THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 7, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met with videoconference this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to study Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act (disposal of assets of a foreign state); and to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to foreign relations and international trade generally.
Senator Peter M. Boehm ( Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. My name is Peter Boehm. I am a senator from Ontario and the Chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I wish to invite committee members participating in today’s meeting to introduce themselves.
[English]
Senator Adler: Charles Adler, Manitoba.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, Ontario.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
Senator Ravalia: Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: Amina Gerba from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Harder: Peter Harder, Ontario.
Senator Wilson: Duncan Wilson, British Columbia.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Martine Hébert from Quebec.
The Chair: Welcome to all the senators.
[English]
Welcome to anyone who may be watching us across the country on the Senate ParlVU channel.
Colleagues, for our first panel, we will proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act (disposal of foreign state assets).
Before we begin, as usual, I would like everyone present to please mute notifications on your devices and please observe the instructions on the card in terms of best practices for the use of the microphone and the earpiece so as to protect our technical staff and, in particular, our interpreters.
Before we begin our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-214, I would like to remind senators of a number of points. If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I wish to ensure that, at all times, we all have the same understanding of where we are in this process.
In terms of the mechanics of the process, when more than one amendment is proposed to be moved in a clause, amendments should be proposed in the order of the lines of a clause.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, the proper process is not to move a motion to delete the entire clause but, rather, to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Some amendments that are moved may have consequential effect on other parts of the bill. It is therefore useful to this process if a senator moving an amendment identified to the committee other clauses in this bill where this amendment could have an effect. Otherwise, it would be very difficult for members of the committee to remain consistent in their decision making.
Because no notice is required to move amendments, there can, of course, have been no preliminary analysis of the amendments to establish which one or ones may be of consequence to others and which may be contradictory.
If committee members ever have any questions about the process or about the propriety of anything occurring, they can certainly raise a point of order.
As chair, I will listen to arguments, decide when there has been sufficient discussion of a matter or order and make a ruling.
The committee is ultimately in charge of its business within the bounds established by the Senate, and a ruling can be appealed to the full committee by asking whether the ruling shall be sustained.
I wish to remind honourable senators that if there is ever any uncertainty as to the results of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote which, of course, provides unambiguous results.
My last point is that, as you are aware, any tied vote negates the motion in question.
Are there any questions on any of the above? If not, we will proceed.
Colleagues, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-214, An Act to amend the Special Economic Measures Act (disposal of foreign state assets)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
An Hon. Senator: No.
The Chair: I heard a “no.”
Does anyone want to speak to the point?
Senator Harder: I will be very brief. You would infer from the questions I asked yesterday what my concerns are. My concerns are, frankly, two things: One is the unintended consequences that the witnesses spoke to and, more importantly for me, this is an area of exclusive executive responsibility. I would support this were it to be a government bill. It is not a government bill.
Therefore, I’m concerned about private members’ business defining or providing a tool that the government isn’t asking for in the conduct of its sanctions policy. That is a bit esoteric on my part, I know, but I think it is a principle that I believe we should observe.
I recognize that I am the lone voice on this, but it is a voice that I think the Senate needs to hear to understand how this committee has gone about its business.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Coyle: Did you want this —
The Chair: I think your hand was up, but I will go to Senator Dasko after —
Senator Coyle: I wasn’t sure what the protocol was. Okay.
I appreciated the issues that our colleague Senator Harder raised at committee yesterday with various witnesses, and I understand the two main concerns.
I received an answer that made me comfortable on the consequences issue, so I am supportive. This is a point for the second point as well. We are not telling the executive to use this tool; we are merely providing a tool that we have been advised could be helpful for them to use if they so choose to use it.
To the second point, politically there are considerations surrounding everything we do. Sometimes we can help an executive by providing an option that they have not necessarily sought out, but it is then there for them if they choose to use it.
I don’t know; I can’t read the minds of our executive, but I have not seen any pushback about this at all in any of the media and policy conversations. I have not seen any concern expressed. In fact, there may be — but we don’t know — some delight that this is coming their way without them having to initiate it, and they don’t have to use it if they don’t want to use it.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: I think we heard some excellent testimony at this committee. I was pleased with all the witnesses and the evidence brought forward. I would conclude that this is a tool in the tool box for government, and the threshold for using this tool is very high. I would conclude that the risks are very low for the government to go ahead with this, and they are manageable.
I was very impressed with the evidence yesterday, in particular from the government witnesses including the RCMP, stressing how they work with other countries on all aspects of this. It struck me. They are always meeting with the Europeans to talk strategies, tactics and opinions. That reinforces what I have heard from the government because all government folks whom I have been speaking to have been stressing this to me as well. They want to work with other countries. Other countries are moving in this direction. I think that we are very much in sync on that.
I do think this fits very well with the Prime Minister’s aspirations for us to be a middle power. I think it is a very helpful tool in that picture of Canada.
I appreciate Senator Harder’s comments. The fact that the government hasn’t weighed in on the bill at this stage is not unusual. I note it passed at second reading, not on division. We know that doesn’t happen automatically anymore. We have seen. It didn’t pass on division. There were no objections to taking it to this stage.
I am hopeful that the government will accept this. However, if it passes and goes to the other place, they will decide there. They will have the full chance to look at this and to assess it and to vote on it whichever way they see fit. That’s the message I would like to leave us with: It will be in their hands to decide.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Wilson: I withdraw my question.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I have a question for Senator Harder, who says that he would have agreed to the bill if it were a government bill. Can you explain the difference between a similar bill introduced by the government and this bill, which is a private bill?
[English]
Senator Harder: The difference is that a government bill has gone through the deliberative process of government consideration, which would be both interdepartmental in this case and also at the senior level of government.
The government will have weighed, in its own mind, the cost and the benefits and the unintended consequences. It would also have had informal and formal consultations that government legislation would have with like-mindeds. It would comfort me, at least, to know that in seeking this tool, the executive was weighing the risks and the opportunities in a way that parliamentarians cannot. I am one to defer to the executive in matters of foreign policy, generally, and I would do so if that were the case with a bill coming forward that is a government bill.
It is that simple.
The Chair: Thank you. Would anyone else like to take the floor?
In which case, I will make a few remarks.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I have one question.
I want to make sure I understand. Senator Dasko, in the process, the bill will be sent back to the other place, and the government will have the freedom to choose what it does with it, and ultimately whether it uses the executive power that the act would like to give to the government. It doesn’t necessarily bind or expose the government to anything, unless they want to use it, which will be to be determined based on what testimony has been presented to us. Did I understand correctly? I want to make sure.
[English]
Senator Dasko: Let me start with the process. It will have to pass the Senate at third reading first. Then it will go to the House of Commons, and they will decide whether to pass the bill or not. It will go to a committee there. They will have a committee process somewhat like ours.
They can decide. They have a majority. The government has a majority now, as you know. They can decide at committee whether this goes ahead or not. If it goes ahead, then it would pass their chamber, then it would become law, and then the government would decide on a case-by-case basis whether and how to use this new tool. It is a new tool in their tool kit. They will decide when, where, who, what and how to use it, if the circumstances are so strong.
I think we heard from witnesses that the threshold is very high to use this power. The offending state has to be a major perpetrator of international crimes, so that is how the government will decide to use it. There are many steps ahead.
That was a long answer.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Thank you for that. My question was ultimately as follows: Even if the bill were eventually passed, the government will always be the final decision maker whether or not to use the tool in its toolbox. However, we know that there are several others at the international level.
Thank you.
[English]
Senator Al Zaibak: My question relates to Senator Hébert’s question but in a different way.
Regarding the concerns raised by our colleague the Honourable Senator Harder, wouldn’t that be dealt with when the bill passes the Senate and goes to the other place? Wouldn’t that be totally dealt with, or are we missing something? I am wondering if Senator Harder can answer this question.
Senator Harder: Private members’ business or Senate public bills do not go through the scrutiny of government legislation at any one time.
It is true that Senate public bills or private members’ bills, from time to time, are supported or not supported by the government. The government can indicate that early or later. That is up to the government. But at no time, even in that process, does it go through the scrutiny of government legislation.
The Chair: You are fine with that, Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Yes. Thank you.
The Chair: Would anyone else like to take the floor? Okay. This is my opportunity now.
I wish to say a few things: I too am an institutionalist, and I see how policy is made. I have participated in that in the past. That is where scrutiny comes forward through a government bill.
There are, of course, other bills that have gone through with respect to sanctions. I can think of the Magnitsky Law from a few years ago. It’s an important part of the tool kit, but it’s a tool that hasn’t been used very often. The government’s preference is, in fact, to use the Special Economic Measures Act, or SEMA, because it gives a broader approach and is more supple in terms of its utilization.
That said, this particular bill has seen a number of incarnations. It died on the Order Paper through prorogation and the election. It is back with us again.
We will all recall that two years ago, there was a provision introduced in the Budget Implementation Act with respect to the seizure of assets. If we realize that, principally, this bill was focused on the war in Ukraine, then we can see that in the past two years, of course, there have been developments on that side as well.
The bill has been around for a while. I have not detected a clear signal from the government one way or the other. We have heard from witnesses that, in some respects, this bill might make certain aspects easier. This is with respect to the judicial function. I suppose that is fine.
As Senator Coyle said earlier, there’s also the possibility that the government might actually welcome something like this. However, there’s also the possibility that the government might ignore it because the foreign policy aspect always falls under the Royal Prerogative, and the executive takes its decisions. We have experienced that in our long and lengthy debates on a private member’s bill that came from the House in the last Parliament.
On balance, you can look at this in two ways. I appreciate Senator Harder’s argument. I appreciate where we are. I would like to propose now that we have a recorded vote on the bill. I will ask our clerk, Chantal Cardinal, to handle that.
Chantal Cardinal, Clerk of the Committee: The Honourable Senator Boehm?
Senator Boehm: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Adler?
Senator Adler: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Al Zaibak?
Senator Al Zaibak: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Ataullahjan?
Senator Ataullahjan: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Coyle?
Senator Coyle: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Dasko?
Senator Dasko: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator M. Deacon?
Senator M. Deacon: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Gerba?
Senator Gerba: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Harder?
Senator Harder: No.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Hébert?
Senator Hébert: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator MacDonald?
Senator MacDonald: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Ravalia?
Senator Ravalia: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: The Honourable Senator Wilson?
Senator Wilson: Carried.
Ms. Cardinal: Yeas: 12; nays: 1.
The Chair: Accordingly, the bill is carried. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: No. Okay. Thank you.
To conclude on that point, this debate has been very useful in terms of setting out at least a verbal aspect of observation to the bill.
Senator Harder: Colleagues, it is my intention to speak briefly at third reading to draw the attention of the Senate to the testimony we heard and the views that I have expressed. I expect the same level of thunderous support as I have enjoyed this morning.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Harder, for your usual candour on this point.
Colleagues, is it agreed that I report this bill to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Colleagues, for our second panel, we are discussing the situation in Haiti. We are pleased to welcome the following witnesses: Camille Occius, Executive Director, Organisation des Citoyens pour une Nouvelle Haïti; Michèle Asselin, Executive Director, Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, by videoconference; and Chloé Cébron, Policy and Advocacy Director, Doctors of the World Canada, also by videoconference.
We are now ready to hear your opening remarks, which will be followed by questions from senators and your answers.
Mr. Occius, you have the floor, to be followed by Ms. Asselin and Ms. Cébron.
Camille Occius, Executive Director, Organisation des Citoyens pour une Nouvelle Haïti: Mr. Chair, honourable senators, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the Organisation des Citoyens pour une Nouvelle Haïti, the OCNH, let me express my deep gratitude for this invitation. Testifying before this prestigious committee is a privilege for me. It is also an opportunity to give voice to millions of Haitian citizens whose daily lives are marked by heroic resilience in the face of an unprecedented multifaceted crisis.
I would like to begin by acknowledging Canada’s leadership in the international community. Your ongoing support for strengthening the Haitian National Police and the justice system is not just technical assistance; it is an essential bulwark against the complete collapse of our republican structures. As multilateralism fragments, Canada’s commitment remains a sign of solidarity for the Haitian people.
Honourable senators, the picture I’m going to paint for you is bleak. This is the harsh reality of our country.
The year 2024 has been marked by unprecedented violence for the Haitian people. According to the UN report, more than 8,400 people were killed, injured or abducted. Behind those numbers are broken families.
The grip of gangs on the country has led to the forced displacement of 580,000 people. This is not just an internal migration statistic. It means a large number of women and children who are completely destitute, exposed to systematic gender violence and deprived of their dignity and safety. There is physical insecurity, but also food insecurity. When 5 million people go hungry, the very stability of the nation is compromised.
Adding to this emergency is a legal identity crisis. Nearly 3 million Haitians are at risk of statelessness due to the lack of a birth certificate. Without identity, there is no citizenship, and without citizenship, there can be no democracy.
In July 2020, the anti-corruption unit significantly stepped up its anti-corruption efforts. Of a total of 112 reports filed by the institution since 2004, 68 investigation reports have been filed under the current administration, along with 120 applications filed against authorities for failing to declare assets. Unfortunately, the Haitian justice system has not followed up in a meaningful way to ensure convictions.
Lastly, the electoral impasse that has persisted for nearly a decade has created a vacuum of legitimacy that only violence seems to fill today. The justice system, a pillar of the rule of law, is in a state of paralysis, and now impunity has become the norm.
Honourable senators, members of the committee, the Haitian crisis can no longer be dealt with solely from a security perspective. It is structural. It is a crisis of governance and human rights. However, the OCNH is confident that it does not have to be this way. Recovery is possible, provided that international support aligns with the deep aspirations of Haitian civil society.
Honourable senators, that is why, with all the solemnity that this meeting requires, the OCNH submits several recommendations for your consideration.
First, there is a need for massive support for vital statistics modernization and criminal reform, because without guaranteed legal identity, access to justice and electoral participation remain wishful thinking.
Second, with local actors, humanitarian corridors and specific protection mechanisms must be put in place for displaced women and minors who are the primary targets of criminal networks.
Third, we must give technical and political support to an electoral process that will not just be a technical deadline, but an act of reclaiming popular, inclusive and transparent sovereignty.
We also need to redirect some of the aid toward building the capacity of civil society and oversight institutions to ensure the accountability and sustainability of Canadian investments. Fourth, we need to ensure that international assistance addresses root causes, including corruption and arms trafficking, rather than just symptom management.
Mr. Chair, honourable members of the committee, the Haitian people are not asking for charity, but rather for partnerships that believe in the possibility of fair justice and sustainable human security.
Canada has shown that it understands the complexity of our challenges. We hope that this committee will be able to advocate for heightened commitment in favour of a new Haiti where human rights will at last be the basis of national life.
The OCNH reiterates its willingness to work closely with your institutions. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Occius.
Ms. Asselin, you now have the floor.
Michèle Asselin, Director General, Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Association québécoise des organismes de coopération internationale, or AQOCI, which includes more than 70 organizations working for sustainable development and international solidarity. Over 40 of our members have been active in Haiti for many decades.
My testimony is based on first-hand experience on the ground. Our recommendations are a continuation of the report entitled Haiti’s Multi Faceted Crisis and Canada’s Response, published in December 2025, which focused its priorities on the protection and leadership of Haitian women and girls.
I would like to call to your attention four priority issues that require Canada’s urgent commitment.
The first issue is to improve donor coordination and transparency. International donors in Haiti do not collectively communicate their funding strategies enough. To develop effective strategies, we need to know the priority areas and preferred approaches. We recommend that Canada establish a dual coordination mechanism: transparent communication of funding strategies between donors, focusing interventions on gender equality, and putting a structured dialogue with Canadian organizations with close ties to Haitian civil society at the forefront.
The second issue would be to stop making people with disabilities invisible. People with disabilities in the camps are rendered tragically invisible through a lack of identification criteria and a lack of knowledge of their specific needs. We recommend that Canada encourage and fund a collective study on identifying major vulnerabilities, ensuring that people with disabilities are systematically included.
Third, we need to commit to protecting children and preventing a bloodbath. To reach populations, humanitarian organizations need to negotiate access with organized armed groups. These negotiations have revealed a troubling reality: Over 50% of the members of these groups are minors. These children are not criminals. They are coerced to join based on a lack of options, poverty and the proliferation of weapons.
With the multinational security force in the country, we fear bloody conflicts that would primarily affect children. In this regard, we recommend three actions: strengthening control of arms trafficking to Haiti, promoting the emergence of dialogue between the Haitian government and armed groups to avoid bloodshed and providing financial support to Haitian civil society organized to provide concrete alternatives, such as going back to school. The military solution alone will not solve anything. These kids need school books, not coffins.
The last issue is maintaining support for regions outside Port‑au-Prince. While all eyes are on Port-au-Prince, the rest of the country continues to function and is home to thousands of displaced people. Capabilities are limited and fragile. We recommend that Canada continue to support regional economies by addressing the needs of displaced people and the increased environmental risks of hosting thousands of displaced people.
In conclusion, it is imperative to act on four priorities: better coordination and transparency of donors; an inclusive approach that leaves no one behind; a political commitment to promote dialogue, arms control and support for civil society; and maintaining and increasing funding for development rather than prioritizing only spending related to military actions.
Implementing these recommendations must focus any stabilization strategy on Haitian women and girls. Haitian women’s organizations deserve direct, predictable and equitable support.
In conclusion, I would like to highlight one major concern. While the federal government will increase its military spending to $72 billion in the coming years, official development assistance will decrease by $2.4 billion over the next four years. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the economic impact of international co-operation promotes self-reliance rather than dependence. Canada has a crucial role to play.
Thank you, and I am available to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Asselin.
Ms. Cébron, you now have the floor.
[English]
Chloé Cébron, Policy and Advocacy Director, Doctors of the World Canada, Humanitarian Policy and Advocacy Group: Honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today about the humanitarian situation in Haiti.
My name is Chloé Cébron. I am the Policy and Advocacy Director for Médecins du Monde Canada. I speak here today on behalf of the Humanitarian Policy and Advocacy Group, which brings together more than 30 Canadian humanitarian organizations.
Our member organizations have been working in Haiti for over three decades. Currently, we work throughout the country in all sectors, including health, nutrition, food security, water and sanitation, and we work alongside local communities and local partners who are facing the consequences of this crisis every day.
I said before that Haiti’s crisis is deeply multi-dimensional. It is a security crisis, but it’s also a political, social and humanitarian one.
We recognize Canada’s ongoing engagement to support Haiti, including its important investments and efforts to strengthen security and advance stabilization. However, let’s be clear: There will be no long-lasting results unless we also meet the urgent humanitarian needs of the millions of Haitians who are facing this crisis and unless stabilization efforts are carried out with strict safeguarding.
Haiti has been receiving increased political and international attention in recent months, so there is momentum — momentum for Canada and its global partners to step up their humanitarian and civilian protection engagement.
Haiti is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Inflation, shortages of essential goods and widespread insecurity have pushed millions into severe hardship, and a record level of internal displacement is putting unbearable pressure on host communities, basic services and humanitarian service providers.
We are deeply concerned about how fast the humanitarian and protection situation is deteriorating — as my colleagues said before — especially for women and girls, children and people with disabilities.
Yet, Haiti’s humanitarian crisis remains critically underfunded. For 2026, only 22% of the US$880 million required for the humanitarian response plan has been secured, and if you look at most life-saving sectors, they are actually funded at under 10% currently. This is why we say that a security-first approach on its own won’t be enough. It can even make things worse unless it’s matched by strong humanitarian assistance and serious safeguarding.
Let’s talk about safeguarding now. You know that the Gang Suppression Force began its phased deployment in April, and we want to stress one point: Any Canadian involvement in the force must contribute to enhanced civilian protection, respect for human rights and international humanitarian law.
We know the history of international forces in Haiti. Security operations should not aggravate existing vulnerabilities — as I said previously — especially for children, who may make up as much as 50% of armed gang members. Canada must contribute to the force through robust safeguards, real oversight and strong accountability so that our support does not contribute — directly or indirectly — to civilian harm.
Finally, we cannot lose sight of what works: supporting locally led responses and strengthening local institutions. That means sustained support for Haitian institutions, civil society organizations and grassroots peacebuilders, who are the closest to the community and the best place to respond timely and adequately.
In closing, senators, we urge Canada to strengthen its humanitarian leadership in Haiti by increasing needs-based funding, ensuring any security engagement fully protects civilians and respects international law and placing Haitian civil society and local actors at the centre of decision making.
We stand ready to continue working with Parliament and the government to support a principled, coordinated and people-centred Canadian response.
Thank you for your attention.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cébron.
I wanted to mention that Senator Youance from Quebec is with us today. Welcome, senator.
We are now ready for questions. We will give you three minutes. Ask very specific questions, please, colleagues.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: My question is to you, Mr. Occius. The picture that you paint is of a multi-dimensional crisis, and you say the picture is very grim with unprecedented violence, so obviously the current security measures are not working.
What additional measures can be taken? Who should we be looking at? We’re hearing about children and women being killed. Do you still have any hope that the situation can be resolved?
[Translation]
Mr. Occius: Thank you. That’s a very good question.
There are two forces or authorities in Haiti, the Armed Forces of Haiti and the Haitian National Police, or HNP. As I explained, for a number of years, Canada has supported truly strengthening the Haitian National Police. Despite that, there are no real major changes.
To answer your question, I can tell you that techniques are essential. Let’s talk about the police. In order to strengthen the Haitian National Police, we believe it is necessary to purge the Haitian National Police of the officers who have ties with armed gangs.
Interventions are needed to strengthen the HNP. The fact is that this is a critical time and a critical situation. We can say that the HNP on its own cannot provide a real solution at this time. However, we believe that there must be an intervention, but that it must be tailored to support the HNP. Canada could act as support, but the solution must come from Haitians. We recognize that there needs to be intervention. However, it has to be in support of the HNP. You can’t discount the HNP. There is hope.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Mèsi anpil for my Haitian friends. I really respect all of the testimony we’ve had here today. I think this is a committee that is very much in solidarity with the people of Haiti. We want to thank all of you for the work that you’re doing not only for our Haitian brothers and sisters but also for the stability of our world.
I have a question for Mr. Occius. Your organization is based in Haiti. My question is about the involvement of the Canadian and American Haitian diaspora and how those groups are working with your organization and others on this mission to bring democracy back to Haiti.
[Translation]
Mr. Occius: Thank you for that equally important question.
At the OCNH, we always talk about synergy. Today, many people are talking about Haiti. They are expressing their concerns and everyone is trying to find a solution. However, without synergy, we can’t find a real solution. We promote synergy, not only within Haitian civil society, but also within the international community. I heard a witness talk to you about assistance coordination. There is a lot of funding in Haiti, but we can say that there is a problem with coordination, and even orientation.
[English]
Senator Coyle: Excuse me. I appreciate what you’re saying. My question is specifically about the diaspora.
Your organization and others like yours are working with the Haitian diaspora who live in Canada and in the U.S. What kind of coordination or cooperation is there?
[Translation]
Mr. Occius: Our organization has developed a connection with organizations in Canada and the United States. Even before arriving here, we sent a number of letters to organizations working in Canada, including to discuss the situation in Haiti. The OCNH has a very good relationship with Haitians and Haitian organizations set up in foreign countries.
Senator Gerba: I’d like to thank all the witnesses for their very insightful remarks. It’s very appreciated.
My question pertains to the diaspora. As you know, about 180,000 people make up the Haitian diaspora in Canada. Currently, that community is playing a major role economically and politically, transferring money, participating in influence networks and engaging in the debate over the country’s future. Some observers are of the view that the diaspora is both supporting political stabilization and widening internal divisions. How do you think the Haitian diaspora can make a meaningful contribution to the political transition and the rebuilding of a national consensus in Haiti, while limiting the risks of polarization?
Mr. Occius: Haiti relies on its diaspora. We are well aware of the precarious situation in Haiti right now. Without the diaspora, heaven knows what would happen.
The diaspora’s involvement in the reflection and decision-making process is crucial. The crisis can’t be solved without the active involvement of the diaspora. We want the diaspora’s co‑operation and involvement, because its members are responsible for much of the economic situation of those living in Haiti. The diaspora isn’t there just to send money and transfer funds. It’s there to participate in the reflection process on how to pull the country out of the situation it’s in.
Senator Gerba: Do you have a credible mechanism for working with the Haitian diaspora, be it in Canada or the U.S., where its members have a lot of influence? Is there some means of coordination or co-operation, so that the diaspora can meaningfully contribute to solving the problem in Haiti?
Mr. Occius: I don’t want to speak for other organizations operating in Haiti. I’m speaking solely for the OCNH. We routinely organize online discussions with diaspora organizations. Since those actors are not physically in Haiti, we use technology to organize talks, debates and discussions to see how the diaspora can participate in resolving the crisis.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
I would like to remind senators that we also have two witnesses joining us by video conference. I just wanted to point that out.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. I would like to direct this to our witnesses online. Hopefully, we will be able to get a response on this particular issue.
We heard about the diaspora. I will shift it a little bit to stateside.
The Trump administration has attempted to terminate the temporary protected status for Haitians and Syrians, and it is currently before the Supreme Court of the United States. If it is ruled lawful, that would impact about 350,000 Haitians who could be immediately deported. What damage could this do to an already devastating, chaotic situation in Haiti if they are forced to return?
Ms. Cébron: Thank you for the question. Yes, it is a huge concern for us this year.
I wish to stress that at Médecins du Monde Canada, we also work in Canada with migrants and refugee claimants, so we also know that part of the work on our territory. This is, of course, a huge concern. The situation in Haiti is by no means — I know that you have heard it in testimony and you know it already — a safe place, first of all. Almost 1.5 million people are already displaced in the country, more than half of whom are children. Services provided to those people are totally underfunded and are not sufficient.
We also know that there is deportation from the Dominican Republic, which is already an issue. Imagining this scenario is actually very worrying.
To be clear, it is also an issue that is not going to be for Haiti itself but for the Caribbean region and for Canada because we know from our experience with the work we do in Canada that certain people might be deported, but some people are going to start trying to stay in the U.S., which is more precarious, and also trying to go elsewhere in the region.
Of course, they are putting their safety, health and those of their families at risk when they do so. We are following the decision of the Supreme Court very closely. There is also the huge work of the Haitian diaspora in the U.S. to also try to push back legally against those decisions and those processes.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Ms. Asselin, would you like to add anything to this?
[Translation]
Ms. Asselin: I completely agree with the situation Ms. Cébron just described. In addition to the picture she painted, the deportation of 300,000 Haitians is very concerning because it would mean less support and financial assistance coming from that diaspora to help a variety of Haitian communities. It would be very serious if the U.S. followed through on this absolutely senseless plan to deport Haitians in massive numbers.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Asselin.
[English]
Senator Al Zaibak: My question is directed to Ms. Asselin.
Haiti has experienced repeated international interventions over several decades, yet instability continues to deepen. From your perspective, what lessons has the international community failed to learn from the previous interventions? How can Canada help to ensure that current efforts avoid repeating past mistakes?
[Translation]
Ms. Asselin: Thank you for your question.
I think the biggest mistake is that those international interventions weren’t deployed in co-operation with organizations in the country and the Haitian government. They should play a central role in any decisions. I agree with Mr. Occius on this. As you will recall, the international community intervened when Haiti was hit by the big earthquake, but Haitian organizations weren’t involved in the groups coordinating the support. On top of that, everything was done in English. Our view on how to manage the crisis is very outward-looking, but we really need to rely on Haitians.
We can talk about the fact that a multitude of human rights groups, education groups and humanitarian organizations are supported by Haitians. Any intervention must be supported by them. The population supports those organizations and engages with them; that process mustn’t be ignored in any strategy. Canada could make a difference by making it a habit to always consider the involvement of Haitian NGOs it can work with as well as the government’s involvement. Although the government is fragile, that approach would help to strengthen its leadership. In any Canadian intervention, the approach has to be crosscutting.
I want to emphasize that, in this crisis, we can rely on the organizations working to curb the problems the police is having truly carrying out its mission. In order for the police to carry out its mission, an effective justice system is necessary. That means supporting efforts to develop the justice system. Mr. Occius spoke about capacity building. The justice system and police are an important pillar, but observers, human rights defenders and organized groups are another pillar. They, too, can support security-building efforts by making Haitians the focal point. That is applicable to every sphere, from agriculture and education to the development of health services. That’s the key take-away. It might sound simple, but it’s apparently very hard to put into practice, since it’s never happened and it’s been decades. Canada is to be commended if it shows strong leadership on this issue and involves the core group partners to that end.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Asselin.
Senator Hébert: Ms. Asselin, I think you’re right. It feels like we’ve been talking about involving those groups in interventions for eons, whether in Haiti or other parts of the world. Thank you for your appeal.
My question is for you and Ms. Cébron.
First of all, I want to commend you, Ms. Cébron. I had the opportunity to work with people from Doctors of the World at one point, including your former bosses, Dr. Thomas and Mr. Bertrand, so I know how important your mission and work are.
I’d like to ask you about the sexual exploitation and abuse that often occurs in situations like Haiti’s. Often, it’s a huge problem. Are you able to tell us where things stand on that? We’ve talked a lot about children’s involvement in gangs, but I’d like you to talk about the sexual exploitation and abuse happening on the ground. Do you have any information on that issue?
Ms. Cébron: We are getting more and more reports of sexual and gender-based violence, especially in the context of active hostilities. These incidents are often at the hands of members of armed groups and gangs, and sometimes even the Armed Forces of Haiti and police.
The situation at internal displacement camps is another big concern. It’s important to understand that people live in crowded conditions, very close to one another, without the ability to meet their basic needs. Domestic violence and violence between neighbours occurs in those communities. Sexual exploitation also goes on, and some people resort to selling sexual services because they can’t afford to meet their most basic needs any other way. It happens on many different levels.
Add to that, of course, the international forces coming in. That’s why I talked about protection in my opening remarks. We see that as essential. We saw what happened with MINUSTAH. Cases of sexual exploitation and abuse have been documented in Haiti in recent years.
That mustn’t be allowed to happen again. That means training members of international forces who come into the country. It’s important to focus on conduct, prevention and the way to deal with issues of sexual exploitation and abuse. Oversight mechanisms need to be put in place, with the participation of local authorities and communities, as my two colleagues mentioned. There also needs to be a way to report these situations.
Trust is an extremely important issue. It comes back to the question that was asked earlier. What we saw with MINUSTAH we’ve seen with other forces around the world. I should say that Haiti isn’t the only place where it’s happening. Trust is imperative. When helicopters, tanks and even drones — as is the case in Haiti — are the only visible signs of an international force’s presence and assistance, it doesn’t build trust; rather, it creates distrust in those interventions. In the long run, it’s very detrimental.
That is what we are calling for in Canada’s engagement. Right now, it’s clear that Canada has a genuine commitment to Haiti, and we applaud that. However, a multidimensional crisis requires a multidimensional solution, both in terms of security and humanitarian assistance.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Cébron. Time is unfortunately up.
[English]
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to all of our witnesses. I would like to direct my question to Ms. Cébron.
We have heard from witnesses on this tragic situation on multiple occasions. Many factors have been raised, including foreign interference rather than tangible help, corruption, economic exploitation, gang warfare and violence.
Regrettably, it would appear that little or no progress has been forthcoming despite Canadian and international efforts throughout the years.
The difficult question for me is: Is Haiti a failed state?
Ms. Cébron: I will go back to one of the first questions that was asked about hope. Is there hope? I think there is. I’m happy to hear from other colleagues on it also.
It has been three decades that we have been working in Haiti. Of course, the overall [Technical difficulties] is difficult to look at sometimes.
But we also see things that are working at the local level with communities when communities are involved in the decision-making process and are following up on projects as well.
So let’s not lose hope. There is momentum to do better in Haiti and to support Haitians to do it. That is very important to say.
When local actors and community-based actors are involved, mistrust is disappearing, and accountability is improved. Also, international aid is seeing checks and balances. That is also very important. We see it ourselves as international aid actors as well.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you. Ms. Asselin, do you have anything to add?
[Translation]
Ms. Asselin: I completely agree with Ms. Cébron. We have member organizations that work to empower territorial, local and departmental actors. They are at the heart of empowerment-building and can exert influence, starting from the bottom and moving towards a more democratic state.
As I said in my opening remarks, a major multidimensional crisis is happening in Port-au-Prince, but it’s important not to ignore Haiti’s regions. They are taking in thousands of refugees and are experiencing the crisis in a number of ways, but they have had promising experiences that can offer hope. Become familiar with those experiences; they are working and they show that people in the departments and regions are able to exercise collective power. This would give people hope. Our Haitian partners are instruments of hope and believe in their country’s future. It would be very misguided to be hopeless.
[English]
Ms. Cébron: May I add?
The Chair: I’m sorry. We are out of time on that segment, as interesting and important as it is.
Senator Harder: Thank you to our witnesses. I will give an opportunity for others to comment on it because my question is very much in the same vein.
Haiti has been an issue for decades now. We have gone from excessive attention to no attention in that period.
We have gone from working with government institutions at the national level, legitimized either by election or by appointment. We had, at the start at least, weak civil society and the difficulty of coordinating donor involvement.
We seem to have had well-organized donor involvement — I would like to have that confirmed by our witnesses — and a strengthened civil society, but governance remains an obstacle to sustained progress.
Ms. Asselin, I was interested in your four points because aside from the fourth, which was a specific reference to Canada, my question is: Who is responsible for responding to your four priorities? Is it the core group? Are you appealing to Canada to enhance, in some fashion, its role? I have heard everybody say “more money,” but that is a long list of requirements in a world in which humanitarian assistance is so fragile.
That is a long preamble. I wouldn’t mind a bit of structure to the first three priorities that you outlined, Ms. Asselin.
[Translation]
Ms. Asselin: Thank you for your question. Yes, funding is a priority in two ways.
First, I want to recognize Canada’s leadership on greater transparency in Haiti with respect to barriers. I think that’s a role Canada can play. As an important member of the group, it can show that strong leadership. In relation to funding, we would like to establish a sizable but decentralized funding envelope more geared towards supporting humanitarian and human rights groups, and local communities.
It’s possible to create the dialogue and synergy Mr. Occius talked about with groups in Canada and the Haitian diaspora. For example, you can count on the AQOCI to organize meetings and identify the best strategies.
To understand the right way to approach the right stakeholders, I think you need to engage in dialogue in more and more spaces.
I can attest to the tremendous amount of engagement in Quebec with many Haitian partners. It’s hard to give you real‑life examples in such a short amount of time — which I would’ve liked to do — but we can arrange other meetings to discuss the best strategies in detail.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Asselin.
Senator Youance: I’d like to follow up on something Ms. Asselin raised regarding collaboration, discussions and forums for dialogue. I want to talk about two things. Children make up more than half of all gang members. What do we need to think about to ensure that those children go back to school without being punished for their involvement?
My second question is for Mr. Occius.
You advocate strongly for protecting the civil space and the 3 million people living in Haiti who do not have papers. We know a lot about the state of governance and the displacement of populations. Add to that the possibility of people being deported from the U.S. and the Dominican Republic. What needs to happen for Canada to address the problem of people without papers, so they aren’t stateless?
Thank you.
Ms. Asselin: Canada has to base its efforts on the international convention on the rights of children and the approach regarding child soldiers. Protocols exist, and our efforts to help strengthen Haiti’s justice system need to include building capacity to ensure that those children are protected. However, those efforts will be futile if we don’t focus on strengthening the school system, which has been severely affected.
Mr. Occius: Thank you for your question.
We are very concerned, because the OCNH works at border points between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. We are appealing for asylum reforms in Haiti. Identification is the gateway to all other rights. Without a birth certificate, a citizen can’t vote, apply for a passport or open a bank account, and a student can’t take their formal exams. A person in Haiti without a birth certificate and civic address doesn’t exist, legally speaking. We will even say that a state that can’t control its birth and mortality rates can’t work on a plan for sustainable development.
Canada could help by investing in efforts to modernize the civil status system. This includes investing directly in democracy building. Canada could help the Haitian government reform the civil status system by providing technical and financial support. That reform is something the Haitian government could carry out.
We are in favour of reform, because democracy is at stake. Haiti hasn’t had an election in 10 years. Millions of people need a birth certificate. Under the law, they need one in order to get a national identity card. Following the 2025 order adopted by Haiti, we sent the government our analysis. Why? If the Haitian government were to implement the law, it could increase the number of people at risk of statelessness in Haiti.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Occius.
[English]
We have four minutes left and three senators who would like to ask questions. We’re going to have a rapid round of about a minute and a half each, so please ask a precise question to our witnesses.
Senator Coyle: Mr. Occius, I have a question about elections at the subnational level in Haiti. We’ve been talking a lot about the national level, but what about the local level and other levels of government within Haiti? Is this something that you are also working on? Is this something that could help come from the bottom up, if you like?
[Translation]
Mr. Occius: Thank you for your question.
The OCNH has done work at the national level. Currently, we have coverage nationally and we also have regional offices. We know what we’re talking about.
On the issue of elections, Haiti is experiencing a governance and human rights crisis, as you are well aware. Solving certain problems requires institutions.
Violence and insecurity are rampant in Port-au-Prince. Nationally, however, plans could be developed to hold elections. Port-au-Prince is one department, but there are 10 departments. Can election planning focus solely on Port-au-Prince? No. The situation needs to be examined, because there are 10 departments and meetings could be held in some departments. Since 2022, the OCNH has been undertaking activities at the provincial level, and as I speak, we have regional offices.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Occius.
[English]
We are short on time, so I would ask Senator Gerba and Senator Ataullahjan to ask their questions in sequence and very precisely, and we’ll see if we have a minute to answer them.
[Translation]
Senator Gerba: I have a question for Ms. Cébron and Ms. Asselin.
We are often told that the crisis in Haiti has to be solved by Haitians. Today, we are talking about what Canada can contribute. Do you think Canada has strong acceptance on the ground, or do we need to establish a mechanism for working with the diaspora?
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: My question is for Ms. Asselin.
Change in some countries has come through pressure from civil society. How can we strengthen and support civil society in Haiti?
[Translation]
Ms. Asselin: Yes, Canada is well regarded, but it would be even more so if it showed more transformative leadership. That means providing predictable funding support directly to partners, to NGOs, and giving them the independence to adapt as needed. A project-specific focus doesn’t provide the flexibility to adapt to the changing reality. As pointed out, this is an unprecedented crisis, and things change almost daily, so being able to adapt is key.
We can make a difference, and we can engage more closely with the population, and Canada would be seen in an even better light.
I want to leave some time for Ms. Cébron.
Ms. Cébron: I agree. Canada is well placed, and well regarded by our local teams and partners. Over the decades, a sense of connection with Canada has emerged. That’s why we’re saying there’s a momentum for Canada, given its engagement to promote security and stability. Canada should have a similar engagement when it comes to humanitarian assistance and civilian protection. By coordinating such efforts and consulting with stakeholders, Canada could keep building the relationship of trust that has been established. Consultation mechanisms are key. International organizations like ours can facilitate those efforts, but it is absolutely fine to work directly with civil society agencies on certain issues. That’s what we try to set up. After that, we are there to provide support. Certainly, that is what we would advise.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We are really out of time. On behalf of the committee, I’d like to thank our witnesses today, Camille Occius, Michèle Asselin and Chloé Cébron. We appreciate your speaking to us and answering our questions. Thank you very much.
[English]
Colleagues, with that, this meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)