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]

Thursday, September 20, 2001

• 1539

[English]

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

First of all, I would like to introduce several people. We have a new clerk, Elizabeth Kingston. Jim Lee is our researcher. You'll remember him from June. Stephen Knowles is clerk for the foreign affairs committee.

We are a small group. Last term we were pretty lax about how we designated time. Everybody is on one side today, so it's not the problem I thought it might be. Perhaps I can suggest that we do a couple of people here and then go over there. Normally we would do ten minutes, but I wonder if we can do between five and ten and we'll just sort of...

Do you want five?

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Canadian Alliance): Five. That's what we did last year.

The Chair: If the conversation is going well and we'd all like to hear a little bit more in the same vein, we'll just keep going. Is that okay?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): That sounds good.

The Chair: We'll just keep it loose, for today.

Is that all right, Svend?

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): As long as it's not too loose.

The Chair: No, not too loose.

I'd like to introduce and welcome our ambassador to Colombia, Guillermo Rishchynski. He's up here for a few days, and we want to take the opportunity to meet with him. I can't think of a better witness. Some of us here have met the ambassador in Colombia and know what a marvellous job he does down there. He certainly participates in not just the diplomatic life necessarily but the political life and everything going on in the country. I think he will be a very good witness.

• 1540

We would like you to introduce who is with you, and then you can go ahead and speak, I think pretty well as long as you would like. If you go on too long there will be no time for questions. You judge that, and introduce who is with you, if you wouldn't mind.

[Translation]

Mr. Guillermo E. Rishchynski (Canadian Ambassador to Colombia): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.

Allow me to introduce to you our Director for South America at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Mr. Ron Davidson. Also here today is Ms. Louise Crosby, an officer responsible for Colombia at DFAIT.

[English]

It's a pleasure and a privilege for me to join you today, to be here as a witness before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and International Development, and to be amongst friends, some who I have gotten to know during the course of travel to Colombia. Mr. Bellemare, who is my MP, in my home in Orleans, it's a pleasure to see you again.

I'm going to try today, if I might, to simply provide an update as to the current situation in Colombia and to then take your questions with respect to issues you would like to raise, particularly with respect to the human rights situation in the country.

[Translation]

I have brought with me from Bogota a copy of a report on human rights in Colombia drawn up by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

[English]

I don't know if the committee has seen this report, but this is probably the most comprehensive analysis of the human rights situation in the country. It paints a very realistic picture of the situation as currently constituted in Colombia with respect to human rights.

[Translation]

The situation in Colombia has historically been rather complex. Conflict has been raging for over 50 years, disrupting the day-to-day lives of the Colombian people.

[English]

Fifty years of internal conflict have made for a very difficult situation for the civilian population in Colombia. What I propose to do today is just provide you with an update of where things are with the three major protagonists in Colombia: that is, the two large left-wing guerrilla groups, the FARC, which is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the ELN, the National Liberation Army, as well as the right-wing self-defence forces of Colombia, as they refer to themselves. I think it's important and timely to talk about these three groups because in light of the events that we have lived over the course of the last week, all three of those groups currently appear on the list of terrorist organizations of the United States government. The impact of American policy, given that reality in terms of where they will be going in the Colombian context, is something that we must all be cognizant of.

Just prior to my departure from Colombia,

[Translation]

we received a visit from US Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman. This was Mr. Grossman's first visit to Colombia and he took this opportunity to let Colombians and the international community know that the United States were fully prepared to participate in the search for a peaceful resolution to the country's conflict.

[English]

That was an extremely important assertion on the part of the U.S. government. In fact, Secretary of State Powell was scheduled to be in Bogota on September 11, when of course events forced a cancellation of that visit and instead he returned to Washington.

I think we can characterize the current situation with respect to the armed actors in the conflict as one rife with complexity. Depending on the group, the situation is difficult, I think across the board, but with nuances that impact upon each. In the case of the FARC, the government continues to pursue direct negotiation with them and is now, since March of this year, assisted by a facilitation commission of ten countries, of which Canada is a part, along with the governments of Mexico, Venezuela, Cuba, and, from Europe, Sweden, Norway, France, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, and... I'm trying to remember the last one, which always escapes me. I think that covers them all.

• 1545

The G-10, as we call ourselves, is involved in a facilitation role. We are not mediators in the negotiations. We are there at the request of both parties, the government and the FARC. We provide facilitation in the sense of trying to advance agreement between the parties on certain issues that are under consideration.

I would say to you today that the singular accomplishment of the G-10 facilitation commission has been the release of imprisoned and incarcerated soldiers and policemen and guerrillas that took place in the month of June, where 320 persons were taken out of captivity, some of whom had been in captivity for as long as three and a half years, and released. I think the participation of the international community in those efforts was decisive.

Since that time in June, we have seen a decline in terms of positive movements in the process with the FARC, due primarily to a few incidents that have taken place with respect to the kidnapping of three German aid workers in the countryside in southern Colombia, and the taking of a former governor of Colombia by FARC guerrillas from a vehicle operated by the United Nations.

These events, which bring into question the integrity of diplomatic status and ability to work in Colombia, have placed the process with the FARC in a difficult situation. The G-10 has told the FARC and the government that our continuing participation as facilitators requires that these issues—the release of the Germans and the fate of the former governor of the province of Meta—be addressed as priorities in the course of the government-FARC negotiations. That is ongoing. We hope for a positive solution so that we can continue on the agenda items established with the two parties in terms of where the process can go in the future.

The situation with the ELN

[Translation]

continues to be complicated as well.

In April, a technical team travelled to Colombia to try and draft an international verification plan for a separate zone in the north in the Magdalena Medio region. Unfortunately, the government and the ELN were unable to reach an agreement on the establishment of this zone and the international verification process in which Canada has expressed a willingness to participate is still on hold until such time as the two parties are ready to initiate talks.

[English]

The ELN has broken off talks with the government as of the beginning of the month of August. We are hopeful that the government and the ELN will return to the negotiating table, either outside Colombia or within Colombia, and attempt to revive these talks so that the possibility can be brought to bear of potential international verification efforts of a region that would permit negotiations to be further advanced. That is our hope, but the current reality is that is quite far away, given the relative positions of both parties.

[Translation]

In the case of the paramilitary,

[English]

the AUC, as it is known in Spanish, the Autodefensas Unidas de Colombia, here I can report gratefully that we seem to have had over the past few months, certainly since June, a diminution of violence by paramilitary forces in the country. However, they seem to be exerting an effort now to involve themselves in the political process in the country, which I believe places great challenges on the viability of Colombian institutions, given the stated program of the paramilitaries and what they represent in this society. The paramilitaries are not part of any current peace dynamic. I doubt that in the foreseeable future they will be, because they are purely a military organization that has made its priority to terrorize, in my view, civilian populations in reaction to ostensible collaboration with other guerrilla groups. It continues to be complicated.

The three groups that are the major protagonists in the conflict are all, in a sense, today jockeying for position, because we have entered the final year of the government of His Excellency President Andres Pastrana. Colombia is in an electoral calendar.

[Translation]

Colombia is in the midst of an election campaign. There are four serious candidates, so to speak, running for the office of President next year. The first candidate is Mr. Horacio Serpa, the Liberal Party candidate in the last election culminating in the election of Mr. Pastrana. It would appear that Mr. Serpa is the current front runner. His popularity is holding at between 30 per cent to 35 per cent in the polls.

• 1550

The second candidate is the former governor of the province of Antioquia, Mr. Alvaro Uribe Velez.

[English]

Mr. Velez is viewed as a hardliner in terms of his declarations with respect to relationships and discussions with the guerrilla groups. He clearly is the candidate who is ascending the most in public opinion polls, I believe in reaction to the degradation of the conflict, and certainly has gone from single-digit support at the beginning of this calendar year to now in the eyes of many being the second candidate and likely to be in a runoff with Mr. Serpa as the election moves into high gear for next year.

[Translation]

Like France, Colombia holds two rounds of presidential elections. The first round of voting will take place on May 29, and the second, on June 16. The new President of the Republic will officially take office on August 7, in keeping with Colombian tradition.

[English]

On the other two candidates, Madame Nohemi Sanin, the former foreign minister during the government of President César Gaviria, in 1998 made a very positive showing and finished third in that election. Initially she was seen as a front-runner, but her support has declined over the course of the past month and there is some question as to whether that candidacy can be revived. She and Mr. Serpa both have indicated a willingness to continue the peace dynamic in terms of direct negotiation with the insurgent groups, and in that sense present a clear alternative to the Colombian people from the position so far articulated by Mr. Uribe Velez, who indicates that he will change quite radically the dynamic of negotiation.

The fourth candidate I believe some of you have had the privilege of meeting, because he was a witness before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Monsieur Luis Eduardo Garzon.

[Translation]

He is the leader of the largest union in Colombia, the Central Unitaria de Trabajadores, or CUT.

[English]

He is the candidate of the social democratic left in Colombia and is running a very vigorous campaign, with the principal focus on issues of human rights and the protection of the civilian population within the conflict.

Having the electoral calendar now upon us means that the various protagonists in the conflict continue to jockey for position. Jockeying for position in Colombia can mean anything from acts of terrorism in the case of many of the insurgent groups to an attempt to influence the electoral outcome. We will need to and are going to be monitoring this situation very closely.

The reality is that enemies of peace abound in Colombia, but the process, warts and all, remains alive. This, from our perspective as an embassy, is something we need to continue to nurture and advance, because in our estimation, as the Canadian embassy and the Canadian government representatives in Colombia, a political solution to the Colombian conflict is the only viable alternative for the country. Military solutions, in our estimation, are simply not viable, given the geography of the country and the length of this conflict over the course of the last fifty years.

[Translation]

A climate of extreme frustration and pessimism prevails among Colombians because President Pastrana's attempts at initiating a peace process have thus far failed to produce any results. I believe that peace will eventually come to Colombia, but the process is likely to take a number of years. Mr. Pastrana was the first president to be elected to have devised a comprehensive strategy for negotiating with rebel factions and I believe his efforts will one day pay dividends for Colombia.

[English]

Impunity remains a major blockage to the peace process and to life in general in Colombia. The application of the rule of law, particularly in instances of human rights abuses, irrespective of their author, remains problematical, but we are seeing efforts from the government, from the armed forces, and from other quarters in the society that lead us to believe as an embassy that greater priority is now being given to these issues. There is a recognition that the culture of impunity that has been part of Colombia's reality for more than fifty years must change fundamentally if the quest for peace is to be successful.

[Translation]

The key question in Colombia is this: can the peace process become State policy or is a merely a policy of this government?

[English]

Our belief is that peace as a policy of state can be and should be supported by both Colombians and the international community. It will be difficult, but there is no alternative other than to seek political solutions to these problems and ensure that socio-economic development and other elements of national policy are brought in line and in sync with the search for peace so that the change in Colombian society necessary to sustain peace over the longer term can in fact take root in the country.

• 1555

[Translation]

There have been several extremely positive developments this year, in particular the international community's commitment to the two processes with FARC and ELN. This is a first for the international community and for the United Nations, in particular for the Special Representative of the Secretary General, Mr. Jan Egeland, who is highly respected by all parties. This is fairly important for the future. Until now, we have not been acting as mediators, but merely as facilitators. I am quite hopeful that in the medium term, the international community will have the opportunity to act as a genuine mediator, because it is very difficult for the government to be both a protagonist and a mediator in this rather complicated conflict.

[English]

There are some hopeful signs within Colombian society itself, such as the creation of, if you will, macro groups of non-governmental organizations, such as Paz Colombia and others, who are supporting the efforts to expand the protection of human rights, the culture of human rights, in Colombia. They are playing a positive role in terms of the national debate.

In terms of what we have seen in the last two years, I think the most important realization that has taken place in Colombia is that the threat of paramilitarism is being seen as real, is being seen as a threat to the very viability of the institutions of the Colombian state. That is not to say that everything that can be done is being done to confront paramilitarism, but I believe the commitment of the president, senior ministers, leaders in the armed forces, and some leaders in society has been taking Colombia in an appropriate direction. Much work needs to be done.

As many of you know from such friends of Canada as Kimy Pernia and others who have disappeared, and those who continue to be victims of this conflict, the human rights challenge in Colombia is a daily challenge. I wish I could report more progress. There has been some, but clearly not enough. We as Canada continue to work as effectively as we can not only to promote and protect human rights of all Colombians but also to inculcate a culture of peaceful resolution of conflict as the only way forward in what has been for the last fifty years an incredibly tortured land.

There is a long way to go, but I think steps in appropriate directions have begun. It is my hope that for the rest of my term in Colombia and the terms of my successors we can continue to see advancement. Certainly we have seen ups and downs and an ebb and flow in the peace process over the course of the last two years. However, I would rather see a peace process that is at least functioning, that is at least going forward in some sense, than no peace process at all, with simply open conflict being the alternative, because in that sense,

[Translation]

the victims are primarily Colombian civilians. Given that the displaced population already numbers two million, I believe the international community has a responsibility to help Colombians any way it possibly can to bring about a peaceful resolution to a conflict that has been raging for over 50 years.

Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. You got a lot in there in a short period of time.

Mr. Obhrai, five minutes.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you very much for your briefing. To be very honest with you, I have to go and make a speech.

Do you want to take over, Keith?

The Chair: We hope you come back.

Mr. Keith Martin: Isn't that great. We're interchangeable. I have the tough job of filling Mr. Obhrai's shoes.

Ambassador Rishchynski, thank you for coming up here. May I add to the comments from the chair that this is absolutely outstanding work you're doing down there under very difficult and dangerous circumstances. As a Canadian, I thank you.

President Pastrana said earlier this month that the war on drugs is not working. Many observers feel that Plan Colombia is not the answer. President Pastrana has made comments that the west is really not doing its job in decreasing consumption.

Perhaps I'll ask three simple questions. First, in your view, what in the west, what in Canada, have we been doing to decrease consumption? I personally believe that is an absolutely fundamental equation in the resolution of this conflict. Some solutions would be import/export permits for the precursor chemicals for the drugs, RICO-like amendments that will enable us to track the money and where it's going, and new methods of actually treating addicts.

Second, what is the government doing to neutralize the paras?

Finally, Mr. Serpa has taken a more warlike stance than Mr. Pastrana has on FARC, which is a great concern to me as an observer. You said that military solutions will not resolve this conflict situation, which I would agree with.

• 1600

From your observation, in what areas are there avenues of commonality between FARC and the government, whether it's agrarian reform or some other areas that perhaps Canada can be involved in, or the G-10? What areas could we influence the government and the FARC to really focus on?

Thank you.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

In terms of your first question, the policy in Canada with regard to consumption, we at the embassy have watched with great interest the evolution of initiatives in both Parliament and at the level of government departments with respect to addressing this issue. Clearly, much more needs to be done on the demand side. This is not a Colombian problem. This is an international problem.

We have made some efforts, I think, in terms of educating young people in particular about the dangers of drugs, but in my humble estimation the consumption question needs to be the centrepiece of an international strategy that involves not only North America but Europe as well. The demand increases that we are seeing in drugs today primarily are coming out of Europe. Demand in North America is relatively stagnant in terms of year-to-year growth, but in Europe new markets have emerged. If one can make so crass a statement, Europe was a continent dominated by heroin in large part with respect to drug consumption until very recently. Now cocaine has entered the equation as a major new source of gratification, if you will, for those who consume drugs of this type.

My own view is that this has to be the focal point of a global effort. Certainly the initiatives you have taken with respect to precursor chemicals in an export-import regime would go a very long way toward denying the processors of raw coca the inputs necessary to be able to refine product in Colombia and move that product on to consuming markets. We haven't done enough, clearly, because those chemical products are entering the country in record numbers. The environmental degradation from those chemicals is a problem that I think very few of us have tended to focus on in terms of its long-term impact on the Amazon Basin, the very lungs of our planet. With chemicals such as acetone and others being dumped into the rivers of Colombia, I perish the thought of the ultimate impacts of that with respect to the integrity of the Amazon and Orinoco basins, which are the source of so much of the oxygen on the planet.

I would say that efforts with respect to demand, control, and reduction are incipient. Much more needs to be done. Something we have done in Colombia that has been very positive is that we have brought to Colombia our own experts on demand reduction and programs we have created to deal with addiction in order to work with RUMBOS, the presidential drug control program. This is because drug consumption, for the first time, is becoming a problem within Colombian society. It was very rare to find consumption in Colombia ten years ago. It is now becoming a greater problem, because in many instances those who produce coca and heroin poppy are now being paid in drugs as opposed to cash. That certainly augurs extremely poorly for the future.

I hope some of those comments address your question with respect to demand. I think much more needs to be done in terms of comprehensive strategies. I hope it is something our government will be looking at more closely in the future.

With respect to the neutralization of the paramilitaries, I can say to you that, based on our experience, we are seeing an effort—an effort on the part of the government, and an effort certainly on the part of the vice-president of the republic, Mr. Bell Gustavo Lemus, now also the human rights high commissioner in addition to defence minister, to make it clear to the military structure of Colombia that truck and trade with the paramilitaries is unacceptable behaviour for those involved in the ostensible constitutional protection of the republic.

Much more needs to be done. We are starting from a very low base, frankly, but I think they need to be applauded for their efforts today and exhorted to do much more. Canada has been able to assist in this effort through human rights training for the armed forces. We have been able now to have more than 1,000 officers and non-commissioned officers go through a curriculum developed by Canada from materials in our own human security programs that emphasize the need for the military to protect and promote human rights.

I believe steps are being taken in the right direction, but clearly much more needs to be done. Particularly, much more needs to be done, going back to the point I made in my remarks, concerning the culture of impunity. The problem in Colombia with human rights abuses, and those committed by paramilitaries in particular, is that those who are witnesses to acts are very reticent to come forward and give testimony in courts of law, for obvious reasons. As a result, there is a vicious circle of not being able to prove cases of abuse and not being able to deal with them.

• 1605

I think there is a recognition now, and I've certainly seen it in my two years, that the paramilitaries, who were dismissed as a threat to the integrity and viability of Colombian institutions at the start of the Pastrana administration, are now being seen very much for the threat that they present. Certainly if one travels in areas of the country that are paramilitary dominated, one is struck by the fear in civilian populations. Dissent of any kind is obviously a very dangerous course of action. The government is beginning, I think, to attack some of these issues structurally, but we need to see far more. Frankly, we need to see them taking on the paramilitaries in a military sense if necessary, and that has happened far too infrequently.

Instances of collusion between what I would call medium-level soldiers and officers in the Colombian army and paramilitary forces remains a problem and a challenge. The military accepts this and recognizes that they have to do more. One of the areas where we hope to have impact in this regard is that we now, for the first time, have a resident Canadian Forces attaché in Bogota, who will be working on a daily basis with the military in continuing to emphasize that from a Canadian government perspective any links between the military and paramilitaries are unacceptable under all circumstances, and that the government needs to do much more. We have seen in the last two years for the first time the prosecution of senior generals and commanders. They have gone to jail for abuses, but these have been primarily cases of example, and need to be made the order of the day in all cases, which is difficult in a culture where impunity has been the rule, as opposed to the exception.

I think the government should be recognized and I think is being recognized for making an effort, but much more needs to be done. The acceptability of any linkages with paramilitaries is, in the view of the international community, unacceptable. It is a message that Canada delivers, it is a message that the United States delivers, and it is a message that all European countries deliver in their relationships with the Government of Colombia and its armed forces.

The Chair: Ambassador, can we stop you here?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Yes.

The Chair: They are going to ask you other questions. You will catch up on some of those things that you want to tell us.

Monsieur Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Thank you as well, Excellency, for your presentation.

When the committee last met—and I'm sure this is an open secret—we discussed the possibility of the subcommittee travelling to Colombia. I'd like your opinion on this matter. Perhaps you already commented, but I didn't have any interpretation at the beginning of the meeting. Do you think it would be a good idea for a subcommittee like ours to travel to Colombia?

Secondly, would it be safe for us to make the trip? What would you recommend?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Our embassy is in favour of the subcommittee making the trip, because visits to Colombia by representatives of the international community to support local efforts are extremely important in that they lend hope to organizations working every day in the field to promote human rights. This show of public support by the international community is important to Colombia.

As for safety concerns, this is just as much a priority for us. I have been in Colombia for two years now and safety is a challenge. However, it is possible to travel to this country. Several Members of Parliament, including Mr. Robinson and Mr. Martin, were well protected, I trust, during their visit to Colombia. They travelled to some unstable regions and held direct talks with other military and local organizations working to promote human rights.

We propose an itinerary where committee members would visit three cities. They could spend several days in Bogota for formal discussions with the government, which is obviously important, and with NGOs and other multilateral organizations such as the United Nations and international migration agencies. The whole "macro" side of the human rights questions could be discussed.

• 1610

At the same time, however, we feel it is critically important for them to visit other locations in Colombia, because there is more to the country than merely Bogota. It's important to visit places like Barrancabermeja, where there is considerable unrest and instability, and lend tangible support to human rights workers. Another community that committee members could visit is Tierralta in the state of Cordoba where aboriginal leader Kimy Pernia was kidnapped in June. I think a four- or five- day work schedule could be arranged.

As far as security is concerned, obviously the Colombian government is prepared to cooperate fully. The embassy will also provide security. I am very confident that the subcommittee's safety will be ensured, but if the situation changes, the embassy will recommend that you cancel the visit. That's a distinct possibility. I also think your visit would be greatly appreciated by Colombian parliamentarians working on the human rights front. Parliamentarians from both countries could discuss human rights issues affecting all aspects of the conflict in Colombia.

I strongly recommend that you go ahead with this trip. In my opinion, it would be a very important initiative and would complement quite nicely Canada's other initiatives vis-à-vis Colombia. On the security front, we will review the situation 24 hours before the subcommittee leaves Canada and if the report is positive, then I think you will get the green light. Otherwise, we'll be forthright with you and cancel the visit.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Perhaps you could give us some idea of when might be a good time to make this trip. You said that presidential elections were being planned. Should we take this into account as well?

I also have another brief question, although the answer may be somewhat longer. Canada isn't the only country to have concerns about Colombia. The US does too, although its focus is elsewhere these days, and so do a number of other countries. Are you in touch on a regular basis with other ambassadors who can intervene on a diplomatic level in Colombia?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: To answer your last question, I would say that we are in touch on a daily basis. We have meetings with G-10 representatives and with other groups. A total of 26 countries, not to mention the Vatican and the United Nations, have become involved in Colombia's political problems. It may be that we meet too often and occasionally, we may want to work more directly with those involved in the conflict, but let me assure you that this is a top priority for our embassy, after ensuring the safety of Canadians in Colombia.

As for when the right time for this trip might be, we at the embassy discussed the week of October 15 as a possibility, if that was amenable to the committee. Otherwise, we are available when you are. A visit from your members would be greatly appreciated. The election timetable has been set and I hope you will have the chance to meet with the candidates, although that may not be possible, given their busy schedules. They travel across the country. We are on very good terms with them and I do hope you will have an opportunity to meet with one or two of the candidates in Bogota.

You will also have the chance to meet with the President, Vice-President and defender of the people, that is the government official responsible for human rights issues on a daily basis. He is a very important individual. You will be able to meet with the Vice-President, within the framework of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as with NGOs. You will thus return to Canada will an overall, clearer picture of the situation, the challenges at hand, the contributions Canada has made so far and the additional efforts that can possibly be made in the future.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Bellemare.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orleans, Lib.): Your Excellency-and a resident of Orleans besides-mention was made of security concerns during a possible visit. Given the large number of kidnappings—you even mentioned that a former governor had been a victim—we are always a little nervous because there are no guarantees, as far as security is concerned.

• 1615

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: There are no absolute guarantees. There are 3,500 reported kidnappings in Colombia each year. It's always a possibility, but I believe the security provided by the government and by the embassy to the visiting delegation of Canadian parliamentarians will be adequate to allow us to proceed with our scheduled events.

Quite possibly, a planned trip could be cancelled at the last minute, since security concerns change from day to day. However, I can assure you that security members will be afforded the same security as embassy personnel and we have no problem travelling to various locations. We are almost always warmly received because human rights workers and officials are eager for the international community to visibly support their work.

A visit to Barrancabermeja like the one undertaken by Mr. Robinson and one or two hours spent with NGO and other human rights workers would be a major morale booster. It would be an effective way of impacting the situation in a positive way. The mere presence of representatives of the international community makes workers feel more secure, even after officials have departed. To date, in virtually all cases, an international presence improves the situation in the short term. This is vitally important to those whose lives are threatened daily. The reality is that violence is prevalent in Colombia, but at the same time, the embassy can function and I think the committee would be able to get around and do its work as well.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Would you say it is unsafe for a teacher to work in a city like Cali, for example?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: No, not in the city as such. Right now, it is quite safe to work in six or seven large cities.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In your opinion, have any Canadians contributed to the various problems and conflicts?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Do you mean in a negative way?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: To date, I would have to say no. A number of Canadians have visited Colombia to support the work of local agencies and they have been warmly received. They were able to see for themselves the difficult situation. People need to make a mental adjustment to comprehend the circumstances. However, to date, no Canadian contribution has been deemed to have an adverse affect.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: How can the government guard against the sale of weapons, aircraft or even helicopters to a third party? It's a known fact that in the United States, a number of companies buy used equipment such as helicopters, recondition them and sell them to countries like the Sudan and, as we heard yesterday, even to Colombia. How can the government guard against this happening?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: We have a clear system in place for controlling exports of offensive equipment and weapons to Colombia. We are not involved in the direct sales of equipment that could be used for offensive purposes in the country. There have been cases where Canadian equipment has been reconditioned and sold to other countries. I don't know how we can control such sales. On a bilateral level, I think we need to make the situation very clear to stakeholders. However, thus far, Canadian and bilateral aid to the Colombian state can be justified under Canadian law and our export control system.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: My final question...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bellemare, we'll come back to you a little bit later.

Mr. Robinson.

• 1620

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks very much, Madam Chair.

I want to join in thanking Ambassador Rishchynski for the outstanding work he does. As a Canadian I certainly am very proud to have that level of representation, to know that our country is viewed positively by not just human rights workers but also many others in Colombia.

Through the ambassador, I also want to extend my thanks to his staff at the embassy. It's not an easy country to work in and it's not an easy embassy to work in, with the conditions and so on, but these are extraordinarily dedicated people, and Canada is very well served.

As the ambassador indicated, I had the privilege of personally visiting with them at a pretty tense time in Barrancabermeja. There had been nine people murdered in the 24 hours before we got there. It was devastating. So we're well represented there.

I'm going to put four questions on the table and then ask the ambassador if he would respond to them. One actually arises from Mr. Bellemare's question, and that is with respect to the issue of Canadian helicopters being used in the military component of Plan Colombia. As the ambassador knows, there have been deep concerns raised in the House by me and by others about the fact that helicopters that went to the United States then ended up in Colombia as part of the military component.

Does the ambassador have any concerns about that, and if so, what does he think we should be doing, presumably largely in our bilateral relationship with the United States, to deal with those concerns?

Second, the ambassador referred to the disappearance of Kimy Pernia Domico, whom many of us have met and respect. I know that the embassy was very helpful in making strong representations to Colombian government officials and others. We've heard from groups like the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights on that.

I want to ask the ambassador, what was the response of those officials—in concrete terms, not just PR but concrete terms? Because I've also heard considerable criticism, through the Colombian Commission of Jurists and others, that the real action on the ground in terms of response to this kidnapping fell far short of what was acceptable to Canada.

My third question is with regard to refugees. What is the current level of quotas? We know that given the circumstances—the killing of trade unionists, for example, with over a hundred killed so far this year, and the devastation—there will be pressure on Canada to accept more refugees. How is the embassy responding to that? Do we need more resources?

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, can he respond to those questions? You've almost used up your time.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sure. I'll come back.

The Chair: Mr. Ambassador.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Mr. Robinson, in the case of the Canadian helicopters, I think that is an inappropriate term. These are helicopters that Canada purchased from the United States, were subsequently sold back to the United States, and then, with the passage of time, when title had returned to the American government, were supplied to the Government of Colombia. I don't think we can reasonably refer to them as Canadian helicopters.

Yes, this is an issue with respect to our export control regime that needs to be dealt with at the bilateral level with the United States, but I am satisfied, as the Canadian ambassador, that we are not involved in the sale of any offensive equipment to Colombia. I think that policy, which has been our policy for some time, continues to serve us well and should continue to be the basis of how we act in an environment as complex as the one currently found.

At the same time, I think it is in our interest as Canadians to also work with the Colombian armed forces to increase their professionalism. The human rights training we are doing, with at least 1,000 officers and non-commissioned officers having gone through this program, has also served us extremely well in terms of Canada being seen as a serious contributor to an issue that many in the military are now taking much more seriously.

I had the pleasure in early August to go with the inspector general of the army to the graduation ceremony of something in the order of 300 non-commissioned officers. These are the platoon-level leaders. This is where the human rights situation is most palpable, if you will, in terms of the need to act in a professional manner. I was very gratified by the comments from General Sanchez and by the commitment of the senior commanders and indeed the people who had been through the course.

My view is that there are the beginnings of change, and we need to nurture that change. I think the kinds of things we're doing in the country are going to pay off in terms of dividends insofar as the comportment of a more professional armed force in Colombia. Colombia needs to have an army that can defend itself. There's no question about that. I think strides are being made, and now with the vice-president as defence minister, I hope it will continue to accelerate insofar as dealing with these issues.

• 1625

On the issue of the disappearance of Kimy Pernia in Tierralta and the response of officials, the embassy has made I think five visits to Tierralta since the disappearance took place. I am satisfied that the local investigation that was mounted into the disappearance, in terms of looking actively for Mr. Pernia, was a good and conscious effort on the part of the authorities. Groups felt that more should have been done. Certainly, when the indigenous communities mounted their own search they had hoped for more active cooperation from the government and local authorities. There was a conflict with the governor at the time that the indigenous came to Tierralta to start their search for Kimy. They felt the cooperation had been less... It was a complicated situation because there were other activities taking place in the province, and the governor was concerned about security overall. Certainly, there was a lack of understanding between the parties.

But I think the best thing we can do as Canadians is continue to put the pressure on—by going to Tierralta, by keeping in the face of the local authorities and saying, this will not go away; Canada wishes to have Kimy Pernia returned to his community. And we will continue to do that. I would urge the committee to consider, during a visit to Colombia, the possibility of going to Tierralta and you as a committee delivering that same message, because that is how we continue to get action from local authorities in terms of keeping this issue, in terms of a file they are dealing with, active. Nothing would please me more than Kimy's return tomorrow, but the reality is that he is one of a series of indigenous leaders who has disappeared. There are others who disappeared before him and regrettably others who were assassinated publicly in the same area after Kimy's disappearance.

My hope is that we can continue to keep our pressure on the local authorities, be it the military commander, the police commander, the mayor, the governor, all of the authorities in that province, to say that this human life, the life of Kimy Pernia, is important to Canada. I think by doing things of that nature we can assist in ensuring that in his kidnapping he continues to be a priority in terms of how local authorities see him.

The Chair: Do we have any indication that he is still alive?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: We do not know. We have had no word of any visual sightings of Mr. Pernia since shortly after his disappearance. Our hope, certainly, is that he remains kidnapped and that he will be returned to his community at some juncture in the future. We will continue to keep this as what I call a front-burner issue with the local authorities. We as Canadians, who know this man and know his contribution and importance to his people, believe every effort must be made to release him and release him at the earliest possible opportunity.

Insofar as the refugee issue is concerned, I have not had a chance to debrief with the embassy since Mrs. Caplan's visit to Colombia. She was in Colombia last week. I think she has taken the measure of the local situation on a first-hand basis, along with the senior officials from the immigration department who visited. Already, as Canada, we have the largest refugee program in Colombia. It is a program that is frankly oversubscribed, but I think we are responding adequately in terms of cases of most urgent need. My hope is that subsequent to her visit, Mrs. Caplan and her officials will re-examine the situation in Colombia. I think the issue is not necessarily one of availability to respond, but the human resources necessary, and clearly we are going to need some help as an embassy if in fact the program expands in the future.

Between visitor visas, student visas, refugee cases, and the normal immigrant cases, our immigration staff are taxed quite heavily. They are an extraordinary group of people. They work exceedingly hard to meet not only the requirements of Canadian law, but also client service issues with respect to those in Colombia who approach them for any of these programs. I think now having had a chance to see the operation first-hand, Mrs. Caplan and her officials have a much better idea of the situation, and we will be waiting for her determinations as a result of this visit.

It is very important, from my perspective as ambassador, that the Canadian Minister of Immigration made a visit to Colombia. We applaud her for doing that. I was supposed to fly back on the eleventh to be there for her visit. Obviously, I couldn't be there, but I understand the visit went very well, and she is now bringing home a much clearer understanding of the problem and will be meeting with her officials to come up with the appropriate strategies to respond.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ambassador.

Mr. Cotler.

Mr. Irwin Cotler (Mount Royal, Lib.): Ambassador, I want to join in the expression of appreciation for your work. Indeed, the witness testimony before this subcommittee in the months of April through June was unanimous with respect to the work being done by and the involvement of our Canadian embassy under your leadership. I just wanted to give expression to that as well.

• 1630

I have three short questions, though the answers may not be that short. The first is whether there's been any noted change in the U.S. government position on Colombia since the election of President Bush. I know you made reference to Mr. Grossman's remarks. We've heard talk about the new administration speaking of “agonizing choices”. We know that Secretary of State Powell, as you mentioned, was going to be there on September 11 and was not able to do so. Do you sense any direction in which the Bush administration may be going that's different from the Clinton administration? Will the recent terrorist attacks and the identification of terrorist groupings and the formation of an anti-terrorist coalition perhaps orient that policy in a different way?

Maybe I'll just stop with this question.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Mr. Cotler, as a McGill graduate, it gives me pleasure to respond to your question.

In terms of changes in American policy since President Bush took office, I think the most visible result that we've seen in the short run has been a recognition on the part of the administration that they needed to, in a sense, look at the context of Colombia in much more regional terms than perhaps they had under the Clinton administration. Here the Andean regional initiative the Bush administration has put forward and begun to implement recognized that spill-over into countries like Ecuador and into northern Peru, and particularly a concern with respect to Brazil, needed to be addressed. Those countries needed to be included in a much more holistic approach, if one can call it that, on the part of American policy in the region.

That is at its very early stages. I think the jury is still out in terms of the practical results of that shift that we've seen since the Bush team began to look at the issue.

Mr. Grossman's visit had been intended as a sort of advance for Secretary Powell. Secretary Powell was coming to basically provide an opportunity for assessment of where American policy was and where it was going in the future.

I'm encouraged by certain aspects of what the Americans have been saying with respect to, for example, efforts to examine the environmental and human impact of the aerial spraying programs. After this policy has been operating for nine years in Colombia, that is something that probably needs to be done in terms of understanding how that impacts on soil, water, and people. I think that was a positive issue.

In terms of what transpires now, after the events of September 11, it is extremely difficult to speculate on how it will impact. Clearly, we have a situation where the three major armed actors in the conflict are all on the U.S.A. list of terrorist organizations. This is something the Americans will need to elaborate to us and to others in the international community in terms of the approaches they will be taking. I would hesitate to speculate at this point, until we have greater clarity on the part of where the United States is going overall.

Colombia is obviously a complicated set of circumstances, where the United States has made a significant investment of resources in terms of trying to be helpful from their perspective and support the Pastrana government. We and others in the region and in the international community are doing so as well. But it is very difficult at this juncture to predict what the immediate or even medium-term impacts might be with respect to American attitudes after September 11. I think that's something that we as an embassy obviously will be focusing on as an absolute priority in all the work we do.

Mr. Irwin Cotler: I have a second question.

We hear a lot about corporate complicity in different conflict situations around the world, the Sudan high profile in that regard. When we had witness testimony before us, there was some insinuation that there was corporate complicity and indeed Canadian corporate complicity in the mining industry with respect to the exacerbation of the conflict and perhaps undermining the security of civilians. In fact reference was even made to Talisman, which received a high profile in Sudan but perhaps less so with regard to Colombia.

Do you have any evidence of Canadian corporate complicity in exacerbation of the conflict?

• 1635

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: We have no evidence of that, Mr. Cotler. On the contrary, I'm pleased to say—and it's something I take great pride in as both a Canadian and as the ambassador there—that the attitude of the Canadian corporate sector operating in Colombia is to act responsibly in every way possible, in terms of how they are perceived in the work they do and in the practical actions they undertake in the field.

The Canada-Colombia Chamber of Commerce was the first bilateral business group in Colombia to ever sponsor a public debate on issues of ethical investment in human rights for international investors in Colombia. It was a pubescent effort, if one can say that. They invited 500 people and only about 55 came, but they are now planning a second forum on these issues and are now cooperating with other bilateral business organizations who feel that, yes, these issues need to be discussed in the public domain by the corporate sector and we need to engage on those issues. I'm pleased by that. That is showing leadership on the part of the Canadian companies.

In the specific case of mining, there was an instance alluded to in certain Internet traffic and others of a Canadian firm controlled by a U.S. corporation that was involved in areas under the purview of paramilitary forces. We examined that in detail as an embassy, called in the local representatives of those companies, and satisfied ourselves that there was nothing being done or undertaken in terms of those companies' activities that could be seen as unethical.

In the case of the oil industry, where we have a number of Canadian firms, ranging from small and medium to large, I think we have seen visible manifestations of a commitment by these Canadian companies to act responsibly, to consult with local populations, and to try to play a positive role in terms of economic development. It's interesting that those who oppose the government of Colombia, including the guerrillas, do not say that they are anti-economic development. But they want economic development that takes into account the exigencies and aspirations of local populations. I think many of our companies are indeed, well before they put anything into the ground, doing the kind of work necessary to ensure that they have not only consulted in the sense of the impact of economic activity but also the result and the participation of local communities. I am satisfied, as ambassador, that our folks are acting in a responsible fashion. If they're not, believe me, I'll be the first one to go after them.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

Svend, do you want to go ahead now with just one question?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sure.

I did have a couple, but just a comment before I ask my question with respect to the issue Mr. Cotler raised on Canadian corporate complicity. I think one of the real concerns that was raised was the nexus between foreign investment, particularly in the resource extraction sectors, and paramilitary activity that seemed, in some cases, aimed at using terror to displace people from areas that were of strategic or economic interest to foreign corporations. There may not have been a direct complicity, but I just want to flag that there is that concern. I think the ambassador recognizes that that has been the case and there have been some disturbing examples of that—for example, in the case of the Urra Dam.

My question is with respect to the issue of the safety of many dedicated Canadians who are working in Colombia, NGOs and individuals. The ambassador knows that there are many of those people. The Peace Brigades people, for example, literally put their lives on the line to protect Colombians at risk. One of those people who has been on the front lines has been Bill Fairbairn. Many of us, both individually and in groups, were deeply concerned by the attack on Mr. Fairbairn of the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America by the Colombian ambassador to Canada, Fanny Kertzman, who suggested that he was silent with respect to human rights abuses by the guerrillas. The ambassador will know that this is not only in explicit violation of the presidential decree on this issue, but that it also puts the lives of people like Bill Fairbairn at risk.

I want to ask whether, as ambassador, or maybe Mr. Davidson, as the head of the South American division, you have voiced concern, either to the ambassador directly or more appropriately to the Colombian foreign ministry with respect to the conduct of Ambassador Kertzman in this regard.

The Chair: There's a touchy question.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I'm going to start with your first observation, if I may, on foreign direct investment in paramilitary activity, because I think there has been a conventional view that somehow paramilitary activity had at its core the promotion of certain business interests as its raison d'être. My sense, after two years in Colombia, is that the territorial struggle amongst the armed actors is less and less about economic development that involves foreign investment and more and more about expanding cultivation of narcotics, which is disconcerting. It means more acreage in the country is under cultivation, but the nature of these zones is so conflictive there is virtually no economic activity of any kind taking place in them other than narco-cultivation. There I think the linkage with foreign interests, which often is attempted to be made, is not necessarily a real one.

• 1640

So there have been cases, there's no question, but I think the territorial issue, the territorial dominance, is now increasingly linked more and more with these illegal activities.

The Chair: With regard to the other question, you're free to answer or not answer.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Well, I understand Mrs. Kertzman will appear before the committee shortly. I think that's a good question to put to her.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The question, with respect, is not her response to this but whether the Government of Canada has responded. This is a Canadian citizen whose life may have been put at risk because of her conduct. What's Canada doing about that?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I cannot comment credibly on the situation that transpired here in Canada in those exchanges. I was not here. I heard about these things second- and third-hand. I know that the exchange between the ambassador and Mr. Fairbairn was certainly not one that was noted in Colombia to any extent such that it became a cause célèbre that would in any way impede his ability to be in the country and work in the country. From that standpoint, if Mr. Fairbairn comes, I think we would welcome his coming to continue into the future the good work he has done in the past.

Frankly, I really don't think it is appropriate for me as ambassador in Colombia to offer views on something that I don't know enough detail on. I was not here in Canada to be able to observe the nuances of that type of exchange. Canada is a democracy. We have varying opinions, and people are free to express those opinions. I think this is a case where opinion was expressed that was contrary on both sides. As to whether this has had some effect on Mr. Fairbairn's ability to work effectively in Colombia, I don't think it has. I hope it isn't the case. But insofar as the motivations, or why comments of a certain nature may or may not have been made, I think you should put the question directly to the source.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll come back.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you sort of missed your turn. Go ahead, with one question.

Mr. Keith Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.

Just as a quick question, getting back to the one I asked before, Ambassador, about Mr. Serpa's more warlike pose, in which areas do you think there are opportunities for solid negotiation between FARC and the government, areas of perhaps bridges that can be made?

The last question is with regard to Venezuela's relationship with not only the paras but also the narco-traffickers. They've been a destabilizing element in what's been going on there. I was wondering what the leadership in Venezuela was or wasn't doing with respect to this whole situation.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: To respond to your comment about Mr. Serpa sounding perhaps more warlike than he has in the past, I think clearly the reaction of the political establishment in Colombia to the degradation of the conflict has been one of hardening attitudes. However, while those hardening attitudes have shaped public declarations, I can say to you that, based on private discussions with all of the candidates to date, all still believe, with some nuances and degrees of difference, that political discussion and negotiation is the way forward over the medium to longer term.

What areas are there of convergence? As I said in my remarks at the outset, I believe one of the key areas in terms of a new approach with respect to negotiations needs to be third-party mediation. A government that is attempting to be both protagonist and mediator in peace negotiations finds itself constrained, and my sense is that the public mood in Colombia and the mood of political leadership is moving more and more toward seeking that. Certainly that's what we're hearing in terms of our own discussions with candidates. We shall see what the future brings between now and the assumption of power of a new president.

Mr. Keith Martin: Is that a G-10 role or a Canadian role?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: It's an international community role. I think it involves institutions, perhaps like the United Nations or perhaps like the OAS, and indeed bilateral participation by countries with accredited diplomatic representation in the country.

• 1645

Clearly, the international community needs to be involved if this process is going to succeed, first and foremost because the level of mistrust among the actors is such that in the absence of a third-party presence, at minimum, it is extremely difficult to even have a discussion, if you will, that might subsequently take us to some point of fruition down the road.

Tactically, one can look at the peace process to date and say that President Pastrana took the risk for peace and created a process, but perhaps the overarching strategic vision of what was going to be the substance of the process needed to be developed in greater detail. This is the challenge that I think a new government can take on. I think there are conceivable areas where partial agreements might be possible with one and/or both of the guerrilla groups. I think the convergence of these agenda items might be something that we as an international community might be able to steer forward. When this year began and the issue of the humanitarian exchange between the FARC and the government was very incipient and nascent and people thought this couldn't happen, it was the silent work of the international community that allowed the confidence to be established between the parties that resulted in the agreement being implemented. That, to me, is an example of the kind of constructive work that we can do in the future.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Since he was in Canada at the time of this attack by Ambassador Kertzman on Mr. Fairbairn, I want to ask Mr. Davidson whether this is acceptable conduct by a Colombian ambassador in Canada.

Mr. Ron Davidson (Director, South America Division, Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade): There is an assumption in your question that the exchange of letters places Mr. Fairbairn's life in danger when he goes to Colombia. I wasn't aware of that. The ambassador just suggested that he didn't think it placed him in any particular danger. I have seen Mr. Fairbairn a number of times, including in my office, and he's never made that point to us.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'm surprised that he wouldn't have made that point, since President Pastrana himself, in his decree 07, explicitly ordered Colombian government officials to refrain from making those types of unfounded accusations against human rights organizations and their members precisely because of the concern about their safety. Certainly President Pastrana was of that view.

I wanted to ask the ambassador a question with respect to Plan Colombia. He has voiced concern about the impact of the military component of Plan Colombia on the environment, specifically the Amazon and Orinoco rivers. Does it continue to be Canada's position that we are neutral on the military component of Plan Colombia in other respects, or is he able to provide any assessment of the impact of that at this time?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I think, Mr. Robinson, my comments with respect to environmental degradation were in reference to the precursor chemicals that are being imported into Colombia with respect to pollution of rivers. Clearly, in terms of the aerial spraying strategy, we believe it prudent and something that the international community as a whole, with the Colombian government, should be examining. This policy has been in place for many years now. That kind of analysis has not taken place in terms of applying scientific rigour to examine the actual situation as found in the country, and those efforts would be very welcome in clarifying many of the instances that arise with respect to the impact or non-impact of these types of issues. That is something that I hope transpires in the future.

The UNDCP, the UN drug control program, has expressed a willingness to take the lead and has approached members of the international community, including Canada. This is something that we are now actively considering, based on a request that they have put forward. My hope is that we will have greater clarity in terms of independent analysis with respect to the situation locally, and it is something that will be positive in terms of the debate on the issue.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, another question.

Mr. Keith Martin: Ambassador, on the issue of aerial spraying, as you alluded to, the economic degradation going on is quite significant. In fact, as I understand it, many of the drug producers are actually increasing the area of cultivation. You wipe out a certain area and they are actually increasing the amount of area under cultivation. As widespread commentary has said, it simply is not working. There are a number of complaints. I think six governors in Colombia have said this is having a devastating effect and will have no effect on decreasing cocaine production.

• 1650

Furthermore, on Plan Colombia, a lot of observers say this is not going to decrease production of cocaine and entry of cocaine into North America.

I wonder if you can tell us if there's any backtracking on Plan Colombia. If its intent was to decrease cocaine entry into North America, a lot of people feel it's not going to happen. Is there any change in the formatting of Plan Colombia? Also, are there any formal moves that you or Mr. Davidson are aware of to work with the U.S. on decreasing consumption? When we were down there, Senator McCain made some very interesting comments, saying the war is not going to be won until we decrease consumption. I wonder if our government is making any formal representation to Congress or to the American administration saying that we simply have to work together on the consumption side.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I would say, in response to your first question, that there is increasingly a recognition in Colombia that there are two very distinct dimensions to the drug production problem: there is a socio-economic dimension and a criminal dimension. One of the things that I have seen in terms of evolution of thinking and information in Colombia over the course of the last two years is that there is a much greater appreciation today that the socio-economic side of the problem needs to be addressed in a far more fulsome and rigorous fashion than it has in the past.

The nature of coca leaf and poppy production is such that you have two kinds of production. You have large-scale production, heavy acreage—we're talking about plots of 10, 50, 100 hectares under the purview of a narco-lord, with contract labour that is brought in specifically to serve the interests of that criminal group. On the other side, you have cultivation of a small-scale nature that generally runs in the order of two to three hectares, by peasant farmers who basically intersperse coca with their plantain, their yucca, and their staple crops. Those are two very distinct issues. One is a criminal issue that needs to be dealt with, in my estimation, with forceful police action and getting after criminal gangs that are involved in the importation of the precursor chemicals, because the people with large-scale cultivation generally also have large-scale processing facilities. But you need a different kind of strategy in addressing the socio-economic challenge of small-hold agriculture that feels compelled to raise coca or poppy as a means of economic survival.

What we have seen over the course of the last two years is a greater recognition that the second part, the socio-economic part and the small-hold agricultural part, is increasing more and more in the nature of cultivation. In some estimates now it is well over 40%, perhaps half, of the total cultivation in the country. The only way to address that dimension of the problem is to create infrastructure and viable alternatives to farmers so that they do not feel compelled to grow an illegal crop as the only means of survival. They're certainly not getting wealthy from it. The estimate in Colombia is that from three crops of coca leaf a farmer will clear, after costs, something in the order of $2,000 a year. That is not the generation of tremendous wealth, by any stretch of the imagination.

But it is the large-scale cultivation, under the purview of criminal groups, that needs to be increasingly the focal point of the anti-criminal kinds of actions necessary. I think we are beginning to see this double track emerge in strategic terms, but what we have seen to date more in terms of its visible manifestation is the attempt to simply eradicate acreage, which results, quite correctly, as you have characterized, in the movement of cultivation elsewhere, which in the parlance of Colombia is known as the balloon effect. The balloon effect is taking cultivation into places like Ecuador, Brazil, and northern Peru and creating a much more regional kind of problem.

My hope is that these strategies, which are relatively new still in terms of their application, will evolve over time and will permit the socio-economic dimension to be addressed, which I think is the first dimension you have to work on in terms of creating viable alternatives for those involved in agriculture. At the same time, the application of the needed resources to deal with criminal issues will begin to be visible as part of the landscape, if you will, in Colombia.

I think we're still in the early stages of that, but there are hopeful signs.

I will just go back to the question you asked earlier about the Venezuelan relationship with this problem. Clearly, Venezuela, like many of the neighbouring countries, is concerned about the movement of cultivation across their borders with Colombia. The Venezuelan-Colombian relationship, which is a complex one at the best of times, is exacerbated further by Venezuela being a safe haven for a number of various armed actors in the conflict.

• 1655

I think the tensions in the Colombia-Venezuelan relationship have been significantly reduced through the course of 2001. Both presidents have certainly made an effort to do that. Mexico has played a very useful role through the G-3.

There are still issues at play, but no relationship is more important to each other than the Colombia-Venezuelan relationship. They are both each other's most important economic partner, and the capacity of those two countries to work effectively together to confront issues of criminality across borders, of drug cultivation, is absolutely essential if any of these strategies over the medium term are going to have possibilities of success.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bellemare, do you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Excellency, are NGOs required to introduce themselves to you upon their arrival in the country?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: As a rule, we are in touch on an almost daily basis with Colombian NGOs. As of now, there are no Canadian NGOs working in the country. It's quite possible that over the next few months, Canadians will be on the scene for the first time in a very long time. There are some Canadian volunteers working with international peace organizations, but they are in the country working as individuals for a multilateral organization.

The last time Ms. Caplan visited us, she met over lunch with approximately 20 representatives of Colombian NGOs. If the subcommittee does come to Colombia, I hope that members can trade ideas and experiences with these workers. This is a fairly important part of our work.

NGOs need assistance and the visible support of the international community. Colombian NGOs look upon Canada as a friendly country that wants to work with them to advance human rights and other issues.

I am exceedingly proud of our collaborative efforts to date.

[English]

The Chair: Are you finished?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I just have one brief final question, and it's a follow-up to the question with respect to the sale of helicopters.

You've referred to the guidelines on the sale of offensive equipment. I wonder whether it is acceptable for a Canadian company to be servicing offensive military equipment, which is being used in the military component of Plan Colombia. Is that acceptable to the ambassador and to Canada?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: In response to your question, Mr. Robinson, I can tell you that in each case that comes forward with respect to export control issues, a very rigorous analysis of that particular case is undertaken by our department, with opinion requested from a broad range of interlocutors here in Ottawa and also obviously the opinion of the embassy.

I have been satisfied that in cases where we have approved export permit applications, we can say that the letter and spirit of our export control regime has been adhered to.

A C-130 transport transports food to areas of Colombia that may be hit by earthquake, and in fact that is its principal role in terms of logistical support to remote areas of the country.

Obviously we watch extremely carefully the application, if you will, of activity with respect to any of these issues that we are going to have to address with respect to export control, and I am satisfied that what we have done to date, and certainly during the time that I have been in Colombia, has responded both to the letter and the spirit of Canadian legislation.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You've answered in general terms, but specifically, is it acceptable for a Canadian company to be servicing helicopters that are being used as part of the military component of Plan Colombia?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I am not aware of the servicing of any military helicopters by Canadian companies.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Would that be acceptable if that were the case, under the guidelines?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: In Canada or in Colombia?

Mr. Svend Robinson: In either jurisdiction.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Again, I would hesitate to cast a net so widely with respect to an issue where, as in all cases of export control, we analyse in a very rigorous way and require enormous amounts of input and information from the companies making application to give us the details of the case.

• 1700

I cannot in good conscience give you a categorical statement as to yea or nay, because in the absence of seeing the specifics of what is being suggested, I reserve the right as ambassador to comment at that particular time when it's put forward.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll certainly provide the information, Ambassador, and I assume that—

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Please, because I'm not aware of a case of that nature. We have had cases of overhaul of transport engines, and that's something, from the perspective of what those transports do, I can support. I can support and be comfortable with that, but I have not heard of any cases with respect to helicopters.

Mr. Svend Robinson: I'll follow up and report back to the committee as well.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Please.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ambassador, I have a couple of questions. When I was down there in June, I brought up the question of the length of the term of the president being just one term. That's for all of the government, isn't it? They replace their government, all their elected officials?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Yes: mayors for three years, governors for four years, senators for four years, representatives/deputies for four years, and presidents for four years.

The Chair: It's one term.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: One term.

The Chair: They can't run again.

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: In the case of congress, yes, they can run again. In the case of the president, they cannot.

The Chair: The people we spoke to said there was some discussion of making it two terms for the president. Has there been any more discussion in the House down there?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Not really. When we analyse the situation, Colombia changed its constitution radically in 1991. We are talking about a change that, as Canadians, we would find incomprehensible in terms of changing a 19th century constitution and trying to make it modern. In trying to make it modern with 340-plus articles, I think it may have gotten also very much more complicated. These are the kinds of issues that one can sense in Colombian society are moving a lot of people to consider whether there is a need for a constituent assembly at some point in the future to reassess the 1991 constitution. That may at some point in the future be a very palpable political option for a government that has, for example, reached agreement with insurgent groups. In fact, the 1991 constitution was very much a response to the government having reached agreement with the M-19 guerrilla groups that were active in the 1980s.

So I don't think we can discount that. Among the things they would be assessing would be term, because as frustrating as it is for a president to only be in power for four years, for a mayor to be in power for three years is just absolutely impossible. That is becoming something that people understand as a bit of a ball and chain, administratively, in terms of continuity in the country.

The Chair: Thank you.

Another question. CIDA is involved right now in changing their policies. Have you been involved in that at all? Have they consulted with you? Do you have anything that you want to contribute here that we could pass on?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I think that was an excellent exercise in embassy headquarters cooperation, because in many ways, many of the recommendations that we put forward as an embassy, in terms of the need based on circumstances in Colombia to re-orient the nature of Canadian development assistance, were listened to across the river. They recognized that, yes, the context demanded a focus on people-centred kinds of programming as opposed to the more institutional nature of our programming that had evolved over the course of the 1980s and early 1990s.

They are in the midst now of finalizing a number of new initiatives. I'll be meeting tomorrow with Madam Minna specifically to discuss where things are.

The focal points that they have established of internal displacement, human rights, and institutional strengthening I think are bang on in terms of where our priorities and where our modest levels of development assistance can make a positive impact in the country. An example is their work with the auditor general and creating an increased capacity on the part of the Colombian AG to in a sense do his job. The auditor general's office was created in 1991. The gentleman who occupies the position now is only the second one, because the position was vacant for the first five years of the new constitution. Working with his office in creating a capacity to deal with issues of probity and expenditure of public funds I think is something Canadians can be very positive about in terms of a contribution.

Clearly the emphasis is on internal displacement. One of the reasons that I would recommend the committee visit the city of Monteria in the state of Cordoba when you come to Colombia is because the Canadian Red Cross is running one of the largest programs working with the health and nutrition of infants in an area where there are large numbers of internally displaced. I think that kind of contribution by Canada is absolutely essential.

• 1705

The government and the Colombian Red Cross and the ICRC can provide emergency assistance for a period of three to four months when communities are forced to displace. But what happens to these people in the fifth and sixth month, and the twelfth and eighteenth, when they must remain in displacement in the absence of being able to go back to their communities? That is where we as Canadians can add value, where we are adding value. We're working on a direct basis with the Colombian Red Cross, with World Vision Canada, and other organizations. We make a difference in improving the daily lives of people. Increasingly that is at the core of CIDA's approach in Colombia, and it is a correct one, in my estimation.

The Chair: Thank you.

Monsieur Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: This may be a delicate question, but are you on good terms with Colombia's Ambassador to Canada?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: I'm acquainted with Mrs. Kertzman. Before being appointed to this post, she headed up the national revenue and customs office in Colombia. I can assure you that she is a well respected public servant in Colombia. She has the reputation of being an efficient person and of fighting corruption and crime in her country. In my view, she has a bright future in Colombia and she is respected by everyone with whom I have been in contact over the past two years. Here in Canada, she represents the views of the Colombian government. I also think she is beginning to get a sound grasp of the situation in Canada, which is quite different from that in Colombia. This is her first posting as ambassador. I feel that she has made a positive contribution to her country. Once her term is over, we will be able to judge how effective an ambassador to Canada she has been.

[English]

The Chair: As chair, I am going to take the right to have the last question.

When I was in Colombia I was with Rights and Democracy and we looked at the situation with the indigenous people. This is very important to Canadians. Would you be able to make a comment on that?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: Yes, Madam President.

To me, the plight of the indigenous in Colombia is one of the greatest tragedies of the conflict. These communities, which spent most of the 1980s and into the new constitution of the 1990s fighting for recognition of their inherent rights to land and territory, as communities now find themselves, if one can use the term so crassly, as the ham in the sandwich, in the Colombian conflict.

The stated view of indigenous communities in Colombia is one of neutrality in the conflict. They want to have no quarter with either right-wing paramilitary forces or left-wing guerrilla forces. They simply wish to be left in peace to be able to live their traditional values and lifestyle. The problem is they have title to 28% of the Colombian land mass, and that land mass is inevitably at times the source of conflict between the armed actors in the conflict.

What we have seen systematically over the course of the last three to five years is attacks on their leadership by all groups. There are tribal groups in Colombia that are the object of attack by the guerrillas for one reason or another. There are other tribal groups in the cross-hairs of right-wing paramilitary forces, contingent on where those communities are located.

It's tragic, because what we are seeing is a generation of indigenous leaders, many of whom were beneficiaries of training programs that Canada and CIDA had put in place in Colombia during the course of the 1980s. The organization CRIC, in the province of Calca, where the largest indigenous population lives, was the beneficiary of a long-term project funded by CIDA with Développement et Paix de Montréal that worked on the increase of leadership skills with indigenous populations and that made enormous impact on their ability to take their cause forward through the Colombian legal system and land rights and other issues of their traditional values.

The indigenous populations need protection. They need protection from Colombian authorities and they need protection from the international community. And they need a recognition from the armed actors that we see them as a priority.

• 1710

I can report to you that there is not a meeting of the G-10 with the FARC where the indigenous communities and the respect for the communities is not raised with the guerrillas as something that they absolutely must take on board as a priority. Is it happening? In certain parts of the country, perhaps. In other parts of the country, no. This is something that we do with the minister of the interior and others, whom you met with during the course of your visit, and supporting indigenous parliamentarians, who really are the point people. You met Senator Pinacue and others, who are very courageous people whose lives are at risk. They are under active threat by various and sundry groups in the country.

I think the visit of AFN was extremely important to them. Subsequent to that, Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala came to Colombia and she said she hoped that somehow her organization, Indigenous Initiative for Peace, and the AFN and other Canadian groups perhaps might be able to play a much larger role in terms of supporting their brothers in Colombia. I think this is the kind of international action necessary in terms of keeping their struggle as an absolute front-burner priority for the international community. It's something they appreciate and something that will hopefully have a positive influence on their situation. But it is a regrettable state of affairs when indigenous leaders in the country are assassinated on a regular basis. I think it is one of the most abhorrent human rights tragedies that exists in the country today.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

On behalf of everyone here, thank you very much for coming. We hope the rest of your term is successful and, if you want it, that you have another term.

I'd just like to mention that this committee may change before we make any decision about our trip. We don't know yet whether we will be going down there. We can't give you an answer. You had suggested around October 15?

Mr. Guillermo Rishchynski: October 15 is a public holiday in Colombia, so arrival that day, on the Monday, would perhaps give us an opportunity to do a week-long program, but we're flexible. The committee tells us when it can come. We'll try to arrange it in terms of the mechanisms on the ground.

I apologize, if I may, for being perhaps long winded in both of Canada's official languages. I only make the observation that if you heard me in Spanish, it's much worse.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

This meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.