Marcel Gagnon

[The Attikamek, February 22nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, despite the numerous battles that they had to fight for their survival, the Attikamek in the northern part of the Mauricie region never gave up. The obstacles in their way taught them that they have to fight without giving up and face adversity, whether it is related to housing, employment, the environment or the preservation of their language.

Yesterday was a day of celebration for the Attikamek. They celebrated Attikamek Language Day. They succeeded against all odds in preserving their language, Attikamek, which is reminiscent of their history and which they will use to transmit that history to their descendants.

Bloc Québécois members are pleased to join me in congratulating Grand Chief Awashish and all Quebec Attikamek, and in wishing them the best of luck for the future.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Conservative Party has come up with a motion on an extremely interesting topic. I find it interesting both as a grandfather and as someone who had a hand in the creation of Quebec's child care system. When discussions on that system began, I was sitting in the National Assembly. I chaired meetings and debates in parliamentary committees where people came to share their ideas on the requirements for that system. I remember very clearly hearing from them that what was needed—and this is the reason I am absolutely opposed to the Conservative motion—was for all children in day care, in early childhood education, to be given a chance.

They mention giving the funds to parents, but families can run into situations where they run short of money. A job is lost, or some other situation comes up where there are no other resources available. What happens to the money that was supposed to pay for their child to be in proper child care? It goes for something else. This creates an imbalance between the haves and the have-nots. That is more or less what our interpretation was.

Now for my question. There was talk of a system adaptable to requirements. A person could work in a factory or for Radio-Canada in Montreal and take their child to workplace day care. Then there were the drop-in child care facilities, which I had to speak up for in those days, serving farm families and others living far from major centres.

So this is my question for the hon. NDP member. Since it is true that we have a good system going in Quebec, and there is no need to keep reinventing the wheel—Quebec's system has built-in adaptability—and since it is a given that we do have those services, would he acknowledge that the minister should hand over to Quebec the funds it needs to be able to continue to administer its system without necessarily including the obligation to submit to national standards? It is a matter of providing the funds to Quebec without imposing those national standards. That is what Quebec wants. Is he in agreement with that?

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me ask my question. I really thought that I still had some time. I am listening to the Conservative Party, and I listened to it throughout the election period, which is not so far behind us. I consider this to be a step backward.

They are talking about a universal child care system that encourages—and on this I agree with the NDP—discrimination between the rich and the poor. Quebec has established a day care system which, according to just about everyone in Quebec, is quite extraordinary: one that allows families, be they rich or poor, to enjoy the same benefits. So why go backward—why promote again a system that is 50 years behind the times?

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 15th, 2005]

I did not rise on a point of order. I wanted to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question.

[Questions on the Order Paper, February 15th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening since this debate began and I wonder where we are. My interest in politics began when Maurice Duplessis was in power. I do not know if this rings any bells for you, but it was during Quebec's dark ages. I have been listening to the Conservative Party and I feel as if we are taking a huge step backwards.

When child care is being discussed—

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her very interesting speech. She elaborated on some issues that had not been touched upon since the beginning of this debate this morning.

Among other things, she mentioned the fact that women make up most of the workforce in the textile industry. The word seamstress is generally used when referring to people employed in this industry because they usually are women.

I want to ask her a question about which I feel very strongly. I have worked on issues relating to the elderly and I have noticed that, again, those people that have been neglected by the government are mostly women. Since the textile industry is mostly made up of women, I am wondering whether the government, that has made it a habit of being negligent, is not even more negligent on issues affecting women in particular.

How does the member feel about that?

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has hit the nail on the head with regard to job losses and factory closings. Behind this phenomenon there are human beings. He has been talking about human beings, but I would like him to elaborate some more.

I know people in this situation. In Trois-Rivières, after a large factory was closed, I knew a couple who had worked in the factory and had not quite enough income to use RRSPs to save for the future. At 57 and 58 years old, these two found themselves with the same responsibilities but almost no income, and a bit too late to start their education over again and find new jobs.

I find it painful to see such situations, when the government could be doing something to fix them. We need only think, for example, about the $800 million invested in the sponsorship program, of which at least $110 million is being investigated by Justice Gomery's commission. Moreover, in the last five years the number of public servants has risen by 49,000, which costs $7.2 billion in salaries.

Would it not have been possible to have more foresight and to help people who dedicated their lives to a company and then lost their jobs despite their good work?

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about an extremely important motion for ridings like mine, for the whole region and the whole of Quebec. Indeed, the textile industry is more present in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.

I have been listening to the debates since the beginning. More specifically, I have heard the previous Liberal speaker say that, to put measures into place, ten years of negotiations were, at times, necessary. My reaction is that, in the textile industry, we have been seeing the problem coming for more than ten years. I have been in the riding for quite a while, and I can tell the House that we have been seeing the closing of factories in the textile field coming for a number of years. It has even been called the « soft sector ».

Therefore, I am asking my colleague who has just spoken why, according to him, that industry has been neglected to a point where, today, we are about to lose it almost completely, even though it provides jobs for almost one hundred thousand workers.

Why that lack of foresight? Why do we have to wait until disaster hits before we do anything? Is the federal government dragging its feet? I think so. We are in a position to see the problems coming. We have people ready to respond. We set up parliamentary committees. We invite people so that they tell us what is going on, and yet we shelve the studies until disaster strikes.

Does the Conservative member recognize, just like me, that the government is completely out of touch and fails to seize the opportunities to improve things before a catastrophe occurs?

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Since there are only about 40 seconds left, I will skip my turn and let the next member speak because my question would be longer than that.

We are talking about something that affects all of Quebec, but since my riding is deeply affected, I would have liked a longer discussion in this regard. I will continue with my other colleague.

[Supply, February 8th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time remains for questions and comments.