Jean Chrétien

[Iraq, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, we have always said that we want a second resolution.

Look at the French government. For a long time, France was for a second resolution and now it says this is not necessary. We believe a second resolution is useful.

The Americans did not want to go before the Security Council and now they want a second resolution. Have all these people changed their minds?

From the outset, we have always said that Canada will not go to war without the Security Council's approval. This has been Canada's position for months.

[Iraq, February 24th, 2003]

Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.

At this time we are taking on a larger role in Afghanistan and the decision to send a ship to that region was taken several weeks ago, as part of our efforts to establish peace and rebuild a civil society in Afghanistan.

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the debate is going on at this moment at the United Nations Security Council. We of course are all pushing, as much as we can, on Saddam Hussein to comply.

Neither the Americans, the British, the Spaniards, the French, the Germans nor the Russians want a war. We all hope for peace and we are all working to achieve peace. War has to be the last resort.

[Foreign Affairs, February 24th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a debate is going on at this moment among the different people. This situation cannot last forever. I think some weeks should be given to Saddam to comply very precisely with resolution 1441.

The United Nations will be holding votes on these issues. The debate is starting today. The French, the Germans and the Russians have made some propositions for some elements for a framework for discussion. I also understand that the Brits, the Americans and the Spaniards will have a resolution. I do not know if there will be a time limit on that because I have not seen the resolution.

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I explained yesterday that having personal assets is not like having shares in a bank or in a company. It was a family company, and it could not be split. He had to receive reports about only one company, and it was the company that was his. That is what arrangement was made, but the management of these assets was done by trustees, and when there was a meeting, officials in charge of that for the government were always present to make sure that there was to be no conflict of interest.

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the former minister of finance was not investing. He had invested a long time before he became a minister. When we become ministers we are not asked to forget our assets and our responsibilities vis-à-vis our family. We make sure that there is no conflict of interest. The guidelines have been drafted accordingly and the former minister of finance has respected the guidelines.

[The Budget, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, no, I did not ask him not to give money to the poor children. I did not ask the Minister of Finance not to give money to the environment. I did not say to the Minister of Finance, do not invest in infrastructure that will be useful.

We have run the country very well over the last ten years. We are the only G-7 country still having a surplus and we do what we have to do. When we have money we help the poor, not the rich.

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, blind management is blind for the person who is the minister. It is blind for me and it is blind for the people. When it is to be protected to not affect the operation of the government, it would not have been wise for me to be briefed on the operation of CSL. It was not my business. It was a family business run by trustees in the interest of the company and the Minister of Finance of the day who was doing his job properly without any conflict of interest.

[Ethics, February 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to take the compliment on behalf of the Minister of Finance that the leader of the fifth party had no question on the budget.

I gave the explanation yesterday. There are circumstances like that. The arrangement made was to make sure that the former Minister of Finance could do his job as Minister of Finance and have the trustee run his company and to make sure that he would be briefed from time to time, as is normal when we have some assets. He was not managing the assets. The assets were managed by the trustee.