1988-07-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the report by the Canadian Observer at the legislative and municipal elections in El Salvador on March 20, 1988.


PETITIONS
Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages government responses to 20 petitions bearing Nos. 332-4675, 332-4676, 332-4773, 332-4776 to 332-4778 inclusive, 3324793, 332-4795 to 332-4799 inclusive, 332-4802, 332-4804 to 332-4806 inclusive and 332-4808 to 332-4811 inclusive.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: That the legislative committee on Bill C-130 be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada and the United States for the purpose of hearing witnesses on the proposed trade agreement with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to contest, if I may, the procedural acceptability of this motion being on the Order Paper under "Motions". The reason I do that is this.
Traditionally, the heading "Motions" has been reserved for concurrence requests in reports of standing committees which have been prepared by this House through the efforts of the standing committee, an independent body of this House. Members of standing committees, as the Chair will know, have the right to request that a concurrence motion be put on the Order Paper and then any member of the committee can move that concurrence motion in order to have a debate. I suggest that if motions of this nature are allowed to be put on the Order Paper under "Motions", we will have a complete subversion of the private Members' process.
If you look at the Order Paper under "Private Members' Motions", you will see other motions of instruction which a private Member puts in a draw and takes the chance that the motion will be drawn from a hat and thus go through the regular private Members' motions process. The House will know that process was developed by the parliamentary reform committee to ensure that private Members' motions and Bills had a decent opportunity of receiving full consideration by this House.
A private Member drafts a motion exactly as my hon. friend has drafted his, puts it in a hat and hopes that it is drawn out. When it is, it goes to the private Members' committee for deliberation as to whether or not it will get one hour's debate, such as the motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the Order Paper today, which says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider
designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and
presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.
There are other examples on the Order Paper.
I suggest we have a process for private Members' motions. You will note this motion is on the Order Paper in the name of an individual Member. It did not flow from a committee. It is an individual Member's effort to bring something to the attention of the House. It is a subversion, in my opinion, of the private Members' motion process and private Members' Bill process which was instigated and enacted by this House. For that reason I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is trying to do something by way of Motions which he should quite properly do by way of a private Members' motion.


Motions
Second, I suggest that the committees in this House are the masters of their own destiny. We set up committees under a legislative chairperson now, not under a government appointed chairperson. The Chair appoints those committee chairpersons from a panel and those committees operate and decide on the business of the committee independent of the House.
I think it is fair to suggest that the arrangement of the business of that committee, unless it is in the original motion sending the matter to the committee, should be left up to the committee. It is my understanding that, in this particular instance, the committee has decided not to travel.
It is very much the exception that committees travel. If one wishes to argue that this particular committee should travel, I would counter that by saying that standing committees of this House, one a joint committee with the Senate and one an independent committee of this House with no Senate membership, have already travelled this country to consider the issue of free trade. Before this legislative committee is the question as to whether or not Bill C-130 accurately brings into legislation the agreement between Canada and the United States on free trade. That is the narrow question before the legislative committee on Bill C-130. I think that speaks to why the committee should not travel.
In concluding my remarks I want to reiterate that I believe this motion should properly come under Private Members' Business, a motion for an allotted day, or proceedings on delegated legislation. Second, I want to refer to the argument which has always been before us, that is, that committees are masters of their own destiny. For those reasons I do not believe that this motion is in order.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Hearings were held for a few hours and legions, if you like, of individuals and groups which wanted to have input into the process were turned away.
By the Prime Minister's own admission, this trade deal is the biggest trade deal signed, not in Canadian history, but in world history. If, as the Prime Minister has indicated, this is the biggest trade deal ever signed in world history, surely to goodness it would be appropriate to travel throughout the country this summer so that Canadians, wherever they live throughout Canada, would have an opportunity to participate in this discussion on the most important trade deal in world history.
We recognize the fact that in its present structure under the present rules and traditions the committee is unable to take the initiative to travel. That is why the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor felt it was appropriate to move this motion so that the representatives of all the people of Canada in the House of Commons can give a clear instruction to the committee to do the honourable, decent, and correct thing, that is, to travel throughout Canada and hold hearings on what the Prime Minister himself describes as the most important trade deal in world history.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should start by looking at what a committee is supposed to be. A committee is clearly a subsidiary body to which a matter is sent for consideration by a larger body. The legislative committee which is studying Bill C-130 is clearly a subsidiary body of this House. In spite of the fact that the rules with respect to parliamentary reform may give a standing or legislative committee more authority to do things of their own accord, nothing in those rules has changed the fundamental concept of what a committee is.
A committee, especially the committee set up to study Bill C-130, is not a totally autonomous or independent body. It is nothing more than a subsidiary body of this House, to which this House has literally committed a piece of legislation for the kind of detailed study which was concluded some time ago and cannot be given in this Chamber as a House of Commons or even as Committee of the Whole.
I make this point because the Deputy Government House Leader seems to be arguing that somehow or other, under the rules reflecting parliamentary reform, our committees have such a status that once they are set up they are somehow cut loose from any link with this Chamber and it is somehow wrong for this Chamber to try to direct or instruct such committees.
If you consider what is the concept of a committee in principle and look at what our rules say, I invite you to conclude that the Deputy Government House Leader is wrong in inviting you to decide that under our rules it is no longer possible for this House to give an instruction to a committee as to how it should conduct itself. This House has no less
Motions
authority under our current rules than it did before the rules were adopted to give an instruction to a committee.
Incidentally, I find it ironic to say the least that the Deputy Government House Leader is basing his argument on the spirit of parliamentary reform when he and his colleagues on the Government side were so quick, so ready to throw parliamentary reform out the window when it served their purpose to do so in order to suspend the calendar concept under which we have been operating for some years so that the Government could get the House to sit through the summer.
Be that as it may, if the Deputy Government House Leader is interested in parliamentary reform and has returned to the view that parliamentary reform is important and should be supported, I maintain that there is nothing in our current rules under parliamentary reform which no longer makes it possible for this House to give an instruction to a group of Members who are nothing more than a subsidiary body of this Chamber.
It has already been brought to your attention that there are precedents that clearly set out what the authority of the House is to give an instruction to a committee. I want to draw your attention to some of the content of these precedents. You have already had drawn to your attention Citation 756(1) which says:
An Instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the House.
We already know that this committee has shown itself through the efforts of the Conservative majority unwilling to seek the permission of the House to travel. I think we have clearly reached the point where it is appropriate for the House to adopt a motion giving an instruction to the committee studying Bill C-130 to travel from place to place, to hear directly the views of Canadians, where they live, where they work, where they make their homes, about the Government's trade deal with the United States.
It is clear from looking at Citation 759(1) that the motion which the Government has challenged could not have been called much earlier and that we are now at the appropriate point in time for such a motion to be made. Citation 759(1) states:
The time for moving an Instruction is immediately after the committal of the bill, or, subsequently, as an independent motion. The Instruction should not be given while the bill is still in the possession of the House, but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee.
We are just at that point contemplated by Citation 759(1). I suggest that the motion is very much in order from the point of view of the timing of its being called for debate.
I also submit that it is quite appropriate for this motion to be called under Motions rather than to be treated as a matter of Private Members' Business. I certainly can find nothing in the precedent set out in Beauchesne saying that this motion must be dealt with as Private Members' Business. I would say


Motions
that the whole concept of instructions to a committee by the House would be meaningless unless such instructions could be proposed as a motion during the point in time in our Routine Proceedings for the consideration of motions.
I repeat, there is no meaning whatsoever that could be attributed to the right of this House to give instruction to a committee unless it could be done in a way which would lead to a decision being taken on the request for instruction. This can happen only if it is done during the time set out in Routine Proceedings for motions.
I also suggest that it is consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform to which the Deputy Government House Leader has once again become converted, after his unfortunate lapse in connection with cancelling our rules respecting the calendar concept.
If he is serious in regard to what parliamentary reform is supposed to mean, giving greater authority to individual Members to do things in the House, surely individual Members not of the Privy Council must be permitted to move motions to give instructions to committees during that item under Routine Proceedings entitled Motions. I believe the Deputy Government House Leader is very much in error when he argues that this motion can be presented only as a matter of Private Members' Business.
My friend, the New Democratic Party House Leader, says that a motion to instruct the committee with respect to such things as travel is rare and last happened during the pipeline debate. I have to take some issue with him on that because at page 230 of Beauchesne, paragraph 6 of Citation 761 states:
Power to adjourn from place to place-Instructions have been given to
committees to adjourn from place to place both within and outside Canada
for the purposes of receiving evidence. Journals, October 21,1976, p. 49.
There is a much more recent precedent on which to base our request that this motion be accepted and dealt with as quickly as possible. As recently as 1980, approximately, the special joint committee on the Constitution was authorized by this House and by the other place, I presume, to broadcast its proceedings after the committee was under way and without receiving any request from the committee that it be given such authority. That is a further precedent of this House giving instructions to a committee to do something it would not otherwise have the power to do. My hon. friend interjects to say that this motion to which I just referred was done on consent, but all consent means in this House is the equivalent of a unanimous decision of this House, but the consent does not always have to be given.
We are discussing whether this motion is in order, and I would like to say that rather than making the argument that this motion is somehow contrary to the spirit of parliamentary reform, if the Deputy Government House Leader and his colleagues have once again become converted to parliamentary reform, after their lapse with respect to suspending the
calendar in order to force the House to sit through the summer, they would welcome the initiative of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), our critic on trade, who proposed motions to allow the committee to travel.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I believe this motion is in order not only insofar as it intends to give an instruction to a parliamentary committee, but with respect to it being called during Routine Proceedings under the heading of Motions, and also with respect to the substance of the matter.
I think something that is very consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform is to make it easy for Canadians to have access to their parliamentary institutions. One of the best and most effective ways to do this is through enabling committees to travel when they are considering something as important as this trade deal so they can get the views of Canadians where they work, where they live, where they have their homes, and where they will be affected by measures such as this Government's trade deal with the United States.
It is not satisfactory to say that a committee has already travelled for this purpose. As has already been pointed out, the travel of a previous committee was clearly inadequate with only one day in each provincial capital. In any event, the committee in question did not study the matter that is currently before the legislative committee on Bill C-130. It did not study Bill C-130, nor the trade deal itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to hear all the submissions and certainly those of the Hon. Member for Windsor West. However, with respect, I think the Hon. Member is straying from the procedural point with which I am faced. I will certainly hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West in conclusion, but I would like to put a question to him. Assuming this particular motion is acceptable and receives the support of the House, can the Hon. Member for Windsor West assist the Chair as to whether that would mean that the committee would necessarily have to accept the power given to it and to in fact decide to travel? It seems to me, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap pointed out and very properly, that this is framed in terms of a permissive motion and even if it was passed here, it would not necessarily result in the committee deciding to travel.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, you quite rightly pointed out that in effect there are two kinds of instructions. There are mandatory instructions and permissive instructions.
I would hope we could have an instruction from this House which is mandatory, which requires this committee to travel and hear Canadians where they live and work and where they will be affected by the Government's trade deal. If that is not the case, there is a motion on the Order Paper presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry which I would interpret as providing mandatory instructions.


I would point out, looking at the previous decisions in this respect, that mandatory instructions are quite acceptable and have been used in the past. As Citation 758 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
The object of mandatory instructions is to define the course of action which
the committee must follow.
If this Elouse wishes to do so, it can give an instruction to the committee which is mandatory. It may be that there are other examples of mandatory instructions related to exactly how a committee should deal with a particular Bill, but I do not think there is any limitation on the authority or power of this House to give a committee a mandatory instruction with respect to the process or procedure it should follow in study of a particular Bill. If this House agrees, and I think it should because this is what Canadians want this House to do, they want the committee on Bill C-130 to travel and hear evidence across the country, then the motion is quite in order and should be passed, and the committee would be obliged to follow the instruction in its mandatory terms.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the Hon. Member and also the Minister of State. I will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West if necessary, in reply. However, I take it the position of both the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West is whether or not a mandatory motion of somewhat the same nature is procedurally in place, this is a permissive motion. The argument that is being put by both the representatives of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party is that procedurally it ought to be allowed, and if it is put into the procedures for Private Members' Motions, the practical result is it may never come back for consideration. Do I understand the position of both spokespersons for the Opposition correctly? The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. I just want to be sure I have the point and I will hear you later in detail.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the intention of putting forward a permissive motion is that the permissive instruction is the most common and most commonly used, particularly coming from an opposition Member. The reason it was put forward as a permissive motion was that during the committee's deliberations of the last day when it was deciding on how to proceed, when the request came from both the opposition Parties to travel throughout Canada to allow people to have input into the deliberations of the committee, the government Members indicated that the legislative committee, of course, had no authority to travel, that there was no opportunity to travel. Therefore, it was in that spirit that we felt that since the committee itself had determined that under the existing rules it had no authorization to decide to travel throughout Canada, the question was put aside because it was not part of the terms of reference of the legislative committee.
It was at that point that we felt a permissive motion ought to be presented both from an opposition Party and a Member, not a Member of the Cabinet, not a Minister. There was also the
Motions
fact that if that was the committee's concern, a clear instruction from the House of Commons would then clearly remove that and would allow the committee to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West. I just want to be sure I have the point.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I do not intend to extend my general argument, but I do want to say, first, the one basic point we are making is that any motion with respect to the committee travelling should not be placed under Private Members' Business just because it is offered by a Member not of the Privy Council of the Government. Second, I have to admit that the motion could be read as a permissive motion but, as the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has said, if the concern of the Conservative majority on the committee was that they did not have the power to travel, and if they had the power they would do it, then, let us hope that such a motion as we are discussing now will clear the air and the Conservative majority will follow through if it is passed and allow the committee to travel.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long on this matter. I simply want to point out that as a member of the committee which studied parliamentary reform, I can say quite firmly that as far as I can recollect, it was never the intention of the committee to have motions used in this way.


Mr. Gauthier:: We discussed that.


Benno Friesen: Further to that, whether this motion is either permissive or mandatory, one of the effects remains the same as a result of it. That is to say that if the committee travels it will involve an expenditure of funds and someone will have to pay for it.


Ms. Mitchell:: Take it out of your propaganda budget.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're using $50 million for PR now, maybe you can set a little aside for travel.


Mr. Darling:: Keep quiet!


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind Hon. Members that I have heard from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West twice, as well as the Minister of State. All Hon. Members have given them the courtesy of expressing their comments to the advantage of the Chair. I would ask that that courtesy continue.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about exact budgetary figures but a principle of government, that is, its ability to govern. If motions can be introduced in the House at any time which affect budgetary decisions and which take away from the Government the decision-making process with respect to expenditures, then it fragments the Government's


Motions
role and the historical right of Government with respect to the right of expenditure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A parliamentary right.


Benno Friesen: I would suggest that it fragments the Government's ability to govern since it would take away from the Government the right of expenditure.


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to revert to a remark by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr Riis). I am a member of the legislative Committee on Bill C-130,1 was present during the discussions. When the Hon. Member says that the committee decided not to travel, it wasn't like that at all. He claims the committee asked permission of the House or that it said the permission of the House was necessary. Nobody ever said that. The committee on its own initiative and because of the parliamentary reform, among other reasons, is aware of its powers and it was the committee itself, notwithstanding what the Hon. Member says-he told an untruth, Mr Speaker-it was the committee itself that decided not to travel in order to fulfill more rapidly the mandate that had been entrusted to it by the House of Commons.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two points in reply. I notice other Members rising. I hope that I can reserve my right to reply after I have heard the other Members. In any event, my remarks will not be long.

Mr Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments on the remarks by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr Friesen), about how we shouldn't spend the money, or the government wouldn't like to spend the money without authorization. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that it is up to the House of Commons to decide, and that it's the budget of the House of Commons and not the government's budget that is in question here.

It is the House of Commons which will address this question. I hope that it will address the question seriously and possibly divide on it. If the Government wants to have a question put on it, we will vote on it.
This question is an important question since it deals with process and not with substance. It does not deal with the many, many motions that we find on the Order Paper under the heading Notices of Motions under Private Members' Business. Private Members can and should put substantive motions which state: "That, in the opinion of this House, the House should ..." That is quite common practice. I have several of mine in there. God knows I have not had a chance to have them drawn, since if I had I would have been able to discuss
them. However, because of the draw and because of luck some of us are not as lucky as others.
The point to be made, and the one which has been made by my colleagues from Windsor West and the New Democratic Party, is that it is proper to have such a motion in the order where it finds itself today, that is, in Routine Proceedings under Motions. Where else can private Members who are supposed to be getting more powers as a result of the McGrath Committee and others, as well as be given more power of initiative, put motions which would the Government in the right direction and understand that Parliament it to remain supreme?
We are not talking here about the Government's intentions of pushing this matter through quickly. We think that the committee-and it has been the practice of Parliament thus far-should be given instructions, instructions which it should follow. We have done that before. There is nothing in the Standing Orders or anything as far as I can see in Beauchesne's which would forbid that. It is stated clearly in Beauchesne's that at the committee stage we, that is, the House, may instruct the committee. That is Citation 756. I will not repeat what my House Leader just said. But in this regard one has to refer to Citations Nos. 756, 757, 758, 759 and 760.
I want to say that, first, the motion is appropriately placed on the Order Paper and should be the object of some debate, and a division if the Government so requires. Second, it is a weak argument to say that this would entail or obligate the Government to expend public funds for a purpose for which there is no Royal Recommendation. We are talking here of Parliament's decision. Parliament will pick up on the expenditures involved in that committee in particular if it so desires to travel, or if it is so instructed to travel. That is done every day. It would be astounding to ask how many committees of the House have travelled across the country since September 4, 1984.


Mr. Stewart:: How much did you travel on Bill C-72?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the intervention. We are now getting into the question of what other committees have done and I do not think that that is helpful.
I want to assure Hon. Members that the Chair has taken very well the point of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap, the Hon. Member for Windsor West, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and, with great respect, unless there is something very particular that either the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap or the Hon. Member for Windsor West may want to add, I do not think I need to hear more. However, out of courtesy I want to hear the Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. One point I would like to make is that my hon. friends have brought forward several quotations from Beauchesne's. I do not dispute the strength of those quotations. When Your Honour comes to


your decision, I am sure you will appreciate that those quotations and citations are only relevant vis-a-vis the Standing Orders as they existed at that time.
Second, with respect to the televising of the constitutional committee hearings, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that that was on consent. I think it should be taken in that light, that is, the consent of all Hon. Members having been given.
Third-something which 1 should have picked up in my original argument-my friend would be on much safer ground arguing this if the wording of the actual motion put on the Order Paper had been "be instructed" rather than "be empowered" since the committee has already taken a decision.
I think my friend is a little late in moving this motion today.
Finally, I suggest to the Chair that in view of the importance of this issue that the Chair may wish to reserve judgment on this matter in order to consider fully the implications of the Private Member's Motion aspect of the argument.
I appreciate the time of the House. I think it is important that we do have a good debate on this issue. We await with anticipation the Chair's ruling on this matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything new to add in terms of the debate on the admissibility of this particular initiative. However, I do want to clear up one small error that was made by my hon. friend, the House Leader of the Official Opposition. 1 wish to preface my remarks by saying that his experience and comments I value and respect a great deal. While I had indicated that the last time this initiative was taken was in 1956 during the very famous pipeline debate, he indicated when he quoted from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition that it states'.
Instructions have been given to committees to adjourn from place to place
both within and outside Canada for the purposes of receiving evidence.
Journals, October 21, 1976, p. 49.
That is correct, Mr. Speaker. That was an initiative by a Government member, by a member of the Privy Council. The point I was making was as a member not in the Privy Council, but as a member of the Opposition, the last time that this was done was in 1956.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respectfully direct your attention to Standing Order 56 which states, in part:
56.(1) The following motions are debatable:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers...
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I submitted that a legislative committee is a subsidiary body of this House subject to its authority. I would submit to you, Sir, that this Standing Order clearly contemplates the making of motions of the kind we are discussing now either at the initiative of the Government or a
Motions
private Member in order to maintain the authority of the House over one of its committees. The wording of the Standing Order is a solid foundation for the points that I have made and those made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
Second, I know that you will want to look at the Standing Orders and the precedents in light of one or the other, Mr. Speaker, to see which precedent is still relevant. It is a novel argument made by the Deputy Government House Leader that certain precedents should automatically be struck down simply because they anti-date our current rules. I know that you will want to look carefully to see if there is anything in our current rules, Mr. Speaker, that make the precedents that I have cited, or those cited by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, in some way irrelevant. I respectfully submit that there is nothing in the rules that make these precedents irrelevant.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all the Members for their statements.
I understand that a few more Members would also like to make statements, but I would ask all Members to co-operate with the Chair, as I believe I fully understand the two arguments. Furthermore, I agree that it is an important issue and for that reason I will probably reserve judgment until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock. Once again, I thank you for your statements; as always, they are a great help to the Chair.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 it is indeed an honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of constituents. The petitioners are very concerned about the recent trade deal initialled by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because they believe that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed trade deal. The petitioners also believe that the Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada because it was not an election issue back in 1984. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me, the Prime Minister indicated that he was against this type of trade deal with the United States, so he obviously mislead the people of Canada during the election.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The petitioners are also concerned that the trade deal would reduce our ability to plan our economic, social and cultural future in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand fully the reason the Hon. Member is pressing all the reasons why somebody may or may not have signed a petition. However, the petition asks something specific, and the rule is clear. The Hon. Member


Questions on the Order Paper
presenting the petition should make the request specific and not prolong the argument, effective and full as it no doubt was.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I thought you were preoccupied in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps not paying too much attention.
I will summarize by saying that the petitioners are asking that a national debate take place on the trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the duty and honour to present a petition from several of my constituents who are opposed to the trade deal, who are worried about the trade deal, and who feel that it can only be passed as a result of an election. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government to pull the plug and go to the polls like yesterday!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to present six petitions from people in the Province of Ontario who state that Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the trade deal, the Government has no mandate, Canada's ability to plan is threatened, and the trade deal would integrate Canada into a North American defence industrial base. Therefore, the petitioners call for a national debate which would end in an election before such an agreement is signed.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today from residents of Scarborough, North York, Don Mills, Toronto, Burlington, and Etobicoke concerning the Rouge Valley in Scarborough. The petitioners state that it is a unique, precious, and natural area that needs protecting because of the endangered wildlife wilderness areas, and it is in the national interest to do so.
I join with the Scarborough City Council and the petitioners. The City Council of Scarborough is meeting tonight to amend the official plan to accommodate a park. The petitioners call upon Parliament to work with the Province of Ontario in establishing the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or provincial park.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to present a petition in which the petitioners indicate that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. By removing the power of the Canadian Government to exclusively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions, the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. The proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure
access to the U.S. market, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition duly certified from a number of Canadians. The petitioners are concerned that the Conservative Government had no mandate to conclude a trade agreement with the United States, and point out the negative effects of that trade agreement.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been duly certified under Standing Order 106, and comes from people in my constituency, especially in the areas of La Salle, Windsor, Belle River, Tilbury, and indicates to the Government that they believe that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade deal with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, and yet the trade agreement would in fact deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would therefore undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. They therefore call on this Government to dissolve Parliament and to permit the people of Canada a chance to have their say on this issue.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of electors, this time from Nova Scotia. It is a petition that has been properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. These petitioners, like many on both sides of the free trade issue-those in favour and those opposed-agree, as indicated in this petition, that the agreement should not come into force until there has been an election held to provide the mandate that did not exist at the time that the accord was signed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 329, 363 and 366.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CSIS-EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Mr. Boyer: Are Canadians of East European background employed (a) in the Department of External Affairs (i) as a whole (//) on the East European desk (b) with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and, if so, in each case, how many?


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the Department does not keep statistics of the type requested.
Personal information obtained by the Department can under Section 7 of the Privacy Act only be used for the purpose for which it was initially collected or for the purpose of responding to specific circumstances outlined in Section 8 of the Privacy Act. The compilation of the requested statistics would not be consistent with those conditions which must be met before personal information can be disclosed to a third party. Accordingly, it is not possible to assemble requested statistics.
In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General is concerned:
With respect to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, information about particular employees cannot be disclosed. Under Section 7 of the Privacy Act, personal information obtained by a department can only be used for the purpose for which it was initially collected or for the purpose of responding to specific circumstances outlined in Section 8 of the Act. The compilation of the requested statistics would not be consistent with those conditions which must be met before personal information can be disclosed to a third party.
The personnel practices and rules under which the Service operates do not provide for the gathering of information on the East European background of employees. Any such information that might emerge from the security screening process is protected.
Accordingly, it is not possible to assemble the requested statistics.


DSS-CONTRACT AWARDED SOLE-SOURED
Mr. Caccia: Was Department of Supply and Services contract 08DB.45045-7-7573 sole-sourced and, if so, (a) who authorized the sole-sourcing of this contract (b) was the sole-source justification technically and financially evaluated, and, if so, by whom (c) did the Department of Public Works make any recommendations on this contract or the tendering process related to this contract and, if so, what were the (/') recommendations (It) responses of the Department of Supply and Services (d) are there other suppliers of such equipment and, if so, were any contacted prior to the awarding of this contract (e) who signed the purchase requisition?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of Supply and Services):: The
DSS contract was sole-sourced.
Questions on the Order Paper
(a)	The request for sole source, directed procurement, was contained in "Sole Source Justification" document attached to Requisition 45045-7-7573, authorized by T. Thompson, Director Headquarters Operation Division, Statistics Canada.
(b)	The sole source justification was technically and financially evaluated by Public Works, A and E Services, and recommended by the Director of the main Computer Centre, Statistics Canada.
(c)	(i) The Department of Public Works recommended use of Pillar system since it offers maximum protection against line distortion, with EPE System as second option to be considered and a possible combination of MPL/EPE Equipment as a third option.
(ii) DSS accepted the Statistics Canada Sole Source Justification for Pillar System as per letter attached to requisition.
(d)	Yes. Since evaluation had been carried out, and sole source justified, no contact with other suppliers was considered necessary.
(e)	The Requisition for Goods and Services from Statistics Canada was signed by the following:
Recommended by M. J. Tremblay, Assistant Director, Administrative Support Services Sub-Division, authorized by T. Thompson Director, Headquarters Operations Division, financial authority (Section 25), R. Quesnel, Manager, Accounting Operations.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-EXPENDITURES IN METRO TORONTO AREA
Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Veterans Affairs make
grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones
and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


Hon. George Hees (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Grants paid to recipients in the Metropolitan Toronto area for the period September 4, 1984 to May 31, 1988:
Assistance Fund
Grants paid under the Assistance Fund Regulations, of up to five hundred dollars to eligible veterans to meet unforeseen emergency	needs	and	unexpected
contingencies $189,000 Treatment Allowances
Grants paid under the Veterans Treatment Regulations, to pensioners who were receiving treatment for their pensioned disability	$613,000
Last Post fund
Grants paid under the Last Post Fund Regulations to reimburse the Fund for expenses incurred for the funeral and burial of indigent veterans $821,000 Children of War Dead/Pensioners Training


Motions
Allowances and Tuition Fees paid under the Children of the War Dead Regulations, to eligible students registered in recognized universities or colleges
Also, the payment of allowances and tuition under the Pensioners Training Regulations to eligible pensioners who are registered in approved retraining programs. $252,000 Prosthetic Services
Grants paid to Sunnybrook Medical Centre to reimburse the Hospital for the salary of one prosthetist through a federal-provincial agreement. $104,000 Pension-Burial Grants
Grants paid under the Pension Act to provide for the funeral and burial entlited pensioners $307,000


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Minister of State have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 POSSIBLE WATER DIVERSION FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
Mr. Speaker:: I have an application from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), under S. O. 29. I will hear the Hon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing what I consider to be an extremely vital and pressing issue facing our country. That is the issue of water diversion from Lake Michigan, which could have devastating effects across the Great Lakes system and which would demonstrate to Canadians yet again how important water is within our relationship with the United States and how important it is that there be protection provided for us as a country to safeguard that water in the future.
Because we have such an important issue here, with many indications from the United States of pressure building in order for this diversion to take place, I hope that you will give very careful consideration to this request. Perhaps it might make sense to reserve judgment on it because of the importance of the issue to my constituency, to the many people across Ontario and to all people across Canada, and in view of the widespread implications of a diversion of this kind toward our relationship with respect to water with the United States in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. As Hon. Members know, this has been a matter of some interest to this place for some days. However, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that it is an important matter and the Chair has given it very careful consideration, but at least for today the Chair is not disposed to move to an emergency debate. Of course, as I have stated before on other matters for emergency debates, that does not preclude another application at another time, depending on the circumstances and on what may or may not be said in this place. I thank the Hon. Member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that in view of the amount of business that is before the House today and the time that was taken on the procedural argument visa-vis the motions on the Order Paper, the Government has decided not to proceed with the procedural debate on Motion No. 25. This has been communicated to the other House Leaders. Instead, we will proceed immediately to consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-77. That is the second item on the Order Paper.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government has the right under the rules to determine government business under Government Orders, but I want to say for the record that we received word, not long after nine o'clock this morning, that the Government did not intend to call the abortion motion to enable procedural argument to take place. I do not know how at that point in time the Government was able to determine whether there would be a procedural debate on a motion to instruct the committee on Bill C-130, or to enable the committee on Bill C-130 to travel. I was personally ready to make the points that I had to make about the procedural acceptability of the Government's motion on abortion this morning.
I do not think that the Government should, under the circumstances, use the relatively brief debate that we all had on the motion to enable or to instruct the committee on Bill C-130 to travel as a reason not to proceed with the procedural debate on the Government's abortion motion. I admit that the Government has the full authority to call any motion or any matter it wants with respect to the use of its time under Government Orders, but I do not think it should leave on the record the impression that somehow or other, because the Government itself chose to initiate a procedural debate on the acceptability of the motion to enable the committee on Bill C-130 to travel, it cannot now proceed with the abortion issue. If I am in error as to who first made the procedural arguments, I will withdraw that. I just wanted to say that we were quite ready to debate the procedural acceptability of the Government's motion on abortion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have to take a moment or two to register a concern. It is the July 11, and of course once the Government decided to set aside the Standing Orders and to sit in July to conduct government business, we are required to do so. To conduct the business of the House of Commons in a business-like way we need advance notice to enable all sides to plan accordingly. That normally happens, but when it does not happen I think one has to raise a concern. I am a bit puzzled. The Deputy House Leader stood up just a moment ago and said that because we had a prolonged procedural debate this morning, he had decided not to proceed with the procedural debate on the abortion motion.
1 was informed this morning, prior to the House of Commons sitting, that we would not be proceeding with the abortion procedural debate. I am curious how the Government House Leader knew at that point that we would be taking up some time in a procedural argument. Other than the fact that there obviously seems to be some confusion with the Deputy House Leader, I want to say to him that to enable us to work as efficiently, as effectively and as positively as we can, it is absolutely necessary that we get some forewarning to allow, not only ourselves as House Leaders to prepare but more important the critics to prepare and to be aware when in the agenda of the day they will likely be participating in a debate. I make an appeal for order to enable us to conduct the business of this House in the most orderly way possible.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. However, both Members while registering a complaint have certainly made it clear that it is completely within the authority and aegis of the Government to set the order for each day. In this respect, the Government is completely within its rights.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence) moved: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
He said: Madam Speaker, let me just thank the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). It had been my intention to allow him to speak first and then to respond but it is probably more appropriate for me in moving the motion to speak now.
Emergencies Act
This will be a very short intervention because Parliament has had the opportunity already both in the Senate and in the House of Commons to debate this legislation. I will say that this is a very momentous day for Canada. With the acceptance of these amendments and the passage of this Bill from the House of Commons, we will see the abolition of the War Measures Act in Canada. Never again will we have a situation, as was the case in World War II, where Canadian citizens were interned on the basis of their racial ancestry. What we will have is a situation where there will be guarantees. Never again, for example, will there be the ability to use the War Measures Act to knock on the door in the dark of night, to sweep up our citizens, to hold them without charge and without the right of habeas corpus. What we will have, Madam Speaker, is a new and modern piece of legislation, one that is adequately safeguarded, one which protects the rights of all Canadians and one which gives to the Government the ability to protect the lives of Canadians, to keep them safe and to ensure that every Canadian has adequate protection in times of crisis.
As the House will know, Canada is virtually alone among modern western jurisdictions in not having this sort of flexible legislation. As a consequence, acceptance of these amendments and passage of this legislation will bring Canada into the 20th century. It will prepare us for the future in terms of the needs of this country.
I might simply mention that the Government is prepared to accept the two amendments which have been proposed by the Senate. One deals with the issue of conscription. While the Bill as it was passed unanimously on third reading in the House of Commons would have allowed conscription to take place by Order in Council, it would have simply maintained the status quo which existed under the old War Measures Act.
In the two instances where we have had conscription in the past, even though it would have been possible to do so by Order in Council under the old War Measures Act, the Government of the day felt it was appropriate to introduce special legislation. I would prefer in safeguarding the interests of all Canadians in times of emergency that that power still remain. The very nature of an emergency is such that it is impossible to predict the very dire circumstances which could take place. But I am satisfied that if a balance has to be struck that it is likely it would be possible in times of crisis, if Canada had to go to war, that there would be enough time for us to reconvene Parliament and for us to pass special legislation, if there was consent of the House.
Additionally, there is another minor change made by these amendments, namely, to change the structure of the joint parliamentary committee to ensure representation from both sides of the Senate. We are prepared to accept that as well. It does not go to the heart of the Bill and is something which obviously will reflect better the views of some of the members of the Senate.


Emergencies Act
I think it is appropriate simply to recall to the House the process that was used with this Bill. It was first indicated to Canadians that the Government intended to act in this area in the White Paper on National Defence which was tabled over a year ago. I tabled the Bill in June of last year prior to Parliament rising for the summer recess with the assurance that the Bill would sit on the Order Paper without being called over the course of the summer and that we would solicit from Canadians, from groups and individuals and from Members of Parliament their views, their responses about the Bill, their concerns and their suggestions about what improvements could be made to ensure that the Bill struck that appropriate balance between the rights of Canadians, the need of the state to protect its very survival and to protect the lives and safety of individual Canadians. I think it is a process which has worked well.
I want to thank members of the legislative committee and Members on all sides of the House for the co-operation which they have shown. We have the Bill which has been substantially amended over the course of the time in which it has been in Parliament. The vast majority of these amendments, in my view, make it a better Bill and better strike the balance between the rights of Canadians, the needs of the Government to provide for the safety of Canadians and for the integrity and survival of the state itself. It has been a process which has demonstrated that Parliament can work if goodwill is shown on both sides of the House.

I would simply like to thank all Members for their spirit of co-operation. That positive, constructive spirit has produced excellent results for all Canadians. Because of those efforts, we will have a more effective law that will better protect the rights of all our fellow citizens.

It is an example of Parliament working as Parliament was intended to work and, again, I thank all Members of Parliament for their efforts and co-operation.
I would conclude simply by saying that it is a very proud day for me to see this legislation passed into law. I think it should be a proud day for every Member of Parliament that Parliament is acting now to keep faith with Canadians with the commitment that was made some 18 years ago in the October, 1970 crisis that we would scrap the old War Measures Act and bring in properly balanced and safeguarding legislation to ensure that Canadians in the future would have a piece of flexible legislation with a range of capacities enabling us to deal with emergencies starting on the one hand with natural disasters and going all the way through to war emergencies. We will now have that legislation. I think it is a credit to this Parliament. It is probably a matter which is of great satisfaction and great pleasure for all Canadians that Parliament has acted in such a timely way and that before we rise for our summer recess we will have this sort of legislation.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to note the achievement of today in getting an important piece of legislation as far as it has and to commend the Minister and other Members for the way in which the debate has been handled.
I have to contrast this with the regrettable way in which in earlier Parliaments the issue of emergencies was treated when members of the then Opposition and now Government were certain that the Government had a plot in mind to introduce regulations under the War Measures Act from day to day and that there was a secret plan to subvert somehow or other the democratic process. To me as one who observed that process it was more than anything the impediment that existed in the past to try to update the War Measures Act and bring in more effective legislation. This is a Parliament which is less suspicious of the Government and less suspicious that there is a plan to declare an emergency jurisdiction in force in the country. We have turned our attention in a positive way to the real need for an updating of the War Measures Act and we have a satisfactory substitute before us.
I think the Minister should be commended for the attitude he took toward amendments. Many were introduced by people across the country who saw the Bill in its first version by Members of the House of Commons and finally, and significantly if I can touch on it for a moment, by the Senate.
The Senate is often criticized for its participation in the parliamentary process. It exists in our Constitution. It exists, in fact, down the hall from us, as the so-called other place, but when it tries to act and tries to make an input into legislation it is very often criticized and condemned for what it tries to do.
We have before us an example of a very effective contribution by the Senate dealing with the issue of conscription under the emergency measures legislation, a concern expressed by the Senators. The Minister recognized that, although the War Measures Act contained the power to bring in conscription by regulation, in the past, Governments, however troubled by the emergency at hand in World War I and World War II, chose not to bring in conscription by regulation but to proceed by a more democratic political process. The Senators have proposed an amendment, which I am glad to see the Government has adopted, which will assure that an emergency in the future will be dealt with in the same manner.
For me, it is an important moment as we pass a replacement for the War Measures Act, a legislation that can be used more moderately.
I would like to conclude with the idea that while it can be invoked more moderately, it does not have to be done that way. The legislation we are passing today still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four different categories of emergencies provided for under this


legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation.

We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not being abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in the course of the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched. While the War Measures Act was a very extreme piece of legislation, that very extreme feature was in a way a safeguard that it would not be used lightly. This legislation can be used lightly, and I think to be certain that it is not used lightly will be the continuing responsibility of vigilant Canadians, of the media and of Members of Parliament in this place.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, a couple of things have always troubled me in my parliamentary career with respect to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is its ability to turn no logic into logic and to support the insupportable and make it look as if there were logic in both.
The Hon. Member from whom we have just heard is a former Solicitor General of Canada. He was a member of several Liberal Governments. Between 1971 and 1984, the Liberals had some 12 or 13 years in which to do something about the infamous War Measures Act. They chose to do absolutely nothing. They chose to leave it on the statute books.
This morning, we heard the Liberal spokesperson say that somehow the Opposition bothered them through those years by suspecting all kinds of unquestionable thoughts that might be entering the then Liberal Government's mind with respect to concentration camps and other nefarious business. I find it very, very strange, and from a logical point of view totally unacceptable and insupportable, that the Liberal spokesman would now stand up and somehow switch the blame around by saying that thank heavens today we do not have a suspicious Opposition and therefore this has made it easier for the Government to cope with the infamous War Measures Act. 1 fail to see any logic in those statements, and I fail to see how an intelligent, responsible Member of Parliament could support that kind of argument.
We all know that previous Liberal Governments had years in which to throw out the War Measures Act and bring in a new Bill, and they consistently refused to do so. That is the sum total of their disastrous record.
I might also add that during the very serious and productive discussions at the committee hearings, we went clause by clause and prior to that listened to representations from a broad spectrum of Canadian organizations and individuals. The Liberals hardly ever showed up at the committee hearings and, moreover, to make it even more disgraceful, they never offered one amendment to the Bill.
At the end, as the Minister said a few moments ago, the Bill was drastically changed as a result of the input from various
Emergencies Act
groups of Canadians, from the New Democratic Party, from members of the Minister's own Party who were represented on the committee and from the Minister himself, showing an openness and a willingness on his part to accept reasonable, intelligent amendments. I think we made some history in this Parliament, as it draws to a close, I believe, in that there was input from the Opposition, from the New Democratic Party, that was listened to and accepted by the Government, and we listened to and accepted government changes brought in at committee, but there were no changes from the Liberals. As far as I am concerned, they acted in nothing but a disgraceful manner throughout the entire proceedings of Bill C-77.
Having said that, I want to mention a couple of points in these, our final remarks on this very important piece of legislation. The first has to do with representations made by the Association of Japanese Canadians, but I think it would also apply to representations made by Ukrainians who came before the committee with respect specifically to the concentration camp episode in our history, a very black part of our history indeed.
The Association of Japanese Canadians, in a letter to me, and I believe also to the Minister, asked that the Government submit this Bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final and ultimate decision with respect to the override of the Charter of Rights. We were assured by the law officers of the Crown during committee that no Government could override the Charter provisions in this Bill without a separate amendment to the Bill. In other words, it would have to go through the regular parliamentary process even during an emergency. This apparently does not satisfy some of the critics, namely the Japanese Canadians, and I would think possible the Ukrainian group as well, although it did not send any representation to me and I do not think that the group sent one to the Minister.
I would once again ask the Minister, as I have already in a letter, I believe, and also in my third reading debate, to put in motion as quickly as possible that request by the Japanese Canadians. I think it is a reasonable one. It would certainly allay all fears if the Supreme Court of Canada, as I think it will, decides in favour of the legislation, that no Government in the future could override the Charter of Rights in the application of Bill C-77 which is about to become law.
Another point concerns one of the amendments from the Senate which reads:
Page 32, clause 62: Strike out lines 3 to 7 and substitute the following:
"(2) The Parliamentary Review Committee shall include at least one
member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized
membership of twelve or more persons in that House-
I am not suggesting that the Government should hold up the passage of the Bill at this point, but I am not certain whether it is wise to put in the figure of 12. I think that should be deleted and I think it should be deleted at an early stage.
As the membership of this House increases, it is only reasonable to assume that that figure of 12 which would designate officially an opposition Party or a Party in the House


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
will also increase. The next move could be to 15 or to 17, depending on the total membership of the House. It is a minor point, but I think it is one that should be cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity.
Finally, obviously I am very proud to have been part of this process that has brought forward what I think it is a good piece of legislation on balance. We will never get perfect legislation out of this Chamber or any other Chamber of this kind, a democratic legislature, but certainly we can always strive to do our best. I truly believe that members of the committee, the chairperson of the committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, and those of us who had the privilege to sit on it, did our best and worked hard to bring forward what I consider to be a good Bill of we can all be proud.
A great deal of the thanks has to go to a gentleman who obviously cannot be here today to speak on this Bill, Mr. Bill Snarr, the senior public servant involved in helping pilot this Bill through committee. He was of great help, I can assure you, to an opposition Member like myself. He worked in an extremely objective and helpful and certainly knowledgeable way. I think I can speak on behalf of Minister this morning in public and extend our heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Snarr. I believe he is reaching pretty well the end of his public service career and this is probably the last piece of legislation he will take an active part in. Therefore, on behalf of all Members of the House, I want to extend to Bill Snarr a very long and happy retirement.
I hope this Act will never have to be used, certainly not Clauses 3 and 4. We have no control, of course, over natural disasters. I hope future governments will use it with caution and responsibility, and I am sure they will.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I would like to use the vehicle of questions and comments to fully associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Brant with respect to Mr. Bill Snarr. Mr. Snarr has served Canadians for over three decades with a tremendously distinguished record. This Bill is certainly fitting testimony to the tremendous contribution he made. I know Members on all sides of the House have been tremendously impressed by his dedication, knowledge, flexibility and determination to ensure that legislation passed by this House is good and well prepared. I think he developed many friendships, particularly in committee, over the time the Bill was under study and certainly I felt privileged to know Mr. Snarr, both as a member of the Opposition prior to the last election, and as a member of the Government. He has retired from Emergency Preparedness Canada and is currently serving as senior adviser to me.
This represents, as the Hon. Member indicated, probably the last piece of legislation that he would be associated with,
although there is still an important contribution for him to make to Canadians. However, the mere fact that this Bill has passed unanimously with the support of Members on all sides of this House certainly attests to the tremendous contribution which Bill Snarr made to Canadians. We will certainly miss his contribution to the public service.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, reported with amendments by a Legislative Commitee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are thirty-two (32) motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada.

Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, standing in the names of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), respectively attempt to include Parliament and the courts within the scope of the Bill. This proposal is taking the Bill beyond what was envisaged when the House approved its principle at second reading when it defined federal institutions.
Second, this motion is proposing a substantive change to the interpretation clause of the Bill which, as Hon. Members are aware, is not an acceptable practice in accordance with Beauchesne's Citation 773(10). Therefore, I must declare the motions procedurally unacceptable in that they go beyond the scope of the Bill as defined in Beauchesne's Citation 773(1).

Motions numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31 and 32 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon as follows:

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates the need for a vote to be taken on Motions Nos. 5 and 6. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the requirement that a vote be taken on Motion No. 5. Consequently, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the need for a vote to be taken on Motion No. 6. Nevertheless, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the requirement that a vote be taken on Motion No. 6.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will be voted on separately.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 obviates the need to vote upon Motions Nos. 31 and 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates the requirement for a vote to be taken on Motion No. 31. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 31 obviates the need to vote upon Motion No. 32. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 31 necessitates the requirement for a vote to be taken on Motion No. 32.

Motions numbered 9 and 29 standing in the name of the honourable Members for York West (Mr. Marchi) and Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) propose to establish a separate Department of Government and a commisssioner of Multiculturalism. In so doing the first Motion undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the Federal Treasury in order for the new Department to function on a daily basis. The amendment is at odds with the Royal Recommendation which accompanies this Bill as there is no provision in the Royal Recommendation or in the Bill for a separate government department.
In addition, the proposal for a commissioner with investigative and reporting powers appears to take the intent of the Bill beyond what was included originally.
Consequently, in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (7) of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, 1 must declare these amendments inadmissible.

Motions Nos. 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motion numbered 11 standing in the name of the honourable Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) is identical to motion numbered 10 and will therefore not be selected and put to the House.

Motions Nos. 13 and 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) are identical to Motion No. 14 and thus will not be selected and put to the House.

Motion numbered 19 standing in the name of the honourable Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) causes the Chair some concern. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of the motion, in my view, take the clause beyond what was agreed to in principle at Second Reading. The Bill makes no mention of designated agencies monitoring, investigating or auditing federal institutions.
In this regard, I must rule the amendment inadmissible, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Beauchesne's Citation 773 in that it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon as follows:
Motion No. 20 will be voted on separately.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 22. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 21 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 22.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 24. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 23 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 24.
Motions Nos. 25 and 26 will be voted upon separately.
Motions numbered 27 and 28 are admissible and will be debated together but voted upon as follows:

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 27 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 28. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 27 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 28.

I shall now put motions numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31 and 32 to the House.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon) moved:: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 35 to 40 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) promote the recognition of cultural and racial diversity as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and as providing invaluable resources for the shaping of Canada's future;"


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West) moved:: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 37 and 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"mental characteristic of Canadian society and that it provides an invalu".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) to move Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent, therefore that motion will not be proceeded with. The Hon. Member for York West did not give his consent.

We shall now vote on Motion No. 7.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 41 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) ensure the full and equitable partici-".


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 4 the following:
"(k) encourage the youth of Canada to nurture the multicultural heritage of Canadians while seeking a full participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Lastly, Motion No. 30.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-93 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 31 to 36 at page 2 and substituting therefor:
"Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada;".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Motion No. 31.


Sergio Marchi: moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-93 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 2 and substituting therefor:
"that this multicultural nature is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society, the Government of Canada desires to preserve and enhance this inherent quality in the continuing evolution of the country;".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: Motion No. 32 is in the name of the Member for Parkdale-High Park. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be moved by the Member for Willowdale?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Member for York West has denied unanimous consent. The motion will not be proceeded with.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions? The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) on debate.


Mr. Oostrom:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week, in the co-operative spirit which existed in this House on the languages Bill, both sides of the House allowed
Members other than the Member in whose name a motion stood to present the motion. We are starting off on the wrong foot again. I would like to ask the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to reconsider his denial of unanimous consent for the moving of these amendments.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons that 1 did not give unanimous consent is that the amendment proposed by the Member for Parkdale-High Park is found both in an amendment that I will be presenting and in an amendment presented by the New Democratic Committee for multiculturalism. Therefore, no amendments of a substantive nature will be omitted.
Also at heart is the way in which the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and the legislative committee was treated by the Government which rapidly pushed the Bill through committee, did not listen to witnesses, and did not give critics the opportunity to move the appropriate amendments.
Therefore, as there was no co-operation and respect by the Government and the Minister in committee, we believe that there should be no co-operation offered at this stage.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I heard only part of my hon. friend's comments. However, I would like to put on the record what has been understood among House leaders, that is, that my instructions, as we entered this last two weeks, have been that at all times Members of the Opposition would be granted permission to move motions on behalf of other Members in their absence. That in fact happened at report stage on the Air Canada Bill and may have happened on other Bills which I cannot recollect at this moment. However, those are our instructions in order that no Member of the Opposition, nor indeed the opposition Parties, will be foreclosed from placing amendments because of the way in which the Government calls its business.
At this stage it is in the interest of everyone to co-operate, no matter what happened in any committee. I hope that my hon. friend will reconsider because in this business one often finds that the shoe is on the other foot. Even if permission is not given, I stand by my comment that the Government will allow Members, other than the Member in whose name a report stage motion stands on the Order Paper, to move the amendment. In the interests of co-operation and better legislation I hope my hon. friend would reconsider.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, although we are only at report stage on Bill C-93 one is struck by the importance of this moment in that we have Canada's first multiculturalism Bill returned from the legislative committee for consideration in the House. Without making any comment on certain things which have happened, I want to express my pleasure in the ruling which you rendered a few minutes ago. In surveying the motions on the Order Paper for



amendment of the Bill, some motions were ruled to be procedurally inadmissible and some the Speaker, with the guidance of the Clerks, found to be in order and are before us today for consideration by the Elouse prior to voting on them.
The significance of this Bill which will provide for the legislating of the multiculturalism policy is that we have achieved a point in the evolution of multiculturalism policy that previous Liberal Governments had never achieved.
While I do not want to reflect on the ruling itself, it is regrettable that the shortcomings in the legislation made those rulings inevitable. These rulings include the application of the Bill to the Parliament of Canada, motions for the creation of a department and the establishment of a commissioner of multiculturalism. These motions were inevitably found out of order by the Speaker because the legislation was so constrained.
It is regrettable that the legislation brought forward by the previous Secretary of State contained no such provisions. That regret has been expressed by myself and other Members, as well as by many people across the country. They regret that this historic Bill has those constraints. While the Bill does much to establish the principles of multiculturalism policy, it does not fully assure Canadians that this policy will be the basis for action by government in the future.
The motions that you have ruled we are to debate today primarily provide for a recognition of multiculturalism or ethnocultural diversity in this country as a fundamental characteristic. When the Bill came out of the legislative committee, the Government spoke of that in terms of a fundamental element. To speak of diversity or even a policy as an element is poor English. The fact that it is poor English is hardly half the reason to consider means by which we could recognize the diversity of this country.
One of the consequences of the work on the constitutional accord 15 months ago, which has been approved by the Parliament of Canada and eight of ten provincial legislatures, is that there is a recognition for linguistic duality in this country. It recognizes it as a fundamental characteristic.
It is most important that this historic Bill recognize the ethnocultural diversity of the country. The Government should recognize that as well through similar language in the legislation.
The Meech Lake Accord spoke of duality as a fundamental characteristic. That left many of us convinced that there were other fundamental characteristics. This matter has become more difficult for the Government to consider in the last minutes because the two motions by a Government Member which have not been found to be in order provided for this recognition in both Clause 3 and the preamble to the Bill. I suggest that the Government should consider carefully other motions by Opposition Members who were on the standing
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
committee and active in the legislative committee. The Government should carefully consider that one or other of those motions for both Clause 3 and for the preamble be found acceptable by the Government when it comes time to vote on them so they may carry through the amendment to the Bill.
There is a good deal of support for this by various organizations across Canada. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the national organization speaking in this area, has suggested that "fundamental characteristic" rather than "element", would be a better way of wording the matter. It is more of an observation than a demand.
However, other organizations have made the case much more forcefully. These include such diverse organizations as the Manitoba Inter-Cultural Council, which has the distinction of being most representative in the sense that it is chosen by members of the community. Most of the members of the Manitoba Inter-Cultural Council are practically elected by ethnocultural communities in Manitoba.
The Council stated firmly that the language should be "fundamental characteristic". The National Congress of Italian Canadians has a most honourable place among the national ethnocultural organizations. In its brief there was a clear recognition of the fact that the Meech Lake Accord had made "fundamental characteristic" a phrase in the context of duality and should also apply to the ethnocultural diversity of the country.
The Affiliation of Multicultural and Service Agencies in British Columbia, one of the most broad organizations involved with both ethnocultural groups and immigrant services, has made the same argument that we should have "fundamental characteristic" as the provision in both Clause 3 and the preamble.
There is a diversity of arguments, from recent Canadian experience, as well as from language and from community organizations across the country that the phrasing should be "fundamental characteristic". I will watch with interest as the Minister of State for for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) thinks about these matters and decides what advice he should give his caucus colleagues, knowing that the motions proposed by a colleague in his own caucus are not before us for decision this afternoon.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I wish to register our support for Motion No. 4 in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). It recognizes the change in the word "fundamental element" to read "fundamental characteristic".
I too have a number of motions which address the very same aspect. It is an important matter and I wish to record our support for Motion No. 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would recognize the Hon. Minister right now, but may I suggest that we call it


one o'clock, and I will recognize the Hon. Minister after Question Period?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in the Pearson International Airport at Toronto, the smallest glass of pop, coca cola, for example, costs $1.29. I was at the airport yesterday and had to spend a fair amount of time waiting for some travellers. I was appalled at the prices they charged at the concession snack-bars in the airport. I call upon the Government to look into this problem.
These are basically monopoly operations which are under the control of the Government. The Government wants to brag about running airports as profit centres and, to a certain point, it is entitled to do so, but it also has a responsibility not only to the public as taxpayers but to the public as travellers. It is appalling to discover how much is being charged for these basic simple services. It should be part of the Government's responsibility to ensure that prices being charged are reasonable in relation to the service and products provided.
I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to look into the situation and to report on what is being done by the Government to keep prices in line for the travelling public at our airports.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge that the desire of inshore fishermen to have their concerns about upgrading their lobster licences to A from B be addressed. Many of these fishermen received a commitment years ago that they would be allowed to regain their licensed status if their personal circumstances changed. Still others had their licences cancelled based on incorrect
information or procedures employed at the time. Fishermen who are seeking reinstatement of their lobster licences should be given a full hearing.
To date, fishermen are being told by the Atlantic Licence Appeal Board that the board cannot upgrade or reinstate, it can only decide whether the policy in effect at the time of down grading or cancellation was applied correctly. That is not enough. This issue must be addressed in a complete way with a view to restoring equity by having the circumstances of each appellant fully considered and responded to.
 * *



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday in Western Shore, Nova Scotia, the local post office will be closed. It will be closed for the last time. All 720 residents of this small town signed a petition asking that their post office be maintained but no one has listened. These people say that the Member of Parliament for the area simply passed on the message to Canada Post without any recommendations. He is obviously following the lead of the Minister responsible for the Post Office who washes his hands of responsibility when it comes time to stand up for rural post offices.
This problem came about when the local postmistress decided to retire. Are Canadians living in rural areas to be frightened every time one of their postmistresses or postmasters decides to retire that this will be the time their post office will close down?
We must hear these people. Their voices must be heard loud and clear. They describe their post office as a meeting place and they believe the old people will really be the ones to suffer. The people used the post office for money orders and things like that, and every kid who came into the post office received a sucker. That is all gone now. These people deserve to be heard. Rural Canada needs a voice in this Parliament.




Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the post office in Agassiz, British Columbia. Actual postal service to the community was started in 1884, but it was not until four years later that the name of Agassiz was adopted, named after the first postmaster, Mr. L. A. Agassiz. Since that time 14 postmasters have efficiently run the post office, and today Debbie Cliff proudly holds the title


of postmistress. Miss Cliff recently accepted a Canada Post plaque honouring the centennial of the community post office.
There is a rich history of community involvement in the post office. Henry Wilson was the postmaster for 16 years, and Dorothy Aspelund was the first female appointed to the postmistress position in Agassiz. She served for 19 years.
The community of Agassiz has been growing in the last decade, and a second rural route was established in 1980 to meet the needs of this fine community.
Hats off to the people of Agassiz and to your post office! You have set a fine example for many other community post offices in B.C. and Canada. Congratulations!



MISSING CHILDREN


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the dog days of summer we do not often get good news. However, I had some last week.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago I raised in this House the case of a young boy who had been abducted by one of his parents and who had gone missing for several months. Last week that boy was returned to the care of his mother in the city of Hamilton.
I think one of the reasons for the happy ending to what could have been a very sad story was the fine work done by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police and, in particular, Sgt. Wilde, who worked diligently day and night on the case. The boy's mother and other family members never gave up hope that he would be reunited with his mother.
I know that there are hundreds of other missing children, many of whom have been abducted by a parent. I want to ask those parents to remember this. An abducted child, a child who is away from his home, is not a happy or contented child. Think about the child. In this case we had a happy ending. If those parents who really love their children think about them, they will reunite them with their family environment.
I am extremely happy that this story had a happy ending.



SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
RESEARCH IN QUfeBEC-GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservative Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) has given the Province of Quebec a helping hand. He announced that an earth sciences research centre would be set up in Quebec, in cooperation with the Quebec Institute of Scientific Research, in addition to an energy research laboratory in northwestern Quebec. The creation of this laboratory in Abitibi-Temiscamingue will be welcomed by the mining industry.
Decisions such as this by the Conservative Minister will enable all Canadians, from Quebec and elsewhere, to contribute to the national policies of his Department. The Department must be present in Quebec, just as Quebecers must be present in the Department.
Mr. Speaker, that is the result of the excellent work done by the Conservative Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and Hon. Member for Frontenac.



SHIPBUILDING


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it has long since become clear that the Mulroney Government has no shipbuilding policy beyond the assignment of government work to one shipyard or another.
Similarly, the last Liberal Government used special capital recovery projects to provide vessels for the Coast Guard. The present Conservative Government uses naval construction and refits to keep shipyards working.
The award of work on the HMCS Nipigon to Port Weller Dry Docks last week marked the application of this practice to an Ontario yard. Ontario shipyards have suffered severely from the shipbuilding depression. Collingwood was closed two years ago, and Port Arthur Shipbuilding is forced to rely on repair work alone.
A consortium led by Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. has proposed construction of minesweeper patrol vessels for the Canadian Navy. The consortium has proposed distribution of this work to yards in Ontario and Quebec, as well as in the Atlantic and Pacific regions.
I urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) to recognize the Navy's need for these vessels and the shipyards' needs for the work. I urge the Minister to award this contract to the consortium led by CSEL.
5. O. 21 AIRPORTS



OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring Members' attention to a major study of the Ottawa International Airport which has just been completed.
The study, commissioned by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation, points to two surmountable obstacles to growth. First, although the airport has the fifth largest passenger volume in Canada, it ranks last in terms of direct access to major U.S. air transportation hubs. Second, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton all have U.S. preclearance facilities, but the Ottawa airport lacks such a service.
The airport study indicates that we could remedy the first defect without bilateral negotiations by designating Ottawa as an underserviced destination. The second defect could be remedied by granting immunity to U.S. Customs and Immigration agents, assuming the U.S. would reciprocate.
These are constructive recommendations to improve the airport of our nation's capital. I would like to encourage further consideration of them by our transportation Ministry.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, while western farmers have been experiencing the worst drought in 50 years and people in central Canada have been baking in temperatures in excess of 35 degrees, a lot of politicians have been hopping on the bandwagon and protecting our water from the Americans. Well, in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce, 1967, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) said:
If some day we can agree to the sharing of this continent's water by offering some of our water for export, we might want to insist that if water is to be considered a continental resource, markets should also be considered on the same basis ... That, as I see it, must be our position.
Mr. Speaker, when Liberals get up in this House to defend our water, they should remember that their Leader was prepared to export our precious water only a few years ago.
What about Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa? In 1985 he said:
There is little doubt that Quebec and Canada could be a source of water for North America in years to come.
Brian Mulroney in an interview in 1985 with Fortune magazine said:
If somebody wanted to buy a little of our water, hell, we are in business, that is what it is all about. We have it coming out of our ears in Sept-Iles.
Can Canadians really feel that our precious water is safe in the hands of this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Leader of the Liberal Party?
As prairie farmers watch their crops shrivel and die from a lack of rain, and as the millions of Canadians living near the Great Lakes are faced with the diversion of much of this water to the United States, they should consider just who they can really trust to stand up and fight to keep control over our water resources. It is not this Government and it is not the Liberal Party. Only one Party has been consistent in the defence of our water-the New Democratic Party of Canada.

[ Translation]



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-THE ADVANTAGES

Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, because of free trade in the automotive sector, General Motors of Canada has over the past three years invested 3.7 billion dollars in the Oshawa riding. That is money that is of immediate benefit to 20 350 workers, and the investment is due to free trade in the automotive sector. Fifty par cent of Ontario's exports to the U.S. in recent years are attributable to free trade in that sector.
The Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of the socialist Party, is very well aware that American investment under free trade is profitable to the Oshawa riding.
Bob White, president of United Auto Workers, also knows how profitable free trade is for automobile workers in the Oshawa region.
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that Bob White is against free trade when it pays him so well and pays the socialist leader so well. We should remember that Bob White is the national vicepresident of the socialist party. These two men, White and Broadbent, have vowed that Canadians who do not live in Oshawa will not be prosperous.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is very disturbing to learn that Americans are already saying that water is included in the trade agreement, despite denials here in Ottawa. In addition, pressure is mounting to increase the flow of water from Lake Michigan into the midwest river
July II, 1988

system, so as to keep water transportation afloat. The Canadian Government has not made its opposition to such increase known in Washington, except for extracting a weak commitment that Canada will be consulted before a decision is made.
The weakness of the Canadian position is scary. Canadian water is threatened. The least the Government must do is to exclude water from the trade agreement. Without such amendment, the credibility of the Government is seriously damaged. We must not allow our water to be up for grabs.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to congratulate the gloomsayers in this House. They should be recognized for their amazing consistency on every major issue since 1984. They have been proven wrong every time.
They said that the Government could not reduce the deficit without killing many of our social programs. The deficit has come down every year since 1984. Social programs have been increased.
They said that the Government could not lower and stabilize interest rates for any length of time without triggering inflation. They were wrong again. For four straight years inflation has remained under control while exports and housing starts flourished.
The gloomsayers said that you couldn't reduce government make work projects without increasing unemployment. How wrong can you get? Last Friday unemployment in Canada had reached a seven-year low. Canadian youth are showing confidence that jobs are waiting for them as they leave their schools. What a difference from the Trudeau days!
Is it any wonder that Canadians are doubting the gloomsayers now, as they preach their negative nonsense about free trade, tax reform, and defence issues?



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians saw the dinosaurs of the Tory caucus in action once again. This time they were displaying their
intolerance by trying to destroy the essence of the Official Languages Act, a Bill supporting bilingualism, a Bill widely accepted by most clear-thinking Canadians.
It is true that those Tories have every right to table amendments, but that misses the fundamental point, that is, the necessity that bilingual federal Public Service hiring practices must be fairly and equitably applied for Francophones outside Quebec and Anglophones within Quebec. Their amendment gave Canadians a rare glimpse of the archaic out-of-touch thinking inside the Tory caucus.
Let us not forget that it took active intervention by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to get this Bill passed. Now, will the Secretary of State fulfil his responsibility by ensuring speedy implementation of Bill C-72 for both Anglophones within Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec? Let me remind him that implementing this Act is a federal responsibility which does not require an entente cordiale anywhere across this land.
I am sure all Canadians will remember this episode as a repeat one, a reminder of Tory thinking that began when more than 26 Tories voted against the first Official Languages Act back in 1969.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of what is being termed the "greenhouse effect" future generations may be forced to live through devastating years of hardship and drought, far worse than we experience today. Not only could disease such as skin cancer be more prevalent and deadly, but crop production could be diminished to an extent that ultimately will affect our basic food supply. Jobs could also be lost.
It is a known fact that human activities influence the destruction of the ozone layer. If Canadians were to adjust their way of life we might be able to slow down this damage significantly. For example, farmers could implement changes in their methods of grain production and livestock maintenance; we could all learn better waste management in order to prevent pollution in a variety of areas; and water should also become a cherished commodity and used with greater respect.
I urge government, business, labour, and individual citizens to pull our resources together. We must enhance research and become more aware of the environmental consequences of our actions, which have become habit.
Environmental protection is everybody's business.


Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister knows that I have been arguing for some time that Tariff Schedule Item 22.01 of the trade deal with the United States covers ordinary natural water of all kinds, and thus will allow for the eventual export of Canadian water to the United States. The Minister also knows that his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has argued that Item 22.01 applies only to bottled mineral water-he talked about Perrier with great gusto in the House of Commons.
The Minister of National Revenue has issued the official explanatory notes on the harmonized customs tariffs for the Canada-U.S. trade deal. I quote from his document where he states that the official explanation for Item 22.01 is "ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water". It seems pretty clear.
Will the Minister explain why his explanation of the customs Item 22.01 contradicts flatly the rejection of our argument of the past number of weeks here in the House of Commons that the trade deal does not contemplate the inclusion of water within its ambit?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the position is exactly as has been stated repeatedly, and is very clear from the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement does not apply to water in its natural running state. It does not apply to any diversion of water from any natural basins of this country. It applies principally to bottled water.
Let me tell the Hon. Leader of the Opposition the following. If he checks the same agreement, he will see in one of the schedules that compressed air is included. That does not mean to say that Canada is in danger of losing its air, certainly as long as the Leader of the Opposition is around.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the air pressure in this House will stay well above normal as long as the Minister sticks around, and that won't be for too long.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSITION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that may be the Minister's point of view, but I want
to repeat the official interpretation given by his colleague. Under the law, the Minister of National Revenue is responsible for providing an official interpretation of all questions related to Customs. This official explanation by the Minister says that tariff item 22.01 covers water of all kinds except sea water.
Now the Great Lakes are not sea water, any more than Lake Winnipeg, Lake Athabasca, Lake Nipigon or Great Slave Lake or the St. Lawrence River. The waters of these lakes are covered by this tariff item in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, despite the claims and statements by the Minister for International Trade. Does the Minister of National Revenue deny having sent this official explanation to his Customs officers and how can he reconcile his official interpretation with the statements made by his colleague, the Minister for International Trade?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, might I refer again, in our attempt to keep the Leader of the Opposition on a factually correct road-I know he would not intentionally distort the facts-to an interview shown on television on Sunday, May 1. Mr. Craig Oliver along with Pamela Wallin interviewed Ambassador Clayton Yeutter on CTV.
Mr. Yeutter was asked-he, of course, is the United States trade representative who negotiated this deal-a question:
Did you see this deal as leading to a system by which the United States can also have easier access to Canadian supplies of water?
And he said:
I don't see the free trade arrangement being used as a vehicle to accomplish that, but I can certainly see there might be U.S.-Canada discussions on access to water supplies over the next 10, 20 or 50 years.
That is exactly the same point which the Leader of the Opposition in his famous book made a number of years ago when he said he could see water being used as an item of trade as a natural resource.
Mr. Yeutter went on to say:
I happen to know the issue of water well because I did my PhD. dissertation on water law and water administration, but I don't see it being an FTA issue. I see it being a separate issue that will inevitably draw attention in time.
And so on. Here is the chief trade representative of the United States who said that the free trade arrangement has nothing to do with the question of water, that it is a separate issue that will inevitably draw attention in time.
When it does, this Government has a policy that we will not permit-which was enunciated in November, 1987, for the first time by any Government in Canada-inter-basin transfer of water from Canada to the United States or anywhere else. We have got the policy. We are only in danger if the hon. gentleman opposite gets into power.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: Poor John. Give him some water.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE AMENDED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in that celebrated declaration which the Minister cites that I made 20 years ago to the United States Chamber of Commerce I said quite clearly to the suggestion that the water of North America should be considered a continental water supply, Canadians say hold on a minute. We say there is Canadian water, there is American water, and there is Mexican water, but we do not like the new vocabulary which calls our water continental water. That has always been my position and it is my position here before the House.
I don't care what Clayton Yeutter's PhD. thesis says or how he interprets the agreement. The Minister of National Revenue in his official interpretation of Article 22.01 includes ordinary natural water within the purview of the agreement. No matter what the Minister of Trade says, no matter what Clayton Yeutter says or what anybody else, that is the official interpretation of this Government.
The Minister of Justice-I ought to put this to the Acting Prime Minister, and I would like to be advised who is Acting Prime Minister today-


John Carnell Crosbie: We will let you know.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Who is the Acting Leader of the Opposition today?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question to the Acting Prime Minister whoever he or she may be.
On Friday the Minister of Justice said:
The question of our ability to control water policy in Canada transcends any agreement.
That is to say our water policy would out rank anything in the agreement. However, Clause 8 of the legislation passed by this House says quite clearly that the trade agreement supersedes and transcends any Canadian legislation or policy.
With great respect, I say to the Minister of Justice that he does not know what he is talking about. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, if the Minister for International Trade is so categorical that despite the trade agreement, despite the trade legislation and despite the customs tariff we have recited, why does he not agree to an amendment specifically to exclude water from the purview of the agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. gentleman first about what he said in his famous book. He said:
Oral Questions
We might wish to export water, not for money as we sold power under the
Columbia River Treaty, but in return for access to your markets. That, as I
see it, must be our position. I don't want to sound tough.
He didn't.
There is nothing in the free trade agreement which requires the diversion of water to the United States. We are not going to permit the diversion of water to the United States. That is our policy.
The prohibition of water exports by means of inter-basin transfers falls squarely within exceptions permitted by GATT and is totally consistent with the free trade agreement. The hon. gentleman, The Toronto Star, and their supporters who are anti-free trade are trying to stir up these fictitious fears. Let the mud settle. It just is not true. Please just let it settle and stick to the facts. Don't stick to your book of a few years ago; that is too dangerous.


REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTION OF WATER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, and sticks to reported facts, at least that are as recent as one week ago.
Last week the same chief negotiator for the United States, Mr. Yeutter, was quoted as having said in an interview with Republican Representative Grandy that water is in the agreement. This is as recently as one week ago.
In light of continuous pressures on Canadian water, what has the Government of Canada got to lose by adding water to the list of items including beer, unprocessed fish, and lumber, items that are exempted from the trade agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who asked the question himself issued a release just a few days ago, July 5, not that long ago, which should not have passed out of his mind so quickly, in which he said, "While the Government has repeatedly stated that nothing in the trade deal forces Canada to sell water to the U.S."-the hon. gentleman admits that the free trade agreement does not force Canada to sell water and then he goes on to say-"the same Government cannot give assurance that the deal prevents the export of water." We do not enter into agreements to prevent something. If we are a Government with resolution, a Government that has a policy, we do not need an agreement to tell us what we can prevent. We prevent it by saying it is against our policy to permit it, something which you never did when you were in power and now you are clucking like a rooster every time water is mentioned.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where we want the Minister for International Trade to do, to take a measure that will prevent it. That is all we are



Oral Questions
asking for. What have you got to lose by including water in the trade deal? Tell us now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement cannot now be amended. It is before the U.S. Congress and it is before this House, but not only that, there is no need to amend it. There is no danger unless the Hon. Leader of the Opposition gets into power and wants to treat water like a commodity and make some money on it.
The Hon. Member quoted Iowa Republican Representative Grandy who made certain comments which he said were based on comments made by a U.S. trade official at a discussion on trade issues organized by Grandy for his constituents. He never had any conversation with Mr. Yeutter. He has no information from Mr. Yeutter on this matter.
The U.S. trade office will confirm that water in its natural state is not a subject of the free trade agreement. Only bottled water is, the same as compressed air. I know the hon. gentleman is going to go racing around the country now saying, "Watch out for the air, watch out for the air, because it is being sold to the United States under the free trade agreement," just like the little red hen.


PROPOSED CHICAGO CANAL WATER DIVERSION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Which one?


Steven W. Langdon: I am not sure which is the best actor over there.
A water diversion increase of three times the amount presently going through the Chicago diversion, which is what is being proposed by various U.S. Senators and Governors-


Mr. McDermid:: Wrong! Name the second Governor.


Steven W. Langdon: -would decrease the water level in Lake Huron by up to nine inches, by five inches in Lake Erie, and would have a tremendous effect on water quality, hydroelectric production, shipping and recreation. It is not a laughing matter.
Given this significant danger will the Acting Prime Minister show leadership and see to it that this House unanimously passes a resolution to be conveyed to the U.S. which indicates our complete opposition to any increase in the Chicago diversion?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the House will be happy to know, and I believe the House already knows, that we have conveyed the strong views of this Government to the U.S., and I am sure those are the views of all Members of the House. We have had our Ambassador visit and set out our position very clearly. Our
position was also stated clearly by the Attorney General, I believe it was, on Friday.
We take the position that Canadian consent is needed for any such diversion of water as proposed by one or two Governors, not by all. Our view is not based on any interpretation of U.S. domestic law. We say the obligation to get Canada's consent is governed by international law and is based on a number of bilateral treaties, agreements and exchanges of notes between Canada and the U.S., including the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, the 1959 Niagara River Treaty, and the exchange of notes on the Long Lac-Ogoki diversion, as well as the practice of the two countries going back to the early 1940s.
In all that time no unilateral diversions have been undertaken by either country, and we fully expect that this proposal will be rejected also. There will be no diversion with our consent and the U.S. knows forcefully and well that we object strongly to this proposal.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE AMENDED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the same detailed report of the International Joint Commission reviewed this whole question in 1985 and indicated that unfortunately there is an ambiguity in our legal right to prevent the U.S. from diverting water from Lake Michigan. Given that unfortunate fact, will the Government move to do something about the ambiguity by amending the trade deal so as to block water diversions from the Great Lakes to the U.S., whether through the Chicago diversion or some other diversion south of Lake Superior, or any place else in the Great Lakes Basin? Otherwise, the impact on our country would be disastrous.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of warnings from the hon. gentleman about disasters to befall Canada. I am sure if there was a serious diversion of water, that would be of serious concern to Canada. However, we do not believe there to be any ambiguity in the practices which have been followed since the early 1940s, or in international law. We always know, of course, that there can be arguments about what the law is.
Our position is there is no ambiguity, but if there is we know that our relationship with the U.S. is a good, solid, honest, cooperative one and we feel sure that the U.S. administration will listen to our representations, apart altogether from laws and ambiguities that might surround any issue.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister for International Trade, who negotiated this infamous trade deal, said she is against even considering the possibility of an amendment. What is it that prevents the Government from putting such a simple safeguard in a trade deal? What is it that prevents the Government from standing up on behalf of Canadians for once and doing what it should



do? What is it that prevents the Government from standing up for Canada for once?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, these theatrics are not very impressive. The position is this. I am answering these questions as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. This has nothing to do with trade matters.
If the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement had never come into existence, if it had never crossed anyone's mind, if it did not exist, if it was up on the Moon or Saturn somewhere, we would still have this problem of the proposal by the Governor of Illinois to divert these waters and we would be handling it in the same way. It has no connection at all to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which is an agreement governing commercial relations to increase our access to the U.S. market, to make our people more prosperous, to give Canadians a chance to show what they can do in competition with the Americans, to help Canada and Canadians.
It has no connection whatsoever with the free trade agreement and we do not need to approach the Americans about the free trade agreement. This is a different issue to be treated differently by a different Minister.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the same Minister. If he had read the agreement he would know that Article 409 provides for a full sharing of goods and services. The interpretation given by the Minister of National Revenue to his customs officers includes natural water as part of that definition of goods and services. It is therefore part of the agreement.
The Minister can solve the problem very simply by proposing an amendment that would exclude water from being subject to Section 409. The Minister says he cannot do that because the deal is final. The fact is that the U.S. has not completed its legislation. It has not tabled its Bill yet. The Minister is not describing the state of affairs accurately to the House. Considering Article 409 and the official interpretation given by his colleague, why does the Minister refuse to propose the kind of exclusion required to ensure that water will not be included as part of the trade agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the only way in which water is touched upon in the free trade agreement, and I will say this again for the record, or any trade in water as a commercial good, is under the heading "beverages, spirits and vinegar". Vinegar is certainly apt when we hear these repetitious questions, these same feeble attempts to alarm the Canadian people, day after day, week after week.
Oral Questions
Water itself as a natural resource is not dealt with in the free trade agreement. There is nothing in the free trade agreement which requires or obliges or directs or orders or permits the diversion of water to the United States. The policy of this Government, contrary to the last Government, enunciated in November, 1987, is that there shall be no transfer from Canada of water as a natural resource.
We have ignored the advice of the Leader of the Opposition in his book from which I quoted a few minutes ago. We do not buy that policy. We are not going to permit water to be given away like that.
The exact analogy is to compressed air which is also dealt with as a commercial good. Compressed air-does that mean that Canadians are now in danger of being cut off from the air because some Government is going to sell all the Canadian air? For heaven's sake, stop the childish nonsense.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Minister to add a document to his reading list as part of his remedial reading program. That document is one provided by his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, which in the explanatory notes to the customs tariffs which apply to Section 401, says the following very clearly on Article 22.01:
Waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters... This heading
covers: (A) Ordinary natural water of all kinds ...
It is not mineral water, not the Minister's hot air, and none of the other spurious comments he is making.
The fact of the matter is that under the present proposed agreement Section 409 includes goods and services. This custom tariff classification clearly includes natural water as part of that definition. In order to ensure that there is no future demand under the trade agreement for access to our water there is only one serious, responsible way of proceeding, that is, to propose an amendment, which the Minister has every right to do because the deal is not yet Finalized. The Americans are still considering their amendments.
Why does the Minister stand time after time and refuse the logical, honest, responsible way of dealing with a matter which is very important to Canada? Is it simply that he knows the real reason and he is prepared to sell out Canada and its water?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman's remedial reading is confined to The Toronto Star.
The situation in Canada with respect to beer is unchanged by the free trade agreement. Wine changes and liquor changes, but beer is not included. Even though it trickles along or flows out if you turn the bottle upside-down, up, just like water, it is not included. That does not mean to say that Canadians have


Oral Questions
to send all their beer down to the United States. It just means that there is a provision which deals with beer.
I will refer again to Mr. Yeutter who headed the United States negotiating team. In the same interview he said the following about water: "But I don't see it being an FTA issue. I see it being a separate issue that will inevitably draw attention in time. Now, clearly all of that would have to be worked out on the basis of an international compact between the two countries".
Water in its natural state is not included. There is nothing to fear. As long as the Government is kept in power there is nothing to fear about the transfer of water in large amounts to the United States.


PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. He will be well aware that the provisions of the trade deal transcend government policy now or in the future. He indicated in his response to the Leader of the Official Opposition that the policy on water can change. It could change with this Government and can change with a future Government.
If the Minister felt it was appropriate to exempt logs from this trade deal, and also that it was appropriate to exempt beer, with the concern that this has created across the country why not work to exempt water? Is the Minister saying that beer is more important than water?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can tell Hon. Members that beer has never crossed my lips. I don't like the stuff. Whether it is different from water, I don't know, having never tasted beer.
To return to the question, it is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, to deal with water in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Water has been dealt with in a statement of policy by the Minister of the Environment. If and when the Government decides that legislation is also necessary, the way in which to deal with the matter would be with legislation brought into this House by the Minister of the Environment.
The Liberals were in power for 40 years and they did nothing, they didn't adopt any policy. The man who was Minister of the Environment then did not care about water. We do not know what he cared about because he never spoke up at all during the time he was Minister.
If the Government decides that legislation is necessary, the hon. gentleman will hear about it in the usual way. Perhaps we should open up longer during the summer to deal with it in that way, but we are not proposing to open up the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which was signed last January
2 and which does not deal with water. Nothing forces us to divert water to the United States.


REQUEST THAT AMENDMENT BE INTRODUCED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 remember the words of the Minister for International Trade when he said to the people of Canada not many months ago, "If we told them what we were going to actually do they'ld never vote for us". In recalling that now I wonder whether there is not some hidden agenda here. I wonder whether the Minister is not trying to cover up what the Government is actually up to.
If the Government were listening to the people of Canada it would know that people across Canada are very concerned about the whole discussion of water diversion into the United States, whether from the Great Lakes, the Nawapa plan, the Garrison Project, or whatever the project. There are very serious concerns.
This morning on the West Coast the former Minister for International Trade said that the Government is not at all interested in an amendment at this time. At this very critical moment the Minister could set aside the concerns of Canadians and make a lot of Canadians feel a lot easier about the Government's intention, forgetting about its stated policy, by simply bringing in an amendment. Why will he not do that simple thing at this time to ease the fears which are growing by the day across Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if there are fears growing by the day across Canada on this issue it is because the people are being misled by hon. gentlemen opposite who do not want them to understand the position.
With respect to the diversion of water as suggested by the Governor of Illinois, that is not a matter which can be dealt with in the free trade agreement. That is a matter to be dealt with under bilateral treaties with the United States under international law. According to the precedents since the early forties the Americans have never attempted to divert water in that way without consultation with and the consent of the Government of this country.
The hon. gentleman referred to something which he alleges I said at some time. I remember reading what the hon. gentleman said about his colleagues. He said, "They have misspoken the truth, they have misrepresented what happened, they have lied, they have not told the facts. I don't know how much blunter I can be about that". It was with reference to Mr. Waddell and Mr. Manly that the hon. gentleman said those words. How does he explain them?


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. I am concerned about the special circumstances of Armed Forces families who must move frequently and face new expenses, including expenses related to spouses seeking new employment, their eligibility for unemployment insurance, and the existence of exchange rates in West Germany, for example.
Can the Minister tell us what the Department is doing or is contemplating doing to meet the special financial needs of the families serving in Canada's Armed Forces?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Armed Forces personnel who move overseas are already given a foreign service premium. There is a cost of living allowance which is indexed to the local economy in which they are living, there is a shelter share in which the Department subsidizes the housing utility costs, and there is a living-out allowance for single persons who wish to live off a base.
As a result of the differentiation between the mark and the Canadian dollar, last year we increased the amount they were allowed for living off the base in rental accommodation to try to make it more equitable for them.
We continue to analyze any fluctuations in the exchange rate to see if this fairness can be maintained.


RAILWAYS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport who, regrettably, might be the Acting Prime Minister. Residents of Toronto are still waiting for the result of a study into the rail carriage of dangerous goods, a study that was undertaken because of the near disaster in Mississauga. The minority report which is dated today and was just released by Harold Morrison, gives a behind the scenes insight into the pro railway bias of the majority of the task force, and reveals that the majority report does not recommend reduced speeds.
Today I want to call on the Acting Minister to release the majority report and, at the same time, indicate that in spite of that report reduced speeds will be imposed on the carriage of dangerous goods by rail through Metro Toronto.
Oral Questions


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members would regret that a member of the committee would release a minority report before the main report has even been tabled with the Minister. We have not yet received that report, but I can assure the Member that when it is tabled, which I understand will be in the next few weeks, it will be dealt with properly by the Minister and in a way that I think will be satisfactory to the vast bulk of Members here.


MAJORITY REPORT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does the Government intend to hold on to that report until it makes its own conclusions or, as I have urged, will that report be released as soon as the Government receives it?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it will be dealt with like all reports. The Minister will have to study it and make his own personal consultations with people with whom he thinks he should touch base. He will make a recommendation to the Cabinet and it will then come to the House in that way.


DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, today the Agriculture Ministers are meeting to consider the tragic consequences of an historic drought. As questions today indicate, we are immersed in a controversy over the diversion of Great Lake waters. This is an indication of the tremendous perils that the greenhouse effect presents to mankind if we do not wean ourselves from carbon based fuels. Yet since 1984 the Government has cut expenditures on alternative fuels and energy conservation. It has yet to respond to the proposal by its advisory committee that Canada establish world leadership in the development of hydrogen technology.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. When will the Government respond to the proposal that Canada make a significant contribution to the attack on the greenhouse effect by developing technology for substitution of hydrogen for carbon? When will it correct its error on cutting back in energy alternative expenditures?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member is merely responding to action the Government has already taken in a number of these areas. In fact the Prime Minister raised the issue during the summit conference in Toronto, offering Canada to take a leadership role in co-ordinating the activities


Oral Questions
throughout the world in terms of the management of the global commons.
Initiatives are under way following a report on hydrogen to examine the prospect of using hydrogen as one of the replacement fuels going into the next century. A consortium of business people from the major companies in Canada recently met with me and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to get together in a major national mission on hydrogen.
The Hon. Member is merely following behind the lead dog and has lost his vision.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I did not know we were talking about dogs. I am sure dogs would be more specific in answering the question than the Minister of State just was.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, when will the Government announce that it has restored the cuts in expenditures for alternative energy and for conservation? How much, when, over what period of time? Will the Government establish the hydrogen authority as asked for in the advisory committee report? When wilt the Minister establish that committee and how much funding will it be provided? Do not give these general assertions of being in favour of this or that.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as usual, it is a very simplistic approach simply to anticipate that one can buy all of these solutions. The fact is that these committees are meeting, discussions are under way.
We have just announced $1.3 billion of new spending for science and technology. Five hundred and forty million dollars will go into universities for fundamental research. There will be a centres of excellence program. There is no doubt in my mind that energy will be one of the areas which Canadian scientists will want to study and develop linkages to leaders in various disciplines throughout the world. I could go on forever. The fact is that we are acting and measurable progress is being made. The Hon. Member just refuses to acknowledge it.
* [DOT]* *


FISHERIES
Mr. Morrissey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, two Spanish fishing vessels were arrested off the coast of Newfoundland over the weekend for alleged illegal fishing inside Canada's 200-mile zone in 1985. Will the Acting Minister of Fisheries fill in the details of the arrest and what has transpired since the vessels were apprehended?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to praise the
officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for this magnificent piece of work. On Saturday two Spanish trawlers were sighted by a specially equipped Beach Craft King air surveillance aircraft operating out of St. John's, owned by Mr. Tom Collingwood's firm, and leased to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was determined that arrest warrants were outstanding for the two vessels and the captains.
The Leonard J. Cowley patrol vessel was alerted to intercept these two vessels and board them to determine whether the two captains were the same as those named in the warrants. It successfully intercepted the two Spanish trawlers on Sunday and first arrested the Lenengoa and its captain and then the Bigarena and arrested her captain. They were brought into St. John's at four o'clock Sunday afternoon.
It turned out that both captains had been wanted since 1985 for alleged offences that have occurred in our waters. This was a magnificent piece of work, as was the apprehension of the American vessel that attempted to steam away with four of our officers onboard but was intercepted by a second vessel with an armed patrol party. All of these measures were instituted by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


CANADIAN POLICY-SOUTH AFRICAN ATHLETES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. He will know that his Government has adopted a sports policy which is clearly racist in nature and violates the spirit of the Gleneagle's Agreement. It is setting the stage for a situation where we are now permitting South African athletes who belong to racist organizations to compete on the international level by parading as "independent business people". Is he prepared to reverse the policy that was adopted by his predecessor in relation to Canadian sports policy?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what exactly the Hon. Member is referring to. If she is referring to any specific case as far as our policy applies to South African athletes, the policy that we have laid out is not always easy to apply but we have done our best.
Perhaps she is referring to the case of two tennis players that was brought up in The Toronto Star. If that is the case, I can only inform the Hon. Member that the two athletes to whom she is referring have never asked for visas to enter Canada.


REQUEST THAT VISAS BE DENIED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give a commitment in the House today that they will be denied visas and this will be the first step in the revision of a policy adopted by the Conservative Government in 1985 which


permitted individual athletes to come to Canada under the guise of independent business?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our policy on sporting contacts with South Africa is fully in accord with the spirit and the text of the 1977 Gleneagle's Agreement on sporting contacts with South Africa, and the 1982 Code of Conduct.
With respect to the tennis players, participation in the Canadian Open tennis tournament is determined according to the international ranking of eligible players. These several persons, if they do apply for visas, will not fall within the Gleneagle's policy, because it is sports people who represent the South African Government-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not true, and I've got a copy of it right here.


John Carnell Crosbie: -sport associations, or organized South African sport, who fall within the policy.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's false!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is how the policy is applied. We will have to wait and see if and when they do apply for visas.


BANKS AND BANKING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. About two weeks ago the Minister of State for Finance responded to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs with respect to bank service charges and how they affected consumers. The Minister at that time referred to the charges, particularly the NSF charge-back, as reprehensible and objectionable.
In light of the fact the banks reluctantly withdrew the charge-back on NSF cheques for consumers, would the Minister not agree that what was reprehensible and objectionable for consumers is equally reprehensible and objectionable for small businesses?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this raises a broader question of which I am sure the Hon. Member is aware. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has had consultations with the Department. In fact Mr. Bullock had a meeting this morning with my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, to discuss this whole question of bank charges as it relates to small business. We want to have further meetings with Mr. Bullock and his people, and following that we may have some further discussions with the banking community.
Oral Questions ROYAL BANK SUGGESTION


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. We are very concerned about specifics with respect to the chargeback on NSF cheques. Rob Parker at the Royal Bank feels that the NSF charge-back to small business is justified. He says it is a cost of doing business, and further suggests that small businesses ought to use their credit card system to protect themselves. In light of that suggestion from Mr. Parker, would the Minister not agree that this is a form of tied selling which is specifically prohibited by the competition laws of our country? Would the Minister investigate this suggestion by the banks with respect to tied selling?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the conclusion the Hon. Member has drawn is a somewhat far-fetched one-


John R. Rodriguez: That's what Rob Parker said.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but I am pleased to discuss that further with my colleague. Tied selling is a responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but both that Minister and my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, will be in discussions with the banks. It is quite a bit more complex when the matter of bank charges involves the business community. It is much more difficult and complex as to how to deal with it, but we are looking at various proposals the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has put forward to us and we may want to take these up with the banking community as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. We will then close off Question Period.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the strike at Bell Canada.
Canadian consumers continue to experience problems with communications, especially those who require the installation of new equipment and those who need operator assistance to make their calls, and I am thinking especially of the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has done very little so far to try and settle this dispute. All we have had was a kind of


Message from the Senate
homemade conciliation effort by an official from the Department. No conciliation commissioner, much less a mediator, has been appointed.
I would like to ask my question ...


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Guilbault: ... for the benefit of my "interrupters" opposite. I want to ask the Government to inform the House whether consumers should expect to face these problems for some time yet, or does the Government intend to take some kind of action to help reach a settlement? What does the Government intend to do to put an end to this strike? When is the Government going to wake up and help Quebec consumers, despite those turkeys who are trying to interrupt me?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bell Canada has indicated that continuation of the TDD service for the hearing impaired will have top priority during the strike.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that management personnel are replacing striking operators in order to provide a much needed service, for the handicapped.


DISASTERS
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I spoke a few moments ago by telephone to a father in Vancouver who lost his son on the Piper ALPHA Platform which blew up in the North Sea a little while ago. He indicated to me he has some serious concerns about the safety measures which were not taken.
Given the difficulty of an ordinary Canadian affording representation at any inquiry, for example, in Aberdeen, would the Government consider giving legal representation to the two Canadian families involved? And would the Government admit there is also a national interest for Canada because if we start Hibernia, we will have oil rigs out there in very dangerous situations? Would the Government be prepared to consider giving representation to two ordinary Canadians and their families at that inquiry so the families could feel justice could be done as much as that is possible now for their loved ones who were lost?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that the concern of the Government for safety measures is ongoing. We have on our East Coast, particularly with respect to Hibernia and to developments there, some of the strictest safety measures in
place in the world. That is not to say that at any time they cannot be improved. Suggestions coming from individuals and organizations would certainly be studied.
I cannot give the Hon. Member an assurance that certain individuals could go to specific hearings, but I can assure him that if he would see that their concerns are channelled to the Government, we will see they are given consideration.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that on Friday last there was some discussion in this Chamber as to a certain action taken by the other place, and for those uninitiated that means the Honourable the Senate, with respect to a Bill which after having passed in this place was sent to the Senate.
In the interests of Hon. Members, but especially in the interests of the public who are watching and listening, I want to just in very simple language explain what happens because I have a technical ruling and it just may be that the public of this country, which ought to understand what we are doing here, will find it easier to follow if I give a brief explanation in layman's language, if I can put it that way.
What happened was simply that a Bill numbered Bill C-103, which is a Bill respecting economic development in Atlantic Canada, was passed by this House in all stages and was sent to the Senate, as is the normal procedure. When it was being considered by the Senate, the Senate decided, for whatever reason, to split the Bill, in other words to break it into two parts, and the Senate sent back to this House one part of the Bill. There was much argument in the House Friday as to whether or not this was justified. It is not for the Speaker to say whether or not on any substantive reason there was any logical justification for it.
Essentially, that is the point that the Speaker has been asked to comment upon, that is, whether it is under our system appropriate for the Honorable The Senate to take a Bill that has passed this place and to break it into two parts and send back one-half of the Bill, especially when it is a money Bill which requires at its very beginning the Royal Recommendation for the expenditure of funds.
As I have said, that is a layman's explanation. It is important that all Canadians understand just exactly what it is the Chair has been asked to do in this particular case. I am now going to get into the formal part of the ruling. I will try not to keep the House too long. I hope that given this explanation it will be clear to everybody just exactly what has happened here and what the response of the Chair is in this ruling and the


invitation that the Chair gives to this House as to whatever further response the House may wish to take.
On Friday, July 8 last, the Chair informed the House that a message had been received from the other place that it had divided Bill C-103, an Act to increase the opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. The message from the Senate simply informed this House of its decision and reported back without amendment only Part 1 of Bill C-103.
The Hon. Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) rose on a point of order objecting to the unprecedented action by the Senate in dividing Bill C-103 and requesting guidance from the Chair as to the acceptability of such a message. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) counter-argued that what the Senate had done was quite logical since Bill C-103 was composed of quite distinct parts and could easily be divided into two parts, each standing as separate and independent legislative proposals.
I point out that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys also argued strenuously for the substantive issue that is involved. As I said, that is for others to argue and is not for the Chair to comment upon.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), supported vigorously by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), objected to the innovative procedure of the Senate on the grounds that the privileges of this House had been violated. The Hon. Member for Churchill claimed that the Senate had no authority to split a Bill originating in the Commons. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants further added that if this precedent were to be allowed, the House of Commons would be at risk in seeing much of its legislation originating in an elected Chamber compromised in principle by the Senate's actions.

Before dealing with the essence of the problem, it might be useful to summarize what happened with Bill C-103, the Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987.
The House passed Bill C-103 on third reading on May 10, 1988, and sent it to the Senate the same day with a message signed by the Clerk of the House.

Let me say parenthetically that it is unusual to refer to specific proceedings of the other place-again, for those listening, "the other place" is a term used here to mean the Honourable The Senate-in this House. The Chair finds itself obliged to lay that convention aside for clarity's sake in this particular issue.
On June 1, 1988, a motion was moved in the Senate to instruct the Senate Finance Committee to divide Bill C-103. A
Message from the Senate
procedural debate ensued. Having first reserved his decision, the Speaker of the Senate on June 7, 1988, ruled the motion out of order. In other words, the Speaker of the Senate ruled the motion to split a Bill from the House of Commons as out of order. His reasoning, which is a matter of record, was based on the fact that Bill C-103 is a money Bill and that the Senate, while free to split Bills originating in the Senate, as a general principle should not divide Bills originating in the Commons.
Thereupon the ruling of the Speaker of the Senate was appealed to the whole House, that is, to the whole Senate, and was overturned by a majority vote. The motion to split Bill C-103 was moved, proposed, debated and passed. May I also add parenthetically that this House, the House of Commons of Canada, has seen the wisdom of leaving final procedural decisions to its presiding officer and accordingly has long abolished the appeal procedure relating to Speakers' rulings.

Bill C-103 was then studied by the Senate Finance Committee, which split the Bill in two, in accordance with the Senate's instructions. The Committee reported Part I of the Bill to the Senate and the Senate sent this part back to the House last Friday. That is where we are today. The House has only one part of Bill C-103.

I must also underline for the House that this procedural event is totally without precedent. I have been unable to find any instance in our practice in which the Senate divided a Commons Bill, or in which the Commons has divided a Senate Bill. There are several cases in which the Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled certain Bills originating in the Senate out of order because they infringe the financial privileges of the House which are enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. I refer Hon. Members in this case to Journals of November 12, 1969, and June 12, 1973, for two such examples.

I refer Hon. Members to page 502 of the 20th edition of Erskine May. It concerns a procedural incident in the British Parliament, where there had been an attempt in the House of Lords to split a bill from the House of Commons, but this attempt failed after a motion to split the bill was rejected. This incident is reported but the author carefully refrains from indicating how the Lower House could have reacted if the motion had passed. This incident occurred in 1852 and I could find no similar incidents anywhere since then.

A Canadian precedent does exist for a consolidation of two Commons Bills into a single legislative measure by the Senate. That took place on June 11, 1941, with a message from their Honours, from the Senate, asking for the concurrence of this House. The Commons agreed with the Senate proposal, that is, a proposal to take two Bills from this place and put them into one Bill. The Commons agreed with the Senate proposal


Message from the Senate
waiving its traditional privilege, and a single Bill was eventually given Royal Assent. I underline that that was the act of this House in waiving its tradition of privilege and accepting the invitation of the Senate to put two Bills together.
If it is admitted that the Senate can consolidate two Bills, why then can it not divide one Bill into two or more legislative measures? The answer is at least in part in the message. In the 1941 case just alluded to the Senate specifically sought the concurrence of the House for its action. Apparently it was the disposition of this place to accept it. In the message received last Friday relating to Bill C-103, the Senate does not seek the Commons' concurrence in the division of the Bill, it simply informs this House that it has done so, and returns half of a Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to restrain their comments until some other time. Whatever Hon. Members may feel, I do not think that this is a partisan matter. I am trying to make it very clear that it is a procedural matter, and a matter of some importance to the workings of this place and its very important relationship with the honourable the Senate, which is very much part of the Parliament of Canada.
The Speaker of the House of Commons by tradition does not rule on constitutional matters. It is not for me to decide whether the Senate has the constitutional power to do what it has done with Bill C-103. There is not any doubt that the Senate can amend a Bill, or it can reject it in whole or in part. There is some considerable doubt, at least in my mind, that the Senate can rewrite or redraft Bills originating in the Commons, potentially so as to change their principle as adopted by the House without again first seeking the agreement of the House. That I view as a matter of privilege and not a matter related to the Constitution.
In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the Bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.
Furthermore, Bill C-103 has attached to it, pursuant to our Standing Orders and Section 54 of the Constitution, a financial recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General. Again, for those who are watching and who are uninitiated in all the terminology that we use, there is a requisite that in a Bill that is going to call upon the expenditure of funds, a financial recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General is necessary. So this Bill is in a very real sense a financial Bill. The Senate is somewhat limited in its review of money Bills. Standing Order 87, which is still on the books after many decades, is quite clear and it states:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such
aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Certain questions remain to be answered: by splitting the Bill does the Royal Recommendation still apply? Have the financial privileges of the Commons been breached? Will the Crown assent to two Bills when it agreed to the introduction of a single one? As Speaker of the House of Commons, 1 will not attempt to answer such constitutional questions, but clearly this House has always considered Standing Order 87, which I just read, as setting out the special relationship between the Commons, that is, this House of Commons, and the Sovereign.
I have ruled that the privileges of the House have been infringed. However, and it is important to understand this, I am without the power to enforce them directly. I cannot rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. In other words, it would be nowhere. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.
In conclusion, I wish to state to the House that while Bill C-103 is a Government Bill, the same situation could arise under our reformed rules for a Private Members' Bill. It is in the better interests of this place to request Their Honours in the Senate to first consult with this House before they report to us such unilateral action. As Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada I must uphold the privileges of this place at all times, and I must also advocate them privately, publicly, and with vigour. Having said that, if on an issue of substance, the House wishes to waive those rights, as usual the Speaker will not enter into substantive debate but will follow the House's directives.
I thank all Hon. Members for their valuable contributions in this most unique and interesting case.
The Hon. Minister of State on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I wish to thank you on behalf of all Members of the House for the very clear ruling which you have made in reinforcing the privileges of this House vis-a-vis the other place. We had intended to immediately call for debate on the message which is presently on the Order Paper to send this matter back to the Senate immediately. I think that we would all benefit from an opportunity to review your ruling in detail and incorporate it into our remarks as we address this as Members of Parliament, no matter what Party we represent, in order that we can make it very clear where the Members of this House stand vis-a-vis the other place, the actions which should be taken by the other place, and the actions which we think are constitutional for the House of Commons and the other place to take.
For those reasons, I wish to compliment you on your ruling, and signal to the House that instead of debating the Message to the Senate immediately after your ruling we will ask the


Table Officers to call resuming debate on Bill C-93, the Multiculturalism Act.


Mr. MacLellan:: I would like to thank the Deputy House Leader for his recommendation with respect to Your Honour's ruling. Certainly, our Party would find it preferable to have some time to study your ruling and then to comment. We welcome the Deputy House Leader's suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would not object to me saying directly to the Hon Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) that, having listened to his very vigorous argument on Friday, the decision is on a procedural basis and does not affect his strong views on other matters relating to the Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join with my colleagues in indicating that it is a more than appropriate way to proceed, and to lend my voice to that of the Deputy House Leader for the Government in terms of the content and the initiative of your decision. While we always accept your decisions as being appropriate, there are some that send a very clear signal. The primacy of this place encourages us all, and I wish to thank you for that decision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 30 (Mr. Epp, Thunder Bay-Nipigon), and Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 31 (Mr. Marchi).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner).


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I wish to give the support of the Government for this motion, Motion No. 4 by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
When I appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-93, I pledged to work to improve this Bill, to take the necessary measures to ensure we would have the best possible Multiculturalism Act for Canada. Well, I kept my promise and I think we all can see that the Bill as amended by the committee is considerably stronger. Today we are Finishing that process. The amendment presented by the Hon. Member states clearly that the cultural and racial diversity of Canada is a fundamental characteristic of this nation.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Why have we chosen to support this motion? Why do we feel that the words "fundamental element" are not clear enough? Is it true that the Bill even from its first reading was clear in stating that multiculturalism was part and parcel of our identity, our realities and our heritage? I feel that it is important to underline this. It is not only part and parcel; it is one of the foundations of our identity and heritage. It is one of the foundations of Canada.
This Bill deals with relationships among Canadians, about a fundamental characteristic of Canada. It seeks to bring people together to build a stronger nation. We have worked closely with all those who came before the committee and in particular with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, who, from the very outset of this exercise have had as their goal that multiculturalism finally would be recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.
We are doing that today, and I call on all Members of the House to unanimously support this motion and the whole Bill. But while we support this motion today and a similar one which brings to the preamble of this historic Bill similar language, I wish to draw to the attention of the House a small limitation in this motion.
This motion translates the expression "fundamental characteristic" as trait fondamental. This in my mind is weaker language than the use of the phrase caracteristique fondamentale. We had presented a strong amendment which embodied this language. But, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) chose to block it on narrow procedural grounds. Although this is an important difference, I feel that it is one that we must set aside in order to proceed with this Bill today. We must set aside these petty tactics to bring forward a world first-a first-class Multiculturalism Act.
Therefore, it is with pleasure that we on this side of the aisle support this motion and will support a corresponding one made by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon to the preamble.


Sergio Marchi: Point of order. Madam Speaker. I appreciate the words of the Minister, although I have differences with the Bill. I would like to withdraw my opposition to both Motions Nos. 6 and 32, in the name of the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Witer), and would consent with my other colleagues to have the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) present them at this time, as we are discussing the groupings of these amendments. It was not a procedural move. I have recognized as well that there is a difference in the French translation and a fundamental characteristic in both languages, I think, is supreme. Therefore, I would be prepared and pleased to allow the Hon. Member for Willowdale at the appropriate time to introduce and debate those amendments on the floor of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does thank the Hon. Member for York West. As we are debating


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
both Motions Nos. 6 and 32 as a group at this time, I think I should put them both to the House.


John Martin Oostrom: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 37 at page 3 and
substituting the following therefor:
"mental characteristic of the Canadian heritage".
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-93 be amended in the Preamble by striking out line 35 at page 2
and substituting the following therefor:
"mental characteristic in the continuing evolution of'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), and to welcome the support for at least one of the amendments that he has proposed by the Government.
No Member of Parliament who represents any city in Canada can help but be aware of the tremendous changes which have taken place in terms of the people living in the cities of Canada in recent years. The constituency which I represent has always been recognized as an ethnic constituency, a constituency populated almost completely by immigrants; first, of course, by the immigrants who came from Great Britain and, later, by immigrants from Germany, Russia, Poland and many of the eastern European countries.
In the last 10 or 12 years we have seen a tremendous change in my constituency, as in many others, because beside the groups which I referred to earlier we now see people from Portugal, Italy, the Philippines, all the Caribbean countries, Central America, Africa, and Asia. From Asia we see people from India, Sikhs, Vietnamese, Chinese people from Hong Kong and from mainland China, Laotians and I am sure there are others who I have missed.
We also see a tremendous movement into the City of Winnipeg by native Canadians, who are moving to Winnipeg as they are to a number of other cities, from the reserves which they find completely inadequate to provide them with a decent standard of living.
A situation has developed in the City of Toronto where a majority of the students attending the public schools are neither from Anglo-Saxon nor French origin. This type of movement has created tremendous problems for the cities and for the people who come to this country. The issue of multicul-turalism was first raised by one of the members of the Bilingualism and Bicultural Commission appointed by the then Liberal Government, headed by Mr. Pearson. A resident of Winnipeg, Professor Rudnyckyj, who, while accepting the main recommendations and findings made by the commission, which dealt with the relationships between the French and the English-speaking people of this country, pointed out that an
increasing number-now a third of the population of this country-come from countries which are neither Englishspeaking nor French-speaking.
Many of these people come from countries which do not have, or ever had our democratic institution, our democratic way of life, our trade unions or co-operatives or civil liberties organizations. Many of them come here without the ability to speak either English or French. While canvassing in the older parts of my constituency I still come across women in their sixties or seventies who still cannot speak more than a few words of English.
In this country until a few years ago we did very little to deal with this problem. We are happy and proud to see the people who have come to this country. We are happy and proud to see the progress that they have made, but they need a great deal of assistance in making that transition from the country from in which they came in making that transition to this country which is so different.
It is not enough simply to give them the opportunity to work. Many of them work in some of the hardest, poorest paid jobs available in this country. We have to give them the opportunity to learn the language. We have to give them the opportunity to fit into our society. For many of them, Madam Speaker, the way in which they do that is based around and with the people from the same countries from which they came. Many belong to the hundreds of thousands of voluntary organizations which these groups have formed.
The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada in the early 1970s recognized the importance of helping these new ethnic groups to adjust and integrate into this country. We adopted in principle the idea of fostering the multicultural fact in this country. We have established a part-time Minister and part-time Department. It sounds good. It looks good when one reads about it, but the reality is we really have done very little.
If we compare, for example, the resources allocated for multicultural activities in my province-I will use my province as an example in which as I have indicated a very substantial percentage of the population comes neither from the Anglo-Saxon nor the French background of Canada-we find that what is allocated to help foster the various ethnic communities in the Province in multicultural activities is a very small amount compared to the money, the services and the assistance given to the Franco-Manitobans who make up a very small percentage of the population of Manitoba.
I am not for a moment questioning the assistance given to the French-speaking people of Manitoba. I, like most Members of Parliament regardless of Party, recognize the necessity and the justness of helping the French-speaking people of Manitoba and of every other part of Canada to foster, maintain and strengthen their language and culture. But when I compare the assistance given to them to the assistance given


for multicultural activities, I have to face up to the fact that what we are getting most is mere words.
I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon has put a great deal of effort into his work in this area. I want to say on behalf of myself and all members of the New Democratic Party that we support those efforts and we call on the Government, as we called on the former Liberal Government, to do more than say the right things, to do more than make pretty speeches, to do more than appearing at functions organized by various ethnic communities in this country. We call on this Government to take seriously the principles supported almost unanimously in this Parliament by all Members from all Parties to support the efforts of the new ethnic communities and of the native communities to help them maintain the cultures which they brought, all of which in the years to come will help to make this country a much better place in which to live.


John Martin Oostrom: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure rising in today's consideration of Bill C-93, the Canadian multiculturalism Bill and to urge Members on both sides of this House to support this basic and fundamental amendment No. 6 to the Bill.
Some weeks ago the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-93 and told the committee that he was willing to work with it to improve Bill C-93, as he stated in the House today. That is exactly what happened. The Bill which we are considering today is considerably stronger. It is considerably more vital than that with which we started in late March.
There have been amendments made to this Bill which strengthened it from the preamble to the very last clause. But one or two things have been left to be done here today.
The amendment which I proposed today makes this recognition even more clearly. Many witnesses appeared before the committee expressing their concerns that the multicultural nature of this society could be lost in other considerations and that the Bill was not sufficiently precise in underlining this fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. Many witnesses urged the committee to make a clearer expression of this matter.
The motion that I propose does so. This motion states simply and cleanly that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our Canadian heritage and identity. In a few moments I will also propose an amendment which brings these clear, simple and precise words to the important preamble of the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
Why have I chosen to make this motion? Why do I feel the words "fundamental element" are not clear enough? It is true that the Bill, even from its first reading, was clear in stating that multiculturalism was part and parcel of our identity and our heritage. But I feel that it is important to underline this. It is not only part and parcel, it is one of the foundations of our
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
identity and heritage. It is one of the foundations of Canada. That is why we adopted simple and precise language, language which has clearly entered our constitutional lexicon to express what multiculturalism means to this society.
I know my hon. friends, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay have proposed relatively similar amendments and I congratulate them for doing that. I do not think these particular amendments are well founded for a number of simple reasons.
The Hon. Members from York West and Thunder Bay have translated in their motions "fundamental characteristic" to be trait fondamental. If we are to use the same strength of language that is used in other places, we must use the expression caracteristique fondamentale. This is not just a matter of terminology. It is important that the language of this Bill in both official languages be crystal clear. I hope the House appreciates the motion that I am presenting today and I urge hon. colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this simple motion, a motion which in both official languages underlines that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society.
I would like to take a few moments of the time of the House today to explain Motion No. 32 which clarifies and strengthens the preamble of the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
Earlier in this debate I rose and urged the House to support a simple, clear and precise amendment to the multiculturalism policy of Canada which stressed that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our identity and heritage. I would urge this House to accept a similar, simple and clear amendment to the preamble of the Canadian multiculturalism Bill which states in only a few words that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic in the continuing evolution of our nation.
This is an important amendment. The amendment shows that the Government has listened to those who appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-93. This simple amendment shows that the Government has been willing to work with the committee and with Members of this House to strengthen the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
At this time there are two other amendments relative to the preamble, one presented by the Hon. Member for York West and one presented by the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay. These amendments are excellent in spirit, but they are flawed, I believe, in their creation. First, both amendments in the French language utilize the words "trait fondamental" as opposed to "caracteristique fondamentale". This is an important difference. It is an important shortcoming in both motions about which I spoke earlier today. If we are to signal what this amendment is about and to say that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic, and if we wish to give the language sufficient force, we must use the language which is already in the lexicon; namely, caracteristique fondamentale.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Second, both amendments presented by the Hon. Member for York West and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) muddy the waters. In the instance of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, it mixes policy statements with preambular language. Policy commitments properly belong in Clause 3 of the Bill. A preamble sets the stage. It presents values. It is for that reason that I find the Hon. Member's amendment appealing but unsatisfactory.
In the instance of the amendment presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West, I found repetition of words and ideas in places, and of course, the problem with its French translation and the weakness of that French translation. I think is important that we maintain simple amendments and that we put forward amendments in clear and precise language. It is important that we utilize the lexicon involved in this nation. For this reason, I would urge Members on both sides of the House to support the motion I have brought forward today and thus to recognize that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our Canadian society.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has to do with the language of Motion No. 30. There has been some discussions about which motions might be acceptable to the House, discussions which I will not get into, but on Motion No. 30, I would like to change the word "trait" to the word "caracteristique". If there is unanimous consent in the House, I would like to move:
That Motion No. 30 be amended in the French text by striking out line 4
and substituting the following therefor:
"de la couleur et de la religion constitue une caracteristique".
The only change in the text as published is that last word "caracteristique", to which point the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) was just speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the House does give consent, it would then be easier to simply amend the Hon. Member's motion than to call it an amendment to the amendment which would require another vote. If there is unanimous consent, "trait fondamentale" would be changed for "caracteristique fondamentale". Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to deal with essentially the same principle. The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) was quite correct in saying that there is a difference between the English and the French words in the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). The same applies to my motion. Suffice it to say that I had moved the initial motion in English and left it up to the House officials to translate it into French. I would seek the same co-operation to change the word from "trait" to "caracteristique" as well because it was a
translation of the House and not a translation put forward by this Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Do I understand that the Hon. Member is referring to Motion No. 31?


Sergio Marchi: Motions Nos. 5 and 31.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Perhaps the Chair could be helpful by pointing out to the Hon. Member for York West that as far as Motion No. 5 is concerned, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 would obviate the need for a vote to be taken on Motions Nos. 5 or 6. The Hon. Member might consider the motions together. Then we could get to a vote which would include whatever should be right in this motion.
Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Vancouver
East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in saying a few words in this debate, particularly to acknowledge the very great importance of changing the language of the Bill through these amendments in order to strengthen it. Many groups across Canada have criticized this Bill because it appeared to be too soft and was in effect tokenism. These groups will certainly be pleased with this amendment, although at this stage we are only dealing with words. We certainly must toughen up other clauses of the Bill as well.
As I understand it, the change of wording in this clause will establish an equal partnership between all cultural groups within Canada. It will mean that people of both French and English origin will be recognized as being part of the fundamental characteristic of Canada and so too will be those from so many other countries. These in fact are the people who are now becoming the majority, certainly in western Canada. These people have origins other than French or English.
It is very important that this Bill not simply be a recognition of songs and dances, arts and culture, which is what some people think is meant by multiculturalism. It is absolutely essential that it have the strength to fulfil the spirit of the Charter. This means that there has to be equal opportunities and there has to be a removal of discrimination and racism that affects people from origins other than French or English.
In western Canada and particularly in the ridings of Vancouver East and Vancouver-Kingsway, by far the majority of new Canadians as well as second and third-generation Canadians are those who have come from Asian countries and those who are not Caucasian but are people of colour or visible minorities. It is absolutely essential that our multicultural policy begin to recognize that not all people of different cultures came from Europe. There is a very different stream of people who are coming from Asia, and in some cases the cultures are very different indeed. For those who come from China or some of the oriental countries, English must be learned in a much different way.


It is also very important to recognize that there is not a representation of visible minorities in the House, and that is very typical of the decision-making process across Canada. It is important that we take this matter seriously and that we strengthen this Bill so that it helps to facilitate and implement multicultural policies.
In the past few weeks, I have attended high school graduations throughout my riding of Vancouver East. I would say that only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the students graduating from secondary schools are from Anglo origins and probably none are from Franco origins. The majority are young people who are members of visible minorities and have wonderful motivations to complete their educations. They will probably face barriers that are much greater than some of their colleagues at university.
It is important that the Bill not be seen as tokenism and that we recognize the real issues of racism and discrimination in Canada. The Government must do this by acknowledging the injustices of the past. I am referring particularly to the injustices to Canadians of Japanese origin who faced such terrible discrimination under the War Measures Act. People of Chinese origin were also discriminated against and had to pay a head tax and face the Exclusion Act, which was a purely racist Act.
It is time we acknowledged these injustices and provided fair redress so that our young people can grow up and be proud to say that regardless of their origin, regardless of the colour of their skin, they have equal rights in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I wanted to say a few words following the Hon. Member's speech.
I can speak pretty openly here, I am losing my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, and there are a couple of things 1 would like to say that I think Members might be interested in.
My riding has more Chinese Canadians than any other riding in Canada.


Ross Belsher: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said her's does.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is some disagreement about that, but I think mine really does. As I said, the riding will be gone under redistribution in a couple of days, although I still remain the Member until the next election, but it has become a unique spot with respect to Asian immigrants. This is the new reality in Canada. It is a great plus for Canada. The way Canadians should look at the flow of Asian immigrants is to see it first as part of the continuous flow which builds the population of Canada. My parents came from Scotland when I was a young boy. The same thing is true for people from Italy and other parts of Europe. Now we have a wave of Asian immigration.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
We should think of it as an advantage. This is where the advantage is.
Second, we are trying to reach out to the Pacific Rim. It is the fastest growing trading area in the world. Canada is on the edge of the Pacific, it is one of our oceans. We have this great resource of Pacific cultures in Canada. We have people who are bicultural. These sons and daughters of immigrants would become Canadians through our schools. We are different from the U.S. because of our multicultural heritage. It is inscribed in our Constitution. We have committed ourselves to saying to people that they can keep some of their heritage. We have great strength in that. The strength lies in these Asian Canadians. That will be in many ways a great help in getting Canada into the Pacific Rim, the Asian Pacific. We should be thinking about things in this way. It took me a while to think that way even in my own riding.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), an eloquent spokesperson for immigrants and multicultural groups and so on, raised the issue of past injustices. She talked about the Exclusion Act and the Chinese head tax and how she fought for compensation for those who were discriminated against.
Other people, including my predecessors from Vancouver- Kingsway, Grace Mclnnis and Angus Mclnnis, fought for redress for Japanese Canadians for the racist treatment they got in Canada during the war. I do not want to go into this in a lot of detail but I want to answer a question which I think a lot of Canadians do not understand. That question is: why deal with past injustices? I remember asking Pierre Trudeau in the House about compensation. He shrugged and said: "Why fight battles of the past?" The reason you have to deal with past injustices is to make sure they do not happen in future. We had the incident of a boatload of Jewish people who were turned away just before the war. Think about that. Think about what we did.
This is a great country, a just country. In spite of our shenanigans in Question Period and our debates and arguments in this House, look at the question I put today to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. McDougall). I asked her if she would take up the case of a fellow who had lost his son in this oil rig disaster and perhaps provide some legal representation. It is going a long way, but she took it up and said they would consider it. That is the best of Canada. We are an open and fair country. We have to make sure that that happens with our immigrants and the multicultural base of our country.
We passed a multicultural constitution in 1982. You know I have had troubles with the new one in 1986, but the one in 1982 was a magnificent constitution. Canada is like a cake, if I might say so. We have the native people at the foundation. Then the French and English. In the constitution we had the recognition of education rights, which I think is really important. Then on top was the recognition of the multicultural reality of Canada. That is a good vision of Canada.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
We cannot just sit back and say we have done this kind of thing in law and symbolically. We have to do real things to help multiculturalism. I will give you an example. I do not know what other cities are like, but in Vancouver, English as a second language is the language of the majority of kids in the public schools. That is a difficult situation. It is difficult for the educational system. It may mean that the federal Government, dare I say it, may have some role in additional funding for English as a second language.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is done now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know it is done now. I do not think the Government has much of a role right now because education is of course a provincial responsibility. However, we may have to look at it and say the federal Government has to help. If you are bringing in waves of new immigrants you have to help educate them in the English language. Parents want their kids educated in English or French in Quebec so that they get into the mainstream of Canadian society. We have to take the measures necessary to help multicultural groups retain their own language as well. We have the Ukrainian dancing groups, theatre groups, culture groups, that we support. We take a different view from the Americans. We do not take the melting pot view, we take a broader view where you can maintain some of your multicultural heritage.
I will sit down now. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East provoked me to speak because she gave such a good speech. I just want to come back to that one point which I would like Canadians to think about. I know it is sometimes very difficult, and I hear it in my community offices, "Why are you bringing all these immigrants in? They are different than we are." You have to look at the advantages of immigration. I think one of the big advantages is, especially with Asian Canadians, that instead of sending the traditional businessman to China to try to get a contract, we can send a Chinese Canadian whose family is there. He might be able to speak the language, has taken courses and brushed up on Cantonese or Mandarin at the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver. That is a forwardlooking Canada and that is the way we should look at multiculturalism and immigration.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my support to this Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it in. In my view a multicultural Bill has been long overdue in Canada.
I was raised in a cosmopolitan area, probably as cosmopolitan as any in Canada, namely the Drumheller Valley. During my lifetime that area has seen 21 or 25 coal mines, all of which have now disappeared. However, people came from practically every country of the world to work in those coal mines. The wonderful thing about the Drumheller Valley was that these people did not continue to call themselves Ukrainians or Hungarians or Britons, they called themselves Canadians. At the same time they retained their own language, their own customs. I want to pay tribute to those people today.
I want to deal with some specific people, the Ukrainians, for instance. Hundreds of them came to our coal mines. Hundreds of them came in their sheepskin coats and braved the blizzards, the chinook winds, and the droughts. They worked toward a better country. They tried to build a heritage.
Many people do not realize that the Ukrainian people were the first to work on the building of our railways across western Canada. They were later replaced by a large number of Chinese people. The Chinese people were certainly taken advantage of but they remained here. Many of them brought their relatives here and they have become excellent citizens.
Another large group in my area is the Italian community. As a matter of fact, the Italian community is probably the second largest in the Province of Alberta. The Italian group was notorious for bringing their language and customs with them. They still speak Italian in their homes today, but they speak English outside. They endeavour to keep the customs of their homeland.
Another large section is the German community. One of the first things I remember as a young boy during and just after World War I was the antagonism toward those of German descent. I remember my mother saying many times that none of us had any choice as to our nationality, colour, or creed; that it was the way we lived that really mattered. German people suffered a lot of persecution in Canada at that time, but they remained and are wonderful citizens. In my riding in Beiseker and Carbon there are some of the finest farmers in the world. They are doing their utmost to build a great Canada.
In addition to Ukrainian halls in the Drumheller Valley we had a Hungarian Hall. Many people came from Hungary and worked in our coal mines. Some of their descendants now hold high positions throughout Canada. A notable one is the head of the regional office of Parks Canada in Calgary. He came from a wonderful Hungarian family in the Drumheller Valley.
We have the Poles, the Americans, and the Dutch. The Dutch people have made a tremendous contribution too. They are not mentioned often. I attended the golden wedding celebration of a Dutch couple only a few weeks ago. They are symbolic of hundreds of others who have contributed to Canada.
The Spanish, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish groups have also made a wonderful contribution. A chap who originated from Sweden came up from the Dakotas into the Drumheller Valley. He was the first to drive oxen into Canada. There are histories of him throughout the Valley today.
I remember a young Japanese lad who lived in the old Midland Mine. His father was one of the finest citizens I have ever known. He loved Canada and loved our way of life. One of his boys served in the Armed Forces during the war.


We have the Jewish people and the Arabs. They may be fighting each other today, but not in the Drumheller Valley. They are Canadians. They brought their customs and their language, but they are now Canadians. We have the Koreans, the Vietnamese, and many people from that part of the world who are part of our population.
We talk about the English and the French, and they are the founding nations, but these others have played a tremendous part in building this country too. The Scottish, the Irish, and the Welsh object to being referred to as English people. They have their own customs and their own language.
We have people from Yugoslavia, India, Egypt, South and Central America, and Africa. People from all the continents have come to Canada, and I like to think of Canada as a multicultural country, not only as a two-nation country but as a great multicultural nation called Canada. I like to think of Canada as being a tremendous mosaic.
An honour I will never forget is when I was asked to represent Canada at the opening of the Pan-American Highway about 1965. The people in Mexico put on a tremendous outdoor show for the delegation made up of one American, two Canadians and people from Central America and South America under the auspices of the U.S. organization. At the show I saw dances of Scotland, Ireland, and the Ukraine. I saw aspects of almost every country which is now represented in Mexico. What a tremendous job an artistic director would have in Canada today to put on an outdoor show to exhibit the customs of all the nations which have become part of Canada. Someday I hope there will be a tremendous mosaic which will show what all these people have contributed toward building this great nation.
After all is said and done I like to think of the people of Canada, not as the English, the French, Egyptians, Hungarians, Germans, Italians, or Dutch, but as Canadians, because Canada is their country of adoption. They have made Canada their country and this has made Canada a greater and a better country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question on the first grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would remind the House that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates a need for a vote to be taken on Motion Nos. 5 and 6. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the taking of a vote on Motion No. 5. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 6. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates a vote to be taken on Motion No. 6. That is just so we all know where we are.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 4?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 5?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 6?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 6 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 7?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will proceed to Motions Nos. 30, 31 and 32. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motions Nos. 31 and 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 31. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 31 obviates the need to vote on Motion No. 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 31 will necessitate a vote on No. 32.
The question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 30 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will proceed to the next grouping.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 32 at page 4 and
substituting the following therefor:
"institutions shall, with a view to implementing the policy stated in
subsection (1)''.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 4 the following:
"(a) develop policies and programs to assist ethnocultural communities to enlarge their contributions to the preservation and enhancement of Canada's multicultural heritage;"
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
(b)	implement policies, programs and prac-"
(b)	by striking out line 41 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
(c)	implement policies, programs and prac-".


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out 40 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the continuing evolution of Canada, and that remove discriminatory barriers to their full and equal participation in Canadian Society;"

Motion No. 17
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 44 at page 4 the following:
"(d) implement policies, programs and practices with particular emphasis on the youth of Canada, to foster an understanding of the multicultural reality of Canada;".
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 5 the following:
"(g) develop annual plans for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy and report on such plans in their annual reports."


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, in our continuing consideration of amendments to Bill C-93, this particular group includes some small changes in total bulk but represent very significant attempts to strengthen the Bill.
If it is in order, I would like to recognize the presence in the gallery of the President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the past President. Of course, it is not in order, so I note that, in considering the motions before us here seriatim, Motions Nos. 10 and 11 are provided for in part by changes that were made in the legislative committee. My Motion No. 11 is designed to ensure that Clause 3(2) would read: "It is further declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada that all institutions shall-"
The Bill as reported from the legislative committee was amended to read "shall" rather than "should".
Having mentioned the Canadian Ethnocultural Council a moment ago, may I say that this is one of those very important points that this national organization of ethnocultural communities emphasized was necessary. The Bill initially was encouraging, but an absolute commitment was required by the Government of Canada to take strong action. That was


accomplished with the use of the word "shall" as it was changed in the legislative committee.
Unfortunately, it might still not be quite sufficient. Therefore, Motion No. 10 is designed to go beyond that. Motion No. 10 in the name of my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), was accepted by the Speaker rather than my own. It is a motion which states that: "institutions shall, with a view to implementing the policy stated in Clause 3(1)." It places an even greater obligation on the Government of Canada to be sure that the policies to which Parliament is committing the Government and to which the Government itself is committed will be acted upon in the way of various specific proposals.
Motion No. 12 is my proposal for an explicit addition to the Bill designed to put into these obligations that the Government of Canada would accept, an obligation to act upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 27. This particular motion would commit the Government of Canada to develop policies and programs that assist ethnocultural communities to make larger contributions to the preservation and enhancement of Canada's multicultural heritage.
I would like to comment on the carrying of Motion No. 30 rather than Motion No. 32, proposed by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) and moved, by agreement, by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom). Motion No. 30, moved by myself which was chosen over Motion No. 32, put into the preamble the language of Section 27 of the Charter in a way analogous to what was done in our consideration of the Official Languages Bill, Bill C-72, which was passed last week.
I think putting the language of the Charter into legislation is a useful exercise, so in Motion No. 12 I have endeavoured to commit the Government of Canada at the outset to acting on Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Motion No. 14 is designed to remove the word "promote" from several of the paragraphs in Clause 3(2) and insert instead the word "implement". Here again is a proposal that has come not only from the Canadian Enthocultural Council but from the various community organizations. If the Parliament of Canada is really serious about the multicultural policy we first adopted in 1971, we should have an actual obligation on Ministers and all Departments to implement the policy and to look for ways in which the policy could be made more real.
Motion No. 17, moved by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), is an alternative to the proposal in Motion No. 8. I endeavoured to take up the concern of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to recognize explicitly in the Bill the importance of the youth of our country and to ensure that our multicultural policy was carried through with explicit regard to the youth of the country and their needs. One way to do that is to make it one of the principles on which the Government would be committed to act in the first section of Clause 3,
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
which is where my Motion No. 8 stands. The other way to do that, of course, is to use Motion No. 17, putting it in as one of the obligations of the Government.
I would hope that recognizing the Government rejected my Motion No. 8, although it was initially on a voice vote, the House might have the will to take up Motion No. 17 and make it an obligation. It is, after all, a strong request from the young people who are active in the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to have their needs recognized. I look to the Minister and hope there might be some readiness to take up this particular proposal.
There remains then, only one other motion on which I would like to comment. Motion No. 19 was found to be out of order because it went beyond the scope of the Bill as the Government presented it. I want to note that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for York West takes up the first paragraph of my motion. I take it, then, given the ruling on Motion No. 18, that Motion No. 19 would have been found in order if it had only gone that far, although it would have been an exact duplicate. I endeavoured to go beyond annual plans to provide for review on all those activities oriented to the establishment of a commissioner of multiculturalism which, again, the Government has not taken up.
Motion No. 18 has a very useful proposal that the Departments of Government have an obligation to make plans annually in order to realize the multicultural policy of the country. In the context of my motion being ruled out of order, but Motion No. 18 being in order, I speak in support of that motion as well as in support of the motions on which I have already commented.
These are important motions to strengthen the Bill. Let me leave it at that and look to the comments of others. I trust we will have the support of the House for these motions to ensure that this historic Bill really becomes the kind of legislation it should be.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks in the time allotted to Motions Nos. 10, 15, 17 and 18. Motion No. 10 which stands in my name is an attempt to make the language and commitment somewhat more specific. We have tried to move this intent at committee and today at report stage because I believe that if there is one ill with the Bill, it is its lack of commitment in terms of very specific, clear and committed language.
With respect to Motion No. 10, what I am endeavouring to do is to tie subsection (2) under the federal institutions to the earlier stated multiculturalism policy for the federal Government. The intention of Motion No. 10 is simply to review and to try to commit the federal Departments in a very specific way to the multiculturalism policy as articulated in subsection (1). Those words tying the federal departmental role to the federal policy is not stated explicitly. Rather than keep it vague and general in terms of having federal Departments expand and enhance multiculturalism, I would like to see the


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
role for the federal Departments tied to the very clear multiculturalism policy as articulated under subsection (1).
Motion No. 15 attempts again to expand on the principle and general scope of that particular clause on page 4, line 40. As it reads now, one of the roles of the federal institutions is to "promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the ability of individuals and communities of all origins to contribute to continuing evolution of Canada". I would also add the words "and that removed discriminatory barriers to their full and equal participation in Canadian society". This is an attempt to try to eradicate the specific problem that many Canadians all to often face in terms of discrimination in the workplace, in terms of vertical mobility and in terms of hiring practices.
The intent, as it now stands, generally addresses that concept. What 1 would like to do, and what many organizations would like us to do as a Parliament, is to make specific reference to the type of systematic barrier problems that Canadians face. Therefore, the intention of Motion No. 15 is to tie down explicitly the concept and make it very practical and specific, ensuring that one of our goals as a Parliament and as a Government is not only to talk about equality of opportunity but to do something about it and to come closer to ensuring that political, social and economical equality in our House and in our Constitution is predicated upon.
With respect to Motion No. 17, what I would like to replace is a reference under our federal institutions and our federal Departments, as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council's youth wing had advocated before the Standing Committee of Multiculturalism and before the legislative committee studying Bill C-93, to a specific reference and commitment to enhancing the policies, goals and objectives of multiculturalism specifically and target them to the youth of Canada. I think it is incumbent upon a Parliament and a Government to try to address the challenge that is inherent in different generations. That is to say that my parents may affix a certain definition and have a certain expectation of what the multiculturalism policy of the country ought to be doing. As a second generation Canadian I perhaps have a different expectation from a third or fourth generation Canadian. In addition to cultural retention perhaps, a third or fourth generation Canadian would also affix a political, economic and social expectation on the policy of the country.
I am not suggesting that one definition is wrong as compared to the other. What I am pointing to is that both definitions are valuable and relevant. Yet a different attitudi-nal approach is needed to provide a bridge between the various generations to ensure that the first generation and the second and third generations view the multiculturalism policy as a relevant instrument upon which to build a bigger, better and stronger Canada.
Therefore, I believe that the recommendation from the Youth Committee of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council is a
very wise one. I ask the Minister and government Members to consider supporting Motion No. 17, a motion which tries specifically to have federal institutions carve out a specific and effective program to address multiculturalism among the younger elements of our society.
The last amendment in my name is Motion No. 18. It would add subparagraph (g) to Clause 3. It suggests that federal Departments develop annual plans for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy and report on such plans in their annual reports.
The objective of this amendment is to try to commit federal Departments in a very specific way. If there is a role to play for our federal Departments, and clearly there is, in terms of enhancing and exercising all our policies and programs, then multiculturalism should not be an exception to the rule. We should not leave it there generally. We should try to apply it in a very specific way so that our federal Departments constructively and explicitly try to project a vision, an action plan, a series of priorities they would like to accomplish in any given year vis-a-vis multiculturalism.
It is not good enough to have a Department, a Minister, a departmental head or a Deputy Minister say: "We adhere to the general policy". Instead, they should be saying: "What can we be doing? What should we be doing as one Department to fulfil the goals and aspirations embodied in a multicultural policy in a multicultural Canada? How can we advance it one step further?"
The Government has chosen not to accept the concept of having an official multiculturalism commissioner, as there is with respect to official languages. There is a piece of legislation in place which was debated only last week which empowers an official commissioner who is able to monitor in order to try to ensure that the Civil Service and Crown corporations are adhering to the official bilingualism policy. The Government rejected the same type of approach with respect to multiculturalism. I regret that very much. I will be alluding to it in much greater detail in my speech on third reading.
Because the Government has not accepted that, I believe that the specific requirement for all Departments to have a yearly plan which would be submitted to Parliament and to the Minister is quite important. It would not carry out the function that would have been carried out by a commissioner such as the Official Languages Commissioner who is independent and who must report to Parliament. Notwithstanding that deficiency I believe it is incumbent upon us to say to the Departments: "If there is going to be a role, then let us tie it down. Let us ensure it is part of a coherent strategy plan within the Departments so that we as parliamentarians can address the various Departments to see where those annual reports are and therefore evaluate whether we are doing a job that is justified or whether we are doing a job that could be improved upon".
I am pleased that Parliament was able to agree with respect to the whole question of the fundamental characteristic which I addressed briefly only moments ago since I thought we were


only debating Motion No. 4. It is an important step. It is a step the Liberal Party tried to have recognized in the Meech Lake Accord when we moved one specific amendment. It was to have in the opening clause of our Constitution a recognition that our two official languages and our multicultural society constitute fundamental characteristics of the same country. To suggest one is fundamental and the other is an element really implies a different status for the two.
While we are not changing the constitutional Accord, and while this Party is still committed to negotiating a Meech Lake Accord that would see the opening clause proudly recognize multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic, I am pleased that in Bill C-93 we are recognizing that multiculturalism constitutes a fundamental characteristic of our nation. It is my hope that we can go from this one specific clause in this piece of legislation and transfer that feeling and emotion into our Constitution the next time Parliament deals with the Meech Lake Accord.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendments that are being discussed, particularly the amendments moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
It is not difficult for Governments to enunciate policies and for Governments to try to implement those policies by passing legislation. Unfortunately, experience and history have taught us that we can have a law and a policy, but if the determination to see that those policies are carried out is not very firm, then not much happens.
I remind Hon. Members that long before this Parliament or any of the provinces dealt with the question of multiculturalism the Parliament of Canada, and I believe almost every province in Canada, enacted after a great deal of discussion and after hearing many representations, fair employment practices legislation and fair accommodations legislation. The Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of Canada enunciated the principle that to discriminate in the fields of employment or housing against a person or persons because of their race, religion or colour and, later, sex, was contrary to the law. That sounds fine, but if one looks at the reality one sees that very little in fact has been accomplished.
If a study were made of Governments, federal, provincial or municipal, to see how many public servants employed by the three levels of government come from visible minority groups we would all hang our heads in shame. In my own City of Winnipeg I am certain that, if I examined the people who worked for the police and fire department, I could count on the fingers of my two hands the total number of people working for those two departments who come from visible minority groups.
Last week my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- North Centre (Mr. Keeper), was urging Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to use its influence to take action
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
against the owners of rental housing because there is a great deal of evidence that they discriminate in renting apartments to native people. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North Centre, was correct in raising that matter. But I have to say with a good deal of dismay that I believe that not only was Canada Mortgage and Housing remiss, but so was the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, a commission set up in legislation in a province that has had an NDP Government for years. That commission should have been dealing with this question.
These are not easy matters. There is a great deal of prejudice among sections of our population. The whole point of that type of legislation, and the whole purpose of our attempt to deal with the reality of multiculturalism is to help the people from minority groups. My friend, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), stated that he is a first generation Canadian. I am a second generation Canadian. The fathers and grandfathers of some of the people whom I represent came to this country years ago, and some of the people I represent have come more recently in the last few years. They need assistance. They do not only need speeches telling them that we welcome them. They do not only need legislation which supposedly helps and protects them. What they need is real action on the part of Governments.
I say with a great deal of regret, and perhaps if I thought about it I could use much stronger language, that regardless of Party, Governments have not been as vigilant, as aggressive, and as determined as they should have been to deal with the type of discrimination that goes on.
Let me return to the debate when the Government brought in its Employment Equity Act. What is contained in the Act is fine as far as it goes, but the Act will be a failure because there is nothing in the Act that requires Departments to set targets, to attempt to reach those targets, and to report each year on how close they have come, or if they have come anywhere near to achieving the targets. If Departments are not implementing the policies that Governments have stated they believe in, then Governments can take the action to see that the type of principles set forth in that Employment Equity Act, and in the principles that are set forth in this Bill, become more than words in a Bill which gathers dust on the shelves of most law libraries in this country, but become a reality. Thai reality is extremely important and necessary for many people who live in this country.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a few words to say about this legislation, and I do wish to make a few points with regard to the motions that we are presently dealing with, particularly Motion No. 14 put forward by my colleague. This motion is designed to commit federal institutions to implementing policies, programs and practices rather than simply promoting them.
The reason this motion is significant is that in presenting this notion I hear my colleague saying that Governments ought to take action and not only have great rhetoric with regard to


Parklands
multiculturalism in Canada, and not only have the correct phrases when it comes to ethnic groups, but they ought to have programs that will make a real difference to the lives of people in the ethnic groups and communities in Canada. Some of the groups that exist in my riding have very high levels of employment, for example, the Philippine and Portuguese communities, and many other groups that are living in the inner city. Often members of those groups have professional qualifications acquired elsewhere which are not recognized in Canada. They have levels of unemployment that are unacceptable by Canadian standards and are certainly not reflected in the Canadian statistics that are issued and that become part of our television news.
Recently there was a report that unemployment in Canada is down to the lowest level in seven years. That is very impressive, but it is not the reality experienced by people in Winnipeg, in the inner City of Winnipeg, or in Winnipeg-North Centre. In ridings such as mine with very high levels of ethnic and immigrant groups, unemployment is more in the nature of 30 per cent rather than 6 per cent or 7 per cent, or whatever the official statistics are.
I do wish to compliment the Government with regard to its actions today. The Government has responded to the appeals from the ethnic and multicultural groups to put the words "fundamental characteristic" in the legislation, after much prodding from my colleague who is our critic in this area and prodding from the critic in the Liberal Party. The Government has seen the light and has introduced the words "fundamental characteristic" to describe multiculturalism rather than "fundamental element", whatever that was supposed to be.
I am pleased that the Government has responded to this prodding and has recognized that the multicultural nature of the country is a fundamental characteristic of the country. To me that means that we have a country and an ideal that respects the cultural heritage of each and every one of our citizens and groups, and that we have rejected the American notion of the "melting pot". We can have people preserve their language and culture and take pride in their origins. That is what "fundamental characteristic" means.
Now we have the ideal established, we need to get some muscle behind that ideal and at the level of the day-to-day lives of ordinary Canadians and new Canadians in order that it can make a difference in the type of jobs that they have, in the type of communities that they have, and in their equal access to opportunity and to a good life that they can enjoy in this country.
I must say that I welcome the fact that the Government has realized that it made a great deal of sense to put the words "fundamental characteristic" into the legislation. I am glad that the communities have had an opportunity to have their voices heard through the instrument of this Parliament. I hope this is only a first step and we will get down to very concrete programs. When ethnic groups and new Canadians are in the market-place, their qualifications will be recognized, their
opportunities for employment will be equal to those of any other Canadian, and they can look forward to an equal place on the Canadian stage, regardless of how long they have been in the country.
I understand that this multiculturalism Bill is a first, and it is long overdue. We welcome the fact that it is here today and being debated.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FEDERAL LANDS USE SUGGESTED DESIGNATION OF MILITARY LANDS AS POTENTIAL PARKLAND
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.
He said: Madam Speaker, you may be wondering why this motion is on the Order Paper and up for debate today. The motive and the instigation is caused by the fact that we do have across the nation a number of places where the land is being used for very appropriate and understandable purposes, including military purposes. In some large urban centres in Canada you have an area the size of an airport in the heart of the city, an area that is coveted and looked upon by a number of potentially interested parties, if and when the day will come for these lands to be abandoned for present use by the Department of National Defence.
My message is an environmental one, related to land use in urban Canada. I will put it very briefly along these lines. There will be pressures on our publicly-owned lands, which are at the present time under the administration of the Department of National Defence, as to when they should be declared vacant. The pressure will be enormous, particularly for additional housing, as indicated by my colleagues in this House in recent months. They have actually urged, particularly in the case of the city I come from, that the Downsview lands be used for housing purposes.
There could be pressure for other uses, such as commercial uses, and initiatives that would somehow indicate the desirability of the development of these lands. The alternative that I would propose in this motion is that these lands be designated at the appropriate time. I suppose this would have to be done in co-operation with the municipal and provincial authorities in order to designate them as parklands.


What does that mean? It is the concept of parkland in the broadest sense of the word. It would mean a use of these lands dedicated to environmental education, in relation to kids, in relation to schools and in relation to the public at large, on weekends. In other words, these would be demonstration areas where the biological characteristics and eco-systems of that particular region would be explained, and the number of environmental protection policies and programs would be explained at all levels. Therefore, you would have a centre in this particular park where the public would have an opportunity to absorb and to become acquainted with the science and practical application of environmental goals and objectives. It would not be such a bad idea, judging from the success that this idea has had in certain cities in Europe.
Second, the land that would be given up by the military authorities at the appropriate time could be used for conventional parkland, with the amenities that go with a park, which I do not have to describe at length.
Third, there could also be a combination or an addition or a parallel use of this land devoted to recreation, particularly in downtown areas where the densities are high, where there are large number of apartment dwellers and where the ratio of population to open space would be such that it would require this type of recreational land use.
Fourth, perhaps the ultimate in land use these days in an urban setting, where possible, is to devote such lands the creation of urban wildlife areas. We have, as you know, a wildlife that is retreating from the built-up areas, for understandable reasons. These wildlife areas may be possible where the size of the particular land is large enough. The size of a military airport is particularly suited for such a purpose. It may be a very interesting initiative to devote that particular public land to the development and the enshrinement of wildlife for the enjoyment of Canadians living in that region.
It is our use of land, if and when it becomes available, that has a very clear, specific purpose, namely, that of enhancing the quality of life in Canadian cities and in urban Canada in a manner that perhaps would make some of our cities unique in the world.
We have the space. We have the opportunity to do it. I would suggest that this would be a very imaginative way of contributing to the uniqueness of our cities. True, the pressures will be enormous in opposite directions. There will be those who will want additional housing, and it could make for a very strong social argument in their favour. I do not deny that. There will be those who will want commercial development. There will be those who will be able to propose some very interesting industrial land uses. Nevertheless, the purpose of this motion is centred around the notion of creating parklands in publicly-owned lands in our urban cities, because that is where the pressure is and where the transportation tie-ups already exist. That is where the pollution at times is high and where you would want to create open spaces for the benefit of citizens living in that particular area.
Parklands
I will stress it again, it is in our urban cities in the last two or three decades that we have seen a mushrooming of high-rise apartments, of high density dwellings, where the open spaces, the greenery, the yard, the front lawn of course exist only on a very minute surface, considering the number of people who live vertically above that specific property.
Therefore, the necessity of providing in certain urban centres additional open spaces cannot be denied, particularly if you come from Banff, like the Hon. Member across the aisle, or if you come from a community which is endowed with enormous amounts of open spaces, like Kapuskasing. I am talking of metropolitan centres that would include Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, to mention our larger urban centres.
Why would one take the trouble to make this point? In December of last year the then President of the Treasury Board, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), released a press communique on a federal lands study in Toronto. It put forward three concepts which I would like to examine quickly and put on record with which I find myself in partial agreement and then in total disagreement.


Pauline Browes: How can you do that?


Mr. Caccia:: There are three, there is not one only. I will come to that.
The examination is limited only to federal lands in the Toronto region. It is a very interesting examination. The study is one which one no doubt must take seriously. I refer to the first page of the study where the main principles, the so-called guiding premises, are mentioned. The first one I find perfectly reasonable. It reads:
The federal Government will continue to hold lands that are appropriate to its operational needs.
There is nothing wrong with that. That is a way of having an insurance policy 100 years from now when these lands will become available. It may be that at that time the population pressures will be such as to enhance rather than diminish the chances for these lands to become open spaces, recreational areas, parkland, urban, wildlife or environmentally educational centres.
The second principle reads:
Lands not required for these purposes will be transferred to the appropriate jurisdictions or to other interests.
The words "other interests" trouble me a lot. I do not know how to interpret that. If it means a transfer from the federal level to a provincial or municipal level for public purposes, that is fine with me. I have no difficulty with that and I fully concur. But if it means transfer to private sector interests, then that is where we part company immediately.
The third principle reads:


Parklands
Where the federal Government agrees to transfer land, it is obligated to act in the best interest of Canada as a whole-
Which is just fine. There is no problem with that. Then, this is perhaps why I was bit unclear earlier. It goes on as follows:
-including seeking full value of the land on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
The full value aspect, Mr. Speaker, troubles me enormously. If it means monetary value, as I suspect it does, then we part ways again. If it means that values are related to the enjoyment of landscapes, wildlife, trees and open spaces, there is no problem with that. If that full value implies monetary values, dollars and cents, then I submit there is no real way of arriving at a full value on behalf of Canadian taxpayers because some of this land has been increasing in value year after year, decade after decade. Only upon a sale does it reflect the value. That is not good enough when it comes to public land.
In an attempt to summarize the explanation for this motion before you and before my colleagues here today, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the study carried out by the consultants for the disposition of federal lands at a future date is welcome as an initiative. It is good that we find out what the major criteria should be. It is also a good thing that we debate this, which is what is taking place today. We should put our views on where we agree and where we do not.
I submit, as I have already, that land pressures in our metropolitan centres as the years go by will increase enormously. Hence we will have pressures for development in the conventional sense, as we know it, be it housing, commercial or industrial structures and buildings. I submit there is an alternative and there is a very good one. It relates to the necessity of having an alternative to the strong trend of building highrises, high density and the concentration of population on our limited urban land base.
We should make provision in the long term as one generation providing for subsequent generations-for those in the gallery, their children and grandchildren-with open spaces that they will enjoy. There is nothing more impressive than to go through a city that is heavily built up like Paris, Rome, my home City of Milan, Berlin, London, New York-you name it-and see what a limited and valuable commodity it is to come across open spaces in the form of parks. When they were established the parks may have been at the edges of a city and may have been surrounded or within a very small community. Now, instead, these parks are surrounded by highrises and are located in a major population centre. They are, therefore, such a strong contrast with the rest of the urban setting that they become green oases, for lack of a better word.
I am trying to argue this afternoon that we should project our thinking in the future and plan to make the military lands located in urban areas, when they become available, into green oases, open spaces for the enjoyment of generations of Canadians to come.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate
in the debate on the Private Member's Motion today which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Canadians take a well deserved pride in the beauty of our natural landscapes and in the history of our nation. The Hon. Member is to be congratulated for reminding the House of this fact. As a former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member knows that the Canadian Parks Service of Environment Canada is the federal agency whose clear mandate is to protect outstanding natural areas and historic places of national significance across Canada. Furthermore, he knows that the Canadian Parks Service plays a vital role in the preservation of our national heritage for present and future generations.
While we would all wish to expand Canada's national park system, Mr. Speaker, the present motion before the House would be both inappropriate and unnecessary. First, let us consider the nature of our national park system. Environment Canada, through its Canadian Parks Service, protects our national parks for all time because they are representative natural areas of Canadian significance. The national parks system encourages public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations. You should note, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis on the word natural. To be suitable for consideration as a national park, an area must have experienced minimal modification by humans or, if significant change has taken place, it must have potential for restoration to a natural state. Military lands in urban areas would simply not meet these criteria.
I was surprised to hear the Hon. Member talk about the Downsview airport which is located practically in the centre of Metropolitan Toronto in the North York section. It seems to me that the area in Metro Toronto that should be preserved and is in that wild state now is the Rouge Valley and not the Downsview airport which is more appropriate for housing.
The Hon. Member said that there should be urban wildlife. The motto of the Save the Rouge System is: "Wild in the City". Indeed, there is a whole herd of white-tailed deer running through Metro Toronto, if you can believe that, Mr. Speaker. We want the deer to be preserved wild in the city.
In fact, it is self-evident that in all of Canada, the places the furthest removed from their natural states are urban military areas. Military lands located in urban areas would certainly not qualify for inclusion in our national parks system based on the essential criteria of sights representing unspoiled natural beauty.
However, the Canadian Parks Service, through its National Historic Parks and Sites Program, may designate and commemorate areas of national historic interest. This is accomplished only upon the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which is the advisory body


in such matters for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). To be selected for such commemoration, a place must be associated with an event or a movement which has shaped Canadian history, and/or illustrate effectively the culture of a pre-historic people or be associated with important archaeological discoveries.
Only places of extraordinary value to Canadian history are acquired and developed as national historic parks. All military lands are not intrinsically of national historic significance. They are not, nor should they be, automatically eligible for national commemoration.
This process is as it should be right now. Truly worthy sites of genuine national historic significance can be and are considered by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. When these sites meet the proper criteria, they are given the appropriate designation. The system has worked and is working very well indeed. There is no need to tinker with it now, nor was there such a need when the Hon. Member who moved this motion served as Minister of the Environment.
To date, there has been excellent co-operation between the Department of National Defence and Environment Canada. DND is fully aware of Environment Canada's interest in and mandate for maintaining land of national historic significance. DND has routinely co-operated in the past by transferring to Environment Canada historically significant lands that were no longer required for military purposes.
In fact, military lands are already exceedingly well represented in Canada's historic parks system. DND has already transferred to the Canadian Parks Service some of the most important military sites in Canada. In fact, Canada's whole system of national historic parks and major historic sites began in 1917 with the transfer of Fort Anne in Nova Scotia from the Department of Militia and Defence to what was then the National Parks Service. Fort Anne was the first of our national historic parks.
From Signal Hill in St. John's, Newfoundland-where the final battle of the Seven Years War in North America was fought on September 15, 1762-to Fort Rodd Hill in Victoria, British Columbia-where batteries were constructed in 1895 as part of a coastal system to defend Esquimalt and Victoria- military sites, literally from one end of Canada to the other, have been preserved and are appreciated by hundreds of thousands of Canadians and foreign visitors each and every year.
Indeed, when it comes to military historic sites, Canada has been blessed. Seventeenth, 18th and 19th-century military history is well preserved and represented by national historic parks and sites. When one adds provincial sites to the list of federal lands of this type, we can proudly say that this aspect of history remains a living heritage accessible to all Canadians.
As all Hon. Members can see, it is clear that it would be totally inappropriate to turn over urban sites owned by the Department of National Defence for use as national parks
Parklands
because their value as unspoiled natural areas has been irredeemably debased. They would add nothing to our system of national historic sites which already include impeccable and comprehensive representations of our 17th, 18th and 19th-century military history.
Hon. Members can be assured that this Government will continue to ensure the preservation of nationally significant examples of Canada's military history as we have done so well in the past. For all these reasons, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport is inappropriate and should be rejected by Hon. Members of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before continuing with debate, I would like to apprise the House of the following: I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour provided for Private Members' Business tomorrow, Tuesday, July 12, 1988. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39. Accordingly, I am directing the Table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I was not sure whether or not I would support the motion put by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) until I heard the Parliamentary Secretary. She confirmed in my mind why I should support the motion, and I will tell her why in a minute.
The Hon. Member for Davenport was good enough, as he always is, to raise the difficulties involved in this issue. One difficulty he raised was the competition in land use in urban areas between land needed for housing and land that could be used, as he said, for environmental purposes or for parks. I personally do not think that the two are necessarily in conflict, but sometimes they can be partly in conflict. I have some concerns about that.
I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was too bureaucratic and that there was too much of the DND in her response. I thought she mixed up the notion of national historic sites and national military sites, of all things, with what the Hon. Member for Davenport was trying to deal with. The Hon. Member for Davenport mentioned the use of lands under a number of criteria. He mentioned using land as an environmental centre, as conventional parkland, as a recreational centre, as a wildlife centre or as all of these. He suggested that we could use these military lands that are no longer used for military purposes for environmental purposes, but for different kinds of environmental purposes.
I do not think that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary should dismiss this motion so quickly. She said that perhaps Downs-view airport is more suitable for housing than it is for parkland


Parklands
and she said that we should look to the Rouge Valley. I believe that is in the Hon. Member's riding, is it not?


Pauline Browes: Very close.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I figured that.


Pauline Browes: You are supporting it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do support it. I think it makes sense to use the Rouge Valley as a park. As a matter of fact, I was almost blown away by what the Hon. Member said. She said that there were white-tailed deer running through Metropolitan Toronto. I always thought that it was only people chasing money running through Metropolitan Toronto.


Mr. Jepson:: There's a lot of wildlife in Toronto.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I knew there was a lot of wildlife in Toronto, as the Hon. Member said. As a matter of fact, we have a little saying in Vancouver. Of course, I do not subscribe to it. They say: "They don't call it Hogtown for nothing". It is nice to know they have some deer and that everyone is not in a fervent rush to make money. When I think of Toronto, I do not think of Bambi, I think more of Godzilla. However, it is nice to know.
Here is where the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong. She said there were precedents for taking military land. She mentioned that the DND transferred military land to parks, so we have precedents. Let us not confuse it with military sites, though. I would rather have environmental sites, quite frankly, than more military sites. We would have more sites commemorating militarism. While we have to commemorate our past, the reality of military battles, let us not go overboard. My feeling was that DND would tend to want to have more military sites than environmental parks, so let us not dismiss the Member's motion. I think he has a good idea.
To give you an example. In my home City of Vancouver, right near where I used to live, there is a park called Jericho Beach. It was an active military site, and still is, although it is empty now. It was used during the war. You can see pictures of the old hangars and military barracks and so on. It is right on the ocean, just outside of English Bay, towards Point Grey and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, a beautiful area. As a matter of fact, it was used for the Habitat Conference. The Hon. Member for Davenport mentioned an environmental centre. It was used as a people centre for the Habitat Conference 10 or 15 years ago. That was the beginning of the Stockholm environmental notion and the things we are dealing with today. We did a good job in Vancouver in having it there.
The other thing about Jericho Beach is that it has areas for recreation. I used to jog around there myself when I was in better shape before I came to Parliament and got out of shape. It was a good area to jog around. There was wildlife there and
even the military people who were looking after it allowed some bogs and areas like that to continue to exist. They did not develop it all. There was and is wildlife today, bird flyways and so on. You have urban wildlife, the real kind, that is, animals and birds. That is a good example, and therefore I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should decide this out of hand and take the bureaucratic line from DND. I think this is something worth looking into.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport because he is a former Minister of the Environment who has always had his heart in the right place on environmental issues. However, I wish he had enumerated in more detail the number of these military sites. He mentioned Downsview. I have seen Downs-view from the air while flying across Toronto and I wonder what it is being used for. I would like to know the future plans for that area. I wish the Hon. Member had named some of the other sites across Canada because there may be other areas available. Let us enumerate them, let us see what uses they could be put to.
He also mentioned the report done by the Government on the federal land study in Toronto. I, too, have my concerns. We have a Conservative Government that likes to privatize government property for its friends in the private sector. It is a Government that you cannot trust. For example, it made promises to seniors that it would not deindex their pensions, and then turned around and tried to do just that. It made a promise there would be no free trade. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he was against it, and then he brought in free trade. So it is a Government you cannot trust.


Pauline Browes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that he should stay on the topic of the motion we are discussing. I think he is veering off a little bit to the left, as he usually does.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my point simply is that many of us, not just me, but many others in the country do not trust the Government to deal straightforwardly with matters. One of the problems in dealing with these particular lands is the federal land study in Toronto. We are concerned that instead of putting them to environmental or other uses such as housing, the Government might sell them to its friends. Let us look at the record. Look at the past. Look at what the Government has done.
I want to conclude by saying this. I think the Hon. Member for Davenport has made a good start. We really should look at and analyse these military lands. We should make the environment, whether it is a centre, a parkland, a recreation, urban wildlife or combination of them all, an important use. We have to weigh the housing usage factor. We have to weigh the use for commercial purposes and environmental purposes. I agree with the Hon. Member. I think the time has come to restrict urban growth and create more open spaces and enhance the existing ones in urban areas. That will enhance the quality of life, which is what we are all trying to do and what we are proud of having as Canadians. That is why I think


this is a very creative motion and it deserves a better look than the Parliamentary Secretary was prepared to give.


Mr. Jean-Luc Joncas (Matapedia-Matane):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on Motion 164 moved by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Madam Speaker, this motion by a former Minister of the Environment, well-intentioned though it may be, comes somewhat as a surprise. In any case, since the Hon. Member for Davenport must be aware of the federal policies relating to the Canadian parks system, he might have refrained from presenting this kind of motion.
Perhaps the Hon. Member is worried that Canada's military heritage is under-represented in our network of national historic parks.
Future generations need not worry. Since the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was established in 1919, the number of historic sites, parks, monuments and canals has steadily increased. Since 1917, several old forts administered by the Army has been transferred to the National Historic Parks Branch.
Madam Speaker, perhaps I may recall that in the fifties, the federal Government has focused its attention on a number of sites, most of which were former military centres.
In fact, from the outset, co-operation between the Department of National Defence and the department responsible for national parks was always excellent, and it still is today. Thanks to this mutual understanding, from the early settlement of this country to the beginning of the twentieth century, all across this country from Signal Hill, Newfoundland to Fort Rodd Hill, British Columbia, our national historic parks are a faithful reflection of the relationship between our country's history and its various regions. These parks give Canadians and foreign visitors a good picture of our military history in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Madam Speaker, the motion in its present form does not specify the historic value of these lands and fails to make any distinctions. In view of existing provisions for having any site of national historic significance taken into consideration, and since the motion fails to consider the value of the lands in question, a motion of this kind is useless as far as the preservation of our country's heritage is concerned.
It is not useful to create national parks, Madam Speaker, since it ignores the objectives and criteria of Environment Canada in this respect.
The purpose of creating national parks is to safeguard natural areas that are representative of this country so as to keep them intact for future generations.
It does not seem necessary to me to sustantiate for the House the fact that the motion introduced by the Hon.
Parklands
Member for Davenport does not meet the criterion of geographic representativeness; it also goes without saying that a former Minister of the Environment should know that military lands located in urban areas are far removed from the definition of a natural area. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what could be less natural than a city?
It remains passing strange, Madam Speaker, that this former Minister of the Environment, who has done so much for our common heritage could have drafted such a motion.
Canada has one of the most beautiful networks of national parks in the world. At the present time, this network comprises 34 national parks disseminated throughout our vast land. They cover 1.3 percent of Canada's overall territory.
Since this Government came to power, we have signed agreements and spent millions of dollars for the creation of new parks, such as at Moresby South in the Queen Charlotte Islands, on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario, on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic, and more recently, in the Saguenay region in Quebec.
In Quebec, our historical military heritage is far from being under-represented. For instance, we have Fort Lennox on l'ile-aux-Noix, Battlefield Park and the walled fortifications of Quebec in the City of Quebec, Fort No. 1 of Pointe-Levis in Lauzon, the Chateauguay Battlements in Howick, and Chambly Fort in Chambly. All of these parks and historical sites bear witness to the military history of past regimes.
The public has shown a growing interst in such sites, and thousands of our fellow Canadians, as well as tourists from all over the world, seek them out for their beauty and for their historical interest.
We can assure the Canadian population that we are continuing and will continue to work for the preservation of our heritage and that we will also continue to improve our national parks network and our national historical parks.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, motion 164 introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport is far from meeting the objectives which underly the creation of national parks and national historical parks, nor can it influence municipalities or provincial governments to preserve green spaces.
For all of these reasons, Madam Speaker, we suggest that the motion be defeated by this honorable House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to say just a few words in support of Motion No. 164, on behalf of my colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I think that this motion raises some very important issues for people living in urban areas who have military facilities that are obsolete or declared surplus for government requirements and that must be redeveloped either for housing or in accordance with some municipal projects or


Parklands
plans or that are to be used for roads or other purposes for all municipalities in the region.
I raise the matter because, first of all, it is of current interest in Ottawa-Vanier and, second, it has always concerned me. How are federal lands that are declared surplus disposed of and how are lands that were used for military purposes disposed of not only for the development of communities that identify with those facilities or have had to live with them for many years, but also how can nature parks and other natural areas, which everyone considers very important, be planned for our urban centres? There is a great need to maintain green spaces that everyone can enjoy and to give municipalities a chance to develop within their territory a place where people can do other things than playing war games.
Madam Speaker, Motion No. 164 from the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.
So this is a recommendation that the Government should take seriously and put on the agenda to see whether urban areas do require more facilities to meet public needs, before dismissing it entirely.
You know, Madam Speaker, in my riding, there is a property known as . . .

-DND property on Lees Avenue. It is known as the Armories property. I understand that some years ago this property was designated as surplus to federal needs in terms of military installations. Therefore, everyone and his neighbour has had his eyes on it and planning has been going on to take this property to serve transportation needs or other regional requirements. Much to my dismay no one in Government has seriously suggested that it be used for ecological environment parks or, even better, in downtown Ottawa, some good affordable housing.
This dossier has been with us for some time. Just for the sake of making it known that we do have a few sites in Ottawa Vanier which have been declared surplus, and in whose interest it is that they be preserved for public use, there are plans to declare the federal property known as the Armories as surplus and to transfer that property to the regional Government for a major road project through the area proposed by the regional municipality.
I wish to refer to a letter from the Alderman Nancy Smith of St. George's Ward, written to me on January 29, 1988. She says:
I am writing you with regard to the DND property on Lees Avenue, otherwise known as the Armories property. It would appear that this property may become surplus in the near future.
She goes on to say that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton may have access to that property to realign some of its road patterns in the area. She continues:
The land in this area is zoned for residential. In particular, the DND site
was reviewed at the time of the Ottawa East Neighbourhood Plan (1979 to
1980). It is zoned for family housing with a 35 foot to 45 foot height limit.
She went on to explain how important it is that there should be housing on that property.
The Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) stated that he would like to see any surplus federal lands now used for military purposes, when they became surplus declared to be environmental parks. 1 do not disagree with him that there is a need for environmental parks, but on that point I might debate his argument. There are some cities where there are several such military properties. I can think of at least two in my riding. The site on Lees Avenue, known as the Armouries site, could be used for good quality housing while giving the residents of Ottawa East a park at the same time. In other words, we could easily cope with both the housing requirements of the community and the park requirements of the children and residents of that area.
This is a good motion. It appeals to me because of its human approach to disposing of properties that the federal Government no longer needs. This could easily be taken up by the Government, to consider how the various cities, towns and urban areas where properties used for DND purposes that were declared surplus could be converted into parks or, for that matter, a mix of parks and housing. If that is the purpose at hand, then it has the full approval of all residents of Ottawa- Vanier.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), a former Minister of Environment, for his interest.
I want to take this opportunity to point out what I genuinely feel are a few imperfections in what he is proposing. As a former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport should know that this motion is neither feasible nor practical. The very wording of the motion, the way in which it is drafted, seems to fly in the face of government policies, both of this Government and of previous ones, for parks designation and for the disposal of surplus lands.
Let us look at the phrase "considered designated as potential parkland". The motion does not explain what this phrase means, nor does it say how such a goal can be achieved in law.
At present there is no provision either in the laws governing the selection or acquisition of our national parks, or in the parks policy of the Canadian Parks Service, for the designation of an area as potential parkland. After an area is selected for consideration as a national parkland on the basis of well defined criteria, it is either designated a park or it is not. There is no such thing now, nor has there ever been a designation for potential parkland.


Let us consider the selection procedure for designating a Canadian national historic site. This selection process is carried out by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. A site, which may have national significance, either as a location in its own right or in relation to a person or event of Canada-wide importance, is nominated for consideration by the board.
Nowhere in this process, which has been working smoothly and efficiently since 1919, is provision made for a designation as potential parkland.
Likewise, Motion No. 164 refers to parkland rather than national parkland or land for national parks. The mandate of the Canadian Parks Service concerns the establishment of national parks; that is, the establishment of parks as areas that have true national significance as a result of their superlative natural characteristics and unspoiled state. Surely a former Minister of the Environment should be expected to realize that the chances of any urban military land qualifying under the rigid criteria for national parks are extremely remote, to say the least.
Since this is the case, the Hon. Member for Davenport must be implying by the omission of the word "national" that the surplus land intended for designation as potential parkland is intended for municipal or provincial parkland. Surely it is not the role of the federal Government to tell other levels of government what they should or should not designate as parkland, either potential or not. If such a designation is meant to apply to urban areas for consideration by the federal Government as parkland it is meaningless, if it is meant to apply to provincial or local governments it is presumptuous.
The proposal of the Hon. Member for Davenport to designate surplus urban land of the Department of National Defence as potential parkland is simply not feasible. Moreover, it is unnecessary. There is a formal disposal process already in place to handle surplus DND land, and indeed all surplus land of the federal Government.
If the intent of Motion No. 164 is simply to designate surplus urban DND land as parkland in order to alleviate shortages of green space in urban areas, then the Hon. Member for Davenport could have perhaps stated his goal more clearly. In that case, however, he might have confronted the reality that municipal and provincial Governments already have the opportunity to obtain federal Government land once it is declared surplus. If they decide surplus DND lands are required for parks there already exist adequate and functional procedures to obtain such lands.
The intent of Motion No. 164 is clear, to say the least. As a measure to augment our national parks system it cannot work, because urban lands are unsuitable for use as national parks; as an instrument to improve the selection of historic parks and sites it is unnecessary; and as a means of increasing municipal urban green space it is inappropriate and ineffectual.
Parklands
Canada's national parks system is one of the great glories of our country. Our national parks are a means of preserving, in their natural state, areas which are representative of the major natural environments of Canada. They are special places which protect part of the heritage of all Canadians, now and in the future. The first national park in Canada was established in 1885 to protect the then newly discovered Banff Hot Springs for public use. Now, our national park system encompasses 34 parks, which cover 1.3 per cent of Canada's entire land mass.
The official policy of the Canadian Parks Service sets as a goal the representation of each land and marine natural region of Canada by a national park or marine national park. However, many land and most marine natural regions are still unrepresented. This is a worth-while goal which this Government is diligently and constantly pursuing.
The present Government is proud to have added a significant number of new national parks to Canada's national parks system during the years of its tenure. Bruce Peninsula and Ellesmere Island are the new national parks or national park reserves the Government has recently created. Canadians can be assured that the Government will continue to build on this record of success and show leadership in continuing to improve Canada's national park system.
Unfortunately, Motion No. 164 will not bring us any closer to reaching any of these goals, nor can it possibly have any practical or additional impact on the preservation of urban green space by municipal or provincial Governments.
Notwithstanding the items I pointed out, I still congratulate the Hon. Member for his interest in the environment. Both my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes), and I have worked diligently on behalf of the Save the Rouge campaign in eastern Metro Toronto. We are sympathetic to all worth-while suggestions regarding the environment. Unfortunately, Motion No. 164 does not appear to be the vehicle for the end result that is actually sought by the Hon. Member.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, in the closing minutes of this debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), a former Minister of Environment, I want to salute the best intentions that have gone into this motion in trying to humanize the large urban centres in this country with much deserved and needed parkland.
The City of Ottawa has attempted to combine green parkland with an urban use. I believe it has achieved a pleasant surrounding and ambiance.
Like my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), let me also point out that I do not believe the entire surplus land-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time provided for


Canadian Wheat Board Act
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions on Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The first vote will be on Motion No. 1. Mr. Foster moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-92 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 33 at page 5 and
substituting the following therefor:
"railway car during the pool period. The said sum shall reflect an equitable allocation of the costs incurred by the Board to maintain the country delivery points."
Call in the Members.
The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hicks
Hockin
Hudon
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity- Conception)
Joncas Kempling Ladouceur Lanthier Layton Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
The Acting
motion lost.
Mailly
McCain
McDermid
McLean
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Plourde Price Reid Reimer Ricard St-Julien Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Stackhouse
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Weiner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-76
Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you would find unanimous agreement to apply the vote that was just taken to the remaining motion under report stage of Bill C-92 and to reverse the vote for the concurrence motion on Bill C-92.
I think you would also find that that same procedure could be applied to the report stage motions on Bill C-129. In other words, the Government is against the motions; the Opposition is for them.
(Division No. 438)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.
++YEAS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fine, I understood-
	Members	
Allmand	Gray	PepinBaker	(Windsor West)	Prud'hommeBenjamin	Jewett	RiisCaccia	Keeper	RobichaudCopps	MacLellan	Rodriguezde Jong	Manly	SkellyEpp	Marchi	Waddell-28(Thunder Bay-	McCurdy	Nipigon)	Mitchell	Finestone	Orlikow	Foster	Ouellet	Gauthier	Penner	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Crosby	EppBienkarn	(Halifax West)	(Provencher)Browes	Dantzer	FennellClark	Darling	Fontaine(Brandon-Souris)	Daubney	FraleighCoates	Desrosiers	FriesenCochrane	Domm	GirardCooper	Duplessis	GormleyCrofton	Edwards	GottseligEllis	Graham


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I was absent while the preceding vote was taken. I would agree to this procedure provided that I was included as voting with my Party.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am not too sure what is going to happen. Somebody from the Opposition cut off the Minister of State, the House Leader for the Government, as he was about to propose something, and now it is not certain what will happen.
In the eventuality that the Opposition will come to its senses and agree to the proposition made by the Minister of State, and if ever the Hon. Member can get his act together, I will vote with the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair understood that the vote which has just been taken would be applied to the question on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of Mr. Hovdebo, and that the vote in reverse would be applied to the concurrence motion, with the two additions of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest). That would take care of Bill C-92.


Air Canada
Therefore the next question is on Motion No. 3.	(Division No. 440)


Mr. Hovdebo moved:: That Bill C-92 be amended by deleting Clause 8.	YEAS
The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:	Members
(Division No. 439)
Allmand	YEAS Members Gray	PennerBaker	(Windsor West)	PepinBenjamin	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Kaplan	RiisCopps	Keeper	Robichaudde Jong	MacLellan	RodriguezEpp	Manly	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Waddell-29Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	Foster	Orlikow	Gauthier	Oucllct	Belsher	NAYS Members Harvey	PlourdeBlcnkarn	Hicks	PriceBrowes	Hockin	ReidCharest	Hudon	RcimcrClark	Jardine	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jepson	St-JulienCoates	Johnson	ScottCochrane	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cooper	Conception)	ScottCroflon	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	Kempling	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	Ladouceur	StewartDantzer	Lanthier	TaylorDarling	Layton	ThackerDaubney	Lewis	TowersDesrosiers	MacDonald	TupperDomm	(Kingston and	TurnerDuplessis	the Islands)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Edwards	MacDougall	Van De WalleEllis	(Timiskaming)	VezinaEpp	Mailly	Vincent(Provcnchcr)	McCain	WeinerFennell	McDermid	WenmanFontaine	McLean	WhiteFraleigh	Nicholson	WilsonFriesen	(Niagara Falls)	(Swift CurrentGirard	Nickerson	-Maple Creek)-77Gormley	Oberle	Gottselig	O'Neil	Graham	Oostrom	Halliday	Pennock	Hardey	Peterson


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion lost.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be concurred in.
The House divided on motion (Mr. Mayer), which was agreed to on the following division:
Belsher	Harvey	PlourdeBlcnkarn	H icks	PriceBrowes	Hockin	ReidCharest	Hudon	ReimerClark	Jardine	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jepson	St-JulienCoates	Johnson	ScottCochrane	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cooper	Conception)	ScottCrofton	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	Kempling	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	Ladouceur	StewartDantzer	Lanthier	TaylorDarling	Layton	ThackerDaubney	Lewis	TowersDesrosiers	MacDonald	TupperDomm	(Kingston and	TurnerDuplessis	the Islands)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Edwards	MacDougall	Van De WalleEllis	(Timiskaming)	VezinaEpp	Mailly	Vincent(Provencher)	McCain	WeinerFennell	McDermid	WenmanFontaine	McLean	WhiteFraleigh	Nicholson	WilsonFriesen	(Niagara Falls)	(Swift CurrentGirard	Nickerson	-Maple Creek)-77Gormley	Oberle	Gottselig	O'Neil	Graham	Oostrom	Halliday	Pennock	Hardey	Peterson	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Gray	PennerBaker	(Windsor West)	PepinBenjamin	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Kaplan	RiisCopps	Keeper	Robichaudde Jong	MacLellan	RodriguezEpp	Manly	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Waddell-29Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	Foster	Orlikow	Gauthier	Ouellet


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


AIR CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 8, consideration of Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]

Air Canada
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the report stage of Bill C-129.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question will be on Motion No. 2. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 27 at page 3
and substituting the following therefor:
"those votes to not more than five".
The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle
Vezina
Vincent
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)-94


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 3. Mr, Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 34 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"sauga, which centres shall maintain their staffing levels equal to those attained in the 1987-88 financial year; and".
The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 441)
++YEAS
(Division No. 442)
++YEAS
Members
Benjamin	Keeper	Rodriguezde Jong	Manly	SkellyEpp	McCurdy	Waddell-13(Thunder Bay-	Mitchell	Nipigon)	Orlikow	Jewett	Riis	
++NAYS
Allmand
Baker
Benjamin
Caccia
Copps
de Jong
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Jewett
Kaplan
Keeper
MacLellan
Manly
Marchi
McCurdy
Mitchell
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Skelly
Waddell-30
	Members			Orlikow	
				NAYS	
Allmand	Girard	Marchi	Baker	Gormley	McCain	Belsher	Gottselig	McDermid	Members	Blenkarn	Graham	McLean	Browes	Gray	Nicholson	Caccia	(Windsor West)	(Niagara Falls)	Belsher	Gottselig	McLeanCharest	Gustafson	Nickerson	Blenkarn	Graham	NicholsonClark	Halliday	Oberle	Browes	Gustafson	(Niagara Falls)(Brandon-Souris)	Hardey	O'Neil	Charest	Halliday	NickersonCoates	Harvey	Oostrom	Clark	Hardey	OberleCochrane	Hicks	Ouellet	(Brandon-Souris)	Harvey	O'NeilCooper	Hockin	Penner	Coates	Hicks	OostromCopps	Hudon	Pennock	Cochrane	Hockin	PennockCrofton	Jardine	Pepin	Cooper	Hudon	PetersonCrosby	Jepson	Peterson	Crofton	Jardine	Plourde(Halifax West)	Johnson	Plourde	Crosby	Jepson	PriceDantzer	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Price	(Halifax West)	Johnson	ReidDarling	Conception)	Prud'homme	Dantzer	(Bonavista-Trinity-	ReimerDaubney	Joncas	Reid	Darling	Conception)	RicardDesrosiers	Kaplan	Reimer	Daubney	Joncas	St-JulienDomm	Kempling	Ricard	Desrosiers	Kempling	ScottDuplessis	Ladouceur	Robichaud	Domm	Ladouceur	(Victoria-Haliburton)Edwards	Lanthier	St-Julien	Duplessis	Lanthier	ScottEllis	Layton	Scott	Edwards	Layton	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Epp	Lewis	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Ellis	Lewis	Stackhouse(Provencher)	MacDonald	Scott	Epp	MacDonald	StewartFennell	(Kingston and	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Provencher)	(Kingston and	TaylorFinestone	the Islands)	Stackhouse	Fennell	the Islands)	ThackerFontaine	MacDougall	Stewart	Fontaine	MacDougall	TowersFoster	(Timiskaming)	Taylor	Fraleigh	(Timiskaming)	TupperFraleigh	MacLellan	Thacker	Friesen	Mailly	TurnerFriesen	Mailly	Towers	Girard	McCain	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gauthier	Gormley	McDermid	Van De Walle
Vezina	White
Vincent	Wilson
Weiner	(Swift Current
Wenman	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 4. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think you would find a disposition in the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to all remaining report stage motions and to apply the reversal of that vote to the concurrence motion on Bill C-129.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Mr. MacLellan moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line
37 at page 3 the following:
"(0 provisions restricting the Corporation from acquiring control, through ownership of shares or otherwise, in an air carrier providing international services under a licence issued pursuant to the National Transportation Act;
(g) provisions respecting the enforcement of the constraints and requirements imposed pursuant to this section."
The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 443)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guiibault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members	Belsher	Crofton	EdwardsBlenkarn	Crosby	EllisBrowes	(Halifax West)	EppCharest	Dantzer	(Provencher)Clark	Darling	Fennell(Brandon-Souris)	Daubney	FontaineCoates	Desrosiers	FraleighCochrane	Domm	FriesenCooper	Duplessis	Girard
Air Canada
Gormley	MacDonald	ScottGottselig	(Kingston and	(Victoria-Haliburton)Graham	the Islands)	ScottGustafson	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Halliday	(Timiskaming)	StackhouseHardey	Mailly	StewartHarvey	McCain	TaylorHicks	McDermid	ThackerHockin	McLean	TowersHudon	Nicholson	TupperJardine	(Niagara Falls)	TurnerJepson	Nickerson	(Ottawa-Carleton)Johnson	Oberle	Van De Walle(Bonavista-Trinity-	O'Neil	VezinaConception)	Oostrom	VincentJoncas	Pennock	WeinerKempling	Peterson	WenmanLadouceur	Plourde	WhiteLanthier	Price	WilsonLayton	Reid	(Swift CurrentLewis	Reimer Ricard St-Julien	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 37 at page 3 the following:
"(f) provisions specifying that the six bases for Air Canada flight attendants at Montreal, Halifax, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto be maintained with the staffing levels of each equal to those of the 1987-88 financial year as a minimum standard."
The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 444)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guiibault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members	Belsher	Dantzer	FraleighBlenkarn	Darling	FriesenBrowes	Daubney	GirardCharest	Desrosiers	GormleyClark	Domm	Gottselig(Brandon-Souris)	Duplessis	GrahamCoates	Edwards	GustafsonCochrane	Ellis	HallidayCooper	Epp	HardeyCrofton	(Provencher)	HarveyCrosby	Fennell	Hicks(Halifax West)	Fontaine	Hockin
Air Canada
Hudon
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas
Kempling
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Mailly
McCain
McDermid
McLean
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Plourde Price Reid Reimer Ricard St-Julien Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Stackhouse
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Weiner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 37 at page 3 the following:
"(f) provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain and strengthen its role as a Canadian Corporation by ensuring that labour, equipment and services required by the Corporation be Canadian in origin wherever feasible and where not feasible that Canadian content be maximized as a part of such labour, equipment and services requirements;
(g)	provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain existing Corporation standards respecting safety, maintenance and customer service;
(h)	provisions requiring any subsidiary corporation of the Corporation to be bound by this Act including any subsidiary corporation which may be formed from or by the parent Corporation once this Act comes into force."
The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:
Epp	Ladouceur	Reimer(Provencher)	Lanthier	RicardFennell	Layton	St-JulienFontaine	Lewis	ScottFraleigh	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)Friesen	(Kingston and	ScottGirard	the Islands)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gormley	MacDougall	StackhouseGottselig	(Timiskaming)	StewartGraham	Mailly	TaylorGustafson	McCain	ThackerHalliday	McDermid	TowersHardey	McLean	TupperHarvey	Nicholson	TurnerHicks	(Niagara Falls)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Hockin	Nickerson	Van De WalleHudon	Oberle	VezinaJardine	O'Neil	VincentJepson	Oostrom	WeinerJohnson	Pennock	Wenman(Bonavista-Trinity-	Peterson	WhiteConception)	Plourde	WilsonJoncas	Price	(Swift CurrentKempling	Reid	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 18 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"shares of the Corporation up to a maximum of forty-five per cent of voting shares."
The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 446)
++YEAS
Members
(Division No. 445)
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guilbault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell	Orlikow	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Cochrane	DaubneyBlenkarn	Cooper	DesrosiersBrowes	Crofton	DommCharest	Crosby	DuplessisClark	(Halifax West)	Edwards(Brandon-Souris)	Dantzer	EllisCoates	Darling	Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guilbault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell	Orlikow	
++NAYS
Members
Belsher	Darling	GirardBlenkarn	Daubney	GormleyBrowes	Desrosiers	GottseligCharest	Domm	GrahamClark	Duplessis	Gustafson(Brandon-Souris)	Edwards	HallidayCoates	Ellis	HardeyCochrane	Epp	HarveyCooper	(Provencher)	HicksCrofton	Fennell	HockinCrosby	Fontaine	Hudon(Halifax West)	Fraleigh	JardineDantzer	Friesen	JepsonJohnson	Nicholson	Stewart	MacDougall	Air Canada Price	Turner(Bona vista-T rinity-	(Niagara Falls)	Taylor	(Timiskaming)	Reid	(Ottawa-Carleton)Conception)	Nickerson	Thacker	Mailly	Reimer	Van De WalleJoncas	Oberle	Towers	McCain	Ricard *	VezinaKempling	O'Neil	Tupper	McDermid	St-Julien	VincentLadouceur	Oostrom	Turner	McLean	Scott	WeinerLanthier	Pennock	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Nicholson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WenmanLayton	Peterson	Van De Walle	(Niagara Falls)	Scott	WhiteLewis	Plourde	Vezina	Nickerson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WilsonMacDonald	Price	Vincent	Oberle	Stackhouse	(Swift Current(Kingston and	Reid	Weiner	O'Neil	Stewart	-Maple Creek)-78the Islands)	Reimer	Wenman	Oostrom	Taylor	MacDougall	Ricard	White	Pennock	Thacker	(Timiskaming)	St-Julien	Wilson	Peterson	Towers	Mailly	Scott	(Swift Current	Plourde	Tupper	
McCain
McDermid
McLean
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Stackhouse
-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 26 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Corporation and the Commissioner of Official Languages shall include in the annual report a review of the performance of Air Canada in respect of attaining the goals and objectives of the Official Languages Act."
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 4 at page 8 the following:
"(3) The Corporation assumes all assets and all liabilities of the Corporation held immediately prior to the day on which the Corporation becomes a corporation to which the Canada Business Corporation Act applies."
The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 448)
Allmand	(Division No. 447)

YEAS Members	Allmand Baker Benjamin Caccia	YEAS Members Gray (Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)	Ouellet Penner Pepin Prud'hommeGray	Ouellet	Copps	Jewett	RiisBaker	(Windsor West)	Penner	de Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudBenjamin	Guilbault	Pepin	Epp	Keeper	RodriguezCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'homme	(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyCopps	Jewett	Riis	Nipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30de Jong	Kaplan	Robichaud	Finestone	Marchi	Epp	Keeper	Rodriguez	Foster	McCurdy	(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone Foster Gauthier	MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members	Skelly Waddell-30	Gauthier Belsher Blenkarn Browes Charest	Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members Epp (Provencher) Fennell Fontaine	Johnson (Bonavista-T rinity-Conception) JoncasBelsher	Duplessis	Hicks	Clark	Fraleigh	KemplingBlenkarn	Edwards	Hockin	(Brandon-Souris)	Friesen	LadouceurBrowes	Ellis	Hudon	Coates	Girard	LanthierCharest	Epp	Jardine	Cochrane	Gormley	LaytonClark	(Provencher)	Jepson	Cooper	Gottselig	Lewis(Brandon-Souris)	Fennell	Johnson	Crofton	Graham	MacDonaldCoates	Fontaine	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Crosby	Gustafson	(Kingston andCochrane	Fraleigh	Conception)	(Halifax West)	Halliday	the Islands)Cooper	Friesen	Joncas	Dantzer	Hardey	MacDougallCrofton	Girard	Kempling	Darling	Harvey	(Timiskaming)Crosby	Gormley	Ladouceur	Daubney	Hicks	Mailly(Halifax West)	Gottselig	Lanthier	Desrosiers	Hockin	McCainDantzer	Graham	Layton	Domm	Hudon	McDermidDarling	Gustafson	Lewis	Duplessis	Jardine	McLeanDaubney	Halliday	MacDonald	Edwards	Jepson	NicholsonDesrosiers Domm	Hardey Harvey	(Kingston and the Islands)	Ellis	(Niagara Falls) Nickerson
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Oberle	Scott	Van De WalleO'Neil	(Victoria-Haliburton)	VezinaOostrom	Scott	VincentPennock	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WeinerPeterson	Stackhouse	WenmanPlourde	Stewart	WhitePrice	Taylor	WilsonReid	Thacker	(Swift CurrentReimer Ricard St-Julien	Towers Tupper Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that the Bill be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 449)
++YEAS
Members
Belsher	Hardey	PetersonBlenkarn	Harvey	PlourdeBrowes	Hicks	PriceCharest	Hockin	ReidClark	Hudon	Reimer(Brandon-Souris)	Jardine	RicardCoates	Jepson	St-JulienCochrane	Johnson	ScottCooper	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Conception)	ScottCrosby	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Halifax West)	Kempling	StackhouseDantzer	Ladouceur	StewartDarling	Lanthier	TaylorDaubney	Layton	ThackerDesrosiers	Lewis	TowersDomm	MacDonald	TupperDuplessis	(Kingston and	TurnerEdwards	the Islands)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ellis	MacDougall	Van De WalleEpp	(Timiskaming)	Vezina(Provencher)	Mailly	VincentFennell	McCain	WeinerFontaine	McDermid	WenmanFraleigh	McLean	WhiteFriesen	Nicholson	WilsonGirard	(Niagara Falls)	(Swift CurrentGormley	Nickerson	-Maple Creek)-78Gottselig	Oberle	Graham	O'Neil	Gustafson	Oostrom	Halliday	Pennock	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Finestone	KeeperBaker	Foster	MacLellanBenjamin	Gauthier	ManlyCaccia	Gray	MarchiCopps	(Windsor West)	McCurdyde Jong	Guilbault	MitchellEpp	(Saint-Jacques)	Orlikow(Thunder Bay-	Jewett	OuelletNipigon)	Kaplan	PennerPepin	RodriguezPrud'homme	SkellyRiis	Waddell-30
Robichaud


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 7, consideration of Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at report stage of Bill C-121.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Accordingly the question is on Motion No. 3. Mr, Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-121 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 21 to 24 at
page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"17. All sections shall come into force five years following Proclamation by
Governor in Council."
The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 450)
++YEAS
Members
Benjamin	Keeper	Rodriguezde Jong	Manly	SkellyEpp	McCurdy	Waddell-13(Thunder Bay-	Mitchell	Nipigon)	Orlikow	Jewett	Riis	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Clark	CrosbyBaker	(Brandon-Souris)	(Halifax West)Belsher	Coates	DantzerBlenkarn	Cochrane	DarlingBrowes	Cooper	DaubneyCaccia	Crofton	DesrosiersCharest	Domm
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Duplessis	Johnson	Peterson	Epp	Joncas	PlourdeEdwards	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Plourde	(Provencher)	Kaplan	PriceEllis	Conception)	Price	Fennell	Kempling	Prud'hommeEpp	Joncas	Prud'homme	Finestone	Ladouceur	Reid(Provencher)	Kaplan	Reid	Fontaine	Lanthier	ReimerFennell	Kempling	Reimer	Foster	Layton	RicardFinestone	Ladouceur	Ricard	Fraleigh	Lewis	RobichaudFontaine	Lanthier	Robichaud	Friesen	MacDonald	St-JulienFoster	Layton	St-Juiien	Gauthier	(Kingston and	ScottFraleigh	Lewis	Scott	Girard	the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Friesen	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Gormley	MacDougall	ScottGauthier	(Kingston and	Scott	Gottselig	(Timiskaming)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Girard	the Islands)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Graham	MacLellan	StackhouseGormley	MacDougall	Stackhouse	Gray	Mailly	StewartGottselig	(Timiskaming)	Stewart	(Windsor West)	Marchi	TaylorGraham	MacLellan	Taylor	Guilbault	McCain	ThackerGray	Mailly	Thacker	(Saint-Jacques)	McDermid	Towers(Windsor West)	Marchi	Towers	Gustafson	McLean	TupperGuilbault	McCain	Tupper	Halliday	Nicholson	Turner(Saint-Jacques)	McDermid	Turner	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gustafson	McLean	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Harvey	Nickerson	Van De WalleHalliday	Nicholson	Van De Walle	Hicks	Oberle	VezinaHardey	(Niagara Falls)	Vezina	Hockin	O'Neil	VincentHarvey	Nickerson	Vincent	Hudon	Oostrom	WeinerHicks	Oberle	Weiner	Jardine	Ouellet	WenmanHockin	O'Neil	Wenman	Jepson	Penner	WhiteHudon	Oostrom	White	Johnson	Pennock	WilsonJardine	Ouellet	Wilson	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Pepin	(Swift CurrentJepson The Acting motion lost. Hon. Flora	Penner (Swift Current Pennock -Maple Creek)-94 Pepin Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the MacDonald (for the President of the Privy	Conception)	Peterson
NAYS Members	-Maple Creek)-94Council) moved that the Bill be concurred in. Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent to apply in reverse the result of the previous vote to this vote, with the addition of the	Benjamin de Jong Epp (Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Jewett	Keeper Manly McCurdy Mitchell Orlikow Riis	Rodriguez Skelly Waddell-13Hon. Member walked in.	for Hamilton East	(Ms. Copps) who just	The Acting motion carried.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will leave her out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion from the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 451)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Clark	DantzerBaker	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBelsher	Coates	DaubneyBlenkarn	Cochrane	DesrosiersBrowes	Cooper	DommCaccia	Crofton	DuplessisCharest	Crosby	Edwards(Halifax West)	Ellis


CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) had the floor and had finished his presentation the last time this matter was before the House.
Is the House ready for the question on the second grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No, 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the next grouping.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 9 to 16 at page
5 and substituting the following therefor:
"4.(1) The Minister, all other Ministers of the Crown and all federal institutions shall implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
(2)	The Minister shall provide advice and assistance to other Ministers in the development and implementation of programs and practices that achieve the multiculturalism policy."
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 17 to 21 at page
5 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.(1) The Minister shall take appropriate measures to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall
(a)	engage in an ongoing consultation with ethnocultural communities and multicultural organizations in finding the best means to achieve the multicultural policy;"


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 21 at page 5 and
substituting the following therefor:
"of the foregoing, shall".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 18 to 21 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Minister shall engage in ongoing dialogue with all provinces and territories respecting the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada and may enter into an agreement or arrangement with any province or territory further thereto."
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 18 to 21 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) the Minister shall engage in an ongoing dialogue with all the provinces and territories and enter into agreements with any or all of them whenever such agreements advance the multiculturalism policy of Canada."


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 27 to 31 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"6.(1) The Ministers of the Crown shall recognize the leadership role of the Minister in implementing the multiculturalism policy and shall, in the execution of their respective mandates, take the actions required to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada."
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 31 at page 6 the following:
"(2) Each Minister shall develop an annual plan to advance the objectives of the multiculturalism policy of Canada within his department and indicate the resources required to achieve these objectives."
He said: Madam Speaker, this group of motions is designed to clarify the responsibilities of the Minister responsible for multiculturalism and other members of the Cabinet in acting on the statement of principles which Clause 3 has set forth so well in the Bill, but which in the draft that came to the House and in the Bill that came back to the House from the legislative committee still leaves all too much opportunity for individuals to act on the policy or to ignore the policy.
Because of the nature of these provisions, I provide as an example Clause 5, the first paragraph of which provides that the Minister shall take such measures as the Minister considers appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada without limiting the generality, and so on. Then some specific statements are made. That particular phrase, "shall take such measures as the Minister considers appropriate", has impressed a great many people as opening the possibility to failing to respect the principles set forth in Clause 3, as opening the door to ignoring the multicultural policy, something which many observers seem to think has characterized government Departments far too often.
The need to strengthen various clauses of the Bill was recognized by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council in its own presentation on the matter which, under the title "Strengthening the Act, a Brief on Bill C-93", was made public in April of this year and said among other things in specific reference to Clause 5, paragraph (1):
The opening paragraph of Section 5(1) could be worded in a more definitive manner as follows: "The Minister shall take measures appropriate to


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
implement the multicultural policy of Canada and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may"
Similar suggestions have come forth for other clauses. Looking at Clause 4 of the Bill, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has suggested that there might be a broadening of the ambit of the Bill by stating that the Minister, all other Ministers of the Crown, and all federal institutions shall implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada. It has been my response to these suggestions to put forward this series of motions, all of which deal in one way or another with ministerial obligation.
Motion No. 20 gives the Minister an active role by himself and with his cabinet colleagues. Motion No. 21, as I have already said, removes from Clause 5 any excuse for inaction and commits the Minister to ongoing consultation with ethnocultural communities and multicultural organizations.
I need hardly say that organizations nationally and provincially have been very concerned about the need for such close consultation. They have all too often been promised consultation by Ministers and then have not seen it actually carried out. Again, with its basis for the implementation of multicultural policy, I have endeavoured in Motion No. 21 to place that obligation on the Ministers so that they will actually realize, having read the Act once it is proclaimed, that these are the requirements of the position.
Motion No. 24 amends Clause 5 in order to ensure consultation with provincial and territorial Governments. I do not think it is any secret that the first federal-provincial meeting of Ministers responsible for multiculturalism, a meeting which the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) carried out as the first multiculturalism Minister of this Conservative Government, was thought by people in some of the provinces as a very important meeting in forcing provincial Governments to give attention to multiculturalism and in encouraging them to press on with the elaboration of their own policies. Recognizing from our side that this policy of 1971 needs to be pushed on in the various jurisdictions of Canada, an obligation to have such meetings with provincial and territorial Governments could be of great value.
Finally, in Motions Nos. 25 and 26 I have attempted to amend Clause 6 in order to strengthen the obligations of all Ministers of the Crown to advance the multiculturalism policy. In Motion No. 26 I have attempted, again deliberately, to ensure that Ministers' Departments develop annual plans designed to ensure that the multiculturalism policy, to which lip service is so often paid politically, and to which governments have ostensibly been committed for many years past, is actually achieved in practice and becomes the basis for action in the various Departments of the Government.
These various motions are designed to strengthen the Bill and ensure it is a reality for the federal Government.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to address two motions of the group that I proposed on behalf of the Liberal Party, that is to say, Motions Nos. 22 and 23. Before doing that, I would like to say that I support my friend's Motion No. 26 in that it is very similar to the motion I moved earlier, a motion which was ultimately defeated, to try to get Ministers and their Departments to develop annual plans to foster and enhance multiculturalism not in broad general strokes but in very specific and tangible ways.
With respect to Motion No. 22, in essence it seeks to change very weak wording to very strong and committed wording. Clause 5 of the Bill talks about ministerial obligations. It says the Minister "may" take such measures as the Minister considers appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada, and so on. I propose here, as I have in other areas of the Bill, to change the word "may" to "shall".
Some Members might think that is nit-picking. Some people might think that it is being too particular. I suggest it is not. From the opening paragraph to the closing paragraph of the Bill we have a lot of words which should have been changed to make the Bill more forceful, more secure, more tangible. We should avoid talking about doing something or wanting something done, and instead ensure that it will be done. It has to be seen as an obligation on the part of the Minister to fulfil a number of multiculturalism policies that I concur in. However, if the language suggests that the Minister "may" do it if he or she wants to, then you have a situation where one Minister of one Party will do it and a subsequent Minister of the same Party or of a different Party may not. That leads to inconsistencies and differences in the implementation of programs. The language in the Bill is crucial if we are to maintain consistency, commitment, and national standards.
Motion No. 23 refers to Clause 5 of the Bill which says again the Minister "may" enter into an agreement or arrangement with any province respecting implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. My motion would have the Bill say that the Minister "shall" engage in ongoing dialogue with all provinces and territories respecting implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada and so on.
There are two key points to this motion. The first one concerns changing "may" to "shall". The first conference called by the then Minister, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), was I believe held in 1985. There have been no other meetings since then. It would have been very valuable and productive to have had a commitment to annual meetings of First Ministers on such an important issue. As it was, it was a one-day wonder and nothing was produced. There was no tangible follow up to that meeting. Had there been another set of meetings in 1986, 1987 and again this year there would have been action on a number of priority items. As it was, it was an initiative by one Minister that simply went nowhere.
The second point of my motion concerns the territories. Right now the legislation stops at provinces. I note that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) is in the


House right now and I applaud him for being here. I ask him to consider adding the word "territories" to the Bill. I ask myself, why leave out two territories when we are talking about a national policy? We sometimes hear calls from the wilderness, if you will, where people feel that they are being left out of the process. There is some justification for that feeling, particularly when we look at the Meech Lake Accord and other issues. This is a case in point. The legislation speaks only to arrangements on multiculturalism with the provinces. I suggest it would be in keeping with this country's history to include the territories in any discussion of multiculturalism.
I hope the Minister and his Government recognize the failure, and I am not saying it was intentional, perhaps oversight is a better word, in leaving the territories out. I ask the Government to remedy that by including the territories in discussions with the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
The first question is on Motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will resume debate on Motion Nos. 27 and 28.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"7.(1) The Minister shall establish a council to advise and assist the Minister on the implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to multiculturalism and the Council shall be constituted as follows:
(a)	to be called "Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Council";
(b)	to consist of 56 members with the following distribution; British Columbia-7, Alberta-4, Saskatchewan-3, Manitoba-4, Ontario-16, Quebec-12, New Brunswick-2, Nova Scotia-2, Prince Edward Island-2, Newfoundland-2, Yukon-1, North West Territories-1;
(c)	to have an executive committee of 1 member from each province;
(d)	to have a membership which reflects the multicultural diversity of Canada;
(e)	appointments to the Council shall be made by order in council from among nominees recommended by organizations of ethnocultural minorities and other organizations working in the area of multiculturalism.
(2)	The members of the Council shall consult with ethnocultural communities in their provinces on a regular basis and transfer grassroots advice to the Minister.
(3)	The Council shall make an annual appearance before the appropriate Committee of the House of Commons.
(4)	The Council shall make an annual report to the Minister and a ministerial response to its report shall be made public.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"7.(1) The Minister shall establish an Advisory Council to assist the Minister and Government in implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
(2) The members of the Advisory Council shall be appointed by order in council from nominees elected by the various ethnocultural communities and national multicultural organizations."


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to Motion No. 27, which is one of the last two amendments at report stage. Motion No. 27 refers to the section in the Bill which addresses the Canadian Multiculturalism Council. The CMC, or the advisory committee, is a body established by the Government to advise the Minister of the


day on issues affecting the multicultural policy of the country. I have proposed a much more description and, I believe, a much more effective direction to the CMC as it now is.
Clause 7(1) of the Bill says:
The Minister may establish an advisory committee to advise and assist the Minister on the implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to multiculturalism and, in consultation with such organizations representing multicultural interests as the Minister deems appropriate, may appoint the members and designate the chairman and other officers thereof.
The language is noncommittal. The word "may" is used which does not commit the Minister to any specific action. A different approach to implementation may be taken by subsequent Ministers, thereby confusing the entire CMC as we know it today.
In addition to proposing in Motion No. 27 that "the Minister shall establish a council to advise and assist the Minister", I go to some length in proposing the shape of the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Council, the number of members, the issue of an executive committee, the fact that the membership should reflect the diversity of the Canadian mosaic, and that appointments should be made from lists submitted by the various organizations across the country in order to ensure that the people appointed to this committee will reflect the diversity which exists in Canada and will be in touch with the communities which they purport to represent.
These amendments reflect the proposals which were made for the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism which the Government rejected.
It is particularly important that we have an executive comprised of one member from each province. This will eliminate having a large organization coming to Ottawa to meet and advise the Minister. I do not think that large numbers are as effective as a smaller group. In Motion No. 27 I suggest that the council be formed of the 56 members which I propose: seven from British Columbia, four from Alberta, three from Saskatchewan, four from Manitoba, 16 from Ontario, 12 from Quebec, two from New Brunswick, two from Nova Scotia, two from Prince Edward Island, two from Newfoundland, one from the Yukon, and one from the Northwest Territories. I recommend that only one member from each province and territory form an executive to come to Ottawa. This will reduce the expense and will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of that body.
The other important element is that appointments by the Minister to the Canadian Advisory Council on Multiculturalism should be rooted in the large number of organizations which are working on behalf of multiculturalism across the country. It is now alleged, unfortunately, that many of the appointments tend to be very political and partisan. In fact the Vice-President, Mr. Peter McCreath, acknowledged, in a paper to which I will be alluding later, that the current CMC is nothing more than an appendix of the current Government.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
I am not suggesting that that kind of political partisanship did not take place in previous administrations-it did. I am suggesting that we should rise above that in order to appoint people who can enhance and propel the policy of multiculturalism in the future. I am not suggesting that the current membership of the existing CMC is not interested in multiculturalism. However, there is a perception in the country that they tend toward having a political partisan base.
There is a real concern that members who are appointed to this committee to represent one cultural group or community are not known to that group or community. They ask what is the purpose of having a committee of individuals who are not rooted in the actual communities and cultural groups themselves to advise the Minister and the Government. I believe my amendment would attempt to redress that perception which has existed for a number of years. Our obligation is to eradicate that perception. In that way we will build confidence and a positive perception of government institutions.
Motion No. 27 is an attempt to go beyond the proposition in Bill C-93, to make it more of a commitment so that the Minister will, rather than perhaps, appoint a committee. It is an attempt to root the membership from actual membership lists provided by groups and organizations across the country. It provides for a specific membership allotted to the provinces and territories and that there be an executive committee.
If we follow this course, I believe we will be in better tune with the workings of government machinery and in better tune and synchronization with the aspirations of communities across this country.
Hopefully the Government will see the benefit of such a proposition, which was included in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism which urged the Government to reform the area of the advisory committee in a very real and profound way so as to remove the very negative way many people viewed the appointment of individuals to an important body.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, the last two motions before us for debate deal with the constitution of an advisory body to the Government, particularly to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner). This is a matter of great importance. Given the changes that have occurred in the Bill, presumably on the suggestion of the Minister or the will of government Members, it is particularly important to deal with this matter in a responsible way.
I recognize that the motions with which we were dealing a few moments ago deal with the commitment of the Minister of Multiculturalism's policy and that Conservative caucus members believe the Bill does not need to be strengthened in those areas. However, I want to ask some serious questions of the Minister and seek to persuade him and his colleagues of the possibility of changing their minds on this matter.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
When the Bill first came to the House, Clause 7 read: "The Minister may establish a council to advise and assist the Minister on the implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to multiculturalism". When the committee considered this particular clause in the Bill, the Conservative members, who were the only ones present that afternoon, decided to change "council" to an "advisory committee". Frankly, the logic for that never became clear to me. It might be worth the Minister's taking a few moments to explain why an advisory committee would be a preferable change.
The Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) already referred to the long history of a consultative committee on multiculturalism. It became the multicultural council, and the present council has been advising Ministers for some years. While its members have been reappointed and some new ones added since the Government took office in 1984, there has been a good deal of continuity from its first constitution to the present one. It has been an advisory council throughout this period and, admittedly, it has tended to be perilously close to the Minister's pocket in many ways.
It has rarely said anything in public. I believe the only time the multiculturalism council to the present Government said anything in public was when it decided to, I might say, shoot its mouth off in support of the Government's failure to act on Japanese Canadian redress. Many Canadians would regard that as a rather lamentable statement.
While it has done important things for Government, it has not really lived up to the advisory council nature that one would have expected.
Perhaps the Minister is suggesting that since the council does not do much it may as well be turned into an advisory committee, to make it even more in house. The Member for York West quoted, in a document sent to a previous Minister, the vice-chairman's description of the Canadian Multicultural Council as being all Tories working for the re-election of the Government. I want to say quite advisedly that I do not believe that is true of all the members of the CMC. I am certain some of them are not card-carrying members of the Conservative Party, but are members who are really committed to multiculturalism and for whom the re-election of the Government is less important, if I may say, than the realization of the multicultural policy. I suggest that to change the multiculturalism council to an advisory committee seems a rather serious demotion.
What alternatives exist? We are dealing here with two motions. The Member for York West has spoken well to his proposal. I was involved in the elaboration of that proposal as a member of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. Obviously, I think his motion is quite good.
I chose not to become involved in the details of numbers and constitution concerned with executive committee and so on. As a member of the standing committee I am not withdrawing my support from those detailed proposals with which the standing committee dealt, and will likely support this motion. In my
motion, however, I endeavoured to turn the advisory council to the Minister into a council that would be explicitly advisory to the Minister and to government.
Let me take a moment to read Clause 7 in part as it would read if my motion were accepted. Clause 7(1) would read:
The Minister shall establish an Advisory Council to assist the Minister and Government in implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
Clause 7(2) would read:
The members of the Advisory Council shall be appointed in order in council from nominees elected by the various ethnocultural communities and national multicultural organizations.
There is a deliberate attempt in the first paragraph to establish a body that will be advisory to the whole Government, not simply to the Minister. I think that would make it a more public body than has been true of the consultative councils on multiculturalism before and the present multiculturalism council as such. In considering such a body, we might have an expectation of something like the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In fact, I thought quite explicitly of that model in another area. In that case, of course, there were national organizations which thought it advisable to have an action committee in communities and nationally to ensure that the Government was sufficiently pressed. However, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has had research capacity. It has, I believe, a full time chairperson and staff who carry on the work. I think that provides a model which is really far preferable than an advisory committee as presently stated in the Bill.
With respect to the second paragraph, I have been quite concerned to ensure this body would relate to the communities. Whether people were all Liberals in the past and all Conservatives now, and I do not suppose it would be either of those situations, what was, I fear, all too often the case was that persons, for whatever reason-primarily, I suppose, they had to be known to the politicians-did not necessarily translate into being well positioned in the communities and well aware of what the people wanted. There was in fact quite a real danger that the persons who made up this so-called advisory council to Government were not equipped in their experience and involvement to be the best of advisers to Government.
Therefore in both of these motions, and in the report of the standing committee, there is an attempt to ensure that these persons will be nominated by the communities and, of course, appointed by Order in Council of the Government of Canada to constitute such an advisory body. In fact, in the case of the Manitoba Intercultural Council there is precisely such a body. The majority of the members of the Manitoba Intercultural Council are in fact members of that council on precisely this basis. That ensures that the council is well grounded in the communities and equipped to speak for them, which I think is the all important thing.


I hope the Minister may comment at least briefly on his own vision of the advisory committee. If the arguments my colleague and I have been making for a different structure were to impress him, perhaps he would be interested in taking up one or the other proposal as he has done once or twice already this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 27.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 28.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the Bill now before the House.
The first question is on Motion No. 7.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 452)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I believe there would be a disposition to apply the vote that has just been held to all subsequent motions and, in reverse, to the concurrence motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assumed that we would be applying the results of the vote to all subsequent motions at report stage as well as applying it in reverse order to the concurrence motion.
However, if that is not the case, we ought to have another vote on the concurrence motion. Our intention would be to apply this vote to all of the subsequent ones, including the concurrence motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Consequently, the vote which has just been taken will be applied to Motions Nos. 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. For the concurrence motion we will be using the same vote but in reverse. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 453)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Crofton	FennellBlenkarn	Dantzer	FontaineBrowes	Darling	FraleighCharest	Duplessis	FriesenCochrane	Edwards	GirardCooper	Ellis	GormleyGottselig	MacDougall	ScottGraham	(Timiskaming)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Greenaway	Mailly	ScottGustafson	McDermid	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Halliday	Nicholson	StackhouseHardey	(Niagara Falls)	StewartHarvey	Nickerson	TaylorHockin	Oberle	ThackerJardine	O'Neil	TupperJepson	Oostrom	Van De WalleKempling	Pennock	VincentLadouceur	Peterson	WeinerLanthier	Pietz	WenmanLayton	Plourde	WhiteLewis	Reid	WilsonMacDonald	Reimer	(Swift Current(Kingston and	Ricard	-Maple Creek)-63the Islands)	St-Julien	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived	
on the following division: (Division No. 454)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	Stackhouse
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Fennell
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Friesen
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly McDermid Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Tupper
Van De Walle
Vincent
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-63


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 455)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 456)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Axworthy
Baker
Caccia
Copps
de Jong
Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone Foster Gauthier
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Kaplan
Langdon
MacLellan
Marchi
McCurdy
	Canadian Multiculturalism Act	
Mitchell	Riis	
Orlikow	Robichaud	
Pepin	Skelly	
Prud'homme	Waddell-24
 NAYS Members	
Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 15,	which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 457)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Fennell	HarveyBlenkarn	Fontaine	HockinBrowes	Fraleigh	JardineCharest	Friesen	JepsonCochrane	Girard	KemplingCooper	Gormley	LadouceurCrofton	Gottselig	LanthierDantzer	Graham	LaytonDarling	Greenaway	LewisDuplessis	Gustafson	MacDonaldEdwards	Halliday	(Kingston andEllis	Hardey	the Islands)
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	Plourde Reid	Tupper Van De Walle	{Division No. 459)	Mailly	Reimer	Vincent	McDermid	Ricard	Weiner	YEAS	Nicholson	St-Julien	Wenman	(Niagara Falls)	Scott	White	Nickerson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Wilson	Members	Oberle	Scott	(Swift Current	O'Neil	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	-Maple Creek)-63	Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz	Stackhouse Stewart Taylor Thacker	Allmand Axworthy Baker Caccia	Foster Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)	Orlikow Pepin Prud'homme Riis


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Copps de Jong	Kaplan Langdon	Robichaud Skellymotion lost.	Epp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	The House divided on Motion No. 17, on the following division:	which was negatived	Nipigon) Finestone	McCurdy Mitchell	NAYS	{Division No. 458)	Members	YEAS	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerMembers	Browes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienAllmand	Cochrane	Ladouceur	ScottFoster	Orlikow	Cooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Axworthy	Gauthier	Pepin	Crofton	Layton	ScottBaker	Guilbault	Prud'homme	Dantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Caccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Riis	Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseCopps	Kaplan	Robichaud	Duplessis	(Kingston and	Stewartde Jong	Langdon	Skelly	Edwards	the Islands)	TaylorEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24	Ellis	MacDougall	Thacker(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Fennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperNipigon)	McCurdy	Fontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFinestone	Mitchell	Fraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerNAYS	Girard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonMembers	Graham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Belsher	Hockin	Reid	Halliday	Peterson	Blenkarn	Jardine	Reimer	Hardey	Pietz	Browes	Jepson	Ricard	Harvey	Plourde	Charest	Kempling	St-Julien	Cochrane Cooper Crofton	Ladouceur Lanthier Layton	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) Scott	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	Dantzer Darling	Lewis MacDonald	(Hamilton-Wentworth) Stackhouse	The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived	Duplessis Edwards	(Kingston and the Islands)	Stewart Taylor	on the following division:	Ellis	MacDougall	Thacker	Fennell	(Timiskaming)	Tupper	Fontaine Fraleigh	Mailly McDermid	Van De Walle Vincent	{Division No. 460)	Friesen	Nicholson	Weiner	Girard	(Niagara Falls)	Wenman	YEAS	Gormley	Nickerson	White	Gottselig	Oberle	Wilson	Graham	O'Neil	(Swift Current	Members	Greenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63	Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Allmand	Hardey	Pietz	Foster	OrlikowHarvey	Plourde	Axworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'homme


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Caccia Copps	(Saint-Jacques) Kaplan	Riis Robichaudmotion lost.	de Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:	(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone	Marchi McCurdy Mitchell	
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
NAYS	McDermid	Reimer	Van De WalleNicholson	Ricard	Vincent(Niagara Falls)	St-Julien	WeinerMembers	Nickerson	Scott	WenmanOberle	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WhiteO'Neil	Scott	WilsonOostrom	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Swift CurrentBelsher	Hockin	Reid	Pennock	Stackhouse	-Maple Creek)-63Blenkarn	Jardine	Reimer	Peterson	Stewart	Browes	Jepson	Ricard	Pietz	Taylor	Charest	Kempling	St-Julien	Plourde	Thacker	Cochrane	Ladouceur	Scott	Reid	Tupper	Cooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Crofton Dantzer	Layton Lewis	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	The Acting	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	Darling	MacDonald	Stackhouse	motion lost.	Duplessis	(Kingston and	Stewart	Edwards	the Islands)	Taylor	The House divided on Motion No. 22,	which was negativedEllis Fennell	MacDougall (Timiskaming)	Thacker Tupper	on the following division:	Fontaine	Mailly	Van De Walle	Fraleigh	McDermid	Vincent	Friesen Girard	Nicholson (Niagara Falls)	Weiner Wenman	(Division No. 462)	Gormley	Nickerson	White	Gottselig	Oberle	Wilson	YEAS	Graham	O'Neil	(Swift Current	Greenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63	Gustafson Halliday Hardey Harvey	Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde	Allmand	Members	
Foster	Orlikow


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Axworthy Baker	Gauthier Guilbault	Pepin Prud'hommemotion lost.	Caccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	RobichaudThe House divided on Motion No. 21, on the following division:	which was negatived	de Jong Epp (Thunder Bay-	Langdon MacLellan Marchi	Skelly Waddell-24Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	(Division No. 461)	NAYS	YEAS	Members	Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerAllmand	Foster	Orlikow	Browes	Jepson	RicardAxworthy	Gauthier	Pepin	Charest	Kempling	St-JulienBaker	Guilbault	Prud'homme	Cochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Riis	Cooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Copps	Kaplan	Robichaud	Crofton	Layton	Scottde Jong	Langdon	Skelly	Dantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Epp	MacLellan	Waddell-24	Darling	MacDonald	Stackhouse(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Duplessis	(Kingston and	StewartNipigon)	McCurdy	Edwards	the Islands)	TaylorFinestone	Mitchell	Ellis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperNAYS	Fontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerMembers	Girard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonBelsher Blenkarn Browes Charest Cochrane Cooper	Fontaine Fraleigh Friesen Girard Gormley Gottselig	Jardine Jepson Kempling Ladouceur Lanthier Layton	Graham Greenaway Gustafson Halliday Hardey Harvey	O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde	(Swift Current -Maple Creek)-63Crofton	Graham	Lewis	Dantzer	Greenaway	MacDonald	The Acting	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	Darling	Gustafson	(Kingston and	motion lost.	Duplessis	Halliday	the Islands)	Edwards Ellis Fennell	Hardey Harvey Hockin	MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly	The House divided on Motion No. 23, on the following division:	which was negatived
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
{.Division No. 463)
++NAYS
++YEAS
Members
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	
The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:
The next question is on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:
Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 25,	which was negatived
on the following division: {Division No. 465)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	
++NAYS
Members
(Division No. 464)
	YEAS
	Members
Allmand	Foster
Axworthy	Gauthier
Baker	Guilbault
Caccia	(Saint-Jacques)
Copps	Kaplan
de Jong	Langdon
Epp	MacLellan
(Thunder Bay-	Marchi
Nipigon) Finestone	McCurdy Mitchell
Orlikow	Belsher Blenkarn Browes Charest Cochrane Cooper Crofton Dantzer
Pepin	Darling
Prud'homme	Duplessis
Riis	Edwards
Robichaud	Ellis
Skelly	Fennell
Waddell-24	Fontaine
	Fraleigh Friesen Girard
Gormley	MacDonald
Gottselig	(Kingston and
Graham	the Islands)
Greenaway	MacDougall
Gustafson	(Timiskaming)
Halliday	Mailly
Hardey	McDermid
Harvey	Nicholson
Hockin	(Niagara Falls)
Jardine	Nickerson
Jepson	Oberle
Kempling	O'Neil
Ladouceur	Oostrom
Lanthier	Pennock
Layton	Peterson
Lewis	Pietz Plourde


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Reid	Stackhouse	WenmanReimer	Stewart	WhiteRicard	Taylor	WilsonSt-Julien	Thacker	(Swift CurrentScott	Tupper	-Maple Creek)-63(Victoria-Haliburton)	Van De Walle	Scott	Vincent	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Weiner


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 466)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 467)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 28,	which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 468)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	
Canadian Multiculturalism Act

	Members	
Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications), on
behalf of the Secretary of State, moved that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be concurred in as amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister of State on a point of order.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, who ever said that the Official Opposition never co-operates in helping process legislation in an easy fashion?


Miss MacDonald (for Secretary of State of Canada) moved: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to participate in the final stages of the debate of Bill C-93, the Canadian multiculturalism Bill. I want to tell you how proud I am to be the Minister of State for Multiculturalism during the final passage of this historic Bill.
This is a world-class Bill. It is a first of its kind. It is the solemn recognition by the Parliament of Canada on behalf of all Canadians of the fundamental importance of multiculturalism in our society. It gives concrete expression to the multicultural guarantee contained in Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are so many people I could thank for their work, foresight, and dedication in making this Bill possible, but I would like to single out two of them in particular: Mr. George Corn, immediate Past President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council-


Marcel Prud'homme: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -whose steadfast dedication for so many years has been an inspiration to so many, and David Crombie who, as Secretary of State, introduced the Bill on December 1 last-


Marcel Prud'homme: A great guy; he was too good and that is why he left.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you would find consent for third reading to proceed immediately. I have discussed it with the other Parties, and I think that there may be Members who wish to address this matter beyond the hour of ten o'clock. We have agreed not to see the clock at 10 p.m.
We have also agreed that if a recorded division is demanded, such recorded division would be deferred until 3 p.m. tomorrow, and that there will be no quorum calls during that time. In the event that the proceedings should finish before 10 p.m., there would be no further business called by the Government and we would call it 10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestions of the Hon. Minister of State. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -and whose vision of being Canadian is a vision which encompasses us all.
I have followed the debate on Bill C-93 from its introduction to today. I have been impressed by the thoughtfulness of the many witnesses who came before the legislative committee. I have also been impressed by the thoughtfulness of the hundreds, yes, thousands of Canadians who have written both to me and to my predecessor. Underlying those submissions was the recognition that now was the time for the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
Now is the the time for the Parliament of Canada to come together to recognize the multicultural reality of this nation and to celebrate our multicultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a Bill that provides an approach to multiculturalism based on co-operation, incentive, consensus and choice. We have before us a Bill that is a solemn recognition of what we are building together, all of us, in this great country of ours.


My appearance before the Legislative Committee at the beginning of April was one of my first official functions as Minister of State (Multiculturalism). On that occasion I indicated my intention of working with the Committee to improve and reinforce the Bill and make it more understandable to all Canadians. That is exactly what the Committee has done. It has reinforced the Bill, from the preamble down to the very last clause.

We were searching for the best way of expressing in this Bill our belief that multiculturalism is part and parcel of our Canadian identity and heritage. I feel that we settled on the best wording, that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our heritage and our evolving identity.
We sought a way to make even stronger the system of parliamentary accountability which is at the heart of this Bill.
I think we found that way by the amendment that the Government of Canada and all its institutions shall undertake their responsibilities relative to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. This one simple amendment gives concrete force to the commitment of the whole of the Government of Canada. We have not needed to resort to complex technicalities to deal with what was basically a very simple problem. As I have said, we will have in this Bill a very forceful parliamentary accountability process for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. The combination of a Minister directly responsible to Parliament, clearer and more direct obligations for all Ministers and all federal institutions, a professional full-time departmental secretariat, a strengthened ministerial advisory committee, and a key scrutiny role for the standing committee make for a powerful, effective, yet co-operative approach to multiculturalism.
All across our nation Canadians are supporting Bill C-93. They see a Government that has listened and has worked to improve this Bill. They see a Government that is reaching out to all Canadians, offering everyone the vision of a new and stronger Canada. Just last week the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, whose members were all here today and may still be here, I hope, voiced enthusiastic support for this Bill and its speedy passage. They support this Bill because we worked cooperatively with them to strengthen it. This is what accountability to Parliament is all about. We have just proved that this Bill works. It works right now.
Some of my colleagues across the aisle still want some kind of formal commissioner with broad coercive powers. They seek to transplant an organizational model that suits one setting into new ground. What they have failed to recognize is the fundamentally different situation for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy in Canada in comparison with putting in force the Official Languages Act and carrying out the protection of fundamental human rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Human Rights Act, where the aim is to remedy breaches of legally established individual rights.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the multiculturalism policy will build upon many of the above-mentioned factors. Many of the problems Canadians face involve discrimination based on race, colour, and national or ethnic origin, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been mandated to meet those problems head-on. The Commitee amended the preamble to Bill C-93 to remind Canadians of the importance of the role of the Commission in the fight against discrimination.

This Bill encompasses a broad line of commitments, commitments which start in the preamble itself, which are expanded upon and given reality in the broad policy commitments contained in Clause 3(1) of the Bill, and which are made specific obligations for federal institutions in Clause 3(2). The Bill contains a very clear system of responsibilities and accountability for me as Minister and for every one of my ministerial colleagues. That accountability system is to the Parliament of Canada.
1 do not feel we need import into this very clear system an external compliance and monitoring agency. Such would be contrary to the very spirit of this Bill. This Bill is about the primacy of Parliament, and surely we in Parliament can monitor our own affairs. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are serious about the very heart and specific commitments that we are making. That is why I was delighted to announce that we will be spending $192 million over the next five years to implement the new directions of the multiculturalism policy of Canada, an increase of $62 million in new funds for multiculturalism.
I have reoriented the programs of the multiculturalism sector to reflect the major themes of the Bill. Three areas are paramount:	race relations and cultural understanding;
heritage, cultures, and languages; and community support programs. That is also why I am establishing a multiculturalism secretariat to assist other federal Departments and agencies to implement the multiculturalism policy and to assist me in my important duty of reporting to Parliament on its implementation.
In our first Speech from the Throne delivered in the autumn of 1984 we identified certain key priorities. Two very important ones were, and remain, national reconciliation and social justice. This Bill before us today is about both these objectives. National reconciliation is all about being Canadian together. We can achieve our dreams. The Canadian multiculturalism Bill is part of this process.
This Bill is also about social justice. It stands as a landmark of a positive and pro-active approach to equality rights. We already have in the Charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the employment equity legislation, a powerful set of anti-


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
discrimination instruments, but we need a pro-active policy approach by the Government on behalf of all Canadians to break down the barriers and misunderstandings that have sometimes kept us apart. That is provided in the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
We pledge to ensure that federal boards and agencies reflect the multicultural reality of our society. We have kept that promise. In a little over three years we have doubled the number of ethnocultural appointments to important positions on boards, commissions, and agencies of the Government of Canada. We introduced the first numerical objectives for the Public Service for the hiring of visible minorities to strengthen and complement our existing programs for women, disabled persons, and aboriginal peoples. Our employment equity legislation and policies have taken our priority of social justice into the workplace.
Equality of participation is our objective throughout federal jurisdiction: the Public Service, federal contractors, and federally-regulated industries. This Government has been opened up to cultural and racial minorities as never before, and we shall continue to do so. That is fairness and it is a major step toward equality of opportunity, toward social justice, and toward national reconciliation, the things which were and remain key priorities.

Mr. Speaker, we are crossing the threshold of a new era within our federation. We are also entering into a new era in international relations. The years to come will reveal unprecedented perspectives of growth, prosperity and peace.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is another symbol of that new era. It sets the tone. It recognizes our diverse origins, the fact that we and our ancestors come from the four corners of the earth, and it charts the course to be followed by all Canadians.

During the second reading debate on this Bill, the Hon. David Crombie quoted Dr. Barbara Ward, the noted British economist who has described Canada as the world's first international nation. I would like to take a moment to reflect on what that really means. It means that Canada is in essence a microcosm of the world. Other nations look to us for leadership in the areas of human rights and equality rights.
The passage of this Bill will send a signal to every corner of the globe that Canada truly is a land of equality and opportunity. We will show clearly that Canada is a land which respects and cherishes individual liberty and allows every person the freedom to cherish and maintain his or her own heritage.

Mr. Speaker, it is with confidence that I call on all Canadian men and women to support the ideals and the principles set
forth in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. They reflect the cultural and racial diversity of our society; they show both where we have come from, and our course for the future.

This Bill is about co-operation and building together. It is about what makes Canada a very special nation. It is about our future.
The debate on this Bill is drawing to a close in the House of Commons, and I call on all Members from both sides of the aisle to join with me in affirming the principles of this Bill and in supporting this historic piece of legislation. I hope the Members of the other place will give this Bill speedy passage so that very soon the Canadian Multiculturalism Act will be law.
We are a nation of peoples from all corners of the globe. We believe in living together and working together as a family of individuals, and we are secure in our diversity. We are proud of our equality and we are confident in our future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I also am very proud to speak on this Bill tonight because the principle expressed in this Bill is very important for our whole nation, for all the regions of our country and for all Canadian citizens who come from all over the world. It is a Bill which is very agreeable to many people throughout the country, but it is a Bill that this Parliament had the opportunity to improve, to strengthen by amendments, and thus to establish as a very sound piece of legislation which we can be proud of and which will guarantee multiculturalism a permanent future in this country.

I too am pleased to speak on third reading stage of Bill C-93, the Canadian multiculturalism Bill because the principle and the concept which underlie the multiculturalism Bill is one that I believe all Members from all sides of the House subscribe to and will defend and promote. However, the Bill could have and should have been made better.
This multiculturalism Bill was a window of opportunity that would have provided this Parliament, and particularly this Government, with the opportunity to listen to Members of the House of Commons, to members of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism who tabled a unanimous report, and to the multitude of organizations which came before the Government and the committee to request and demand a number of things that would create the national fabric of multiculturalism in a piece of legislation.
While I agree with the principles and the concepts of the Bill, and while I certainly agree with some fundamental parts of it, I believe very sincerely and deeply that this Government to a certain degree missed an opportunity to try to deliver a piece of legislation that would have captured the imaginations


and furthered the aspirations of the current generation of Canadians and would have protected and embodied that enthusiastic support for future generations of Canadian citizens.
Bill C-93 is not a new initiative. It is not a unique undertaking. It had its roots and its beginnings in Bill C-84 which was introduced in the last Parliament and unfortunately died on the Order Paper after first reading because of the impending election. It was introduced by the then Liberal Minister, the Hon. David Collenette. It was not the entire answer. I admit and recognize that, and I have said so in debate in committee and in Parliament in the last number of years. Yet it was an important first step toward recognizing the need for an independent, comprehensive, strong and vibrant multicultural-ism Bill which would provide a legislative framework around policies and programs. It would provide that the policies and programs could not be here today and gone tomorrow with another Government. Somehow, they would become part of the legislative foundation upon which this country is built.
I believe the proof of that innovative idea of 1984 was that after the 1984 election, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the then Minister, sent Bill C-84 across Canada to various organizations and communities. He asked them for their input so that together we could build upon the strength of the 1984 legislation and try to correct the weaknesses.
It has been almost four years since this administration took office. This Bill provided the first opportunity we have had to discuss a major undertaking in multiculturalism policy. It has taken quite a while. It has taken almost the entire mandate of this Government to bring this Bill to fruition through a number of successive Ministers.
Beyond the speeches and rhetoric that come along with being an elected representative, beyond the speeches we hear from government Ministers who go across the land to various functions and picnics, I ask myself, as many other Canadians are asking themselves: "What other new directions have been taken in enhancing multiculturalism in the last four years?" What new initiative or expansion of existing programs was announced by the Government in 1984 when it assumed the national leadership of our country? I ask the Government how far the cause of multiculturalism has been advanced beyond what it found when it assumed office?
The answers to those questions go beyond the debate which has taken place over the last number of hours today and the second reading debate some months ago. Apart from that, however, I think there has been a vacuum in innovative and creative leadership on our multicultural policy that has been caused in part by the revolving door of Ministers we have seen in this portfolio during the four years of Conservative government. First, the Hon. Member for Lisgar assumed the portfolio, followed by the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), then the former Member for Rosedale, and now the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
current Minister from Montreal. That revolving door of Ministers has not engendered confidence among Canadians in this policy, or encouraged consistency. Each new Minister has different priorities which he or she wishes to pursue. That has not made for a very strong, consistent, or effective multiculturalism policy over the last four years.
I believe the successes of the Conservative Government in multiculturalism policies have been very few and far between. The Government has essentially tried to put its own brand on the directorate and failed. The Hon. Member for Lisgar had his difficulties. The Hon. Member for Halton wanted to introduce a "multiculturalism means business" policy and that did not fly.
Compare all that to previous Governments. Some people have asked why the Bill was not brought in earlier. That is a good question. Why was this not done earlier? Yet if we look at the record of previous Governments and the evolution of the various programs affecting multiculturalism, it speaks to a certain commitment and momentum that went beyond rhetoric.
For example, the first multiculturalism policy was enunciated in this House in 1971 by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In 1972 we saw the first Minister of State for Multiculturalism appointed. In 1973 was established the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, the first advisory body to the federal Government on issues pertaining to multiculturalism. Then we had the cabinet decision to offer financial assistance to the performing and visual arts programs and projects. We had creation of the intercultural communications program, creation of the writing and publication program, and creation of the Canadian ethnic studies program.
In 1977 we saw the cultural enrichment program approved by Cabinet. In 1981 we had the first national conference on immigrant women, held in Saskatoon. There was the first national conference on heritage languages. The first national conference on multicultural heritage and education was held in Winnipeg. In 1981 we saw establishment of multicultural centres to allow individual ethnocultural communities to share resources and expertise and also help the voluntary sector organizations working in the area of cross-cultural communications.
In 1981 the Government included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 which prohibited discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, or religion. Then of course there was Section 77 which ensured that the Charter would always recognize the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Also in 1981 we saw the national program to combat racism and a new race relations unit was established.
In 1982 Cabinet approved a doubling of the budget from $11.4 million to $25.4 million to allow for new initiatives and new programs in the social development area and to augment support for cultural retention. There was also the first national symposium on race relations and the law held in Vancouver. The first national conference on minorities and the media was


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
held in Toronto. There were guidelines issued on representative depiction of cultural diversity in the advertising of all government Departments, and funds provided for special training courses for visible minority Canadians in co-operation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In 1983 the then Minister responsible for multiculturalism introduced a notice of motion for the appointment of a special all-Party parliamentary task force on the participation of visible minority Canadians in Canadian society, to examine the situation of visible minorities and to look for constructive ways of improving race relations. That was approved by Parliament in June of 1983. Following that, we had the report Equality Now, tabled in March of 1984, and the Government response was tabled in June of that same year.
To go back to 1983, the Liberal Cabinet reaffirmed its commitment to cultural retention by tripling the funding and providing for inflationary increases for heritage language funding. New moneys allowed for the production of Canadian teaching materials as well.
Then we had the establishment of the national resource centre for heritage language at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. There was the announcement of a strategy for inclusion of visible minority Canadians in the affirmative action programs of the Public Service, by the then President of the Treasury Board.
In 1984 there was new emphasis on making all sectors of Canadian society more aware of the multicultural reality which is Canada. There was a national conference focusing on business, communications, and culture. Encouraged by the then Minister, the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board established an informal referral service to advise members on the use of visible minorities in the general field and profession of advertising. New moneys were allocated and funds spent for visible minorities in a disadvantaged position as a result of institutional discrimination and racial biases. Then of course, as I mentioned, there was introduction of the multiculturalism Bill, as well as Criminal Code amendments to strengthen legislation against dissemination of hate propaganda in Canada.
Also in 1984, in co-operation with chiefs of police, there was the first national symposium on policing in a multicultural, multiracial society, held in Vancouver. The Cabinet at that time committed a further $5 million endowment to serve as a continuing and dynamic memorial to the courage and perseverance of the nisei generation of the Japanese-Canadian community, and to support initiatives developed by concerned Canadians to combat systematic racism in our society.
That, briefly and not all encompassing, is an example of what I meant by the evolution and building up of multiculturalism policy by previous Governments. I believe that exercise of establishing a foundation and building upon it has not occurred in the last four years of the current Government, until this piece of legislation was brought forward. Why?
Before the last election it was very clear that the then Opposition had very ambitious programs, projects, promises, and dreams for multiculturalism policy.
In fact, on June 2 at a major conference in Toronto, the then Opposition Leader, today's Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the first Minister responsible for multiculturalism under the 1984 administration, made 46 different promises in the field of multiculturalism. They talked about cultural retention, the maintenance of liaison between government officials and the directorate, a review, increased funding, and new programs. As I look at the list of promises made, I ask myself how many of these promises were acted upon.
At that particular conference the Hon. Member for Lisgar committed that if he were to become the Minister the budget of the multiculturalism directorate would be doubled. As we debated the Estimates in 1985, 1986, and 1987 we saw that the budgets were, in some cases, lower than in previous years.
The lack of follow-up on promises cannot be better depicted than by the Japanese Canadian redress issue. The then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, on the last day of the previous administration in Question Period, criticized the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for not having gone far enough on the issue of Japanese Canadian redress. The then Opposition Leader made it a national issue, not only by raising it in the national forum but by committing himself, his Party, and his government-to-be to a process of negotiation, apology, and compensation which went beyond what the Government of 1984 was prepared to deliver. He made that a campaign issue and raised it at various campaign stops.
For four years since then the promise has been continuously avoided and ignored. At no time, for instance, did the Prime Minister meet with the National Association of Japanese Canadians despite calls, letters, and urgings from Ministers and members of the Opposition to indicate that he would have been able to offer some mobilization, some encouragement to break the log-jam which has existed for the last four years.
The first Minister of multiculturalism, the Hon. Member for Lisgar, promised negotiations when he came into office and then backed away preferring to hide behind discussions. The Hon. Member for Halton was Minister of State for Multiculturalism at the time. When he addressed this issue it seemed to me that he was more interested in trying to divide that community and in moving away from the commitment made to negotiate with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Rather than doing that, there were questions about whether the NAJC was the dutifully elected body to speak on behalf of the Japanese Canadian community.
We then had the former Member of Parliament for Rose-dale who brought an informal and gutsy approach to his service in this Parliament. I have a great deal of respect for him. In his capacity as Mayor of the City of Toronto he


captured, to a certain degree, the imagination of his generation in the sixties and seventies. Ele brought that refreshing attitude to this Parliament. However, when all the dust had settled on the issue of Japanese Canadian redress, the matter was not moved ahead. It was stagnating in a corner of Canada's Parliament. The current Minister is the fourth Minister to initiate discussions on Japanese Canadian redress.
I am not suggesting that the previous administration was pure on this issue. I disagreed with the previous administration's conclusion about redressing the past. I have tried, in my capacity as a Member and as the critic on multiculturalism for the Liberal Party, to overcome that position. I have tried to send the message that political Parties are able to change, are able to recognize that the policies of a previous time are not meeting the needs and aspirations of the current citizenry and leadership within the Japanese Canadian community. We were prepared to move.
However, the real issue is with the current administration. The previous administration, rightly or wrongly, took a position and defended it. This administration, led by the Prime Minister, took one position before the election and a different position for four years running. There is a question in terms of the acknowledgement, apology, and compensation, and then there is the process. The substance was never given an opportunity to materialize because there was no legitimate process allowed for that substance to be agreed upon.
I tell the Prime Minister, as rumours about an impending election circulate around the country and certainly around this Chamber, that it would do honour, not only to this Government but to this Parliament, to try to put behind us a very sad and sorry chapter in Canadian history, to try to recognize that injustice and to enable the 10,000 to 12,000 Canadians of Japanese ancestry who survive from that time to see the day when the pain in their bodies and souls will, to a certain degree, be eradicated.
I suggest that the process must be given a chance in order for a solution to be reached. The Minister and the National Association of Japanese Canadians must meet and set out the parameters. That must be followed up by negotiations with officials from both parties. Those officials must then go back to their respective organizations and analyse what happened during the bargaining session. The Minister and the national association must then come back together and try to resolve the differences which may still exist.
If there are still differences at that time, the Prime Minister should be involved in order to try to overcome the hurdles and the gulf between the NAJC and the Conservative Minister of multiculturalism. If that is not satisfactory we should consider a third party, be it a committee of this House or a one or two-person commission.
I understand the frustration with yet further study, further commissions, and further committees. However, we need to resolve this issue. It is simply too important to allow it to languish on the Order Paper, in the corridors, and in the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
endless meetings which have taken place on this issue. This is one issue which must be resolved. It points to the lack of leadership and commitment which has symbolized the multicultural policy of the Government.
Another aspect which deals with resolve and commitment is that of funding for the Department of Multiculturalism. Within a conference back in June, 1984, the Government of the day was saying that immediately upon assuming office it would double the budget of the multiculturalism directorate as did the Liberal Government in the mid-1980s. It was the smallest directorate of any federal Department, with an expenditure of $24 million or $1 per year per person on a per capita basis.
In this year's Estimates we were debating expenditures of a Department that had less moneys granted it this year in the Estimates than in 1985 or 1986. Not only did the Government fail to keep up with the cost of inflation, it failed to keep up with real money from previous years. In the last three to four years communities have pleaded with the Government and expressed their concerns. Members of the Opposition and government members on the standing committee have urged the Government for more funding.
Suddenly, with rumours of an impending election, the Minister has decided to increase the budget. That increase does not necessarily take place this year, but it is a commitment by Parliament for the next five years. Suddenly the Government will increase the funding.
Some may ask why we are complaining if this answers our concerns and the community and the Department are promised more money by the Government. Our complaint is that the budget of this Department continues to be hooked to the rollercoaster cart of an election. For some years the Department's budgets were smaller than those of the previous years. We argued against this in the House and in committee as well as throughout the country. It is quite a coincidence that suddenly the budget is increased right before a general election. The fact that this increase is a commitment by Parliament for five further years is unsatisfactory. I do not know of many other Departments that receive their financial backing in such a manner.
We have argued for a continuing, secure and encompassing set of financial resources to build the infrastructure of a Department that will not have to languish for four years with a budget that increases during election time and comes down the roller-coaster on the other side of the election. That does nothing for program delivery, for efficiency, or for the confidence Canadians will have in a Department that is well run and well managed.
The same can be said for the recent announcement increasing the advertising budgets for the third language media. The third language media plays a significant and increasing role in trying to bring the works of the federal Government and


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Parliament closer to the readers of their newspapers and to the audiences of multilingual and multicultural radio and television programming. They have been complaining for a number of years about cut-backs by the Government in terms of advertising and that the money has been going primarily to English and French media. They have been complaining that there should be advertisement from all federal government Departments rather than simply the federal multiculturalism Department. The Government has ignored these complaints for three and a half years. Suddenly, again by coincidence, a few weeks ago at a major conference in Toronto the money was found to increase third language media advertising.
I am not arguing against further increases. I am not arguing that those important media outlets should not receive Government support like other newspapers and radio and television stations. I am asking that we try to stop delivering funding to the multicultural portfolio in that fashion, to get away from the short-term frills to buy favour with various constituencies at election time, and to replace it with a more long-term, genuine and comprehensive budget that will probably do more, even if the funds are smaller, than those promised during an impending election.
Not only would we have a program and a Department that could build upon its success, it would go a long way in removing the emotional cynicism that exists in certain quarters of this country about the role of a federal multiculturalism policy. One cannot put a price on the kind of educational direction that would attempt to convert those who may be suspicious of the value and advantage of such a policy.
That confidence was not engendered by the actions of some members of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council, an advisory group of individuals who give of their time and their energies to try to promote and enhance a multiculturalism policy. For the most part, they do a very credible and proud job.
However, that confidence was not instilled when, on February 24, 1986, the Deputy Chairman of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council, Mr. Peter McCreath, wrote a confidential memorandum to the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the present Minister of Supply and Services. He basically admitted from his own perception that the Canadian Multiculturalism Council was nothing more than an outreach of the Conservative Government. Clearly, that is not its role.
He stated on page 2 of his memorandum that there were three strains of commonality among the members of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council: "One of them is that they are all committed supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism".
He went on to say: "Our voluntary commitment to the Government and our wish to see it survive beyond the next general election together gives us the luxury of being able to assess the situation and present our recommendations solely in
the context of what we truly believe is in the best interest of Canada and of the Conservative Government of the day".
As if that were not enough, he said: "Whatever weaknesses may be inherent in any recommendation to government from the CMC, they at least reflect and form advice and opinion from a selection of the Government's principal supporters across Canada".
That advisory committee to the Government of Canada is there to mobilize that assistance and advice, to percolate those ideas and aspirations from the grass root community organizations and various cultural constituencies across the country. That kind of manipulation, promotion and position by that advisory council is an abuse. That is not the purpose of the CMC. It is not there to protect and support, at any cost and at any interest, the particular political expediencies of one particular Party. The Canadian Multiculturalism Council exists to advise the Government on the best policy of multiculturalism. Yet, when individuals like the Deputy Vice-Chairman articulates very clearly, not once, twice, but three times, in the body of his memo that he considers the CMC as principal supporters of the Conservative Party there is something wrong.
There is something even more wrong when the Minister of the day, the former Member of Parliament for Rosedale, refused to remove that individual, not so the individual would not be able to serve the Government or the country or his interests in the area of multiculturalism, which I am sure he has done, but to send a message to Canadians that the Minister and the Government disavow themselves from the views of this individual. That was not done despite repeated urgings in Parliament, in committee, and in personal correspondence. That is the deep hurt. One would have thought there would have been the political courage to stand up and say: "No, that is not what the CMC stands for".
In September, 1986 some people suggested that that perhaps was an inadvertent slip by one Member and that it was water under the bridge, but we received a document from the Metro Toronto caucus of the Conservative Party. Outlined in a secret memorandum to the Minister was a number of different topics including immigration, internal communication, media, multiculturalism, appointments, prime ministerial and ministerial scheduling. It is a memorandum that is shocking in terms of the recommendations. Under immigration, for instance, the memorandum talks about trying to take advantage of ministerial permits. It states that Canada issued approximately 6,500 ministerial permits in 1985. Of these, only some 10 per cent were issued by the Minister's office. The balance was used by visa officers, CIC, and departmental staff. It states the political potential of ministerial permits is obviously being allowed to fall by the wayside. What this memorandum is saying in between the lines is: "Let us Conservative Members suggest who the ministerial permits should go to in order to help us win some friends".


The memorandum goes on to say that the perception of Tories sidling up to communities in the ethnic areas and opening the floodgates at our borders, as it were, can severely damage enthusiasm for the Party at the traditional grass roots level and thereby nullify any gains in the newer communities. It states that a watchful eye must be kept on the creeping hostility to immigrants which, especially in times of economic duress, is nearly fully dormant and represents a political back lash if acceptable selection standards are not maintained. The Conservative approach to immigration, therefore, must successfully combine intelligence with understanding and selectivity with compassion. Firm but fair was the slogan that was recommended.
The memorandum goes on to talk in terms of the media. It states the long-standing neglect by Tories of the third language press must be reversed before the next general election. That is exactly what happened only a few weeks ago. Good relations with third language media must be achieved if breakthroughs in Metropolitan Toronto's ethnic ridings are to be expected. Ministers, Members, the PMO, and the Party should all contribute to the current political effort aimed at ethnocultural communities and respond to the need to develop a detailed strategy on the federal level pertaining to the ethnic media.
The memorandum goes on to state that the value of the third language media in communicating government policy is generally not recognized. Advertising budgets do not allow for the publicizing of ethnic appointments. MTV suffers from a lack of advertising support from the Government, and given the station's plans to develop into a network, the problem of bad revenue causes considerable political damage.
The memorandum goes on to talk about multiculturalism. The Conservative caucus in Metro Toronto states in the opening paragraph that the committee believes that the articulation of a distinctive Conservative policy on multiculturalism is overdue and as such an urgent priority. Ethnocultural communities must be made to understand precisely why they should give their ballots to the Government rather than to the opposition Parties.
In terms of funding, what I find to be very offensive is the paragraph where the memorandum states that trends in funding of various ethnocultural groups were the next topic examined by the committee. It was stressed that there should be nothing arbitrary about funding cuts or increases. "Liberal funding patterns", whatever that means, "should be disposed of and a politically intelligent PC pattern should take their place. This may be accomplished by a gradual process of funding cuts and reallocations". Some grants managed there are properly reflective of ridings and the ethnic element within them. There was a strong feeling that leadership on grants should come from the caucus and from committees. "Members of Parliament who have access to grant cheques to present at ethnic functions should endeavour to take advantage of such opportunities". The memorandum goes on and on in terms of the very offensive approach and attitude taken in this report toward multiculturalism, appointments, and the role of the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Prime Minister in trying to target a number of various ethnic communities that I could read into the record but will not.
I believe it goes to show this Member of Parliament the type of mind-set that exists above and beyond perhaps the general rhetoric that we hear in terms of a multiculturalism Bill.
The former Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the Member of Parliament for Rosedale, initiated the multiculturalism Bill last year, after work was done by the previous two Ministers under this Conservative administration. That Minister was actually opposed in concept to a multiculturalism Bill. Despite the introduction of a Liberal multiculturalism Bill in 1984, despite the commitment of the Members of Parliament for Lisgar and Halton, the former Member of Parliament for Rosedale was against the concept because he preferred-and I suppose the Government preferred it- instead of operating under a Multiculturalism Bill to make amendments to the Citizenship Act under the guise of multiculturalism. They thought that would be good enough.
I believe the former Member of Parliament for Rosedale essentially moved on a multiculturalism Bill only after he discovered that the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was in fact studying and making a report upon which the major recommendation would be a comprehensive and significant multiculturalism Bill. At that time the Minister shifted his commitment. The committee and various organizations such as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and others who supported the committee's ideas and visions were really responsible for moving the Government into building from that 1984 Bill and trying to crystallize this piece of legislation in Canada's books.
As I mentioned, the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, which was representative of all three political Parties, provided a very detailed examination into the whole area of multiculturalism. In the end, it gave the political green light to this Government and to this Minister to proceed on a very comprehensive Bill that would encompass and embody the type of aspirations existing in the country among various member communities. That committee report was not an attempt simply to put on paper a few ideas or to try to stitch together a number of recommendations. It was the product of a very long and detailed process. It was a report that was established after the committee held 16 public meetings and heard from a variety of witnesses, including verbal testimony and briefs from such groups as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, as well as responses from 20 different federal Departments, about where they thought multiculturalism should go in terms of their respective Departments.
Another major source of input was from the written briefs that the former Minister, the Hon. Member for Lisgar, requested and received from various organizations. These briefs were obtained and distilled as information pertinent to the area of study and reference.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Extensive information on multiculturalism and related policies was also obtained from the multiculturalism sector. A further major source of information was the consultative meeting on race relations hosted by the multiculturalism sector in August of 1986, and other documents. Then, of course, there were the various meetings of the committee in camera to try to digest all this information into a coherent direction.
The committee on the multiculturalism policy, a separate minister for multiculturalism, as well as a separate official multiculturalism commissioner would report to Parliament. There were recommendations built on those three general areas which ran deep in terms of the feelings that communities had and in terms of the goals and objectives that organizations brought to the committee. We made a number of recommendations, 18 in all, ranging from provincial and municipal policies to a separate line Department, to a multiculturalism commissioner, to an Act respecting multiculturalism, and so on. The committee took great pains to try to leave no stone unturned. We made an additional 44 recommendations concerning the Nielsen Task Force that related to multiculturalism and the federal policy.
We talked about a separate Department and not ghettoizing Canadians who were neither of English nor French origin. We talked about a separate line Ministry to offer additional political clout in the corridors of power in Ottawa. We talked about a revamped and separate line Department, not with fundamentally new moneys that would be spent irresponsibly at will but a realignment of existing and old moneys to be combined into a forceful mechanism that would deliver the programs with much greater efficiency and with much greater pride. We talked about bringing the program under the wing of Employment and Immigration, the Department of Secretary of State, Communications and Culture, about bringing it under one roof and referring to it as a separate Department of Multiculturalism.
To move those moneys and those programs under one Department was very symbolic. It would show that the Government of Canada took multiculturalism seriously. It would put it on an even keel with other Departments. It would see the Minister of State become a senior Minister. It would have a Deputy Minister of multiculturalism on an even keel with other Deputy Ministers.
That would not ghettoize multiculturalism as we have heard from the Government. In fact, to keep the status quo, to refuse to think about these reforms, is to ghettoize the multiculturalism policy. This would not be the be-all and end-all in terms of this realigned Department. It would be a transitional point going from a directorate of multiculturalism to a separate ministry to, one day, a Ministry of culture. That would have seen the integration and embodiment of culture and multiculturalism. That would have been the evolution of this Ministry and of this policy rather than allowing it to be jeopardized in one small corner of the federal Public Service. I believe that that type of movement would have crystallized a progressive vision of where multiculturalism is and, more important, where
it can go rather than simply saying that to put it in a separate Department would be to ghettoize it. The inverse is correct.
In terms of an independent commissioner of multiculturalism, the committee was very forceful. We believe that an independent commissioner would get away from the partisanship of the annual report of a Minister. One Minister rarely slaps another whose Department may not be up to speed in terms of the policy of multiculturalism. This would get away from the fact that the Minister does not have the time, the resources or perhaps the willingness to go through the Public Service, Crown corporations, or public institutions, to ensure that their hiring practices and programs reflect and are in keeping with Canada's multiculturalism policy. The commissioner would be accountable to Parliament, not to a Minister, the Department or the Government, and through Parliament to the people. That is what the committee envisioned.
I ask myself why the Government was so fundamentally opposed to the concept of an official multiculturalism commissioner. Why are we in favour of an Official Languages Commissioner? Why are we in favour of giving additional powers, ones which we passed only last week, to the Official Languages Commissioner to investigate various complaints made with respect to our official bilingualism policy? If we had not seen fit back in the 1970s and only last week to recognize the value of having an Official Languages Commissioner, and if we recognized that official bilingualism would not be possible unless we had a proper bureaucratic structure for it, along with a proper budget and a proper Act, then bilingualism would not be the reality that it is today. As a citizen back in the 1970s I supported that policy. I was proud to stand up in my place last week to vote in favour of Bill C-72. Bilingualism is a fundamental characteristic of the country. If we say that multiculturalism is a complementary fundamental characteristic of the country, as are its aboriginal people, then why is the Government so much opposed to the concept of an independent commissioner?
In the amendments which were rejected in committee and in our pleas to the Minister we missed an opportunity to establish such a commissioner. If the Bill goes through this evening, as I believe it will, and when it receives approval from all sides of the House, as I believe it will, then the whole discussion of a separate line Department and the whole discussion of an official multiculturalism commissioner must be at the top of the priorities list when we try again to improve and to build upon this multiculturalism Bill.
I am saddened that we have not done it in this first window of opportunity. The possibility was there. It was particularly there among the members of the standing committee. It was there within the constituencies. It was there within the major organizations which tried to lobby the Government in terms of delivering the aspirations that they knew existed in their communities. There was a national consensus. I feel saddened that the Parliament of Canada, and in particular this Government, was not able to harness that consensus and pass those very important parts of the committee report.


Not only were the recommendations of the Opposition or various Members of Parliament ignored, but also the recommendations a number of major organizations. Most of them are voluntarily organizations whose members give up their time and energies to meet on Saturday afternoons, travel to Edmonton for their annual meeting, or come to Ottawa for consultations to meet with Members, Ministers, and bureaucrats. They too were not listened to.
I was somewhat amused when the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) stated that here was a Government that was prepared to listen and to act. That is not the case with respect to the recommendations, studies, and statistics that were drafted and presented to the Government.
One of those major organizations, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, a number of whose representatives are in the gallery this evening and watching this debate on Bill C-93, in a major report dated April, 1988 made a number of very important recommendations and suggestions for amending Bill C-93. In its executive summary on page 1 it stated: "the Bill is currently a statement of wishes and ideals. The amendments we are suggesting will ensure that the Bill is meaningful and effective". The Council went on to provide three priority resolutions: the whole question of fundamental characteristics, which we were able to achieve today in a spirit of co-operation from all three sides; a clear commitment to implement the multiculturalism policy in Section 3.2, which was not delivered upon; and the monitoring of the implementation of the Act by an independent officer modelled along the same lines as the Official Languages Commissioner, which was not acted upon. Those are the three major recommendations.
The council also has a summary of recommendations from 1 through 14. How many of those recommendations found themselves into the finality of this Bill? The Council also listed other issues that it considered important in terms of crystallizing important concepts in principle in the Bill: the question of multiculturalism funding; the question of a separate Department; the question of the charitable tax status; and the question of the cabinet committee on multiculturalism, and a multicultural institute.
The Minister stated that he listened. He certainly did not listen very much to this report or to any other major report that tried to move the Government in recognizing that national consensus.
Then there are the committee hearings. First, the Government did not want to send Bill C-93 to the permanent Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. It preferred to send it to the legislative committee. In my humble and respectful submission, it received very shoddy treatment. From the first day of the meeting of the legislative committee it was very apparent to me that the priority of that legislative committee, dominated by Conservative Members of Parliament, was simply to get this Bill back into the House for report stage as quickly as possible and at any cost.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Witnesses were not allowed to come before the legislative committee. Scores of witnesses wrote in stating that they would like to present recommendations. They were not allowed to appear. Many witnesses said: "If you are not going to allow us to appear, then have the committee travel and come to see us". That was also refused. In this first major multicultural legislation in four years witnesses from across the country were denied legitimate and justified opportunities to give their input and recommendations.
The committee was in such a hurry that it closed off debate and did not want to listen to any further witnesses. When my colleague, the New Democratic critic on multiculturalism, was not able to attend a drafting session of the amendments, the committee did not even have the respect to hold a meeting the next day in order that my hon. friend was able to attend. That is how quickly the Conservative Government wanted to get this Bill back into the House. The opposition amendments were moved in committee by government Members to attempt to defeat them in order that those amendments would not be able to see the light of day during report stage.
I do not think that that speaks highly of the motives and of the genuine interest in upgrading and amending and offering an input in partnership with constituents and organizations that enhance multiculturalism. They are the people in the trenches outside Parliament who translate the policies that we talk of into a crystallization of reality on the streets of this country. I say those things, not as a Member who is simply attempting to "cry the blues" but as a Member who is trying to have the public recognize that the process followed in this first multicultural legislation was very different from the course and the processes that have been followed in other pieces of legislation, which in some cases although important legislation were not as significant to the national fabric as this particular piece of legislation. In my opinion that process was not honoured to allow maximum participation of constituents to enhance and better a piece of legislation.
I am pleased that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest) is present. I look forward to hearing his debate. I am sure that he is not familiar with the process that took place. If he has any questions he can rise.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a rule in the House that has been long established and usually respected by Members of Parliament that when they address an issue or a piece of legislation they make their remarks pertinent to the piece of legislation.
I wish to point out that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has made so many long and vented complaints about the Government and partisan remarks that I do not think he is serving well the multicultural community that he pretends to serve. His real objective is to discredit the Government, and that has become very obvious. We can only regret the fact that he has made such a cheap issue out of a piece of legislation which he from time to time pointed out was the first of its kind. The Government and other Members from all sides


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
of the House merit some congratulations, but instead we get this type of rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister may want to enter debate. That was not a point of order. The Hon. Member for York West.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I make no apologies to that Member or to any other Member for my actions and my commitment. I look forward to him rising on debate and respecting other Members. I look forward to his vision of the contributions of multiculturalism. I encourage him to rise as an individual and have the courage of his own convictions rather than take cheap shots and then return to signing his mail for his own Department, as much as that is important to do. 1 ask the Hon. Member to rise and discuss multiculturalism and to show the House his commitment, actions, and philosophies. If he wants to take shots at Members of this House, if that is his preference or obligation, I encourage him to do so.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to belabour the point, but the fact is that I think the same rule to which I referred a couple of minutes ago applies. The Hon. Member should keep his remarks relevant to the question before the House. I might add that we have a very competent and good Minister of multiculturalism whose remarks I fully adhere to.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I apologize. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is quite correct. My comments were irrelevant when I referred to him. He pointed out that I should get back to relevancy, and I will do so.
The other aspect that I wanted to point out was that the proof of the discontent is not only lodged with members of the Opposition or Members on this side of the House. One only has to look at a number of witnesses and organizations that have commented on Bill C-93. I draw the sports Minister's attention to these individuals. Are these individuals wrong as well? Are these individuals and organizations also misguided?
We have individuals like Lome Waldman of the Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice, who said: "I am in agreement with the position taken by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and am in particular in agreement about the need to create a Commissioner for Multiculturalism. I believe that the role of such a Commissioner ought to be clarified and strengthened".
Dr. Bhausaheb Ubale, Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said: "The proposed Multiculturalism Act changes nothing and it is not historic as the Minister calls it. It is purely symbolic. It is old wine in a new bottle."
Daniel Iannuzzi, President of Multilingual Television and editor of a weekly Toronto Italian newspaper, Corriere Canadese, said: "What we need is the recognition that
multiculturalism is an integral part of Canadian society-the Bill does not allow for such an interpretation."
The Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship said: "The decision not to establish a Ministry as it was recommended by the standing committee is unacceptable and it only demonstrates the lack of leadership commitment for multiculturalism as a fundamental goal for Canada."
Michael Lanphier, for the Refugee Documentation Project of York University, said: "It is recommended that a new Department of Multiculturalism become the lead Ministry in negotiating an enhanced role for multiculturalism in every federal department".
The Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants said: "The establishment of a Commissioner of Multiculturalism along the lines of the Office of the Commissioner for Official Languages, could greatly assist in monitoring and encouraging the implementation of a multiculturalism policy."
The National Congress of Italian Canadians said: "We believe a Commissioner of Multiculturalism will bring the important elements of visibility and a greater accountability to the implementation of multiculturalism policies."
Lewis Chan, President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council-and formally he made the statement when he was vice-president-said: "It is a shining symbol, and certainly a step forward, but it is a symbol without substance."
The Canadian Multilingual Press Federation said: "By implementing only one of the major recommendations of the committee report, the Government is offering Canadians virtually nothing new from the policies established in 1971."
The Canadian Hellenic Congress said: "David Crombie has rejected the idea of a new Department of Multiculturalism. The current treatment of multiculturalism policies within the Government of Canada is unfocused and underfunded. We doubt that the passing of the proposed Act in its present form will do much to focus or strengthen such policies."
The Hellenic-Canadian Federation of Ontario said: "We are profoundly disappointed by the Government's recent legislation on multiculturalism. We are displeased by this action of the federal Government, which undermines the work of the standing committee, and amounts to nothing more than window-dressing. Indeed, it simply reiterates what exists in federal practices. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the recent draft legislation on multiculturalism of substance for the people of this country."
Those are some of the comments, not of opposition Members but of organizations, of living and breathing entities in our constituencies and across our country that have a deep feeling, as deep a sense of feeling for this policy as any individual in this House. Those kinds of statements were also reflected by a number of the major medias. One has to read the headlines in major medias like The Ottawa Citizen, which call this Bill an empty promise on multiculturalism. It said, "This Bill will be a


disappointment to Canadians from all ethnocultural backgrounds. It fails to give teeth to the fight against prejudice and racism and, on the other hand, it makes an irresponsible promise on language that could rekindle old arguments. In sum, it is a mish-mash of circle squaring ambiguity and clumsy opportunism."
The Globe and Mail: "Multiculturalism bill gets cool welcome". The Montreal Gazette: "Multiculturalism bill ignores proposals by panels of MPs". The Vancouver Sun: "Ethnic bill called symbol over substance". The Vancouver Sun: "Ethnic bill gets mixed reviews". The Telegraph-Journal from New Brunswick: "Multiculturalism bill criticized". The Globe and Mail: "A multicultural mist". The Star-Phoenix from Saskatoon: "Multiculturalism legislation ignores major recommendations". The Chronicle-Herald from Nova Scotia: "New multiculturalism act short on means to implement programs". It goes on and on.
Again, these are not commentaries from members of the Government or on the opposition side; these are from individual organizations and media outlets across the country that have taken a look at this piece of legislation and have made a commentary.
I wanted to summarize some of my thoughts and try to crystallize in a few words what one has experienced over the last three and a half years in this administration leading up to this Bill. The concept of the multiculturalism Bill and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was an important and significant one. I am saddened to witness that that window of opportunity was not utilized in a more profound way and in a more genuine fashion, in a way that there was a national consensus in the community and within Parliament.
I believe, notwithstanding those shortcomings, that it would be somewhat irresponsible for Members of this House or political Parties to try at the very least to deny the creation of a new Bill and of an Act. As I have stated-and it is very obvious-I would have preferred, as many other organizations, to be able to stand this evening and pass and approve a multiculturalism Bill that came a lot closer to reflecting the aspirations and desires of a country and of a collection of ethnocultural organizations from one coast to another.
I suppose that those ideas and visions that are not embodied and encompassed in today's Bill will become a reality that future Parliaments and a future Government may wish to have and hopefully will be successful in attaining.
I am pleased to have at least played a small part in the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism that tried to show the way for this Government to follow. I am also proud to say that it was a very co-operative committee including Members from all sides who I believe worked very well together. I also commend the members of the Government on the committee for having stayed the course and for having proposed and worked with members of the Opposition in providing a unanimous committee report that really showed the way which the Government should have embraced.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Notwithstanding that, I am pleased to have participated on that committee. I recognize that there is much more work to be done in the area of this multiculturalism Bill. I suppose the constituencies and the member organizations will see this as a start, as a beginning that needs to be worked upon as the initial foundation to hopefully what will become a much more durable, encompassing and dignified Bill, an Act that reflects the aspirations and the work of Canadian citizens from all walks of life, from all backgrounds in Canada, right across the regions and territories.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, perhaps Members will allow me to comment on how pleased we all are that I am restricted to 20 minutes-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Abram Ernest Epp: -and will have to be concise. I know, Madam Speaker, that you wished I had unlimited time because I could use it well. I shall endeavour in a few minutes to consider the question that faces us on the third reading of Bill C-93 as the position we want to take.
Beginning more seriously with my observations, I feel honoured to speak at third reading debate on Bill C-93 on behalf of my colleagues and to consider the place that we should give to this Bill in the evolution of Canada's multicultural policy. We were very critical of the Bill at various points. That was true as we began consideration of the Bill at report stage.
Even though we have reached debate on third reading this evening immediately following report stage consideration, it is necessary to step back a bit and consider what we have been doing and what we have as the end result. We have to say that the Bill could do much more but, as everyone will concede, half a loaf is better than none. My friend, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) spoke of a window of opportunity. I am not very inclined to that kind of language. I think we could have seen another Government doing it much better. I would have liked to see a New Democratic Government providing the kind of multiculturalism Bill that would give structure and strength and put the policy in action, but we have not been given that opportunity by the people of Canada.


Jean J. Charest: And you had such a good start to your speech.


Abram Ernest Epp: We are in the seventeenth year of the multiculturalism policy. This is the first time we have had a Bill carried to this extent. Given the years in which the Liberal Governments did not produce and what the Conservative Government has chosen to put forward, we are considering it in that kind of context.
It would be appropriate to recognize the fact that we are a nation that requires a multiculturalism policy. Surely recognizing that it is in the seventeenth year of the policy that we are debating, we can look back and recognize that in 1971, when


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
the policy was announced in Parliament and accepted by all of the Parties represented at the time, there was a recognition of diversity of this country which made it necessary to move beyond the establishment of the policy of official bilingualism to provide for diversity that involved other elements.
As a matter of fact, in those years the people of Canada began to realize-we discovered last week that they still do not all realize it, by any means-that Canada could not exist simply as an English-speaking country and accepted a policy in which the federal Government would seek equality of French with English. Governments moved very quickly to recognize that it was not possible to see the country in bicultural terms. In those same years during which the policy of official bilingualism was established, the people of Canada began to recognize that there were fundamental realities, elements one might even say, in terms of the aboriginal peoples of this country who would go on and not be assimilated and who asserted their distinctiveness. We have been involved in these years since 1969 and 1971 in coming to grips with that.
We recognize that the policy of official bilingualism found expression in a Bill as early as 1969, and that a Commissioner of Official Languages was established to ensure that the policy of official bilingualism would be respected by federal institutions. It has never been easy work. Commissioners have often faced challenges in government and outside government in asserting that policy, but there was a commitment to it. I think one can relate those events of 1969 to 1971 and the succeeding years and the limited action that occurred on multiculturalism with events of the 1980s when, in the course of constitutional renewal following on the referendum in 1980 and the development of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, repatriation of the Constitution occurred. In the initial drafts there was not provision for the aboriginal peoples, nor any recognition of multiculturalism.
Those elements were added to the Charter. In Section 27 we have the important statement that the Charter shall be interpreted in such a way that it preserves and enhances Canada's multiculturalism heritage. At that point the Province of Quebec was left out of developments. Though the policy of official bilingualism was established in the Charter, there still remained work to be done.
Obviously I do not have time this evening to do anything like justice to what has occurred in the last year or two in this area, but there are many questions. I mention this as a way of suggesting a completing of the process in recognizing the linguistic duality of our country as a fundamental characteristic and making other provisions for the history of Quebec within Canadian society. That struck many people as inadequate. I mention it this evening because at report stage on a Bill that did not deal properly, so many people felt, with the fact of ethnocultural racial diversity in this country, we have succeeded by one means or another through the co-operation of the three Parties in having fundamental characteristics put into the Bill. That is a very important achievement, and one of the developments out of report stage that allows me to be less
critical of the Bill than I was when it was first tabled back in December, 1987.
It remains that though we have made various kinds of progress in recognizing diversity in our country, it was as late as 1987 that we had a Bill, and it is as late as 1988 that we are debating this particular Bill which still has the kinds of limitations that force one to speak of half a loaf and is reason to leave too many Canadians still feeling that the Government of Canada does not recognize diversity in anything like the way it should.
Perhaps I can consider the evolution of ideas about multiculturalism in this Parliament and relate those critically enough to the Bill again, because that too is appropriate at third reading debate. Suddenly in June, 1985 we had a standing committee struck. That was an important development however it occurred. I would like to have the inside story of that told to me sometime, but the standing committee was struck and got to work. It succeeded over the next two years in developing the agenda for multiculturalism policy in a report that was supported by all members of the committee and issued in June, 1987. The standing committee made recommendations on the means that we saw the Government of Canada requiring in order to take in all the Fine principles of 1971, all our perceptions of diversity in this country. There was a need to ensure that the Government of Canada respected that diversity.
As the Hon. Member for York West has already noted, among the most important suggestions is the proposal for a full-fledged Department of Multiculturalism with a Minister and a Deputy Minister. We have a proposal for a commissioner of multiculturalism who would ensure that this Department, all other Departments of Government, and all federal institutions would respect the policy first enunciated almost 17 years ago and only now being legislated. There were proposals for a genuinely representative advisory council, for a centre for multiculturalism.
These various proposals are the ones that I had in mind at the outset in saying that another Government might have seen-though the Liberals for years past had not and the Conservatives have declined to see it-the challenge and have acted on it in a full and significant way.
What happened in committee represented a refusal by the Government to act on the understanding that all the members of the standing committee had arrived at. After all, that committee, like all the other standing committees, was composed of seven members: five government members, one Liberal and one New Democrat. Private members in the government caucus had come to realize the necessity of these institutions.
When the report was released, it was distributed widely in Canada. I took the liberty, after some of the events including the refusal in the committee to face up to the experience of


racism in Canadian history, which left me in no doubt that we had to say these things and to press for firm action by the Government on multiculturalism, to issue my own minority report entitled "The Living Diversity: Multiculturalism for AH". It was designed to comment on the work of the committee and to press on the report.
These reports were circulated widely in Canada. Then the Standing Committee finally began its consultations to learn what persons in the various provinces and the great cities of our country thought about our recommendations, the extent to which they supported them. When we began that process in the City of Toronto, we found ourselves being upstaged by this Bill, Bill C-93, which the Government suddenly tabled. This Bill declined to take up the challenge in the way all the members of the standing committee thought it should.
At those first sessions in Toronto we found group after group supporting our report and critical of what the Government put forward. It was felt to be largely a symbol, as the now President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, Lewis Chan, said so very well at the time. Many of those who appeared before us had these things to say.
The National Congress of Italian Canadians pointed to the subversion of the consultation process that was taking place and the fact that the Government had tabled a Bill which laid out a much more restricted and constrained statement of multiculturalism than the standing committee had wanted. There could be little doubt that the attempt to achieve a large statement of multicultural policy and to provide the machinery required to ensure that it is respected across all the institutions of the federal Government had failed.
In the work of the legislative committee there were similar shortcomings. There were suddenly constraints put on the number of witnesses we could hear in Ottawa. Suddenly we were rushed into consideration of amendments and that whole sorry process of defeating a large number of amendments in my absence and in the absence of the Liberal member of the committee took place. I will not make very much of that because report stage in the House today compensated for what went wrong in committee. That is why the process has taken the time it has in the House today. It is because the committee process was abused.
The reality is that this country cries out for action on a multiculturalism policy. The demographic realities of the country and the diversity of our great cities, a diversity that is being added to as Canada continues to respect its place as a country to which refugees, persons in danger of life and limb, can come, cry out for this multiculturalism policy. As immigration continues and as the great cities and regions of Canada become more and more diverse, society cries out for the policies to which we are supposedly giving our support in this Bill. Yet, there is so little in the way of assurance beyond what is given to us in language as weak as Clause 6, for example, which provides that Ministers of the Crown other than the Minister "shall", in the execution of their respective mandates,
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
take such measures as they consider appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada. I suppose Ministers never take action that they consider inappropriate, but to have an invitation to find things inappropriate in the very language of a Bill leaves me gravely concerned about what we are doing.
This, of course, is the context within which one has finally to decide what to make of the Bill, what kind of position to take. I note that there has been a good deal of support, although sometimes I wonder about the support that there has been in the ethnocultural communities. Who can blame them? They have watched for years while the Liberals did nothing until they brought out that draft in 1984 which was so much weaker than this Bill. Nothing happened and then there were three years or more of this Government. One cannot blame anyone in the communities for thinking that they had better grab what they have now.
The Hon. Member for York West put a number of things in a critical light by quoting all kinds of persons. Of course, I put my critical observations on the record last December. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was very critical of the Bill at the time, as the Hon. Member knows.
In nearing the conclusion of my comments, I think it is appropriate to note that the Canadian Ethnocultural Council put out a release on Tuesday of last week in which it announced its support for Bill C-93 and urged all three Parties to ensure early passage of it. The President, Mr. Lewis Chan, said:
Bill C-93 is much stronger today than when it was introduced seven months ago. It is a now in a form that we can support and in a form that we would want to see entrenched in law. The Government and opposition parties have listened to us and improvements have been made.
The release goes on to note three priority amendments. The first is a stronger commitment to implement multiculturalism, the priority involved in the change from "should" to "shall" in Clause 3. Second is the importance of having "fundamental characteristic" rather than "fundamental element" in the Bill. As I have already said, we finally achieved that this afternoon.
Third, there is the concern about an independent mechanism such as a commissioner to monitor the Act's implementation. The reality is that we failed in that area. We failed not so much because the Government was unwilling to spend the money, it seems. The Minister will have five officials in his Department involved in monitoring across the Government to ensure that Departments respect the policy. This is obviously an attempt to provide push from the Minister's quite junior position within the Department of the Secretary of State, and it is a long way removed from the kind of independence the Commissioner of Official Languages has.
We have quite simply failed to move the Government in these areas. We clearly have at best-a phrase I have used other places and it would only be fair to use it here-the first half of what could be quite a good Bill. As far as it goes, it is a pretty good piece of legislation and that is reason for supporting it.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
My colleague talked about a window of opportunity. As I said before, I am not prepared to go so far as to use that phrase. The fact remains that a Government has chosen to bring forward a Bill which does at least this much in the way of legislating multiculturalism. For that reason, my colleagues and I intend to support the Bill and to vote for it.
We have no illusions about what we have actually accomplished. We still fear that we are far too close to symbolism rather than to real power in achieving multiculturalism. Few things could impress me as strongly in this area as the process in which we have been involved in the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism over the last months of trying to come to grips with what began when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sent a letter to provincial premiers urging them to boycott events organized by three Canadian Sikh organizations. The committee has attempted to meet with the Minister to have him clarify what he is about. Tie continues to insist that it is entirely a matter of terrorism and has gone to another committee instead of coming to meet with us.
We have endeavoured to force the Minister and to press the Department to recognize that he is not dealing simply with Canadian Sikhs but with other communities: Armenian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Baltic Canadians. I think the Department of External Affairs has failed the Canadian people and has refused to respect multiculturalism as a commitment of the Canadian Government. It has done that time after time. When the Minister refuses to appear, continues to show contempt for us, sends the Associate Undersecretary of State for External Affairs-actually, we demanded that he come-who is constrained by the strait-jacketing that such officials experience when they speak in public, then that is just one more piece of evidence of why we need much stronger legislation. It also illustrates why, although I will vote with my colleagues in supporting the Bill for what it does, the next Government will face the challenge of achieving what the ethnocultural communities of this country want.
I recognize the constraints on time and the fact that you have been generous with me for an extra minute or two, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say these things about the Bill. We are doing something that people will regard as historic. Given that, why should those efforts be as limited as they are so very often in this country? Why can Canadians not achieve the kind of greatness they want and have achieved in multicultural policy?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did understand that according to the agreement we concluded earlier, everyone would get a chance to express his point of view on this Bill today. I know it is late. I
understand my colleagues' impatience. I will try not to impinge on their time, and I will even endeavour not to use up all of the time allotted to me. But still, as a parliamentarian, and I am probably among those who have served the longest here, I would like to make a few brief historical references to ensure that Canadian men and women who are listening to us, and Quebecers among them, understand fully that the process of building Canada is an ongoing, daily affair.
Before I make those remarks, however, I would like to very succinctly-and this is probably the specific reason which led me to ask for the floor-pay tribute to my colleague and friend the Member for York-West (Mr. Marchi) for the truly extraordinary work he has accomplished not only in the course of the past four years in Parliament but in all of the tasks which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) entrusted to him. He has discharged his duties in a remarkable way. His single-minded diligence could almost serve as an example for his colleagues, and I think he will not mind, nor will he take it as a form of misplaced paternalism if I pay tribute to him tonight and thank him on behalf of my party for the extraordinary effort he expended in his work.
As you know, Madam Speaker, and I will not attempt to be a historian tonight, this land of ours was at first Indian and Eskimo land, became a French and then a British colony, moved quietly toward partial autonomy and then obtained its independence and was governed by a great Prime Minister; all of our prime ministers were great in their own way.
He wanted to make his mark on the Canadian character of our institutions. We experienced ... I experienced the era of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. And so two languages and two cultures were to flourish in Canada, under Mr. Pearson.
Notice this development: two languages and two cultures. As though our first citizens simply did not exist! Make no mistake, we have a heavy responsibility to our first citizens. They may have been unhappy recently because they felt excluded from Meech Lake, and I will come back to that in a few minutes, but things must be seen in the context of the evolution of our country. Mr. Pearson felt, at that time, that there was a problem and called on eminent persons such as Jean-Louis Gagnon, Jean Marchand, Andre Laurendeau, Mr. Dunton, and several others to take a close look at this Canada that was evolving over the years and to attempt to define it.
Then there was the great Canadian flag debate, to make the flag authentically ours, which takes nothing away from the devotion some may feel for the flag of others.
Then there was the national anthem. I was directly involved as a member of the committee chosen by Mr. Pearson. It took 15 years until Canada's national anthem, which had been sung since 1880, was made official, as the committee recommended, in 1980.
Then came Mr. Trudeau, and I want to pay him tribute. In the early 1970s, he said, "Yes, bilingualism and


biculturalism!" But there is something new in Canada, a growing phenomenon that enriches us, namely the contribution of other communities. We therefore proclaimed that it would be better for this country, which we wanted to be bilingual and bicultural, to be known as bilingual and multicultural. It is a policy I believe in, one that I defend in French in Quebec. It is not easy and that is why I do so in French.

I just said in French that it is sometimes not easy to defend multiculturalism in the province of Quebec. I believe, and I repeat again, that if my name were "Prudomski" or "Prudomi-an" I would not understand why I should be less Canadian than those beautiful young Pages with us tonight who may be of English or French origin. We are all going to be equal and happy on an equal footing or we will not have a harmonious Canada.
How do we manage to have that harmonious Canada? It is true that the continuation of the Canadianization of our institutions has helped. After having proclaimed that Canada was bilingual and multicultural, we saw the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation of a Charter of Rights which is not yet complete. As long as you have in the Charter a clause saying "notwithstanding", we know it is not a complete charter. Any Government, federal or provincial, could use it, but hopefully not abuse it, until some day we amend that part of our Charter of Rights.
Then we have Meech Lake. That is not perfection on earth. Many people feel left out. However, it is a step toward a better Canada, a greater Canada, and a more Canadian country, more Canadianization of our institutions. It is going to be unique, so I am not going to quarrel with the Minister and the Government, saying that this piece of legislation could be better. It is not a finality, it is a step in the right direction.
I hope that Canadians will understand that the true meaning of the step which we have before us tonight is to remind Canadians to have the sensitivity to understand the feelings of others, to make them equal partners regardless of their colour or origin. If this piece of legislation helps, I will do as my colleague from the NDP and our able critic, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), has done and vote for it. Even though we may have liked it to be different, it is a step in the right direction.
The French and English call themselves the two founding nations just as though the Indians and Eskimos did not exist. I find this expression a little bit arrogant. Max GrosLouis is a proud Indian leader in the City of Quebec from the Hurons. He always laughed when he heard me make big speeches about the two founding races. He looked at me from his height of almost six feet six, he clapped his hands and said, "Ha, ha, ha, where do I fit in this?" That really affected me. I realized that I lacked sensitivity to the Indians and I learned more about them, I learned to include them and to respect them.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
What about those who came after the French and the English? They are so numerous now. We have an example in Toronto, everyone wants to be a candidate. I thank them because they want to take an equal part in the process. My colleague from Holland, who is not in our Party yet, is smiling. This is the new Canada that we are building together. There will be an election called soon, maybe this week, maybe next week, maybe next spring. There will be new candidates from new countries to which we are not accustomed in this House of Commons. We will have to adjust.


John Martin Oostrom: I hope they will be allowed to buy memberships.


Marcel Prud'homme: I do not want to reduce this very important debate to the gutter. I will discuss that later. The Member may make comments on my speech after I am done.
I welcome ahead of time the new Canadians who are going to run for office. Who knows, I may not be here to do so when they arrive. I know they are going to help build a new Canada. They must feel equal regardless of their name, their country of origin, the colour of their skin, or the God to which they may like to pray, or even if they choose not to pray. That is the kind of Canada we must learn to build together.
If legislation such as the Bill we are about to vote on helps Canadians to reflect, that is good. It is permissible to dream. While I am speaking I am thinking of one of my passionate dreams, which is that maybe someday we will not need this kind of legislation, that there will be a day when Canadians have learned to respect each other so much that we will not need such legislation. We will understand that it is natural to allow Canadians to run for any office, to have the feeling that they are as important as anyone else, that they have as much chance as anyone to be nominated to any position. That is the feeling that we must develop together.
I know the Minister very well and he is not going to say that this legislation is imperfect, he will say that it is outstanding. However, I have learned to be more "conservative" as I have gotten older. This step will have to be ameliorated in the future by others.
Many amendments were put forward by the multicultural groups of Canada and were not accepted by the Government. Many amendments were put forward by my colleague, the Member for York West, and the critic from the third Party. Regardless of the fact that they were not accepted, we will vote for the Bill.
I hope that by attracting the attention of Canadians to such legislation we will also bring to their attention the importance of respecting people who are not of French or English origin. Those of French and English backgrounds have a responsibility, not only to respect the newcomers but to remember that when the French came here there were already people here. It is our duty also to respect them.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You didn't here the noes.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, we would like to have an opportunity to vote on the Bill as per the understanding which was put forward earlier today that we would have that opportunity after three o'clock tomorrow. Can you tell me whether it is possible to request that even though-


Mr. Skelly:: Waddell said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: No one-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I yelled no.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We all yelled no.


Mrs. Mailly:: Madam Speaker, I do not know if there was an agreement for the vote to take place this evening, but I believe that the Opposition whip could perhaps enlighten us on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think I can answer the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's question. No, there will not be a vote tonight. There is an understanding that, should a division be requested, it would be held at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. My only problem at this time is that I did not hear anyone say no even though I did ask the question twice. If the hon. gentleman will just show a little bit of patience and not jump up for a fourth time, I am quite prepared, if the House agrees, to say that there will be a deferred division to be held at three o'clock. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think it would be fair and appropriate to put the question, to call for the "yeas" and "nays", and then we will see if there are five Members who want a recorded vote. Personally, I would pass the Bill as is, but if some Members want to vote, I am prepared to do so tomorrow, as specified in the agreement. Let the debate end tonight after ten o'clock, we would disregard the clock, and any vote requested would be deferred until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
If a vote is requested, I have no objection to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I just hope that everyone will understand the difficult situation in which the Chair is right now. As nothing was heard, the motion was declared adopted and the Clerk read third reading of this Bill.
However, if there is unanimous consent to go back, I will do so.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the
yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Order made earlier this day, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until tomorrow.
Pursuant to Order made June 23, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]


Tuesday, July 12, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, the report by the Canadian Observer at the legislative and municipal elections in El Salvador on March 20, 1988.


PETITIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages government responses to 20 petitions bearing Nos. 332-4675, 332-4676, 332-4773, 332-4776 to 332-4778 inclusive, 3324793, 332-4795 to 332-4799 inclusive, 332-4802, 332-4804 to 332-4806 inclusive and 332-4808 to 332-4811 inclusive.


Steven W. Langdon: That the legislative committee on Bill C-130 be empowered to adjourn from place to place in Canada and the United States for the purpose of hearing witnesses on the proposed trade agreement with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to contest, if I may, the procedural acceptability of this motion being on the Order Paper under "Motions". The reason I do that is this.
Traditionally, the heading "Motions" has been reserved for concurrence requests in reports of standing committees which have been prepared by this House through the efforts of the standing committee, an independent body of this House. Members of standing committees, as the Chair will know, have the right to request that a concurrence motion be put on the Order Paper and then any member of the committee can move that concurrence motion in order to have a debate. I suggest that if motions of this nature are allowed to be put on the Order Paper under "Motions", we will have a complete subversion of the private Members' process.
If you look at the Order Paper under "Private Members' Motions", you will see other motions of instruction which a private Member puts in a draw and takes the chance that the motion will be drawn from a hat and thus go through the regular private Members' motions process. The House will know that process was developed by the parliamentary reform committee to ensure that private Members' motions and Bills had a decent opportunity of receiving full consideration by this House.
A private Member drafts a motion exactly as my hon. friend has drafted his, puts it in a hat and hopes that it is drawn out. When it is, it goes to the private Members' committee for deliberation as to whether or not it will get one hour's debate, such as the motion of the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on the Order Paper today, which says:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider
designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and
presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.
There are other examples on the Order Paper.
I suggest we have a process for private Members' motions. You will note this motion is on the Order Paper in the name of an individual Member. It did not flow from a committee. It is an individual Member's effort to bring something to the attention of the House. It is a subversion, in my opinion, of the private Members' motion process and private Members' Bill process which was instigated and enacted by this House. For that reason I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is trying to do something by way of Motions which he should quite properly do by way of a private Members' motion.


Motions
Second, I suggest that the committees in this House are the masters of their own destiny. We set up committees under a legislative chairperson now, not under a government appointed chairperson. The Chair appoints those committee chairpersons from a panel and those committees operate and decide on the business of the committee independent of the House.
I think it is fair to suggest that the arrangement of the business of that committee, unless it is in the original motion sending the matter to the committee, should be left up to the committee. It is my understanding that, in this particular instance, the committee has decided not to travel.
It is very much the exception that committees travel. If one wishes to argue that this particular committee should travel, I would counter that by saying that standing committees of this House, one a joint committee with the Senate and one an independent committee of this House with no Senate membership, have already travelled this country to consider the issue of free trade. Before this legislative committee is the question as to whether or not Bill C-130 accurately brings into legislation the agreement between Canada and the United States on free trade. That is the narrow question before the legislative committee on Bill C-130. I think that speaks to why the committee should not travel.
In concluding my remarks I want to reiterate that I believe this motion should properly come under Private Members' Business, a motion for an allotted day, or proceedings on delegated legislation. Second, I want to refer to the argument which has always been before us, that is, that committees are masters of their own destiny. For those reasons I do not believe that this motion is in order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the Minister's point of order that this motion is out of order and should not be moved under Motions during Routine Proceedings.
I first want to refer to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, citations 756 to 762 which list the rules and practices with regard to instructions to committees. I believe that if you consult these citations you will clearly find that the motion which the Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) has moved is in order in terms of the object which the motion seeks to achieve. Citation 756(1) states:
An Instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which
it would not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might
otherwise not do...
Clearly, the object of this motion is to empower the committee to travel, a power which a legislative committee does not normally have, as the Hon. Minister has indicated. That is all the motion does. In that sense it is procedurally a "permissive" instruction.
Obviously, this type of motion has not been moved in this House by an opposition Member in a very long time. In fact, I believe the last time such an instruction was moved by
someone other than a government Minister was during the great pipeline debate in 1956. At page 604 of Journals for Wednesday, May 23, 1956, we find an instruction moved by Mr. Drew, seconded by Mr. Rowe, to enable the committee that was to study the pipeline legislation to divide the Bill into two separate orders.
As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, there was some discussion as to whether the motion required notice and whether or not the motion was debatable. Ultimately the Speaker of the day decided that the motion was in order and it was put to the House for a vote.
The principle which existed in 1956 has not been extinguished over time. The House now has the ability to instruct a committee to do something or permit it to do something that it might otherwise not be able to do. The right to move such instructions extends not only to government Ministers but to all Members of the House.
The right to move instructions is clearly recognized in Beauchesne. It is recognized in Bourinot at page 512 and in Erskine May Twentieth Edition at page 539. Nowhere in these citations does it indicate that such instructions can only be moved by Ministers of the Crown.
Proper notice has been given of this motion and it is my contention that the Hon. Member should be allowed to proceed with debate on this important issue. We are talking about enabling the committee to travel so that Canadians from coast to coast can come to these important deliberations and participate by presenting evidence on the effects of the trade deal. The Government may want to hide these hearings, to shut them off from the people of Canada, but we in this Party do not agree with this at all.
An instruction, if placed under Private Members' Business, as the Hon. Minister would have us do, would have almost no chance at all of ever coming up for debate. You, Mr. Speaker, know the process for private Members' initiatives. They go into a draw. I have had dozens in there for years which have never been drawn. In order to give instructions to a committee to act, we cannot go through the normal private Members' routine because the chance of that item being drawn for debate, and particularly for debate that would be followed by a vote, is virtually nil. It would be an exception.
If we are serious about giving instruction to a committee to travel this, in the absence of an initiative by a Minister, would seem to me to be the honourable way to do so, as has been tested time and again.
In response to the Minister's comment that there already had been travel, we all remember the farcical nature of the hearings when the committee was not debating the trade deal itself which was eventually signed by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), but the issue of free trade with the United States. Hearings were held across the country, allowing one single day per province. I remember the day they came to the Province of British Columbia, which I have the honour of representing.


Hearings were held for a few hours and legions, if you like, of individuals and groups which wanted to have input into the process were turned away.
By the Prime Minister's own admission, this trade deal is the biggest trade deal signed, not in Canadian history, but in world history. If, as the Prime Minister has indicated, this is the biggest trade deal ever signed in world history, surely to goodness it would be appropriate to travel throughout the country this summer so that Canadians, wherever they live throughout Canada, would have an opportunity to participate in this discussion on the most important trade deal in world history.
We recognize the fact that in its present structure under the present rules and traditions the committee is unable to take the initiative to travel. That is why the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor felt it was appropriate to move this motion so that the representatives of all the people of Canada in the House of Commons can give a clear instruction to the committee to do the honourable, decent, and correct thing, that is, to travel throughout Canada and hold hearings on what the Prime Minister himself describes as the most important trade deal in world history.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think we should start by looking at what a committee is supposed to be. A committee is clearly a subsidiary body to which a matter is sent for consideration by a larger body. The legislative committee which is studying Bill C-130 is clearly a subsidiary body of this House. In spite of the fact that the rules with respect to parliamentary reform may give a standing or legislative committee more authority to do things of their own accord, nothing in those rules has changed the fundamental concept of what a committee is.
A committee, especially the committee set up to study Bill C-130, is not a totally autonomous or independent body. It is nothing more than a subsidiary body of this House, to which this House has literally committed a piece of legislation for the kind of detailed study which was concluded some time ago and cannot be given in this Chamber as a House of Commons or even as Committee of the Whole.
I make this point because the Deputy Government House Leader seems to be arguing that somehow or other, under the rules reflecting parliamentary reform, our committees have such a status that once they are set up they are somehow cut loose from any link with this Chamber and it is somehow wrong for this Chamber to try to direct or instruct such committees.
If you consider what is the concept of a committee in principle and look at what our rules say, I invite you to conclude that the Deputy Government House Leader is wrong in inviting you to decide that under our rules it is no longer possible for this House to give an instruction to a committee as to how it should conduct itself. This House has no less
Motions
authority under our current rules than it did before the rules were adopted to give an instruction to a committee.
Incidentally, I find it ironic to say the least that the Deputy Government House Leader is basing his argument on the spirit of parliamentary reform when he and his colleagues on the Government side were so quick, so ready to throw parliamentary reform out the window when it served their purpose to do so in order to suspend the calendar concept under which we have been operating for some years so that the Government could get the House to sit through the summer.
Be that as it may, if the Deputy Government House Leader is interested in parliamentary reform and has returned to the view that parliamentary reform is important and should be supported, I maintain that there is nothing in our current rules under parliamentary reform which no longer makes it possible for this House to give an instruction to a group of Members who are nothing more than a subsidiary body of this Chamber.
It has already been brought to your attention that there are precedents that clearly set out what the authority of the House is to give an instruction to a committee. I want to draw your attention to some of the content of these precedents. You have already had drawn to your attention Citation 756(1) which says:
An Instruction is a motion empowering a committee to do something which it could not otherwise do, or to direct it to do something which it might otherwise not do. It directs the order and course of the committee's proceedings and extends or restricts the order of reference according to the discretion of the House.
We already know that this committee has shown itself through the efforts of the Conservative majority unwilling to seek the permission of the House to travel. I think we have clearly reached the point where it is appropriate for the House to adopt a motion giving an instruction to the committee studying Bill C-130 to travel from place to place, to hear directly the views of Canadians, where they live, where they work, where they make their homes, about the Government's trade deal with the United States.
It is clear from looking at Citation 759(1) that the motion which the Government has challenged could not have been called much earlier and that we are now at the appropriate point in time for such a motion to be made. Citation 759(1) states:
The time for moving an Instruction is immediately after the committal of the bill, or, subsequently, as an independent motion. The Instruction should not be given while the bill is still in the possession of the House, but rather after it has come into the possession of the committee.
We are just at that point contemplated by Citation 759(1). I suggest that the motion is very much in order from the point of view of the timing of its being called for debate.
I also submit that it is quite appropriate for this motion to be called under Motions rather than to be treated as a matter of Private Members' Business. I certainly can find nothing in the precedent set out in Beauchesne saying that this motion must be dealt with as Private Members' Business. I would say


Motions
that the whole concept of instructions to a committee by the House would be meaningless unless such instructions could be proposed as a motion during the point in time in our Routine Proceedings for the consideration of motions.
I repeat, there is no meaning whatsoever that could be attributed to the right of this House to give instruction to a committee unless it could be done in a way which would lead to a decision being taken on the request for instruction. This can happen only if it is done during the time set out in Routine Proceedings for motions.
I also suggest that it is consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform to which the Deputy Government House Leader has once again become converted, after his unfortunate lapse in connection with cancelling our rules respecting the calendar concept.
If he is serious in regard to what parliamentary reform is supposed to mean, giving greater authority to individual Members to do things in the House, surely individual Members not of the Privy Council must be permitted to move motions to give instructions to committees during that item under Routine Proceedings entitled Motions. I believe the Deputy Government House Leader is very much in error when he argues that this motion can be presented only as a matter of Private Members' Business.
My friend, the New Democratic Party House Leader, says that a motion to instruct the committee with respect to such things as travel is rare and last happened during the pipeline debate. I have to take some issue with him on that because at page 230 of Beauchesne, paragraph 6 of Citation 761 states:
Power to adjourn from place to place-Instructions have been given to
committees to adjourn from place to place both within and outside Canada
for the purposes of receiving evidence. Journals, October 21,1976, p. 49.
There is a much more recent precedent on which to base our request that this motion be accepted and dealt with as quickly as possible. As recently as 1980, approximately, the special joint committee on the Constitution was authorized by this House and by the other place, I presume, to broadcast its proceedings after the committee was under way and without receiving any request from the committee that it be given such authority. That is a further precedent of this House giving instructions to a committee to do something it would not otherwise have the power to do. My hon. friend interjects to say that this motion to which I just referred was done on consent, but all consent means in this House is the equivalent of a unanimous decision of this House, but the consent does not always have to be given.
We are discussing whether this motion is in order, and I would like to say that rather than making the argument that this motion is somehow contrary to the spirit of parliamentary reform, if the Deputy Government House Leader and his colleagues have once again become converted to parliamentary reform, after their lapse with respect to suspending the
calendar in order to force the House to sit through the summer, they would welcome the initiative of the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), our critic on trade, who proposed motions to allow the committee to travel.
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I believe this motion is in order not only insofar as it intends to give an instruction to a parliamentary committee, but with respect to it being called during Routine Proceedings under the heading of Motions, and also with respect to the substance of the matter.
I think something that is very consistent with the spirit of parliamentary reform is to make it easy for Canadians to have access to their parliamentary institutions. One of the best and most effective ways to do this is through enabling committees to travel when they are considering something as important as this trade deal so they can get the views of Canadians where they work, where they live, where they have their homes, and where they will be affected by measures such as this Government's trade deal with the United States.
It is not satisfactory to say that a committee has already travelled for this purpose. As has already been pointed out, the travel of a previous committee was clearly inadequate with only one day in each provincial capital. In any event, the committee in question did not study the matter that is currently before the legislative committee on Bill C-130. It did not study Bill C-130, nor the trade deal itself.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to hear all the submissions and certainly those of the Hon. Member for Windsor West. However, with respect, I think the Hon. Member is straying from the procedural point with which I am faced. I will certainly hear the Hon. Member for Windsor West in conclusion, but I would like to put a question to him. Assuming this particular motion is acceptable and receives the support of the House, can the Hon. Member for Windsor West assist the Chair as to whether that would mean that the committee would necessarily have to accept the power given to it and to in fact decide to travel? It seems to me, as the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap pointed out and very properly, that this is framed in terms of a permissive motion and even if it was passed here, it would not necessarily result in the committee deciding to travel.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, you quite rightly pointed out that in effect there are two kinds of instructions. There are mandatory instructions and permissive instructions.
I would hope we could have an instruction from this House which is mandatory, which requires this committee to travel and hear Canadians where they live and work and where they will be affected by the Government's trade deal. If that is not the case, there is a motion on the Order Paper presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry which I would interpret as providing mandatory instructions.


I would point out, looking at the previous decisions in this respect, that mandatory instructions are quite acceptable and have been used in the past. As Citation 758 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
The object of mandatory instructions is to define the course of action which
the committee must follow.
If this Elouse wishes to do so, it can give an instruction to the committee which is mandatory. It may be that there are other examples of mandatory instructions related to exactly how a committee should deal with a particular Bill, but I do not think there is any limitation on the authority or power of this House to give a committee a mandatory instruction with respect to the process or procedure it should follow in study of a particular Bill. If this House agrees, and I think it should because this is what Canadians want this House to do, they want the committee on Bill C-130 to travel and hear evidence across the country, then the motion is quite in order and should be passed, and the committee would be obliged to follow the instruction in its mandatory terms.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the Hon. Member and also the Minister of State. I will hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West if necessary, in reply. However, I take it the position of both the Hon. Member for Kamloops Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West is whether or not a mandatory motion of somewhat the same nature is procedurally in place, this is a permissive motion. The argument that is being put by both the representatives of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party is that procedurally it ought to be allowed, and if it is put into the procedures for Private Members' Motions, the practical result is it may never come back for consideration. Do I understand the position of both spokespersons for the Opposition correctly? The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. I just want to be sure I have the point and I will hear you later in detail.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the intention of putting forward a permissive motion is that the permissive instruction is the most common and most commonly used, particularly coming from an opposition Member. The reason it was put forward as a permissive motion was that during the committee's deliberations of the last day when it was deciding on how to proceed, when the request came from both the opposition Parties to travel throughout Canada to allow people to have input into the deliberations of the committee, the government Members indicated that the legislative committee, of course, had no authority to travel, that there was no opportunity to travel. Therefore, it was in that spirit that we felt that since the committee itself had determined that under the existing rules it had no authorization to decide to travel throughout Canada, the question was put aside because it was not part of the terms of reference of the legislative committee.
It was at that point that we felt a permissive motion ought to be presented both from an opposition Party and a Member, not a Member of the Cabinet, not a Minister. There was also the
Motions
fact that if that was the committee's concern, a clear instruction from the House of Commons would then clearly remove that and would allow the committee to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Windsor West. I just want to be sure I have the point.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I do not intend to extend my general argument, but I do want to say, first, the one basic point we are making is that any motion with respect to the committee travelling should not be placed under Private Members' Business just because it is offered by a Member not of the Privy Council of the Government. Second, I have to admit that the motion could be read as a permissive motion but, as the Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has said, if the concern of the Conservative majority on the committee was that they did not have the power to travel, and if they had the power they would do it, then, let us hope that such a motion as we are discussing now will clear the air and the Conservative majority will follow through if it is passed and allow the committee to travel.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I will not take long on this matter. I simply want to point out that as a member of the committee which studied parliamentary reform, I can say quite firmly that as far as I can recollect, it was never the intention of the committee to have motions used in this way.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We discussed that.


Benno Friesen: Further to that, whether this motion is either permissive or mandatory, one of the effects remains the same as a result of it. That is to say that if the committee travels it will involve an expenditure of funds and someone will have to pay for it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Take it out of your propaganda budget.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You're using $50 million for PR now, maybe you can set a little aside for travel.


Stan Darling: Keep quiet!


Mr. Speaker:: I would remind Hon. Members that I have heard from the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap and the Hon. Member for Windsor West twice, as well as the Minister of State. All Hon. Members have given them the courtesy of expressing their comments to the advantage of the Chair. I would ask that that courtesy continue.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about exact budgetary figures but a principle of government, that is, its ability to govern. If motions can be introduced in the House at any time which affect budgetary decisions and which take away from the Government the decision-making process with respect to expenditures, then it fragments the Government's


Motions
role and the historical right of Government with respect to the right of expenditure.


Nelson Andrew Riis: A parliamentary right.


Benno Friesen: I would suggest that it fragments the Government's ability to govern since it would take away from the Government the right of expenditure.


Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to revert to a remark by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr Riis). I am a member of the legislative Committee on Bill C-130,1 was present during the discussions. When the Hon. Member says that the committee decided not to travel, it wasn't like that at all. He claims the committee asked permission of the House or that it said the permission of the House was necessary. Nobody ever said that. The committee on its own initiative and because of the parliamentary reform, among other reasons, is aware of its powers and it was the committee itself, notwithstanding what the Hon. Member says-he told an untruth, Mr Speaker-it was the committee itself that decided not to travel in order to fulfill more rapidly the mandate that had been entrusted to it by the House of Commons.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two points in reply. I notice other Members rising. I hope that I can reserve my right to reply after I have heard the other Members. In any event, my remarks will not be long.

Mr Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr Speaker, I would just like to make a few comments on the remarks by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr Friesen), about how we shouldn't spend the money, or the government wouldn't like to spend the money without authorization. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that it is up to the House of Commons to decide, and that it's the budget of the House of Commons and not the government's budget that is in question here.

It is the House of Commons which will address this question. I hope that it will address the question seriously and possibly divide on it. If the Government wants to have a question put on it, we will vote on it.
This question is an important question since it deals with process and not with substance. It does not deal with the many, many motions that we find on the Order Paper under the heading Notices of Motions under Private Members' Business. Private Members can and should put substantive motions which state: "That, in the opinion of this House, the House should ..." That is quite common practice. I have several of mine in there. God knows I have not had a chance to have them drawn, since if I had I would have been able to discuss
them. However, because of the draw and because of luck some of us are not as lucky as others.
The point to be made, and the one which has been made by my colleagues from Windsor West and the New Democratic Party, is that it is proper to have such a motion in the order where it finds itself today, that is, in Routine Proceedings under Motions. Where else can private Members who are supposed to be getting more powers as a result of the McGrath Committee and others, as well as be given more power of initiative, put motions which would the Government in the right direction and understand that Parliament it to remain supreme?
We are not talking here about the Government's intentions of pushing this matter through quickly. We think that the committee-and it has been the practice of Parliament thus far-should be given instructions, instructions which it should follow. We have done that before. There is nothing in the Standing Orders or anything as far as I can see in Beauchesne's which would forbid that. It is stated clearly in Beauchesne's that at the committee stage we, that is, the House, may instruct the committee. That is Citation 756. I will not repeat what my House Leader just said. But in this regard one has to refer to Citations Nos. 756, 757, 758, 759 and 760.
I want to say that, first, the motion is appropriately placed on the Order Paper and should be the object of some debate, and a division if the Government so requires. Second, it is a weak argument to say that this would entail or obligate the Government to expend public funds for a purpose for which there is no Royal Recommendation. We are talking here of Parliament's decision. Parliament will pick up on the expenditures involved in that committee in particular if it so desires to travel, or if it is so instructed to travel. That is done every day. It would be astounding to ask how many committees of the House have travelled across the country since September 4, 1984.


John B. Stewart: How much did you travel on Bill C-72?


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the intervention. We are now getting into the question of what other committees have done and I do not think that that is helpful.
I want to assure Hon. Members that the Chair has taken very well the point of the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap, the Hon. Member for Windsor West, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and, with great respect, unless there is something very particular that either the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap or the Hon. Member for Windsor West may want to add, I do not think I need to hear more. However, out of courtesy I want to hear the Hon. Minister of State.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. One point I would like to make is that my hon. friends have brought forward several quotations from Beauchesne's. I do not dispute the strength of those quotations. When Your Honour comes to


your decision, I am sure you will appreciate that those quotations and citations are only relevant vis-a-vis the Standing Orders as they existed at that time.
Second, with respect to the televising of the constitutional committee hearings, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that that was on consent. I think it should be taken in that light, that is, the consent of all Hon. Members having been given.
Third-something which 1 should have picked up in my original argument-my friend would be on much safer ground arguing this if the wording of the actual motion put on the Order Paper had been "be instructed" rather than "be empowered" since the committee has already taken a decision.
I think my friend is a little late in moving this motion today.
Finally, I suggest to the Chair that in view of the importance of this issue that the Chair may wish to reserve judgment on this matter in order to consider fully the implications of the Private Member's Motion aspect of the argument.
I appreciate the time of the House. I think it is important that we do have a good debate on this issue. We await with anticipation the Chair's ruling on this matter.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have anything new to add in terms of the debate on the admissibility of this particular initiative. However, I do want to clear up one small error that was made by my hon. friend, the House Leader of the Official Opposition. 1 wish to preface my remarks by saying that his experience and comments I value and respect a great deal. While I had indicated that the last time this initiative was taken was in 1956 during the very famous pipeline debate, he indicated when he quoted from Beauchesne's Fifth Edition that it states'.
Instructions have been given to committees to adjourn from place to place
both within and outside Canada for the purposes of receiving evidence.
Journals, October 21, 1976, p. 49.
That is correct, Mr. Speaker. That was an initiative by a Government member, by a member of the Privy Council. The point I was making was as a member not in the Privy Council, but as a member of the Opposition, the last time that this was done was in 1956.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respectfully direct your attention to Standing Order 56 which states, in part:
56.(1) The following motions are debatable:
(p) such other motion, made upon Routine Proceedings, as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers...
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I submitted that a legislative committee is a subsidiary body of this House subject to its authority. I would submit to you, Sir, that this Standing Order clearly contemplates the making of motions of the kind we are discussing now either at the initiative of the Government or a
Motions
private Member in order to maintain the authority of the House over one of its committees. The wording of the Standing Order is a solid foundation for the points that I have made and those made by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.
Second, I know that you will want to look at the Standing Orders and the precedents in light of one or the other, Mr. Speaker, to see which precedent is still relevant. It is a novel argument made by the Deputy Government House Leader that certain precedents should automatically be struck down simply because they anti-date our current rules. I know that you will want to look carefully to see if there is anything in our current rules, Mr. Speaker, that make the precedents that I have cited, or those cited by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, in some way irrelevant. I respectfully submit that there is nothing in the rules that make these precedents irrelevant.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all the Members for their statements.
I understand that a few more Members would also like to make statements, but I would ask all Members to co-operate with the Chair, as I believe I fully understand the two arguments. Furthermore, I agree that it is an important issue and for that reason I will probably reserve judgment until tomorrow morning at 11 o'clock. Once again, I thank you for your statements; as always, they are a great help to the Chair.



Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 it is indeed an honour to present a petition on behalf of a large number of constituents. The petitioners are very concerned about the recent trade deal initialled by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) because they believe that the fabric of Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the proposed trade deal. The petitioners also believe that the Government lacks a mandate from the people of Canada because it was not an election issue back in 1984. As a matter of fact, if my memory serves me, the Prime Minister indicated that he was against this type of trade deal with the United States, so he obviously mislead the people of Canada during the election.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The petitioners are also concerned that the trade deal would reduce our ability to plan our economic, social and cultural future in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand fully the reason the Hon. Member is pressing all the reasons why somebody may or may not have signed a petition. However, the petition asks something specific, and the rule is clear. The Hon. Member


Questions on the Order Paper
presenting the petition should make the request specific and not prolong the argument, effective and full as it no doubt was.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I thought you were preoccupied in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps not paying too much attention.
I will summarize by saying that the petitioners are asking that a national debate take place on the trade deal and that this debate result in a national general election.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106 I have the duty and honour to present a petition from several of my constituents who are opposed to the trade deal, who are worried about the trade deal, and who feel that it can only be passed as a result of an election. Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government to pull the plug and go to the polls like yesterday!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I wish to present six petitions from people in the Province of Ontario who state that Canadian sovereignty is threatened by the trade deal, the Government has no mandate, Canada's ability to plan is threatened, and the trade deal would integrate Canada into a North American defence industrial base. Therefore, the petitioners call for a national debate which would end in an election before such an agreement is signed.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition today from residents of Scarborough, North York, Don Mills, Toronto, Burlington, and Etobicoke concerning the Rouge Valley in Scarborough. The petitioners state that it is a unique, precious, and natural area that needs protecting because of the endangered wildlife wilderness areas, and it is in the national interest to do so.
I join with the Scarborough City Council and the petitioners. The City Council of Scarborough is meeting tonight to amend the official plan to accommodate a park. The petitioners call upon Parliament to work with the Province of Ontario in establishing the Rouge River Valley as Canadian heritage land or provincial park.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to present a petition in which the petitioners indicate that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. The Prime Minister promised that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised. By removing the power of the Canadian Government to exclusively control foreign ownership, to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians, and to equalize opportunities between the regions, the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future. The proposed trade agreement not only denies Canadians secure
access to the U.S. market, but threatens the loss of hundreds of thousands of Canadian jobs.
Therefore, the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition duly certified from a number of Canadians. The petitioners are concerned that the Conservative Government had no mandate to conclude a trade agreement with the United States, and point out the negative effects of that trade agreement.
Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed free trade agreement during a national general election.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which has been duly certified under Standing Order 106, and comes from people in my constituency, especially in the areas of La Salle, Windsor, Belle River, Tilbury, and indicates to the Government that they believe that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a trade deal with the United States, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised, and yet the trade agreement would in fact deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and would therefore undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States. They therefore call on this Government to dissolve Parliament and to permit the people of Canada a chance to have their say on this issue.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have the pleasure to present a petition signed by a number of electors, this time from Nova Scotia. It is a petition that has been properly certified by the Clerk of Petitions. These petitioners, like many on both sides of the free trade issue-those in favour and those opposed-agree, as indicated in this petition, that the agreement should not come into force until there has been an election held to provide the mandate that did not exist at the time that the accord was signed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 329, 363 and 366.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND CSIS-EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
Mr. Boyer: Are Canadians of East European background employed (a) in the Department of External Affairs (i) as a whole (//) on the East European desk (b) with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and, if so, in each case, how many?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I am
informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the Department does not keep statistics of the type requested.
Personal information obtained by the Department can under Section 7 of the Privacy Act only be used for the purpose for which it was initially collected or for the purpose of responding to specific circumstances outlined in Section 8 of the Privacy Act. The compilation of the requested statistics would not be consistent with those conditions which must be met before personal information can be disclosed to a third party. Accordingly, it is not possible to assemble requested statistics.
In so far as the Ministry of the Solicitor General is concerned:
With respect to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, information about particular employees cannot be disclosed. Under Section 7 of the Privacy Act, personal information obtained by a department can only be used for the purpose for which it was initially collected or for the purpose of responding to specific circumstances outlined in Section 8 of the Act. The compilation of the requested statistics would not be consistent with those conditions which must be met before personal information can be disclosed to a third party.
The personnel practices and rules under which the Service operates do not provide for the gathering of information on the East European background of employees. Any such information that might emerge from the security screening process is protected.
Accordingly, it is not possible to assemble the requested statistics.


DSS-CONTRACT AWARDED SOLE-SOURED
Mr. Caccia: Was Department of Supply and Services contract 08DB.45045-7-7573 sole-sourced and, if so, (a) who authorized the sole-sourcing of this contract (b) was the sole-source justification technically and financially evaluated, and, if so, by whom (c) did the Department of Public Works make any recommendations on this contract or the tendering process related to this contract and, if so, what were the (/') recommendations (It) responses of the Department of Supply and Services (d) are there other suppliers of such equipment and, if so, were any contacted prior to the awarding of this contract (e) who signed the purchase requisition?


Otto John Jelinek: The
DSS contract was sole-sourced.
Questions on the Order Paper
(a)	The request for sole source, directed procurement, was contained in "Sole Source Justification" document attached to Requisition 45045-7-7573, authorized by T. Thompson, Director Headquarters Operation Division, Statistics Canada.
(b)	The sole source justification was technically and financially evaluated by Public Works, A and E Services, and recommended by the Director of the main Computer Centre, Statistics Canada.
(c)	(i) The Department of Public Works recommended use of Pillar system since it offers maximum protection against line distortion, with EPE System as second option to be considered and a possible combination of MPL/EPE Equipment as a third option.
(ii) DSS accepted the Statistics Canada Sole Source Justification for Pillar System as per letter attached to requisition.
(d)	Yes. Since evaluation had been carried out, and sole source justified, no contact with other suppliers was considered necessary.
(e)	The Requisition for Goods and Services from Statistics Canada was signed by the following:
Recommended by M. J. Tremblay, Assistant Director, Administrative Support Services Sub-Division, authorized by
T.	Thompson Director, Headquarters Operations Division, financial authority (Section 25), R. Quesnel, Manager, Accounting Operations.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-EXPENDITURES IN METRO TORONTO AREA
Mr. Redway: Since September 4, 1984, did the Department of Veterans Affairs make
grants and/or loans to persons or corporations, non-governmental organizations and governments within Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, to which ones
and, in each case, in what amount and for what purpose?


George Harris Hees: Grants paid to recipients in the Metropolitan Toronto area for the period September 4, 1984 to May 31, 1988:
Assistance Fund
Grants paid under the Assistance Fund Regulations, of up to five hundred dollars to eligible veterans to meet unforeseen emergency	needs	and	unexpected
contingencies $189,000 Treatment Allowances
Grants paid under the Veterans Treatment Regulations, to pensioners who were receiving treatment for their pensioned disability	$613,000
Last Post fund
Grants paid under the Last Post Fund Regulations to reimburse the Fund for expenses incurred for the funeral and burial of indigent veterans $821,000 Children of War Dead/Pensioners Training


Motions
Allowances and Tuition Fees paid under the Children of the War Dead Regulations, to eligible students registered in recognized universities or colleges
Also, the payment of allowances and tuition under the Pensioners Training Regulations to eligible pensioners who are registered in approved retraining programs. $252,000 Prosthetic Services
Grants paid to Sunnybrook Medical Centre to reimburse the Hospital for the salary of one prosthetist through a federal-provincial agreement. $104,000 Pension-Burial Grants
Grants paid under the Pension Act to provide for the funeral and burial entlited pensioners $307,000


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Minister of State have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 POSSIBLE WATER DIVERSION FROM LAKE MICHIGAN
Mr. Speaker:: I have an application from the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), under S. O. 29. I will hear the Hon. Member.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move to seek leave to adjourn the House for the purpose of discussing what I consider to be an extremely vital and pressing issue facing our country. That is the issue of water diversion from Lake Michigan, which could have devastating effects across the Great Lakes system and which would demonstrate to Canadians yet again how important water is within our relationship with the United States and how important it is that there be protection provided for us as a country to safeguard that water in the future.
Because we have such an important issue here, with many indications from the United States of pressure building in order for this diversion to take place, I hope that you will give very careful consideration to this request. Perhaps it might make sense to reserve judgment on it because of the importance of the issue to my constituency, to the many people across Ontario and to all people across Canada, and in view of the widespread implications of a diversion of this kind toward our relationship with respect to water with the United States in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Essex- Windsor for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair. As Hon. Members know, this has been a matter of some interest to this place for some days. However, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor that it is an important matter and the Chair has given it very careful consideration, but at least for today the Chair is not disposed to move to an emergency debate. Of course, as I have stated before on other matters for emergency debates, that does not preclude another application at another time, depending on the circumstances and on what may or may not be said in this place. I thank the Hon. Member.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that in view of the amount of business that is before the House today and the time that was taken on the procedural argument visa-vis the motions on the Order Paper, the Government has decided not to proceed with the procedural debate on Motion No. 25. This has been communicated to the other House Leaders. Instead, we will proceed immediately to consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-77. That is the second item on the Order Paper.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Government has the right under the rules to determine government business under Government Orders, but I want to say for the record that we received word, not long after nine o'clock this morning, that the Government did not intend to call the abortion motion to enable procedural argument to take place. I do not know how at that point in time the Government was able to determine whether there would be a procedural debate on a motion to instruct the committee on Bill C-130, or to enable the committee on Bill C-130 to travel. I was personally ready to make the points that I had to make about the procedural acceptability of the Government's motion on abortion this morning.
I do not think that the Government should, under the circumstances, use the relatively brief debate that we all had on the motion to enable or to instruct the committee on Bill C-130 to travel as a reason not to proceed with the procedural debate on the Government's abortion motion. I admit that the Government has the full authority to call any motion or any matter it wants with respect to the use of its time under Government Orders, but I do not think it should leave on the record the impression that somehow or other, because the Government itself chose to initiate a procedural debate on the acceptability of the motion to enable the committee on Bill C-130 to travel, it cannot now proceed with the abortion issue. If I am in error as to who first made the procedural arguments, I will withdraw that. I just wanted to say that we were quite ready to debate the procedural acceptability of the Government's motion on abortion.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have to take a moment or two to register a concern. It is the July 11, and of course once the Government decided to set aside the Standing Orders and to sit in July to conduct government business, we are required to do so. To conduct the business of the House of Commons in a business-like way we need advance notice to enable all sides to plan accordingly. That normally happens, but when it does not happen I think one has to raise a concern. I am a bit puzzled. The Deputy House Leader stood up just a moment ago and said that because we had a prolonged procedural debate this morning, he had decided not to proceed with the procedural debate on the abortion motion.
1 was informed this morning, prior to the House of Commons sitting, that we would not be proceeding with the abortion procedural debate. I am curious how the Government House Leader knew at that point that we would be taking up some time in a procedural argument. Other than the fact that there obviously seems to be some confusion with the Deputy House Leader, I want to say to him that to enable us to work as efficiently, as effectively and as positively as we can, it is absolutely necessary that we get some forewarning to allow, not only ourselves as House Leaders to prepare but more important the critics to prepare and to be aware when in the agenda of the day they will likely be participating in a debate. I make an appeal for order to enable us to conduct the business of this House in the most orderly way possible.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the comments of both the Hon. Member for Windsor West and the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. However, both Members while registering a complaint have certainly made it clear that it is completely within the authority and aegis of the Government to set the order for each day. In this respect, the Government is completely within its rights.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Henry Perrin Beatty: the second reading of, and concurrence in, amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof.
He said: Madam Speaker, let me just thank the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). It had been my intention to allow him to speak first and then to respond but it is probably more appropriate for me in moving the motion to speak now.
Emergencies Act
This will be a very short intervention because Parliament has had the opportunity already both in the Senate and in the House of Commons to debate this legislation. I will say that this is a very momentous day for Canada. With the acceptance of these amendments and the passage of this Bill from the House of Commons, we will see the abolition of the War Measures Act in Canada. Never again will we have a situation, as was the case in World War II, where Canadian citizens were interned on the basis of their racial ancestry. What we will have is a situation where there will be guarantees. Never again, for example, will there be the ability to use the War Measures Act to knock on the door in the dark of night, to sweep up our citizens, to hold them without charge and without the right of habeas corpus. What we will have, Madam Speaker, is a new and modern piece of legislation, one that is adequately safeguarded, one which protects the rights of all Canadians and one which gives to the Government the ability to protect the lives of Canadians, to keep them safe and to ensure that every Canadian has adequate protection in times of crisis.
As the House will know, Canada is virtually alone among modern western jurisdictions in not having this sort of flexible legislation. As a consequence, acceptance of these amendments and passage of this legislation will bring Canada into the 20th century. It will prepare us for the future in terms of the needs of this country.
I might simply mention that the Government is prepared to accept the two amendments which have been proposed by the Senate. One deals with the issue of conscription. While the Bill as it was passed unanimously on third reading in the House of Commons would have allowed conscription to take place by Order in Council, it would have simply maintained the status quo which existed under the old War Measures Act.
In the two instances where we have had conscription in the past, even though it would have been possible to do so by Order in Council under the old War Measures Act, the Government of the day felt it was appropriate to introduce special legislation. I would prefer in safeguarding the interests of all Canadians in times of emergency that that power still remain. The very nature of an emergency is such that it is impossible to predict the very dire circumstances which could take place. But I am satisfied that if a balance has to be struck that it is likely it would be possible in times of crisis, if Canada had to go to war, that there would be enough time for us to reconvene Parliament and for us to pass special legislation, if there was consent of the House.
Additionally, there is another minor change made by these amendments, namely, to change the structure of the joint parliamentary committee to ensure representation from both sides of the Senate. We are prepared to accept that as well. It does not go to the heart of the Bill and is something which obviously will reflect better the views of some of the members of the Senate.


Emergencies Act
I think it is appropriate simply to recall to the House the process that was used with this Bill. It was first indicated to Canadians that the Government intended to act in this area in the White Paper on National Defence which was tabled over a year ago. I tabled the Bill in June of last year prior to Parliament rising for the summer recess with the assurance that the Bill would sit on the Order Paper without being called over the course of the summer and that we would solicit from Canadians, from groups and individuals and from Members of Parliament their views, their responses about the Bill, their concerns and their suggestions about what improvements could be made to ensure that the Bill struck that appropriate balance between the rights of Canadians, the need of the state to protect its very survival and to protect the lives and safety of individual Canadians. I think it is a process which has worked well.
I want to thank members of the legislative committee and Members on all sides of the House for the co-operation which they have shown. We have the Bill which has been substantially amended over the course of the time in which it has been in Parliament. The vast majority of these amendments, in my view, make it a better Bill and better strike the balance between the rights of Canadians, the needs of the Government to provide for the safety of Canadians and for the integrity and survival of the state itself. It has been a process which has demonstrated that Parliament can work if goodwill is shown on both sides of the House.

I would simply like to thank all Members for their spirit of co-operation. That positive, constructive spirit has produced excellent results for all Canadians. Because of those efforts, we will have a more effective law that will better protect the rights of all our fellow citizens.

It is an example of Parliament working as Parliament was intended to work and, again, I thank all Members of Parliament for their efforts and co-operation.
I would conclude simply by saying that it is a very proud day for me to see this legislation passed into law. I think it should be a proud day for every Member of Parliament that Parliament is acting now to keep faith with Canadians with the commitment that was made some 18 years ago in the October, 1970 crisis that we would scrap the old War Measures Act and bring in properly balanced and safeguarding legislation to ensure that Canadians in the future would have a piece of flexible legislation with a range of capacities enabling us to deal with emergencies starting on the one hand with natural disasters and going all the way through to war emergencies. We will now have that legislation. I think it is a credit to this Parliament. It is probably a matter which is of great satisfaction and great pleasure for all Canadians that Parliament has acted in such a timely way and that before we rise for our summer recess we will have this sort of legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I am pleased to note the achievement of today in getting an important piece of legislation as far as it has and to commend the Minister and other Members for the way in which the debate has been handled.
I have to contrast this with the regrettable way in which in earlier Parliaments the issue of emergencies was treated when members of the then Opposition and now Government were certain that the Government had a plot in mind to introduce regulations under the War Measures Act from day to day and that there was a secret plan to subvert somehow or other the democratic process. To me as one who observed that process it was more than anything the impediment that existed in the past to try to update the War Measures Act and bring in more effective legislation. This is a Parliament which is less suspicious of the Government and less suspicious that there is a plan to declare an emergency jurisdiction in force in the country. We have turned our attention in a positive way to the real need for an updating of the War Measures Act and we have a satisfactory substitute before us.
I think the Minister should be commended for the attitude he took toward amendments. Many were introduced by people across the country who saw the Bill in its first version by Members of the House of Commons and finally, and significantly if I can touch on it for a moment, by the Senate.
The Senate is often criticized for its participation in the parliamentary process. It exists in our Constitution. It exists, in fact, down the hall from us, as the so-called other place, but when it tries to act and tries to make an input into legislation it is very often criticized and condemned for what it tries to do.
We have before us an example of a very effective contribution by the Senate dealing with the issue of conscription under the emergency measures legislation, a concern expressed by the Senators. The Minister recognized that, although the War Measures Act contained the power to bring in conscription by regulation, in the past, Governments, however troubled by the emergency at hand in World War I and World War II, chose not to bring in conscription by regulation but to proceed by a more democratic political process. The Senators have proposed an amendment, which I am glad to see the Government has adopted, which will assure that an emergency in the future will be dealt with in the same manner.
For me, it is an important moment as we pass a replacement for the War Measures Act, a legislation that can be used more moderately.
I would like to conclude with the idea that while it can be invoked more moderately, it does not have to be done that way. The legislation we are passing today still gives the government very broad powers, and there will always be a role for the lawmakers to play, that of watching to ensure that the four different categories of emergencies provided for under this


legislation are not used by the Government as an excuse to seize the power to rule by regulation.

We always have to be vigilant in this place, in the media and across the country, with whatever emergency legislation the Government has, to be certain that it is not being abused. If there is anything that has been learned in the course of this debate and in the course of the committee hearings, it is that Government, given any power, needs to be watched. While the War Measures Act was a very extreme piece of legislation, that very extreme feature was in a way a safeguard that it would not be used lightly. This legislation can be used lightly, and I think to be certain that it is not used lightly will be the continuing responsibility of vigilant Canadians, of the media and of Members of Parliament in this place.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, a couple of things have always troubled me in my parliamentary career with respect to the Liberal Party of Canada. That is its ability to turn no logic into logic and to support the insupportable and make it look as if there were logic in both.
The Hon. Member from whom we have just heard is a former Solicitor General of Canada. He was a member of several Liberal Governments. Between 1971 and 1984, the Liberals had some 12 or 13 years in which to do something about the infamous War Measures Act. They chose to do absolutely nothing. They chose to leave it on the statute books.
This morning, we heard the Liberal spokesperson say that somehow the Opposition bothered them through those years by suspecting all kinds of unquestionable thoughts that might be entering the then Liberal Government's mind with respect to concentration camps and other nefarious business. I find it very, very strange, and from a logical point of view totally unacceptable and insupportable, that the Liberal spokesman would now stand up and somehow switch the blame around by saying that thank heavens today we do not have a suspicious Opposition and therefore this has made it easier for the Government to cope with the infamous War Measures Act. 1 fail to see any logic in those statements, and I fail to see how an intelligent, responsible Member of Parliament could support that kind of argument.
We all know that previous Liberal Governments had years in which to throw out the War Measures Act and bring in a new Bill, and they consistently refused to do so. That is the sum total of their disastrous record.
I might also add that during the very serious and productive discussions at the committee hearings, we went clause by clause and prior to that listened to representations from a broad spectrum of Canadian organizations and individuals. The Liberals hardly ever showed up at the committee hearings and, moreover, to make it even more disgraceful, they never offered one amendment to the Bill.
At the end, as the Minister said a few moments ago, the Bill was drastically changed as a result of the input from various
Emergencies Act
groups of Canadians, from the New Democratic Party, from members of the Minister's own Party who were represented on the committee and from the Minister himself, showing an openness and a willingness on his part to accept reasonable, intelligent amendments. I think we made some history in this Parliament, as it draws to a close, I believe, in that there was input from the Opposition, from the New Democratic Party, that was listened to and accepted by the Government, and we listened to and accepted government changes brought in at committee, but there were no changes from the Liberals. As far as I am concerned, they acted in nothing but a disgraceful manner throughout the entire proceedings of Bill C-77.
Having said that, I want to mention a couple of points in these, our final remarks on this very important piece of legislation. The first has to do with representations made by the Association of Japanese Canadians, but I think it would also apply to representations made by Ukrainians who came before the committee with respect specifically to the concentration camp episode in our history, a very black part of our history indeed.
The Association of Japanese Canadians, in a letter to me, and I believe also to the Minister, asked that the Government submit this Bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final and ultimate decision with respect to the override of the Charter of Rights. We were assured by the law officers of the Crown during committee that no Government could override the Charter provisions in this Bill without a separate amendment to the Bill. In other words, it would have to go through the regular parliamentary process even during an emergency. This apparently does not satisfy some of the critics, namely the Japanese Canadians, and I would think possible the Ukrainian group as well, although it did not send any representation to me and I do not think that the group sent one to the Minister.
I would once again ask the Minister, as I have already in a letter, I believe, and also in my third reading debate, to put in motion as quickly as possible that request by the Japanese Canadians. I think it is a reasonable one. It would certainly allay all fears if the Supreme Court of Canada, as I think it will, decides in favour of the legislation, that no Government in the future could override the Charter of Rights in the application of Bill C-77 which is about to become law.
Another point concerns one of the amendments from the Senate which reads:
Page 32, clause 62: Strike out lines 3 to 7 and substitute the following:
"(2) The Parliamentary Review Committee shall include at least one
member of the House of Commons from each party that has a recognized
membership of twelve or more persons in that House-
I am not suggesting that the Government should hold up the passage of the Bill at this point, but I am not certain whether it is wise to put in the figure of 12. I think that should be deleted and I think it should be deleted at an early stage.
As the membership of this House increases, it is only reasonable to assume that that figure of 12 which would designate officially an opposition Party or a Party in the House


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
will also increase. The next move could be to 15 or to 17, depending on the total membership of the House. It is a minor point, but I think it is one that should be cleared up at the earliest possible opportunity.
Finally, obviously I am very proud to have been part of this process that has brought forward what I think it is a good piece of legislation on balance. We will never get perfect legislation out of this Chamber or any other Chamber of this kind, a democratic legislature, but certainly we can always strive to do our best. I truly believe that members of the committee, the chairperson of the committee, the Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister, and those of us who had the privilege to sit on it, did our best and worked hard to bring forward what I consider to be a good Bill of we can all be proud.
A great deal of the thanks has to go to a gentleman who obviously cannot be here today to speak on this Bill, Mr. Bill Snarr, the senior public servant involved in helping pilot this Bill through committee. He was of great help, I can assure you, to an opposition Member like myself. He worked in an extremely objective and helpful and certainly knowledgeable way. I think I can speak on behalf of Minister this morning in public and extend our heartfelt congratulations to Mr. Snarr. I believe he is reaching pretty well the end of his public service career and this is probably the last piece of legislation he will take an active part in. Therefore, on behalf of all Members of the House, I want to extend to Bill Snarr a very long and happy retirement.
I hope this Act will never have to be used, certainly not Clauses 3 and 4. We have no control, of course, over natural disasters. I hope future governments will use it with caution and responsibility, and I am sure they will.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I would like to use the vehicle of questions and comments to fully associate myself with the remarks of my friend from Brant with respect to Mr. Bill Snarr. Mr. Snarr has served Canadians for over three decades with a tremendously distinguished record. This Bill is certainly fitting testimony to the tremendous contribution he made. I know Members on all sides of the House have been tremendously impressed by his dedication, knowledge, flexibility and determination to ensure that legislation passed by this House is good and well prepared. I think he developed many friendships, particularly in committee, over the time the Bill was under study and certainly I felt privileged to know Mr. Snarr, both as a member of the Opposition prior to the last election, and as a member of the Government. He has retired from Emergency Preparedness Canada and is currently serving as senior adviser to me.
This represents, as the Hon. Member indicated, probably the last piece of legislation that he would be associated with,
although there is still an important contribution for him to make to Canadians. However, the mere fact that this Bill has passed unanimously with the support of Members on all sides of this House certainly attests to the tremendous contribution which Bill Snarr made to Canadians. We will certainly miss his contribution to the public service.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded with consideration of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, reported with amendments by a Legislative Commitee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There are thirty-two (32) motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada.

Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3, standing in the names of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais), respectively attempt to include Parliament and the courts within the scope of the Bill. This proposal is taking the Bill beyond what was envisaged when the House approved its principle at second reading when it defined federal institutions.
Second, this motion is proposing a substantive change to the interpretation clause of the Bill which, as Hon. Members are aware, is not an acceptable practice in accordance with Beauchesne's Citation 773(10). Therefore, I must declare the motions procedurally unacceptable in that they go beyond the scope of the Bill as defined in Beauchesne's Citation 773(1).

Motions numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31 and 32 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon as follows:

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates the need for a vote to be taken on Motions Nos. 5 and 6. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the requirement that a vote be taken on Motion No. 5. Consequently, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the need for a vote to be taken on Motion No. 6. Nevertheless, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates the requirement that a vote be taken on Motion No. 6.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Motions Nos. 7 and 8 will be voted on separately.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 obviates the need to vote upon Motions Nos. 31 and 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates the requirement for a vote to be taken on Motion No. 31. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 31 obviates the need to vote upon Motion No. 32. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 31 necessitates the requirement for a vote to be taken on Motion No. 32.

Motions numbered 9 and 29 standing in the name of the honourable Members for York West (Mr. Marchi) and Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) propose to establish a separate Department of Government and a commisssioner of Multiculturalism. In so doing the first Motion undoubtedly would cause a significant charge upon the Federal Treasury in order for the new Department to function on a daily basis. The amendment is at odds with the Royal Recommendation which accompanies this Bill as there is no provision in the Royal Recommendation or in the Bill for a separate government department.
In addition, the proposal for a commissioner with investigative and reporting powers appears to take the intent of the Bill beyond what was included originally.
Consequently, in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (7) of Citation 773 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, 1 must declare these amendments inadmissible.

Motions Nos. 10, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 18 are in order and will be debated together but voted upon separately.

Motion numbered 11 standing in the name of the honourable Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) is identical to motion numbered 10 and will therefore not be selected and put to the House.

Motions Nos. 13 and 16 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) are identical to Motion No. 14 and thus will not be selected and put to the House.

Motion numbered 19 standing in the name of the honourable Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) causes the Chair some concern. Paragraphs (h) and (i) of the motion, in my view, take the clause beyond what was agreed to in principle at Second Reading. The Bill makes no mention of designated agencies monitoring, investigating or auditing federal institutions.
In this regard, I must rule the amendment inadmissible, in accordance with paragraph 1 of Beauchesne's Citation 773 in that it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

Motions Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are acceptable and will be debated together but voted upon as follows:
Motion No. 20 will be voted on separately.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 21 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 22. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 21 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 22.
An affirmative vote on Motion No. 23 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 24. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 23 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 24.
Motions Nos. 25 and 26 will be voted upon separately.
Motions numbered 27 and 28 are admissible and will be debated together but voted upon as follows:

An affirmative vote on Motion No. 27 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 28. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 27 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 28.

I shall now put motions numbered 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 30, 31 and 32 to the House.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 35 to 40 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) promote the recognition of cultural and racial diversity as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and as providing invaluable resources for the shaping of Canada's future;"


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 37 and 38 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"mental characteristic of Canadian society and that it provides an invalu".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) to move Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent, therefore that motion will not be proceeded with. The Hon. Member for York West did not give his consent.

We shall now vote on Motion No. 7.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 41 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"(c) ensure the full and equitable partici-".


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 29 at page 4 the following:
"(k) encourage the youth of Canada to nurture the multicultural heritage of Canadians while seeking a full participation in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Lastly, Motion No. 30.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-93 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 31 to 36 at page 2 and substituting therefor:
"Canada recognizes the diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour and religion as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society and is committed to a policy of multiculturalism designed to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to achieve the equality of all Canadians in the economic, social, cultural and political life of Canada;".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Motion No. 31.


Sergio Marchi: moved:
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-93 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 2 and substituting therefor:
"that this multicultural nature is a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society, the Government of Canada desires to preserve and enhance this inherent quality in the continuing evolution of the country;".


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne)):: Motion No. 32 is in the name of the Member for Parkdale-High Park. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be moved by the Member for Willowdale?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Member for York West has denied unanimous consent. The motion will not be proceeded with.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motions? The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) on debate.


John Martin Oostrom: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week, in the co-operative spirit which existed in this House on the languages Bill, both sides of the House allowed
Members other than the Member in whose name a motion stood to present the motion. We are starting off on the wrong foot again. I would like to ask the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) to reconsider his denial of unanimous consent for the moving of these amendments.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons that 1 did not give unanimous consent is that the amendment proposed by the Member for Parkdale-High Park is found both in an amendment that I will be presenting and in an amendment presented by the New Democratic Committee for multiculturalism. Therefore, no amendments of a substantive nature will be omitted.
Also at heart is the way in which the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and the legislative committee was treated by the Government which rapidly pushed the Bill through committee, did not listen to witnesses, and did not give critics the opportunity to move the appropriate amendments.
Therefore, as there was no co-operation and respect by the Government and the Minister in committee, we believe that there should be no co-operation offered at this stage.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I heard only part of my hon. friend's comments. However, I would like to put on the record what has been understood among House leaders, that is, that my instructions, as we entered this last two weeks, have been that at all times Members of the Opposition would be granted permission to move motions on behalf of other Members in their absence. That in fact happened at report stage on the Air Canada Bill and may have happened on other Bills which I cannot recollect at this moment. However, those are our instructions in order that no Member of the Opposition, nor indeed the opposition Parties, will be foreclosed from placing amendments because of the way in which the Government calls its business.
At this stage it is in the interest of everyone to co-operate, no matter what happened in any committee. I hope that my hon. friend will reconsider because in this business one often finds that the shoe is on the other foot. Even if permission is not given, I stand by my comment that the Government will allow Members, other than the Member in whose name a report stage motion stands on the Order Paper, to move the amendment. In the interests of co-operation and better legislation I hope my hon. friend would reconsider.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, although we are only at report stage on Bill C-93 one is struck by the importance of this moment in that we have Canada's first multiculturalism Bill returned from the legislative committee for consideration in the House. Without making any comment on certain things which have happened, I want to express my pleasure in the ruling which you rendered a few minutes ago. In surveying the motions on the Order Paper for



amendment of the Bill, some motions were ruled to be procedurally inadmissible and some the Speaker, with the guidance of the Clerks, found to be in order and are before us today for consideration by the Elouse prior to voting on them.
The significance of this Bill which will provide for the legislating of the multiculturalism policy is that we have achieved a point in the evolution of multiculturalism policy that previous Liberal Governments had never achieved.
While I do not want to reflect on the ruling itself, it is regrettable that the shortcomings in the legislation made those rulings inevitable. These rulings include the application of the Bill to the Parliament of Canada, motions for the creation of a department and the establishment of a commissioner of multiculturalism. These motions were inevitably found out of order by the Speaker because the legislation was so constrained.
It is regrettable that the legislation brought forward by the previous Secretary of State contained no such provisions. That regret has been expressed by myself and other Members, as well as by many people across the country. They regret that this historic Bill has those constraints. While the Bill does much to establish the principles of multiculturalism policy, it does not fully assure Canadians that this policy will be the basis for action by government in the future.
The motions that you have ruled we are to debate today primarily provide for a recognition of multiculturalism or ethnocultural diversity in this country as a fundamental characteristic. When the Bill came out of the legislative committee, the Government spoke of that in terms of a fundamental element. To speak of diversity or even a policy as an element is poor English. The fact that it is poor English is hardly half the reason to consider means by which we could recognize the diversity of this country.
One of the consequences of the work on the constitutional accord 15 months ago, which has been approved by the Parliament of Canada and eight of ten provincial legislatures, is that there is a recognition for linguistic duality in this country. It recognizes it as a fundamental characteristic.
It is most important that this historic Bill recognize the ethnocultural diversity of the country. The Government should recognize that as well through similar language in the legislation.
The Meech Lake Accord spoke of duality as a fundamental characteristic. That left many of us convinced that there were other fundamental characteristics. This matter has become more difficult for the Government to consider in the last minutes because the two motions by a Government Member which have not been found to be in order provided for this recognition in both Clause 3 and the preamble to the Bill. I suggest that the Government should consider carefully other motions by Opposition Members who were on the standing
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
committee and active in the legislative committee. The Government should carefully consider that one or other of those motions for both Clause 3 and for the preamble be found acceptable by the Government when it comes time to vote on them so they may carry through the amendment to the Bill.
There is a good deal of support for this by various organizations across Canada. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the national organization speaking in this area, has suggested that "fundamental characteristic" rather than "element", would be a better way of wording the matter. It is more of an observation than a demand.
However, other organizations have made the case much more forcefully. These include such diverse organizations as the Manitoba Inter-Cultural Council, which has the distinction of being most representative in the sense that it is chosen by members of the community. Most of the members of the Manitoba Inter-Cultural Council are practically elected by ethnocultural communities in Manitoba.
The Council stated firmly that the language should be "fundamental characteristic". The National Congress of Italian Canadians has a most honourable place among the national ethnocultural organizations. In its brief there was a clear recognition of the fact that the Meech Lake Accord had made "fundamental characteristic" a phrase in the context of duality and should also apply to the ethnocultural diversity of the country.
The Affiliation of Multicultural and Service Agencies in British Columbia, one of the most broad organizations involved with both ethnocultural groups and immigrant services, has made the same argument that we should have "fundamental characteristic" as the provision in both Clause 3 and the preamble.
There is a diversity of arguments, from recent Canadian experience, as well as from language and from community organizations across the country that the phrasing should be "fundamental characteristic". I will watch with interest as the Minister of State for for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) thinks about these matters and decides what advice he should give his caucus colleagues, knowing that the motions proposed by a colleague in his own caucus are not before us for decision this afternoon.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I wish to register our support for Motion No. 4 in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). It recognizes the change in the word "fundamental element" to read "fundamental characteristic".
I too have a number of motions which address the very same aspect. It is an important matter and I wish to record our support for Motion No. 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would recognize the Hon. Minister right now, but may I suggest that we call it


one o'clock, and I will recognize the Hon. Minister after Question Period?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, in the Pearson International Airport at Toronto, the smallest glass of pop, coca cola, for example, costs $1.29. I was at the airport yesterday and had to spend a fair amount of time waiting for some travellers. I was appalled at the prices they charged at the concession snack-bars in the airport. I call upon the Government to look into this problem.
These are basically monopoly operations which are under the control of the Government. The Government wants to brag about running airports as profit centres and, to a certain point, it is entitled to do so, but it also has a responsibility not only to the public as taxpayers but to the public as travellers. It is appalling to discover how much is being charged for these basic simple services. It should be part of the Government's responsibility to ensure that prices being charged are reasonable in relation to the service and products provided.
I call upon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bouchard) to look into the situation and to report on what is being done by the Government to keep prices in line for the travelling public at our airports.



FISHERIES


Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge that the desire of inshore fishermen to have their concerns about upgrading their lobster licences to A from B be addressed. Many of these fishermen received a commitment years ago that they would be allowed to regain their licensed status if their personal circumstances changed. Still others had their licences cancelled based on incorrect
information or procedures employed at the time. Fishermen who are seeking reinstatement of their lobster licences should be given a full hearing.
To date, fishermen are being told by the Atlantic Licence Appeal Board that the board cannot upgrade or reinstate, it can only decide whether the policy in effect at the time of down grading or cancellation was applied correctly. That is not enough. This issue must be addressed in a complete way with a view to restoring equity by having the circumstances of each appellant fully considered and responded to.
 * *



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday in Western Shore, Nova Scotia, the local post office will be closed. It will be closed for the last time. All 720 residents of this small town signed a petition asking that their post office be maintained but no one has listened. These people say that the Member of Parliament for the area simply passed on the message to Canada Post without any recommendations. He is obviously following the lead of the Minister responsible for the Post Office who washes his hands of responsibility when it comes time to stand up for rural post offices.
This problem came about when the local postmistress decided to retire. Are Canadians living in rural areas to be frightened every time one of their postmistresses or postmasters decides to retire that this will be the time their post office will close down?
We must hear these people. Their voices must be heard loud and clear. They describe their post office as a meeting place and they believe the old people will really be the ones to suffer. The people used the post office for money orders and things like that, and every kid who came into the post office received a sucker. That is all gone now. These people deserve to be heard. Rural Canada needs a voice in this Parliament.




Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House today to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the post office in Agassiz, British Columbia. Actual postal service to the community was started in 1884, but it was not until four years later that the name of Agassiz was adopted, named after the first postmaster, Mr. L. A. Agassiz. Since that time 14 postmasters have efficiently run the post office, and today Debbie Cliff proudly holds the title


of postmistress. Miss Cliff recently accepted a Canada Post plaque honouring the centennial of the community post office.
There is a rich history of community involvement in the post office. Henry Wilson was the postmaster for 16 years, and Dorothy Aspelund was the first female appointed to the postmistress position in Agassiz. She served for 19 years.
The community of Agassiz has been growing in the last decade, and a second rural route was established in 1980 to meet the needs of this fine community.
Hats off to the people of Agassiz and to your post office! You have set a fine example for many other community post offices in B.C. and Canada. Congratulations!



MISSING CHILDREN


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the dog days of summer we do not often get good news. However, I had some last week.
You may recall, Mr. Speaker, a couple of months ago I raised in this House the case of a young boy who had been abducted by one of his parents and who had gone missing for several months. Last week that boy was returned to the care of his mother in the city of Hamilton.
I think one of the reasons for the happy ending to what could have been a very sad story was the fine work done by the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police and, in particular, Sgt. Wilde, who worked diligently day and night on the case. The boy's mother and other family members never gave up hope that he would be reunited with his mother.
I know that there are hundreds of other missing children, many of whom have been abducted by a parent. I want to ask those parents to remember this. An abducted child, a child who is away from his home, is not a happy or contented child. Think about the child. In this case we had a happy ending. If those parents who really love their children think about them, they will reunite them with their family environment.
I am extremely happy that this story had a happy ending.



SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

[Stage Direction]
RESEARCH IN QUfeBEC-GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Conservative Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) has given the Province of Quebec a helping hand. He announced that an earth sciences research centre would be set up in Quebec, in cooperation with the Quebec Institute of Scientific Research, in addition to an energy research laboratory in northwestern Quebec. The creation of this laboratory in Abitibi-Temiscamingue will be welcomed by the mining industry.
Decisions such as this by the Conservative Minister will enable all Canadians, from Quebec and elsewhere, to contribute to the national policies of his Department. The Department must be present in Quebec, just as Quebecers must be present in the Department.
Mr. Speaker, that is the result of the excellent work done by the Conservative Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse) and Hon. Member for Frontenac.



SHIPBUILDING


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it has long since become clear that the Mulroney Government has no shipbuilding policy beyond the assignment of government work to one shipyard or another.
Similarly, the last Liberal Government used special capital recovery projects to provide vessels for the Coast Guard. The present Conservative Government uses naval construction and refits to keep shipyards working.
The award of work on the HMCS Nipigon to Port Weller Dry Docks last week marked the application of this practice to an Ontario yard. Ontario shipyards have suffered severely from the shipbuilding depression. Collingwood was closed two years ago, and Port Arthur Shipbuilding is forced to rely on repair work alone.
A consortium led by Canadian Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. has proposed construction of minesweeper patrol vessels for the Canadian Navy. The consortium has proposed distribution of this work to yards in Ontario and Quebec, as well as in the Atlantic and Pacific regions.
I urge the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) to recognize the Navy's need for these vessels and the shipyards' needs for the work. I urge the Minister to award this contract to the consortium led by CSEL.
5. O. 21 AIRPORTS



OTTAWA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS

William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring Members' attention to a major study of the Ottawa International Airport which has just been completed.
The study, commissioned by the Ottawa-Carleton Economic Development Corporation, points to two surmountable obstacles to growth. First, although the airport has the fifth largest passenger volume in Canada, it ranks last in terms of direct access to major U.S. air transportation hubs. Second, Winnipeg, Calgary, and Edmonton all have U.S. preclearance facilities, but the Ottawa airport lacks such a service.
The airport study indicates that we could remedy the first defect without bilateral negotiations by designating Ottawa as an underserviced destination. The second defect could be remedied by granting immunity to U.S. Customs and Immigration agents, assuming the U.S. would reciprocate.
These are constructive recommendations to improve the airport of our nation's capital. I would like to encourage further consideration of them by our transportation Ministry.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks, while western farmers have been experiencing the worst drought in 50 years and people in central Canada have been baking in temperatures in excess of 35 degrees, a lot of politicians have been hopping on the bandwagon and protecting our water from the Americans. Well, in a speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce, 1967, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Turner) said:
If some day we can agree to the sharing of this continent's water by offering some of our water for export, we might want to insist that if water is to be considered a continental resource, markets should also be considered on the same basis ... That, as I see it, must be our position.
Mr. Speaker, when Liberals get up in this House to defend our water, they should remember that their Leader was prepared to export our precious water only a few years ago.
What about Liberal Premier Robert Bourassa? In 1985 he said:
There is little doubt that Quebec and Canada could be a source of water for North America in years to come.
Brian Mulroney in an interview in 1985 with Fortune magazine said:
If somebody wanted to buy a little of our water, hell, we are in business, that is what it is all about. We have it coming out of our ears in Sept-Iles.
Can Canadians really feel that our precious water is safe in the hands of this Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Leader of the Liberal Party?
As prairie farmers watch their crops shrivel and die from a lack of rain, and as the millions of Canadians living near the Great Lakes are faced with the diversion of much of this water to the United States, they should consider just who they can really trust to stand up and fight to keep control over our water resources. It is not this Government and it is not the Liberal Party. Only one Party has been consistent in the defence of our water-the New Democratic Party of Canada.

[ Translation]



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-THE ADVANTAGES

Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, because of free trade in the automotive sector, General Motors of Canada has over the past three years invested 3.7 billion dollars in the Oshawa riding. That is money that is of immediate benefit to 20 350 workers, and the investment is due to free trade in the automotive sector. Fifty par cent of Ontario's exports to the
U.S. in recent years are attributable to free trade in that sector.
The Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of the socialist Party, is very well aware that American investment under free trade is profitable to the Oshawa riding.
Bob White, president of United Auto Workers, also knows how profitable free trade is for automobile workers in the Oshawa region.
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that Bob White is against free trade when it pays him so well and pays the socialist leader so well. We should remember that Bob White is the national vicepresident of the socialist party. These two men, White and Broadbent, have vowed that Canadians who do not live in Oshawa will not be prosperous.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-WATER RESOURCES

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is very disturbing to learn that Americans are already saying that water is included in the trade agreement, despite denials here in Ottawa. In addition, pressure is mounting to increase the flow of water from Lake Michigan into the midwest river
July II, 1988

system, so as to keep water transportation afloat. The Canadian Government has not made its opposition to such increase known in Washington, except for extracting a weak commitment that Canada will be consulted before a decision is made.
The weakness of the Canadian position is scary. Canadian water is threatened. The least the Government must do is to exclude water from the trade agreement. Without such amendment, the credibility of the Government is seriously damaged. We must not allow our water to be up for grabs.



THE ECONOMY


Elliott William Hardey: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to congratulate the gloomsayers in this House. They should be recognized for their amazing consistency on every major issue since 1984. They have been proven wrong every time.
They said that the Government could not reduce the deficit without killing many of our social programs. The deficit has come down every year since 1984. Social programs have been increased.
They said that the Government could not lower and stabilize interest rates for any length of time without triggering inflation. They were wrong again. For four straight years inflation has remained under control while exports and housing starts flourished.
The gloomsayers said that you couldn't reduce government make work projects without increasing unemployment. How wrong can you get? Last Friday unemployment in Canada had reached a seven-year low. Canadian youth are showing confidence that jobs are waiting for them as they leave their schools. What a difference from the Trudeau days!
Is it any wonder that Canadians are doubting the gloomsayers now, as they preach their negative nonsense about free trade, tax reform, and defence issues?



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians saw the dinosaurs of the Tory caucus in action once again. This time they were displaying their
intolerance by trying to destroy the essence of the Official Languages Act, a Bill supporting bilingualism, a Bill widely accepted by most clear-thinking Canadians.
It is true that those Tories have every right to table amendments, but that misses the fundamental point, that is, the necessity that bilingual federal Public Service hiring practices must be fairly and equitably applied for Francophones outside Quebec and Anglophones within Quebec. Their amendment gave Canadians a rare glimpse of the archaic out-of-touch thinking inside the Tory caucus.
Let us not forget that it took active intervention by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to get this Bill passed. Now, will the Secretary of State fulfil his responsibility by ensuring speedy implementation of Bill C-72 for both Anglophones within Quebec and Francophones outside Quebec? Let me remind him that implementing this Act is a federal responsibility which does not require an entente cordiale anywhere across this land.
I am sure all Canadians will remember this episode as a repeat one, a reminder of Tory thinking that began when more than 26 Tories voted against the first Official Languages Act back in 1969.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


William (Bill) Gottselig: Mr. Speaker, as a result of what is being termed the "greenhouse effect" future generations may be forced to live through devastating years of hardship and drought, far worse than we experience today. Not only could disease such as skin cancer be more prevalent and deadly, but crop production could be diminished to an extent that ultimately will affect our basic food supply. Jobs could also be lost.
It is a known fact that human activities influence the destruction of the ozone layer. If Canadians were to adjust their way of life we might be able to slow down this damage significantly. For example, farmers could implement changes in their methods of grain production and livestock maintenance; we could all learn better waste management in order to prevent pollution in a variety of areas; and water should also become a cherished commodity and used with greater respect.
I urge government, business, labour, and individual citizens to pull our resources together. We must enhance research and become more aware of the environmental consequences of our actions, which have become habit.
Environmental protection is everybody's business.


Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. The Minister knows that I have been arguing for some time that Tariff Schedule Item 22.01 of the trade deal with the United States covers ordinary natural water of all kinds, and thus will allow for the eventual export of Canadian water to the United States. The Minister also knows that his colleague, the Minister for International Trade, has argued that Item 22.01 applies only to bottled mineral water-he talked about Perrier with great gusto in the House of Commons.
The Minister of National Revenue has issued the official explanatory notes on the harmonized customs tariffs for the Canada-U.S. trade deal. I quote from his document where he states that the official explanation for Item 22.01 is "ordinary natural water of all kinds other than sea water". It seems pretty clear.
Will the Minister explain why his explanation of the customs Item 22.01 contradicts flatly the rejection of our argument of the past number of weeks here in the House of Commons that the trade deal does not contemplate the inclusion of water within its ambit?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the position is exactly as has been stated repeatedly, and is very clear from the free trade agreement. The free trade agreement does not apply to water in its natural running state. It does not apply to any diversion of water from any natural basins of this country. It applies principally to bottled water.
Let me tell the Hon. Leader of the Opposition the following. If he checks the same agreement, he will see in one of the schedules that compressed air is included. That does not mean to say that Canada is in danger of losing its air, certainly as long as the Leader of the Opposition is around.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the air pressure in this House will stay well above normal as long as the Minister sticks around, and that won't be for too long.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


POSITION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that may be the Minister's point of view, but I want
to repeat the official interpretation given by his colleague. Under the law, the Minister of National Revenue is responsible for providing an official interpretation of all questions related to Customs. This official explanation by the Minister says that tariff item 22.01 covers water of all kinds except sea water.
Now the Great Lakes are not sea water, any more than Lake Winnipeg, Lake Athabasca, Lake Nipigon or Great Slave Lake or the St. Lawrence River. The waters of these lakes are covered by this tariff item in the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, despite the claims and statements by the Minister for International Trade. Does the Minister of National Revenue deny having sent this official explanation to his Customs officers and how can he reconcile his official interpretation with the statements made by his colleague, the Minister for International Trade?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, might I refer again, in our attempt to keep the Leader of the Opposition on a factually correct road-I know he would not intentionally distort the facts-to an interview shown on television on Sunday, May 1. Mr. Craig Oliver along with Pamela Wallin interviewed Ambassador Clayton Yeutter on CTV.
Mr. Yeutter was asked-he, of course, is the United States trade representative who negotiated this deal-a question:
Did you see this deal as leading to a system by which the United States can also have easier access to Canadian supplies of water?
And he said:
I don't see the free trade arrangement being used as a vehicle to accomplish that, but I can certainly see there might be U.S.-Canada discussions on access to water supplies over the next 10, 20 or 50 years.
That is exactly the same point which the Leader of the Opposition in his famous book made a number of years ago when he said he could see water being used as an item of trade as a natural resource.
Mr. Yeutter went on to say:
I happen to know the issue of water well because I did my PhD. dissertation on water law and water administration, but I don't see it being an FTA issue. I see it being a separate issue that will inevitably draw attention in time.
And so on. Here is the chief trade representative of the United States who said that the free trade arrangement has nothing to do with the question of water, that it is a separate issue that will inevitably draw attention in time.
When it does, this Government has a policy that we will not permit-which was enunciated in November, 1987, for the first time by any Government in Canada-inter-basin transfer of water from Canada to the United States or anywhere else. We have got the policy. We are only in danger if the hon. gentleman opposite gets into power.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Poor John. Give him some water.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE AMENDED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in that celebrated declaration which the Minister cites that I made 20 years ago to the United States Chamber of Commerce I said quite clearly to the suggestion that the water of North America should be considered a continental water supply, Canadians say hold on a minute. We say there is Canadian water, there is American water, and there is Mexican water, but we do not like the new vocabulary which calls our water continental water. That has always been my position and it is my position here before the House.
I don't care what Clayton Yeutter's PhD. thesis says or how he interprets the agreement. The Minister of National Revenue in his official interpretation of Article 22.01 includes ordinary natural water within the purview of the agreement. No matter what the Minister of Trade says, no matter what Clayton Yeutter says or what anybody else, that is the official interpretation of this Government.
The Minister of Justice-I ought to put this to the Acting Prime Minister, and I would like to be advised who is Acting Prime Minister today-


John Carnell Crosbie: We will let you know.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Who is the Acting Leader of the Opposition today?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question to the Acting Prime Minister whoever he or she may be.
On Friday the Minister of Justice said:
The question of our ability to control water policy in Canada transcends any agreement.
That is to say our water policy would out rank anything in the agreement. However, Clause 8 of the legislation passed by this House says quite clearly that the trade agreement supersedes and transcends any Canadian legislation or policy.
With great respect, I say to the Minister of Justice that he does not know what he is talking about. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, if the Minister for International Trade is so categorical that despite the trade agreement, despite the trade legislation and despite the customs tariff we have recited, why does he not agree to an amendment specifically to exclude water from the purview of the agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the hon. gentleman first about what he said in his famous book. He said:
Oral Questions
We might wish to export water, not for money as we sold power under the
Columbia River Treaty, but in return for access to your markets. That, as I
see it, must be our position. I don't want to sound tough.
He didn't.
There is nothing in the free trade agreement which requires the diversion of water to the United States. We are not going to permit the diversion of water to the United States. That is our policy.
The prohibition of water exports by means of inter-basin transfers falls squarely within exceptions permitted by GATT and is totally consistent with the free trade agreement. The hon. gentleman, The Toronto Star, and their supporters who are anti-free trade are trying to stir up these fictitious fears. Let the mud settle. It just is not true. Please just let it settle and stick to the facts. Don't stick to your book of a few years ago; that is too dangerous.


REQUEST FOR SPECIFIC EXEMPTION OF WATER
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, and sticks to reported facts, at least that are as recent as one week ago.
Last week the same chief negotiator for the United States, Mr. Yeutter, was quoted as having said in an interview with Republican Representative Grandy that water is in the agreement. This is as recently as one week ago.
In light of continuous pressures on Canadian water, what has the Government of Canada got to lose by adding water to the list of items including beer, unprocessed fish, and lumber, items that are exempted from the trade agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman who asked the question himself issued a release just a few days ago, July 5, not that long ago, which should not have passed out of his mind so quickly, in which he said, "While the Government has repeatedly stated that nothing in the trade deal forces Canada to sell water to the U.S."-the hon. gentleman admits that the free trade agreement does not force Canada to sell water and then he goes on to say-"the same Government cannot give assurance that the deal prevents the export of water." We do not enter into agreements to prevent something. If we are a Government with resolution, a Government that has a policy, we do not need an agreement to tell us what we can prevent. We prevent it by saying it is against our policy to permit it, something which you never did when you were in power and now you are clucking like a rooster every time water is mentioned.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly where we want the Minister for International Trade to do, to take a measure that will prevent it. That is all we are



Oral Questions
asking for. What have you got to lose by including water in the trade deal? Tell us now.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement cannot now be amended. It is before the U.S. Congress and it is before this House, but not only that, there is no need to amend it. There is no danger unless the Hon. Leader of the Opposition gets into power and wants to treat water like a commodity and make some money on it.
The Hon. Member quoted Iowa Republican Representative Grandy who made certain comments which he said were based on comments made by a U.S. trade official at a discussion on trade issues organized by Grandy for his constituents. He never had any conversation with Mr. Yeutter. He has no information from Mr. Yeutter on this matter.
The U.S. trade office will confirm that water in its natural state is not a subject of the free trade agreement. Only bottled water is, the same as compressed air. I know the hon. gentleman is going to go racing around the country now saying, "Watch out for the air, watch out for the air, because it is being sold to the United States under the free trade agreement," just like the little red hen.


PROPOSED CHICAGO CANAL WATER DIVERSION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.


John R. Rodriguez: Which one?


Steven W. Langdon: I am not sure which is the best actor over there.
A water diversion increase of three times the amount presently going through the Chicago diversion, which is what is being proposed by various U.S. Senators and Governors-


John Horton McDermid: Wrong! Name the second Governor.


Steven W. Langdon: -would decrease the water level in Lake Huron by up to nine inches, by five inches in Lake Erie, and would have a tremendous effect on water quality, hydroelectric production, shipping and recreation. It is not a laughing matter.
Given this significant danger will the Acting Prime Minister show leadership and see to it that this House unanimously passes a resolution to be conveyed to the U.S. which indicates our complete opposition to any increase in the Chicago diversion?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the House will be happy to know, and I believe the House already knows, that we have conveyed the strong views of this Government to the U.S., and I am sure those are the views of all Members of the House. We have had our Ambassador visit and set out our position very clearly. Our
position was also stated clearly by the Attorney General, I believe it was, on Friday.
We take the position that Canadian consent is needed for any such diversion of water as proposed by one or two Governors, not by all. Our view is not based on any interpretation of U.S. domestic law. We say the obligation to get Canada's consent is governed by international law and is based on a number of bilateral treaties, agreements and exchanges of notes between Canada and the U.S., including the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty, the 1959 Niagara River Treaty, and the exchange of notes on the Long Lac-Ogoki diversion, as well as the practice of the two countries going back to the early 1940s.
In all that time no unilateral diversions have been undertaken by either country, and we fully expect that this proposal will be rejected also. There will be no diversion with our consent and the U.S. knows forcefully and well that we object strongly to this proposal.


REQUEST THAT AGREEMENT BE AMENDED
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the same detailed report of the International Joint Commission reviewed this whole question in 1985 and indicated that unfortunately there is an ambiguity in our legal right to prevent the U.S. from diverting water from Lake Michigan. Given that unfortunate fact, will the Government move to do something about the ambiguity by amending the trade deal so as to block water diversions from the Great Lakes to the U.S., whether through the Chicago diversion or some other diversion south of Lake Superior, or any place else in the Great Lakes Basin? Otherwise, the impact on our country would be disastrous.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of warnings from the hon. gentleman about disasters to befall Canada. I am sure if there was a serious diversion of water, that would be of serious concern to Canada. However, we do not believe there to be any ambiguity in the practices which have been followed since the early 1940s, or in international law. We always know, of course, that there can be arguments about what the law is.
Our position is there is no ambiguity, but if there is we know that our relationship with the U.S. is a good, solid, honest, cooperative one and we feel sure that the U.S. administration will listen to our representations, apart altogether from laws and ambiguities that might surround any issue.


GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister for International Trade, who negotiated this infamous trade deal, said she is against even considering the possibility of an amendment. What is it that prevents the Government from putting such a simple safeguard in a trade deal? What is it that prevents the Government from standing up on behalf of Canadians for once and doing what it should



do? What is it that prevents the Government from standing up for Canada for once?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, these theatrics are not very impressive. The position is this. I am answering these questions as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. This has nothing to do with trade matters.
If the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement had never come into existence, if it had never crossed anyone's mind, if it did not exist, if it was up on the Moon or Saturn somewhere, we would still have this problem of the proposal by the Governor of Illinois to divert these waters and we would be handling it in the same way. It has no connection at all to the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which is an agreement governing commercial relations to increase our access to the U.S. market, to make our people more prosperous, to give Canadians a chance to show what they can do in competition with the Americans, to help Canada and Canadians.
It has no connection whatsoever with the free trade agreement and we do not need to approach the Americans about the free trade agreement. This is a different issue to be treated differently by a different Minister.


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the same Minister. If he had read the agreement he would know that Article 409 provides for a full sharing of goods and services. The interpretation given by the Minister of National Revenue to his customs officers includes natural water as part of that definition of goods and services. It is therefore part of the agreement.
The Minister can solve the problem very simply by proposing an amendment that would exclude water from being subject to Section 409. The Minister says he cannot do that because the deal is final. The fact is that the U.S. has not completed its legislation. It has not tabled its Bill yet. The Minister is not describing the state of affairs accurately to the House. Considering Article 409 and the official interpretation given by his colleague, why does the Minister refuse to propose the kind of exclusion required to ensure that water will not be included as part of the trade agreement?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the only way in which water is touched upon in the free trade agreement, and I will say this again for the record, or any trade in water as a commercial good, is under the heading "beverages, spirits and vinegar". Vinegar is certainly apt when we hear these repetitious questions, these same feeble attempts to alarm the Canadian people, day after day, week after week.
Oral Questions
Water itself as a natural resource is not dealt with in the free trade agreement. There is nothing in the free trade agreement which requires or obliges or directs or orders or permits the diversion of water to the United States. The policy of this Government, contrary to the last Government, enunciated in November, 1987, is that there shall be no transfer from Canada of water as a natural resource.
We have ignored the advice of the Leader of the Opposition in his book from which I quoted a few minutes ago. We do not buy that policy. We are not going to permit water to be given away like that.
The exact analogy is to compressed air which is also dealt with as a commercial good. Compressed air-does that mean that Canadians are now in danger of being cut off from the air because some Government is going to sell all the Canadian air? For heaven's sake, stop the childish nonsense.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Minister to add a document to his reading list as part of his remedial reading program. That document is one provided by his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, which in the explanatory notes to the customs tariffs which apply to Section 401, says the following very clearly on Article 22.01:
Waters, including natural or artificial mineral waters... This heading
covers: (A) Ordinary natural water of all kinds ...
It is not mineral water, not the Minister's hot air, and none of the other spurious comments he is making.
The fact of the matter is that under the present proposed agreement Section 409 includes goods and services. This custom tariff classification clearly includes natural water as part of that definition. In order to ensure that there is no future demand under the trade agreement for access to our water there is only one serious, responsible way of proceeding, that is, to propose an amendment, which the Minister has every right to do because the deal is not yet Finalized. The Americans are still considering their amendments.
Why does the Minister stand time after time and refuse the logical, honest, responsible way of dealing with a matter which is very important to Canada? Is it simply that he knows the real reason and he is prepared to sell out Canada and its water?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman's remedial reading is confined to The Toronto Star.
The situation in Canada with respect to beer is unchanged by the free trade agreement. Wine changes and liquor changes, but beer is not included. Even though it trickles along or flows out if you turn the bottle upside-down, up, just like water, it is not included. That does not mean to say that Canadians have


Oral Questions
to send all their beer down to the United States. It just means that there is a provision which deals with beer.
I will refer again to Mr. Yeutter who headed the United States negotiating team. In the same interview he said the following about water: "But I don't see it being an FTA issue. I see it being a separate issue that will inevitably draw attention in time. Now, clearly all of that would have to be worked out on the basis of an international compact between the two countries".
Water in its natural state is not included. There is nothing to fear. As long as the Government is kept in power there is nothing to fear about the transfer of water in large amounts to the United States.


PROVISIONS OF AGREEMENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister for International Trade. He will be well aware that the provisions of the trade deal transcend government policy now or in the future. He indicated in his response to the Leader of the Official Opposition that the policy on water can change. It could change with this Government and can change with a future Government.
If the Minister felt it was appropriate to exempt logs from this trade deal, and also that it was appropriate to exempt beer, with the concern that this has created across the country why not work to exempt water? Is the Minister saying that beer is more important than water?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can tell Hon. Members that beer has never crossed my lips. I don't like the stuff. Whether it is different from water, I don't know, having never tasted beer.
To return to the question, it is not appropriate, nor is it necessary, to deal with water in the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Water has been dealt with in a statement of policy by the Minister of the Environment. If and when the Government decides that legislation is also necessary, the way in which to deal with the matter would be with legislation brought into this House by the Minister of the Environment.
The Liberals were in power for 40 years and they did nothing, they didn't adopt any policy. The man who was Minister of the Environment then did not care about water. We do not know what he cared about because he never spoke up at all during the time he was Minister.
If the Government decides that legislation is necessary, the hon. gentleman will hear about it in the usual way. Perhaps we should open up longer during the summer to deal with it in that way, but we are not proposing to open up the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement which was signed last January
2 and which does not deal with water. Nothing forces us to divert water to the United States.


REQUEST THAT AMENDMENT BE INTRODUCED
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 remember the words of the Minister for International Trade when he said to the people of Canada not many months ago, "If we told them what we were going to actually do they'ld never vote for us". In recalling that now I wonder whether there is not some hidden agenda here. I wonder whether the Minister is not trying to cover up what the Government is actually up to.
If the Government were listening to the people of Canada it would know that people across Canada are very concerned about the whole discussion of water diversion into the United States, whether from the Great Lakes, the Nawapa plan, the Garrison Project, or whatever the project. There are very serious concerns.
This morning on the West Coast the former Minister for International Trade said that the Government is not at all interested in an amendment at this time. At this very critical moment the Minister could set aside the concerns of Canadians and make a lot of Canadians feel a lot easier about the Government's intention, forgetting about its stated policy, by simply bringing in an amendment. Why will he not do that simple thing at this time to ease the fears which are growing by the day across Canada?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if there are fears growing by the day across Canada on this issue it is because the people are being misled by hon. gentlemen opposite who do not want them to understand the position.
With respect to the diversion of water as suggested by the Governor of Illinois, that is not a matter which can be dealt with in the free trade agreement. That is a matter to be dealt with under bilateral treaties with the United States under international law. According to the precedents since the early forties the Americans have never attempted to divert water in that way without consultation with and the consent of the Government of this country.
The hon. gentleman referred to something which he alleges I said at some time. I remember reading what the hon. gentleman said about his colleagues. He said, "They have misspoken the truth, they have misrepresented what happened, they have lied, they have not told the facts. I don't know how much blunter I can be about that". It was with reference to Mr. Waddell and Mr. Manly that the hon. gentleman said those words. How does he explain them?


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Lawrence I. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. I am concerned about the special circumstances of Armed Forces families who must move frequently and face new expenses, including expenses related to spouses seeking new employment, their eligibility for unemployment insurance, and the existence of exchange rates in West Germany, for example.
Can the Minister tell us what the Department is doing or is contemplating doing to meet the special financial needs of the families serving in Canada's Armed Forces?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Armed Forces personnel who move overseas are already given a foreign service premium. There is a cost of living allowance which is indexed to the local economy in which they are living, there is a shelter share in which the Department subsidizes the housing utility costs, and there is a living-out allowance for single persons who wish to live off a base.
As a result of the differentiation between the mark and the Canadian dollar, last year we increased the amount they were allowed for living off the base in rental accommodation to try to make it more equitable for them.
We continue to analyze any fluctuations in the exchange rate to see if this fairness can be maintained.


RAILWAYS
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport who, regrettably, might be the Acting Prime Minister. Residents of Toronto are still waiting for the result of a study into the rail carriage of dangerous goods, a study that was undertaken because of the near disaster in Mississauga. The minority report which is dated today and was just released by Harold Morrison, gives a behind the scenes insight into the pro railway bias of the majority of the task force, and reveals that the majority report does not recommend reduced speeds.
Today I want to call on the Acting Minister to release the majority report and, at the same time, indicate that in spite of that report reduced speeds will be imposed on the carriage of dangerous goods by rail through Metro Toronto.
Oral Questions


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Members would regret that a member of the committee would release a minority report before the main report has even been tabled with the Minister. We have not yet received that report, but I can assure the Member that when it is tabled, which I understand will be in the next few weeks, it will be dealt with properly by the Minister and in a way that I think will be satisfactory to the vast bulk of Members here.


MAJORITY REPORT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. Does the Government intend to hold on to that report until it makes its own conclusions or, as I have urged, will that report be released as soon as the Government receives it?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it will be dealt with like all reports. The Minister will have to study it and make his own personal consultations with people with whom he thinks he should touch base. He will make a recommendation to the Cabinet and it will then come to the House in that way.


DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROGEN TECHNOLOGY
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, today the Agriculture Ministers are meeting to consider the tragic consequences of an historic drought. As questions today indicate, we are immersed in a controversy over the diversion of Great Lake waters. This is an indication of the tremendous perils that the greenhouse effect presents to mankind if we do not wean ourselves from carbon based fuels. Yet since 1984 the Government has cut expenditures on alternative fuels and energy conservation. It has yet to respond to the proposal by its advisory committee that Canada establish world leadership in the development of hydrogen technology.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. When will the Government respond to the proposal that Canada make a significant contribution to the attack on the greenhouse effect by developing technology for substitution of hydrogen for carbon? When will it correct its error on cutting back in energy alternative expenditures?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member is merely responding to action the Government has already taken in a number of these areas. In fact the Prime Minister raised the issue during the summit conference in Toronto, offering Canada to take a leadership role in co-ordinating the activities


Oral Questions
throughout the world in terms of the management of the global commons.
Initiatives are under way following a report on hydrogen to examine the prospect of using hydrogen as one of the replacement fuels going into the next century. A consortium of business people from the major companies in Canada recently met with me and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to get together in a major national mission on hydrogen.
The Hon. Member is merely following behind the lead dog and has lost his vision.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: I did not know we were talking about dogs. I am sure dogs would be more specific in answering the question than the Minister of State just was.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, when will the Government announce that it has restored the cuts in expenditures for alternative energy and for conservation? How much, when, over what period of time? Will the Government establish the hydrogen authority as asked for in the advisory committee report? When wilt the Minister establish that committee and how much funding will it be provided? Do not give these general assertions of being in favour of this or that.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, as usual, it is a very simplistic approach simply to anticipate that one can buy all of these solutions. The fact is that these committees are meeting, discussions are under way.
We have just announced $1.3 billion of new spending for science and technology. Five hundred and forty million dollars will go into universities for fundamental research. There will be a centres of excellence program. There is no doubt in my mind that energy will be one of the areas which Canadian scientists will want to study and develop linkages to leaders in various disciplines throughout the world. I could go on forever. The fact is that we are acting and measurable progress is being made. The Hon. Member just refuses to acknowledge it.
* [DOT]* *


FISHERIES
Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, two Spanish fishing vessels were arrested off the coast of Newfoundland over the weekend for alleged illegal fishing inside Canada's 200-mile zone in 1985. Will the Acting Minister of Fisheries fill in the details of the arrest and what has transpired since the vessels were apprehended?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have a chance to praise the
officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for this magnificent piece of work. On Saturday two Spanish trawlers were sighted by a specially equipped Beach Craft King air surveillance aircraft operating out of St. John's, owned by Mr. Tom Collingwood's firm, and leased to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. It was determined that arrest warrants were outstanding for the two vessels and the captains.
The Leonard J. Cowley patrol vessel was alerted to intercept these two vessels and board them to determine whether the two captains were the same as those named in the warrants. It successfully intercepted the two Spanish trawlers on Sunday and first arrested the Lenengoa and its captain and then the Bigarena and arrested her captain. They were brought into St. John's at four o'clock Sunday afternoon.
It turned out that both captains had been wanted since 1985 for alleged offences that have occurred in our waters. This was a magnificent piece of work, as was the apprehension of the American vessel that attempted to steam away with four of our officers onboard but was intercepted by a second vessel with an armed patrol party. All of these measures were instituted by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.


CANADIAN POLICY-SOUTH AFRICAN ATHLETES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. He will know that his Government has adopted a sports policy which is clearly racist in nature and violates the spirit of the Gleneagle's Agreement. It is setting the stage for a situation where we are now permitting South African athletes who belong to racist organizations to compete on the international level by parading as "independent business people". Is he prepared to reverse the policy that was adopted by his predecessor in relation to Canadian sports policy?


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what exactly the Hon. Member is referring to. If she is referring to any specific case as far as our policy applies to South African athletes, the policy that we have laid out is not always easy to apply but we have done our best.
Perhaps she is referring to the case of two tennis players that was brought up in The Toronto Star. If that is the case, I can only inform the Hon. Member that the two athletes to whom she is referring have never asked for visas to enter Canada.


REQUEST THAT VISAS BE DENIED
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give a commitment in the House today that they will be denied visas and this will be the first step in the revision of a policy adopted by the Conservative Government in 1985 which


permitted individual athletes to come to Canada under the guise of independent business?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, our policy on sporting contacts with South Africa is fully in accord with the spirit and the text of the 1977 Gleneagle's Agreement on sporting contacts with South Africa, and the 1982 Code of Conduct.
With respect to the tennis players, participation in the Canadian Open tennis tournament is determined according to the international ranking of eligible players. These several persons, if they do apply for visas, will not fall within the Gleneagle's policy, because it is sports people who represent the South African Government-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Not true, and I've got a copy of it right here.


John Carnell Crosbie: -sport associations, or organized South African sport, who fall within the policy.


Sheila Maureen Copps: That's false!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is how the policy is applied. We will have to wait and see if and when they do apply for visas.


BANKS AND BANKING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. About two weeks ago the Minister of State for Finance responded to the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs with respect to bank service charges and how they affected consumers. The Minister at that time referred to the charges, particularly the NSF charge-back, as reprehensible and objectionable.
In light of the fact the banks reluctantly withdrew the charge-back on NSF cheques for consumers, would the Minister not agree that what was reprehensible and objectionable for consumers is equally reprehensible and objectionable for small businesses?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this raises a broader question of which I am sure the Hon. Member is aware. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has had consultations with the Department. In fact Mr. Bullock had a meeting this morning with my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, to discuss this whole question of bank charges as it relates to small business. We want to have further meetings with Mr. Bullock and his people, and following that we may have some further discussions with the banking community.
Oral Questions ROYAL BANK SUGGESTION


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. We are very concerned about specifics with respect to the chargeback on NSF cheques. Rob Parker at the Royal Bank feels that the NSF charge-back to small business is justified. He says it is a cost of doing business, and further suggests that small businesses ought to use their credit card system to protect themselves. In light of that suggestion from Mr. Parker, would the Minister not agree that this is a form of tied selling which is specifically prohibited by the competition laws of our country? Would the Minister investigate this suggestion by the banks with respect to tied selling?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the conclusion the Hon. Member has drawn is a somewhat far-fetched one-


John R. Rodriguez: That's what Rob Parker said.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but I am pleased to discuss that further with my colleague. Tied selling is a responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but both that Minister and my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, will be in discussions with the banks. It is quite a bit more complex when the matter of bank charges involves the business community. It is much more difficult and complex as to how to deal with it, but we are looking at various proposals the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has put forward to us and we may want to take these up with the banking community as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to advise the House that there will be a single question from the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques followed by a single question from the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. We will then close off Question Period.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the strike at Bell Canada.
Canadian consumers continue to experience problems with communications, especially those who require the installation of new equipment and those who need operator assistance to make their calls, and I am thinking especially of the handicapped.
Mr. Speaker, the Government has done very little so far to try and settle this dispute. All we have had was a kind of


Message from the Senate
homemade conciliation effort by an official from the Department. No conciliation commissioner, much less a mediator, has been appointed.
I would like to ask my question ...


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Jacques Guilbault: ... for the benefit of my "interrupters" opposite. I want to ask the Government to inform the House whether consumers should expect to face these problems for some time yet, or does the Government intend to take some kind of action to help reach a settlement? What does the Government intend to do to put an end to this strike? When is the Government going to wake up and help Quebec consumers, despite those turkeys who are trying to interrupt me?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Bell Canada has indicated that continuation of the TDD service for the hearing impaired will have top priority during the strike.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that management personnel are replacing striking operators in order to provide a much needed service, for the handicapped.


DISASTERS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I spoke a few moments ago by telephone to a father in Vancouver who lost his son on the Piper ALPHA Platform which blew up in the North Sea a little while ago. He indicated to me he has some serious concerns about the safety measures which were not taken.
Given the difficulty of an ordinary Canadian affording representation at any inquiry, for example, in Aberdeen, would the Government consider giving legal representation to the two Canadian families involved? And would the Government admit there is also a national interest for Canada because if we start Hibernia, we will have oil rigs out there in very dangerous situations? Would the Government be prepared to consider giving representation to two ordinary Canadians and their families at that inquiry so the families could feel justice could be done as much as that is possible now for their loved ones who were lost?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that the concern of the Government for safety measures is ongoing. We have on our East Coast, particularly with respect to Hibernia and to developments there, some of the strictest safety measures in
place in the world. That is not to say that at any time they cannot be improved. Suggestions coming from individuals and organizations would certainly be studied.
I cannot give the Hon. Member an assurance that certain individuals could go to specific hearings, but I can assure him that if he would see that their concerns are channelled to the Government, we will see they are given consideration.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I want to bring to the attention of Hon. Members that on Friday last there was some discussion in this Chamber as to a certain action taken by the other place, and for those uninitiated that means the Honourable the Senate, with respect to a Bill which after having passed in this place was sent to the Senate.
In the interests of Hon. Members, but especially in the interests of the public who are watching and listening, I want to just in very simple language explain what happens because I have a technical ruling and it just may be that the public of this country, which ought to understand what we are doing here, will find it easier to follow if I give a brief explanation in layman's language, if I can put it that way.
What happened was simply that a Bill numbered Bill C-103, which is a Bill respecting economic development in Atlantic Canada, was passed by this House in all stages and was sent to the Senate, as is the normal procedure. When it was being considered by the Senate, the Senate decided, for whatever reason, to split the Bill, in other words to break it into two parts, and the Senate sent back to this House one part of the Bill. There was much argument in the House Friday as to whether or not this was justified. It is not for the Speaker to say whether or not on any substantive reason there was any logical justification for it.
Essentially, that is the point that the Speaker has been asked to comment upon, that is, whether it is under our system appropriate for the Honorable The Senate to take a Bill that has passed this place and to break it into two parts and send back one-half of the Bill, especially when it is a money Bill which requires at its very beginning the Royal Recommendation for the expenditure of funds.
As I have said, that is a layman's explanation. It is important that all Canadians understand just exactly what it is the Chair has been asked to do in this particular case. I am now going to get into the formal part of the ruling. I will try not to keep the House too long. I hope that given this explanation it will be clear to everybody just exactly what has happened here and what the response of the Chair is in this ruling and the


invitation that the Chair gives to this House as to whatever further response the House may wish to take.
On Friday, July 8 last, the Chair informed the House that a message had been received from the other place that it had divided Bill C-103, an Act to increase the opportunity for economic development in Atlantic Canada, to establish the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts. The message from the Senate simply informed this House of its decision and reported back without amendment only Part 1 of Bill C-103.
The Hon. Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) rose on a point of order objecting to the unprecedented action by the Senate in dividing Bill C-103 and requesting guidance from the Chair as to the acceptability of such a message. The Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) counter-argued that what the Senate had done was quite logical since Bill C-103 was composed of quite distinct parts and could easily be divided into two parts, each standing as separate and independent legislative proposals.
I point out that the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys also argued strenuously for the substantive issue that is involved. As I said, that is for others to argue and is not for the Chair to comment upon.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), supported vigorously by the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) and the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), objected to the innovative procedure of the Senate on the grounds that the privileges of this House had been violated. The Hon. Member for Churchill claimed that the Senate had no authority to split a Bill originating in the Commons. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants further added that if this precedent were to be allowed, the House of Commons would be at risk in seeing much of its legislation originating in an elected Chamber compromised in principle by the Senate's actions.

Before dealing with the essence of the problem, it might be useful to summarize what happened with Bill C-103, the Government Organization Act, Atlantic Canada, 1987.
The House passed Bill C-103 on third reading on May 10, 1988, and sent it to the Senate the same day with a message signed by the Clerk of the House.

Let me say parenthetically that it is unusual to refer to specific proceedings of the other place-again, for those listening, "the other place" is a term used here to mean the Honourable The Senate-in this House. The Chair finds itself obliged to lay that convention aside for clarity's sake in this particular issue.
On June 1, 1988, a motion was moved in the Senate to instruct the Senate Finance Committee to divide Bill C-103. A
Message from the Senate
procedural debate ensued. Having first reserved his decision, the Speaker of the Senate on June 7, 1988, ruled the motion out of order. In other words, the Speaker of the Senate ruled the motion to split a Bill from the House of Commons as out of order. His reasoning, which is a matter of record, was based on the fact that Bill C-103 is a money Bill and that the Senate, while free to split Bills originating in the Senate, as a general principle should not divide Bills originating in the Commons.
Thereupon the ruling of the Speaker of the Senate was appealed to the whole House, that is, to the whole Senate, and was overturned by a majority vote. The motion to split Bill C-103 was moved, proposed, debated and passed. May I also add parenthetically that this House, the House of Commons of Canada, has seen the wisdom of leaving final procedural decisions to its presiding officer and accordingly has long abolished the appeal procedure relating to Speakers' rulings.

Bill C-103 was then studied by the Senate Finance Committee, which split the Bill in two, in accordance with the Senate's instructions. The Committee reported Part I of the Bill to the Senate and the Senate sent this part back to the House last Friday. That is where we are today. The House has only one part of Bill C-103.

I must also underline for the House that this procedural event is totally without precedent. I have been unable to find any instance in our practice in which the Senate divided a Commons Bill, or in which the Commons has divided a Senate Bill. There are several cases in which the Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled certain Bills originating in the Senate out of order because they infringe the financial privileges of the House which are enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. I refer Hon. Members in this case to Journals of November 12, 1969, and June 12, 1973, for two such examples.

I refer Hon. Members to page 502 of the 20th edition of Erskine May. It concerns a procedural incident in the British Parliament, where there had been an attempt in the House of Lords to split a bill from the House of Commons, but this attempt failed after a motion to split the bill was rejected. This incident is reported but the author carefully refrains from indicating how the Lower House could have reacted if the motion had passed. This incident occurred in 1852 and I could find no similar incidents anywhere since then.

A Canadian precedent does exist for a consolidation of two Commons Bills into a single legislative measure by the Senate. That took place on June 11, 1941, with a message from their Honours, from the Senate, asking for the concurrence of this House. The Commons agreed with the Senate proposal, that is, a proposal to take two Bills from this place and put them into one Bill. The Commons agreed with the Senate proposal


Message from the Senate
waiving its traditional privilege, and a single Bill was eventually given Royal Assent. I underline that that was the act of this House in waiving its tradition of privilege and accepting the invitation of the Senate to put two Bills together.
If it is admitted that the Senate can consolidate two Bills, why then can it not divide one Bill into two or more legislative measures? The answer is at least in part in the message. In the 1941 case just alluded to the Senate specifically sought the concurrence of the House for its action. Apparently it was the disposition of this place to accept it. In the message received last Friday relating to Bill C-103, the Senate does not seek the Commons' concurrence in the division of the Bill, it simply informs this House that it has done so, and returns half of a Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: I ask Hon. Members to restrain their comments until some other time. Whatever Hon. Members may feel, I do not think that this is a partisan matter. I am trying to make it very clear that it is a procedural matter, and a matter of some importance to the workings of this place and its very important relationship with the honourable the Senate, which is very much part of the Parliament of Canada.
The Speaker of the House of Commons by tradition does not rule on constitutional matters. It is not for me to decide whether the Senate has the constitutional power to do what it has done with Bill C-103. There is not any doubt that the Senate can amend a Bill, or it can reject it in whole or in part. There is some considerable doubt, at least in my mind, that the Senate can rewrite or redraft Bills originating in the Commons, potentially so as to change their principle as adopted by the House without again first seeking the agreement of the House. That I view as a matter of privilege and not a matter related to the Constitution.
In the case of Bill C-103, it is my opinion, and with great respect of course, that the Senate should have respected the propriety of asking the House of Commons to concur in its action of dividing Bill C-103 and in reporting only part of the Bill back as a fait accompli has infringed the privileges of this place.
Furthermore, Bill C-103 has attached to it, pursuant to our Standing Orders and Section 54 of the Constitution, a financial recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General. Again, for those who are watching and who are uninitiated in all the terminology that we use, there is a requisite that in a Bill that is going to call upon the expenditure of funds, a financial recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General is necessary. So this Bill is in a very real sense a financial Bill. The Senate is somewhat limited in its review of money Bills. Standing Order 87, which is still on the books after many decades, is quite clear and it states:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such
aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Certain questions remain to be answered: by splitting the Bill does the Royal Recommendation still apply? Have the financial privileges of the Commons been breached? Will the Crown assent to two Bills when it agreed to the introduction of a single one? As Speaker of the House of Commons, 1 will not attempt to answer such constitutional questions, but clearly this House has always considered Standing Order 87, which I just read, as setting out the special relationship between the Commons, that is, this House of Commons, and the Sovereign.
I have ruled that the privileges of the House have been infringed. However, and it is important to understand this, I am without the power to enforce them directly. I cannot rule the Message from the Senate out of order for that would leave Bill C-103 in limbo. In other words, it would be nowhere. The cure in this case is for the House to claim its privileges or to forgo them, if it so wishes, by way of message to Their Honours, that is, to the Senate, informing them accordingly.
In conclusion, I wish to state to the House that while Bill C-103 is a Government Bill, the same situation could arise under our reformed rules for a Private Members' Bill. It is in the better interests of this place to request Their Honours in the Senate to first consult with this House before they report to us such unilateral action. As Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada I must uphold the privileges of this place at all times, and I must also advocate them privately, publicly, and with vigour. Having said that, if on an issue of substance, the House wishes to waive those rights, as usual the Speaker will not enter into substantive debate but will follow the House's directives.
I thank all Hon. Members for their valuable contributions in this most unique and interesting case.
The Hon. Minister of State on a point of order.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I wish to thank you on behalf of all Members of the House for the very clear ruling which you have made in reinforcing the privileges of this House vis-a-vis the other place. We had intended to immediately call for debate on the message which is presently on the Order Paper to send this matter back to the Senate immediately. I think that we would all benefit from an opportunity to review your ruling in detail and incorporate it into our remarks as we address this as Members of Parliament, no matter what Party we represent, in order that we can make it very clear where the Members of this House stand vis-a-vis the other place, the actions which should be taken by the other place, and the actions which we think are constitutional for the House of Commons and the other place to take.
For those reasons, I wish to compliment you on your ruling, and signal to the House that instead of debating the Message to the Senate immediately after your ruling we will ask the


Table Officers to call resuming debate on Bill C-93, the Multiculturalism Act.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to thank the Deputy House Leader for his recommendation with respect to Your Honour's ruling. Certainly, our Party would find it preferable to have some time to study your ruling and then to comment. We welcome the Deputy House Leader's suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: I know Hon. Members would not object to me saying directly to the Hon Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) that, having listened to his very vigorous argument on Friday, the decision is on a procedural basis and does not affect his strong views on other matters relating to the Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to join with my colleagues in indicating that it is a more than appropriate way to proceed, and to lend my voice to that of the Deputy House Leader for the Government in terms of the content and the initiative of your decision. While we always accept your decisions as being appropriate, there are some that send a very clear signal. The primacy of this place encourages us all, and I wish to thank you for that decision.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motions Nos. 4, 8 and 30 (Mr. Epp, Thunder Bay-Nipigon), and Motions Nos. 5, 7 and 31 (Mr. Marchi).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner).


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I wish to give the support of the Government for this motion, Motion No. 4 by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
When I appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-93, I pledged to work to improve this Bill, to take the necessary measures to ensure we would have the best possible Multiculturalism Act for Canada. Well, I kept my promise and I think we all can see that the Bill as amended by the committee is considerably stronger. Today we are Finishing that process. The amendment presented by the Hon. Member states clearly that the cultural and racial diversity of Canada is a fundamental characteristic of this nation.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Why have we chosen to support this motion? Why do we feel that the words "fundamental element" are not clear enough? Is it true that the Bill even from its first reading was clear in stating that multiculturalism was part and parcel of our identity, our realities and our heritage? I feel that it is important to underline this. It is not only part and parcel; it is one of the foundations of our identity and heritage. It is one of the foundations of Canada.
This Bill deals with relationships among Canadians, about a fundamental characteristic of Canada. It seeks to bring people together to build a stronger nation. We have worked closely with all those who came before the committee and in particular with the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, who, from the very outset of this exercise have had as their goal that multiculturalism finally would be recognized as a fundamental characteristic of Canada.
We are doing that today, and I call on all Members of the House to unanimously support this motion and the whole Bill. But while we support this motion today and a similar one which brings to the preamble of this historic Bill similar language, I wish to draw to the attention of the House a small limitation in this motion.
This motion translates the expression "fundamental characteristic" as trait fondamental. This in my mind is weaker language than the use of the phrase caracteristique fondamentale. We had presented a strong amendment which embodied this language. But, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) chose to block it on narrow procedural grounds. Although this is an important difference, I feel that it is one that we must set aside in order to proceed with this Bill today. We must set aside these petty tactics to bring forward a world first-a first-class Multiculturalism Act.
Therefore, it is with pleasure that we on this side of the aisle support this motion and will support a corresponding one made by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon to the preamble.


Sergio Marchi: Point of order. Madam Speaker. I appreciate the words of the Minister, although I have differences with the Bill. I would like to withdraw my opposition to both Motions Nos. 6 and 32, in the name of the Hon. Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Witer), and would consent with my other colleagues to have the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) present them at this time, as we are discussing the groupings of these amendments. It was not a procedural move. I have recognized as well that there is a difference in the French translation and a fundamental characteristic in both languages, I think, is supreme. Therefore, I would be prepared and pleased to allow the Hon. Member for Willowdale at the appropriate time to introduce and debate those amendments on the floor of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair does thank the Hon. Member for York West. As we are debating


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
both Motions Nos. 6 and 32 as a group at this time, I think I should put them both to the House.


John Martin Oostrom: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 37 at page 3 and
substituting the following therefor:
"mental characteristic of the Canadian heritage".
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-93 be amended in the Preamble by striking out line 35 at page 2
and substituting the following therefor:
"mental characteristic in the continuing evolution of'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), and to welcome the support for at least one of the amendments that he has proposed by the Government.
No Member of Parliament who represents any city in Canada can help but be aware of the tremendous changes which have taken place in terms of the people living in the cities of Canada in recent years. The constituency which I represent has always been recognized as an ethnic constituency, a constituency populated almost completely by immigrants; first, of course, by the immigrants who came from Great Britain and, later, by immigrants from Germany, Russia, Poland and many of the eastern European countries.
In the last 10 or 12 years we have seen a tremendous change in my constituency, as in many others, because beside the groups which I referred to earlier we now see people from Portugal, Italy, the Philippines, all the Caribbean countries, Central America, Africa, and Asia. From Asia we see people from India, Sikhs, Vietnamese, Chinese people from Hong Kong and from mainland China, Laotians and I am sure there are others who I have missed.
We also see a tremendous movement into the City of Winnipeg by native Canadians, who are moving to Winnipeg as they are to a number of other cities, from the reserves which they find completely inadequate to provide them with a decent standard of living.
A situation has developed in the City of Toronto where a majority of the students attending the public schools are neither from Anglo-Saxon nor French origin. This type of movement has created tremendous problems for the cities and for the people who come to this country. The issue of multicul-turalism was first raised by one of the members of the Bilingualism and Bicultural Commission appointed by the then Liberal Government, headed by Mr. Pearson. A resident of Winnipeg, Professor Rudnyckyj, who, while accepting the main recommendations and findings made by the commission, which dealt with the relationships between the French and the English-speaking people of this country, pointed out that an
increasing number-now a third of the population of this country-come from countries which are neither Englishspeaking nor French-speaking.
Many of these people come from countries which do not have, or ever had our democratic institution, our democratic way of life, our trade unions or co-operatives or civil liberties organizations. Many of them come here without the ability to speak either English or French. While canvassing in the older parts of my constituency I still come across women in their sixties or seventies who still cannot speak more than a few words of English.
In this country until a few years ago we did very little to deal with this problem. We are happy and proud to see the people who have come to this country. We are happy and proud to see the progress that they have made, but they need a great deal of assistance in making that transition from the country from in which they came in making that transition to this country which is so different.
It is not enough simply to give them the opportunity to work. Many of them work in some of the hardest, poorest paid jobs available in this country. We have to give them the opportunity to learn the language. We have to give them the opportunity to fit into our society. For many of them, Madam Speaker, the way in which they do that is based around and with the people from the same countries from which they came. Many belong to the hundreds of thousands of voluntary organizations which these groups have formed.
The Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada in the early 1970s recognized the importance of helping these new ethnic groups to adjust and integrate into this country. We adopted in principle the idea of fostering the multicultural fact in this country. We have established a part-time Minister and part-time Department. It sounds good. It looks good when one reads about it, but the reality is we really have done very little.
If we compare, for example, the resources allocated for multicultural activities in my province-I will use my province as an example in which as I have indicated a very substantial percentage of the population comes neither from the Anglo-Saxon nor the French background of Canada-we find that what is allocated to help foster the various ethnic communities in the Province in multicultural activities is a very small amount compared to the money, the services and the assistance given to the Franco-Manitobans who make up a very small percentage of the population of Manitoba.
I am not for a moment questioning the assistance given to the French-speaking people of Manitoba. I, like most Members of Parliament regardless of Party, recognize the necessity and the justness of helping the French-speaking people of Manitoba and of every other part of Canada to foster, maintain and strengthen their language and culture. But when I compare the assistance given to them to the assistance given


for multicultural activities, I have to face up to the fact that what we are getting most is mere words.
I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon has put a great deal of effort into his work in this area. I want to say on behalf of myself and all members of the New Democratic Party that we support those efforts and we call on the Government, as we called on the former Liberal Government, to do more than say the right things, to do more than make pretty speeches, to do more than appearing at functions organized by various ethnic communities in this country. We call on this Government to take seriously the principles supported almost unanimously in this Parliament by all Members from all Parties to support the efforts of the new ethnic communities and of the native communities to help them maintain the cultures which they brought, all of which in the years to come will help to make this country a much better place in which to live.


John Martin Oostrom: Madam Speaker, I take great pleasure rising in today's consideration of Bill C-93, the Canadian multiculturalism Bill and to urge Members on both sides of this House to support this basic and fundamental amendment No. 6 to the Bill.
Some weeks ago the Minister of State responsible for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-93 and told the committee that he was willing to work with it to improve Bill C-93, as he stated in the House today. That is exactly what happened. The Bill which we are considering today is considerably stronger. It is considerably more vital than that with which we started in late March.
There have been amendments made to this Bill which strengthened it from the preamble to the very last clause. But one or two things have been left to be done here today.
The amendment which I proposed today makes this recognition even more clearly. Many witnesses appeared before the committee expressing their concerns that the multicultural nature of this society could be lost in other considerations and that the Bill was not sufficiently precise in underlining this fundamental characteristic of Canadian society. Many witnesses urged the committee to make a clearer expression of this matter.
The motion that I propose does so. This motion states simply and cleanly that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our Canadian heritage and identity. In a few moments I will also propose an amendment which brings these clear, simple and precise words to the important preamble of the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
Why have I chosen to make this motion? Why do I feel the words "fundamental element" are not clear enough? It is true that the Bill, even from its first reading, was clear in stating that multiculturalism was part and parcel of our identity and our heritage. But I feel that it is important to underline this. It is not only part and parcel, it is one of the foundations of our
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
identity and heritage. It is one of the foundations of Canada. That is why we adopted simple and precise language, language which has clearly entered our constitutional lexicon to express what multiculturalism means to this society.
I know my hon. friends, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) and the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay have proposed relatively similar amendments and I congratulate them for doing that. I do not think these particular amendments are well founded for a number of simple reasons.
The Hon. Members from York West and Thunder Bay have translated in their motions "fundamental characteristic" to be trait fondamental. If we are to use the same strength of language that is used in other places, we must use the expression caracteristique fondamentale. This is not just a matter of terminology. It is important that the language of this Bill in both official languages be crystal clear. I hope the House appreciates the motion that I am presenting today and I urge hon. colleagues from both sides of the aisle to support this simple motion, a motion which in both official languages underlines that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our society.
I would like to take a few moments of the time of the House today to explain Motion No. 32 which clarifies and strengthens the preamble of the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
Earlier in this debate I rose and urged the House to support a simple, clear and precise amendment to the multiculturalism policy of Canada which stressed that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our identity and heritage. I would urge this House to accept a similar, simple and clear amendment to the preamble of the Canadian multiculturalism Bill which states in only a few words that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic in the continuing evolution of our nation.
This is an important amendment. The amendment shows that the Government has listened to those who appeared before the legislative committee examining Bill C-93. This simple amendment shows that the Government has been willing to work with the committee and with Members of this House to strengthen the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
At this time there are two other amendments relative to the preamble, one presented by the Hon. Member for York West and one presented by the Hon. Member from Thunder Bay. These amendments are excellent in spirit, but they are flawed, I believe, in their creation. First, both amendments in the French language utilize the words "trait fondamental" as opposed to "caracteristique fondamentale". This is an important difference. It is an important shortcoming in both motions about which I spoke earlier today. If we are to signal what this amendment is about and to say that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic, and if we wish to give the language sufficient force, we must use the language which is already in the lexicon; namely, caracteristique fondamentale.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Second, both amendments presented by the Hon. Member for York West and the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) muddy the waters. In the instance of the amendment of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, it mixes policy statements with preambular language. Policy commitments properly belong in Clause 3 of the Bill. A preamble sets the stage. It presents values. It is for that reason that I find the Hon. Member's amendment appealing but unsatisfactory.
In the instance of the amendment presented by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York West, I found repetition of words and ideas in places, and of course, the problem with its French translation and the weakness of that French translation. I think is important that we maintain simple amendments and that we put forward amendments in clear and precise language. It is important that we utilize the lexicon involved in this nation. For this reason, I would urge Members on both sides of the House to support the motion I have brought forward today and thus to recognize that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our Canadian society.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which has to do with the language of Motion No. 30. There has been some discussions about which motions might be acceptable to the House, discussions which I will not get into, but on Motion No. 30, I would like to change the word "trait" to the word "caracteristique". If there is unanimous consent in the House, I would like to move:
That Motion No. 30 be amended in the French text by striking out line 4
and substituting the following therefor:
"de la couleur et de la religion constitue une caracteristique".
The only change in the text as published is that last word "caracteristique", to which point the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) was just speaking.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: If the House does give consent, it would then be easier to simply amend the Hon. Member's motion than to call it an amendment to the amendment which would require another vote. If there is unanimous consent, "trait fondamentale" would be changed for "caracteristique fondamentale". Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to deal with essentially the same principle. The Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom) was quite correct in saying that there is a difference between the English and the French words in the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). The same applies to my motion. Suffice it to say that I had moved the initial motion in English and left it up to the House officials to translate it into French. I would seek the same co-operation to change the word from "trait" to "caracteristique" as well because it was a
translation of the House and not a translation put forward by this Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Do I understand that the Hon. Member is referring to Motion No. 31?


Sergio Marchi: Motions Nos. 5 and 31.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Perhaps the Chair could be helpful by pointing out to the Hon. Member for York West that as far as Motion No. 5 is concerned, an affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 would obviate the need for a vote to be taken on Motions Nos. 5 or 6. The Hon. Member might consider the motions together. Then we could get to a vote which would include whatever should be right in this motion.
Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Vancouver
East.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to join with my colleagues in saying a few words in this debate, particularly to acknowledge the very great importance of changing the language of the Bill through these amendments in order to strengthen it. Many groups across Canada have criticized this Bill because it appeared to be too soft and was in effect tokenism. These groups will certainly be pleased with this amendment, although at this stage we are only dealing with words. We certainly must toughen up other clauses of the Bill as well.
As I understand it, the change of wording in this clause will establish an equal partnership between all cultural groups within Canada. It will mean that people of both French and English origin will be recognized as being part of the fundamental characteristic of Canada and so too will be those from so many other countries. These in fact are the people who are now becoming the majority, certainly in western Canada. These people have origins other than French or English.
It is very important that this Bill not simply be a recognition of songs and dances, arts and culture, which is what some people think is meant by multiculturalism. It is absolutely essential that it have the strength to fulfil the spirit of the Charter. This means that there has to be equal opportunities and there has to be a removal of discrimination and racism that affects people from origins other than French or English.
In western Canada and particularly in the ridings of Vancouver East and Vancouver-Kingsway, by far the majority of new Canadians as well as second and third-generation Canadians are those who have come from Asian countries and those who are not Caucasian but are people of colour or visible minorities. It is absolutely essential that our multicultural policy begin to recognize that not all people of different cultures came from Europe. There is a very different stream of people who are coming from Asia, and in some cases the cultures are very different indeed. For those who come from China or some of the oriental countries, English must be learned in a much different way.


It is also very important to recognize that there is not a representation of visible minorities in the House, and that is very typical of the decision-making process across Canada. It is important that we take this matter seriously and that we strengthen this Bill so that it helps to facilitate and implement multicultural policies.
In the past few weeks, I have attended high school graduations throughout my riding of Vancouver East. I would say that only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the students graduating from secondary schools are from Anglo origins and probably none are from Franco origins. The majority are young people who are members of visible minorities and have wonderful motivations to complete their educations. They will probably face barriers that are much greater than some of their colleagues at university.
It is important that the Bill not be seen as tokenism and that we recognize the real issues of racism and discrimination in Canada. The Government must do this by acknowledging the injustices of the past. I am referring particularly to the injustices to Canadians of Japanese origin who faced such terrible discrimination under the War Measures Act. People of Chinese origin were also discriminated against and had to pay a head tax and face the Exclusion Act, which was a purely racist Act.
It is time we acknowledged these injustices and provided fair redress so that our young people can grow up and be proud to say that regardless of their origin, regardless of the colour of their skin, they have equal rights in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I wanted to say a few words following the Hon. Member's speech.
I can speak pretty openly here, I am losing my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, and there are a couple of things 1 would like to say that I think Members might be interested in.
My riding has more Chinese Canadians than any other riding in Canada.


Ross Belsher: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said her's does.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is some disagreement about that, but I think mine really does. As I said, the riding will be gone under redistribution in a couple of days, although I still remain the Member until the next election, but it has become a unique spot with respect to Asian immigrants. This is the new reality in Canada. It is a great plus for Canada. The way Canadians should look at the flow of Asian immigrants is to see it first as part of the continuous flow which builds the population of Canada. My parents came from Scotland when I was a young boy. The same thing is true for people from Italy and other parts of Europe. Now we have a wave of Asian immigration.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
We should think of it as an advantage. This is where the advantage is.
Second, we are trying to reach out to the Pacific Rim. It is the fastest growing trading area in the world. Canada is on the edge of the Pacific, it is one of our oceans. We have this great resource of Pacific cultures in Canada. We have people who are bicultural. These sons and daughters of immigrants would become Canadians through our schools. We are different from the U.S. because of our multicultural heritage. It is inscribed in our Constitution. We have committed ourselves to saying to people that they can keep some of their heritage. We have great strength in that. The strength lies in these Asian Canadians. That will be in many ways a great help in getting Canada into the Pacific Rim, the Asian Pacific. We should be thinking about things in this way. It took me a while to think that way even in my own riding.
The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), an eloquent spokesperson for immigrants and multicultural groups and so on, raised the issue of past injustices. She talked about the Exclusion Act and the Chinese head tax and how she fought for compensation for those who were discriminated against.
Other people, including my predecessors from Vancouver- Kingsway, Grace Mclnnis and Angus Mclnnis, fought for redress for Japanese Canadians for the racist treatment they got in Canada during the war. I do not want to go into this in a lot of detail but I want to answer a question which I think a lot of Canadians do not understand. That question is: why deal with past injustices? I remember asking Pierre Trudeau in the House about compensation. He shrugged and said: "Why fight battles of the past?" The reason you have to deal with past injustices is to make sure they do not happen in future. We had the incident of a boatload of Jewish people who were turned away just before the war. Think about that. Think about what we did.
This is a great country, a just country. In spite of our shenanigans in Question Period and our debates and arguments in this House, look at the question I put today to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. McDougall). I asked her if she would take up the case of a fellow who had lost his son in this oil rig disaster and perhaps provide some legal representation. It is going a long way, but she took it up and said they would consider it. That is the best of Canada. We are an open and fair country. We have to make sure that that happens with our immigrants and the multicultural base of our country.
We passed a multicultural constitution in 1982. You know I have had troubles with the new one in 1986, but the one in 1982 was a magnificent constitution. Canada is like a cake, if I might say so. We have the native people at the foundation. Then the French and English. In the constitution we had the recognition of education rights, which I think is really important. Then on top was the recognition of the multicultural reality of Canada. That is a good vision of Canada.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
We cannot just sit back and say we have done this kind of thing in law and symbolically. We have to do real things to help multiculturalism. I will give you an example. I do not know what other cities are like, but in Vancouver, English as a second language is the language of the majority of kids in the public schools. That is a difficult situation. It is difficult for the educational system. It may mean that the federal Government, dare I say it, may have some role in additional funding for English as a second language.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: It is done now.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I know it is done now. I do not think the Government has much of a role right now because education is of course a provincial responsibility. However, we may have to look at it and say the federal Government has to help. If you are bringing in waves of new immigrants you have to help educate them in the English language. Parents want their kids educated in English or French in Quebec so that they get into the mainstream of Canadian society. We have to take the measures necessary to help multicultural groups retain their own language as well. We have the Ukrainian dancing groups, theatre groups, culture groups, that we support. We take a different view from the Americans. We do not take the melting pot view, we take a broader view where you can maintain some of your multicultural heritage.
I will sit down now. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East provoked me to speak because she gave such a good speech. I just want to come back to that one point which I would like Canadians to think about. I know it is sometimes very difficult, and I hear it in my community offices, "Why are you bringing all these immigrants in? They are different than we are." You have to look at the advantages of immigration. I think one of the big advantages is, especially with Asian Canadians, that instead of sending the traditional businessman to China to try to get a contract, we can send a Chinese Canadian whose family is there. He might be able to speak the language, has taken courses and brushed up on Cantonese or Mandarin at the Chinese Cultural Centre in Vancouver. That is a forwardlooking Canada and that is the way we should look at multiculturalism and immigration.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I would like to add my support to this Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it in. In my view a multicultural Bill has been long overdue in Canada.
I was raised in a cosmopolitan area, probably as cosmopolitan as any in Canada, namely the Drumheller Valley. During my lifetime that area has seen 21 or 25 coal mines, all of which have now disappeared. However, people came from practically every country of the world to work in those coal mines. The wonderful thing about the Drumheller Valley was that these people did not continue to call themselves Ukrainians or Hungarians or Britons, they called themselves Canadians. At the same time they retained their own language, their own customs. I want to pay tribute to those people today.
I want to deal with some specific people, the Ukrainians, for instance. Hundreds of them came to our coal mines. Hundreds of them came in their sheepskin coats and braved the blizzards, the chinook winds, and the droughts. They worked toward a better country. They tried to build a heritage.
Many people do not realize that the Ukrainian people were the first to work on the building of our railways across western Canada. They were later replaced by a large number of Chinese people. The Chinese people were certainly taken advantage of but they remained here. Many of them brought their relatives here and they have become excellent citizens.
Another large group in my area is the Italian community. As a matter of fact, the Italian community is probably the second largest in the Province of Alberta. The Italian group was notorious for bringing their language and customs with them. They still speak Italian in their homes today, but they speak English outside. They endeavour to keep the customs of their homeland.
Another large section is the German community. One of the first things I remember as a young boy during and just after World War I was the antagonism toward those of German descent. I remember my mother saying many times that none of us had any choice as to our nationality, colour, or creed; that it was the way we lived that really mattered. German people suffered a lot of persecution in Canada at that time, but they remained and are wonderful citizens. In my riding in Beiseker and Carbon there are some of the finest farmers in the world. They are doing their utmost to build a great Canada.
In addition to Ukrainian halls in the Drumheller Valley we had a Hungarian Hall. Many people came from Hungary and worked in our coal mines. Some of their descendants now hold high positions throughout Canada. A notable one is the head of the regional office of Parks Canada in Calgary. He came from a wonderful Hungarian family in the Drumheller Valley.
We have the Poles, the Americans, and the Dutch. The Dutch people have made a tremendous contribution too. They are not mentioned often. I attended the golden wedding celebration of a Dutch couple only a few weeks ago. They are symbolic of hundreds of others who have contributed to Canada.
The Spanish, Norwegian, Swedish and Danish groups have also made a wonderful contribution. A chap who originated from Sweden came up from the Dakotas into the Drumheller Valley. He was the first to drive oxen into Canada. There are histories of him throughout the Valley today.
I remember a young Japanese lad who lived in the old Midland Mine. His father was one of the finest citizens I have ever known. He loved Canada and loved our way of life. One of his boys served in the Armed Forces during the war.


We have the Jewish people and the Arabs. They may be fighting each other today, but not in the Drumheller Valley. They are Canadians. They brought their customs and their language, but they are now Canadians. We have the Koreans, the Vietnamese, and many people from that part of the world who are part of our population.
We talk about the English and the French, and they are the founding nations, but these others have played a tremendous part in building this country too. The Scottish, the Irish, and the Welsh object to being referred to as English people. They have their own customs and their own language.
We have people from Yugoslavia, India, Egypt, South and Central America, and Africa. People from all the continents have come to Canada, and I like to think of Canada as a multicultural country, not only as a two-nation country but as a great multicultural nation called Canada. I like to think of Canada as being a tremendous mosaic.
An honour I will never forget is when I was asked to represent Canada at the opening of the Pan-American Highway about 1965. The people in Mexico put on a tremendous outdoor show for the delegation made up of one American, two Canadians and people from Central America and South America under the auspices of the U.S. organization. At the show I saw dances of Scotland, Ireland, and the Ukraine. I saw aspects of almost every country which is now represented in Mexico. What a tremendous job an artistic director would have in Canada today to put on an outdoor show to exhibit the customs of all the nations which have become part of Canada. Someday I hope there will be a tremendous mosaic which will show what all these people have contributed toward building this great nation.
After all is said and done I like to think of the people of Canada, not as the English, the French, Egyptians, Hungarians, Germans, Italians, or Dutch, but as Canadians, because Canada is their country of adoption. They have made Canada their country and this has made Canada a greater and a better country.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question on the first grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would remind the House that an affirmative vote on Motion No. 4 obviates a need for a vote to be taken on Motion Nos. 5 and 6. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 4 necessitates the taking of a vote on Motion No. 5. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 5 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 6. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 5 necessitates a vote to be taken on Motion No. 6. That is just so we all know where we are.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 4?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 5?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 6?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 6 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt Motion No. 7?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on Motion No. 7 stands deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We will proceed to Motions Nos. 30, 31 and 32. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 30 obviates the necessity for a vote on Motions Nos. 31 and 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 30 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 31. An affirmative vote on Motion No. 31 obviates the need to vote on Motion No. 32. A negative vote on Motion No. 31 will necessitate a vote on No. 32.
The question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 30 agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: We will proceed to the next grouping.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out line 32 at page 4 and
substituting the following therefor:
"institutions shall, with a view to implementing the policy stated in
subsection (1)''.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 4 the following:
"(a) develop policies and programs to assist ethnocultural communities to enlarge their contributions to the preservation and enhancement of Canada's multicultural heritage;"
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 37 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
(b)	implement policies, programs and prac-"
(b)	by striking out line 41 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
(c)	implement policies, programs and prac-".


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out 40 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"to the continuing evolution of Canada, and that remove discriminatory barriers to their full and equal participation in Canadian Society;"

Motion No. 17
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 44 at page 4 the following:
"(d) implement policies, programs and practices with particular emphasis on the youth of Canada, to foster an understanding of the multicultural reality of Canada;".
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 3 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 5 the following:
"(g) develop annual plans for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy and report on such plans in their annual reports."


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, in our continuing consideration of amendments to Bill C-93, this particular group includes some small changes in total bulk but represent very significant attempts to strengthen the Bill.
If it is in order, I would like to recognize the presence in the gallery of the President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and the past President. Of course, it is not in order, so I note that, in considering the motions before us here seriatim, Motions Nos. 10 and 11 are provided for in part by changes that were made in the legislative committee. My Motion No. 11 is designed to ensure that Clause 3(2) would read: "It is further declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada that all institutions shall-"
The Bill as reported from the legislative committee was amended to read "shall" rather than "should".
Having mentioned the Canadian Ethnocultural Council a moment ago, may I say that this is one of those very important points that this national organization of ethnocultural communities emphasized was necessary. The Bill initially was encouraging, but an absolute commitment was required by the Government of Canada to take strong action. That was


accomplished with the use of the word "shall" as it was changed in the legislative committee.
Unfortunately, it might still not be quite sufficient. Therefore, Motion No. 10 is designed to go beyond that. Motion No. 10 in the name of my colleague, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), was accepted by the Speaker rather than my own. It is a motion which states that: "institutions shall, with a view to implementing the policy stated in Clause 3(1)." It places an even greater obligation on the Government of Canada to be sure that the policies to which Parliament is committing the Government and to which the Government itself is committed will be acted upon in the way of various specific proposals.
Motion No. 12 is my proposal for an explicit addition to the Bill designed to put into these obligations that the Government of Canada would accept, an obligation to act upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically Section 27. This particular motion would commit the Government of Canada to develop policies and programs that assist ethnocultural communities to make larger contributions to the preservation and enhancement of Canada's multicultural heritage.
I would like to comment on the carrying of Motion No. 30 rather than Motion No. 32, proposed by the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer) and moved, by agreement, by the Hon. Member for Willowdale (Mr. Oostrom). Motion No. 30, moved by myself which was chosen over Motion No. 32, put into the preamble the language of Section 27 of the Charter in a way analogous to what was done in our consideration of the Official Languages Bill, Bill C-72, which was passed last week.
I think putting the language of the Charter into legislation is a useful exercise, so in Motion No. 12 I have endeavoured to commit the Government of Canada at the outset to acting on Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Motion No. 14 is designed to remove the word "promote" from several of the paragraphs in Clause 3(2) and insert instead the word "implement". Here again is a proposal that has come not only from the Canadian Enthocultural Council but from the various community organizations. If the Parliament of Canada is really serious about the multicultural policy we first adopted in 1971, we should have an actual obligation on Ministers and all Departments to implement the policy and to look for ways in which the policy could be made more real.
Motion No. 17, moved by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), is an alternative to the proposal in Motion No. 8. I endeavoured to take up the concern of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to recognize explicitly in the Bill the importance of the youth of our country and to ensure that our multicultural policy was carried through with explicit regard to the youth of the country and their needs. One way to do that is to make it one of the principles on which the Government would be committed to act in the first section of Clause 3,
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
which is where my Motion No. 8 stands. The other way to do that, of course, is to use Motion No. 17, putting it in as one of the obligations of the Government.
I would hope that recognizing the Government rejected my Motion No. 8, although it was initially on a voice vote, the House might have the will to take up Motion No. 17 and make it an obligation. It is, after all, a strong request from the young people who are active in the Canadian Ethnocultural Council to have their needs recognized. I look to the Minister and hope there might be some readiness to take up this particular proposal.
There remains then, only one other motion on which I would like to comment. Motion No. 19 was found to be out of order because it went beyond the scope of the Bill as the Government presented it. I want to note that the motion moved by the Hon. Member for York West takes up the first paragraph of my motion. I take it, then, given the ruling on Motion No. 18, that Motion No. 19 would have been found in order if it had only gone that far, although it would have been an exact duplicate. I endeavoured to go beyond annual plans to provide for review on all those activities oriented to the establishment of a commissioner of multiculturalism which, again, the Government has not taken up.
Motion No. 18 has a very useful proposal that the Departments of Government have an obligation to make plans annually in order to realize the multicultural policy of the country. In the context of my motion being ruled out of order, but Motion No. 18 being in order, I speak in support of that motion as well as in support of the motions on which I have already commented.
These are important motions to strengthen the Bill. Let me leave it at that and look to the comments of others. I trust we will have the support of the House for these motions to ensure that this historic Bill really becomes the kind of legislation it should be.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks in the time allotted to Motions Nos. 10, 15, 17 and 18. Motion No. 10 which stands in my name is an attempt to make the language and commitment somewhat more specific. We have tried to move this intent at committee and today at report stage because I believe that if there is one ill with the Bill, it is its lack of commitment in terms of very specific, clear and committed language.
With respect to Motion No. 10, what I am endeavouring to do is to tie subsection (2) under the federal institutions to the earlier stated multiculturalism policy for the federal Government. The intention of Motion No. 10 is simply to review and to try to commit the federal Departments in a very specific way to the multiculturalism policy as articulated in subsection (1). Those words tying the federal departmental role to the federal policy is not stated explicitly. Rather than keep it vague and general in terms of having federal Departments expand and enhance multiculturalism, I would like to see the


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
role for the federal Departments tied to the very clear multiculturalism policy as articulated under subsection (1).
Motion No. 15 attempts again to expand on the principle and general scope of that particular clause on page 4, line 40. As it reads now, one of the roles of the federal institutions is to "promote policies, programs and practices that enhance the ability of individuals and communities of all origins to contribute to continuing evolution of Canada". I would also add the words "and that removed discriminatory barriers to their full and equal participation in Canadian society". This is an attempt to try to eradicate the specific problem that many Canadians all to often face in terms of discrimination in the workplace, in terms of vertical mobility and in terms of hiring practices.
The intent, as it now stands, generally addresses that concept. What 1 would like to do, and what many organizations would like us to do as a Parliament, is to make specific reference to the type of systematic barrier problems that Canadians face. Therefore, the intention of Motion No. 15 is to tie down explicitly the concept and make it very practical and specific, ensuring that one of our goals as a Parliament and as a Government is not only to talk about equality of opportunity but to do something about it and to come closer to ensuring that political, social and economical equality in our House and in our Constitution is predicated upon.
With respect to Motion No. 17, what I would like to replace is a reference under our federal institutions and our federal Departments, as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council's youth wing had advocated before the Standing Committee of Multiculturalism and before the legislative committee studying Bill C-93, to a specific reference and commitment to enhancing the policies, goals and objectives of multiculturalism specifically and target them to the youth of Canada. I think it is incumbent upon a Parliament and a Government to try to address the challenge that is inherent in different generations. That is to say that my parents may affix a certain definition and have a certain expectation of what the multiculturalism policy of the country ought to be doing. As a second generation Canadian I perhaps have a different expectation from a third or fourth generation Canadian. In addition to cultural retention perhaps, a third or fourth generation Canadian would also affix a political, economic and social expectation on the policy of the country.
I am not suggesting that one definition is wrong as compared to the other. What I am pointing to is that both definitions are valuable and relevant. Yet a different attitudi-nal approach is needed to provide a bridge between the various generations to ensure that the first generation and the second and third generations view the multiculturalism policy as a relevant instrument upon which to build a bigger, better and stronger Canada.
Therefore, I believe that the recommendation from the Youth Committee of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council is a
very wise one. I ask the Minister and government Members to consider supporting Motion No. 17, a motion which tries specifically to have federal institutions carve out a specific and effective program to address multiculturalism among the younger elements of our society.
The last amendment in my name is Motion No. 18. It would add subparagraph (g) to Clause 3. It suggests that federal Departments develop annual plans for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy and report on such plans in their annual reports.
The objective of this amendment is to try to commit federal Departments in a very specific way. If there is a role to play for our federal Departments, and clearly there is, in terms of enhancing and exercising all our policies and programs, then multiculturalism should not be an exception to the rule. We should not leave it there generally. We should try to apply it in a very specific way so that our federal Departments constructively and explicitly try to project a vision, an action plan, a series of priorities they would like to accomplish in any given year vis-a-vis multiculturalism.
It is not good enough to have a Department, a Minister, a departmental head or a Deputy Minister say: "We adhere to the general policy". Instead, they should be saying: "What can we be doing? What should we be doing as one Department to fulfil the goals and aspirations embodied in a multicultural policy in a multicultural Canada? How can we advance it one step further?"
The Government has chosen not to accept the concept of having an official multiculturalism commissioner, as there is with respect to official languages. There is a piece of legislation in place which was debated only last week which empowers an official commissioner who is able to monitor in order to try to ensure that the Civil Service and Crown corporations are adhering to the official bilingualism policy. The Government rejected the same type of approach with respect to multiculturalism. I regret that very much. I will be alluding to it in much greater detail in my speech on third reading.
Because the Government has not accepted that, I believe that the specific requirement for all Departments to have a yearly plan which would be submitted to Parliament and to the Minister is quite important. It would not carry out the function that would have been carried out by a commissioner such as the Official Languages Commissioner who is independent and who must report to Parliament. Notwithstanding that deficiency I believe it is incumbent upon us to say to the Departments: "If there is going to be a role, then let us tie it down. Let us ensure it is part of a coherent strategy plan within the Departments so that we as parliamentarians can address the various Departments to see where those annual reports are and therefore evaluate whether we are doing a job that is justified or whether we are doing a job that could be improved upon".
I am pleased that Parliament was able to agree with respect to the whole question of the fundamental characteristic which I addressed briefly only moments ago since I thought we were


only debating Motion No. 4. It is an important step. It is a step the Liberal Party tried to have recognized in the Meech Lake Accord when we moved one specific amendment. It was to have in the opening clause of our Constitution a recognition that our two official languages and our multicultural society constitute fundamental characteristics of the same country. To suggest one is fundamental and the other is an element really implies a different status for the two.
While we are not changing the constitutional Accord, and while this Party is still committed to negotiating a Meech Lake Accord that would see the opening clause proudly recognize multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic, I am pleased that in Bill C-93 we are recognizing that multiculturalism constitutes a fundamental characteristic of our nation. It is my hope that we can go from this one specific clause in this piece of legislation and transfer that feeling and emotion into our Constitution the next time Parliament deals with the Meech Lake Accord.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendments that are being discussed, particularly the amendments moved by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
It is not difficult for Governments to enunciate policies and for Governments to try to implement those policies by passing legislation. Unfortunately, experience and history have taught us that we can have a law and a policy, but if the determination to see that those policies are carried out is not very firm, then not much happens.
I remind Hon. Members that long before this Parliament or any of the provinces dealt with the question of multiculturalism the Parliament of Canada, and I believe almost every province in Canada, enacted after a great deal of discussion and after hearing many representations, fair employment practices legislation and fair accommodations legislation. The Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of Canada enunciated the principle that to discriminate in the fields of employment or housing against a person or persons because of their race, religion or colour and, later, sex, was contrary to the law. That sounds fine, but if one looks at the reality one sees that very little in fact has been accomplished.
If a study were made of Governments, federal, provincial or municipal, to see how many public servants employed by the three levels of government come from visible minority groups we would all hang our heads in shame. In my own City of Winnipeg I am certain that, if I examined the people who worked for the police and fire department, I could count on the fingers of my two hands the total number of people working for those two departments who come from visible minority groups.
Last week my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- North Centre (Mr. Keeper), was urging Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to use its influence to take action
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
against the owners of rental housing because there is a great deal of evidence that they discriminate in renting apartments to native people. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-North Centre, was correct in raising that matter. But I have to say with a good deal of dismay that I believe that not only was Canada Mortgage and Housing remiss, but so was the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, a commission set up in legislation in a province that has had an NDP Government for years. That commission should have been dealing with this question.
These are not easy matters. There is a great deal of prejudice among sections of our population. The whole point of that type of legislation, and the whole purpose of our attempt to deal with the reality of multiculturalism is to help the people from minority groups. My friend, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), stated that he is a first generation Canadian. I am a second generation Canadian. The fathers and grandfathers of some of the people whom I represent came to this country years ago, and some of the people I represent have come more recently in the last few years. They need assistance. They do not only need speeches telling them that we welcome them. They do not only need legislation which supposedly helps and protects them. What they need is real action on the part of Governments.
I say with a great deal of regret, and perhaps if I thought about it I could use much stronger language, that regardless of Party, Governments have not been as vigilant, as aggressive, and as determined as they should have been to deal with the type of discrimination that goes on.
Let me return to the debate when the Government brought in its Employment Equity Act. What is contained in the Act is fine as far as it goes, but the Act will be a failure because there is nothing in the Act that requires Departments to set targets, to attempt to reach those targets, and to report each year on how close they have come, or if they have come anywhere near to achieving the targets. If Departments are not implementing the policies that Governments have stated they believe in, then Governments can take the action to see that the type of principles set forth in that Employment Equity Act, and in the principles that are set forth in this Bill, become more than words in a Bill which gathers dust on the shelves of most law libraries in this country, but become a reality. Thai reality is extremely important and necessary for many people who live in this country.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I have a few words to say about this legislation, and I do wish to make a few points with regard to the motions that we are presently dealing with, particularly Motion No. 14 put forward by my colleague. This motion is designed to commit federal institutions to implementing policies, programs and practices rather than simply promoting them.
The reason this motion is significant is that in presenting this notion I hear my colleague saying that Governments ought to take action and not only have great rhetoric with regard to


Parklands
multiculturalism in Canada, and not only have the correct phrases when it comes to ethnic groups, but they ought to have programs that will make a real difference to the lives of people in the ethnic groups and communities in Canada. Some of the groups that exist in my riding have very high levels of employment, for example, the Philippine and Portuguese communities, and many other groups that are living in the inner city. Often members of those groups have professional qualifications acquired elsewhere which are not recognized in Canada. They have levels of unemployment that are unacceptable by Canadian standards and are certainly not reflected in the Canadian statistics that are issued and that become part of our television news.
Recently there was a report that unemployment in Canada is down to the lowest level in seven years. That is very impressive, but it is not the reality experienced by people in Winnipeg, in the inner City of Winnipeg, or in Winnipeg-North Centre. In ridings such as mine with very high levels of ethnic and immigrant groups, unemployment is more in the nature of 30 per cent rather than 6 per cent or 7 per cent, or whatever the official statistics are.
I do wish to compliment the Government with regard to its actions today. The Government has responded to the appeals from the ethnic and multicultural groups to put the words "fundamental characteristic" in the legislation, after much prodding from my colleague who is our critic in this area and prodding from the critic in the Liberal Party. The Government has seen the light and has introduced the words "fundamental characteristic" to describe multiculturalism rather than "fundamental element", whatever that was supposed to be.
I am pleased that the Government has responded to this prodding and has recognized that the multicultural nature of the country is a fundamental characteristic of the country. To me that means that we have a country and an ideal that respects the cultural heritage of each and every one of our citizens and groups, and that we have rejected the American notion of the "melting pot". We can have people preserve their language and culture and take pride in their origins. That is what "fundamental characteristic" means.
Now we have the ideal established, we need to get some muscle behind that ideal and at the level of the day-to-day lives of ordinary Canadians and new Canadians in order that it can make a difference in the type of jobs that they have, in the type of communities that they have, and in their equal access to opportunity and to a good life that they can enjoy in this country.
I must say that I welcome the fact that the Government has realized that it made a great deal of sense to put the words "fundamental characteristic" into the legislation. I am glad that the communities have had an opportunity to have their voices heard through the instrument of this Parliament. I hope this is only a first step and we will get down to very concrete programs. When ethnic groups and new Canadians are in the market-place, their qualifications will be recognized, their
opportunities for employment will be equal to those of any other Canadian, and they can look forward to an equal place on the Canadian stage, regardless of how long they have been in the country.
I understand that this multiculturalism Bill is a first, and it is long overdue. We welcome the fact that it is here today and being debated.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   FEDERAL LANDS USE SUGGESTED DESIGNATION OF MILITARY LANDS AS POTENTIAL PARKLAND
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.
He said: Madam Speaker, you may be wondering why this motion is on the Order Paper and up for debate today. The motive and the instigation is caused by the fact that we do have across the nation a number of places where the land is being used for very appropriate and understandable purposes, including military purposes. In some large urban centres in Canada you have an area the size of an airport in the heart of the city, an area that is coveted and looked upon by a number of potentially interested parties, if and when the day will come for these lands to be abandoned for present use by the Department of National Defence.
My message is an environmental one, related to land use in urban Canada. I will put it very briefly along these lines. There will be pressures on our publicly-owned lands, which are at the present time under the administration of the Department of National Defence, as to when they should be declared vacant. The pressure will be enormous, particularly for additional housing, as indicated by my colleagues in this House in recent months. They have actually urged, particularly in the case of the city I come from, that the Downsview lands be used for housing purposes.
There could be pressure for other uses, such as commercial uses, and initiatives that would somehow indicate the desirability of the development of these lands. The alternative that I would propose in this motion is that these lands be designated at the appropriate time. I suppose this would have to be done in co-operation with the municipal and provincial authorities in order to designate them as parklands.


What does that mean? It is the concept of parkland in the broadest sense of the word. It would mean a use of these lands dedicated to environmental education, in relation to kids, in relation to schools and in relation to the public at large, on weekends. In other words, these would be demonstration areas where the biological characteristics and eco-systems of that particular region would be explained, and the number of environmental protection policies and programs would be explained at all levels. Therefore, you would have a centre in this particular park where the public would have an opportunity to absorb and to become acquainted with the science and practical application of environmental goals and objectives. It would not be such a bad idea, judging from the success that this idea has had in certain cities in Europe.
Second, the land that would be given up by the military authorities at the appropriate time could be used for conventional parkland, with the amenities that go with a park, which I do not have to describe at length.
Third, there could also be a combination or an addition or a parallel use of this land devoted to recreation, particularly in downtown areas where the densities are high, where there are large number of apartment dwellers and where the ratio of population to open space would be such that it would require this type of recreational land use.
Fourth, perhaps the ultimate in land use these days in an urban setting, where possible, is to devote such lands the creation of urban wildlife areas. We have, as you know, a wildlife that is retreating from the built-up areas, for understandable reasons. These wildlife areas may be possible where the size of the particular land is large enough. The size of a military airport is particularly suited for such a purpose. It may be a very interesting initiative to devote that particular public land to the development and the enshrinement of wildlife for the enjoyment of Canadians living in that region.
It is our use of land, if and when it becomes available, that has a very clear, specific purpose, namely, that of enhancing the quality of life in Canadian cities and in urban Canada in a manner that perhaps would make some of our cities unique in the world.
We have the space. We have the opportunity to do it. I would suggest that this would be a very imaginative way of contributing to the uniqueness of our cities. True, the pressures will be enormous in opposite directions. There will be those who will want additional housing, and it could make for a very strong social argument in their favour. I do not deny that. There will be those who will want commercial development. There will be those who will be able to propose some very interesting industrial land uses. Nevertheless, the purpose of this motion is centred around the notion of creating parklands in publicly-owned lands in our urban cities, because that is where the pressure is and where the transportation tie-ups already exist. That is where the pollution at times is high and where you would want to create open spaces for the benefit of citizens living in that particular area.
Parklands
I will stress it again, it is in our urban cities in the last two or three decades that we have seen a mushrooming of high-rise apartments, of high density dwellings, where the open spaces, the greenery, the yard, the front lawn of course exist only on a very minute surface, considering the number of people who live vertically above that specific property.
Therefore, the necessity of providing in certain urban centres additional open spaces cannot be denied, particularly if you come from Banff, like the Hon. Member across the aisle, or if you come from a community which is endowed with enormous amounts of open spaces, like Kapuskasing. I am talking of metropolitan centres that would include Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, to mention our larger urban centres.
Why would one take the trouble to make this point? In December of last year the then President of the Treasury Board, the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski), released a press communique on a federal lands study in Toronto. It put forward three concepts which I would like to examine quickly and put on record with which I find myself in partial agreement and then in total disagreement.


Pauline Browes: How can you do that?


Charles L. Caccia: There are three, there is not one only. I will come to that.
The examination is limited only to federal lands in the Toronto region. It is a very interesting examination. The study is one which one no doubt must take seriously. I refer to the first page of the study where the main principles, the so-called guiding premises, are mentioned. The first one I find perfectly reasonable. It reads:
The federal Government will continue to hold lands that are appropriate to its operational needs.
There is nothing wrong with that. That is a way of having an insurance policy 100 years from now when these lands will become available. It may be that at that time the population pressures will be such as to enhance rather than diminish the chances for these lands to become open spaces, recreational areas, parkland, urban, wildlife or environmentally educational centres.
The second principle reads:
Lands not required for these purposes will be transferred to the appropriate jurisdictions or to other interests.
The words "other interests" trouble me a lot. I do not know how to interpret that. If it means a transfer from the federal level to a provincial or municipal level for public purposes, that is fine with me. I have no difficulty with that and I fully concur. But if it means transfer to private sector interests, then that is where we part company immediately.
The third principle reads:


Parklands
Where the federal Government agrees to transfer land, it is obligated to act in the best interest of Canada as a whole-
Which is just fine. There is no problem with that. Then, this is perhaps why I was bit unclear earlier. It goes on as follows:
-including seeking full value of the land on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.
The full value aspect, Mr. Speaker, troubles me enormously. If it means monetary value, as I suspect it does, then we part ways again. If it means that values are related to the enjoyment of landscapes, wildlife, trees and open spaces, there is no problem with that. If that full value implies monetary values, dollars and cents, then I submit there is no real way of arriving at a full value on behalf of Canadian taxpayers because some of this land has been increasing in value year after year, decade after decade. Only upon a sale does it reflect the value. That is not good enough when it comes to public land.
In an attempt to summarize the explanation for this motion before you and before my colleagues here today, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the study carried out by the consultants for the disposition of federal lands at a future date is welcome as an initiative. It is good that we find out what the major criteria should be. It is also a good thing that we debate this, which is what is taking place today. We should put our views on where we agree and where we do not.
I submit, as I have already, that land pressures in our metropolitan centres as the years go by will increase enormously. Hence we will have pressures for development in the conventional sense, as we know it, be it housing, commercial or industrial structures and buildings. I submit there is an alternative and there is a very good one. It relates to the necessity of having an alternative to the strong trend of building highrises, high density and the concentration of population on our limited urban land base.
We should make provision in the long term as one generation providing for subsequent generations-for those in the gallery, their children and grandchildren-with open spaces that they will enjoy. There is nothing more impressive than to go through a city that is heavily built up like Paris, Rome, my home City of Milan, Berlin, London, New York-you name it-and see what a limited and valuable commodity it is to come across open spaces in the form of parks. When they were established the parks may have been at the edges of a city and may have been surrounded or within a very small community. Now, instead, these parks are surrounded by highrises and are located in a major population centre. They are, therefore, such a strong contrast with the rest of the urban setting that they become green oases, for lack of a better word.
I am trying to argue this afternoon that we should project our thinking in the future and plan to make the military lands located in urban areas, when they become available, into green oases, open spaces for the enjoyment of generations of Canadians to come.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate
in the debate on the Private Member's Motion today which has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Canadians take a well deserved pride in the beauty of our natural landscapes and in the history of our nation. The Hon. Member is to be congratulated for reminding the House of this fact. As a former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member knows that the Canadian Parks Service of Environment Canada is the federal agency whose clear mandate is to protect outstanding natural areas and historic places of national significance across Canada. Furthermore, he knows that the Canadian Parks Service plays a vital role in the preservation of our national heritage for present and future generations.
While we would all wish to expand Canada's national park system, Mr. Speaker, the present motion before the House would be both inappropriate and unnecessary. First, let us consider the nature of our national park system. Environment Canada, through its Canadian Parks Service, protects our national parks for all time because they are representative natural areas of Canadian significance. The national parks system encourages public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this natural heritage so as to leave it unimpaired for future generations. You should note, Mr. Speaker, the emphasis on the word natural. To be suitable for consideration as a national park, an area must have experienced minimal modification by humans or, if significant change has taken place, it must have potential for restoration to a natural state. Military lands in urban areas would simply not meet these criteria.
I was surprised to hear the Hon. Member talk about the Downsview airport which is located practically in the centre of Metropolitan Toronto in the North York section. It seems to me that the area in Metro Toronto that should be preserved and is in that wild state now is the Rouge Valley and not the Downsview airport which is more appropriate for housing.
The Hon. Member said that there should be urban wildlife. The motto of the Save the Rouge System is: "Wild in the City". Indeed, there is a whole herd of white-tailed deer running through Metro Toronto, if you can believe that, Mr. Speaker. We want the deer to be preserved wild in the city.
In fact, it is self-evident that in all of Canada, the places the furthest removed from their natural states are urban military areas. Military lands located in urban areas would certainly not qualify for inclusion in our national parks system based on the essential criteria of sights representing unspoiled natural beauty.
However, the Canadian Parks Service, through its National Historic Parks and Sites Program, may designate and commemorate areas of national historic interest. This is accomplished only upon the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, which is the advisory body


in such matters for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan). To be selected for such commemoration, a place must be associated with an event or a movement which has shaped Canadian history, and/or illustrate effectively the culture of a pre-historic people or be associated with important archaeological discoveries.
Only places of extraordinary value to Canadian history are acquired and developed as national historic parks. All military lands are not intrinsically of national historic significance. They are not, nor should they be, automatically eligible for national commemoration.
This process is as it should be right now. Truly worthy sites of genuine national historic significance can be and are considered by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. When these sites meet the proper criteria, they are given the appropriate designation. The system has worked and is working very well indeed. There is no need to tinker with it now, nor was there such a need when the Hon. Member who moved this motion served as Minister of the Environment.
To date, there has been excellent co-operation between the Department of National Defence and Environment Canada. DND is fully aware of Environment Canada's interest in and mandate for maintaining land of national historic significance. DND has routinely co-operated in the past by transferring to Environment Canada historically significant lands that were no longer required for military purposes.
In fact, military lands are already exceedingly well represented in Canada's historic parks system. DND has already transferred to the Canadian Parks Service some of the most important military sites in Canada. In fact, Canada's whole system of national historic parks and major historic sites began in 1917 with the transfer of Fort Anne in Nova Scotia from the Department of Militia and Defence to what was then the National Parks Service. Fort Anne was the first of our national historic parks.
From Signal Hill in St. John's, Newfoundland-where the final battle of the Seven Years War in North America was fought on September 15, 1762-to Fort Rodd Hill in Victoria, British Columbia-where batteries were constructed in 1895 as part of a coastal system to defend Esquimalt and Victoria- military sites, literally from one end of Canada to the other, have been preserved and are appreciated by hundreds of thousands of Canadians and foreign visitors each and every year.
Indeed, when it comes to military historic sites, Canada has been blessed. Seventeenth, 18th and 19th-century military history is well preserved and represented by national historic parks and sites. When one adds provincial sites to the list of federal lands of this type, we can proudly say that this aspect of history remains a living heritage accessible to all Canadians.
As all Hon. Members can see, it is clear that it would be totally inappropriate to turn over urban sites owned by the Department of National Defence for use as national parks
Parklands
because their value as unspoiled natural areas has been irredeemably debased. They would add nothing to our system of national historic sites which already include impeccable and comprehensive representations of our 17th, 18th and 19th-century military history.
Hon. Members can be assured that this Government will continue to ensure the preservation of nationally significant examples of Canada's military history as we have done so well in the past. For all these reasons, the motion put forward by the Hon. Member for Davenport is inappropriate and should be rejected by Hon. Members of the House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before continuing with debate, I would like to apprise the House of the following: I have received written notice from the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) that he is unable to move his motion during the hour provided for Private Members' Business tomorrow, Tuesday, July 12, 1988. It has not been possible to arrange an exchange of positions in the order of precedence pursuant to Standing Order 39. Accordingly, I am directing the Table Officers to drop that item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Since notice will be removed, the hour for Private Members' Business will be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 39, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam
Speaker, I was not sure whether or not I would support the motion put by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) until I heard the Parliamentary Secretary. She confirmed in my mind why I should support the motion, and I will tell her why in a minute.
The Hon. Member for Davenport was good enough, as he always is, to raise the difficulties involved in this issue. One difficulty he raised was the competition in land use in urban areas between land needed for housing and land that could be used, as he said, for environmental purposes or for parks. I personally do not think that the two are necessarily in conflict, but sometimes they can be partly in conflict. I have some concerns about that.
I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was too bureaucratic and that there was too much of the DND in her response. I thought she mixed up the notion of national historic sites and national military sites, of all things, with what the Hon. Member for Davenport was trying to deal with. The Hon. Member for Davenport mentioned the use of lands under a number of criteria. He mentioned using land as an environmental centre, as conventional parkland, as a recreational centre, as a wildlife centre or as all of these. He suggested that we could use these military lands that are no longer used for military purposes for environmental purposes, but for different kinds of environmental purposes.
I do not think that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary should dismiss this motion so quickly. She said that perhaps Downs-view airport is more suitable for housing than it is for parkland


Parklands
and she said that we should look to the Rouge Valley. I believe that is in the Hon. Member's riding, is it not?


Pauline Browes: Very close.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I figured that.


Pauline Browes: You are supporting it?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I do support it. I think it makes sense to use the Rouge Valley as a park. As a matter of fact, I was almost blown away by what the Hon. Member said. She said that there were white-tailed deer running through Metropolitan Toronto. I always thought that it was only people chasing money running through Metropolitan Toronto.


James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: There's a lot of wildlife in Toronto.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I knew there was a lot of wildlife in Toronto, as the Hon. Member said. As a matter of fact, we have a little saying in Vancouver. Of course, I do not subscribe to it. They say: "They don't call it Hogtown for nothing". It is nice to know they have some deer and that everyone is not in a fervent rush to make money. When I think of Toronto, I do not think of Bambi, I think more of Godzilla. However, it is nice to know.
Here is where the Parliamentary Secretary is wrong. She said there were precedents for taking military land. She mentioned that the DND transferred military land to parks, so we have precedents. Let us not confuse it with military sites, though. I would rather have environmental sites, quite frankly, than more military sites. We would have more sites commemorating militarism. While we have to commemorate our past, the reality of military battles, let us not go overboard. My feeling was that DND would tend to want to have more military sites than environmental parks, so let us not dismiss the Member's motion. I think he has a good idea.
To give you an example. In my home City of Vancouver, right near where I used to live, there is a park called Jericho Beach. It was an active military site, and still is, although it is empty now. It was used during the war. You can see pictures of the old hangars and military barracks and so on. It is right on the ocean, just outside of English Bay, towards Point Grey and the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, a beautiful area. As a matter of fact, it was used for the Habitat Conference. The Hon. Member for Davenport mentioned an environmental centre. It was used as a people centre for the Habitat Conference 10 or 15 years ago. That was the beginning of the Stockholm environmental notion and the things we are dealing with today. We did a good job in Vancouver in having it there.
The other thing about Jericho Beach is that it has areas for recreation. I used to jog around there myself when I was in better shape before I came to Parliament and got out of shape. It was a good area to jog around. There was wildlife there and
even the military people who were looking after it allowed some bogs and areas like that to continue to exist. They did not develop it all. There was and is wildlife today, bird flyways and so on. You have urban wildlife, the real kind, that is, animals and birds. That is a good example, and therefore I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary should decide this out of hand and take the bureaucratic line from DND. I think this is something worth looking into.
I congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport because he is a former Minister of the Environment who has always had his heart in the right place on environmental issues. However, I wish he had enumerated in more detail the number of these military sites. He mentioned Downsview. I have seen Downs-view from the air while flying across Toronto and I wonder what it is being used for. I would like to know the future plans for that area. I wish the Hon. Member had named some of the other sites across Canada because there may be other areas available. Let us enumerate them, let us see what uses they could be put to.
He also mentioned the report done by the Government on the federal land study in Toronto. I, too, have my concerns. We have a Conservative Government that likes to privatize government property for its friends in the private sector. It is a Government that you cannot trust. For example, it made promises to seniors that it would not deindex their pensions, and then turned around and tried to do just that. It made a promise there would be no free trade. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said he was against it, and then he brought in free trade. So it is a Government you cannot trust.


Pauline Browes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to remind the Hon. Member that he should stay on the topic of the motion we are discussing. I think he is veering off a little bit to the left, as he usually does.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my point simply is that many of us, not just me, but many others in the country do not trust the Government to deal straightforwardly with matters. One of the problems in dealing with these particular lands is the federal land study in Toronto. We are concerned that instead of putting them to environmental or other uses such as housing, the Government might sell them to its friends. Let us look at the record. Look at the past. Look at what the Government has done.
I want to conclude by saying this. I think the Hon. Member for Davenport has made a good start. We really should look at and analyse these military lands. We should make the environment, whether it is a centre, a parkland, a recreation, urban wildlife or combination of them all, an important use. We have to weigh the housing usage factor. We have to weigh the use for commercial purposes and environmental purposes. I agree with the Hon. Member. I think the time has come to restrict urban growth and create more open spaces and enhance the existing ones in urban areas. That will enhance the quality of life, which is what we are all trying to do and what we are proud of having as Canadians. That is why I think


this is a very creative motion and it deserves a better look than the Parliamentary Secretary was prepared to give.


Jean-Luc Joncas: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today on Motion 164 moved by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia).
Madam Speaker, this motion by a former Minister of the Environment, well-intentioned though it may be, comes somewhat as a surprise. In any case, since the Hon. Member for Davenport must be aware of the federal policies relating to the Canadian parks system, he might have refrained from presenting this kind of motion.
Perhaps the Hon. Member is worried that Canada's military heritage is under-represented in our network of national historic parks.
Future generations need not worry. Since the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada was established in 1919, the number of historic sites, parks, monuments and canals has steadily increased. Since 1917, several old forts administered by the Army has been transferred to the National Historic Parks Branch.
Madam Speaker, perhaps I may recall that in the fifties, the federal Government has focused its attention on a number of sites, most of which were former military centres.
In fact, from the outset, co-operation between the Department of National Defence and the department responsible for national parks was always excellent, and it still is today. Thanks to this mutual understanding, from the early settlement of this country to the beginning of the twentieth century, all across this country from Signal Hill, Newfoundland to Fort Rodd Hill, British Columbia, our national historic parks are a faithful reflection of the relationship between our country's history and its various regions. These parks give Canadians and foreign visitors a good picture of our military history in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries.
Madam Speaker, the motion in its present form does not specify the historic value of these lands and fails to make any distinctions. In view of existing provisions for having any site of national historic significance taken into consideration, and since the motion fails to consider the value of the lands in question, a motion of this kind is useless as far as the preservation of our country's heritage is concerned.
It is not useful to create national parks, Madam Speaker, since it ignores the objectives and criteria of Environment Canada in this respect.
The purpose of creating national parks is to safeguard natural areas that are representative of this country so as to keep them intact for future generations.
It does not seem necessary to me to sustantiate for the House the fact that the motion introduced by the Hon.
Parklands
Member for Davenport does not meet the criterion of geographic representativeness; it also goes without saying that a former Minister of the Environment should know that military lands located in urban areas are far removed from the definition of a natural area. I ask you, Madam Speaker, what could be less natural than a city?
It remains passing strange, Madam Speaker, that this former Minister of the Environment, who has done so much for our common heritage could have drafted such a motion.
Canada has one of the most beautiful networks of national parks in the world. At the present time, this network comprises 34 national parks disseminated throughout our vast land. They cover 1.3 percent of Canada's overall territory.
Since this Government came to power, we have signed agreements and spent millions of dollars for the creation of new parks, such as at Moresby South in the Queen Charlotte Islands, on the Bruce Peninsula in Ontario, on Ellesmere Island in the Arctic, and more recently, in the Saguenay region in Quebec.
In Quebec, our historical military heritage is far from being under-represented. For instance, we have Fort Lennox on l'ile-aux-Noix, Battlefield Park and the walled fortifications of Quebec in the City of Quebec, Fort No. 1 of Pointe-Levis in Lauzon, the Chateauguay Battlements in Howick, and Chambly Fort in Chambly. All of these parks and historical sites bear witness to the military history of past regimes.
The public has shown a growing interst in such sites, and thousands of our fellow Canadians, as well as tourists from all over the world, seek them out for their beauty and for their historical interest.
We can assure the Canadian population that we are continuing and will continue to work for the preservation of our heritage and that we will also continue to improve our national parks network and our national historical parks.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, motion 164 introduced by the Hon. Member for Davenport is far from meeting the objectives which underly the creation of national parks and national historical parks, nor can it influence municipalities or provincial governments to preserve green spaces.
For all of these reasons, Madam Speaker, we suggest that the motion be defeated by this honorable House.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to say just a few words in support of Motion No. 164, on behalf of my colleague from Davenport (Mr. Caccia). I think that this motion raises some very important issues for people living in urban areas who have military facilities that are obsolete or declared surplus for government requirements and that must be redeveloped either for housing or in accordance with some municipal projects or


Parklands
plans or that are to be used for roads or other purposes for all municipalities in the region.
I raise the matter because, first of all, it is of current interest in Ottawa-Vanier and, second, it has always concerned me. How are federal lands that are declared surplus disposed of and how are lands that were used for military purposes disposed of not only for the development of communities that identify with those facilities or have had to live with them for many years, but also how can nature parks and other natural areas, which everyone considers very important, be planned for our urban centres? There is a great need to maintain green spaces that everyone can enjoy and to give municipalities a chance to develop within their territory a place where people can do other things than playing war games.
Madam Speaker, Motion No. 164 from the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider designating as potential parkland all military lands located in urban areas and presently used for military purposes, once their present use is discontinued.
So this is a recommendation that the Government should take seriously and put on the agenda to see whether urban areas do require more facilities to meet public needs, before dismissing it entirely.
You know, Madam Speaker, in my riding, there is a property known as . . .

-DND property on Lees Avenue. It is known as the Armories property. I understand that some years ago this property was designated as surplus to federal needs in terms of military installations. Therefore, everyone and his neighbour has had his eyes on it and planning has been going on to take this property to serve transportation needs or other regional requirements. Much to my dismay no one in Government has seriously suggested that it be used for ecological environment parks or, even better, in downtown Ottawa, some good affordable housing.
This dossier has been with us for some time. Just for the sake of making it known that we do have a few sites in Ottawa Vanier which have been declared surplus, and in whose interest it is that they be preserved for public use, there are plans to declare the federal property known as the Armories as surplus and to transfer that property to the regional Government for a major road project through the area proposed by the regional municipality.
I wish to refer to a letter from the Alderman Nancy Smith of St. George's Ward, written to me on January 29, 1988. She says:
I am writing you with regard to the DND property on Lees Avenue, otherwise known as the Armories property. It would appear that this property may become surplus in the near future.
She goes on to say that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton may have access to that property to realign some of its road patterns in the area. She continues:
The land in this area is zoned for residential. In particular, the DND site
was reviewed at the time of the Ottawa East Neighbourhood Plan (1979 to
1980). It is zoned for family housing with a 35 foot to 45 foot height limit.
She went on to explain how important it is that there should be housing on that property.
The Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) stated that he would like to see any surplus federal lands now used for military purposes, when they became surplus declared to be environmental parks. 1 do not disagree with him that there is a need for environmental parks, but on that point I might debate his argument. There are some cities where there are several such military properties. I can think of at least two in my riding. The site on Lees Avenue, known as the Armouries site, could be used for good quality housing while giving the residents of Ottawa East a park at the same time. In other words, we could easily cope with both the housing requirements of the community and the park requirements of the children and residents of that area.
This is a good motion. It appeals to me because of its human approach to disposing of properties that the federal Government no longer needs. This could easily be taken up by the Government, to consider how the various cities, towns and urban areas where properties used for DND purposes that were declared surplus could be converted into parks or, for that matter, a mix of parks and housing. If that is the purpose at hand, then it has the full approval of all residents of Ottawa- Vanier.


Robert Nelson David Hicks: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate today. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), a former Minister of Environment, for his interest.
I want to take this opportunity to point out what I genuinely feel are a few imperfections in what he is proposing. As a former Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport should know that this motion is neither feasible nor practical. The very wording of the motion, the way in which it is drafted, seems to fly in the face of government policies, both of this Government and of previous ones, for parks designation and for the disposal of surplus lands.
Let us look at the phrase "considered designated as potential parkland". The motion does not explain what this phrase means, nor does it say how such a goal can be achieved in law.
At present there is no provision either in the laws governing the selection or acquisition of our national parks, or in the parks policy of the Canadian Parks Service, for the designation of an area as potential parkland. After an area is selected for consideration as a national parkland on the basis of well defined criteria, it is either designated a park or it is not. There is no such thing now, nor has there ever been a designation for potential parkland.


Let us consider the selection procedure for designating a Canadian national historic site. This selection process is carried out by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. A site, which may have national significance, either as a location in its own right or in relation to a person or event of Canada-wide importance, is nominated for consideration by the board.
Nowhere in this process, which has been working smoothly and efficiently since 1919, is provision made for a designation as potential parkland.
Likewise, Motion No. 164 refers to parkland rather than national parkland or land for national parks. The mandate of the Canadian Parks Service concerns the establishment of national parks; that is, the establishment of parks as areas that have true national significance as a result of their superlative natural characteristics and unspoiled state. Surely a former Minister of the Environment should be expected to realize that the chances of any urban military land qualifying under the rigid criteria for national parks are extremely remote, to say the least.
Since this is the case, the Hon. Member for Davenport must be implying by the omission of the word "national" that the surplus land intended for designation as potential parkland is intended for municipal or provincial parkland. Surely it is not the role of the federal Government to tell other levels of government what they should or should not designate as parkland, either potential or not. If such a designation is meant to apply to urban areas for consideration by the federal Government as parkland it is meaningless, if it is meant to apply to provincial or local governments it is presumptuous.
The proposal of the Hon. Member for Davenport to designate surplus urban land of the Department of National Defence as potential parkland is simply not feasible. Moreover, it is unnecessary. There is a formal disposal process already in place to handle surplus DND land, and indeed all surplus land of the federal Government.
If the intent of Motion No. 164 is simply to designate surplus urban DND land as parkland in order to alleviate shortages of green space in urban areas, then the Hon. Member for Davenport could have perhaps stated his goal more clearly. In that case, however, he might have confronted the reality that municipal and provincial Governments already have the opportunity to obtain federal Government land once it is declared surplus. If they decide surplus DND lands are required for parks there already exist adequate and functional procedures to obtain such lands.
The intent of Motion No. 164 is clear, to say the least. As a measure to augment our national parks system it cannot work, because urban lands are unsuitable for use as national parks; as an instrument to improve the selection of historic parks and sites it is unnecessary; and as a means of increasing municipal urban green space it is inappropriate and ineffectual.
Parklands
Canada's national parks system is one of the great glories of our country. Our national parks are a means of preserving, in their natural state, areas which are representative of the major natural environments of Canada. They are special places which protect part of the heritage of all Canadians, now and in the future. The first national park in Canada was established in 1885 to protect the then newly discovered Banff Hot Springs for public use. Now, our national park system encompasses 34 parks, which cover 1.3 per cent of Canada's entire land mass.
The official policy of the Canadian Parks Service sets as a goal the representation of each land and marine natural region of Canada by a national park or marine national park. However, many land and most marine natural regions are still unrepresented. This is a worth-while goal which this Government is diligently and constantly pursuing.
The present Government is proud to have added a significant number of new national parks to Canada's national parks system during the years of its tenure. Bruce Peninsula and Ellesmere Island are the new national parks or national park reserves the Government has recently created. Canadians can be assured that the Government will continue to build on this record of success and show leadership in continuing to improve Canada's national park system.
Unfortunately, Motion No. 164 will not bring us any closer to reaching any of these goals, nor can it possibly have any practical or additional impact on the preservation of urban green space by municipal or provincial Governments.
Notwithstanding the items I pointed out, I still congratulate the Hon. Member for his interest in the environment. Both my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Browes), and I have worked diligently on behalf of the Save the Rouge campaign in eastern Metro Toronto. We are sympathetic to all worth-while suggestions regarding the environment. Unfortunately, Motion No. 164 does not appear to be the vehicle for the end result that is actually sought by the Hon. Member.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, in the closing minutes of this debate on the motion put forward by my colleague, the Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), a former Minister of Environment, I want to salute the best intentions that have gone into this motion in trying to humanize the large urban centres in this country with much deserved and needed parkland.
The City of Ottawa has attempted to combine green parkland with an urban use. I believe it has achieved a pleasant surrounding and ambiance.
Like my colleague, the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), let me also point out that I do not believe the entire surplus land-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the Hon. Member. The time provided for


Canadian Wheat Board Act
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions on Bill C-92, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The first vote will be on Motion No. 1. Mr. Foster moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-92 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 33 at page 5 and
substituting the following therefor:
"railway car during the pool period. The said sum shall reflect an equitable allocation of the costs incurred by the Board to maintain the country delivery points."
Call in the Members.
The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the following division:
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
Hicks
Hockin
Hudon
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity- Conception)
Joncas Kempling Ladouceur Lanthier Layton Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
The Acting
motion lost.
Mailly
McCain
McDermid
McLean
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Plourde Price Reid Reimer Ricard St-Julien Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth)
Stackhouse
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Weiner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-76
Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and I think you would find unanimous agreement to apply the vote that was just taken to the remaining motion under report stage of Bill C-92 and to reverse the vote for the concurrence motion on Bill C-92.
I think you would also find that that same procedure could be applied to the report stage motions on Bill C-129. In other words, the Government is against the motions; the Opposition is for them.
(Division No. 438)


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No.
++YEAS


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Fine, I understood-
	Members	
Allmand	Gray	PepinBaker	(Windsor West)	Prud'hommeBenjamin	Jewett	RiisCaccia	Keeper	RobichaudCopps	MacLellan	Rodriguezde Jong	Manly	SkellyEpp	Marchi	Waddell-28(Thunder Bay-	McCurdy	Nipigon)	Mitchell	Finestone	Orlikow	Foster	Ouellet	Gauthier	Penner	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Crosby	EppBienkarn	(Halifax West)	(Provencher)Browes	Dantzer	FennellClark	Darling	Fontaine(Brandon-Souris)	Daubney	FraleighCoates	Desrosiers	FriesenCochrane	Domm	GirardCooper	Duplessis	GormleyCrofton	Edwards	GottseligEllis	Graham


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I was absent while the preceding vote was taken. I would agree to this procedure provided that I was included as voting with my Party.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am not too sure what is going to happen. Somebody from the Opposition cut off the Minister of State, the House Leader for the Government, as he was about to propose something, and now it is not certain what will happen.
In the eventuality that the Opposition will come to its senses and agree to the proposition made by the Minister of State, and if ever the Hon. Member can get his act together, I will vote with the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair understood that the vote which has just been taken would be applied to the question on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of Mr. Hovdebo, and that the vote in reverse would be applied to the concurrence motion, with the two additions of the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest). That would take care of Bill C-92.


Air Canada
Therefore the next question is on Motion No. 3.	(Division No. 440)


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That Bill C-92 be amended by deleting Clause 8.	YEAS
The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:	Members
(Division No. 439)
Allmand	YEAS Members Gray	PennerBaker	(Windsor West)	PepinBenjamin	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Kaplan	RiisCopps	Keeper	Robichaudde Jong	MacLellan	RodriguezEpp	Manly	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Waddell-29Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	Foster	Orlikow	Gauthier	Oucllct	Belsher	NAYS Members Harvey	PlourdeBlcnkarn	Hicks	PriceBrowes	Hockin	ReidCharest	Hudon	RcimcrClark	Jardine	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jepson	St-JulienCoates	Johnson	ScottCochrane	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cooper	Conception)	ScottCroflon	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	Kempling	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	Ladouceur	StewartDantzer	Lanthier	TaylorDarling	Layton	ThackerDaubney	Lewis	TowersDesrosiers	MacDonald	TupperDomm	(Kingston and	TurnerDuplessis	the Islands)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Edwards	MacDougall	Van De WalleEllis	(Timiskaming)	VezinaEpp	Mailly	Vincent(Provcnchcr)	McCain	WeinerFennell	McDermid	WenmanFontaine	McLean	WhiteFraleigh	Nicholson	WilsonFriesen	(Niagara Falls)	(Swift CurrentGirard	Nickerson	-Maple Creek)-77Gormley	Oberle	Gottselig	O'Neil	Graham	Oostrom	Halliday	Pennock	Hardey	Peterson


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion lost.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: that the Bill be concurred in.
The House divided on motion (Mr. Mayer), which was agreed to on the following division:
Belsher	Harvey	PlourdeBlcnkarn	H icks	PriceBrowes	Hockin	ReidCharest	Hudon	ReimerClark	Jardine	Ricard(Brandon-Souris)	Jepson	St-JulienCoates	Johnson	ScottCochrane	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Cooper	Conception)	ScottCrofton	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crosby	Kempling	Stackhouse(Halifax West)	Ladouceur	StewartDantzer	Lanthier	TaylorDarling	Layton	ThackerDaubney	Lewis	TowersDesrosiers	MacDonald	TupperDomm	(Kingston and	TurnerDuplessis	the Islands)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Edwards	MacDougall	Van De WalleEllis	(Timiskaming)	VezinaEpp	Mailly	Vincent(Provencher)	McCain	WeinerFennell	McDermid	WenmanFontaine	McLean	WhiteFraleigh	Nicholson	WilsonFriesen	(Niagara Falls)	(Swift CurrentGirard	Nickerson	-Maple Creek)-77Gormley	Oberle	Gottselig	O'Neil	Graham	Oostrom	Halliday	Pennock	Hardey	Peterson	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Gray	PennerBaker	(Windsor West)	PepinBenjamin	Jewett	Prud'hommeCaccia	Kaplan	RiisCopps	Keeper	Robichaudde Jong	MacLellan	RodriguezEpp	Manly	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Waddell-29Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	Foster	Orlikow	Gauthier	Ouellet


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


AIR CANADA PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, July 8, consideration of Bill C-129, an Act to provide for the continuance of Air Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the issuance and sale of shares thereof to the public, as reported (with an amendment) from a legislative committee.
[Stage Direction]

Air Canada
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the report stage of Bill C-129.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question will be on Motion No. 2. Mr. Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 27 at page 3
and substituting the following therefor:
"those votes to not more than five".
The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on the following division:
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle
Vezina
Vincent
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current -Maple Creek)-94


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 3. Mr, Orlikow moved:
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 34 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"sauga, which centres shall maintain their staffing levels equal to those attained in the 1987-88 financial year; and".
The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 441)
++YEAS
(Division No. 442)
++YEAS
Members
Benjamin	Keeper	Rodriguezde Jong	Manly	SkellyEpp	McCurdy	Waddell-13(Thunder Bay-	Mitchell	Nipigon)	Orlikow	Jewett	Riis	
++NAYS
Allmand
Baker
Benjamin
Caccia
Copps
de Jong
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Finestone
Foster
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Jewett
Kaplan
Keeper
MacLellan
Manly
Marchi
McCurdy
Mitchell
Ouellet
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Skelly
Waddell-30
	Members			Orlikow	
				NAYS	
Allmand	Girard	Marchi	Baker	Gormley	McCain	Belsher	Gottselig	McDermid	Members	Blenkarn	Graham	McLean	Browes	Gray	Nicholson	Caccia	(Windsor West)	(Niagara Falls)	Belsher	Gottselig	McLeanCharest	Gustafson	Nickerson	Blenkarn	Graham	NicholsonClark	Halliday	Oberle	Browes	Gustafson	(Niagara Falls)(Brandon-Souris)	Hardey	O'Neil	Charest	Halliday	NickersonCoates	Harvey	Oostrom	Clark	Hardey	OberleCochrane	Hicks	Ouellet	(Brandon-Souris)	Harvey	O'NeilCooper	Hockin	Penner	Coates	Hicks	OostromCopps	Hudon	Pennock	Cochrane	Hockin	PennockCrofton	Jardine	Pepin	Cooper	Hudon	PetersonCrosby	Jepson	Peterson	Crofton	Jardine	Plourde(Halifax West)	Johnson	Plourde	Crosby	Jepson	PriceDantzer	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Price	(Halifax West)	Johnson	ReidDarling	Conception)	Prud'homme	Dantzer	(Bonavista-Trinity-	ReimerDaubney	Joncas	Reid	Darling	Conception)	RicardDesrosiers	Kaplan	Reimer	Daubney	Joncas	St-JulienDomm	Kempling	Ricard	Desrosiers	Kempling	ScottDuplessis	Ladouceur	Robichaud	Domm	Ladouceur	(Victoria-Haliburton)Edwards	Lanthier	St-Julien	Duplessis	Lanthier	ScottEllis	Layton	Scott	Edwards	Layton	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Epp	Lewis	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Ellis	Lewis	Stackhouse(Provencher)	MacDonald	Scott	Epp	MacDonald	StewartFennell	(Kingston and	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Provencher)	(Kingston and	TaylorFinestone	the Islands)	Stackhouse	Fennell	the Islands)	ThackerFontaine	MacDougall	Stewart	Fontaine	MacDougall	TowersFoster	(Timiskaming)	Taylor	Fraleigh	(Timiskaming)	TupperFraleigh	MacLellan	Thacker	Friesen	Mailly	TurnerFriesen	Mailly	Towers	Girard	McCain	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gauthier	Gormley	McDermid	Van De Walle
Vezina	White
Vincent	Wilson
Weiner	(Swift Current
Wenman	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 4. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I think you would find a disposition in the House to apply the results of the vote just taken to all remaining report stage motions and to apply the reversal of that vote to the concurrence motion on Bill C-129.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The next question is on Motion No. 4. Mr. MacLellan moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line
37 at page 3 the following:
"(0 provisions restricting the Corporation from acquiring control, through ownership of shares or otherwise, in an air carrier providing international services under a licence issued pursuant to the National Transportation Act;
(g) provisions respecting the enforcement of the constraints and requirements imposed pursuant to this section."
The House divided on Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 443)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guiibault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members	Belsher	Crofton	EdwardsBlenkarn	Crosby	EllisBrowes	(Halifax West)	EppCharest	Dantzer	(Provencher)Clark	Darling	Fennell(Brandon-Souris)	Daubney	FontaineCoates	Desrosiers	FraleighCochrane	Domm	FriesenCooper	Duplessis	Girard
Air Canada
Gormley	MacDonald	ScottGottselig	(Kingston and	(Victoria-Haliburton)Graham	the Islands)	ScottGustafson	MacDougall	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Halliday	(Timiskaming)	StackhouseHardey	Mailly	StewartHarvey	McCain	TaylorHicks	McDermid	ThackerHockin	McLean	TowersHudon	Nicholson	TupperJardine	(Niagara Falls)	TurnerJepson	Nickerson	(Ottawa-Carleton)Johnson	Oberle	Van De Walle(Bonavista-Trinity-	O'Neil	VezinaConception)	Oostrom	VincentJoncas	Pennock	WeinerKempling	Peterson	WenmanLadouceur	Plourde	WhiteLanthier	Price	WilsonLayton	Reid	(Swift CurrentLewis	Reimer Ricard St-Julien	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 5. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 37 at page 3 the following:
"(f) provisions specifying that the six bases for Air Canada flight attendants at Montreal, Halifax, Calgary, Winnipeg and Toronto be maintained with the staffing levels of each equal to those of the 1987-88 financial year as a minimum standard."
The House divided on Motion No. 5, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 444)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guiibault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members	Belsher	Dantzer	FraleighBlenkarn	Darling	FriesenBrowes	Daubney	GirardCharest	Desrosiers	GormleyClark	Domm	Gottselig(Brandon-Souris)	Duplessis	GrahamCoates	Edwards	GustafsonCochrane	Ellis	HallidayCooper	Epp	HardeyCrofton	(Provencher)	HarveyCrosby	Fennell	Hicks(Halifax West)	Fontaine	Hockin
Air Canada
Hudon
Jardine
Jepson
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas
Kempling
Ladouceur
Lanthier
Layton
Lewis
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Mailly
McCain
McDermid
McLean
Nicholson
(Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Plourde Price Reid Reimer Ricard St-Julien Scott
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Stackhouse
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Van De Walle Vezina Vincent Weiner Wenman White Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 6. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 37 at page 3 the following:
"(f) provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain and strengthen its role as a Canadian Corporation by ensuring that labour, equipment and services required by the Corporation be Canadian in origin wherever feasible and where not feasible that Canadian content be maximized as a part of such labour, equipment and services requirements;
(g)	provisions requiring the Corporation to maintain existing Corporation standards respecting safety, maintenance and customer service;
(h)	provisions requiring any subsidiary corporation of the Corporation to be bound by this Act including any subsidiary corporation which may be formed from or by the parent Corporation once this Act comes into force."
The House divided on Motion No. 6, which was negatived on the following division:
Epp	Ladouceur	Reimer(Provencher)	Lanthier	RicardFennell	Layton	St-JulienFontaine	Lewis	ScottFraleigh	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)Friesen	(Kingston and	ScottGirard	the Islands)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gormley	MacDougall	StackhouseGottselig	(Timiskaming)	StewartGraham	Mailly	TaylorGustafson	McCain	ThackerHalliday	McDermid	TowersHardey	McLean	TupperHarvey	Nicholson	TurnerHicks	(Niagara Falls)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Hockin	Nickerson	Van De WalleHudon	Oberle	VezinaJardine	O'Neil	VincentJepson	Oostrom	WeinerJohnson	Pennock	Wenman(Bonavista-Trinity-	Peterson	WhiteConception)	Plourde	WilsonJoncas	Price	(Swift CurrentKempling	Reid	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 7. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 18 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"shares of the Corporation up to a maximum of forty-five per cent of voting shares."
The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 446)
++YEAS
Members
(Division No. 445)
	YEAS	
	Members	
Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guilbault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell	Orlikow	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Cochrane	DaubneyBlenkarn	Cooper	DesrosiersBrowes	Crofton	DommCharest	Crosby	DuplessisClark	(Halifax West)	Edwards(Brandon-Souris)	Dantzer	EllisCoates	Darling	Allmand	Gray	OuelletBaker	(Windsor West)	PennerBenjamin	Guilbault	PepinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'hommeCopps	Jewett	Riisde Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudEpp	Keeper	Rodriguez(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyNipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30Finestone	Marchi	Foster	McCurdy	Gauthier	Mitchell	Orlikow	
++NAYS
Members
Belsher	Darling	GirardBlenkarn	Daubney	GormleyBrowes	Desrosiers	GottseligCharest	Domm	GrahamClark	Duplessis	Gustafson(Brandon-Souris)	Edwards	HallidayCoates	Ellis	HardeyCochrane	Epp	HarveyCooper	(Provencher)	HicksCrofton	Fennell	HockinCrosby	Fontaine	Hudon(Halifax West)	Fraleigh	JardineDantzer	Friesen	JepsonJohnson	Nicholson	Stewart	MacDougall	Air Canada Price	Turner(Bona vista-T rinity-	(Niagara Falls)	Taylor	(Timiskaming)	Reid	(Ottawa-Carleton)Conception)	Nickerson	Thacker	Mailly	Reimer	Van De WalleJoncas	Oberle	Towers	McCain	Ricard *	VezinaKempling	O'Neil	Tupper	McDermid	St-Julien	VincentLadouceur	Oostrom	Turner	McLean	Scott	WeinerLanthier	Pennock	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Nicholson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WenmanLayton	Peterson	Van De Walle	(Niagara Falls)	Scott	WhiteLewis	Plourde	Vezina	Nickerson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WilsonMacDonald	Price	Vincent	Oberle	Stackhouse	(Swift Current(Kingston and	Reid	Weiner	O'Neil	Stewart	-Maple Creek)-78the Islands)	Reimer	Wenman	Oostrom	Taylor	MacDougall	Ricard	White	Pennock	Thacker	(Timiskaming)	St-Julien	Wilson	Peterson	Towers	Mailly	Scott	(Swift Current	Plourde	Tupper	
McCain
McDermid
McLean
(Victoria-Haliburton) Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Stackhouse
-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 8. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 26 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"the Corporation and the Commissioner of Official Languages shall include in the annual report a review of the performance of Air Canada in respect of attaining the goals and objectives of the Official Languages Act."
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 9. Mr. Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-129 be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 4 at page 8 the following:
"(3) The Corporation assumes all assets and all liabilities of the Corporation held immediately prior to the day on which the Corporation becomes a corporation to which the Canada Business Corporation Act applies."
The House divided on Motion No. 9, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 448)
Allmand	(Division No. 447)

YEAS Members	Allmand Baker Benjamin Caccia	YEAS Members Gray (Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)	Ouellet Penner Pepin Prud'hommeGray	Ouellet	Copps	Jewett	RiisBaker	(Windsor West)	Penner	de Jong	Kaplan	RobichaudBenjamin	Guilbault	Pepin	Epp	Keeper	RodriguezCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Prud'homme	(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	SkellyCopps	Jewett	Riis	Nipigon)	Manly	Waddell-30de Jong	Kaplan	Robichaud	Finestone	Marchi	Epp	Keeper	Rodriguez	Foster	McCurdy	(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone Foster Gauthier	MacLellan Manly Marchi McCurdy Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members	Skelly Waddell-30	Gauthier Belsher Blenkarn Browes Charest	Mitchell Orlikow
NAYS Members Epp (Provencher) Fennell Fontaine	Johnson (Bonavista-T rinity-Conception) JoncasBelsher	Duplessis	Hicks	Clark	Fraleigh	KemplingBlenkarn	Edwards	Hockin	(Brandon-Souris)	Friesen	LadouceurBrowes	Ellis	Hudon	Coates	Girard	LanthierCharest	Epp	Jardine	Cochrane	Gormley	LaytonClark	(Provencher)	Jepson	Cooper	Gottselig	Lewis(Brandon-Souris)	Fennell	Johnson	Crofton	Graham	MacDonaldCoates	Fontaine	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Crosby	Gustafson	(Kingston andCochrane	Fraleigh	Conception)	(Halifax West)	Halliday	the Islands)Cooper	Friesen	Joncas	Dantzer	Hardey	MacDougallCrofton	Girard	Kempling	Darling	Harvey	(Timiskaming)Crosby	Gormley	Ladouceur	Daubney	Hicks	Mailly(Halifax West)	Gottselig	Lanthier	Desrosiers	Hockin	McCainDantzer	Graham	Layton	Domm	Hudon	McDermidDarling	Gustafson	Lewis	Duplessis	Jardine	McLeanDaubney	Halliday	MacDonald	Edwards	Jepson	NicholsonDesrosiers Domm	Hardey Harvey	(Kingston and the Islands)	Ellis	(Niagara Falls) Nickerson
Eldorado Nuclear Limited
Oberle	Scott	Van De WalleO'Neil	(Victoria-Haliburton)	VezinaOostrom	Scott	VincentPennock	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	WeinerPeterson	Stackhouse	WenmanPlourde	Stewart	WhitePrice	Taylor	WilsonReid	Thacker	(Swift CurrentReimer Ricard St-Julien	Towers Tupper Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)	-Maple Creek)-78


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: that the Bill be concurred in.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 449)
++YEAS
Members
Belsher	Hardey	PetersonBlenkarn	Harvey	PlourdeBrowes	Hicks	PriceCharest	Hockin	ReidClark	Hudon	Reimer(Brandon-Souris)	Jardine	RicardCoates	Jepson	St-JulienCochrane	Johnson	ScottCooper	(Bonavista-T rinity-	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Conception)	ScottCrosby	Joncas	(Hamilton-Wentworth)(Halifax West)	Kempling	StackhouseDantzer	Ladouceur	StewartDarling	Lanthier	TaylorDaubney	Layton	ThackerDesrosiers	Lewis	TowersDomm	MacDonald	TupperDuplessis	(Kingston and	TurnerEdwards	the Islands)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Ellis	MacDougall	Van De WalleEpp	(Timiskaming)	Vezina(Provencher)	Mailly	VincentFennell	McCain	WeinerFontaine	McDermid	WenmanFraleigh	McLean	WhiteFriesen	Nicholson	WilsonGirard	(Niagara Falls)	(Swift CurrentGormley	Nickerson	-Maple Creek)-78Gottselig	Oberle	Graham	O'Neil	Gustafson	Oostrom	Halliday	Pennock	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Finestone	KeeperBaker	Foster	MacLellanBenjamin	Gauthier	ManlyCaccia	Gray	MarchiCopps	(Windsor West)	McCurdyde Jong	Guilbault	MitchellEpp	(Saint-Jacques)	Orlikow(Thunder Bay-	Jewett	OuelletNipigon)	Kaplan	PennerPepin	RodriguezPrud'homme	SkellyRiis	Waddell-30
Robichaud


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED REORGANIZATION AND DIVESTITURE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, July 7, consideration of Bill C-121, an Act to authorize the reorganization and divestiture of Eldorado Nuclear Limited and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division at report stage of Bill C-121.
Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Accordingly the question is on Motion No. 3. Mr, Orlikow moved:
That Bill C-121 be amended in Clause 17 by striking out lines 21 to 24 at
page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"17. All sections shall come into force five years following Proclamation by
Governor in Council."
The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 450)
++YEAS
Members
Benjamin	Keeper	Rodriguezde Jong	Manly	SkellyEpp	McCurdy	Waddell-13(Thunder Bay-	Mitchell	Nipigon)	Orlikow	Jewett	Riis	NAYS	Members	Allmand	Clark	CrosbyBaker	(Brandon-Souris)	(Halifax West)Belsher	Coates	DantzerBlenkarn	Cochrane	DarlingBrowes	Cooper	DaubneyCaccia	Crofton	DesrosiersCharest	Domm
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Duplessis	Johnson	Peterson	Epp	Joncas	PlourdeEdwards	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Plourde	(Provencher)	Kaplan	PriceEllis	Conception)	Price	Fennell	Kempling	Prud'hommeEpp	Joncas	Prud'homme	Finestone	Ladouceur	Reid(Provencher)	Kaplan	Reid	Fontaine	Lanthier	ReimerFennell	Kempling	Reimer	Foster	Layton	RicardFinestone	Ladouceur	Ricard	Fraleigh	Lewis	RobichaudFontaine	Lanthier	Robichaud	Friesen	MacDonald	St-JulienFoster	Layton	St-Juiien	Gauthier	(Kingston and	ScottFraleigh	Lewis	Scott	Girard	the Islands)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Friesen	MacDonald	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Gormley	MacDougall	ScottGauthier	(Kingston and	Scott	Gottselig	(Timiskaming)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Girard	the Islands)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Graham	MacLellan	StackhouseGormley	MacDougall	Stackhouse	Gray	Mailly	StewartGottselig	(Timiskaming)	Stewart	(Windsor West)	Marchi	TaylorGraham	MacLellan	Taylor	Guilbault	McCain	ThackerGray	Mailly	Thacker	(Saint-Jacques)	McDermid	Towers(Windsor West)	Marchi	Towers	Gustafson	McLean	TupperGuilbault	McCain	Tupper	Halliday	Nicholson	Turner(Saint-Jacques)	McDermid	Turner	Hardey	(Niagara Falls)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Gustafson	McLean	(Ottawa-Carleton)	Harvey	Nickerson	Van De WalleHalliday	Nicholson	Van De Walle	Hicks	Oberle	VezinaHardey	(Niagara Falls)	Vezina	Hockin	O'Neil	VincentHarvey	Nickerson	Vincent	Hudon	Oostrom	WeinerHicks	Oberle	Weiner	Jardine	Ouellet	WenmanHockin	O'Neil	Wenman	Jepson	Penner	WhiteHudon	Oostrom	White	Johnson	Pennock	WilsonJardine	Ouellet	Wilson	(Bonavista-Trinity-	Pepin	(Swift CurrentJepson The Acting motion lost. Hon. Flora	Penner (Swift Current Pennock -Maple Creek)-94 Pepin Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the MacDonald (for the President of the Privy	Conception)	Peterson
NAYS Members	-Maple Creek)-94Council) moved that the Bill be concurred in. Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent to apply in reverse the result of the previous vote to this vote, with the addition of the	Benjamin de Jong Epp (Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Jewett	Keeper Manly McCurdy Mitchell Orlikow Riis	Rodriguez Skelly Waddell-13Hon. Member walked in.	for Hamilton East	(Ms. Copps) who just	The Acting motion carried.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the


Sheila Maureen Copps: No.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We will leave her out.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestion from the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 451)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Clark	DantzerBaker	(Brandon-Souris)	DarlingBelsher	Coates	DaubneyBlenkarn	Cochrane	DesrosiersBrowes	Cooper	DommCaccia	Crofton	DuplessisCharest	Crosby	Edwards(Halifax West)	Ellis


CANADIAN MULTICULTURALISM ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) had the floor and had finished his presentation the last time this matter was before the House.
Is the House ready for the question on the second grouping?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The first question is on Motion No. 10 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 12, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 14 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 15 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No, 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the next grouping.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 20.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 9 to 16 at page
5 and substituting the following therefor:
"4.(1) The Minister, all other Ministers of the Crown and all federal institutions shall implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
(2)	The Minister shall provide advice and assistance to other Ministers in the development and implementation of programs and practices that achieve the multiculturalism policy."
Motion No. 21.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 17 to 21 at page
5 and substituting the following therefor:
"5.(1) The Minister shall take appropriate measures to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall
(a)	engage in an ongoing consultation with ethnocultural communities and multicultural organizations in finding the best means to achieve the multicultural policy;"


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 21 at page 5 and
substituting the following therefor:
"of the foregoing, shall".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 18 to 21 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) The Minister shall engage in ongoing dialogue with all provinces and territories respecting the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada and may enter into an agreement or arrangement with any province or territory further thereto."
Motion No. 24.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 18 to 21 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) the Minister shall engage in an ongoing dialogue with all the provinces and territories and enter into agreements with any or all of them whenever such agreements advance the multiculturalism policy of Canada."


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 27 to 31 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"6.(1) The Ministers of the Crown shall recognize the leadership role of the Minister in implementing the multiculturalism policy and shall, in the execution of their respective mandates, take the actions required to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada."
Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 6 by adding immediately after line 31 at page 6 the following:
"(2) Each Minister shall develop an annual plan to advance the objectives of the multiculturalism policy of Canada within his department and indicate the resources required to achieve these objectives."
He said: Madam Speaker, this group of motions is designed to clarify the responsibilities of the Minister responsible for multiculturalism and other members of the Cabinet in acting on the statement of principles which Clause 3 has set forth so well in the Bill, but which in the draft that came to the House and in the Bill that came back to the House from the legislative committee still leaves all too much opportunity for individuals to act on the policy or to ignore the policy.
Because of the nature of these provisions, I provide as an example Clause 5, the first paragraph of which provides that the Minister shall take such measures as the Minister considers appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada without limiting the generality, and so on. Then some specific statements are made. That particular phrase, "shall take such measures as the Minister considers appropriate", has impressed a great many people as opening the possibility to failing to respect the principles set forth in Clause 3, as opening the door to ignoring the multicultural policy, something which many observers seem to think has characterized government Departments far too often.
The need to strengthen various clauses of the Bill was recognized by the Canadian Ethnocultural Council in its own presentation on the matter which, under the title "Strengthening the Act, a Brief on Bill C-93", was made public in April of this year and said among other things in specific reference to Clause 5, paragraph (1):
The opening paragraph of Section 5(1) could be worded in a more definitive manner as follows: "The Minister shall take measures appropriate to


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
implement the multicultural policy of Canada and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, may"
Similar suggestions have come forth for other clauses. Looking at Clause 4 of the Bill, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council has suggested that there might be a broadening of the ambit of the Bill by stating that the Minister, all other Ministers of the Crown, and all federal institutions shall implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada. It has been my response to these suggestions to put forward this series of motions, all of which deal in one way or another with ministerial obligation.
Motion No. 20 gives the Minister an active role by himself and with his cabinet colleagues. Motion No. 21, as I have already said, removes from Clause 5 any excuse for inaction and commits the Minister to ongoing consultation with ethnocultural communities and multicultural organizations.
I need hardly say that organizations nationally and provincially have been very concerned about the need for such close consultation. They have all too often been promised consultation by Ministers and then have not seen it actually carried out. Again, with its basis for the implementation of multicultural policy, I have endeavoured in Motion No. 21 to place that obligation on the Ministers so that they will actually realize, having read the Act once it is proclaimed, that these are the requirements of the position.
Motion No. 24 amends Clause 5 in order to ensure consultation with provincial and territorial Governments. I do not think it is any secret that the first federal-provincial meeting of Ministers responsible for multiculturalism, a meeting which the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) carried out as the first multiculturalism Minister of this Conservative Government, was thought by people in some of the provinces as a very important meeting in forcing provincial Governments to give attention to multiculturalism and in encouraging them to press on with the elaboration of their own policies. Recognizing from our side that this policy of 1971 needs to be pushed on in the various jurisdictions of Canada, an obligation to have such meetings with provincial and territorial Governments could be of great value.
Finally, in Motions Nos. 25 and 26 I have attempted to amend Clause 6 in order to strengthen the obligations of all Ministers of the Crown to advance the multiculturalism policy. In Motion No. 26 I have attempted, again deliberately, to ensure that Ministers' Departments develop annual plans designed to ensure that the multiculturalism policy, to which lip service is so often paid politically, and to which governments have ostensibly been committed for many years past, is actually achieved in practice and becomes the basis for action in the various Departments of the Government.
These various motions are designed to strengthen the Bill and ensure it is a reality for the federal Government.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to address two motions of the group that I proposed on behalf of the Liberal Party, that is to say, Motions Nos. 22 and 23. Before doing that, I would like to say that I support my friend's Motion No. 26 in that it is very similar to the motion I moved earlier, a motion which was ultimately defeated, to try to get Ministers and their Departments to develop annual plans to foster and enhance multiculturalism not in broad general strokes but in very specific and tangible ways.
With respect to Motion No. 22, in essence it seeks to change very weak wording to very strong and committed wording. Clause 5 of the Bill talks about ministerial obligations. It says the Minister "may" take such measures as the Minister considers appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada, and so on. I propose here, as I have in other areas of the Bill, to change the word "may" to "shall".
Some Members might think that is nit-picking. Some people might think that it is being too particular. I suggest it is not. From the opening paragraph to the closing paragraph of the Bill we have a lot of words which should have been changed to make the Bill more forceful, more secure, more tangible. We should avoid talking about doing something or wanting something done, and instead ensure that it will be done. It has to be seen as an obligation on the part of the Minister to fulfil a number of multiculturalism policies that I concur in. However, if the language suggests that the Minister "may" do it if he or she wants to, then you have a situation where one Minister of one Party will do it and a subsequent Minister of the same Party or of a different Party may not. That leads to inconsistencies and differences in the implementation of programs. The language in the Bill is crucial if we are to maintain consistency, commitment, and national standards.
Motion No. 23 refers to Clause 5 of the Bill which says again the Minister "may" enter into an agreement or arrangement with any province respecting implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. My motion would have the Bill say that the Minister "shall" engage in ongoing dialogue with all provinces and territories respecting implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada and so on.
There are two key points to this motion. The first one concerns changing "may" to "shall". The first conference called by the then Minister, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), was I believe held in 1985. There have been no other meetings since then. It would have been very valuable and productive to have had a commitment to annual meetings of First Ministers on such an important issue. As it was, it was a one-day wonder and nothing was produced. There was no tangible follow up to that meeting. Had there been another set of meetings in 1986, 1987 and again this year there would have been action on a number of priority items. As it was, it was an initiative by one Minister that simply went nowhere.
The second point of my motion concerns the territories. Right now the legislation stops at provinces. I note that the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) is in the


House right now and I applaud him for being here. I ask him to consider adding the word "territories" to the Bill. I ask myself, why leave out two territories when we are talking about a national policy? We sometimes hear calls from the wilderness, if you will, where people feel that they are being left out of the process. There is some justification for that feeling, particularly when we look at the Meech Lake Accord and other issues. This is a case in point. The legislation speaks only to arrangements on multiculturalism with the provinces. I suggest it would be in keeping with this country's history to include the territories in any discussion of multiculturalism.
I hope the Minister and his Government recognize the failure, and I am not saying it was intentional, perhaps oversight is a better word, in leaving the territories out. I ask the Government to remedy that by including the territories in discussions with the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.
The first question is on Motion No. 20 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred. The next question is on Motion No. 22. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen'.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
The next question is on Motion No. 24. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 25. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 26. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
We will resume debate on Motion Nos. 27 and 28.


Sergio Marchi: Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"7.(1) The Minister shall establish a council to advise and assist the Minister on the implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to multiculturalism and the Council shall be constituted as follows:
(a)	to be called "Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Council";
(b)	to consist of 56 members with the following distribution; British Columbia-7, Alberta-4, Saskatchewan-3, Manitoba-4, Ontario-16, Quebec-12, New Brunswick-2, Nova Scotia-2, Prince Edward Island-2, Newfoundland-2, Yukon-1, North West Territories-1;
(c)	to have an executive committee of 1 member from each province;
(d)	to have a membership which reflects the multicultural diversity of Canada;
(e)	appointments to the Council shall be made by order in council from among nominees recommended by organizations of ethnocultural minorities and other organizations working in the area of multiculturalism.
(2)	The members of the Council shall consult with ethnocultural communities in their provinces on a regular basis and transfer grassroots advice to the Minister.
(3)	The Council shall make an annual appearance before the appropriate Committee of the House of Commons.
(4)	The Council shall make an annual report to the Minister and a ministerial response to its report shall be made public.


Abram Ernest Epp: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-93 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out lines 37 to 45 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"7.(1) The Minister shall establish an Advisory Council to assist the Minister and Government in implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
(2) The members of the Advisory Council shall be appointed by order in council from nominees elected by the various ethnocultural communities and national multicultural organizations."


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I would like to address my remarks to Motion No. 27, which is one of the last two amendments at report stage. Motion No. 27 refers to the section in the Bill which addresses the Canadian Multiculturalism Council. The CMC, or the advisory committee, is a body established by the Government to advise the Minister of the


day on issues affecting the multicultural policy of the country. I have proposed a much more description and, I believe, a much more effective direction to the CMC as it now is.
Clause 7(1) of the Bill says:
The Minister may establish an advisory committee to advise and assist the Minister on the implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to multiculturalism and, in consultation with such organizations representing multicultural interests as the Minister deems appropriate, may appoint the members and designate the chairman and other officers thereof.
The language is noncommittal. The word "may" is used which does not commit the Minister to any specific action. A different approach to implementation may be taken by subsequent Ministers, thereby confusing the entire CMC as we know it today.
In addition to proposing in Motion No. 27 that "the Minister shall establish a council to advise and assist the Minister", I go to some length in proposing the shape of the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Council, the number of members, the issue of an executive committee, the fact that the membership should reflect the diversity of the Canadian mosaic, and that appointments should be made from lists submitted by the various organizations across the country in order to ensure that the people appointed to this committee will reflect the diversity which exists in Canada and will be in touch with the communities which they purport to represent.
These amendments reflect the proposals which were made for the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism which the Government rejected.
It is particularly important that we have an executive comprised of one member from each province. This will eliminate having a large organization coming to Ottawa to meet and advise the Minister. I do not think that large numbers are as effective as a smaller group. In Motion No. 27 I suggest that the council be formed of the 56 members which I propose: seven from British Columbia, four from Alberta, three from Saskatchewan, four from Manitoba, 16 from Ontario, 12 from Quebec, two from New Brunswick, two from Nova Scotia, two from Prince Edward Island, two from Newfoundland, one from the Yukon, and one from the Northwest Territories. I recommend that only one member from each province and territory form an executive to come to Ottawa. This will reduce the expense and will enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of that body.
The other important element is that appointments by the Minister to the Canadian Advisory Council on Multiculturalism should be rooted in the large number of organizations which are working on behalf of multiculturalism across the country. It is now alleged, unfortunately, that many of the appointments tend to be very political and partisan. In fact the Vice-President, Mr. Peter McCreath, acknowledged, in a paper to which I will be alluding later, that the current CMC is nothing more than an appendix of the current Government.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
I am not suggesting that that kind of political partisanship did not take place in previous administrations-it did. I am suggesting that we should rise above that in order to appoint people who can enhance and propel the policy of multiculturalism in the future. I am not suggesting that the current membership of the existing CMC is not interested in multiculturalism. However, there is a perception in the country that they tend toward having a political partisan base.
There is a real concern that members who are appointed to this committee to represent one cultural group or community are not known to that group or community. They ask what is the purpose of having a committee of individuals who are not rooted in the actual communities and cultural groups themselves to advise the Minister and the Government. I believe my amendment would attempt to redress that perception which has existed for a number of years. Our obligation is to eradicate that perception. In that way we will build confidence and a positive perception of government institutions.
Motion No. 27 is an attempt to go beyond the proposition in Bill C-93, to make it more of a commitment so that the Minister will, rather than perhaps, appoint a committee. It is an attempt to root the membership from actual membership lists provided by groups and organizations across the country. It provides for a specific membership allotted to the provinces and territories and that there be an executive committee.
If we follow this course, I believe we will be in better tune with the workings of government machinery and in better tune and synchronization with the aspirations of communities across this country.
Hopefully the Government will see the benefit of such a proposition, which was included in the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism which urged the Government to reform the area of the advisory committee in a very real and profound way so as to remove the very negative way many people viewed the appointment of individuals to an important body.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, the last two motions before us for debate deal with the constitution of an advisory body to the Government, particularly to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner). This is a matter of great importance. Given the changes that have occurred in the Bill, presumably on the suggestion of the Minister or the will of government Members, it is particularly important to deal with this matter in a responsible way.
I recognize that the motions with which we were dealing a few moments ago deal with the commitment of the Minister of Multiculturalism's policy and that Conservative caucus members believe the Bill does not need to be strengthened in those areas. However, I want to ask some serious questions of the Minister and seek to persuade him and his colleagues of the possibility of changing their minds on this matter.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
When the Bill first came to the House, Clause 7 read: "The Minister may establish a council to advise and assist the Minister on the implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to multiculturalism". When the committee considered this particular clause in the Bill, the Conservative members, who were the only ones present that afternoon, decided to change "council" to an "advisory committee". Frankly, the logic for that never became clear to me. It might be worth the Minister's taking a few moments to explain why an advisory committee would be a preferable change.
The Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) already referred to the long history of a consultative committee on multiculturalism. It became the multicultural council, and the present council has been advising Ministers for some years. While its members have been reappointed and some new ones added since the Government took office in 1984, there has been a good deal of continuity from its first constitution to the present one. It has been an advisory council throughout this period and, admittedly, it has tended to be perilously close to the Minister's pocket in many ways.
It has rarely said anything in public. I believe the only time the multiculturalism council to the present Government said anything in public was when it decided to, I might say, shoot its mouth off in support of the Government's failure to act on Japanese Canadian redress. Many Canadians would regard that as a rather lamentable statement.
While it has done important things for Government, it has not really lived up to the advisory council nature that one would have expected.
Perhaps the Minister is suggesting that since the council does not do much it may as well be turned into an advisory committee, to make it even more in house. The Member for York West quoted, in a document sent to a previous Minister, the vice-chairman's description of the Canadian Multicultural Council as being all Tories working for the re-election of the Government. I want to say quite advisedly that I do not believe that is true of all the members of the CMC. I am certain some of them are not card-carrying members of the Conservative Party, but are members who are really committed to multiculturalism and for whom the re-election of the Government is less important, if I may say, than the realization of the multicultural policy. I suggest that to change the multiculturalism council to an advisory committee seems a rather serious demotion.
What alternatives exist? We are dealing here with two motions. The Member for York West has spoken well to his proposal. I was involved in the elaboration of that proposal as a member of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. Obviously, I think his motion is quite good.
I chose not to become involved in the details of numbers and constitution concerned with executive committee and so on. As a member of the standing committee I am not withdrawing my support from those detailed proposals with which the standing committee dealt, and will likely support this motion. In my
motion, however, I endeavoured to turn the advisory council to the Minister into a council that would be explicitly advisory to the Minister and to government.
Let me take a moment to read Clause 7 in part as it would read if my motion were accepted. Clause 7(1) would read:
The Minister shall establish an Advisory Council to assist the Minister and Government in implementation of this Act and any other matter relating to the multiculturalism policy of Canada.
Clause 7(2) would read:
The members of the Advisory Council shall be appointed in order in council from nominees elected by the various ethnocultural communities and national multicultural organizations.
There is a deliberate attempt in the first paragraph to establish a body that will be advisory to the whole Government, not simply to the Minister. I think that would make it a more public body than has been true of the consultative councils on multiculturalism before and the present multiculturalism council as such. In considering such a body, we might have an expectation of something like the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. In fact, I thought quite explicitly of that model in another area. In that case, of course, there were national organizations which thought it advisable to have an action committee in communities and nationally to ensure that the Government was sufficiently pressed. However, the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has had research capacity. It has, I believe, a full time chairperson and staff who carry on the work. I think that provides a model which is really far preferable than an advisory committee as presently stated in the Bill.
With respect to the second paragraph, I have been quite concerned to ensure this body would relate to the communities. Whether people were all Liberals in the past and all Conservatives now, and I do not suppose it would be either of those situations, what was, I fear, all too often the case was that persons, for whatever reason-primarily, I suppose, they had to be known to the politicians-did not necessarily translate into being well positioned in the communities and well aware of what the people wanted. There was in fact quite a real danger that the persons who made up this so-called advisory council to Government were not equipped in their experience and involvement to be the best of advisers to Government.
Therefore in both of these motions, and in the report of the standing committee, there is an attempt to ensure that these persons will be nominated by the communities and, of course, appointed by Order in Council of the Government of Canada to constitute such an advisory body. In fact, in the case of the Manitoba Intercultural Council there is precisely such a body. The majority of the members of the Manitoba Intercultural Council are in fact members of that council on precisely this basis. That ensures that the council is well grounded in the communities and equipped to speak for them, which I think is the all important thing.


I hope the Minister may comment at least briefly on his own vision of the advisory committee. If the arguments my colleague and I have been making for a different structure were to impress him, perhaps he would be interested in taking up one or the other proposal as he has done once or twice already this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question is on Motion No. 27.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 28.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions at report stage of the Bill now before the House.
The first question is on Motion No. 7.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on Motion No. 7, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 452)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on a point of order.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I believe there would be a disposition to apply the vote that has just been held to all subsequent motions and, in reverse, to the concurrence motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


An Hon. Member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis).


Nelson Andrew Riis: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I assumed that we would be applying the results of the vote to all subsequent motions at report stage as well as applying it in reverse order to the concurrence motion.
However, if that is not the case, we ought to have another vote on the concurrence motion. Our intention would be to apply this vote to all of the subsequent ones, including the concurrence motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Consequently, the vote which has just been taken will be applied to Motions Nos. 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. For the concurrence motion we will be using the same vote but in reverse. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


An Hon. Member:: No.
The House divided on Motion No. 8, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 453)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Crofton	FennellBlenkarn	Dantzer	FontaineBrowes	Darling	FraleighCharest	Duplessis	FriesenCochrane	Edwards	GirardCooper	Ellis	GormleyGottselig	MacDougall	ScottGraham	(Timiskaming)	(Victoria-Haliburton)Greenaway	Mailly	ScottGustafson	McDermid	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Halliday	Nicholson	StackhouseHardey	(Niagara Falls)	StewartHarvey	Nickerson	TaylorHockin	Oberle	ThackerJardine	O'Neil	TupperJepson	Oostrom	Van De WalleKempling	Pennock	VincentLadouceur	Peterson	WeinerLanthier	Pietz	WenmanLayton	Plourde	WhiteLewis	Reid	WilsonMacDonald	Reimer	(Swift Current(Kingston and	Ricard	-Maple Creek)-63the Islands)	St-Julien	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 10, which was negatived	
on the following division: (Division No. 454)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	Stackhouse
Duplessis
Edwards
Ellis
Fennell
Fontaine
Fraleigh
Friesen
Girard
Gormley
Gottselig
Graham
Greenaway
Gustafson
Halliday
Hardey
Harvey
(Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly McDermid Nicholson (Niagara Falls) Nickerson Oberle O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde
Stewart
Taylor
Thacker
Tupper
Van De Walle
Vincent
Weiner
Wenman
White
Wilson
(Swift Current
-Maple Creek)-63


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.


The House divided on Motion No. 12, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 455)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 14, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 456)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand
Axworthy
Baker
Caccia
Copps
de Jong
Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone Foster Gauthier
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Kaplan
Langdon
MacLellan
Marchi
McCurdy
	Canadian Multiculturalism Act	
Mitchell	Riis	
Orlikow	Robichaud	
Pepin	Skelly	
Prud'homme	Waddell-24
 NAYS Members	
Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 15,	which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 457)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Fennell	HarveyBlenkarn	Fontaine	HockinBrowes	Fraleigh	JardineCharest	Friesen	JepsonCochrane	Girard	KemplingCooper	Gormley	LadouceurCrofton	Gottselig	LanthierDantzer	Graham	LaytonDarling	Greenaway	LewisDuplessis	Gustafson	MacDonaldEdwards	Halliday	(Kingston andEllis	Hardey	the Islands)
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
MacDougall (Timiskaming)	Plourde Reid	Tupper Van De Walle	{Division No. 459)	Mailly	Reimer	Vincent	McDermid	Ricard	Weiner	YEAS	Nicholson	St-Julien	Wenman	(Niagara Falls)	Scott	White	Nickerson	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Wilson	Members	Oberle	Scott	(Swift Current	O'Neil	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	-Maple Creek)-63	Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz	Stackhouse Stewart Taylor Thacker	Allmand Axworthy Baker Caccia	Foster Gauthier Guilbault (Saint-Jacques)	Orlikow Pepin Prud'homme Riis


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Copps de Jong	Kaplan Langdon	Robichaud Skellymotion lost.	Epp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	The House divided on Motion No. 17, on the following division:	which was negatived	Nipigon) Finestone	McCurdy Mitchell	NAYS	{Division No. 458)	Members	YEAS	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerMembers	Browes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienAllmand	Cochrane	Ladouceur	ScottFoster	Orlikow	Cooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Axworthy	Gauthier	Pepin	Crofton	Layton	ScottBaker	Guilbault	Prud'homme	Dantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Caccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Riis	Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseCopps	Kaplan	Robichaud	Duplessis	(Kingston and	Stewartde Jong	Langdon	Skelly	Edwards	the Islands)	TaylorEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24	Ellis	MacDougall	Thacker(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Fennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperNipigon)	McCurdy	Fontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFinestone	Mitchell	Fraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerNAYS	Girard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonMembers	Graham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Belsher	Hockin	Reid	Halliday	Peterson	Blenkarn	Jardine	Reimer	Hardey	Pietz	Browes	Jepson	Ricard	Harvey	Plourde	Charest	Kempling	St-Julien	Cochrane Cooper Crofton	Ladouceur Lanthier Layton	Scott (Victoria-Haliburton) Scott	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	Dantzer Darling	Lewis MacDonald	(Hamilton-Wentworth) Stackhouse	The House divided on Motion No. 20, which was negatived	Duplessis Edwards	(Kingston and the Islands)	Stewart Taylor	on the following division:	Ellis	MacDougall	Thacker	Fennell	(Timiskaming)	Tupper	Fontaine Fraleigh	Mailly McDermid	Van De Walle Vincent	{Division No. 460)	Friesen	Nicholson	Weiner	Girard	(Niagara Falls)	Wenman	YEAS	Gormley	Nickerson	White	Gottselig	Oberle	Wilson	Graham	O'Neil	(Swift Current	Members	Greenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63	Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Allmand	Hardey	Pietz	Foster	OrlikowHarvey	Plourde	Axworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'homme


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Caccia Copps	(Saint-Jacques) Kaplan	Riis Robichaudmotion lost.	de Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24The House divided on Motion No. 18, which was negatived on the following division:	(Thunder Bay- Nipigon) Finestone	Marchi McCurdy Mitchell	
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
NAYS	McDermid	Reimer	Van De WalleNicholson	Ricard	Vincent(Niagara Falls)	St-Julien	WeinerMembers	Nickerson	Scott	WenmanOberle	(Victoria-Haliburton)	WhiteO'Neil	Scott	WilsonOostrom	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	(Swift CurrentBelsher	Hockin	Reid	Pennock	Stackhouse	-Maple Creek)-63Blenkarn	Jardine	Reimer	Peterson	Stewart	Browes	Jepson	Ricard	Pietz	Taylor	Charest	Kempling	St-Julien	Plourde	Thacker	Cochrane	Ladouceur	Scott	Reid	Tupper	Cooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)	Crofton Dantzer	Layton Lewis	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)	The Acting	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	Darling	MacDonald	Stackhouse	motion lost.	Duplessis	(Kingston and	Stewart	Edwards	the Islands)	Taylor	The House divided on Motion No. 22,	which was negativedEllis Fennell	MacDougall (Timiskaming)	Thacker Tupper	on the following division:	Fontaine	Mailly	Van De Walle	Fraleigh	McDermid	Vincent	Friesen Girard	Nicholson (Niagara Falls)	Weiner Wenman	(Division No. 462)	Gormley	Nickerson	White	Gottselig	Oberle	Wilson	YEAS	Graham	O'Neil	(Swift Current	Greenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63	Gustafson Halliday Hardey Harvey	Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde	Allmand	Members	
Foster	Orlikow


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	Axworthy Baker	Gauthier Guilbault	Pepin Prud'hommemotion lost.	Caccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	RobichaudThe House divided on Motion No. 21, on the following division:	which was negatived	de Jong Epp (Thunder Bay-	Langdon MacLellan Marchi	Skelly Waddell-24Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	(Division No. 461)	NAYS	YEAS	Members	Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerAllmand	Foster	Orlikow	Browes	Jepson	RicardAxworthy	Gauthier	Pepin	Charest	Kempling	St-JulienBaker	Guilbault	Prud'homme	Cochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	Riis	Cooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Copps	Kaplan	Robichaud	Crofton	Layton	Scottde Jong	Langdon	Skelly	Dantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Epp	MacLellan	Waddell-24	Darling	MacDonald	Stackhouse(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Duplessis	(Kingston and	StewartNipigon)	McCurdy	Edwards	the Islands)	TaylorFinestone	Mitchell	Ellis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperNAYS	Fontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerMembers	Girard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonBelsher Blenkarn Browes Charest Cochrane Cooper	Fontaine Fraleigh Friesen Girard Gormley Gottselig	Jardine Jepson Kempling Ladouceur Lanthier Layton	Graham Greenaway Gustafson Halliday Hardey Harvey	O'Neil Oostrom Pennock Peterson Pietz Plourde	(Swift Current -Maple Creek)-63Crofton	Graham	Lewis	Dantzer	Greenaway	MacDonald	The Acting	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	Darling	Gustafson	(Kingston and	motion lost.	Duplessis	Halliday	the Islands)	Edwards Ellis Fennell	Hardey Harvey Hockin	MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly	The House divided on Motion No. 23, on the following division:	which was negatived
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
{.Division No. 463)
++NAYS
++YEAS
Members
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	
The House divided on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:
The next question is on Motion No. 24, which was negatived on the following division:
Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 25,	which was negatived
on the following division: {Division No. 465)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	
++NAYS
Members
(Division No. 464)
	YEAS
	Members
Allmand	Foster
Axworthy	Gauthier
Baker	Guilbault
Caccia	(Saint-Jacques)
Copps	Kaplan
de Jong	Langdon
Epp	MacLellan
(Thunder Bay-	Marchi
Nipigon) Finestone	McCurdy Mitchell
Orlikow	Belsher Blenkarn Browes Charest Cochrane Cooper Crofton Dantzer
Pepin	Darling
Prud'homme	Duplessis
Riis	Edwards
Robichaud	Ellis
Skelly	Fennell
Waddell-24	Fontaine
	Fraleigh Friesen Girard
Gormley	MacDonald
Gottselig	(Kingston and
Graham	the Islands)
Greenaway	MacDougall
Gustafson	(Timiskaming)
Halliday	Mailly
Hardey	McDermid
Harvey	Nicholson
Hockin	(Niagara Falls)
Jardine	Nickerson
Jepson	Oberle
Kempling	O'Neil
Ladouceur	Oostrom
Lanthier	Pennock
Layton	Peterson
Lewis	Pietz Plourde


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Reid	Stackhouse	WenmanReimer	Stewart	WhiteRicard	Taylor	WilsonSt-Julien	Thacker	(Swift CurrentScott	Tupper	-Maple Creek)-63(Victoria-Haliburton)	Van De Walle	Scott	Vincent	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Weiner


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 26, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 466)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	NAYS	Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the	
motion lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 27, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 467)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell
NAYS Members	Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde	The Acting motion lost.	Speaker (Mrs. Champagne): I declare the	The House divided on Motion No. 28,	which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 468)
 YEAS Members		
Allmand	Foster	OrlikowAxworthy	Gauthier	PepinBaker	Guilbault	Prud'hommeCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	RiisCopps	Kaplan	Robichaudde Jong	Langdon	SkellyEpp	MacLellan	Waddell-24(Thunder Bay-	Marchi	Nipigon)	McCurdy	Finestone	Mitchell	
Canadian Multiculturalism Act

	Members	
Belsher	Hockin	ReidBlenkarn	Jardine	ReimerBrowes	Jepson	RicardCharest	Kempling	St-JulienCochrane	Ladouceur	ScottCooper	Lanthier	(Victoria-Haliburton)Crofton	Layton	ScottDantzer	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Darling	MacDonald	StackhouseDuplessis	(Kingston and	StewartEdwards	the Islands)	TaylorEllis	MacDougall	ThackerFennell	(Timiskaming)	TupperFontaine	Mailly	Van De WalleFraleigh	McDermid	VincentFriesen	Nicholson	WeinerGirard	(Niagara Falls)	WenmanGormley	Nickerson	WhiteGottselig	Oberle	WilsonGraham	O'Neil	(Swift CurrentGreenaway	Oostrom	-Maple Creek)-63Gustafson	Pennock	Halliday	Peterson	Hardey	Pietz	Harvey	Plourde


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion lost.

Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications), on
behalf of the Secretary of State, moved that Bill C-93, an Act for the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada, be concurred in as amended.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister of State on a point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, who ever said that the Official Opposition never co-operates in helping process legislation in an easy fashion?


Finlay MacDonald: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Madam Speaker, I rise today with great pleasure to participate in the final stages of the debate of Bill C-93, the Canadian multiculturalism Bill. I want to tell you how proud I am to be the Minister of State for Multiculturalism during the final passage of this historic Bill.
This is a world-class Bill. It is a first of its kind. It is the solemn recognition by the Parliament of Canada on behalf of all Canadians of the fundamental importance of multiculturalism in our society. It gives concrete expression to the multicultural guarantee contained in Section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are so many people I could thank for their work, foresight, and dedication in making this Bill possible, but I would like to single out two of them in particular: Mr. George Corn, immediate Past President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council-


Marcel Prud'homme: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Hear, hear!


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -whose steadfast dedication for so many years has been an inspiration to so many, and David Crombie who, as Secretary of State, introduced the Bill on December 1 last-


Marcel Prud'homme: A great guy; he was too good and that is why he left.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I think you would find consent for third reading to proceed immediately. I have discussed it with the other Parties, and I think that there may be Members who wish to address this matter beyond the hour of ten o'clock. We have agreed not to see the clock at 10 p.m.
We have also agreed that if a recorded division is demanded, such recorded division would be deferred until 3 p.m. tomorrow, and that there will be no quorum calls during that time. In the event that the proceedings should finish before 10 p.m., there would be no further business called by the Government and we would call it 10 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The House has heard the suggestions of the Hon. Minister of State. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis on a point of order.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: -and whose vision of being Canadian is a vision which encompasses us all.
I have followed the debate on Bill C-93 from its introduction to today. I have been impressed by the thoughtfulness of the many witnesses who came before the legislative committee. I have also been impressed by the thoughtfulness of the hundreds, yes, thousands of Canadians who have written both to me and to my predecessor. Underlying those submissions was the recognition that now was the time for the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
Now is the the time for the Parliament of Canada to come together to recognize the multicultural reality of this nation and to celebrate our multicultural heritage.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a Bill that provides an approach to multiculturalism based on co-operation, incentive, consensus and choice. We have before us a Bill that is a solemn recognition of what we are building together, all of us, in this great country of ours.


My appearance before the Legislative Committee at the beginning of April was one of my first official functions as Minister of State (Multiculturalism). On that occasion I indicated my intention of working with the Committee to improve and reinforce the Bill and make it more understandable to all Canadians. That is exactly what the Committee has done. It has reinforced the Bill, from the preamble down to the very last clause.

We were searching for the best way of expressing in this Bill our belief that multiculturalism is part and parcel of our Canadian identity and heritage. I feel that we settled on the best wording, that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of our heritage and our evolving identity.
We sought a way to make even stronger the system of parliamentary accountability which is at the heart of this Bill.
I think we found that way by the amendment that the Government of Canada and all its institutions shall undertake their responsibilities relative to the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. This one simple amendment gives concrete force to the commitment of the whole of the Government of Canada. We have not needed to resort to complex technicalities to deal with what was basically a very simple problem. As I have said, we will have in this Bill a very forceful parliamentary accountability process for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada. The combination of a Minister directly responsible to Parliament, clearer and more direct obligations for all Ministers and all federal institutions, a professional full-time departmental secretariat, a strengthened ministerial advisory committee, and a key scrutiny role for the standing committee make for a powerful, effective, yet co-operative approach to multiculturalism.
All across our nation Canadians are supporting Bill C-93. They see a Government that has listened and has worked to improve this Bill. They see a Government that is reaching out to all Canadians, offering everyone the vision of a new and stronger Canada. Just last week the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, whose members were all here today and may still be here, I hope, voiced enthusiastic support for this Bill and its speedy passage. They support this Bill because we worked cooperatively with them to strengthen it. This is what accountability to Parliament is all about. We have just proved that this Bill works. It works right now.
Some of my colleagues across the aisle still want some kind of formal commissioner with broad coercive powers. They seek to transplant an organizational model that suits one setting into new ground. What they have failed to recognize is the fundamentally different situation for the implementation of the multiculturalism policy in Canada in comparison with putting in force the Official Languages Act and carrying out the protection of fundamental human rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Human Rights Act, where the aim is to remedy breaches of legally established individual rights.

Mr. Speaker, the implementation of the multiculturalism policy will build upon many of the above-mentioned factors. Many of the problems Canadians face involve discrimination based on race, colour, and national or ethnic origin, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been mandated to meet those problems head-on. The Commitee amended the preamble to Bill C-93 to remind Canadians of the importance of the role of the Commission in the fight against discrimination.

This Bill encompasses a broad line of commitments, commitments which start in the preamble itself, which are expanded upon and given reality in the broad policy commitments contained in Clause 3(1) of the Bill, and which are made specific obligations for federal institutions in Clause 3(2). The Bill contains a very clear system of responsibilities and accountability for me as Minister and for every one of my ministerial colleagues. That accountability system is to the Parliament of Canada.
1 do not feel we need import into this very clear system an external compliance and monitoring agency. Such would be contrary to the very spirit of this Bill. This Bill is about the primacy of Parliament, and surely we in Parliament can monitor our own affairs. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are serious about the very heart and specific commitments that we are making. That is why I was delighted to announce that we will be spending $192 million over the next five years to implement the new directions of the multiculturalism policy of Canada, an increase of $62 million in new funds for multiculturalism.
I have reoriented the programs of the multiculturalism sector to reflect the major themes of the Bill. Three areas are paramount:	race relations and cultural understanding;
heritage, cultures, and languages; and community support programs. That is also why I am establishing a multiculturalism secretariat to assist other federal Departments and agencies to implement the multiculturalism policy and to assist me in my important duty of reporting to Parliament on its implementation.
In our first Speech from the Throne delivered in the autumn of 1984 we identified certain key priorities. Two very important ones were, and remain, national reconciliation and social justice. This Bill before us today is about both these objectives. National reconciliation is all about being Canadian together. We can achieve our dreams. The Canadian multiculturalism Bill is part of this process.
This Bill is also about social justice. It stands as a landmark of a positive and pro-active approach to equality rights. We already have in the Charter, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the employment equity legislation, a powerful set of anti-


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
discrimination instruments, but we need a pro-active policy approach by the Government on behalf of all Canadians to break down the barriers and misunderstandings that have sometimes kept us apart. That is provided in the Canadian multiculturalism Bill.
We pledge to ensure that federal boards and agencies reflect the multicultural reality of our society. We have kept that promise. In a little over three years we have doubled the number of ethnocultural appointments to important positions on boards, commissions, and agencies of the Government of Canada. We introduced the first numerical objectives for the Public Service for the hiring of visible minorities to strengthen and complement our existing programs for women, disabled persons, and aboriginal peoples. Our employment equity legislation and policies have taken our priority of social justice into the workplace.
Equality of participation is our objective throughout federal jurisdiction: the Public Service, federal contractors, and federally-regulated industries. This Government has been opened up to cultural and racial minorities as never before, and we shall continue to do so. That is fairness and it is a major step toward equality of opportunity, toward social justice, and toward national reconciliation, the things which were and remain key priorities.

Mr. Speaker, we are crossing the threshold of a new era within our federation. We are also entering into a new era in international relations. The years to come will reveal unprecedented perspectives of growth, prosperity and peace.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is another symbol of that new era. It sets the tone. It recognizes our diverse origins, the fact that we and our ancestors come from the four corners of the earth, and it charts the course to be followed by all Canadians.

During the second reading debate on this Bill, the Hon. David Crombie quoted Dr. Barbara Ward, the noted British economist who has described Canada as the world's first international nation. I would like to take a moment to reflect on what that really means. It means that Canada is in essence a microcosm of the world. Other nations look to us for leadership in the areas of human rights and equality rights.
The passage of this Bill will send a signal to every corner of the globe that Canada truly is a land of equality and opportunity. We will show clearly that Canada is a land which respects and cherishes individual liberty and allows every person the freedom to cherish and maintain his or her own heritage.

Mr. Speaker, it is with confidence that I call on all Canadian men and women to support the ideals and the principles set
forth in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. They reflect the cultural and racial diversity of our society; they show both where we have come from, and our course for the future.

This Bill is about co-operation and building together. It is about what makes Canada a very special nation. It is about our future.
The debate on this Bill is drawing to a close in the House of Commons, and I call on all Members from both sides of the aisle to join with me in affirming the principles of this Bill and in supporting this historic piece of legislation. I hope the Members of the other place will give this Bill speedy passage so that very soon the Canadian Multiculturalism Act will be law.
We are a nation of peoples from all corners of the globe. We believe in living together and working together as a family of individuals, and we are secure in our diversity. We are proud of our equality and we are confident in our future.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I also am very proud to speak on this Bill tonight because the principle expressed in this Bill is very important for our whole nation, for all the regions of our country and for all Canadian citizens who come from all over the world. It is a Bill which is very agreeable to many people throughout the country, but it is a Bill that this Parliament had the opportunity to improve, to strengthen by amendments, and thus to establish as a very sound piece of legislation which we can be proud of and which will guarantee multiculturalism a permanent future in this country.

I too am pleased to speak on third reading stage of Bill C-93, the Canadian multiculturalism Bill because the principle and the concept which underlie the multiculturalism Bill is one that I believe all Members from all sides of the House subscribe to and will defend and promote. However, the Bill could have and should have been made better.
This multiculturalism Bill was a window of opportunity that would have provided this Parliament, and particularly this Government, with the opportunity to listen to Members of the House of Commons, to members of the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism who tabled a unanimous report, and to the multitude of organizations which came before the Government and the committee to request and demand a number of things that would create the national fabric of multiculturalism in a piece of legislation.
While I agree with the principles and the concepts of the Bill, and while I certainly agree with some fundamental parts of it, I believe very sincerely and deeply that this Government to a certain degree missed an opportunity to try to deliver a piece of legislation that would have captured the imaginations


and furthered the aspirations of the current generation of Canadians and would have protected and embodied that enthusiastic support for future generations of Canadian citizens.
Bill C-93 is not a new initiative. It is not a unique undertaking. It had its roots and its beginnings in Bill C-84 which was introduced in the last Parliament and unfortunately died on the Order Paper after first reading because of the impending election. It was introduced by the then Liberal Minister, the Hon. David Collenette. It was not the entire answer. I admit and recognize that, and I have said so in debate in committee and in Parliament in the last number of years. Yet it was an important first step toward recognizing the need for an independent, comprehensive, strong and vibrant multicultural-ism Bill which would provide a legislative framework around policies and programs. It would provide that the policies and programs could not be here today and gone tomorrow with another Government. Somehow, they would become part of the legislative foundation upon which this country is built.
I believe the proof of that innovative idea of 1984 was that after the 1984 election, the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the then Minister, sent Bill C-84 across Canada to various organizations and communities. He asked them for their input so that together we could build upon the strength of the 1984 legislation and try to correct the weaknesses.
It has been almost four years since this administration took office. This Bill provided the first opportunity we have had to discuss a major undertaking in multiculturalism policy. It has taken quite a while. It has taken almost the entire mandate of this Government to bring this Bill to fruition through a number of successive Ministers.
Beyond the speeches and rhetoric that come along with being an elected representative, beyond the speeches we hear from government Ministers who go across the land to various functions and picnics, I ask myself, as many other Canadians are asking themselves: "What other new directions have been taken in enhancing multiculturalism in the last four years?" What new initiative or expansion of existing programs was announced by the Government in 1984 when it assumed the national leadership of our country? I ask the Government how far the cause of multiculturalism has been advanced beyond what it found when it assumed office?
The answers to those questions go beyond the debate which has taken place over the last number of hours today and the second reading debate some months ago. Apart from that, however, I think there has been a vacuum in innovative and creative leadership on our multicultural policy that has been caused in part by the revolving door of Ministers we have seen in this portfolio during the four years of Conservative government. First, the Hon. Member for Lisgar assumed the portfolio, followed by the Hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek), then the former Member for Rosedale, and now the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
current Minister from Montreal. That revolving door of Ministers has not engendered confidence among Canadians in this policy, or encouraged consistency. Each new Minister has different priorities which he or she wishes to pursue. That has not made for a very strong, consistent, or effective multiculturalism policy over the last four years.
I believe the successes of the Conservative Government in multiculturalism policies have been very few and far between. The Government has essentially tried to put its own brand on the directorate and failed. The Hon. Member for Lisgar had his difficulties. The Hon. Member for Halton wanted to introduce a "multiculturalism means business" policy and that did not fly.
Compare all that to previous Governments. Some people have asked why the Bill was not brought in earlier. That is a good question. Why was this not done earlier? Yet if we look at the record of previous Governments and the evolution of the various programs affecting multiculturalism, it speaks to a certain commitment and momentum that went beyond rhetoric.
For example, the first multiculturalism policy was enunciated in this House in 1971 by then Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In 1972 we saw the first Minister of State for Multiculturalism appointed. In 1973 was established the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, the first advisory body to the federal Government on issues pertaining to multiculturalism. Then we had the cabinet decision to offer financial assistance to the performing and visual arts programs and projects. We had creation of the intercultural communications program, creation of the writing and publication program, and creation of the Canadian ethnic studies program.
In 1977 we saw the cultural enrichment program approved by Cabinet. In 1981 we had the first national conference on immigrant women, held in Saskatoon. There was the first national conference on heritage languages. The first national conference on multicultural heritage and education was held in Winnipeg. In 1981 we saw establishment of multicultural centres to allow individual ethnocultural communities to share resources and expertise and also help the voluntary sector organizations working in the area of cross-cultural communications.
In 1981 the Government included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms Section 15 which prohibited discrimination because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, or religion. Then of course there was Section 77 which ensured that the Charter would always recognize the multicultural heritage of Canadians. Also in 1981 we saw the national program to combat racism and a new race relations unit was established.
In 1982 Cabinet approved a doubling of the budget from $11.4 million to $25.4 million to allow for new initiatives and new programs in the social development area and to augment support for cultural retention. There was also the first national symposium on race relations and the law held in Vancouver. The first national conference on minorities and the media was


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
held in Toronto. There were guidelines issued on representative depiction of cultural diversity in the advertising of all government Departments, and funds provided for special training courses for visible minority Canadians in co-operation with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
In 1983 the then Minister responsible for multiculturalism introduced a notice of motion for the appointment of a special all-Party parliamentary task force on the participation of visible minority Canadians in Canadian society, to examine the situation of visible minorities and to look for constructive ways of improving race relations. That was approved by Parliament in June of 1983. Following that, we had the report Equality Now, tabled in March of 1984, and the Government response was tabled in June of that same year.
To go back to 1983, the Liberal Cabinet reaffirmed its commitment to cultural retention by tripling the funding and providing for inflationary increases for heritage language funding. New moneys allowed for the production of Canadian teaching materials as well.
Then we had the establishment of the national resource centre for heritage language at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. There was the announcement of a strategy for inclusion of visible minority Canadians in the affirmative action programs of the Public Service, by the then President of the Treasury Board.
In 1984 there was new emphasis on making all sectors of Canadian society more aware of the multicultural reality which is Canada. There was a national conference focusing on business, communications, and culture. Encouraged by the then Minister, the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board established an informal referral service to advise members on the use of visible minorities in the general field and profession of advertising. New moneys were allocated and funds spent for visible minorities in a disadvantaged position as a result of institutional discrimination and racial biases. Then of course, as I mentioned, there was introduction of the multiculturalism Bill, as well as Criminal Code amendments to strengthen legislation against dissemination of hate propaganda in Canada.
Also in 1984, in co-operation with chiefs of police, there was the first national symposium on policing in a multicultural, multiracial society, held in Vancouver. The Cabinet at that time committed a further $5 million endowment to serve as a continuing and dynamic memorial to the courage and perseverance of the nisei generation of the Japanese-Canadian community, and to support initiatives developed by concerned Canadians to combat systematic racism in our society.
That, briefly and not all encompassing, is an example of what I meant by the evolution and building up of multiculturalism policy by previous Governments. I believe that exercise of establishing a foundation and building upon it has not occurred in the last four years of the current Government, until this piece of legislation was brought forward. Why?
Before the last election it was very clear that the then Opposition had very ambitious programs, projects, promises, and dreams for multiculturalism policy.
In fact, on June 2 at a major conference in Toronto, the then Opposition Leader, today's Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the first Minister responsible for multiculturalism under the 1984 administration, made 46 different promises in the field of multiculturalism. They talked about cultural retention, the maintenance of liaison between government officials and the directorate, a review, increased funding, and new programs. As I look at the list of promises made, I ask myself how many of these promises were acted upon.
At that particular conference the Hon. Member for Lisgar committed that if he were to become the Minister the budget of the multiculturalism directorate would be doubled. As we debated the Estimates in 1985, 1986, and 1987 we saw that the budgets were, in some cases, lower than in previous years.
The lack of follow-up on promises cannot be better depicted than by the Japanese Canadian redress issue. The then Leader of the Opposition, the present Prime Minister, on the last day of the previous administration in Question Period, criticized the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for not having gone far enough on the issue of Japanese Canadian redress. The then Opposition Leader made it a national issue, not only by raising it in the national forum but by committing himself, his Party, and his government-to-be to a process of negotiation, apology, and compensation which went beyond what the Government of 1984 was prepared to deliver. He made that a campaign issue and raised it at various campaign stops.
For four years since then the promise has been continuously avoided and ignored. At no time, for instance, did the Prime Minister meet with the National Association of Japanese Canadians despite calls, letters, and urgings from Ministers and members of the Opposition to indicate that he would have been able to offer some mobilization, some encouragement to break the log-jam which has existed for the last four years.
The first Minister of multiculturalism, the Hon. Member for Lisgar, promised negotiations when he came into office and then backed away preferring to hide behind discussions. The Hon. Member for Halton was Minister of State for Multiculturalism at the time. When he addressed this issue it seemed to me that he was more interested in trying to divide that community and in moving away from the commitment made to negotiate with the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Rather than doing that, there were questions about whether the NAJC was the dutifully elected body to speak on behalf of the Japanese Canadian community.
We then had the former Member of Parliament for Rose-dale who brought an informal and gutsy approach to his service in this Parliament. I have a great deal of respect for him. In his capacity as Mayor of the City of Toronto he


captured, to a certain degree, the imagination of his generation in the sixties and seventies. Ele brought that refreshing attitude to this Parliament. However, when all the dust had settled on the issue of Japanese Canadian redress, the matter was not moved ahead. It was stagnating in a corner of Canada's Parliament. The current Minister is the fourth Minister to initiate discussions on Japanese Canadian redress.
I am not suggesting that the previous administration was pure on this issue. I disagreed with the previous administration's conclusion about redressing the past. I have tried, in my capacity as a Member and as the critic on multiculturalism for the Liberal Party, to overcome that position. I have tried to send the message that political Parties are able to change, are able to recognize that the policies of a previous time are not meeting the needs and aspirations of the current citizenry and leadership within the Japanese Canadian community. We were prepared to move.
However, the real issue is with the current administration. The previous administration, rightly or wrongly, took a position and defended it. This administration, led by the Prime Minister, took one position before the election and a different position for four years running. There is a question in terms of the acknowledgement, apology, and compensation, and then there is the process. The substance was never given an opportunity to materialize because there was no legitimate process allowed for that substance to be agreed upon.
I tell the Prime Minister, as rumours about an impending election circulate around the country and certainly around this Chamber, that it would do honour, not only to this Government but to this Parliament, to try to put behind us a very sad and sorry chapter in Canadian history, to try to recognize that injustice and to enable the 10,000 to 12,000 Canadians of Japanese ancestry who survive from that time to see the day when the pain in their bodies and souls will, to a certain degree, be eradicated.
I suggest that the process must be given a chance in order for a solution to be reached. The Minister and the National Association of Japanese Canadians must meet and set out the parameters. That must be followed up by negotiations with officials from both parties. Those officials must then go back to their respective organizations and analyse what happened during the bargaining session. The Minister and the national association must then come back together and try to resolve the differences which may still exist.
If there are still differences at that time, the Prime Minister should be involved in order to try to overcome the hurdles and the gulf between the NAJC and the Conservative Minister of multiculturalism. If that is not satisfactory we should consider a third party, be it a committee of this House or a one or two-person commission.
I understand the frustration with yet further study, further commissions, and further committees. However, we need to resolve this issue. It is simply too important to allow it to languish on the Order Paper, in the corridors, and in the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
endless meetings which have taken place on this issue. This is one issue which must be resolved. It points to the lack of leadership and commitment which has symbolized the multicultural policy of the Government.
Another aspect which deals with resolve and commitment is that of funding for the Department of Multiculturalism. Within a conference back in June, 1984, the Government of the day was saying that immediately upon assuming office it would double the budget of the multiculturalism directorate as did the Liberal Government in the mid-1980s. It was the smallest directorate of any federal Department, with an expenditure of $24 million or $1 per year per person on a per capita basis.
In this year's Estimates we were debating expenditures of a Department that had less moneys granted it this year in the Estimates than in 1985 or 1986. Not only did the Government fail to keep up with the cost of inflation, it failed to keep up with real money from previous years. In the last three to four years communities have pleaded with the Government and expressed their concerns. Members of the Opposition and government members on the standing committee have urged the Government for more funding.
Suddenly, with rumours of an impending election, the Minister has decided to increase the budget. That increase does not necessarily take place this year, but it is a commitment by Parliament for the next five years. Suddenly the Government will increase the funding.
Some may ask why we are complaining if this answers our concerns and the community and the Department are promised more money by the Government. Our complaint is that the budget of this Department continues to be hooked to the rollercoaster cart of an election. For some years the Department's budgets were smaller than those of the previous years. We argued against this in the House and in committee as well as throughout the country. It is quite a coincidence that suddenly the budget is increased right before a general election. The fact that this increase is a commitment by Parliament for five further years is unsatisfactory. I do not know of many other Departments that receive their financial backing in such a manner.
We have argued for a continuing, secure and encompassing set of financial resources to build the infrastructure of a Department that will not have to languish for four years with a budget that increases during election time and comes down the roller-coaster on the other side of the election. That does nothing for program delivery, for efficiency, or for the confidence Canadians will have in a Department that is well run and well managed.
The same can be said for the recent announcement increasing the advertising budgets for the third language media. The third language media plays a significant and increasing role in trying to bring the works of the federal Government and


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Parliament closer to the readers of their newspapers and to the audiences of multilingual and multicultural radio and television programming. They have been complaining for a number of years about cut-backs by the Government in terms of advertising and that the money has been going primarily to English and French media. They have been complaining that there should be advertisement from all federal government Departments rather than simply the federal multiculturalism Department. The Government has ignored these complaints for three and a half years. Suddenly, again by coincidence, a few weeks ago at a major conference in Toronto the money was found to increase third language media advertising.
I am not arguing against further increases. I am not arguing that those important media outlets should not receive Government support like other newspapers and radio and television stations. I am asking that we try to stop delivering funding to the multicultural portfolio in that fashion, to get away from the short-term frills to buy favour with various constituencies at election time, and to replace it with a more long-term, genuine and comprehensive budget that will probably do more, even if the funds are smaller, than those promised during an impending election.
Not only would we have a program and a Department that could build upon its success, it would go a long way in removing the emotional cynicism that exists in certain quarters of this country about the role of a federal multiculturalism policy. One cannot put a price on the kind of educational direction that would attempt to convert those who may be suspicious of the value and advantage of such a policy.
That confidence was not engendered by the actions of some members of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council, an advisory group of individuals who give of their time and their energies to try to promote and enhance a multiculturalism policy. For the most part, they do a very credible and proud job.
However, that confidence was not instilled when, on February 24, 1986, the Deputy Chairman of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council, Mr. Peter McCreath, wrote a confidential memorandum to the then Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the present Minister of Supply and Services. He basically admitted from his own perception that the Canadian Multiculturalism Council was nothing more than an outreach of the Conservative Government. Clearly, that is not its role.
He stated on page 2 of his memorandum that there were three strains of commonality among the members of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council: "One of them is that they are all committed supporters of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism".
He went on to say: "Our voluntary commitment to the Government and our wish to see it survive beyond the next general election together gives us the luxury of being able to assess the situation and present our recommendations solely in
the context of what we truly believe is in the best interest of Canada and of the Conservative Government of the day".
As if that were not enough, he said: "Whatever weaknesses may be inherent in any recommendation to government from the CMC, they at least reflect and form advice and opinion from a selection of the Government's principal supporters across Canada".
That advisory committee to the Government of Canada is there to mobilize that assistance and advice, to percolate those ideas and aspirations from the grass root community organizations and various cultural constituencies across the country. That kind of manipulation, promotion and position by that advisory council is an abuse. That is not the purpose of the CMC. It is not there to protect and support, at any cost and at any interest, the particular political expediencies of one particular Party. The Canadian Multiculturalism Council exists to advise the Government on the best policy of multiculturalism. Yet, when individuals like the Deputy Vice-Chairman articulates very clearly, not once, twice, but three times, in the body of his memo that he considers the CMC as principal supporters of the Conservative Party there is something wrong.
There is something even more wrong when the Minister of the day, the former Member of Parliament for Rosedale, refused to remove that individual, not so the individual would not be able to serve the Government or the country or his interests in the area of multiculturalism, which I am sure he has done, but to send a message to Canadians that the Minister and the Government disavow themselves from the views of this individual. That was not done despite repeated urgings in Parliament, in committee, and in personal correspondence. That is the deep hurt. One would have thought there would have been the political courage to stand up and say: "No, that is not what the CMC stands for".
In September, 1986 some people suggested that that perhaps was an inadvertent slip by one Member and that it was water under the bridge, but we received a document from the Metro Toronto caucus of the Conservative Party. Outlined in a secret memorandum to the Minister was a number of different topics including immigration, internal communication, media, multiculturalism, appointments, prime ministerial and ministerial scheduling. It is a memorandum that is shocking in terms of the recommendations. Under immigration, for instance, the memorandum talks about trying to take advantage of ministerial permits. It states that Canada issued approximately 6,500 ministerial permits in 1985. Of these, only some 10 per cent were issued by the Minister's office. The balance was used by visa officers, CIC, and departmental staff. It states the political potential of ministerial permits is obviously being allowed to fall by the wayside. What this memorandum is saying in between the lines is: "Let us Conservative Members suggest who the ministerial permits should go to in order to help us win some friends".


The memorandum goes on to say that the perception of Tories sidling up to communities in the ethnic areas and opening the floodgates at our borders, as it were, can severely damage enthusiasm for the Party at the traditional grass roots level and thereby nullify any gains in the newer communities. It states that a watchful eye must be kept on the creeping hostility to immigrants which, especially in times of economic duress, is nearly fully dormant and represents a political back lash if acceptable selection standards are not maintained. The Conservative approach to immigration, therefore, must successfully combine intelligence with understanding and selectivity with compassion. Firm but fair was the slogan that was recommended.
The memorandum goes on to talk in terms of the media. It states the long-standing neglect by Tories of the third language press must be reversed before the next general election. That is exactly what happened only a few weeks ago. Good relations with third language media must be achieved if breakthroughs in Metropolitan Toronto's ethnic ridings are to be expected. Ministers, Members, the PMO, and the Party should all contribute to the current political effort aimed at ethnocultural communities and respond to the need to develop a detailed strategy on the federal level pertaining to the ethnic media.
The memorandum goes on to state that the value of the third language media in communicating government policy is generally not recognized. Advertising budgets do not allow for the publicizing of ethnic appointments. MTV suffers from a lack of advertising support from the Government, and given the station's plans to develop into a network, the problem of bad revenue causes considerable political damage.
The memorandum goes on to talk about multiculturalism. The Conservative caucus in Metro Toronto states in the opening paragraph that the committee believes that the articulation of a distinctive Conservative policy on multiculturalism is overdue and as such an urgent priority. Ethnocultural communities must be made to understand precisely why they should give their ballots to the Government rather than to the opposition Parties.
In terms of funding, what I find to be very offensive is the paragraph where the memorandum states that trends in funding of various ethnocultural groups were the next topic examined by the committee. It was stressed that there should be nothing arbitrary about funding cuts or increases. "Liberal funding patterns", whatever that means, "should be disposed of and a politically intelligent PC pattern should take their place. This may be accomplished by a gradual process of funding cuts and reallocations". Some grants managed there are properly reflective of ridings and the ethnic element within them. There was a strong feeling that leadership on grants should come from the caucus and from committees. "Members of Parliament who have access to grant cheques to present at ethnic functions should endeavour to take advantage of such opportunities". The memorandum goes on and on in terms of the very offensive approach and attitude taken in this report toward multiculturalism, appointments, and the role of the
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Prime Minister in trying to target a number of various ethnic communities that I could read into the record but will not.
I believe it goes to show this Member of Parliament the type of mind-set that exists above and beyond perhaps the general rhetoric that we hear in terms of a multiculturalism Bill.
The former Minister of State for Multiculturalism, the Member of Parliament for Rosedale, initiated the multiculturalism Bill last year, after work was done by the previous two Ministers under this Conservative administration. That Minister was actually opposed in concept to a multiculturalism Bill. Despite the introduction of a Liberal multiculturalism Bill in 1984, despite the commitment of the Members of Parliament for Lisgar and Halton, the former Member of Parliament for Rosedale was against the concept because he preferred-and I suppose the Government preferred it- instead of operating under a Multiculturalism Bill to make amendments to the Citizenship Act under the guise of multiculturalism. They thought that would be good enough.
I believe the former Member of Parliament for Rosedale essentially moved on a multiculturalism Bill only after he discovered that the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism was in fact studying and making a report upon which the major recommendation would be a comprehensive and significant multiculturalism Bill. At that time the Minister shifted his commitment. The committee and various organizations such as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and others who supported the committee's ideas and visions were really responsible for moving the Government into building from that 1984 Bill and trying to crystallize this piece of legislation in Canada's books.
As I mentioned, the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism, which was representative of all three political Parties, provided a very detailed examination into the whole area of multiculturalism. In the end, it gave the political green light to this Government and to this Minister to proceed on a very comprehensive Bill that would encompass and embody the type of aspirations existing in the country among various member communities. That committee report was not an attempt simply to put on paper a few ideas or to try to stitch together a number of recommendations. It was the product of a very long and detailed process. It was a report that was established after the committee held 16 public meetings and heard from a variety of witnesses, including verbal testimony and briefs from such groups as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, as well as responses from 20 different federal Departments, about where they thought multiculturalism should go in terms of their respective Departments.
Another major source of input was from the written briefs that the former Minister, the Hon. Member for Lisgar, requested and received from various organizations. These briefs were obtained and distilled as information pertinent to the area of study and reference.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Extensive information on multiculturalism and related policies was also obtained from the multiculturalism sector. A further major source of information was the consultative meeting on race relations hosted by the multiculturalism sector in August of 1986, and other documents. Then, of course, there were the various meetings of the committee in camera to try to digest all this information into a coherent direction.
The committee on the multiculturalism policy, a separate minister for multiculturalism, as well as a separate official multiculturalism commissioner would report to Parliament. There were recommendations built on those three general areas which ran deep in terms of the feelings that communities had and in terms of the goals and objectives that organizations brought to the committee. We made a number of recommendations, 18 in all, ranging from provincial and municipal policies to a separate line Department, to a multiculturalism commissioner, to an Act respecting multiculturalism, and so on. The committee took great pains to try to leave no stone unturned. We made an additional 44 recommendations concerning the Nielsen Task Force that related to multiculturalism and the federal policy.
We talked about a separate Department and not ghettoizing Canadians who were neither of English nor French origin. We talked about a separate line Ministry to offer additional political clout in the corridors of power in Ottawa. We talked about a revamped and separate line Department, not with fundamentally new moneys that would be spent irresponsibly at will but a realignment of existing and old moneys to be combined into a forceful mechanism that would deliver the programs with much greater efficiency and with much greater pride. We talked about bringing the program under the wing of Employment and Immigration, the Department of Secretary of State, Communications and Culture, about bringing it under one roof and referring to it as a separate Department of Multiculturalism.
To move those moneys and those programs under one Department was very symbolic. It would show that the Government of Canada took multiculturalism seriously. It would put it on an even keel with other Departments. It would see the Minister of State become a senior Minister. It would have a Deputy Minister of multiculturalism on an even keel with other Deputy Ministers.
That would not ghettoize multiculturalism as we have heard from the Government. In fact, to keep the status quo, to refuse to think about these reforms, is to ghettoize the multiculturalism policy. This would not be the be-all and end-all in terms of this realigned Department. It would be a transitional point going from a directorate of multiculturalism to a separate ministry to, one day, a Ministry of culture. That would have seen the integration and embodiment of culture and multiculturalism. That would have been the evolution of this Ministry and of this policy rather than allowing it to be jeopardized in one small corner of the federal Public Service. I believe that that type of movement would have crystallized a progressive vision of where multiculturalism is and, more important, where
it can go rather than simply saying that to put it in a separate Department would be to ghettoize it. The inverse is correct.
In terms of an independent commissioner of multiculturalism, the committee was very forceful. We believe that an independent commissioner would get away from the partisanship of the annual report of a Minister. One Minister rarely slaps another whose Department may not be up to speed in terms of the policy of multiculturalism. This would get away from the fact that the Minister does not have the time, the resources or perhaps the willingness to go through the Public Service, Crown corporations, or public institutions, to ensure that their hiring practices and programs reflect and are in keeping with Canada's multiculturalism policy. The commissioner would be accountable to Parliament, not to a Minister, the Department or the Government, and through Parliament to the people. That is what the committee envisioned.
I ask myself why the Government was so fundamentally opposed to the concept of an official multiculturalism commissioner. Why are we in favour of an Official Languages Commissioner? Why are we in favour of giving additional powers, ones which we passed only last week, to the Official Languages Commissioner to investigate various complaints made with respect to our official bilingualism policy? If we had not seen fit back in the 1970s and only last week to recognize the value of having an Official Languages Commissioner, and if we recognized that official bilingualism would not be possible unless we had a proper bureaucratic structure for it, along with a proper budget and a proper Act, then bilingualism would not be the reality that it is today. As a citizen back in the 1970s I supported that policy. I was proud to stand up in my place last week to vote in favour of Bill C-72. Bilingualism is a fundamental characteristic of the country. If we say that multiculturalism is a complementary fundamental characteristic of the country, as are its aboriginal people, then why is the Government so much opposed to the concept of an independent commissioner?
In the amendments which were rejected in committee and in our pleas to the Minister we missed an opportunity to establish such a commissioner. If the Bill goes through this evening, as I believe it will, and when it receives approval from all sides of the House, as I believe it will, then the whole discussion of a separate line Department and the whole discussion of an official multiculturalism commissioner must be at the top of the priorities list when we try again to improve and to build upon this multiculturalism Bill.
I am saddened that we have not done it in this first window of opportunity. The possibility was there. It was particularly there among the members of the standing committee. It was there within the constituencies. It was there within the major organizations which tried to lobby the Government in terms of delivering the aspirations that they knew existed in their communities. There was a national consensus. I feel saddened that the Parliament of Canada, and in particular this Government, was not able to harness that consensus and pass those very important parts of the committee report.


Not only were the recommendations of the Opposition or various Members of Parliament ignored, but also the recommendations a number of major organizations. Most of them are voluntarily organizations whose members give up their time and energies to meet on Saturday afternoons, travel to Edmonton for their annual meeting, or come to Ottawa for consultations to meet with Members, Ministers, and bureaucrats. They too were not listened to.
I was somewhat amused when the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) stated that here was a Government that was prepared to listen and to act. That is not the case with respect to the recommendations, studies, and statistics that were drafted and presented to the Government.
One of those major organizations, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, a number of whose representatives are in the gallery this evening and watching this debate on Bill C-93, in a major report dated April, 1988 made a number of very important recommendations and suggestions for amending Bill C-93. In its executive summary on page 1 it stated: "the Bill is currently a statement of wishes and ideals. The amendments we are suggesting will ensure that the Bill is meaningful and effective". The Council went on to provide three priority resolutions: the whole question of fundamental characteristics, which we were able to achieve today in a spirit of co-operation from all three sides; a clear commitment to implement the multiculturalism policy in Section 3.2, which was not delivered upon; and the monitoring of the implementation of the Act by an independent officer modelled along the same lines as the Official Languages Commissioner, which was not acted upon. Those are the three major recommendations.
The council also has a summary of recommendations from 1 through 14. How many of those recommendations found themselves into the finality of this Bill? The Council also listed other issues that it considered important in terms of crystallizing important concepts in principle in the Bill: the question of multiculturalism funding; the question of a separate Department; the question of the charitable tax status; and the question of the cabinet committee on multiculturalism, and a multicultural institute.
The Minister stated that he listened. He certainly did not listen very much to this report or to any other major report that tried to move the Government in recognizing that national consensus.
Then there are the committee hearings. First, the Government did not want to send Bill C-93 to the permanent Standing Committee on Multiculturalism. It preferred to send it to the legislative committee. In my humble and respectful submission, it received very shoddy treatment. From the first day of the meeting of the legislative committee it was very apparent to me that the priority of that legislative committee, dominated by Conservative Members of Parliament, was simply to get this Bill back into the House for report stage as quickly as possible and at any cost.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Witnesses were not allowed to come before the legislative committee. Scores of witnesses wrote in stating that they would like to present recommendations. They were not allowed to appear. Many witnesses said: "If you are not going to allow us to appear, then have the committee travel and come to see us". That was also refused. In this first major multicultural legislation in four years witnesses from across the country were denied legitimate and justified opportunities to give their input and recommendations.
The committee was in such a hurry that it closed off debate and did not want to listen to any further witnesses. When my colleague, the New Democratic critic on multiculturalism, was not able to attend a drafting session of the amendments, the committee did not even have the respect to hold a meeting the next day in order that my hon. friend was able to attend. That is how quickly the Conservative Government wanted to get this Bill back into the House. The opposition amendments were moved in committee by government Members to attempt to defeat them in order that those amendments would not be able to see the light of day during report stage.
I do not think that that speaks highly of the motives and of the genuine interest in upgrading and amending and offering an input in partnership with constituents and organizations that enhance multiculturalism. They are the people in the trenches outside Parliament who translate the policies that we talk of into a crystallization of reality on the streets of this country. I say those things, not as a Member who is simply attempting to "cry the blues" but as a Member who is trying to have the public recognize that the process followed in this first multicultural legislation was very different from the course and the processes that have been followed in other pieces of legislation, which in some cases although important legislation were not as significant to the national fabric as this particular piece of legislation. In my opinion that process was not honoured to allow maximum participation of constituents to enhance and better a piece of legislation.
I am pleased that the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Charest) is present. I look forward to hearing his debate. I am sure that he is not familiar with the process that took place. If he has any questions he can rise.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is a rule in the House that has been long established and usually respected by Members of Parliament that when they address an issue or a piece of legislation they make their remarks pertinent to the piece of legislation.
I wish to point out that the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) has made so many long and vented complaints about the Government and partisan remarks that I do not think he is serving well the multicultural community that he pretends to serve. His real objective is to discredit the Government, and that has become very obvious. We can only regret the fact that he has made such a cheap issue out of a piece of legislation which he from time to time pointed out was the first of its kind. The Government and other Members from all sides


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
of the House merit some congratulations, but instead we get this type of rhetoric.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister may want to enter debate. That was not a point of order. The Hon. Member for York West.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I make no apologies to that Member or to any other Member for my actions and my commitment. I look forward to him rising on debate and respecting other Members. I look forward to his vision of the contributions of multiculturalism. I encourage him to rise as an individual and have the courage of his own convictions rather than take cheap shots and then return to signing his mail for his own Department, as much as that is important to do. 1 ask the Hon. Member to rise and discuss multiculturalism and to show the House his commitment, actions, and philosophies. If he wants to take shots at Members of this House, if that is his preference or obligation, I encourage him to do so.


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not wish to belabour the point, but the fact is that I think the same rule to which I referred a couple of minutes ago applies. The Hon. Member should keep his remarks relevant to the question before the House. I might add that we have a very competent and good Minister of multiculturalism whose remarks I fully adhere to.


Sergio Marchi: Madam Speaker, I apologize. The Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport is quite correct. My comments were irrelevant when I referred to him. He pointed out that I should get back to relevancy, and I will do so.
The other aspect that I wanted to point out was that the proof of the discontent is not only lodged with members of the Opposition or Members on this side of the House. One only has to look at a number of witnesses and organizations that have commented on Bill C-93. I draw the sports Minister's attention to these individuals. Are these individuals wrong as well? Are these individuals and organizations also misguided?
We have individuals like Lome Waldman of the Jesuit Centre for Social Faith and Justice, who said: "I am in agreement with the position taken by the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism and am in particular in agreement about the need to create a Commissioner for Multiculturalism. I believe that the role of such a Commissioner ought to be clarified and strengthened".
Dr. Bhausaheb Ubale, Commissioner for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said: "The proposed Multiculturalism Act changes nothing and it is not historic as the Minister calls it. It is purely symbolic. It is old wine in a new bottle."
Daniel Iannuzzi, President of Multilingual Television and editor of a weekly Toronto Italian newspaper, Corriere Canadese, said: "What we need is the recognition that
multiculturalism is an integral part of Canadian society-the Bill does not allow for such an interpretation."
The Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism and Citizenship said: "The decision not to establish a Ministry as it was recommended by the standing committee is unacceptable and it only demonstrates the lack of leadership commitment for multiculturalism as a fundamental goal for Canada."
Michael Lanphier, for the Refugee Documentation Project of York University, said: "It is recommended that a new Department of Multiculturalism become the lead Ministry in negotiating an enhanced role for multiculturalism in every federal department".
The Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants said: "The establishment of a Commissioner of Multiculturalism along the lines of the Office of the Commissioner for Official Languages, could greatly assist in monitoring and encouraging the implementation of a multiculturalism policy."
The National Congress of Italian Canadians said: "We believe a Commissioner of Multiculturalism will bring the important elements of visibility and a greater accountability to the implementation of multiculturalism policies."
Lewis Chan, President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council-and formally he made the statement when he was vice-president-said: "It is a shining symbol, and certainly a step forward, but it is a symbol without substance."
The Canadian Multilingual Press Federation said: "By implementing only one of the major recommendations of the committee report, the Government is offering Canadians virtually nothing new from the policies established in 1971."
The Canadian Hellenic Congress said: "David Crombie has rejected the idea of a new Department of Multiculturalism. The current treatment of multiculturalism policies within the Government of Canada is unfocused and underfunded. We doubt that the passing of the proposed Act in its present form will do much to focus or strengthen such policies."
The Hellenic-Canadian Federation of Ontario said: "We are profoundly disappointed by the Government's recent legislation on multiculturalism. We are displeased by this action of the federal Government, which undermines the work of the standing committee, and amounts to nothing more than window-dressing. Indeed, it simply reiterates what exists in federal practices. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the recent draft legislation on multiculturalism of substance for the people of this country."
Those are some of the comments, not of opposition Members but of organizations, of living and breathing entities in our constituencies and across our country that have a deep feeling, as deep a sense of feeling for this policy as any individual in this House. Those kinds of statements were also reflected by a number of the major medias. One has to read the headlines in major medias like The Ottawa Citizen, which call this Bill an empty promise on multiculturalism. It said, "This Bill will be a


disappointment to Canadians from all ethnocultural backgrounds. It fails to give teeth to the fight against prejudice and racism and, on the other hand, it makes an irresponsible promise on language that could rekindle old arguments. In sum, it is a mish-mash of circle squaring ambiguity and clumsy opportunism."
The Globe and Mail: "Multiculturalism bill gets cool welcome". The Montreal Gazette: "Multiculturalism bill ignores proposals by panels of MPs". The Vancouver Sun: "Ethnic bill called symbol over substance". The Vancouver Sun: "Ethnic bill gets mixed reviews". The Telegraph-Journal from New Brunswick: "Multiculturalism bill criticized". The Globe and Mail: "A multicultural mist". The Star-Phoenix from Saskatoon: "Multiculturalism legislation ignores major recommendations". The Chronicle-Herald from Nova Scotia: "New multiculturalism act short on means to implement programs". It goes on and on.
Again, these are not commentaries from members of the Government or on the opposition side; these are from individual organizations and media outlets across the country that have taken a look at this piece of legislation and have made a commentary.
I wanted to summarize some of my thoughts and try to crystallize in a few words what one has experienced over the last three and a half years in this administration leading up to this Bill. The concept of the multiculturalism Bill and the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was an important and significant one. I am saddened to witness that that window of opportunity was not utilized in a more profound way and in a more genuine fashion, in a way that there was a national consensus in the community and within Parliament.
I believe, notwithstanding those shortcomings, that it would be somewhat irresponsible for Members of this House or political Parties to try at the very least to deny the creation of a new Bill and of an Act. As I have stated-and it is very obvious-I would have preferred, as many other organizations, to be able to stand this evening and pass and approve a multiculturalism Bill that came a lot closer to reflecting the aspirations and desires of a country and of a collection of ethnocultural organizations from one coast to another.
I suppose that those ideas and visions that are not embodied and encompassed in today's Bill will become a reality that future Parliaments and a future Government may wish to have and hopefully will be successful in attaining.
I am pleased to have at least played a small part in the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism that tried to show the way for this Government to follow. I am also proud to say that it was a very co-operative committee including Members from all sides who I believe worked very well together. I also commend the members of the Government on the committee for having stayed the course and for having proposed and worked with members of the Opposition in providing a unanimous committee report that really showed the way which the Government should have embraced.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
Notwithstanding that, I am pleased to have participated on that committee. I recognize that there is much more work to be done in the area of this multiculturalism Bill. I suppose the constituencies and the member organizations will see this as a start, as a beginning that needs to be worked upon as the initial foundation to hopefully what will become a much more durable, encompassing and dignified Bill, an Act that reflects the aspirations and the work of Canadian citizens from all walks of life, from all backgrounds in Canada, right across the regions and territories.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, perhaps Members will allow me to comment on how pleased we all are that I am restricted to 20 minutes-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Abram Ernest Epp: -and will have to be concise. I know, Madam Speaker, that you wished I had unlimited time because I could use it well. I shall endeavour in a few minutes to consider the question that faces us on the third reading of Bill C-93 as the position we want to take.
Beginning more seriously with my observations, I feel honoured to speak at third reading debate on Bill C-93 on behalf of my colleagues and to consider the place that we should give to this Bill in the evolution of Canada's multicultural policy. We were very critical of the Bill at various points. That was true as we began consideration of the Bill at report stage.
Even though we have reached debate on third reading this evening immediately following report stage consideration, it is necessary to step back a bit and consider what we have been doing and what we have as the end result. We have to say that the Bill could do much more but, as everyone will concede, half a loaf is better than none. My friend, the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi) spoke of a window of opportunity. I am not very inclined to that kind of language. I think we could have seen another Government doing it much better. I would have liked to see a New Democratic Government providing the kind of multiculturalism Bill that would give structure and strength and put the policy in action, but we have not been given that opportunity by the people of Canada.


Jean J. Charest: And you had such a good start to your speech.


Abram Ernest Epp: We are in the seventeenth year of the multiculturalism policy. This is the first time we have had a Bill carried to this extent. Given the years in which the Liberal Governments did not produce and what the Conservative Government has chosen to put forward, we are considering it in that kind of context.
It would be appropriate to recognize the fact that we are a nation that requires a multiculturalism policy. Surely recognizing that it is in the seventeenth year of the policy that we are debating, we can look back and recognize that in 1971, when


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
the policy was announced in Parliament and accepted by all of the Parties represented at the time, there was a recognition of diversity of this country which made it necessary to move beyond the establishment of the policy of official bilingualism to provide for diversity that involved other elements.
As a matter of fact, in those years the people of Canada began to realize-we discovered last week that they still do not all realize it, by any means-that Canada could not exist simply as an English-speaking country and accepted a policy in which the federal Government would seek equality of French with English. Governments moved very quickly to recognize that it was not possible to see the country in bicultural terms. In those same years during which the policy of official bilingualism was established, the people of Canada began to recognize that there were fundamental realities, elements one might even say, in terms of the aboriginal peoples of this country who would go on and not be assimilated and who asserted their distinctiveness. We have been involved in these years since 1969 and 1971 in coming to grips with that.
We recognize that the policy of official bilingualism found expression in a Bill as early as 1969, and that a Commissioner of Official Languages was established to ensure that the policy of official bilingualism would be respected by federal institutions. It has never been easy work. Commissioners have often faced challenges in government and outside government in asserting that policy, but there was a commitment to it. I think one can relate those events of 1969 to 1971 and the succeeding years and the limited action that occurred on multiculturalism with events of the 1980s when, in the course of constitutional renewal following on the referendum in 1980 and the development of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, repatriation of the Constitution occurred. In the initial drafts there was not provision for the aboriginal peoples, nor any recognition of multiculturalism.
Those elements were added to the Charter. In Section 27 we have the important statement that the Charter shall be interpreted in such a way that it preserves and enhances Canada's multiculturalism heritage. At that point the Province of Quebec was left out of developments. Though the policy of official bilingualism was established in the Charter, there still remained work to be done.
Obviously I do not have time this evening to do anything like justice to what has occurred in the last year or two in this area, but there are many questions. I mention this as a way of suggesting a completing of the process in recognizing the linguistic duality of our country as a fundamental characteristic and making other provisions for the history of Quebec within Canadian society. That struck many people as inadequate. I mention it this evening because at report stage on a Bill that did not deal properly, so many people felt, with the fact of ethnocultural racial diversity in this country, we have succeeded by one means or another through the co-operation of the three Parties in having fundamental characteristics put into the Bill. That is a very important achievement, and one of the developments out of report stage that allows me to be less
critical of the Bill than I was when it was first tabled back in December, 1987.
It remains that though we have made various kinds of progress in recognizing diversity in our country, it was as late as 1987 that we had a Bill, and it is as late as 1988 that we are debating this particular Bill which still has the kinds of limitations that force one to speak of half a loaf and is reason to leave too many Canadians still feeling that the Government of Canada does not recognize diversity in anything like the way it should.
Perhaps I can consider the evolution of ideas about multiculturalism in this Parliament and relate those critically enough to the Bill again, because that too is appropriate at third reading debate. Suddenly in June, 1985 we had a standing committee struck. That was an important development however it occurred. I would like to have the inside story of that told to me sometime, but the standing committee was struck and got to work. It succeeded over the next two years in developing the agenda for multiculturalism policy in a report that was supported by all members of the committee and issued in June, 1987. The standing committee made recommendations on the means that we saw the Government of Canada requiring in order to take in all the Fine principles of 1971, all our perceptions of diversity in this country. There was a need to ensure that the Government of Canada respected that diversity.
As the Hon. Member for York West has already noted, among the most important suggestions is the proposal for a full-fledged Department of Multiculturalism with a Minister and a Deputy Minister. We have a proposal for a commissioner of multiculturalism who would ensure that this Department, all other Departments of Government, and all federal institutions would respect the policy first enunciated almost 17 years ago and only now being legislated. There were proposals for a genuinely representative advisory council, for a centre for multiculturalism.
These various proposals are the ones that I had in mind at the outset in saying that another Government might have seen-though the Liberals for years past had not and the Conservatives have declined to see it-the challenge and have acted on it in a full and significant way.
What happened in committee represented a refusal by the Government to act on the understanding that all the members of the standing committee had arrived at. After all, that committee, like all the other standing committees, was composed of seven members: five government members, one Liberal and one New Democrat. Private members in the government caucus had come to realize the necessity of these institutions.
When the report was released, it was distributed widely in Canada. I took the liberty, after some of the events including the refusal in the committee to face up to the experience of


racism in Canadian history, which left me in no doubt that we had to say these things and to press for firm action by the Government on multiculturalism, to issue my own minority report entitled "The Living Diversity: Multiculturalism for AH". It was designed to comment on the work of the committee and to press on the report.
These reports were circulated widely in Canada. Then the Standing Committee finally began its consultations to learn what persons in the various provinces and the great cities of our country thought about our recommendations, the extent to which they supported them. When we began that process in the City of Toronto, we found ourselves being upstaged by this Bill, Bill C-93, which the Government suddenly tabled. This Bill declined to take up the challenge in the way all the members of the standing committee thought it should.
At those first sessions in Toronto we found group after group supporting our report and critical of what the Government put forward. It was felt to be largely a symbol, as the now President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, Lewis Chan, said so very well at the time. Many of those who appeared before us had these things to say.
The National Congress of Italian Canadians pointed to the subversion of the consultation process that was taking place and the fact that the Government had tabled a Bill which laid out a much more restricted and constrained statement of multiculturalism than the standing committee had wanted. There could be little doubt that the attempt to achieve a large statement of multicultural policy and to provide the machinery required to ensure that it is respected across all the institutions of the federal Government had failed.
In the work of the legislative committee there were similar shortcomings. There were suddenly constraints put on the number of witnesses we could hear in Ottawa. Suddenly we were rushed into consideration of amendments and that whole sorry process of defeating a large number of amendments in my absence and in the absence of the Liberal member of the committee took place. I will not make very much of that because report stage in the House today compensated for what went wrong in committee. That is why the process has taken the time it has in the House today. It is because the committee process was abused.
The reality is that this country cries out for action on a multiculturalism policy. The demographic realities of the country and the diversity of our great cities, a diversity that is being added to as Canada continues to respect its place as a country to which refugees, persons in danger of life and limb, can come, cry out for this multiculturalism policy. As immigration continues and as the great cities and regions of Canada become more and more diverse, society cries out for the policies to which we are supposedly giving our support in this Bill. Yet, there is so little in the way of assurance beyond what is given to us in language as weak as Clause 6, for example, which provides that Ministers of the Crown other than the Minister "shall", in the execution of their respective mandates,
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
take such measures as they consider appropriate to implement the multiculturalism policy of Canada. I suppose Ministers never take action that they consider inappropriate, but to have an invitation to find things inappropriate in the very language of a Bill leaves me gravely concerned about what we are doing.
This, of course, is the context within which one has finally to decide what to make of the Bill, what kind of position to take. I note that there has been a good deal of support, although sometimes I wonder about the support that there has been in the ethnocultural communities. Who can blame them? They have watched for years while the Liberals did nothing until they brought out that draft in 1984 which was so much weaker than this Bill. Nothing happened and then there were three years or more of this Government. One cannot blame anyone in the communities for thinking that they had better grab what they have now.
The Hon. Member for York West put a number of things in a critical light by quoting all kinds of persons. Of course, I put my critical observations on the record last December. The Canadian Ethnocultural Council was very critical of the Bill at the time, as the Hon. Member knows.
In nearing the conclusion of my comments, I think it is appropriate to note that the Canadian Ethnocultural Council put out a release on Tuesday of last week in which it announced its support for Bill C-93 and urged all three Parties to ensure early passage of it. The President, Mr. Lewis Chan, said:
Bill C-93 is much stronger today than when it was introduced seven months ago. It is a now in a form that we can support and in a form that we would want to see entrenched in law. The Government and opposition parties have listened to us and improvements have been made.
The release goes on to note three priority amendments. The first is a stronger commitment to implement multiculturalism, the priority involved in the change from "should" to "shall" in Clause 3. Second is the importance of having "fundamental characteristic" rather than "fundamental element" in the Bill. As I have already said, we finally achieved that this afternoon.
Third, there is the concern about an independent mechanism such as a commissioner to monitor the Act's implementation. The reality is that we failed in that area. We failed not so much because the Government was unwilling to spend the money, it seems. The Minister will have five officials in his Department involved in monitoring across the Government to ensure that Departments respect the policy. This is obviously an attempt to provide push from the Minister's quite junior position within the Department of the Secretary of State, and it is a long way removed from the kind of independence the Commissioner of Official Languages has.
We have quite simply failed to move the Government in these areas. We clearly have at best-a phrase I have used other places and it would only be fair to use it here-the first half of what could be quite a good Bill. As far as it goes, it is a pretty good piece of legislation and that is reason for supporting it.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act
My colleague talked about a window of opportunity. As I said before, I am not prepared to go so far as to use that phrase. The fact remains that a Government has chosen to bring forward a Bill which does at least this much in the way of legislating multiculturalism. For that reason, my colleagues and I intend to support the Bill and to vote for it.
We have no illusions about what we have actually accomplished. We still fear that we are far too close to symbolism rather than to real power in achieving multiculturalism. Few things could impress me as strongly in this area as the process in which we have been involved in the Standing Committee on Multiculturalism over the last months of trying to come to grips with what began when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) sent a letter to provincial premiers urging them to boycott events organized by three Canadian Sikh organizations. The committee has attempted to meet with the Minister to have him clarify what he is about. Tie continues to insist that it is entirely a matter of terrorism and has gone to another committee instead of coming to meet with us.
We have endeavoured to force the Minister and to press the Department to recognize that he is not dealing simply with Canadian Sikhs but with other communities: Armenian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Baltic Canadians. I think the Department of External Affairs has failed the Canadian people and has refused to respect multiculturalism as a commitment of the Canadian Government. It has done that time after time. When the Minister refuses to appear, continues to show contempt for us, sends the Associate Undersecretary of State for External Affairs-actually, we demanded that he come-who is constrained by the strait-jacketing that such officials experience when they speak in public, then that is just one more piece of evidence of why we need much stronger legislation. It also illustrates why, although I will vote with my colleagues in supporting the Bill for what it does, the next Government will face the challenge of achieving what the ethnocultural communities of this country want.
I recognize the constraints on time and the fact that you have been generous with me for an extra minute or two, Madam Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to say these things about the Bill. We are doing something that people will regard as historic. Given that, why should those efforts be as limited as they are so very often in this country? Why can Canadians not achieve the kind of greatness they want and have achieved in multicultural policy?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did understand that according to the agreement we concluded earlier, everyone would get a chance to express his point of view on this Bill today. I know it is late. I
understand my colleagues' impatience. I will try not to impinge on their time, and I will even endeavour not to use up all of the time allotted to me. But still, as a parliamentarian, and I am probably among those who have served the longest here, I would like to make a few brief historical references to ensure that Canadian men and women who are listening to us, and Quebecers among them, understand fully that the process of building Canada is an ongoing, daily affair.
Before I make those remarks, however, I would like to very succinctly-and this is probably the specific reason which led me to ask for the floor-pay tribute to my colleague and friend the Member for York-West (Mr. Marchi) for the truly extraordinary work he has accomplished not only in the course of the past four years in Parliament but in all of the tasks which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) entrusted to him. He has discharged his duties in a remarkable way. His single-minded diligence could almost serve as an example for his colleagues, and I think he will not mind, nor will he take it as a form of misplaced paternalism if I pay tribute to him tonight and thank him on behalf of my party for the extraordinary effort he expended in his work.
As you know, Madam Speaker, and I will not attempt to be a historian tonight, this land of ours was at first Indian and Eskimo land, became a French and then a British colony, moved quietly toward partial autonomy and then obtained its independence and was governed by a great Prime Minister; all of our prime ministers were great in their own way.
He wanted to make his mark on the Canadian character of our institutions. We experienced ... I experienced the era of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. And so two languages and two cultures were to flourish in Canada, under Mr. Pearson.
Notice this development: two languages and two cultures. As though our first citizens simply did not exist! Make no mistake, we have a heavy responsibility to our first citizens. They may have been unhappy recently because they felt excluded from Meech Lake, and I will come back to that in a few minutes, but things must be seen in the context of the evolution of our country. Mr. Pearson felt, at that time, that there was a problem and called on eminent persons such as Jean-Louis Gagnon, Jean Marchand, Andre Laurendeau, Mr. Dunton, and several others to take a close look at this Canada that was evolving over the years and to attempt to define it.
Then there was the great Canadian flag debate, to make the flag authentically ours, which takes nothing away from the devotion some may feel for the flag of others.
Then there was the national anthem. I was directly involved as a member of the committee chosen by Mr. Pearson. It took 15 years until Canada's national anthem, which had been sung since 1880, was made official, as the committee recommended, in 1980.
Then came Mr. Trudeau, and I want to pay him tribute. In the early 1970s, he said, "Yes, bilingualism and


biculturalism!" But there is something new in Canada, a growing phenomenon that enriches us, namely the contribution of other communities. We therefore proclaimed that it would be better for this country, which we wanted to be bilingual and bicultural, to be known as bilingual and multicultural. It is a policy I believe in, one that I defend in French in Quebec. It is not easy and that is why I do so in French.

I just said in French that it is sometimes not easy to defend multiculturalism in the province of Quebec. I believe, and I repeat again, that if my name were "Prudomski" or "Prudomi-an" I would not understand why I should be less Canadian than those beautiful young Pages with us tonight who may be of English or French origin. We are all going to be equal and happy on an equal footing or we will not have a harmonious Canada.
How do we manage to have that harmonious Canada? It is true that the continuation of the Canadianization of our institutions has helped. After having proclaimed that Canada was bilingual and multicultural, we saw the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation of a Charter of Rights which is not yet complete. As long as you have in the Charter a clause saying "notwithstanding", we know it is not a complete charter. Any Government, federal or provincial, could use it, but hopefully not abuse it, until some day we amend that part of our Charter of Rights.
Then we have Meech Lake. That is not perfection on earth. Many people feel left out. However, it is a step toward a better Canada, a greater Canada, and a more Canadian country, more Canadianization of our institutions. It is going to be unique, so I am not going to quarrel with the Minister and the Government, saying that this piece of legislation could be better. It is not a finality, it is a step in the right direction.
I hope that Canadians will understand that the true meaning of the step which we have before us tonight is to remind Canadians to have the sensitivity to understand the feelings of others, to make them equal partners regardless of their colour or origin. If this piece of legislation helps, I will do as my colleague from the NDP and our able critic, the Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), has done and vote for it. Even though we may have liked it to be different, it is a step in the right direction.
The French and English call themselves the two founding nations just as though the Indians and Eskimos did not exist. I find this expression a little bit arrogant. Max GrosLouis is a proud Indian leader in the City of Quebec from the Hurons. He always laughed when he heard me make big speeches about the two founding races. He looked at me from his height of almost six feet six, he clapped his hands and said, "Ha, ha, ha, where do I fit in this?" That really affected me. I realized that I lacked sensitivity to the Indians and I learned more about them, I learned to include them and to respect them.
Canadian Multiculturalism Act
What about those who came after the French and the English? They are so numerous now. We have an example in Toronto, everyone wants to be a candidate. I thank them because they want to take an equal part in the process. My colleague from Holland, who is not in our Party yet, is smiling. This is the new Canada that we are building together. There will be an election called soon, maybe this week, maybe next week, maybe next spring. There will be new candidates from new countries to which we are not accustomed in this House of Commons. We will have to adjust.


John Martin Oostrom: I hope they will be allowed to buy memberships.


Marcel Prud'homme: I do not want to reduce this very important debate to the gutter. I will discuss that later. The Member may make comments on my speech after I am done.
I welcome ahead of time the new Canadians who are going to run for office. Who knows, I may not be here to do so when they arrive. I know they are going to help build a new Canada. They must feel equal regardless of their name, their country of origin, the colour of their skin, or the God to which they may like to pray, or even if they choose not to pray. That is the kind of Canada we must learn to build together.
If legislation such as the Bill we are about to vote on helps Canadians to reflect, that is good. It is permissible to dream. While I am speaking I am thinking of one of my passionate dreams, which is that maybe someday we will not need this kind of legislation, that there will be a day when Canadians have learned to respect each other so much that we will not need such legislation. We will understand that it is natural to allow Canadians to run for any office, to have the feeling that they are as important as anyone else, that they have as much chance as anyone to be nominated to any position. That is the feeling that we must develop together.
I know the Minister very well and he is not going to say that this legislation is imperfect, he will say that it is outstanding. However, I have learned to be more "conservative" as I have gotten older. This step will have to be ameliorated in the future by others.
Many amendments were put forward by the multicultural groups of Canada and were not accepted by the Government. Many amendments were put forward by my colleague, the Member for York West, and the critic from the third Party. Regardless of the fact that they were not accepted, we will vote for the Bill.
I hope that by attracting the attention of Canadians to such legislation we will also bring to their attention the importance of respecting people who are not of French or English origin. Those of French and English backgrounds have a responsibility, not only to respect the newcomers but to remember that when the French came here there were already people here. It is our duty also to respect them.


Canadian Multiculturalism Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You didn't here the noes.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, we would like to have an opportunity to vote on the Bill as per the understanding which was put forward earlier today that we would have that opportunity after three o'clock tomorrow. Can you tell me whether it is possible to request that even though-


Raymond John Skelly: Waddell said no.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: No one-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I yelled no.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: We all yelled no.


Claudy Mailly: Madam Speaker, I do not know if there was an agreement for the vote to take place this evening, but I believe that the Opposition whip could perhaps enlighten us on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think I can answer the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's question. No, there will not be a vote tonight. There is an understanding that, should a division be requested, it would be held at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon. My only problem at this time is that I did not hear anyone say no even though I did ask the question twice. If the hon. gentleman will just show a little bit of patience and not jump up for a fourth time, I am quite prepared, if the House agrees, to say that there will be a deferred division to be held at three o'clock. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think it would be fair and appropriate to put the question, to call for the "yeas" and "nays", and then we will see if there are five Members who want a recorded vote. Personally, I would pass the Bill as is, but if some Members want to vote, I am prepared to do so tomorrow, as specified in the agreement. Let the debate end tonight after ten o'clock, we would disregard the clock, and any vote requested would be deferred until three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
If a vote is requested, I have no objection to that.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I just hope that everyone will understand the difficult situation in which the Chair is right now. As nothing was heard, the motion was declared adopted and the Clerk read third reading of this Bill.
However, if there is unanimous consent to go back, I will do so.
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion, the
yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Pursuant to Order made earlier this day, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until tomorrow.
Pursuant to Order made June 23, 1988, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 12, 1988