Jean Charest

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

[Point Of Order, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may finish my comments, since there was another matter I wished to raise. You may have noticed that my question was directed to the Prime Minister. Like other members in this House, I had understood the Prime Minister was to be present during Question Period. That is why I directed my question to him. Subsequently, you said that the Prime Minister was not in the House.

I must admit this bothers me, and I will explain. We also have a Standing Order that is well-known in this House, which prohibits anyone from drawing attention to the absence of other members. A Standing Order that is usually observed.

[Point Of Order, September 29th, 1994]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I realize it may sometimes be difficult to see this far, but it is all part of what we expect the Chair to be able to do. That is why I sent you a note, advising you that I wished to rise on a point of order.

I wanted to raise the following matter. During Question Period, you rose twice to ask to whom members were directing their questions. To my knowledge-and my memory is not infallible-when a member of the opposition puts a question, it is necessarily directed to the government. He addresses the Chair, in other words, he must address the government through the Chair. As for the particular person to whom the question is directed, that person is indicated only as a matter of courtesy.

I am merely pointing out what I assume to be the usual custom in this House, since the government is perfectly free to reply through any member of Cabinet.

[Point Of Order, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on two matters. I also want to mention, since it just happened, that after Question Period, you called the usual Thursday question, but I always thought that after Question Period, Questions of Privilege and Points of Order were called first.

I just mention this in passing. It is not a point of order but I think it is important to bring this up, because we have certain traditions and customs.

[1992 Referendum, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the government is quite clear and it is this: Yesterday, the Prime Minister knew, because his predecessor had told him before Question Period, that he had made a commitment to submit Quebec's request to the government. I would like to know why yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister did not share that information with Parliament and why instead, he insinuated there had been some unlawful activity?

[1992 Referendum, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I was very much surprised when the Prime Minister said he had not been informed of the commitment his predecessor made with respect to the referendum. I made inquiries, and I later found that before Question Period yesterday, the Prime Minister knew that his predecessor had promised the Government of Quebec he would submit to his government a request to compensate Quebec for referendum expenses.

I would like to know from the government why the Prime Minister did not give this information to the House of Commons yesterday?

[Tribute To The Late Gaston Péloquin, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition and my colleague from the Reform Party in expressing, in my own name and on behalf of our Party, our sorrow at the passing of Mr. Gaston Péloquin.

Previous speakers have already noted some of his achievements. I must admit that I did not get to know Mr. Péloquin very well. In fact, I believe the first time we ever met was on the floor of the House and we did barely more than exchange greetings.

Nonetheless, I have realized like everyone else, as we set aside our partisanship under the present circumstances, to what extent his life brought a ray of hope. Like my colleagues, I was greatly impressed by his contribution in the field of education, by his colleagues' tributes which, incidentally, were very touching, and also by his personal commitment. At this time when coincidentally we are witnessing extremely important events taking place in Haiti with regard to the stakes of democracy, Mr. Péloquin, by the way he lived his life, reminds us that there are among us individuals who are prepared to take very concrete action. As a matter of fact, the wish was expressed that in his memory donations be made to charities for Haitian children. I realized then how much of a difference his life will have made for these people.

As Mr. Péloquin's riding was next to mine, I had the opportunity to hear personal accounts of those he rubbed shoulders with and I can tell you today that these people had only good things to say about him, his work and his great sincerity.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speech by the member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead will not stand as a model of rigor.

In his speech, he mentioned something I must object to since I am directly concerned. He referred to the fact that I was not present in the House. There is no need to remind you of the very well known rule which prohibits a member from referring to the presence or the absence of another member. And I would add, if only the parliamentary secretary could keep quiet for a few seconds, that this remark is particularly obnoxious for the following reason: the Bloc did all it could to prevent the 11 independent members from speaking in the House. It is extremely hypocritical on its part to then rise in the House and claim that we were absent during the debate, when it did nothing at all to promote a fundamental element of democracy. After all, we represent more voters than it does.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 10th, 1994]

What is the estimated total dollar impact that will result from individuals making a capital gains election to secure a lifetime exemption for gains accrued prior to the budget day for (a) the guaranteed income supplement, (b) veterans allowances, (c) the child tax benefit, (d) the old age security repayment, (e) the age credit repayment, (f) the alternative minimum tax, (g) the GST credit, (h) other non-refundable credits, (i) other programs and other features of the tax system; and, in each case, what is the estimated number of people affected and the average increase in taxes or loss of benefits; and what is the overall total effect of this?

[Human Rights, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and seeks clarification.

A few weeks ago he made a statement in regard to human rights and trade that quite frankly disturbed a lot of Canadians. In a statement he made in a scrum he seemed to imply that Canada's policy varies according to the country being dealt with. If we are dealing with China, we are just too small to have any influence. But if it is Haiti or Somalia then our principles are not be the same. In other words, name me your country and I will name you my principles.

The Prime Minister knows that Canada's policy approach goes back 30 years to the days of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and that every government has subsequently adopted the same approach.

I would like to know from the Prime Minister exactly what is Canada's policy now?