If I look back, when there was the debate in Quebec about the Act to combat Poverty and Social Exclusion, I was somewhat skeptical, even though I did not admit it. I had been asked to support the proposal. At that time, I was on sabbatical in California and I was happy to be able to say that I wasn't in Quebec and all the rest. I was skeptical because I knew that the act would be adopted, but what would happen then? In the end, what we learned is that it is very important, first of all, to acknowledge that problem and, second of all, to make it a political issue that must be debated openly.
The idea of adopting a lucid approach, which consists in saying that it's a priority, that objectives and tools are established, and that progress is evaluated, is an important contribution. It could even be said that by doing this, we accept that we cannot do everything all at once. Realistic objectives are established so that we can at least move forward in the right direction. That is one aspect.
Something else that emerges from what has been done in Quebec over the past decade, is that the policies that have worked best are those that target all families, households and individuals. Social policy experts have a saying that is heard not only in Canada but throughout the western world. I think it comes from a Swedish sociologist, who once said that policies for the poor are poor policies.
Child care centres are an example of this. When my children were young enough to attend these centres, there were measures to assist the poor in paying child care expenses. They had to apply, there were forms to fill out, it was complicated. If the person lost their job, they also lost their space in the child care centre.
By creating child care centres that are affordable and accessible to all, these are not policies for the poor, they are policies for people who have children. What occurred as a result—and econometric studies are very clear on this—is that women of employable age were able to enter the labour market. This made a difference. Many women were able to return to work. European countries that study birth rates, employment and poverty almost unanimously advocate a system somewhat like the one that was established in Quebec. What has also happened in Quebec is that not only have more women entered the labour market, but young families have also started having more children. Having children is, in a sense, coming back into fashion in Quebec. Good things come hand in hand.
So first, we need an integrated approach, and second, one that, insofar as possible, creates a political framework for everyone, not only, for example, welfare recipients. Earlier, I mentioned a Swedish sociologist, but Plume Latraverse, who has been a major inspiration for me, sings a song called Les pauvres. The chorus of this song says that poor people have no money. Plume Latraverse sings that poor people can't get it together, are poorly dressed, never take holidays, and just sit around on their balconies, but the chorus says that poor people have no money. And that's the bottom line. Poverty is first and foremost a lack of income and what that means, whether we like it or not, is that that question has to be addressed sooner or later. We must create mechanisms that will improve personal income. It's been done fairly well for families and for senior citizens. It's been done fairly well for families, over the past few years, and not only for one category of families.
Again, we created mechanisms. Luc Godbout, author of a small book published this fall and entitled Le Québec, un paradis pour les familles? shows how Quebec and federal government transfers changed things for families over the last 10 years. Thanks to these transfers, a family with an income of $25,000 per year receives an increase of about $14,000.
We've created mechanisms which improved income for all families, including mine, and social assistance recipients. In so doing, things have improved for everyone. That is the positive side.