Clifford Lincoln

[The Environment, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to sustainable development. Both the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of

Finance have committed themselves to set up this task force on sustainable development as soon as possible.

As a first step they have directed both their ministries to make it a priority. As a second step a meeting will be convened of all the interested stakeholders to discuss terms of reference, following which this task force will be set up.

[The Environment, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, our First Nations describe the earth as our mother and treat it with the deepest respect and affection. They say that the forest and its wildlife are adornments that make the mother more beautiful. The more beautiful they are, the better the mother feels.

They say that rivers, streams and lakes are like the arteries and the veins in the body of the mother. The cleaner they are, the healthier they are, the healthier the mother is.

Their respect and love for mother earth is profound. Today is Earth Day. I suggest we pledge ourselves to learn from the example and show all the love and respect to mother earth that they do.

[Foreign Affairs, April 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I think all Canadians, and certainly all those participating in this debate, share a feeling of revulsion towards this horrible slaughter occurring almost in front of us, since we see the same scenario every night on TV: massacres, a total lack of respect for human life, inexplicable violence.

Looking at all this, we wonder what makes people resort to such cruelty. As a man, I noticed that it is mostly the doing of men. In fact, almost all the people waging war in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda are men. When we look back, we see that all wars have been fought by men.

In Bosnia not only are the Bosnians hostages to the violence, but so too are the Canadian soldiers, soldiers from other nations and indeed the whole world at large. All of us cannot be innocent of this conflict. No matter where we live, we cannot help but be impacted by the tremendous tragedy taking place.

Canadians should be proud that Canada in its time-honoured tradition has continued to do its part. In fact it has done much more than its share in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia.

Tonight our thoughts must go to the Canadian soldiers on the ground in Bosnia, to their families here at home, including their children who must be living very anxious hours.

I think I translate the feelings of most Canadians. We have a great friendship and a tremendous regard and respect for our neighbours to the south, the Americans. At the same time I sense from many Canadians that they do not think the Americans have played their part in Bosnia. They think that somehow the Americans have played a cosy game, that resorting to air strikes mostly by American pressure and with American war planes will be part of the American agenda because it is partly a political agenda: Let us not send ground troops there, so let us carry out bombing raids.

I wonder if it is normal that the smaller of the two North American partners has had troops on the ground for many, many months whereas the far more powerful and important partner has managed to escape the responsibility of sending ground troops for so many months. Is it also normal that many countries have managed to cosily stand aside finding excuses not to take part in the United Nations peacekeeping effort?

The great majority of us, perhaps all of us simply dread an escalation of the war. We dread another bombing raid. We wonder about the possible failure of bombing raids. Would failure leave not only the Bosnians and their families but all our troops even more vulnerable than they are today?

It is with a sense of a tremendous tearing apart of our minds and hearts that we face this terrible decision. What do we do? I think certainly it is essential for us to make sure that no decision is taken without the Russians having their say and being involved. Even if I happen to be completely opposed to the idea of an air strike, seeing this I realize that decisions like this cannot be black and white.

I listened very carefully to our two leading ministers on this issue, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence, this afternoon in caucus and I was struck by their sense of caution, of wisdom, of realizing that there is no easy solution.

I know that tonight the Prime Minister and our two ministers must be thinking through this terrible dilemma that faces all of us. In their case they are the people who have the decision to make. Who am I to say that it should be one way or another without the proper facts at my command, without the responsibility to answer for whatever I say?

I trust our leadership. I think it has been wise. It has been cautious so far. It has been extremely human in its approach. Whatever the decision may be, and if it has to be bombing raids after much thought, sad as I would be, I would understand that it was made with a feeling that it may be the last resort to try and stop the Serbians.

If this is what our leaders decide, I hope at the same time they will add some caveats to the Canadian position asking others, especially the United States, to do their share; asking President Clinton for more than bombing raids and sending troops there. If we can send 2,000 troops surely he can send 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 or 10,000.

I hope that our leaders convince the rest of the nations that are not participating in the issue on Bosnia to do their fair share.

Finally, we must draw lessons from all of this. What of the United Nations strategy? What happens in the future? What are the lessons to be drawn from Somalia, from Rwanda and today from Bosnia and tomorrow maybe from many other places? Can we police the world? Can we keep the peace all over the world? What should be our strategy for the future?

Tonight I must say, as a man, that I feel very sad thinking that it is men like me who have carried out practically endless slaughters in many parts of the world, be it in Africa, in Northern Ireland or today in Yugoslavia.

I notice that the innocent victims of these acts of violence are invariably women and children. So tonight we should look mostly at the innocent people and pray that our leaders will make wise decisions, as they did in the past, to keep our troops safe and save the lives of innocent people.

[High Speed Train, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief remark before I start my speech on the TGV.

Goodness knows I am a federalist and I am a deeply committed Canadian. I feel very differently from the people across the way in the Bloc Quebecois. At the same time I would be less than truthful if I did not feel hurt as a resident of Quebec, as a citizen of Quebec, by some of the remarks made by the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke.

I do not believe extreme statements about any part of the country, whether it be Quebec, the west or Atlantic Canada, help Canadian unity. I have always believed in constructive dialogue. We are adversaries at times. At the same time I do not think that loud and extreme statements help.

I am pleased to address today the motion presented by the hon. member from Joliette that the government should immediately authorize the construction of a high-speed rail service between Quebec City and Windsor.

Before stating the government's position on the motion, I would like to provide some background information which will assist in understanding our response to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Joliette.

In November 1991 the federal Minister of Transport of the day, along with the ministers of transport from Quebec and Ontario announced a joint study of the feasibility of operating a high-speed train service in the corridor between Quebec City and Windsor where the prospects for viability are surely the highest in Canada. This study was to take between 18 and 24 months to complete, at a cost of $6 million to be shared equally among the three governments.

The decision to conduct the study was based upon the recommendations of a joint Quebec-Ontario task force report released in May 1991 which examined the merits of high speed rail service in the corridor. This task force was created by the premiers of Quebec and Ontario in 1989.

The task force concluded that a final decision on whether to proceed with a high speed train project could not be made without undertaking a more detailed study covering such areas as traffic forecasts, routing, available technologies, environmental issues and funding alternatives by the private sector and the three governments. The report also recommended that the Government of Canada should be an active participant in this new study.

So, in keeping with these recommendations, the federal government agreed to participate with Ontario and Quebec in undertaking this more detailed work.

Based on the foregoing, the objective of this feasibility study is to recommend whether governments should initiate and/or support the development of high-speed rail service in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

The study is based on a review of representative technologies which would operate over various routes. Six such technologies are currently under consideration. The study enables realistic projections of impacts, including revenues and costs, to be evaluated and involves the participation of some thirty consultants on various aspects of the analysis. Obviously, we are talking about a very serious examination.

The study was initially scheduled for completion in the fall of 1993 but has been delayed as a result of the magnitude and complexity of the work. I should point out, however, that the study is still within its original $6-million budget, which, as I said, is shared equally between the three governments. The present schedule provides for the completion of a draft final report a few months from now.

As we are just coming out of a recession, we are faced with very high unemployment. Owing to high deficits, governments will want to ensure that projects will not require large amount of public funds. It could be argued, on the surface, that the implementation of a high-speed rail service would be a major initiative for considerable job creation and a major economic stimulus. The results of the economic impact studies will give an idea of how many jobs could be created by such a project.

The jobs would not be created in the short term, however. Should this project be approved, it would require at least several years of detailed environmental studies and assessments.

The government is faced with another reality which has been addressed by the Minister of Finance in a recently tabled budget, namely the deficit and the question of deficit reduction.

The government has demonstrated for the benefit of all Canadians its commitment to deficit reduction in the budget. We must address the unemployment problem in a constructive fashion. Care must be exercised in ensuring that any potential job creation initiatives will not have an adverse impact on the deficit but, on the contrary, should be such as to result in a steady reduction of both our deficit and national debt.

The benefit, cost and financial analysis will only be known at the completion of the study which as I mentioned previously will not be available for some months. Therefore it would not be appropriate to speculate on the results and to precipitate a decision as tabled by the hon. member for Joliette.

It is obvious that for a national government any decision on the potential of a high speed rail service must be examined in the light of the broader context of the overall transportation needs in Canada of Canadians.

Furthermore a decision of the potential of a high speed rail service should be examined in light of the broader context of the overall transportation needs in Canada, as I mentioned earlier. High-speed rail service has gained prominence throughout the world. France, Sweden, Spain, Italy and Japan are some of the countries that have benefited from the introduction of high speed rail services.

While recognizing the very obvious merits of such technology, we should be cautious and not jump to the conclusion that high speed rail service could have similar results in Canada, at least not until the review now under way is completed. Conditions that exist in Canada such as climate, demographics, intermodal competition, and the institutional and regulatory environment are all real concerns and could determine whether a high-speed rail service is viable or not.

Much closer to us, all attempts to initiate a high-speed rail service in the United States have failed. The most promising, namely the Texas project, has failed to raise the required private funding.

At the present time, it appears that only one high-speed train project will proceed in the United States. That is the Northeast corridor project between Washington, New York and Boston. The success of this project depends, to a great extent, on major government subsidies.

The difficulties encountered in the United States are a valuable lesson that we should not ignore and provide a further incentive to proceed carefully only once we have all of the information needed to make a sound decision.

While we treat the initiative proposed by the hon. member for Joliette with all the objectivity and seriousness it deserves, and we think it should be considered objectively and seriously, I believe that it would be wise and appropriate to wait to review this matter until the joint study has been completed. It would be totally irresponsible to rush into a project of this magnitude without taking the time to review it from every angle.

[Wildlife Conservation, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of 1994 National Wildlife Week, I extend an invitation to all hon. members, and to all Canadians, to take part in the week's activities.

Many dynamic projects will help Canadians to get to know wildlife better, and appreciate biodiversity in general. Perhaps more important, they will be able to take concrete steps to make our natural environment healthier. It could be something as simple as building a bird feeder for their backyards or as complicated as developing a wetland preservation project.

The theme for this year's wildlife week is: "Biodiversity works for wildlife, you can too". In French it is: "La biodiversité, tout un monde à sauvegarder". This is fitting because this is the year Canada will complete its biodiversity strategy.

This truly national strategy developed in co-operation with all the provinces and territories, with aboriginal peoples, with NGOs in the private sector, will be the instrument by which Canada-

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government has been following the chlorine issue extremely closely. So far the government's policy has focused its regulations and control efforts on chlorinated compounds demonstrated to be toxic and on the processes that generate them.

Environment Canada and Health Canada have undertaken a science-based examination of 22 chlorine compounds and have shown 14 of them to be toxic either to the environment or human health.

We are determined to address this issue through the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a review that will start very shortly through the Standing Committee on Environment

and Sustainable Development of which my hon. colleague is the chairman.

Through the Great Lakes action plans and programs in place already and through close interaction with other countries, especially the United States, we need to establish strategies along with our neighbours to the south to reduce, prohibit and substitute for the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds. The U.S. is now proposing a task force with timetables to establish a definite action plan that will define the ways to reduce, prohibit and substitute the use of chlorine.

Currently the Minister of the Environment is convening a consultation process of multi-stakeholders to do exactly this, to try and define an action plan to reduce, prohibit and substitute the use of chlorine. This action plan should be ready by the late spring of this year.

[Environment, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I take the question under advisement and will give a full report to the hon. member as soon as possible.

[Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask three questions of the previous speaker.

First, he referred to the aboriginal people of Canada and I would agree with him 100 per cent about the condition in which they find themselves. Has the hon. member taken the time to read our red book? It speaks of giving Canada's native people their own place, their own lives, their own destiny.

That has been the subject of many questions here relating to better education, better training for the workplace, a better health system and conditions. Finally it speaks of giving them their own justice system and eventually transferring to their hands the whole of the huge budget of the department of Indian affairs. Does the member not agree that the solution has already been advanced and should be debated very constructively here?

Second, in regard to better gun control I do not think solutions are simply in gun control. The minister of justice has advanced the positive idea that unless society as a whole works itself on a holistic basis and we clean ourselves from within, gun control once more is only part of the puzzle.

At the same time to argue today that gun control is not necessary is to fly in the face of the opinion of 85 per cent of Canadians. It flies in the face of the fact that one of my friends in Montreal, Michael Hogben, was killed by a fellow teacher because of loose gun control. It flies in the face of Marc Lépine who killed 14 young women at the École polytechnique in Montreal. It flies in the face of Brady who was pleading for more gun control in the United States-

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

What I mean is that-

[Supply, March 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last October, we presented to the Canadian public a very comprehensive program. It did not focus solely on young people. I used them as an example. Our program covered the entire social structure in Canada. It outlined our agenda in such areas as research and development where we pledged our support to the tune of 25 per cent for environmental research and development; it announced a comprehensive apprenticeship program for the next four years, a youth service corps and an infrastructure program. I would remind my colleague who speaks of 45,000 jobs that Statistics Canada reports that last month, 66,000 new jobs were created. Therefore, his figures are not correct. They should be 50 per cent higher.