Foreign Affairs Committee on June 20th, 2006

[Ken Epps]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think that motion has been put on the order paper but it hasn't been brought forward. Is that right? Yes. So just to correct the record there, we have not passed any motion at this point.

Mr. Fried, you made reference to public opinion in Canada and the question that was asked. What was the question? It was on the acquisition of firearms in Canada.

[Mark Fried]

Yes. We did an opinion poll over the last couple of months in six countries on people's attitudes toward controlling the international trade in small arms and light weapons. I'll dig out the actual question itself. There were a number of questions. One was, “Do you support better controls on arms coming into the country?” In Canada, 92% supported better controls on that.

Another question was, “Is it too easy to obtain a gun in a country?” On average, 62% of people in the six countries said they thought it was too easy to obtain a weapon.

There were a number of questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you believe it's too easy in this country to legally acquire a firearm?

[Mark Fried]

I really don't know; I've never tried.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Canada is probably one of the toughest countries in which to legally acquire a firearm. You need to have a criminal check. You have to pass an exam on firearm safety and receive a possession licence.

So I wonder to what end questions like that would be asked.

[Mark Fried]

Apparently, very many people think it's too easy to obtain one. They may be referring to illegal ones, because there are many illegal weapons circulating, as we know.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

I think we would all agree that it's illegal, but the problem is that the question didn't specify that.

Madam Holguin.

[Lina Holguin]

I am Colombian. About the poll, it is people's perception. Lately we've been hearing a lot about Toronto and guns, so people's perception is that guns are available, and they fear that.

I come from a country where you live in constant fear of guns. You know that you cannot drive back there and say whatever to the other driver because you could be killed just for that. So I think it's people's perception of that.

As a Colombian and a Canadian citizen, I'm very glad to be living here without having the fear of guns being present.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We want to thank you for being here with us today.

We will suspend, and then ask our next group of witnesses to please come to the committee table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're going to resume our afternoon session.

Today we are pleased to have, from the Centre for International Studies and Cooperation, Pierre Racicot, chair of the board of directors. We also welcome Michel Chaurette, the executive director, and Thérèse Bouchard, the director of the human rights, peace, and democracy unit.

We will give you ten minutes to make your presentation, but I just want to make sure you are able to stay a bit past 5:30. Thank you so much.

The time is yours. Welcome to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.

[Pierre Racicot, Chair, Board of Directors, Centre for International Studies and Cooperation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank the members of the committee for having invited us to participate here today.

First of all, I would like to say, on behalf of the members of the board of directors of the Canadian Centre for International Studies and Cooperation, the CECI, that we strongly support the efforts of our organization to assist Haiti in its sustainable development. CECI is the most committed Canadian NGO currently in Haiti. From the perspective of the board of directors, this position includes certain risks, because it is very difficult to do sustainable development in Haiti, but we unconditionally support it and I wanted to say so today.

The second thing I want to mention—and I am speaking as an individual—is that in a past life, I was a CIDA vice-president. For a four-year period, from 1993 to 1997, I was vice-president for the Americas. I was therefore personally involved in the whole crisis that resulted in the landing of the American Marines, the return of Aristide, and the election and swearing in of Préval. These are all events that I experienced.

At that time, when I was responsible for the implementation of a Canadian program of cooperation with Haiti, the challenge was enormous. We were not altogether sure how to handle the dynamics. Even today, now that I have somewhat left those issues behind as president of the CECI board, I ask myself the same questions. It is extraordinarily difficult to carry out sustainable development projects in Haiti. It is possible to offer humanitarian aid. We are able to do that almost anywhere. But to do sustainable development, that will bring about the transformation of Haitian society and its values in order to create a society that will move towards sustainable development, is extremely difficult.

However, I do not think that Canada can choose not to act in Haiti. We have an aid program, and Haiti is the poorest country in our own hemisphere. I believe that Canada has particular obligations as far as Haiti is concerned, of which we cannot free ourselves. We are in a difficult situation where we are trying to find a way to help Haitians to develop sustainably. Based on my 30 years' experience at CIDA, I believe that the only way to do so is to be patient, because there are no shortcuts. We will have to work quietly with the people in order to try and empower them. In English people talk about empowerment, and I believe that word best expresses my thinking. Through a slow partnership process, we will be able to get them to see the capacity that they themselves have to take the situation in hand and very slowly establish a true democracy.

We currently have in Haiti the mechanisms of a democracy. However, we do not have a real democracy in the sense that the people do not have a broad enough base of knowledge and the capacity to get information. They do not feel empowered to vote, to make decisions, to do what we as a civil society are doing by meeting with you today and answering your questions. This does not exist in Haiti, and it is something that NGOs like CECI can contribute. This is why the board of directors unconditionally supports CECI's efforts in Haiti.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Monsieur Racicot.

Madame Bouchard.

[Thérèse Bouchard, Director, Human Rights, Peace and Democracy Unit, Centre for International Studies and Cooperation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have just returned from Haiti, where I was providing training on negotiations to farmers in a particularly violent area. I have been going to Haiti since 1965. So it is a country that really speaks to me and that very often requires having the courage not to lose hope. I would like to talk about the political environment and stabilization, as well as some development challenges.

As regards the political environment, I would like to start by saying that there is currently a disagreement or some ambiguity about Canada's relations, or the perception Haitians have of Canada, and the perception some Canadians have of Haiti.

There are two aspects. Canada has always been well perceived in Haiti, but there are two aspects that are perhaps the nature of the perception, or of the decision-making, that have led some people to think that Canada played a role in what they call the coup d'État that forced Aristide out of power. So for some people, it was a coup d'État, and Canada does not normally act that way. Perceptions are very important in Haiti, and that is something we will have to manage.

I ran right into the second area of disagreement when I was in Haiti, when I was told that Canada was going to accuse Jacques Édouard Alexis of crimes against humanity. I think Canada should clarify those aspects. As a human rights activist, I find that we must avoid misusing the term “crimes against humanity”, as it is a very strong term. Yes, we must pursue people who have committed crimes against humanity, but we must be very careful when using terms like that. So that should probably be clarified, as there are people who are going to throw that back at us in the context of our relations with them.

As a Canadian NGO, we have always benefited from Canada's good image, but we can also suffer from ambiguous perceptions that Canada is encouraging with this message. Therefore, Canada must clarify its position, and that is perhaps a challenge for it.

The CECI did a two-year political dialogue project, in 1997 and 1998, with the leaders of the most important political parties in Haiti. That enabled us to become quite familiar with the political class in Haiti and the existing challenges. If it is possible to highlight something positive following the recent elections, it is the stated willingness to include different political parties. I think that is a positive aspect that we can support. Even if there were 30 presidential candidates — finding 31 potential presidential candidates in Haiti seems like quite a challenge to me — we saw several political parties merge for the election, which is already a step in the right direction. At least five or six political parties are now represented in cabinet. That is something that the Canadian government and Canadian cooperation should encourage.

The Parliament does not have well-established customs and a political operational culture. That is another challenge, and we should support the Haitians in their efforts to deal with it. Since we have supported the efforts for democratization and since Haiti is returning to constitutional normality, it is important for us to put in place the necessary means for that to succeed. In a democracy, that must mainly be done through the jurisdiction of the elected officials in the Haitian Parliament. And that is an invitation to do development work.

I would also like to talk about what I see as the greatest challenge in Haiti: stability. The previous group spoke with great expertise about security in Haiti, but I believe that the greatest barrier to security is poverty. That is why development programs must have objectives that include justice for the poorest people, who are manipulated from elections to coup d'État, who are always targeted by charismatic speakers. The time has come to take that action, as I do not know how long they will remain peaceful. Haiti has a culture of violence and the poorest people are still subjected to it. It is very important, for the long-term security of the country, to work on curtailing the causes of violence.

There are also armed gangs. The situation in Haiti is quite paradoxical. There are lots of weapons in circulation, and it became an “attractive” industry in about 1995. The industry is doing quite well. When your business is to provide security guards, it is to your advantage for there to be insecurity. It creates jobs. That must also be looked at. It is linked to the issue of job creation and the challenge of finding employment. The job is interesting and stable and comes with some power: security guards wear a uniform and carry a gun. So insecurity leads to job creation, but there is always insecurity. I would say that even if there are a lot of weapons in circulation, very few people have them. There is considerable insecurity in Haiti, but do not be led to believe that the majority of Haitians are the source of insecurity. It is a small group. We know where they are and what their interests are. That is the big paradox.

Under MINUSTAH, armies from around the world are there but have not yet started disarmament. What are we waiting for? It is very important. And we know where the gangs are. There are even streets that are points of entry in these neighbourhoods. I am not saying it is easy, but these people are prepared for war. What are they waiting for? What mandate have they been given? That is the big debate among the police forces, who are frustrated. The international police force intervenes, and the national police force is doing its best. It has gone through different stages and is now well supported by the international police force. Canada has done good work in that area.

What mandate has MINUSTAH received, and what are people waiting for to take action? The ambiguous role of MINUSTAH is one of the things that is discrediting the international community, including Canada. People are wondering what they are doing.

We saw that here, when a Canadian citizen was killed and someone from MINUSTAH was photographed at his side. That is a source of shame here, but imagine it there, in that country, when people see MINUSTAH's lack of authority every day. I think we must ask ourselves some questions, and we can come up with the answer. It is the duty of the international community to intervene to protect the people, and it is a good thing that the United Nations is doing that, but one might wonder if it has not just become a manpower placement industry for the poor countries that send soldiers. Regrettably, I must say that these are people who, in their own country, are not efficient and who have now been given the mandate to protect the Haitian people. Haitians must not be considered less than nothing. They deserve security as much as anyone else. We must send them competent people to do that job. In summary, MINUSTAH must have a clear mandate, and the personnel assigned to the task must be competent. So with political will, there is a way of stopping the armed gangs.

One of the issues that must be considered in the short term is integrating the Famille Lavalas into politics. We know that Aristide is abroad and that he still has substantial amounts of money to keep lots of people busy. Some members of the Famille Lavalas think they have come out ahead with the current government. Even former President Aristide believes that, even though another person, Mr. Bazin, was supposed to represent his party. There is ambiguity among Aristide's supporters: they wonder if this government is theirs or not. They will find out when the decision is made regarding Aristide's return.

That is not a decision that Haiti can make on its own. It is not that the Haitians are unable of making that decision alone, but the international community will undoubted get involved.

Canada must give considerable thought to integrating all Haitians into Haitian political life without provoking renewed chaos. In that regard, the whole issue of impunity must also be examined. It is very important to take steps that are justified, and law-based, and not to take sides. Impunity has reigned in Haiti for a long time. The justice system is very weak. Therefore, for the security of the country, it is important for people to know that the decisions that made are based on the law.

And then there is a former prime minister, Mr. Neptune, who has been rotting away in prison for more than two years, I believe, and who has not yet been tried. We must look into that. Is he paying for others? Are there valid reasons for keeping him in prison? To stabilize the country, justice must be done to the Famille Lavalas and to the people who stand accused.

Allow me to go back to the issue of development challenges. When we talk about development, we talk about social and economic development, which is important, but we forget about culture. When we talk about development, we think about change. Sometimes, some aspects of culture must also change. Mr. Racicot said that we had to stay in Haiti for the long term. I would say that we will have to remain there for the very long term. We are thinking about reinforcing government institutions and state institutions. That is important, but we must also work on structural attitude change. I will venture an interpretation of some cultural aspects in Haiti. Haiti is proud, rightly so, of having been the first black republic to be emancipated, and the first country in the Americas, after the United States, to have achieved independence. But the winning strategy has become mythical over time. What was, at one point, a good strategy has become a myth. It was based on what we call marronage, in other words and escape. If we want to build democracy in Haiti, we must first build on trust, on the trust of people who talk to each other, who tell each other things even if they disagree. What has become mythical, what we call marronage, is the art of evasion, and that is highly valued in Haiti.

Imagine the challenge! If we want sustainable development in Haiti, we must also deal with certain cultural structures, and that will be dealt with in the longer term. I said that one of the causes of instability and insecurity is poverty and that we therefore need to work on development. Decentralizing to focus on local development, which is one aspect of the plan introduced by the new prime minister, appears to have some advantages. Decentralization began in Haiti several years ago, but the necessary material resources were not allocated to it. It is very important for the local governments have the resources they need to take action and show the people in their communities that changes can be made.

I think that we must also have a long-term approach to education, both to train the trainers and for primary education. We have projects like that. For example, we help children to resolve their own conflicts in school; children act as mediators among each other. We are trying to develop a culture of dialogue, a culture of trust, a culture of openness, and a culture of negotiation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Madame Bouchard, we just want to make sure we leave enough time for questions.

Does Monsieur Chaurette have a comment too? Do you want to sum up in a minute?

[Thérèse Bouchard]

No, I'll leave Monsieur Chaurette to sum it up.

[Michel Chaurette, Executive Director, Centre for International Studies and Cooperation]

I am going to make four recommendations.

Here is the CECI's first finding. Since the 1970s, we have been present in Haiti continuously, and we have seen four rounds of bilateral negotiations between Canada and Haiti. When the government is elected and legitimate, all of the attention is focused on the relationship with the government. When the country is in crisis, the attention is focused on civil society. We are taking the liberty of telling the Canadian government that it must recognize that a long-term relationship with Haiti must include both the government and civil society. We must stop thinking that the country is not in a crisis because there is an elected government. Haiti is a country in crisis, and it will continue to be that way for a long time. Electing a government will not change anything. That is our first finding, and I would like us to discuss it.

Secondly, real action must be taken at the local level. Despite the embargos and the crises, CECI has always been successful in Haiti, because it made a decision to act at the local level. It is very important to maintain action that supports local development. That is also where you find the training grounds for democracy. In the short term, it is not Parliament, but organizations that will enable people to develop self-esteem, a sense of cooperation, and, projects. These are organizations that are currently involved at the local level. That is a dimension we are proposing.

Thirdly, we must focus on women. Based on our experience, our involvement in support of women's organizations has been much more successful, even during times of crisis.

Finally, there must be an economic project; Haitians must have employment. Too much attention is given to politics and not enough to employment. Therefore, in the short term, let's support the strategies of the government, that wants to put in place a program for social appeasement, an employment program — we have already talked about security — and let's put in place measures to support and protect the Haitian economy.

We work in Artibonite, in the area where rice is grown. As long as the United States continues to dump subsidized American rice, appeasement and peace in Haiti will be impossible. Transposing the international economic model on Haiti will lead to failure, to an economic disaster. Special measures are required to protect Haiti's economy.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Monsieur Chaurette.

We will go to the opposition side first.

Mr. Patry, you have five minutes.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you very much for being here.

My first question is to the three representatives from the CECI. You got some help from Luck Mervil, who raised money in Quebec, during the natural disaster. Can you provide the chair of the committee with a list of all the locations where you work in Haiti, in all areas?

You talked about negotiating with farmers. You also talked about training. Can you tell us what specific areas you are involved in in all regions of Haiti? I do not want to know that today, because it will take too much time, and I want to ask some questions.

My second question is for Ms. Bouchard. You talked about two aspects of the perception of Canada. You talked about Aristide. Was it a coup d'État or not? We know full well that Aristide filled his pockets well and that especially in the greater Montreal area, he is supporting people who are advocating his return to Haiti. You said that we should support the Famille Lavalas' return to politics. These people ran in the election, and only some members were elected. They are not part of the government, because they did not elect enough members. You said we should think about the return. Do you not think that if Aristide were to return to Haiti, to Port-au-Prince, it would instead represent a return to chaos?

Secondly, regarding Prime Minister Jacques Alexis, you said that we needed to be careful with the way we use human rights. Given the way that you stated that, I gathered that you disagreed with Canada's decision to not allow him to come to Canada, not as prime minister, but as a citizen to visit his family in Montreal. I got the impression that you disagreed with the government's decision. I do not know why he was not allowed to come. We made that request two years ago, and it was refused. Do you know something about that that we, as parliamentarians, do not know?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Maybe we'll get our guests to answer the question. If there's time we'll go to Mr. Martin, but if not....

[Michel Chaurette]

I will try to be brief. The CECI works mainly in the Artibonite, Gonaïves, and Saint-Marc regions. These regions, along with Port-au-Prince and the northeast near the Dominican Republic, are part of the hottest regions in Haiti, politically speaking. We also work in Port-au-Prince.

We work primarily on local agricultural development programs with groups of agricultural producers. We are also working on the local governance plan with local elected officials and various local governance structures. That is our range of activities. As part of this range of activities, we also sometimes provide humanitarian aid, if there are crises. We do major campaigns at that level. Each year, we mobilize considerable resources for Haiti, in other words, money and volunteers to work in Haiti. These volunteers provide assistance not only for local development but also to Haitian institutions. One of the strategies is to support civilian organizations and decentralized state institutions in regions that are extremely impoverished and very weak.

We are also involved in the areas of democracy, culture, peace, mediation, and conflict prevention. We work primarily with human rights advocacy organizations. Moreover, we also work within structures that provide training, like Université Quisqueya.

Our third area of activity is health care. We work in particular on AIDS prevention and developing the Ministry of Health.

Our action is quite diversified and broad-ranging, since we work with funding from various Canadian sources, the World Bank, funds from Europe and the government. Our NGO is very operational.

I would like to conclude by saying that we often do short-term reconstruction work as part of what we call the Employment Intensive Investment Program, or EIIP, to create jobs in the short term for the people. That has enabled us to do rural infrastructure work and work in the area of building social infrastructure.

The CECI's action is highly symbolic. The theme of our annual report this year was Haiti. Our patron and the main spokesperson for our work is a Haitian-Canadian, Luck Mervil. Haiti is extremely important for us. The work that we do there inspires what we do elsewhere, and what we do elsewhere inspires our work in Haiti.

For example, we have done work in community security in Central America, and we hope to be able to repeat that in Haiti. The military approach to security in Haiti has proven a failure. It did not work with MINUSTAH and others, but it will perhaps work with the people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Very quickly.

[Thérèse Bouchard]

Thank you for your question. It gives me an opportunity to clarify what I said. While I said that the issue of Aristide's return needs to be dealt with, it is not necessarily to enable him to return. In fact, personally, I believe that would lead to chaos.

However, a trial must be held, the situation needs to be clarified. That is what I meant when I talked about impunity. We must know why he was ousted. The trial must be conducted. It would be a good reason for him not to return. I am not sure that many people want him back, but his supporters are very virulent when they speak.

That is what I mean when I say we must look at that. It does not mean that he should go back. However, the situation needs to be looked at in accordance with the law.

As regards Mr. Alexis, like you, I do not know why... I worked with Mr. Alexis on two occasions when he was a professor at Université Quisqueya. He worked with us putting in place a negotiation program for conflict prevention. Based on my experience, he was someone who sought dialogue and non-violent solutions to problems.

I would like someone to explain things to me. As a Canadian citizen, I do not like being told that I cannot be given the reasons why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you, Madame Bouchard.

I'll go to Madame Bourgeois.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

I would like to clarify some small things. A little earlier, you talked about armed gangs. You said that these people were involved in a flourishing industry.

Over the past month, witnesses have told us that they are working very hard to provide security. These people, of course, are part of MINUSTAH, or are helping it. I do not understand. Have you told the people working for the UN or other countries that MINUSTAH was somewhat ineffective in dealing with armed gangs?

You asked what MINUSTAH was waiting for to react. You do work for the Centre for International Studies and Cooperation, you are not idiots. Did you meet with people to tell them that the armed assistance that is being provided to establish order has yielded no or almost no results? Have you done something?