Julian Reed

[Military Missions Beyond Canadian Boundaries, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, speaking about blowing steam, the hon. member for Surrey Central did a great job of it. Unfortunately he has not read very much history of the evolution of peacekeeping in this country, otherwise he would not have undertaken to say the things he has said.

I remind him that Canada's role in support of the United Nations is the most proactive and most forward advance that countries around the world have made. Canada is at the forefront. Canada moved to the forefront again by obtaining a seat on the security council.

When the hon. member accuses this government of not being proactive in peacekeeping, I suggest he reread his history books.

To speak to the motion more directly, the hon. member for Red Deer has proposed that there be a vote every time there is some deployment of personnel outside this country. I would just like to bring up a little history for the edification of the hon. member for Surrey Central.

In the declaration of war in 1939 the government announced the approval of the address in reply to the speech from the throne which stated the government's decision to support Britain and France would constitute approval of the declaration of war. On September 9 the address was approved without a recorded vote and war was declared the following day. This seems to me one of the most serious undertakings of this country.

When the demand in this modern day and age comes for personnel to go into other countries the call is quite instantaneous. We do not want to do anything to undo that which has been accomplished by the tireless efforts of thousands of courageous Canadian peacekeepers.

In the era we are in, the era of ethnic cleansing, of internal genocide and untold human suffering, it is simply unacceptable to propose that Canada, the world leader in peacekeeping, sit back and debate endlessly while tragedy unfolds.

To do so would be to relinquish the respect and admiration which Canada has merited as a peacekeeping nation for over 40 years.

This government, which is proud of Canada's peacekeeping tradition and respects the sacrifices of Canadian men and women who have worn the blue beret, does not support this motion.

Most Canadian military deployments in recent decades have been contingents for United Nations peacekeeping operations. But there are other occasions when Canadian forces personnel are called upon to serve on active duty outside Canada.

Our alliance commitments in NATO and NORAD are founded on the promise of immediate action against a threat to any alliance partner. Such promises do not allow for delays and Canada takes these promises extremely seriously.

There are also events such as the Persian Gulf crisis when Canada is asked to play a central role in dealing with threats to international peace and security.

There are times for debate and deliberation over principles. But there are also times when Canada must respond rapidly to meet its commitments and to show its resolve. This is not to say that this government opposes debate. On the contrary, we recognize that debate is essential, especially when men and women of the Canadian forces are put in harm's way.

Debate on important military issues is crucial and the opinion of this House is highly valued. Since its election by the people of Canada this government has done much to encourage the debate of all Canadian contributions to international peacekeeping operations, both within this House and in the public at large.

Discussion has indeed taken place, not only with regard to specific operations, but with regard to the principles and direction of Canada's peacekeeping policy in general.

It is obvious that no area of policy has been more openly discussed than Canada's contribution to international security. This openness is not only prevalent in this House. Canadians of all walks of life have been given the opportunity to comment on Canada's participation in peacekeeping operations.

As part of a Department of Foreign Affairs initiative to directly involve the Canadian public in our country's foreign policy, ordinary Canadians were invited to give their opinions and comments on Canada's involvement in the UN mission in Haiti.

This was accomplished through an Internet site which allowed private citizens to become more informed on Canada's involvement in international peacekeeping and to offer their own thoughts. The response was extremely positive. The site received over 500 visits and two-thirds of those who responded supported our involvement in Haiti.

We firmly believe that endeavours such as these go a long way toward opening up the foreign policy process to every Canadian much further than the mechanism proposed by this motion.

Given the ability and willingness of the Canadian public to voice their concerns with any peacekeeping operation and the quality of the frequent debate which takes place in this very House, it is clear that this motion is not a step forward. The only possible result would be the undermining of Canada's commitment to international security.

In this era when events unfold rapidly, leaving little time for reaction, a motion such as this is simply not viable. The government recognizes the need for the international community and Canada as one of its leaders to react quickly in times of crisis.

As the Canadian study toward a rapid reaction capability for the United Nations pointed out, the nations of the world must respond quickly. Having urged the international community to react promptly through this study, Canada has a responsibility to lead the way. That is precisely what this government intends to do.

As countless surveys and opinion polls have shown, Canadians support our country's role as the world leader in peacekeeping.

To suggest that a vote in the House is necessary to ascertain whether or not the Canadian public supports our leadership role is, quite simply, inaccurate.

Canadians support and have confidence in the government's choice to keep Canada at the forefront of international peacekeeping and security efforts.

In a recent study documenting Canadian opinions on foreign and defence policy, 79% of those polled considered peacekeeping important for Canada.

A 1998 study showed that 68% of Canadians want our current commitment to international peace and security to be maintained or increased and a similar number regard peacekeeping as being a very positive source of Canada's international reputation.

Clearly the Canadian people support this country's efforts at peacekeeping and international security. To support this motion one would have to ignore several very important realities of the world around us. First and foremost, events today unfold rapidly and often with tragic consequences. It is important for Canadians, for Canada and for the world to be able to act quickly. Therefore, this motion cannot be supported.

[Competition Act, October 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-235 proposes substantive amendments to the Competition Act. They are intended to address pricing practices in industries, particularly the petroleum industry which are characterized by vertical integration and dual distribution, that is, industries where firms carry on operations in wholesale and in retail markets and compete in retail markets with firms to whom they supply at the wholesale level.

I would like to take a moment initially to commend the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge and his colleagues for their work on the Liberal committee report on gasoline pricing in Canada. The committee report deals with wide ranging, significant issues in a professional and constructive manner. It provides all stakeholders with a solid foundation on which to move forward.

The thrust of Bill C-235 as I understand it is to prevent the vertically integrated suppliers from squeezing the margins of their unintegrated customers' competitors in a manner which threatens the competitive viability of the unintegrated firms, generally referred to in the petroleum industry as independents.

I would also congratulate the member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge for his work in preparing the bill as well as his laudable efforts to find solutions to the problems facing many of our independent petroleum firms today. His efforts are very well intentioned.

The proposed means to resolve these issues quite unhappily will not bring about the results he seeks. They will most certainly have serious adverse consequences on the Canadian economy in general and on a number of specific industries and consumers. I doubt very much that these negative effects which I will try to explain were intended by my colleague and others when the bill was drafted.

Bill C-235 contains two proposed amendments to the Competition Act. I will have to be very careful as I read this because it is complicated.

First, it would create a new criminal offence which would prohibit a vertically integrated supplier who both manufactures a product and sells it at retail from selling to a retailer who competes with it at a price that is higher than the vertically integrated supplier's own retail price, less its marketing costs and a reasonable return. The objective of the amendment would be to preclude conduct which would have the effect of decreasing or eliminating the profit margin available to an unintegrated retailer.

Second, the bill would insert an additional anti-competitive act into the Competition Act's abuse of dominant position provisions, prohibiting a vertically integrated supplier from coercing or attempting to coerce a customer who competes with the supplier at the retail level in the same market area into adhering to prices dictated by the supplier rather than allowing the customer to remain free to set his or her own retail price.

Before discussing the means by which the bill proposes to achieve these commendable goals, I feel it should be brought to the attention of my colleagues that provisions addressing both of these potentially anti-competitive behaviours are already embodied in the Competition Act and are vigorously enforced by the Competition Bureau.

Price maintenance cases, as they are known, brought before the courts involving charges of the specific coercive behaviour targeted by this bill have proven highly successful for the crown. They have led to many hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and have deterred the repetition of the conduct in question.

Similarly, conduct by firms that have abused their dominant position in a market and which has been reviewed by the Competition Tribunal has led the tribunal to issue orders prohibiting them from repeating the anti-competitive acts, thereby restoring the level of competition in the market affected.

These provisions already exist and are vigorously enforced. I must ask why we are contemplating redundant legislation.

In order to ensure that vertically integrated suppliers are not squeezing competing retailers, the bill proposes that the government or the courts establish what acceptable marketing costs and a reasonable rate of return would be for all manufacturers in Canada. Further, for every price change in a market, no matter how often the prices may change, a manufacturer would be obliged to ensure that a competing retailer's margin has not been affected.

Prices in many markets in Canada change daily or even several times a day, depending on the level of competition and the nature of the product being sold.

I also remind my colleagues that this bill as drafted is not restricted to the petroleum sector for which it is specifically designed, but proposes amendments to an act which affects the entire Canadian economy.

I believe it will be found that many of our companies rather than cease to function under the burden of this kind of regulation will adopt a long term policy of constant prices with no opportunity for offering the various forms of discounts normally available.

This kind of price rigidity will negatively affect the ability of Canadian firms to compete against foreign competitors, will dissuade foreign investors from locating in Canada and will have a profound effect on the cost of any downstream users of the product, including of course consumers. I do not believe the proposed bill intended to lead to less rather than more competition and inhibit rather than encourage competitive pricing.

The amendments could also provide an umbrella for independents, shielding them from competition from integrated firms who are likely to refrain from retail price competition in order to escape criminal liability under the Competition Act.

In the extreme, such amendments could create a whole new set of problems by inducing integrated firms not to supply independents as a means of preserving their ability to set their own prices and limit their exposure to criminal investigation and prosecution under the Competition Act.

In either case, competition is likely to be reduced, leading to higher prices for end users, including consumers.

I refer to the words of the hon. member for Huron—Bruce who spoke in this House on May 27 of this year expressing the following concerns:

When independents are gone they will be gone forever.

Then what we will have is an uncontrollable monopoly that has the ability to unilaterally dictate price and availability to one of the country's most essential commodities. In short, there will be higher prices and fewer competitors.

Before I close I must also say that in order to properly address this very complex issue we must realize that the matter of directing legislation toward a specific industry under our Constitution is the purview of the provinces. Therefore it would behove all of us concerned about this issue to direct the effort to the provinces.

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking the question again. There is a little bit of noise coming from the other side, Mr. Speaker, and it becomes rather confusing for a neophyte parliamentary secretary.

Turkey has been concerned in the past by the incursions by the PKK, the workers party, into Turkey.

[Foreign Affairs, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member as I could not understand the beginning of his question. Mr. Speaker, would you allow the member to repeat the question?

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the secretary-general actually shows that the world is appalled by this situation. When he came back to report that Mr. Milosevic had not undertaken to comply with the security council resolution it stands to reason that while NATO may be the one that has to take action, essentially the whole world will be in support of this action.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question.

As members know, Canada has always preferred that the security council pass the resolution that would determine what the world would do with the situation in Kosovo.

We are deeply disappointed that if such a resolution were attempted to be passed Russia would object and possibly China would object. Therefore we find ourselves in a situation where our preferred situation is not going to work. The humanitarian crisis is there nonetheless.

Winter is setting in and things are get worse actually by the hour in Kosovo. Therefore Canada stands ready to act with NATO.

[Kosovo, October 7th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the exchanges that have taken place tonight, it is an honour to be part of this debate. Sometimes when we face crises and are able to put aside the partisan differences in the House it rises to a new level. It is a privilege to participate in this brief time.

Many of the things I will say will perhaps be a repetition of what has already been said tonight, but I believe they are worth saying and emphasizing. Since March of this year the security forces of the federal republic of Yugoslavia have been waging a brutal campaign of violence and repetition against the civilian population of Kosovo.

While the Yugoslav government has argued consistently that its actions have been directed solely against the armed Albanian separatists of Kosovo, the security forces have undertaken a consistent strategy of destroying villages, burning and looting homes and directly targeting innocent civilians. Numerous reports, including those made by the Canadian team working in the Kosovo diplomatic observer mission, have documented the abuses of the security forces. It is obvious that grave breaches of international humanitarian law, human rights standards and the law of armed conflict have taken place. While the world recognizes a sovereign state's right to defend itself against armed insurrection, the actions of the Yugoslav government in Kosovo have clearly gone far beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour.

These atrocious actions have ramifications which are being felt far beyond Kosovo in a region which has been torn by war and fractured by leaders who have shamelessly played on people's fears. In inciting conflict the actions of the Yugoslav government are again victimizing the weak and moving the Balkans away from advancement and integration.

The displacement of Kosovo Albanian civilians and the polarization of communities which has resulted from the conflict has direct implications not only for Serbia and Montenegro but for the neighbouring countries of Albania, the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia and Bosnia as well.

The consequences of this conflict are reverberating through southern Europe. The international community is simply not prepared to stand by and allow the government of Milosevic to carry out this campaign of violence and oppression which is rapidly leading to a humanitarian crises of terrible proportions.

As winter fast approaches some 50,000 people including children and the elderly are either without shelter or are afraid to return to what remains of their homes. Unless the Yugoslav government completely withdraws its security forces from their field deployments and begins at once substantive dialogue on broad autonomy for Kosovo these people will begin to perish and what is now a humanitarian crisis will quickly become a catastrophe. Despite numerous warnings and several opportunities to cease the campaign of violence, President Milosevic continues to defy the will of the international community.

The claims that his security forces have ceased their operations in Kosovo are too little and they are much too late. The military and police forces which have been responsible for the intentional deaths of civilians, the destruction of homes and property and the deliberate creation of a humanitarian crisis have for the most part yet to leave Kosovo and remain capable of returning to their destructive tasks at almost a moment's notice.

Rather than respecting international humanitarian law and human rights agreements by withdrawing the security forces which have been used to repress civilians, President Milosevic has instead allowed his forces to conclude their offensive and displace thousands of people before offering any sign of compliance with the demands of the international community.

Yet again President Milosevic has done the bare minimum in an effort to forestall the action against him.

President Milosevic and the Yugoslav government have had ample opportunity to end and to prevent this conflict, or at the very least to attenuate its effects. Instead, a policy of heavy handed tactics has been pursued which has served only to aggravate the humanitarian situation and to further polarize the communities in Kosovo, making a settlement all the more difficult to achieve. As a result of this deliberate decision to shun accommodation and pursue violence, President Milosevic must now shoulder the blame for the situation which confronts the world in Kosovo.

Since the outbreak of hostilities NATO has been fully engaged in support of the international community's efforts to bring an end to this terrible conflict. The alliance has consistently demonstrated to the Yugoslav government and to president Milosevic that it is prepared to act in a decisive way. As an important guarantor of stability in Europe, NATO cannot stand by and allow this humanitarian crisis to unfold.

The international community is in clear agreement that the Yugoslav government must not be allowed to continue its policy of intentionally creating a humanitarian crisis among its own people. NATO is ready to act to support the will of the international community by assuring that this policy stops.

Canada has played an important role in the Balkans in recent years. After several years of peacekeeping, as part of United Nations forces in Bosnia, we continue now as an alliance member of the NATO led stabilization force. To make significant contribution to peace there, the international community recognizes that NATO has proven vital not only in bringing about peace in Bosnia but in helping to preserve that peace and moving the country closer to stability and normality.

Several months have passed since the fighting began in Kosovo. President Milosevic has made and subsequently broken numerous promises to stop fighting and begin serious negotiations. The time for inaction and wringing of hands has run out. NATO must now act. It must act to bring an end to the violence, to demonstrate that a peaceful negotiated settlement must be found and to ensure that the thousands of displaced persons can be accessed by humanitarian organizations and eventually return to their homes. Canada stands ready to play its role in these important efforts.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to quickly suggest that this amendment, because it creates a very distinct departure in the way treaties come about at the present time and that it is a precedent of course for treaties in the future, is really and truly beyond the scope of this bill. I would submit that as such it is out of order.

[Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty Implementation Act, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wish to convey to the House the minister's apology for not being present for this debate. He has been seconded to other more pressing issues of the moment.

Of course all the debate will be placed before him for his consideration, and I thank the hon. members.

[Kosovo, October 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can report to the House that the Minister of Foreign Affairs met yesterday morning with the secretary general of the United Nations to express Canada's very deep concern.

I thank all the members who supported the resolution that was passed in this House. Canada stands by our NATO commitments and we are still urging the security council to pass a resolution. I expect that—