Ronald J. Duhamel

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the following question: Does he believe that the victims, whom he mentioned in his speech, are the result of policies of the former Conservative government or are they victims of the policies of the new Liberal government, which has been in office for a little over four months? Of whose policies are they the victims? That is my first question. I would like to have a very honest answer to a very specific question.

The second question I would like to ask is as follows. He mentioned that the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Jean Chrétien, made a speech where he said that we need to have a positive attitude and stop whining and so on.

Does he really believe that this Prime Minister was targeting people who are unemployed or on welfare? Frankly, that is what I understood, and if that is the message he was sending, I am very, very disappointed, because no member and no party in this

House, be it the Prime Minister or anyone else, would wish such a misfortune on anyone. If I am wrong, let him correct me; if I am right, I would like him to withdraw that comment.

[Official Languages, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the last week of our sitting members of the Reform Party made a number of statements with respect to supposedly the government's policy on official bilingualism. That was a code word for French services because there is no such policy. For the record, it is the Official Languages Act.

They talked of costs of course without giving any figures to bring any precision to them. Why would they do that? To suggest obviously that it is an expensive policy, and it is, but that it is so expensive that if it did not exist there probably would not be a deficit or a debt.

That is the kind of new politics being played. Code words to frighten people, to mislead them, to make them believe something that does not exist.

Where is their plan? Where are their precise costs? Until they can bring forward clear, precise alternatives and show Canadians how we can get together, talk to each other, understand each other, they have no credibility.

[Point Of Order, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was so eager today to reply to the question I was asked that I made a mistake. Instead of $2 million, I should have said $100 million over two years. I am sorry for the mistake. And I should also have mentioned the $120 million that will be spent on other social housing programs.

[Social Housing, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, of course, each and every city and each and every mayor would like to have more. Of course, we will never be able to meet all existing needs. However, we must recognize that there is a commitment. We must admit that substantial amounts of money are allocated to social housing.

Your definition of social housing is probably different from ours because the commitment is there and the money is available.

[Social Housing, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her question. I think my colleague does not realize how serious a commitment this governement has towards social housing. We said repeatedly before this House that the governement had, for instance, committed $2 billion to maintain existing housing. I think that $2 billion is a substantial amount of money and so is the $2 million which is to be allocated to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. It is the same with other ongoing commitments which are going to be maintained. Therefore, there is nothing to reconsider. We have already made a serious commitment and we must go on from there. Of course, any positive comments and suggestions will be welcomed and carefully looked at in all fairness.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member wants to know about costs for the official languages policy of this country, there is no policy on official bilingualism. I would be delighted to share with him an article that I published on that very subject matter which outlines those costs. No one has ever challenged them.

With respect to the comments that he has made about costs, it is those kinds of things that are said that exaggerate the fears that are found throughout the nation. We do not know what they are but they are big.

What about this comment about the Ottawa elite?

What about the French language communities-like St. Boniface, St. Albert in Alberta and other francophone communities across Canada. Those are the elite, those are the people who are asking for services in French.

Does he realize we have unilingual senators and members of the House of Commons here, some unilingual French and others unilingual English, Canadian soldiers who speak only French or only English? Are these people not supposed to talk to each other? What does he really want? Does he want to scare Canadians? If there is any waste, let us identify it. Waste can be eliminated, but removing a policy that makes it possible to talk to each other is ridiculous.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his address. He made a number of potentially very useful suggestions with respect to cost cutting.

It would be very helpful if my hon. colleague could indicate to us what impact if implemented the list of suggestions would have on unemployment. In other words how many more unemployed Canadians would there be?

My second question is with respect to the self-funded unemployment insurance program. Does the member know whether or not that would increase or decrease the premiums, whether or not it would increase or decrease the payouts to unemployed Canadians?

[Canada Student Loans, February 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I received Valentine's Day messages. One particular message was of great interest because it asked us all together to remove this pernicious bill that

prevents students from enjoying a six-month grace free period after graduation to find a job.

This particular bill removes $35 million from the pockets of students.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that together we try to improve access to post-secondary education for all Canadians and improve the Canada student loans program. Let us show how much education means to us.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition wherein the petitioners point out that there is an extreme amount of violence on both radio and television. They deplore the fact that violence is portrayed by the use of foul language or physical acts and is in fact appearing in an increasing kind of way.

The petitioners ask that the Parliament of Canada ensure that the CRTC recognizes the need to enforce standards pertaining to all forms of abuse, including the use of foul language and excessive violence in all of its forms. They point out that if it is not done, their efforts to raise the family in a sound environment is in fact undermined.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions.

I wonder if my hon. colleague would define what a major petition and a serious motion are. Those are two terms he used in his comments. Is it numbers? Is it the issue itself? Is it something else?

I am also wondering whether my hon. colleague is not being somewhat, or perhaps quite a lot, mischievous. He has turned it around to talk about consultation. Let me say that all of us consult and consult a whole lot. It may be some of us have selective understanding of what is being said but this is not a question about consulting. This is a question about petitions but he has cleverly managed to massage it and swing it around.

I want people to note the buttons he touched. The Constitution. Why? Because he knows full well that it is very delicate in the riding he represents. The national energy program was part of his remarks. What has that got to do with this particular motion?

I am wondering whether the hon. member is not being rather mischievous.