work and do not receive any assistance.
Fourth, Uganda refuses to grant refugee status to LGBT refugees living in the country and denies their refugee claims. This affects us a great deal.
I will now turn it over to my colleague and will resume my presentation thereafter.
:
Thank you for this opportunity that is given to me and Rainbow Heritage Initiative, which is an organization for LGBTI refugees and asylum seekers here in Uganda.
For security reasons, I prefer to be called Witness 1 in this conference room. I'm going to share some challenges we are facing here in Uganda as LGBTI refugees and asylum seekers.
Point one of my testimony is about claiming asylum based on gender, identity and sexual orientation. The ability to claim asylum based on gender identity or sex orientation is essential; however, it is a challenge for LGBTI asylum seekers and refugees, because if you claim asylum based on your gender or sexual orientation, you risk being arrested immediately.
Currently, our organization has six members from Burundi and Rwanda without asylum documents or refugee status. This issue was shared with UNHCR and OPM, but it is like waiting in vain. As an organization, we are feeling weak and frustrated. We fear there is nothing we can do for our members unless we raise our voices.
It is a huge problem, because for some members if they go to the police, as a starting point, and claim asylum based on gender identity or sexual orientation, they can be arrested immediately. We have tangible examples of some who have been released after being detained. They went back to their home countries, and we don't know if they're still alive or not.
Point two is my personal experience of an LGBTI refugee in Uganda, a transgender man who came from Rwanda. I left my home country in 2010 following a period of detention and torture as a result of being an LGBTI person. I spent four years without a valid document and during that period I had no.... I was not allowed to get refugee I.D. Then I had been sexually and physically assaulted several times by a neighbour. Certainly, I could not report that case, because I had no document that would allow me to report it, and I could have been arrested.
I didn't get any assistance due to that, and I spent more than four years waiting to be resettled. It is not a happy life. There is a time of misery and a painful life.
Point three is about resettlement. In Uganda, we have three durable solutions including voluntary repatriation, local integration and resettlement. When it comes to voluntary repatriation, it is risky. Members can't go back because they fled violence, persecution and discrimination. They risk being killed.
The second option of a durable solution is local integration, which is totally impossible here in Uganda because of the high level of homophobia that is found everywhere.
The third one, which remains a unique durable solution to rescue LGBTI refugees, is really resettlement.
The government of Uganda and the police are against homosexuality. If humanitarian actors try to help, they are silenced by the government, because if you try to or give any assistance to LGBTI people, it is labelled as promotion of homosexuality.
Let me go quickly to the last point, which is on the recommendations.
The first recommendation is that we are requesting the Canadian Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to talk to the government authorities of Uganda and put pressure on them to change their current practice, because when foreign aid is cut off, they take their frustration out on us, being very homophobic in the name of defending African values.
The second recommendation is to request that the Canadian standing committee put pressure on countries who have missionaries coming to Africa, like religious leaders, for instance, Scott Lively who came and promoted hate in Africa. Even abroad, these people have to obey the laws of the United States. We are requesting Canada to start discussions with the United States to see how this can stop.
The third one is for the standing committee to talk again to OPM and request that LGBTI refugees be granted refugee status. They need to have freedom of rights under the 2006 act, as do other non-LGBTI need to enjoy freedom and their rights.
The last point is to request the Canadian standing committee to talk to different countries and tell them to open the door for LGBTI refugees who are living here in Uganda, because our lives are in danger. We can inform Canada and the UNHCR that it is not safe, and it is like torture to spend more than two years.... Some of us have spent already 10 years and more, and there is risk. At the end, you leave Uganda when you have been harassed, you have been arrested many times, and sometimes people are dying in this way. They leave when their lives have been already affected.
Thank you so much for listening to us.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would also like to recognize that my colleague Randall Garrison, who has been the NDP critic on this file for many years, a staunch advocate on the issue, is here to observe this meeting as well.
I'd like to thank our witnesses today for your courage and for your ongoing advocacy in what you do in Uganda.
I come today with some understanding of the challenges you face from this perspective. On October 17, at the 139th IPU Assembly meeting, in fact, a motion was put forward to try to recognize the rights of the LGBTQI community members. It was met with hostility. I think that's a very gentle word to describe the response from the Ugandan representative. I will just put on the record a quote. He said, “We shall continue to fight the LGBT issues on the international level until people here appreciate that same-sex is inhuman and anti-culture”. That's a direct quote from representative Francis, at the meeting.
To get a sense of the hostility, the challenges and the risks you face as a community there, I think we get a glimpse of that.
On that note, in terms of what Canada can do to advocate at the international level, I think it is fair enough to say that everybody at this committee will advocate for that and want our country and our government to do that.
In terms of specific actions, do you have any specific piece? You suggested talking to the United States. The United States is a bit of a challenge, and I don't want to go into details about that. Are there specific aspects, for example, a meeting we can go to, a motion perhaps that could be passed in the House of Commons, or anything to that effect, that would assist the situation and lend support and voice to you?
:
I will also comment on that.
You may recall that we used to work with the Refugee Project. That organization defended LGBT persons in Uganda, but that protection led to the closing of refugee offices for a whole year. That was a shock, and the Refugee Project faced a lot of problems. The Refugee Project tried to do more for LGBT persons living in Uganda. We did a lot of serious work with that organization in the past, but it is difficult now.
The Refugee Project focuses especially on health and protection. In the past, if a person was arrested, the organization could send a lawyer to help them. At this time, the Refugee Project cannot provide legal assistance to a person who is arbitrarily arrested. We have sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV, and other health problems. So if an LGBT person goes to any hospital and admits to being LGBT, they are turned away. We are turned away everywhere. We used to do a lot of work with the Refugee Project, on 80% of cases. Now we are only working with them on 3% of our current cases.
We are starting to suffer in terms of safety and health care.
:
I'm going to ask one more question. I think I'm going to run out of time very quickly.
When we travelled as a committee to Uganda, one of the issues, at least for me, was that, in speaking with one representative from the UNHCR, when I asked them how safe Uganda was for the members of LGBTQI community, the response was, “If people didn't flaunt their gayness, they would be safe.”
From that perspective, I don't know how.... Anyway, I won't go into that comment.
I guess on this question around resettlement, how can you, given those circumstances, go to the UNHCR and make your application? You highlighted some of those challenges.
Would you recommend for Canada to come forward with a special initiative to prioritize LGBTQI members from what we call individuals who have been persecuted in their own country who are internally displaced, such as the LGBTQI community, as a separate strain for resettlement to Canada so that we can have that dealt with by the UNHCR in a different way, hopefully, to provide some support to the members there?
:
On behalf of our homeland, thank you very much.
The secretary general of the International Organization of La Francophonie, or OIF, comes from our country. This will be discussed and perhaps people will think of LGBT people. It is not our fault for being what we are; it is how we were created.
I was caught in the U.S. more than four years ago. I was a victim of the current U.S. policy. For over four years, I endured other threats. There was the incident at Club Venom, in 2016. I was affected by that, and that is why I had the courage to keep fighting. I created the Rainbow Heritage Network because of the injustice suffered by refugees in Uganda.
That was more than four years ago. I might go to the U.S. soon, or not. I do not know what will happen there.
[English]
I don't know what the future is holding,
[Translation]
because LGBT persons are still under threat.
:
Thank you so much for the invitation.
Mennonite Central Committee, or MCC, is a ministry of Anabaptist churches responding to basic human needs and working for peace and justice. While our work began in 1920 assisting refugees fleeing the former Soviet Union, today MCC works worldwide. Last year alone, we supported over 300,000 people on the move.
MCC welcomes this opportunity to share our experiences and recommendations around global forced migration.
Committee members may be more familiar with our work on refugee resettlement as MCC helped to resettle one-third of Canada's blended visa office-referred refugees in 2017. Resettlement work in Canada and Canada's role as a leader in encouraging resettlement globally is of vital importance.
MCC consistently hears from our partners internationally, however, that addressing the root causes of forced migration must be part of any solution.
While MCC works on the theme of migration worldwide, our most coordinated regional work currently take place in Latin America, where I recently worked. I will share several migration push factors, the response of our partner organizations, and then several recommendations to the Canadian government, especially focusing on our partners in central America, Mexico and Colombia who keep us informed of migration trends as they unfold.
We are hearing reports that migration in the region is forced by hostile environments that are seedbeds for violence. These include severe socio-economic inequality, illicit economies coupled with corruption and weak institutions, and rising levels of militarization.
Latin America is the most unequal region in the world. More than half of the region's productive land is held by the top 1% of the largest farms. This is coupled with a growing economic dependence on extractivism, including agro-industries, mineral resources and hydrocarbons. This has led to a decrease in local food production and access to safe water, which are factors that encourage migration, especially when combined with threats of violence over control of land or development.
While Colombia holds the record for one of the highest numbers of IDPs in the world, at seven million, internal displacement is increasing in central America and in Mexico.
This inequality destabilizes the region by contributing to the growth of the illegal economies. Even when organized crime is not a direct driver of violence, it may indirectly impact violence by corrupting state institutions and reducing access to security and justice mechanisms along with health and education. High unemployment and exclusion drive youth gang membership, leading to increased urban violence. In turn, migration itself fuels instability. In border regions, the illegal economy around migration has become more profitable than drug trafficking.
Increased militarization to combat organized crime combined with state institutions unresponsive to human rights violations exacerbate violence. Increased security policies have led to extrajudicial killings and a crackdown on non-violent protest.
Latin America is currently the most dangerous place in the world to be a human rights or an environmental defender. Militarized borders and routes, especially around Mexico's borders, contribute to increasing migrant deaths and disappearances as migrants and asylum seekers take lesser-known routes to avoid official detection and end up in the hands of cartels or in extreme desert conditions.
Foreign development and economic interventions may inadvertently cause harm in these complex scenarios. Throughout the region, however, MCC works with local partner organizations that seek to address this complexity.
I will share only a small sampling of this diverse and creative work.
For example, in Colombia, our partner Sembrandopaz accompanies over 40 displaced and returned farming communities in a reconciliation and human rights project. They specifically work to bring youth from divided communities together through sport for leadership development and non-violent conflict resolution. In a parallel process, community leaders have formed a reparation and advocacy movement to collectively work to stay on their lands and develop alternative economic projects.
Anti-corruption work in Honduras led by the Association for a More Just Society uses evidence-based trackers to monitor government contracts and spending in education and health. Through their work, they have seen an increase in the number of days children spend in the classroom.
Voces Mesoamericanas in southern Mexico is part of a network of organizations—including in central America—that monitors border violence. This network also documents internal displacement and can provide early warning signs of areas where conflict may be likely to break out, and where migration flows may increase.
In response to these contextual dynamics and migration push factors, MCC offers the following recommendations to the Canadian government, not only for Latin America but for all areas where forced migration is taking place globally. First, increase investments in conflict prevention; second, use a “do no harm” lens; third, have partnerships with diverse actors; and fourth, continue leadership in global agreements.
We encourage increased investment in conflict prevention initiatives, especially local peace-building and mediation initiatives across different sectors and faiths. When mapping drivers of conflict, it is crucial to identify the strengths and capacities that already exist at a local level and can be leveraged to build sustainable peace.
We also encourage the government to integrate a conflict sensitivity lens—i.e., do no harm—across all programming to ensure that actions do not inadvertently exacerbate conflict dynamics or socio-economic inequalities. Canada should focus on resourcing non-military means of addressing insecurity around the globe. MCC also encourages Canada to increase our diplomatic efforts around conflict prevention and strengthen non-violent alternatives to the use of force.
We also encourage Canada to engage in partnerships with diverse actors, with a particular focus on supporting grassroots partners, enhancing local solidarity networks and promoting mechanisms for co-operation between actors on different levels, especially in situations of protracted internal displacement. We encourage more opportunities for funding, recognizing the important role that local organizations play in meeting the needs of IDPs.
MCC also encourages greater co-operation and work between the IRCC and GAC to build both departments' capacities for responding creatively to the full array of complex international issues that face our world today around forced migration. We encourage Canada to continue to show leadership on the implementation of the global compact on migration and the global compact on refugees, bringing in a root causes and prevention lens to these global agreements, along with a continued focus on resettlement globally.
There will be more information about all of these different topics in the written submission that is in translation currently.
:
Good afternoon. It's great to be connected with you, Mr. Chairman and honourable members. I want to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration for the opportunity to speak concerning issues surrounding forced migration, as we understood that was the topic to be dealt with.
This is my second time presenting to this committee. I want to thank you and the Government of Canada for action taken in assisting the Yazidi people we previously talked about.
I'm a representative of Samaritan's Purse Canada. We are a registered charity in Calgary. We are part of an international Christian organization that is on the front lines of the worst tragedies unfolding around the world. Almost all of these include aspects of forced migration.
I would like to make four points. First, Canadian policy needs to focus on root causes, as we've already heard. This will minimize forced migration and enable the safe return of people.
Second, resettlement must be done with impartiality. That needs to be a guide.
Third, the UNHCR referral process requires Canada's vigilance to ensure accountability.
Fourth, safe, orderly and regular immigration policies may be unpopular, but the alternative is also inhumane.
In reading the news release concerning this committee's current study, I couldn't help but notice the parallels of this meeting's agenda topics and the upcoming December UN meetings when the global compact on migration will no doubt be ratified. The global compact is a non-binding agreement; however, it shapes the political will and ambition of the international community. From it, Canada will be faced with policy decisions aligning with the global compact and then creating Canada-specific policies.
The magnitude of our world's current situation, with untold tens of millions of people forcibly displaced, is staggering. We observe that this is largely man-made, due to poor or corrupt governance, and largely avoidable at the start. The global compact very correctly identifies addressing the root causes of refugee movements as a priority for all nations of the world.
For Canada, as I understand it, dealing with these root causes is the domain of foreign policy. Canada needs policy that focuses Canadian economic aid and development to reduce migration push factors. This will enable the safe and dignified return of displaced people to their countries of origin, which is the most desirable option.
I have witnessed the success of these root-cause interventions and efforts. I spent the first years of my career with Samaritan's Purse in Croatia and Bosnia. I witnessed the success of the Dayton peace agreement in 1995, and while it was not perfect, I saw the return of the refugees and the displaced—at least to their own respective countries, if not to their homes.
Secondly, since the mid-1990s Samaritan's Purse has been very involved in relief efforts in South Sudan. The comprehensive peace agreement in 2005 that was preceded by the Machakos Protocol in 2003 was largely facilitated by a Canadian foreign policy initiative and funding. This enabled millions to return to their homes.
I trust that the global compact and the work of this committee will help clarify and focus Canada's foreign policy priorities towards dealing with root causes. The sad reality is that the global compact and policy can't resolve all of these causes, and forced migration will continue. Some problems are intractable and leave millions in dire situations. I was particularly impressed with comments made by the preceding witness, Anna, because they tie into my story.
In 1920 my Mennonite grandparents fled persecution in the Soviet Union and came to a homestead on the Canadian Prairies. Ukraine recently opened up their KGB archives, revealing the fate of those who did not flee. They were rounded up for show trials and executed or exiled to the gulag.
I have great personal sympathy for the impossible and dire situations of this world. I believe that when you do examine the situations that exist, priorities emerge. Not all forced migrants are in equally dangerous or impossible situations, and the humanitarian principle of impartiality directs that we prioritize those in most need of resettlement without discrimination. This humanitarian principle of impartiality must inform Canada's policies and priorities.
Canada acted properly in dealing with the Yazidi people, and I'm particularly proud of this. I believe the Yazidis continue to be a leading example of forced migration and one of the world's most impossible of situations. They are the victims in a UN-declared genocide. They were a vilified minority group displaced from their homeland with little chance of future security or freedom. Canada demonstrated impartiality when Yazidis were brought here. I believe we ought to open our doors to more of them.
The Rohingya in Myanmar are another group of people who deserve priority consideration.
I also observed this committee examining the UNHCR's determination and referral processes and Canada's engagement in these processes. The UNHCR is committed to very lofty humanitarian principles; however, it is evident that some dominant cultural groups in the UNHCR can demonstrate systemic racism, intolerance or bias against minority groups in their midst.
I believe it was wise for Canada to have sent representatives to northern Iraq to assist with Yazidi immigration to ensure impartiality. Vigilance for UNHCR bias or prejudice and the option of intervening for minority groups that are not being dealt with impartially also ought to be part of Canadian policy. Transparency must be welcomed and prioritized in this regard.
For decades Canada and the international community have used three words, “safe”, “orderly” and “regular”, to help define migration and immigration policy. Deviation from these guiding principles has consequences. It enables human trafficking and criminality. It encourages life-endangering risk-taking. It allows for possible compromises of safety and security inside Canada, and it also inadvertently tells new arrivals that Canadian rule of law is not important when legitimate channels and due process are not followed. Lastly, these deviations reduce the co-ordination efficacy of Canadian refugee resettlement support services. I think these are outcomes that really are inhumane.
The committee is meeting to discuss the future of Canadian policy. The global compact to the UN system is based on principled, intentional humanitarian action; however, our culture is increasingly seduced by populism, virtuous posturing and the need to be seen zealous in helping, regardless of the implications and impact on Canadian citizens and processes. This needs to be resisted. Canada's policies on forced migration need to remain grounded in sound principle.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
Thank you to all the witnesses for being here.
I've met many people. MCC and Rebekah Sears, I remember quite well the many occasions that we spoke.
Anna, you mentioned the recommendations, and you mentioned the increased investment in conflict prevention—the same with our witness in the video conference—and that the root causes are largely conflict and individuals who are causing this chaos.
The report that I have here from the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre shows much of what you've mentioned about the conflicts. It shows that the displacement for 2018, from January to June, came from these top five countries: Ethiopia, Syria, DRC, Nigeria and Somalia. The numbers are, in that same order, 1.4 million, 1.2 million, 946,000, 400,000 and 300,000 roughly. That's the displacement within that period of individuals coming from those countries.
What I also want to mention and get into is that we're seeing a lot of displacement due to climate change. I'm going to read you a little bit of where the disasters have come from during January to June 2018, where many of the displacements have come from. In India there were monsoon floods and 373,000 were displaced. In Somalia there have been floods, and roughly 300,000 people were displaced. In Kenya there are similar numbers, 300,000, and in the Philippines not too long ago we saw 150,000, and there are more that I can read off here.
We can do a lot with diplomacy. We can try to put in more funding to prevent measures so that we don't see these conflicts arise in the first few countries that I mentioned. What are some of the things we need to do to help those climate refugees? What would you suggest for the government to take action on so that we can prevent these numbers from continuously rising?
Thanks so much for the questions.
In addition, thinking of the other presentation and back to these global mechanisms, UNHCR and the global compact, there's a lack of representation of internally displaced peoples. A lot of groups you're mentioning would fall under that category, the groups from the previous session as well. UNHCR is looking after these groups as kind of a default.
I think I've heard this testimony before the committee earlier from experts on internally displaced peoples, that there's no one body in charge of that group of people, even though internally displaced peoples have been represented. Colombia has one of the highest numbers in the world. There are almost double the IDPs as there are convention refugees.
In addition, IDPs are a good early-warning system if something is going wrong in a country. Before refugees start crossing the borders, you have growing numbers of internally displaced peoples, and often minorities and other groups targeted by their own governments.
We were talking about the UNHCR, or if you will, really the LGBTQI communities and other internally displaced individuals in their home countries. They have very little ability to access resettlement streams for a whole host of reasons. If, for example, they identify themselves to be from the LGBTQ community and it is illegal to be gay in that community, they put themselves immediately at risk, so people actually cannot do that.
Do you have any suggestions as to what Canada can do to provide supports for those individuals?
Also, is it an option, or would you recommend, that Canada work with the local community groups there on the ground in collaboration with Canadian groups to provide for a stream, and should Canada provide a special allocation for those kinds of internally displaced individuals?
I acknowledge the fact that both of your organizations, Mr. Clayton, Ms. Vogt and Ms. Sears, do great work in regard to resettlement, and thank you for your presentations today.
One of the things that we learned, and in my opportunity this June, was that when you're in refugee camps and you're talking with them, they would like to resettle, but the last option is to go to a third country. They'd like to resettle in their own home areas.
What drove me to this question is, Ms. Vogt, that you mentioned IDPs in Colombia are seven million, and then you backed it up, Ms. Sears, by saying that there are twice as many IDPs as there are refugees in the world, and there are 64 million refugees. This leads me to ask that even with all the successes that each of you have had, and there are government refugee programs that have been successful as well, what's the biggest need you would see to be able to make sure that we were able to do as much, or a percentage, at least, share from Canada's opportunities within this country, to expand that?
Is it needs for languages, different things when they get here, or is it just the fact that we need to make sure that we have a sound process of dealing with who can come to Canada from the refugees camps, and what other financial resources would be best used as well?