Jean Chrétien

[Cuba, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade and perhaps others are studying possible reforms that might encourage or at least help the victims of any suits brought against Canadians.

As I understand it, the American administration has some leeway in applying certain parts of the law. We have made representations to the American Secretary of State and to the administration in general in the hopes that they would use the flexibility available to them to chield Canadians or at least leave them out of this matter.

[Cuba, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know there is talk of its being submitted to NAFTA and the International Trade Commission, but I do not know if this will take the form of a Canadian initiative or not. All the countries have protested, and I am sure that the organization will be apprised of this in one way or another.

I have personally raised the issue with the U.S. government on a number of occasions. I think the President will be making a statement on this matter shortly. We believe the Americans will not be able to continue along this path. Here in Canada we are looking at the possibility of amending some of our legislation to counteract the effects of the American legislation.

[Cuba, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the French government has protested, as has the European Community in general. I believe that all the countries have protested, or at least the community as a whole. Every time we have the opportunity to meet with our foreign counterparts, we raise this problem, and I am sure I shall have the opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Juppé. He will, perhaps, be able to bring pressure to bear on the President of France, who is the current head of the G-7, so that the problem may be raised during his term.

[Cuba, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone here knows, we have protested on behalf of Canada right from the beginning. Later, I went to meet with the Caribbean heads of government and convinced them to adopt a joint resolution. Mexico has protested against this act. We have had occasion to discuss it with the European community, and it is my belief that the Americans are totally isolated in this initiative to adopt extra-territorial legislation.

We shall be keeping up the pressure on the American government. I myself have spoken with the President, and the matter will certainly be raised, as the hon. member has suggested, with our Mexican partner because we most firmly believe that it is absolutely contrary to both the letter and the spirit of NAFTA.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that I do not rise to answer questions. The first thing we do to protect French speaking minorities is to ensure that they will enjoy the support of Quebec francophones by keeping Quebec in Canada. Indeed, should separation be achieved, francophones outside Quebec would be hardest hit of all francophones in America.

We will continue to apply the Official Languages Act. We will support the Commissioner of Official Languages, unlike Bloc Quebecois members who said last week that he was incompetent, but who are now using his recommendations to attack the government. The best way to help francophones outside Quebec is to ensure that the French language has its place not only in Quebec, but everywhere in Canada.

[Government Contracts, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board studied the problem. It was within the guidelines established by the Treasury Board. There is no need to discipline the minister.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if I were to ask for the resignation of all those in this House who support the unsupportable, there would not be one Bloc Quebecois member left.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, freedom of expression exists in this House. I could make a list of completely unacceptable statements that attack the fundamental values of this nation which have been made by members on the other side day after day.

For a member who is an Acadian to get up and tell another member that he is a refugee who is trying to destroy the country which gave him the freedom that he did not have in the country he is from is acceptable in a democracy. Mr. Speaker, you felt it was part of fair debate. A member of Parliament has the right to be a separatist, but we have the right to combat the separatists in Canada.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if we had to ask the members of the Bloc Quebecois and of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City to apologize each time they want to tarnish Canada's reputation, perhaps they could ask Minister Landry to withdraw his description of Canada as being "more authoritarian, intolerant and close-minded than the former totalitarian communist governments".

We need no lessons from anyone. The member is entitled to work for the separatist party; we have nothing against that. He is entitled. The minister said he does not agree with what the member is doing. Disagreement is permitted in this House.

He exercised the right to speak. The member expresses his point of view. Another member of this House, an Acadian, who belongs to a minority that stands to lose a lot if Quebec ever separates, is entitled to express a point of view different from that of the member who spoke before him.

[Minister Of Human Resources Development, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when I see members of the Bloc Quebecois getting upset over words considered unacceptable, I hope they in turn will ask their mother house to apologize for having said a few weeks ago that Canada was a prison. The ultimate proof that Canada is not a prison

lies in the fact that a member who came here as an immigrant and a refugee can support their party in Canada. This is a far cry from a prison, it is freedom at its finest.