Jack Frazer

[Bosnia, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it plain from the outset that the Reform Party, like all parties in the House and all Canadians, supports and has great respect and admiration for our troops in Bosnia.

The Bosnian Serb reaction to NATO air strikes on Pale last week was entirely predictable, indeed a forgone conclusion. Was the Canadian government consulted on the decision to carry out the air strikes and if so did it approve?

[Foreign Affairs, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the former Yugoslavia has deteriorated to the point where it is surely time for Canada to take action which reflects the reality there.

The Prime Minister says that Canadians do not cut and run when the going gets tough. Reform supports that stance. We know that Canadian troops have proven this many times over the years in support of worthwhile causes.

Is it not time to consider the worthiness of the cause in Bosnia and Croatia? What we have there are three antagonists who show no interest whatsoever in achieving a peaceful resolution of their differences. Rather than having a positive influence, the UN has proven to be either a toothless tiger or perhaps has even become part of the problem.

Others may have larger forces there but Canada's contribution has been substantial, competent and reliable. Rather than sheep following the French and British ram, is it not time for Canada to lead by stating that unless there is immediate, unequivocal and verifiable movement toward peace the Canadian forces will commence preparations to withdraw from the region?

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to be able to speak today to Bill C-87, an act to implement the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction.

Questions on chemical and biological weapons were first placed on the United Nations agenda in 1969. On September 3, 1992 the conference on disarmament reached a significant milestone in its negotiations with the completion of the draft text of the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons for presentation to the United Nations.

After more than 20 years of long, often difficult discussions on negotiations at the conference on disarmament and its predecessors in Geneva, the triumph was an agreement finally arrived at as a result of genuine, multilateral negotiations.

Approval by the United Nations general assembly paved the way to the signing ceremony in Paris in January 1993. Canada, a strong advocate of multilateral efforts, can take pride in being

one of the 160 signatories of the chemical weapons convention. The convention completely outlaws an entire category of existing weapons of mass and indiscriminate effect and provides for a system of multilateral verification, thus setting a new precedent at the global level.

As one of the 65 nations that has promised to ratify the treaty and bring it into force, Bill C-87 is our commitment to implement this convention. Impetus causing responsible nations to move toward this agreement was provided by the gulf war which provided a heightened awareness of the dangers of proliferation.

The international community learned important lessons in the disarmament of Iraq involving the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This poignant lesson played an important part in convincing the international community that it was imperative for nations to put aside differences and to work together to outlaw these terrible weapons of human destruction.

When I was a military officer in Germany, I was required for several days every month to live and operate in a chemical suit with a gas mask close by hand. This was a very traumatic and very deeply held experience because while we, the military people on the base, had our chemical suits and our gas masks, we were fully aware that our dependants did not. Should there be an attack, and we were aware that the former Soviet Union regularly used this type of weapon in their exercises, our dependants would be very vulnerable.

There was an evacuation plan but this was a tremendous undertaking and would take a tremendous amount of time. Thus, we were very much aware of the risk that they were under. As a result, I feel as strongly as anyone can feel that we must do our utmost to rid the world of chemical weapons.

Since they have the greatest number of chemical industries, the willingness of the United States and Germany to co-operate was vital. Germany ratified the agreement in August last year. The United States, with the second largest chemical stockpile in the world, is expected to ratify the treaty this year. This will hopefully send out a hurry up message to other countries that have pledged their support.

We too must move without delay to implement Bill C-87, thus signifying our commitment to ratify the treaty. In this spirit, I support this legislation.

During the January 1994 joint summit meeting in Moscow, Presidents Yeltsin and Clinton declared their intention to promote ratification of the treaty as rapidly as possible, thus enabling the convention's entry into force this year.

However, the real work lies ahead. Costs of implementation will be high. As a rule of thumb, it costs 10 times as much to destroy chemical weapon production facilities as it does to build them in the first place. With each country bearing individual responsibility for the destruction of their chemical weapons, undoubtedly there will be financial problems for some members, particularly emerging countries and Russia. Both financial and technical assistance to those countries seeking to destroy their chemical weapons must be provided by member states and this will include Canada.

A universal system of verification to monitor and ensure the destruction of stockpiles will be carried out by the Organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons, OPCW. The scope of its activities is complex and its mandate is to verify: first, the destruction of chemical weapons; second, the destruction of chemical weapons production facilities; third, to verify non-compliance, ensuring that activities prohibited under the convention are detected and traced; fourth, to verify permitted production in the chemical industry, to ensure that only activities not prohibited under the convention are carried out; and fifth, to perform investigations concerning non-compliance, that is, challenge inspections, to ensure that the cost of cheating will outweigh its benefits.

Estimates indicate that the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons will have up to 1,000 staff and will operate with an annual budget of $150 million to $180 million. Who will pay for this? International inspection expenses will be met by Canada and other members, according to a United Nations scale of assessment, in addition to the cost of eliminating our own chemical weapons and facilities.

For emerging member countries, the price of compliance will have to be added to the chemicals they export. That will make them less competitive.

There are other problems, as noted in the book An End to Chemical and Biological Weapons? by Richard Latter. It states:

It is unclear whether major countries, for example the United States and Russia, will be prepared to fund the CWC sufficiently, given their other commitments-The U.S., which calculates that incinerating its 30,000 ton stockpile would cost $6 to 7 billion, have also agreed to foot part of the bill for destroying the 40,000 tons of Russian weapons stock. Even so, the problems of getting a destruction program under way means Russia will almost certainly have to invoke treaty provisions allowing an extra five years to complete the task.

No doubt Canada will be asked to shoulder some of this burden but the overall costs are still largely unclear.

In Canada, information from a 1988 survey indicates our chemical industry does not use prohibited chemicals listed in schedule 1, which includes the toxins sarin and soman, used in the war between Iran and Iraq, and the various mustard gases used during the first and second world wars. Some of the chemicals on the list are used by a few research organizations.

Once Bill C-87 becomes law, such users will be required to obtain a licence and be subject to two inspections per year to ensure they are following the rules.

Chemicals listed in schedule 2A and 2B may not be used to any great extent in Canada, but this has yet to be determined. Schedule 2 chemicals are used for commercial purposes and if production exceeds the listed thresholds, two yearly inspections will be required.

All substances noted on these lists will be banned for export to countries that do not participate in the chemical weapons convention.

The more commonly used industrial chemicals noted in schedule 3 can be produced without inspection under the 30 ton threshold. However, amounts exceeding 230 tons will be subject to random inspections.

Without complete data, the number of companies affected and the precise cost for implementation of the new law remains unknown. Unquestionably the disposal of chemical weapons, facilities and international verification costs to be paid by individual member countries will be expensive.

In this time of financial constraints the government must avoid creating a cumbersome bureaucracy and rather should establish a slim, trim and effective agency to inspect and monitor the chemical industry. Assumptions are that five full time staff will be required for Canada's national authority, plus one staff within the foreign affairs department.

Using Australia as an example, the bureau of statistics gathered data on chemical production relevant to the chemical weapons convention which assisted in the determination of resources required for its national authority.

The Australian chemical weapons convention office, the chemical weapons control organization, as it is called, will be closely associated with its safeguards office, also responsible for the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The director of the Australian safeguards office, who is directly responsible to the foreign minister, will also be the director of the new chemical weapons convention office. This allows for effective use of available senior executive and administrative support resources. There will be a director, two full time staff with part time support drawn as required from experts in other areas of government or at times from the private sector. Hopefully our government will examine the Australian model for its efficiency and application in Canada.

Although there is no binding legislation giving government authority to demand information, the Department of Foreign Affairs has attempted to collect data by initiating a survey of 2,100 Canadian businesses. About 500 companies have responded to the voluntary questionnaire. There is still no clear indication as to how many companies will be affected by the legislation. Until government has these data it will be difficult to establish projected costs for our clean-up, verification and inspection.

Bill C-87 closely adheres to the requirements of the chemical weapons convention and has the support of the Canadian Chemical Producers Association as well as the Canadian Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers Association. Officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs deserve credit for taking industry concerns into consideration during consultations over the past eight years.

Without Canada's participation in the treaty and industry support we would have difficulty competing in the international marketplace. Canadian industry imports chemicals for the production of many commercial applications and under the convention chemicals identified for control will be banned or restricted for non-participating countries. Care must be taken to ensure regulatory costs do not become so prohibitive that they force smaller industries out of business.

Additionally we should not impede industry by increasing red tape and creating a complex decision making hierarchy. Undoubtedly industry will be required to make detailed declarations of production and be subject to stringent inspections within Canada. These extra costs will have to be borne by industry as well as the Canadian taxpayer.

The international secretariat based in The Hague will police international compliance. This area was the most controversial in achieving a consensus. The general guidelines state the inspection teams are to be granted unimpeded access rights. They will verify destruction programs, inspect all military facilities and civilian plants producing chemicals which could be used for armaments in addition to carrying out routine monitoring and random checks on other civilian chemical installations.

Bill C-87, section 13(1)(c) dealing with international inspection states: "Where appropriate, install, use and maintain in respect of any place monitoring instruments, systems and seals in a manner consistent with the provisions of the convention and any facility agreement applicable to the place".

It would seem appropriate or necessary to institute some protection to ensure this authority for international inspections is not abused.

Section 14(1)(b) states: "Permit the international inspector to examine anything in the place being inspected". Section 14(1)(c) states: "Permit the international inspector to make copies of any information contained in the records, files, papers or electronic information systems kept or used in relation to the place being inspected and to remove copies from the place".

Further clarification and expansion would seem to be in order. Commercial espionage is a recognized reality and industry understandably fears the disclosure of valuable commercial information to competitors. Every effort must be made to ensure our national security is not put at risk. Some form of checks and balances should be put in place as under the current legislation it appears Canada would not have the right to restrict inspection teams. Reasonable management procedures should be identified and implemented so that national security is not jeopardized.

Effective implementation of the treaty's provisions will pay off in long term world security dividends. It is important these national protection issues be addressed now.

We stand at a pivotal juncture on the world stage. We can succeed or we can fail in this effort to lower the risk of inadvertent or impulsive use of chemical weapons.

Our success in this instance will reap great benefits and assist by setting the example in the larger task of implementing co-operative approaches to problems in other areas, regionally or globally.

[Petitions, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty and honour to rise in the House to present a petition duly certified by the clerk of Petitions on behalf of 98 constituents of Saanich-Gulf Islands and surrounding area.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Air Traffic Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is also reported that if the military system is installed the department estimates its internal costs alone will add $106 million to the $70 million Hughes contract. Why would the minister authorize such an expenditure on a system with so many questions about its capabilities?

[Air Traffic Control, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke has drawn attention to the government's questionable decision to proceed with the Hughes Canadian automatic air traffic system. Yet we are informed that the defence department, 16 months after federal auditors warned that the civilian system was two years behind schedule and massively over the agreed contract price, signed a $70 million deal for a military version of the same system.

What prompted the Minister of National Defence to invest in a system that does not meet the original specifications? Why did he proceed with this project?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak to Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision. Bill C-85, which will amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, has been touted by the Prime Minister as a great pension reform package that members of Parliament deserve because they are so underpaid.

If anything raises the ire of Canadians, it is the scandalously generous pension provisions given to members of Parliament. Even more disturbing is the attempt to conceal from the public just how rich the pension plan remains even after the proposed changes.

The government reports in the public accounts, part II, how much MPs spend on office expenditures, travel and their salaries. It is very interesting to note they refuse to tell the public how much the members of Parliament pension scheme costs.

A former Liberal member introduced a private member's bill which would allow the auditor general to report more frequently so that waste and mistakes would be more readily exposed. This process would open the operations of government to closer scrutiny by Parliament on behalf of the people. What happened? The government said: "No way. We do not want closer scrutiny. We do not want the public to know what is really happening with their money". Then it gave the hon. member a pat on the back and sent him to the other place.

Regrettably, the cost of the members of Parliament pension is not readily available to anyone.

Even though this new law will reduce the accrual rate for benefits by 1 per cent, that is from 5 per cent to 4 per cent, it still remains double the rate found in registered plans in the private sector. There will be provisions for full inflation compensation whereas 78.3 per cent of private sector pensions have no automatic adjustment for inflation.

Furthermore, the members of Parliament pension account earns a generous 10 per cent interest so the costs attributed to the plan are effectively lowered. Yet MPs who choose to accept the one-time offer to opt out of the plan will be paid only 4 per cent on their contributions.

It is there but little is said about the higher rate of pensions for MPs leaving office with more than six years service. Even if this

group were to opt out of the plan, they will be paid their pension for the period prior to October 1993 under the conditions of the old pension plan.

Further bringing the new plan into question, MPs elected in the next Parliament will be required to participate in the pension plan. There will be no future open ended choice to say no to the gravy train. Why is the option to choose not to participate in the plan closed off at this time?

Fifty-two Reform members of Parliament have forced this issue of pension reform, but the government's presented reforms are really an insult to Canadians. Until the government changes the retirement compensation account, the account the government and previous governments have used to pay benefits greater than those allowed under a registered pension plan provided for by the Income Tax Act, Reformers and some other principal members of Parliament refuse to be part of the charade and deception. We are not willing to ask Canadians to pay for this pension windfall.

Right now, after only 10 years, members of Parliament can receive a pension worth half their salary. Anyone else would have to work and contribute to their pension plan for at least 25 years to achieve this and for most, without inflation protection.

Also under the new plan taxpayers still pay $3.60 for every $1 the member of Parliament pays into his or her retirement pension. As a comparison, federal public servants are matched dollar for dollar, a ratio often seen in the private sector as well.

The report by Sobeco, Ernst and Young suggested that pension benefits be limited to retirees who are at least 60 years of age, but the Prime Minister said members of Parliament have earned this pension even after only six years. Granted, for members who came into this House after October 1993, the new law would set eligibility at a minimum age of 55 for benefits accrued after this bill becomes law. Five more years to age 60 was too long to wait. The outside packaging looks okay, but if we open it up the box is empty.

Reformers do not need to hire consultants to tell them that the members of Parliament pension should be reined in, just listen to the ordinary working people of all ages and income ranges. They have told government what they think, yet the government seems unwilling to listen to Canadian citizens. It studied the issue and studied the issue, all the while taunting us with a carrot, promising real change.

We know the amendments are a done deal. The Liberals have the numbers in government to do what they want, but the one thing they can be sure of is that this issue will not go away. It will still be an election issue next time around so they will still have to answer to the voters.

A number of hon. government members have pointed their fingers this way and made allegations that some Reform members are double dipping. We on this side of the House have made it clear that we object to double dipping. We recognize that Bill C-85 attempts to remove double dipping practices and we commend the government for its move in this aspect.

Former members of Parliament who were given political appointments to work at another federal job should not draw pay for that job while continuing to draw their MP pensions. Private sector workers must earn their pensions by working 25 or more years before they are able to collect benefits. Again I point out some members of Parliament need only have served six years to collect these generous packages.

Individuals in the private sector who have earned and are collecting pensions can and do take other employment while continuing to collect their pensions. After all, they have had to win the job they occupy; it is not given to them as a patronage payoff. In this aspect, I had to win this job by convincing the voters of my constituency that I was their best choice to represent them here in Parliament.

Liberals are quick to point out that some Reform members, myself included, collect military pensions while at the same time earning salaries as members of Parliament. I collect an annuity for more than 36 years service in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces. I paid into that superannuation account with matching government contributions for 35 of those 36 years. Benefits accrued at 2 per cent per year, which is the normal rate for pension plans in the private sector.

The annuity I draw comes from a superannuation fund paid into by former and present members of the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces over many years. That fund currently stands at just under $30 billion so the notion that my annuity is a gift out of the taxpayer's pocket is simply untrue. My annuity has been fully paid for and hon. members should be aware of that. Some of my colleagues also earn pensions and for many years made contributions to their pension plans.

What some government members are trying to do is compare apples and oranges. These pensions are a far cry from the generous pensions doled out to former members of Parliament who receive appointments to serve on various government boards or commissions.

Canada is among the world's most generous countries when it comes to members of Parliament pensions. There is no other country in the world which pays parliamentarians a pension after serving only six years in office, with no minimum age to retire.

In December 1993 the leader of the Reform Party wrote to the Prime Minister saying:

Reform MPs sincerely believe that the credibility of Parliament in dealing with the financial crisis facing the federal government will be increased if every parliamentary caucus reviews the MPs' pension, pay and perks package and agrees to significant reductions.

By doing so, the 35th Parliament can increase its moral authority to appeal to other Canadians to make the sacrifices necessary to permit a balancing of the federal budget.

In Bill C-85 government has fallen sorely short of achieving appropriate and necessary member of Parliament pension reforms. Surely it should reconsider.

[Fisheries, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadians who died in the second world war did not die to become bargaining chips in the dispute with the European Union. It is my understanding that our dispute over the fishery is built on principle, the principle that by Canada intervening we are trying to save a fish stock which could be destroyed.

Does the minister not believe that the principle of saving that stock is sufficient to defend his actions?

[Fisheries, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the minister of fisheries' fight to end overfishing off the Grand Banks he has at times been prone to rhetoric and occasional flights of fancy in the name of conservation.

But yesterday the minister went too far. He trivialized the ultimate sacrifice made by those who died for this great country during the second world war by evoking their memory to score points in our dispute with the European Union.

Does the minister realize that his remarks offended many Canadians and is he prepared to apologize to those who took offence?

[Grandparent Year Act, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak to Bill C-291, presented by the hon. member for Halton-Peel, an act respecting the national year of the grandparent which calls upon Parliament to designate 1995 the year of the grandparent.

I say this not only because I am a grandparent to my grandson, Spencer Drew, the most handsome, intelligent, talented and clever boy in the whole wide world who will celebrate his first birthday next Sunday, but because I believe that anything which strengthens the family unit will help to better our society.

Through all generations and cultures grandparents have generally played a caring, supportive and nurturing role in the lives of their families and extended families. The time has come for Canada to formally reaffirm the invaluable contribution grandparents have made and will continue to make to society.

Last year the United States Congress adopted House resolution 355 and Senate resolution 198 proclaiming 1995 as the year of the grandparent, encouraging citizens to observe the year with programs, ceremonies and activities.

Having already reached the month of May, it would seem that we in Canada have been slow off the mark to honour the family and grandparents.

Quebec's civil code has enshrined the role of grandparents in article 611 which states:

In no case may the father or mother, without a grave reason, interfere with personal relations between the child and his grandparents.

The intent of Bill C-291 truly goes beyond partisan politics in giving grandparents recognition for their important fundamental contribution to family and society, love given freely with no strings attached. Bill C-291 should receive unanimous consent in the House.

Grandparents bring a tremendous amount of affection, energy and other beneficial things into the lives of children. One thing unchanged through all time is that children still require a loving and secure environment. Most grandparents are ready, willing and able to provide love in abundant quantities and children are quick to realize that when in grandma's or grandpa's care they are safe, secure and adored. They have a home away from home, often with fewer or more lenient rules to follow.

Grandparents provide a link to our past, to our roots and to our heritage. During every day conversation they share the trials and joys experienced during their lives. They pass on knowledge of the ways, whys and wherefores of previous generations and give meaning to the changes that have evolved over time.

Grandparents care deeply for the happiness and well-being of these innocent, young, impressionable lives and do everything within their power to pave the way for a better and more caring tomorrow.

Parents can usually depend on grandparents to care for their grandchildren whenever help is needed. They are there when difficult situations such as illness or problems within the family relationship present themselves. Grandparents are there to provide stability and continuity for their grandchildren.

It is only natural that grandparents should be nurturing and caring. After all, they were parents at one time and are now the beneficiaries of the experience they gained while raising their families.

A strong family structure is the best means by which to nurture children and society as a whole and grandparents are an integral part of the structure. Thus, it is most fitting that 1995 be officially proclaimed the year of the grandparent. As 1994 was declared the international year of the family, it seems to logically follow that 1995 should be chosen to give special recognition to grandparents.

Not too long ago, the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins formed a cohesive, interdependent unit which helped to provide the basic necessities of life. Small communities were self-sustaining and so were families.

Today, the economy and times have changed. People have moved away from the hometown and have found employment in places often far removed from the traditional nuclear family. Our society is fast paced, often demanding that people not only change jobs, but pick up roots and change careers several times over their working years.

There is increasing displacement and stress on the family in today's environment, with the result that in many cases, the reassuring support traditionally given by the family unit is not

readily accessible nor available to provide immediate support when it is needed.

More and more homes see both parents working. This evolution has impacted on the role of the grandparents by restricting their access to their grandchildren. Often it is not easy for them to maintain close contact with their grandchildren but despite these obstacles, families do remain united, tied by their common roots. Grandparents have and always will be an integral part of the family because love transcends all obstacles and survives the onslaught of modern society.

Families are the anchors of a caring society. It is vital to do everything possible to preserve the nuclear family unit.

Governments should recognize that the family is best equipped to provide and inculcate those things which make a society strong and caring. Interference or attempts to replace positive family influence with questionable or intrusive government programs simply erode the strength the family can provide to society.

Often, grandparents step in to accept the role of primary caregiver. In cases of family breakdown, they are usually willing to do what comes naturally by simply being available to be part of the solution, an option lawyers and courts often fail to consider.

To have access and be able to provide a continuing, dignified, stable, supportive presence in the lives of children caught in the middle of an emotional and bitter family dispute is a service grandparents are often well suited to assume. Present laws do not foster this option.

In a time when government is looking for ways to restructure social and welfare programs, it should recognize that millions of dollars could be saved and a better solution arrived at by including grandparents in custody and access hearings. This is not only in the best interests of the grandparents but also in the best interests of children often caught in the crossfire.

The courts should recognize there are other options at least in the interim, a neutral third party willing to accept the role of caregiver. Most grandparents, if able, are willing to take on this responsibility and be part of the solution in what is often a highly emotional, indeed devastating time for all parties involved. Again, they are needed but often not considered as an option or part of the solution.

With 1995 designated as the year of the grandparent, it would be logical for government to take the steps necessary to amend current legislation to allow grandparents to be grandparents by providing the care, love and support they are so willing to give.