Jean Chrétien

[Child Poverty, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are always preoccupied with that type of social problem in our society. In the last budget the Minister of Finance had some concrete proposals to deal with this problem. I know provincial governments are working on it as well. We are very preoccupied and we will take steps within the means of the government to improve the situation.

The best way to improve the situation is to have an economy that creates jobs and produces more income for families. In doing that, children will be in a better position. It is a preoccupation and we are working on it.

[Airbus, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this in an investigation which dates back several years now. The first time the police looked into the matter, we were not in government. It was during the days of the previous government. The investigation was reopened, and the plaintiff has instituted proceedings against the government. The Minister of Justice is acting as the government's solicitor, and he has delegated the case to a number of lawyers.

As for me, I do not get mixed up in police investigations. It is not appropriate for a Prime Minister to get involved in police business when an investigation is being carried out. I have neither asked for nor provided any instructions in this connection. It is, moreover, my duty as Prime Minister to ensure that police inquiries can be carried out without any political interference by anyone whatsoever.

[Airbus, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has just given a response on this. It is a matter that is in the hands of lawyers, and lawyers do speak together. I am not aware of everything that the lawyers talk about.

This matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. A plaintiff has instituted proceedings against against the government. Does he want to settle out of court? I do not know, and it is up to the lawyers to decide. Let them talk to each other.

I practiced law for a number of years. Lawyers speak together every day, and very often they may talk about whether or not they can put an end to a case, during these conversations.

I would add that we are the defendants in this case, not the plaintiffs, and the Minister of Justice has given an explanation. I am not a direct party to this case.

[International Conference On Aids, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I considered the possibility of attending the conference. If I cannot go, I hope the head of state for Canada, the Governor General, will be there.

The commitment I have expressed in support of this cause is well known. I was one of the leaders who went to the conference in Paris which was convened two years ago. It is possible that I will not be able to be there. If I cannot be there, I hope the Governor General as the head of state for Canada will be there.

[Aids Control, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the same answer applies for now. The issue is being reviewed. The Minister of Finance, along with each minister representing his or her respective interests, have discussions with the Department of Finance regarding the content of next year's budget.

The budget is usually tabled in February. If an announcement is to be made before then, the concerned ministers will do so. I cannot answer the question right now, because it would be premature to do so.

[Aids Control, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this issue has to do with next year's budget. The health and finance ministers will discuss it. I am not in a position to report on it at this point.

[The Constitution, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I just explained that a lot of people including some lawyers have said there is a very specific need to have a meeting on it and we have called a meeting. In the agenda we stated clearly section 49 of the Constitution passed in 1982. We are officially meeting this requirement.

Some would argue that we do not need to do it. I want to be on the safe side. I am respecting the Constitution and I am being extremely prudent. That is why people vote for my party.

[The Constitution, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is a debate about whether or not it was done in the proper framework.

If in reality we have talked two or three times about it, I do not think it will hurt to talk a fourth time. It will mean that we have met the requirements of the Constitution four times. Nobody will be in a position to say that we did not want to meet the obligations of section 49 if, according to the Reform Party leader, we will have talked about it four times while the Constitution requires only one time.

[The Constitution, June 12th, 1996]

Yes. But I am for a veto for Quebec. I hope the Reform Party will be too. If the premier of Quebec is not interested in that, the meeting will be short because of Mr. Bouchard's desire not to get Quebec a veto from the rest of Canada.

[The Constitution, June 12th, 1996]

It was a very good weekend for the Reform Party and a very good weekend for the Liberal Party too.

I did not change my mind. If the hon. member would listen to the whole meeting with the press, Mr. Bouchard said himself:

"I am downplaying it a bit, because the Prime Minister says he will perhaps want to touch very briefly on the question of constitutional review, section 49 of the Constitution, but I understood that the Prime Minister would not spend a lot of time on it in any event".

I did not change my mind.

I said that we were to discuss section 49. As to how long we will take to discuss section 49, I say an hour.

The premier of Quebec told me that he does not want to talk about it and he does not want me to help with a veto for Quebec. Since we need unanimity, if one of the participants says no, the meeting will be very short.