SRID Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE

SOUS-COMITÉ DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT INTERNATIONAL DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES ET DU COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 23, 2001

• 1537

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order.

This is the twelfth meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. We're continuing our hearings on the situation in Colombia.

Today we have a number of knowledgeable witnesses with us. I think they're going to be introduced by Kathy Price of Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives.

Go ahead.

Ms. Kathy Price (Researcher and Policy Advocate, Latin America Human Rights, Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives): I would like to thank the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to be with you today and to bring, for your consideration, three important voices of Colombian civil society.

Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, the organization I work with and who's brought our Colombian visitors to Ottawa, is a newly integrated coalition of Canadian churches, church agencies, and religious communities, including the former Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America and the Inter-Church Action for Development, Relief and Justice.

The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America appeared before this subcommittee on May 30 along with Lilia Solano, our Colombian partner from the Human Rights and Peace Commission of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Colombia. We would recommend to you, particularly the new members of the subcommittee, both our submission on that date and our recommendations.

It's our belief that input from respected and representative organizations of Colombian civil society is of crucial importance to the development of Canadian policy with regard to Colombia. The voice of these eminent Colombians—representing Paz Colombia, or Peace Colombia Network, the Permanent Assembly of Civil Society for Peace, and the Human Rights and Peace Commission of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Colombia—is incredibly important. This voice represents a growing movement in all sectors of society, calling for a negotiated solution to Colombia's armed conflict that's based on respect for human rights and social justice.

They will say more, but I want to call on you to support not only the proposals they will make but their very right to make them. The dangers facing people like those who sit before you today and who speak up for peace, justice, and human rights are huge.

I have here, and will leave with you, a communiqué from the paramilitary forces that was issued on September 30. It specifically mentions Jorge Rojas, and represents a direct threat to his life.

• 1540

Very specifically, then, we would urge you to raise concerns about Jorge Rojas' safety, and the safety of other members of Paz Colombia, with Colombian authorities, and support their right to self-expression without fear of attack.

Thank you.

The Chair: Are you going to introduce the witnesses?

Ms. Kathy Price: I think they're going to introduce themselves.

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Representative, Paz Colombia (Interpretation)): I'd like to thank you for inviting us here today to share some thoughts with you about what is happening in Colombia and around the world and also to bring you proposals that we hope will convince Canadian society and the Canadian state to help us overcome this crisis.

In Colombia, the war situation and the process is deteriorating day by day. This affects all parts of our society. Of the 20 people a day who are dying, 15 are dying in their workplace or at home or on the street. This means they are not involved in the armed conflict. These are civilians who are unarmed. The other five are dying as combatants. I would like you to take into account how disproportionate this situation really is.

Every day at least 1,000 people are displaced. They are fleeing as a consequence of armed conflict. The situation, of course, will be even worse if the negotiation process is interrupted or cut off. There is a general feeling of an atmosphere in a context of war, especially in view of the new situation of the war against terrorism in the world.

We believe the armed groups, guerrilla and paramilitary, are still terrorizing the civilian population. However, we believe the conflict in Colombia is essentially a political one that has its roots in social and economic fields.

Our proposal to you, and to the Government of Canada, is to join the efforts to find allies who will help us deactivate the war situation in Colombia.

• 1545

We have five proposals: first, to apply human rights and international humanitarian law to stop the deterioration of the situation into full-blown war; second, to support the initiatives of Colombian civil society with a view to appointing a United Nations facilitator to promote dialogue between the government and the guerrilla forces; third, to support the truce that is being proposed as an option to stop the war with the accompaniment of international verification; fourth, to eradicate, both manually and on a voluntary basis, all of the illegal drug crops within the framework of the truce; and fifth, to strengthen civil society by seeking democratic alternatives that will allow us to develop a new society.

The final message is that you should know that in Colombia there is a society that is prepared to fight and to work to avoid an expansion of the war—to avoid war—but this a society that needs international support if it is to achieve greater democracy, human rights, and peace.

Ms. Nelly Albaran (Representative, Permanent Assembly of Civil Society for Peace (Interpretation)): Jorge has shown you a very desolate panorama of what is happening in Colombia. He has explained about the loss of life, loss of values, and loss of social values. So what has civil society done by way of response?

Civil society has organized and has demanded peace, with full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. This is what we need to stress, that to bring about this change requires a change in ethics. One cannot reorganize a society and a country successfully if one does not respect universal human rights and international humanitarian law.

• 1550

First of all, we're talking now about a fight against drug traffickers. There's a new war against terrorists. We wish to say that this appears to mean, then, that war becomes the duty of the state. We do not accept this as a solution in our case. We believe that to build a new country and a new society we need those conditions about democracy and human rights, as I have explained.

So our petition to you is to follow our line of reasoning and our approach, and to say that what we need is life, not death and not war.

I would like to apologize, perhaps, for putting in a personal note here. Yesterday we went to ground zero, where the twin towers were. Looking through the gates, we shed tears. I asked myself, why are we shedding tears? These deaths are of those who are foreign to us. They are not our deaths. But they are equally the children of brutality. We're not asking you to shed tears over our dead, but our thousands of deaths are also your concern.

Our message to you, then, is one of life over war. We need to stop the war that is bleeding us to death, that is deteriorating the whole of our society, that is putting our society to death. We need to stop the war. To do that we need international support to accompany our process, to support our projects in building new life in our society, in our economy, and in our political system. It is not good to be alone, neither as an individual nor as a society.

• 1555

Finally, so that we have time for questions and answers as well, I will mention that we have a petition—namely, that you should attempt to better understand the whole of the process in Colombia, because many misunderstandings can arise. For example, you can say we support Colombia because we're supporting President Pastrana and the peace process, or you can say we're supporting Colombia because we are supporting the Plan Colombia with all of its consequences and all of its side effects. We would like you to understand that there are always two sides.

You can support, as we do, the president, and not criticize. At the same time, we need to point out the mistakes that have been made in the peace process. We're not going to criticize Plan Colombia, but we need to point out the negative aspects of Plan Colombia for Colombian society.

So our request to Parliament, with the greatest respect, is that you attempt to understand the whole of the Colombian process and not just the present situation and present occurrences. That way you can understand fully the society we're trying to build.

I'd like to thank you for your attention and say we're more than happy to give you more details on any of the positions we have mentioned to you.

Mr. Ricardo Esquivia Ballestas (Director, Human Rights and Peace Commission of the Council of Evangelical Churches in Colombia (Interpretation)): I am Ricardo Esquivia, and I'm here to represent Protestant churches and Afro-Colombian communities.

In order to build peace in a civil society, we need democracy, and that is what we seek in Colombia. Only within democracy is it possible to build peace. War interrupts any type of effort to build democracy, and you cannot build a country when you are at war. So we have sought space for democratic civil society to find openings and thus strengthen the rule of law and rescue our institutions.

In Colombia we have been active in many different processes of peace, in work and many other initiatives. At the same time, we find that many of these initiatives are isolated, and we need to join forces. We have begun with our initiatives to make efforts to coordinate so that our actions in working together can strengthen our community, which we feel is beginning to despair.

• 1600

We have created a network, which we call a liaison committee, that is attempting to concentrate its efforts and to carry out joint initiatives in human rights and peace. This is the way we would like to work to once again build up the rule of law.

One of these experiences was a unified effort we made last year in San José, Costa Rica, where we brought together civil society, the state, and the international community. And Canada was present.

We also had a plenary meeting that brought together 3,500 people, as part of the Permanent Assembly of Civil Society. We also carried out a week of national discussions with different communities. We are well advanced in our preparations for a national congress with very broad participation from civil society organizations. We have concrete proposals to build a new country. We feel this is what Colombian society needs.

Since we are now into the elections period, we want to take the opportunity, and use the space of the election campaigns, to put this proposal to those who might eventually come out as winners in the first round of the elections.

At this national congress we would very much like Canada, its people, and its Parliament to be there as observers to watch this exercise of civil society in its request to the government and the forces in conflict.

• 1605

We know it perhaps would be possible for a parliamentary commission of Canada to visit the Colombian government and the people of Colombia. We would like to stress that this would be of great use to us. We would be prepared to support such a commission in anything it needed, from contacts to organizing meetings with organized sectors of civil society and other sectors of our country.

There are many more things we could say, but perhaps with your questions we can clarify anything that you wish to clarify.

I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity to come and speak to you. We realize that you have very little time. We're very happy to have been able to be here, to have you listen to us, and to interact with you.

Once again, we would like to invite you to come and visit us. We hope that you will join in our efforts to build peace in Colombia. We are convinced that if peace is built in Colombia, this will be of benefit to the whole of the hemisphere, including Canada.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

In particular, thanks to the translator. I didn't catch your name.

Mrs. Maria Elena Sandoz (Interpreter): Maria Sandoz.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Being a translator is a difficult job.

We were going to stop for five minutes and have a quick vote, but we don't have quorum so we have to wait until we get one.

We'll start with questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you say when the congress of the civil society you want to organize will take place?

[English]

Mr. Ricardo Esquivia Ballestas (Interpretation): It will be March 23, 24, and 25 of next year.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You also spoke about a visit by the committee. We are thinking about it, and what remains is for us to formally adopt the idea. Will the members here be able to attend that congress as observers?

[English]

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): This is an experience that we believe will have very broad participation and very widely felt consequences. It will be a congress of civil society. It will be as broad as possible. We are hoping there will be observers from the European Union, from the European governments, from the U.S. government and congress, and from the Canadian government and parliament as well. We will also have the participation of local societies in supporting the efforts for an independent and autonomous path to peace among the civil society of Colombia.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You raised several points, but I don't want to draw any conclusions right now on your proposals, which at first glance seem full of common sense.

• 1610

You said there were some negative aspects to the Colombia plan, and I'd like to give you an opportunity to address them.

[English]

Ms. Nelly Albaran (Interpretation): A number of analytical studies of Plan Colombia have been done, and in many of the conclusions one sees that the main element is to strengthen the military. That is the main component of the plan. We believe this takes Colombia further along the road to war and brings it less close to the possibility of peace.

If you look at it proportionately, the investment in social programs is tiny. This does not mean there are not social programs that are part of Plan Colombia; it simply means the biggest steps that are taken in the plan are towards war, with enormous financial support for that side of Plan Colombia. That's one of the aspects.

The other aspect is that in stimulating and supporting the war, and strengthening the army, the poorer farmers are becoming poorer. These are small farmers, many of whom had traditional, indigenous coca plantations. With the changes coming about because of Plan Colombia, they are fumigating these fields. This is another reason for the displaced populations. This is apart from, of course, the problems for the ecosystem in terms of toxic results for both the population and the land.

• 1615

As you can see, there is basically a lack of coherence. There doesn't seem to be any logic in trying to achieve peace by going the route of war. The very small amount of financing for social activities and the large amount of financing for the armed aspect means our society is negatively affected.

Plan Colombia puts us in the situation whereby human rights are going to be increasingly violated and the ecosystem increasingly affected. Many studies point to this. The general development of the country is also deeply affected. Plan Colombia is counterproductive to the general development of the country, and there are many excellent studies to show it.

All of this is creating a situation of illegality, which increases the fragility of the state. In fact, it helps to increase the crisis in the country.

There is no doubt that in Colombia there is a lack of institutionality. There is a lack of authority. All three branches of the state are affected by corruption and by trafficking. One can see that this type of development promotes the enrichment of individuals rather than the society at large. Therefore, we feel it is counterproductive for the development and the institutionality of our country.

The program has been internationalized. There's the Andean Regional Initiative. All seek to favour the U.S. geopolitical approach far more than the interests of Colombia as such.

In synthesis, Plan Colombia is not a path to peace. The path to peace lies elsewhere. It lies in finding state policies that will allow for a negotiated solution to the conflict where we can improve democracy, defend human rights, and change economic, social, and political aspects of our country, with the participation of all of civil society and international cooperation, in the interest of all Colombians.

• 1620

The Chair: Thank you.

We're going to wait just a moment for the next question because we have an opportunity to do something that Mr. Rojas has suggested. He mentioned the need for a United Nations facilitator for Colombia.

I'm including you, the witnesses, in what I'm talking about right now. It's really for the members of the committee, but I want you to know.

I'd like to point out to the members of the committee that we have an opportunity next week to meet with the United Nations Secretary General's Special Advisor on International Assistance to Colombia, Mr. Jan Egeland. He's from Norway. Because of our schedule—his scheduling really—we'd like to have a breakfast meeting next week at 7:30 on October 31. I need a motion and an okay for that.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Madam Chair, I move that we adopt the motion as it stands.

[English]

The Chair: Is everybody in agreement?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Beaumier.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): I think questions need to come in multiples and we need to have a dialogue. I've been listening to people present on Colombia for maybe five years now and I still haven't even begun to sort out the situation. On one side we have the drug dealers who fund the militia, we have the government multinationals who are contributing to the displacement, and we have the mining industry. I know Canada has helped to rewrite the mining code; however, I'm told we are rewriting it to favour the multinationals and to hurt the indigenous people there, the Colombians.

Then we have the paramilitary, which is funded by the government, who fights the militia, which is funded by the drug lords. They go in and together kill local governments who truly represent the people of Colombia.

So it's very difficult to sort out the situation.

The Chair: Colleen, you didn't mean that the paramilitary is funded by the government; you meant the military...from the government?

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: No, the paramilitary. The paramilitary is government, right?

The Chair: No, that's one of the terrorist groups.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: The paramilitary is funded by the government is what we've been told—not openly, not officially....

The Chair: Not officially, no. Okay. The way you said it, it sounded like it was official.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Well, no. Then we're talking about the drug lords officially doing the militia.

The one thing you have to understand is that everyone here is on this committee because human rights are truly important to us, and we do feel we have a responsibility around the world. However, I'm beginning to feel as though we are spinning our wheels. You're preaching to the converted, and what we are looking for are solutions.

The problem is complicated. I'm sure the solution is going to be equally as complicated—or perhaps it's not. Can you just give us something concrete that we can put in a report to say to our government, this is what we need to do in order to help the people of Colombia?

• 1625

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): First of all, I'd like to thank you for that decision in the motion you just adopted, which is in line with our proposal in seeking an international facilitator for Colombia. We would like to be very clear. We support the work of Mr. Egeland in Colombia, but what we seek is a permanent facilitator to support the work of Mr. Egeland in Colombia.

What this proposes to do then is to ensure that the peace process has a guaranteed transition from the present government to the next government. This will also guarantee increased participation by the international community and by civil society at large, which at this point in time have very little or no influence on the peace negotiations.

Second, we do have a proposal to present to the Government of Canada and the international community. In Colombia, the negotiations are being led by a government whose democratic legitimacy is in crisis, whose ability to represent the population is in crisis, where the institutions themselves are in crisis, and they are negotiating with a guerrilla force whose ability to gather together any political support is also in deep crisis. Therefore, they do not represent us. We would like to make a proposal, a state proposal on behalf of civil society, which will allow us to strengthen democracy, bring about peace and human rights, and go beyond what you have so correctly pointed to as a vicious circle where greater violence is met with dialogue, which produces no solutions whatsoever.

Finally, I would like to thank the Government of Canada for its measures and the steps it has taken to strengthen civil society in our country. The Canadian ambassador in Colombia has brought together forces of civil society. He has given public recognition to the work that civil society is carrying out in seeking peace. This is a very positive message because it gives us far greater legitimacy and it makes things far less dangerous for those who seek peace.

I wish to finish by saying that people in Colombia today are being killed for what we have said to you this afternoon.

• 1630

The Chair: Yes, I can verify that. I was in Colombia in May. The last comment is very true, and also the comments about the ambassador.... He's doing a marvellous job down there, and it would be wonderful if he could have more help down there.

I'm going to take my prerogative and ask a question.

The U.S. State Department identifies the FARC and ELN and the paramilitary as terrorist groups. Do you think the United States' war on terrorism will have any effect on the situation in Colombia? Is it possible that these groups will feel the pressure to reach a peace deal more quickly?

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): I believe what you have said is very important, because in this fight against terrorism, or the war on terrorism, we believe it must be multilateral; it cannot be unilateral. We understand that the U.S. government has indeed placed on its list of terrorist groups the main actors of the armed conflict in Colombia. Just last week the State Department told us, however, that since these groups do not operate internationally, they are therefore not a strategic priority for the U.S. State Department.

We believe there is a danger in the war on terrorism, and that is that it could aggravate the conflict rather than find a solution, because there are sectors in Colombia that do not believe in the possibility of a political solution. We believe we need to dis-activate the conflict, which is the worst conflict at the present time in the western hemisphere. We feel U.S. policy is supporting the paramilitary. They are providing $2 million U.S. a day to Colombia to support the military, and we know the military are committed to supporting the paramilitary forces; therefore they will be serving as a vehicle of terrorism, just as much as the guerrillas.

The Chair: Thank you.

Madame Jennings.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much for your presentations.

Since I am newly appointed to this committee I have not had the benefit, like my colleagues who have been on the committee for several years, to hear testimony on Colombia. However, I have nevertheless taken an interest in the situation in Columbia and I have a few questions to put to you.

• 1635

You explained very eloquently how the money that is currently given to the Government of Columbia for the military is subsequently diverted to paramilitary groups.

Do the Permanent Assembly of the Civil Society and the other non-government organizations whose mission or mandate is to work for peace consider that the international assistance to civil society is sufficient? If that is not the case, how can Canada or other countries who wish to see peace and a real civil democracy in Columbia help you to obtain the assistance you need to move your objectives forward?

I am asking you this because according to the way you just described the situation in Columbia, the United States feel that the terrorists in your country are not a strategic target because their actions do not extend beyond the frontiers of Columbia, but your government, which is experiencing a crisis and does not have the power and the means to strengthen democratic government institutions, seems devoid of all credibility.

[English]

The Chair: Marlene, I think you have to give the translator a minute to catch up. It's hard if she has to translate at the same time you're talking. If you could talk and then she could translate, it would be easier for them to understand you.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

[Translation]

I congratulate her because she translates quite well. I have almost lost my train of thought.

It is almost as though you were in a situation where you have no other choice than to create a type of alternative, parallel government that would set up programs and policies so that at a certain point you will be able to seize “power”. Am I right to believe that that would ultimately have to be the situation?

[English]

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): When we talk about the government and the paramilitary, we cannot state here that the government has a policy institutionally to support the paramilitary, but we can say that the government has no policy to combat the paramilitary; therefore, either of these two options in terms of the state is a very serious situation.

• 1640

Ms. Nelly Albaran (Interpretation): I would like to add something about the paramilitary, but perhaps on a slightly different plane, and perhaps you could judge from an example in terms of who is interested in financing the paramilitary.

I am a university lecturer in philosophy. One of the economists from our same university, from the human sciences faculty, was assassinated when he was leaving his post-graduate seminar class. He used to analyse civil society. He had participated in prior attempts at peace processes and dialogue between the government and the guerrillas. He was committed to bringing about changes in the life of Colombia, and yet with no trial he was shot.

Today I believe there is a meeting here of people who analyse and do research on life in Colombia. There are Latin American researchers, and I know many of their Colombian assistants as well.

Jorge has just said that many activists can lose their life just for speaking, or for researching, or for seeking to find the truth and for stating the truth. This was the case of Antonio Jesús Bejarno.

Who is interested in shooting people such as this? Who is interested in shooting Eduardo Pizarro, also a political analyst who was in Canada? He was just arriving at the university. He was somebody who published his results on social research immediately. So I ask, who is interested in shooting these people and in silencing them?

The Chair: Do you have another question, Marlene?

Ricardo.

• 1645

Mr. Ricardo Esquivia Ballestas (Interpretation): There are two concrete issues that were raised by the MPs that I'd like to comment on. One of them was, how can Canada support a civil society in Colombia?

Well, the first is that since the U.S. government is supporting the war very concretely and with financing, by financing the Government of Colombia with considerable funding, so too civil society needs a fund that would be broad enough and flexible enough to carry out activities that could counteract the support for the war. That is one way of assisting civil society. It could be through the embassy, through NGOs, or the government—whatever was felt most appropriate.

Secondly, the MP Jennings was saying that maybe the organizations of civil society should set up a parallel government. Well, that could be part of the proposals that should be put to our congress to be held in March of next year. We need alternative proposals and ideas in order to give us an idea of how to build a new country and how to build new institutions. These proposals could be put to the government and the guerrilla forces that purport to represent Colombia. That assembly, that convention, would allow you a direct and concrete participation.

We believe those are two ways in which you could support civil society in Colombia.

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): On our side we have two options. One is to continue to support the peace process, which is being negotiated by two parties that we feel have little or no legitimacy in a country that is increasingly de-institutionalized. In other words, these negotiations are being carried out by the owners of the weapons, and they purport to be negotiating the future of the whole of our country.

We feel there is another option, and that is one where we should make the proposals, where we should decide to transform the country. We feel the peace negotiations as they are now are simply a means, but they are not an end to themselves. As an end and a solution we may indeed need to find an alternative on behalf of civil society, which would be a civil society emergency in a country where there is total political anomie, and for this we need full international support, without which we cannot make alternative proposals.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: We are discussing options here to settle conflicts and reinstate or develop peace. Basically, I find your five proposals interesting. I think they reflect reality quite well.

• 1650

First of all, you propose respect for international human rights, and thus a type of justice to punish those who assassinate members of the civil society. Methods have to be found to punish them, but perhaps you should also look at prevention and finding ways of ensuring the personal safety of the leaders of the civil organizations. For several weeks, since spring, in fact, each of the witnesses we have heard has told us that there was talk about the assassination of persons who had spoken out. This would appear to me to be priority number one. What means can you take to better ensure the personal security of the leaders of the civil society, those who speak about peace and changes?

I would like to hear what you have to say about that, because earlier, through a motion, we gave our support to the other points: the international aspect, the facilitator. In any case, we will be giving it. Ideally the best thing is to work through multilateral action, through the United Nations. Everyone agrees on that.

Finally, when one gets to the issue of support for the civil society, perhaps you will tell me that money is needed, but I think other things are needed as well. Perhaps you would need—and I will repeat this—concrete means that would ensure that this civil society could hold—at the very least—in peace, a convention on civil peace on your territory. One can preach peace, but the difficulty for a member of Parliament from the outside who does not want to interfere in another country's domestic affairs... We won't ask you to interfere in our domestic affairs. My colleagues opposite know exactly what I am talking about, but concretely, how can we help you to improve personal safety, and secondly to bring about a massive participation in your congress, and finally, to set up an international presence? That can be done by others, but the first two points seem extremely important to me. I would like to hear some concrete requests for support on those.

While I have the floor, I might as well ask my last question right away. To your knowledge, have some of the many assassinations that have taken place for a number of years led to specific charges or even to the trials of those who committed those assassinations, or have those crimes gone unpunished?

• 1655

I might have some trouble supporting measures encouraging some of your citizens to speak, because from what we understand, when they speak out, they are then killed. I would hesitate to support such measures.

[English]

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): I quite agree that what we need is political support for civil society. There are many governments that are participating in the process as friends of the process in the negotiations between the government and the FARC guerrillas. What we need are governments that will be friends of civil society that are seeking peace in Colombia.

What we would like is to give greater weight to the efforts already being made by the Government of Canada—in other words, to create an interlocutor between civil society and the international community. In other words, we should represent ourselves vis-à-vis the international community. This meeting here in Parliament is one clear and very precise way to do this. There are many governments and parliaments that are prepared to listen to our proposals and to make us into a subject that they can actually discuss with and become interlocutors with in creating peace in Colombia.

We would like perhaps from you also a message to the Colombian government requiring that the government offer full guarantees to those who are working for peace. Human rights can never be in excess in a country where people are threatened and killed. Any political support you can give will improve the guarantees for those who are continuing their efforts on behalf of peace.

The Chair: Do you have a short question?

Ms. Marlene Jennings: I'll try to make it short.

The Chair: Make the question short and then the answer will be short.

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

• 1700

[Translation]

I want to make a small correction. I did not say myself that one option would be to create institutions and a parallel government. I was trying to explain that according to what I understood of your presentations, the description you provided us about the situation in Columbia seemed to lead to that type of conclusion. I greatly appreciate the options Mr. Rojas and Mr. Esquivia put forward, that did not concern a parallel government.

I would like to understand something. I see on the list we have here, on the agenda, that you, Mr. Esquivia, are the Director of the Human Rights Commission. Is this a non-government organization or a government organization?

[English]

Mr. Ricardo Esquivia Ballestas (Interpretation): This is a commission that works on behalf of peace and human rights, and it is a commission that forms part of the Protestant churches. Therefore, it is not an official commission and is simply the means by which the Protestant churches work on behalf of peace and human rights.

[Translation]

Ms. Marlene Jennings: Thank you very much for the explanation, because it is striking. Here in Canada the Canadian Human Rights Commission is an organization created by the government which has statutory powers, powers of inquiry, the power to receive complaints, etc., and each provincial government has also set up its own commission.

I think that the fact that Protestant churches were obliged to set up such a commission, which has been given the name of Human Rights Commission, provides eloquent testimony to the fact that if ever such an organization existed pursuant to a law enacted by the Columbian government, that organization would not have any real effect. Is that correct? This is my last question.

• 1705

[English]

Mr. Ricardo Esquivia Ballestas (Interpretation): I'd like to clarify. This commission has been established by the Protestant churches because the churches were being affected by the armed conflict. The churches wish to help with establishing this commission to strengthen civil society. In Colombia I don't think you can say that a similar commission exists, a specific government commission. There are several entities that would have the name, but that is more an appearance.

Ms. Nelly Albaran (Interpretation): I would like to clarify that the government has established, for example, human rights committees for the army, or for certain institutions—within certain institutions. But I think Ricardo is right in saying that they're not particularly effective.

There is a permanent committee on human rights, which is a national committee, which receives all of the complaints, the violations of human rights, and it proceeds on these investigations with the assistance of the Colombian lawyers committee, of which I am a member.

I would like to mention a little bit the work of the Permanent Assembly of Civil Society for Peace. It's made up of about 800 institutions. They can be farmers or peasants' institutions, indigenous groups, women's groups, groups of academics, seniors, students. The assembly brings all of them together. It holds plenaries. These plenaries can decide on policies. The main objective is to strengthen civil society. So it supports development initiatives brought about by the organizations themselves.

• 1710

So the farmers or the peasants can present excellent projects, and the indigenous peoples as well.

This is one way in which you can support the strengthening of civil society; however, the Permanent Assembly as such has no financing. It is through the individual projects of the individual organizations that make up the assembly.

I do not wish to say that the individuals who participate in the assembly have no political aspirations. That may not be the case; they may have political aspirations. But the assembly itself has no political vocation. We are not seeking votes, we're not participating in elections, and we have no candidates. We are independent of the political parties, independent of the government, and we work autonomously with the organizations that make up the assembly.

We also have a very strong link to work in the regions of Colombia. We believe a new country is built from the bottom up, from the communities, from the municipalities, from the regions. Peace cannot be brought about by a decree from the top down.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Is your participation in today's meeting a matter of common knowledge back home? If so, do you think this could be a factor that would threaten your personal safety?

[English]

Mr. Jorge Rojas (Interpretation): The Colombian government is not at all happy with our work in the U.S., in Europe, and in Canada.

In Colombia, foreign affairs is an exclusive and excluding prerogative. The national government will only consult, other than itself, the ex-presidents, former presidents, of the country, certainly not civil society.

There are generals in the army who consider that this commission, plus the ten other people who were in Washington, D.C., are lobbying to create an obstacle to military assistance. Therefore, we realize that we will be targets for the paramilitary as a result. We've already been threatened by them anyway.

The government is fully aware of our participation, and our participation has been quite transparent. We have informed the ministry of foreign affairs; we've informed the embassies. So the answer is yes, this is very dangerous for us.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for coming today. I'm presuming there are no more questions.

Whether we travel to Colombia or not, we'll still be submitting a report to the government with recommendations for a Canadian policy. I hope that if you see the final report you'll be pleased with what we have put in it.

I hope you have a very safe journey back home.

I adjourn the meeting to the call of the chair.