Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on Dec. 9th, 2022

[Monique Clesca]

We are in favour of human rights and in favour of the freedom of men and women to make decisions concerning their bodies.

Within the Montana group, and within the Commission pour la recherche d'une solution haïtienne à la crise, which drafted the Montana Accord, there is a platform of feminist organizations that also advocate that women should have autonomous control over their bodies. They have been working for years to have legislation passed granting that autonomy.

That's why we're involved in the Conférence nationale souveraine en Haïti. At the conference, women, organizations of activist women and human rights organizations will be able to discuss this, and we'll be able to see how we can move forward on this issue.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

All right. Thank you very much.

I barely have a minute left, Ms. Clesca, and I have a brief final question for you.

As we all know, Canada has imposed sanctions on two senators who belonged to the Montana group. How did you react to that?

[Monique Clesca]

I'd like to correct something you said. Pardon me, but the sanctioned senators didn't belong to the Montana group.

After the Montana Accord, we tried to expand the consensus and we began talks with various political groups. That's how we established a consensus with the modified PEN group and the Grand rassemblement pour l'évolution d'Haïti, the GREH, to which Senator Youri Latortue and Joseph Lambert, president of the Senate belonged. That was in the context of the modified PEN group. At no time did they belong to the Montana group. The expanded consensus included the Montana group and the members of the modified PEN group and the GREH.

That's the situation. If you want to discuss sanctions, I can do so, but you're telling me we don't have enough time.

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

That's correct.

Thank you for your answers, Ms. Clesca.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Arnold Viersen]

Thank you.

We'll now hear from Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe for seven minutes.

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

Ms. Clesca, I want to take this opportunity to ask you to tell us about the sanctions.

[Monique Clesca]

Thank you very much.

We're in favour of the sanctions. We've been saying for more than a year now that Haiti's various partners must be able to take measures under their legislation and develop public policies to control weapons and apply various sanctions. However, they must be careful in imposing sanctions, particularly when they do so in the economic sector. You have to understand that the three individuals who have been sanctioned until now control 30% to 50% of the banking sector. We therefore want to note that, in addition to those sanctions, specific measures are necessary to support the banking sector, which is already in precarious condition.

However, we understand the need to impose sanctions. You are an autonomous state, you have imposed sanctions, and we are grateful to you for that. We even think there are still a lot of names that don't appear on the list of persons targeted by these sanctions. However, support measures will also be necessary.

Furthermore, we Haitians will also have to be able to nationalize sanctions, as it were. We will have to determine what our legislation enables us to do. For example, will everything that Canada seizes or freezes revert to the Canadian government or to the Haitian government once we have a transitional government? These are all matters that will have to be discussed under a cooperative arrangement among Canada, Haiti and the transitional government.

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

In that scenario, Mr. Henry will no longer be there; his exit will have been negotiated. I also think there's a consensus on that, but the analysts will tell us when they help us draft our report on this study. As we hear from witnesses, we realize that both Haitians in Haiti and members of the Haitian diaspora across Quebec, Canada and the United States feel that Mr. Henry's government is illegitimate. You're the first person to tell us that. Other witnesses have also said it today. So I think it's quite obvious.

You said in your opening statement that this was a political crisis and that the humanitarian crisis wouldn't be resolved until the political crisis had been resolved. I'd like you to explain to us why you said that, because I think it's essential to us in drafting our report and recommendations.

[Monique Clesca]

I think that virtually everyone has seen that the gangs were funded and armed by various sectors. Consider the examples of the instrumentalization of the gangs and their complicity in it. The government recently had the quite strange idea that it would distribute television sets among populations and communities so they could watch the World Cup. That's what the Henry government chose to do. He even invited community leaders for the occasion, including gang members, one of whom was even arrested. That's one example.

During the COVID‑19 pandemic, distributions were made here and there, and one of the coordinators was Jimmy Chérizier, also known as Barbecue, a gang leader.

In addition, various human rights organizations, as well as the Harvard Law School, have published reports outlining the involvement of certain persons in the La Saline massacre. I would remind you that that massacre, which occurred on November 13, 2018, was the first massacre intended to undermine social opposition. Those reports clearly showed that Mr. Monchéry, who was director general of Jovenel Moïse's department of the interior, was behind the massacre. There was also Mr. Duplan, as well as Mr. Chérizier, who was a police officer at the time.

So the gangs were both complicit and instrumentalized. As Haitians say, that's zo nan bouyon.

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

That's collusion.

[Monique Clesca]

Exactly. Perhaps not in the strictly legal sense of the term, but it's definitely that.

What we're saying is that the PHTK, which has been in power for 11 years and to which Mr. Henry belongs, is working with the gangs. There are numerous examples of that.

In the present circumstances, we can't say we're going to continue working with these people for a new Haiti or to organize elections. That's impossible. It's unthinkable.

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

It's unfortunate that I don't have much time left because what you're telling us is so important. The report will help us move forward. A Canadian delegation is already on site as we speak. The government and the House of Commons must speak out.

What you're saying is important: it's not just Mr. Henry, but the entire party. I'd like you to take the 30 seconds that I have left to tell us why it isn't just Mr. Henry and who are the others that we have to be careful not to confuse with the—

[Monique Clesca]

Yes, it's the entire PHTK regime, which has been in power for 11 years. There was Mr. Martelly, then Jovenel Moïse and now Mr. Henry, who was chosen by Jovenel Moïse. They transformed the government into a predatory and criminal state. Some ministers have been accused of problems associated with human rights, and others have been accused of rape. They nevertheless enjoy the rank of minister.

It's a criminal and predatory state in the way it treats the Haitian people. So you have to be careful. We're surprised, we're stunned, we don't understand how Canada can continue supporting Ariel Henry and be on his side.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Arnold Viersen]

Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, Ms. Clesca.

I apologize to the other witnesses; Ms. Clesca was too interesting.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Arnold Viersen]

Thank you.

We'll now have seven minutes from Ms. McPherson.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you very much to all of the witnesses today.

This has been very enlightening, very interesting, and as my colleagues have mentioned before, it's extremely important for us to understand what's happening in Haiti so that we can provide whatever assistance we can.

Madame Clesca, that was very interesting testimony that you've just provided. What I started hearing from my colleague from the Bloc is that there needs to be a political response first, but we've also heard from Mr. Brender that the humanitarian crisis is so pressing at the moment.

I'm struck by the fact that it looks like we will have to do many things at the same time to help Haitians as they deal with cholera, with security and with the failure of their democracy. All of that is coloured by the idea that interventions in the past and actions that have been done by the international community in the past have tainted what we do going forward.

Madame Clesca, I'd like to start with you.

I know you've met with many Haitian Canadians over the last several weeks. I know you've had an opportunity to talk to over 50 groups of Haitian Canadians. Can you tell us what the Haitian-Canadian community is asking for and what they are talking about, please?

[Monique Clesca]

We met with perhaps fewer than 50. We met with several. There are other groups we met with in terms of the Montana accord—not me personally—and we also met recently with the Coalition haïtienne au Canada contre la dictature en Haïti. We have met with them before, and what came through very clearly is the sentiment that everyone.... There is no dispute in terms of the crisis, in terms of the situation, the dire situation. I think from hearing all the different people, the witnesses, we are living a dire emergency. We are surviving day by day, barely surviving, if this is what it is called.

Yes, we do have different emergencies going on. The problem is, how do we resolve them?

We can no longer sit in Haiti and say, “Come and help us resolve it. You do it. You bring the boots on the ground.” It can no longer work. It has not worked in the past. I think this is what I'm hearing from the compatriots in Canada that we have been speaking to.

It has not worked in the past. It has brought cholera, it has brought sexual abuse, and it has not reinforced Haitian civil society, Haitian institutions, the Haitian state. We need a different model, and what we are saying is that the model must be a transition by which we can ourselves—our sovereign selves, with our dignity—talk to Canada as two states talking to each other. We need co-operation.

We know we need the help. We know we need assistance. We have asked for assistance, but we do not want the boots coming as a result of Mr. Henry saying “Come and intervene”, because some of what he could have done, he has not done. He has crossed his arms.

This is what we're saying. This is what we are hearing also from Haitian-origin Canadians, if I can say it that way.

Thank you. I hope I have responded.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you very much. You have.

I would like to ask my next question of Mr. Brender.

Mr. Brender, first of all, I want to thank you for your work and to give my condolences for the loss of Paul Farmer this year. I know he was an incredibly important person in the humanitarian sphere. My sympathy is with you.

You spoke a little about what's happening on the ground with regard to the cholera pandemic. What I'm struck with is the idea that we need to have a better way to get the cholera vaccine to communities, that we need to have long-term strategic predictable funding for local CSOs, the civil society organizations. Can you talk about Canada's response and what Canada can do with regard to procurement and humanitarian aid?

[Mark Brender]

Thank you.

One challenge in crises has always been that we respond to the immediate crisis, what's just in front of us. We lose sight of the long-term policy frameworks that got us to this place. Part of those long-term policy frameworks, in times when there's not apparent crisis.... We allow stockpiles of the cholera vaccine to dwindle to nothing. Canada can play a leadership role in times of apparent peace.

Paul had a phrase, “acute on chronic”, and that's what's happening in Haiti right now. It's very acute. It's more acute than it has ever been. The chronic situation, certainly for health and education, also ties into chronic underfunding of health for diseases that affect poor countries because of all the underlying social and economic conditions. Cholera is there because there's no water or sanitation. Part of the result of the 2010 earthquake was no investments in Haiti's public sector to be able to build long-term WASH standards within the country, which would have helped prevent cholera right now.

Despite the fact that we are in this crisis, we need to maintain a long-term perspective on policy. What is Canada doing in the humanitarian and development space that has a long-term vision?

In the 2010 earthquake, one thing that Partners In Health did was build a teaching hospital. At the time we were heavily criticized for it. People asked, “How can this be a priority in a time of crisis?” Well, when there was the Haiti earthquake last summer, the people who responded were the people who were trained at that hospital through the residency programs. It was a 100% different response from 2010. It was a response led by Haitians, in part because we made an investment in health infrastructure, training and teaching that allowed some capacity to respond.

I think it's exactly the right question to be asking. How do we not have blinders? Everything we're talking about is incredibly important—security and what the international community is going to do to respond to so many crises—but we have to do it with an eye on long-term policy that includes how we approach political leaders and what we are doing to ensure that poor countries have the capacity to respond during times of crisis.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Arnold Viersen]

Thank you.

We will now have five minutes from Ms. Vandenbeld.

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

Thank you very much.

I would like to ask Ms. Segura to pick up on something you said in terms of the multilateral foreign intervention. The reason I'm asking is that most of the witnesses, certainly the civil society witnesses we've heard, have been quite vociferously opposed to having a foreign military-style intervention.

One thing we heard is that a lot of the gangs are children who've been forcibly separated from their families, put in orphanages and then recruited into gangs. The spectre, particularly if Canada were to send soldiers to this, would be Canadian soldiers face to face with armed gangs and potentially in a shooting battle with what are essentially child soldiers.

The other thing, of course, is what you said about it being better than the alternative of inaction. I think we've heard a lot of alternatives throughout the course of this study, including sanctions and stopping the arms. The oligarchs who are supporting these gangs are the ones we need to be going after. We need to stop the arms from getting in through the border, among a number of other things that we've been told, and also include capacity-building for the police, the local police.

I just wonder, given all of that, what your reasoning is for wanting to have a multilateral force.

[Dr. Renata Segura]

Thank you.

We are very aware of all of the difficulties that bringing a militia will bring, particularly those that you have mentioned, and the terrain where the confrontations will be. That's all certainly the case.

The truth is that the international community has supported, in the past and for many decades, processes to strengthen the national police. This is not the first time that we're talking about vetting and giving them technical expertise and training. Unfortunately, those processes take a lot of time. As we know, in some cases they don't produce the results that we need.

While we think that definitely those other policies that you mentioned are necessary, and it is true that the sanctions have had an incredible impact right away, we do think that a very carefully planned organization of troops who bring humanitarian corridors to allow for provisions to get to the community and loosen a little bit the grip that the gangs have over the communities would allow for air to come into the country too, for political processes to go forward and for a transitional government to be able to work.

We very much agree with Ms. Clesca's assessment that bringing in troops needs to be planned in very close coordination with a political agreement. It is very dangerous that the troops will be seen by Haitians as a force strengthening Henry's mandate, and that is in no way what we suggest.

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

Thank you.

Do any other witnesses wish to add anything on the subject?

[Monique Clesca]

Yes, thank you for the opportunity.

I completely agree with Mr. Brender on the need to invest in the humanitarian aspect as well to ensure we stimulate the development process. That's why I say that it isn't a question of boots on the ground, even in security matters. It's mainly a socioeconomic problem, and Canada can provide its assistance in that area. That's also why we want programs that can help unemployed and disadvantaged young people enter the economy. They exist outside the economy. Haiti is a deeply unequal country, and these kinds of programs are necessary.

The arrival of boots on the ground in neighbourhoods won't solve the problem. It would even be dangerous because, if Canada says it's considering the possibility of sending in troops, Haitians will sit there and wait for Canada's response. It's like Mr. Henry, who waits and does nothing. However, there are things that we can do.

I say no to foreign military intervention. We said so in the Montana Accord. That's what I wanted to add.

I have one final point to make. Mr. Brender mentioned the earthquake that occurred in Haiti. International assistance did arrive, but 10 or so days later. At first, and particularly in the first 3 to 5 days, it was Haitians who intervened, and we witnessed Haitian solidarity. That's why I say that being Haitian means that we can do it. We don't have everything we need to do it, but we want to see investments in our long-term development. We want a state that doesn't attack our rights or resources. I would remind you that 50% of Haiti's population doesn't have access to health care. We need investment in that field, and the Zanmi Lasante model is promising.