Publication Search

Thank you very much.

We've heard testimonies that shed light on the situation there. I'm hearing from Ms. Clesca, Mr. Brender and others is that military intervention is not a favourable solution. We have the gangs on one side, and the last witness referred to the gangs as being similar to the situation that happened in Syria, and we know how that ended up.

There is also the church. The church seems to be the only properly functioning entity out there. You don't support outside intervention and you don't think military intervention is a solution. With such a complicated situation, at all levels, do you believe the church can play a role in solving the problem in the country?

Pastor Dure, do you believe that the international community is convinced that the church can probably play the role of being the broker or of leading the mission to provide the solution for the situation there?

Thank you.

Mr. Jean, the 200 arms and gang groups are similar to what happened in Syria. We know that in Syria those people or those gang groups were supported by the surrounding neighbourhoods and a lot of intervention from other countries. Who is behind the gang groups in Haiti?

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks again to the witnesses.

Haiti has 200 years of independence, but the situation continues to be crippling and to be deteriorating further. We've heard a big “no” to military intervention.

In the meantime, we've heard from Ms. Segura that a mandate is needed for an intervention or for outside military presence. She also spoke about detrimental colonialism, which is something that has been repeated several times.

It looks like we're in front of a solution that has to be a Haitian solution, that has to be from within the country, whether it's the church, whether it's different groups or whether it's civil society. If we're in front of that, what does that solution look like in the eyes of the witnesses?

I will ask Ms. Segura that question, and I would also appreciate having a comment from Ms. Clesca too.

Do you believe that this mandate has been discussed at this point since Canada has announced that it's willing to intervene?

Ms. Clesca, would you like to comment on the question?

Thank you. That's a great road map.

What's left for Canada to do, for example, in this whole picture? Is it a direct financial contribution? What is it? How do you see Canada's role, specifically, in being most effective?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a technical question. Do we have all the translation services available for these meetings if they are to take place next week, specifically for the one next week? I'd like that to be confirmed by either the clerk or maybe someone else.

Thank you.

Thanks for the clarification.

Now, I have one more thing. How are we going to move forward here, Mr. Chair? We have some submissions or some amendments to a motion that were withdrawn, and there were some other topics. I don't think I stand clear on where we are right now, based on from the beginning, when Mr. Bergeron suggested something with his motion, to where we are now with all the different discussions and topics. I'll be honest with you: I'm just lost here in where we're going and where we stand.

Thanks again, Mr. Chair.

I'm still not clear on our witnesses. Can the clerk assist us—or at least assist me—in understanding what the timelines are to call further witnesses? How can we wrap this up quickly, in a way that.... I mean, we're looking at sort of an urgent meeting next week on an irregular schedule, and we're struggling to find the ground here as to where we're moving on this. In addition, of course, now we see that Mr. Oliphant is still complaining about or at least supporting Dr. Fry on the witnesses and the call for more witnesses to make sure that the study is well worth the time and the urgency.

Again, from the clerk and from you, Mr. Chair, if you can explain this part to me, I think it will be very important.

Thank you.

If I may, what is the road map in this specific case now? Again, we're still in a muddy situation here.

What's the road map?

I'd like one more clarification. If the original motion by Mr. Bergeron was voted on and already passed, that means we agreed to his witness list and there's no room for other parties or such to be doing so.

I know Mr. Oliphant is shaking his head on this, but I want that clarification, please.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I had my hand up.

Thank you.

It's been almost two hours, a melatonic two hours, with a lot of uncertainty. I would call it very muddy water we're dealing with here, or a muddy situation.

I'm not sure if you can clarify, first of all, whether or not it is considered the case that the motion of Mr. Bergeron has passed. If that is the case, then this is the beginning of a road map that we are going to move forward with. In view of that and all the caucus meetings next week and so forth, I would like to call for the adjournment of this meeting.

In that case, I move that the meeting be adjourned, please.