Jean Charest

[Old Age Security, March 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to an issue that I and my colleague raised earlier this week in the House of Commons. It has to do with old age security benefits.

The Deputy Prime Minister answered unequivocally that old age security benefits would not affect women who are 65 and older even though the budget plan, a government document, states unequivocally that the basic principles for reforming OAS shall be the provision of OAS benefits on the basis of family income.

How does the government square that response with the stated principle in this document? If that is the answer, what then does the document mean?

[Points Of Order, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, for the record and to accommodate the rules and all members of the House in fairness, may I suggest that I raise this point of privilege tomorrow after question period so that all members of the House will know that this issue will be raised?

[Points Of Order, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank the Chair for its patience and for the clarification on the question of privilege.

This question of privilege arises out of an article published today in a paper which is well known on the Hill, the Hill Times . I wanted to advise the House immediately.

The Speaker will know, as all members of the House know, that a member also has the duty to inform the House and his fellow colleagues as soon as he or she is aware of the question of privilege, which I chose to do today. It relates to the secrecy of the budget process.

[Points Of Order, March 2nd, 1995]

No, Mr. Speaker, it does not arise out of question period.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is the longest question I have had in a long time. My question for the Prime Minister concerns page 58 of the budget plan and the granny tax.

On pension reform, the government announces it will include in its changes the provision of OAS benefits on the basis of family income. That would mean that women who are 65 and over receiving OAS would lose their OAS based on their spouse's income. Will the Prime Minister confirm this to the House of Commons?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the proposed-

[Social Policy, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. His government has now brought Canadians through a major social policy consultation. We will soon have a budget in the House of Commons that promises major cuts to social policy.

The minister of human resources today said that they are targeting for more efficiency. My question to the Prime Minister is quite simple. What are the targets and priorities pursued by his government in the area of social policy?

[Points Of Order, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think it would be wise on our part to check the blues because I can assure you that my understanding of the exchange was quite clear.

Mr. Speaker, the other point of order I want to raise concerns the functioning of question period itself and the fact that I was not allowed to ask a supplementary question.

[Points Of Order, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two points of order I want to bring to your attention.

The first point of order I wish to raise while the Minister of Human Resources Development is still around. It concerns his comments about my presence in the House of Commons, a very well known rule that I think you would want to have respected.

[Post-Secondary Education, December 12th, 1994]

This cannot be the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Prime Minister or the person talking for the Prime Minister today. It concerns a statement made by the Minister of Human Resources Development in reaction to the protests of his colleague from Ontario on the issue of the cuts being proposed for post-secondary education.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is quoted as indicating that his anger in reaction to the position taken by the Government of Ontario could influence his thinking on changes to the Canada assistance plan.

What does one have to do with the other? Since when can a minister of the crown take it upon himself to wreak vengeance on a government because of a position it is taking on behalf of the people in a quite different file?