Michel Guimond

[Hundredth Birthday Of Sister Bernadette Deblois, June 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Servants of the Holy Heart of Mary, in Beauport, have a special reason to celebrate, since Sister Bernadette Deblois turns 100 this month.

Bernadette, who was born in 1900 in Saint-George-de-Beauce, became a nun because of her faith and her desire to help her fellow human beings.

In 1920, she decided to spend her life teaching young people. She was a teacher or a school principal for close to 30 years, at the elementary level. Later on, she fulfilled various duties within the congregation, while maintaining a special interest in teaching young people with difficulties. She also spent 10 years supporting the work of the St. Vincent de Paul fathers, at the Patro.

Sister Bernadette is very spry. She swam until the age of 98, she is funny and she faces each day with serenity. Even though she is now more fragile than she used to be, she remains free and liberated, and maintains absolute confidence in the Providence.

What else could we wish you, Sister Bernadette, if not health and the love of those who surround you? You have heard it one hundred times, but I will say it anyway: happy birthday Sister Bernadette.

[Petitions, June 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by several hundred residents from Quebec who are protesting predatory gasoline pricing.

These petitioners call on parliament to pass a resolution to stop world petroleum cartels in order to bring down overly high gasoline prices.

Since we know that the price of gasoline at the pump reached record levels, such as 84.9 cents a liter, in the greater Montreal area last week, I believe this petition is highly relevant.

Moreover, this petition for adequate funding for research on alternative energies to ensure that, in the near future, Canadians will be free from the obligation to use petroleum as the main energy source.

[Environment Week, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to celebrate Canadian Environment Week, which will end on June 8.

As members know, technological developments and globalization have triggered an increasing number of environmental problems. Unfortunately, the government seems to be putting more emphasis on exports and international trade than on the protection of our environment.

As former Quebec premier Pierre-Marc was reported as saying in an article published today in La Presse , “We must not isolate trade policies from social and environmental concerns”. This is the perspective in which we must work for the sustainable development of our planet.

It is my hope that this Environment Week will be an opportunity to work toward that goal. Promoting public transportation or creating new and less polluting fuels are excellent ways to promote a happy combination of the environment and the economy.

I thank all those who will take part in this Environment Week.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

This allows the big companies to report record profits. Things are not going well. The price of gasoline has reached 84 cents a litre, and the companies are announcing record profits. In addition to making record profits, the companies are announcing massive layoffs. In addition to making more money, they are going to get rid of people so they can make even more money.

Is that acceptable in a free and democratic society such as Canada? Absolutely not. The Minister of Industry will say “But this is not our fault. This is a worldwide phenomenon with the prices of OPEC, with the Arabs, Kuwait, the producing countries and Venezuela”.

This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois are saying that it is time to do some housekeeping. It is time to look and see if there is perhaps a bit of incest in the relations among the companies. We should ask the Competition Bureau to do this, but, in the meantime, the government ought to free us, by cutting the excise tax by 10 cents a litre now, to provide the time necessary to look into the situation.

In the House last Thursday or Friday, the Minister of Finance said that the Minister of Industry had commissioned a study. Do people realize when this study will be made public? The Minister of Industry has ordered that it be released by the end of the year—December 31, 2000.

The Minister of Finance promised us wonderful tax cuts. “My February 28, 2000 budget,” he proudly told us “contains tax cuts for 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004”. Right now, with the recent increase in the price of gasoline and the price of energy in general, we can see that, if something is not done immediately, any gains from these tax cuts will be completely wiped out for certain categories of the public.

This is totally unacceptable. The left hand is promising tax cuts and the right hand—not that there is one—is doing nothing. With the increase in the price of gasoline and energy, the upshot is that any gains from these tax cuts will be completely wiped out until 2004.

There is a lot of talk about gasoline. This inflationary spiral will have an impact on many industries. I mentioned the transportation sector, so food transported by truck, but there are a number of industries using petroleum-based products that will have to pass on price hikes to consumers. I will give an example.

I and the members for Témiscamingue, Lotbinière and Sherbrooke, all of us representing the Bloc Quebecois, visited 21 ridings in Quebec. We travelled to all regions and held press conferences, offering information specific to each of the regions we visited. We were able to note how much change there had been in prices at the pump between February 1999 and when we made our tour in March and April 2000.

At some service stations we held press conferences. The press conference I particularly remember, however, was the one at a greenhouse in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. One tends to forget that the entire greenhouse industry is heavily dependent on energy costs.

This is the time when we are preparing our yards and putting in our summer plantings, and the nursery owner, who grows potted plants in his greenhouses, told us what the increase in fuel oil meant to his costs. This was a small grower. At the present time, the major producers have the opportunity to heat with natural gas, but operators of small or medium businesses who are trying to earn a living do not have the means to convert to natural gas. They are still dependent on fuel oil, the price of which has risen in leaps and bounds over the past year.

This greenhouse operator told us “I have two choices. Either I keep prices at last year's level, and assume the increased cost of fuel oil, or I try to pass the increase on to the customer. If I do that, I have to compete with the major American chains, which have the opportunity of buying in bulk, so they can really slash their prices. There is no certainty that I will be able to make it through this coming summer”.

The rise in heating oil prices was mentioned in his case, but there is also a rise in the cost of styrofoam containers. Styrofoam is a petroleum based product. Styrofoam suppliers, such as Cascade in the Drummondville region or in the Kingsey Falls region, which produce styrofoam flats and plastics of all kinds, polyethylenes, will be hit with an unavoidable price increase. Farm producers will either absorb it or pass it on to consumers. The wheel keeps turning, and the same consumers, the same taxpayers, take the blow. This government, with its surplus of $95 billion, should do something about the increase in the price of gasoline.

A second aspect I would like to cover, which advanced somewhat last week, is Bill C-205, which I introduced in order to enable mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools. The debate has gone on in this House for some ten years. It involves a job category, a category of employees, vehicle technicians, who earn on average $29,000 a year.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you have a car as I do and when you go to a service station or to a dealer's you can see how vehicle technicians, more commonly known as mechanics, are members of a category of employees that work very hard. Sometimes they have to work in very difficult conditions. Their work is very physically demanding. Most of the time they work on concrete floors, in high humidity areas, under vehicles from which water, oil and slush drip in their faces in the middle of winter. These people work in areas where oil, dust, noise and toxic fumes are the norm.

I tabled Bill C-205 because some people told me about this issue. Let me say from the outset that I am not an expert on automobiles. I am not a car buff. I have a hard time just putting oil in my car engine, but luckily I have a good mechanic who does it for me. Some colleagues have asked me “Why are you tabling this bill? Is your father or your brother a mechanic?” Not at all. It is simply a matter of common sense.

During an election campaign, or whenever we try to be receptive to people's concerns, we talk to ordinary people, to workers. We do not only talk to millionaires. On a typical day, a member of parliament is likely to meet many more hard-working, low-income people than he or she will meet millionaires or billionaires.

It is through these encounters that I was made aware of this issue. Workers in the automobile industry told me “It does not make sense; other categories of workers, including musicians, chainsaw operators and dentists, can deduct the cost of the tools required in their employment”.

This is why I tabled Bill C-205 which, incidentally, was voted on on Tuesday. I want to take this opportunity to thank hon. members and to congratulate them for doing so. There were 229 members in the House and 218 of them, from all parties, voted in favour of a bill introduced by a Bloc Quebecois member. I said from the outset that this was a bill that transcended party lines. This was not a debate between federalists and sovereignists; it was not a debate about Quebec versus the rest of Canada. It was simply a matter of common sense and fairness with respect to people whose work is physically very demanding.

I thank the 217 colleagues who voted with me to get this bill through second reading stage.

Mr. Speaker, you are a seasoned parliamentarian, as well as an expert in constitutional law. You know that a bill from a private member, an opposition member to boot, rarely makes it past second reading.

I deplore that 11 Liberal members voted against the bill, but they will have to live with their decision. Votes on private members' bills are free votes, with members voting according to their conscience.

When these 11 Liberal members are visiting service stations and automobile concessions during the next election campaign, I hope that they are given a polite reception by the mechanics, who work very hard in these establishments, but they will have to explain to these mechanics in person why they voted against my Bill C-205. They will have to live with their decision. That is not my problem.

This bill will have to be considered in the Standing Committee on Finance before it can come back to the House at third reading. I hope that the next election, which is expected this fall, will not kill this bill on the order paper. I hope that the government will give the bill top priority so that it can be passed before the next election.

The four year legal mandate is up on June 2, 2001. Last Friday it had only been three years since we were elected. Let us keep in mind that, in Canada, the legal, normal and usual mandate is four years and that, under the Canadian Constitution, up to five years are allowed before an election is called.

It is true that there is a tax cost related to this bill to allow mechanics to deduct the cost of their tools. It is true that this is going to cost the government money, but the Minister of Finance is bragging of having a $95 billion surplus over the next five years. I believe he has the financial and budgetary possibilities of accepting this bill, which would enable automobile mechanics to finally be recognized for their true value and to be allowed to deduct the cost of the tools required for their work.

Let us not forget that my purpose in tabling this bill was to help young men and women who are just finishing school. There are, unfortunately, not many young women working as mechanics but I believe that, as our society changes, it will be less and less a male-only trade, and we will see more and more girls choosing this profession.

Another purpose of this bill was to give young people the chance of getting a job. When a young person finishes school, he usual has debts because of his studies. He then goes to a car dealer or a garage looking for work and the boss is going to ask him, for a certainty, “Do you have your tools?”

We know that the most basic tool set runs between $3,000 and $5,000. There is no certainty that a young person just finishing school, with debts to begin with, is going to have that kind of money, and there is also no certainty that his parents will be in a position to help him either. Any set of tools that are the least bit specialized can run up to $30,000, $35,000 or $40,000.

The possibility of deducting the cost of tools would also be a recognition by this government of its desire to really give young people a chance and the opportunity to find work. I think the Minister of Finance ought to give some thought to this.

Another private member's bill I introduced, which may involve some financial commitment by the government, concerns employment insurance benefits. Over the years, the government has accumulated surpluses in the employment insurance fund.

We in the Bloc Quebecois contend that, since 1993, this surplus has not belonged to the government, but rather to the employees who contribute to employment insurance every week from their pay cheques and to their employers, who also pay employment insurance contributions, the employer's share.

We consider that the surplus of over $31 billion in the employment insurance fund—and I am sure that there is more than that today—belongs to the workers, and thus the unemployed, and to the employers. The employer's contribution to unemployment insurance should be reduced.

During the last break, I visited many businesses in the Beauport industrial park in my riding. People said to me “Mr. Guimond, we could create jobs if we could reduce certain payroll costs, employment insurance contributions, for example”.

When I took my degree in industrial relations, we talked about fringe benefits. Today, we call them benefits. Let me say in passing that these benefits are less and less fringe benefits, a name that is no longer acceptable. Now we talk about benefits.

Today, the employer pays between 30% and 35% of benefits. An employee hired today costs 35 cents for every dollar the employer pays in salary, even before he has worked.

Many SMB owners say “Lower the payroll taxes, lower the contributions to employment insurance, and we will create jobs”. This is all the more appropriate in the context of today's budget surplus of $31 billion.

This is why I introduced my private member's bill and I can hardly wait for it to be debated in this House. I can hardly wait to hear what all my colleagues from all parties on both sides of the House have to say on the matter. I want students excepted from having to pay employment insurance contributions, to have the option of not paying them.

When students do not work enough to qualify for employment insurance, why should they have to contribute if they hold a summer job? We currently have students here. They will begin to work soon, or they did at the end of April or in early May. These students will pay employment insurance contributions. In September, when they go back to school, they will not be able to get employment insurance benefits, because they will be full time students. Since they will not be able to look for full time work either, they will not qualify for employment insurance.

The bill I tabled is designed to allow these students, if they think that they will not work long enough to qualify for employment insurance or that they will have too many hours in class in September, to be exempted from having to contribute to the EI program. Such contributions are an indirect tax.

If these young people have more money available when they are working, it indirectly alleviates their parents' burden. If, instead of getting $195 net per week, a student takes home $210 or $212, he will have more money in his pockets and be more financially independent.

This in turn means that the parents will not have to shell out as much money for a bus pass or a pair of sneakers when classes resume in September. This is the reasoning behind the bill. I do hope that the government, which boasts about a $95.5 billion budget surplus over the next five years, will listen to the public, particularly since the Prime Minister plans to call an election soon.

My 40 minutes are running out quickly. I could have talked about the lack of measures in the February 28, 2000, budget to truly fight poverty. I cannot understand the Minister of Finance, who claims to sympathize with the poor and to understand them. Maybe that is true. Even though he has led a very sheltered life, even though we know he has a bank account big enough to buy out most members here, to buy us all out, he tells us he understands the poor.

Let us not forget that the Minister of Finance is the former president and owner of Canada Steamship Lines, one of the largest shipping companies. He is therefore a prosperous shipowner, a fellow with money coming out his ears, whose company, Canada Steamship Lines, registers its boats abroad in tax havens and does not hire many Canadian sailors so that it can pay the lowest wages possible.

The Minister of Finance says he understands the poor and is concerned about their situation. There must be poor people living in LaSalle, in his riding of Lasalle—Émard. Is there anyone listening who lives in LaSalle or Ville-Émard who thinks that their member of parliament, the Minister of Finance, is someone who understands and is in touch with the poor? Is he someone who makes a practice of visiting soup kitchens and meeting with the poor, the disadvantaged and those who beg for money in Montreal? Does he give them a quarter when he takes a walk along rue Sainte-Catherine? Does this describe the Minister of Finance? No. He is insensitive.

The best proof is that his February 28, 2000 budget contained nothing for the poor. He tried to throw together a few little programs to once again boost this government's visibility. This government has an obsession with visibility. It wants to put the maple leaf everywhere. It even put it on the front of Via Rail trains. I do not know how many thousands of dollars it cost taxpayers to put a maple leaf on the front of Via Rail trains so that moose, caribou and deer watching the train go through the Gaspé park toward the town can be sure that it is really a federal government train. Just to be sure, a maple leaf was added to the front of Via Rail trains. This government has an obsession with visibility.

I believe that, if this government has any sensitivity to the needs of the people of Canada and of Quebec, it should think twice and ensure that there are measures to allow the ordinary people, the members of the middle class, the hard working people who punch the clock in factories and other businesses, those who are supervised by others, those who do not make enough to make ends meet, those who are worried about losing their jobs, those whose have children in Cegep who want to be like everyone else and have things like everyone else, a bike for instance, to be able to benefit from concrete taxation measures.

This is today's reality. Canadian and Quebec society is made up of several different categories of people. I think it is regrettable that this government pays more attention to the powerful. When we realize that the six biggest banks in Canada have recorded a profit of $8 billion in 1999, can this government be one that listens to those who have little? Can we believe that this government is one that listens to the middle class, when we see the six major banks making $8 billion in profits?

While the big banks like Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Toronto Dominion are announcing record profits for 1999—they have never made so much money—2,500 jobs are being cut, branches are being closed, there is no more service. People are being told to use the automatic teller, which will cut down on the number of counter staff needed.

In the branches, the tellers are being forced to tell us “Use the automatic tellers. There is no charge for it”. That is what they are being made to do. I said so the other day to my teller at the National Bank. I said “Do you realize you are working to do yourself out of a job? You encourage me to pay my hydro bill at the banking machine in order to save $1.25. You are doing yourself out of a job”. She said “Mr. Guimond, we have been instructed to direct our clients to the banking machine”.

Can we say we are in a better, more developed, society when we just do business with banking machines? What about humanity's place in society? Where will humans be taken into account once and for all? When are we, as members, going to take those who sent us here into account? They are the public.

This fall we may be going back to the people. What do they expect of us? We must represent them worthily and listen to their needs and concerns.

I hope that the 301 members of the House of Commons will be motivated by one thing, not greed, not power or latching on to it, but the defence honestly and to the best of their ability of the people they represent.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2000, June 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the House on Bill C-32.

I remind our viewers that this is an act to implement the budget of February 28, which we are to pass so the government may make certain expenditures.

I will say right off that the budget the Minister of Finance presented on February 28 provided for surpluses of some $95.5 billion for the next five years.

Logically we should be delighted. We should say “If the government is accumulating surpluses for the next five years, we are a long way from the budget cuts that were made to eliminate the deficit. We are a long way from the situation in which we had a deficit of $42 billion during the years of the Conservative government under Mr. Mulroney”. Initially this looks like good news.

However, I have to point out, with all due respect, that it does not represent good news if indeed the government will be raking in some $95 billion in the coming five years—it may in fact represent a problem.

Before becoming an MP, I had the opportunity to be a city councillor. I am a resident of Boischatel on the côte de Beaupré and I had the opportunity of sitting on the municipal council for seven years. I will draw an analogy, and it is very relevant to the situation we are in today.

I recall that when I served as councillor between 1987 and 1993 until my election as the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans we had budget surpluses in certain years. I can still see the mayor of the time busting his britches and saying “We were good managers; we have a surplus”. I am sorry, but what I am saying applies to the Minister of Finance as well. If a government accumulates surpluses shamelessly, it means that it is accumulating them because it is overtaxing.

A government should tax according to its needs, rather than giving way, as this Liberal government has done, to an impulse to overtax and to reduce the income of certain classes of society. We will come back to this, but this is the point I wished to make: a $95 billion surplus over the next five years is hardly good news. It means that this government is cutting too deep and taxing too heavily.

If this government were realistic, it would set taxes at a reasonable level, so that taxpayers could breathe a little easier. They will not breathe any easier with the small tax cuts expected up until 2004. On the contrary, Canadians are still heavily taxed by international standards.

I have this to say to the Minister of Finance, the member for LaSalle—Émard, “If you have a $95 billion surplus, if you think you are so great, you should be able to do something about the real problems”.

I want to talk about a real problem, one which continues to drag on while this government, as usual, does nothing—I am referring to the increase in the price of gas. The present situation in Canada, particularly in Quebec, is completely unacceptable.

Let us not forget that in addition to GST this government collects an excise tax on every litre of gas sold. This excise tax is 10 cents per litre of gas at the pump, and 4 cents per litre of diesel fuel. If this government has a $95 billion surplus, if it is crowing about how wonderful it is, let it immediately suspend the excise tax, in order to give taxpayers and consumers a little breathing space and slow down the inflationary trend resulting from recent increases in the price of gas.

As the Bloc Quebecois transport critic, I am regularly in touch with trucking associations, owners of bus companies, and owners of school and other buses. These people, particularly the truckers, are all telling us that they have no choice but to pass on to consumers the increase in the price of gas.

At present, when young couples building new homes order landfill, or topsoil for their yards so as to start a lawn, the trucker will have no choice but to pass these costs on to them.

The intercity carriers, who are barely making a profit at present, will have no choice but to pass these costs on to the consumer.

Another example would be companies shipping goods by road. If shipping costs rise, the costs of the goods will rise as well. This shows the whole inflationist spiral the recent rise in gas prices has triggered.

Why is the Bloc Quebecois calling for immediate suspension of this tax? To give companies a bit of a chance to catch their breath until prices get back to a reasonable level.

Every member in this House, as well as those watching us at home, knows that the average cost of a litre of gasoline at the pump in Quebec was about 54.9 cents in February 1999.

Everyone finds gas prices far too high. Some people have made what in my opinion is a logical and normal choice: to use public transportation. In major cities, one sees growing numbers of people on in-line skates, or taking the bus or subway. There are people who have decided that, because of the atmospheric pollution caused by automobile emissions, they are going to do their part by choosing not to use their cars to get to work.

That is fine, but there are people who have no choice. Those who are faced with these gasoline price increases are telling us “It makes no sense, we are getting poorer by going to work”.

In February 1999, when the price at the pump was 54.9 cents a litre, no one was saying that it was too much. It had reached an acceptable level, given inflation and people's incomes.

This morning I left my riding of Beauport to come here and I stopped in Montreal, where a litre of gas costs 84.9 cents. There is a huge difference, 30 cents a litre, between the price of 54 cents in February 1999 and today's price of 84 cents, in early June 2000.

This government claims that it is compassionate and that it respects consumers. It keeps repeating that it listens to Canadians, but which group of Canadians does it listen to? It listens to the big contributors to the Liberal Party.

If this government is listening to ordinary people, it should decide to immediately remove the excise tax, which accounts for 10 cents per litre.

The Bloc Quebecois raised another point regarding gasoline prices, namely the government's laxness regarding competition. This government is not doing anything to promote competition. Canada is the only country, relative to the United States, that lets companies be refiners, distributors and retailers at the same time.

Whether these companies are called Petro-Canada, Esso or Irving, they all have their own refineries. They get a margin of profit at the refinery. They send this gasoline to their own distributors and therefore get the profit from the distribution. Then they send the distributors' gasoline to the retailers. They have their own network of service stations—and so they rake in more profit.

Who ends up paying? Who pays the totally unacceptable gasoline prices, like the 84.9 cents a litre they are paying in the Montreal region? Does anyone in this House think this is acceptable?

[Air Transportation, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois moved amendments requiring Air Canada subsidiaries to comply with the Official Languages Act.

The Minister of Transport opposed these amendments and thus jeopardized a significant presence of francophones in the airline industry.

With the warning from the Association des Gens de l'Air du Québec, does the Minister of Transport not realize that, by rejecting our amendments, he has himself compromised the francophone presence in Canada's airline industry?

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I share the member's views. There is a problem, and a much more consistent approach needs to be developed. Thought should also perhaps be given to intermodality.

I have no problem with that, but the motion we are debating today does not mention respect for provincial jurisdiction. It does not talk about a role for the provinces.

The member's explanation with respect to consulting the provinces is all very well, but there is nothing in the wording of the motion requiring respect for provincial jurisdiction. I will give him an example.

The Canada-Quebec municipalities infrastructure program should be in place by the end of the year. There were negotiations and agreements with the provinces. The Bloc Quebecois agreed with this program. We agreed that the municipalities should get two-thirds of grants for municipal projects such as water systems, sewage systems, asphalting, the construction of recreation centres or community centres.

Bloc Quebecois members agreed, provided that provincial jurisdiction was respected and that, in the case of Quebec, its department of municipal affairs had the last say in the selection of projects.

If the federal government came back with an infrastructure program that did not include this obligation to consult and that did not respect provincial jurisdiction, the Bloc Quebecois would not be in agreement. The same is true for transportation infrastructures. A $600 million envelope will apparently be set aside for the provinces for transportation infrastructures.

We will have no problem with that, as long as the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces is respected and the provinces are consulted and take part in the decisions, always bearing in mind their jurisdiction.

The key is there, and that is what I wish to say to my colleague. There is nothing in his motion about a consultation process and respect for exclusive jurisdictions, so that the provinces have the final say in their respective areas of responsibility.

That is why we are unable to support the motion as moved.

[Supply, May 30th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this motion tabled by my colleague from Cumberland—Colchester, who, like me, sits on the Standing Committee on Transport.

For the benefit of those watching, it might be relevant to reread the motion in order to properly establish the position of the Bloc Quebecois regarding the vote that will be held on this motion.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House recognize the urgent need to address the serious transportation problems facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy that demonstrates leadership on this issue and which provides solutions to the problems shared coast to coast by all Canadians.

I would point out right off that the Bloc Quebecois members will vote against this motion, and I will explain why.

I will look at parts of the motion. It reads “That the House recognize the urgent need—”. We agree that there is some urgency and that there is an urgent need “to address the serious transportation problems”. Yes, there are serious transportation problems. It goes on “—facing the Canadian people, and call upon the government to establish a comprehensive national transportation policy—”.

This is where the problem arises. It is primarily because nowhere in the motion is there mention of respect for provincial jurisdictions that the 44 members of the Bloc Quebecois will oppose the motion.

I want my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party to know that, had the motion contained reference to provincial jurisdictions, the situation would have been quite different. It is primarily for this reason that our party cannot support this motion.

Since they have been in power, the Liberals have shown a total and obvious lack of concern for transportation matters. The last thing that we of the Bloc Quebecois would ask of them is for them to set up national transportation policies in areas that are not under their jurisdiction.

Once again, we have differing visions of Canada. That is why I say this will never work. The Canada of today does not work, and it never will. We in Quebec no longer believe the attempts to revise the federal system, the fine promises the Canadian Alliance candidates are making about redesigning Canada and have a more decentralized country. We have been there, done that, and it will not work.

At present, in the House, we have two visions of Canada. On the one hand, we have the MPs from pro-centralist provinces or parties, those who envision a Canada in which the central government would set national policies and the provinces would be branch plants of this central power, no more and no less.

On the other, we in Quebec are calling for a state of Quebec that is capable of managing itself, taking its own decisions. I do not think that Quebec has to take a back seat to any province of Canada, still less to the central government, in the area of transport. Our lack of faith in the Liberal government makes it hard for us to vote in favour of this motion.

Because of the geography of Quebec and Canada, transportation infrastructures are especially important. The great distances and the difficult winter weather conditions have often isolated regions far from the major urban centres that are economic centres as well. Our metropolis, Montreal, whose economy is on the upswing, will be dynamic if the regions in Quebec are dynamic.

We have seen this happen with air transportation. The airports of Montreal, Dorval or Mirabel, will only develop effectively if passengers from the regions use these airports. If we were compiling statistics, I am not sure that the vast majority of passengers passing through Dorval airport are Montrealers necessarily.

Airports are primarily transit points, we must not forget. People pass through them to take another form of transportation or to get to another destination. A lot of people using the Montreal airports come from Quebec's regions as well, be it from the Saguenay Lac-Saint-Jean, Lower St. Lawrence, North Shore or Abitibi-Témiscamingue areas.

So, transportation is a factor in regional economic development. This fact has been all too often ignored by the Liberal government since 1993. Whether it is deregulation of airlines, bus companies or railways, divestiture by the federal government of ports and airports that are not cost-effective, icebreaking fees, the present cost of gas, or possible restructuring of the airline industry, the present Liberal government is systematically ignoring the vital importance of effective and accessible means of transportation to the development of regions, such as the North Shore or the Gaspé, which need to be linked more closely to large centres through effective means of transportation, not isolated.

Let us remember how the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the federal government to backtrack on its bill to deregulate bus transportation, Bill C-77. We know that the Liberal government wants to revive this bill in the fall. We are certain that our partners in the bus industry, the members of the Association des propriétaires d'autobus du Québec, will support us in our fight against deregulation of bus transportation.

We also know about the plans there were to cut back Via Rail services in the regions, the plans to franchise Via Rail. There is no guarantee that there will be franchisers fighting over the Montreal-Gaspé line.

The Bloc Quebecois remains vigilant so that these regions, not just the Gaspé, but all outlying regions of Quebec, can have an effective transportation system.

We know that trucking is costly in time, because of distances, but also in money, because of the price of gas. As I have said, bus travel from one region to another would have ceased to exist if the Minister of Transport had been allowed to deregulate it as he intended to.

As well, for many months now, the devolution of regional airports by that same minister has been at a standstill, as he nibbles away at the envelopes designed to support those airports, which are not always cost-effective from a business point of view, but are cost-effective from the point of view of well-thought-out economic development.

As for the ports, the minister has decided to devolve unprofitable ports, once again based on a short-sighted approach. Is the role of a government to administer only cost-effective facilities and to refuse to support infrastructures that are a little less profitable but still an essential instrument of economic development?

Let us not forget that the people of Quebec, who pay $32 billion in taxes every year, are not asking for handouts when they ask for services from the federal government. I trust that no one here in this House and no one in our audience thinks that the government is doing us a favour when it maintains ports, airports or transportation infrastructures such as VIA Rail. I trust no one sees this is a gift. Those are our tax dollars. We in Quebec pay $32 billion in taxes annually.

Let us stop believing that the federal government, in its generosity, in its great goodness, is agreeing to maintain some facilities that are a little less cost-effective. It is quite simply just part of our tax money we are getting back.

Since 1993, the government's general transportation policy, whether land, sea or air transportation, has been one of withdrawal. Naturally, the most distant regions are the ones that suffer most.

In the last throne speech, the government reminded us of our 19th century role as coureurs des bois. It seems that this Liberal government's policy for the 21st century is to revive this tradition in the regions by destroying all other means of transportation.

To remind hon. members of the background, let us recall how this abandonment of the transportation networks in the regions has taken shape since 1993. There was a policy of devolution of ports and airports, which left many a distant community with no transportation infrastructure, or with very little.

There is also the financial abandonment of rail passenger transportation, despite its essential nature for distant regions. We must not forget that the federal government has some responsibility under the Constitution in interprovincial transportation.

There are the icebreaking fees proposed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who wanted the ships using Quebec ports to pay 80% of the fees, although they use only 33% of the services. With a coalition of shipowners and the various users of the St. Lawrence—Great Lakes system, the Bloc Quebecois succeeded in getting the Liberal government to back down, otherwise the ports of Quebec would have been at a competitive disadvantage compared to the ports of the maritime provinces.

I have already mentioned another example: the minister's desire to put an end to the principle of cross-subsidization in bus transportation.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the Bloc Quebecois will not be able to vote for this motion by the Progressive Conservative Party for, among other things, one very important reason: nothing in the motion confirms respect for provincial jurisdictions.

Since we do not trust the Liberal government, which has been so slipshod in a number of areas relating to transport, we cannot give it carte blanche to establish national transportation policies as it likes.

As my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party will recall, the Minister of Finance was gloating in his latest budget speech in February over the $95 billion in budget surpluses for the next five years.

Do you think we are going to let this government spend without control and run roughshod over provincial jurisdictions? No way. This is why agreeing with this motion would mean supporting the government's, especially the Liberal government's, desire to steamroller over provincial jurisdictions.

These are the reasons why we will oppose this motion.

[Income Tax Act, May 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I thank members from all parties for agreeing to give me the floor.

In conclusion, I wish to inform this House and those who are listening to us that this bill transcends party lines. It is not about diverging political options or diverging views on Quebec-Canada relations, not at all.

In the course of their parliamentary activities in their ridings, all 301 members of this House have opportunities to visit car dealerships and to meet with mechanics in their riding offices. We are already aware of this issue of deducting the cost of providing tools for their employment.

As the Prime Minister said, we are perhaps 12 or 15 months away from the next election. All members of parliament who decide to run again will have to visit automobile dealers and will be questioned on this issue.

I am therefore appealing to their common sense. Judging by the three hours of debate, Canadian Alliance, Bloc Quebecois of course, NDP and Progressive Conservative members are all in favour of the bill.

I appeal to the Liberal majority. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance—perhaps he was expressing a personal opinion—did not seem too inclined to vote in favour of the bill. But I appeal to the Liberal members. This will not be a vote along party lines, but what is called a free vote. I am certain that they will follow their conscience and vote in favour of the bill.

In closing, I remind the House that, in 1997, the Standing Committee on Finance, composed of a majority of Liberal members, made the following recommendation:

The committee recommends that the Government consider measures to provide targeted tax relief for large expenses incurred as a condition of employment, such as mechanic's tools.

I remind my Liberal colleague from Vaughan—King—Aurora, who was the committee chair, that he voted for the recommendation. My Liberal colleague from Gatineau, my colleagues from Sarnia—Lambton, Provencher, Niagara Falls, Kitchener Centre, Mississauga South and Stoney Creek, who were on the Standing Committee on Finance representing the Liberal majority, that they voted in favour of the recommendation.

I think that automobile technicians expect us as parliamentarians to recognize finally the importance of their profession to society and to give it its true worth.

It is simply a matter of establishing some balance in relation to other job categories that can deduct the cost of their tools. It is also a matter of encouraging our young people who might be tempted to join this profession, if we gave them a tax break. It is also a matter of young men and women seeing that the government is listening to their concerns and promoting the development of this profession.

[Income Tax Act, May 29th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Considering that the debate will conclude in about four minutes, as the sponsor of this bill, which will be voted on tomorrow, I am asking for the unanimous consent of the House to conclude my remarks, for a maximum of four minutes. I need the unanimous consent of the House, since I already spoke on this bill.