Jean Chrétien

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the bill has not been passed. We should let the bill pass, see what the president will do with the bill and how it will be applied.

In terms of trade relations with the United States, we have done very well. At this moment we have the biggest surplus we have ever had with the United States.

The biggest trade relations in the world are between Canada and the United States and so there are always problems of this nature. We have been reasonably successful at resolving them. Sometimes we refer disputes to panels under the NAFTA. We might use this route if needed once the bill is passed. Then we will see the effects.

However, we have done what we can to this point. I am delighted that the leader of the Reform Party is supporting this government. I will send a copy of Hansard to Newt Gingrich.

[Canadian Sovereignty, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the hon. leader of the third party supporting our position. We have made all the representations we think are appropriate at this time.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs will talk with Mr. Christopher later this week. As Mr. Helms is good a friend of Mr. Gingrich, perhaps the leader of the third party could call Mr. Gingrich and ask the Republicans not to vote for that bill.

[Cuba, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after a law is passed in the United States there is always room for the administration to take some precise action. I discussed that possibility with the president and he will look into it. We do not think this law will be in operation for many months to come, not before the end of the summer.

Therefore we will see how the administration deals with this piece of legislation and we will advise.

[Cuba, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill reflects the atmosphere in the aftermath of the Cuba-U.S. incident. As the House is aware, we have clearly expressed our disapproval to the Government of Cuba concerning their attack on civilian aircraft flying outside Cuban territory. At any rate, the International Civil Aviation Organization is addressing the problem today in Montreal.

I have learned from experience that U.S. pre-election fever often leads to statements that are more heated than they would be at other times. After the election, perhaps Senator Helms or others will be more approachable.

[Cuba, March 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to discuss this problem with the President of the United States last week. I informed him that it was unacceptable to Canada that legislation passed by the U.S. Congress could apply outside that country.

On Monday and Tuesday, I had an opportunity to discuss the same problem with 13 Caribbean heads of government. In the joint press release issued at the conference, it was stated unanimously that laws with extraterritorial jurisdiction are unacceptable under international law.

Obviously, Mr. Helms' statement speaks for itself. My conversations with the president indicate that he is aware of Canada's objections, and that the bill is currently before Congress. We hope that people will become aware of the long term consequences if, at the international level, all countries took the same kind of initiative as the U.S. has.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, February 29th, 1996]

They had a mole of their own, Claude Morin.

[National Unity, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we hope this will be constitutionalized. We said that when we had votes in the House of Commons on that. We have always said that is what we wanted to do.

In order to have the reality of Canadian life that Quebec is a distinct society in the Constitution we need seven provinces to approve it. I hope that the hon. member would support that. For changing the amending formula, I have always been in favour of a veto for the regions and this was expressed in a bill in the House of Commons and you voted against it. It was a formula that was accepted by all the provinces at the time of the Victoria discussion. There is nothing new. It is something that was acceptable even to the Socred government of Alberta which you are the grandson of. There are many ways to consult with the public. There is one that will come soon. That will be the day a lot of these guys will disappear, when we have a general election.

[National Unity, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are many ways for Canadians to express their views.

There will be a federal-provincial meeting of the first ministers. The people will be represented at that meeting by the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers. There are also organizations which are expressing their views at this time by sending briefs to the government. They are meeting with their members of Parliament. We are receiving briefs from many people on that subject.

At this moment we have put forward a plan of amelioration of the federation. We want to discuss that with the first ministers. That is exactly what we have in mind for the time being.

I hope the Reform Party will approve the plan we have of offering some clarification, some devolution of powers, some improvement in the relations between the federal and provincial governments. I do not see why that is not good enough for the hon. member for the time being.

[Human Rights, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question here. He has only to read the red book and to tell us when an election will be held, and on that date it will be known whether or not we have adopted the bill.

[Human Rights, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the House has already voted on a bill of this nature concerning an amendment to the Criminal Code. That part of our commitment we have made good on. Now what remains is the legislation to which the hon. member refers. It is part of our promises and we hope to find the time to adopt it some day.

We have already kept one of our promises and now there is just the second one, but we have two and a half years to go.