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]

Wednesday, October 31, 2001

• 1533

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order the 14th meeting of the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Last week everybody on the committee received this report—I hope you have, and I hope you've read it. The author of that report is our witness today, the Honourable Warren Allmand—welcome back to your last place of work, where you spent a great many years—and with him is Mary Durran, his communications assistant.

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): Madam Chair, I have a brief point, if I may.

The Chair: Yes, Svend. I don't have any choice, whether I want to or not. You're going to say it anyway.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Well, you're right.

I alerted the chair to the fact that Francisco Ramirez, the head of the Mine Workers Union from Colombia—

The Chair: Yes, and we have told Mr. Allmand that, and we've still said he will get one hour and the next group will get one hour, and if there's time afterwards, if anybody wants to stay, we will have him speak then.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay. Fine.

The Chair: Because they have been given quite a bit of notice that they have one hour, each of those groups.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Right.

The Chair: So we'll see him afterwards, if we can.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I gather Mr. Ramirez is on his way.

The Chair: I don't know, but we'll see him after the two hours with these two groups.

Thank you.

Mr. Allmand.

• 1535

Mr. Warren Allmand (President, Rights and Democracy): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'm here today with Mary Durran to report on our work in Colombia, and in particular on our mission to Colombia from May 27 to June 3, 2001. However, I'd like to give a little bit of background before I do that. With respect to our organization, Rights and Democracy, formerly known as the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, we're an independent Canadian institution established by Parliament 12 years ago. Our mission is to defend and promote democracy and human rights, and we focus on four programs and two operations. The programs are indigenous people's rights, women's rights, the impact of globalization on human rights, and democratic development, and the two special operations are urgent action and international human rights advocacy. We carry out our work principally through advocacy and capacity building, and it is carried out extensively in the Americas, Latin America, Africa, and Asia, and in Latin America we've worked in Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, Haiti. We've worked with many indigenous organizations in Latin America and also helped form a group called Indigenous Women of America.

Our work in Colombia began to increase as we became more and more aware of the violence in that country and after Father Javier Giraldo won our John Humphrey Freedom Award in 1997. The John Humphrey award is an award we give each year to an outstanding human rights defender from throughout the world, and the individual is named by an international jury. When Father Giraldo won the award in 1997, he came to Canada and gave several speeches here about the horrible situation in that country.

We made an effort to increase our contacts in Colombia, and in the year 2000 hired an expert on Colombia to help us put together a more complete program. As a result, on June 22, 2000, we organized a full-day forum in Montreal on Colombia with experts from Canada and from South America. One of the principal concerns raised by this forum was the plight of indigenous people in that country. This had also been brought to our attention by indigenous representatives from Colombia, whom we brought to the Organization of American States general assembly in Windsor in June 2000. In fact, at that time these indigenous representatives from Colombia invited us and the AFN to send a mission to Colombia to investigate at first hand their situation.

We finally did that, as I say, earlier this year, for one week from May 27 to June 3, and we did it with the cooperation of the AFN and with representatives from Canada's aboriginal community. The mission was made up of Georges Erasmus, former national chief, also a former co-chair of the royal commission on aboriginal people, and now the president of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation; Ghislain Picard, who is the regional chief for the AFN in Quebec and the director of their foreign affairs department; Lydia Hwitsum who is the chief of the Cowichan Nation in British Columbia and a member of our board of directors; the Honourable Beth Phinney, the chair of this committee; Mary Durran, who was part of the delegation; Eleanor Douglas, the mission coordinator, a Canadian who lived 20 years in Colombia and is an expert on that country; and me.

The overall goal of the mission was to obtain a broad overview of the situation by speaking with as many indigenous groups as possible, as well as with the Colombian government and UN officials. And the objectives of the visit were, first, to promote awareness within Canada's first nations communities and structures of the threatening situation faced by Colombia's indigenous peoples caught in the grip of armed conflict; second, to assess the potential for ongoing monitoring of and support for Colombia's indigenous peoples by both the AFN and Rights and Democracy; third, to learn about Canadian presence in Colombia, and strengthen policy and advocacy capacity in Canada with the Canadian government and with the Canadian private sector concerning the plight of Colombia's indigenous peoples; and fourth, to support the efforts for peace in Colombia, as related to indigenous communities particularly and to the social movement for peace.

• 1540

Madam Chair, what we found is the following. While there has been a continuing armed conflict in Colombia for over fifty years, we found there's been a horrific intensification of the internal armed conflict during the past year. Unarmed, innocent civilians have been the victims of brutal attacks and massacres by right-wing paramilitary death squads, in particular the AUC, also known as the United Self-Defence Groups of Colombia, on the one hand, and by left-wing guerrilla forces on the other hand. The guerrilla forces are made up of two groups, the FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the ELN, the National Liberation Army. The guerrilla groups together have about 25,000 people in arms, a considerable armed force.

The situation with these paramilitaries and guerrilla forces is exacerbated by the activities of the narcotraffickers, who pay enormous protection money to the guerrillas and the paramilitaries, and thereby help finance their arms and operations. Consequently, sad to say, it is the cocaine and marijuana users of North America who principally finance the violence and death in Colombia.

The brutal attacks against indigenous people and others consist of extortion, kidnappings, forced recruitment, selective assassinations, massacres, attacks on infrastructure, the confiscation of lands, and the dislocation of peoples. There is also the destruction of legitimate crops, animals, and farms by the aerial fumigation of the coca crops as part of the U.S.-backed Plan Colombia. The southern governors in Colombia, the governors of the states, have strongly recommended against this aerial fumigation, because it's not only not effective in stopping the cocaine trade, it is also destroying, as I say, legitimate crops. It's destroying the animals of these small farmers, and hurting their health as well.

Madam Chair, in the year 2000, the last year for which we have statistics, there were nearly 40,000 violent killings in Colombia, and it's estimated that 20% of these are politically motivated—40,000 murders in a country of 40 million people. In Canada, I think, last year we had a little over 500 homicides, in a country of nearly 30 million people, so you can put that in context. In 2000, the same year, there were an average of 20 socio-political murders per day, which amounts to over 7,000 such murders per year. According to the Colombian Commission of Jurists, 85% of those killings are attributed to state agents and the paramilitaries, and 15% to the guerrillas.

Furthermore, approximately 300,000 people were displaced from their homes during the year 2000, bringing the total of displaced people in Colombia to 2 million persons, and 30% of the displaced persons are indigenous people and Afro-Colombians, while they only make up 14% of the Colombian population.

I should also say, although it wasn't the purpose of our visit, for trade unionists and journalists Colombia is one of the most dangerous places in the world. As a matter of fact, for trade unionists it is the most dangerous place in the world. Last year 90 labour leaders were assassinated. In the last 10 years 900 labour leaders were assassinated. Over the last 20 years 1,500 labour leaders were assassinated.

While there are significant protections in the 1991 Colombian constitution for indigenous peoples—and when you read that constitution, it's quite impressive—these provisions are, for the most part, not enforced, or they are not enforceable due to the struggle.

There are about 800,000 indigenous people in Colombia. They constitute 2% of the population, and they have 446 territories that could be called reserves. These reserved territories cover approximately 30 million hectares, or 28% of the Colombian land mass. That's quite a significant percentage of the land mass, but unfortunately, once again, much of this land is in remote areas and not apt for agricultural development. Furthermore, much of it is in areas close to territories occupied by the guerrillas and paramilitaries and the narcotraffickers, and thus subject to frequent attacks and takeovers. I pointed out the large number of displaced people in the indigenous communities, because of the attacks by either the paramilitaries or the guerrillas and the situation with the narcotraffickers. These quite extensive indigenous lands are also threatened by large infrastructure projects and resource extraction industries, mines, oil, developments, and so on.

• 1545

You have the report, and I don't want to read everything that's in it, but on page 22 we deal with Canada's role. I want to say that the ambassador in Colombia, Guillermo Rishchynski, gave us considerable help and support. As a matter of fact, he is chairing a group of countries that are trying to help Colombia with the peace process, and I think he's done some outstanding work. When we visited some of the indigenous offices in Colombia, the indigenous people told us he was the only ambassador who ever visited their offices.

While he seems to be doing a lot of good work on the ground in Colombia, the statements from the Canadian Government in Canada have not been as strong and as supportive as we and many others would like. We have, of course, attacked those parts of Plan Colombia that lead to further militarization in Colombia, and also those parts that support the aerial fumigation. The Canadian government have said that while they have signed on to Plan Colombia, they have no role in the military side of it, and so far they haven't taken a position on the aerial fumigation. We would, of course, like them to be stronger on the military side, because instead of trying to reach a settlement of this horrible situation through peaceful means and diplomatic means, there seems to be a rising attempt to deal with it through military force, and many people believe that just cannot accomplish the goals that are to be achieved.

In any case, as I say, on page 22 and following we deal with Canada's foreign policy, the support for peace building, our trade with Colombia, and Canadian private sector increases in Colombia.

We met with a selection of Canadian companies doing business in Colombia. I have to say we didn't come across any horror stories. As a matter of fact, for the most part, with what the Canadian companies were doing, some of it was in the city of Bogota, and it was fairly neutral, dealing with cellular phone systems or with business colleges. But there were some mining and oil companies. One had moved out of an area because of threats, and it refused to cooperate with the guerrillas. But we would like the government to monitor more closely the activities of Canadian companies in Colombia to ensure that none of them is cooperating with the abuse of human rights in that country.

I mentioned the killings, the assassinations, and the forced recruitment of indigenous people and others. Since these indigenous communities are in remote rural areas, if the paramilitaries suspect that an indigenous community in any way is favouring the guerrillas, of course, they are attacked by the paramilitaries. If they are suspected of assisting the other side, they are attacked and people are killed from the other side. So they're caught in-between. They want to remain peaceful and neutral in this situation, but it's very difficult to do.

The other thing is that many of the young people are forced into the guerrillas. They come into the community, and it's, either you come with us or else. And there isn't much choice, if they want to stay alive, but to go along, and some of them have to do that.

• 1550

I also have to point out that because of this situation in Colombia over the last number of years, some of these indigenous nations, small communities, are threatened with complete extinction. As a matter of fact, four of these nations are now down to under 100 people each.

Mary, I think that was the figure, wasn't it?

Ms. Mary Durran (Communications Assistant, Rights and Democracy): That's right. Yes.

Mr. Warren Allmand: I could give you the names of those communities later.

The recommendations are on page 37 of our report. There are some recommendations we picked up directly from the indigenous peoples in Colombia. They were made directly to us, and we repeated them as they were given to us. Then we have recommendations from the delegation.

We point out that we were only there for one week, but we had very intensive meetings—the people we met are set out on page 42 of the report. We met with 11 or 12 indigenous organizations. We met with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. We met with the office of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. We met, from the Colombian government, the governor of Cauca and the governor of Antioquia. We met three senators and two members of congress, all of whom were indigenous. We met people from the human rights ombudsman's office, the Defensoria del Pueblo. We met people from the office of the President's program for human rights. We met the Minister of the Environment, the Director of Indian Affairs, and the Minister of the Interior. We met six prominent Colombian NGOs. So there were very extensive meetings, and the chair knows this. They went from morning till night and took up a lot of our time. With what we heard and what we read, we made the following recommendations.

We call upon the Canadian government and the international community to use every means available to denounce the gravity of the situation facing the survival of Colombia's indigenous peoples and see that their specific concerns and proposed solutions are acted upon.

Furthermore, we urge the Colombian government and the international community, especially those friendly countries, including Canada, chosen to accompany the current peace processes between the Colombian government and the insurgent organizations, to ensure that indigenous peoples are actively and meaningfully engaged in current and future peace discussions, dialogues, and negotiations. At the present time the indigenous people are not involved in the peace discussions.

Third, the right of indigenous people to exercise active neutrality in the conflict must be respected. We should offer our support to national and international campaigns to pressure all armed groups to desist from forcible recruitment and to respect all rights of indigenous peoples.

Fourth, the Colombian government must ensure that any agreements on human rights and humanitarian law in the context of the ongoing armed conflict take into account the specific needs of indigenous peoples.

Fifth, the Colombian government must do everything possible to prevent the displacement of indigenous communities, in order to preserve their territories, culture, and life itself.

Sixth, the Canadian government should take a clear position against the dangerous military buildup financed by resources from the U.S. government for the Colombian armed forces through Plan Colombia. Canada should work with other members of the international community to assist the Colombian government in the elaboration of a development plan based on peace building, consultation with civil society, including indigenous peoples, transparency, and local government.

Seventh, the Canadian government should use its good offices with the international community to assist in the suspension of aerial fumigation of illicit crops in indigenous territories.

Eighth, we urge the Canadian government to ensure that specific ethical and operational guidelines for investment by Canadian private sector companies in Colombia, a country in the midst of a violent armed conflict, be elaborated and clearly adhered to.

Ninth, Canadian citizens and organizations concerned with the plight of indigenous peoples in Colombia should recognize their public responsibilty to monitor the direct effects on indigenous communities of the operations of Canadian companies, especially those involved in the area of resource extraction.

• 1555

There are others that are less general and more specific, Madam Chair, and I'll leave those for you and the committee to read.

I understand that the committee is considering going to Colombia. If you do, I want to make some recommendations with respect to issues you could look into while you are there.

First, I strongly recommend that if you go, you meet with the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the office representing Mary Robinson. They did a very extensive survey and report in Colombia. The representative of the high commissioner, who is a Swedish citizen, met with us, and has a lot of very important information that would be helpful to the committee.

I also recommend very strongly that you go to Cauca and meet with the governor there, Floro Tunubala, who is the first indigenous elected governor in Colombia, one of the southern governors who, as I said, oppose Plan Colombia, especially in the area of fumigation. The election of Mr. Tunubala was a great achievement, since he did not represent one of the traditional parties. He ran as an independent, but in that state got wide support.

Also, we would like you to meet the members of Parliament. We met, as I mentioned, three senators and two indigenous members of Parliament, but I think it would be really useful to meet, since you're representing wider interests, the members of Parliament and, if possible, twin with some of them in order to keep in touch and see how you can continue to help on an ongoing basis.

Finally, I want to raise the case of Kimy Pernia Domico. As I was pointing out last week when I appeared before the full committee on foreign affairs with respect to the Export Development Act, the last time I appeared before that committee Kimy Pernia appeared with me. He was appearing to protest the fact that the EDC had helped finance a large dam on the indigenous territory of his people that had flooded their lands and taken away their source of living. It had also, because of the damming of the river, blocked off the fishing resources they had in the river. Not only that, but the dammed up river became a swampy area, which affected the health of the people of that area. In any case, Kimy Pernia had been to Canada on several occasions raising this issue. We met him in Colombia during our visit on a Friday, and two days later he was kidnapped. He has not been heard of since, and is presumed dead, killed for standing up for the rights of his people.

If possible, we would suggest that the committee visit Tierra Alta in the Monteria region of Colombia, which is the area Kimy Pernia Domico comes from, and investigate, not only because of his connection with Canada, but also because of the role Canada and the Export Development Corporation played in financing that particular project.

Madam Chair, that's a quick summary of our report and some of our findings. As I said, Colombia today is one of the most dangerous and violent countries in the world, because of heavily financed guerrillas and paramilitaries, financed principally through the drug trade. They have armies that are unbelievable in their equipment and supplies. They are terrorizing the population, especially the people living in the rural areas, but also in the cities. The conflict is overflowing the borders of Colombia, and now there are impacts on Panama and Ecuador. It threatens the region. Hopefully, the international community, with Canada showing leadership, can do more to help these people.

By the way, Colombia is a wonderful country. It has great resources. The people, when you meet them as individuals, are wonderful, but they're suffering the horrible impact of a long war and struggle within their country. It hasn't been given enough attention. As I said, last year there were 40,000 homicides in a country of 40 million people, about 8,000 of those politically motivated—it's hard, we don't even know, maybe more are.

• 1600

I'm prepared to answer questions, and Mary may help me.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Allmand.

Ms. Hinton.

Mrs. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): It's a very interesting report, and I appreciate everything you said. I gather from what you've said that we are in agreement on one thing, that the problem in Colombia is related to drugs.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Part of it. The narcotrafficking is one of the principal producers of cocaine, also marijuana and heroine, but cocaine is the biggest. There might have been conflict anyway, but the cocaine trade is helping to fund it. What happens is that the guerrillas and the paramilitaries exact taxes or protection money from the narcotraffickers, so the narcotraffickers, to continue doing their work, have to pay off, for protection, either one of the groups, depending on who's in control, and of course, that helps finance their operations.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Right. It's a vicious circle. So we are in agreement that probably the motivator behind all this is the drug cult.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Well, no. I've got to be careful there, because I think the guerrilla movement, for right or for wrong, was formed in the first place because of perceived social ills, economic disparities, and so on. Over the years, though, it's become less idealistic and more involved in the drug trade, by which it is financed. But to say the motivation of the war was totally the drug trade, I think, might be generalizing too much. There are other motivations too.

With the paramilitaries, originally they were legal. The paramilitaries were defence forces in the rural areas against the guerrillas and were legal until about the middle 1980s. Soon it was seen that these paramilitaries were committing atrocities themselves, but they were meant as a counterforce in a war really. There's a war going on between the paramilitaries and the guerrillas for territory and for control of people, and for control of the drug revenues now, but this started in a different way.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay. Then we are in agreement, because it was part of the motivation, whether it was the beginning or the end of it or a result.

Mr. Warren Allmand: It's part of the motivation, but I don't want to leave the impression that the motivation was simply drug revenues.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: No, but they're part of what happens now and a big business.

Mr. Warren Allmand: It's now a big part of it. Mary had something to say.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay.

Ms. Mary Durran: I was just going to add that the interpretation we had, having spoken to several people, is that drugs very much complicate things, but there are underlying causes. If you stopped the drug trade tomorrow, the war wouldn't end tomorrow. There are still the underlying causes in inequitable distribution of resources, great poverty, and human rights abuses. The drug problem very much complicates and prolongs that.

Mr. Warren Allmand: And it strengthens the forces of the paramilitaries and the guerrillas.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: On both sides, yes.

I agree on the problem you have with the aerial fumigation. It's obviously causing all sorts of problems with water, animals, legitimate crops, etc. But do you have an alternative to the aerial fumigation? Because the understanding, from what I've just briefly read, is that the American forces want to kill off the crops. I certainly support killing off the crops, but I also support what you're saying about what it's doing to innocent people and innocent crops and animals and water. So is there an alternative?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Yes. The five southern governors, led by the governor of Cauca I referred to—and they've done this after consultation with the peoples in the area—are ready to engage in manual destruction of the coca crops that are used for the international drug trade. The aerial fumigation is not killing the drug business. They're fumigating, they're maybe killing part of it, but it's not really slowing down the international narcotic business at all. The five southern governors are ready to effect manual destruction, so that they would get just those crops and not the legitimate crops. And of course, their animals and their properties would not be contaminated as well.

This is under discussion, and as a matter of fact, we had discussions with our Canadian ambassador on that. There is some serious consideration of this, but it has not yet been agreed to.

• 1605

The Chair: Have they not stopped the aerial fumigation? It's not going on now, is it?

Mr. Warren Allmand: If they've stopped, I don't know about it.

The Chair: Okay. We'll find out about that.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I think it was suspended for a while in a part of the country, but I think they started again.

The manual destruction would obviously alleviate a lot of the problems, although it would be terribly labour-intensive. From what you've said to me and from my limited knowledge of what goes on in the drug trade, I would assume that trying to go in and manually destroy these crops would be far more dangerous to the people we're trying to protect at this time than what's happening now. I don't imagine anyone who has the investment in those drug crops is going to stand by idly and let people go in and destroy them. So my fear would be that the people who have gone in to destroy those crops would be in more danger doing this manual destruction than they are now.

Mr. Warren Allmand: I'll tell you what they said. The coca has been used for centuries by the indigenous people of Colombia. To make it into a narcotic, you have to chemically treat it, but in the form you take it from the ground, it's part of their culture. It's a curative. They put it in water and make a drink out of it that is good for their health. It can, however, be transformed. These crops are often on their own lands, in their own territories. They probably don't need that much to satisfy their personal needs, for their own uses in a legitimate way. What's being grown now is being grown for the international drug business.

All I can say is that they said they were ready to do this manual destruction of the crops. It would seem to me that there could be some danger to it. But the five southern governors, with the support of the people, are ready to do that, rather than have their legitimate crops and their animals destroyed, and even a threat to the health to the people through the aerial fumigation.

Mary has some more information.

Ms. Mary Durran: Our understanding was that many people would be willing to manually eradicate their own crops, but they're only willing to do it if they have a viable alternative to make a living from. There are other projects under way in Colombia, so we understand. For example, the United Nations drug control program has just initiated a program whereby it's encouraging farmers to market palm hearts and some other alternative crops as part of the eradication program. Many of the indigenous people said to us that in their communities people would eradicate if there was something else that they could live from. In the long term the Colombian indigenous peoples know it's dangerous for them to be linked to the drug trade at all, so they actually realize that it is in their interest. But the problem is that it seems to them, and to us as well, the aerial fumigation seeks a short-term solution, and it doesn't provide the people with a long-term solution. So that's why people are very loath to do it, to accept it.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay.

We're viewing this from Canada's perspective, and you mentioned mining in Colombia. I come from an area that has the largest open-pit copper mine in North America. I've been involved in mining for 30 years, so I have a bit of an understanding of it. Most companies that are in Colombia have an American parent company, and part of what they do in Colombia, or in any other country they go into and produce mines, is create jobs for the people, indigenous and other, and they also teach skills. For Canada to try to put pressure on would be very difficult, because most of these mining companies have American parent companies. So we would have absolutely no sway in that regard. I was wondering where you were going with that.

Mr. Warren Allmand: We met some of the oil companies, which I understood were fully Canadian companies.

In Colombia they have rules on environmental assessment etc., and they have mining laws too. I understand somebody else is going to deal with that later—I'm not an expert in that. One Canadian company left the south of Colombia because pressure was being put on them to pay taxes to either the guerrillas or the paramilitaries to operate, and they didn't want to do it. So they're moving closer to Bogota.

• 1610

We have the same thing in Canada—I was Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. It's a question of consultation and getting agreement with the people who own and occupy the land to put mining operations on their territory or to put oil development on their territory. In some cases they may agree, in some cases they may not. In some cases they may strike a fair agreement, in some cases they may be exploited and their lands destroyed against their will. Whether they're Canadian companies or American companies or American controlled companies, I think human rights dictate that they respect the rights of people who have these lands.

As I pointed out, in the Colombian constitution there are provisions that assure indigenous people of certain lands, so those are their lands. Just to take them and exploit them without respecting their points of view, I think, is wrong. It's wrong in accordance with law, it's wrong in accordance with moral precepts, and it's wrong in accordance with the Colombian constitution. So we're asking people to respect international norms, Colombian norms, and the norms of our own country, if Canadian companies are operating there. In other words, you shouldn't do in another country what you can't do here.

The Chair: Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Mr. Allmand, I believe that when you sat in the House, members of the various parties always recognized your right to speak your own mind. On most issues, you have indeed manifested that sense of justice that could be felt even in Parliament. I sensed that again in today's presentation.

I may not have quite understood since everything was happening so quickly. But did you not say that 80% of political crimes or of the various abuses are committed by government agents. Did I misunderstand what you were saying?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Colombian's commission of jurists drafted a report which stated that 85% of murders are committed by agents of the state and members of paramilitary groups and that 15% are due to guerilla activity. These statistics appear at the bottom of page 9 of the report, in note no. 3.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I see.

Mr. Warren Allmand: In the year 2000, then, almost 85%...

[English]

My report's in English, but you have the French version there, I believe.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes.

Mr. Warren Allmand: These statistics were made public by Colombia's Commission of jurists.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I can see that. Thank you. The two categories are statistically joined. Agents of the state and members of the paramilitary. Do we know precisely what percentage can be directly attributed to the state?

Mr. Warren Allmand: No. It is very difficult to know. As I was saying, we have met with ministers, senators, parliamentarians and government officials and we tried to find out.

It seems that in rural areas, members of the military have worked together with the paramilitaries but the president and many public servants, parliamentarians and government officials observe a policy that is quite opposed to that and a number of military personnel have been arrested and put into jail. It is contrary to government policy, then, but problems do arise in that regard.

The reason that we do have that kind of problem is that, as I was saying earlier on, around 85% of the paramilitary groups were legal at the time. There were contacts between the military and the paramilitary but later on, because of the atrocities, of the slaughters and such, committed by the paramilitary, it was decided to make these paramilitary organizations illegal, but a number of colonels or commanders have maintained their contacts with the paramilitary. That is why we still have problems in that regard, even though it is now against government policy.

• 1615

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Concerning another aspect of this issue, you claimed that you always preserved your independence when you sat in the House, but you know that no later than yesterday, in the course of the third reading of the EDC bill, the Export Development Corporation, Mr. Paquette, of the Bloc Québécois, moved that observance of human rights be included among the requirements for businesses applying for EDC assistance. This proposal was rejected and one wonders why. I am not asking you to express an opinion in that regard, but do you think that in the next while, we might renew that proposal?

It is very important. Unless you expressly state that the EDC must abide by international treaties... Do you think that even though it is not explicitly stated, the EDC is bound by international treaties signed by Canada?

Mr. Warren Allmand: Last week, I appeared before the Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade to speak on this bill and I asked the committee to amend the draft legislation to that effect and also to make sure that...

[English]

the Export Development Corporation came under the auspices of freedom of information, access to information.

By the way, the foreign affairs committee, prior to the bill, had in their report, their recommendations to the government, that there be recognition of human rights in the amendments to the law, and there were also recommendations—and they were unanimous—that the Export Development Corporation come under the purview of the Access to Information Act.

I was simply asking the committee to do what they themselves said should be done. I'm disappointed that they haven't done that. Maybe the Senate will amend the bill.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I am very pleased to hear that.

There is something else. On page 15, you speak of the basic concepts concerning the rights of native peoples. This includes definitions of “native peoples”, “native territories”, “native community”, “native reserve”, and “native resguardo”. There are even definitions of “native cabildo” and “native self-government”.

I must admit that things seem more simple here in Canada. There are the native people who live on reserves and there are the others. Am I wrong or do you too find this way of describing native communities a little complicated?

Mr. Warren Allmand: In Colombia, there are two types of reserves, which are more or less the same as here. The resguardos are old lands that were set aside for the Indians even before Colombia's independence, at the time the Spanish. That is one type of reserve. But there are also 17 new reserve which, I believe, have a slightly different status. These are more or less like ours, but there are two kinds, because the two developed in a slightly different way.

A cabildo is a type of government within the resguardos and Indian reserves. It is a type of governing society. It is more or less like the band councils we have here under the Indian Act but a little bit different in certain ways.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would like...

[English]

The Chair: Thank you. Your time's up. If we have time, we'll come around again. I don't think we will, though.

• 1620

Before Mr. Robinson makes a comment, I just wanted you to know, Mr. Allmand, that when Ambassador Rishchynski was here early in September, he did say, as you said, that there's no evidence of any companies supporting human rights abuses and that he was keeping a close watch on it. I just wanted to let you know.

Mr. Warren Allmand: We went there with the aim of trying to find out if there was, but we couldn't. I'd have to say, with all honesty, we didn't find any horror cases or any bad actors. But we think you have to keep a careful watch on things.

The Chair: I think he was talking about Canadian companies, by the way, not others.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Yes, he was.

Ms. Mary Durran: I have something to add on that.

The Chair: Yes, okay.

Ms. Mary Durran: On the whole point of companies, one thing people said to us time and again in Colombia is that once a mining company goes into an area where there are indigenous people, since the guerrillas generally don't like foreign mining companies, this attracts their presence straight away. The presence of the guerrillas in turn attracts the paramilitaries. Then, if the people are at all opposed to the mining project, if they make any sign of opposition in a democratic kind of way, in Colombia, particularly in rural Colombia, there's not an established democracy such as we have here, so people end up getting killed for just exercising their democratic rights to oppose a project. We've seen a situation like this in the Urra situation in the Embera-Katio area in the north of Colombia.

The Chair: I think that's the only example they could give.

Mr. Warren Allmand: Kimy Pernia is a good example of that. He stood up for his rights, and it looks as though he was killed.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank Rights and Democracy for organizing this mission to Colombia, together with the Assembly of First Nations, and to say I fully support the recommendations that have been made and will certainly be urging the government to act on these recommendations. I was particularly struck by your recommendations with respect to Plan Colombia. When I was in Colombia earlier this year, I certainly heard the same very strong representations. Canada's position on the ground on human rights iss very positive, very respected, but there's deep concern at our silence on Plan Colombia.

I might just say on the military component of Plan Colombia, many people also point out the blatant, glaring hypocrisy of a military component that is directed at the FARC-controlled area and not in any way at the paramilitaries, who are financed by drugs themselves. It's very clear that there's a political component to this, that the United States is also seeking to target the FARC, and they're leaving the paramilitaries alone completely on this.

Madam Chair, I'm not going to ask any questions. We do have Francisco Ramirez here, and I'm prepared to give up my time to give him a bit more time.

The Chair: I don't think we're going to have time.

Charles.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to congratulate Mr. Allmand. Warren, it's been some time since the indigenous people of the world got their international recognition and have begun to assemble and to strive for better living and social conditions in their countries. I don't sit on this committee, but I've followed this a little bit.

With the indigenous people in Colombia, does the government give a serious allocation of moneys towards the welfare and the benefit of the people, these 80,000 or more who are in poverty? In Canada we spend about $6 billion a year trying to help our native people, but what is the evidence in Colombia in respect of programs and assistance for them?

Mr. Warren Allmand: I haven't got the exact budget figures. As I pointed out, there was a new constitution in Colombia in 1991, and there are considerable provisions with respect to indigenous people, but they're not enforced or enforceable at the present time in many areas. I don't know what the budget is.

I do know that 26% of the territory of Colombia is allocated to indigenous peoples, but very often it isn't the best land. It's like some of the land in Canada that's allocated. Even in those territories they're subject to a tax from the guerrillas and the paramilitaries and the narcotraffickers, and there's been a huge displacement of people from the lands, to the extent that some of them are even losing their identity. Some are virtually on the verge of extinction.

• 1625

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Dubé referred to other countries studying somebody else's situation, for example, our going to Colombia. I'm not aware of this, but have there been situations where other countries have visited the million people who live either as full status or non-status people in our country? Is there a report out that is critical or appreciative of the work Canadians do? We go to another country and say, we see this. Is there any report that might answer fully what Mr. Dubé brought up a few minutes ago?

Mr. Warren Allmand: I should point out first that we were invited by indigenous peoples of Colombia. As a matter of fact, I think they told the chair of your committee they would be happy to see a parliamentary committee go down there as well. They want the international community to come and see.

With respect to Canada, yes, there is, as a matter of fact. If you read the report of the human rights committee of the UN Commission on Human Rights, there's quite a stinging report against Canada for not following up on the royal commission on indigenous people. There's quite a lengthy string of condemnations of Canada with respect to indigenous peoples. That's the UN Commission on Human Rights. There may be others as well. I'm familiar with that commission because I've referred to it in some of the work I've done.

By the way, the same UN Commission on Human Rights, as I pointed out, has a very extensive report on Colombia, not just with respect to indigenous people, but on the entire situation in Colombia. I mentioned the horrible situation with trade union leaders. It's the worst in the world. Nowhere in the world do trade union leaders get killed as quickly as they do in Colombia. With journalists, it's the second worst area in the world. So if you try to write a true story, you're subject to being killed.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: If you read on this, whether it be in Time magazine, Maclean's, or any other periodical, you see the struggle the people have there, the poor people, the peasants of Colombia, with their crops. They're trying to grow something else with the labs they set up. All of this is a tremendous attack on human rights and on how people should live in the world. I want to commend your group and your organization for the work you're doing to bring us, as parliamentarians, this information. Hopefully, we can put some pressure on Madam Chair to improve the lot, not only in Colombia, but in many places in Central and South America—and probably here at home.

Mr. Warren Allmand: With our limited resources, as I pointed out, we have worked in Peru, Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador. But right now we feel the priority in South America is in Colombia. We actually are trying to put together a project with Development and Peace to carry on work there to help indigenous people and Afro-Colombians strengthen their capacity to participate in the peace process. That's another thing. One of our strong recommendations, Madam Chair, is that pressure be brought to bear, so that the indigenous people of Colombia are part of the peace discussions. They're an important part of the country, they're provided for in the constitution, but so far they're not participating in the peace discussions. They have a national organization, which is similar to our Assembly of First Nations, called ONIC—what is that in Spanish?

Ms. Mary Durran: The Organizacion Nacional Indigena de Colombia.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Allmand.

We have two groups today, so unfortunately that's the end of our time. If you have anything else you'd like to let us know before we write our report, please mail it into the clerk.

We'll just take a two-minute break right now.

Mr. Warren Allmand: All right. I want to thank the committee, and you, Madam Chair. I hope you do get to Colombia and continue to raise these issues with the government, and with the Canadian people and the Canadian business community.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

• 1629

• 1633

The Chair: We'll call the meeting back to order.

Our next witnesses are from the Canadian International Development Agency, or CIDA as we know them, and they are Bob Anderson, vice-president, Romy Peters, and Claude Beauséjour. I think you're going to give us an executive summary, and then we can go on with the questions from there.

Mr. Bob Anderson (Vice-President, Americas, Canadian International Development Agency): Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, for inviting us here today. I know this group has heard many presentations over the last several months, and so you're well placed, we believe, to comment on our draft framework at this point. We look forward to your input on this.

I want to emphasize that this framework has not yet been discussed within the agency. It has not had the benefit of our own briefers. In other words, the minister and the president haven't seen it, and you're the first group to see it.

• 1635

The presentation, as you know, is basically centred on our early proposed draft framework. These are what we believe to be the best means for CIDA to support towards the needs of Colombia. I'm not going to go through the document. I'd like to emphasize five or six points.

First, as Mr. Allmand has pointed out very well, and I'm sure a lot of the presenters here before, the context in Colombia has changed quite significantly over the last five or six years. The security situation has deteriorated dramatically. The economy has gone into recession. Colombia had one of the strongest economies over a long period of time in the whole of Latin America, but in the last two or three years it's experienced a bit of a recession. I think another thing that has changed, which is important for us, is that the Government of Colombia has put forward pursuing peace as a central goal. This is something, I think, we can build on.

So the point is, I think, for us that given that the situation has changed over the last five or six years, our program should change to reflect this new reality. In other words, if CIDA is going to remain relevant, we have to reflect the new reality. So what we're proposing in this document is a new type of program that we think does so. This new program in Colombia—and when I say Colombia, I want to emphasize that we're talking about not only the government, but also civil society—will respond to the country's human rights and security situation, and our future projects will, hopefully, increase Colombia's capacity to meet basic human needs and protect human rights, particularly of those people who have been directly affected by the conflict.

The second arm is to support equitable participation in establishing the foundations for peace. What I mean by that is, obviously, that it's a bilateral program; we deal with the government of Colombia, but we don't restrict it only to the government, we also deal with and talk to a wide range of people in civil society, including the private sector.

Third, we should improve Colombia's capacity to address the key issues and the intensifiers of violence. In the informal discussions we've had with a wide range of actors, from civil society, international organizations, the Government of Colombia itself, a number of the ministries, foreign affairs and others, we have been hearing that our new program, as outlined here, coincides, I think, quite well with the requirements in Colombia and with these actors who have been identified as priorities.

CIDA's work in Colombia will be a part, so we're proposing, of a concerted Canadian effort. This means we in CIDA have to make an effort, I think, to reflect in our program from the Canadian side not only government, but a wide range of actors in civil society, again including the private sector. Our activities will complement the efforts of Canadian diplomacy and will involve capable Canadian civil society and government organizations. We will coordinate our efforts with those of other donors and multilateral organizations working for peace in Colombia. In doing so, we hope to leverage the Canadian contribution and achieve a greater impact. This should also increase the level of security, we hope, for our local and Canadian partners.

We believe our new proposed program in Colombia will be sufficiently flexible and agile to adapt to the fluid situation in Colombia and to respond to the needs identified by the Colombian government and civil society. It's not clear yet where this whole process in Colombia is going to end up, so I think our framework has to be fluid and flexible enough that we can adapt to changing situations.

• 1640

Our focus of working towards peace and enhancing human society in Colombia is the result of, and will continue to be the result of, ongoing discussions with Canadian government and civil society organizations, as well as with the Government of Colombia and civil society members in Colombia.

That's my short, if you will, executive summary of what was in the document. I'd like to turn it over for a moment to Romy, because we, and particularly Romy, have been involved in the last two days in a series of meetings with Jan Egeland.

Romy is our director for the program that includes Colombia. He's been that for the last three years. Claude Beauséjour has been in our branch now for six years, but has just recently joined the Colombia desk.

The Chair: Mr. Peters.

Mr. Romy Peters (Acting Director, Brazil, Southern Cone and Colombia, South America Division, Canadian International Development Agency): This morning, subsequent to your meeting Mr. Jan Egeland, DFAIT hosted a meeting. The purpose was to get Mr. Egeland's perspective on what was happening in Colombia. At the same time we asked him what he would like Canada to do to help Colombia. He gave us eight or nine different items, and I'll list those, but after he gave them to us, I'd swear that he had read our strategy paper, and I told him that.

The Chair: Before we start, does everybody understand that Mr. Egeland is the United Nations representative in Colombia? Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Romy Peters: The first item he suggested was that we review ongoing UN programs and identify those that are underfunded and coincide with our objectives. We already fund about four or five different UN organizations, for example, UNESCO, UNICEF, the facilitator's role itself—Mr. Egeland's office; there's the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the High Commissioner for Refugees. And this is all specifically related to their participation in Colombia. In addition, we provide core funding through our multilateral group.

Second, he suggested that we continue funding good Colombian NGOs. We have funded Colombian NGOs in the past in human rights and access to justice projects. We're looking at future funding of Colombian NGOs. We understand that a lot of them have the capacity to implement programming, and we're looking to support them in the future in their pursuit of peace.

Third, he suggested that like-minded countries should consider an NGO coordination program. We've initiated discussions with other international donors to see if we can identify areas where we could work jointly. I'm planning to visit Colombia shortly, and we will be following up to identify specific areas that like-minded donors can cooperate on, so that we can create synergies and have a coordinated effort.

Fourth, he suggested that the programming should be quick and flexible. We've implemented a number of funds that are administered locally. We previously had the Canada Fund, we have a gender equity fund, we have an government and human security fund, and we're now looking at developing a much larger economic development/peace fund. Again, we might be looking at its being administered locally, so that the decisions can be made quickly, money can be provided to the implementers, and the programs can be implemented quickly.

Fifth, it was suggested that we look at the possibility of civilian development or observer groups. Here he was speaking specifically about international verifiers. As you know, there was a second demilitarized zone proposed for the ELN, and five countries were asked to provide verifiers in the event the zone came into being. We've had discussions with senior management and DFAIT on the possibility of providing international verifiers.

Then there were a number of other areas that would be primarily geared to the Department of Foreign Affairs, but with CIDA involvement, and I'll just quickly read those.

• 1645

Canada may wish to take the lead in developing a new drug strategy aimed at reducing consumption. This is trying to make a coordinated effort with the European Union and other like-minded countries, because we have to reduce consumption and we can't just look at the supply side.

Another area is to identify experts who could participate in structuring a ceasefire agreement in the event there is progress in the peace process. They will require somebody who can structure the agreement and put it in place quickly.

And finally, Canada should invite the presidential candidates to Canada to seek their views, also to try to encourage them to make the peace process a state process, as opposed to a government process.

Thank you.

The Chair: Do we get to vote for them too?

Mr. Romy Peters: You can ask them that.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms. Hinton. To get through at least one round, let's cut the first rounds down to five minutes, rather than ten minutes.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: I have one very quick question, I guess.

In light of what's happening in Afghanistan, are you looking at reprioritizing the way we spend money on these different functions? They're all worthwhile, but we've made a huge commitment in Afghanistan, and I'm wondering whether or not you think that should take precedence over this particular program. I was madly writing down everything you said. Some of these sound like very good suggestions from this gentleman. What would your priority be?

Mr. Bob Anderson: One of the questions we discussed last night with Jan was precisely this, September 11, what possible impact that could have, and how you would reallocate. I think what came out of that discussion was that there was some concern that the Afghanistan situation, particularly in respect of U.S. foreign policy, might divert attention so much over to the other side that there may be some neglect of issues related to our own hemisphere. I think that would be unfortunate. At this time we've talked about resources of some $60 million over a five-year period, and based on what we see, we think this will be sufficient to do what we want to do.

It'll depend a lot on how the situation evolves, and I guess our point is that we have to take advantage right now of the situation. The Colombian government is undertaking, we think, a very courageous effort to bring about peace. If the international community does not seize this as an opportunity, or if the various actors in Colombia do not seize this as an opportunity now, the alternative could be quite awful, I think. If it deteriorates into a full civil war situation, it's not in our interest and it's not in Colombia's interest. So should we be diverting some of the money that would be initially associated with this program over to the Afghan situation? Our view would be, no, we shouldn't do that.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay.

Given the situation we have with the value of the Canadian dollar right now, with the job situation, with the commitment we've made to anti-terrorism, which is going to be very expensive, a billion dollars or better, and now we've already committed ourselves with Afghanistan, what are you looking for? You said $60 million over a five-year period.

Mr. Romy Peters: Yes, $60 million over a five-year period, but that's existing programming that we're planning to do, and that's within existing resources.

Mrs. Betty Hinton: Okay. So what could go so this could be met? Is there any suggestion?

Mr. Rob Anderson: What could go?

Mrs. Betty Hinton: What could we eliminate doing for the time being? You're telling me this Colombia situation is a must now, and we've made a commitment in Afghanistan, so where could we take money out of this overall program to meet these two needs?

• 1650

Mr. Bob Anderson: I think that's an exercise we're looking at right now within the agency. I can't give you a precise answer. If we're going to attack the questions of terrorism, we certainly need to put emphasis on security issues, but I think we also have to try to address some of the underlying factors that create this kind of situation. In Colombia what we're talking about is trying to help the Colombian government's efforts and the Colombian society's efforts to bring about peace. It's an investment that, hopefully, in the long term, will pay off. It's a good investment, I think.

Mr. Romy Peters: Also, I think we have to be careful that it doesn't spill over into other countries. Other countries are currently concerned, because there are a number of Colombian displaced people who are crossing the borders, and it's creating problems there. Mr. Egeland told us last night that there are also Colombians who are starting to purchase land in Ecuador. He didn't give us the identities of those Colombian people—they could be legitimate, they could be illegitimate.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to clarify one point. That 60 million dollars over five years, does that mean 12 million dollars per year?

Mr. Romy Peters: More or less.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I would first of all like to say that last night, the House of Commons voted in favor of a motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois to substantially increase international humanitarian aid. In our view, the idea is not to take from one country to give to another but to increase the total amount available. It's seems fairly obvious to me that of all the countries in the western hemisphere or in the Americas, Colombia is the one where the need is presently the greatest. We agree on this.

I won't ask you therefore what you would take out, but rather what you would be able to add if we multiply the international aid budget by two.

Mr. Romy Peters: If we multiplied the aid budget by two, the money would go to Afghanistan, Pakistan and to other countries with similar needs. I don't think that we need to double the aid budget for the Americas. Countries also need to be able to absorb that aid and programming takes time.

In Colombia, the money can be put to good use because the programming is there. There are also a lot of United Nations agencies as well as the Red Cross doing good work there. If we have more money, we could give some to them. We could also put together other types of programs for appeals, for example, of for conflict resolution. We could also help displaced persons since we presently have approximately two million displaced persons and the number is increasing.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I do not have your expertise. I've only been involved with this six months, or at least since the election. I feel, however, that we should be focusing on displaced persons. Off-hand, considering two and a half million displaced persons, 12 million dollars does not seem like much. What is the percentage of Canadian aid going to displaced persons?

Mr. Romy Peters: It is hard to say how much of that money goes directly to these people. We have health programs. So there are displaced persons who now have access to health services, but there are also people within the community, who are not displaced, and who also receive that type of service. You can't make that type of distinction.

As we set up the programs, we can't be targeting only displaced persons. The displaced persons are a part of a community and if we only focus on them we could turn the other people against them since they might feel that these displaced people are coming into their community and using community resources. You therefore have to help both sides.

• 1655

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I fully agree.

When we went to Geneve this year, the subcommittee met with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I am no expert, but this does seem to be the number one priority.

People sometimes say that you should teach the people how to fish, but when people have to leave their homes, when they have no roof over their head, when they have problems feeding themselves and getting access to medical care, it is difficult to involve them in development projects. That much is clear.

Mr. Claude Beauséjour (senior program analyst, Brazil, Southern Cone and Colombia, South America Division, Canadian International Development Agency): Mr. Dubé, the document that you handed out to us, the one that contains Bob Anderson's complete presentation, sort of summarizes our new programming framework. The one we are discussing today. People afflicted by armed conflict are our main priority. Most of the money we have available will go to them.

To answer your question, if the aid budget increases, this will be the easiest way of spending it, since we can send money through the United Nations. We have already set up projects, and we could simply increase the amount of aid that they receive. We could increase our contribution to the United Nations Human Rights program headed by Mr. Kompass.

So that is really our main priority. In fact our priority is not only to help displaced persons, but to help all persons affected by armed conflict. That said, displaced persons are our first priority.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: You mean the people directly affected, since everyone is affected.

Mr. Claude Beauséjour: That is right. I mean the people who are directly affected, the most affected, the most destitute.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wanted first to thank the witnesses from CIDA for sharing the new proposed bilateral framework and to commend CIDA for the emphasis on peace building, human security, and respect for human rights. Clearly, in the context of the tragic environment within which you are operating in Colombia, these are the right priorities. I particularly want to encourage you to support civil society groups. I note that in your brief you are focusing on that.

I wanted to ask if you have any estimate at this point of what proportion of the overall funding would be directed towards civil society groups? Frankly, I think the vast majority, if not all of it, should be going to civil society, as opposed to government institutions. This is a shift, I think, for CIDA in Colombia, and so I'd like to get some sense of where you're going on that and if this is recognized to be a significant shift.

Second, with CIDA funding in the energy and mining sector, as you know, there has been criticism, particularly concerning the development of the new mining code, the new mining legislation. Hopefully, we'll have a chance to hear from the president of the Mine Workers Union. They're concerned that this could lead to further human rights abuses and, in fact, to environmental damage, and that CIDA, at least indirectly, was funding the development of this code that certainly doesn't enhance respect for workers' rights, to which Canada is committed under the ILO standards on the rights of working people. I'd like to ask how you'd respond to that, and more particularly, whether you'll agree to a commitment that before any funding goes into any of these sectors, you'll consult with those who are affected, particularly indigenous peoples and representatives of labour in that area.

Finally, and briefly, the last time CIDA appeared I raised the question about funding for Peace Brigades International. We got a response back that indicated that the Canada Fund, through the embassy, does provide some support, and I know that. But Peace Brigades International do incredibly important work. It falls right under this mandate. They were previously funded directly by CIDA. I'd like to ask whether you're prepared to consider favourably an application to support the work they do in Colombia today.

Mr. Bob Anderson: Can I take these in reverse order?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Of course.

Mr. Bob Anderson: Then I'll let Romy deal with one specific one in detail.

• 1700

On the question of mining, I think there's a misconception here. Our involvement in the mining code aspect was very marginal. When our project started, there was already a mining code. The Colombian government was in the process of revising that mining code; in fact, it had been presented to Parliament. Colombia, like most other countries in Latin America at that point, was interested in modernizing the regulatory frameworks on a broad front. Mining was one of them. When we came in, the revised code had just been rejected by Parliament, and it was never part of the original mandate, actually, in any real sense. I think it was something like—we calculated it yesterday—one per cent of our whole project that went to the mining code itself. After it was rejected, they asked if we would look at it from the perspective of the legal wording, I guess you would say, on one specific aspect of it, which we called the discretionary element. Basically what they wanted to know was whether the legal wording there would create confusion or bring clarity? That's basically the only thing we did with the mining code per se.

Most of our work in the mining sector was, in fact, to support the Colombian government, you're right, government institutions, in developing their environmental framework. They had just created the Ministry of Environment, and what they wanted was some support from Canada on the environmental regulatory side, based, I guess, on our recognized best practices and international best practices. So we had people from B.C. and other parts of Canada bring down the best practices in regard to the regulatory stuff.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, do you want your other questions answered, because your time is up?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes.

The Chair: Please give a quick answer for the others.

Mr. Bob Anderson: I'll let Romy answer in a little bit more detail, but in regard to how it's going to break down with government, civil society, and NGO groups, I think it's a little early to tell, because we have to see how this situation unfolds. There's one thing we have to make very clear: we in Canada, or CIDA, cannot bring peace to Colombia. We can only help if the various actors in Colombia see it as in their interest. It's quite clear, I think, why the government would want it. Do FARC see it as in their interest to bring peace? Do the paramilitaries see it as in their interest to bring peace? If there is a consensus in Colombia that they want to pursue this, we can help. How that unfolds, I think, will determine what kind of balance there is. It's almost for certain, though, that there will be a lot more on the civil society side than perhaps there has been in the past. I think that's fair to say. I just don't know exactly what that breakdown would be.

Mr. Romy Peters: To repeat, that funding has already been provided. My understanding is that our multilateral group, through IHA, has provided some funding. Unfortunately, I don't have the exact number, but I saw the proposal go through about a week or so ago.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Were these for the international or—

Mr. Romy Peters: My understanding is that they were.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes. If you could get the committee that information, that would be great.

Mr. Romy Peters: Okay.

On civil society, you suggested that all our funding go there. A large portion of it will go to civil society, but also a part will go to support the government, for example, the Defensoria del Pueblo, the ombudsman.

Also, we're working with the Auditor General, because right now about $4 billion to $5 billion of government funds are misappropriated. We're providing some training to them to improve auditing standards etc., to try to save some of this money, so it can be directed towards social programming.

Also we're working with the RCMP on a witness protection program. As you know, there's maybe a 96% to 97% impunity rate in Colombia. Part of it has to do with the fact that witnesses cannot step forward. As soon as they step forward, they're threatened. So we have a proposal in from the RCMP that we're looking at to try to implement a witness protection program.

• 1705

Mr. Bob Anderson: We would also probably envision working with federal or local governments, as we are now, on issues of conflict resolution and public consultation. We would like to.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Mrs. Jennings.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you Mr. Anderson, Mr. Peters and Mr. Beauséjour.

Under the new plan, which has not yet been approved but that you intent to submit to your senior people, you speak of 60 million dollars over five years, that is 12 million dollars per year.

First of all, would you tell me what the annual budget is for Brazil, the Southern Cone and Colombia. As you say, the budget has not really been increased and you are going to have to take money from other programs. What is the present budget for Colombia? What does that 12 million dollars figure represent in terms of an increase?

[English]

Mr. Bob Anderson: When you say the region, you're talking about Colombia, Brazil, Southern Cone, and that's $20 million a year, of which Colombia gets at this point, on average, about $12 million corporate, of which $4 million right now is in our bilateral program.

Mr. Romy Peters: The peace building fund provides some support, international humanitarian assistance provides some support, and also our partnership branch. The combined total of that is $12 million. There's about $4 million that is bilateral from us.

The Chair: Can I interrupt? When you say $12 million, does that mean you don't have the $12 million, the $12 million is made up of money from these other places?

Mr. Romy Peters: No, it's all within CIDA. These are different branches of CIDA.

The Chair: Different branches of CIDA.

Mr. Romy Peters: Yes, we work together on a program basis.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Romy Peters: So depending on the mechanism that is being used, each separate branch will provide some of the funding.

Mr. Bob Anderson: We should clarify that—there may be confusion.

[Translation]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No, he explained that very clearly. With all the moneys coming from the various budget within CIDA you get 12 million dollars for Colombia.

Mr. Romy Peters: That's right.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So you are talking of 12 million dollars for Colombia over the next five years. Could you tell me what the difference is. If there is a difference, how much will there be over the next five years coming from the various sources within CIDA?

Mr. Romy Peters: Overall, we will be spending the same amount. The only difference is an increase in the funding of the bilateral program. The international humanitarian people may not be able to spend as much there because they will be spending more in Afghanistan, in Pakistan an other countries. It's the bilateral aid program that will be spending more.

Mr. Claude Beauséjour: Mrs. Jennings, could I add something?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: A quick comment, yes.

Mr. Claude Beauséjour: Our project in the energy, mines and environmental sectors which is coming to an end, or say, a telecommunication program are much more costly than the programs we intend to set up within the new framework and where we will be focusing more on the civil society, trying to focus on very precise types of activities. We will set up local funds to help civil society in Colombia.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: So it's more the nature of the contribution that will change and not so much the amount that we spend. That is an important point.

I do not agree with my colleagues who said that CIDA and the Canadian government should not be funding projects where governments are involved. Let me clarify this very quickly.

• 1710

If you have a weak democratic government, in a place where we want peace to be restored, we have to help the government if it too is working to strengthen the justice system, say.

You mentioned other programs that are already in place, where the RCMP is involved, for example, as well as other Canadian law enforcement agencies. When Mr. Egeland appeared before the committee, I asked him if he thought that Canada might contribute conciliation programs or law enforcement training programs in Colombia as we have elsewhere, in Brazil, in S«o Paulo for example and he said yes. Do you agree? Is this something that could be part of the new strategy orientation?

Mr. Romy Peters: Yes, that is certainly possible. As I was saying to Mr. Robinson, we are not only going to spend money to encourage civil society; we are also going to work along with the government. When we traveled to Colombia, we discussed these various priorities with government people. We met with representatives from government and civil society, and we also had unofficial meetings here, in Canada, with people active in this field. We asked them if our priorities were also Colombia's. They all told us that they were.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: And lastly, I would like to make a suggestion. If you go on approving projects involving law enforcement in Colombia, could I ask you to consult with representatives of the civil society before approving these projects, as my colleagues suggested. Let me explain.

Here in Canada, every time we see an effort to modernize or to update the policy orientations of our police agencies, whether it be at the provincial or at the national level, that is to say the RCMP, or even at the municipal level, it is always in response to public demands, to community demands. The training projects that have been successful are those set up in response to a problem identified by the civil society and one that civil society was involved in designing.

Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Bob Anderson: If I could take two seconds to add to that, this is certainly a possibility, provided that it is established as a priority by the Colombians. If they see this as a priority, there's nothing to stop us from doing it. Canada is known for community policing and that sort of thing, and we get a lot of demand for it. So it is definitely possible if Colombians see this as a priority.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: I understand that Mr. Dubé and Mr. Robinson don't have second-round questions. Do you have another question?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: No. I just want to thank the gentlemen for their clarification and for their information.

The Chair: I would like to thank them too for coming. We will be interested to read the final changes of the report when it comes out.

Mr. Bob Anderson: We'll be looking forward to your recommendations.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much. You are quite free to go, if you would like to go now. You don't have to stay. We just have some other things to do.

We have Francisco Ramirez, who is the central organizer of public sector mining unions in Colombia, but we have a brief meeting with the committee first. We have to do this business, and I'll just explain it quickly.

We have already said in a motion that we would go to Colombia before Christmas. The Government of Colombia has said it is not the best time for them; they would rather we did not go before Christmas. So we would like to have a motion. I've spoken to Mr. Graham and to our whip, and it seems to be acceptable that we go sometime before the end of February, probably the first or second week of February. So it looks like a motion that we put this trip off until that point, so we can get the business through.

Marlene?

• 1715

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: If we are to put off the trip and simply go sometime in February, for instance, why not look at going during the time of the conference that's being organized?

The Chair: What conference?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: In March.

The Chair: We were going at that time, as soon as we can, so that we could add whatever we learned to the report. If we wait too long—

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We already know the peace process, the entente, ends, according to Mr. Egeland, in January. So if we're contemplating not going before then, it means we're not going to have any input towards a possible extension of that, bringing weight to bear on that. If we're going to be going afterwards, why not look at the possibility of going when that conference is happening, so that we can also benefit from the conference by meeting people and finding out what's happening?

The Chair: We did have a motion that we didn't want to be studying two things at one time, and we wanted to get the report finished before we go into Sudan, so we're going to put off starting Sudan until April.

Svend.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I wanted to ask a question and make a comment. Were you saying it was the Government of Colombia that said that it would not be appropriate for us to come at the beginning of December?

The Chair: Yes, and our ambassador to Colombia knows about this. I have a letter, and I can give it to you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay, so there's a letter we've received. If that could be shared with the committee, that's fine. Certainly, if it's the recommendation of our ambassador as well, we've got to pay attention to that.

I want to agree with Ms. Jennings that we should at least build some flexibility into the motion that could extend the possibility of travelling until the end of March. If we decide it's important to go earlier, we can certainly do that—

The Chair: All right, that would be fine.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —but we extend it to the end of March. And also we should understand clearly that in light of this, we will proceed with the Sudan study as well.

The Chair: We haven't got quorum, so we can't do that. Quorum has said that we do not do two things at once—

Mr. Svend Robinson: I understand that, but I'm suggesting that we—

The Chair: —so we can't change that with three people.

Mr. Svend Robinson: —revisit that decision.

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I remember the time when that decision was made, but today, for once, I agree with Mrs. Jennings.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Dubé, we were already in agreement when we sat on the Committee on Industry.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, we agree on the important things. As far as the trip is concerned, I wondered about the safety of the witnesses, for example. If we have to, if we do go on that trip, we have to do that as completely as possible. We have to do it in a way that is both different from what was said today and complementary to what was suggested.

Once again, I a ready do reconsider the idea of working on one thing at a time. Personally, I am willing to meet more often but I know that we have to go with Standing Orders.

[English]

The Chair: Before we go on—because you bring that up quite often—we have a mandate from the foreign affairs committee that we can only meet one time a week, and it is on Wednesdays. At least, we can't meet at the same time as the foreign affairs committee, because many of these people sitting around the table are on both committees.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, but I am ready... The other day, I misunderstood. I agree that we should be able to work on other things if we can't manage to complete... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

[English]

The Chair: Can we have a motion then? Is it okay if we send the letter? We want the financing etc. to continue to be approved, so we'll send a letter that we'll go sometime before the end of March, and at next week's meeting we will hash this out in more detail, because we have half an hour for an in camera meeting.

• 1720

I hope all of that was in camera. I forgot to mention it. Can you rub that tape out somehow?

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chair: That's all right. We didn't say anything to upset people.

[Translation]

A member: In any case, it always comes out in the end.

[English]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We didn't bad-mouth anyone.

The Chair: No.

We have before us today—we didn't know they were coming—these unexpected witnesses. The committee is free to leave at 5:30, because that's when we finish, but if anybody would like to stay longer, they can, to hear what they have to say.

This is Francisco Ramirez, president of the central organization of public sector mining unions in Colombia.

I think we have a translator.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Before the witness begins, I would like it to be on record that I welcome their appearance here, and I regret greatly that we did not know of their presence in the city before. I'm sure other members find themselves in the same position I do. This committee was scheduled to end at 5:30, and I have other obligations I cannot cancel. I wish no disrespect to the witnesses, but I will have to leave here in 15 minutes. I apologize in advance that I'm unable to stay for all of your time here.

The Chair: We hope he'll finish his statement while you're still here. There are many people who come, as you know, to Ottawa just for the day, and we try to fit them in. It's very difficult.

Will he make several sentences, and then you translate?

Mr. Pablo Leal (Interpreter): Yes.

The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

Mr. Pablo Leal: We've done this dog and pony show before.

Mr. Francisco Ramirez (President, Colombian Mine Workers Union)(Interpretation): First of all, I want to thank you for inviting me here.

The Chair: I'm sorry. We're getting translation in our earphones.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: If it is not too fast, I should be able, this once, to understand the English as I hear it.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. You get a holiday, Pablo.

• 1725

Mr. Francisco Ramirez: [Witness speaks in Spanish]

• 1730

The Chair: I would mention that we have the interpreters for four or five minutes, and if we go any longer, we'll have to use Pablo.

Mr. Francisco Ramirez: [Witness speaks in Spanish]

• 1735

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now we'll split from those translators. If the committee members have questions, maybe you can tell me how long you'd like to stay. Do you want to do it for another 10 minutes, or is there time for each of us to get five-minutes of questions? What would you like to do?

What would you like to do, Svend?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I suggest that since we're losing our interpreters and one of our members has another commitment, which is quite understandable, we ask the witness if he could submit to the committee recommendations in written form. The committee should certainly give serious consideration to that, in the interest of facilitating our work.

The Chair: Okay. We'll wait until this is translated for him.

Mr. Francisco Ramirez: That's all right.

The Chair: Is that all right? Okay.

Marlene.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Mr. Ramirez was here when the officials from CIDA spoke and made statements about CIDA's involvement in the issue of mining in Colombia. CIDA explained that their only involvement had to do, at the request of the government, with looking at certain sections of the mining code that had been rejected by the Colombian governmen. They just said “discretionary”, but I'm assuming it meant discretionary powers; they were to bring some clarity to those sections. Does the witness agree that this was CIDA's only involvement? You're saying that CIDA should be careful when it's dealing with the mining sector. That would lead one to assume that CIDA's involvement has been much larger than the officials stated. If that's the case, perhaps you could include it in your written submission, as well, and the evidence that goes with it.

Mr. Francisco Ramirez: [Witness speaks in Spanish]

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Sorry, I'm asking that it be included in the written submission.

The Chair: He wanted to speak.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Okay.

Mr. Francisco Ramirez: [Witness speaks in Spanish]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: We don't have translation.

The Chair: Yes, we do. It was translated.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Oh, I apologize.

The Chair: It was translated. They're still there.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: I thought they had left, because you said they were leaving at 5:30.

Mr. Pablo Leal: Would you still like me to translate?

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Please.

Mr. Pablo Leal: The gist was that the lawyers who were hired by CIDA gave some appreciations of issues having to do with environmental impacts and the assessment of environmental impacts. They said they were going to include certain criteria, and then, in the end, they included others. In fact, CIDA were, in essence, tricked by the people they hired. The results of the mining code, irrespective of what the intentions were, are all the things he mentioned: they are detrimental to the environment, to the rights of workers, and to the rights of the mining sector. He says that's the sense in which he asked that CIDA to be more careful about how it becomes involved in that sort of thing.

Mrs. Marlene Jennings: Thank you.

The Chair: I'm going to suggest that we adjourn the meeting now.

Thank you very much for coming. I'm sorry we didn't have more time to spend with you.

• 1740

I'm going to adjourn until next Wednesday, November 7. The first half-hour will be in camera to discuss trips etc.