1988-07-06

[Stage Direction]
37 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, July 6, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Government claims to be very proud of its record in dealing with the plight of victims of crime, yet it is obvious that there is still a long way to go. A case brought to my attention by the Sexual Assault Support Centre in Ottawa reveals a real scandal. A woman, who is the victim of an assault charge being tried in Vancouver, has been offered her plane fare to go to Vancouver to testify in the case, but she has been refused assistance to bring her two and a half-year old child with her. How can she go to Vancouver to testify in this case if she cannot bring her child with her?
If justice requires that she be there and the provincial Government, with the assistance of a federal cost-sharing program, is prepared to bring the woman to testify, to see that justice is done in that case, it is only fair that her child should also be brought out with money from the same coffer. I condemn the Government for not having brought in a program large enough in order to prevent scandals like this from taking place.



QUEBEC'S ATTITUDE TO CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about free trade for a year and a very large majority of companies in Longueuil, such as Pratt & Whitney, Heroux, Desmarais et Freres and many others, the Chamber of
Commerce of the South Shore of Montreal, the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, and the Leader of the Opposition of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, have all spoken in favour of free trade. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because these people believe in our ability and our know-how, unlike the Liberals and the NDP who still believe that Quebecers are drawers of water. No, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers can do it! They are strong and they want to continue to develop with the 75 million people around them. The potential is there and we will have it with the Progressive Conservative Party.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, considerable concern has been expressed about the continued participation of Canadian naval vessels in the shelling of the Hawaiian island of Kaho'olawe as part of the annual RIM-PAC naval exercise.
Kaho'olawe is of immense historical, cultural, archaeological and religious importance to the Hawaiian people. The island has been placed on the U.S. Registry of Historic Sites. Despite this fact, the Government continues to allow Canadian naval vessels to shell Kaho'olawe in defiance of local and international pressure to stop, and despite the decision by other friendly countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan to cease shelling Kaho'olawe.
Now the City and County Council of Honolulu have raised the stakes by passing a resolution which states that continued Canadian shelling of Kaho'olawe could adversely affect efforts by a Canadian company, Lavelin Corporation of Montreal, to secure a $ 1 billion contract to build the Honolulu rapid transit system. Such an outcome could have a serious impact on Canada's efforts to carve a niche for itself in the global rapid transit market.
Mr. Speaker, if the Government is not prepared to do what is morally right, I hope it will at least do what is financially smart. I call on the Government to end Canadian participation immediately in the shelling of Kaho'olawe.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, among the constant, fundamental challenges that Canada must meet, one of the most urgent and complex is regional economic development. This challenge can only be met with a new synergistic relationship between all levels of government and the private sector.
In this regard, I would like to point out the important initiative that the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Quebec metropolitain just took by setting up a venture capital corporation to support entrepreneurship and underwriting $50,000 to $500,000 of shares for the initial stage of business development.
Since our Government has just concluded agreements worth several hundreds of millions of dollars to stimulate regional economic development, we must be glad about the recent initiative of the Chambre de commerce et d'industrie du Quebec metropolitain and hope that it spreads to other regions.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, since Thursday, Canada and especially the House of Commons and the Conservative Government is experiencing a language crisis. We all know that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) is the Minister responsible for Official Languages. The House will recall that the new Secretary of State, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, said during his election campaign that he was going to Ottawa to defend the interests of Quebecers and Francophones. We all remember that. We saw it on television when this gentleman was sworn in as a Member of this House. On that occasion he again stated that his priority would be to defend Francophones.
However, Quebecers now wonder where the defender of Quebecers and Francophones is now, when the Tories are experiencing a crisis. Where is the Secretary of State? Where is the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean? Where is the man who was supposed to defend the interests of Quebecers and Francophones? We got shafted on the research contracts and we are now being shafted on official languages. Where is he, that reknowned defender of Canada's Francophones?



MULTICULTURALISM


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, Festival 88 which was held in Edmonton and Vegreville, Alberta, from June 30 to July 3, was a resounding success. It was a remarkable and dynamic showcase of Ukrainian culture. Huge crowds came from across Canada to the town of Vegreville to experience the Pysanka Festival. Vegreville is renowned for its rich heritage of Ukrainian culture and hospitality.
Opening night in Edmonton featured two of Canada's finest dance groups, the Shumka and Cheremosh dancers, together with dozens of other dance groups. The finale included over 2,700 costumed young Albertans dancing to a 36-piece symphony orchestra. There was also a showcase of Ukrainian weaving, ceramics, and crafts. The greatest celebration was for the 1,000 years of Christianity of the Ukrainian people, the millennium.
Festival 88 was multiculturalism at its finest, one that other Canadians might emulate. Ukrainian culture is an integral and dynamic part of Canada. It is what makes me proud to be a Canadian of Ukrainian heritage.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Members from Quebec defend the interests of their province with pride and enthusiasm. They sincerely believe that the philosophy and objectives of the Conservative Party are aimed at protecting the interests of all Canadians across this country, whatever the colour of their skin or the language they speak.
Thanks to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and Meech Lake, Quebecers are even prouder now they are truly citizens of this country. National reconciliation has given our policies new meaning. Harmony can exist in this country, provided we are generous and tolerant. The Prime Minister and this Government had the courage to introduce Bill C-72 on official languages. During the 16 years or more they were in power, the federal Liberals never had the nerve to introduce this kind of legislation, and furthermore, a quarter of the federal Liberal Members in this House voted against Meech Lake.
National reconciliation and recognition of bilingualism in Canada was accomplished by the Conservative Government, under the leadership of a great Canadian, Brian Mulroney!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EMPLOYMENT EQUITY


Ms. Marion Dewar (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, to no one's real surprise we learned last week that the Government's ineffective pay equity measures have done nothing to eliminate wage discrimination in the Public Service. The wage gap between men and women persists and even grows wider as women continue to be denied entry into high level public service jobs. From their first entry into the paid labour force, women have had to struggle against this kind of discrimination.
Today I would like to comment on another wage gap, one equally detrimental to the aspirations and achievements of women in the labour force. I refer to the gap between the salaries of unionized women and non-unionized women. Statistics Canada data reveal that women who work under a collective agreement earn substantially more than their sisters without a contract. In the teaching profession, for example, unionized women earned $15.57 an hour while their nonunionized sisters earned $9.73 per hour. Not only must women face the barrier of wage inequities with their male colleagues but they must also face the obstacle of opposition to union certification.
The lesson is clear. The union keeps Canadian women strong.



FREE TRADE


Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, a survey of 300 major Canadian companies carried out by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion last week shows that those companies expect to increase their investments by 27 per cent this year. Those plans are due to the fact that Canadian businesses are preparing for free trade, which comes into effect January 1, 1989.
When the liberal-socialist coalition says that free trade will demolish Canada, it displays its colossal ignorance of what is really happening in Canada's vigorous economy.
Peter Cook, in today's Globe and Mail, states that what is happening is the exact opposite of what the socialists predicted.
Just as free trade was the catalyst for Europe's economic development in the 60's, free trade will act as a catalyst for Canadian and American businesses in the 1980-1990's.
Read Peter Cook's column today and appreciate his conclusion. He feels free trade is the best thing that could happen to Canada.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Agriculture Canada plans to transfer 35 storage and irrigation projects in southwestern Saskatchewan from the control of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration to the Saskatchewan Water Corporation.
The corporation is primarily concerned with municipal, urban and recreational use of water and only dabbles in agricultural water usage with its few mega irrigation projects.
PFRA patrons are concerned that these transfers will hurt farmers. The cattleman who was denied Sask Water Corporation's permission to water his thirsty cattle because boaters on the Duncairn Dam didn't like it will need strong reassurances from Agriculture Canada that his traditional use is guaranteed. Furthermore, there is fear that these planned transfers are part of a larger plan to privatize all of PFRA's projects.
The ghost of the Nielsen Report which recommended selling off PFRA pastures and dams still haunts prairie farmers.



AIR CANADA


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Air Canada will soon announce the replacement for its Boeing 727 fleet. There are strong indications that the Airbus A320 will be Air Canada's choice.
The A320 is made in Europe and its development and construction was heavily subsidized by the European Governments whereas the the North American aircraft industry does not receive government subsidies. I believe that the selection of the replacement aircraft must take into account the Canadian aircraft industry and its workers. Presently all major North American aircraft manufacturers have plants operating in Canada.
Boeing, which recently bought de Havilland, for example, has been instrumental in strengthening Canada's aircraft manufacturing base through increased sales and employment. Since the bids from the North American competitors and the Airbus are similar, the deciding factor then must be the benefits to Canada's aircraft workers and manufacturers who


Oral Questions
operate, develop, and manufacture their products without government money.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: 
Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will put his question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: We were told yesterday "wait until the vote, you'll see who is gong to be disciplined". I am asking the Tories and the Government, is the theory that Tory Members can make racist statements as long as they don't vote on the multicultural Bill-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are they allowed to insult women as long as they do not vote on affirmative action? When is the Government going to stop this nonsense and take action against those members of the Tory Caucus who are destroying bilingualism across Canada? Can they do that and get away with it by being silent in this House?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the comments coming from that Hon. Member. He was here during the 1970s, as I was, when we saw national unity torn asunder, when we saw province set against province, when we saw region set against region.
When the Right Hon. Prime Minister assumed the leadership of this Party he made it clear from the outset that his primary goal was national reconciliation. From day one, he has worked toward that goal. He has worked toward it with regard
to Meech Lake, he has worked toward it with regard to the official languages policy.
When dissidents in the Hon. Member's Party voted against the Meech Lake Accord we did not get up and call them racists because we do not believe in using that kind of wording in the House of Commons. We do not believe that this should be a partisan issue.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State and Member for Lac-Saint-Jean has said nothing in the language debate, either as a Minister or Member of Parliament or as a Quebecer or Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told the Conservative Members that they can work to destroy bilingualism throughout Canada as long as they keep quiet in the House of Commons during the vote on the Official Languages Act. That is what they are doing.
Mr. Speaker, it is like saying that a liar is only a liar if he is caught or a thief is only a thief if he is caught. What nonsense! The Government must stand up today and tell Canadians, "Enough nonsense." The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources too. Out with the Parliamentary Secretaries and Members who cannot bear the responsibility to sell a national policy.
When will the Government take its courage in hand and do what it must do?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Government's position on bilingualism is very clear. It is a fundamental policy for the Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet. I repeat that the Official Languages Bill will be passed tomorrow, with no amendment affecting the fundamental principle of bilingualism in Canada. This is not a partisan issue; this is a substantive matter. And that is the Conservative Party's position.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Calgary North, with the support of the Hon. Member for Athabasca, is planning to launch a court challenge against the Minister of Energy-


Mr. Shields:: Not true!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -and his plans to hire French-speaking Canadians in his Department.


Jack Wendele Shields: That's a lie.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I want to ask the Minister of Energy, the Secretary of State, the Minister of Justice or the President of the Treasury Board-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Athabasca will withdraw.


Mr. Andre:: He should be asking questions, not making speeches.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 know that the Hon. Member for Athabasca would want to withdraw what clearly he was saying, and it was unparliamentary. I understand that there is a certain amount of agitation on this issue on both sides of the Chamber, but I think that we can all approach it in a civilized manner.

I will listen to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and hope that he will put his question in an appropriate manner.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I think it would be quite appropriate, and I would like him to withdraw, but I will not bother with that.
My question is directed to any responsible Minister. In the question of the court challenge against the Minister of Energy for hiring Francophones in his Department, will the Government, any responsible Minister, explain to the House how public funds could be used to attack and destroy the Government's own fundamental law? Why should Canadians pay for such a vindictive exercise? Explain that to the Canadian people.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, I am sure, does not want to leave the impression that somehow the Government is paying for a lawsuit initiated by a Member of Parliament.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Court Challenge Program.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am not aware of the Court Challenge Program being utilized in any respect in this particular matter. There is an application obviously being made by a citizen of Canada who happens to be a Member of Parliament. That is not to say that the matter will be entertained.
With respect to any action taken, I can only say that the taxpayers' money will be used to defend the Government's policy and position in this matter which is one that-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why should it, it's one of your own Members?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact is that we are putting forward a Bill which is fair and equitable and which has the support of the overwhelming majority of Canadians. The fact is that we
Oral Questions
will defend the legislation and the operations of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which have also been fair.


[Stage Direction]
Mr Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie): Mr. Speaker, thirty Tory Members have insulted Francophones, and yesterday three more asked to be added to the antifrancophone list. The Acting Prime Minister's answer is that the Prime Minister has been an agent of reconciliation. My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this: Is it the Tory Government's definition of national reconciliation that Francophones will have to wait, and wait patiently, because your Government has accepted 52 amendments? You used a Francophone to . ..
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: . . . There are thirty Members in this group. Does national reconciliation mean that we as Francophones from Quebec and across Canada have to be patient and wait a little longer? We have waited long enough!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has provided the necessary leadership to improve some very bad conditions we had in this country when the previous Government was in power.

The Prime Minister of this country has provided the leadership on the question of reconciliation between Frenchspeaking Canadians and English-speaking Canadians which was so badly needed in this country. Any of us who are here in this House saw that time and time again.
I would ask the Member to honour the work that is being done in this House jointly by all Parties to further the cause of official languages.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, Francophones will not tolerate national reconciliation on the cheap. We have waited long enough for orders to come from the Conservative Party. Do you think we are going to let thirty Conservatives insult us? We won't stand for it!
Could the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House why this morning, the Prime Minister did not throw out the two parliamentary secretaries and the Tory Joint Vice-Chairman of the Committee on Official Languages?
And, why is the Secretary of State, the defender of Quebecers, not in the House to defend official languages?
And why haven't these Members apologized to the Francophones of this country? Why do you insist on insulting


Oral Questions
Francophones still further by defending your thirty antiFrancophones?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not impressed by the sound and fury of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. As I said yesterday, there are limitations on what parliamentary secretaries may do. They know that when they take on their duties. They must abide by their obligations or take one of the options open to them. The Official Languages Bill will be voted on tomorrow, and it has the Government's unqualified support. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that each and everyone of us has a duty to act responsibly. That is the Government's position.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Acting Prime Minister concerns precisely that issue; everyone must shoulder their responsibilities. Has the Prime Minister asked for the resignation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in the light of his public opposition to a basic element of the Government's policy, that is to say bilingualism? If not, can the Acting Prime Minister explain how the Government is going to operate in future with regard to Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries? Will these two groups who express Government policy be forced to express only Government policy in the future? Will the Government speak with one voice?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that the Official Languages Bill will be passed tomorrow, without amendments that would affect the fundamental principle of bilingualism in Canada. That is the position of the our Government. We are united in that approach.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Canadians believe that the credibility of the Government is at stake because of scandals and broken promises-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: -and now because the Government is not speaking with one voice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the Hon. Member would want to confine his preamble to the question he wishes to ask.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians in Quebec or anywhere else trust the Government when the Prime Minister is tolerating official spokesmen for the Government at the level of Parliamentary Secretary, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, taking public issue with the Government over an issue as fundamental as bilingualism, without any disciplinary action being taken?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it ill behooves the Member for Ottawa Centre to stand and talk about credibility when, time and again, he has come into this House and levelled charges which he has then had to withdraw because they have been without foundation.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Prime Minister has provided leadership in a way unknown before in this House on the matter of official languages.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. de Jong:: At least blush when you say that, Flora.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I can see Members from the NDP laughing. Where were they when the Prime Minister went to Manitoba and challenged even the Government of the day on the question of bilingualism in the Province of Manitoba?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I say to the Hon. Member and all Members of this House that the question of official languages in this country is not and should not be a partisan issue. This is an issue which is one of unity for the country and one of leadership for the country. I hope that this Member and all Members in the House would recognize their responsibility to carry out that leadership, individually and collectively.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I recall that it was the NPD Government of Manitoba that advocated the rights of Francophones in that province. The Conservatives were the ones who opposed them.
My question is the following: How can Canadian men and women trust this Government? When a Government allows the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs to take a position which differs from that of the Government on a question as fundamental as bilingualism, the credibility of that Government is at stake. How can we tolerate a situation in which Parliamentary Secretaries, Government spokespersons, are issuing different messages on behalf of the Government?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, there are limits to the actions and functions of Parliamentary Secretaries . ..


Jean-Claude Malépart: In this case they have gone beyond the limits!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That was another very strong voice, but it makes no sense.
Parliamentary Secretaries know what the situation is when they accept their position Mr. Speaker. They know their


responsibilities very well. And I think that the Member will see the results when the vote is held tomorrow.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the National Energy Board granted Pan- Alberta Gas Ltd. permission to sell over two trillion cubic feet of natural gas to southern California, even though Pan-Alberta does not have enough natural gas under contract to supply its own contractual needs.
This brings to 17 trillion cubic feet the amount of Canadian natural gas that is under contract to the United States. With the six trillion feet pending approval before the National Energy Board, one-third of all western natural gas is contracted to the United States.
How long will it be before the Government allows the United States to have all Canadian natural gas under its trade agreement with the United States? Even before the agreement comes into effect it has one-third of it.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that yesterday, the National Energy Board approved Pan-Alberta's application, and in a matter of days or weeks, at the most, the Government will be asked to ratify the NEB's decision.
I would like to point out to Hon. Members that this procedure, both with respect to the number of years and the quantity involved, is not unusual for the NEB. Contracts of this kind have been approved many times in previous years. In fact, the twenty-five year period is part of the National Energy Board Act.
Second, section 83.4 provides that the NEB may consider discovery trends when approving contracts, so that the NEB's decision was well within the limits of this legislation. The Government will make a decision within a few days.



SECURITY OF SUPPLY FOR CANADIAN CONSUMERS

Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, that is not true. Before the Government came to power the National Energy Board would never have approved a contract like that which permits the sale of natural gas that the company does not even have. What about the natural gas
Oral Questions
that is there? What will the Government do to protect the security of Canadians?
The National Energy Board is nothing more than a monitoring agency. It has no power at all. There is no protection for Canadian consumers. What will the Government do to protect Canadian consumers of natural gas? When will it put some teeth back in the National Energy Board?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to check whether, in years previous to 1984, the NEB granted contracts for twenty-five years, and I will advise the Hon. Member accordingly.
Second, according to this Government's philosphy, the best way to ensure security of supply for Canadians is, first of all, to provide for a market that favours investment and thus production, Mr. Speaker.



CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It concerns one of the Prime Minister's classmates, Mr. Rheal Leblanc, who was appointed Commissioner of Correctional Institutions.


Mr. Crosbie:: What class? Kindergarten?


John R. Rodriguez: In light of information that was finally squeezed out of the Government concerning the behaviour of Mr. Leblanc, the former Commissioner of Corrections, and Mr. Anderson, and contracts totalling some $628,000, and in view of the fact that the Minister was informed as far back as November, 1986, why did the Minister not order an audit at that time?


Hon. Janies Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would review the article in question carefully, he would note that in 1986 I was advised that all actions to date were quite proper and in conformity with the rules and regulations.
However, when I was first advised subsequently of this matter in the early fall, 1987, I immediately commissioned an independent audit of the commissioner's actions, which was done by the Comptroller General's office. I received that report at the end of February, 1988. An action plan was put into place, which was approved by both the Treasury Board and the Comptroller General's office. This plan will ensure that such actions will not take place again.


Oral Questions



ACCESS TO INFORMATION-MINISTER'S POSITION

John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in November, 1987, the Member for Burnaby put on the Order Paper questions concerning the contracts, the role of Mr. Anderson and the role of Mr. Leblanc. The answer which came last Thursday, June 30, 1988, said that the information could be obtained through Access to Information.
In light of the fact that when the Conservatives were in the opposition they said that the Liberals believed that Canadians did not have a right to know, but the Conservatives believed they had every right to know, why did the Minister then engage in a cover-up in providing that information to the public? In fact, Inger Hansen had to take legal action to try to get the information from Access to Information.


Mr. Jelinek:: What absolute nonsense!


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, the Hon. Member's suggestions are utterly without foundation. They are not correct.


John R. Rodriguez: Ask Inger Hansen.


James Francis Kelleher: When I first learned of this, I asked the Comptroller General's office to conduct an audit. I received that report at the end of February this year and we immediately took action.


John R. Rodriguez: Why did Robinson not get it?


James Francis Kelleher: All the information has been released to Mr. Robinson and the information was released to the media which asked for it. The reasons for the delay and the deletions concerned the Privacy Act and the third party rule.



AWARDING OF UNTENDERED CONTRACTS

Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It also concerns the awarding of over $600,000 of untendered government contracts to CACI Canada Limited, a computer consulting firm.
As the Solicitor General knows, there was a deliberate, not inadvertent, breach of the conflict of interest guidelines and the Treasury Board guidelines. The Solicitor General knew about problems with this particular company in November, 1986, yet allowed the relationship to continue between CACI Canada Limited and Correctional Service of Canada.
Will the Solicitor General indicate to the House why he has refused to allow information about these improper practices to become public? Why did it take a Federal Court application by The Globe and Mail before the Solicitor General was prepared to release this information to the public? What was he hiding? Was it his own incompetence and negligence?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have already advised the other Hon. Member and again I advise this Hon. Member that when these facts came to my attention in the fall of 1987 I immediately went to the Comptroller General and commissioned an independent audit. I received the report at the end of February. An action plan was implemented. This action plan was approved both by the Comptroller General's office and the Treasury Board.
I can also advise the Hon. Member that one of the first instructions I gave to the new Commissioner of Corrections was to ensure that nothing of this nature ever happens again, to refer him to the action plan, and to ensure that fiscal control was observed at all times.



PUNITIVE ACTION QUERY

John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about an inadvertent breach of federal guidelines, we are talking about a deliberate breach. For example, in one case a contract was doubled by the commissioner to over $48,000. The contract was for $24,000 and was doubled by the commissioner after the work was completed and when no additional work was done.
The Solicitor General indicates that remedial action was taken. I and the people of Canada would like to know specifically what punitive action was taken? Can he indicate whether the RCMP were called in to investigate the propriety of these practices as conducted by the former Commissioner of Corrections?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I will be most happy to answer the Hon. Member's question. After receiving the report, I instructed my Deputy Minister to deliver the report to Justice and ask for an opinion from them. Justice reviewed the report. I was advised by Justice that on the facts disclosed there were no criminal offences. As a result of that written opinion from Justice, no further charges were laid with respect to this matter.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Recently The Globe and Mail reported that many wealthy people have paid as much as $30,000 and more to get Canadian landing and citizenship through loopholes in the Government's entrepreneurial immigration law, without even having lived in or paid taxes in Canada, and that 14 members of a Toronto law firm are being investigated by the Law Society of Upper Canada in this connection.


The Minister knows how many law abiding low-income Canadians must often wait for years to bring their relatives from overseas to rejoin them in Canada. What action has the Minister taken to stop those abuses that have been reported, to close those loopholes, and to strip citizenship from any who have go it through deceit or abuse?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, clearly I cannot comment on the particular case which is being investigated at this time. When I first took over the Ministry I explained to the reporter in question, among other people, that the monitoring of our programs is very important to me. Entrepreneurs admitted are being monitored by immigration officials so that their business activities can be assessed.
I have expressed the view that I would like to see our monitoring improved. Shortly after taking over the portfolio, I asked that a special advisory committee be set up, and this group will advise us on any need for further monitoring and how it should be done.
Oral Questions
this could come to Canada as independents without any commitment to make any investment at all. I think it is a positive program that we now have them coming to make investments here.
* *
*



FREE TRADE-MINISTER'S POSITION

Gabriel Fontaine: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to our excellent Minister for International trade. The Department of Regional Industrial Expansion has published the results of a survey of three-hundred major businesses in Canada. With respect to free trade, these three-hundred major businesses announced they would increase their spending by 25 per cent in 1988.



MONITORING OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has stated that she has undertaken a review or an evaluation of the monitoring. It has been well known for several years that there is no effective follow up to find out whether these entrepreneurs actually produce the jobs they promised to produce, and for which they received their landing and sometimes their citizenship. It is further known that 70 per cent of those immigrants land and stay in the three largest cities of Canada. Therefore, they make the regional disparities worse rather than improving them, as was the intention of the program.
Will the Minister tell the House what steps she has taken to correct these failures of the program, or is the Minister going to end the program and return the immigration staff to speeding up the family reunification program?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, my Department has established a study of the program, which is nearing completion now, in terms of the follow-up as to what happened to the investors who came to Canada. At some future time I will be in a position to make a report.
As I have said, I have set up an advisory committee in terms of monitoring the program. I have also consulted with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to ensure that the overseas monitoring of the program is meeting its objectives.
We also have an agreement with the provinces which my predecessor, the Minister of Transport, discussed this winter whereby there will be a greater balance among the regions of Canada in terms of this program.
I want to point out to the Hon. Member one final point. Before there was an entrepreneur or business class, people like
Mr. Speaker, considering the scare tactics being used by the Liberal-Socialist Coalition, I think it is important for the Minister to comment on what happened in the European Common Market in 1960, when free trade became a fact for 250 million people. There was no problem. Would the Minister explain to Canadians the benefits that ensued when free trade was implemented in Europe?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the first relevant, competent, and reasonable question that has been asked today. Indeed, the Department of Industry, Science and Technology has just released a paper on the effect of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement on the Canadian manufacturing industry. The conclusion is that Canadian industry will enjoy unparalled opportunities for growth and development as a result of the agreement.
In addition, the survey revealed a projected or planned increase of spending and investment by 300 major corporations by 27 per cent this year. It has also been confirmed by OECD that Canada is the industrialized nation where investment will grow fastest in the next few years.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why should I sit down when we have to listen to the rest of the slander, Mr. Speaker, when I am giving some facts about the investment opportunities as a result of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement?


Mr. Riis:: Typical Tory respect for the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: Those last remarks will probably be a triumph of Hansard over television. The Hon. Member for Gander- Twillingate.


Oral Questions



ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, all applications of over $1 million to the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency have to go to a board. Unfortunately the members of that board who decide on the applications over $1 million are, in some cases, the very people who are applying for the money.
Is the Government aware of this? Is the Government aware of the fact that the Minister in charge of ACOA, Senator Lowell Murray, is going about actively encouraging board members to apply to themselves for money, and then rejecting their offers to resign, and that some board members make the ultimate sacrifice and absent themselves temporarily from a board meeting while their applications are being dealt with by their seat-mates?
Is this an ethical manner in which to be distributing government funds?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, you can see the increasing difficulties of getting independent people from the private sector to act on boards or agencies as their public duty when this type of insinuation is made about them.
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Board has adopted rules for cases of potential conflict of interest. The rule is that any member who has an actual or potential conflict of interest in respect to any matter, issue, application, or project that comes before the board shall immediately declare such conflict of interest and remove himself or herself from discussion, consideration, deliberation or review of the subject matter, issue, application, or matter.
That is what happens with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Atlantic Enterprise Board. There have been no violations of those rules, they are perfectly proper rules, and they have been carried out.
May I also point out to the House that on a region wide basis ACOA is receiving and processing ten times as many applications for aid as were handled by all its predecessors together, and has spent or committed a total of $200 million to date in the four Atlantic provinces. It is becoming the most widely used federal program ever put in place in that region, despite the opposition of the Liberal Opposition, and the Senate, which is also controlled by the Liberal Party.



REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT AMEND BILL

George Baker: Mr. Speaker, several ACOA board members, such as Dorothy Sutherland from Nova Scotia, Donald Deacon and Francis MacAulay of Prince Edward Island have stated that it is a conflict of interest. Ms. Sutherland stated: "It would never enter my mind to apply to myself for money". Other board members
who applied for money and got it said that they did so with the encouragement of the Minister.
Is the Government aware that Mr. David Ganong, part owner of Ganong Brothers of New Brunswick, resigned last month, not because he had received a $75,000 grant for his company to modernize from ACOA, but because he had submitted a further application, to use his words, "for several millions of dollars"? Is this Minister aware that the Senator in charge then phoned him and said that it was not necessary to resign from the board of which he was a member while his application was being processed? Will the Government amend that Bill, sew up that gigantic loophole, and censure that Senator?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there are several dozens of private citizens who are on the boards of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Atlantic Enterprise Institute. In every case they have followed and are following the conflict of interest directions and rules.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not going to be shouted down, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Tobin:: Utter foolishness!


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 am asked this question. I am entitled to answer it. The reputations of these people are at stake.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: They just think it is slander.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has allowed the Hon. Member to put a complex question, and to put it in considerable length. I think that Hon. Members ought also to give the Minister a chance to give it an appropriate reply. The Hon. Minister has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the case of Mr. Ganong, he wrote a Member of the Upper House, Senator Murray, who is in charge of the agency, and told him that he had a major proposal going before ACAO for consideration and before the AEB, a large project that would involve his active and personal involvement. Under those circumstances he thought that he should submit his resignation.
The Senator wrote back to him in a letter dated April 7 regretting that he was tendering his resignation, pointing out that the rules did not require him to resign but stating that in view of the circumstances and the fact that the primary responsibility for carrying the application would fall to him as President, he thought in all the circumstances he could not disagree with his suggestion that he should resign. That is the record of this transaction, which is perfectly proper.
Might I just finally say that the Atlantic Provinces Chamber of Commerce has called for this Bill to be passed as it is, and


does not want any further delay by the Liberal Senate and the Liberal Opposition who voted against it on third reading in this House. It is the most successful agency ever to crop up in Atlantic Canada from the Government of Canada. The jealousy and determination to gut it by Members opposite are resented by everyone in the region.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



IMMIGRATION


John Martin Oostrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Some lawyers are claiming that delays in Canada's refugee process are resulting in the arrest and sometimes even the murder of relatives of individuals who are presently in Canada awaiting authorization of their claims. What can the Minister do to prevent more refugees from being hurt?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat sorry to read about the statement that they had made in the paper, for two reasons. First, in many urgent cases we have helped people who have approached our office when we felt there was an urgent case to be made. I would encourage people to continue to do that. In fact, I think some of the people in that group have done that.
We have also said, and I think it is pretty clear from the article, that we are trying to speed up the process through Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 so that we can deal with these things more expeditiously.
Bill C-55 and Bill C-84 are linked in substance. However, we need Bill C-55, which is now in the other place, in order to resolve this sort of problem.
Let me just say finally that I met with a group of immigration lawyers last week, one of whom had signed that letter and was quoted in that article, and it was not raised with me at that time as an urgent matter, which I also find somewhat disappointing.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor. These will be the last questions in Question Period.



NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Oral Questions
Resources, if it is possible to draw him back to his seat for a moment.
The Minister said in his answer with respect to Pan-Alberta Gas that this issue would come to Cabinet shortly. In view of the fact that under the trade deal there is a lock-in clause in the event of shortages for the proportion of petroleum and natural gas and other energy products which we ship to the United States, will the Minister see to it that there is a full review by Cabinet of this issue? Will he see to it that there is full security for Canadian consumers guaranteed by the decision in the review by Cabinet when it takes place?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the free trade agreement in no way obligates Canadians to sell natural gas-no one is forced to sell natural gas. Exporters are free to negotiate the best commercial terms they can get. They are free to refuse to sell if they are not satisfied.
The agreement offers assurances that Canadian gas exporters can enjoy enhanced access to the U.S. market, and that when they do they will have equitable treatment by U.S. regulatory bodies.
The only situation in which there is any obligation to continue any supply whatsoever would be in the event that an emergency is declared. That responsibility is not anywhere near as onerous as the responsibility entered into by our Liberal predecessors through the International Energy Authority agreement that applies to oil.
The free trade agreement has no connection with the application that was just approved by the NEB. Therefore, it has no consequences in connection with it.



EFFECT OF CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT

Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, that statement is simply not true.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: I put this to the Minister as a question. If there is a shortage in Canada, is it not the fact that there has to be the same proportion of exports of natural gas maintained to the United States as is the case before such shortage conditions obtain? If that is true, does that not mean higher prices for Canadians and more difficult situations of shortage?


John R. Rodriguez: Have you read that one, John?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to it is no, it is not true. As a member of the International Energy Agency we have agreed to the IEA emergency oil sharing system, something which was undertaken by our predecessor.


Mr. Foster:: At 7 per cent.


Point of Order-Mr. Shields


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen. That could result in Canada having to increase its exports during a period of critical oil shortage. However, the free trade agreement only calls, if there is an emergency, for proportion sharing of reductions. So it is completely untrue. It is false. It is not true. There is not an ounce of truth in it. The Hon. Member is completely misled and, what is more, does not want to listen.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: You just confirmed it; you should have listened to the question.
Standing Order 67(2), I wish to table in both official languages, the code of ethics for Canadian companies in South Africa.
* *
*



PETITIONS


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I have too much respect for this House and the Members sitting in this House to allow an unparliamentary remark that I made during Question Period to stay on the record. I wish to withdraw.
Having said that, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that his accusation about me in this House during his preamble is absolutely not true. I would certainly accept his apology for that accusation.


Some Hon. Members:: That is debate.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. McDermid:: You made an accusation that is totally wrong.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the Hon. Member. I also want to say to the Hon. Member for Athabasca that I took it that he had in fact withdrawn some minutes ago. I appreciate very much his comment.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But Gauthier did not withdraw.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to


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, the Government's response to 21 petitions, Nos. 332-4653, 332-4655 to 332-4664 inclusive, 332-4666, 332-4667, 3324680 to 332-4686 inclusive and 332-4692.
While I have the floor, I would move:
That this House do now proceed to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the Deputy Government House Leader had in mind presenting a motion with respect to the votes that will be taken at 5.45 p.m. and thereafter today. Has he abandoned that idea or does he intend to proceed?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I have not abandoned the idea. I thought once the Table had called Orders of the Day and immediately prior to the ruling by the Speaker on the acceptability of the motions, I would place this motion so that everybody would know where they stood.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek some clarification. We have received communiques from a number of government Departments today saying that there would be a call for the production of papers during Routine Proceedings. We have been expecting to discuss that and yet it seems that the Government has decided to move directly to Orders of the


Day. Will there be an opportunity to fulfil the requests of various government officials that we discuss this today?


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Hudon) contacted me prior to Question Period and advised me that papers would be produced pursuant to a motion that I have had on the Order Paper since the March 1. The Government seems to have its wires crossed.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, so that the record is clear on that point of order, we have tried for several weeks to find a Member present in the House or have somebody delegated so that we could indeed produce those papers.


An Hon. Member:: That is not true.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I think the record will show that we have tried every Wednesday for several weeks in a row.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, we expected to get to the point where the Government indicates responses to Questions on the Order Paper. We were notified that the Government was going to provide a response to a Question on the Order Paper by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). The media has already presented me with that information.
In other words, one of the national newspapers of Canada received the information that the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam requested prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons. I was going to raise that when we got to it in the normal point in Routine Proceedings.
Since the Government decided not to have Routine Proceedings, I felt that this was the only time to raise this. It is a very serious breach of privilege in that the media apparently is being presented or given material-confidential material- prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons and prior to the Hon. Member requesting the information receiving said information. I wanted to raise that. It is a very serious point of order.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I was apprised earlier this day that this point of order might indeed be raised. I would point out that the Government has not yet responded to the question in the House and that when Members opposite see the Government's response to the question they may choose to raise a point of order at that point or they may choose not to. It is my understanding that perhaps the press does have access to the information, but I am not sure that they have access to the answer to the question which the Member opposite asked. The information available to me says there is some difference in what the press may have. It is a draft possible answer.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the Hon. Member for Skeena in a moment. I may not have completely understood the position of the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. The Chair took it that what he is saying is that some information was given out which would have, in the normal course of proceedings, been
Petitions
given here in the Chamber, but was given out by the Government to the media. Is that the accusation, if I can put it that
way?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the situation. It is a very serious breach of traditions of the House when members of the media are receiving confidential information destined for a specific Member prior to it being tabled. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this. It was in the hands of the media last night when it was supposed to be tabled in the House of Commons today.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify what the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be alluding to. I have been here in the House every day this week. You could check Hansard. I was in the House every day last week except for Tuesday, when I was in Hull the whole of the day with the standing committee dealing with Bill C-31 in its final report.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the New Democratic Party has raised the issue of the answer to a question. I would indicate that after we are on Orders of the Day, with the unanimous consent of the House, I would be very happy to table the answer to the Member's question. Then he would have a chance to look at that and see whether or not he wants to pursue a question at a later stage.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the Deputy House Leader for the Government wanted us to force a vote on this move, to go directly to Government Orders so that we could take up time this afternoon so that the Government would not have to listen to the debates by the various back-benchers against the language legislation. Since we have agreed to go directly to Orders of the Day, we are looking forward to hearing some of these Neanderthal points of view put forward by Members of the Conservative Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap and the Parliamentary Secretary could assist the Chair. I take it that there was a suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary that if there was consent, he would produce the particular matter which has been the subject of discussion. It would seem to the Chair that that might be helpful. If it was agreed, that could be done right now and then we would just carry on as we have been. As I indicated, that would take consent.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to achieve is to get Orders of the Day called so that report stage of Bill C-72 is called and before the House. Once that takes place we can have unanimous consent if the House wishes. It is key to us that we get on to that debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Chair did call Orders of the Day. My position is that we have reached Orders of the Day.


Official Languages Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: It may be that Hon. Members may want to return to the matter that we have been discussing a little later. In the meantime, I think it would be appropriate to proceed.
As Hon. Members will know, there have been a great many amendments proposed and presented to the Table. I think I should say that with the number of amendments proposed this has naturally created a very heavy workload for table officers and the Chair. Hon. Members will know, and I am sure will be co-operative in understanding that every effort has been made to deal with this extensive number of amendments in order to allow the Chair to make a ruling at this time which will assist us in dealing with them.
I want to say to Hon. Members, because there has been a constantly changing situation in this matter in that a number of amendments have been withdrawn, that the Chair is reading from a transcript of material prepared earlier today which has been modified by hand throughout the Question Period. It will take some time to read all of it, and I know Hon. Members will co-operate with the Chair when it is understood that changes have been made right up until a few moments ago.
This ruling is with reference to report stage of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. As of six o'clock p.m. last night, there were 114 motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada. Since last night, 23 motions in amendment have been withdrawn, but I have asked that the original numbering be left in place so as to avoid confusion. Those withdrawn since the Order Paper was printed last night-I will be setting them out, but before I do I want Hon. Members and the public who may be watching this to understand that it is not the Chair's duty nor authority to reject or accept amendments on the basis of their substance. Those rulings have to be made on a procedural basis only.
Second, when we have an extensive number of amendments and the Chair has to make this ruling, it may seem to some Hon. Members or to the public watching that just a lot of figures are being quoted. There may be a natural curiosity as to what each one of these amendments consists of, but it is important that all Hon. Members and the public watching understand that it is not the place of the Chair in this ruling to comment upon, to explain or to try to explain what the substance of these particular amendments might be. This is a
procedural ruling. All Hon. Members will, of course, have access immediately, as these numbers are read out, to what those amendments are and the substance of them. It is important as much as possible that people understand what we are doing in this place at this particular time.
Those motions, or in common parlance, those amendments withdrawn since the Order Paper was printed last night are the following: 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16A, 17, 18, 20, 20A, 31, 36-


Some Hon. Members:: Hold it.


Mr. Speaker:: I invite Hon. Members, if I am moving too fast, to indicate that I am, and I have that indication. I will back up a bit. I will continue with 20A, 31, 36, 38, 53, 65, 73, 102A, 109, 117, 124, 132 and 134.
May I proceed?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: A number of motions in amendment to Bill C-72 propose to delete clauses or parts of clauses. In other words, those amendments do not do other than ask that this House, if it gets to vote on these amendments to take parts of the Bill out. Some of these motions, if adopted, might have the effect of altering the principle of the Bill. However, it is a well established practice that such motions, notwithstanding their impact on the principle of the Bill, are allowable at this stage for this is the only method by which Members can debate these clauses.
Again I want it clearly understood by all Hon. Members and the public that I am dealing in procedural terms. I am not dealing, nor am I sitting in judgment on the substantive effect of any amendment. That is for the House to do at the appropriate time. What I am saying here is that we have had a tradition in this House where at this stage of proceedings the Chair will allow amendments that delete in the interests of allowing debate on a substantive matter at the appropriate time. That principle applies to this Bill just as much as it does to any other Bill. As your Speaker I have an obligation to ensure that that procedural principle applies to all Bills no matter what their substance may be.
Consequently, this ruling will deal with Motions Nos. 1A, 2, 2A, 2B, 5 to 8 inclusive, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24A, 25 to 28 inclusive, 28A 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38A, 39, 41 to 45 inclusive, 45A, 46, 47, 49, 52, 59, 60, 61, 70, 72, 74, 76, 79, 80, 84 to 93 inclusive, 95, 96, 96A, 97 to 102 inclusive, 103, 104, 106, 106A, 107 to 110 inclusive, 112, 114, 115, 115A, 120 to 123 inclusive, 125 to 131 inclusive, 133, 135 and 136.
Motions Nos. 1 A, 2, 2A and 2B all deal with the purpose of the Act and will be grouped for debate and voted on separately-


[ Translation]
Motions numbered 5 and 7, which deal with the Interpretation section of the Bill, will be grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Fundy Royal (Mr. Corbett) causes the Chair concern because it is contradictory of an earlier part of Clause 3.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that is a withdrawn motion according to the information you gave us earlier. You may not have to rule on it, because according to the first list you gave us, No. 8 was withdrawn.


Some Hon. Members:: No, it wasn't.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary and I will-


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: Just so that we do keep the record straight, the Parliamentary Secretary is now indicating, I think, that the ruling as I have been reading it is correct. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) is in accord with that?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: I will read this again. Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal causes the Chair concern because it is contradictory of an earlier part of Clause 3. Again, I say to Hon. Members and to the public watching this that we are dealing here with procedural matters. Hon. Members have in front of them all of these motions. It is not the place of the Speaker, nor could I possibly do so at this time, to try to explain what each one of these motions was or, for that matter, to read them, but they are available and are in front of Hon. Members at this time.
Citation 773(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition reads as follows:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the bill as
so far agreed to by the committee, nor must it be inconsistent with a decision
which the committee has given upon a former amendment.
For this reason, I must advise the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal that the Chair has no alternative but to rule Motion No. 8 out of order.
Motion No. 11 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), Motion No. 12 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac- Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet) and Motion No. 39 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Fundy- Royal cause the Chair difficulty because they go against the principle of the Bill as the Bill was adopted at second reading and as set out in the purpose clause of Bill C-72. This is contrary to citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. In addition, Motion No. 39 is contrary to Clause 34 as that clause
Official Languages Act
was amended in committee. For these reasons, the Chair has no choice but to rule Motions Nos. 11,12 and 39 out of order.

Motion numbered 19 deals with the Administration of Justice part of the Bill. It will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal causes problems for the Chair in that it is beyond the scope of the Bill, contrary to citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. After consideration, I have no choice but to rule Motion No. 21 out of order.
Motions Nos. 22, 23, 24A, 25, 26 and 29 which seek to amend the part of the Bill on communications with and services to the public will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	A vote on Motion No. 22 will dispose of Motions Nos. 23 and 29;
(b)	Motions Nos. 24A, 25 and 26 will be voted on separately-
Motions Nos. 27, 28, 28A, 30, 32 and 33 all deal with regulations in relation to communications with and service to the public. They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	Motion No. 27 will be voted on separately;
(b)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 28 will obviate the need for a vote on Motion No. 28A. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 28 will necessitate a vote on Motion No. 28A;
(c)	Motion No. 30 will be voted on separately; and
(d)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 32 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 33. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 32 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 33.

Motions numbered 34 to 61 deal with the Language of Work. After careful consideration, the Chair is of the opinion that debate on proposed motions to this section of the Bill should be divided in three groups as follows:
(a)	motions 34 to 47 on Rights Relating to Language of Work, Duties of the Government and Regions of Canada prescribed; and
(b)	motion 49 on Minimum and additional duties in prescribed regions and motions 59, 60 and 61 on Special duties for institutions directing or providing services to others and regulations.

The Chair will now deal with group (a). Motions 34 to 47 will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:


Official Languages Act
(a)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 34 obviates the need for a vote on Motions No. 35 and 37. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 34 necessitates a vote on Motion numbered 35;
(b)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 35 obviates the need for a vote on Motion No. 37. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 35 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 37;
(c)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 37 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 38A. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 37 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 38A;
(d)	Motion No. 39 was ruled out of order earlier;
(e)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 41 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motions No. 44 and 45. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 41 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 44;
(f)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 44 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 45. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 44 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 45;
(g)	Motions No;. 42, 43, 45A, 46 and 47 will be voted on separately.
[ Translation]
The Chair will now deal with group (b).
Motions numberd 49, 52, 59, 60 and 61 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions numbered 70, 72 and 74 all deal with the Participation of English-Speaking and French-Speaking Canadians part of the Bill. They will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motions numbered 76, 79 and 80 all deal with the Advancement of English and French part of the Bill. They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) motions numbered 76 and 79 will be voted on separately; and (b) motion numbered 80, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet), is identical to motion numbered 79 and will not, therefore, be selected and put to the House.

Motions Nos. 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 96A, 97, 98, 99, 100 and 101 all deal with the Commissioner of Official Languages part of the Bill. They will grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	Motion No. 85 will be voted on separately;
(b)	Motion No. 84, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), is identical to Motion No. 85 and will not, therefore, be selected and put to the House.
(c)	Motions No. 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, and 93 will be voted on separately;
(d)	Motion No. 89, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, is
identical to Motion No. 88 and will not, therefore, be selected and put to the House;
(e)	an affirmative vote on Motion No. 95 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 96. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 95 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 96;
(f)	Motion No. 96A, 97 and 100 will be voted on separately;
(g)	Motion No. 98, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South, and Motion No. 99, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac- Lennox and Addington, are identical to Motion No. 97 and will not, therefore, be selected and put to the House; and
(h)	Motion No. 101, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, is identical to Motion No. 100 and will not, therefore, be selected and put to the House.
Motions No. 102, 103, 104, 106, 106A, 107 and 108 all deal with the Court Remedy part of the Bill. They will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motions numbered 110, 112, 114, 115 and 115a all deal with the General part of the Bill. They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows: (a) motions numbered 110, 112 and 114 will be voted on separately; and (b) an affirmative vote on motion numbered 115 obviates the necessity of a vote on motion numbered 115a. However, a negative vote on motion numbered 115 necessitates the question being put on motion numbered 115a.

Motion No. 120 deals with the Related Amendments section of the Bill. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 121 deals with the Consequential Amendments part of the Bill. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motion No. 122 deals with the Transitional Provisions, Repeal and Coming Into Force part of the Bill. It will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions No. 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 and 136 all deal with the Preamble.
They will be grouped for debate and voted on as follows:
(a)	Motions No. 123, 125, 126 and 127 will be voted on separately;
(b)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 128 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 129. However, a negative vote on Motion No. 128 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 129;
(c)	Motion No. 130 will be voted on separately;
(d)	An affirmative vote on Motion No. 131 obviates the necessity of a vote on Motion No. 133. However, a negative


vote on Motion No. 131 necessitates a vote on Motion No. 133;
(e)	Motion No. 136 will be voted on separately.
Motion No. 135, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, causes the Chair procedural difficulty in that it is beyond the scope of the Bill, contrary to citation 773(1) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition. For this reason, the Chair has no choice but to declare the motion out of order.
Before I put the motions to the House, I want to say to Hon. Members that the Table and the officers charged with the obligations of handling a complex matter like this are very appreciative of the co-operation that was extended to all of them by all of the Hon. Members involved. I want to say from the chair that that has made it a lot easier.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I want to emphasize again that in these deliberations in which we have taken some minutes, I am making rulings on the procedural acceptability of certain amendments and I am dealing procedurally with how they will be debated. It is not for the Chair to consider the substance of these amendments, that is for the House to do. The obligation of the Chair is to be sure that this House can deal with amendments put by Hon. Members to Bills in a proper and appropriate way.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be safe in saying that I speak for all Members of the House when I thank you for the care that you have taken with the judgment and also to the Table for their efforts in this matter.
My hon. friend, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, alluded to a motion which we had discussed earlier. I wish to put it at this time. There have been consultations among the Parties with respect to the votes this evening and I think you would find consent for the following motion:
That at 5.45 p.m., the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings before the
House and proceed to the deferred divisions relating to second reading of Bill

Immediately after the deferred divisions on Bill C-130, leave having been
given, the Speaker shall put all questions necessary to dispose of the report
stage of Bill C-72.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties with respect to the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I think you would find unanimous consent to move to Committee Reports in order to allow the committee report to be tabled now. I thank the Parties for their co-operation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?
Official Languages Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gerald Comeau (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, in both official languages.
Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2) of the House of Commons, the committee requests the Government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
A year ago all Members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans agreed to look into the development of aquaculture in Canada. The committee decided to travel to Norway and Scotland to see recent developments made by those countries in fish farming.
On December 17, 1987, this committee presented to the House a trip report of its overseas findings. This committee then decided to visit the west coast and east coast of Canada to examine the status of the Canadian aquaculture industry. Members of the committee were pleased to learn that from a technological and scientific point of view, the aquaculture industry in Canada does not need to envy other countries.
This industry, however, needs good support in certain areas in order to be able to fully compete on the international markets. Recommendations contained in this report are tailored to make Canadians aware of the opportunities offered by this industry and to facilitate its further development.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 1A
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 40 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"2. The purpose of this Act is to reinforce the present laws of Canada relating the official languages to:"


Official Languages Act


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 45 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"institutions, wherever it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances in particular with respect to".
Motion No. 2A
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 2 to 5 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"administration of justice and in communicating with or providing services to the public;"
Motion No. 2B
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"ties and maintain the use of the English and French".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to join all my colleagues in congratulating the Clerks of the House for spending a large part of their weekend studying, working and writing their recommendations on the 136 or so amendments that have been tabled.
During the Committee study, Mr. Speaker, Government Members proposed amending the purpose of the Bill and deleting from it some words that I consider very important. The purpose of my amendment is quite simply to restore the wording of the original Bill tabled in this House on June 25, 1987; that is, the purpose of the Act would read as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, in particular with respect to their use in parliamentary proceedings, in legislative and other instruments,...
And it goes on, Mr. Speaker.
The purpose of the Act, Mr. Speaker, is very important. In the debate in Committee, I said that it was perhaps the most important clause in the Bill because according to the preamble, it clearly establishes, both for Canadians and for those who will have to study and, more important, interpret this Act, that the purpose is part of it and is very useful in interpreting it. It adds no substantive rights, I admit. As I said in Committee it has symbolic value for me, but it is also extremely important because experience has shown that the purpose of the 1969 Act, Section 2, was used repeatedly by the courts for interpretation purposes, and we were told then that the purpose clause, as drafted in the 1969 Act was declaratory. It was an admirable declaration of intent, but the law had no teeth, no provisions for enforcement.
So I feel that the purpose of the act is to define and spell out the fact that the main objective of the exercise is to strengthen the Official Languages Act; not another act, but that one in particular. Let us be specific, let us say it plainly! To my mind, this is one way of emphasizing the importance of the Act. I also have a great deal of respect for the Interpretation Act. I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but I know that the Interpretation Act (Chap. 1-23) also recognizes the importance of the purpose of an act. The text reads as follows;
"Every enactment shall be deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects."
To understand clearly what the Act wants to accomplish or correct, we cannot ignore its purpose, hence its importance. Thus, the interpretation value of the purpose clause clarifies and may support the other provisions of an act. That is why I have tabled a single amendment, Mr. Speaker: this one. It is because I wanted, in the short time allotted to us, to put as much strength and passion into my arguments as I could, as I wanted to see the Government's own original idea put back into the Bill, and have it state clearly and lucidly, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the purpose of the Act was indeed to strengthen federal legislation on official languages.
There is no doubt whatsoever as far as that is concerned. It is inherently important because it has repercussions on all of the other clauses of the Bill. For instance, if there were some interpretation problem with a given section, a judge could give it a broader reading if the Act contained a purpose that warranted it. That was the case with the purpose of the Official Languages Act before the Conservatives sabotaged it. The effect of such a clause is to prevent overly restrictive interpretations such as the one that was made in the "Societe des Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick" decision, wherein the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the right to use one of the two official languages before the courts did not include the right to be understood by those courts. In fact, Clause 16 of the Bill we have before us today corrects that flaw by clearly imposing on judges the obligation of understanding the language of the proceedings without the assistance of an interpreter. The purpose of the Act is, then, to strengthen the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, I have here before me an interpretation method, the grammatical method, the teleological method. I will not read it because I will run out of time, but I want to refer Members to the Interpretation Act of Canada where they will see how important it is that the purpose section of an Act be clear and precise, so that the judiciary and the people are given an absolutely unequivocal statement of the intent of the legislator.
The amendment I have just moved is not revolutionary. Quite the opposite! It simply repeats the wording the Government had in its Bill for almost a year, wording that was removed-as we all know-to please a small group of Conservative Members who did not like the English translation. I


am sorry, but I did not translate the text. They do not like the word "extend". My colleague from Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) will I hope be introducing an amendment soon to correct the English text that was tabled. My intention was to restore in its entirety the wording the Government had proposed, that is to say that in English one would read:

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages ...
That is the original wording in the Bill introduced by the Government in June, 1987.1 think that it says-

in French clearly that the purpose is to strengthen and [English]
If people do not like the word "extend", and I understand that there was some confusion, because it was even translated in my own office as "reinforce". I do not think that the word "reinforce" is appropriate. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault), will move an amendment to reinstate the word "extend", which I understand is the correct English expression. Not being a specialist in those terms, Mr. Speaker, I will say nothing further.

Mr. Speaker, the tendency of Canadian jurisprudence at the present time is to use the teleological method I referred to earlier. That is why the purpose of Bill C-72 is important in the initial version and in the amendment moved by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier, myself. I and my colleagues in the Liberal party, including the Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), want to ensure that the Official Languages Act will be given a broad interpretation by the courts, and, I repeat, a liberal one. Hence the necessity of stating that the purpose of this Act is to strengthen the legislation on Official Languages.
For instance, if someone makes a complaint pursuant to a right granted by Bill C-72, the federal institution concerned might defend itself by saying that the situation at issue is the normal institutional practice. We have always worked that way. What do you want? That is how it works. With the purpose of the bill being to strengthen the legislation, I think that the plaintiff could rightly argue that new procedures will have to be created and that we cannot be satisfied only with what exists.
With the word "reinforce" in the purpose of the Act, it will be clear that it is not the status quo, but rather a big step forward. The original version of clause 2 of Bill C-72, my amendment, represents a quantum leap, an obligation to do more, and that is what we want, Madam Speaker.
The Liberal amendment, as I just said, simply restores the Government's wording. I do not see why the Government, which was deceived by its backbenchers who said that if they were granted some amendments, they would vote for or
Official Languages Act
support the Bill... They did not do so, Madam Speaker, and the Government was had in this deal. And I say to the Government that since that is so, since your recalcitrant caucus members do not want to play the game, let us restore the original wording of the Bill and we will vote for it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I gather that I am speaking to my amendment now.
I would like to point out and explain why so many amendments were tabled. We felt because a great number of witnesses who wished to appear before the committee, which was considerable-and they were very important witnesses from very important organizations, legal societies and individuals-were denied an opportunity to appear before that committee, we did not support the committee's decision that it would not travel.
This particular piece of legislation has caused great and serious concern right across the country. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that it has very little support across Canada, especially western Canada. More time should have been spent hearing witnesses. It was a very serious error to deny all these responsible people a chance to appear. That was one of the main reasons why we had to table a number of amendments.
I would also like to point out that there is a theory among many Members in the House, which has been around a long time, that any time a language Bill comes up or anything to do with language, not one Member of Parliament is to question it. One cannot ask a question or make a statement about it. One cannot propose an amendment to it. If one does then immediately one is slandering. I do not mind being slandered, but I do not like my constituents being slandered, and Canadians being slandered because they ask questions about Bill C-72. I think that the comments that are being made by many Members of Parliament here daily about Canadians who would dare ask a question about official languages or any language Bill are absolutely insulting and intolerable. I will speak up for them at any time. No one will stop me with their name calling. I will try to be as constructive as I possibly can at all times.
With respect to the amendment, Motion No. 2, the clause would read:
The purpose of this Act is to
(a) ensure respect for English and French as the official languages of Canada and ensure equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all federal institutions, wherever it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances.
This amendment would prevent the emphasizing and the segregating of certain institutions, for example, a parliamentary proceeding. This amendment would also ensure that only where it is reasonable to do so would both languages get absolute equality of use. This amendment seeks to prevent a


Official Languages Act
great deal of superfluous work that would have to be done to ensure that the strict wording of the Bill was followed.
My Motion No. 2A amends Clause 2, lines two to five. Clause 2(a) would read:
-legislative and other instruments, in the administration of justice and in
communicating with or providing services to the public.
This amendment would delete from Clause 2(a) the words "and in carrying out the work of federal institutions". This amendment would allow the merit system to become intact, allowing hiring and promotion in the Public Service to be done on the basis of qualifications and experience rather than official language spoken. It would also close the floodgates on the interpretation of language of work of federal institutions. As the Bill stands, it is far too open-ended.
The reason we have to give serious consideration to the return of the merit system is because we had a recent case in Vancouver in which a civil servant was in line for a promotion. He was denied promotion because somebody here in Ottawa decided overnight to designate the senior position bilingual. This unilingual English-speaking Canadian was fully qualified for the job. The only way he could get his promotion was to hire lawyers and go to court to fight for his promotion. That is not acceptable to me or to the Canadian people. In this case the judge ruled in his favour. He said that there was no evidence presented that, overnight, this position in Vancouver had to be bilingual. He said it was inexcusable for the Government to be designating this position bilingual overnight. The man has been granted his promotion.
Another concern is that the Government has not responded to that court ruling. We do not know whether more and more unilingual Canadians are going to have to hire lawyers to go to court to get their promotions or not. If this is going to be the procedure from now on, then the Government is going to have to look to providing for compensation for individuals who are going to have to hire lawyers to get a job or to go to court for a promotion.
With my amendment, Motion No. 2B, the clause would read:
-support the development of English and French linguistic minority
communities and maintain the use of the English and French languages within
Canadian society;
This amendment would state that a purpose of the Act is to "maintain" the use of the English and French languages in Canadian society rather than "generally advance the equality of status and use" of these languages. Purposeful advancement of either language would result in discrimination of one of them. Maintenance of both languages would ensure that both remain a part of Canadian society, but are not waged against each other.
I think that this is an important amendment. For example, there was a recent case involving an Anglophone who was running the post office in Otter Lake for 10 months. She could handle the work in French. She could speak reasonable French but all of a sudden Canada Post decided that it would give this
individual a language diagnostic analysis. It was found out that her French was not perfect. Thus she was fired.
There is a double standard here. I do not want to get into naming the other side. I have never heard of any people on the other side being fired because they cannot speak perfect English.
Even the French-Canadian community in Otter Lake took up her cause. They were out marching on the street trying to convince Canada Post to give her job back. Not everyone can reach level C French and not everyone can reach level C English.
As far as I am concerned, no one should be fired from their job in this country because they cannot speak perfect English or perfect French.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, a number of amendments have been proposed here. One by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), is aimed at reinforcing Bill C-72 by reinstating wording that was dropped from the Bill during consideration in committee.
The other amendments, Madam Speaker, were approved by members of the Group of Fifteen, the dinosaurs, the Tory backbenchers who objected to the principal contained in Bill C-72. I deeply regret the fact that these Members submitted these amendments, because I believe that the split in the Conservative Caucus has been very damaging, not just to the Progressive Conservative Party but also to our country.
I believe the concept of bilingualism, adopted unanimously in 1969 by all political Parties in this Parliament, is very important and deserves our support. I also think, Madam Speaker, that when a Government introduces this kind of policy, it is entitled at the very least to the support of all its Ministers and parliamentary secretaries, including the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) who just spoke and who is Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
Motion No. 2 and Motion No. 2A standing in the name of this Member would have the effect of weakening the Bill's statement of purpose. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, because of time allocation, I will not have a chance to speak to the other amendments proposed by this Member and by his colleagues who are of the same persuasion. However, my point is that all these amendments are not just minor changes or adjustments. They are major changes.
I will give you an example. In the amendment he just moved, the Hon. Member wants to strike out "and in carying out the work of federal institutions".
In the present legislation, of which Bill C-72 is an extension, it is clear that the objective is to maintain or enhance or reinforce the use of both official languages, not just when the federal Government communicates with or provides services to


the public but also in carrying out the work of federal institutions. That is a very important principle, and it has had the effect of giving Anglophones and Francophones equal status within the Public Service. Before 1969 that did not exist.
Madam Speaker, I am sure you remember when, for instance at CN, everything was in English, and when government cheques were in English only. All that has changed.


An Hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Other things still need to be changed, but we have nevertheless made a big step forward.
However, whether French or English speaking and whatever their language of work, young people are still unsure about finding a job in the government of Canada. Madam Speaker, this is a principle I cannot accept. But this is what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine is proposing.
As I said, I deeply regret the statement made by this Hon. Member. Madam Speaker, I deplore that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is keeping silent. He has not condemned the very negative and destructive series of amendments put forward by many of the government Members. I am sorry that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) failed to intervene, in spite of his responsibilities towards bilingualism, and that he chose to go on holidays instead of getting involved in this matter in order to give some leadership.


Mr. Cooper:: Madam Speaker, on two separate occasions within the last couple of minutes the Member has made reference to the absence of Members of this House, and that is clearly against the Standing Orders. I would ask that the Chair bring that to his attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) does know the normal way of the House, which is not to mention the presence or absence of Hon. Members, but what I have heard, in French, was not the Hon. Member mentioning the presence or absence in the House of Hon. Members. This is what I have heard. This is why 1 did not make any comment.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Thank you, Madam Speaker, if I have referred to a member absent from the House, I made a mistake. I wanted to refer to the silence of the Secretary of State on this matter and to the fact that the government seems to be tolerating the behaviour of some of its important members, and even some of its ministers, allowing them to take a stand against a basic policy of the government.
Madam Speaker, our time is limited, but I would also like to mention an issue which seems to be of concern to Canadians, the problems facing the language teachers who have now been on strike or locked out for a period of eight to nine months,
Official Languages Act
who are being asked by the Treasury Board to work five more hours a week and who would see their capability to teach in both official languages diminished. The four amendments in front of us do not directly, but indirectly, relate to that clause. The member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) wants to know if we think the Act must ensure the strenghtening of the equal status of both languages, Madam Speaker, and that is a very important matter. On the one hand, the government says he is for the official languages principle, but, on the other hand, he does nothing to implement this principle and does not react to the concerns of the French speaking community, and of Quebeckers. But when the defender of the rights of the French-speaking Canadians, the new minister who has just joined us, keeps quiet on this issue, I think we are entitled to ask ourselves some questions and to feel concerned, Madam Speaker.

I just want to say, finally, that in the committee a substantial number of adjustments and changes were made to this Bill. They were made in an effort to try to accommodate some of the concerns that have been expressed by different Members, including some constituents in my riding of Ottawa Centre, and there was an honest effort at compromise and in finding constructive solutions to the concerns being expressed by members from the Conservative back benches and from time to time by constituents of mine in Ottawa Centre or elsewhere.
To come at the last minute with this lengthy series of amendments, which at one time or another suggested that the Armed Forces should be English only, that the National Capital Region's language of work should be English, that the basic commitment to bilingualism should be reversed or should be undermined, at a time when we know that it is fundamental to our country and fundamental to keeping the country together, is not playing fair.
I hope that Canadians who are watching this debate realize what we are talking about here. This began as an effort by the Government, I believe, to reinforce the principle of official bilingualism. Unfortunately, it has turned into a sorry and distressing and regrettable affair in which one is forced to question the commitment of the Government to the concept and principle of bilingualism because of the degree to which they have allowed two messages to go out.
When the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) presents himself in the election next time, will he be supporting the Government's policy of bilingualism or will he in fact be against? No matter how he votes tonight or how he votes tomorrow, a Parliamentary Secretary, without being disciplined, will have been allowed to have raised serious questions which indicate that he is not at all in sympathy with the basic tenet of government policy, and that I believe to be unacceptable.
I think I would apply the same comments to one of the ViceChairmen of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, who is another of this group of 15 back-benchers


Official Languages Act
opposed to bilingualism. I think he too, particularly since the position is that of the vice-chairmanship of the Official Languages Committee, should retire himself from those particular functions.
As far as back-benchers are concerned, Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether or not they could be disciplined without being kicked out of the caucus. I think, however, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard), who is responsible for bilingualism, should surely by now in a week have been able to stand up and say directly, not indirectly, that they did not agree and that they condemn those interventions which are so harmful to the Party, to our Parliament and to this country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the report stage debate dealing with the amendments that have been put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
I find it rather ironic that after all of the rhetoric in the House over the course of the last few days the first motion we are debating is the one put forward by the Member from Ottawa-Vanier. Here is a person who sat diligently during the course of the committee proceedings, had opportunities to deal with every facet of the Bill and had co-operation. I thought he would be the last person to come forward with amendments at report stage, but that, I guess, is a commentary of what goes on in this House from time to time.
Let me simply refresh the memories of Hon. Members and Canadians generally with respect to this legislation. Bill C-72 was introduced by this Government as a follow-up to a commitment made in the Speech from the Throne, one which has been given substantial and absolute support not only by the Government of this country but by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) giving superb leadership on the official languages policy in Canada both as Prime Minister and while Leader of the Opposition. This legislation was brought forward on June 25, 1987, a year ago.
I suppose it is a piece of legislation that has received the most intensive examination of any in the course of this Parliament. It has been scrutinized and examined by Members of Parliament and by the public at large. Representations have been made. But when all is said and done, I think the response to this Bill by editorialists across the country and by people from coast to coast from Newfoundland to British Columbia to the territories can be described as fair, equitable and very much in Canada's national interest.
The Bill itself is a response to our obligation as parliamentarians to deal in a legislative way as a result of constitutional provisions. Language provisions are the most entrenched parts of our Constitution. We are a country in which there are two official languages, and it is important for us to have legislation
that recognizes and puts into effect our constitutional obligations. We come from various regions of Canada with different perspectives, but we are all interested in one Canada, a united Canada and one that reflects our heritage.
When I look at this legislation I think in terms of minority groups across the country. We have to be tolerant in the official languages policy. When we are not tolerant of any minority we are intolerant of all minorities in the country.
We have this Bill which I brought before the committee. We had a substantial number of sittings covering days, afternoons, mornings and nights. We were able to discuss in some detail various ideas both from the Government and from the Opposition. As a result of those deliberations we were able to come forward with more than 50 amendments.
What are the amendments with which the committee came forward? They had the effect of clarifying and of making more precise the meaning of the legislation. They were amendments which had the effect of making sure that fairness and equity would prevail in the application of the official languages policy in Canada. After all that is what our function as parliamentarians is all about.
We wanted to make sure, when we had the legislation, we had the best possible legislation to present to the people of Canada so that they knew in this area, as in any other area, that there would be equity of application, that the rules would be fair, and that the development of those rules would be such that they would be seen to be fair, that people would be able to understand the rules and we would be able to deliver on our commitment to make sure that, where there is significant demand, all Canadians receive, at the federal level, services by the Government of Canada in the language with which they are familiar.
What could be more reasonable than to have legislation to recognize that Canada has two official languages, that the country is one where we have a system established to ensure that the services of the Government of Canada are delivered in our official languages? 1 think the people of Canada understand that this legislation is fair.
An editorialist in the Globe and Mail described the Bill as magnificent because it is fair and does set in place reasonable rules. It is a Bill on which we worked together with all Members of Parliament to make sure that various points of view were taken into account.
We have heard statements made concerning the commitment of this Government on official languages and particularly the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Let me conclude my participation at this time by paying special tribute to the Prime Minister in his role on official languages in Canada. I say, and I know that this will not be seriously challenged, that the Prime Minister has been steadfast in his leadership on the official languages policy in Canada. He has demonstrated his belief in one of the fundamental principles on which he as Prime Minister and the Government operate that


there be fairness in the application of the official language policy across the country.
He faced some difficult challenges as Leader of the Opposition when an attempt was made virtually to embarrass him on the day that he arrived her as the elected Member of Parliament for Central Nova. He met that challenge head on. I say to you and to all Canadians that there is no person in this country with a better sense of fairness and equity on official languages than the Prime Minister of our country. I can say that without any fear of serious challenge. He has demonstrated time and time again that he understands this country. He has a sense of the country and is prepared to give it leadership.
This Bill is legislation that will be passed by this House. Actions speak far, far louder than words. We will have this legislation which has been considered in very great detail by Members of Parliament. We have had a chance on the part of the Government to assist as much as possible in making sure that the Bill in the form in which it has come forward does reflect the considered views of Members of Parliament from all sides of the House.
It is fine for the Member from Ottawa-Vanier to come forward and try to be purer than pure concerning Bill C-72, but I commend to Members of the House of Commons that we take the legislation as it has been reported to the House by the committee with its amendments, that it go forward from report stage in that form, that we move forward tomorrow and pass it at third reading and send it to the Senate. We can then at the earliest possible date have Royal Assent and have a fair, equitable official languages law in Canada.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, I would like to deal more specifically with motion No. 1A on the Order Paper, which is being put forward by my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It aims at restoring the original wording of the Bill, that is to restore the concept that the purpose of the Government legislation now before the House is to extend the Official Languages Act.
Historically, what transpired is that the Bill included that extension concept, but before the House Committee to which the Bill was referred an amendment was introduced to take that concept out. If I understood correctly the committee proceedings, it is the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), who usually acts as a champion of official languages and the French language in particular who, interestingly enough-but since I did not attend the committee, I would like him to explain why he did that.
I read in the committee proceedings that he did so in a spirit of consensus in order I suppose to try and rally the most regressive Members of his party whith whom there was difficulty in committee in support of official languages. We are seeing the results. Unmoved, the dinosaurs came back with some 136 amendments they put on the Order Paper in order to
Official Languages Act
try not only to completely water down the Official Languages Act, but clearly to try and kill the legislation because as we know the session already is well-advanced. We know we have very little time left, and if each of those amendments were to have been discussed one by one, the legislation would have died on the Order Paper. This is why last week, in the Official Opposition, we challenged the Government to bring in time limitation on the Bill, in order to ensure that the Conservative dinosaurs would not succeed in killing the Official Languages Act.
But to come back to the relevant amendment, what happened in committee in my view is a serious change that significantly weakens the Official Languages Act. To answer the question put by an Hon. Member, let me repeat that it is the Hon. Member for Charlevoix who in committee, to everyone's surprise, put forward that amendment that significantly weakens the Official Languages Act since in fact it deletes from the Act, in clause 2, which is an interpretation clause, therefore a very important clause, a clause that will guide the court when it will interpret the Act, and render a legal decision. In the original wording put forward by the Government, the bill read: "The purpose of this Act is to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to ensure respect.. . ". Those are the terms, "to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages" that were taken out by the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix. Thus, the English version reads:

-the purpose of the Act is to extend the present laws of Canada relating to official languages, and so on, and to ensure the respect for both languages, blah, blah, blah. This concept, in French, "renforcer", and in English, "to extend", has been removed by the amendment, all in an attempt to try to appease the most regressive elements of the Conservative Party.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Not true.


Jacques Guilbault: Yes, read the text of the committee hearings.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: You read the committee hearings, you'll find out it's not true.


Jacques Guilbault: I have them here. I am being told it is wrong but I will quote it in French because the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) spoke in French. He said this:-

The Member from Charlevoix says: "You can well understand that I am proposing this amendment for reasons-and if I do so, it is via conciliatory spirit." His intentions were good and I am not questioning them. However, it didn't do much good. In fact, the amendment was agreed, and the Bill is now short a very important provision for the reinforcement of the Official Languages Act, but that didn't satisfy the dinosaurs who made new attempsts.


Official Languages Act
Madam Speaker, of all the things this amendment was proposed on June 22, on the very day when the new Secretary of State was elected in Lac-Saint-Jean and was still celebrating his victory! He did not object to this amendment although he knew full well he was to be responsible for the adminstra-tion of the Official Languages Act. He did absolutely nothing to stop the Conservative members from using their majority in committee to water down with their amendments, the basic concept of the Official Languages Act which is to reinforce not to weaken the Act.
Where is the Secretary of State at a time when we are trying to restore the Bill to its original version? Where is he? I'm not saying, Madam Speaker, that he is absent from these premises. I ask this question: Where is Lucien, the guy who is supposed to defend the people of Quebec and the French language? While we are trying to reinstate the concept that the Official Languages Act must be enhanced our man is sunbathing! That is what is going on!
Madam Speaker, allow me to propose an amendment which brings the English version of the amendment put forward by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier more in line with the French version.
Motion No. 1A proposed by my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier reads as follows: That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 40 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor, and I quote:
"2. The purpose of this Act is to reinforce the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to ... "
Unfortunately, the word "extend" does not appear in the English version of the amended bill, as it did in the original text introduced by the Government. Before the dinosaurs removed this clause in Committee, it was the word "extend" which appeared in the text.
In order to re-establish the original text, I suggest for the English version only, since my colleague's motion is right in French:

That Motion No. 1(a) be amended in the English text only by replacing the
word "reinforced" in the fourth line of the motion by the word "extend".

I made this suggestion, with the support of my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).
Madam Speaker, I suppose that it is with the rather clear and acknowledged purpose to demonstrate that the Liberal Party of Canada has every intention to support the principle that all the amendments to this bill should essentially reinforce the Official Languages Act.
They are not there to make small ad hoc adjustments Bill C-72 is not there to weaken the Official Languages Act but to enhance it, give it more teeth and add in an interpretative clause which is extremely important for legal purposes guarantees, so that a magistrate will readily understand that
the purpose of Bill C-72 is to reinforce the current policy of the Federal Government in the area of official languages, a policy established several years ago.
Madam Speaker, such was the purpose of my intervention. [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) seconded by Mr. Garneau moves:
That Motion No. 1(a) be amended in the English text only by replacing the
word "reinforced" in the fourth line of the motion by the word "extend".


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The committee, in its wisdom, considered the issue, and the committee's decision was to remove the lines because of the lack of equivalence between the word "extend" and the word "renforcerWe are dealing with a clause that deals with the equality of status and use of the two official languages.
In this case, this amendment was to change the English-language version to the word "extend". I think if you consult English-French dictionaries and French-English dictionaries you will find that the word is not equal to the word "renforcer". I suggest that you have a bit of a dilemma as to whether the amendment is, therefore, admissible. We are dealing with a very sensitive language issue and talking, in this particular clause, about equality.
It is clear that our Party is attempting to pass a piece of legislation which deals equally and fairly with the two language groups in this country. To admit a set of words in the Purpose clause which are different on one side of the Bill from the other would not serve the nation well. It was the committee's conclusion that it did not serve the nation well in the first instance and that is why the words were removed. We have, in the amended Bill as reported to the House, a clause which the committee, in its wisdom, considers to be equal in both languages. The Official Opposition is seeking to amend this Bill in such a way as to produce inequality in the use of language.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, what we have just heard is, to my mind, a lot of nonsense. The Parliamentary Secretary is the expert in the domain. I am surprised he used that argument because he is more intelligent than that. He knows, I know, and everyone knows that Bill C-72 was drafted in parallel. That is, it was drafted in English with instructions given by the Cabinet, by the Ministers, to express thoughts clearly and to express objectives clearly.
Indeed, if one looks at the Bill one sees that it sometimes does not go on in French as it does in English. It is not meant to be a direct translation, as it was in the old days. The concept of translating from English to French is now passe. We now have the concept of parallel drafting, which the Parliamentary Secretary knows about. The English-speaking team and the French-speaking team are asked to draft Bills in parallel but with the same objective.


Using Clause 11 as an example, it does not make any sense to refuse-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think that by discussing the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques's amendment, we have now reached the point where we are almost dealing in semantics.
As your Speaker, I suggest that the House should set aside this amendment for the time being and allow the procceedings to continue; the Chair would be in a position to rule on the relevancy of this amendment in a few minutes.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, it is with no joy that I participate in this debate, that I refute the amendments from across the way, and that I support my colleague, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). I am almost debating a question of privilege, because some of us who moved amendments to this Bill have been maligned from across the way. It has been said that we are opposed to official bilingualism. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are opposed to Bill C-72. It is unfair; it is unjust; it makes second class citizens of Anglophones, and some Francophones; and it was drafted, I might add, by six out of seven Francophones in Treasury Board.
The Speaker explained to the television audience just how important this matter is. I am a Conservative. I am a member of this Government and a strong supporter of this Government and of my Prime Minister. No government in the history of Canada has accomplished more in three and a half years. It has dealt with free trade, the western concept, the Atlantic Accord, aid to farmers, the cancelling of the drastic NEP, and the cancelling of FIRA and bringing this country back, I hope, to a free enterprise system.
I support every bit of that, but I do not support unfairness. I do not support the fact that without the amendments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine people in my riding can be dead-ended on a supervisory position because they are not bilingual. That has nothing to do with bilingualism. Everyone applauds the educating of young people in this country in two official languages.
I am devastated and heartbroken that my English-speaking colleagues, with whom I have served here, would stand back and allow this to be perpetrated on them and their constituents.
I have been called, from across the way, a dinosaur. I would like to tell you what happens when a dinosaur crashes through the bush. It tramples sheep and mice in its way who no longer speak up for their constituents, the reason for which they were sent to these hallowed halls.
I would like to speak for a minute about what happens with the amendments of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg- Assiniboine in relation to Bill 101 of Quebec. The Government
Official Languages Act
can tell us that we must support bilingualism in Manitoba, that we must oppose bilingualism in Saskatchewan and Alberta, that those people are all wrong, but no one must dare stand in this Chamber or stand in committee and mention Bill 101.
In excess of 800,000 English-speaking people in the Province of Quebec, and in the rest of Canada some 600,000, are trampled by a Bill which prohibits them from putting up an English sign or conducting business in English. Is that fairness?
We heard the Member across the way say that he wanted an amendment on "extension". I do not have a dictionary in front of me, but I know that they spent hours and hours on frivolous amendments to this Bill. One of the things about which they argued for days and days was the word "extend". Members over there tried to say that "extend" has the same meaning as "reinforce". When you reinforce a building that is falling down, you prop it up. Reinforce means a propping up. When you extend something, you lengthen it. They want to lengthen bureaucracy and control from one end of this country to the other. It has nothing to do with bilingualism.
With regard to the fairness about which we speak, we must not even mention the fact that unless people are in "bilingual imperative" positions, which means that they must have C-level French, they cannot be promoted. A little girl from Parks Canada phoned me this morning and told me that she was fired because she could not speak French. A fellow in Mississauga was given a promotion in Revenue Canada. This is recorded in the committee reports and no one denied it. After being given the promotion he was given a language test. This was in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. They said that with 1,300 more hours of immersion training he could not attain C-level which was required for the promotion. They said "Goodbye, Mister". I can document that. Consider the girl who lost her job in a drugstore here in Ottawa because three customers did not feel she had enough facility in French.
Bill C-101 says:
Every inscription on a product, on its container or on its wrapping, or on a leaflet, brochure or card supplied with it, including the directions for use and the warranty certificates, must be drafted in French. This rule applies also to menus and wine lists.
Catalogues, brochures, folders and similar publications must be drawn up in French.
Except as provided by regulation of the Office de la langue fran9aise, it is forbidden to offer toys or games to the public which require the use of a nonFrench vocabulary for their operation, unless a French version of the toy or game is available on no less favourable terms on the Quebec market.


Mr. Caccia:: The same applies here.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Like fun it does. You can sell anything you want in Saskatchewan and Ontario, you can put up any sign or do anything you want. But you will not be able to do it in Saskatchewan with Bill C-72. Everyone knows that Bill C-72


Official Languages Act
is a power struggle. It is a grab for the bureaucracy of Canada from one end to the other, to control this great nation.
Every company name that is not in French must be changed before December 31. What happened when Mr. Bourassa said that he might change Bill 101? On April 17, 25,000 marched for French in Quebec. Did they say anything about bilingualism then? Is there anyone fighting for 800,000 Anglophones in the Province of Quebec?
This is a Draconian Bill. It will change the face of Canada. All I can say to my English speaking colleagues who believe in their heritage and have any thought about this nation ever progressing, is, stop this Bill. Let us take bilingualism where it belongs, from the schools up. Give bilingualism to our children, do not force it down their throats.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have reviewed the points brought out by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary with respect to the amendment presented by the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault). I found the points to be arguments for debate but not reasons to declare the amendment unacceptable. Therefore, we will continue debate on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques.


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to say something at report stage of Bill C-72. I am particularly pleased to have an opportunity to speak to amendments which deal with both sides of the issue, designed to strengthen the Bill, and amendments designed to weaken the Bill and strike at the very constitutional principle of equality between English and French in our national life.
It is particularly important to make such comments immediately after the observations made by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart). He has attempted to make an emotional appeal to colleagues particularly in the government caucus in order to stir up fears and appeal to rather base emotions. It is even more necessary to consider the importance of our policy of official bilingualism and discuss what happened in the legislative committee dealing with this Bill.
After the constitutional activities of the early 1980s, the passage of a Bill to consolidate the laws of Canada is something that has faced Governments since 1983. It has fallen on the present Conservative Government to take up the work.
We who served on the joint standing committee waited many months wondering whether we would receive a Bill that would effectively renew the policy of official bilingualism to which Canada committed itself in 1969. Bill C-72 was tabled in the House over a year ago. Late this winter it came to second reading debate and finally to a vote. When the question was finally put at second reading stage, there was no vote against Bill C-72. This is noteworthy considering the later activity which took place in the legislative committee and which comes to us now at report stage of the Bill. We know that the vote at second reading is the vital point at which the House of Commons indicates its acceptance of the principle of
the Bill. Those who are opposed to it should stand at that time and indicate their opposition, as the opposition Parties often do. However, there was no vote against the Bill and it passed with the appearance of unanimous support in the House and sent to a legislative committee.
The committee spent many hours with Ministers and officials in various Departments considering carefully what witnesses had to say about the Bill. We then proceeded to careful consideration of the successive clauses of the Bill.
The Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) said that witnesses were denied the opportunity to be heard. It is true that all of those persons who might have wanted to attack the basic principle of the Bill were not heard.
I know that there are western Canadians who oppose official bilingualism. I grew up in the West and taught university students there. I know their feelings very well. Some of the western Canadian representatives who could have spoken to that Bill failed to appear. When the legislative committee saw that the first ones given the opportunity were not prepared to come here and spell out their opposition and become involved in debate with committee members, the committee decided to take up clause by clause consideration in view of the support of the House at second reading.
Motion No. 1A moved by the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), is designed to reinsert in the Bill language that was there when it was given second reading. An official from the Department of Justice stated strongly that this language was essential to the Bill as an indication to the official language minorities in Canada.
The language of "extend" in English and "renforcer" in French was removed from the Bill after a proposal late on a Tuesday night that was carried through the following afternoon.
The Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) should carefully consider the fact that the official from the Department of Justice was saying that the English-speaking minority in the Province of Quebec had been given the promise by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that the language in Bill C-72 would extend the laws of Canada relating to language. I suggest that the French-speaking minority outside Quebec had an equal interest in this assertion.
Those are the best of reasons for recognizing the politics of the matter and for respecting the importance of the amendment put forward by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
It seemed clear that this was the last attempt to get the Conservative Members of the legislative committee on side, in support of the Bill. If this language were dropped and the final compromise made, the Bill could be reported back to the House and passed. However, it is because of the failure of that attempt and the appearance of all of these amendments that we have this unusual situation now, with opposition Parties and a vast majority of the Government fully in support while


suddenly the opposition, which did not exist at second reading, has come forward in the way of amendments.
Let us consider the amendments proposed by the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine. First, there is his suggestion that the policy should be applied to institutions wherever it is reasonable to do so in the circumstances. The question of what is reasonable could, itself, be a most disputatious matter. What is reasonable to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine would not strike many other people as being reasonable, even a majority of the country, in the way of working with a policy of official bilingualism.
Concern has been expressed about employment and advancement in the Public Service of Canada, as if it were some type of right. Little concern is expressed for the policy itself by those who are critical of the Bill or those who want to weaken or destroy it entirely. Little is said of the brute reality of the country that there are large minorities who do not know the other official language and who deserve service from the Government of Canada in that language. They also deserve the opportunity of employment in the Public Service of Canada.
I see from press reports that the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, in his Party caucus apparently alluded to the French-speaking minority in Quebec, and the minority on a national basis, persons who speak only French, who surely deserve service in that language and the opportunity to work in it.
I find the suggestion quite incredible, that persons in the Public Service of Canada should not have to make the effort to learn French. Here I am speaking primarily of Englishspeaking members of the Public Service, and the fact that they should not have the obligation to learn French and be prepared to work in French in various carefully designed and established situations, but the ordinary citizen of Canada, down to children, should be required to become bilingual because others will not use the opportunity and take training provided by the Government of Canada in order to become bilingual. That is the fundamental unfairness of opposition to official bilingualism of the type expressed by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Madam Speaker, I am well aware of the solemnity and seriousness of the occasion as I rise today to deal with the amendments and the very principle of the Bill C-72, which in a few hours will become the new Canadian official languages legislation.
I suggest that this new legislation is one of the corner-stones of the new and richer Canada which we want to build, a Canada more receptive to its two linguistic communities.
Official Languages Act

This piece of legislation is an Act of nation-building. Building Canada is more than a world, more than an attitude. It is at first a behaviour of generosity and openness.

I suggest that to build this country will require more than words, more than wishes; it will require openness and generosity towards our two linguistic communities and our minorities generally. Such is the purpose of this bill which is vital for our national unity, that all together we may continue to believe in this great Canadian vision which we must constantly reiterate and enhance. Our two well balanced communities will have to continue respecting each other.
I can understand the concerns of my colleagues who are trying to protect and defend the interests of unilingual Canadians. I understand them perfectly and I respect them for that; moreover I acknowledge their right to rise in the House to express their views. On the other hand, I cannot accept the fact that anyone should try to limit the rights of their neighbours, because by doing so, they are limiting and restricting their own rights, as though they were cutting the tree branch on which they are sitting.
And I am proud of the part I took during four years in the development of this new legislation. Despite all the admiration I have for my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who, for fifteen years has been the true advocate of linguistic minorities in our country, I am sad to see him now play petty politics. I know because he has proved during fifteen years that he is capable of doing much better than that. He himself had been waiting for his own party to act; he had hoped new legislation would be brought forward which would respect minorities better and, as it is said in clause 2 of the Bill, really ensure respect and equality for the two linguistic communities, attempt to recognize and advance the development of our linguistic minorities and define the powers and obligations of federal institutions.
You know, a man called Jean-Claude, who was not from Montreal-Sainte-Marie, his full name is Jean-Claude Saint-Martin, said: I choose to do good because doing good is a quiet activity, and noise never did anyone any good. I feel my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and some others are making statements that foster division more than unity. And what we need ...


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) on a point of order.


Charles L. Caccia: I apologize for the interruption, Madam Speaker. It seems to me that there is a rule of relevance in the House, and the Hon. Member should speak to the amendment that we are presently debating and not on any other matter that may have happened in committee. I bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, that in my view the Hon. Member is out of order.


Official Languages Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member has spoken to the principles of the Bill. He was mentioning Clause 2 a second ago.
In the last few hours we have been debating the Bill in general, and no one has raised any objections to that. I am sure that the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) should be given some leeway by the House, considering the limited time given to debating the Bill. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix.


Charles-André Hamelin: I am rather proud that in Clause 42 it states that the Government is now committed to "enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada .. . ". That speaks for the English minority in Quebec. I am very proud to see that the Government and Parliament will now enhance the vitality of the English community in Quebec. I know the preoccupation of this community in Quebec. We need this community in Quebec. We need a strong English community in Quebec.

I also need, in this Government, in this Parliament, in our country, to feel I am a full-fledged Canadian. With the new provisions of this Bill, with the approval and generosity of my colleagues, today I feel I am more a Canadian than ever, a full-fledged Canadian. As a Quebecer and a Francophone, whether from Quebec or outside Quebec, I want all people everywhere in the country to be full-fledged Canadians, without arrogance but with tolerance, with mutual respect, with respect for others' opinions. Through our caucus and our Party, we have worked extremely hard. True, we negotiated. It has been difficult. But we never lost sight of the substance of the Bill, which is the very spirit of our country, of this big dream. We never compromised on its substance. And that is true!

When we speak about fairness and equity, let me say that we really tried that within our own caucus and within our own Party. That is the mission I have for my colleagues.
My colleagues and myself were really committed to working together within this Party and now within this Parliament so we could understand each other better even though it's difficult, because you and I believe in this country.

Do you believe in Canada? I believe in Canada.
[ Translation]
As long as I am respected. I do not feel superior. I want to join you all in building this great country.
I take this opportunity to thank the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) for endorsing this bill. I want above all to
thank my leader (Mr. Mulroney) who has inspired and supported me. I also want to thank all the linguistic communities that, in the last four years, have helped us develop a significant bill which makes this country grow. This legislation makes me feel better and I really believe in it. Otherwise, I shouldn't be here. I never intended to diminish people or their rights or shove legislation down their throats. What I wanted to accomplish with you all was to improve on the Canadian dream: a country united but respectful of its elements. And it is true that some provinces are taking certain measures. But it is in a spirit of generosity that one day we will understand each other and our first task is to start working on that goal today. I am calling on all my colleagues to unite. Despite all their reservations, we will all examine together, as we have done, this legislation and its application. And that is why our committee made some fifty amendments. The objective is not to win over anyone. It is Canada that must win.

For the sake of Canada and for the sake of its people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Madam
Speaker, I want to take part in the debate this afternoon, particularly with respect to the amendment of my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who is proposing that the original text concerning the application of this legislation be reintroduced in Bill C-72.
Madam, Speaker, the amendment moved by my colleague considerably strengthens the Bill, especially concerning its interpretation by the courts. This is why I draw this amendment to the attention of my colleagues in the House and I urge them to support it since all it does is restore the original text on which the House of Commons voted at second reading. This is a rather important principale and I wonder to what extent the committee could amend it without changing the basic thrust of the Bill itself and the principles which had been adopted during second reading debate.
Madam Speaker, any debate on linguistic issues invariably stirs emotions and Members have an opportunity to make speeches which convey their deepest feelings. Earlier this afternoon I listened to the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), and the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) when, with a certain passion, they expressed their views on Bill C-72.
Naturally, Madam Speaker, given the attitude of some Members of the House we may be strongly tempted to politicize the debate but, as it happens, they all belong to the same political Party.
But I do not think our country will be any richer if Canadians start bashing each other on the head. Mistakes do occur now and then, of course, but Bill C-72 now before the House is the result of a long process which began late in the last century


by the election of a French-speaking Prime Minister and which was marked by a series of debates on linguistic issues. It should be noted as well that major steps were taken under several Canadian Liberal Prime Ministers.
I should like to pay special tribute to Lester B. Pearson who, during the 1960s, acknowledged the significance of the linguistic issue in this country by appointing the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission and introducing a number of legislative measures which were the clear and specific expression of the desire of the Liberal Party and of the Government then headed by Mr. Pearson to promote fairness in this country towards one of the important minorities, the French minority which was one of our two founding peoples.
In subsequent years, Madam Speaker, the Trudeau Government did a lot to make the system more equitable, to bring more justice between Canada's two main linguistic communities.
I was listening earlier to the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) talking about injustice and individual cases of people who couldn't get a promotion in the Public Service because they weren't bilingual. I am not going to start this lengthy debate again and make emotional pleas. 1 simply want to point out that for generations that was the plight of Francophones in this country. However, they didn't complain about promotions. They couldn't get jobs, not because they weren't bilingual but because they didn't speak English. This happened not only in the Public Service but also in the private sector. And today, I hear people saying: Let time take its course. Let our secondary schools teach French, and eventually, people across Canada will be bilingual.
Madam Speaker, that's fine. But meanwhile, what is going to happen to the Francophone communities across this country who will have to wait years and years before they get services in their own language? And what is the Public Service's raison d'etre? It is to provide services to the public! People do not have a God-given right to work in the Public Service. They have the possibility of doing so, but the purpose of the Public Service is to provide services to a clientele. And if according to this country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that clientele is entitled to receive services in the language of its choice, in English or French, our two official languages, will that right be paramount or will it be outweighed by the promotion of an employee who, all things considered, does not have to work in the Public Service and could find a job elsewhere?
The arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Simcoe South would seem to be totally unacceptable, at least to someone who belongs to my particular group, and 1 refer here to the community of French-speaking Canadians.
Madam Speaker, as I was saying, Bill C-72 is the result of a lengthy process that was mostly initiated by the Bill introduced by the Liberal Government under Mr. Trudeau in 1969, and which the Leader of our Party had the privilege of helping to defend in the House and across the country.
Official Languages Act
So this Bill followed naturally upon that Act, which was implemented and put to the test, but Bill C-72 was made necessary especially by the patriation of the Canadian Constitution and the entrenchment in it of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular sections 16 to 20 inclusive of that Charter, which recognize the fundamental character of the linguistic rights of both the Francophone and the Anglophone communities.
The main section, section 16, states that: English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.
Thus the Official Languages Act had to be adapted to reflect these rights that were entrenched into the Constitution of our country and were approved by Parliament in 1982, after a very lengthy debate.
Bill C-72 constitutes an important additional step that we should take to integrate new realities into our legislation, particularly those which derive from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and from sections 16 to 20 inclusive.
I would like to point out that if we could amend the Bill according to the proposal made by my colleague the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), we would get even closer to achieving the stated objective. The objective pursued was to give Canadians in practice the rights, and the exercise of the rights, recognized by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
How can these rights be applied? Through legislation that will have to be interpreted by the courts, and we believe that the motion of my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier would give the Official Languages Act, Bill C-72, the scope that it really should have.
I do not believe that it is by cutting corners to please so-and-so that we will have greater justice and as I see it, the Government's original intention with this Bill was to fully enforce this law. I deplore the removal of this introduction to clause 2, which could have been very useful to the courts in interpreting this legislation in future, both for English-language and French-language minority communities. Because English- and French-speaking minorities must be treated equally.
Madam Speaker, I would have liked to have much more time to answer the arguments of the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) regarding comparisons between the rights of anglophones in Quebec and francophones elsewhere in the country.
Madam Speaker, one must have never really lived in Quebec to make the comparison the Hon. Member for Simcoe South made. We see a province where the schools at all levels, elementary, secondary and university, are publicly funded. A province with 800,000 or 600,000 English-speakers has three English-language universities totally financed by the Government as are the French-language universities in the same province. We see that the Government, not out of generosity,


Official Languages Act
but as a matter of right, provides all social services in both official languages from public funds ... This was the result of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I see that my time is up. Before sitting down, I would like to thank my colleague from Ottawa- Vanier, on behalf of the whole Official Opposition team, for his tremendous work and the cooperation he has given the Government. From the outset, the Leader of our Party stated our intention to support this Bill and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier was the one mainly responsible for studying the Bill. I wish to thank him for that and congratulate him for the terrific job he has done.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part today in the debate on Bill C-72, especially after my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and also the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin). I think that all Members in this House will recognize the tremendous work done by that man over a little more than a year on Bill C-72. Thanks to him the legislation came through as it now stands and as it looks acceptable to us of course, without the amendments moved.
The matter could be dealt with under various angles, Madam Speaker. We could look for various reasons to take heart, point to various aspects showing that the Bill is a tremendous step forward in the recognition of our Canadian language duality, not only for Francophones but also for Anglophones and all Canadians in this country.
I think the essential feature or one of the essential features of the Canadian reality is its bilingual and multicultural nature. And when dealing with Bill C-72, it is fitting in my view that we remember all those who before us, often in the face of great difficulty, and the last time having been in 1969, worked for the official recognition of both languages. It is my view that the country they built, Madam Speaker, holds a very special place in the world thanks to its features, especially its language features.
It is my personal view that courage and determination are needed to build a country, develop it and to give it a greater degree of security and prosperity than we ourselves enjoyed. But more is needed-generosity and also, today especially, Madam Speaker, tolerance. Nothing durable survived in this country unless it was two-dimensional, with the co-operation and above all the respect of both communities.

There is not and there cannot be in Canada only one language or only one culture. There cannot be only one way of doing things, of saying or thinking things in Canada. I could say more. But there must always be only one objective for all Canadians: the unity and the prosperity of this country. The official linguistic minorities in Canada are well aware that the battle for justice and equity is a long one and that it is not over
yet. It will not be won by any glorious action, nor will it be won by a long constitutional or political battle.
The battle will be long because it deals with issues that are emotional for all Canadians. We can all say to each other here that by voting for Bill C-72 we will have progressed in the cause for linguistic justice in Canada.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, it is important to state here, as I feel I have a duty to do so, in what context we have to deal with amendments to Bill C-72, and my wish is to do so with the least possible degree of frustration and emotion. But it is extremely difficult for a French-speaking Member of this House, whose forebears for 350 years fought for the recognition of one's language, to try and understand why someone might wish through a series of amendments to weaken, slow down and even paralyze in certain circumstances the development of a bilingual Canada.
I think that attempt can only be understood by referring to attitudes and concepts that were more in use in this country some 20 years ago, but no longer appear to reflect Canadian realities. In my opinion, this shows that by updating this legislation which dates back to 1969, this Conservative Government has the courage and the will to make the defense of linguistic rights and cultural minorities priority in its approach to the future.
Madam Speaker, I suggest it is very important... I feel I am a richer man today for having had the opportunity over the past four years to learn another language. I must admit it was not always easy.

English has been the key that has permitted me to discover a new country, a new Canada. I have many good friends in places that I did not know existed not too long ago.
I am trying to say that we must not see bilingualism as the only means by which we will give justice to our official linguistic minorities, important as that may be. I think the younger generations of Canadians today all over the country- which is the wonderful part of the new Canada- have shown us something. I had the experience as the Secretary of State of travelling back and forth across the nation two years ago and saw how our young Canadians have taught us that bilingualism is, in fact, an opportunity for our personal and collective development.
There is not a more obvious proof of this new spirit and tolerance than the Meech Lake Accord concluded between all the Canadian provinces and the federal Government. I recognize that Quebec constitutes a distinct society within Canada and the linguistic duality is a fundamental distinction that we must protect. This Accord did not happen overnight. This Accord exists because it was inspired by realism, because


Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
it took into consideration the real nature of Quebec and of Canada.


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT   MESURETO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
In any case, Madam Speaker, we must accept Canada for what it is today and what it will be tomorrow. We no longer want a Canada is a constant state of strife ans which is not representative of the reality of today. If Canada is a more dynamic, prosperous and self-confident country, it is because Canadian men and women have become aware that they have more reasons to be united than divided, especially when it comes to languages. In this connection, I am proud to pay tribute to a man who, five years ago, took over the leadership of the Party to which, I belong, a man who rose for the first time in this House to indicate his unqualified support for a resolution of the House upholding the rights of the Francophone minority in Manitoba. He felt that the Government had the absolute obligation to give our linguistic minorities in Canada the justice to which they are entitled.
[Stage Direction]
And so he left for Winnipeg, under particularly difficult circumstances, to repeat his commitment in favour of linguistic justice. I believe that at that time five years ago the urgent need to modernize the law on official languages was not on our Party's national caucus weekly agenda.
[Stage Direction]
However, from Cape Breton to British Columbia, Canadian men and women have heard the same message: "a right is a right, always and everywhere", and it should be preserved everywhere in this country. Today, the man who made these remarks is the Prime Minister of Canada.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I should leave the House this very important message: Both as a Canadian and Francophone Canadian, not on behalf of my Quebec colleagues but together with them, I feel like saying: I should not be here today if I had not been convinced by the leadership of Brian Mulroney that justice is not an abstract ideal, but a means by which great Parties should be guided and great countries governed.
Madam Speaker, we no longer want an intolerant Canada. Countries are built on differences such as languages. Whether we speak French or English, that is a basic difference, not unique to Quebec, but proper to all the provinces of our nation. Canada's horizons are broad, Canada is managed by the courage of its people and the challenges they face. Madam Speaker, can Canada be anything else but the simple recognition of both its official languages which are flourishing thanks to its language policies. Madam Speaker, finally, for the dignity of all Canadians, I would like in the future the people to respect my French origins, along with the reality of the English-speaking Canadians, the two nations which built this country. As a French Canadian, I am proud of my origin, and pleased to share them with all my English-speaking colleagues who wish to do so.
The House resumed from Monday, July 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-130, an Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Mr. Axworthy (p. 16661) and of Mr. Young (p. 17089).
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6:45, pursuant to the Order adopted earlier today, this House will now proceed with the defferred recorded division on the motion of the Hon. Member from Beaches (Mr. Young) concerning the subamendment to Bill C-130.
Call in the Members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Young), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 419)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Angus
Axworthy
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Broadbent
Caccia
Cassidy
Copps
de Jong
Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Foster
Frith
Fulton
Gagliano
Garneau
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) Harris Heap Henderson Hovdebo Isabelle Jewett Kaplan Keeper Langdon MacLellan Malepart Manly McCurdy McLaughlin Mitchell Murphy
++NAYS
Members
Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin Waddell Young-52
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling Daubney de Cotret Dick Domm Dorin Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine


Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement
Fretz	Landry	PorterFriesen	Layton	ReidGagnon	Leblanc	St. GermainGerin	Lesick	ScottGirard	Lewis	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Graham	Lopez	ScowenGray	MacDonald	Shields(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	(Kingston and	Sparrow!a-Madeleine)	the Islands)	SpeyerGrise	MacDougall	StevensGuilbault	(Timiskaming)	Stewart(Drummond)	Mailly	TardifGurbin	Marin	(Charlesbourg)Hamelin	Martin	TaylorHawkes	Masse	TremblayHicks	Mayer	(Quebec-Est)Hnatyshyn	McCain	TupperHoltmann	McDermid	Van De WalleHowie	McDougall	VankoughnetHudon	(St. Paul's)	VezinaJacques	McKenzie	WarnerJames	McKinnon	WeinerJohnson	McLean	White(Bonavista-Trinity-	Mitges	WilsonConception)	Moore	(EtobicokeJoncas	Mulroney	Centre)-113Jourdenais	Nowlan	Kelleher	Oberle	Kempling	Oostrom	Kindy	Pennock	King	Pietz


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
The next question is on the amendment of Mr. Axworthy. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to dispense with the ringing of the bells so that the vote might be taken immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Axworthy), which was negatived on the following division:
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer Brightwell Brisco Browes Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau
(Division No. 420)
	YEAS	
	Members	
Althouse	Gauthier	NystromAngus	Gray	OrlikowAxworthy	(Windsor West)	ParryBenjamin	Guilbault	PennerBlackburn	(Saint-Jacques)	Pepin(Brant)	Harris	Prud'hommeBlaikie	Heap	RiisBroadbent	Henderson	RobichaudCaccia	Hovdebo	RodriguezCassidy	Isabelle	RossiCopps	Jewett	Skellyde Jong	Kaplan	TardifDewar	Keeper	(Richmond-Epp	Langdon	Tobin(Thunder Bay-	MacLellan	WaddellNipigon)	Malepart	Young-52Foster	Manly	Frith	McCurdy	Fulton	McLaughlin	Gagliano	Mitchell	Garneau	Murphy	
++NAYS
Members
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gerin
Girard
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Johnson
MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly Marin Martin Masse Mayer McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McKenzie McKinnon McLean Mitges Moore Mulroney Nowlan Oberle Oostrom Pennock Pietz Porter Reid
St. Germain

Cook	(Bonavista-T rinity-	Scott	Av".Cooper	Conception)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Corbett	Joncas	Scowen	Cossitt	Jourdenais	Shields	'JpLvCrosbie	Kelleher	Sparrow	(St. John's West)	Kempling	Speyer	Darling	Kindy	Stevens	Daubney	King	Stewart	*de Cotret	Landry	Tardif	Dick	Layton	(Charlesbourg)	Domm Dorin	Leblanc Lesick	Taylor Tremblay	Duplessis	Lewis	(Quebec-Est)	Edwards	Lopez	Tupper Van De Walle	
Vankoughnet	White
Vezina	Wilson
Warner	(Etobicoke
Weiner	Centre)-114


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Crosbie), which was agreed to on the following division:
(Division No. 421)
++YEAS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Browes
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Champagne
(Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling Daubney de Cotret Dick Domm Dorin Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gerin
Girard
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-dela-Madeleine)
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-Conception)
Joncas Jourdenais Kelleher Kempling Kindy King Landry Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) Mailly Marin Martin Masse Mayer McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
Official Languages Act
McKenzie	Scott	Van De WalleMcKinnon	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	VankoughnetMcLean	Scowen	VezinaMitges	Shields	WaddellMoore	Sparrow	WarnerMulroney	Speyer	WeinerNowlan	Stevens	WhiteOberle	Stewart	WilsonOostrom	Tardif	(EtobicokePennock	(Charles bourg)	Centre)-11Pietz	Taylor	Porter	Tremblay	Reid	(Quebec-Est)	St. Germain	Tupper	
++NAYS
Members
Althouse	Garneau	MitchellAngus	Gauthier	MurphyAxworthy	Gray	NystromBenjamin	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBlackburn	Guilbault	Parry(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	PennerBlaikie	Harris	PepinBroadbent	Heap	Prud'hommeCaccia	Henderson	RiisCassidy	Hovdebo	RobichaudCopps	Isabelle	Rodriguezde Jong	Jewett	RossiDewar	Kaplan	SkellyEpp	Keeper	Tardif(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	(Richmond-Nipigon)	MacLellan	TobinFoster	Malepart	Young-51Frith	Manly	Fulton	McCurdy	Gagliano	McLaughlin


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
* *
*


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to order made Monday, July 4, 1988, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the report stage of this Bill.
Mr. Gauthier, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) moved that Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 40 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:


Official Languages Act
"2. The purpose of this Act is to reinforce the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to"

Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), seconded by Mr. Garneau, moved the following amendment:
That Motion No. 1A be amended in the English version by striking out the word "reinforce" and substituting the word "extend" therefor.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the amendment stands deferred. The putting of the question on the motion shall also stand deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 2B standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 5-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are now through the first grouping, all of those motions having been moved at the time of the debate when the debate commenced. I believe that from now on it would be in order to call for the motion to be put to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate that the Hon. Minister is trying to assist the Chair. However, I think that the position we are in is that each of these motions will have to be put to the House. I will carry on in so doing.
The next question is on Motion No. 5.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 3
(a)	by striking out line 36 at page 3.
(b)	by striking out line 25 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"Act of Parliament but it does not include or extend to any court, tribunal or other body established by or pursuant to an Act of a Province of by any other authority."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is Motion No. 7.


Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington) moved:: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 3 by striking out lines 3 to 8 at page 4.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: On division.
Motion No. 7 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 19.
Official Languages Act


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe that the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner) is in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion will not be put.
I think I should advise the House that the next question is on Motion No. 22. A vote on this motion will dispose of Motions Nos. 23 and 29.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East) moved:: Motion No. 22.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 22 by striking out line 21 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"significant demand (where the official minority language population is 20 per cent or more) for communications".
Motion No. 23.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 23 by striking out line 32 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:
"significant demand (where the official minority language population is 20 per cent or more) for those services in that".
Motion No. 29.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out line 24 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"which there is significant demand (where the official minority language population is 20 per cent or more) for the".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 24A standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) who is not in the Chamber.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), who is attending a royal function in Nova Scotia, I would like to have the privilege of moving this amendment, seconded by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett).


Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the request?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I regret there is no unanimous consent.
The next question is on Motion No. 25.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 25.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 28 by striking out line 2 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"public and this section shall take precedence over Province of Quebec Bill 101."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 25 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 26.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 26.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 31.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 26 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 27.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal) moved:: Motion No. 27.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 32 by striking out line 21 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"32.(1) The Governor in Council may, subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons,".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 27 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 28.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 28.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 32
(a)	by striking out line 23 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor: "(a) subject to subsection (1.1) and (1.2), prescribing the circumstances in"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 44 at page 14 the following:
"(1.1) An area in which there is significant demand may be established if
(a)	both of the official languages are spoken as a mother tongue by persons residing in the area; and
(b)	the number of persons who are in the linguistic minority in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue is at least fifteen per cent of the total number of persons residing in the area.
(1.2) Notwithstanding subsection (1.1) where the number of persons in the linguistic minority in an area described in subsection (1) is less than the percentage required under subsection (1.1), the area may be established as a bilingual district if before the coming into force of this Act the services of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada were customarily made available to residents of the area in both official languages."
(c)	by striking out line 2 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: paragraph (l)(b), the Governor in".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 28A.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved:: Motion No. 28A.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 32
(a)	by striking out line 23 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor: "(a) subject to subsection (1.1) and (1.2), prescribing the circumstances in"
(b)	by adding immediately after line 44 at page 14 the following:
"(11) An area in which there is significant demand may be established if the number of persons in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue is at least fifty-one per cent of the total number of persons residing in the area."
(c)	by striking out line 2 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "paragraph (l)(b), the Governor in".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 28A negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 30.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 30.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 32 by adding immediately after line 16 at page 15 the following:
"(3) No regulations made under this Section shall be inconsistent with subsection (1) of Section 20 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Official Languages Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 30 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 32.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 32.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 33 by adding immediately after line 26 at page 15 the following:
"Nothing in this part abrogates or derogates from any rights, privileges or obligations with respect to the English and French languages, under the Constitution of Canada or other law."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 32 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 33.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 33.
That Bill C-72 be amended by adding immediately after line 26 at page 15 the following:
"33.1 Nothing in Part IV and no regulations made by the Governor in Council pursuant to Section 32 or Section 33 shall abrogate or derogate from the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, in particular, the provisions of Part IV or regulations made under Part IV shall be read or construed not to abrogate or derogate from the requirement of significant demand, significant demand being the number of persons who are in the linguistic minority in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue is at least fifteen (15) percent of the total number of persons residing in the area."


Official Languages Act


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 33 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 34.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 34.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out lines 27 to 31 at
page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"34. English and French are the official languages in all federal institutions for use by all officers and employees of the federal institution and shall be the languages of work when there is significant demand for one or the other or both official languages, significant demand being the number of persons who are in the linguistic minority in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue and is at least fifteen (15) percent of the total number of persons residing in the area."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 34 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 35 moved by the Hon. Member for Mississauga North (Mr. Horner). The Hon. Member is not in the House and, therefore, the motion cannot be put.
The next question is on Motion No. 37.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 37.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 31 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
"where numbers warrant."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 37 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 38A.


Fred Alward McCain: Motion No. 38A.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 34 by adding immediately after line 31 at page 15 the following:
"in accordance with this Part providing the region has been designated bilingual."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 38A negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 41.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Motion No. 41.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 35
(a)	by striking out line 35 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor: "and, subject to subsection (2), in any part or region of Canada, or in"


(b)	by adding immediately after line 8 at page 16 the following:
"(2) Any part or region of Canada that is precribed by subsection (1) may be established as a bilingual region if
(a)	both of the official languages are spoken as a mother tongue by persons residing in the region; and
(b)	the number of persons who are in the linguistic minority in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue is at least fifteen per cent of the total number of persons residing in the region.
(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), where the number of persons in the linguistic minority in a region described in subsection (1) is less than the percentage required under subsection (2), the area may be established as a bilingual region if before the coming into force of this Act the services of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada were customarily made available to residents of the area in both official languages."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 41 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 42.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 42.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 35 in the French version by striking out lines 38 to 41 at page 15."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 42 negatived.
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 43.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 43.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 35 in the English version by striking out lines 42 to 44 at page 15 and lines 1 to 8 at page 16.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 43 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 44.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 44.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 35 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 16 the following:
"(2) No prescription shall be made by the Governor in Council for the purposes of paragraph (a) of Section 34(1) unless the Governor in Council has determined that there is significant demand for the use of both official languages in the part or region of Canada or place outside Canada, significant demand being the number of persons who are in the linguistic minority in the area in respect of an official language spoken as a mother tongue is at least fifteen (15) percent of the total number of persons residing in the area."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 44 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 45A.


Official Languages Act


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough) moved:: Motion No. 45A.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 35 by adding immediately after line 8 at page 16 the following:
"(c) For an area in Canada to be prescribed as a "bilingual area" and conducive to the effective use of both official languages and accommodate the use of either official language by its officers and employees an Affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons must be recorded."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 45A negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 46.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Motion No. 46.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 35 by striking out lines 9 to 16 at page 16.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 46 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 47.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Motion No. 47.
That Bill C-72 be amended by adding immediately after line 16 at page 16 the following:
"36. Officers and employees of federal institutions in parts or regions of Canada where one official language is the language of work of that institution, have the right to carry out their employment duties in that official language except where the ability to speak both official languages is necessary in the performance of such duties. 37. For the purpose of this Part the Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) prescribing the areas of Canada in which English or French or both languages are to be used for the purpose of subsection 34(1); (b) prescribing the parts or regions of the Province of Quebec or Ontario for the purpose of subsection 35(3); and (c) prescribing the functions that are to be carried out in both official languages for the purpose of subsection 35(4)."


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 47 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 49.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 49.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out line 19 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"and in designated Bilingual districts of Canada, or in".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 49 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 52.


Fred Alward McCain: Motion No. 52.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 36 by striking out lines 44 to 48 at page 16 and substituting the following therefor:
"both official languages and where it is deemed appropriate for supervisors to be able to communicate in both official languages with officers and employees of the institution in the exercise of their supervisory responsibility, these supervisory positions be declared bilingual non imperative, and".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 60.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Motion No. 60.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 38 by adding immediately after line 9 at page 19 the following:
"(3) If within a period of thirty sitting days from the day the Government has laid before the House of Commons or published in the Canada Gazette a proposed regulation prescribing any part or region of Canada or any place outside Canada to be designated as bilingual, an objection in writing, in the form of a motion for consideration by the House of Commons of the matter of the objection, signed by not less than ten members of the House of Commons and filed with the Speaker specifying the reasons for the objection, the House of Commons shall, within thirty sitting days after the expiration of that day that the House of Commons is sitting, take up the motion and consider the matter of the objection."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
Official Languages Act Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 60 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 61.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 61.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 38.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 61 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 70.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 70
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 21 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"communities and the multi-cultural nature of Canada taking into".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Official Languages Act


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 70 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 72.


Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton) moved:: Motion No. 72.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 35 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"terms and conditions of their employment and where it is determined that these officers and employees should provide bilingual services, these positions be declared bilingual non imperative."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 72 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 74.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 74.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 39 by striking out line 39 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"to merit and merit shall not include linguistic duality."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 76.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 76.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 41 by striking out lines 5 to 9 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) preserving the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada; and
(b) maintaining the use".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 79.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 79.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 43
(a)	by striking out line 20 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "appropriate to maintain the status"
(b)	by striking out lines 24 to 27 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(a) preserve the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada;"
(c)	by striking out line 30 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor: "(c) maintain an acceptance and appreciation"
(d)	by striking out lines 3 to 8 at page 21.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 79 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 85.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 85.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 56 by striking out lines 10 to 12 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"tutions."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 85 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 86.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Motion No. 86.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 56
(a)	by adding immediately after line 12 at page 25 the following:
"(2) It is the duty of the Commissioner to take all actions and measures with a view to ensuring that no officer or employee of a federal institution is adversely afected unnecessarily by the implementation of any policy or provision of this Act and, where adverse affect is unavoidable, that the officer or employee is adequately and properly treated and compensated and the provision of this Part shall apply to any complaint of adverse affect by an officer or employee."
(b)	by striking out line 14 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor: "the purpose set out in subsections (1) and (2), to".
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 86 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 87.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 87.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 56 by striking out line 17 at page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"complaint made to the Commissioner by any bilingual or unilingual Canadian that feels he or she is being discriminated against and to".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 88 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 88.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 88
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 57.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Official Languages Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 88 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 90.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 90.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 60 by striking out line 35 at page 26 and substituting the following therefor:
"in public."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 90 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 91.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Motion No. 91.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 60 by striking out lines 36 to 48 at page 26 and lines 1 and 2 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"(2) It is not necessary for the Commissioner to hold any hearing but he may allow any person or any department or other institution concerned in an investigation, and shall allow any person or any department or other institution complained against in the course of such investigation, to be represented by counsel.
(3)	The Commissioner shall not make a report or recommendation in respect of any person, department or other institution so complained against until that person, department or other institution, as the case may be, has been given reasonable notice of the complaint and has been allowed full opportunity to be heard in public or in private as that person, department or other institution may elect.
(4)	Parliament may,
(a)	of its own volition, or
(b)	upon the recommendation of the Governor in Council, regulate the procedure to be followed by the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers and duties."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 91 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 92.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 92.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 61 by striking out line 6 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"under this Act, provided that it is carried out in public."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


Motion No. 92 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 93.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 93.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 62 by striking out lines 34 to 36 at page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"by affidavit or otherwise, where such information and or evidence would".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 93 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 95.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 95.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 73 by striking out lines 41 to 44 at page 31 and substituting the following therefor:
"gation under this Act."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Official Languages Act Motion No. 95 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 96.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 96
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 73 by striking out lines 42 and 44 at page 31.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 96 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 96(A).


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 96(A)
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting deleting Clause 73.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 96(A) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 97.


Alex Kindy: Official Languages Act
Motion No. 97.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 74.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 97 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 100.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 100
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 75.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 100 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 102.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 102
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting clause 76.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 102 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 103.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Motion No. 103.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 77 by adding immediately after line 40 at page 32 the following:
"(2) Any officer or employee of a federal institution who has made a complaint to the Commissioner that the officer or employee has been adversely affected by the implementation of any policy or provision of this Act may apply to the Court for a remedy under this Part and the remedy may include the provision of adequate compensation by the federal institution."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 103 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 104.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 104
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 77.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 106.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 106.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 78.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 106 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 106A.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 106A.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 79.
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 106A negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 107.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion Nd. 107.
-That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 80.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 107 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 108.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 108.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 81.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
17204___________________________________
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 108 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 110.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 110.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 82.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 112.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 112.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 85
(a)	by striking out line 29 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "sixty days before a copy of that regulation is"
(b)	by striking out line 32 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "(2) In calculating the sixty day period".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 112 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 114.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 114.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 86
(a)	by striking out line 40 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor: "least sixty days before the proposed effec-"
(b)	by striking out lines 4 to 7 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
(3)	In calculating the sixty-day period referred to in subsection (1), there shall not be counted any day on which Parliament sits".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 114 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 115.


Alex Kindy: Motion No. 115.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 87 by striking out lines 8 to 44 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"87. (1) A regulation that is proposed to be made under paragraph 38(a) prescribes any part or region of Canada for the purpose of paragraph 35(1 )(a) shall be laid before Parliament at least sixty sitting days before the proposed effective date therefor.
(2) Where, within twenty-five sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before Parliament under subsection (1), a motion for the consideration of the House to the effect that the proposed regulation not be approved, signed by no fewer than ten Members of the House of Commons, filed with the Speaker of the House, the Speaker shall, within five sitting days after the filing of the motion,

without debate or amendment, put every question necessary for the disposition of the motion.
(3)	Where a motion referred to in subsection (2) is adopted by Parliament, the proposed regulation to which the motion relates may not be made.
(4)	Where Parliament dissolves or prorogues earlier than twenty-five sitting days after a proposed regulation is laid before Parliament under subsection (1) and a motion has not been disposed of under subsection (2) in relation to the proposed regulation in Parliament, the proposed regulation may not be made.
(5)	For the purposes of this section, "sitting day" means, in respect to Parliament, a day on which the House sits."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 115 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 115 A.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants) moved:: Motion No. 115A.
That Bill C-72 be amended in Clause 87
(a)	by striking out lines 12 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"before the House of Commons at least"
(b)	by striking out line 17 at page 36 and subtituting the following therefor: "the House of Commons under subsection"
(c)	by striking out line 21 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor: "than ten Members of"
(d)	by striking lines 29 and 30 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion (2) is adopted by the House of Commons the proposed regulation to which the"
(e)	by striking out line 35 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor: "the House of Commons under subsection"
(f)	by striking out lines 38 and 39 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"posed regulation in the House of Commons, the proposed regulation may not be"
(g)	by striking out lines 42 and 43 at page 36 and substituting the following therefor:
"ting day" means, in respect of the House of Commons, a day on which that House".
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 115a negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 122.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 122.
That Bill C-72 be amended by deleting Clause 105.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 122 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion 123.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 123.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 7 to 11 at
page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"AND WHEREAS the Constitution of Canada provides for full and equal access to Parliament and to the courts established by Parliament in both official languages."


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Official Languages Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 123 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 125.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 125.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 19 to 24 at page 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 125 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 126.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 126.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 33 and 34 at page 1 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada is committed to achieving, in full recognition of the principle of selection of person-".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 126 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 127.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 127.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by adding immediately after line 2 at page 2 the following:
"AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to preserving the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada who speak only English or French, while providing opportunities for Canadians to learn both English and French;''.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 127 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 128.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 128.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 3 to 10 at page 2.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 129.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 129.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 4 to 10 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Canada is committed to maintaining the English and French linguistic minority communities as an integral part of the two official language communities in Canada;''.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 129 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion 130.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Motion No. 130.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 11 to 18 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada is committed to respecting the positions of the provincial governments regarding English and French minority communities, the provision of services in both English and French, and the maintenance of opportunities for the people of Canada to learn both English and French;".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 130 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 131.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 131.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 21 to 27 at page 2.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 131 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 133.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 133.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by striking out lines 24 to 27 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"Region;".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Official Languages Act Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 133 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on Motion No. 136.


William John Vankoughnet: Motion No. 136.
That Bill C-72 be amended in the Preamble by adding immediately after line 33 at page 2 the following:
"AND WHEREAS the Government of Canada recognizes the potential divisiveness of the creation and maintenance of two official languages in Canada and is committed to reducing and eliminating such divisiveness;".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:
Pursuant to Standing Order 114(11) the recorded division on the 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. Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The first question is on the amendment of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques) to Motion No. 1A.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Motion No. 1A
That Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 40 at page 2 and substituting the folowing therefor:
"2. The purpose of this Act is to reinforce the present laws of Canada relating to official languages to:"


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):
That Motion No. 1A be amended in the English version by striking out the word "reinforce" and substituting the word "extend" therefor.
The House divided on the amendment of Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 422)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse
Benjamin
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Broadbent
Caccia
Cassidy
de Jong
Dewar
Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Foster
Fulton
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Gray
(Windsor West) Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Harris
Heap
Hovdebo
Isabelle
Jewett
Kaplan
Keeper
Langdon
MacLellan
Malepart
Manly
McCurdy
McLaughlin
Mitchell
Murphy
Nystrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pepin
Prud'homme
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
Skelly
Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tobin
Young-46
++NAYS
Members
Andre
Beatty
Bernier
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer Brightwell Brisco Browes Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling de Cotret Dick Domm Dorin Duplessis
Edwards
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Fretz
Friesen
Gagnon
Gerin
Girard
Graham
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Grise
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Hawkes
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Howie
Hudon
Jacques
James
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity- Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kelleher
Kempling
Kindy
King
Landry
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
Mailly Marin Martin Masse Mayer McCain McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKenzie
McLean
Mitges
Moore
Mulroney
Nowlan
Oberle
Oostrom
Pennock
Pietz
Reid
St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Sparrow Speyer Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Taylor Tremblay (Quebec-Est)


Van De Walle	Weiner	WilsonVankoughnet	White	(EtobicokeVezina	Centre)-108
Warner


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I think that if you consult the House, you will find unanimous consent for having the results of the vote we have just taken applied to the following vote, that is, to the main motion I moved on amendment 1A.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on Motion No. 1A, which was negatived on the following division:
	(Division No. 423)
 YEAS Members	
Althouse	Gray	NystromBenjamin	(Windsor West)	OrlikowBlackburn	Guilbault	Parry(Brant)	(Saint-Jacques)	PennerBlaikie	Harris	PepinBroadbent	Heap	Prud'hommeCaccia	Hovdebo	RiisCassidy	Isabelle	Robichaudde Jong	Jewett	RodriguezDewar	Kaplan	RossiEpp	Keeper	Skelly(Thunder Bay-	Langdon	TardifNipigon)	MacLellan	(Richmond-Wolfe)Foster	Malepart	TobinFulton	Manly	Young-46Gagliano	McCurdy	Garneau	McLaughlin	Gauthier	Mitchell Murphy
NAYS Members	Andre	Champagne	CrosbieBeatty	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	(St. John's West)Bernier	Bagot)	DarlingBlais	Champagne	de CotretBlais-Grenier	(Champlain)	DickBlouin	Charest	DommBosley	Clark	Dor inBouchard	(Brandon-Souris)	Duplessis(Roberval)	Clifford	EdwardsBoyer	Cochrane	EppBrightwell	Collins	(Provencher)Brisco	Comeau	FennellBrowes	Cook	FerlandCadieux	Cooper	FontaineCaldwell	Corbett	FretzCardiff	Cossitt	Friesen Gagnon
Official Languages Act
Gerin	Landry	PennockGirard	Layton	PietzGraham	Leblanc	ReidGray	Lesick	St. Germain(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Lewis	Scottla-Madeleine)	Lopez	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Grise	MacDonald	ScowenGuilbault	(Kingston and	Shields(Drummond)	the Islands)	SparrowGurbin	MacDougall	SpeyerHamelin	(Timiskaming)	TardifHawkes	Mailly	(Charlesbourg)Hicks	Marin	TaylorHnatyshyn	Martin	TremblayHoltmann	Masse	(Quebec-Est)Howie	Mayer	Van De WalleHudon	McCain	VankoughnetJacques	McDermid	VezinaJames	McDougall	WarnerJohnson	(St. Paul's)	Weiner(Bonavista-T rinity-	McKenzie	WhiteConception)	McLean	WilsonJoncas	Mitges	(EtobicokeJourdenais	Moore	Centre)-108Kelleher	Mulroney	Kempling	Nowlan	Kindy	Oberle	King	Oostrom


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The next question is on Motion No. 2.		
The House divided on Motion No. 2,		which was negatived
on the following division: (Division No. 424)
 YEAS Members		
Corbett	McCain	
Domm	McKenzie	
Gagnon	Stewart	
Kindy	Vankoughnet-8
 NAYS Members	
Althouse	Champagne	EdwardsAndre	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	EppBeatty	Bagot)	(Thunder Bay-Benjamin	Champagne	Nipigon)Bernier	(Champlain)	EppBlackburn	Charest	(Provencher)(Brant)	Clark	FennellBlaikie	(Brandon-Souris)	FerlandBlais	Clifford	FontaineBlais-Grenier	Cochrane	FosterBlouin	Collins	FretzBosley	Comeau	FriesenBouchard	Cook	Fulton(Roberval)	Cooper	GaglianoBoyer	Cossitt	GarneauBrightwell	Crosbie	GauthierBrisco	(St. John's West)	GerinBroadbent	Darling	GirardBrowes	de Cotret	GrayCaccia	de Jong	(Bonaventure-iles-de-Cadieux	Dewar	la-Madeleine)Caldwell	Dick	GrayCardiff	Dorin	(Windsor West)Cassidy	Duplessis	Grise
Official Languages Act
Pennock Pepin Pietz
Prud'homme Reid Riis
Robichaud Rodriguez Rossi
St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Skelly Sparrow Speyer Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Tobin Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle Vezina Warner Weiner White Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Young-144


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question in on Motion No. 2A.
Fontaine	Kaplan	PennerFoster	Keeper	PennockFretz	Kelleher	PepinFriesen	Kempling	PietzFulton	King	Prud'hommeGagliano	Landry	ReidGarneau	Langdon	RiisGauthier	Layton	RobichaudGerin	Leblanc	RodriguezGirard	Lesick	RossiGray	Lewis	St. Germain(Bonaventure-iles-de-	Lopez	Scottla-Madeleine)	MacDonald	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Gray	(Kingston and	Scowen(Windsor West)	the Islands)	ShieldsGrise	MacDougall	SkellyGuilbault	(Timiskaming)	Sparrow(Saint-Jacques)	MacLellan	SpeyerGuilbault	Mailly	Stevens(Drummond)	Malepart	TardifGurbin	Manly	(Richmond-Wolfe)Hamelin	Marin	TardifHarris	Martin	(Charles bourg)Hawkes	Masse	TobinHeap	Mayer	TremblayHicks	McCurdy	(Quebec-Est)Hnatyshyn	McDermid	Van De WalleHoltmann	McDougall	VezinaHovdebo	(St. Paul's)	WaddellHowie	McLaughlin	WarnerHudon	McLean	WeinerIsabelle	Mitchell	WhiteJacques	Moore	WilsonJames	Mulroney	(EtobicokeJewett	Murphy	Centre)Johnson	Nystrom	Young-144(Bonavista-Trinity-	Oberle	Conception)	Oostrom	Joncas	Orlikow	Jourdenais	Parry	
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Harris
Hawkes
Heap
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hovdebo
Howie
Hudon
Isabelle
Jacques
James
Jewett
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity-
Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kaplan
Keeper
Kelleher
Kempling
King
Landry
Langdon
Layton
Leblanc
Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacLellan Mailly Malepart Manly Marin Martin Masse Mayer McCurdy McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McLaughlin McLean Mitchell Mitges Moore Mulroney Murphy Nystrom Oberle Oostrom Orlikow Parry Penner
The House divided on Motion No. 2A, which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Corbett
Kindy
McKenzie
Althouse
Andre
Beatty
Benjamin
Bernier
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Broadbent
Browes
(Division No. 425)
++YEAS
Members
Stewart
Vankoughnet-5
++NAYS
Members
Caccia Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper
Cossitt
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling de Cotret de Jong Dewar Dick Dor in Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Thunder Bay-
Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I propose, with the consent of the House, that the vote we have just taken be applied to the remaining motions, provided that the names of those voting and the way they vote will be separately recorded for each motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that that is a very good suggestion, with the exception that perhaps some Members who did not vote may like to have their names added or subtracted to the lists.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. I take it that there is agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion-


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are several of these motions with respect to which I have varying opinions. I would not give my concurrence to the vote being recorded just as the previous one has been taken.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has only been one individual who has indicated that he may not be in agreement with the suggestion. It does follow my hon. colleague's suggestion that not all Members may be in the same position on all votes. Perhaps I can suggest that we move on and the Hon. Member in question, since he seems to be the only one, could consult afterward with the Table Officers and indicate just where he stands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of State has made, I think, a helpful suggestion. There seems to be agreement. Is the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal in agreement with that?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with that, except with respect to one motion that is going to be voted on which I would like to vote in favour of.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the Hon. Member could see the Clerk and that would be arranged.
Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, I give indication to the Chair that there is one of the motions that I would wish to vote in favour of.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member can then partake himself of the same procedure.
Are there other Hon. Members? The Hon. Member for Bow River.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I definitely want to support Motion No. 2B.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other Members who want to make any variation in this, by arrangement?


Mr. Graham:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to partake in that option by speaking to the Table Officers afterward, if that is all right.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the Hon. Member who just rose, but I am not at all sure just exactly what he is proposing. Perhaps he could clarify it.


Stan Graham: I abstained on some of the motions thus far. However, there are others that I would like to vote on in the affirmative or in the negative.


Some Hon. Members:: Name them!
Official Languages Act


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member agree to make the same arrangement as other Hon. Members have indicated to the Chair?


Stan Graham: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear so that all of us understand what is going to happen. Some of us vote publicly and openly. If I understand the process now-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -some others will vote secretly. I do not agree with that.


An Hon. Member:: No, it is recorded.


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the Chair can assist Hon. Members. First, everybody's vote will be recorded. It will be seen exactly how each Hon. Member had voted.
Second, we are proceeding now because there was an agreement in the House. I think that that stands.
The next question is on Motion No. 2B.
The House divided on Motion No. 2B, which was negatived on the following division:
(Division No. 426)
++YEAS
Members
Kindy McKenzie Stewart	Taylor Vankoughnet-5
 NAYS Members	
Althouse	Champagne	EppAndre	(Champlain)	(Provencher)Beatty	Charest	FennellBenjamin	Clark	FerlandBernier	(Brandon-Souris)	FontaineBlackburn	Clifford	Foster(Brant)	Cochrane	FretzBlaikie	Collins	FriesenBlais	Comeau	FultonBlais-Grenier	Cook	GaglianoBlouin	Cooper	GarneauBosley	Cossitt	GauthierBouchard	Crosbie	Gerin(Roberval)	(St. John's West)	GirardBoyer	Darling	GrayBrightwell	de Cotret	(Bonaventure-iBrisco	de Jong	la-Madeleine)Broadbent	Dewar	GrayBrowes	Dick	(Windsor West)Caccia	Dorin	GriseCadieux	Duplessis	GuilbaultCaldwell	Edwards	(Saint-Jacques)Cardiff	Epp	GuilbaultChampagne	(Thunder Bay-	(Drummond)(Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)	Nipigon)	Gurbin Hamelin
Official Languages Act
Harris	MacDougall	RodriguezHawkes	(Timiskaming)	RossiHeap	MacLellan	St. GermainHicks	Mailly	ScottHnatyshyn	Malepart	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Holtmann	Manly	ScowenHovdebo	Marin	ShieldsHowie	Martin	SkellyHudon	Masse	SparrowIsabelle	Mayer	SpeyerJacques	McCurdy	StevensJames	McDermid	TardifJewett	McDougall	(Richmond-Wolfe)Johnson	(St. Paul's)	Tardif(Bonavista-T rinity-	McLaughlin	(Charles bourg)Conception)	McLean	TobinJoncas	Mitchell	TremblayJourdenais	Moore	(Quebec-Est)Kaplan	Mulroney	Van De WalleKeeper	Murphy	VezinaKelleher	Nystrom	WaddellKempling	Oberle	WarnerKing	Oostrom	WeinerLandry	Orlikow	WhiteLangdon	Parry	WilsonLayton	Penner	(EtobicokeLeblanc	Pennock	Centre)Lesick	Pepin	Young-144Lewis	Pietz	Lopez	Prud'homme	MacDonald	Reid	(Kingston and	Riis	the Islands)	Robichaud


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Gerin	King	PennerGirard	Landry	PennockGray	Langdon	Pepin(Bonaventure-Iles-de-	Layton	Pietzla-Madeleine)	Leblanc	Prud'hommeGray	Lesick	Reid(Windsor West)	Lewis	RiisGrise	Lopez	RobichaudGuilbault	MacDonald	Rodriguez(Saint-Jacques)	(Kingston and	RossiGuilbault	the Islands)	St. Germain(Drummond)	MacDougall	ScottGurbin	(Timiskaming)	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Hamelin	MacLellan	ScowenHarris	Mailly	ShieldsHawkes	Malepart	SkellyHeap	Manly	SparrowHicks	Marin	SpeyerHnatyshyn	Martin	StevensHoltmann	Masse	TardifHovdebo	Mayer	(Richmond-Wolfe)Howie	McCurdy	TardifHudon	McDermid	(Charlesbourg)Isabelle	McDougall	TobinJacques	(St. Paul's)	TremblayJames	McLaughlin	(Quebec-Est)Jewett	McLean	Van De WalleJohnson	Mitchell	Vezina(Bonavista-Trinity-	Moore	WaddellConception)	Mulroney	WarnerJoncas	Murphy	WeinerJourdenais	Nystrom	WhiteKaplan	Oberle	WilsonKeeper	Oostrom	(EtobicokeKelleher	Orlikow	Centre)Kempling	Parry	Young-144
The next question is on Motion No. 22.
The House divided on Motion No. 22, which was negatived on the following division:


Mr. Speaker:: I declare Motions Nos. 22, 23, and 29 lost.
The House divided on Motion No. 28, which was negatived on the following division:
Kindy
McKenzie
Stewart
Althouse
Andre
Beatty
Benjamin
Bernier
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Broadbent
Browes
Caccia
Cadieux
(Division No. 427)
++YEAS
Members
(.Division No. 428)
++YEAS
Members
Taylor Vankoughnet-5
 NAYS Members Caldwell Cardiff	de Jong Dewar	Corbett Kindy McKenzie Althouse	Stewart Vankoughnet-5
 NAYS Members Cadieux	Darling
Champagne	Dick	Andre	Caldwell	de Cotret(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Dorin	Beatty	Cardiff	de JongBagot)	Duplessis	Benjamin	Champagne	DewarChampagne	Edwards	Bernier	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Dick(Champlain)	Epp	Blackburn	Bagot)	DorinCharest	(Thunder Bay-	(Brant)	Champagne	DuplessisClark	Nipigon)	Blaikie	(Champlain)	Edwards(Brandon-Souris)	Epp	Blais	Charest	EppClifford	(Provencher)	Blais-Grenier	Clark	(Thunder Bay-Cochrane	Fennell	Blouin	(Brandon-Souris)	Nipigon)Collins	Ferland	Bosley	Clifford	EppComeau	Fontaine	Bouchard	Cochrane	(Provencher)Cook	Foster	(Roberval)	Collins	FennellCooper	Fretz	Boyer	Comeau	FerlandCossitt	Friesen	Brightwell	Cook	FontaineCrosbie	Fulton	Brisco	Cooper	Foster(St. John's West)	Gagliano	Broadbent	Cossitt	FretzDarling	Garneau	Browes	Crosbie	Friesende Cotret	Gauthier	Caccia	(St. John's West)	Fulton
Official Languages Act
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Gerin
Girard
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West)
Grise
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Harris
Hawkes
Heap
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hovdebo
Howie
Hudon
Isabelle
Jacques
James
Jewett
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas
Jourdenais
Kaplan
Keeper
Cochrane
Corbett
Kindy
Althouse
Andre
Beatty
Benjamin
Bernier
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Kelleher Kempling King Landry Langdon Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacLellan Mailly Malepart Manly Marin Martin Masse Mayer McCurdy McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McLaughlin McLean Mitchell Moore Mulroney Murphy Nystrom Oberle Oostrom Orlikow
(Division No. 429)
++YEAS
Members
McKenzie
Stewart
Vankoughnet-6
++NAYS
Members
Broadbent Browes Caccia Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Collins
Parry Penner Pennock Pepin Pietz
Prud'homme
Reid
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Skelly Sparrow Speyer Stevens Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Tobin Tremblay (Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle Vezina Waddell Warner Weiner White Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Young-144
Comeau
Cook
Cooper
Cossitt
Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling de Cotret de Jong Dewar Dick Dorin Duplessis Edwards
Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Foster
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Gerin
Girard
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West)
Grise
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Harris
Hawkes
Heap
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hovdebo
Howie
Hudon
Isabelle
Jacques
James
Kindy
McKenzie
Stewart
Althouse
Andre
Beatty
Benjamin
Bernier
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Jewett
Johnson
(Bonavista-Trinity- Conception)
Joncas Jourdenais Kaplan Keeper Kelleher Kempling King Landry Langdon Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands) MacDougall (Timiskaming) MacLellan Mailly Malepart Manly Marin Martin Masse Mayer McCurdy McDermid McDougall (St. Paul's) McLaughlin McLean Mitchell Moore Mulroney Murphy
++YEAS
Members
Taylor
Vankoughnet-5
++NAYS
Members
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer
Brightwell
Brisco
Broadbent
Browes
Caccia
Cadieux
Caldwell
Cardiff
Nystrom
Oberle
Oostrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pennock
Pepin
Pietz
Prud'homme
Reid
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Skelly Sparrow Speyer Stevens Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tardif
(Charles bourg)
Tobin
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle
Vezina
Waddell
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Young-143
Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 52.
The House divided on Motion No. 52, which was negatived Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost, on the following division:	The next qUestion is on Motion No. 74.
The House divided on Motion No. 74, which was negatived on the following division:
(.Division No. 430)


Official Languages Act
Cooper	Holtmann	MurphyCorbett	Hovdebo	NystromCossitt	Howie	OberleCrosbie	Hudon	Oostrom(St. John's West)	Isabelle	OrlikowDarling	Jacques	Parryde Cotret	James	Pennerde Jong	Jewett	PennockDewar	Johnson	PepinDick	(Bonavista-Trinity-	PietzDorin	Conception)	Prud'hommeDuplessis	Joncas	ReidEdwards	Jourdenais	RiisEpp	Kaplan	Robichaud(Thunder Bay-	Keeper	RodriguezNipigon)	Kelleher	RossiEpp	Kempling	St. Germain(Provencher)	King	ScottFennell	Landry	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Ferland	Langdon	ScowenFontaine	Layton	ShieldsFoster	Leblanc	SkellyFretz	Lesick	SparrowFriesen	Lewis	SpeyerFulton	Lopez	StevensGagliano	MacDonald	TardifGarneau	(Kingston and	(Richmond-Wolfe)Gauthier	the Islands)	TardifGerin	MacDougall	(Charlesbourg)Girard	(Timiskaming)	TobinGray	MacLellan	Tremblay(Bona venture-i les-de-	Mailly	(Quebec-Est)la-Madeleine)	Malepart	Van De WalleGray	Manly	Vezina(Windsor West)	Marin	WaddellGrise	Martin	WarnerGuilbault	Masse	Weiner(Saint-Jacques)	Mayer	WhiteGuilbault	McCurdy	Wilson(Drummond)	McDermid	(EtobicokeGurbin	McDougall	Centre)Hamelin	(St. Paul's)	Young-145Harris	McLaughlin	Hawkes	McLean	Heap	Mitchell	Hicks	Moore	Hnatyshyn	Mulroney


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.		
The next question is on Motion No. 76.		
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 76,		which was negatived
on the following division: {Division No. 431)
 YEAS Members		
Kindy McKenzie Stewart	Vankoughnet-4
 NAYS Members	
Althouse	Blaikie	BoyerAndre	Blais	BrightwellBeatty	Blais-Grenier	BriscoBenjamin	Blouin	BroadbentBernier	Bosley	BrowesBlackburn	Bouchard	Caccia(Brant)	(Roberval)	CadieuxCaldwell	Guilbault	McDermidCardiff	(Saint-Jacques)	McDougallChampagne	Guilbault	(St. Paul's)(Saint-Hyacinthe-	(Drummond)	McLaughlinBagot)	Gurbin	McLeanChampagne	Hamelin	Mitchell(Champlain)	Harris	MooreCharest	Hawkes	MulroneyClark	Heap	Murphy(Brandon-Souris)	Hicks	NystromClifford	Hnatyshyn	OberleCochrane	Holtmann	OostromCollins	Hovdebo	OrlikowComeau	Howie	ParryCook	Hudon	PennerCooper	Isabelle	PennockCossitt	Jacques	PepinCrosbie	James	Pietz(St. John's West)	Jewett	Prud'hommeDarling	Johnson	Reidde Cotret	(Bonavista-T rinity-	Riisde Jong	Conception)	RobichaudDewar	Joncas	RodriguezDick	Jourdenais	RossiDorin	Kaplan	St. GermainDuplessis	Keeper	ScottEdwards	Kelleher	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Epp	Kempling	Scowen(Thunder Bay-	King	ShieldsNipigon)	Landry	SkellyEpp	Langdon	Sparrow(Provencher)	Layton	SpeyerFennell	Leblanc	StevensFerland	Lesick	TardifFontaine	Lewis	(Richmond-Wolfe)Foster	Lopez	TardifFretz	MacDonald	(Charlesbourg)Friesen	(Kingston and	TobinFulton	the Islands)	TremblayGagliano	MacDougall	(Quebec-Est)Garneau	(Timiskaming)	Van De WalleGauthier	MacLellan	VezinaGerin	Mailly	WaddellGirard	Malepart	WarnerGray	Manly	Weiner(Bonaventure-Iles-de- Marin	Whitela-Madeleine)	Martin	WilsonGray	Masse	(Etobicoke(Windsor West)	Mayer	Centre)Grise	McCurdy	Young-144


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.	
The next question is on Motion No. 104.		
The House divided on Motion No. 104, which was negatived		
on the following division: {Division No. 432)
 YEAS Members		
Kindy McKenzie Stewart	Vankoughnet-4
 NAYS Members	
Althouse	Bernier	BlaisAndre	Blackburn	Blais-GrenierBeatty	(Brant)	BlouinBenjamin	Blaikie	BosleyBouchard	Gray	Masse(Roberval)	(Bonavent u re-1 les-de-	MayerBoyer	la-Madeleine)	McCurdyBrightwell	Gray	McDermidBrisco	(Windsor West)	McDougallBroadbent	Grise	(St. Paul's)Browes	Guilbault	McLaughlinCaccia	(Saint-Jacques)	McLeanCadieux	Guilbault	MitchellCaldwell	(Drummond)	MooreCardiff	Gurbin	MulroneyChampagne	Hamelin	Murphy(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Harris	NystromBagot)	Hawkes	OberleChampagne	Heap	Oostrom(Champlain)	Hicks	OrlikowCharest	Hnatyshyn	ParryClark	Holtmann	Penner(Brandon-Souris)	Hovdebo	PennockClifford	Howie	PepinCochrane	Hudon	PietzCollins	Isabelle	Prud'hommeComeau	Jacques	ReidCook	James	RiisCooper	Jewett	RobichaudCossitt	Johnson	RodriguezCrosbie	(Bonavista-T rinity-	Rossi(St. John's West)	Conception)	St. GermainDarling	Joncas	Scottde Cotret	Jourdenais	(Hamilton-Wentworth)de Jong	Kaplan	ScowenDewar	Keeper	ShieldsDick	Kelleher	SkellyDor in	Kempling	SparrowDuplessis	King	SpeyerEdwards	Landry	StevensEpp	Langdon	Tardif(Thunder Bay-	Layton	(Richmond-Wolfe)Nipigon)	Leblanc	TardifEpp	Lesick	(Charles bourg)(Provencher)	Lewis	TobinFennell	Lopez	TremblayFerland	MacDonald	(Quebec-Est)Fontaine	(Kingston and	Van De WalleFoster	the Islands)	VezinaFretz	MacDougall	WaddellFriesen	(Timiskaming)	WarnerFulton	MacLellan	WeinerGagliano	Mailly	WhiteGarneau	Malepart	WilsonGauthier	Manly	(EtobicokeGerin	Marin	Centre)Girard	Martin	Young-144


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
The next question is on Motion No. 110.
The Elouse divided on Motion No. 110, which was negatived on the following division:
Official Languages Act
++NAYS
Members
Althouse	Friesen	MartinAndre	Fulton	MasseBeatty	Gagliano	MayerBenjamin	Garneau	McCurdyBernier	Gauthier	McDermidBlackburn	Gerin	McDougall(Brant)	Girard	(St. Paul's)Blaikie	Gray	McLaughlinBlais	(Bonaventure-iles-de-	McLeanBlais-Grenier	la-Madeleine)	MitchellBlouin	Gray	MooreBosley	(Windsor West)	MulroneyBouchard	Grise	Murphy(Roberval)	Guilbault	NystromBoyer	(Saint-Jacques)	OberleBrightwell	Guilbault	OostromBrisco	(Drummond)	OrlikowBroadbent	Gurbin	ParryBrowes	Hamelin	PennerCaccia	Harris	PennockCadieux	Hawkes	PepinCaldwell	Heap	PietzCardiff	Hicks	Prud'hommeChampagne	Hnatyshyn	Reid(Saint-Hyacinthe-	Holtmann	RiisBagot)	Hovdebo	RobichaudChampagne	Howie	Rodriguez(Champlain)	Hudon	RossiCharest	Isabelle	St. GermainClark	Jacques	Scott(Brandon-Souris)	James	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Clifford	Jewett	ScowenCochrane	Johnson	ShieldsCollins	(Bonavista-T rinity-	SkellyComeau	Conception)	SparrowCook	Joncas	SpeyerCooper	Jourdenais	StevensCorbett	Kaplan	TardifCossitt	Keeper	(Richmond-Wolfe)Crosbie	Kelleher	Tardif(St. John's West)	Kempling	(Charlesbourg)Darling	King	Tobinde Cotret	Landry	Tremblayde Jong	Langdon	(Quebec-Est)Dewar	Layton	Van De WalleDick	Leblanc	VezinaDorin	Lesick	WaddellDuplessis	Lewis	WarnerEdwards	Lopez	WeinerEpp	MacDonald	White(Thunder Bay-	(Kingston and	WilsonNipigon)	the Islands)	(EtobicokeEpp	MacDougall	Centre)(Provencher)	(Timiskaming)	Young-145Fennell	MacLellan	Ferland	MaillyFontaine	MalepartFoster	ManlyFretz	Marin
(Division No. 433)
++YEAS


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Members
The next question is on Motion No. 128.
Kindy ,	vankoughnet-4	The House divided on Motion No. 128, which was negatived
McKenzie
Stewart	on the following division:


Official Languages Act
(.Division No. 434)
++YEAS
The House divided on Motion No. 136, on the following division:
Members
(Division No. 435)
Kindy	Vankoughnet-4
McKenzie
Stewart
++YEAS
Members
++NAYS
Members
Kindy	Vankoughnet-4
McKenzie
Stewart
Althouse
Andre
Beatty
Benjamin
Bernier
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer Brightwell Brisco Broadbent Browes Caccia Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling de Cotret de Jong Dewar Dick Dorin Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Foster
Fretz
Friesen
Fulton
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Gerin
Girard
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West)
Grise
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Harris
Hawkes
Heap
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hovdebo
Howie
Hudon
Isabelle
Jacques
James
Jewett
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas Jourdenais Kaplan Keeper Kelleher Kempling King Landry Langdon Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacLellan
Mailly
Malepart
Manly
Marin
Martin
Masse
Mayer
McCurdy
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McLaughlin
McLean
Mitchell
Moore
Mulroney
Murphy
Nystrom
Oberle
Oostrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pennock
Pepin
Pietz
Prud'homme
Reid
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Skelly Sparrow Speyer Stevens Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Tobin
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle
Vezina
Waddell
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Young-145


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 136.
Althouse
Andre
Beatty
Benjamin
Bernier
Blackburn
(Brant)
Blaikie
Blais
Blais-Grenier
Blouin
Bosley
Bouchard
(Roberval)
Boyer Brightwell Brisco Broadbent Browes Caccia Cadieux Caldwell Cardiff Champagne (Saint-Hyacinthe- Bagot)
Champagne
(Champlain)
Charest
Clark
(Brandon-Souris) Clifford Cochrane Collins Comeau Cook Cooper Corbett Cossitt Crosbie
(St. John's West) Darling de Cotret de Jong Dewar Dick Dorin Duplessis Edwards Epp
(Thunder Bay- Nipigon)
Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Ferland
Fontaine
Foster
Fretz
++NAYS
Members
Friesen
Fulton
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Gerin
Girard
Gray
(Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gray
(Windsor West)
Grise
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Guilbault
(Drummond)
Gurbin
Hamelin
Harris
Hawkes
Heap
Hicks
Hnatyshyn
Holtmann
Hovdebo
Howie
Hudon
Isabelle
Jacques
James
Jewett
Johnson
(Bonavista-T rinity- Conception)
Joncas Jourdenais Kaplan Keeper Kelleher Kempling King Landry Langdon Layton Leblanc Lesick Lewis Lopez MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands)
MacDougall
(Timiskaming)
MacLellan
Mailly
Malepart
Manly
Marin
which was negatived
Martin
Masse
Mayer
McCurdy
McDermid
McDougall
(St. Paul's)
McLaughlin
McLean
Mitchell
Moore
Mulroney
Murphy
Nystrom
Oberle
Oostrom
Orlikow
Parry
Penner
Pennock
Pepin
Pietz
Prud'homme
Reid
Riis
Robichaud
Rodriguez
Rossi
St. Germain Scott
(Hamilton-Wentworth) Scowen Shields Skelly Sparrow Speyer Stevens Tardif
(Richmond-Wolfe) Tardif
(Charlesbourg)
Tobin
Tremblay
(Quebec-Est)
Van De Walle
Vezina
Waddell
Warner
Weiner
White
Wilson
(Etobicoke
Centre)
Young-145


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is the following:


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That Bill C-72, an Act respecting the status and use of the official languages of Canada, be concurred in as amended.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:
Official Languages Act
Gray	Lesick	Prud'homme(Windsor West)	Lewis	ReidGrise	Lopez	RiisGuilbault	MacDonald	Robichaud(Saint-Jacques)	(Kingston and	RodriguezGuilbault	the Islands)	Rossi(Drummond)	MacDougall	St. GermainGurbin	(Timiskaming)	ScottHamelin	MacLellan	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Harris	Mailly	ScowenHawkes	Malepart	ShieldsHeap	Manly	SkellyHicks	Marin	SparrowHnatyshyn	Martin	SpeyerHoltmann	Masse	StevensHovdebo	Mayer	TardifHowie	McCurdy	(Richmond-Wolfe)Hudon	McDermid	TardifIsabelle	McDougall	(Charlesbourg)Jacques	(St. Paul's)	TobinJames	McLaughlin	TremblayJewett	McLean	(Quebec-Est)Johnson	Mitchell	Van De Walle(Bonavista-Trinity-	Mitges	VezinaConception)	Moore	WaddellJoncas	Mulroney	WarnerJourdenais	Murphy	WeinerKaplan	Nystrom	WhiteKeeper	Oberle	WilsonKelleher	Oostrom	(EtobicokeKempling	Orlikow	Centre)King	Parry	Young-146Landry	Penner	Langdon	Pennock	Layton	Pepin	Leblanc	Pietz	
++NAYS
(Division No. 436)
++YEAS
Members
Althouse	Champagne	EdwardsAndre	(Saint-Hyacinthe-	EppBeatty	Bagot)	(Thunder Bay-Benjamin	Champagne	Nipigon)Bernier	(Champlain)	EppBlackburn	Charest	(Provencher)(Brant)	Clark	FennellBlaikie	(Brandon-Souris)	FerlandBlais	Clifford	FontaineBlais-Grenier	Collins	FosterBlouin	Comeau	FretzBosley	Cook	FriesenBouchard	Cooper	Fulton(Roberval)	Cossitt	GaglianoBoyer	Crosbie	GagnonBrightwell	(St. John's West)	GarneauBrisco	Darling	GauthierBroadbent	de Cotret	GerinBrowes	de Jong	GirardCaccia	Dewar	GrahamCadieux	Dick	GrayCaldwell	Dorin	(Bonaventure-iCardiff	Duplcssis	la-Madeleine)
Members
Corbett	McKenzie
Domm	Nowlan
Kindy	Stewart
McCain	Vankoughnet-8


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, I draw attention to the fact that I was in the House but chose not to vote.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similk-ameen (Mr. King) on a point of order.


Mr. King:: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-58.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Official Languages Act


MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT
Frederick John King: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crime Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]


Mr. Speaker:: Would all those Members who wanted to make a special recording of their vote please report to the Table at their earliest convenience.
It being 7.45 p.m., 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 7.45 p.m.

Hh1
*n1
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, July 7, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers