Clifford Lincoln

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, there were two very significant differences between the intervention in 1999 in Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia and the intervention in Iraq today. Active genocide was going on in that region at that time. The action was backed by a global coalition which was uncontested with the exception of Russia

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Milosevic, yes. What about the Soviet Union? We certainly did not interfere there. We let the Russians decide for themselves to remove their dictatorship.

If we start on a selective basis to declare pre-emptive wars every time a dictator does not please any one country, be it the United States, or the United Kingdom, or Canada or France, we create a world of international rogue states. We cannot tolerate a world where the United Nations, where the multilateral consensus of nations, will not be the paramount voice.

Since I am sharing my time with my colleague, I will close now by saying that whatever happens in this debate or the next debate, even if public opinion swings 90% in favour of this present war, even if I stand-alone, this war is unjustified. War is abominable. It is a last resort and not something we should tolerate.

I am very proud that our government decided to stand tall and go against the tide. If public opinion were to swing drastically, if the official opposition were to be right in the polls, I still think pre-emptive wars are totally wrong. They are morally wrong. What they do in the long run and the short run is to kill, maim and destroy populations of innocent people. Soldiers who are 18, 19 or 20 years old are being sent to war while the decision makers sit comfortably at home. I am totally against war unless it is proven inevitable. In this case, it was not proven inevitable. The people who decide on war should not sleep calmly at night.

[Situation in Iraq, April 8th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford.

I would like to say right away that I am very proud of the decision of the Canadian government not to enter into the war against Iraq. I know that victory by the English, Australian and American coalition is imminent. However, despite this imminent victory, we must make our position perfectly clear. My position is that I am totally opposed to a war that I feel is completely unjustified.

I have received a great many messages recently, some of them very critical and many of them raising the issue that our trade with the United States will suffer because of the decision not to support the war. I would like to quote one of our colleagues who said in caucus the other day—and I am sure that this colleague would not mind me saying it here, “What is more important? Money from trade with the United States, or human lives?”

On way or another, war entails casualties. Often, innocent people are involved, as is the case here, with troops sent to war by their leaders and especially families, women and children who are injured and die on the front lines.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about resolution 1441. He brought up all the flip-flops that the government was supposed to have undergone.

First, I would remind him that resolution 1441 was backed by all the countries of the Security Council, including the U.S. and the U.K. Logically, we could also say that the U.S. and the U.K. themselves flip-flopped. At one point they had said that resolution 1441 was sufficient for them to use as a step toward war and then they changed their minds. The U.S. and the U.K. initiated, with Spain, the second resolution they presented to the Security Council, in addition to resolution 1441.

If, therefore, they were satisfied with resolution 1441, why would they have presented a second resolution? If they did present a second resolution, surely, in fairness, they should have had to be bound by its result. However the decision really was if they won the second resolution in the Security Council, then they would go to war. If they lost, they would still go to war.

The opposition has brought up the veto of France. That was never the question. The fact is the second resolution did not have the backing of the small powers that made the difference; Mexico, Chile, Guinea, Cameroon, which resisted all the pressures to vote for the second resolution.

I point out that resolution 1441 had nothing to do with a change of regime. It was strictly about disarmament. In the view of this government, and so many governments around the world, disarmament was happening.

Now that the war is a fait accompli and is about to end, of course we hope for a rapid end to it. We certainly hope that there will be a cease fire soon, that the coalition will judge that its aims have been accomplished and that firing will cease.

We were told that one of the reasons this war was so imperative was that we had to get rid of weapons of mass destruction on the soil of Iraq. Today, after 20 days of war, there have been all kinds of rumours that these WMDs, as they are called, were found here and there, that so-called barrels of chemical warfare agents were found and that white powder was found. Every time these were tested, a new press conference was held to say that, no, that these were not weapons of mass of destruction after all.

We went to war on the basis of destroying weapons of mass destruction. The war is nearly over and we have not found any.

War, at times, is inevitable. We concede that sometimes there is no other way. We entered the first world war, the second world war and the Korean war. We felt that war then was inevitable. This time the war was not inevitable. The Security Council was dealing with it, inspections were working and Iraq was disarming. The reason war happened was the Security Council was set aside and a new objective came into being, that of regime change. If wars become legitimate to ensure regime change, where do we start and where do we end?

My colleague very fairly put this question to the opposition a few minutes ago. Where next do we strike in the Middle East and elsewhere? Do we strike against Libya? Do we go against Syria? Do we go against Mugabe? Do we go against North Korea?

Today we heard that our foreign minister made an intervention regarding Cuba, denouncing the tremendous penalties that had been visited upon Cubans who had spoken against the regime, namely prison terms ranging from 25 to 30 years. The foreign minister intervened to state that this was completely unacceptable under the declaration of human rights.

What do we do? Do we move against Cuba to remove Castro? Where does this cease, if the doctrine of pre-emptive war becomes the doctrine that rules the international world? How do we select the next dictator? What do we do if we do not like that individual and want to push that person aside? This is fraught with imminent danger because it is selective. Surely we would not select someone we could not remove. We would have to make judgment calls.

Was Tiananmen Square enough for us to take action against the Chinese government?

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, would the member allow me to speak, please? If he wanted to intervene, he had time to intervene. He did not choose to, so I do not want to be interrupted by him with all his little interruptions. I want to speak for myself. If he wanted to speak, he had time to speak. If he did not choose to speak then he should keep quiet.

By 2008 Japan will be producing enough ethanol blend gasoline to reduce its Kyoto target of 6% by fully 1%. Perhaps as well the member did not read the bill, because it does include bio-diesel fuels. We are talking about oxygenation of diesel fuel and of gasoline fuels. As I said, oxygenation has been the route taken by 28 states in the United States.

When we talk about all the wonderful things we are going to do by 2010, I would remind the parliamentary secretary that today Scania buses are running with 100% ethanol blend gasoline in Sweden, but here we only have a few cars. I have met Swedish people who are using 85% blend ethanol cars.

I am not a proponent of ethanol necessarily, but at the same time I know, because the parliamentary secretary has quoted Iogen, that the Iogen people have been among the greatest proponents of this bill for cellulose ethanol to put in gasoline.

As far as the prices go, whenever I can, I buy ethanol blend gasoline. It is highly competitive thanks to the 10¢ excise tax rebate. However, I would point out that the United States offers a 23¢ per litre excise tax rebate, instead of 10¢ as we do here, to promote the ethanol industry. Certainly by all standards, if we compare the oxygenation of gas through ethanol or methanol with MMT, which we use today, there is just no comparison. MMT is one of the worst pollutants. It is produced on a base of manganese and it is about time we started to get rid of it.

I am very sorry that in our crazy system we will not have a chance to at least vote on my bill. I regret that one of my colleagues refused the consent motion, because the new rules now would have permitted my bill to go through and to be voted on by my peers, which is really what any parliamentarian wants.

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is the usual refrain. It is the second time I have presented a bill about oxygenation of gasoline. The government always congratulates me and tells me what a wonderful measure it is but decides against it.

What I would point out to the government is that by 2010, when the federal program, which is not legislated, by the way, will come into force, we will be producing 500 million litres of ethanol blend gasoline. What I will explain to the parliamentary secretary, who pointed out MTBE, is that I am not talking about MTBE. I am just saying that this bill was based on the Minnesota model, which in four years has produced 869 million litres of oxygenated gasoline through ethanol. That is in four years only.

Now in 2003, the United States produces 7 billion litres of ethanol; that is since 1990. It has 1.3 million Ford cars with 85% ethanol blend, while we only have 26 in Canada. Legislation in 28 states in the United States has proven that legislation pushes forward the agenda.

I agree that my timetable might have been short and I would have been quite prepared to change it if the bill had been made votable. I listened to my colleague from the Canadian Alliance who said that it was not very significant anyway. I will just tell him that Japan has legislated 10% ethanol blend gasoline by 2008 and it will reduce its target.

[Automotive Pollution Reduction Act, April 3rd, 2003]

moved that Bill C-235, an act to protect human health and the environment by oxygenating automotive fuels, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the principle behind this bill is quite simple. In fact, the gasoline used in our cars, both public and private vehicles, is a great source of pollution. It contains seven pollutants, each more harmful than the other.

The idea behind the bill is the following: the more oxygen you put in gasoline, the less polluting it is. The more we manage to clean gasoline through oxygenation, the less pollution there will be.

In fact, public transportation is the largest contributor to air pollution. In terms of the seven air pollutants, transportation contributes from 19% to up to 60% of emissions.

For instance, public transportation accounts for 31% of CO

2

emissions. By transportation, I mean general transportation, whether it is private, institutional or public. It also accounts for 41% of nitrogen oxide emissions.

I need not get into what air pollution means in terms of health problems, heart disease and respiratory diseases. We need not get into details, with the striking examples we find in our hospitals. In some of our communities, air pollution has caused all sorts of problems that have forced thousands of people to visit the hospital for heart or respiratory conditions.

The more we can purify our fuel through oxygenation, the less polluted the air will be. In fact, certain countries have experimented with unrefined fuels; one of these countries is Brazil, where 3.6 million vehicles run on ethanol made from sugar cane bagasse. There are 3.6 million vehicles running on pure ethanol.

Japan passed legislation to make the addition of 10% ethanol mandatory. Japan figured that, once the legislation is in force in a few years, air pollution will be reduced by 1% in relation to its Kyoto target, which is 6%. The use of fuel made purer by the addition of 10% ethanol will account for a 1% reduction in pollution.

In general, ethanol represents 40% to 80% less carbon dioxide than conventional gasoline. Since 1990 the United States has made huge efforts, compared to ours here, to produce ethanol fuel. The United States consumes seven billion litres of ethanol annually. In the year 2000, 28 U.S. states legislated oxygenation of their gasoline.

I modelled my bill on the Minnesota model. Minnesota legislated oxygenation of its fuel in 1997. Since then, because of the Minnesota law, 10 ethanol plants have been created. Minnesota now uses 869 million litres of ethanol per year. In Chicago, only oxygenated gasoline, called oxy-fuel, is available for sale. The Chicago area uses 225 billion litres of ethanol a year.

Here in Canada we are really almost at the stage of infancy in regard to our production of ethanol. It must be admitted that the federal government has undergone certain programs with the provinces of Canada to arrive at various reductions of air pollutant components such as sulphurs and carbon dioxide in the climate change program, et cetera. It has also agreed under the climate change program to arrive at a level of 35% ethanol by 2010, representing 500 million litres of gasoline.

My bill will only accelerate the climate change program and the measures already taken by the government to purify our gasoline. Right now what we use in our gasoline as an additive is MMT, which is manganese based. By using oxygenation in our fuel and substituting ethanol in our gasoline, not only would we reduce pollution, we would improve the octane of cars and make our cars more efficient. We would ensure a direct benefit to our environment and reduce air pollution and disease and all the various effects of a constant pollution represented by our transportation.

I do not know if the rules applied when I produced the bill before the committee. Sadly, my bill will not be votable and I deplore this. I am grateful that the system has now been changed. I have been in the House for 10 years. I have produced several bills before the private members' bills committee. Twice my name has come up in the draw and twice my bills have been judged not votable, and I deplore it completely. When it is a measure which is of public interest, which will improve the environment and the health of Canadians at large, I find it very sad that due to a system that is so arbitrary my bill today will consist of a discussion for an hour and then die on the Order Paper.

I hope that the House will consider giving me consent to make the bill votable, because I would like it to be judged by my peers.

[Free Trade Agreements, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I move that we now see the clock as 6:30 p.m.

[Assisted Human Reproduction Act, March 26th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I find it very sad to impugn a motive on the police associations that they would take a stand because they are receiving $100,000 or whatever money for their associations. I really believe police associations and their chiefs are honest people. I do not think they would take a policy decision as important as this on the basis of some grant that they might be receiving from one government or another. I find that offensive and I think they would as well.

As far as the Liberal ladies, I think the Liberal ladies will find that also pretty amusing. The polls show an overwhelming number of Canadians, 70%, support gun control. It could be that in certain ridings, yes, Canadians are against gun control. We have some ridings here among our colleagues where a majority are against gun control. However the great majority of Canadians show in poll after poll that they are for gun control. That is a reality. All the polls have showed it right along the way for years now and it continues that way.

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair point. It is not the duty of the Auditor General to comment on policy. I just wanted to make that point. The comment related strictly to financial administration and that the issue of gun control was far broader than this, but I concede that point made by my colleague.

At the same time, should we spend that money somewhere else? I noticed my colleague referred to police services that we might put this money into. What I notice is the overwhelming members of the police organizations, all the chiefs of police, the police almost everywhere in Canada back gun control registration very strongly because they say that it is an indispensable tool to take care of the inventory of guns in our midst.

I do not want to criticize in any way but at the same time it is a fair comparison that the places where they do not have gun registration and a lack of gun control, for instance our neighbours next door, it is a free for all. I do not want to see us get into that society. The police chiefs themselves have pleaded with us for registration.

Therefore I really believe registration is an essential system and I back it 100%. If we can rectify the cost, as we will, make it accountable to Parliament, as we will, and reduce the cost of it so it is reasonable, fair and accountable, then that is the answer.