Michel Gauthier

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister is not here, it is customary for the Deputy Prime Minister to answer on his behalf.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that by acting as they did the senior officials in the PMO and the Privy Council kept the Deputy Prime Minister in the dark and prevented her from accurately answering the questions asked by the opposition? Does the Prime Minister of Canada think he acted as a prudent man should?

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Question Period, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs were obviously not aware that a written answer had been received from Mr. Mulroney. Yet, that answer had already arrived.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that he kept his Deputy Prime Minister and his Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in the dark, since Mr. Mulroney's letter had already reached his office around 1.30 p.m., before Question Period?

[Business Of The House, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to indicate what the business of the House will be for the next few days.

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given the attitude of the officials surrounding the Prime Minister who have been playing hide-and-seek for several months in this matter and the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada questions the very word of the former Quebec premier, does the Prime Minister not agree that his attitude, far from being a sign of co-operation with Quebec, points to a conspiracy against that province?

[1992 Referendum, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on December 15, 1993, Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa wrote the Prime Minister of Canada, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, to confirm the existence of a verbal agreement between himself and the former Prime Minister of Canada. This letter was signed and dated December 15.

Following the questions Bloc Quebecois members have been asking in this House for several months on this subject, could the Prime Minister not have shown good will by checking with Mr. Mulroney, right after Mr. Bourassa made the request, if he really wanted to be fair to Quebecers? Should he not have done so a long time ago instead of waiting for the opposition to force his hand a few days ago?

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government whip has just spoken on a point of order I raised myself. I would simply like to remind him that, as the guardian of parliamentarians' rights, you have always agreed to provide guidance and information to ensure the smooth operation of this House.

The question I asked is very much in this spirit. I simply want to ask for the Chair's assistance in understanding the order of business and seeing that our behaviour is always in keeping with the letter and spirit of the rules and traditions of this House.

As far as the second part of my comments is concerned, please note that my point of order and the question from the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve did not deal at all with the problem now under advisement that was in dispute the other day. It is simply a point of order saying this: Why should a member not be allowed to ask the Prime Minister to confirm or deny remarks when it has always been allowed? That is it. So one should not confuse the facts, as the Government Whip seems to be doing.

[Points Of Order, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during question period, my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve tried to put a question to the Prime minister, but you ruled that question out of order.

I may have repeatedly been out of order and I would ask you to enlighten me because, like other members of this House, I have on many occasions referred to remarks made by one member or another and asked, as is proper, the government, the ministers whether they rejected, supported, agreed with or wanted to qualify such remarks.

My colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve did the same thing, making a very general reference to the remarks a government member made about the gay community.

My question is as follows: What is the difference between referring to remarks made by the hon. member for Central Nova and asking the Prime Minister whether he rejected or supported her remarks and the questions we have being asking in this House so far, referring for instance to remarks by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell or someone else on other issues?

Why in this particular case did you rule the question out of order, while such questions have always been allowed?

[Haiti, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we just learned that an American soldier was killed in Haiti. We do not have any more details about the incident and I want to ask the Prime Minister if, given the seriousness of the situation, he is being kept abreast of the latest developments and if he can inform this House accordingly?

[1992 Referendum, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister be kind enough to inform this House and all Quebecers of the results of this exercise, so that we know whether or not to expect payment of this $26-million debt owed to Quebec by the federal government?

[1992 Referendum, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec paid all the costs of the referendum on the Charlottetown Accord in that province and also absorbed 25 per cent of the costs related to that same referendum in the other Canadian provinces. Last Thursday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said to the media that the federal government owes nothing to Quebec, since he had no confirmation of an agreement between the Prime Minister and Premier of the time, Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Bourassa.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he tell us if he instructed his staff to check with former Prime Minister Mulroney whether such an agreement existed, as claimed by Mr. Bourassa?