Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Burin-St. George's is an outstanding parliamentarian, and he regularly demonstrates his skills when he takes the floor.
The thing I disapprove of is that his party and, to a certain extent, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's himself, talk out of both sides of their mouth. I would like to give an example, that of the Canada Labour Code reform and precautionary withdrawal from work.
I do not need to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the family unit is the most valuable asset of any country. In May 1994, the Bloc Quebecois tabled a motion supported by the governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada, in order to raise the compensation for pregnant women to the 95 per cent level provided by the Quebec CSST. Right now, it stands at 60 per cent.
A discussion paper on the Canada Labour Code reform is being circulated at this time, and the Liberal Party of Canada did not include that motion, which it supported in May 1994, to give substantial assistance to pregnant women who must ask for precautionary withdrawal from work in order to carry their pregnancy to term and protect their unborn baby.
Like the rest of us, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is certainly aware of the importance of the family unit, that is a wife, husband and children-the complet unit. The children will be the work force of tomorrow and will pay for our pensions. That natural asset of our country is now declining.
We moved a motion that the hon. member's party supported, but what we see and hear in the House today is just a lack of courage, and double talk, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's is the one who will have to clarify his party's position. I hope he will set the record straight, because this is an important motion on the equality of women.