Diane Bourgeois

[François Saillant, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse presented its Droits et Libertés award to François Saillant of FRAPRU.

As a coordinator, communicator extra-ordinaire and educator, Mr. Saillant has been working for over 20 years to improve the living and housing conditions of low-income earners. Recognized for his generosity, his constant presence and his proven leadership skills by FRAPRU, a community organization for urban renewal, Mr. Saillant is always there to defend and debate fundamental issues related to housing as well as social policy.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to pay tribute to the excellent work done by this individual, whose passion and perseverance attest to his desire to fight for access to decent housing for everyone.

Bravo, Mr. Saillant, and congratulations for those many years dedicated to community well-being.

[Victims of Wrongful Conviction, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a symposium on wrongful convictions held recently in Toronto afforded Michel Dumont of Terrebonne with the opportunity to share the consequences of wrongful conviction on rape charges.

During his address, Mr. Dumont emphasized the unconditional support and tremendous assistance he received from his wife Solange. Solange Tremblay was honoured by the Association in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted in recognition of her devoted efforts to obtain justice for her husband.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to draw attention to the courage and determination of this woman and of all victims of wrongful conviction. I would also like to see the members of this House extend warm congratulations to this couple for their efforts to raise public awareness of this issue.

[Public Service of Canada, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the government is currently investing considerable sums to determine the extent of the problem, but there was a report back in 1999 that pointed out that there was much still to be done to eliminate harassment from federal workplaces.

How many reports does the Solicitor General need before actually implementing the harassment policy in his department's facilities?

[Public Service of Canada, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we know that 21% of federal public servants in general report that they have been subjected to harassment. The situation is comparable in the prisons.

Can the Solicitor General inform us of what efforts have been made by his department to ensure effective application of the policy on harassment policy by Correctional Services?

[Supply, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate, particularly so because, historically, women and women's groups have always attached a great deal of importance to women's health and to public health. Indeed, it is in the health and education sectors that we find the largest number of women, whether they are workers, volunteers or members of community groups.

In the few minutes that I have, I will try to present my vision, the vision of Quebec women on this motion, which is a votable item and which reads as follows:

That the federal government give the provinces the additional money for health unconditionally, with the promise of the provinces to use all of it for health care.

I know that, in front of me, there is a member from New Brunswick who is a doctor. At the outset, he agreed with the fact that we were asking, as a province, that our specific needs be recognized. He agreed with this view. The hon. member will understand that I am presenting the feminist view, which is the same as that of several provinces in Canada.

The Romanow report talks about standardizing health care, but all feminist movements, both in Quebec and in Canada, are opposed to a standard vision, for the simple reason that women have a global approach that is based on their individual specificity.

Women recognize that the needs of the provinces may be specific. Therefore, they say that a single Canada-wide health system, based strictly on broad national principles, cannot serve them. The specificity of women is not recognized.

Moreover, in light of all the federal cuts to the Canada health and social transfer in recent years, women have really been burned. They were deeply affected, particularly in Quebec.

Women have developed a very special approach, whereby community groups fill in to meet the needs of close ones. Women become natural caregivers; they take care of their relatives who are ill, and they also do a lot of volunteer work. According to the figures provided by the Canadian government's Council on the Status of Women, the percentage of women who look after relatives is significantly higher than that of any other group.

Despite an increase in revenue and a major hike in the cost of health care, the federal government has decreased its transfer payments, which has caused a fiscal imbalance in the health care sector. Women, among others, have been asked to ensure continuity. There was the whole de-institutionalization phenomenon that had a negative impact on women.

Like our women's groups in Quebec such as the AFEAS, I recommend that you read a study that was done by women from Portneuf, Quebec City and Charlevoix, entitled “Sentez-vous notre présence?” This study shows beyond a doubt that currently, a centralist approach to health care would be wrong anywhere in Canada. Funding for health that the provinces are entitled to must be restored as soon as possible.

I would also like to talk about the information highway. The Romanow commission recommends creating a vast Canadian primary care system. In Quebec, this type of care is already provided through the CLSCs, or community groups that work together with the CLSCs, and this is unique to Quebec. There is some cooperation, but nowhere is it as widespread as in Quebec.

A few years ago in Quebec, we started opening regional medical units along the lines of what the Romanow commission recommends. These already exist in Quebec, not in the other provinces. This is further evidence that health care cannot be standardized. There are things that already exist in Quebec that do not exist elsewhere.

I talked earlier about the health information highway. In Quebec, we already have these information highways. We are already ahead in delivering health care through CLSCs. We already have a head start over other regions in Canada. As Quebec women, we do not want to lose what we have. We do not want to undermine what the other provinces are doing, but we also want to keep moving forward. This is why we say that, since we are not at the same stage, we cannot have a standard health system. Give us the money and we will know how to use it.

Some people have already told us what they think about the Romanow report and women agree with this. Michel Clair says: “It seems to me that health care must be suited to the realities of the people in each province”.

A few months ago, I received a second visit—and I already mentioned this to the House—from the Fédération des femmes francophones hors Québec. Several women from New Brunswick became my very good friends. This is also the case for Ontario women. They came to tell us: “You have a strong asset in Quebec. Your comprehensive approach on women's health care is very well defined. In our provinces, not only do we have difficulty in getting health care in French, but we also have difficulty in having a comprehensive approach”.

For example, a woman may be sick because her home is not good enough for her or is inadequate. She can be sick and really be in need of mental health care. She can be sick for all kinds of reasons. This is a comprehensive approach. She can be the victim of violence, intimidation or harassment or find herself in difficulty because she does not have a job. This kind of comprehensive approach is not used elsewhere, but it is used in Quebec.

The Romanow commission must meet the needs of individual regions and their population. We need our money to be able to continue. The issue here is the inability of the public system to sustain increases in excess of 5% a year in health care spending. That is why it is important to have our money.

When the Prime Minister says that investments will have to focus on changes and on results, like ensuring access to health care 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, I would remind the House that, in Quebec, we already have what we call the 24/7 service, which is used quite extensively by women.

Since you are signalling to me that my time is up—10 minutes is not very long—I will say in conclusion that women in Quebec and elsewhere are not very pleased with this approach of creating a uniform health care system. Women in different regions of Canada have specific needs. Therefore, they are asking that the money be given to the provinces. They will know what to do with it.

[Public Service of Canada, December 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a survey of federal public employees has found that, far from declining, harassment remains a harsh reality. Twenty-one percent of employees report having experienced some form of harassment and discrimination in the workplace.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. How many victims will it take for her to get her colleagues from other departments to take the necessary action to put an end to harassment in the federal public service once and for all?

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the response I received. However, I wanted to know if the Solicitor General could say “Yes, I am aware of complaints, namely from Archambault, and also from Donnacona and Port-Cartier”. I wanted to know if the government was prepared to help these people.

At present, the law is being circumvented within Correctional Services. The hon. member is well aware of this. The President of the Treasury Board has a nice little committee working on fixing this problem. This committee could say that, in fact, Correctional Services does not presently acknowledge cases of harassment. The law is being circumvented. A manager has the authority to decide if a complaint falls into the category of harassment or labour relations. A manager and boss is going to tell an employee, “You know, your complaint is not about harassment”.

Tonight's answer is shocking. The office of the Solicitor General of Canada knows this is a problem, and we are going to keep the heat on. I am asking that something be done to crack down on the aggressors doing the harassing.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in October, I informed the new Solicitor General of Canada that a negative climate caused by various forms of power abuse was rampant in the institutions of Correctional Service Canada.

Last year, his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, made public the results of an internal investigation showing that 20% of correctional services employees, both male and female, are being harassed in some way.

There is a policy to be used for dealing with harassment in the workplace; it was even reviewed last July. Unfortunately, it is not being enforced, is badly enforced or, in many cases, is being circumvented. I am concerned with this problem, because this situation exists, among other places, in my riding, at the Archambault institution.

Psychological harassment takes the form of organizational acts of violence where the balance of power is unequal and is always unfavourable to the victim, whatever the outcome. Intimidation, threats, balance of power, economic sanctions, the loss of reputation have the effect of undermining the confidence and credibility of the victim and discourage all the witnesses or other employees from complaining.

When an employee does complain, his or her superiors deny the situation and prefer to see it as a staff relations problem. Victims must prove the abuse. Moreover, they are urged to take part in a mediation process where they have to face their aggressor, which is doubly difficult for them.

The mediation process that is strongly recommended in the policy thus becomes a weapon used by the aggressor because it makes the situation drag on, which causes more health problems, loss of self-esteem and significant financial losses.

Sometimes the trauma is so severe that it is very unlikely that the victim will be able to go back to work in the short or medium term, especially when the aggressor succeeded in isolating the victim and undermining his or her credibility and his or her rights.

In most cases, victims are seen as responsible for the violence that is inflicted upon them. When, finally, after a lot of effort and numerous investigation reports, harassment is proven, aggressors are not at all inconvenienced, whereas victims find themselves in dire financial straits and are invited to ask for a transfer to another institution, as if they had not been penalized enough. That solution is totally unacceptable.

The government cannot sit idly by while this is happening and hide behind a policy that is well-intentioned but difficult to apply. It is unacceptable that managers in positions of authority who work for the government can act this way, receive promotions and refuse to acknowledge the situation and rectify it.

Since the Solicitor General has stated that he would show leadership in this matter, I want to ask him, and this is my question, if he will take action to do justice to the numerous victims at Archambault and other penitentiaries, and show that the government's claims with regard to the protection of its public service are true.

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I find it odd this evening that the current government does not know what social housing means. When I asked my question, on November 4, the Minister of Transport talked about affordable housing. Tonight, they are again talking about affordable housing.

Affordable housing is a concept the former infrastructure minister, Mr. Gagliano, came up with to build housing for the middle class. Tonight, I am talking about social housing. Real social housing is for people with a very low income. I do not want to hear about the $680 million spent on affordable housing; that is not what I am talking about.

Every time I mention this, they do not know what it means. Will they go to the streets to meet the real people who have fallen into deep poverty and find out what they truly want in terms of social housing?

The current federal contribution is far from enough to reduce the social imbalance created by the huge housing crisis. Two million dollars are needed to build real social housing. I do not mean affordable housing for middle income taxpayers or apartment buildings for developers. I am talking about housing for those who are dirt poor.

Last summer, cities in cooperation with the Quebec government had to set up an emergency assistance program to provide temporary housing for hundreds of families left out on the street. Radio-Canada should be ashamed of selling land it took away from the poor a few years ago back to real estate developers.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary who is speaking on behalf of the minister the following: will the government introduce policies to ensure that such things do not recur? Since the federal government is a partner in operation Solidarité 5 000 logements—

[Nuclear Safety and Control Act, December 3rd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, my November 4 question was about establishing standards and policies for federally regulated crown corporations, and more particularly about the decision by the management of the Société Radio-Canada to sell a part of its south central parking lot to a private developer for the construction of 140 condominiums at an average cost of $150,000, which is a disgrace.

The crown corporation leaders did not even see fit to offer local community organizations an opportunity to acquire this surplus land to build social housing.

Instead of investing in social housing, they preferred to plough their net profits back into programming. Yet, almost 800 units were demolished when the federal government decided to build the Maison de Radio-Canada. The sale of the Radio-Canada land to the private sector shows once again the lack of consistency in the government's own policies.

Affordable housing at 5% lower than the average market rate is unavailable to people who must pay between 30% and 90% of their income for housing. With percentages like these, it is obvious that putting a roof over their heads means that these people can no longer eat properly, they experience anxiety and they can no longer buy essential items, and the negative effects on health and pocketbook are serious.

According to the human rights commission, discrimination against very low income tenants increased by 61% in two years and this type of discrimination affects mainly single-parent families, young adults under 25 years of age and families with young children.

With their ability to pay diminishing, several of these families find themselves in a situation that is unacceptable for a country such as ours. The insolvency of the poorest households adds to the difficulty of finding decent housing. And one can add to that the extra obstacles involved in gaining access to what would be considered standard housing.

Experience has shown that the creation of new rental housing units by private developers had repercussions that were totally opposite to the creation of social housing units. Contrary to the private market, social housing developers have the advantage of responding to specific social needs, to favour empowerment and independence, thus enabling very low income tenants to have greater control over their living conditions, and to play a vital role in neighbourhood revitalization.

Quebec has 29% of Canadian households in dire need of housing and receives only 19% of federal transfers for housing. The fact that the federal government has backed out of its involvement in Quebec's social development has made children and families even poorer and has excluded the disadvantaged.

I asked the minister this question. In light of this situation and in light of the fact that the federal government is well aware of the operation Solidarité 5 000 logements since it is a partner in this operation, could it not establish standards for crown corporations that come under its jurisdiction, such as the CBC, so that these corporations can take into account government policies, including in the area of housing, when they divest themselves of land that they no longer need?