Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to join with the government House leader in thanking the members of the Blais commission for the work they did and the report they produced to guide parliamentarians in the proposed legislation, which we now have before us, that is, Bill C-47.
I think that my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, expressed very eloquently the Bloc Quebecois' position with respect to the bill on MPs' remuneration. She put the reasons very clearly.
They boil down to the following two points: Bloc Quebecois members are opposed to the 2% salary increase for MPs and to any increase in senators' pay, given our view that the Senate is an institution that is already wasting close to $50 million of Canadian taxpayers' money. There is therefore no need to throw good money after bad.
But so that there is no misunderstanding about the Bloc Quebecois' position, I would like to refer to an article by Pierre Gravel that appeared in the June 8 edition of La Presse under a very insidious, in my view, heading: “Pretendin”.
I see this right off as a psychological projection, since Mr. Gravel takes the liberty of expressing several opinions on what parliamentarians really think, without bothering to find out what truly motivates them.
The Bloc's opposition to this bill is real. While we agree with many of the provisions, there are two we cannot agree with. My colleague made this point earlier very well. It is not because we do not think parliamentarians do not deserve a decent salary or a pay increase. It is simply that, at the start of our mandate, recently elected, knowing the conditions of the position we wanted to occupy, it is a bit strange for us to be arranging for such an increase.
I have two quotes from Mr. Gravel:
Some members, when they sit in opposition, make the pretence of opposing an increase, knowing full well that they will get it anyway.
He concluded by saying:
They would better serve their cause by stopping the pretence of not wanting it, when they are all dreaming of it.
This is what I meant when I talked about psychological projection.
I was saying, at the beginning of my speech, that this opposition is real. Mr. Gravel's quote, however, refers to something else. He basically said “They oppose it, knowing full well it will apply to everyone”. The bill before us also allows us to correct something we did a few months ago, when we allowed some members to withdraw from the MP pension plan and others to remain within.
Naturally, and logically, when Parliament passes legislation concerning the remuneration of MPs, if it passes, it applies to all.
I find Mr. Gravel's allusion rather insidious. In the same vein, he refers to our colleague from Abitibi as follows:
Liberal Guy St-Julien, from Abitibi, refused to cash the cheque for a tiny salary increase of under 1% last January, and promises to do the same again.
Mr. Gravel holds our colleague from Abitibi up as a sort of model MP, probably forgetting that, on several occasions, our colleague from Abitibi exhibited behaviour and actions that were somewhat unworthy of this venerable institution in which we sit.
Moreover, he refers to “this case which at least has the merit of consistency”—our colleague from Abitibi with the merit of consistency! Does Mr. Gravel recall that the hon. member for Abitibi sat with Brian Mulroney, under the Conservative banner, at the time of Meech and Charlottetown, a period of great conciliation with Quebec, and now sits under the Liberal banner with Jean Chrétien and his plan B, which is all about a hard line with Quebec? As far as consistency is concerned, he could find a better example!
Reference was also made to a minority report by the parties in opposition. He writes, and I quote:
—a House of Commons committee report recommending improved pay for MPs stirred up protest from representatives of the Reform Party, the Bloc, the NDP and the Conservative Party. The opposition spokespersons deemed it indecent to vote raises like this for themselves when what was more important was to “look out for Canadians first”, starting with the public servants, whose salaries are lagging far behind.
I do not know what minority report Mr. Gravel is referring to, as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, because the Bloc's minority reported stated:
In keeping with its public position on this, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to recommendations 1 and 3 in the report with respect to the 2% raise in the parliamentary allowance, the expense allowance and the additional special duty allowance for MPs, where applicable.
Over all, then, this is a report I would describe as modest, very succinct and to-the-point, very moderate in its wording. This does not correspond at all with the impression Mr. Gravel has of the Bloc Quebecois position. He continues by lumping together issues such as the 2% increase, the increase from $6,000 to $12,000, and so on. I repeat that the Bloc Quebecois' opposition applies only to the 2% increase.
As for the $6,000 to $12,000, which is not part of the legislation before us and which was already approved by the Board of Internal Economy, I would point out that the Bloc Quebecois did not oppose this increase, because it is normal that the housing allowance, which was set some years ago and never amended, should be increased at this time.
Any enterprise that requires its representatives to travel provides a housing allowance and per diems. It is entirely normal that parliamentarians be entitled to such an allowance and that it be indexed.
The same goes for the pension plan. As I said earlier, we agree that members who opted out in recent years should now be allowed to opt back in under conditions set out in the bill. We also agree with the provision regarding the departure allowance. It is well known that the minimum standards for any professional job include a departure allowance. We are therefore in favour of this allowance.
I will simply say that, in my view, and with all due respect for Mr. Gravel, whom I generally find to be a completely professional editorial writer, this editorial was based on incomplete and erroneous information. I think I have made that clear today.
I would like to pick up on Mr. Gravel's conclusion, and then I will conclude myself with a paraphrase of his introduction. Is there anything more annoying than journalists and editorial writers who shed crocodile tears over the bad reputation MPs enjoy with the public, when they often contribute to that bad reputation through their writing?
I therefore invite Mr. Gravel to reflect on this conclusion and I also invite parliamentarians to acknowledge that, of course, the job needs to be properly paid, not just on its own merits, but also in order to attract quality candidates for the good of the institution, as has already been said. But we must not lose sight of the fact that this increase was proposed just after we were elected to this House, that we were aware of the conditions when we decided to run in the election, and that we felt the salary was quite appropriate at the time. Consequently, in our opinion, there is no need to change it.
It must also be kept in mind, as far as the Bloc Quebecois position is concerned, that we feel it is most inappropriate to increase the pay of the members of the other place.
