Lost his last election, in 2004, with 43% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper May 1st, 1998
Regarding the construction of a new building for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Rouyn-Noranda, Quebec: ( a ) when did the RCMP begin looking to buy a lot; ( b ) with whom did the RCMP deal; ( c ) what lot size did the RCMP require; ( d ) what was the purchase price of the land; ( e ) did the RCMP request public bids in selecting land in Rouyn-Noranda; and ( f ) was the plan to purchase the land contained in the budget forecasts and, if so, for what year?
Questions On The Order Paper May 1st, 1998
Concerning the acquisition of a parcel of land for the RCMP in Amos, Quebec, in 1991: ( a ) when did the RCMP begin taking step in order to purchase the land; ( b ) with whom did it deal; ( c ) where was the land located in relation to the courthouse and the detention centre in Amos; ( d ) how long did the negotiations go on; ( e ) what was the surface area of the land to be used for the RCMP's needs; ( f ) what was the approximate purchase price of the land; ( g ) was this amount included in the budget and, if so, for what year; and ( h ) what were the reasons the file was closed?
Road Transport April 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, once again this week, the Government of Quebec, through its acting premier and transport minister, was afraid to tell the whole truth about truck accidents on Quebec's highways.
It did not publish the complete report on serious and minor injuries sustained in truck accidents, as opposed to those sustained in accidents involving cars and other road vehicles.
Why was there a 32.5% increase in serious injuries to occupants of trucks? Why was there a 16.5% increase in minor injuries to occupants of trucks?
We are calling on the Government of Quebec to tell the whole truth about truck accidents in Quebec, including the real figures, in the next two weeks.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the member says that I have been saying all kinds of platitudes, but I will ask him a good question.
We know that, in February, the member for Rosemont received a salary raise under Standing Order 67 of the House of Commons. If he wants to help reduce poverty as he claims, did he refuse this raise?
I have the honour of telling the member for Rosemont that I refused that raise. This is in the records of the House of Commons. The money I refused will go toward paying the public debt. Did he do the same thing? Shame.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and ask a question. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Rosemont, who made a very good speech. He started by saying I was a demagogue, an accusation I find strange and cannot accept.
I learned how to read when I was very young, and I did read in a major newspaper in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, on October 31, 1997, a report that said: The fight against poverty: Quebec gets a booby prize. The Quebec government was awarded this booby prize in Alma, during a citizens solidarity gala in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean.
Other members chuckled at my remarks. I made the same speech in this House on June 3, 1993, and it was very well received by Conservative, NDP and Liberal members. I will give you the answer later on.
Here is my question: Does the hon. member for Rosemont think that the Quebec government will start fighting poverty in the Lac-Saint-Jean area because it got that booby prize? On June 3, 1993, when I made this same speech in the House, the Bloc Quebecois was not here.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have one comment and one question for the member for Laurentides.
For months now, the member has been traveling across her riding and the province of Quebec telling people she represents the Parti Quebecois and Quebeckers in Ottawa. Lately we saw several of them playing Santa Claus in Quebec, distributing cheques on behalf of the Quebec government. They did not give them to poor families, but to rich ones.
Does the member know why in October 1997, the Groupe de solidarité populaire du Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean gave the golden raspberry award for poverty to the government of Lucien Bouchard for being the one institution which had contributed the most to increasing poverty among Quebeckers?
Earlier I was listening to the member speak about globalization and all the other countries in the world. Could the hon. member tell me right now whether a royal commission on poverty or on remuneration for homemakers would not be better than a parliamentary committee operating behind closed doors?
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to reply to the Bloc Quebecois motion calling for a parliamentary committee.
This is incorrect. What is needed is a royal commission on poverty in Canada, on paying a salary to women who stay at home, not just a small parliamentary committee that will visit towns and cities designated by members, or a parliamentary committee that will do its work behind closed doors in the House of Commons and conduct hearings all over the place. They cannot cover all the towns and villages in Quebec, all the major regions.
I prefer a royal commission. I made it clear in my speech that there are two categories of mother: those who work and those who stay at home full time. These expressions are emotionally charged. If certain women are working mothers, what is a woman who does not work?
If there are full time mothers, that means that those who work outside the home are part time mothers only. There is nothing wrong with women working. It is an honour for a woman to work, but I can guarantee you that, rather than work for $7.40 an hour, 40 hours a week, many women would stay at home to raise their children. There would be less poverty. Right now, in Lac-Saint-Jean, Quebec, women are washing floors for $3, $4 or $5 an hour. What we want is a royal commission.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty hearing the hon. member's question. In the context of this Bloc motion on poverty, let me go back to the Quebec Liberal minister who said in 1994 that we should reform the whole of society, bring in a new guaranteed income supplement, abolish welfare and certain other programs, and take the money and invest it.
Coming back to the hon. member's question dealing with poverty, I remember that in October 1997, the Quebec government got a booby prize for its performance against poverty. This prize was awarded last October at a gala in Alma. I have this all here in my notes. A coalition of community groups from the whole area met in Alma and awarded the booby prize for the fight against poverty to the Quebec government and Lucien Bouchard, and that happened on his own turf. We should start by finding solutions at home.
They talked about world-wide poverty. Let us talk about poverty at the provincial level and about family and child poverty. Why did the Quebec government get this booby prize in Alma, in the riding of the member who took his chair out of the House? Think about that, and start by cleaning up your own backyard.
Supply April 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time I have risen in this Parliament to speak on poverty.
The Bloc Quebecois' motion reads as follows:
That this House reiterate the 1989 commitment to eliminating child poverty by the year 2000—
(1) despite the economic growth of recent years, the gap between rich and poor continues to widen;
We all know that most Canadian and Quebec women spend at least part of their life at home full time. Nearly half of them are not in the labour market and fewer than half of those who have preschool children have a paid full time job.
Canadian and Quebec parents seem to have the best of intentions about sharing the job of raising children. However, for better or for worse, the job of raising them still falls to women. Genetically speaking, there is nothing that says women should look after the home. However, in practice they are the ones to look after most of the domestic duties. That is why I am talking about women at home, which means in fact women at home raising children.
In Canada and Quebec, women at home work full time and even do overtime. Studies have shown they work between 41 and 60 hours a week, according to the number and age of their children.
Women at home are on duty 24 hours a day seven days a week. See if you can come with a more demanding job. This is our focus in the discussion on poverty. We have to start with the family. We also know that women at home work essentially in the home. Their husbands, children and other members of the family benefit most directly from their work.
However, others benefit as well. This is why paying women at home would stimulate the economy. They would be spending the money for essentials such as more appropriate food and more long lasting clothing.
Employers also take advantage of homemakers in other areas. Since women manage the home and take care of the other family members, it becomes easier for the husband to dedicate himself totally to a paid, full time job outside the home. I see the opposition before me today and the member for Repentigny smiling because I am talking about paying stay-at-home women. We are talking about families and children. I can say that, if women still stayed at home to look after their children, there would be less poverty.
Finally, if we take a more general perspective, homemakers are responsible for the future to the extent that they take care of the next generation. To carry on from one generation to the next, we need a dynamic and healthy population. What exact value must be placed on the work of these women who are on duty 24 hours a day to do everything in the home? According to some estimates, housework would amount to between 35% and 40% of Canada's GDP, which represents at least $136 billion in Canadian dollars. This is a significant amount, but stay-at-home women have no access to this money to help their children get out of poverty.
Unlike other workers in our society, homemakers do not receive a salary. And because they are not paid, they do not have annual leave, employment insurance and compensation for accidents, disabilities or illnesses. What is more serious in the long term is that they do not have a pension plan. Yet, like all other workers, homemakers eventually reach retirement age.
It is unacceptable that stay-at-home women have to face financial insecurity throughout their lives, even in their retirement years, after spending so many years working for the well-being of their families and of society as a whole.
Mothers often decide to go and work in mediocre conditions, and this is when we start talking about poverty. Women who have large families and who work for $3 or $4 an hour are not getting a decent salary. Some stay at home to raise children and do all the related chores. For those who work outside the home, it is extra work, since they must do household chores in addition to going to work, sometimes for $3, $4 or $5 per hour for washing floors.
Mothers belong to one of two groups: working mothers and mothers who stay at home. Even these expressions have a certain connotation. If some women are working mothers, what is a mother who stays home? If there are full time mothers, does it mean that those who have a career outside the home are only part time mothers?
Women at home, whether they are married or not, do not get any personal benefit from the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan. Proposals to share pension credits between spouses are fine, but they do not take into account the value of the work performed by women at home, since the couple's total pension is not increased.
In 1970, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women concluded that women who stay at home produce as many goods and services as those who are gainfully employed, and that if they were paid, it could help children and eliminate poverty in certain regions of Quebec and Canada. We can re-examine our approach and create legislation that is, above all, fair to families, and gives parents the primary responsibility and the freedom to select the formula they judge is best for rearing their children.
The following are some reflections on the legal aspects. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that every individual has an equal right to protection and benefit under the law, without discrimination. The present day taxation legislation does not afford equal treatment to mothers. Some get special treatment while others do not, which is contrary to the democratic principles of equal opportunity.
If we look at the House Debates from 1983, the NDP member for Kamloops said he would continue to call upon the minister to reform the taxation system so as to treat all family situations equally. What we need is a system which takes into consideration all of the costs and efforts involved in raising children, regardless of marital status or income level, a system which gives women who choose to stay at home the same status and recognition as those who are in the work force.
In 1984, a national survey reported that 81% of Canadians were in favour of stay-at-home parents being included in the Canada and Quebec pension plans. But they still are not entitled to this pension.
I say to people, I say to members from every party in this House: Let us work together, let us try to find a solution to pay a salary to mothers who stay at home, to help children and their families escape poverty.
Nowadays when we talk about poverty, we talk a lot about programs, all kinds of federal and provincial programs. The problem with the Bloc's motion as it stands is that it suggests a parliamentary committee. I would prefer a royal commission that would study poverty and the possibility of paying a salary to women at home, mothers who stay at home to raise one or more children.
I want to thank everybody in the House today and I wish all the best to women. I also say to men who want to help us to write their MPs. They do not need a stamp. All they have to do is write a letter to their MP suggesting that a royal commission look into how to help families escape poverty. All they have to do is get in touch with their MP, regardless of his or her party, to get their message across. Even if it takes months, we have to keep trying. We must win for the sake of the men and women who stay at home to raise their children, and help them break the cycle of poverty.
Hepatitis C April 27th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, during this debate, the national assistance initiative for hepatitis C victims put forward by the government was harshly criticized.
What has clearly emerged from this scathing attack was that the criticisms themselves did not focus on an issue of major importance: should governments give financial compensation to all those who are harmed not through anyone's fault but as a result of risks inherent in medical practice?
Although a large number of members from the opposition talk about our duty and our moral obligation to pay additional cash compensation, we have not heard much about the impact such compensation would have on the health system itself.
As the health minister clearly indicated in the House last week, the first moral responsibility of the government is to safeguard health insurance for the hepatitis C victims who will need continuous medical attention.
Despite its shortcomings, the Canadian health system is still one of the best in the world. This is why we should not threaten it by hastily creating precedents not based on solid strategic grounds.