Jack Frazer

[Unemployment Insurance, January 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on unfairness in the unemployment insurance system.

Some members of the Canadian forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and public service are paying premiums for unemployment insurance they will never be allowed to collect.

When they reach a certain stage in their careers these people, should they retire or be released, have qualified for and will receive a pension sufficient to make them ineligible to receive unemployment insurance. Yet at present they are still required to pay the premiums. Since they can no longer collect unemployment insurance they should no longer have to pay UI premiums.

I submit the regulations should be changed so that when the pension entitlements of individuals equal or exceed the unemployment insurance they would receive, they stop paying UI premiums. To do otherwise amounts to extra and unfair taxation.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie regarding a 25 per cent reduction in the defence budget.

I am sure the hon. member is aware that over the past 20 years Canada has been second only to Luxembourg in per capita commitment to defence. In fact, we have been recognized in NATO and other agencies as being very much remiss in our contribution to defence.

Over the next four years we are scheduled to see a $6 billion reduction in the defence budget already announced. I would ask the hon. member if it is realistic and reasonable to suggest a 25 per cent reduction in a budget for a force that we do not really know yet what we are going to ask it to do? Would it not be more appropriate to await the outcome of the defence review before we establish a budget to operate that force?

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that in addition to areas like the Persian Gulf there is also the danger of threats from people who have snow on the ground for a reasonable portion of the year. I mentioned earlier the volatility of areas in the former U.S.S.R. I do not in any way claim they are contemplating attack on the west but it is possible that by some aberration this could happen.

I think that the testing, both in desert conditions and in the north in snow conditions, is a valid project.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I very much appreciate it.

He is probably fairly accurate in saying that the original reasons for which the missile was conceived are now passe. However, I think the experience in the gulf war demonstrated a very valid and useful purpose for this type of weapon. It enables the intrusion of the weapon into the area in question. There is reasonable assurance of destruction and it does the job without risking a pilot. If it is necessary for the missile to be committed that is a good reason for having it in the arsenal.

With regard to complaints I take very much to heart what the member is saying. When I made my comments about no complaints from constituents I was referring to constituents which are represented by Reform Party members of Parliament.

I understand there are complaints from the Northwest Territories and I am already on record as saying that if the people who are complaining about the missile test wish to present their complaints to a parliamentary committee I would be more than willing to participate in such a hearing so that I could hear both sides of the story directly from the people concerned. We should take their complaints and concerns into account.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct. I apologize for not having made that point earlier.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to reiterate a lot of what has been said because it is covering old ground. However I would point out that this agreement was signed originally in 1983. It was renewed for five years in 1988 and was renewed in February of last year for a further ten years. This is an agreement in support of a mutual defence pact which is of great value to Canada. It means a lot to our stability.

The U.S.S.R. by and large has disappeared and is no longer an obvious threat. The area is certainly not under control. There is a lot of volatility there. When we think back to the Russians having constructed a very similar weapon to the one that is proposed to be tested over Canada, we have to consider that there are many countries in that region which have cash balance problems, foreign exchange problems. They are very vulnerable to offers from various agencies that are willing to pay large sums to gather the ability to threaten or to create terror.

The fact that the weapons were used with great effect in the gulf war is indicative of what they can do. I refer to what the leader of the opposition has said, that any country with the ability to build a simple airplane can construct one of these weapons which will carry a tonne of dynamite or explosives for a distance of at least 300 miles and explode with great accuracy.

There is another spin-off benefit from the testing taking place in Canada. It provides a platform for our air crews to practice their technology, their interception against this type of threat. This could be invaluable not only within Canada but should we find our forces committed in some other theatre in the future.

There is a spin-off. Ancillary to this agreement, Canada is able to benefit from mutual testing programs with the United States. It pays dividends in information exchanged. It is a productive program.

To my knowledge our constituencies, many of which lie in the path of the overflights, have received no complaints from the constituents who reside there. There are people who are concerned about the overflights and have complained about them but we have not in our constituencies received any direct input on this matter. I believe there is minimal, if any, environmental impact caused by these missiles overflying the country.

If I may go back to my personal experience when I was base operations officer at Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake, I was in charge of the range there. It was a rectangular area some 100 by 60 miles.

On that range live an awful lot of animals: moose, caribou, grizzly bears and so on. I overflew it regularly and I have seen moose in my flight path that stood with its head in the water and completely ignored my overflight. In fact, he was more bothered by a helicopter when I went up to check what was going on than he was by the jets flying over. The jets were flying at an altitude of 50 feet at speeds exceeding 600 knots, over 700 miles an hour. Animals do adapt.

To further exemplify the fact that animals adapt, when I went there in 1976 a herd of eight buffalo were living within the range. By the time I left in 1979 the herd had grown to 13 animals.

In this instance there is a limited window within which these tests can be conducted. It is my understanding that the tethered flights, that is with the missile attached to the wing of a B-52, are conducted in the period between October and December.

Only two of the free flights that we are now discussing take place between January and the end of March. The reason for this, as I understand it, is in case of an accident and the missile crashes. The missile might start a forest fire if it happened outside that timeframe when the snow was off the ground.

It is of great concern to the United States military that wishes to conduct the test that we are procrastinating and delaying approval. These tests are in Canada's best interests and should be allowed to proceed.

The agreement was signed in good faith. Canada should honour the agreement to which we have committed and should allow the tests to proceed.

[Cruise Missile Testing, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it was our understanding that the next period is to go to the Liberal Party. Do you wish us to speak at this point?

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said during my remarks there are no easy solutions to the dilemma that we are in. I recognize what

the member says and I believe that he is correct that we are in danger if we extract our forces of allowing the fighting there to intensify.

However, if we stay involved we are also staying to observe constant carnage, killing, maiming and bombardment. I do not think there is any completely satisfactory solution to the dilemma. That is why I propose that perhaps firm action would make the difference.

With regard to the percentage, as I mentioned a few moments ago, the Muslims in Bosnia and Croatia comprise over 40 per cent of the population. It is my understanding that they are getting weapons both from the Serbs and the Croats and are in a position to at least defend themselves.

With regard to the second question on our troops in Croatia, there is sufficient interplay between the peoples in the region that demands should be made to everybody in the region and our threats should be to everyone in the region: "If you do not somehow influence a peaceful resolution of this situation we are going to withdraw our forces".

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if we go back far enough in the origins of the area, we find that all the residents are basically Slavs. Over the years, they have been affected by outside influences which have caused them to go in different directions to different religions. When I referred to their common ethnicity, I meant going back a long way. Obviously there are substantial and very violent differences between them at the moment. The fact that Bosnia was recognized has been considered by some to have been a mistake, that in fact the outcome which has happened was inevitable.

It is my understanding the Muslims are acquiring quite a heavy weapon stock so we are soon likely to see an increase in armed activity on their side. While the disparity of the surrounding nations unquestionably bears on the numbers of Serbs around, I think within Bosnia itself the Muslims will be able to make a rather good account of themselves should it come to that. I hope very much that it does not.

Unless the world, and Canada in particular, takes a stance which involves the requirement for these people to accommodate, to concede, to compromise in the Canadian tradition, that nothing will happen and we will see the thing go on forever.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise you that in this debate Reform speakers will be dividing their time into 10 minutes segments, allowing five minutes for questions and comments.

To begin I would like to join my colleagues in congratulating the Speaker on his election, you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker and assure both of you of my full co-operation in this House in the days to come.

In this my maiden speech I want to speak briefly of my constituency, Saanich-Gulf Islands, in beautiful British Columbia. Our southern border takes in a substantial portion Victoria, the garden city of Canada. Moving northward up the Saanich peninsula we encounter a delightful mix of farms and seaside towns and villages; urban convenience in an idyllic rural environment.

Finally, it includes the southern Gulf Islands often referred to as the jewels in the crown of Canada's west coast. Here one will find some of the best fishing and sailing in the world.

In August this year the eyes of the world will be focused on the 15th Commonwealth Games activities, many of which will take place within our boundaries.

During the election the returning officer informed me that in respect to population, Saanich-Gulf Islands is the second largest constituency in British Columbia and the 10th largest in Canada. During the interval between the 1988 and the 1993 elections the number of eligible voters grew from 77,000 to over 93,000 representing 125,000 constituents. In fact, I believe I am now the proud representative of a goodly number of Canadians who were previously resident in the constituencies of many of the other members of this House.

Perhaps because of the variety of their origins I have found my constituents to be intelligent, well-informed and patriotic Canadians, very much representative of our whole country. I thank them for entrusting their representation to me and pledge my best efforts in fulfilling that very serious obligation.

Moving to this debate on Bosnia, I want to acknowledge the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, both of whom made members of their departments available to brief us on the situation in and around Bosnia. I

thank them for responding so quickly and co-operatively to our request.

Furthermore we agree with the government's stated position on air strikes. In our view, as soon as an air strike takes place the peacekeepers and helmets of the UN take on the same colour as the helmet of the pilot who delivered the ordinance. They will be deemed to have taken sides, to have become antagonists and thus appropriate targets. Air strikes should only be authorized if UN forces are under or in direct danger of attack.

Our thanks also go to Major General Lewis MacKenzie, former Canadian commander in the area who took time to come and give us his firsthand impressions and viewpoint of the situation in Bosnia.

At the start I want to recognize the excellence of the Canadian forces personnel we have committed in the former Yugoslavia. These troops are well trained, well disciplined, well motivated and well able to carry out any reasonable task assigned to them. They have earned and deserve our respect and admiration.

They have also earned and deserve our informed consideration for their future involvement in the convoluted situation to which they are presently committed. In Bosnia we face deeply held differences between Serbs, Croats and Muslims who, although they enjoy a common ethnicity, are now radically and violently divided, in fact opposed. Make no mistake, none of the belligerents have clean hands; all have been involved in atrocities against the others.

Canada has a proud tradition of involvement in peacekeeping operations. It has cost more than 140 lives and many more injuries over the years but in the main I believe most Canadians have supported this commitment. However, the feedback I am now receiving from my constituents reveals their concern with the present Canadian involvement in Bosnia. They worry that Canadian lives are being put at risk in what they perceive to be a questionable cause. They wonder, if the people of Bosnia show no inclination to put aside their differences and find a peaceful resolution of their problems, is Canada helping to end or merely perpetuating this unhappy situation?

Canadians were committed to Bosnia to provide humanitarian aid, and despite the difficulties, dangers and frustrations encountered, by and large they have succeeded in their mission. But let it be well understood, this is not a peacekeeping mission, because there is no peace to keep. Rather our forces are observing and operating in and around a civil war, in the full sense of the word.

Canada presently has more armed forces deployed in theatres of operations than at any time since the Korean war. We are stretching our resources, particularly the infantry, to the limit, to the extent that should another incident such as Oka arise, it could very well be beyond the capacity of our armed forces to adequately respond.

However, the size of the Canadian forces and the tasks assigned them should await the outcome of the forthcoming defence review. On this point, Reformers commend the government on its decision to conduct this study. It is long overdue.

But a decision on Canadian involvement in the former Yugoslavia cannot await finalization of the defence review. The end of our present commitment in Bosnia is rapidly approaching and we must soon take a stand. It seems to me that Canada has only two options: first, to stay and prepare for a long-lasting involvement in the region; or second, to take the initiative by demanding that the belligerents commit to achievable, measurable and enforceable progress toward a peaceful resolution.

In this second instance Canada would further state that failing such commitment Canadian forces will be withdrawn from the theatre.

If our studies and briefings have done nothing else they have clearly shown us there are no easy solutions. By staying involved we are alleviating the suffering of tens of thousands of civilians. At the same time, inescapably, we are supplying the fighting forces and enabling or even assisting them to continue the war. Our presence is diminishing the fighting, but children are still being maimed and killed, women raped, and the general population indiscriminately bombarded. So increased hatred is continually being bred.

Conversely a withdrawal by the UN would unleash the opposing forces, prompting the likelihood of an increase in hostilities and, in some instances, a blood bath. Furthermore, it would enhance the danger that this war could extend beyond its present boundaries. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Which way do we go?

It strikes me, and I admit that my background as a fighter pilot may be influencing my reasoning, that some action is better than none. While we do not know what the outcome will be, it may be time for Canada to be hard-nosed, saying to the belligerents: "If you are not willing to make some concessions and compromises toward a peaceful resolution of the war, we are going to withdraw and leave you to it."

If such a declaration were delivered it would be stronger if it came in the name of all UN forces in the theatre. However, considering Canada's reputation as a peacekeeper, a threat of unilateral Canadian withdrawal would unquestionably draw world attention and hopefully impact strongly on Serb, Croat and Muslim leaders.

If this were to be our decision, it must be made absolutely clear that Canada is not withdrawing because the going is rough. Canadians have demonstrated their mettle in two world wars, the Korean war and many peacekeeping actions over the years. They have demonstrated it in Bosnia. Our forces have clearly indicated their willingness to remain involved. Continuing along our present path seems to give little hope of a peaceful settlement. Rather it gives every indication of a commitment to remain and observe the civil war for many years to come.

The belligerents met in Geneva to talk on January 18 and 19, but proceedings collapsed. More talks are scheduled in Geneva on February 10. I submit that it is time for Canada to take the lead by hosting a conference here in Ottawa in early February, before that Geneva meeting, to include all countries with forces currently committed in the former Yugoslavia. At this conference, Canada should urge that the UN issue a clear and unequivocal ultimatum to the belligerents. Either accept moves to achieve and enforceable peaceful solution or accept the withdrawal of UN forces.

Should the conference not agree, Canada should state that unless definite progress toward peace happens in Bosnia prior to then, it is our intention to withdraw our troops in April when our current commitment is completed.