FAIT Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

¹

1535

The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.))

Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ)

The Chair

¹

1540

The Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs)

The Chair

The Hon. Dan McTeague

The Chair

The Hon. Dan McTeague

Hon. Dan McTeague

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

The Hon. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

¹

1545

Ms. Francine Lalonde

The Chair

The Hon. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ)

¹

1550

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Hon. Dan McTeague

The Chair

Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

¹

1555

The Chair

The Hon. Dan McTeague

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Hon. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Hon. Art Eggleton

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron

The Chair

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

º

1600

The Chair

Hon. Art Eggleton

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Hon. Art Eggleton

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Hon. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

º

1605

The Chair

Hon. Art Eggleton

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

º

1610

Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

Ms. Alexa McDonough

The Chair

The Chair

Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC)

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Ms. Alexa McDonough

Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.)

Hon. Dan McTeague

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.)

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Ms. Beth Phinney

The Chair

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (President of the Chamber of Citizens of the Federal Assembly, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro)

The Chair

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic

The Chair

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic

Mr. Zarko Korac (Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro)

The Chair

Ms. Francine Lalonde

Mr. Zarko Korac

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic

Ms. Beth Phinney

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic

The Chair

Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.)

Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic

Mr. Zarko Korac

The Chair

Mrs. Karen Redman

Mr. Zarko Korac

Mr. Borislav Banovic (Member of the Parliament of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro)

Mr. Zarko Korac

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade

---

NUMBER 002

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1535)  

[Translation]

    The Chair (Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.)): With your permission, we will get started.

[English]

    Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we're going to proceed to committee business. We have some motions, and after that, between four and five, we have a meeting with a parliamentary delegation from Serbia and Montenegro.

    The first motion we received was from Mr. Day, but because he's not here, we're going to go to the motion from Madame Lalonde.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lalonde, we will start with your first motion, please.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I hope that the committee will support my motion. Several of us were present at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade when Mr. Gagliano came before us and where we considered the questions that we could put to him that would enable us to assess the situation and later make a recommendation to the government.

    I feel that in light of recent events and in a Parliament where the dust has settled, it should be possible—and this proposal is really one of principle—for us to determine together how to behave as a committee in any similar situation to ensure that we don't have to go through this type of extremely frustrating meeting which did not really serve its purpose.

    Unfortunately, there are very few people among those here today who took part in that meeting. Given the prestige and weighty responsibility of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, it seems to me that it must be able to examine appointments and make recommendations with full knowledge of all the facts.

    I don't want to be any more specific about what I expect, but I do expect us to examine this issue together.

    The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.

    Mr. McTeague, do you have a comment?

¹  (1540)  

    The Hon. Dan McTeague (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs): Ms. Lalonde, it seems to me that you have raised two points today: first one about Haiti, and then the issue of Denmark.

    The Chair: We haven't discussed the Haiti question yet. She hasn't read it.

    The Hon. Dan McTeague: You mentioned Denmark first?

    The Chair: Only Denmark, only the conditions.

[English]

    It's just the conditions. These are two different things.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Dan McTeague: Here's my first question: Do you think that he was...? I don't know if the word that was used was lost in translation, but are we talking about shameful things between Canada and Denmark that tar all other diplomats in other countries? Are you insinuating that this was a shameful situation for both?

[English]

    Perhaps I can explain it better in English.

    According to your comments, your concern here is that we have somehow, by recalling the ambassador, created a situation that is shameful, and that we should consider the conditions under which this process has seen him elected. Is that correct?

    A voice: No.

    Hon. Dan McTeague: I want to hear her explain it.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: No, that's not what I mean. Anyone who attended that meeting remembers that the procedure imposed on us was such that it was impossible to put questions to Mr. Gagliano about his experience. He could use his experience to defend his appointment, but we couldn't ask him questions of that nature. What I'm saying is that if we had been able to ask him the appropriate questions, he may never have left and therefore he may never have had to come back the way he did. This is not good either for him or for Canada.

    The Chair: Ms. Lalonde, I do think we have to look at this from a different perspective. When the committee met with Mr. Gagliano, we put questions to him about his position as ambassador, about the possibility that he might be appointed Ambassador to Denmark. We questioned him here, at the committee.

    If I understand your motion correctly, it means that you want to reconsider the decision taken by the committee at the time, in order to say that the committee can always put any question it wants to anyone who is appointed ambassador or consul abroad. That is part of the current prerogatives conferred by the legislation that governs us here at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Now you want to adopt a motion regarding the recall. Therefore if the committee accepted your arguments, that would be tantamount to rejecting the decision it made when Mr. Gagliano was appointed ambassador.

    To my mind, speaking only of the Ambassador to Denmark and examining the shame attached to the fact that he was recalled is not acceptable. Instead, I think you should simply say that in the future, the committee will consider all conditions that would enable it to put any questions it wishes to put, without restriction, to any person appointed to such a post in the near future, in the medium or long-term, that could make a difference. But here you are referring to Mr. Gagliano as such and to the fact that his recall is shameful. We had no way of knowing he would be recalled two years in advance. Two years ago, when he was appointed, we had no way of knowing that he would be recalled today. So personally I don't find this acceptable.

    Mr. McTeague.

    The Hon. Dan McTeague: The difficulty here is hindsight. This is like looking in a rearview mirror and saying that we could or should have done something different. Although there are political issues at stake here, was there anything we could have done? I think that the question is too vague.

    The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm willing to reformulate it so as to...

    The Chair: You could try again later, since we have four others and we only have 15 minutes. Agreed?

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: I can try to reformulate it immediately and submit it later.

    The Chair: We will now go on to your second motion. So this one is withdrawn for now.

    Ms. Lalonde, the second motion concerns Haiti.

¹  (1545)  

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: The unfolding of events in Haiti means that of course it's not realistic to send a team right now. However, as soon as the situation improves, it would be desirable to have a committee of six members go there to examine the situation and make recommendations.

    We could adopt the motion in principle and allow the chair to make a concrete motion at the appropriate time.

    The Chair: Mr. McTeague.

    The Hon. Dan McTeague: I think this is something that could be postponed, but the question is more critical right now. Events are unfolding, as the member admits. I think this should be postponed until the situation is more clearly defined. Of course, the Minister of Foreign Affairs has taken a position regarding the holding of consultations and the work to be done with other members of CARICOM and the OAS. I think it's important to monitor the situation, but as you indicated today in the House of Commons, Ms. Lalonde, it could change within 24 hours. Such an assessment is a bit premature, and perhaps we should wait, and put this motion forward again in a few weeks or at some other time in the future.

    The Chair: Ms. McDonough.

[English]

    Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): I'm sorry, I thought I heard you say Mr. Bergeron.

    I'd like to support the general intent of this motion, which is for the committee to examine the situation. I'm wondering about a friendly amendment that makes it clear that in the examination of the crisis in Haiti there also be consideration to consider a mission at a future date, when appropriate. I think there is general agreement that the timing would be all wrong at this point, but it seems to me the point of introducing this resolution is for us to take some responsibility to really consider the situation and be in a position to either recommend or not recommend a mission at the appropriate time.

    One of the reasons I would support it with that friendly amendment is because my experience in my first year with the committee has been that some things that have been on the order paper for almost two years have yet to be acted upon. Maybe it's important to get a running start on something that is obviously of crisis proportions.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a comment on the form and then on the substance. With regard to the form, I have no doubt whatsoever that Mr. McTeague is well intentioned, but I'm wondering if what we're seeing here is a new trend where every proposal from the opposition is opposed by the government through the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I find this rather peculiar to say the least. I already had an opportunity to make a comment to this effect with regard to the non-partisan nature of this committee; I would hate to see us go against the intentions announced by the new Prime Minister regarding the fact that we should aim for greater cooperation between the opposition and the government, and instead do the exact opposite in a committee that has always traditionally been non-partisan. Therefore, I would like to see the members opposite show a little more openness and not always react negatively to everything the opposition says so promptly and immediately through the parliamentary secretary. So much for form.

    Now with regard to the substance, Mr. Chairman, I think that as a committee, we have a responsibility to do something with regard to what's happening in Haiti. The worst thing that could happen right now would be to take this motion and say that it's inappropriate for the time being. Haiti is in the throws of violent confrontation and we're saying that right now it's inappropriate to examine the situation in Haiti.

    In keeping with Ms. McDonough's suggestion, it may be possible to come up with a friendly amendment that would make the proposal acceptable to everyone. But we have to understand that the beginning of the sentence is "That... the committee examine the crisis in Haiti..."

    What's the message we're sending if we refuse to examine the crisis currently underway in Haiti? I think that we have to reformulate this and rather than say "request the permission of the House", I would say "consider the possibility of creating an observer's mission in this country". So we will see, we will act in accordance with how events unfold, but I think that we must do this, and that we have a responsibility as a committee: we must not to sweep this under the rug by saying that we will see how the situation evolves and that when it has evolved further, we will then look at the situation in Haiti.

¹  (1550)  

[English]

    The Chair: I have Mr. Eggleton and Mr. Wilfert, but I just want to pinpoint something. In the motion from Mrs. Lalonde there are two portions. On the first one, I don't think Mr. McTeague or anyone would not like to study the crisis in Haiti. I think it's something hot, right now, and we should do it if we have the time. I think that's very keen and very important for all members of all parties. I think it is very important.

    The only thing is the second portion of the motion itself--

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: What about my suggestion for the second portion?

    The Chair: On the second portion, if you just say “later on”, the permission, “later on” means that, for the moment, we're never going to be granted permission to travel there, and even if I were granted permission, I would not go there--you see, I am as keen as that. But I'd say no, seriously. But in further time, I think we should do it.

    Hon. Dan McTeague: That's exactly what I said, Stéphane. I was not grandstanding.

    The Chair: I will go to Mr. Eggleton, and then we will resume.

    Hon. Art Eggleton (York Centre, Lib.): Well, I have been there. I have been there when our troops were there, but even then it wasn't the safest place to be.

    Yes, this committee should deal with Haiti. It is a current topic.

    No, we shouldn't contemplate at this point in time sending a mission. Let's just hold that for a later stage.

    Maybe we could bring that back. Maybe Madame Lalonde would bring that back at a further point when it might be a useful thing to do.

    The situation in Haiti is changing by the moment. How we get a handle on this, I'm not sure. And I guess I'd like to put a little bit more meat on the first part. I think we should do the first part, but what we should actually do, I'm not sure.

    Maybe, Mr. Chairman, you have further guidance on this, but I noted that Mr. Coderre was part of an international effort. Maybe we should have him come in here and explain what he has been doing. I haven't heard anything about what he has been doing. I heard he was there, but maybe we should have him explain that, and maybe we should try, by whatever our researchers could do, to get a little bit better handle on the situation.

    Yes, I think we should examine it, but we'd better pin down exactly what we're going to do, and bearing in mind that this situation changes by the moment. By the time we get this thing discussed here, it could be a whole different picture from what exists today.

    So I do appreciate Madame Lalonde's putting this on the agenda. I think it's quite right. I think we should discuss it.

    The Chair: Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): As pointed out, with the situation going on in Haiti at the moment, there's nothing to preclude us from bringing in officials from DFAIT to hear what is happening from their perspective, what communication we're getting from our people on the ground in Haiti. You don't have to go to Haiti at the present time in order to know that you have a problem. The issue clearly is that we need to get the information here. We can discuss it; that's fine.

    The other, I believe, is too premature and clearly would not be appropriate at this time. We don't know, because it is so fluid, whether or not the government that is there is going to be there within a week or two weeks, but in the meantime, given the urgency of the situation on the ground there, it certainly would not preclude us from studying it, bringing in the appropriate officials and moving forward.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Ms. Lalonde.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: I think and hope that everyone here knows that I'm smart enough and capable enough to keep abreast of events without going to Haiti. But it seems to me that as a committee, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs should look at the issue and take a position that it will create an observer's mission at the appropriate time. I could amend it that way.

    What does this mean? Haiti is the poorest country in the western hemisphere. For us, it's a francophone country, a country for which we may feel we have a special responsibility. So I think we can all vote for an amended motion that would state: "that it examine the crisis and consider creating a mission when appropriate..."

¹  (1555)  

    The Chair: Fine. I will give the floor to Mr. McTeague and Ms. McDonough.

[English]

    Mr. McTeague.

[Translation]

    The Hon. Dan McTeague: I want to make sure that we understand the situation properly. Given what Mr. Bergeron has said I would like to reiterate the comments I made earlier to the effect that the current situation is in too great a state of flux.

[English]

    This is not the time, in my view, to grandstand. I hope that the honourable member did not take my comments to be some kind of political suggestion. He has said it at two different meetings--unless he's misunderstanding me. I'm simply saying that the situation there is in a state of flux, and we should monitor the situation.

    If we want to pass a motion here and now—which I think is the desire of the sponsor—that we want to seek as a united committee a peaceful...and perhaps search for an outcome that is favourable to all sides, I think that's something we can do. Let's have a motion to support that, if that's what the honourable member wants.

    However, like everyone else, I believe we are bound to follow the developments that are there and not be premature. The minister responsible for La Francophonie went there on the weekend, so perhaps a first step would be to have him here. That's exactly what I just said.

    Perhaps that's a way of doing it. But Madam Lalonde, as I said earlier, it's early for us to make a decision, and I would follow the wisdom of watching and following events. But to make sure the committee is made fully aware of the developments as they occur, as suggested by Mr. Wilfert, perhaps we should have officials here from DFAIT. That would help as well.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: In the spirit of what I think everybody is expressing, I would simply propose a friendly amendment to delete the words in the second line: “and request the permission of the House to set up a mission to that country.” So the motion would read: “examine the crisis in Haiti in order to evaluate the situation and advise the government on future decisions.”

[Translation]

    In French, we would eliminate the words between “et” and “mission” and insert the words “pour observer dans ce pays”.

[English]

    The Chair: We're going to have to close.

    Madam Lalonde, I think everyone agrees that we should examine the crisis in Haiti; there's no problem with that. We could examine the possibility of sending a parliamentary mission of the foreign affairs committee at an appropriate time.

    Hon. Art Eggleton: How can we decide in advance that we're going to send a mission before we know the mission's purpose?

    The Chair: We are not deciding; we will look at the possibility.

    Hon. Art Eggleton: Bring it back later. It may be appropriate later, but not now. It might be, I agree, Stéphane, but let's bring it back later.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I think we're sending a positive message.

    The Chair: We can just say that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee will examine this crisis in Haiti and examine the possibility, at the appropriate time, of sending a parliamentary mission.

    If we're just looking at the possibility, that doesn't mean we'll be sending a mission. We'll examine it and consider it. It comes back here, because considering the possibility means we don't ask.

[Translation]

    Now, Mr. Bergeron, this more or less is in keeping with your amendment. You agree that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee will examine the crisis in Haiti and examine the possibility, at the appropriate time, of sending a mission from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to Haiti.

    Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: You are a man of compromise, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: Is that all right?

    (Amendment agreed to)

    (Motion as amended agreed to)

[English]

    The Chair: It's now four o'clock, and we have Ms. McDonough. I want to go through; I don't want to kick you out once more.

    Go ahead.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Very briefly, I want to speak to the motion, the effect of which is to recognize that on February 6, 2003 this committee made the decision to invite the Canadian ambassador for disarmament and representatives of the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons to come before the committee. It's now well over a year later and we haven't done that.

    On February 17, earlier this month, we reaffirmed that we were committed to doing so. The effect of the motion would be first to ensure that we make this a priority and act on it, given the concerns about what's happening with the disarmament regime and international architecture; and second, that in a similar spirit, having made a motion on May 27 last year that we would conduct hearings for the purpose of studying missile defence, we now act on this priority that was restated February 17 and get on with doing that. It's clear that either the government is misinformed or is wilfully refusing to acknowledge that there are many facts known, much documentation available, and a great many witnesses who have done research and analysis on missile defence, the benefits of which we, as a committee, ought to avail ourselves.

    So I would urge support for that notice of motion, which I've submitted to be considered at the committee today.

º  (1600)  

    The Chair: Go ahead.

    Hon. Art Eggleton: You know, there's no problem with getting the Canadian ambassador for disarmament and the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, but I just wondered how missile defence got into this.

    I looked over these motions she refers to, February 6 and May 27, and I fail to see where there's reference to missile defence.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: No, it was May 27, 2003, and at our meeting last week we reaffirmed that we would act on this, that the committee study the issue of missile defence and hold meetings with witnesses. We didn't do that as intended last spring--

    Hon. Art Eggleton: We didn't adopt that about missile defence.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Yes, we did. We adopted the report outlining the subject matter, motions from the second session, and it now is part of our adopted motions.

    Hon. Art Eggleton: I don't see it.

    The Chair: I want to point out to Ms. McDonough that following last week's meeting I asked the clerk to write a letter. We're going to forward a copy to you and every member of the committee.

    The clerk wrote a letter to the ambassador to ask him when it would be possible for him to appear in front of the committee. That means there was a follow-up on your request, and you're going to get that letter. It was sent the day before yesterday, as far as I can remember--or Friday or Thursday. But it was sent. I saw the copy yesterday.

    So just to let you know, we agreed the ambassador should come here, but we need to first ask him when he can appear in front of the committee. This was done.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: That's the first part of the motion.

    The second pertains to another motion adopted on May 27, 2003, which was never enacted. We now apparently are going to be making decisions about missile defence in splendid ignorance when we have much documentation available, many witnesses available, much research conducted, and we have a responsibility as the foreign affairs committee to follow through on our original intention to hold meetings and invite witnesses on missile defence.

    I think it's an urgent matter, to say the least, that we get on with doing so.

    The Chair: Ms. Phinney.

    Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): I haven't been on this committee before, but I don't understand why we're studying missile defence here and not in the defence committee.

    The Chair: Because it is a part of the foreign affairs committee to deal with this as far as we have international obligations regarding missile defence. We have some treaties, and we could discuss those treaties. That could be one part, but it could be done by both the defence and foreign affairs committees together.

    Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: This motion is rather open-ended.

    I'm interested in knowing what objectives you're looking for in this. Very specifically, we could say we'll invite all sorts of witnesses. But my questions are, what's your purpose; what outcomes or specific objectives are you looking for; and is there a specific timeframe? That's what I'd like to get some answers on if I could, through you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I'll go to Madame Lalonde first.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: I'm sympathetic to the motion. However, that this be a priority, given the study on relations between Canada and Muslim countries, on which there's a great deal of work to be done... In any event, Mr. Chairman, you said that the invitation had been issued. So meeting the gentleman is a must, it has to be on the agenda, and if necessary, we could have another meeting.

    I'd like to say to Ms. Phinney that Foreign Affairs has taken a look at the missile defence shield, which involves relations with other countries, not just the United States. Should we join in with the missile defence shield project, which I really hope we do not, this would have extremely serious consequences for Canada as a country on the international scene. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs to examine that angle among others.

º  (1605)  

[English]

    The Chair: Are there any other comments?

    Mr. Eggleton first.

    Hon. Art Eggleton: We just had two debates in the House on missile defence, and we did have it as part of a report not too long ago, as I recall, and we did have some discussion here at the committee. If we're going to do it again, then I think we should do it in a very limited way...getting people pro and con. I know Ms. McDonough would like to parade in a whole lot of people to show absolute opposition to it. I know her position on the matter, and she knows my position on the matter.

    I think we've got to be very careful to not make this open-ended. If we feel there is some usefulness to looking further at missile defence, though I'm not sure there is, I'm not going to resist if other members of the committee want to do it. I think we've had a fair bit of examination, particularly with the two debates in the House. But if you feel that we should do that, then let's put some limitations on it. If we leave it too open-ended, I'll tell you, it will control the agenda of this committee for some time.

    The Chair: Ms. McDonough.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I'd like to briefly address the three questions that have been raised.

    Why not the defence committee? There's nothing to preclude the defence committee looking at this, but I might remind members that the last time missile defence was discussed by the defence committee, it was one of the most embarrassing, humiliating displays of no-shows that I've ever seen. There was one Liberal in attendance, and while Lloyd Axworthy, former foreign affairs minister, and John Polanyi, Nobel laureate, were there to argue and put their case strenuously—based on research—against Canada's participation in missile defence, the defence minister was standing in the House of Commons announcing that Canada was entering into negotiations around missile defence.

    Secondly, on the question of why the foreign affairs committee, I think we again heard as recently as noon today, from representatives from seven South Asian countries, how important it is for Canada, from a foreign affairs perspective, to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, and to maintain its own policies in regard to such matters as the war in Iraq and other defence matters. So I think it's consistent with what we've been hearing from them, and a lot of previous witnesses before this committee, that we need to chart our own course.

    And thirdly, the former defence minister is absolutely right that this committee did briefly consider missile defence. The recommendation to the government from this committee was not to sign on to any participation in missile defence without a great deal more research having been done. Clearly this committee hasn't done that research. Clearly the government hasn't done that research, or it doesn't care to share with the Canadian public the results of that research. In fact, it keeps disputing facts that are known, documents that are in existence, and research that has been done.

    So I again put the case that we have a responsibility as the foreign affairs committee to follow through on a motion that was adopted on May 27, 2003, but still not carried out, that we conduct hearings for the purpose of studying missile defence. I ask for your support for that motion.

    The Chair: Allow me to conclude. The only problem we're facing is, as you know, that we only have a few weeks before Easter and we might be into an election. Nobody knows, but we're looking at this. Now we have three weeks left. We just have the report to do with the Muslim world. We have also just passed a motion regarding Haiti.

    I don't mind having the ambassador come here. I asked the clerk.... I told you you'd get a copy, but we could pass something that we are going to do--a hearing--but what are the chances that we'd have a first meeting regarding this hearing? There is not that big a chance, because every meeting we're going to hold here concerning this matter is one less meeting for Haiti or our report on the Muslim world.

    I agree with this, but, you see, after that if we don't get through, we don't want to be blamed because we didn't do it but we have some other priorities. I really feel that to get somebody to come on Haiti--to get a minister to come, the foreign affairs minister--and to also get some hearings done.... I think there are some other priorities.

    Madam Redman.

º  (1610)  

    Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I was actually going to ask that question. I understand this is a very highly contentious issue, but it seems to me that votes will already have taken place, so I'm wondering about the time imperative surrounding this issue specifically. Given that there have been so many resources expended and so much time on this report, I think it would be a shame if we didn't deal with in a very timely fashion. I would like to see this made public, because I think it's very good work.

    The Chair: Yes, last one.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chairman, let me make it very clear that I'm not arguing for a moment for the displacement or the delay of wrapping up the report on Canada's relations with Muslim countries. I see that as an absolute priority.

    With all due respect, we keep adding more and more things to our agenda that are not put through the committee for decisions about doing them. I think it was extremely valuable today, for example, to meet with representatives of South Asian countries, but nobody can pretend that we don't keep pushing other things ahead of this priority that was adopted last April. Meanwhile, Canada is barrelling ahead toward participation in a weapons-based missile defence system and pretending that this is not so.

    So I can't think of anything more urgent. And if we have to meet from seven o'clock until midnight to hear from a number of witnesses, surely this is a priority. It's certainly a priority with Canadians. I can't imagine how it can not be a priority with the foreign affairs committee.

    The Chair: I'm going to bring this discussion to a close, because our guests are here.

    I don't know, Ms. McDonough, I think to start having hearings is a long task. I think we discussed the possibility of having the minister come to discuss Haiti with us. We could have the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister responsible for La Francophonie involved with this, and we could ask not just about Haiti but also about missile defence. We could have both our ministers...the Minister of Foreign Affairs to try to get him in to discuss the matter with us and I think it should be something good, if you agree. But it's up to the committee to decide if you really want that.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Chairman, I know several people have raised the concern--and legitimately--of whether there is an intention to delay the report on our study of Canada's relationship with the Muslim world, and I'd like to propose a very small amendment to clear away that problem and any uncertainty. So I propose that the motion be amended in a very minor way with the addition of “upon completion of the report on Canada's relations with the Muslim world”.

    The Chair: So as amended, “on completion of”....

    Yes, Mrs. Redman.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Just before we vote on this--and I do appreciate the clarification from Ms. McDonough--I'm wondering how we would go about deciding on what the parameters of this kind of initiative would be. Is that something the steering committee would then decide upon? One could consult the entire world on this and still not exhaust the subtleties and the ruminations of what goes into this.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: The chair can bring forward recommendations, and it seems to me that's appropriate.

    The Chair: Can we refer this to the steering committee and get proper...? You have a 24-hour notice for all the members, and we're going to sit tomorrow and we're going to sit next week. We're not going to have this hearing before that period. Can we get the steering committee to look at it and rephrase it in some way whereby it would be acceptable to both sides?

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I'm not meaning in any way to be disagreeable. If that's the will of the committee and that's the direction of the committee, as long as it doesn't result in it delaying it yet again.

    The Chair: We're just going to adjourn for the moment and we're going to rephrase it.

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: Will it be dealt with before the end of the week? We have two more meetings this week.

    The Chair: Sure, it will be by the end of the week. We're going to meet Wednesday and Thursday. It could be tomorrow or Thursday--we're meeting both times.

    Okay, we'll adjourn for a few minutes. We're going to say welcome to our guests.

    Thank you.

º  1614  

---

º  1616  

    The Chair: With your permission, we're going to keep going.

    We have a meeting with guests from the parliamentary delegation from Serbia and Montenegro. I just want to tell our guests that we have simultaneous translation because some of our colleagues will speak in French.

[Translation]

    You have some who speak French. That's fine, thank you. I simply wanted to say that...

[English]

    We have this translation. It's provided on the earphones that are available next to you.

    I want to extend my welcome to the president of the Chamber of Citizens of the Federal Assembly of Serbia and Montenegro and to the other parliamentary delegates listed on the agenda.

    I want to introduce myself. My name is Bernard Patry. I'm chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade. I've been a member of Parliament for 11 years and I represent the area of Montreal in the province of Quebec. I'm from the Liberal Party of Canada, the party that's governing the country right now.

    I just want to mention briefly the powers and the responsibilities of the standing committees of the House of Commons. Our standing committees are appointed under the Standing Orders. They examine the orders of reference referred to them by the House, mainly bills, order-in-council appointments, and other matters the House deems fit to refer to them. Moreover, under the permanent mandate granted by the Standing Orders, committees are also empowered to look into departmental activities and the government's administrative policies in general.

    They may also consider reports and other papers tabled in the House in accordance with an act of Parliament. Standing committees have the power to send for persons, papers, and records and to print papers and evidence. They are empowered to study reports on legislation relating to the department or departments assigned to them, as well as the objectives and implementation of departmental programs and policies...on the immediate, medium, and long-term expenditure plans.

    I would like to ask my colleagues, the members of this committee, to introduce themselves, indicating their riding and province.

    I'm going to start with the opposition, please.

    Mr. Brian Fitzpatrick (Prince Albert, CPC): My name is Brian Fitzpatrick. I'm with the Canadian...the new Conservative Party. We're always changing the name of our party here, but it's the new Conservative Party. My riding is Prince Albert, Saskatchewan.

[Translation]

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: My name is Francine Lalonde and I'm the Foreign Affairs critic for my party, the Bloc Québécois.

    Welcome.

[English]

    Ms. Alexa McDonough: I'm Alexa McDonough. I'm a member of Parliament from Canada's east coast, Halifax, Nova Scotia. I have been a member of Parliament since 1997, but only a member of this committee for the past year, having served as the federal leader of Canada's social democratic party from 1995 until 2003, and previous to that the provincial leader of my party in Nova Scotia for fourteen and a half years.

    Welcome.

    Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): My name is Diane Marleau. I am the vice-chair of this committee on the government side. I'm a Liberal. I am a former Minister of CIDA, former Minister of Health, former Minister of Public Works and of La Francophonie.

    Hon. Dan McTeague: Kako si.

    I'm Dan McTeague. I'm the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I have visited your beautiful country and was very well received.

    Hvala liepo.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: I'm Karen Redman. I'm a member of Parliament for the Liberal Party. I come from southern Ontario and I have a great many people who hail from your part of the world as part of my community, so welcome.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I'm Paul Macklin. I am a Liberal member representing an area in southeastern Ontario. I was privileged to visit your country with the Speaker when he last visited you. I enjoyed that opportunity to come to your country very much.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): My name is Raymond Simard. Welcome. I represent the riding of Saint Boniface in the prairie provinces, in Manitoba. I was elected here in a by-election in the year 2002.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm Bryon Wilfert, a member of the Liberal Party. I come from Richmond Hill, Ontario.

    Welcome to our committee.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: I am Beth Phinney, a member of the Liberal Party, and I've been a member of Parliament for 15 years. Welcome to Canada.

    The Chair: Mr. Micunovic, will you please introduce your members?

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (President of the Chamber of Citizens of the Federal Assembly, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro) (Interpretation): I would like to thank you for this opportunity to be present at one of your sessions. I look forward to having this discussion. I will be open to taking any questions you may have.

    Let me introduce to you my colleagues.

    Dr. Milorad Drljevic is the deputy speaker or vice-president of our state union Parliament. He comes from the Democratic Party of Socialists of Montenegro, which is led by Mr. Djukanovich.

    As you know, we are here to represent the state union Parliament, or the former federal Parliament of the state union of Serbia and Montenegro. At the same time, both of our member states have their own parliaments.

    On my right-hand side is Professor Zarko Korac. Currently he is the Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia. He is the president of the Social Democratic Union, a member party of the Democratic Opposition of Serbia, or DOS. In the past election he was on the ticket of the Democratic Party, which is made up of a number of different democratically oriented parties.

    On his right is Mr. Banovic. He is a member of the state union Parliament, and at the same time he also serves as a member of the Montenegrin Parliament. He belongs to the Social Democratic Party of Montenegro.

    I am the President of the Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro. I was also president of the former parliament of this same state, but at the time it was called the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. However, a year ago we changed the name of our state in accordance with the constitutional charter that was then promulgated. I am the president of the Democratic Centre Party. I was also the president and the founding member of the Democratic Party. In this past election, I was re-elected and I was on the list of the Democratic Party that included the Democratic Party, Democratic Centre Party, Civil Alliance, and Social Democratic Union.

    The parliamentary elections were held in December last year in Serbia. As a result, a number of our MPs from Serbia in the state union Parliament will be changed. As for our MPs from Montenegro, they will remain the same.

This is because the state union Parliament has to reflect the balance of powers within our republican parliaments. This is a transitional or interim solution, because next year we shall have direct parliamentary elections for the state union Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro.

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

    You just talked a little bit about the current political situation in Serbia and Montenegro.

    I just want to ask one question regarding the talks on a stabilization and association agreement with the European Union. Where do you stand right now with these talks?

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (Interpretation): We expect the feasibility study to be finished, but it was expected to be done by next month. After the feasibility study is available, it will be followed by the opening of negotiations for the conclusion of the stabilization and association agreement.

    However, the European Union asked for a delay or postponement of the talks, pending the formation of the Serbian government. After the Serbian government has been formed, I expect that our cooperation will resume. I expect that by next week, Serbia will already have its government, and the government will be presented to the Parliament.

    The negotiations between various political parties lasted for quite a long time, for almost two months. We have a problem because the former democratic coalition seems to be disunited. However, I hope this will be overcome, a solution will be found, and we'll have the government formed by the end of next week. After that, negotiations should resume.

    By the way, in our country we have the so-called office for European integration processes, which is in constant touch with the European Union.

    The Chair: Mr. Macklin, you had a question.

    Mr. Paul Harold Macklin: Yes, thank you.

    When I last visited your country with the Speaker of our House, it was just a very short time after your monetary currency was recognized. I know there was a great concern at that time about seeking investments of foreign capital. I'm wondering, how has that progressed since I was there.

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (Interpretation): I have to say quite openly that we expected larger foreign investment inflows into our country. However, investments have been made in a number of areas or business sectors--for example, in the tobacco industry, in the oil and oil processing industry, and in a number of other economic sectors.

    Deputy Prime Minister Korac was more deeply and actively involved in these matters, so I would like to hand over to him to reply to your question in more detail.

    Mr. Zarko Korac (Deputy Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro): It's the insurance of investment in the sense of having protection. We worked very hard to get a German company that is insuring investments involved, and it is involved now. The other concern was the legal system. This is not something you can resolve overnight. It means they want a legal system in which some possible court proceedings would last forever. The investment would lose in every sense.

    Nevertheless, we had two major investments. U.S. Steel bought our biggest steel company. The two Yugoslav tobacco factories have been sold to Philip Morris and British American Tobacco. There have been some other investments of that kind, but that is not enough. We are at the moment trying to improve the climate for investment, frankly, but you cannot simply say there is not enough interest. You have to create an atmosphere, an economic situation where people would be interested in investing.

    The European Union at the moment is enlarging. In two and a half months it will grow from 15 to 25 members. If we look at the kind of investment Hungary and Poland have had, for example, it's more than Serbia. Our process of privatization is still going on. We are in the fourth year now of our transition. If we look at comparable results, we think our privatization is going better and faster than in those countries.

    Cement factories were sold to two major cement companies. One is Lafarge, the French one, and the other one is Holcim. It's a Swiss-based company, the leader in the world.

    We have an additional problem in the government. We want to have solid partners. It's easy to sell, but we want to sell to the companies that have the know-how and are leaders in those fields. We think that in the long run this will secure the top technology, the markets, and so on. It is not an easy decision. In principle, we are not selling to buyers and traders; we are trying to sell companies to producers. We think they are strategic partners.

    We had a huge problem with our main steel company. There were different interests. A major German company was interested, and they are very angry that we didn't sell it to them and that we sold it to U.S. Steel. In a few sentences I can explain why. U.S. Steel bought the steel factory in Kosice in the Czech Republic. They have very good experience in reshaping a former communist factory and creating a market. We thought that they had wonderful know-how. By the way, they are the producer of steel products, steel sheets, and so on.

    There are problems. There's competition between Europe, the United States, and so on. Even in the field of investments we are sometimes faced with the problem of different companies competing. If you are a relatively small country, then sometimes the political pressure can result in signing an agreement that is not so beneficial for the country, but it's beneficial for the company. It's going on.

    I fully agree, Mr. Chair, that we would be happier to have more direct investment, especially in small and medium-sized companies. This is our biggest concern.

    Some Canadian companies have an interest in investing in Serbia. We are going to British Columbia. We're going to talk to a few companies that raised an interest in seeing us. They have some interest in investing. We would very much like to have investments from Canadians.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We'll go to Madame Lalonde, then to Mr. Wilfert, Ms. Phinney, and Mr. Simard.

[Translation]

    Ms. Lalonde.

    Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you.

    I have a short, easy question. I would like to hear you talk about the future of Kosovo.

[English]

    Mr. Zarko Korac: Short questions usually have long answers.

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (Interpretation): This is a very quick and short question. However, it opens up a very big topic. A large number of people may be called upon to provide an answer to the question you've raised.

    Kosovo is nowadays a kind of protectorate of the United Nations Security Council. There is both military and civilian presence of the United Nations on the ground there. As well, local self-government authorities have been elected.

    Serbia and Montenegro have no role to play on any of these levels of authority, so it is very difficult to provide an answer to the question of what will become of Kosovo. A resolution of the Security Council, Resolution 1244, speaks about the territorial integrity of Serbia and Yugoslavia, or what is now Serbia and Montenegro.

    If you look at the resolution, you will see that it is not possible to consider any independent state when you talk about Kosovo. The only possibility is that of providing a substantial degree of autonomy within Serbia, or within Serbia and Montenegro, no matter whether there is a confederal or federal element to it.

    There is also a convention of the OSCE that says that it is not permissible to change any borders by the use of force. On the other hand, it is a fact that there is a very strong and pronounced will on the part of all Albanian political parties to have an independent Kosovo. However, before any discussions on the final status of Kosovo, we have another problem to address, as was defined by the Security Council, and that is the standards. The state of human rights in Kosovo is highly unsatisfactory. Security levels are also deplorable. Only between 2% and 3% of the expelled Serbs have managed to return to Kosovo over the past year or so.

    The Council of Europe and the OSCE demand that conditions be created for the respect of human rights and minority rights, and that there be a proper level of security, before any negotiations are opened. This year, we are supposed to discuss these standards, which should enable multi-ethnic life in Kosovo and the rule of law.

    On the other hand, we have to maintain a dialogue. As you know, negotiations between Belgrade and Pristina have been initiated. They concern a number of different issues ranging from energy and transport to security. Therefore, we have a problem. On the one hand, there is political will on the part of the majority population in Kosovo that would like to see an independent Kosovo. On the other hand, there is a decision on the prohibition of changing any borders in the Balkans, particularly on ethnic grounds, because that would trigger a lot of insecurity in neighbouring Macedonia and Greece. Quite evidently, we'll have to arrange a major international conference on this particular topic.

    I can tell you right away here that we are not concerned or interested in any kind of supremacy or domination over the Albanian population in Kosovo. We stand ready to provide absolute freedom to the Kosovo authorities in the fields of police, education, health, and economy--in any case, as much absolute sovereignty as any province should have.

    There are, however, only three requirements that we have: that human rights and minority rights be respected; that there is no discrimination; that all people are treated equally, no matter what their religion or nationality is; and finally, that they are all safe in the exercise and implementation of their rights.

    Over the past four years there have been 1,000 murders in Kosovo, and not a single case has been prosecuted properly. The perpetrators have not been identified. This is something that is unacceptable.

    The second requirement we have is that conditions be created for the safe return of all those who have left their homesteads. About 200,000 people have been expelled from Kosovo. Albanians are now residing in their apartments and houses, and these people now have nowhere to return to. This issue has to be tackled appropriately.

    There is, however, a third requirement. The largest number of cultural landmarks and monuments of Serbia are located in Kosovo. There are fresco paintings in the churches and monasteries that have been protected as part of UNESCO's world heritage. These fresco paintings and monuments date back to the 12th and 13th centuries A.D. So far, 100 monasteries and churches have been demolished. We would like to see full protection of these monuments of cultural heritage that are of world significance.

    Not a single one of these requirements goes beyond what is regarded as a normal standard in international conventions and international instruments. However, as I have already said, there are a number of different factors that will be used in making decisions on these issues.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    We have four people who want to ask you questions. We'll start with Mr. Wilfert, then Ms. Phinney.

    Mr. Wilfert.

    Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Again, we welcome you here.

    I want to first of all congratulate Serbia and Montenegro on depositing the instruments of accession to the Ottawa convention with regard to the landmines issue. It is my understanding that we are providing financial assistance in destroying the stockpiles of mines you have.

    I would also say that Canadians would like to see Serbia and Montenegro welcomed into the larger European family, in particular the partnership for peace in NATO. But as you probably know, there are two outstanding issues on which you can maybe provide an update to this committee. The first, of course, is the position of your government on the case before the International Court of Justice on the 1999 conflict in Kosovo against Canada and its allies. The other is the issue of having Belgrade cooperate with the ICTY in The Hague.

    Mr. Chairman, I have many other questions, but in the interest of time I'll just leave it at those two.

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (Interpretation): The charges for the aggression by NATO were brought by Mr. Milosevic in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. This will be addressed after this new incoming government is called upon to make a statement on the issue. If we look from the realpolitik point of view we will see that no matter how we look upon the reason or rationale for that bombing, the chances of our country winning that particular case are minimal.

    On the other hand, there are certain private or individual civil suits filed against NATO, and they in fact somehow give this an individual character. There are relatives of certain civilian casualties, for example journalists of the RTS and certain monks in certain monasteries, certain people killed in the hospital in Nis, and all of these have brought charges against NATO and demand compensation for the deaths of their next of kin.

    The first charges have to do with the proceedings at The Hague. Milosevic is answering for the humanitarian disaster in Kosovo and for crimes against the population of Kosovo. This sheds more light on the relations between NATO and Yugoslavia in the course of the bombing campaign. In this connection, we also can see and regard the attitude of the country towards the ICTY at The Hague.

    I am talking now about the policy of the federal government and the federal Parliament. They are the ones who are the only responsible authorities for these particular relations. We have a law that governs our cooperation with the ICTY. Under that law we have transferred to The Hague two of our presidents, the President of Yugoslavia, Mr. Milosevic, and President of Serbia, Mr. Milutinovic.

    In addition to that, we have also transferred a minister of defence, the chief of the general staff, a number of generals, the deputy prime minister and two heads of state security. The position held by our government is that all those who took part in certain crimes should be brought to justice.

    However, there is a problem with regard to those who are not accessible to the police or to justice. These are Karadzic and Mladic. Chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte several days ago stated that their whereabouts were in Belgrade. However, she gave no clues as to their whereabouts within Belgrade. That is a city of two million people. So the answer may be yes, may be no, but it seems to be highly unlikely.

    So far on two or three occasions the alarms were raised and there were indications that they were in certain hospitals or in certain barracks, but when the police arrived on the spot, it could not be established whether they had been there or not. In any case, they were not to be found there.

    Many relevant factors in NATO, in KFOR, in Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed that Karadzic can be found in Bosnia, and quite often there are certain raids in order to catch him. There were various assumptions on the whereabouts of Mladic, but our latest information is that he is not in our territory. Karadzic and Mladic are citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mladic's situation is somewhat more difficult because he served as a military officer of the JNA, the YugoslavPeople's Army. However, we are under the obligation to make the arrest if they are found in our territory.

    The position of many people in our Parliament and the position of the government is that all those against whom charges were brought by The Hague should actually end up there. However, I have to tell you that there are also opposite positions held by some people. There are also some people who say we have had enough of that.

    Those who are directly responsible and are the direct perpetrators should be sent to The Hague is what some people believe, and only those who are held responsible on the basis of command responsibility or command liability. As for the others, a line should be drawn and somewhere we should say that we have had enough, the other people should remain within the country. However, I do not share that opinion. I think that all of those people should be held accountable and answer for any violations of international humanitarian law and be brought to The Hague.

    Ms. Beth Phinney: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I must say that I have visited your country four times. I think you have some very beautiful areas there, and I enjoyed it very much.

    We have given assistance through CIDA, the Canadian International Development Agency, in various areas. I'm sure that you know where we're giving the money.

    Do you have any other suggestions for us, or would you like our money disbursed in different ways?

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (Interpretation): Yesterday we had talks at the office of the Canadian International Development Agency, and we strongly support all of the projects that CIDA is implementing.

    This assistance was provided in a number of fields. It came to our country as humanitarian aid; as funds for the renovation and refurbishment of hospitals; as funds for the promotion of the situation in the sector of education; and for strengthening institutions and for making them more stable, particularly when it comes to the situation of the Parliament, the judiciary, and for the good governance.

    I think they should keep up the good work.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Simard.

    Mr. Raymond Simard (Saint Boniface, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    That was my question, actually.

    I think the professor has indicated that a strong economic atmosphere is important to attract foreign direct investment. I believe that a stable political climate is also very important.

    My question was, how much of CIDA's work in your country is based on good governance and the rule of law, as opposed to humanitarian projects, if you will?

    Hon. Dragoljub Micunovic (Interpretation): In the beginning, there were more humanitarian projects being implemented, but of late we have seen an increase in the projects carried out in the field of the promotion of the rule of law, strengthening our institutions, and promotion of the situation in the judiciary, as well as promotion of good governance.

    I think they should continue to help us, because if they help us in these fields, these will be prerequisites for the successes in other fields.

    Mr. Zarko Korac: Of course institutions are important, but we have to bear in mind it's not so simple to make them.

    There is a story about somebody who went to England and saw that English lawns were beautiful, that English grass looks beautiful. He asked, “What can I do to have such grass back home?” They said “Oh, it's simple, you just buy the seeds of the English grass”. So he bought the seeds and went back home and he sowed these seeds. It grew up but it didn't look like an English lawn. He picked up the phone and called up a man. “Is this English grass seed?” “Yes”, he said. “Did you follow the instructions?”. He said “Yes, I did whatever you told me. I put them in the ground. I watered them.” “You've done that?” “Yes”, he said. “Okay, so keep on doing this for a hundred years and you're going to have English grass.”

    It takes time to make an institution. I wish we could do it. CIDA is doing a good job, and they're really trying to help us. I am responsible for health and education in my government. This has been very liberal and very progressive help. We are in the process of reforming our primary and secondary education and CIDA is helping.

    Our health system was completely destroyed under Milosevic, with no major investment for 15 years. CIDA is helping us to introduce reforms, to buy new equipment, to train not so much doctors, but professionals, economists, managers within hospitals in the health sector. We have adopted a national plan of action for children, according to the UNICEF declaration, and CIDA is considering supporting that project as well.

    We are a highly traumatized society, with about 700,000 refugees in Serbia. Approximately 9% of the population are Serbian refugees from Bosnia, Croatia, and Kosovo. This is highly surprising to some people that Milosevic's policies ultimately brought misfortune to Serbia itself, which was to be expected. Serbia has one of the largest refugee populations in Europe: 9% of all people in Serbia are refugees. We have huge problems with those refugees, and to integrate them is very difficult.

    They're going back to Bosnia, but they have problems in going to Kosovo and some problems in going back to Croatia. The new Croatian government certainly has a very liberal and a very progressive plan to improve that, so we'll wait to see. They certainly gave very good promises to the Serbian community in Croatia and elsewhere, that they will create a situation for Serbs to go back.

    The Chair: A last question, please.

    Mrs. Karen Redman: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I think we're all sort of building on previous questions.

    I wanted to zero in a little bit on the need for institutional growth and establishment within your country. How much of your industry is still nationalized or owned by the government? I ask this because I think predicated on that is the need for an independent judiciary. My understanding is that because of the way it was funded, that's one of the impediments to having foreign investment come in. It's a bit of a domino effect.

    Mr. Zarko Korac: It's a very complicated story. Milosevic started the privatization process. When we won—we forced him to resign, and he was forced to give us our election results, you remember, in October 2000—we were stuck with a system of privatization that we found politically unacceptable. This is so-called “inner privatization”, where the people working in factories become owners of those factories.

    I've been a university professor all my life, like Mr. Micunovic, so what do I own? Is it the university buildings, or the faculty building, or the laboratories? This is absurd. Military, police, priests, professors, medical people own nothing. It's a silly privatization, but this is typical of the language of communism: “We're going to give a factory to the workers.”

    We devised a completely new system of privatization and were lucky to be able to do it—if there is luck in misfortune—ten years after all of them. We compared very carefully all kinds of privatization systems in east Europe. What kind of privatization system we have would be a subject for another debate; nevertheless, we are selling our companies, and the privatization goes very well. We have sold approximately 50% of our companies. It is either an auction or a tendered privatization. We have more auctions than tendered privatization, which means there's some money in the country and people are buying within the country. But we are increasingly faced with the problem that there are going to be many companies no one is willing to buy.

    Of course, the population is somewhat ignorant, and they don't understand that someone can buy a company for $1 U.S. We have such companies. They don't know what that means. They don't understand that what you get on the market is what your company is worth. By the way, by buying for a dollar you inherit a lot of debts—thousands. They don't understand that—that this is democracy.

    The nationalists, the communists accuse us all the time: “Aha, you are selling all the companies—huge factories with chimneys—for $1. This is terrible. You are corrupt.” It leads to despair on the side of government to explain it.

    But the point is that we are increasingly faced with the problem of not being able to find buyers. This year is crucial for the new government. We have to devise a means of revitalizing some of those companies and finding adequate social programs for the workers who are going to be laid off. We have one of the highest unemployment rates in Europe, besides having refugees. These are all actually our fundamental questions within Serbia.

    I also want to emphasize—you know what your GDP is—that Serbia's is about $1,600 U.S. per capita. We are one of the three poorest countries of Europe. This, the poverty of the country, is another problem. You don't see, perhaps, when you go there, that this is a very poor country indeed.

    I think the gentleman from Montenegro wanted to add to this. If it were all about Serbia, we would feel very bad. So here's Montenegro.

    Mr. Borislav Banovic (Member of the Parliament of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro, Parliament of Serbia and Montenegro) (Interpretation): Thank you very much.

    Since our time is almost up, I would like to say just a couple of sentences concerning the privatization process in Montenegro. Privatization started in Montenegro earlier than it started under Milosevic in Serbia, which means that the privatization process in Montenegro is more advanced than it is in the other member state.

    The majority of our companies and firms are now shareholding companies, or companies in private ownership. However, in a few major sectors, such as telecommunications and energy, they are still either wholly owned by the state or they have the state as the major stakeholder.

    As a Social Democrat, I can tell you that we oppose this fast process of the privatization of these companies, because the profits that can be made are much bigger than the price that has to be paid for the purchase of these companies. However, there is a huge financial deficit within the state, and this may force us to take that course of action.

    There is a lot of room for investment in the tourist industry. Apart from certain facilities that we already have, there is a lot of land for development for new facilities. Therefore, we would like to take this opportunity to invite and encourage people from this country to come over and make an investment in Montenegro.

    Thank you very much.

    Mr. Zarko Korac: He just emphasized a huge problem we have in Serbia also, and that is what to do with public utility companies. This is a huge question--what to privatize, how, and which part.

    Look at England, where Labour buys and Conservatives sell. They've done it in circles there, a couple of times, with the same kinds of companies.

    The Chair: Mr. President, members, thank you very much for your visit to Ottawa. It was very nice of you to stop and talk to our committee. I think our exchanges were fruitful, if only to get a better understanding and a better dialogue between our two countries.

    I hope the rest of your trip, to Vancouver, will be very fruitful also.

    The meeting is adjourned.