Marcel Gagnon

[Department of Social Development Act, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to part of my hon. colleague's speech and found one thing she said, among others, particularly interesting. She mentioned single window service. I am not clear on the definition of single window. They are talking about forming two departments out of one, that is to say, splitting one department in two. There is also talk about encroaching on areas of provincial jurisdiction. This will make it necessary to multiply or double the number of civil servants. She mentioned 12,000, whereas closer to 14,000 civil servants will work for the new department.

Where is the single window in that? I would like her to give me her definition of single window and tell me how it has anything to do with increasing the number of people involved and interventions in areas of no concern to the federal government.

[Centre d'action bénévole de Grand-Mère, December 1st, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the Centre d'action bénévole de Grand-Mère has been active in our community for 28 years. In December 2002, it learned that it had six months to leave the building it was in and relocate. Because of its particular needs and the difficulty of finding appropriate facilities, it began considering owning its own building.

A team of volunteers, backed by 10 community leaders, came up with $180,000 with which to acquire two buildings and thus give the organization some stability. For 15 months, over 105 volunteers rolled up their sleeves in order to restore, renovate and adapt these buildings for its use.

Today, thanks to these efforts, the Centre d'action bénévole de Grand-Mère is able to continue its service to our local people. My thanks and congratulations to the funding committee, the board of directors, the many volunteers, and the centre's director, Sylvie Gervais.

[Old Age Security Act, November 29th, 2004]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act (monthly guaranteed income supplement).

Mr. Speaker, this enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to allow eligible pensioners to receive a monthly guaranteed income supplement without having to make an application. It also repeals the restrictions respecting retroactivity. This will entitle eligible pensioners to full retroactivity for the monthly guaranteed income supplement and for allowances.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, November 25th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, during a meeting of the social affairs committee, the Minister of State for Families and Caregivers categorically refused to give full retroactivity to seniors, under the guaranteed income supplement program.

However, it is the federal government's fault if these elderly people did not get the millions of dollars to which they were fully entitled. The government failed to fulfill its responsibilities and must now correct the situation.

What is the minister waiting for to recognize his mistakes and correct the situation immediately by giving full retroactivity to seniors?

[Food and Drugs Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would in fact have a question on the last part of the reply. I have listened attentively to the debate on this bill, and had already heard about it. I feel that fetal alcohol syndrome is a sufficiently important problem to warrant more awareness.

I know that the hon. member has written a book on this, but does he feel people are sufficiently informed? Would this bill, for instance, make it possible to raise public awareness simply by informing them of the dangers of drinking on alcohol labels? Is that enough?

[Department of Canadian Heritage Act, November 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very attentively to the speech by my hon. colleague who is very familiar with environmental issues and speaks passionately about them. He is right to do so because it is certainly time for us to talk seriously about the environment.

I believe my hon. colleague said that he hoped the new law would not necessarily just increase the quantity of parks and the quantity of facilities, but that there would be some consolidation. He fears that the opposite will happen. I have trouble believing that things will be improved simply by changing the law.

Since this new parliament began, we have passed many bills to split up departments, add new ones, or add new structures. But all these changes will not necessarily improve things.

The hon. member mentioned certain parks, including Gatineau Park. Some parks are being neglected and more money should be allocated to improving facilities and infrastructure.

It makes me think of La Mauricie National Park. My predecessor in the riding of Saint-Maurice, Jean Chrétien, was Prime Minister for a long time. We all knew him. He defended La Mauricie National Park. I remember all the debates we had back home because we thought that the Mauricie region, in the heart of Quebec, perhaps was not the place for a federal national park.

The park was created nevertheless and it was done in good taste. I have been there very often to camp and cross-country ski.

As I listened to my colleague, I was thinking that this park, which is loved by the local people and very near to the city, seems to be neglected these days. Why is it that when something is working well, we leave it to fall apart? We are acting like children who abandon one toy and reach for another. I would also like to talk about Lac-Saint-Pierre, but I will stop here because I want to give my colleague time to answer.

I would ask him if he thinks the new legislation will make it possible to improve things in La Mauricie National Park.

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have been closely following the debate since the beginning. I listened especially to my hon. colleague from Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who shed a great deal of light on the purpose of the bill before the House. The previous speaker also tried to explain things.

This is a very important piece of legislation. It will put one minister in charge of six organizations. When I go through the list of the organizations the minister will be responsible for, I cannot help but notice the RCMP.

In his speech, the hon. member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin told us how human rights could be threatened by this otherwise important bill. He did say that he hoped and believed human rights would be upheld, but the legislation could still be used for political purposes, against political opponents.

I am not convinced. I saw what happened in 1970 in Quebec. I spent a period of time that seemed to me way too long between two armed men. Since the day I spent a whole hour between two armed men before they realized their mistake, I have had doubts about giving more powers to police authorities.

Let me ask this to the previous speaker. Since history has a tendency to repeat itself, does the member think that things have changed enough that such important legislation can be enforced in a non partisan fashion with as much respect as possible being accorded to human rights?

[Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Act, November 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to the member who just spoke. He is shocked at the gun registry, which is now at about $2 billion. He asks the minister's representative a question and is told that this is an emotional issue. I am sad to hear such an answer. We are concerned with how our money is being used. Yet, Liberals think that this is an emotional issue.

The question that was asked is far from being emotional. This is a waste of money, a waste of about $2 billion, and the member is told that this is an emotional issue! For a taxpayer, for someone who lives in La Tuque, who loses his job and waits for employment insurance benefits, is it an emotional issue to have his money stolen in such a way?

I would like to ask the member if he is satisfied with the answer that he was just given. I think it was an insult. When does he think that the government will stop trivializing these issues, when this is extremely important?

I think that no one is against the gun registry. I own two guns. I have registered them. Unfortunately, I have still received only one registration. I have paid the other one for nothing. Anyway, I recognize that this may be a means of saving lives.

However, when the government spends billions of dollars and say that this is an emotional issue, I am deeply shocked! I would like the member to comment on this.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Repentigny, on his excellent analysis of the throne speech and on the amendments we put forward, making the throne speech presentable.

This is the fourth time the member for Repentigny has been elected, with a bigger majority each time. He has been re-elected because he knows what he is doing and works very hard for his constituents.

He talked about employment insurance. We will try to bring about changes that will improve the EI scheme forever. It will be fairer for workers and for those who contribute to it.

I have a question for the member. As we know the EI surplus is somewhere between $40 billion and $45 billion. It is about that. The Liberal government took the surplus to pay down the debt. They say the amount put towards the debt is approximately the same as the EI surplus plus $3 billion that was supposed to go to seniors.

Something puzzles me and I would like to hear what the member has to say about it. Workers earning $39,000 and less are contributing to the EI fund. When you take that money to pay down the national debt it means that those who earn the least are paying down a good part of the debt. Accordingly, if I earn $25,000, I contribute fully to the EI fund, and the EI surplus goes to repay the debt of the country.

I would like to have his take on that. In my mind, it is not that worker who put the country into debt. I would like to have his opinion on that.

[Guaranteed Income Supplement, October 20th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne, the government states that seniors have earned the right to be treated with dignity and that, as one step, it will increase the guaranteed income supplement for the least well-off seniors.

Ought the government not to first do the right thing and pay back to those seniors the $3.2 billion stolen from them over 10 years, and then raise the GIS?