Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[The Environment, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, people need to be able to trust.

Can the minister make a commitment here in this House that all Canadian environmental rules will really be complied with, on all occasions?

[The Environment, March 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, last January, despite having to bend the law to do it, MOX from the United States was flown in by helicopter to Chalk River. Now spring is here, and we are waiting for Russian MOX to arrive, this time via the St. Lawrence.

Can the Minister of the Environment make a commitment right now to respect the decisions of the municipalities refusing to allow the MOX to pass through their territory, and to prevent the arrival of this convoy?

[Income Tax Act, March 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-205 introduced by my colleague, the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

When my colleague introduced his bill last February, we were a few weeks away from the day the Minister of Finance was scheduled to bring down his budget. At that time my colleague was hoping the minister would respond to his concerns, but he did not make the commitment to amend the Income Tax Act to allow auto mechanics to deduct from their taxable income the cost of the tools they have to buy, update and maintain as a condition of their employment.

I must emphasize the fact that auto mechanics are the victims of an unfair situation that has been going on for too long. In that context, on February 17 of this year, the Automotive Industries Association of Canada sent to the 301 members of this House a letter asking the government to correct this injustice done to Canadian mechanics.

Since the finance minister failed to deal with this issue in his last budget, I doubt very much whether he took the trouble to read this group's recommendations. For his information, I will read some very interesting quotes from their letter which I hope will enlighten the finance minister, and I quote:.

—the automobile aftermarket industry is very concerned because we might not be able to meet our future labour needs. Indeed, the tax system is hampering our efforts to convince young people to consider the excellent job of automotive service technician.

I am not saying this; a Canadian association representing 140,000 mechanics across Canada is saying this. According to the association, young people are shunning this trade because the job conditions are not attractive.

Indeed a basic set of tools costs at least $4,000, while an apprentice makes less than $25,000 a year. During their first four years at work technicians will invest around 15% of their net income, in tools.

I would like the finance minister, but I believe it is asking too much of him, to put himself in their shoes. I believe he is above all that, but I appeal to his nobler sentiments, and I hope he will listen carefully to what I have to say.

An apprentice earns only $25,000 gross. Gross means before taxes, before paying for his rent, his food, his student loan if he has one. Once all this has been deducted, he has very little money left. And on top of that, he has to find $4,000 to pay for his tools.

Members can see how unjust and unacceptable it is for this category of workers. I believe it is a question of common sense, and I appeal to the common sense of all members. The minister should look at this issue with an open mind, especially since he has known about this injustice for several years. These people have been the victims of this injustice for a long time, and the finance minister, who has been in that portfolio for seven years, is familiar with the problem, but he has not done anything yet.

Could anybody give me another profession where workers have similar problems? I would like to know. But there is none, of course. Chainsaw operators, musicians and artists may claim a deduction for the cost of their tools or instruments.

Let me quote the same letter again:

Year in and year out, the demand for automotive technicians goes up, as consumers keep their cars longer because of increased durability and other factors. Modern vehicles are also more complex than ever, and their maintenance requires qualified technicians.

We should realize that these technicians do not need just a couple of screwdrivers. As I said earlier, those who want to specialize could spend between $4,000 and $30,000 on their tools.

This is the second hour of debate on this bill. I have been listening intently to the objections of members opposite. Objections have only been raised on the government side. There is a consensus on this bill on opposition benches. Four parties out of five support my hon. colleague's bill, a support that translates into a 60% support in the population, if we refer to the 1997 election results.

In our system, a party can win a majority of seats without getting the plurality of votes. The government should be sensitive to this, but when we look at how it rammed Bill C-20 through, its sense of democracy is all too apparent. The rules of the House were stretched to the limit to get this bill tabled in December. The work of the legislative committee studying the bill was abruptly curtailed and a gag was imposed to speed the bill through. Democratic this government is not.

But I am straying from today's topic. I was saying that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance had said that the bill could not be passed because allowing mechanics such a deduction would be unfair, since other workers would not receive the same treatment.

At the risk of repeating myself, I wish to remind him that the situation of mechanics is completely different, given the huge amounts they must spend compared to what they earn. Furthermore, I find this argument completely unfounded because musicians, chain saw operators and some office workers are allowed certain tax deductions. The government should realize that it is contradicting itself on this issue.

In addition, I know that one of the government's big fears is that mechanics will put some of their tools to personal use. This is naturally something that deserves our attention. All the same, I would like to point out that even though musicians are entitled to deductions for the purchase of their musical instruments, I would be very surprised if they did not use them outside the work context, just like chain saw operators, or office workers who must do the odd bit of personal business on their laptop.

There is no way to guarantee that mechanics will limit use of their tools to job-related work. This is perfectly normal. I still think that hiding behind this sort of argument to reject the bill is sticking one's head in the sand.

In conclusion, I wish to mention that over 35,000 post cards have been sent to the Minister of Finance. Since there are 140,000 mechanics in Canada, I think the message is clear. They want action. I hope that the government will listen to reason on this issue and I really hope the government will support the bill introduced by the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Îles-d'Orléans.

[The Environment, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, after his decision to postpone the province by province breakdown of objectives, does the minister not realize the federal government is plunging companies that are prepared to take positive steps for reduction into uncertainty, which cannot do otherwise than to cast doubt on Canada's commitments at Kyoto?

[The Environment, March 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the conference of ministers of the environment, which ended yesterday, did not reach its objectives. Once again, the federal government is merely putting off any real action off until some other time.

As well, its strategy for greenhouse gas reduction ignores the realities of the provinces, where sustained efforts are already under way.

My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Why is the government refusing to recognize the efforts of the provinces so that those that have already taken certain steps are not eventually penalized?

[Petitions, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this morning it is my pleasure to table in the House a petition signed by 615 people in my region calling on parliament to quickly pass legislation making it mandatory to label any foods that have been genetically modified in whole or in part.

[Bill C-20, March 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is undemocratic. We already know this and have said so on many occasions. Now it is the turn of the French political community to point out that this bill is an affront to democracy.

“If this bill is passed, Quebecers will lose, within Canada, their right to self-determination” says Jacques Julliard, in the weekly Le Nouvel Observateur . “There is an inexorability about the Anglo-Saxon steam roller. Hegemony is not enough—it wants the other to disappear”.

The Bloc Quebecois echoes Jacques Julliard, who is calling on French parliamentarians to come to the defence of democracy by “pointing out publicly that passage of Bill C-20 would an affront to the francophone community”.

In the land of liberty, equality and fraternity, democracy involves respect for the people. Bill C-20, unfortunately, proves Canada's lack of respect for the people of Quebec.

[Supply, March 17th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what the Minister of Health had to say. He asked the provinces to show their willingness to restore the health system.

It is fine for him to tell that to the provinces, but is he undertaking to engage in dialogue with the provinces? Is he undertaking to restore provincial transfer payments to the 1993-94 level? Is he undertaking to do something to make up to the provinces the shortfall since 1994-95? Is he also undertaking to respect provincial jurisdiction over service to the public?

I ask him what he wants to do. Provincial governments are more than willing, but let us not forget that it is because they have seen their payments slashed by the federal government and been forced to go through what they have gone through in the health care system in the last few years.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 364

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on June 1, 2009.”

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

moved:

Motion No. 338

That Bill C-20 be amended by adding after line 28 on page 5 the following new clause:

“4. This Act shall come into force on December 1, 2006.”