Jean Charest

[Federal Provincial Conferences, March 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the speech from the throne. You will recall that the government undertook, in the throne speech, to hold a federal provincial conference in the near future.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister today to tell us when the federal provincial conference will be held and what will be on the agenda. Is the Prime Minister ready to have the issue of manpower and the transfer of responsibilities to the provinces, including Quebec, put on the agenda?

[Points Of Order, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In fact in the same spirit that my colleague made his comments and in the same spirit that we heard comments from representatives of the Reform Party yesterday on the issue of fairness, I rise today to ask the same consent.

Today is the day when the leaders will have an opportunity to reply to the speech from the throne. There was a lot said about national unity in yesterday's speech, and you certainly know that last November, when we-the New Democrats and the Conservatives-tried to take part in the debate on the distinct society resolution, we were denied unanimous consent by the opposition parties, namely the Bloc and Reform.

Since that time, and I will be very brief here, I am happy to say that the present leader of the Bloc Quebecois has promised publicly on the radio in Sherbrooke to see to it that the leader of the Conservative Party has the opportunity to speak more often in the House of Commons. Therefore, it is in that spirit that we are now asking the consent of the House to have an opportunity to reply today to the speech from the throne.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Can you hear them now, Mr. Speaker, trying to shout me down? This is the same group of people who said that they could do politics differently. I hope Canadians will judge as they can judge all members of the Reform Party, including their colleague, Sugar Ray Grey.

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to be as long in my remarks but I will intervene to go on the record today that we are opposed to the motion. It is not for personal reasons, not for the reasons that my colleague just evoked and certainly not for personal reasons in regard to the motion that was just voted on in the House of Commons. It is that the government made a commitment and clearly has not lived up to that commitment. It is also my understanding that in these matters the government would usually consult with the opposition parties with regard to the nominations if only out of courtesy and in respect to the functioning of the House of Commons.

As I comment on why we are equally opposed to this motion, I cannot miss the opportunity to point out the incredible hypocrisy of Reform Party members. They have the gall to talk of fairness to all members as they speak and the same hypocrisy of a political party whose members ran saying that they would not apply personal politics to the House of Commons, that they would not behave the way other parties have behaved.

[Presence In Gallery, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some comment on votes taken in the House. I want to make it clear, if only for the record, that with respect to the votes taken yesterday I would have voted against the amendments and in favour of the resolution.

With respect to the vote that will take place tomorrow, for which I will be absent, I would vote against-

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the order in which the speakers will be recognized this afternoon. You will understand that the resolution before this House today is exceptional in nature and that, under similar circumstances, the House usually shows some flexibility.

Therefore, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for consent, this afternoon-and I think that my hon. colleague from the New Democratic Party plans to do the same-to be allowed to speak immediately after the leader of the Reform Party and, should the time normally provided be expired, to disregard the clock, so that each of us has an opportunity to speak on the resolution just tabled by the Prime Minister.

[Public Finances, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

Like the rest of us, the Minister of Finance noted the profound desire for change in the referendum. He is obviously very attuned to the question of public finances.

I wonder whether the Minister of Finance might not use this opportunity to put forward a national plan to the country to eliminate the public deficit and debt with objectives we could all support and joint deadlines and whether now is not a singular time to do so for the benefit of the country as a whole.

[Tribute To Quebec Premier, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to Mr. Jacques Parizeau who, two days ago, resigned and announced his intention to retire from political life.

Notwithstanding our conflicting views on Quebec's future, the fact is that Mr. Parizeau has played an extremely important role in the building of a modern province.

He was an economic advisor to several premiers. He helped set up the Quebec deposit and investment fund. He provided advice to the government of Mr. Lesage on the government's takeover of the hydro sector. He was a key player in the quiet revolution.

Mr. Parizeau was also a man of conviction who worked hard to achieve his objective. I want to express my deep respect toMr. Parizeau and to his wife, Lisette Lapointe, as they begin another stage of their lives.

[The Economy, October 31st, 1995]

My question is to the Prime Minister. My colleague from Saint John and I campaigned about change in this referendum. I know the Prime Minister also talked about change.

Given the fiscal situation of the country, I would like to know whether he would contemplate seizing this opportunity to propose to the provinces a common national plan for deficit and debt reduction so that the country could deal with the issue with one single mind and look at common objectives to balance our books and get our fiscal house in order and help all Canadians deal with what is the most pressing issue facing them today.

[The Economy, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in case some members are mistaken, this is not about Liberal Tories, this is about standing up for Canada.