René Canuel

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, having been a teacher myself, I would not have liked to have had a principal like some members I see here. My principals were very humane people and when someone was having problems they tried to understand why, instead of punishing them.

I myself have hidden delinquent students in one office or another. I have taken some of them home with me. They made progress, slowly, and I can tell you that today—and I say this in front of everyone, so they will hear it too—they have become upstanding citizens.

I was listening to my colleague from the government party. He wondered how people could be in difficulty. How could some become delinquents?

He said something very true. Very often, it is because of hopelessness. These young people are given nothing. They are not challenged. They are 12, 14 or 15 years old, and their parents do not work. There is a major problem.

It is really tough for someone who loses his job at 40, 45 or 50. The child is at home and can see what is happening. The child realizes that he could end up like his father.

This is a problem for society. Fortunately in Quebec there is a challenge offered: sovereignty. Young people in the CEGEPS and universities are following us. Our clientele is essentially the young people.

I would like to put a question to the hon. member for Mississauga West. Instead of hiding in a law harsher than the previous one—and we know that former works relatively well and this is why we oppose the bill—should we not put more money into prevention for elementary and secondary school students rather than corner them in a law?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's very accurate description of the truly painful situation in most hospitals. He is a doctor himself and can describe up close what we see from the outside.

In my riding, a rural riding, there is the hospital in Ste-Anne-des-Monts, the one in Maria, the one in Amqui and the one in Matane.

Having spoken with many doctors, nurses and especially patients, I know things are difficult. When the Rochon reform began, certain adjustments had to be made. Doctors and nurses, particularly those on the front line, had to work twice as hard to provide more or less the same level of care.

Last week, one of my friends died in the hospital in Rimouski. Her husband and children told me she had received exceptional care, despite all the federal cuts.

I take this opportunity to thank the doctors and nurses who deal with this situation, who often work overtime with a limited staff to preserve the quality of patient care.

I congratulate these people because they really care. When staff cuts are made, it is not easy to continue to provide the same quality of care, because we are dealing with human lives, not objects.

I have a question for the hon. member, who is a doctor. Earlier, he mentioned that many doctors are moving abroad, particularly to the United States. Nurses are also leaving. Of course, salaries are a factor. The fact that these people are not paid the same as doctors in the United States might a reason for their leaving the country.

Would it not be possible for a government to remove some of the quotas in universities? As we know, there are quotas in medical schools. It is hard to get accepted in medical school. We are told there is shortage of doctors. I agree that doctors work really hard, but there are not enough of them.

Does the hon. member think there is a way to train more doctors, particularly in the regions? Each year, we have to go to the universities, almost beg young doctors and give them special benefits to convince them to come to our regions. Every year, we have to go through this exercise, which should not be necessary, in my opinion. The regions should be served as adequately as the large urban centres. I would like to hear the hon. member on this.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I can say that my colleague opposite has a very strong international conscience and that he weighed his words. I think that, tonight, we must weigh our words. I turned on the TV earlier and saw images that were really difficult to watch.

The means are not that easy, but I would say that we have reached our limit. I think we must wake up and acknowledge that there is a conflict. The night will not be long for us, because we do not have to suffer.

I personally do not have relatives over there, but if I had a sister, a mother, a brother or a child over there, it would be a lot more difficult for me. But one thing is sure: it is still our brothers and sisters who are suffering. And something is wrong with this president: either he is sick or he is cruel. I would prefer to say he his sick. If he is sick, we must see that he gets treatment. If he is cruel, we must at least make him understand his cruelty.

I will come back later with other questions, but I would like to ask my colleague if he would personally have been in favour of a vote following this debate.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the same question I put earlier to his colleague, who completely ignored it because he did not understand it, I believe.

How is it that all the diplomatic efforts that were made failed? How did we reach this dead end and why is there such urgency now? What else could have been done on the diplomatic front? Did Canada do all it could in this respect? What was missing?

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, because it is important for us to think things over together tonight—it is 2.10 a.m.

I listened to my colleague's impassioned speech about how we got to this stage. But how is it that we are here tonight wondering whether or not we should send in ground troops?

When the air strikes were decided on, there had to be a plan. I suppose it was thought it would take 5 to 10 days to settle matters. But it is taking a lot longer and so we are gathered here tonight. Some of our young soldiers, and soldiers from other countries, may have to die—this has to be pointed out—before this conflict is over.

There is a phrase some people no longer want to hear. I like to quote it now and then. It is not something I coined. It goes like this “Peace on earth to men of good will” .

How is it that on the eve of the year 2000 we still believe we should forge ahead, even though there may be a lot of bloodshed.

As a whole our soldiers are young and generous, and they are ready. I have trouble understanding how we got to this stage, virtually unanimously. Everybody agreed this had to be done.

Is there any good reason for asking our soldiers to put their lives on the line, so to speak? I would like the member to give me a few good reasons why we should send in ground troops.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1998, March 18th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what my hon. colleague had to say, and I really had the feeling he was from another planet.

Let me give you some figures: in 1995, the total poverty rate reached 17.4%. The number of Canadians living in poverty had increased to over 5 million. The poverty rate for Canadian families was at 14%, or more than 1 million families. The poverty rate for single Canadians was 36%. The poverty rate for single mothers under 65, with children under 18, was 57%.

My hon. colleague just told us that his riding was heaven on earth. Good for him, but he should come to my riding of Matapédia—Matane and listen to what my constituents have to say.

I would like to ask him a question. What would he say to my constituents?

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's presentation, in which he quoted the very famous phrase “Capital has no conscience, capital has no morals”. Members opposite should take this phrase down, so that everyone may reflect on it.

If capital has neither conscience nor morals, then people must think about people and respect one another. The homeless are people too. Perhaps they have more problems in their lives, sometimes since birth. We treat them a bit like a herd, very often we put them together in places that cost as little as possible, but we do not respect the human being.

At the World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in 1995, 117 heads of state and the 185 governments represented renewed their commitment not only to reduce poverty around the world, but also to eradicate it from the face of the planet.

They undertook to pursue the elimination of poverty in the world through determined national action and international co-operation, “as an ethical, social, political and economic imperative”. Participating countries pledged to take national action to eliminate poverty within their boundaries.

Here in Canada, what are we doing for those who suffer the most? I am under the impression that members opposite do not understand and do not listen.

In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, which is a rural riding, there are many people waiting for housing units. This is the situation in 1999, not in 1979. In 1999, there are still people waiting for housing units. I find this completely inhuman.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell us how we could get our friends opposite to understand that capital is not everything, that human beings are also important, particularly those who are in dire straits.

The budget states that those who earn $250,000 will save between $8,000 and $9,000 in taxes. Why is there nothing in the budget for the homeless?

How could we, once and for all, make everyone in this House realize that there is a major problem as the year 2000 nears? Why not give ourselves one year to solve this problem to some extent?

[Jean-Marie Nadeau, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, no man is a prophet in his own country. Today, Jean-Marie Nadeau, a resident of Moncton, will receive the Ordre des francophones d'Amérique from the Government of Quebec. This award from the Conseil de la langue française is being presented to Mr. Nadeau in recognition of his remarkable contribution to the development of Acadia.

Jean-Marie Nadeau has worked all his life for the advancement of Acadians and for the labour movement. He has served as a member of the Parti acadien, the NDP, the Société nationale de l'Acadie, and the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick, as well as numerous community groups and labour organizations.

This man of principle lost his job as an editorial writer for L'Acadie nouvelle for his support of striking newspaper staff.

A staunch nationalist, Jean-Marie Nadeau is also one of the all too few francophones outside Quebec who are not afraid of sovereignty, who have understood that a stronger Quebec—

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I would just like to ask a short question.

The Liberals opposite have a policy of helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I do not understand my colleague when he says that they are sympathetic. Why could this not be resolved quickly? Everyone agrees that it makes no sense, that it is discriminatory, but they have done nothing about it. My colleague said earlier that they have been in office for five years, more even, and have done nothing about it.

Why could this not be resolved quickly?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to what the hon. member has just had to say, and I find it totally logical and rational.

My congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, who introduced this motion, for we can never do too much to honour those who stay at home to rear their children, whether fathers or mothers. I would describe child-rearing as the finest job in the world, in fact I would call it more than a job, it is the greatest profession in the world.

I think it is too bad that the father or mother—for it could very well be a father—who decided to stay at home is penalized for so doing. I would even go so far as to say that stay at home parents ought to have a guaranteed income.

I therefore ask my colleague from the Reform Party whether he thinks they ought to be guaranteed an income of $14,000 per year?