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, September 26, 2001

• 1536

[English]

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

We were going to have a motion at the beginning of the meeting, but we can't do it, because we don't have quorum for a motion. I hope we get a quorum a little bit later. It's a very fast motion, so we may have to interrupt the witness for five minutes a little later. You've got the motion in front of you, it's pretty clear.

We're very pleased to have with us today the Ambassador of Colombia, Fanny Kertzman. We've already discussed with Mr. Dubé that we don't have her text in French, but another time when she comes, if she sends it to us early enough, we could get it translated into French. And we will translate this one too and make sure everybody's got it translated. Can you tell us the order in which you're going to do the videos, or are you going to speak first?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman (Ambassador for Colombia): No, first the video.

The Chair: Okay, we're going to see the video first. How long is the video?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: It's three or four minutes.

The Chair: Okay. Is somebody doing the video?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Are you in a hurry? You want to leave?

Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby—Douglas, NDP): I want to get to the questions.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Yes, I guess so.

The Chair: While she's doing that, I'll just mention to the committee members that we'll have a meeting today, and then there will be no meeting next week, and the week after that we're on our break. We'll come back with the new committee, and at that time we'll talk about whether we're going to plan a trip in November or whatever.

Mr. Svend Robinson: To Colombia?

The Chair: Yes, to Colombia. Well, we could go somewhere else if you want, Mexico or.... The video is beginning. Do you want to speak during it?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I just want to explain.

This is the effect of an oil spill, an attack on the pipeline in Colombia. We see that all the fields are burned because of the oil that was spilled.

This scene could be shocking for you—it was shocking for me as well. This is a massacre. We think it was committed by the illegal self-defence groups, but we don't have any evidence, because I took this from the news in Colombia.

• 1540

This is a massacre against the people who were in a bus. This is by the guerrillas, they attacked the bus and killed the people.

Someone asked how long ago it was made. I don't know. One year ago.

This is an attack by the guerrillas on a small town called El Hobo in the middle of the country. First they destroyed the police station, but they threw gas cylinders, they attacked the whole population, and they destroyed the school, the health centre.

The Chair: Is this the same town?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I think that's it. The rest is pretty much the same.

The Chair: Are those soldiers there?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Those are soldiers under attack.

The Chair: Of the province? Of that area?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Yes.

The Chair: Thanks for the video presentation. Please continue.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I wanted to show you these images, because whatever I can tell you about my country, it's different if you see the images, and we in Colombia have to watch these images in the news every single day.

[Translation]

I apologize to Mr. Dubé; I do not speak French well enough to make my presentation in that language. The next time that I am called to appear before you, I will speak in French. My answers, therefore, will be in English, but I am able to understand when you speak to me in French.

[English]

Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to share with you and with your colleagues some important facts and my views on the current situation on Colombia.

Although we are talking about human rights today, we do not know any more if what is taking place is Colombia should be called a serial violation of human rights by illegal groups or sheer terrorism. There are kidnappings, massacres like the ones you saw today, assassinations of civilians, car bombs, attacks on small villages with gas cylinders—you saw just one today—bombs in collars, in dogs, in donkeys, even in human corpses. There have been 1059 bombs in the pipelines in the last 14 years, just like the one you saw now. There have been 281 electric pylons brought down in the year 2000. These are all acts that surpass the definition of human rights violations, and they are intended to terrorize the population. The illegal self-defence groups commit a massacre in a small town, so its inhabitants leave the area. The Marxist guerrillas attack a village with gas cylinders targeted on the police station, but the church, the mayor's office, the school, and the health centre end up destroyed. People leave the town.

• 1545

So far this year there have been 1,655 terrorist acts—or should we call them human rights violations?—recorded in Colombia, nearly seven attacks per day from January through August. Thirty-five percent of them were committed by the FARC, 34% by the ELN, 17% by the illegal self-defence groups, AUC, and 14% by common delinquency, usually paid for by one of these groups. All three groups have been declared terrorist organizations by the U.S. State Department. The last one to be added to the list was the AUC. So you understand, when I talk about AUC or self-defence, it is the same as when Mr. Svend Robinson talks about the paramilitary, we just have different names for them. This was just before Colin Powell headed to Colombia, where he was—

Mr. Svend Robinson: Svend Robinson or Ambassador Rishchynski.

The Chair: I know that's what I call them, paramilitary.

Ms Fanny Kertzman: Whereas I'd call them self-defence groups.

Colin Powell was expected on September 11.

At this time you may be wondering what the Colombian government is doing to protect its people against this threat. Some people would like you to believe that the government is responsible for the rampant violence and terrorist acts that scourge my country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The complexity of the situation in Colombia requires far more than the simplistic approach of blaming a legitimate government for its failure in protecting its people. The reality is that the state is not present in every corner of Colombia.

We are modernizing our justice system, we are investing in health and education, and we are building roads in remote areas. We are doing our best with very limited resources. But tell me about any other country in the world that has to contend with the challenges of development and with the threats posed by three terrorist organizations, funded by narcotrafficking, without jeopardizing its democratic system. There are times like these when governments that believe in democracy have to stand together against the threat of terrorism.

Terrorism hit the United States in a horrible way with more than 6,000 victims in a single day, September 11. For us the tragedy was also personal. Among the victims were 361 Colombians, the highest death toll for any country after the U.S. Why so many Colombians? Because, ironically, many of them were fleeing terrorism. Nearly 400,000 Colombians have left their country in the last two years, frightened, desperate, and fed up with the terror that they face every day. The Colombian community in the New York area numbers nearly one million people, the second largest Latin-American group. And as Ambassador Guillermo Rishchnyski told you last week here, the Canadian Embassy in Bogotá is overloaded with immigration petitions.

There are two Marxist guerrilla groups in Colombia, the FARC and the ELN. These organizations have no more than 20,000 people. They support themselves by kidnapping innocent people for ransom, by blackmailing companies—today, for example, there are 82 towns where beer and soft drinks cannot be sold, because they are not paying their quotas to the guerrillas—and by levying so-called taxes upon narcotraffickers, growers, processors, and shippers of cocaine. The illegal self-defence groups claim nearly 8,000 members. They were founded by narcotraffickers and rich landowners to protect themselves from Marxist guerrillas. They have publicly acknowledged that their money comes from narcotrafficking.

• 1550

The growth of the Marxist guerrillas and self-defence groups, the number of terrorist attacks, massacres, and kidnappings increased proportionately with the expansion of the drug business. Colombia is, unfortunately, the world's number one producer of cocaine. Afghanistan, the safe harbour for Osama bin Laden, is world's top producer of opium, the raw material for heroin. They provide 70% of the world's opium. Colombia provides 79% of the world's cocaine. Drugs and terrorists—the same pattern repeated in such distant and different countries.

Drug-funded terrorism is not new in Colombia. We've suffered horrible attacks masterminded by the late cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar as he tried to avoid extradition to the U.S. He targeted innocent civilians, government officials, and members of the National Police in a terror strategy that shattered the foundation of our democratic system, the oldest and most stable in Latin America. He ordered the deaths of more than 4,000 people, among them four presidential candidates, one minister of justice, and more than 150 policemen. He paid his hit men less than $1,000 Canadian to kill police officers in Medellin. He masterminded a bloody attack against the justice palace in Bogotá, where more than 90 people died, including 11 Supreme Court magistrates. One of the murdered presidential candidates, Carlos Pizarro, was gunned down by a hit man in a commercial flight in mid-air.

Escobar blew up an airplane with 107 people on board. All of them died. He planted countless car bombs in the streets of Bogotá, Medellin, and many other cities, killing innocent civilians. He planted a bus bomb in front of the Colombian Intelligence Agency, killing 70 people. That would be like planting a bomb here in front of CSIS and killing 70 people there. He assassinated Guillermo Cano, the director of one of the oldest and most prestigious newspapers in Colombia, and later blew up the facilities of the paper itself.

Narcotrafficking has had a very profound and disabling effect on the social fabric of Colombia. It has undermined the country's governance, fueling corruption and blurring the line that divides what is legal from what is illegal. It has helped violence to become an almost natural and permanent form of social and political relations. Insurgent organizations have abandoned their once-stated cause of justice in favour of financial gain from production and distribution of drugs. They have been corrupted by their own drug money. They have become terrorists like Pablo Escobar. And most important of all, narcotraffickers are holding hostage a bright and prosperous future for all the people of Colombia.

The narcotraffickers are stealing one of the world's most beautiful and bountiful countries from its people. They have stolen many years of Colombia's history that should have been devoted to making social and economic progress, a progress that continues to be stalled because Colombia's financial and manpower resources must be devoted to stopping narcotrafficking, Marxist guerrillas, and illegal self-defence groups—in essence, our struggle against terrorism.

Even after the National Police finally gunned down Pablo Escobar in 1993, the terror did not end. Drug money keeps on fueling attacks against the Colombian people. According to Ministry of Defence sources, in the five year span from 1995 to 2000 the Marxist guerrillas killed 3,657 civilians, kidnapped 7,293 persons, and attacked 326 towns and villages. During the same period the illegal self-defence groups killed 3,235 civilians in massacres and assassinations and kidnapped 455 people. Imagine a single attack like this in your ridings, like the ones we just saw on the video, an attack with propane cylinders that destroys Lévis or Burnaby.

• 1555

In the past 14 years the Marxist guerrillas have bombed the largest pipeline in Colombia 1,059 times, spilling ten times more oil than in the Exxon Valdez disaster. Two-hundred and eighty electricity pylons were brought down by the Marxist guerrillas last year, leaving thousands of poor Colombians without electrical power for weeks. Why are the Marxist guerrillas attacking the infrastructure in Colombia so viciously? Because the energy companies are being blackmailed, and since they do not yield, the core of their operations is the target of terrorism. Ask Enbridge, for example. They run the largest pipeline in Colombia. It was bombed in 1998, in a place very close to a small town, Machuca. The pipeline caught fire and more than 84 poor people died.

In April 1999, an Avianca airplane with 46 people on board was kidnapped by the ELN. The passengers and crew were held hostage for more than a year. All of them had to pay ransom. Two of them died. Is this terrorism or a human rights violation? Imagine an Air Canada flight from Ottawa to Toronto that is kidnapped and diverted to a rural area in the northern territories. What do you think the families of the passengers and crew would do? What would be the reaction of the RCMP and the armed forces and from the federal government? I think nothing far from the War Measures Act.

Terrorists respect no borders. Three IRA terrorists were recently arrested in Colombia after a five-week visit to the demilitarized zone, where the government is carrying out peace conversations with the FARC. Army sources suspect that at least 15 IRA terrorists have travelled to the demilitarized zone to provide training in urban warfare tactics, or better, terrorism. The IRA devised the technique of propane cylinders used as bombs, which have become the most common non-conventional weapon used by the Marxist guerrillas to terrorize the civilian population. They also use land mines. Spanish Basque terrorist ETA has also been a guest of Colombian Marxist guerrillas.

If we are to go back to the vocabulary before September 11, we should say that the most basic human right, the right to life itself, is the most violated right in my country. Last year alone 26,000 people were killed in Colombia, out of a population of 40 million. Here in Canada, with 30 million inhabitants, 570 people died violently last year. Forty million people, 26,000 violent deaths, is 65 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, as against 1.9 violent deaths per 100,000 inhabitants in Canada—32 times more in Colombia. All death is tragic.

Thirty-seven hundred people were kidnapped last year in Colombia. Here in Canada there were 43 abductions, most of them cases of children taken away by parents involved in custody battles. Last week an 11-year-old girl was taken away from her school bus in Cali. Two years ago a total of six young students were kidnapped in the same way. Two hundred and thirteen children have been kidnapped this year in Colombia, including 29 infants. This is without taking into account the thousands of children forced to leave their families and join the Marxist guerrillas as child soldiers.

Let us talk about human rights. As narcotraffickers, Marxist guerrillas, illegal self-defence forces, and other criminal elements compete for profits, violence increases. The true violators of human rights in Colombia are the guerrillas, right-wing illegal self-defence groups, and narcotraffickers. In the five-year period from 1995 to 2000, Marxist guerrillas were responsible for almost 80% of all the violations to human rights—or terrorist acts. With assassinations, kidnappings, massacres, attacks on villages, and other barbaric terrorist acts, there were almost 20,000 known violations. The illegal self-defence groups were responsible for 19% of these violations, and individual members of the armed forces of Colombia were responsible for less than 2%.

• 1600

Last year the balance shifted. Illegal self-defence groups are growing as a reaction to the growth and financial strengthening of the Marxist guerrillas. The illegal self-defence groups almost doubled their numbers last year and committed 31% of all the known human rights violations.

Meanwhile, the violations committed by individual members of the armed forces have significantly decreased. Formal complaints against public security forces have declined substantially. In 1995 there were 3,000 formal complaints filed. In 2000 there were a total of 430 complaints. On the basis of the merits of the complaints, the independent Attorney General's office pursued 57 of these cases—that is only 0.022% of the public security forces. This year the armed forces are responsible only for 0.3% of the total of human rights violations so far.

The FARC, the ELN, and the illegal self-defence groups have proven that they have no regard for human rights. Marxist guerrillas are kidnapping young children from their parents, forced to be child soldiers and fighting in the first line of fire. Children under 17 make up 30% of all guerrilla forces. To help those children caught up in this horror, President Pastrana has established that children who are captured in combat, manage to escape from these groups, or are found being used in narcotrafficking activities are to be considered as victims and pardoned. In the ongoing peace process President Pastrana has placed a high priority on achieving an agreement to end the use of child soldiers. I really hope that everyone who is concerned about human rights remembers those children.

All Colombians are the victims of this violence, women and children, civilian and military, business people, civil servants, judges and police, politicians and labour leaders. On Sunday the wife of the Attorney General was kidnapped by the guerrillas in a road blockade. Can you imagine the stir here in Canada if the wife of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General were kidnapped? She was a former minister of culture as well.

But this crude reality comes with some bright light at the end of the tunnel. The Colombian government has taken many steps during the past year to improve the human rights situation in our country. As noted by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in April, a new law against enforced disappearances, genocide, forced displacement, and torture became effective in 2000. A new criminal code and a new military code, both of which incorporated important human rights and humanitarian law standards, have come into force. The government has also ratified the Ottawa convention on the elimination of anti-personnel land mines and a number of treaties of the International Labour Organization.

Under the Ottawa convention and with the collaboration of Canada, the Colombian armed forces are destroying their stockpiles of land mines. In the meantime, the guerrillas keep planting them all over the place, maiming small, innocent children.

The armed forces of Colombia are receiving training on human rights with the collaboration of the Government of Canada. Does anyone believe that the Marxist guerrillas and the illegal self-defence groups conduct human rights training in their forces? We are devoting enormous resources to enhance and improve the professionalism of the armed forces, with a strong emphasis on human rights training. Human rights reporting offices have been set up throughout the country, with 181 specialists in human rights already in place, to deal with specific complaints from the public.

• 1605

Obviously, children are not conscripted by the armed forces. We do not draft children under 18.

We dismissed discretionally more than 300 members of the armed forces last year.

We are fighting the illegal self-defence groups as never before. This year the armed forces have arrested more than 300 of its members. This accounts for an increase of more than 200% over the year 2000.

The people of Colombia support their armed forces. The people of Colombia believe in its democratic institutions and their government. The people want an end to the violence and a return to peace. Public opinion research, a Gallup poll, tells us that the support for the military in Colombia is higher than ever before. The people support their government and want us to take back the country from the hands of criminals. Seventy-two percent of all Colombians have a positive image of their armed forces. It is the most respected institution in Colombia. Second is the Catholic church. Only two percent of Colombians have a positive image of the Marxist guerrillas, and eight percent have a positive image of the illegal self-defence groups.

Every legitimate government, like mine, has not only the right, but also the duty to defend itself and its people. That is why we need stronger institutions, a stronger government, a stronger justice system, stronger armed forces, and a stronger police, so we can be able to protect every single citizen.

We are and will continue to be open and forthcoming about our situation, our challenges, our actions, and our progress. Again, the people of Colombia are with us. They believe in their elected government, and the government believes in them. If the armed forces were the violators of human rights in Colombia, our people would never support them. But again and again, we cannot and should not fight this war alone. We need your support as members of Parliament, as representatives of the Canadian people. We need your concern about Colombia, but we also need your commitment and your cooperation with Colombia, its people, and its democratic institutions in our struggle against narcotrafficking, terrorists, and crime.

Drugs are funding terrorism, not only in Colombia and Afghanistan, but all around the world. We urge the international community to make a real and lasting commitment to defeat terrorism around the world, including Colombia. No country in the world has paid a higher price in the war on drugs than my country.

We welcome and are grateful for the leadership of Canada as a facilitator in the peace process. Canada's experience in peace-building operations is essential to our efforts to achieve peace and restore order and the rule of law in Colombia. After September 11 the world changed. Today I invite you, I urge you, to join our efforts and help us in our struggle against terror.

Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ambassador, would you just clarify, because there was a little discussion before here, why you use the expression illegal self-defence groups rather than paramilitary.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Because if we speak about paramilitary, we could also say that the guerrillas are paramilitary, because a paramilitary is a person that looks like a military, but isn't, and the guerrillas use the same uniforms. So why should we be calling the illegal self-defence groups paramilitary and not the guerrillas? They use the same weapons, the same uniforms, they look the same. So that is why we make a distinction in our work about illegal self-defence groups. In Colombia the word paramilitary is no longer used, we use the word self-defence, in Spanish autodefensa.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Svend Robinson: On the same point of order.

The Chair: That wasn't a point of order. Could you wait until your question?

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's specifically on that point, Madam Chair, just for clarification.

The Chair: Okay.

• 1610

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a letter here that was written by Ambassador Kertzman on Wednesday, March 14, of this year, in which she in fact uses the word. She talks about the fight against the paramilitary. I'm not sure if the position of the ambassador has changed from March 14 to today, but in this letter she uses the word paramilitary.

The Chair: Well, she may have.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: We did change. We decided not to use the word any more.

The Chair: Okay. That's fine.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Canadian Alliance): Even if it's changed, I think you have identified quite rightly that you have two groups over there.

The Chair: Obhrai, would you like to have your—

Mr. Svend Robinson: It's her letter.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, but I would say that it's not a big issue. We've got big issues to worry about other than jurisdiction, whether it's called paramilitary or self-defence.

The Chair: May I speak?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes.

The Chair: We'll do five minutes, but if we see that your question needs more than that time to be answered, then everybody will just get their turn, and we'll come back and start again. We don't have too many Liberals here to ask questions.

So you go ahead, Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you for coming and giving us, I would say, a very candid outlook on your country. I appreciate the fairness, the truth, and your appeal in the difficult task facing your country. We all know your country is facing a difficult task, and it's quite a challenge. Historically, whatever direction we want to say it followed, today it's got a lot of challenges.

There are two or three things I'm interested in, and then later on, after my colleague Svend has talked to you, I'll probably come back. I'm interested in what he has to say.

I have three points. Let me just go through the three of them. You're going through an election process right now. You are a democracy. Could you perhaps tell us of the election and the impact it's going to have on the situation in your country, whether the peace talks and all the other initiatives that are going on will fall off the table? What is the position of the terrorists on both sides in reference to the election? What role they are playing?

You perhaps would like to update us on the kidnapping of the diplomat that took place recently in Colombia.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: The Germans?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Yes, that kidnapping. What's happened there?

What is the Government of Colombia's view on the spraying process that has been going on in your country, spraying of the coca fields, cocaine fields, or whatever they should be called, its effectiveness? I understand the European Union has expressed a concern that it is not really an effective way to tackle those things.

I think that's enough. I'll probably do my round two.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I will start with the second question, which is the easiest. We know that the five kidnappers kidnapped the three German workers for the GTZ, which is the cooperation agency from the German government. It would be like kidnapping three people from CIDA in Colombia. They were kidnapped in an aboriginal area very close to where Ms. Phinney was. She went to Popayán. Popayán is the capital city of the department where these Germans were kidnapped. After they were kidnapped, 7,000 aboriginal people organized a march to demand the release of these people, who were working on cooperation programs really helping these poor aboriginal people in Colombia.

They were kidnapped three or four weeks ago. One of them escaped two days ago. He was found crying by the side of the road by a peasant. He was not able to speak Spanish, he was sick, and he was taken immediately to a health centre. Now he's in Germany. He arrived in Germany yesterday.

There are still two Germans captured by the guerrillas. I understand from when I spoke yesterday with Ambassador Rishchynski that the diplomats from the countries that are acting as facilitators told the Colombian guerrillas that they are not going to pursue any more conversations with them until these two people and the former governor of Meta department, who was kidnapped from a UN vehicle and was taken to the demilitarized zone, are released released. This is the news we have. They have not been released.

• 1615

Regarding the spraying, the spraying in Colombia takes place on crops covering more than three hectares. In smaller areas there's manual eradication of the coca crops. The aerial spraying is done with glyphosate. For all the allegations that glyphosate is harmful to human health and kills the animals, there's no scientific evidence that it is so. Only 10% of the glyphosate used in Colombia is used in the aerial spraying of the coca crops. Most of the glyphosate that is used in Colombia is used in spraying coffee crops.

The Chair: Accidentally, you mean?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Not at all.

The Chair: Or deliberately?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Just a second, please. It is a herbicide. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world. It's approved in 180 countries. In the U.S. and Canada it's called Roundup, and it's in every single garden here in Canada. What is really damaging the Colombian environment is the destruction of the tropical forest by the narcotraffickers to grow coca. More than one million hectares have been destroyed in order to grow coca in Colombia. In order to grow one hectare of coca, you have to bring down four hectares of tropical forest, and more than 2.3 million tonnes of chemicals have been thrown into the rivers and into the soil of Colombia through growing coca. The chemicals that are being used are prohibited chemicals like DDT, parathion and paraquat, and I never hear anybody complaining about the narcotraffickers using these kinds of prohibited chemicals in order to grow coca. They complain about glyphosate, when there is no evidence that glyphosate is harmful to humans or animals.

As for the elections, they have an impact on the situation. As Ambassador Rishchynski told you last week, there are four who we could call serious candidates. One of them is Luis Eduardo Garzon. I understand he was here. He is a labour leader, as you know. Another candidate is Noemí Sanín. She used to be Minister of Foreign Affairs for Colombia. The others candidates are Alvaro Uribe and, first in the polls, Horacio Serpa of the Liberal Party. The three last candidates have a very hard position toward the peace process. They are being very critical of the peace process. The most critical of them is Alvaro Uribe, who is rising in the polls very quickly.

We foresee that the next government will have a lot of pressure from the international community to keep the negotiations as they are now. With more and more evidence, as I showed you, that the guerrillas are involved in terrorist activities, and with the declarations of Colin Powell on Sunday, I guess, that the actions that the United States were taking against terrorists were not only against Osama bin Laden and his group or the terrorist groups of Arab countries, but were against the three Colombian groups as well, we expect that there will be a lot of international pressure on the Colombian new government and on the guerrillas. We expect that this government will have to move quickly with the peace negotiations, because the conditions will definitely change with a new president.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to point out, Ms. Kertzman, that the fact that you expressed yourself only in English does not offend me. I fully understand. This requirement by our party concerns representatives of the Government of Canada who appear before us and make unilingual presentations. This does not apply in your case. Therefore, no apology is required.

• 1620

While on the topic of apologies, I am a member of Parliament and, without wanting to air our dirty laundry in public, I would like to point out that, with the exception of the chair, no representative from the government party is with us today. Three opposition parties are represented, they have come to listen to you and I believe that what you have told us is quite clear.

I am not an expert. I have only been on this committee for a few months. I am familiar with what is known as Plan Columbia and I am aware of investments made by the Americans. Perhaps you could tell us whether or not you are satisfied with what the United States is doing, and, particularly, whether or not your government is happy with Canada's position on Columbia. Are you satisfied with the efforts that have been made? What do you expect from Canadian parliamentarians at this time?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I apologize for not answering in French.

[English]

Canada and Colombia enjoy a very friendly relationship. David Kilgour has been a number of times in Colombia—I understand it's more than six times. Ms. Phinney was in Colombia two months ago. She was very happy with the experience, I understand.

The Chair: Just a little nervous.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Mr. Robinson has been also to Colombia. Tourism between the two countries is not very large. We expect that it can grow in the future.

You're right that the help from the U.S. government is Plan Colombia, which is not only military—only half of that is military, the other goes for civil rights, defence, strengthening of justice.

In the case of Canada, we have cooperation programs with CIDA. CIDA gives around, I understand, $10 million Canadian per year. It has changed its view. It was more focused on the telecommunications regime. Now it's more focused on the human aspects that the Canadian government considers are not included in Plan Colombia. So Canada is very much involved in the eradication of land mines, in help to displaced people, in the protection of human rights. And as I've told you, for example, all the programs the Colombia military are receiving, all the instructions in human rights are with the support of the Government of Canada.

What we expect from the Government of Canada is your understanding of the situation in Colombia, your support for our democratic institutions, which is something that I feel very satisfied with. I really feel that Canada has been very supportive and helpful to Colombia. Ambassador Rishchynski has taken a remarkable role as a facilitator of the peace process. He's very much involved. He's a leader among the diplomatic community. I tell him his problem is that his Spanish is too good, so that you will not misunderstand anything he says. He cannot commit any mistake, because he cannot say that he was misquoted or something like that.

• 1625

Generally Colombia enjoys a very friendly relationship with Canada. President Pastrana was here on a state visit in 1999. Lloyd Axworthy was in Colombia in the year 2000. What we expect from you is just your understanding and your support.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes, we might say that the attitude is one of support, aid, etc. but your problems appear overwhelming. I will put my question another way. Are there other countries, with the exception of the United States, that supply your country with some type of aid that you could tell us about, perhaps France, Mexico or some other country? Could you tell us what other countries are doing for you?

[English]

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: The total of Plan Colombia is $7.5 billion: $4 billion comes from Colombian taxpayers, $1.3 billion comes from the U.S., around $400 million comes from multilateral institutions like the World Bank and IDB. We were expecting cooperation mainly from European countries, Japan, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina. We raised among them a little more than $300 million U.S., but it's just that. So if you compare the bilateral assistance that Canada has been giving to Colombia, it's $40 million U.S. over a five-year term. If you compare to that the European countries, which provide a little more than $300 million, also over a five-year term, I guess you could say Canada is making an important effort, but this is the money that was allotted to Colombia before Plan Colombia. There has not been any additional money that Canada has given to Colombia because of Plan Colombia, because this is bilateral assistance. I understand it's not under the umbrella of Plan Colombia.

The Chair: Thank you. Merci.

Svend Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I listened with interest to the statement by Ambassador Kertzman. She will know that at the last meeting of this committee, with Ambassador Rishchynski, I raised concerns about comments that were made by the ambassador with respect to Bill Fairbairn of the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America. And in the letter to which I referred earlier, written by the ambassador, of March 14, 2001, she accuses Mr. Fairbairn of bias, and she states the following:

He never denounces the thousands of murders, kidnappings and attacks...committed by the guerillas, the most violent actors in Colombia's conflict.

I have two documents here. I have a statement which that was prepared for the human rights consultations by the Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America in February of this year, in which there is a very clear and very strong denunciation of the conduct of the guerillas. And I also have the brief that was submitted to the foreign affairs committee on December 2, 1999, in which there is an equally strong denunciation. This is the brief called “Hearing the Cry”, from the Inter-Church Committee and presented by Bill Fairbairn, in which they say, among other things:

Colombia's guerilla armies have contributed to the high level of political violence and have been responsible for serious breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL) for which they must be held to account. ICCHRLA has repeatedly condemned violations of IHL by the guerillas, including the practice of kidnappings, assassinations of civilian non-combatants....

And so on.

I wonder if upon reflection, the ambassador not only recognizes that her statement was wrong, was dangerous to the safety of Mr. Fairbairn and the organization he represents, and was in violation of President Pastrana's order on the subject, but is prepared to apologize to Mr. Fairbairn for that totally misleading and, in fact, dishonest statement.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: The report that you are mentioning of Mr. Fairbairn never got into my hands. As you said, it was handed to FAIT, as I understand.

• 1630

Mr. Svend Robinson: To this committee. It's a matter of public record.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I never got hold of that report. In my letter I am talking about the article, as it says in my letter, which you have in your hands, published on March 7. That is why I sent a letter to the Ottawa Citizen. It says:

“Specifically, Canada's speech should signal concern for the persistent pattern of gross systematic human rights abuses committed by the state agents and paramilitary allies”, says the report presented by the committee.

Another paragraph in the article says:

The committee urged Canada to take the lead at the United Nations by denouncing the Colombian government for allowing its army to take part in atrocities against civilians.

I am referring in my letter to the article of the Citizen. Mr. Fairbairn has never sent to me any denunciation against the guerrillas.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Madam Chair, I would have hoped that before the ambassador attacked Mr. Fairbairn and the Inter-Church Committee he represents, she would have done her homework and would have read the briefs and the material, a matter of public record. This committee's proceedings are a matter of public record. I think it's deeply regrettable that she launched that attack, which is, as I say, completely without foundation. I've quoted from just two examples.

But I want to go on—

The Chair: Just a moment. Would you like to make another comment regarding that?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Yes, I would like to make another comment.

The Chair: Okay, respond.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Maybe you want to apologize now, in light of the fact that you know that—

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, she is our guest here.

Ambassador, would you like to continue?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I'm not going to apologize for something I didn't say. I never talked to Mr. Fairbairn. My letter is in your hands. The only thing it says is “however, Mr. Fairbairn is clearly biased.” Is that an attack? I'm just saying that he's biased. Biased is not a bad word—at least the translation in Spanish is not a bad word.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Is the ambassador—

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I'm sorry, Mr. Robinson, I understand I'm speaking now. I said I wonder why. Is that an attack on a person? I wonder why in this article, for example, he never denounces the guerrillas. If he wants me to read the denunciation he has made on Colombia guerrillas, he should have said that to me.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Perhaps I can go on to another subject. The ambassador, of course, hasn't dealt with the issue of President Pastrana's order not to make this kind of attack, but she can do that, obviously.

With respect to the issue of the conduct of the paramilitaries, I want to bring to the ambassador's attention the report of Anders Kompass, who is the United Nations' representative in Bogotá. I met with him when I was there. I believe Ms. Phinney would probably have met with him as well, I'm not sure. But in this report, which is the most recent report tabled before the United Nations, there is very strong condemnation of the collusion between the Government of Colombia and the armed forces of Colombia and the paramilitary. Here are a couple of examples of that.

In paragraph 250 of his report he says:

As the Minister of Defence acknowledged, members of the paramilitary groups were again the principal violators [of human rights in Colombia].

They were not responsible for 19% as the ambassador said, but were the principal violators in the past year.

In paragraph 134, the UN representative talks about “persistent close ties between some members of the security forces and paramilitary groups.” And they talk about the fact that there is a paramilitary roadblock at the entrance to the settlement of El Placer, only 15 minutes away from La Hormiga, where the army is stationed—right beside one another.

Most importantly, Madam Chair, at paragraphs 253 and 254, this is what the United Nations representative says:

The Office was able to confirm that the principal problem as regards human rights is not an absence of laws, programmes, mechanisms or institutions, but a failure to use them and thus an absence of tangible decisions, action and results.

The existence of links between public servants and members of paramilitary organizations and the absence of sanctions remain matters of the greatest concern.

• 1635

That's a damning indictment of the Government of Colombia by the United Nations representative. When the ambassador suggests that this is all just about narcotrafficking and drugs, I have to ask her.... So far this year alone 87 trade unionists have been assassinated in Colombia. Over 3,000 have been assassinated in Colombia in the last ten years, which is three out of of every five union leaders assassinated in the entire world. That has nothing to do with drugs, Madam Ambassador.

The Colombian Commission of Jurists pointed out that 80% of the victims of violence in the year 2000 were victims at the hands of the paramilitary. The United Nations backed up the figures with respect to a majority, as well as the Unites States State Department. That has nothing to do with narcotrafficking.

The Chair: Svend, do you have a question?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The question is, how does the ambassador square the evidence she's given to the committee today with respect to the very small degree of responsibility on the paramilitaries with the very damning evidence of the United Nations representative, who says that the Government of Colombia is not, in fact, doing what it should be doing to take on the paramilitaries, and that there is extensive evidence of collusion?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: We respectfully disagree with the United Nations report, because there are many things here. One is definitions. For example, you mentioned the Colombian Commission of Jurists—is that the one you mentioned, Mr. Robinson?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Yes.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Their numbers do not include kidnapping as a human rights violation. For us, for the Colombian government, kidnapping is a human rights violation. For this commission, the guerrillas killed in combat with our armed forces are considered under human rights violations. They are in the middle of the combat, they are killed by our soldiers, and this is considered human rights violation. So numbers start to differ, and we are working now with the Minister of Defence to show exactly the difference between the numbers they handle and our numbers.

When Mr. Robinson spoke about collusion between the government and the self-defence groups, he read a sentence that says “some members”. We never have denied that isolated members, mostly of middle rank, are and were in collusion with the legal self-defence groups. I said here that there were 3,000 complaints against the Colombian armed forces, I think it was five years ago. But I also said that there has been a lot of progress and that the Attorney General's office has only started 57 investigations against our armed forces. I am not denying that there are isolated cases of collusion, there are. There was a general of the army who was condemned.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's not what the UN report says. It doesn't say it's isolated, it says there's a pattern.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Some members.

The Chair: She's answering the question on behalf of her country, so she can make her comments. Are you almost finished?

Mr. Svend Robinson: I refer to the UN report, that's all.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Yes, but I told you that we disagree with that report. There's a letter of the Minister of Defence to the President that I didn't bring here, but I will send to you, that says why we disagree with that report. I think I distributed that document here last time I was here, in June, as well.

It's because this document of the United Nations never adds up the numbers. They give a number of isolated cases where there is apparent collusion of our armed forces with the legal self-defence groups, but they never add up the numbers. That is why we do have the totals from our point of view, because we do consider that kidnapping is a human rights violation. If a guerilla person is killed in the middle of combat, it's not a violation of human rights committed by our armed forces.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ambassador.

Mr. Obhrai.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: Thank you, Ambassador.

I was a little appalled, I have to be very honest, to tell you that I have a member sitting here who seems to me.... We landed up in personality conflict between three individuals. That's fine, you can have personality conflicts, but we're here in a committee to discuss human rights situations in Colombia, not a certain Mr. Bill Fairbairn and what his views are, asking for a apology. I was just appalled, and I would like to assure you that we are here to look at the issues in Colombia and discuss, not get ourselves tangled in personality conflicts with differences of opinion.

• 1640

Mr. Svend Robinson: I have a point of order, Madam Chair. It's not a question of personalities. This is a question of the Ambassador of Colombia, who is appearing before this committee, attacking a Canadian human rights worker in a way that breaches her own government's orders and puts his life at risk. That's pretty serious, Mr. Obhrai.

The Chair: Mr. Robinson, you've expressed your point of view. Could we go on to your question please, Mr. Obhrai?

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I would like to say this first. Your country is going through an election, your country is going through a very democratic process, allowing the citizens of your nation to make a choice as to who is going to be their leader. With all the turmoils you're going through, that's a very commendable process, and I would like to encourage you and say, from my party's point of view, we absolutely support your carrying on with the democratic process and the democratic institutions. I think Colombia deserves a pat on the back for going ahead with this solid democratic institution. I, of course, sat down here and listened to our Canadian ambassador, and I hope my colleague will also listen to the Canadian ambassador more on this thing.

I'm sure you do have a problem with the 3,000 complaints involving your your self-defence groups and military and I'm sure your government.... I think the responsibility of Canadians in this thing is to point that out, and your responsibility is to ensure that the rule of law is brought back into your nation. I think it is our responsibility as Canadians to assist you to get your rule of law, but I must finish this statement by saying that the democratic process going on in Colombia needs a boost, needs our support, and I'm very happy, despite all these things that are going on. Everything is not finished. There are a lot of challenges, a lot of cracks, a lot of things you have to do, and I think we should become partners, as you said in your appeal, in helping you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Do you have any questions?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Thank you very much for your words.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I've heard both ambassadors, and there's the UN report too. I was in Geneva, I met with the UN, I talked about Colombia, and I think I have a pretty....

The Chair: Could I ask for your indulgence—don't leave yet, please—for about one minute while we do a motion, because we have a quorum here now? Okay, thank you.

You have a motion on the table in front of you. Would somebody move the motion.

Mr. Deepak Obhrai: I'll move it.

(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: You can go now.

[Translation]

Mr. Dubé.

Mr. Antoine Dubé: I do not have Mr. Svend Robinson's experience, but I believe that he raised an important question and that we should clarify certain terms. For example, in you presentation today, you used the term "terrorism". We have heard a number of witnesses, but I believe it is the first time someone has used that word. Now, we all know what happened last September 11 in New York and Washington. Everyone is talking about it, but I think—and I do not want to take sides in the discussion; my purpose in being here is to better understand—but I believe that "terrorism" and "human rights" are, sometimes, closely related terms. We must recognize that each is different.

When you describe a battle, there can also be loss of life within the government armed forces. Often, when there is a war, be it a civil war or some other type, the battles can lead to atrocious situations where life is not respected. It is something that has to be recognized.

• 1645

However, I would like you to explain why, unless I am mistaken, you are making more frequent use of the term «terrorism«.

The entire world will come out against the terrorists, but at the same time, I have some difficulty. Terrorists can often be found in small, underground groups. In this case, in Columbia, they can easily be identified. They do not hide; I mean that they do work undercover in some areas, but they are strong and they fight back. Neither the government nor the armed forces can neutralize them. Therefore, they are a force. In my opinion, I think we could almost call it a civil war.

Was I mistaken earlier? When you spoke about the evolution of the situation, you said that the Marxist group was now smaller than the self-defence groups. It would seem that your government's priority would now be to keep an eye on these self-defence groups. I was under the impression that things had evolved.

I do not know if I will have enough time to ask another question, but we are discussing relations, negotiations with the FARC. Up until now, I thought that these groups were fighting against one another, that they were different, politically, but now they are practically considering undertaking peace talks with this group. I would like you to add to what I admit is my limited knowledge, something I will endeavour to improve by reading all of the United Nations documents. Could you please explain the different groups that are operating in the country. Where does the Columbian government stand with respect to each of these groups? Does the Government of Columbia consider them all to be more or less the same? Are they all terrorists?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: That is a good question. I ask myself the same thing because—and this is how I began my presentation—we no longer know if we are dealing with terrorist acts or human rights violations.

[English]

Because if we are talking about bombing a pipeline or bringing down an electric pylon, it's definitely an act of terrorism. If you are kidnapping a person, you can ask yourself if this is terrorism

[Translation]

or if it is a human rights violation. If, for example, you attack a small village, you are doing it to terrorize the population. Therefore, you are terrorizing the citizens because it is a right; it is a territorial war.

[English]

This is a territorial war between the guerrillas and the self-defence groups, because they both live by drug trafficking and they both want control of the sun. They want control of the crops, they want control of the roots, and they want control of the labs. So what they do is terrorize the population. The illegal self-defence groups terrorize the population by committing massacres. The guerrillas terrorize the population by attacking liberty

[Translation]

in the city or out in the countryside. That is why it is very difficult to tell the difference now. Many people in Columbia now speak of terrorism when before, they spoke of human rights violations.

[English]

So I ask myself the same question, and I think all Colombians are doing the same. There are some acts that are clearly terrorist and some you could say are violations of human rights, but as I said in my statement,

[Translation]

the world changed after September 11. That is why we no longer know if we are talking about one thing or something else.

• 1650

[English]

Your question about having peace conversations with a terrorist group is a very good one. For example, le gouvernement d'Israël is trying to have conversations with the Palestinian authorities. And we see sometimes that the Palestinian authorities are not able to control the Hezbollah or the Hamas. At the same time, the Colombian government doesn't want to discard any possible way to get peace. After the events on September 11, as I said before, it's very possible that the guerrillas are getting more pressure from the international community. So even though we can call their acts terrorists acts, I think that as never before, this is the opportunity for the guerrilla groups in Colombia

[Translation]

to show that they are willing to make peace in Columbia.

[English]

All the opinion-makers in Colombia are saying now that this is a very defining moment, because President Pastrana has to decide if he's going to renew the demilitarized zone on October 6, and this is an opportunity really for the guerrillas to show that they are not terrorists and they want peace.

The Chair: You have a question? Will it only require a short answer?

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé: What also struck me in your presentation—and you have just touched upon it—is the matter of the Gallup poll that dealt with the public perception of the government, the armed forces and all the rest. You even spoke about the public perception of the groups that we have been discussing. I would like to know who sponsored this poll. Was it the government?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: No. It is an independent survey.

[English]

Those are independent polls. Many of them are hired by the presidential campaigns of the different candidates. This is a Gallup poll of August 2001. There is a Yankelovich poll from May, and there is another Gallup poll of December 2000. They all show the same trend. The people support the military forces, and in this poll,

[Translation]

in fact, this is the first time that the military forces came out ahead of the Catholic Church. It is the first time. We feel that this is very important and it shows that the people of Columbia

[English]

support their armed forces. There are many allegations that we are violators of human rights, but I want to make clear that they are isolated cases, as I told Mr. Robinson.

[Translation]

It is neither a policy of the Columbian government, nor of the President nor the Minister of Defence.

[English]

Those are isolated cases, and no government before has fought so hard against these groups.

The Chair: Thank you, Ambassador. May I just comment that most anglophones in Canada would like to speak French as well as you do, and it's your third language, not your second one. So thank you very much.

Mr. Robinson.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Thanks, Madam Chair.

The ambassador may say the government is working hard to fight against human rights violations, but I would draw to her attention paragraph 135 of the report of Anders Kompass for this year, the United Nations Human Rights Commission officer in Colombia. The evidence he gives is powerful and compelling, and he said this to me personally. When his office identifies to the Colombian government the location of paramilitary bases, nothing happens. In fact, in paragraph 135 he talks about the location of a number of different paramilitary bases that were used for massacres of innocent people like those the ambassador showed us at the beginning of this meeting. He gives some specific examples. He said, we told the government the paramilitaries were operating out of this location, that location. Here's what he says:

The paramilitaries have remained at all the sites observed all year, committing killings and massacres in the towns and countryside nearby.

This is a shocking indictment of the Government of Colombia. Both in this report and to me personally in the presence of the ambassador, he has said, the Government of Colombia does not follow up when we tell them about paramilitary bases. So I want to ask the ambassador when they are going to do something about this. Innocent human beings are dying because of the negligence of her government.

• 1655

My second question—I think I've only got time for one more—is with respect to Kimy Pernia, who, as the ambassador is well aware, remains “disappeared” to this point. Canadians are deeply concerned about this tragic situation. I understand the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights called upon the Colombian government to respond within ten days—they called in an urgent way—to take measures to investigate Kimy's disappearance and ensure his safety. There was never any response to the commission. The government committed itself as well to implementing a special high-ranking commission of inquiry into Kimy's disappearance, and I understand that hasn't taken place either, unless it's very recent, so that promise was also broken. Why were those two concrete measures not taken by the government in the attempt to find Kimy Pernia?

I could raise other concerns about the statements by the police chief in Cordoba suggesting that his abduction was linked to drug trafficking, the governor of the state refusing to allow an indigenous humanitarian search mission because the police were too busy with a cattle fair at the time. But let's focus specifically on those two particular areas where the Government of Colombia was directly responsible.

The Chair: Ambassador.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Starting with the first, I told you in my statement that in the last five years there were more dying, 350 attacks by the guerrillas on small towns and—I'm not sure about the numbers—something like 400 massacres. It's not as if we are told there are self-defence groups that are planning to commit a massacre and we do nothing. It's not that we are told the guerrillas are going to attack a small town and we look the other way.

Mr. Svend Robinson: That's what the UN commission says.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I'm trying to explain to you the situation in Colombia—and you were there. You were in Barrancabermeja. Before you arrived there, I understand that nine people were killed. So far this year more than 300 people have been killed in Barrancabermeja, and it's not that we look the other way.

I want to tell you my personal story. The Colombian government, unfortunately, doesn't have the capacity to to take care of, protect, and secure every single citizen in Colombia. I was director of customs and taxes before coming here. I had nine bodyguards, I had an armoured car, I had police stationed at the door of my building, and I had a personal guard at the door of my apartment. My children were travelling with six bodyguards and an armoured car as well. When I left government, which was in July 2000, there were three months before I came here to Canada, and I came here to Canada because I had received death threats.

President Pastrana, in a very kind gesture towards me, sent me here to Canada, not because in Canada there was a free job or something like that for me, but because Canada is one of the safest countries in the world. The President could not afford my being killed, because if I stayed in Colombia, I would have been killed. That is why I ended up here. In the meantime, between July and October, when I came here, there was no armoured car to protect me, because there were not enough armoured cars for the Colombian government. I had a friend who was president of General Motors, so I called him and told him I was very afraid for my life and asked if he could lend me a car for three months, and he said yes. That is how I got protection for the three months I was not in government. This happened in Bogotá, the capital city, with 8 million inhabitants and 12,000 policemen.

There are remote areas in Colombia where you and Ms. Phinney were not able to go because there is not enough protection. There are more than 200 small towns that do not have police because the police stations have been attacked just as you saw here in the video. They don't want to go back, because we are able only to deploy five policemen, who are going to be killed anyway by guerrillas.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But, Madam Chair, the military are, in one case, 20 minutes away from a paramilitary base that hasn't been touched, the military are right there.

• 1700

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: And the same with the attacks on the small villages. You just saw Hobo, which is in the middle of the country, and the military were, I don't know, 30 minutes away, and if you come by plane or by helicopter it's much closer, but we just don't have the capacity. We are a democracy, but we are a poor country.

Just for your knowledge, here in Canada everybody pays income tax, in Colombia only 20% of the population pay income tax. Eighty percent of the people do not pay income tax at all. We are a country with limited resources that have to be dedicated to many things, to health, to education. That is why we are asking for stronger armed forces, which is something you don't agree with.

There is the case of Kimy Pernia, for example, but we can link the two questions together. The indigenous people of the Embera Katio tribe in Tierralta, where Mr. Kimy Pernia was kidnapped, had an agreement with the government, and they specifically told the Colombian government they didn't want the armed forces or the police in their territory. So who was going to provide protection for Mr. Kimy Pernia, and not only for him, but for the other 16 indigenous leaders who have been killed in the region in the last two years? Seven of them were killed by the guerrillas, eight of them by the illegal self-defence groups.

Mr. Svend Robinson: What about the specific questions, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the commission of inquiry?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I am telling you that it's not because we do not want to act, it's because we don't have the capacity.

Mr. Svend Robinson: You don't have the capacity to respond to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I don't understand your question.

Mr. Svend Robinson: The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights required a response within ten days, and you ignored them. Why was that?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: The Colombian embassy here in Ottawa has issued three reports on the situation of Kimy Pernia that maybe you have not received, one in June, one in July, one in August. I try to keep the Canadian public interested in the case of Kimy Pernia updated, although there is no news on the case and I cannot answer your specific question now. I really didn't know about the request, so I don't know about the response. I can get back to you on that, and I will.

The Chair: Ambassador, it would be very good if you could send the clerk the answer to that question.

Mr. Svend Robinson: And also on the commission of inquiry that was promised.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Commission?

The Chair: Who asked the question, she wants to know. Who asked that they get an answer back?

Mr. Svend Robinson: The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The Chair: Is that all?

Mr. Svend Robinson: Sorry, I have one other brief question. I wonder if the ambassador could clarify what the objective was of the decree by President Pastrana that, as I understand it, ordered Colombian government officials, including diplomatic officials, to refrain from making the kind of accusation against human rights workers that she made with respect to Bill Fairbairn.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I really want to ask you what kind of accusation I am making against Mr. Fairbairn when I just say I wonder why he never denounces the crimes of the guerrillas. This is no accusation at all.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But it's false.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: It's not false, because I didn't have the information.

The Chair: Are you back at the same question? I thought we had finished with that.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): What?

The Chair: You weren't here, so you don't know what went on earlier.

Okay. He's finished. Thank you.

Do you have a question?

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Madam Ambassador, I do not envy you. I do not envy you your job, nor that of your President, nor your government's. You are in a tough spot. Contrary to my colleague, I will not ask questions that might sound like accusations; I will simply ask you to tell us how Canada can help Columbia. How can we help you to deal with a situation which, to people here in Canada, seems impossible?

We live in a democracy and we are not used to seeing so many groups. There are so many people involved, so many notorious, harmful activities, that it is almost impossible to comprehend. This must go down in history as the only country where a government can still manage to govern when, around it, there is nothing but anarchy. How can we best help you, what practical things can we do, instead of just making motherhood statements about democracy?

• 1705

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I would like to thank you for your question. Mr. Dubé asked me a similar one.

[English]

I answered him, but I welcome your question, because there was another thing I wanted to say, but I forgot. I told Mr. Dubé that what we were expecting from the Canadian government and from the members of Parliament was their understanding of and concern for the situation in Colombia. Mr. David Kilgour has been six times to Colombia, Mr. Robinson went once, Ms. Phinney went once. We have an invitation for you to go to Colombia that I understand will not be taken up until November, if it's possible, because there will be some changes in the committee. But we really need your understanding, first of all, and your concern for the situation,

[Translation]

which is very complex. It is not easy to understand and that is why I have given all of you some material which, I hope, you will have time to read. It is a situation which is difficult to grasp. All that we are asking is your understanding

[English]

and your support.

There are several important points here that I would like to mention. There are many Canadian companies selling defence equipment to Colombia, surveillance equipment, very sophisticated equipment. They have to go through the process of getting an export permit, because this is sold to the military forces. I really would like your support, so that with your help in regard to the Canadian government, we can expedite the process for all these export permits that have been requested. So far they have not been denied, as I understand it, but companies are selling surveillance equipment, equipment for the detection of narcotics labs, for the deterrence of ships, for the protection of the police stations, special radar that can look far ahead before there's an attack against the police stations. All the equipment Canadian companies are selling to Colombia is protection equipment, and I really want to see your support.

[Translation]

You have asked a very concrete question, and an answer

[English]

equally concrete could be your support for these Canadian companies that are selling protection equipment to our armed forces and to our police.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Could the ambassador get us information on that? That would be helpful.

The Chair: I'll let her finish.

[Translation]

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: No, I have nothing to add.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Did you want to ask one?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: In what manner do you want us to support you, by this committee making a recommendation to the government?

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: I understand that you will submit a report.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: It's up to you. It's just what I'm asking you. It's up to you to decide if you are going to take action on this or not, but since you have asked a very specific question, I have given you a very specific answer, which is something very concrete, very short-term. It's up to you how you get across the message to the government, if you want.

The Chair: We'd like to have more information about that, so we'll have the researcher phone your office and discuss it more with you, so that we can get more facts about it.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Okay. I'm sorry, Ms. Phinney. So far I understand export permits have not been denied.

The Chair: Okay, well, we still need to know a little more about it.

Mr. Svend Robinson: But you're going to provide us with information as to the companies that are involved?

The Chair: I just asked her to, Svend. Thank you.

Mr. Svend Robinson: Okay.

The Chair: Are you finished?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I don't know. How much time do we have?

The Chair: Do you have another question or not? You don't have to make one up.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I don't want to make one up. No, I'm finished.

The Chair: Okay.

Thank you very much, Ambassador. I think everybody's had two or three questions, and we appreciate very much that you came. I just want to clarify that it's not certain we are going, because we're not sure of the week. The new committees will be formulated and announced at the end of next week, and then after the break, they'll come back, and the committee will come here and decide if they are going to go down there or not, who's going to go, etc. So that's not decided, but we may be going down there.

• 1710

Thank you very much for coming.

Ms. Fanny Kertzman: Thank you very much for the invitation. You are invited to Colombia anyway.

The Chair: Thank you.

I adjourn the meeting to the call of the chair.