Clifford Lincoln

[Supply, March 25th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my esteemed colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine.

About nine years ago, soon after the election, the Liberal Party of Canada held a very large convention in Ottawa. I was privileged and honoured to be asked to second the resolution on gun control which was put forward by our Liberal women's commission. The resolution asked the government to see that gun control become a priority in the legislation program. I was extremely pleased, as were many of my colleagues, to see that the government brought forward a gun control bill, Bill C-68.

The present Minister of Industry who was minister of justice back then has been criticized very strongly about the gun registration program. I would like to place on the record here that his courage and determination to bring in the gun control legislation in spite of fierce opposition, sometimes from our own colleagues on the Liberal side, was praiseworthy. He stood the course. I rejoice that the bill became law.

We are now talking about the registration system and the huge cost overruns that were involved with it. The Auditor General produced a report. We have to be fair and frank. It did create a lot of disdain and shock. A great many Canadians, many from my own riding who wrote to me and called me, said it was unacceptable. After all of these years we never knew that the gun registration system would suddenly balloon into a huge expense.

The Auditor General criticized us as a government for not bringing forward to Parliament the various requests for additional funding. We should not shy away from saying that a mistake was made. We do not want to hide behind some sort of rhetoric that would avoid this question. I find that even the supporters of gun control separate the gun control issue from the fact that there were flaws in the registration system and that the costs ballooned beyond reality.

At the same time, I also note that the Auditor General never criticized the merits of the policy itself. Although she criticized the financial administration of it and the fact that we did not bring it before the House as we should have on a regular basis, she never at any time criticized the merits of gun control.

In 2001, 85 people fell ill in a meningitis epidemic in my province of Quebec. In 2002, the government justifiably spent $125 million on an inoculation program to try to eradicate, or at least reduce, cases of meningitis.

In New Brunswick, on a highway where 43 people met their deaths in four years between 1996 and 2000, the federal government alone will spend $400 million to widen it and prevent future deaths.

So we need to put things in perspective. Every year, 1,000 Canadians die because of firearms. Compare that to the 3,000 Canadians who die on our highways. Think of all the money, the huge amounts we spend to make our Canadian highways safe. Compare that to the money we are earmarking for firearms control. Compare that to the amount we put into preventing death and disease.

Just think how much is spent in all of the provinces of Canada on the administration of drivers' licences. What is the cumulative cost of drivers' licences? What is the cumulative cost of this huge administrative system? This is something we are totally open about because we feel it is a way to finance safer roads.

Without in any way minimizing the errors made in connection with the firearms program, it must be realized that there were some additional reasons for the shortcomings.

First of all, we thought the provinces would come in with us to create a joint registration system, but many of them refused.

Then, there were the numerous court challenges, which caused several years' delay.

On top of that, a number of opponents of the program, often with the support of colleagues in this House, deliberately made mistakes in their registration form. According to the Auditor General, 85% of forms had to be done by hand rather than computer because of errors, often deliberate ones.

The whole issue here is gun control above all, although we are using the financial administration as a cover to avoid the fact that many people who oppose it, or all that oppose it, are against gun control itself. I am going to stand here and say I am for gun control. Gun control saves lives. Even if it saved one life, gun control would be worth it.

I hope when we vote for the additional estimates that many of us will stand tall and vote for it because gun control is part of a fair, just and secure society. This is what we should want here on this side of the House.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that there is an inconsistency there.

Certainly, there was no United Nations sanction for Kosovo. I suggest to him that circumstances were completely different. Kosovo was backed by the overwhelming approval of the world at large. Most of the countries that today are resisting this war in Iraq approved Kosovo. A genocide was actively going on against the Kosovo people in Bosnia. This is not the case in today's war in Iraq.

The United Nations said there was no case for justifying a war because Iraq was disarming. There was no active genocide going on in Iraq although in the past it had been the case. This regime was being enfeebled completely. It was not possible for Iraq to threaten the world at large or the United States for that matter or its own population. That is why more time was asked for by UN inspectors and most of the nations of the United Nations.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is apropos to make a reference to what happened during the Cuban missile crisis under Kennedy and what is happening now. Kennedy could have also declared war. All the chiefs of staff were pushing him to blast away against the Russians. He said to his cabinet and his chiefs of staff that the consequences of war were impossible to imagine. He used tactics and strategy to diffuse the issue. He used force, not as a means of war, but to diffuse the possibilities of war.

If the Canadian initiative had been followed, if more time had been given, if timelines and objectives had been given to Iraq with the tremendous power that was sitting on its doorstep, Iraq would have complied. We would not have had to check whether bombs fall in the right place or fall next door. It is very easy to say that it is precision bombing. At the end of it all it will be interesting to find out how many people were maimed or killed or went without food because of this wonderful precision of our bombs, smart or otherwise.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, that is really ironic because perhaps the member should find out where Saddam Hussein got his materials of mass destruction in the first place. Perhaps he should watch the footage of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. Perhaps he should also remember that Iraq was armed by the United States and others, including other western powers, because at the time we feared that Iran might win the war.

The hon. member should not come and tell us that we are so pious now, that we do not do anything wrong, and that we are on the right side of the equation. Many of these armaments come from old factories, whether they be American, French or British, which at the time we found convenient to supply these materials to Iraq because we wanted it to win the war against Iran.

We also want to prevent what is happening in North Korea. Yet it is completely inconsistent to say that we go to war because there are potentially weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but in North Korea we use diplomacy.

Time and again when questioned, President Bush and others have said they will negotiate with North Korea. The reason we negotiate with North Korea is because we know that a war against North Korea would be far riskier than a war against Iraq because the formidable shadow of China looms large and China would never permit a war in North Korea.

So we leave it alone. We negotiate there, but we do not negotiate against Iraq, in spite of the fact that the inspectors pleaded for more time. They said that a few more months and they will disarm Iraq. This war was written in stone months ago because President Bush had decided to go to war regardless. The United Nations became a convenience. When the second resolution did not pass because he could not get enough votes, then he went to war anyway because he had decided to go to war regardless.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

Ironically, only a few days after the adoption in this House, with a very strong majority, of a motion calling upon Canada not to go to war—a motion we accepted immediately—today we are debating a totally opposite motion. This one suggests that we change sides, undo the decision reached in the House with a strong majority, and say, “No, there was no such majority; no, there was no such motion”. It is quite ironic, then, that only a few days later we would have to do otherwise. That is what would happen today if we accepted the Canadian Alliance motion calling upon us to join the U.S.-U.K. coalition.

This morning, I heard the member presenting the motion say that it was disgraceful that, for the first time, we were not alongside the United States, our greatest ally, that we were letting Great Britain and the United States go it alone, that Canada was not with them.

However, I then asked him the following question which he did not answer, “Why, in 1939, was it perfectly legitimate for the United States not to join the coalition consisting of England, France, Canada and other countries, which had declared war in September?” The United States stayed out of it for very legitimate reasons. It is a sovereign nation which must make up its own mind. It was perfectly legitimate for the United States to decide, for its own reasons, not to go to war. Two years later, the United States declared war, after Pearl Harbor.

At the time, Canada's friendship with the United States did not suffer. Our friendship continued as before. We continued to trade with one another. We did not lose respect for the United States because it did not declare war at the same time we did. Why would it be any different today?

In fact, I support our noble and consistent reasons for not taking part in the war right now. First, because war is a last resort. Second, because war should be declared only if there is an immediate danger of being attacked by others. The danger was certainly not immediate. Third, we decided from the beginning that we needed UN approval.

It is easy, today, for the United States to say that resolution 1441 and the preceding resolutions on Iraq were sufficient reason to declare war.

If that were the case, that 1441 and previous resolutions on Iraq were enough to give them the right to declare war, why then did the United States and Great Britain decide to present another resolution beyond 1441? If they presented a second resolution after 1441, surely they themselves were not satisfied that 1441 was enough. If 1441 and previous resolutions had been enough, why then present another resolution? Once they presented another resolution, surely they had to accept the decision on that resolution.

The second resolution, according to the United States and Great Britain, meant that if the majority agreed with them, then the second resolution was fine and they would go to war with the UN approval. However, if the majority went against them, then the second resolution would not count and they would go to war anyway.

It is very convenient to say that it was France's veto that decided the whole issue, but the numbers were not there in the first place. Only four countries backed the U.S.-British resolution: the United States, Great Britain, Spain and Bulgaria. Let us leave France, China, Germany and the big powers alone. The fact is that smaller countries, such as Mexico, Chile, Guinea and Cameroon, underwent tremendous pressure from the United States, pressures almost to the point where people were saying that it was a coalition of bullying and of billing. In spite of that, they resisted. They never agreed to join the United States and Great Britain in the second resolution.

I also heard this morning, in the course of the debate, when the member for Regina--Qu'Appelle was making his speech, people from the Canadian Alliance making interjections time and again saying to him that he must be with Saddam. If people oppose the war they are with Saddam. I find that assessment simplistic, naive and insulting to the millions and millions of people all over the world who day in and day out, every weekend and every day, go out on the streets to protest.

I have been in three peace marches myself. Am I for Saddam? Are the hundreds of thousands of people who marched with me in Montreal, 200,000 last week, 200,000 this week, for Saddam? I hate dictatorships. I hate brutality. At the same time, surely we can think for ourselves and decide that being against the war does not mean being for the dictatorship.

What is amusing is that in the United States, major cities in 30 of the 50 states have passed resolutions denouncing the war: in California, 29 cities, including Los Angeles, Oakland, San Fransisco and others; Colorado; Connecticut; New Haven; New London; Atlanta; Illinois; Chicago; Des Moines, Iowa; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston; Detroit, Michigan; Jersey City, New Jersey; New Mexico and in New York itself, the very heart and soul of the 9/11 process and the 9/11 horror. New York City went against the war. Is it for Saddam? Syracuse went against the war. Is it for Saddam? Cleveland and Dayton in Ohio, Philadephia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and Austin in Texas, the very state of George Bush, went against the war. Are they for Saddam? Cities in Virginia, Washington, D.C., Wisconsin, et cetera, went against the war. Are they for Saddam?

I find it insulting that people who stand and say that they are against brutal dictatorships are not consistent. If they are against brutal dictatorships, what do they do after Saddam is finished? Do they go to war against Iran? Do they go to war against Libya? Do they go to war against Zimbabwe and Mugabe? Do they go to war against Myanmar, which has ignored the dictates of the world powers for 10 years and has brutally imprisoned the duly elected leader of the opposition? Why do we leave them alone.

Why do we leave North Korea alone? North Korea is thumbing its nose at the United States and the world. It has tools of mass destruction far worse than an enfeebled Iraq has today. However we are scared of North Korea. We do not go to war there because the shadow of China looms very large. We use negotiation and diplomatic manoeuvres with North Korea but we go to war against Iraq because we know we are going to win easier there.

I am against dictatorship as are all of us here. I am against Saddam Hussein. At the same time, my reason, my heart and my soul tell me that war is abominable and a last ultimate resort. We were disarming Saddam, thanks to the United States and Great Britain and we all agree on that. Thanks to those pressures and to the inspectors doing their work, Iraq was dismantling rockets. We could have sent in more inspectors. We could have done more over flights of the Iraqi territory. In time the people of Iraq would have ousted Saddam Hussein as they have ousted dictators all over the world. Mobutu was a dictator who was ousted. Idi Amen was a dictator who was ousted. How many dictators have been ousted without wars?

What we are trying to do in Iraq is impose our democracy on a people. What will ensue are consequences we cannot even imagine. The Muslim world will be polarized against our world in the name of Islam. What will happen to Iraq? Will the United States be able to sort out the Shiites, the Sunni Muslims and the Kurds by magic because President Bush has decided it?

Asking those questions is to say that we who have decided against the war have a fair case, that war was unjustified and that we must resolve more than ever to join in multilateral actions with other people of the world to decide. The United Nations may be imperfect but it is the only multilateral forum that we have for possible conciliation and peace.

I know it is futile to speak about conciliation and peace at this time when the United States and Britain, with their four star generals with all their bars, are praising the great allies that are moving forward to destroy Baghdad. When I see all these terrible bombs blowing up so many buildings I think of the many civilians who are within those buildings, women and children.

I speak against the war. I speak for peace. I hope that in the future we will resolve to work with other friends in the world rather than declare unilateral war.

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is a joke to say that there is a distinct minority of protests when a great number of people in Spain, upward of 80% of Italians and a majority of British people are against the war. It is a joke to say that it is a distinct minority when there are millions of people across all continents who are protesting this war. The member cannot count too well.

He purposely evaded one point. He made the point that it was poor policy and a disgrace that we were not joining the Americans this time as war was declared. I asked him how he reconciled the fact that in 1939 we joined at the outbreak of war in September and the Americans did not join. He quietly and purposely evaded the question. Is he blaming the Americans for not having joined then and then joining in 1941? If it was consistent for the Americans to do it then, why is it wrong for us as a sovereign nation to take a different tact today?

[Supply, March 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the member conveniently ignores the millions of people all across the continents who are demonstrating daily against the war. I suppose Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are great examples of democracy in the world.

The member deplores the fact that we have not joined the United States immediately and that we have turned our back on our greatest friend. In September 1939, Canada declared war immediately when war was declared by Britain and France. Does he blame the United States for having decided, for its own reasons, not to join in the war until 1941?

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, for those who say that the United Nations is now irrelevant because of the war, I say exactly the reverse. Never have we needed the United Nations more than we do now. If this war has taught us something, it is that now there must be conciliation. People of the world must get together in the only forum we have. It may have all its flaws. It may not be the perfect forum by any means. No human forum is ever perfect. At the same time it is the only source of conciliation, of getting together, that we have across the world where small nations and large nations can all have a say.

We need the United Nations more than ever to rebuild, to reconstruct and to reconcile this world and stop it from polarizing into blocs that hate each other and that want war.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Will the member please allow me to speak? I listened to him with great civility and I ask the same thing of him.

I am not going to characterize Senator Byrd and look into his past. All I was doing was reading from a speech which I thought was cohesive, which made a lot of sense and which came from an American Senator in the senate.

I could also quote from Senator Kennedy and he was not a member of the KKK. I could also quote from the minority leader the other day, Senator Daschle, and many Americans who today refuse to accept the doctrine that pre-emptive war is the only reason for replacing dictators.

I would like to repeat for my hon. colleague that it is very nice to say that this dictator caused millions of deaths. Mugabe will cause famine for six million people. Do we declare war there? Do we declare war against North Korea? Why is the United States treating North Korea differently from Iraq? North Korea is a far greater threat and danger and its regime also has caused all kinds of brutality and death in its country. Yet we just leave it alone. There diplomacy will work. Obviously the United States is really worried about the big shadow of China next door. Therefore one regime is one way and the other regime we go to war with all our smart bombs, 250,000 soldiers and so many ships.

We have many questions to answer ourselves. How is it that tens of millions of people around the world, the greatest demonstration for peace ever, have spoken so loud? Perhaps this is what the members of the Canadian Alliance should reflect on, including 80% or more Canadians who say that war when it is inevitable, yes; but not war at any cost at any price every day when we decide we want it.

[Committees of the House, March 20th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to characterize Senator Byrd and his personality. I am just quoting from a speech he made which I thought reflected--