Michel Gauthier

[Attack on the United States, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, naturally, I would like to begin by echoing the sentiments of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois and conveying, along with my colleagues, our deepest condolences to the American people and to the friends and families of the victims, to all those affected by the tragedy, and to the people of Canada, who have also been severely affected by this act of terrorism.

The western world has been dealt a hard blow, and now it is time for a response.

I am worried about the potential magnitude of this response. Many of our citizens and my constituents with whom I discussed the issue during conversations last week are concerned. People are afraid.

We are particularly afraid of the response to terrorism not being adequate, or whose force would not be adequate, potentially resulting in an escalation of violence, which nobody wants to see.

It is with this in mind that I take part in the debate, hoping that the government will hear the message which members of the House have for it.

At no time must our actions be guided by anything other than a desire to reduce the number of acts of terrorism and to eliminate them in so far as possible, if that can be done. Nor should any action be taken that does not meet this objective.

This is not a time for vengeance. It is a time to get our anti-terrorist message across. We must not be driven by the pain we felt during last week's events and by the indignation we all felt at seeing those events. We must be responsible.

In this regard, the words of the Prime Minister, who said that wisdom and tolerance should guide our future actions, provided some reassurance.

I put a question to the Prime Minister during oral question period and he reassured us that there was no question of Canada giving carte blanche to anyone.

There is no getting around it. A responsible country, a responsible government, has a duty to weigh very carefully every action and decision which it takes.

With this end in view, I was stunned that the House did not give unanimous consent to allow parliamentarians to discuss an issue as important as this until late into the night, as was anticipated. I find it quite unbelievable that some refused to sit beyond 6.30 p.m. to discuss a topic of such critical importance.

I hope that the discussions held here will convince us of the need to be extremely cautious, extremely reasonable and extremely circumspect of everything that could happen from this moment on.

I will not be using the ten minutes allotted to me, as I understand my colleague responsible for foreign affairs wishes to speak. Therefore I have only five minutes, but I should like to talk about safety measures.

During question period, I asked the Prime Minister if safety measures anticipated over the next few weeks and months ran the risk of compromising our freedom.

We were given the required assurances. Well, we were told that this would be taken into consideration and that, at no time, could we accept having our fundamental freedoms affected by heightened safety measures, which would be playing into the hands of those who would attack our freedom.

I would like to suggest to the government one or two avenues we should be exploring.

On the subject of security, given the fact that the lowest bidders are awarded the contract to clear people on both international and domestic flights through the security checkpoint, the government should intervene and could do so easily to put special emphasis on the quality of training given these people on the front line.

We must not forget that all those who, unfortunately, become terrorists by taking a flight, as happened last week, passed through a checkpoint somewhere and were not detected by anyone there. I realize perfection does not exist, but it seems to me that we should very quickly raise the standards of security training given these people.

The government will also have to quickly come up with measures to ensure the protection and security of crews, for the people who work on planes, so this terrible tragedy may never be repeated.

I imagine we will soon try the terrorists. We must ensure that a civilization or religious beliefs are not put on trial. We must ensure calmly, with discernment and in full respect of the rules of international justice, that those sought and tried are truly guilty and that, at no time, do we attach the label of international terrorism the label to a particular ethnic group or religious belief. There is only a small band of terrorists the planet must rid itself of and nothing else. We must limit ourselves to that.

In closing, I invite the government to use international means already in place, to use Canadian diplomacy to its fullest, so the members of the government can use their contacts to ensure that whatever action is taken is the result of a very broad consensus among a number of countries and that whatever must be done be done without a shadow of a doubt as to need. Let us hope that the greatest number of lives may be spared and that those living near the terrorists being sought may suffer as little as possible.

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the decisions taken by the government with respect to increased anti-terrorist security measures must not get in the way of our civil liberties.

Does the Prime Minister agree that implementing safety measures that could jeopardize or interfere with our civil liberties would be to play into the hands of terrorists, who would thus have attained their goal after all? Can the Prime Minister reassure us about the introduction of such measures?

[Terrorism, September 17th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, while I agree fully with the viewpoint expressed in the government motion with respect to the defence of freedom and democracy, and the desire to bring to justice those who have breached these fundamental values by their terrorist acts, the response to these acts must not be based on intolerance and revenge.

Will the Prime Minister provide us with some reassurance that there is no question of Canada giving carte blanche to anyone when it joins in the international response to acts of terrorism?

[Access To Information, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, throughout this session, the opposition has complained about non-compliance with the Access to Information Act.

Today, for the second time, the commissioner's report comes down very hard on the government. In any parliament anywhere in the world, people would be astonished that a government did not respect the law. Here we have to accept that the minister responsible for seeing that the laws are enforced is going along with the government.

I am asking her—and there is still time—to stand up and, in compliance with her oath of office, ensure that the government is respecting the law.

[Access To Information, June 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a situation where the access to information commissioner has stated clearly in a report, for the second time in a year, that the government is in violation of the Access to Information Act. The report is very clear on this.

I am asking the Minister of Justice, whose responsibility it is to see that legislation is complied with, how she can explain her behaviour in putting herself at the service of the government without deigning to show any concern for these extremely serious accusations by the information commissioner.

[Employment Insurance, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said, in Le Soleil on November 9:

Once a Liberal majority is elected, we will reinstate the process and make sure that the changes are effective and meet the needs, for the most part, of the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean.

He made a personal commitment.

I ask him today, if he does not wish to be taken for a coward in all of Quebec's regions, will he convince his colleague to deliver the goods he promised in order to get votes?

[Employment Insurance, June 11th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, during the election, Liberal ministers toured Quebec and, with their candidates, promised voters the earth. They would right the inequities of the system if they were elected.

Where are these members, who yesterday intimated to the unemployed of Quebec that they would correct the injustices they faced? Where are they today? They are very quiet and fearful.

[Council For Canadian Unity, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I on the other hand would like to inform the minister that we have visited the site and find it particularly interesting for our reflections to see that the federal government was launching, in keeping with last week's secret document, into the most odious of propaganda against Quebec sovereignists.

What is the objective of this second site, when the council already has one of its own? What is the objective of this second site if not to render their propaganda more underhanded and therefore more effective?

[Council For Canadian Unity, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this morning we read in Le Devoir that the Council for Canadian Unity had, just by accident, neglected to identify itself as the promoter of a new Internet site “The New Federalists”. This has a certain déjà vu feeling to it, and even if the Council has remedied this and identified itself by now, once again it took disclosure in the House to find out who was behind this initiative.

How can the government explain that, once again, after secretly being the power behind Robert-Guy Scully's Heritage Minutes, it is now up to the same old tricks, funding an unidentified Web site?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-28 at third reading because some things have to be put in perspective so that those who are listening can fully understand the problem this bill poses for parliamentarians, but also the need to behave in a courageous and appropriate manner under the circumstances.

First, it is not a coincidence that we are reviewing this bill now. It is not because we suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to proceed a week or two before the end of the session. Rather, it is because the act provides that after an election an independent committee of experts must be commissioned to review the issue of members' salaries. The committee has six months to do its job and table its report.

A few minutes ago a journalist asked me why we were doing it now and not waiting for the fall? I told him that whenever a report on members' salaries is tabled, the newspapers and media get hold of it and begin writing the most incredible headlines before any member has had an opportunity to express his or her opinion.

This generates confusion among the public and, without a single parliamentarian having said anything on the issue, people begin to think that members of parliament voted themselves a salary increase of x thousand dollars. We have a perfect example of that today with the Prime Minister's pension.

Being familiar with how pensions are calculated, I know personally that, on retirement—we all know that it will be in two years—the Prime Minister will not have a $175,000 pension because he would have to have paid premiums for five years on his maximum salary to be entitled to that amount.

I am sure that hundreds and thousands of people are convinced that what they read this morning on the front page of a major newspaper is the truth but it is not.

Each time such a report is tabled, reporters seek out all members of the House to ask their opinion “Do you think it is enough? Do you think it is too much? Will you accept the raise or not? Will you recommend that all members of your party vote the same way or will you have a free vote on this issue?” It is awful. It is always awful for parliamentarians to talk about compensation because it is truly unfair that we are forced to determine the level of compensation we think we deserve, or at least this is how people see it.

I do not know one person who is listening to us who is not outraged by the fact that I have to vote on my own salary. The people who are watching us are probably thinking “If I were voting my own pay increase, I would get a very nice one”.

That is not how things work. One has to understand that members—although obviously the government will be making the decision—have to vote for or against the implementation of an impartial report prepared by non-members of parliament who know about our duties and have expertise in that field. The commission was made of highly competent people who are above reproach and who have the ability to take a detached look at these issues.

The government has decided to follow up on this report, and I agree. Our party believes that the report validates the pay increases recommended in a report prepared four years ago. For all practical purposes, these two reports are the same, except for the pay increase, due probably to the four year delay.

What it means is that every time serious experts have looked at this issue objectively, they have always come up with almost the same suggestions. I truly believe that our pay level is reasonable. I do not know of anyone in my riding of Roberval who thinks it is not normal for the Prime Minister to earn at least as much as the chief justice of the supreme court.

We are not talking here about the income of the president of a bank like the National Bank, the smallest of our big banks, who earns millions of dollars a year. We are not talking $2 million here, but a salary of $200,000 for a man who has infinitely more responsibilities than the president of the National Bank or the Royal Bank. A salary of $250,000 or $260,000 for the Prime Minister is barely more than deputy ministers make in certain departments. Do the people of Canada want to see their Prime Minister earning half what a deputy minister does? It makes no sense.

Even if the way the Prime Minister is doing his job does not suit us completely, his salary ought to be comparable to that earned by the heads of major companies. When it comes down to it, does he not have greater responsibilities than anyone else?

The same goes for the ministers as well. No one that I know of in my riding of Roberval does not think ministers need to earn what their deputy ministers earn, or close to it, at least the equivalent of an assistant deputy minister. We should have given them more. Because politicians are always extremely reasonable in applying these principles, we say that we should consider that a minister ought to earn the same as a deputy minister. This is one of the rare areas in which a boss, with no job security, ends up earning a little less than the employee who reports to him. We accept this, so MPs' salaries were set accordingly. That is the outcome of the committee's work.

There is one point to which I would like to return. Debate leads to reflection. We have supported the government in all of the bill, essentially. However one clause is of particular concern to me. I met some informed individuals who provided viewpoints on the debate. I think intelligent people sometimes are the only ones to see things from a different angle. I think the provision on opting in that is in the bill, although it may be initially attractive to the troublemakers who would like to play tricks with the bill on salaries, should not be included.

Today, it was in fact pointed out to me—I was impressed by the argument—that I agree with the principle, in a strike vote at a company, that if 70% vote in favour and 30% vote against, they do not say to the 30% “You will return to work because you oppose the strike”. They say “The majority has decided and this system will apply”.

This is sort of the same thing. In an attempt to trick certain individuals, to prevent their rhetoric on the bill, I think the government went a bit too far with this clause.

I do not know whether the government House leader should not follow along on the route I have taken, which is, to think about the question and decide, in the end, that some colleagues can legitimately fight a bill. Either they find the increase excessive or they find the pension fund inappropriate.

They have the right to express their point of view but they should not be personally penalized for that. I consider a member of the House of Commons must be able to do his job without the threat that he will be denied certain benefits, which members deserve, I have no doubt, all and amply. It is a fair salary, as I said earlier.

In this regard, we supported the government, but I would like to encourage it today—there is still time—to think about the opting in clause. This may not be the discovery of the century. I think we would all be much happier to do our job were there no threat, no spirit of revenge in the bill.

This is the only change I would make to the position we have held since the start. We continue to support the bill but we would like to have the “opting in” clause—now before it is too late—taken out and withdrawn. I do not think it is a good idea.