Michel Guimond

[Beauport Bay, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention to yesterday's announcement of phase 1 of the naturalization of the banks of Beauport bay. Made possible by a joint investment of $200,000 by the Quebec City port authority and the two levels of government, this work will help preserve the flourishing ecosystem of this exceptional site.

Let us hope that, with its change to green thinking, the Quebec City port authority will be more open to the needs of the public and will implement a phase 2 for work at other sites it manages. In fact, the work of stabilizing and naturalizing the banks of Beauport bay could have been completed for a little more than $50,000, nearly one-quarter of the cost of the present project.

The beach at Beauport bay continues to provide access to the St. Lawrence for the people in the Quebec City area. Its preservation and improvement will directly improve the quality of life of the people of Beauport and the greater Quebec City area.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit awkward to speak to a bill like Bill C-28, since it is a matter of parliamentarians addressing the remuneration of members of the House.

Given that there are nevertheless certain unavoidable things that have to be dealt with, certain obligations connected to the position of member of parliament, I believe that we must, as democratically elected representatives of the people, get directly to the subject of concern to us, that is the remuneration of the 301 members of this House.

Given the sensitive nature of the situation, the government decided to seek advice on this matter from an independent committee headed by Mr. Lumley.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that Mr. Lumley and the other two members of his committee have carried out a serious, detailed and well researched study of the situation.

I need to offer what I believe is an appropriate reminder that the members of parliament on both sides of this Chamber, including the government members, did not participate in the Lumley Commission. It is what is termed an independent commission. I have no intention of resorting to innuendo attacking the credibility of Mr. Lumley or the other two members of the commission. Speaking for the Bloc Quebecois, I believe we have been involved in a clear and transparent process.

In the few minutes I have, I would like to look at the commission's recommendations. The first outstanding one builds up the salary structure, no more, no less. We have to ask ourselves whether it is proper, acceptable and realistic for the Prime Minister of Canada to be earning a salary equivalent to that of the highest official he appoints.

I worked in human resources for 16 years before becoming a member of parliament. I worked in pay policy for a paper company called Abitibi Price. I worked with these concepts. We wondered whether a company president should earn as much or less than persons reporting to him. I think the question is perfectly legitimate.

Mr. Lumley's first recommendation is that the Prime Minister of Canada should earn a salary equivalent to that of the highest official he himself appoints. That highest official is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On that premise, with the first level of the pyramid established, we move to the second level. Is it proper and realistic for a minister to earn at least as much or slightly more than his deputy minister? The existing structure allows a deputy minister to earn more than his minister. This is a monumental aberration. It is therefore proper and realistic for ministers to earn as much as their deputies.

Moving on to the third level of the salary structure, members' salary must be proportionate to what a minister and the Prime Minister earn. At this point, I must say that members' salaries provide a good opportunity to engage in demagoguery. They provide a good opportunity to behave like hypocrites.

Quebecers are paying $32 billion in taxes to Ottawa. They are fully justified in electing members who will look after Quebec's interests. Therefore, as long as Quebecers will be paying taxes to Ottawa, we Bloc Quebecois members will not engage in demagoguery or behave like hypocrites on the issue of members' salaries.

We agree with the provision of the bill which provides that members who agree with the salary increase sign a form to that effect.

If, for some reason, an hon. member feels, based on his deep beliefs, that this salary increase is unjustified, he or she will be free not to sign the form authorizing his salary increase. Contrary to what we heard before, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of signing a form to get the salary increase.

Earlier, I said it was too easy to engage in demagoguery. Some could say, as we have heard on other occasions, that this does not make sense, it is much too much. However we could receive the salary increase in secret or through internal correspondence and publicly condemn it and say that MPs are paid too much and that it does not make sense, but still pocket that increase. This is to act like hypocrites.

Another attitude consists in watching the train go by, in doing nothing and say “No, this issue is too sensitive. We do not have to shoulder the political weight of this decision”. We can then watch the train go by and pocket the salary increase. This is another example of demagoguery and hypocrisy.

As parliamentarians, we must have the courage of making decisions, defending them and facing public opinion. If some lobbies or groups are not pleased with our decision, they will let us know. Every day, parliamentarians receive an enormous amount of e-mails and letters. In a democracy, people have the right to tell us whether they agree or not with our decisions. However, we must have the courage to defend our decisions and to face public opinion, even if it may sometimes be harsh in its judgments.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I say that this bill does not have to be reviewed behind closed doors, in a hurry, at three in the morning. As for the approach adopted by the government House leader, I do not normally make a practice of congratulating him, but I think that, in a democracy, when the members opposite do something that we feel is right and acceptable, we should say so. We should not criticize the government just for the pleasure of it. The approach developed by the government House leader for the introduction of this bill has been transparent.

Notice was given last Friday, June 1. The bill was introduced yesterday and, today, Tuesday, June 5, we are debating the bill at second reading. Tomorrow will be third reading debate, followed by a vote on Thursday.

In closing, given that this bill includes provisions to eliminate the tax free allowance, which is what the public wanted, and a reduction in pension benefits, and that overall remuneration will now be more equitable and consistent with market trends, we in the Bloc Quebecois support the bill at second reading.

[Business Of The House, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to inform you that only the first speaker will split his time. The others will follow the procedure provided for in the standing orders.

[Business Of The House, May 31st, 2001]

Madam Speaker, there has been consultation among all the parties, and I believe that you will find consent for the following motion. I move:

That the mover of today's opposition motion be deemed to be the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière rather than the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

[Division No. 103, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

[Division No. 102, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this motion.

[Business Of The House, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place among all the parties, and with my colleague from South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, concerning the taking of the division on Bill C-222, pertaining to the deduction provided for mechanics, scheduled today, Monday, May 28, at the conclusion of private members' business.

You will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of the debate on Bill C-222 on Monday, May 28, 2001, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion for second reading be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to Tuesday, May 29, 2001, tomorrow, at the expiry of the time provided for government orders.

[Income Tax Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the subcommittee on private members' business produced a report in which it recommended to the House that certain criteria be met before a private member's bill could be made votable.

Among these were: that the bill address matters of certain public interest; that the bill and motions address matters not covered by the government's legislative program; and that greater priority be given to measures relating to matters of more than purely local interest and not partisan in nature.

I would respectfully submit to all hon. colleagues on both sides of this House that Bill C-222, despite its imperfections to which my colleague from Portneuf has referred—I know it could be improved—is a matter of fairness to a category of men and women, more often men since this is an untraditional career for women. Mechanics should be able to deduct the purchase cost of their tools.

It is true that the government could think of extending this in future to other categories of workers who might also need it. I believe, however, that there has been unanimous industry support for this for more than 10 years.

I would remind my colleagues that last year in the last parliament we did get the House, all opposition parties and the majority of government members as well to vote in favour of referring this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance.

During the vote to be held today or tomorrow—the government whip ought to introduce a motion to defer it until tomorrow—I appeal to the sense of honour and fairness in all colleagues here in the House. In the division on Bill C-205, we had 218 votes in favour.

I remind the House that Bill C-222 is based on the exact same criteria as Bill C-205, which had the support of 218 members, namely all members of the opposition and a majority of Liberal members. Only 11 Liberals voted against the bill.

I also remind hon. members that the bill goes beyond party lines and that it has nothing to do with partisanship, the right, the left, federalists or sovereignists. In each of our ridings, we have automotive mechanics who work in service stations or car dealerships. We met with them during the election campaign that ended last November 27. We promised we would listen to them and respond to their needs and concerns.

In conclusion, I appeal to the common sense of hon. members who were present in this House during the 36th parliament and who voted in favour of the previous bill to support Bill C-222. I ask the 45 new members who did not have the opportunity to take a stand on the previous bill to support Bill C-222 as well. After the vote at the second reading stage, the bill will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance where we will have the opportunity to improve it.

All members sitting on the committee will have an opportunity to bring amendments to the bill. I only wish to improve it. I ask that, by the vote, the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and that automotive mechanics and technicians have, once and for all, their status recognized by the House of Commons. They expect justice and fairness.

[Income Tax Act, May 28th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since I am the member who introduced the bill, I ask for unanimous consent to have the floor for the few minutes left in the debate.

Since I have already spoken during the first hour of debate, I must seek unanimous consent. Let us not forget that this bill has been deemed votable. I therefore must get my colleagues' unanimous consent to close the debate.

[Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, May 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc are in favour of this motion.