Michel Gauthier

[Business Of The House, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, so I understood from the comments made by the hon. government leader.

Since the opposition is unanimous, the government is giving the matter some thought and we will perhaps have a positive response—hopefully, anyway—if I move my motion again a bit later today. That is what I understood.

[Business Of The House, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing the business of the House, I intend, as I announced earlier, to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to amend the order of business as follows.

The preliminary discussions I had with my colleagues lead me to believe that the vast majority of opposition members in the House would agree to support the request for the unanimous consent of the House that I am going to submit to the government. That request has to do with the very serious events that have recently taken place in Quebec and that now make the fight against organized crime the top priority. It is extremely urgent that this parliament, which is aware of its responsibilities, look at this issue and make a number of decisions.

I am asking for unanimous consent for the following:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, Motion No. M-428, listed under the Private Members' Notices of Motions, be debated immediately;

That the debate take place during the time normally allotted for government orders;

That any member taking part in this debate not speak for more than 20 minutes;

That it be possible for a member to split his or her time with another member;

That a period of not more than 10 minutes be provided for questions and comments following the speeches; and

That 15 minutes before the end of the debate, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question relating to the motion.

It concerns Motion No. M-428, which I made a point of including on the Order Paper so it would be available for all parliamentarians and which reads as follows:

That the freedom of the press and the public's right to know be recognized as fundamental to democracy, this House will not yield to attempts by criminal groups to intimidate democratic institutions, and this House request that the government prepare and bring in, by October 6, 2000—

Of course, we could agree on a different date. Depending on the outcome of our consultations, the date could be changed.

—a bill making it a crime to belong to a criminal organization, if necessary invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Since the members have known about this motion for some time already and the problem is extremely grave not only in Quebec, but in the rest of Canada, although more so in Quebec, I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House to change the order of proceedings for today.

[Banking, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, that is all very fine and well. But, in reality, who will ultimately decide what Quebec's interest is? Will it be the Minister of Finance or his successor? In either case, we are worried and not without reason.

[Banking, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bank bill, the Minister of Finance confirmed yesterday that the federal government would have the final say in any decisions concerning the acquisition of Quebec banks.

He would like us to think that Quebec's interests are well defended just because he is looking after them. We do not see it that way.

Why should we be happy that the bill gives him the power to use his own subjective criteria to decide the future of banks in Quebec, without any other safeguard? Why should that make us happy?

[Banking, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there is no guarantee in the act to protect Quebecers.

Why should we feel confident? Why should we be reassured about the possible acquisition of Quebec banks by a potential buyer, since the only guarantee we have is the decision of the federal Minister of Finance or of his successors? Mr. Speaker, you will agree that there is nothing reassuring in this situation.

[Banking, June 13th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government, through its Minister of Finance, is demanding legislative guarantees from the federal government regarding the conditions that must exist before authorizing a takeover of Quebec banks by a buyer.

However, in the 871 page document tabled by the federal Minister of Finance, there is no indication that such guarantees exist.

Will the Minister of Finance confirm that the only guarantee that exists in his bill is the discretionary power he is assuming, and nothing else?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the easiest thing to do at this point in the debate on Bill C-37 would be to start making a political issue.

The matter of the benefits, salary, pension and everything that concerns members of parliament has become such a sensitive matter, that every time the matter is raised, it distresses and discomfits parliamentarians to do so. They are embarrassed, intimidated and never know how it is going to be received.

Let us say right off, before anyone gets in a state because of this bill, that over 50% of the members of this House do not benefit from the bill before us. Over 50% of the members of this House have nothing to gain from this bill. Some 30% of members will an injustice affecting them corrected. For 20% of the members remaining, the bill forces parliament to apply the same plan and conditions for all those who already enjoy them.

The bill therefore corrects an injustice, requires parity for all and offers no additional advantage to most of the members of this House.

Among those members who are required to join in the famous MP pension plan like everyone else, let us not forget that, while some of them may benefit, namely those who are close to retirement age, a number of others will be penalized.

That is the case for my colleague, the hon. member for Témiscamingue, a young member of parliament who has been here for a number of years and who, based on elementary financial calculations, would be better off if he did not have to join in that pension plan. Over the years, so much was made of this extraordinary pension plan that, when it was reduced, they forgot to explain to all that it now allows members of parliament to retire at age 55.

But are there not thousands of public servants in Quebec, thousands of nurses, federal public servants and people across Canada who can retire at 55? It is the same for parliamentarians in this House.

Some make a big fuss because it is now automatic, because a member of parliament is automatically entitled to a pension after six years. But is it not 10 years for public servants? I have never heard anyone in Quebec—I am well aware of the situation in Quebec, because I myself was a member of the public service—for example a journalist say “Today, public servants who joined 10 years ago are entitled to their pension”. Yet, in the case of members of parliament, after six years—and when we look at the average career of the members of both groups we can understand the difference—people say that they are entitled to their pension.

Yes, as public servants are entitled to their pension after ten years, along with thousands of workers who have contributed ten years to a private pension fund, they are eligible but cannot draw it until age 55. It is the same thing for MPs.

The MPs pension fund is not what it used to be. It is very close to the public service pension, but slightly more advantageous for one very simple reason: the average career of an elected member—a matter I have already looked into—whether an MLA in Quebec or an MP in Ottawa, is around seven years, or one and one-half mandates.

We know very many, of course, who last for just one mandate, and others for two or a bit more, but the average time for an MP is seven years. Nevertheless, the retirement pension applicable to them must not be accessible to only about 30% of the total. We must not get carried away here.

The conditions are particular. Who else in society sees his job open to question every three or four years, who else has to go before his bosses or his customers to find out whether he can keep his job for another four years? There will always be differences for MPs. What seems to be just a slight positive difference as far as the number of years is concerned is a major inconvenience.

If we asked any public servant—and there are some here—if they would be interested in running for election every four years, provided their pension plan were altered slightly, we know very well that not a single one would say yes.

That said, this bill before us makes no change for most MPs, remedies an injustice for a certain number of them, and requires the rest to accept the same plan as everybody else. This is no big deal. This is not a coup that has been organized to take advantage of the end of a session in order to do something to benefit MPs, far from it.

It is a matter of justice, and this is my second point. In our society, everyone has protection at work, even those who work and are protected under minimum labour standards. I will speak of the case of Quebec, because I know it best.

In Quebec, those who are subject to the minimum labour standards are entitled to vacations when they lose their job. They are entitled to paid vacations. They are entitled to compensation when they have been in their job a period of time. It is understandable, no one can reasonably lose their job overnight and end up without a cent.

People have access to employment insurance, are protected under minimum labour standards and everyone has a transition allowance. Except in extremely difficult cases, and perhaps our society should correct them, the vast majority of people who lose their job are entitled to certain benefits: vacations, a separation allowance, certain severance pay and employment insurance for a year or nearly.

What about parliamentarians? Some, because of a discrepancy in the law, do not have this transition. Let us consider our colleagues, professionals, lawyers, doctors, engineers, people who left their office work and who tomorrow morning, because of elections, lose their job and do not have even a month's transition.

Among my colleagues on both sides of the House, there are 45-year-old fathers who have interrupted their career to serve one or two terms here in parliament. Because of a loophole, they could find themselves home tomorrow without employment insurance, severance pay, or anything, after two terms. These members would go back to their families with nothing.

Is it so scandalous to ensure that every member of the House gets six months of severance pay, i.e. $34,000 gross, or approximately $17,000 to $20,000 net, depending on individual situations? Is it a tragedy to give members somewhere between $17,000 and $20,000 to support their family for a few months while they find a new job? Of course not.

I am sure that those listening understand this. They know that, if they lose their job, they can collect EI benefits for 40, 45 weeks—perhaps a bit longer, I am not sure, depending on the region—but nobody wants anyone to lose everything overnight and have to rely on public charity to survive and support their family. It is therefore a matter of fairness and equity for parliamentarians in this House.

I will close by saying that the cost to society is ridiculous. We do not build the finances and the economic future of a country like Canada on the backs of 50 members of parliament who were penalized through a bill by mistake. No one would be proud if, following the next election, the Parliament of Canada had 20 or 25 of its members with no money and no job, simply because one day, when the pension plan was reduced, there was something missing in the act and some people were not covered by the six month severance pay, the transitional allowance.

I do not think that the taxes of the Canadians listening to us will go down by one quarter of one penny per year if we take action to avoid penalizing 50, 75 or 100 members of parliament.

It is easy to engage in demagoguery. Tomorrow, many people will talk about this. I am curious to see how they will do so. I know that some morning men in radio stations will say that the members of parliament voted themselves a generous severance package. But the fact is that these people earn three, four or five times the salary of the parliamentarians in this House. Yet, not one of them will mention that fact. Not one of them will say “I earn $300,000 per year. I make five times as much money as a member of parliament, but I object to parliamentarians voting themselves a six month transitional allowance, in case they lose an election”. We have to realize that some people will say such things.

There are journalists who will write about this. Some will do so correctly, they will look at the facts, but others will say that members of parliament voted themselves a generous benefit. Most journalists who work on the Hill have a salary equal to or higher than that of MPs. This has to be said. Society has the right to know how things are made difficult for certain individuals.

We are not talking about salary increases. We are not talking about giving rash benefits. We are talking about correcting something that needs correcting. While political rhetoric is easy, justice requires we proceed this way.

So, as of tomorrow or whenever the bill is passed, all parliamentarians in this House will have the same working conditions regardless of their political party and this is only right. When this bill is passed, all parliamentarians in this House will know that at least they will have a transition period of six months' salary to enable them to take a new direction and feed their family should they lose in an election.

This is no irresponsible benefit. Once we pass this bill, everyone in Canada, as well as in Quebec, all those watching us will know that parliamentarians did not give themselves more benefits. They simply corrected a terrible error that risked putting a few of our colleagues in a very difficult situation, were it not corrected.

I do not think that a good MP—for those watching us—closes his eyes to the need to respect others here. A good MP respects his colleagues, respects the duties of an MP and respects his fellow citizens for having risen and said “I think this makes good sense, I think this is just and fair”.

I very definitely support this bill, because it corrects a flagrant injustice. It does not cost a lot and it will save social costs, perhaps major ones for some of us, that would have benefited no one.

So I support the government on this. My party should support the government on this matter. It seems to me a simple matter of fairness, justice, honesty, candour and courage. I thank the government leader for introducing the bill.

[Parental Leave, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, however interesting any program the Prime Minister might offer young parents might be, he must understand that he is about to treat them as though they were workers who had lost their job, by requiring a waiting period and excluding at least 50% of young families because they are not eligible for EI.

I appeal to his common sense and ask him to be a bit more open-minded. Could he not temporarily set aside his unending wish to pick a fight, take a more open-minded approach, give families a break and go along with Quebec's program? That is what we are asking him to do.

[Parental Leave, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, if the Government of Quebec clearly identified the whole problem of parental leave, and if the negotiations broke down, it was because the federal government refuses to look at the full scope of the existing problem.

Will the Prime Minister not admit that assistance to young parents has much more to do with family policy and that he would therefore be much better advised to go along with Quebec's program than work from the EI program?

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to say that there is no ambiguity. Let us be clear.

I did not say that the member worked there now. If it sounded like that, it is not the case. I said he worked there, and I gave the dates and amounts, between November 10, 1996 and November 10, 1997 for $7,200. That is exactly what I said and if it was not what was understood I repeat that that was what the documentation from the Canada Information Office said and, as for all the rest, I did not wish to say anything more than that.