1988-01-25

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to table four petitions which concern the Mul-roney-Reagan trade deal and explain that whereas the Mulroney Government has sold out Canada and received nothing in return, whereas Canadian industries are still not protected from U.S. trade laws, whereas the United States obtained everything it wanted in all key sectors, especially agriculture, energy, auto trade, financial services and investment, whereas thousands of Canadian jobs are threatened and the Conservative Government has not provided for any adjustment assistance for Canadian workers, wherefore the understand, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to denounce the Government for signing the Mulroney-Reagan trade agreement.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions from Hamilton, Ontario. The petitioners are objecting to the Government's trade deal in that this trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future.
In view of that, these petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject this proposed free trade agreement.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions containing some 250 names of constituents from the riding of Kent. The petitioners humbly pray that food irradiation not become part of home food processing in this country.
They ask Parliament that further independent agencies and scientists do more complete study on the safety in this area and also ask that in the event any food irradiation is allowed it be clearly labelled "treated with ionizing radiation".


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition signed by Canadians expressing their concern with the Government's trade agreement.
They believe the agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership and develop Canadian resources in the best interest of Canadians, or to equalize opportunity between the regions.
[DOT] (DIO)
They also believe that the proposed trade agreement would deny Canada the policy freedom to determine its own economic future and undermine our ability to build a society distinct from that of the United States.
Therefore the petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the proposed trade agreement during a national general election.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Frontier, Saskatchewan who wish to express concerns regarding all aspects of pornography. They believe it is time for the Government of Canada to stop listening to dissenting voices and to take specific action to put laws into effect that will curb the spread of pornography and, in particular, to put in place laws that will protect children from the abuses that often result from exposure to explicit and sexually deviant materials.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to take a stand on this issue and to pass Bill-C-54 intact which they view as absolutely crucial to the future welfare of children, families and the nation.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility to present a petition signed by residents of Chelmsford, Cartier, Dowling, Hanmer, Levack, Azilda, Val Therese and Garson, all in Ontario in the riding of Nickel Belt.
The petitioners point out that the Conservative Government had no mandate from the Canadian people to conclude a free trade agreement with the United States. Furthermore, they

January 25, 1988
Questions on the Order Paper
point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised in the course of the bilateral trade negotiations that Canadian sovereignty would not be compromised.
They also state that the trade agreement negotiated by the Government threatens the very fabric of Canadian political and economic sovereignty by removing the power of the Canadian Government to effectively control foreign ownership to develop Canadian energy resources in the best interests of Canadians or to equalize opportunities between the regions.
In light of all that, the petitioners call upon Parliament to dissolve and allow the people of Canada the opportunity to accept or reject the-


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there was some discussion last week about the Standing Orders in relation to petitions. There was a fairly clear statement from the Chair that petitions are not to be read. I would bring that to the attention of my hon. friend.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We have had this debate before. We agree that even though we may not read entirely a petition, Canadians who are listening would like to know what we are talking about when we table a petition. It would be too easy, Your Honour, to say, "A few people in Canada have asked me to put forward this petition concerning one problem. Thank you". I do not think that is the intent of a petition.
I may be tempted to agree with the Hon. Member that to read all of a petition is not necessary. If Your Honour consults the record he will see that to go along with what the Hon. Member is suggesting is to agree that it would be foolish to have any petition presented in the House.
I do not have any petitions to present today. However, I would not do honour or show respect for the people who give me petitions to be put to the House if I do not say in the House what they are all about. Perhaps some Members exaggerate by reading a whole petition. If we wanted to just table a petition then we could do that with the office of the Clerk.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I know that we have had this debate before. I want to point out that I named the communities of the individuals who signed the petition. Since people at home are listening and want to be sure that what they have signed is in fact what I am tabling in the House, then it would be remiss of me not to do what I have done. That is why I picked two or three paragraphs from the petition. In this way the folks who have gone to the trouble of signing, the petition know exactly that what they have signed is what I have tabled in the House and that I did not make up something else when I got to my feet.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who has a proven reputation here for expressing vigilantly the views of his constituents and others who have sought his services would want the public and the people who signed the petition and all Members of the House to know
what is the subject matter. The Parliamentary Secretary raises a legitimate point of order in that a petition itself ought not to be read. I am cognizant of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who is often of great help to the Chair. There has to be some balance in this matter and the Chair tries to achieve that.
However, if the statement that goes with a petition goes on overly long or is thought to be going on overly long then naturally someone will rise and raise a point of order. I think that the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt has made it clear to his constituents that indeed he has presented his petition today.
I should also point out for the information of all Hon. Members and for the public that petitions are not necessarily always spoken to. Many petitions are just filed with the Table, which is a proper recourse under the rules.
It is understandable why Hon. Members would want to stand and put on the record the fact that they have indeed presented petitions on behalf of those who signed them.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, question No. 235 will be answered today.


Mr. Boudria: During the fiscal years ended March 31 (a) 1985 (b) 1986 (c) 1987 did the Canada Lands Company (Mirabel) Ltd. make any expenditure on foreign travel and, if so, for each period, in what amounts and, for each trip, what were the (i) names of the participants (ii) purpose (iii) cost?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: In so
far as Public Works Canada is concerned:
(a)	1985-none, (i) none, (ii) none, (iii) none.
(b)	1986-Togo, (i) Mr. Richard Bergeron, Director, Finance and Administration (CLCML). (ii) At the invitation of Quebec's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Quebec, the Corporation was asked to send a participant to help develop a market in Togo. For businesses in the Mirabel region, this trip resulted in orders for farming equipment, tractors and a sales contract of mineral water export, the largest to date in Canada, i.e., 1,500,000 1.5-litre bottles from Nora Company, (iii) $7,000.
(c)	1987-Israel, (i) Mr. Pierre Hardy, President and Chief Executive Officer (CLCML), Mr. Roger Gosselin, Director of
January 25, 1988

Communications, (ii) At the invitation of Quebec's Department of International Trade, the Corporation sent two official delegates to a world-wide agricultural exhibition in Israel. Following this trip, a $13 million contract was awarded to a Canadian firm specializing in agriculture, to provide expertise for the expansion of the dairy industry. There will be a $2.5 million impact for the Mirabel region essentially through the sale of farm equipment, and livestock and the provision of services, (iii) $12,051.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That this House condemns the government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unity.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion moved by the Official Opposition condemns the Government for its procrastination, its inaction and its hesitation to accept serious debate, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages.
Bill C-72 does not propose amendments to the existing official languages legislation. It is a completely new law replacing, after 19 years, the original statute, and incorporating important changes which must be explained to Canadians.
That is why we want a serious debate. We want it to start and to finish soon. That is why we fear that the Government does not have the political courage to bring it in for debate before the next election. Some of us believe that the Government has cold feet on this issue.
Since its election in 1984 the Tory Government has promised meaningful changes to the Official Languages Act; two Throne Speeches, many statements of impending reform, and Minister after Minister promised in this House that the
Supply
Government would pursue with vigour the work already undertaken by the former Liberal Government of the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
[ Translation]
The Government could draw encouragement and inspiration from the many contributions made to this cause. There were the proposals made by the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages, inspired by the content of seventeen annual reports published by three successive Commissioners for Official Languages, namely, Keith Spicer, Maxwell Yalden and the present incumbent, d'Iberville Fortier, and supported by many national and provincial associations, including the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, Alliance Quebec, the Association canadienne-franqaise de I'Ontario, and similar groups in the various provinces, such as Parents for French, and many others, Mr. Speaker. All seemed to be going well for the Government. At least, that was the general impression. In 1984, the Conservatives inherited a thoroughly researched and well prepared dossier, and it was now up to them to provide the requisite leadership and have the courage of their convictions. We waited three and a half years for Bill C-72, which is intended to fully replace the Official Languages Act of 1969.
On June 25, 1987, three Ministers-the Minister of Justice, the President of the Treasury Board and the Secretary of State-held a joint press conference to formally present Bill C-72. When I saw the Government bring in its big guns, like so many others I was delighted because I thought the Government had finally decided to act without delay. The Minister of Justice who was responsible for the dossier stated last June, when the Bill was tabled, and I quote:

"We are putting our money where our mouth is". [Translation]
That, Mr. Speaker, is a firm commitment.
In June the Official Opposition was delighted because we take official languages seriously. The Commissioner of Official Languages was also delighted, stating that the Bill was a step in the right direction. Most of the recommendations made by the Committee on Official Languages in its many reports to the House were incorporated in Bill C-72. However, the Bill was tabled in the House on June 25 printed and we have all had a chance to read it, and subsequently nothing has happened. Total Tory silence. Not a ripple. Complete inertia. Nothing.
According to a rumour confirmed recently by Conservative Members, the Tory Caucus is so divided on the Bill that they will bury it in style, in other words, drop the whole thing until after the election expected to be called this year. Some Tories would prefer cremation, Mr. Speaker.
On December 12, the Hon. Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) openly demonstrated his opposition by resigning his post as parliamentary secretary here in the House. That takes a lot of courage, and I want to say this publicly, because he

January 25, 1988
Supply
could have done what so many others did and hide behind the confidentiality and anonymity of the Tory Caucus. He did not. He had the courage to express his convictions and defend them. The Hon. Member of Simcoe South, at least, cannot be accused of being a wet hen, and, we are looking forward to the debate and to hearing his views and his case against Bill C-72 That is the whole purpose of debate, Mr. Speaker.
We want to hear the arguments for and against this Bill; we want to have a real debate on this serious issue. If some Conservatives are against this Bill, let them rise in this House and let the Government give them an opportunity to express their fears, their objections and their uncertainties. A debate will give us an opportunity to find solutions to their resistance, and it will also provide the best opportunity for them to make their feelings understood and for us to make our our own views clear.
I would not want such an important piece of legislation to be sneaked through the House. The Government must not ask us to adopt the Bill on the sly on a Friday afternoon as it suggested before the holidays. Let there be a debate so that everybody can express their views. That is democracy, Mr. Speaker.
Some will say that, in 1969, there were only three speeches by then party leaders at the second reading stage. That is true. However, I would remind them that second reading gives all Members of Parliament an opportunity to discuss the principles of a Bill, and that it would be at the very least strange if this Government refused to let those who wish to do so express themselves freely and clearly on this issue. We should not forget that, in 1969, 19 Conservative Members voted against the principle of the Official Languages Act at second reading stage without even having an opportunity to explain to the House why they were against the legislation. Mr. Speaker, we have just adopted the Meech Lake Agreement. There is already a basis, an official statement by all Conservative Members, in support of linguistic duality. Bill C-72 gives more strength and momentum to the Meech Lake Agreement and contributes much to its implementation. Those who are against recognition of our official languages should therefore rise and explain their views, because recognizing this principle would support the Meech Lake Agreement. It is therefore important for the Government to allow a serious debate on this Bill.
I shall not dwell on the details today, Mr. Speaker, as I hope that there will be other opportunities to do so. I want to speak about a historic cultural, social and political trend, that of federal administrative bilingualism which, as we know, is an aspect of institutional bilingualism, the others being parliamentary bilingualism with which we are familiar, judiciary bilingualism which we often hear mentioned, and educational bilingualism which we are still trying to implement in our provinces. Well, I distinguish between this administrative bilingualism and individual bilingualism. But I should like to deal with the historical trend which is trying to establish a federal administration with a view to meeting the hopes and expectations of Canadians. This administrative bilingualism is
a vehicle to the promotion of which, I confess, I devote a considerable part of my energy.
It is the justification of my presence here as representative of a riding in the national capital, a national capital which should reflect what is best in this country. And finally my personal commitment for more than 30 years to the social, educational and political areas has had a profound influence on me. I strongly believe in a Canada which is both respectful and generous, and which is essentially characterized by its French-English or, if you prefer, English-French duality. I am one of those who believe that our country is stronger and richer because of its linguistic duality, that it will live on forever, whatever the resistance.
I prompted this emergency debate today because of the sadness and anger I felt upon realizing that the Government was having cold feet on the issue of administrative bilingualism, that it was not pursuing it with enough vigour and that it was weakening in its determination. I felt the need to strengh-then its political will and re-inforce its commitment to bring this Bill before the House, so that we may discuss it freely and clearly, and finally adopt it because it is a good Bill.
My feeling about the Government's procrastination in presenting Bill C-72 is shared by a great many people, Madam Speaker, not only the members of my caucus, but also the provincial associations, the Official Languages Commissioner, as well, I suggest, as many other members of this House who do not always see eye to eye with me, including many Tory members who would like this Bill to be read a second time and finally passed on third reading.
Madam Speaker, from a Government that is preaching top priority enshrinement of Canada's basic duality, the French and English duality, that delay is totally illogical. Would it be that the Mulroney Government is only interested in elections ratings, short-term electoral points? Must I remind them that we in the Liberal Party supported by a huge majority the Meech Lake Agreement, although we had some reservations? Why? Because we felt it was important to recognize this country's fundamental, basic feature-French and English duality. This being so, should we not also recognize the immediate consequence of Meech Lake? Should we not also accept the consequences of that duality?
If this country is dualistic, French and English, by reason of language, culture and civil law, can it not prove that duality by giving itself a Public Service that reflects such a nature? Is the Government not bound to practice what it preaches?
After promising heaven to the supporters and hell to the opponents of Meech Lake, will this Government remain in limbo, especially in view of the fact that so much time was needed to get started on bilingualism at the Government level? Are we aware for instance that this Hon. Chamber only got simultaneous Translation in 1959? Are we aware that in the early 60's, when I first took an active interest in politics, the talk was of bilingual cheques and bilingual menus at the parliament's restaurant?
January 25, 1988

We have gone a long way since then, Madam Speaker. As we know, the Pearson-Lamontagne mandate and the Lauren-deau-Dunton recommendations opened the door, followed of course by the Official Languages Act passed by this House in 1969. But there were shortcomings, loopholes in that great statute that have too often been pointed out by the Standing Committee, the Cabinet, the Public Service, the Official Languages Commissioner, and interested groups such as the FFHQ, Alliance Quebec and Parents for French. What are those loopholes? The 1982 Constitutional Act plugged a few, as we know, by enshrining, for instance, Government bilingualism along with parliamentary, judicial and school bilingualism. We now have that in our Constitution. Those provisions in the 1982 Act can no longer be changed by way of ordinary legislation. A constitutional amendment will be needed.
We know that significant progress has been made in the Public Service in the areas of services to the public, equitable representation, working language, all this is included in Bill C-72.
We are aware of the progress made in the use of official languages by provincial governments, especially in my own province of Ontario, whose Premier recognized during the election campaign the need to legislate bilingualism as soon as the situation would allow, and we all know that Bill 8 has been passed in Ontario and that it extends services in French to a greater number of people. This is why we must not stop there; we have to help move matters along. Now, a number of improvements suggested since 1969 have with much difficulty been put together in the new Official Languages Bill which is now before us, or which would be if the Government had the courage to call a debate. How is this Bill different from the 1969 legislation? What has been added? Why is the Government reluctant to try to have this Bill approved? Having proclaimed the principle of English and French duality, why is the Government reluctant to proclaim the consequences of this principle?
Let the dinosaurs rise; let those who are against the legislation explain their position, but let us see some action, Madam Speaker! Let those who are against the main provisions of this Bill rise, and 1 shall now list those main points. Let those who are against them rise and tell us if they are against improved access to justice in the two official languages of this country. Does anyone oppose recognition of the right of Canadians to work in the language of their choice in federal institutions? Let him rise and say so. Is anyone against full participation of French and English speaking Canadians in the Canadian public service? Let him rise and say so. Is anyone against the commitment to promote the development of official language minorities in Canada? Let him rise and say so. Is anyone against the principle of a court challenge when the linguistic rights of Canadians are denied? Let him rise and explain his position. Is anyone against recognizing the supremacy of this Act, which defines the terms of application of what the Meech Lake Agreement defines as being the basic characteristic of Canada? Let him rise and speak!
Supply
MO)
Madam Speaker, those who are against these principles should rise, explain their views and stop hiding. These principles must be publicly stated. That is why the Official Opposition demands a debate on this Bill, and hopes and prays that the Government will have the courage to call this debate within the next few days so that we may finally take action to deal with this major issue.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that Bill C-72 on Official Languages has been introduced. We need this Bill. The 1969 legislation was getting old and had been found deficient in a number of areas. Among other things, a number of rulings cast doubt on its precedence over other legislation; it became imperative for the Public Service to clarify the notions of language of work and, first and foremost, the law had to reflect Canada's new constitutional and social reality. There can be no denying that mentalities have evolved and that the Act of 1969 has indeed been one of the factors behind this evolution. There have been others, Madam Speaker, but the Act of 1969 was the starting point of a number of measures and changes.
This new Bill C-72 is essential because the time has come for the Canadian Government to openly reassert its political will with respect to the official languages. The Meech Lake Accord, whose legal text was voted upon by the House on October 26, did acknowledge that linguistic duality is one of Canada's basic feature. All provincial premiers agreed with and endorsed this idea. My personal view is that it would have been better had the accord acknowledged Ottawa's constitutional obligation to promote the rights of linguistic minorities, the precedence of the official languages. This was not to be, and the Government explained that it had made an attempt but had felt resistance from some provinces. We accepted that. We will again try to convince these provinces that it is advisable, sound and essential that the central Government not only guarantee the protection but also the promotion of minority groups, fundamental as they are to the future of our country.
We simply cannot do without the Official Languages Act of 1987, precisely because it will reaffirm our constitutional progress and help obviate such resistance. The linguistic minorities must be given the means to fulfil their aspirations despite occasional resistance on the part of provincial, regional or other government levels.
Although mentalities have rapidly evolved, as demonstrated by the recognition by all the provinces of our linguistic duality, the fact remains that it did not occur everywhere at the same pace.
I refer here to the Piquette case of last Spring, where a Francophone member was prevented from using French in the Legislative Assembly of Alberta. Yet, that province had signed the Meech Lake Accord. We could have reasonably expected the Alberta Government to be more openminded and in a demonstration of generosity towards its minority, to have taken this opportunity to generalize the use of French in the Alberta Legislature, which it did not.

January 25, 1988
Supply
This Bill, therefore, becomes necessary to promote both official languages in this country by weakening the resistance to them.
From the brief historical background which I have given at the beginning of my remarks, it is clear that Provincial Legislatures often take unfortunate steps, either by statute, administrative acts or regulations, which result in a reduction of minority rights.
Bill C-72 will provide Canadians with important tools and will make it possible for these minority groups to show what they are capable of. I suggest some people are wrong to fear that administrative bilingualism will threaten their future and that of their children if they remain unilingual. We will have to re-assure these people and continue to work towards mutual understanding. Together with the Constitution, this Bill will become an indispensable tool towards this goal.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time has expired. I wish I could go on, but I will conclude by saying: we are urging the Government to bring Bill C-72 before the House, so that we may have a democratic debate where, hopefully, justice and fairness will prevail while being both generous and fair to all.


Mr. Grise:: Madam Speaker, 1 was listening to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), in which he eulogized the contents of Bill C-72, a Bill that, I may add, was tabled by this Government. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier set himself up as the defender of Bill C-72, and 1 think there is something wrong here. Bill C-72 as it stands today an excellent Bill as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier said-was tabled by this Government. It was drafted by this Government. Bill C-72 was instigated by the Joint Committee, first under the joint chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), succeeded by the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins), both excellent, and as far as I know, both Members on the Government side.
I have a short question for the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier. He was of course referring to the Meech Lake Accord which recognizes linguistic duality, and the Hon. Member would like to take advantage of any disagreement that may exist in this respect in the Conservative Caucus. Madam Speaker, I think that during the last three and a half years this Government has done an excellent job on Bill C-72 with respect to official languages and on the Meech Lake Accord where Canada's linguistic duality is recognized. I think there is absolutely no doubt about the Conservative Government's outstanding record on these issues.


Marcel Prud'homme: What was the question?


Richard Grisé: I would like to ask my question, if the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) would give me a chance, Madam Speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: I can't wait!


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier said that our Government lost interest and that we failed to make any progress. Where was the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier when the Liberals were in power from 1969 to 1984? What did the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier do between 1980 and 1984 to improve the Official Languages Act?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left? Three or four minutes?


Marcel Prud'homme: Four minutes.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Where was I? Here in the House, and 1 have been since 1972. Before that, I was in this province, fighting for French in our schools, so that my children could go to French schools paid for with public funds. I did that for twelve years. Before that, 1 was active in community service through the Richelieu Club and that sort of thing. I tried to set up mechanisms and institutions that would be useful to my community, to my particular group. I wanted to give my community a chance to succeed. The Hon. Member may not be aware of the fact that in 1968 in Ontario, only 14 per cent of my fellow Franco-Ontarians finished high school. There were no schools for the rest. On both the social and the educational fronts, I fought battles whenever I felt I had to.
I came here in 1972, and in June 1973, we had to vote on this Parliamentary resolution calling for the implementation of an adminsitrative bilingualism which would make it possible for civil servants to be promoted to positions where they could use their own language, a resolution which would promote equal opportunities. Well, you need only look at the figures to realize the enormous improvements made since then. There were clearly short comings, something we realized later. In 1979, the Committee on Official Languages was established by Joe Clark, a former Tory Prime Minister, and under his direction. 1 paid him a visit with Mr. De Bane and Mr. Joyal in 1979. You need to know that when we asked him for a Parliamentary Committee to deal with this problem, he granted us our request. His Government was defeated. What can I say? The Committee under Mr. Clark never met, but as soon as Mr. Trudeau came to power in 1980, he established a Standing Committee which I had the honour to chair. I think all Members of this House, including the Hon. Member's own colleagues, are aware that I still sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. We try, but it is not easy. Today, 1 have not mentioned a single violation by the Federal administration, I did not blame the RCMP, I did not allude to the problems we experience every day in the administration of the Act, but I can say to the Hon. Members that I was here and doing the utmost to make the majority move.

January 25, 1988


Marcel Prud'homme: It did.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: It is not always easy, but things did move. Finally, after many years and many committee meetings, the Government has brought forth a bill which I feel is good, because it reflects what we have been seeking for quite a long time, and 1 now ask the Government to make a special effort to bring this bill to the House, a bill which we will adopt quickly because it is good.


M. Boudria:: Madam Speaker, 1 would also like to contribute to the discussion and put a question to my Hon. colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) while commending him for his excellent speech. Certainly, Madam Speaker, all Members in this House would like the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier to be commended not only for his speech but also for his great commitment to the area of official languages.
Here is my question to Hon. Member. Does he believe it is by coincidence that in June 1987 a bill was tabled in this House and immediately thereafter there was a provincial election in Ontario; that during that election the Conservative party fought bilingualism, and that just after the election and the situation in which the Ontario Conservatives found themselves with the support, dare 1 say, of some federal Conservative MPs, this Conservative Government chose to shelve, for all practical purposes, its good piece of a legislation, and I recognize it was good. And may I recall that some Conservative MPs from Ontario also made representations against Bill C-72. Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier feel that series of events was pure coincidence, remembering the position taken by Mr. Grossman during the provincial elections in Ontario?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Very briefly, Madam Speaker, I have no crystal ball. I could not say what went through the heads of those politicians, both federal and provincial, but it was passing strange that the legislation we had been expecting last winter, that was promised in 1986, was tabled on June 25, just before the summer recess, and since that time there has been no mention of it. Did that contribute to the election of a Liberal Government in Ontario? This I do not know, but 1 would hope so, because it has shown the Liberals, as straightthinking people, want to support that cause and are ready to do so with all their hearts and energies.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), I would like to suggest that during my 25 years in political life here in Ottawa and as a student at the University of Ottawa, since credit must be given where credit is due, 1 never met a greater champion of Francophones outside Quebec than the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). 1 would like to point out that I got to know the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier when I received from the Association canadienne-frangaise d'educa-tion ... 1 know that the Hon. Member represents a Quebec constituency, but I am speaking about a champion of francophones outside Quebec. 1 got to know him in 1957 when 1 was
Supply
given some award-I do not really want to speak about myself, but about the Hon. Member-at Ottawa University by the Association canadienne-frangaise d'education de 1 Ontario. At the time, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier was already known in francophone circles outside Quebec as the great champion and defender of francophones. I say this with a lot of friendship for my English-speaking friends. There are great defenders of Quebec anglophones in Quebec. That is quite normal. However, if someone is going to ask where we were when things were not going well, I shall have to attest to the extraordinary efforts made by the Hon. Member, to his tenacity and his loyalty to his own culture, and to the the fact that he never tried to take anything away from the culture and pride of others. This is the important point. This has always been the motivation of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, and I would be remiss in my duty if I did not take this opportunity to reflect upon the history of francophones outside Quebec and pay the Hon. Member a very simple and humble hommage by saying that he has no lesson to receive from anyone when it comes to his determination to promote the rights of francophones.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I feel some ambivalence about entering into this debate on this particular motion. I say that because the motion indicates the desire of the Official Opposition to proceed with the discussion of a Government Bill. The fact is that we are in the unusual situation today of having the Opposition say that this Bill finally achieves a proper legislative approach to official languages in Canada, something the Liberal Party failed to do in 19 years. This Bill really is a testament to the failure of the leadership of the Liberal Party in matters of language in Canada.
This is one of those Opposition motions which ostensibly is critical of the Government but, after reading it, is found to be an absolute condemnation of the Liberal Party's position and the lack of present leadership on this issue.
Before I get into the text of my speech, 1 would like to point out why we are now debating this matter today on an Opposition motion. I heard the speech by the Hon. Member, for whom I have the greatest of respect. I do not say these things to cast any reflections on his motives, and the Hon. Member knows that. However, I ask the Hon. Member and members of the Liberal Party pf Canada why, if in fact this is a matter of such great urgency for them, their House Leader has never, as I understand it, asked that this matter be brought forward. Is this some sort of conversion or has the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) now assumed the role of the House Leader of the Liberal Party?
When I discussed the matter of dealing with this Bill on the agenda we had this fall, although the Hon. Member tells me that he wanted to get this Bill through, he said that he thought he would be able to get by with 25 speakers from his Party.

January 25, 1988
Supply
Does this sound like a Party that wants to get this matter through with great dispatch as the Elon. Member has said?
We talk about delays, filibusters and not getting on with the agenda, but we all understand the parliamentary system. It is very simple. The Government brought forward a Bill which received universal approval from all critics and all persons who were interested in the matter, including the Hon. Member who has presented this motion today. But what was on the agenda when we came back last fall? We came back to deal with the refugee determination Bills, Bill C-84 and Bill C-55, and we were faced with a constant and ongoing filibuster by the Opposition. The Meech Lake Accord, an important constitutional resolution, was brought forward. Opposition Members spoke and spoke on that matter. I am not being critical, I am simply talking about the agenda. Bill C-22 has still not gone through. The Opposition and the Liberal Party in particular were involved in a day-to-day delay of all legislative matters so that it was virtually impossible for us to bring forward this very important piece of legislation. The record shows that the fault for that lies across the aisle with the Liberal Party which delayed our legislation.
I have said those few introductory words without casting reflections on the motives of this motion. 1 know the Hon. Member is very interested in the matter. Of course, 1 understand that he is a Franco-Ontarian. I think his time would be better spent in going to his political ally, the Premier of the Province of Ontario, to talk about the rights of Francophones in the Province of Ontario. If he spent more time doing that rather than moving this unhelpful and unnecessary motion on the First Opposition day of this year, he would be doing a far greater service for his constituents.
When this Bill received first reading in June, it represented the culmination of a great deal of intensive and sustained work and consultation on the part of the President of the Treasury Board, (Mr. Mazankowski) the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and I. We were mandated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to review all aspects of the law, policies and programs relating to official languages and to develop a plan for a comprehensive review of this crucial area of our national life.
Soon after 1 accepted the responsibilities of Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in the summer of 1986, I spoke to the Canadian Bar Association of my intention to promote the Government's official languages policy actively in regard to the reform of the Official Languages Act and related amendments to the language of trial provisions in Part 14(1) of the Criminal Code. The re-enactment of the Official Languages Act to ensure conformity with both the letter and spirit of the Constitution and the implementation of the right of accused persons to be tried in their official languages under the Criminal Code would be, I stated, areas of primary importance to me as Minister of Justice and important elements in the advancement of the Government's policies of social justice and national reconciliation.
It took 10 more months for us to perfect the work on those initiatives and to develop improved policies and programs relating to the use of official languages not only within federal institutions but also throughout Canadian society as a whole. We were subject to criticism during that period by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for the delay in reforming the Act and renewing the policy. The strength of our commitment was put into question. Yet it was the seriousness with which we undertook this endeavour that required us to review, study and consult in order to ensure that the reforms the Government would be proposing would be balanced, reforms designed to move official languages policy forward into the year 2000 and beyond, yet ones that would be fair to all Canadians and could be implemented in a reasonable, effective and practical manner.
To paraphrase the Supreme Court of Canada in one of its more celebrated language rights decisions, language reform combines legal and constitutional questions of the utmost subtlety and complexity with political questions of great sensitivity. I say unabashedly that this Government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, finds the matter of official languages one which goes to the unity of Canada. Unlike the Liberal Party, we use it as a unifying force and not for political division. The historical record of that party is blatant and unfortunate.
What was the result of this painstaking process? On June 25 the official languages Bill was introduced and related policy and program initiatives of Treasury Board and the Secretary of State were announced. I want Hon. Members and the people of Canada to understand the reaction to this legislation when we introduced it at the end of last June. I suggest that the headlines summarize the reaction rather succinctly. "Bilingualism Bill Wins Nothing But Praise", Ottawa Citizen, June 26, 1987. "All Parties Back New Languages Bill", The Toronto Star of June 26. "Minority Language Rights Get Boost", Winnipeg Free Press, June 26.

"Tabling of Bill in Commons receives unanimous approval", La Presse, Montreal, June 26.

"Language Bill Would Promote Life of Minority", the Montreal Gazette, June 2.

"The Language Act gets more teeth-Unanimity on reform proposal", Le Devoir, Montreal, June 26.

Here is a sampling from the articles that followed those headlines:
Opposition MPs and minority official language groups couldn't find a bad
word-in English or in French-to say about the government's new
bilingualism legislation.
January 25, 1988

That is from the Citizen. Another one:
The Progressive Conservative Government has introduced a new Official Languages Act to near-universal acclaim.
Official Languages Commissioner D'Iberville Fortier, Ottawa's independent bilingualism watchdog, called the changes "magnificent" and said the great majority of his recommendations had been included.
Liberal spokesperson Jean-Robert Gauthier said the Act appears to be thorough, solid and carefully crafted.
I take that from that great journal, The Toronto Star.

The new text, which replaces the 1969 Official Languages Act, was applauded by all major groups and individuals directly affected.
The Liberal and NDP opposition parties, the Official Languages Commissioner, the Federation des francophones hors Quebec, Alliance Quebec, as well as the co-chairman of the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate on Official Languages have stated that they agree to a large extent with the Bill-
The Liberal spokesman, Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier), stated that the Bill represents a new step forward, that it has "more theeth" than the previous legislation and that it meets most of his expectations. (La Presse)

To continue:
A new Official Languages Act that requires the federal government not just to protect official language minorities but to promote the vitality of their community life was met yesterday with a hallelujah chorus of approval. . . Commissioner Fortier's assessment-"A very fine piece of work-a major step forward"-captured the gist of the comments.
That is from The Gazette. 1 could go on and on about the kind of response we have had to this legislation.
Of course it is our intention, in conjunction with the House's agenda, to bring this matter forward so the Hon. Member will have an opportunity to praise the Government for at last coming to terms with official languages in a fair and equitable way, unlike the way it has been dealt with by previous Liberal Governments. I understand the Hon. Member will be doing that because 1 am sure he cannot in all conscience change his position from that which I quoted in the newspapers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you hear me this morning? I said bring it on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The fact is this debate is a reflection of the lack of leadership in the Liberal Party. Given the pressing issues facing us, which obviously cause some discomfort to the Liberal Party, they bring forward this rather silly motion. The point is there is a proper way to bring these matters forward. It is traditionally a matter of negotiation between the House Leaders to determine an appropriate time. The opposition Parties have to give some consideration to co-operating with the Government rather than constantly delay and filibuster. They have done that not only with respect to the legislation I
Supply
have mentioned, they did it over the Christmas recess to make sure no legislation got through, because of their curious opposition to things such as free trade and Bill C-22 and the refugee legislation, which is much overdue.
As 1 said, the commentary I read aptly demonstrates the fact that the official languages Bill respects the Constitution, and renews the Government's commitment to this policy by providing a legislative framework which is as fair, reasoned and balanced as it is forward-looking. It reflects both Canada's linguistic reality and its aspirations. It also complements the commitment to Canada's linguistic duality intrinsic to the Meech Lake constitutional Accord. I firmly believe that Bill C-72 will ensure greater linguistic justice, equity and opportunity for all Canadians.
I continue to prepare the ground for the next steps in the process of enactment of this legislation. Officials in my department have been active in explaining a number of essentially technical points, pursuing concerns that came up during the general reaction following the introduction of a Bill, or that have been raised in further consultation and information sessions with the office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Canadian Judicial Council, the Conference of Canadian Court Administrators, and various minority language organizations. We have reviewed matters raised in correspondence with provincial attorneys-general. We are continuing discussions with the two territorial Governments with a view to the best means of assuring the advancement of Canada's official languages.
As 1 noted in reply to previous questions from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, this is a Government that believes in communication, consultation and co-operation. We believe these things are essential to ensuring the continued progress, understanding, acceptance and development of official languages policy in this country. This is particularly true in the important field of the administration of justice for which I have responsibility under the Act.

When I undertook to continue the consultation process with the provinces to achieve the Canada-wide proclamation of Criminal Code Part XIV. 1 on the language of the accused, I was aware that it would not be easy to guarantee not only the co-operation of the various jurisdictions involved but also the availability of the technical, human and other resosurces required to reach that objective. Still, with the support of my colleague the Secretary of State and the interest shown by most of the provinces concerned we were able to report significant progress in that field.
Right from the day I was appointed Minister of Justice I thought that equity made it imperative for any person accused of a crime in Canada to be able to claim the linguistic rights guaranteed under the Criminal Code. As a matter of fact, pursuant to the Charter of Rights, Parliament and the provincial legislatures may take measures to advance the

January 25, 1988
Supply
equality of status or use of the official languages in their respective fields of jurisdiction.
The provincial governments had agreed to open discussions designed to make sure that Part XIV. 1 would apply from coast to coast. At the October 1986 conference of attorneys general and provincial justice ministers my colleagues agreed to exchange information and help one another with a view to ensuring that trials might be conducted in both English and French in all jurisdictions. I expressed my appreciation to my provincial colleagues for their precious support and went on to say that I would do everything in my power so that we might reach our goal.

The happy result of these consultations and this co-operation was the proclamation and coming into force last September of Part 14.1 of the Criminal Code in Saskatchewan, and with regard to summary conviction offences in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

So these provinces have just joined with the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba as well as the Yukon and Northwest Territories where the right of the accused to be tried in his or her own language has now been a fact of life for a number of years. Through his official languages promotion program the Secretary of State provides financial assistance for linguistic training courses as well as translation and interpretation services. Consultation has not ended, far from it, and 1 am still convinced that it will soon lead to the implementation of Part XIV. 1 elsewhere in Canada.
Better still, Bill C-72 prescribes a deadline for implementing that part of the Criminal Code. These provisions will become operative on January 1, 1990 in those provinces where they were not previously enforceable. At the same time, Bill C-72 makes a number of changes to the system under Part XIV.l to better define and confirm the rights and obligations resulting from the right of the accused to have his trial before a judge or a judge and jury speaking the official language of the accused. There are, in the Official Languages Act as it exists now, a number of provisions concerning the Federal tribunals and the Courts dealing with criminal matters, but these provisions should be updated and improved. For instance, concerning the language used during the trial, the accused and his counsel will have the right to use either of the official languages during the arguments and for all purposes relating to them; the witnesses will have the right to testify in either of the official languages; the accused will have the right to have the plaintif use the same language as he does; the Courts will have to provide similtaneous interpretation services and the file will have to include a transcription of this interpretation. These rights exist also at the preliminary inquiry stage.
When these amendments come into force, a series of transitional provisions maintaining some rights and powers resulting from the 1969 legislation governing the use of both official languages in criminal proceedings will be repealed. As
to the Federal Courts, the new provisions will go beyond the basic constitutional guarantees to ensure for both Francophone and Anglophone Canadians equal access to the legislative bodies, statutes and Courts of this country, as ruled by the Supreme Court of Canada in its reference to the linguistic rights in Manitoba.
As was the case under the 1969 legislation, the Federal Courts will have to hear the evidence in the official language requested by the witness, to provide similtaneous interpretation services and to make available to the public their decisions, as well as their grounds, in both official languages. These obligations have been extended, however, and the exceptions limited or eliminated altogether wherever the practice of the past 18 years has demonstrated that it was possible and reasonable to do so.
In addition, the Federal Court, the Tax Court of Canada and, within five years, various federal agencies will have to arrange their affairs so as to assign judges capable of understanding directly and without interpretation proceedings in English, in French, or in both languages as the case may be. Clearly it is not a duty of all judges to be bilingual. Rather, it is an institutional obligation to provide the services where required in either of the official languages.
1 see that my time is up, Madam Speaker. I could go on and on in support of this Bill and the defrocking, if I can put it that way, of this rather specious, unworthy motion. If the Hon. Member is truly interested in making progress, I suggest that he communicate that fact to his House Leader so that there may be discussions with respect to the appropriate timing of this legislation. That would provide an opportunity for all of us to deal with the merits of the legislation in order to allow it to go to committee where there will be an opportunity for serious discussion on the provisions of this Bill and for full understanding. In that way we will be able to bring this legislation back to the House on the understanding that it is intended to make this country reach the potential which we all know it has.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question or two of the Minister. Having been a House Leader in this he understands how this House operates, as does every one of us. He knows that the Government is in charge of proposing legislation. The House can dispose of the legislation once it is before the House. The only time the House Leaders discussed this legislation was on a Friday just before Christmas when the Government wanted to pass the Bill quickly on a Friday afternoon. I said no to that.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I said no to that because the people in my caucus have a right to be heard in this debate. They have a right to hear the arguments of the Tories who oppose this Bill.
January 25, 1988

They have a right to be heard and we want to hear them because that is how the House operates-it debates.


Mr. Charest:: Now we know the truth.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The Minister of State for small things-


Jean J. Charest: Cheap, cheap.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Just as cheap as your remarks. You are an expert in cheapness and you should know that.
[ Translation]
1 say to the Minister who has the floor: Stand up, as a Quebecer, and tell this Government to get moving! Tell it to get moving on official languages as it should, instead of using delaying tactics as it has been doing for at least the past three and a half years!


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, like all other Members of this House, I can only observe that unfortunately the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has-perhaps he got carried away and used terms he would not normally use but since he took it out on me, I seize this opportunity to point out that he had at least the courage to admit today that until now the Opposition has refused to debate and pass the Bill in the House, and in the same breath he can hardly criticize us as the Government for not introducing the Bill in the House. He can only blame himself and his colleagues-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, when words are exchanged between Members from either side of the House without being addressed through the Chair incidents such as the one we are witnessing are a frequent occurrence. I know that both Hon. Members involved in this case are not in the habit of indulging in breaking the rules in this way. We will continue with the comments of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I am sorry-the Minister arrived a little late for the debate and did not hear what I said. I said during my speech that once, before Christmas, the Government rushed into the Opposition lobby and urged us to put the Bill through quickly, and I said no. It is fundamental legislation that must be debated thoroughly, in a democratic way. I make no apologies about that to anybody, not even the Minister. I think this Bill is very important and Members on both sides of the House want to debate it seriously. There is no question of having only one speaker, after which 19 Conservative Members will rise, as in 1969, to vote against the Bill without giving any explanation or reason why.
I ask the Minister who defended the Government... He did not tell the House that the Government would introduce the Bill in the next few days. He did not answer the fundamental
Supply
issue raised in the motion, that is our condemnation of this Government which is unable to bring forward a Bill we consider serious and important. I ask the Minister this: When will the Government bring this legislation forward?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I think I should correct some of the allegations that have been made with respect to what has transpired to this point. At the request of my House Leader, I discussed with the Hon. Member the time which might be involved in discussing this matter and the timing of the presentation of the legislation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Never.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Perhaps if I refresh the memory of the Hon. Member, at that time he indicated to me-my recollection is subject to his correction-that he thought this would take quite some time. He thought there were at least 25 people in his caucus who were interested in speaking. He thought he could bring that down to perhaps 18 or 17 people. As I recall, he was sitting in the Chamber next to me and I said, as the Hon. Member will recall, that we were interested in proceeding with this legislation because it is an important Bill, but 1 wanted to find a time.
The Hon Member said that he felt it would not be appropriate for us to call it at the end of the week because many of his Members might be interested in speaking but would be absent. Therefore, he suggested, it might be better for the House Leaders to determine a time at which we could have this debate take place at the beginning of the week and carry on into the week. 1 have conveyed this information to my House Leader, as I always do, with the idea that he would be in a position to discuss the business of the House.
The whole point I want to make in response to the question is that this is trivial pursuit. This motion is trivial pursuit on the part of the Opposition because they do not have anything serious to talk about.
This is an important issue. For them to trivialize it on the basis of saying, first, that this is the best legislation they could imagine, and second, that they want this to go through quickly, and third, to condemn the Government for not bringing it forward sooner, and then to say that they are going to spend an inordinate period of time discussing this matter and holding it up is hard to believe, and I know the Canadian public will find it hard to believe.


Mr. Riis:: Madam Speaker, I am encouraged to make a comment at this point, recognizing that what happens at House Leaders' discussions and meetings is not to be necessarily discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. While I do not think that is appropriate, perhaps I could simply say to the Hon. Member, who indicated an interest in proceeding with this legislation, that I believe there is a feeling on all sides that it would be appropriate to take all steps necessary as soon as

January 25, 1988
Supply
possible to impress with House Leaders that this legislation ought to be expedited.
I can assure him that as far as New Democrats are concerned we will do everything we can to co-operate.
We also recognize that it is important legislation because there are divergent views represented in the House of Commons as to the appropriateness of certain clauses. I know there are Members on all sides who have very important questions they want to pose, presumably at the appropriate stage of the debate, particularly at committee. 1 encourage the Hon. Minister to approach his House Leader to see if we cannot proceed with this expeditiously.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that offer on the part of the New Democratic Party. I am very interested in having this matter dealt with because I think it is a fair Bill. It is a Bill that addresses this matter in a fair and consultative way. It certainly bears scrutiny, but when I hear-not from the Hon. Member's Party-that we are going to spend a very long period of time, by the Liberal Party in filibustering this Bill at second reading-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are being dishonest when you say that and you know it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -when we are dealing with the principle of the legislation, I agree that-


Marcel Prud'homme: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I usually do not disagree fundamentally with the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn), but unless the Hon. Minister can prove that the Liberal Party intends to filibuster, because he said that the Liberal Party intends to filibuster, unless he can prove-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please.


Marcel Prud'homme: This is a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. I think the Hon. Member knows very well that it is not really a point of order but more a point of debate.


Marcel Prud'homme: Certainly not. Therefore it is a question of privilege.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I will try to address it. I do not want to alarm the Chairman of the Liberal Caucus-


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would hope that we can discuss the language issue in this country without being passionate, because that is always the danger.


Jean J. Charest: Why the motion, then?


Marcel Prud'homme: You will see later on. I will participate in the debate. I am a Member of this Party. I do not intend to filibuster. If the Minister of Justice can prove that we said that
we would filibuster, I would disagree with my Party because I do not intend to filibuster.


Jean J. Charest: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: The Hon. Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest), is very enthusiastic. As Minister of Youth, I hope he is more enthusiastic when looking at the projects for youth next summer.


Mr. Rossi:: You know what filibuster means, Ray.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It seems obvious that the Hon. Minister is making a general statement.


Carlo Rossi: She does not know what filibuster is, but you do.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) may want to participate in the debate right now, but it is becoming very difficult to answer the query by the Member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) when the Speaker can hardly hear herself speak in the House.

I think the Hon. Member knows very well that so far at least his privileges as Member have not been questioned, that the Minister made a general remark which, as he said himself, he will undoubtedly want to qualify at the earliest opportunity. The Hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, before I was interrupted I was saying to my distinguished friend, who is Chairman of the Liberal Caucus and speaks on behalf of the Liberal Caucus on all matters, that what I am talking about in terms of filibuster is that I think the most appropriate place for us to look at this legislation is in committee where we can go through it clause by clause and have the people who are involved in this examine these matters. There is no provision on the floor of the House for us to look at the matter clause by clause. We are constrained by the rules to deal with principles.
The Liberal Party has spoken by its porte-parole. They have already spoken with respect to the fact that they think this is the best Bill they have ever seen in terms of official languages. Why would they suggest to me that they will have practically three-quarters of their caucus rising to spend an inordinate period of time on the Bill if they are really interested in making progress?


Mr. Penner:: It is called democracy. That is what we do. We debate the Bill in the House of Commons.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not want to patronize the Hon. Member, but the fact is that we have an agenda in the House. If the Opposition is really interested in passing the Bill, it will get together with the House Leader and propose a reasonable amount of time that will allow it to put forward the cogent argument on the principle of the matter but will also allow a
January 25, 1988

good and thorough examination of the Bill when it gets to committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You are scared of the Bill.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That would be a rational way of proceeding. Unfortunately the Liberal Party still has a trace of that tendency under Mr. Trudeau to use language as a divisive force in our country. We are not going to deal with this kind-


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is a cheap shot and you know it. That is the cheapest shot I have heard come out of you.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, if the comments which were made were made by a less senior Member of the House I might not have been so insulted. But coming as they do from the Minister of Justice I want to ask him to withdraw. I am a Member of the Liberal Party. I have always said that if there is any issue that is the most explosive for our country it is the issue of the relationship between the French and the English. To say to us that, intentionally, Mr. Trudeau or any one of the Members of his Party at that time was using the language issue to divide is not worthy of a Minister of Justice of Canada.
I hope that we can discuss this Bill. I see a lot of good in it. I have only a very few comments to make on certain chapters of it when it is referred to committee. It is the Minister of Justice who should set the tone for debate. What he has just said is extremely divisive. If the Minister cannot back up what he has said with proof then I hope that he will set another tone for a debate of this type. There are enough problems in Canada and enough misunderstandings. There are many problems in Manitoba at the moment in every village. I hope that the Minister will be more careful.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It would be easier for everyone as we are discussing this very important issue if Members would be more careful with off-the-cuff comments and for Members on the other side not to be so thin-skinned in terms of remarks which are made off-the-cuff.
I would now like to inform the House that the time for questions and comments has expired.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Because my colleague for whom I have great respect has raised this matter I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about it. I share with the Hon. Member as fervently as any Member of the House the belief that this matter should be dealt with in a responsible and unifying manner. It is an issue fundamental to our country. I make no apology for that.
Supply
As a western Canadian and as a member of a minority group I understand the rights of minorities. This Bill deals with minority rights.
If we are going to deal with it in the way in which the Hon. Member wants it to be dealt with, then I would ask him to reflect and to discuss in his caucus this Wednesday with his Party-


Marcel Prud'homme: That is not a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -whether this type of motion is in fact legitimate or mischievous.


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


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, we are debating this morning an Opposition motion which might be worth putting on the record again at this point. It states:
That this House condemns the government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unit.
That is a powerful motion. I can understand some of the sensitivities being expressed this morning and early afternoon by Members of the Official Opposition as well as by Members of the Government. I must say that I came into the Chamber just before the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise) made his comments and asked his question of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who moved this particular motion. He asked a question about the credentials of the Hon. Member. That struck me as one of the less informed, and I am tempted to use that good straightforward term "ignorant" questions that I have heard in the House. If a question could allow a speaker to lay his credentials out and impress others with what he has done then that particular question did so.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has clearly been working hard for years within the Government caucus, the Liberal caucus in the years past, and now in Opposition, in order to advance the cause of bilingualism in Canada. There is no point in raising any questions about his right to express concern about inaction and to press for action by the Government on Bill C-72.
I would like to say something about the context within which bilingualism developed in order to provide a basis for appreciating the importance of Bill C-72 as it comes before us for debate, presumably some time in 1988. Of course, the precise question is how soon it will come before us so that it can be advanced to committee for detailed consideration and for it to become law. The comments I want to address are the comments of the leading New Democratic Party Member of the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, as well

January 25, 1988
Supply
as those of the critic for multiculturalism. I want to interrelate these various aspects in appreciating the place that bilingualism has in our country in order to indicate why we are concerned to have the Bill come forward, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis), has already indicated.
If we cast our minds back some 20 years and more in Canadian affairs we will remember that there was a very great struggle in the political life of the country, and in the politics of the Province of Quebec even more particularly, a struggle in politics, in society and in culture. It was a struggle between an English-speaking Canada expressed in so many ways, and encouraged as it had been from the late 1940s through the 1950s by the federal Government, a struggle against the assertion that Canada was simply an English-speaking country.
We can look back to various attempts to recognize what has often been called simply the French fact in Canada. We know that before the 1960s, as well as afterwards for that matter, it was always a struggle against a powerful reality, the nationalism of all of those who saw Canada as simply English-speaking and wanted to remove the diversity that existed.
The fact that the federal Government in the 1950s had become so active in cultural activity is a fact that is all too rarely remembered these days. That is surely the context into which we can place the Constitutional Accord of 1987. Looking back some 30 years to the work of the Tremblay Commission in Quebec we might remember the assertion of a primary responsibility in Quebec for cultural and social policy and the maintenance of a French-speaking community in the Province of Quebec, regardless of what might happen beyond its borders. Of course, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier as a Franco- Ontarian knows how much more difficult it has been outside the Province of Quebec to maintain the life of Franco-Ontarians.
In the 1960s the assertions in the Province of Quebec blew up quite clearly. I need only allude to that for all of us to appreciate that there was an enormous crisis. A Royal Commission that was appointed called this "the greatest crisis the Canadian nation had ever faced''. When the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended that the Canadian nation must become officially bilingual, that was a federal political response to this particular challenge to the Canadian nation.
Of course, it found expression in 1969 in the Official Languages Act which established principles of service to the public and employment opportunities for both language groups in Canada. In 1969 that achievement was only one of the very significant events that occurred about 1970 in the recognition of diversity as the reality of this country rather than simply an English-speaking country with a French fact that could not be successfully swamped.
I point out that even before it had completed its work, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism had to recognize that one could not define the country as bicultural, even if one were going to establish English and French as the official languages. In 1971 the statement of a multicultural policy for Canada within a bilingual framework was an inevitable outgrowth of this turning away from an Anglo Canada to a Canada of diversity.
1 would assert that during that same period when the newly formed Trudeau Government issued a White Paper on Indian Affairs which anticipated the destruction of aboriginal communities in Canada and the disappearance of native Canadians into the mainstream Canadian society only with rights that other Canadians have, that Government found itself under criticism and attack. It abandoned the policy and the aboriginal peoples found themselves gearing up to a higher level of political activity and eventually of legal work, judicial struggle and constitutional activity in the 1980s, a struggle against great difficulties and enormous barriers.
All of us who were critical of aspects of the Constitutional Accord of 1987 last summer and fall recognized that while it did justice to the demands of Quebec and the realities that official bilingualism deals with, it neglected those of the aboriginal peoples and the multicultural realities of the country. In that sense it was an incomplete accord as far as dealing with all of the shortcomings in Canadian national political life.
Sketching those aspects of Canadian diversities within which the Official Languages Act has a fundamental place, and recognizing that official bilingualism was the first victory won in this country for the diversity that we now celebrate in multiculturalism is to appreciate how important that Bill is. To recognize the need to consolidate, re-enact, and improve the language legislation of the country is a very important matter. Bill C-72 deserves the type of concern expressed by this motion and our desire that the policy be advanced. It is obvious that the work of ensuring that the federal Government operates on the basis of the Official Languages Act always involves a struggle.
I am sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would be frank in saying that he struggled with Government, with departments, and with the institutional inertia that is so characteristic of Departments of Government and of the institutions of the country. He struggled with those just as much in the days of the successive Trudeau Governments as he has been doing now with the Conservatives pulling the reins of power in this country. Institutional inertia is the brutal fact.
It is always a struggle to advance the principle of service to the public in the language of choice across the country, to ensure that members of the official language minority have the opportunity to work in their own language wherever they are in the country, to achieve fair representation and equitable participation in the Public Service of Canada, and perhaps in
January 25, 1988

other areas, and to ensure that the principles of official bilingualism actually prevail.
1 do not suppose there is much point in comparing Governments. The slanging that took place between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and some of his colleagues and members of the Liberal caucus a few minutes ago represented aspersions on the other in each case and obvious attempts to elevate their own standing in this particular struggle.
What is surely significant to recognize in how the struggle can be advanced is the role of the Commissioner of Official Languages. That office observes the activities of the federal Government, receives complaints, investigates them, and so on. The office of the commissioner takes us back to the early 1970s and the existence of a Joint Standing Committee on Official Languages. There is a committee of parliamentarians from both Houses which works together with the commissioner and receives information on the activities of government departments, agencies, and Crown corporations, and focuses on the fact that there is still all too often justified criticisms of the extent to which official bilingualism is operative in those various departments, agencies, and Crown corporations.
In listening to testimony, participating in questioning and considering the evidence that exists on those various institutions of the federal Government over the last three years, I have learned an enormous amount about institutional inertia. Very often 1 have found myself joining with others in criticism of the departments, agencies, and corporations in dealing with the deputy ministers and others who come before us.
For example, I recognize the difficulties in any short period of time in changing the proportions of employees in a department. That is not something that can be done in a year or in a few years, although at the end of 15 or 20 years of a policy one might expect that significant progress would have been made. By now it is quite fair to focus on those areas where still there is little representation of the official language minority, whether it is French-Speaking Canadians in one part of Canada, for example Atlantic Canada, the Prairies, northern Ontario, or the whole Province of Ontario, or one may think of the English-speaking minority in the Province of Quebec and the representation of members of that minority in the Public Service in the Province of Quebec.
Whatever hesitation one might have on these proportions and representation in local offices, there seems to me to be no excuse for shortcomings in the way of signs. There is very little excuse in the area of materials made available. These days there is less and less reason to be unable to serve the public when they approach an office by telephone. Surely with the technology available to us, and with any type of determination at all, the federal Government should appear in the way of official bilingualism in English and French across the country. Yet at this very late point we still find shortcomings in these matters that need to be redressed.
When we come to the question of the proportions in Government and actual advance in service we find reason to be
Supply
quite concerned. It seems to me that two things have happened since the present Government took office in 1984. The decision to reduce the Public Service has made it very difficult to achieve real progress in improving the representation of the minorities in the Public Service of Canada in the various places. The administrative consolidation that has taken place also seems to raise questions, although in this area I would not be quite as assertive.
The attempt to increase responsibilities under the Official Languages Act of managers at lower levels in Departments and to phase out offices at the tops of Departments which are responsible for this makes it more difficult to be sure that that will mean setbacks in the actual development and maintenance of official bilingualism. However, 1 think there are dangers because managers at lower levels have a great many responsibilities. It is fairly clear, from some appearances before the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages, that the attempts to advance the principle of official bilingualism have certainly collided with the constraints on employment, the need to cut back in numbers, and so on. Consequently there has been less advance in these areas than we would have wanted. Those realities in the Government concern members of the committee from all sides.
I want to recognize the activities and the present circumstances of members of the Conservative caucus, just as I recognized earlier the activities of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in the days of the Liberal Government. In various ways we have all been trying to press for movement in institutions which can be so hard to move. We want a new Official Languages Act. We want the enactment of Bill C-72 to be moved forward and carried through as quickly as possible. 1 share the concern of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier who proposed the motion that it should be done.
In saying that, I want to make a couple of criticisms of the Bill which have not been given very much play by the press. The Minister of Justice for his part this morning in commenting on the motion suggested that the Bill had been received with universal approbation, although when one listened carefully to what he read it was clear that it was not quite perfect as a piece of legislation. As someone who attempted at the press conference on June 25, 1987 to focus a couple of critical comments on the Bill and found the press not picking them up, I should like to put them on record this morning and to provide the basis for saying that there needs to be some debate on the Bill, even though the principle is accepted by most of us and the Bill has been applauded in quarters all around. I recognize that most of the Bill is very good, but there are clauses which could do with strengthening, particularly Clause 21 and Clause 38.
Clause 21 of the Bill notes the following:
Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the
public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or

January 25, 1988
central office in either official language, and has the same duty with respect to
any of its other offices or facilities.
(a)	within the National Capital Region; or
(b)	in Canada or elsewhere, where there is significant demand for communications with and services from that office or facility in that language.
The "significant demand" provision puts the onus on members of the public. It creates the need to demonstrate that the federal Government should be responding. It is a weaker provision than we ought to have from a Government which is as committed to official languages as the Minister of Justice suggested earlier. Certainly it is a particular point on which debate needs to be focused.
In committee we may well want to come up with different provisions to ensure that the federal Government will actually recognize that the demand is not often very large and that if we believe in the official languages and the Official Languages Act, we must meet that demand without putting the onus on the public to keep pressing in that way.
Another clause of which I made even more at the press conference is found in Part VI entitled "Participation of English-Speaking and French-Speaking Canadians". Clause 38 of the Bill reads:
(1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that
(a)	English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal access to appointment and advancement in federal institutions; and
(b)	the composition of the work-force of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both the official language communities of Canada, taking into account the characteristics of individual institutions, including their mandates, the public they serve and their location.
The second paragraph dealing with the reflection of the presence of both official languages and its other lines really open the door to those Departments that do not want to move very far.
In these two specific clauses there is good reason to debate the Bill critically in the House in the way of advancing official bilingualism. I think that is what members of all Parties want to do. I call on the Government to respond to the particular motion and to get the Bill before us at an early date so that we can do it.
After all, at this point we are fearing the end of this Parliament at least in terms of the business before it. Of course all of us anticipate an election. Parliament may end all too soon and this enactment could well not pass, given that we are into 1988, that it needs to go through all stages, that it needs to go to the other House, and so on. There is need to get on with it if the Government is as committed to the principle as the Minister of Justice told us this morning.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech, on his support, and on his devotion to the question of the official languages. He is one of the most
assiduous members of the committee. I always enjoy hearing his comments, because I think he is one of the fairest and most interesting individuals.
I just want to bring two points to his attention. One reason the Bill must be passed quickly, as he and other Hon. Members know, is that there are federal-provincial agreements that will be terminated in March of this year, which agreements cover post-secondary and minority language education. If the agreements are to be renewed, in my view they must reflect the new reality of Canada. They must reflect the Meech Lake spirit. They must reflect not only the spirit of Bill C-72 but the fact that it contains a little more than Meech Lake. It proposes to enshrine in legislation the fact that the federal Government must promote minorities.
I would hope that the Hon. Member will be able to respond to my question. Given the fact that indeed the agreements terminate on March 31 and that we would all hope that the agreements would reflect for the next five years, because they are five-year agreements, the spirit and generosity of Bill C-72 and Meech Lake, would he not agree that it would be imperative or absolutely essential that we pass the legislation as soon as possible so that those who negotiate the agreements will have that as a bottom line from which to operate? That is my first question.


Abram Ernest Epp: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. It certainly underscores the urgency of the matter.
One might assume and trust that the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) and others involved in the negotiation of these agreements would act in the spirit of something which the Government led in last spring in achieving the Constitutional Accord with the provincial Premiers, that that spirit would be respected, and that the agreements would be reworked in those terms.
However, in dealing with the Government let us ensure that we give the greatest encouragement to the Secretary of State to do that. Let us have the law as the law of the land. I agree with the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member will have an opportunity to continue his comments later today.

It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
January 25, 1988


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp) has sent to all Hon. Members last fall a notification of changes regarding the New Horizons Program for senior citizens.
I fail to understand how the Minister can conclude his message by indicating that these measures are intended to better recognize the senior citizens as full members of society, when he brings about changes restricting and limiting the scope of this program.
Indeed, these changes will have a very negative impact upon senior citizens groups. Their opportunities for recreational activities are being restricted because each group will now be limited to only one payment every five years in this regard. New membership conditions now stipulate that 70 per cent of the members must be retired for a group to be eligible to this program. Funds towards repairs and renovations are also being limited since, for instance, in order to have its expenses reimbursed a group must own the building.
After taking all this away from senior citizens, Mr. Speaker, the Minister dares claim that these changes are intended to help them.
That is unacceptable and that is why I call on the Minister to reinstate the status quo in this issue.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, in 1941 the migratory flock of whooping cranes had declined to an all-time low of 15. They were all but extinct.
Since that time co-operative efforts of the Canadian and American Government and private organizations have brought the species back from the brink of extinction to where they now number about 140. These rare birds breed in Wood Buffalo National Park near the town of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. Last year 25 chicks were successfully hatched.
Probably no one deserves more credit for this success story than Mr. Ernie Kuyt, long time employee of the Canadian Wildlife Service of the Department of the Environment. Mr. Kuyt has devoted a lifetime to the study and care of the whooping crane.



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, the Government has once again betrayed the trust of the Canadian people.
Between the time the Government introduced Bill C-22 to the House of Commons and the day the Bill was passed, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) said no less than eight times that drug prices would not increase. Now, less than three months later, we see that prices have drastically increased on 1,099 different drugs. The sad thing about the situation, besides the fact that our seniors and less fortunate Canadians have to pay this greed money out of the multinationals, is the fact that the Government will not do anything to accept responsibility for this affair.
The Mulroney Cabinet caters to the wishes of these big drug companies at the expense of average Canadians. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that come election time the Canadian population will not cater their vote to the Government. The Government argued that it would trust the big drug companies, but the drug companies are not good corporate citizens. They are all greed mongers out to rob Canadians, and they are getting lots of assistance from the Government, the Conservative Government of Brian Mulroney.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Harris (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, the Government continues to show its weakness in failing to prevent the French from overfishing in the disputed 3PS fishing zone off the south coast of Newfoundland. The French have now announced that not only will they not negotiate on the boundary question or put the matter before a court like a civilized nation but they are going to send in their ships to catch four times their historic entitlement.
The most recent affront by the French is the snubbing of Governor General Jeanne Sauve, now on an official visit to Paris, by the Premier of France and the French Minister of Fisheries. This repeats the action of last summer when the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland, the former Member of Parliament for St. John's East, was refused entry to St. Pierre for his annual visit.
The situation is very critical and the only solution the Government has offered is the same ineffective measures it took last year. When will the Government realize that the French are not taking the Government seriously? It is long past the point when the Government should have acted on behalf of the fishermen on the south coast of Newfoundland

January 25, 1988
and demonstrated to the French that other bilateral issues of concern to the French will have to be re-examined in view of their belligerent action on the issue of fishing in this disputed zone.



WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Bill Gottselig (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker. I rise today to congratulate and pay tribute to the people of the great constituency of Moose Jaw.
Last weekend, as the Olympic Torch made its way through our constituency on the way to Calgary, the response was overwhelming. The excitement and the splendour of the Olympic Games were demonstrated not only by the local residents who carried the torch but by the spectators who participated in the official ceremonies which took place in the City of Moose Jaw and the Towns of Davidson and Kenaston. The fact that the ceremonies in Davidson took place in the evening, and those at Kenaston early in the morning before daylight, added greatly to the occasion.
I would like to acknowledge the volunteers who organized these events in each community and regret that time does not allow me to mention each individual by name. As a result of the unselfish work of these people, residents of the constituency of Moose Jaw can indeed say with justifiable pride that we have "shared the flame". The feeling of patriotism and unity across Canada will be a lasting legacy of the Olympic torch run.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
1 would like to continue speaking on the question of the CBC all-news channel. A decision was rendered by the CRTC some time ago awarding the CBC the licence for a continuous news channel on cable. I have been receiving a number of letters from people in my riding who would like to voice their opposition to any government interference in the decision taken by the CRTC.
1 would like to read extracts from one letter written by Mr. Mark Stiles:
My reasons are quite simple. First, the CBC application was far superior to
Allarcom's. Practically, only the CBC could mount an effective service of this
kind without importing large quantities of news produced by the American
networks. Second, any tampering by Cabinet would make a mockery of the
independence of the CRTC and like quasi-judicial bodies. There are no circumstances surrounding the CBC's application that would warrant Cabinet intervention.
Let's give public broadcasting the opportunity to flourish in Canada. It is, 1 believe, critically important to our national identity.
1 am getting all kinds of letters supporting the decision. 1 would hope that the Government would not meddle in, interfere with, or change that decision.



TAX REFORM


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, five-year block averaging was provided to farmers back in 1947 in recognition of the uncertain conditions affecting them-the vagaries of weather, climate, marketing conditions and commodity prices-all of which lie beyond their control and yet can result in wildly fluctuating incomes. Block averaging provides a mechanism whereby farmers can average their fluctuating incomes over a specified five-year period, thereby benefiting as much as possible from the graduated marginal tax rate structure.
The Standing Committee on Finance, after comprehensive hearings on Phase I of tax reform, stated that the unique aspects of the farming industry justify the retention of five-year block averaging. The committee further recommended that block averaging be retained for farmers.
According to Finance Department information, block averaging is not a significant expenditure item. I therefore urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to reconsider his decision to eliminate block averaging for farmers.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, this week parliamentarians will once more be engaged in dialogue with the Nation Consortium of Scientific and Educational Societies. They will state the obvious: there is no prospect of an economically sound Canada unless there is a real commitment to producing a highly skilled, well-educated population, and the development of policies and the commitment of resources through which Canadians can create the technologically advanced and innovative economy necessary to produce new jobs.
The time is long past in which catchy slogans, advisory committees and forums can substitute for real action. Three years after the Government came to office, we were no closer


|1J
January 25, 1988

to the promised achievement of a rate of expenditure of 2.5 per cent of GNP for scientific research and development, nor have promises with respect to education and training been met. In fact, real expenditures by the Government for research, whether basic or industrial, have in real terms actually decreased.
Transfer payments for post-secondary education have been cut. Accessibility to colleges and universities has decreased. Training in community colleges has decreased. Real support for student summer employment has been cut back and support for industrial research and development has gone no farther than it was three years ago.
It is typical that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) recently and with ostentation announced $1.3 billion in new money spread over five years for research and development with the vaguest possible indication of how the money would be spent. Now we learn from the PMO that no specific decisions have yet been made.
I say to the Prime Minister that it is time for real commitment to the kind of support post-secondary education must have to stop its decay. It is time to state clearly his your Government's commitment to a rate of expenditure of 2.5 per cent of GNP for research and development by 1995. Only that will lift us beyond the confusion of policy heretofore obscured by forums and inflated rhetoric.



PENSIONS


Mr. W. Paul McCrossan (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Ontario Task Force on Inflation Protection for Employee Pension Plans released its recommendations with respect to pension indexing and surplus withdrawal regulations. The task force recommends that inflation protection be required using a minimum standard of 75 per cent of the increase in the cost of living minus 1 per cent. This was particularly pleasing for me since I developed this formula for the federal Government and it is already embedded in the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act.
The task force also recommends that employers be prohibited from withdrawing surpluses from pension plans unless they contractually index all pensions, past and future, to the minimum indexing standard, also as I suggested.
Hopefully both the Ontario Government and the federal Government will move quickly on these recommendations to co-ordinate their policies to ensure that Canadian workers receive appropriate inflation protection for their pension plans.



ROBERT BURNS DAY


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today is Robert Burns Day, and all over the world Scotland's immortal bard is being remembered, by Scots and non-Scots alike. Scots remember him for many things, his poems and songs in particular, but many also remember him as one who eloquently lamented the power which Scotland's more densely populated southern neighbour came to have over Scotland's destiny as the political and economic powers-that-be in the south co-opted the Scottish ruling class and enlisted it in the course of integration. Those of us who are Canadians of Scottish heritage are now to be placed in double jeopardy by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Canada, like Scotland, is to be given away without a fight, for American gold, instead of English gold as Burns put it. The war of 1812 was won, only to be lost in the negotiations of 1987. Or, as Burns put it:
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages.
Is wrought now by a coward few.
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain.
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold-
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!


Mr. Speaker:: Burns also said:
O wad some Power the giftie gie us,
To see oursels as ithers see us!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: What is going on, Mr. Speaker?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Another Englishman.


Alan Redway: And I do not mean Robert Burns. First it is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service goofing up the granting of landed immigrant status to a terrorist. Now The

January 25, 1988
Oral Questions
Globe and Mail reports that the RCMP has been sitting for two months on a request to investigate a refugee claimant apparently wanted by West Germany for violating arms laws. All of this does not lend much credibility to the claim of CS1S and the RCMP that they are still actively and vigorously pursuing the investigation of the two and a half year old Air-India crash.
Let us get on top of these terrorists. If this latest story is not true, I hope The Globe and Mail will apologize. However, if it is true, it is time for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) to shake up both CSIS and the RCMP again. While he is at it, he should order a public inquiry into the CSIS and RCMP investigation of the Air-India crash.



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT- NEGOTIATOR'S REMUNERATION

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, you will probably recall that during the last year and a half I have criticized the Government for its free trade initiative. I have even gone so far as to say that no Canadian would benefit from free trade. Today I take that back. I apologize, because one Canadian has made this a very enriching experience. As a matter of fact, the media are stating that since November 8, 1985, Canada's free trade negotiator, Mr. Simon Reisman, will probably generate something in the order of $500,000. That is enough to make some of the Tory backbenchers wish that they were civil servants or, even better, trade negotiators eating chicken in Washington.
Five hundred thousand dollars is a lot more than my constituents make and is certainly a lot more than they will make after this free trade deal, given the negative effects it will have on my constituency. No matter how you look at it, $500,000 is not bad for taking potshots at The Toronto Star, even if you have to put up with the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney).



CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT-MEDIA COVERAGE OF DISSENTERS

Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) briefly visited my riding as part of a swing through eastern Ontario. Some 500 men and women warmly greeted him and Mrs. Mulroney at CFB Trenton, as did over half of the 1,100 employees at
Northern Telecom, and 300 of my friends at a reception in Belleville.
At the Northern Telecom plant four United Auto Worker members displayed anti-free trade T-shirts, which is certainly their right. Why is it, however, that the press, including Global TV, CTV, CBC, The Globe and Mail, the Belleville Intelligencer, and others gave coverage to these few dissenters out of all proportion to the activities of the day?
What warped sense of reporting allows these four, who stood silently until Mrs. Mulroney engaged one in conversation, to gain top level recognition over hundreds and hundreds of well-wishers, at least one of whom travelled thousands of kilometres just to be present?
Is there no fairness left at all in the press today? Is there no limit to their desire to downplay the excellent reception being enjoyed by the Prime Minister throughout Canada?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel, the mess that will not go away. First we had Gervais Desroches, friend of the Minister of Public Works, benefiting from a $13 million industrial park deal which he and others bought for $140,000. Then there was the Gerard Poirier case who says he was coerced into selling his farm to Mario Taddeo and was told to keep his mouth shut by the Member of Parliament for Argenteuil-Papineau. Third, a Tory organizer who owned a bar got a $42,000 contract for supervising vacant land. Now we have the overwhelming evidence of Tories making a killing out of land sales and one Tory alone making $252,000 in 24 hours.
Why did the Prime Minister allow this kind of thing to happen? Why does he permit this kind of outrageous waste of taxpayers' money to continue?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, let us put this all in perspective.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: In 1969 the then Government expropriated
90,000	acres of land, 5,000 acres of which are now being used for the Mirabel Airport. They dispossessed 10,000 people who occupied and owned those lands. They spent $225 million from 1969 to 1984 and all they left was a social scar.
January 25, 1988


QUERY WHEN PRIME MINISTER WILL DEMAND MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just heard the reply of his Minister of Public Works. He knows also that the same minister said, as recorded on page 11808 of the official report of the Debates, December 15, 1987, that the taxpayers "got value for the money''.
Considering what we know today, Mr. Speaker, that $100 million have been wasted, $100 million have been lost, that a Conservative made $252 000 in 24 hours, is it not time to take that Minister and send him back to the back benches? When will the Prime Minister demand the resignation of the Minister of Public Works?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, since 1984 we have been involved in a salvage operation. We have put in place a procedure to allow those people who had their lands expropriated unfairly to purchase their lands back on a fair and equitable basis. The procedures put in place were very much the same as those put in place by the previous Government, although we improved the justice, morality, and economics of the situation.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it has been an enriching experience for some, that is quite true.


LAND SALE PROGRAM -REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. The former Minister of Public Works, the Member for Joliette, said in an interview that the Prime Minister personally authorized him to overrule Treasury Board and Public Works staff to expedite phase 2 of the land sale program at Mirabel. Why did the Prime Minister overrule experts for political considerations? Will he now do the right thing and call a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the management, into the disposition of properties and the operations of the Canada Lands Company at Mirabel? If he does not want to do that, 1 will have to ask him what he has to hide.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member to produce proof that any member of that community received the kind of treatment that is not available to any other member of the community. Every transaction has received Treasury Board approval and every transaction over $70,000 has been audited and approved by the Comptroller General of Canada.
Oral Questions


QUERY WHEN PRIME MINISTER TOOK COGNIZANCE OF RESULTS OF ELECTION COMMISSIONER S INQUIRY INTO MATTER CONCERNING MEMBER FOR FRONTENAC
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to point out to the Prime Minister that last week, his Deputy Prime Minister has stonewalled and systematically refused to shed some light on the circumstances concerning the reinstatement in Cabinet of the Minister of Energy,Mines and Resources. Now that the Prime Minister is back in the House, he could perhaps tell us when he got acquainted with the conclusions of the investigation made by the Commissioner of Elections. When did he see the letter received by the Minister of Energy,Mines and Resources? And when did the latter discuss with him the contents of the letter,at which time they both concluded that he would be reinstated?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks when I learned about the decision. I was advised by the secretary of the Cabinet on November 28, following the publication of a statement issued by the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. Joseph Gorman, on November 28 as follows:
"1 have reviewed the results of the investigation which I received at 1300 hours on Thursday, November 21, 1985 as well as the recommendations of independent counsel which I received at 2030 hours on November 26, 1985 and I have decided that no charges will be laid against the Honourable Marcel Masse or his official agent, Jean Morissette."
The official responsible to Parliament issued a decision which was conveyed to me and we acted accordingly.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER HAS SEEN CERTAIN PORTION OF FILE
Jacques Guilbault: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has only taken a glance at those documents. If he had read them thoroughly, he would have seen that the Election Commissioner was saying:
"Proof in the dossier demonstrates that you participated in an infraction against Section 62 of the Elections Act."
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has also read that part of the file and whether he thinks he has honorably fulfilled his responsibilities when reinstating in Cabinet a minister who had participated in an infraction, according to the same Commissionner who had conducted the investigation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, it is not up to the Commissioner to decide whether a Member of Parliament is guilty or not. In our system, it is up to the courts to decide. According to the law, the officer of Parliament has the obligation to investigate and to decide whether charges are going to be laid or are not going to be laid against a Member of Parliament suspected of having

January 25, 1988
Oral Questions
committed an infraction against the Canadian Elections Act, Therefore, the officer responsible, Mr. Gorman, has dutifully conducted an investigation. He has investigated into the Minister's behaviour and has rendered a public decision on November 28, 1985, saying:
"And 1 have decided that no charges are to be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse."
That was his decision. That is the decision he has rendered. Accordingly, 1 have decided to invite the minister, the Hon. Mr. Masse, to come back to the federal Cabinet. And I was proud to do so at the time and I still am today.


QUERY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WAS AWARE OF LETTER'S TENOR AT TIME OF REINSTATEMENT IN CABINET OF MEMBER FOR FRONTENAC
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Commissioner Gorman wrote in the same letter that the Member for Frontenac had participated in the breaking of the Elections Act. My question to the Prime Minister is very simple: When he reinstated the Member as a Minister on November 29, was he aware of that letter's content?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Gorman is an officer of Parliament. His duties are described in the Act. He has full discretionary power with regard to investigations and complaints. Having inquired on November 28, 1 was advised by the Secretary of the Cabinet of the investigator's decision not to lay charges against the Hon. Marcel Masse. In view of that decision obviously positive in which case fortunately the presumption of innocence is clearly established on behalf of all Canadians and all members of this House, and considering also that the Minister had decided to step aside as a Minister of the Crown during the inquiry, which is much to his credit and in keeping with the finest British parliamentary traditions 1 decided, in view of the report issued by the Commissioner, to invite Mr. Masse to rejoin Cabinet of Canada. 1 feel I acted consistently and in all fairness.


MINISTER'S REAPPOINTMENT TO CABINET
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the House will have noted that the Prime Minister did not answer a very direct question. I want to ask him again.
When the Commissioner wrote the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the Hon. Member for Broadview- Greenwood at the same time he made absolutely no reference to any possible infraction of the law. To the contrary, he made it quite clear that there had been no infraction, in his judgment, by either of these Members. In contrast, he said to the Hon. Member for Frontenac that in his judgment there was on his part a participation in the breaking of a law.
When the Prime Minister asked the Hon. Member for Frontenac to rejoin Cabinet did he ask him if there was any reason that he had to believe that would make him illegible for membership in Cabinet at that time? Did he receive any suggestion from the Hon. Member for Frontenac that he had obtained, the kind of information that he had by then in fact obtained to the effect that he had violated the law?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The
Member for Frontenac, when he was advised that an inquiry might be initiated in respect of the election law, stepped aside as a Minister of the Crown to ensure that the inquiry could be conducted in complete freedom and impartiality. I think that all Members of the House would agree that that is very much to his credit and in keeping with the finest parliamentary traditions. This was in September of 1985.
On November 28, 1985, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, Joseph Gorman, issued a statement, having interrogated witnesses, I presume, and analysed the evidence, in which he stated, "I have decided that no charges will be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse". It is his responsibility and his responsibility alone either to bring charges or not to lay charges. Having analysed the evidence, he decided not to lay charges, in which case the presumption of innocence is clearly established on behalf of all Canadians, and I presume all Members of Parliament.
When this information was conveyed to me by the Secretary of the Cabinet, 1 instructed the Secretary of the Cabinet to arrange for Mr. Masse to be reinvited to join the Cabinet of Canada, which took place. This seems to me consistent with all parliamentary traditions that my hon. friend would want me to uphold.


PROSECUTION OF MINISTER'S SUPPORTERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. I believe the Prime Minister of Canada has a responsibility to assure that the highest standards of moral rectitude are maintained by the Cabinet of Canada. That is the point.
Since the Prime Minister did not answer either the first or the second question, I wish to ask him the third question. Considering that there are three other ordinary citizens, who were not Ministers of the Crown, in the same constituency as the Minister who not only had charges laid against them for infraction, but were convicted, and the Minister who, according to the Commissioner, violated the Act, did not even have charges laid against him, does the Prime Minister accept this as an acceptable standard of justice, one standard for the ordinary people of Canada and another standard for a Minister of the Crown? Is that the Government's view?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think upon reflection my hon. friend will regret that prefatory remark which is fundamentally unfair in respect of a
January 25, 1988

colleague in the House of Commons, and which violates very strongly the presumption of innocence.
My hon. friend was a Member of the House of Commons-I was not, but he was-when this legislation was created in respect of the Canada Elections Act and the interrogation capacity that flowed therefrom, including the Office of Commissioner. The Commissioner was made an officer of Parliament to ensure his complete independence from the Government and from other Members of Parliament. His responsibility is to interrogate, as he did, allegations against, as 1 understand it, the Member for Hamilton East, and the Member for Broadview-Greenwood of the NDP. He pursued these investigations, and he concluded that charges ought not to be laid. He decided that charges should be laid against other people in the exercise of his independent judgment as a servant of Parliament. I accept the independence of the officer of Parliament.
If my hon. friend has reason to disagree with the integrity or the independence of an officer of Parliament, then perhaps he should call him before the Bar of the House and deal with that particular officer of Parliament. I have no reason to believe that the officer acted in anything other than an objective and fair manner.


REINSTATEMENT OF MINISTER
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The fact is that the Minister, in the full knowledge that he participated in an infraction of the Canada Elections Act, as stated by the Elections Commissioner, sat by silently while two of his workers were convicted in court on the issue of the infractions in which he participated.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it is suitable for his office to appoint as a Minister of the Crown, a Minister who has been shown to have sat by silently while two of his own workers went to court and were convicted, who sat by silently and said nothing publicly about an infraction that he knew had been cited by the Elections Commissioner in a secret letter to him in November, 1985?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Member suggests, and I think I am quoting her accurately, that the Minister "participated in an infraction". The Minister did no such thing. Under British common law, only a court is capable of making that adjudication. Pending a conviction everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence.
The Member states that the Minister "participated in an infraction", thereby suggesting that the Minister violated the law. Someone is entitled to his or her opinion on the conduct of all of us. But no one, except the court system, is entitled to say, having heard the evidence, that a Member of Parliament is or is not guilty. Until such time as a court in Canada makes that adjudication, every Canadian citizen, including Members of Parliament, is presumed to be innocent.
Oral Questions


STANDARD OF ETHICS APPLICABLE TO MINISTERS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the words are not those of the Member for Hamilton East, but those of the Elections Commissioner, an officer of the Crown, who has stated explicitly that the Minister participated in the violation of subsection 62.6 of the Canada Elections Act. I would like to remind the Prime Minister that, if the Minister had been charged and found guilty, he could have been forced to give up his seat in Parliament. This is not a minor administrative problem. We are talking about a violation which has already brought two members of the Minister's own group before the courts. Now that the Prime Minister is aware of the facts that the Minister kept hidden for two years, namely that he himself was a party to the same offences as his associates who were brought before the courts, does he believe that the Minister should remain in the cabinet? Is that the level or the standards which apply to ministers of the Crown in the Mulroney Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see the senior members of the Liberal Party remain silent in view of extraordinary slanders made by the Hon. Member. What a distortion of the legal system and process! "If he was guilty, if he had done such and such a thing." The fact is that only the courts can come to such a conclusion. The Hon. Member said that the Elections Commissioner is an officer of the Crown. He is not. He is an officer of Parliament with discretionary and completely independent powers. The Commissioner had the responsibility to make a value judgment based on facts. He concluded that there were no grounds to file a complaint against the Minister. In the same circumstances and quite democratically, he also concluded that there were no grounds to lay charges against the Hon. Member for Hamilton East. In both cases, the Hon. Members were properly given the benefit of the doubt. This is the basic presumption on which Canada operates, and 1 am extremely surprised to see that the Hon. Member disagrees with this most basic presumption of our legal system.


PRIME MINISTER S POSITION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, recognizing that he did not respond to the questions put by my Hon. Leader. He is aware that the Commissioner of Canada Elections wrote a confidential letter which says the following: "Even though the evidence demonstrates that you"-that is the Hon. Member for Frontenac-"took part in an infraction of Section 62(6) of the Canada Elections Act". In other words, in the letter of which the Prime Minister is now aware the Commissioner indicates-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Read it all.

January 25, 1988
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Read.


Nelson Andrew Riis: All right. "By having Lavalin Incorporated pay the campaign expenses of $2,235 for the benefit of Marthe Lefebvre"-


Martin Brian Mulroney: Read, read.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The point is-
Some Elon. Members: Read more.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question to the Prime Minister is that the Commissioner of Elections-


Some Hon. Members:: Read the entire letter.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, since the Prime Minister is now aware that the Commissioner of Canada Elections indicated that the Minister in question actually did commit an infraction of the Act-there is no question; he was not ambivalent about it; he said that there was an infraction-does the Prime Minister, now that he is aware of this, believe that it is appropriate to have in his Cabinet as a Minister of the Crown someone that the Commissioner of Elections has indicated did commit an infraction?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I may have an opinion about the conduct of my hon. friend and vice versa but, fortunately I suppose for all of us in society, it is not up to individuals to make adjudications in respect of guilt or innocence. It is up to the independent judiciary that is very much a part of our citizenship. The responsibility of an officer-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Send it to court.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member says: "Send it to court". The Commissioner, in the exercise of his discretion, decided not to send it to court. That is precisely the point. He decided not to send it to court because-


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -in the exercise of his judgment he concluded that it ought not to go to court. He exercised his judgment and decided that it ought not to be brought to court.
If my hon. friend and the Leader of the NDP, who is now counselling with his House Leader, are offended by the notion of the presumption of innocence or the independence of an officer of Parliament, perhaps they can say so. As far as I am concerned this same officer wrote-and I hope my hon. friend listens carefully- rendered a decision in which he said, and this is Mr. Gorman, "I have decided that no charges will be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse". That is his decision.
Surely my hon. friend will agree, in light of that decision, that all the presumptions of innocence, all the presumptions of innocence in this country, ought to flow to everyone, including Members of Parliament.


RETENTION OF MINISTER IN CABINET
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In terms of what Commissioner Gorman advised the Prime Minister, we can set that aside for discussion at another time.
It is now clearly evident. The Prime Minister now has the appropriate letter, presumably that the Minister has provided him, where it says that the evidence put before the Commissioner indicated that an infraction of the law had taken place, that the Minister had broken the law, as had a number of his associates during his campaign. They were charged, charges were laid, including the Lavalin company. My question to the Prime Minister has nothing to do with Mr. Gorman or his advice.
Now that the Prime Minister knows that a Minister of his Cabinet in fact did commit a violation, does he feel that it is appropriate for that Member to sit in Cabinet until the whole matter is aired?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, 1 think my hon. friend is really showing a pretty fundamental disregard of the basics that have to govern conduct, both in the House and in respect of the rights of all Canadian citizens regarding litigation of any kind.
My hon. friend says that the infraction of law was concluded by Mr. Gorman. Mr. Gorman's responsibility, if he believes that there was an infraction, is to lay charges.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The fact that he did not lay charges-


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says "why". I presume that it is because of the independence of an officer of Parliament. Surely he should not be asking the questions of me. He should be asking the questions of the independent officer of Parliament who chose not to lay charges.
Surely if I asked the Commissioner, thereby violating his independence, the Leader of the NDP would be the first one to attack me for intruding on the independence of an officer of Parliament.
Make up your minds. You either agree with the presumption of innocence or you don't, and if you have got a problem with Mr. Gorman's decision, ask Mr. Gorman.
January 25, 1988


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to news reports Canada's peacekeeping assistance is desired in Central America. Has the Government received a formal request, supported by all five Governments in the region, for Canadian peacekeeping personnel? If so, for what period of time is Canada prepared to commit such personnel?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have not received such a formal request. I had the opportunity last week to meet, at their invitation, with the five Ambassadors or heads of mission of the Central American countries involved in the Arias peace plan. I indicated to them again, as I had last year during my visit to Central America, that Canada is interested in doing what we can to move forward the peace process in that region, and that we would certainly be prepared, if requested, to help in the design of a peacekeeping arrangement that might advance that process.
That is where the matter stands as of today.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Last week Canadians were treated to an alarming degree of government incompetence in the awarding of landed immigrant status to a convicted terrorist. Today another report in The Globe and Mail reveals that both RCMP and Immigration failed to act on another case involving a Tamil refugee living in our country who is wanted by the West German police and Interpol on charges of "preparing an explosive attack".
Therefore I would like to ask a question of the Minister. Given that a warrant for his arrest was issued by West Germany in 1986, and that Immigration officials discovered this fact through an Interpol alert last fall, at which time they alerted the RCMP, can the Minister explain to the House why, during a period of almost six months, the Government failed to take any meaningful action and why the Government did not even bother to contact and question the individual in order to respond to Interpol and to ensure that there was no breach of Canadian security?
Oral Questions


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify the story to which the Hon. Member is referring.
I can advise the Hon. Member that indeed the West Germans did contact the RCMP in the fall of 1987. We did give them the information which they requested, and they have not requested anything further of us since that time.
I can also advise the Hon. Member that at the time the West Germans did contact us they told us that there was a warrant out wishing his presence in Germany as a witness only. There were no charges whatsoever laid against him.
I can further advise the Hon. Member that as of this past Friday that warrant had been withdrawn, and there is absolutely nothing outstanding against this gentleman at this time.


GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I think Canadians, and myself, are reassured to learn of that information. However, I should like to ask a question of the Minister.
If in fact Interpol requested assistance of our Government, if there were an arrest order by the West German Government, one would have thought that surely it would have been incumbent upon the Government at least to contact and question the individual in order to respond adequately and expeditiously. That was not done.
Why did the Government have to wait until last evening upon interviewing the individual? That only came after the individual volunteered information to the Government, as opposed to the Government of Canada trying to solicit the necessary information six months ago to make a determination that no Canadian lives were in danger because of the possibilities as communicated by Interpol then. I ask him to compare that with what he knows now.


James Francis Kelleher: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, that is simply not accurate.
At the time the gentleman in question first arrived in Canada which was the summer, 1986, we inquired of the West German authorities if they had any charges or information on him and we were advised by them that they did not. When they requested information on him in the fall, 1987, we gave it immediately and expeditiously. They requested nothing further from us.
I can tell you that as of today, Mr. Speaker, there are no warrants outstanding against this gentleman. In any event he was only wanted as a witness, never as a participant in any crime.

January 25, 1988
Oral Questions


CANADA LANDS COMPANY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with Canada Lands Mirabel Limited. We have learned that expropriated land was resold at 30 per cent below market value against the advice of Public Works officials. In an article by Claude Arpin in The Montreal Gazette on Saturday, the former Public Works Minister is quoted as saying:
I went to see Brian Mulroney, and in 30 minutes I convinced him to get
those fuddie duddies off my back so I could deal with this problem in my own
way.
Does the Prime Minister recall that question? Will he tell this House why he permitted the former Minister of Public Works to do it his way?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, we have to start with the knowledge that tremendous injustice was done to the people of that particular area. The price to be paid by the former owners or the tenants was the level established in 1982-84, even though they may have purchased the property in 1985, 1986 or 1987. This was to allow every single member of that community to participate and purchase at exactly the same level. The same procedures were followed and they have all been reviewed. Everything over $70,000 has been approved by the Comptroller General of Canada.


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I want to give him an opportunity to clear up the confusion which surrounds this very serious matter.
Did the Prime Minister get the fuddy-duddies off the former Minister's back so he could appoint his cousin to sell off Mirabel lands 30 per cent below market value to Tory supporters? That is the question, Mr. Speaker.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, two out of every three people in that particular constituency happened to vote Tory in the last election. They did so for a very good reason, because of the tremendous injustice perpetrated by the previous Government. The Prime Minister said to the former Minister of Public Works: "Install a system of justice. They have been unfairly treated. That is the procedure I want you to follow".
[ Translation]


MIRABEL ISSUE-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF SALE OF PROPERTIES AND LOTS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, and it is also related to the Mirabel transactions.
It was reported that more than 1,000 properties and some
60,000	acres of land were sold at close to 30 percent below market value. Why did the Government allow the sale of those lots at 30 percent below market value? Who made those decisions-


Mr.   La Salle@: You do not know the case! You do not know anything about that! I could tell you something about it.


Fernand Robichaud: Do not get excited, Roch! Who made those decisions? Who determined the value of those properties-


Mr.   La Salle@: It's dreadful!


Fernand Robichaud: -especially the lands which were sold to supporters of the Party?


Mr.   La Salle@: It's dreadful! I would be ashamed to talk about Mirabel if I were a Liberal!


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, let me refresh the Hon. Member's memory. It was the previous Government which perpetrated this chaotic situation.


Mr.   La Salle@: Right.


Stewart Donald McInnes: It was an injustice to the people of the area. The Member for Joliette who was the Minister at the time endeavoured to commence and, in fact, completed a system which has brought equity to all of the people of that particular area.


INQUIRY WHETHER THERE WILL BE A PHASE THREE IN MIRABEL MATTER
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, we have to ask questions of Ministers even if it irritates them. Are we going to see a third phase soon, that is the sale of some 60 farms and about 12,000 acres of land? Will this property be sold at market value or will it be given away to friends at special prices? How long will the Minister allow such a ridiculous behaviour in this matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see that the Liberals who fathered the great Mirabel scandal-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -where individuals, ordinary citizens and farmers were ridiculed and treated with contempt by the Liberal government.


Mr.   La Salle@: Shame!


Martin Brian Mulroney: When the Conservative governement was elected, the Hon. Member for Joliette, who was then Minister of Public Works, was instructed by Cabinet to implement a program that will bring justice to the taxpayers of Mirabel.
January 25, 1988


Mr.   La Salle@: Apologize!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Finally, after the Liberal terror, there is justice from the Conservatives-


Mr.   La Salle@: Right on!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and now the Liberals dare raise this matter. The people of Mirabel and Saint-Hyacinthe will remember you at the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges.
The Member is aware that NDP supporters are receiving federal tax deductions contrary to the spirit of the present legislation, by washing their contributions to municipal candidates through the federal New Democratic Party.
Will the chairman undertake to have his committee investigate this NDP tax rip-off? Will he also undertake to determine how it is possible for the NDP to condone this sort of activity by calling before the committee, as a witness, the Hon. Member for Oshawa?


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the Hon. Member for York East has had a long, distinguished career as a municipal politician.
I am sure that all individual Members in this House, including New Democrats, would like to see this item referred to the Standing Committee. I ask the Hon. Member to send his request in writing to the striking committee which will be pleased to review it.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who is also responsible, supposedly, for consumers.
We have learned that the price of generic labelled drugs has dropped about 1 per cent in Manitoba while prices of many brand name drugs have increased over 100 per cent in some cases.
Oral Questions
Will the Minister explain, especially to four million Canadians who have no drug plan at all, why his friends, the multinational corporations, are being so greedy? Will he also explain to consumers why he is doing nothing as Minister for Consumer Affairs to stop this price rip-off?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know or should know, if she were following the debate on Bill C-22, there was nothing in Bill C-22 which could in any way shape or form contribute to an increase in the price of existing drugs. Even the most severest critics of Bill C-22 acknowledge that fact.
She may also be aware that, for example, in 1983 the CPI went up 5.8 per cent while the price of drugs went up 12.8 per cent. In 1987 the price of drugs went up 8.9 per cent while the CPI went up only 4.4 per cent.
The Member will also be aware that Bill C-22 provided for the creation of a Patent Medicine Price Review Board which has the power to keep the price increases of drugs below the cost of living unless there is justification not to. In other words, it will exercise a downward pressure on prices. The reason the Board is not in place and working now is because of the delaying tactics of her colleagues and friends in the Liberal Party. If she wants to blame someone for current price increases, she should blame her colleagues sitting around her.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF DRUG PRICES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister should also explain why the price of generic drugs has gone down. Perhaps he could explain that to the Canadian people.
I would also like to remind the Minister that the Bill is not yet in place. However, the Drug Prices Review Board was ready go ahead in December. Under this new Act it will have a mandate to look at drug prices over the past five years, as I understand it.
Will the Minister ask this board to meet immediately to review drug prices and recommend action to protect consumers and the provinces whose health systems are being completely eroded by the very high price of prescription drugs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that I am now hearing representations made by that Party which did everything it possibly could to prevent the creation of the Drug Prices Review Board. The Hon. Member is now asking why we did not have it in operation yesterday. This is just absurd.
The Hon. Member should also talk to the former Health Minister of the Province of Manitoba who said to some researchers at the St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg that Bill C-22 was a good Bill but they had to oppose it because it was

January 25, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Riis
too much of a political opportunity. I think we have some political opportunism here in the House now.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question in Question Period.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question too is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will know that senior citizens, the poor, and working-class Canadians are appalled at the gouging that is taking place at the hands of multinational corporations. They are even more appalled by this in view of the Minister's statement of November 18, 1986, when he said that the price of drugs "will not increase by one cent, not those now on the market, not those coming onto the market".
What is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs prepared to do today, not next week, next month or next year, to protect Canadian consumers from an unprecedented rip-off by the multinational corporations? What will he do?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would have hoped that the Hon. Member might have had the integrity to read the entire quote in its context. I said there was nothing in Bill C-22 that would cause the price of existing drugs to go up by one penny. That fact was even acknowledged by the most severe critics of Bill C-22 and the Hon. Member knows that. I wish he would stop misrepresenting my position in that regard.
Second and most important, Bill C-22 provides for the first time at the federal level an agency that looks at the price of all drugs, not only those that have generic competitors, and will be exercising a downward pressure. It is not in existence today or fully operational because of the delays of the Hon. Member and his colleagues in the other place. As I said the other day, if he wants to find a villain, he should look in the mirror.


REQUEST THAT PRICE INCREASES BE ROLLED BACK
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. It is not I who have raised the issue of integrity, it is this Minister. It is not only an issue of the high cost of prescription drugs, it is an issue for the Prime Minister and the Government about the integrity of the Government and how it keeps it commitment-


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


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the clear, unequivocal commitments the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs made to the House and Canadians that there will be no increases in the cost of prescription drugs, will he rise in his place today and give a clear undertaking to those consumers, senior citizens and the poor, that he will roll back those prices and reimburse Canadian consumers? Will he do the honourable thing?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what one can do to prevent members of the Opposition from making those patently false statements the Hon. Member has just made. It was an absolutely false statement.
Perhaps the Hon. Member should also be a bit more responsible and cease trying to invoke the elderly and the poor, and recognize that in Canada all senior citizens are covered by drug plans. In Canada, no one goes without drugs for lack of money. Everyone on welfare receives drugs.
Finally, the Hon. Member should acknowledge that under Bill C-22 there is, for the first time at the federal level, an agency looking at the price of drugs and exercising a downward pressure. He should be applauding the Government, not invoking these false, phoney accusations of which he has just been guilty.


David Charles Dingwall: Supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: I know the Hon. Member would want to pursue this matter, but the time for Question Period has expired.


PRIVILEGE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a Question of Privilege arising out of the actions of the former Commissioner of Canada Elections, Mr. John Gorman, in a decision he took during the investigation into the breaches of the Canada Elections Act of the Hon. Member for Fron-tenac (Mr. Masse) and several of his associates during the last federal election campaign.
I would like to begin by reviewing the mandate of the Commissioner of the Canada Elections as laid out in Section 70(3) of the Canada Elections Act which states as follows:
The Chief Electoral Officer shall appoint a Commissioner of Canada
Elections-


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly have every intention of hearing the Hon. Member, but before the Hon. Member gets too deeply into his argument could he assist the Chair by setting out exactly what he feels is his point of privilege? That, I think, would give the Chair some assistance. If he could do that, then the Chair might be in a more comfortable position. At the moment, I am having a bit of difficulty understanding exactly where the argument may be leading.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the intervention and I will do just as you have requested. I believe that there is a case of privilege in that the actions of Mr. Gorman have diminished the public's respect for the House of Commons and for
[DOT] [DOT]*.
[DOT];S


January 25, 1988

Members of Parliament. The actions he took led to a view which would be that there are two standards of justice in Canada, one that applies to cabinet Ministers and the other that applies to every other ordinary Canadian citizen. For that reason, 1 believe that 1 do have a prima facie of privilege and would like to present support for my case. By and large, that is the essence of the question of privilege.
As 1 said earlier, I would like to begin by very briefly suggesting that the appropriate section of the Canada Elections Act states the following:
The Chief Electoral Officer shall appoint a Commissioner of Canada
Elections-whose duties, under the general supervision of the Chief Electoral
Officer, shall be to ensure that the provisions of this Act arc complied with and
enforced.
In the case of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Commissioner of Canada Elections inquired into the allegations of the Elections Act violations as they were brought to his attention and did in fact find that violations had occurred.
You are likely aware, Mr. Speaker, that after the investigation took place, the former Commissioner, Mr. Gorman, caused charges to be laid against three officials and one company involved in the Minister's election campaign. Three individuals were charged in Thetford Mines, Quebec. Mr. John Vincent, the campaign organizer, was charged with five offences under Section 62(6) of the Canada Elections Act. As well, Gilles Remillard, the campaign auditor, was charged with violating Section 62(6) of the Canada Elections Act and Section 115 of the Criminal Code. Marthe Lefebvre, a campaign worker, was charged with one violation of Section 62(6)-


Mr. Speaker:: Everything the Hon. Member is presenting may well indeed be factual, but 1 am having difficulty ascertaining how that particular information touches on a question of privilege which, after all, as we define it, means that something has been done which is affecting the ability of a Member or Members to carry on their duties.
I may be having difficulty accepting a position that may be more clear to others than it is to me. I would ask the Hon. Member to come back to the point of how it has affected himself or any other Hon. Member.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention.
There are precedents which 1 could quote where there was found to be a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament. As Members of Parliament who must face our constituents virtually every day, we have an obligation to take whatever steps are necessary to maintain respect for Parlament and the work done by parliamentarians. This must be done in the eyes of the public and we must make that effort wherever and whenever possible. I believe that the decision taken by Mr. Gorman sends a very clear message to the people of Canada in
Privilege-Mr. Riis
that it casts a pall over all Members of Parliament and their activities during an election campaign.
If there was a message it was that, yes, the commissioner indicated in a confidential letter, which has now become public and therefore I feel comfortable in quoting from it, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that even though the evidence demonstrates that the Minister took part in an infraction of Section 62(6) of the Canada Elections Act, in his, Mr. Gorman's judgment, a prosecution against the Minister would not be in the public interest or in the interests of justice.
What I am suggesting is that that says to the people of Canada that here is an individual whose job it is to make recommendations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) but who says, in spite of the fact that he suggested charges be laid against a number of individuals in the Minister's campaign as well as a corporation, it was not appropriate to charge the Minister who was obviously involved in his own campaign. My contention is that that appears to be a two-tiered system of justice.
While the commissioner felt it quite appropriate to recommend charges be laid against a number of ordinary Canadians, when it came to the Minister he felt it was in the public interest and in the interest of justice to not lay charges. 1 believe that reflects on all Members of Parliament. It appears that certain Members, those in the Cabinet, are not subject to the same rules and regulations that others would be.
1 can, if you like, point out a whole number of precedents for a prima facie case of privilege being cited against individuals who are not in this House. Of course Mr. Gorman is not in this House. I could refer to the case, in May 7, 1976, when a prima facie case was found against a former Member of this place who had alleged that Members of Parliament took bribes. Clearly that was an instance of contempt of this House and, as in this case, had the effect of diminishing respect for the House of Commons.
That is my point. I believe the respect Canadians hold for Parliament and its elected Members has been affected and set in some disrepute as a result of the decision by Mr. Gorman. If you were to examine those actions by Mr. Gorman in light of the precedent I have just referred to and other similar ones, you would clearly find a prima facie case of contempt of Parliament has taken place.
It might be useful to remind ourselves of the wide scope permitted in allegations of this sort. I refer you to the 19th Edition of Erskine May, page 68, outlining the difference between a breach of privilege and contempt of the House:
When any of these rights and immunities, both of the Members, individually, and of the assembly in its collective capacity, which are known by the general name of privileges, are disregarded or attacked by any individual or authority, the offence is called a breach of privilege, and is punishable under the law of Parliament.
Each House also claims the right to punish actions, which, while not breaches of any specific privilege, are offences against its authority or dignity .. . Such actions, though often called "breaches of privilege" are more properly distinguished as "contempts".

January 25, 1988
Privilege-Mr. Riis
Therefore 1 suggest that there has been an offence against the dignity of Parliament in this case. Any suggestion that there may be different types of justice for different Canadians, particularly those in Parliament, is something I think we have to take extremely seriously.
While I am on my feet, 1 want to remind you of what Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada says at page 192:
While privilege may be codified, contempt may not, because new forms of
obstruction are constantly being devised-there is no closed list of classes of
offences punishable as contempt of Parliament.
In this case I firmly and strongly believe that the former commissioner has seriously hindered us in our tasks as parliamentarians. 1 believe in doing so he has committed a contempt of this House.
In conclusion, if you find a prima facie case of privilege, 1 would move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. I thank you for this opportunity to say a few words on this critical matter.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because 1 realize that today is an Official Opposition Day and I do not want to take up any more time than is necessary. However, there are some things we have to get on the record. My friend was given an unusual amount of latitude to put his case and I want to speak for two people who are not here.
I want to speak for Mr. Gorman, who is not in this House, not able to defend himself, who exercised his duty as an officer of Parliament in accordance with the Act, and now finds it being suggested that he is guilty of contempt of Parliament. I think it is unfortunate that such a charge would be laid against an individual who is not here and able to defend himself. The other person I want to speak for is the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Masse).
There is a presumption not only in this House but in this country under democratic principles that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty-proven guilty. The Hon. Minister found out that there was an investigation under the Elections Act being conducted into his actions. He immediately advised the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and resigned or was relieved of his duties. In other words, he stepped aside as a Minister of the Crown. He did the honourable thing. Then, at a later date, November 28, the Commissioner of Canada Elections, the very gentleman who it is suggested is in contempt of Parliament, states this:
I have reviewed the results of the investigation and I have decided that no
charges will be laid against the Hon. Marcel Masse.
Mr. Speaker, the Act makes it quite clear that it is the function of the commissioner to decide whether or not to proceed to prosecute a case. The commissioner consents to prosecution only when he is satisfied that he has all the necessary facts and only in those cases where he believes it would be in the interests of justice to do so, and where there is
every likelihood that the prosecution will succeed. The commissioner makes the decision, the same decision made every day by Crown attorneys and law enforcement officers, and he made the decision not to prosecute. He conducted an independent investigation, drew his conclusions, came to a decision, and announced that decision: No charges will be laid.
Any further action second guesses the Commissioner, amounts to double jeopardy for the Minister, and interferes with the jurisdiction of an officer of this House. I suggest even further, Mr. Speaker, that it puts every Minister, and in fact every MP, in an impossible situation because they are never charged, therefore never exonerated and, if you follow that reasoning to the end, never innocent. No one in a free democratic society such as ours would accept that conclusion or line of reasoning.
Perhaps 1 can make the point to the Hon. Member by quoting a member of the other place, a member who served in this House for a long time and would, therefore, know the difficulty of being a Minister of the Crown, as he once was, and being an elected Member of Parliament. Senator Pierre de Bane said: "The attacks on the rights of Marcel Masse are not justified and sap the basic principles of our system of rights".
That is a Liberal Senator and a former colleague coming to the defence of the system. He is coming to the defence of a system which says that you are innocent until proven guilty. In this case there was not even a charge laid because an independent commissioner, an officer of this House, said that there were not sufficient facts and it was not in the interest of justice to lay a charge. Surely he has fulfilled his duties and surely the system has been well served.
I think it is unfortunate to drag this out any further. It is unfortunate for the reputation of the Hon. Minister and very unfortunate for Mr. Gorman who is not here to defend himself. He served this country honourably as a member of the RCMP, took on a difficult position on the Elections Commission, and now finds himself pilloried by a Member of this House and cannot come to his own defence. I think that is very unfortunate.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no contempt of Parliament. There is contempt for the system of justice that you and I believe in. There is contempt for the theory that you are innocent until proven guilty. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, with all of the knowledge that I have at my command of justice at the bar which both you and 1 served, to reject outright this suggestion that there has been any contempt of Parliament.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion but I do want to correct a couple of errors that the Hon. Minister of State just made. The individual in question, Mr. Gorman, is not an officer of this House. The Minister of State will note that an officer of the House is someone who reports to Parliament. Mr. Gorman never did report to Parliament. He reports to the Chief Electoral Officer.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: And who does he report to?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Chief Electoral Officer is an officer of Parliament. I just wanted to clarify that because the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) kept referring to this individual as an officer of the House and he simply is not an officer of this House.
In spite of what my hon. friend has indicated, you will be aware of the numerous precedents of prima facie cases of privilege being decided against individuals who were not Members of this House. I want to make it clear that you do not have to be a Member of the House in order to be the subject of a question of privilege.
In my earlier comments I referred to the specific case on May 7, 1976, and there are many others. I simply wanted to make it clear on the record that you do not have to be a Member of this House to be named by the Speaker as being in contempt of Parliament.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a short contribution which might indeed be helpful to you.
The Member opposite has advanced the case that the actions of Mr. Gorman have in some way impeded the ability of Members of this House to carry on their duties. I see nothing in the submission that deals with the actions of Mr. Gorman.
The Member opposite goes on at some length on the issue of a two-tiered system of justice. Any reading of the letter would fail to find anything which couldbe interpreted as a two-tiered system of justice. The notion of a two-tiered system of justice comes from the Opposition. If contempt is really the issue about which the Hon. Member is concerned, the appropriate motion would be to examine the behaviour of the Opposition in the House of Commons for bringing the House into disrepute, it is certainly not Mr. Gorman's motion which is advanced at any point.
All of us who serve in this Chamber were involved in a campaign, subject to the Canada Elections Act. We were all involved totally in our campaigns in the sense that we signed statements about expenditures which our official agents signed as well. Whatever others did on our behalf when we were out knocking on doors while they were in the office, we did.
I am looking across at the Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) who, 1 believe, signed a form which was found to put her in a position of contravention of the Act. Working with the elections officer in the investigation it was modified in some fashion to reflect


Sheila Maureen Copps: Amended by the courts.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -a view of the facts, which was not the view first presented and signed and which would have been a contravention.
Privilege-Mr. Riis
Parliament, in its wisdom in setting up this Act, very carefully included the principle that the official elections people would look at the circumstances of the case, reach certain conclusions, and make those conclusions firm and public.
it seems to me from the letter that was introduced by my hon. friend into evidence that Mr. Gorman has complied exactly with the Act. Some of the dispute in the House has centred on the word "involved". According to the Act we are all involved in all aspects of the campaign from the day we are nominated and file our papers to the day that we sign our expenses at the end of the line.
If evidence existed to show that the Minister of Energy had acted in a manner which caused the commissioner to think that charges should be laid, surely he would have laid charges. If Members opposite think that Mr. Gorman did not act in the manner required by the Act, surely they should present some proof to the House.
The Opposition's assertion that Mr. Gorman is in contempt of this House for creating a two-tiered system of justice that treated, Members differently than campaign team members were treated should be documented. There should be evidence produced that Mr. Gorman treated people in a two-tiered fashion rather than simply an assertion. The man surely deserves that much protection from the House and the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has listened carefully to the representations that were made. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) did cite some authorities. I know Hon. Members will understand that I wish to do him the courtesy of reading them. I will look at them.
I must say, though, that in a case like this the Chair is under some particular difficulty. Even assuming for the moment that the argument which was skillfully put by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap is one that the Chair ought to adopt, the Chair is in considerable difficulty over evidence that is not before us. Having listened very carefully to the argument and having listened very carefully to questions and answers put in the House for several days, it is not possible for the Chair to decide why a certain official decided to prosecute in some cases and not to prosecute in others.
Certainly from that point of view there is a lack of information which, as long as it is not there, makes it very difficult to draw any inference one way or the other with respect to whether the official conducted himself in an appropriate way. However, I want to assure the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) that I know that he has raised a matter in a serious way. I will consider it and return to the House if I feel that that is appropriate.

January 25, 1988
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gauthier:
That this House condemns the government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unity.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When the House took recess at one o'clock, seven minutes remained in the period for questions and comments after the speech by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp),

1 will now recognize Hon. Members who wish to continue question and comment period. Resuming debate.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and participate in the debate today on the motion introduced to the House by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). His motion states:
That this House condemns the Government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72, respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unity.
That legislation is of great importance to our society because it concerns two communities that have lived together, for the most part in peace and harmony, since 1760. This is a very important and vital issue in our society. We should get on with this question because I sense that the frustrations we saw in the House this morning mostly are due to the poor planning of the Government in bringing this measure to the floor for discussion.
Members of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons has spent a tremendous amount of time, effort and considerable creative energy on this important issue, bringing their combined wisdom to bear to put together a very important Bill.
It is nice to stand up on occasion and congratulate the Government for doing a good job. While there are some omissions and areas of the Bill which need improvement, it is a good Bill on the whole. It provides the basis on which to have an exciting and dynamic discussion in the interests of living together in this experiment called Canada.
Many changes have taken place in Canada which have been manifest in good will. As an anglophone from Quebec who has
made a very serious effort to become functionally bilingual, it has been very exciting to meet my francophone colleagues from Quebec who have become functionally bilingual. How many other countries can communicate in two languages?
This is very exciting when one considers that it brings the culture of two great peoples together.
I travelled out West with the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), who has serious concerns about official bilingualism. Together, we heard concerns expressed in Saskatchewan and Alberta by Francophones dehors Quebec. We heard from the Crie d'Alarme and the need for service. We understood their heartfelt request for services.
I come from an English constituency in Quebec where we have a degree of concern about the application of the official language policy.
This Bill concerns a national issue and reflects the distinctiveness of Canada, which is home to two marvelous cultures and languages. Since we live in respect and harmony with each other, why can we not bring this Bill to the floor of the House of Commons to discuss it rationally? Let us accept and rejoice in these two cultures and promote the vitality of each of those communities.
I am not saying that there are no problems with the Bill, but I am suggesting that the new generation of Canadians throughout this land are preparing to work in both languages and want the respect for their individual languages to be part and parcel of the delivery of services by the federal Government. Let me remind Hon. Members that language is an important therapeutic tool. Therefore, the services delivered by the federal Government, whether through the Canada Assistance Plan or our cost-sharing programs, must respect that language of health and culture.
In his first Throne Speech in November, 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was full of hope and promises. He said that the linguistic minorities require and should have equality of access and equality of opportunity. In the October 1, 1986, Throne Speech, he said that he wanted to bring us into conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In my view, nothing could be more important than doing just that.
In June, 1987, the three political Parties expressed satisfaction with the tabling of the long awaited legislation. However, a degree of apathy set in. I object to the complaints by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) when he said there was obstruction; in bringing this Bill forward. Debate on issues of national concern are part and parcel of the obligations of Members from all sides of the House.
However, the control of the agenda in a House with a majority of over 200 belongs to the House Leader of the Conservative Party. He had ample opportunity to bring the Bill forward and ensure that it had the full discussion it merits. This would have allowed us to clarify some of the difficulties within the Bill.
January 25, 1988

This motion was not moved today because we want to be obstructionist, we want to ensure that this Bill receives the acknowledgement and study it requires.
This Bill has been long awaited by various parties concerned with the issue of official languages. They include, among others, the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and representatives of official language minority groups.
The Official Languages Act of 1969 has become outdated. A number of problems have surfaced as a result of applying the legislation on a daily basis for 19 years. This becomes particularly significant for Canadians who find that they are unable to live and work and express themselves or be served in the language with which they are most comfortable. It is very important that this Bill, which is practically new legislation, sees the light of day and is given the proper attention. The attitudes of Canadians have changed. They would like to see the application of the amendments which are warranted.
All Parties came to an agreement with respect to the new legislation which marks a turning point in the evolution of the language issue. It is likely one of the best pieces of legislation that the House has seen, and I congratulate the Government for it. We can follow up on all the criticisms and recommendations put forward in the different reports to the Standing Committee. We could be listening much more carefully to the Official Languages Commissioner.
A very fine article appeared in a magazine entitled Language and Society. It appeared in the fall issue of this magazine. In the article the author, Stuart Beaty, wrote about acts of faith and the relationship between the old and new Official Languages Act to the fundamental political and linguistic nature of Canada. He asked how the proposals to amend the Official Languages Act tabled on June 25 were to be interpreted, applied or enforced.
He went on to consider many of the aspects that are found in the Bill. He expresses an exciting concept in his article. He wrote about the relationship between the Act and the fundamental political and linguistic nature of our country. That is to say that he looked at this matter in the constitutional context. He considered the impact of our national commitment in this area and other sectors of society.
He commented on the primacy of the Act over other federal statutes as well as the executory nature of the Act and the need to spell out clearly application measures. He commented also on the ways of adapting bilingual services to regional and other differences, for example, by replacing the formula for designating federal bilingual districts which, as it so happens, have never been proclaimed, with a more practical one. This is something I would like to address in a moment, especially in terms of the practicality of the application of the Bill.
Supply
The two other major areas which he considers have to do with the integration into the Act itself of the objectives in the 1973 resolution relating to "language of work" and "full participation". Finally, he considers a better definition of the roles and responsibilities of the main federal agents active in this matter, including the Commissioner of Official Languages, with respect to prompt application of the provisions of the Act.
It is important that the Bill be sent to committee quickly in order that there can be open hearings and so that small amendments can be made to it. This will bring it into practical use for those Canadians who need it on an everyday basis. When we look at the preamble of the Bill, which is beautiful, we see that there is no definition of linguistic minority. It is important that we define it in the most generous of senses. It cannot deal only with the mother tongue or the language first learned. It has to deal with the language of use. If that is the case, then there will be a better application of the intent, the thought, the will and the wish behind this Bill.
Before I move on to another aspect I wish to point out the fact that with respect to hiring practices in the Bill there has been some deterioration. In this respect let us consider the civil service. In terms of percentages some 30 per cent of the civil service is francophone. However, that is misleading, particularly if one happens to live in northern Ontario, New Brunswick or in parts of Alberta or Saskatchewan. If one happens to be an anglophone in Quebec, then it is a serious problem. Some 5.5 per cent of the federal civil service in Quebec is composed of anglophones. Yet, in Quebec, people whose mother tongue is English make up 11 per cent of the population of that province, whereas those who claim it as their language of use total 13 per cent. In this respect we are talking about 800,000 people who live in my province and who have certain services but who are not represented and who are not supported in the hiring practices of the federal Government. Treasury Board was lax in the application of its responsibility and its mandate in this particular area.
In 1976, 12 per cent of the civil service of the federal Government in Quebec was English-speaking. The figure today is 5.5 per cent. That is very severe under-representation. In the Bill there is a recommendation that one should "tend to reflect" the distribution of linguistic minorities across the land. I think it should state instead "reflecting" linguistic minorities and not tending to reflect them. That is only one aspect of the Bill which I think needs to be addressed with a slight amendment.
I bring to the attention of Hon. Members an aggravating issue which arose recently. Hon. Members will recall that the Government decided that it would get rid of the $1 bill and replace it with that candy-shaped bronze-coloured dollar coin. In this respect the Government let a contract to promote its campaign in order to make the public comfortable with this new coin. Ads appeared across the country. Although they did not bear the logo of the Government of Canada, it was

January 25, 1988
Supply
reasonable to assume that they came from the federal Government since this was a federal Government initiative. In the year that the new Official Languages Act was in the making, an Act which speaks eloquently of the need to ensure the vitality of the linguistic minority communities, the federal Government felt quite comfortable about seeing advertising exclusively in French about this dollar coin in Quebec and exclusively in English in Ontario. That does not reflect the spirit and the intent of the law.
Under this Bill there is no control with respect to the responsibility for the promotion of federal initiatives unless they happen to deal with a federal Crown corporation. This is an area which needs to be looked at. What happens if the issue does not deal with a Crown corporation? What happens if a Crown corporation is privatized or semi-privatized?
An area which bothers me in particular, especially after reading the preamble, is the area of the Bill which deals with communications in terms of services to the public. There is a reference to significant demand. In this respect the concept is to determine in which region bilingual services will be delivered. In this respect what will be the determination of significant demand? How will we find it out? What are the demographic criteria that will be used? How will census data be interpreted? This is why a definition of linguistic minority, be it French or English, is key.
When one is obliged to provide a service it is important to know to whom the service is to be directed. I suggest that when the Act was enacted to reflect and to promote the linguistic duality of Canada the existence of a French-speaking majority in Quebec, an English-speaking majority in the rest of Canada, and the presence of official language minority communities in a number of provinces were the concrete manifestations of the promulgation of this Act. In this way we could support the linguistic duality of Canada, which is a fundamental characteristic of our country, something that is a principle accepted by all Parties in the House. Serious care has to be taken in how we define this significant demand. We need to examine carefully Clause 21(b) and Clause 22 to make sure that we reflect the spirit in this Bill.
I would also suggest that, when we talk about the nature of the office and the regulations that are to be enunciated, we have to be very certain that those regulations are carefully examined and the parties that are to be involved are consulted.
We talk about third parties and the services that are to be provided. In Clause 24 it states:
Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in Canada or elsewhere can communicate with and obtain those services from that person or organization in either official language in any case where those services, if provided by the institution, would be required under this Part to be provided in either official language.
I would like to suggest that we need to consider extending the obligations to render services, and such responsibilities
should be extended to federally regulated utilities or enterprises which fall under federal jurisdiction, such as banks, airlines, railways, interprovincial transport companies, and telecommunications and broadcast policy. It is very important that this country have a stamp and footprint across this land that states that English and French wherever you may live should be available and the potential to understand the information that is being disseminated should certainly be the primary concern.
It is very difficult to speak to this Bill because we do not know what the regulations are and we do not know the definition and the criteria of certain of the services. In the interests of good will, in the interests of a new Canada, this new generation of Canadians, and the excitement of this experiment that is in such a wonderful place in the spectrum of the world, it is important that the principle of equality be brought to our attention and that we deal with it expeditiously.
The preamble sets the stage for the Bill. It provides a guide to the spirit of generosity and reform in which the new law is to be interpreted. With a few amendments, this Bill supplies the glue that will mark the vitality and the difference that is this nation of Canada.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins).


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate today. I do so as a Member of this House who has a keen appreciation of the importance of the official languages question, and especially as Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Official Languages.
Madam Speaker, before 1 start my speech, I want to congratulate and thank all Members on the Committee, both from the House of Commons and the Senate, who in the past few years have made a vital contribution to the committee's work. I say this in a strictly non-partisan spirit, since we are all working for the same cause, which is to defend and promote the status of official languages in this country.
I also wish to thank all members of the Committee's staff for their dedication. They often work 18 or 20-hour days, providing our Committee with what it needs, often work under difficult conditions.
Finally, I think we should recognize the important work done by the Commissioner for Official Languages and his team who, in the Commission's annual report, provide us with a picture of the status of official languages in this country, thus helping our Committee set its priorities.
That being said, Madam Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to the various speeches we have heard in the House today on the Opposition motion. For the benefit of Hon. Members, I would like to read the motion presented by the
January 25, 1988

Official Opposition and the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and I quote:
That this House condemns the government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unity.
Madam Speaker, after listening to the various speeches thus far, one cannot help concluding that the wording and even the credibility of the motion leave something to be desired. This morning, it was made clear-and like many other Members I heard this for the first time this morning-that before the holidays a proposal was made to expedite the Bill and refer it to a legislative committee, a proposal that was turned down by the Opposition. And for what reason? We are told it was because they wanted to hear as many Members as possible on the Bill.
This is no doubt a very valid reason, but if we ask the linguistic minorities in this country, the Francophones outside of Quebec, the Commissioner for Official Languages, if they would not have preferred to see the Bill adopted rapidly and implemented rather than to have a lengthy debate which would cause the adoption of the Bill to be delayed, it would be up to those who favour such a debate to argue their case and 1 hope that the question will be put to them.
This is why I am saying, Madam Speaker, that some form of discredit should be placed upon the motion we have before us today. One thing is certain. Madam Speaker, as those who sit on the Official Languages Committee know full well, and it is that Bill C-72 has become absolutely necessary and essential. Why? Quite simply because the current Official Languages Act that was enacted in 1969 had become outdated, it had become laughing matter and was not being adhered to.
Madam Speaker, we are not to blame if previous Governments were soft and a bit too lax in the interpretation of that Act and this is why we found ourselves in 1984-85 with a totally archaic Official Languages Act that had no real impact anymore at the various levels of Government and Canada's Parliament.
Madam Speaker, I pointed out this morning a few cases involving agencies or Crown corporations or departments that appeared before our Committee since 1985. There were more than thirty of them. Hardly three would deserve to be graded B, "very good" under the Official Languages Act. This is why the situation is quite alarming, Madam Speaker, if not dramatic, within the various levels of Government and the Canadian Parliament. As I said, Madam Speaker, this is due to the soft, laxist attitude that prevailed for some fifteen years in the implementation of that Act.
Madam Speaker, we heard this morning that they would rather have a debate where the greatest numbers of MP's could deal with the legislation. We were also told they would
Supply
like to see and hear Members who might oppose the legislation.
Madam Speaker, what I admire in a Parliament, a Government, is the freedom of speech, because it is wishful thinking to suppose that in a Parliament with 282 Members everyone would always agree on legislation. And 1 for one am proud to be a member of a party where everyone can express his own views when there is a real debate on legislation. That is what party democracy is all about, and it fully exists within this Government.
I suggest we had an example in this House some months ago, during the debate on capital punishment. We heard very rational debates during which one fully respected the opinions of others. Some people said they were against the death penalty because they saw it as a means of eliminating crime, while others, myself included, said it was no answer to crime, and in that fascinating debate expressed opinions which were respected and, in my opinion, that is democracy in action, Madam Speaker. And if there is an entirely open debate, as some wish, 1 hope Members of the opposition parties who are against that Bill, and there must be some of them, will say so.
The important thing for a government, Madam Speaker, and we did it many times, is to take the decision that serves the national interest. And when the majority but not all people clearly express themselves for the national interest-this Government has always acted in the national interest, and that is what it will do once again with Bill C-72.
Madam Speaker, what is Bill C-72? I think it is important to give a general outline and mention its most important parts. It might be interesting to note that Bill C-72 contains no fewer than 103 clauses, compared to the forty sections or so of the present Official Languages Act. It is worth mentioning the presence of a preamble in Bill C-72, something rarely seen in public bills, which only shows that the legislator has every intention to enact very clear and precise legislation.
And what do we find, Madam Speaker, in the preamble of this Bill? The preamble of this Bill is really very precise and refers to bilingualism in the workplace, to fair participation and to the federal government's commitment to enhance bilingualism, to support English and French linguistic minority communities and to cooperate with the provinces.
It is also worth noting, Madam Speaker, that the preamble refers to the important promotional role that the Canadian government will have to assume regarding the official languages.
The Bill then defines the three main purposes of the proposed Act. The purpose of Bill C-72 is, firstly, to ensure that English and French have equality of status. Secondly, to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities and to advance the equality of status of

January 25, 1988
Supply
the official languages. And thirdly, to set out the powers and duties of federal institutions in this matter.
Madam Speaker, Bill C-72 is divided in 14 parts and 1 should like to quote from some of them which are entirely vital and essential to that bill. In Part I of Bill C-72, one clause appears as follows:
4.(1) English and French are the official languages of Parliament and everyone has the right to use either of those languages in any debates or proceedings of Parliament.
This seems to be taken as granted, but the members of the Committee on Official languages were supprised to learn almost a year and a half ago, after having asked a legal adviser whether the House of Commons and the Senate were subjected to or covered by the Official Languages Act, that no, the House of Commons and the Senate were not covered under the Official Languages Act now in effect.
Therefore Bill 72 confirms that French and English are the official languages of Parliament, everyone having the right to use either one of them in the debates and proceedings of parliament. It is high time, as you will agree, that in 1988, such an established fact be recorded in a legal statute.
Further, Madam Speaker, we find Part III of the Bill dealing with the administration of justice where it is clearly stated:
13.	English and French arc Ihe official languages of the courts, and cither of those languages may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court.
14.	(1) Every court has, in any proceedings before it, the duty, to ensure that any person giving evidence before it may be heard in the official language of his choice, and that in being so heard the person will not be placed at a disadvantage by not being heard in the other official language.
Those are very imporant provisions as far as the administration of justice is concerned.
Moreover, Madam Speaker, if we refer to Part IV dealing with communications with and services to the public, it is of tremendous importance for the Canadian public and for people dealing with federal services. This legislation does say the following:
20.	Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with and to receive available services from federal institutions in accordance with this Part.
21.	Every federal institution has the duty to ensure that any member of the public can communicate with and obtain available services from its head or central office in either official language-
This concerns communications, Madam Speaker, and it is true of all the parts of this legislation which clearly shows that we were committed to make it a very clear and precise Bill.
Part V, which is a vital part of this legislation, deals with language of work. It clearly says this:
33. English and French are the languages of work in all federal institutions, and officers and employees of all federal institutions have the right to use either official language in accordance with this Part.
It is clear, Madam Speaker; it is now stated in a bill.
Part VI, Madam Speaker, deals with the participation of English-speaking and French-speaking Canadians
38.(1) The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that (a) English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians, without regard to their ethnic origin or first language learned, have equal access to appointment and advancement in federal institutions: and
I think this is also a very important point in this legislation.
Then Part VII deals with the advancement of English and French. Madam Speaker, in a country whose identity is deeply rooted in both cultures and both languages, the advancement of English and French is absolutely vital, and it reads as follows:
40. The Government of Canada is committed to (a) enhancing the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and supporting and assisting their development; and (b) fostering the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society.
Madam Speaker, all the clauses, all the parts of this Bill relate to one aspect or another of our country's official languages.
The Commissioner of Official Languages must be delighted with Part IX of this Bill because it extends the duration of his tenure of office.
Finally, Part X of the bill deals with court remedy. This is also something entirely new, madam Speaker, and it is important to know that from now on, following the adoption of this Bill, any person who has made a complaint to the Commissioner will be able to institute proceedings before the Courts against Government authorities.
With this quick overview of the bill, Madam Speaker, I think I have demonstrated that it had become necessary, considering that we had been obliged to operate under a legislation which is quite outdated and archaic: we needed only to hear what was going on and the testimonies which were presented to the Committee on Official Languages to realize that we had to act.
In this connection, I feel compelled to mention the remarkable contribution made by the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) who, over the past year or year and a half, has managed to give a new momentum to the Committee on Official Languages, together with the other Committee Members, including the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) who took part in this debate this morning, the Honourable Member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Duguay) who sought from the individuals, departments and organizations appearing before the committee suggestions for remedies, an other means of rectifying the situation, which is not easy, Madam Speaker, because some people having gained seniority through 15 years of leniency, it was almost impossible to impose bilingualism on them. I find solace, however, when I hear heads of Departments or Crown Corporations or Federal organizations declare that they will present us with plans to remedy the situation and that they will assume their responsibilities in the area of official languages.
January 25, 1988

Madam Speaker, 1 should like to mention that a Prime Minister and a Government which so far have achieved so much will go ahead and make sure that Bill C-72 is adopted within the next few weeks. If I say so, madam Speaker, it is on the basis of the rather exceptional and extraordinary record of this Government and Prime Minister.


Don Boudria: Get serious!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gabriel Desjardins: I can see some members of the Opposition do not agree. Well, let them answer this question: when we, when this Prime Minister campaigned in 1984, what was the central theme of our platform? Wasn't it "Jobs, jobs, jobs"? In 1987, we had figures showing that we created more than one million jobs in this country, 80 percent of which were permanent jobs. This was an undertaking of this Prime Minister and of this government and we delivered.
Madam Speaker, what else did we say in 1984? We promised to reduce the deficit. Actually, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did quite a remarkable job with his strategy aimed at deficit reduction. Since we took office, the deficit was reduced by more than $8 billion. What else did we say in 1984? We talked about national reconciliation. Does anyone of those who were yelling earlier have anything to say about the Meech Lake Accord, which is probably one of the greatest achievements of our Prime Minister and of this government? Another promise that was kept. Who initiated the talks on free-trade? Our Prime Minister did, because he wants prosperity for the people of Canada. Another commitment that was kept in the best interests of all Canadians.
We promised a tax reform and we delivered since it is being implemented. That means that the Official Languages Bill will only be one more addition to a long list of achievements which this government can be proud of. I am sure that Bill C-72 will be passed in a few weeks. It is a major part of our legislative agenda because we want our minorities to be proud of their roots and we want their members to be first-class citizens with equal rights.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I must say that sometimes the Hon. Member's comments surprise me. Generally, however, as Joint Chairman of the Joint Committee on Official Languages, he does his job and does it with great dedication, and he knows perfectly well why we are having this debate today.
Madam Speaker, I heard the Hon. Member repeat what a number of ministers were saying this morning about the business of the House, which was that the Government proposes and the House disposes. One Friday afternoon, at half-past one or two o'clock, the Government came to ask me whether we would agree to quick passage of the Bill with one speaker per party. I said no, this was not satisfactory for a Bill as fundamental as this one, as important as the Meech Lake
Supply
Accord. I felt that only one speaker for the Official Opposition, one for the New Democrats and one for the Government, would not be enough and would not do justice to Anglophone Members from Quebec, Francophone Members outside Quebec, Francophones from Quebec and Members generally. That is why I refused to pass this Bill in an hour's time with only three speeches.
I think the Hon. Member can hardly blame me for digging in my heels. He can't say we threatened the Government with a filibuster. That isn't true. We never threatened the Government with a filibuster. We only asked for a democratic debate where as many Members as possible would be able to participate. I think that is fair. 1 think that is democratic. My question is a very simple one. Since the Hon. Member is now aware of the situation and knows exactly what happened that Friday afternoon, would he have agreed-in his speech he asked us to explain why we acted the way we did-would he have agreed to pass Bill C-72 at top speed without giving other Members of this House a chance to comment? Would he have been willing to treat this issue without the care it deserves? Would he have agreed to expedite a Bill through the House, to ram it through in a hurry to avoid any possible controversy? I hardly think so, but I am asking him just the same. Quite frankly, would the Hon. Member have agreed to let this Bill be passed with three speakers and an hour's debate on a Friday afternoon?


Gabriel Desjardins: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his comment and question.
The question is adressed to me. I would rather ask those groups concerned across the country. In the final analysis, they are the ones, I believe, who will voice their opinions, once they are made aware of the facts. And as far as I am concerned, their opinion is the one that counts. I must say to the Hon. Member that I am not convinced that these groups would have opposed a decision taken in the context you have just described, since they are not so much concerned with the duration of this debate, which may last several days if necessary, as with the resulting legislation and its implementation. And in saying this, I am sure that I am in no way misrepresenting the opinions of those to whom this question could be put. I therefore wish to see this Bill adopted as quickly as possible. What form will the debate take?
If you insist on hearing every Hon. Member who wishes to speak, there will be no end to the debate, in my opinion at least. 1 do not think that such a course of action would serve the national interest. If you wish the kind of debate we normally have, then 1 believe you will get what you want. I am convinced, as I have said before, that the debate will take place in the coming weeks and that it will take the form that the Government so chooses.


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in congratulating the Co-Chairman of the Joint Committee on Official Languages, the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue

January 25, 1988
Adjournment Motion
(Mr. Desjardins), for doing such marvelous work on that committee and, particularly. Madam Speaker, for following in the footsteps of the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) who performed an exceptional and gigantic task in that area.
1 have a comment to make and a small question to put to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins). 1 quote what Mr. Michel Roy wrote in La Presse of June 30, 1987: "Thanks to that new legislation, Canadians will finally be able to communicate more easily with federal institutions and get services in the official language they prefer. The new legislation also gives government employees better opportunities to work in their own language in federal institutions, something which many of them could not do until now. In the area of justice, access to federal courts of law will be assured to Canadians in either official language. Everywhere, and no longer in a few provinces, they will be able to use French or English in oral or written proceedings. From now on the Official Language Commissioner will be able to initiate investigations, offer his mediation and present reports on compliance with the spirit and the letter of the law. In cases where complaints are not resolved, a judicial appeal will also be provided."
Madam Speaker, that being said, I will be very brief. Does the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue think the people who appeared in committee and the Canadian people in general are more interested in the passing and implementation of that Bill than seeing a number of Liberal Members rise one after the other to say in their speeches that is really a good Bill? What is more important for the Canadian people, Madam Speaker? 1 would like the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue to explain it to us. Is it the enactment of the legislation or listening to Members in the House?


Gabriel Desjardins: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Chambly (Mr. Grise) for his comments. It is true that if you ask French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and all minority language groups in the country, they will tell you quite frankly and honestly, I think, that they want the Bill passed. They are not concerned about the way it will be passed, they have no use for the mechanics of the thing. We want the Government to pass the Bill as quickly as possible. I recall what the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was saying this morning. He wanted a quick debate to take place very shortly. We have offered that opportunity, but it was refused. Now the opposition would like us to bring that legislation up for debate, but they should have made up their mind earlier.
We had made a proposition which was refused for various reasons, but eventually, as I said earlier, we will come back to this Bill, because it is tremendously important for Canada, for the identity of the country, for both cultures, to give Canadians a new pride in their country and the chance to live in the language of their ancestors.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of ajournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mrs. McLaughlin)- Regional Industrial Expansion-Northern development- Government Policy/Consultation Process; the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig)-Agriculture-Special Canadian Grains Program-Coverage of irrigation farmers; the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell)- Visible minorities-Citizens of Chinese origin-Past injustices.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gauthier:
That this House condemns the government for its inaction, its lack of political will and its hesitation to accept debate in the House of Commons, at the second reading stage, on Bill C-72 respecting the status and use of the official languages, thus causing a clear setback in the application of the Act by federal departments and agencies, in addition to having detrimental effects on national unity.
Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased this afternoon to take part in this debate concerning the official languages. First of all, I should like to congragulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for the excellent motion he has moved today. Madam Speaker, it is clear that the Members of this House-most of them, if not all of them-support this bill, but we are all aware that a number of Tory Members do not. But when the majority supports a legislation, two things are needed: first, a little more courage on the part of Government to go ahead with the second reading. That is exactly why the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier called the attention of the House on this debate. It is to make the Government realize that the Official Languages Act is an issue in which Canadians are very much interested and that most Members of the House, with the exception of course of a few Tory Members, want to adopt this bill.
Madam Speaker, I do not intend to deal with this issue in an overly partisan manner. Because you know me better than that, you realize that I should like first of all to deal with the issue of official languages. But this morning, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and a number of other Government
January 25, 1988

Members, including the Hon. Member for Chambly (Mr. Grise), as Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister, chose to blame the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier. . . You can imagine the gall of a Tory member blaming the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for his contribution in the area of official languages! Just as the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) for that matter, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has done a tremendous job on this issue. I see that someone is rising on a point of order.


Richard Grisé: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


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


Richard Grisé: Madam Speaker, I listened to my friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). I never questioned the capacity and the work of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier this morning. I asked him the following question: What has his government done from 1980 to 1984? What has his government, the then Liberal Government, done, as far as official languages are concerned, from 1980 to 1984, Madam Speaker, since I never-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair appreciates the Hon. Member's remark but it was not a point of order. The Hon. Member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am wondering how come the Hon. Member, the parliamentary secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: The Hon. Member for Chambly.


Don Boudria: -the Hon. Member for Chambly-I thank my colleagues for reminding me-has such a short memory that he does not even remember the criticism he has made this morning. I suggest that he reads Hansard tomorrow and rather slowly at that so that he be able to understand what he has said.
So, 1 was mentioning the extraordinary contribution of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) in the official languages field and I was saying that we could also praise the contribution of the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), who has chaired the Official Languages Committee to which I attend regularly when it is not sitting at the same time as the committe of which I am a member.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, as we know, has been and still is a member of the Richelieu Club, has been a school board commissioner and has worked for many years in the field of the official languages, has even been elected Man of the Year, Madam Speaker, in 1970, by the Junior Chamber of Commerce, and has been chairman of the Official Languages Committee for many years. So, Madam Speaker, you see and I trust all Members except the one for Chambly (Mr. Grise) have seen that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier has done a good job, and I think it was my duty to mention it here
Supply
today if only in case other Hon. Members, following the example of the Hon. Member for Chambly, would question the competence of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier.
At last, we are talking about the question of official languages. Some were asking: What has the Liberal Party done in the field of official languages? Can you imagine once again the ignorance of some Conservative Members, of some ministers indeed who do not even remember the Liberal contribution! I have in front of me the five volume report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, the so-called B & B Commission, which was active in the 1960s, and which had been appointed by Prime Minister Pearson to look at the whole official languages issue; it is as a result of that very famous report that we have developed a very much needed official languages policy in our country, a policy which was finally implemented because of a Liberal initiative many years ago.
A few years later, in 1969 I believe, this House passed the Official Languages Act which gave English and French equal status in this country. And we will recall, as was mentioned this morning by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, the private member's motion, the 1973 resolution which not only reasserted the principle in the Official Languages Act, but also made clear the right of public servants to carry out their duties in the official language of their choice. However, I have to admit that this principle I just stated has not yet been implemented entirely, even today, even under this government, although they might want to brag about it. We know all too well that francophone unilinguals the public service of our country, particularly within the RCMP and other government agencies, will advance much less than anglophone unilinguals. I think we all agree on that. That is the sad reality. But I think all members of this House are unanimously willing to improve that situation, and the Standing Committee on Official Languages has looked at that issue. I have myself attended many meetings where that question was addressed, for example in relation to the RCMP as well as other police forces.
In 1978, the Liberal Government implemented the Court Challenges Program to provide financial support to Canadians who wished to have their linguistic rights recognized by the courts. Hon. Members will recall that a number of Canadians in Manitoba made use of such services to obtain recognition of their historic rights which had been ignored for nearly 30 years.
Finally, in 1979, the Conservative Government created the Official Languages Committee, but this Committee was not unable to hold any meetings. In 1980, the Liberal Government re-established the committee and appointed as its chairman the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, whom we still have the pleasure of having among us today.
Bill C-72 is without doubt the most important official languages reform since the original piece of legislation in 1969.

January 25, 1988
Supply
Why would the Government try to stifle the debate and ask that there be only one spokesman for each political party represented in this House? In view of the importance of Bill C-72, I have to ask mysef a serious question: Why would the Government not want to have a few days of debate on such a Bill in this House?
I see before me the Hon. Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andre) who took up so much of the time of this House to discuss his famous Bill C-22, which is going to make large multinationals richer at the expense of low and middle income Canadians. I have to ask myself whether it would not have been preferable to take a few days to examine Bill C-72 instead.
I also have in mind another Bill, the one suggesting that Canada was being invaded by refugees last summer, a Bill which most Canadians have already forgotten. Why did the House not take a few of those wasted days to discuss Bill C-72? It had already been introduced. As a society, would we not have gained more by examining Bill C-72 than by discussing the so-called Refugee Bill, which has now been forgotten? I am certain that all Hon. Members would agree that Bill C-72 is more important than those I have just mentioned.
Yet, when the curtain was coming down last June, the Government wanted to close the session by giving second reading to Bill C-72. What would have happened then? The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier would have been allowed to speak to this important bill, one NDP Member, the Minister responsible for the Official Languages Act, but nobody else. Even the chairman of the official languages committee would have been unable to make a few comments on such an important bill. Madam Speaker, imagine the scenario as the Government saw it last June: even the chairman of the official languages committee would have been prevented from taking the floor on Bill C-72, the reform concerning the official languages of Canada, all Members of the Committee on Official Languages as well as those Conservative backbenchers who do not support the Official Languages Act would also have been prevented from having their say. This may have been the strategy of the Conservative Government. Perhaps the strategy of the Government was to allow only one Conservative Member to speak, just so the other Government Members who were against the measure would not have the opportunity to rise in the House and express the views of their constituents.
I do not agree with the Conservative Members who are against the Official Languages Act, but still I think they have the right to be heard in this House even though I simply do not see eye to eye with them. Their constituents sent them here to Parliament Hill to speak and express their aspirations. Should a Member decide that his role is to speak out against Bill C-72, I will feel bad about his speech, I will go as far as condemning his remarks, but indeed I will respect the Hon. Member's right to say what he thinks.
Madam Speaker, we Members of the Liberal Party are not alone when it comes to questioning such delays on the part of the Government. I have here an article from the Journal de Montreal dated November 27, 1987 intitled:
Official Languages: Concern over Ottawa's procrastiration
And that article states precisely the following situation, and 1 quote:
The Conservative Hon. Member for Richelieu Mr. Louis Plamondon explained that discussions were still going on within the Conservative Caucus concerning the objective and modes of implementation of the Bill.
I quote:
This is not a priority for some people, he said, before adding that there was no systematic opposition to the Bill in the Caucus. "There will always be debates, he indicated. Some will still be discussing when we have reached third reading, and they might back down our vote for this Bill."
Then, even a Government Member recognized that some of his colleagues were not in favour of this Bill, although he said there would be no obstruction on their part in the House.
However, it is important to note that the Government did back down not because more than one member of the Opposition wanted to speak but because the Government was concerned about the speeches of Government Members and not of members of the Opposition.
That is a legislation that may be of a very rare nature, in the sense that Opposition Members I believe, all those I know at any rate, support the Bill, while objections or opposition would rather seem to come from certain Government Members.
What caused that opposition? This is rather difficult to explain. Madam Speaker, but I would remind you that last summer we had here in Ontario a provincial election. The whole issue of official languages was raised during that election. For a long time, some Liberal MLA's had been wanting Ontario statute that would guarantee the provision of services in French. I was one of those, Madam Speaker, during the 1981-84 period, when I was a Member of the Legislative Assembly. On a number of occasions I requested an Act to guarantee French services in Ontario. At that time, the then Conservative Government declined, it denied French-speaking Ontarians that privilege to be served in their language, in their own province, where a large number, especially in my constituency, had been living for generations. In my constituency indeed, Madam Speaker, we still have the Municipality of the Township of Longueuil which, as you probably surmised, was the Seigniory of Longueuil before the 1791 Constitutional Act. Imagine, living in 1983-84 in the Township, of Longueuil and having to ask the Ontario Government for the right to be served in the official language, a right that existed since the 1784 Quebec Act in that same area.
At any rate, that is an issue that we raised at the Legislative Assembly at the time, and when the Ontario people recognized the time had come to change Governments in Ontario-and God knows the time was ripe after 42 years, eight months and some odd days-the people elected a Liberal Government that lost no time in enacting a statute ensuring French services in

Ontario. But there was a small group in Ontario called "The Alliance for the Preservation of English in Canada", and that group decided to go to work so to speak against an Ontario act ensuring French services. And during last year's provincial elections, they got support from the then leader of the Ontario Conservative Party, Mr. Larry Grossman.


Marcel Prud'homme: What arrogance!


Don Boudria: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is right: it takes a lot of arrogance to prevent French-speaking Ontarians from getting what they had expected for so long. But even so, the situation, as it happened, fueled discussion in certain areas and I think that some government members in this House who oppose the Official Languages Act have been inspired by those discussions that took place last summer. The Hon. Member for Chambly is certainly not one of them but I urge him to talk to some of his colleagues from Ontario and he will realize like me that it is true.
I am sure the Hon. Member for Chambly wants this bill to be passed. But, like the others, like the Hon. Member for Temiscamingue who was addressing us earlier, like the other government members in this House, he would certainly not want this Official Languages Bill, which is central to the preservation of the bilingual character of this country, to be passed by the House after only three of 282 Hon. Members have been heard.
Madam Speaker, last year we held a debate that 1 would describe as useless on capital punishment, which lasted countless days in the House when it should not have been held in the first place because the issue had been settled a decade before. If such were the case last year with capital punishment, why not then dedicate a few days to Bill C-72, a bill of capital importance, I might say, as far as this country and its citizens are concerned.
That is the proposition we have before us today. The Government introduced a Bill in June of last year with the avowed intention of adopting the proposed legislation. As a matter of fact, the Bill was introduced with great fanfare. The opposition Parties in this House gave the Bill their support. However, there is now an unwillingness on the part of the Government to proceed with this legislation.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I invite the Government to put this Bill on its agenda for it is the role of the Government House Leader to ensure that this legislation proceeds. I hope the Government recovers some of its courage. If the Government House Leader has a problem with the Conservative Members of Parliament who are not in favour of this Bill he can give us their names and we can assist him by lobbying them. We want to be co-operative, as the Opposition always is.
Supply
I want to take this opportunity to state again my support for this Bill and my condemnation of the Government for refusing to proceed with it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to enter into this debate. 1 want to preface my remarks by advising my hon. colleague who just spoke that assistance from that particular Member is about the last thing one would need if one were governing anything. That was probably made evident by Premier Peterson's relief when the Member left the Ontario Legislature.


Don Boudria: Be nice.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I can assure him that we have absolutely no need of any assistance from him.


Don Boudria: Well, no more Mr. Nice Guy.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I reject outright the premises in this particular motion. I reject any suggestion that there is inaction on the part of the Government. I reject any suggestion of lack of political will, and I suggest to the Hon. Member that there is absolutely no way that the actions of the Government are having any detrimental effects on national unity.
If one wants to deal with national unity one should remember that it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who unified the country under the Meech Lake agreement.


Don Boudria: Brian saved Canada?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No, I said it and the country is saying it. Just to be clear about that, the country knows who made that deal work. It was our Prime Minister because the previous Prime Minister failed. That is who is saying it. They are saying it not only about Meech Lake but about the free trade consultations. Whether or not the Hon. Member likes free trade, he should bear in mind that there has been no suggestion from any Premiers, Liberal, NDP, or Conservative, that they were not consulted at the Premiers' level or the bureaucratic level.
Take as an example the legislation which allows all provinces to co-operate to chase people who are not making maintenance and alimony payments. We created that by cooperation and unity. It was not only through the legislation but through the atmosphere we created. To put a motion on the floor suggesting that the Government is doing anything to disrupt national unity, when you look at our record, is nonsense.
The Hon. Member is suggesting that we are not plowing ahead with legislation. I point out to my hon. friend that in the previous Parliament 229 pieces of legislation were introduced and 179 were passed in four and one-half years. We have introduced 232 pieces of legislation, up until today, and passed 181. That is in three and a half years.


Don Boudria: That is because of the excellent co-operation of the Opposition.

January 25, 1988
Supply


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is the Opposition that has made the allegation that we are not dealing with legislation. Let us look at the Order Paper. There are nine Bills ahead of Bill C-72 on the Order Paper. There are only three of those on which we have not commenced debate. Just look at the record. We are moving along and passing legislation. To suggest that there is any hesitation or lack of political will by the Government on this particular piece of legislation is nonsense. The record will bear out the fact that we are proceeding on all the items of legislation mentioned in Throne Speeches, as my hon. friend from Ottawa-Vanier so ably indicated this morning.
We offered to get this legislation into committee and give it detailed study. My hon. friend cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that we are delaying it and then, when we go to him and say that we will proceed with it, say that he does not like the way-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. The Minister just made a statement which is false. He did not offer to have the Bill go into committee. He offered to have it passed in one hour on Friday afternoon with three speakers. If he denies that, Madam Speaker, he is not an honest person. That is what he offered.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend may have misunderstood me. It was never a suggestion of mine that it not go to committee. Let us be realistic.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You offered three speakers, one hour.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Into committee.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I said no to that.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: My hon. friend may have misunderstood me.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There were witnesses there.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: No there weren't.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes there were.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Well, trot them out.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: They happen to be people from your shop and my shop.


Marcel Prud'homme: I don't understand why everybody is so nervous.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Who is nervous?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair would appreciate very much if two-way conversations were not held in the middle of debate. It would be very helpful.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Just to repeat it, Madam Speaker, the proposition put to the opposition Parties was that there would be one speaker from each Party and then it would go into committee.


Don Boudria: One speaker? That means I don't have the right to speak?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You just spoke.
In any event, Madam Speaker, I repeat the offer. We intend to deal with this legislation whether or not the Opposition puts up a lot of speakers to delay getting it into committee. We are prepared to move this legislation into committee. We are prepared to speak to it. We are prepared to deal with it. We put it on the Order Paper, something which, I would point out, the Hon. Member's Party never did while he was sitting there pushing it to do so.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to be clear, as the Member of Parliament representing the largest number of francophones outside of Quebec anywhere in Canada, that the Minister has just said that under his formula I would not have been permitted to speak on this Bill. 1 want to confirm that that is in fact the case.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I point out to my hon. friend who spent some time in the Ontario Legislature, that we also have a stage called third reading. My hon. friend may want to stick around some day and see third reading at which people speak. The deal was to get it to committee.
I appreciate that there is some unease on that side because we brought forward this legislation. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) was quoted at length, congratulating the Minister for doing it. We want all of that on the record as well. I appreciate his embarrassment on that matter. However, that deals with the legislative aspect. I can assure my hon. friend that we have every intention of proceeding with this legislation and sending it to committee. There will be discussion at second reading, there will be full examination of it at committee and it will be brought forward just as all other legislation we have on the Order Paper has been processed.
Let me take a moment to illustrate what the Government has done under the auspices of Treasury Board to further official languages. We have not spared any effort in the area of language training. During the financial year 1985-86, we conducted an in depth study of the support mechanisms for this official languages policy.

The Government language training program was established so that ministers could find the bilingual staff they need to fulfill their responsibilities. This program also allows French or English speaking Canadians a better access to employment in the federal Public Service.

More than 34,000 public servants have received language training since 1974. We have a sizable pool of bilingual employees in the Public Service, which is now large enough
January 25, 1988

that in 80 per cent of the cases employees actually meet bilingual requirements at the time the positions are staffed. It is to take into account this improvement that the Government has undertaken a review of the over-all orientation of the language training program.
We are aiming at increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the program while permitting an over-all access to this very important resource. We believe that it is essential to maintain generous access to this program. We want to be sure that members of the Public Service can undertake second language courses at government expense and during working hours. That is part of the commitment which has been made by the Treasury Board.
From April 1, 1987, we have undertaken a massive program to verify the level of bilingualism of all employees who receive the bilingual bonus. We have a double objective in this respect. On the one hand we want to ensure that employees can offer services of a good quality in either of the official languages because we believe that Canadians have the right to communicate in either official language with their federal institution. On the other hand, we also want to ensure that the bilingual bonus is only paid to employees who deserve it and who can meet the bilingualism requirements of their positions.
At the present time some 55,800 employees receive the bonus. Of this number, about 7,800 have a level of bilingualism which is well beyond the language requirement of their position. It makes it costly and in fact useless to retest them. However, all other bonus recipients must take the new second language test over the next three years to confirm their linguistic proficiency. Those who fail obviously will no longer receive the bonus, and the manager must re-examine the position and the employees. The incumbent will then be offered additional training to reach the required level of competence.
We also examined Government scientific activities, an area where we wanted to improve the bilingual aspect. We established a committee of senior science managers from across the Government to review the success of Treasury Board strategies to ensure equitable participation of English and Frenchspeaking Canadians.
The committee has been assembled and includes a senior official from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages and will also advise on further changes to policy should the need for these become apparent.
Let me stress that these efforts are in line with our commitment as expressed in Bill C-72. We are committed to ensuring equal access to appointment and advancement in federal institutions for English and French-speaking Canadians. We are also committed to ensuring that the composition of the workforce of federal institutions tends to reflect the presence of both official language communities of Canada, and takes into account the characteristics of individual institutions.
Supply
We have taken steps through Treasury Board in the field of information technology and office automation. Our officials are consulting with the industry on their ability to enhance the bilingual capability of the systems they supply to the federal Government.
We are also taking steps to ensure the implementation of our policies by all federal agencies.
We have a new management philosophy which involves an increase in the decision-making authority of Ministers as well as their accountability. In this respect, the annual plans are replaced with letters of understanding between the Departments and Treasury Board. The letter of understanding will be prepared after consultation between the Department and the Treasury Board. It will be an understanding of exactly how the Department will implement a better representation of both official languages in that particular Department. They will deal with specific areas, specific objectives and we will expect concrete results from those objectives.

At the end of each year, we will receive progress reports on objectives based on a comprehensive analysis of Ministers' strong and weak points.

Treasury Board will be able to review these plans, or even take additional measures such as inviting a Deputy Minister to discuss progress or lack of progress in his or her Department. That will take place every year.
We believe that the three-year planning system will strengthen our initiatives, facilitate the implementation of policies in federal institutions, given that letters of understanding will provide a framework for planning and accountability.
No letter of understanding will be signed if a Department or agency does not have in place an adequate system for information gathering, for assessment, for monitoring and auditing. It must also use the necessary measures to be able to report annually to the Treasury Board.
We have also undertaken many audit-related initiatives recently. In 1985, there was a management accountability review of departmental official languages implementation. It covered over 60 Departments and agencies. We examined the management of the program and made formal recommendations where necessary.
The Treasury Board has conducted and continues to conduct follow-ups in these organizations to ensure compliance with government policies.
We are undertaking consultations with other audit centres in Government, including the Comptroller General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, and the Public Service Commission to ensure that duplication is avoided while the official languages aspect is in one way or another covered adequately.

January 25, 1988
Supply
We believe that the Treasury Board Secretariat has provided detailed guidance to Public Service managers on how to monitor and how to audit their official languages program.
In order to facilitate their work we have prepared and distributed a management review guide. As well, internal auditors in federal Departments are being given information sessions on official languages and the auditing of same. We have tried to develop government-wide policies on official languages and recommend them to Cabinet for implementation. The legislative framework which we propose in Bill C-72 would see the Treasury Board continuing its policy creation role as well as expanding it to include issuing regulations or recommending them to the Governor in Council in several areas.
1 say to Hon. Members that since the tabling of Bill C-72 we have had our officials developing regulatory proposals in consultation with a wide variety of federal institutions. In this way we will be able to undertake at the appropriate time consultations with the various people involved with official languages to meet the requirements of the Bill.
Treasury Board is providing the leadership with the Public Service to allow for the discharge of responsibilities under the official languages policy and under Bill C-72. We feel that we have demonstrated our commitment, not only through our legislative program but by bringing the Bill forward and putting it on the Order Paper. One thing that is far too often forgotten is this. Legislation is a matter of a Government taking a decision to do something and formulating that policy into a law. The law is then printed on what is called first reading.
This is a large country in which it takes some time to get information out. No matter how often it is published or referred to or how many brochures are printed it takes a while to disseminate this information. As with other Bills we have to have public debate and parliamentary debate. There has to be media debate as well. I make no apologies for allowing this debate to take place, or for allowing different interested groups to think about legislation and to get back to us.
My hon. friend wants to move forward quickly. He suggests a lack of commitment. I suggest to him that there is absolutely no lack of commitment. There is a commitment on the part of the Government not only to this Bill but to listen to people. Where it is proven that it is necessary to take into account ideas for changes in legislation we will act. We have done that before, and we intend to do it again.
1 urge the House to reject this motion out of hand. In view of the number of Members that are here today, I am sorry that we will not vote on this so that we could reject it very vividly for my hon. friend and put into place the actual situation.
I wish to close with this comment. The Government is committed to an official languages policy as expressed in Bill
C-72. If my friend would just be patient we will put it through with or without his co-operation.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have a question to ask of the Minister which relates to his last comment. He said that his Government will ensure that this Bill will be passed. Can he tell us on what date the Bill will be put to the House for debate on second reading?
The Minister knows, as 1 know, that there are rules and regulations that have to be written to go along with the Bill. He knows that that will take time. To put those regulations in place in an appropriate amount of time the Bill must be passed soon. Is he ready to pass this Bill at second reading this week or at the beginning of next week? If he is, I will give him the assurance that the Opposition will co-operate to the best of our ability. Members of the Opposition will want to be heard. It cannot be as he suggests, one speaker from each Party. That may be sufficient for him. We do not accept that because at that time those who want to express a view on the principles of this Bill at second reading must be heard. It would not be proper for anyone to railroad this Bill through second reading with but one speaker from each Party.
Is the Minister ready to tell us when the Bill will be brought forward? Does he not appreciate that this is an urgent matter that presses upon the House so that the regulations that are required can be written into law before the next election?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, with respect to the first question, 1 point out to my hon. friend that we are proceeding apace with legislation and trying to fit everything in, trying to give enough advance notice so that everyone can speak on particular Bills. Sometimes things go faster than I expect, and other times things are slowed down. I expect that we will be in a position to commence second reading within the next few weeks.
As to the second part of my hon. friend's question, I do not always expect that he listens to everything I say, but I believe that in the text of my remarks I pointed out that we have been looking at the regulations which would go apace with this Bill. Obviously, one of the reasons that legislation is printed is to allow for it to be debated, as I have suggested, in the media, in Parliament and by members of the public.
There is another place that legislation is debated as well, that is to say by the people who are in charge of administering it. I can assure my hon. friend that we are taking advice from people who have an interest in the legislation internally and that that process is proceeding.
While it would be nice to have the Bill passed and then start the process, it is fair to say, as with a great many things, that one starts with a review of the regulations, something that has already started. I think my hon. friend will find that when his Party finally lets this Bill pass we will proceed quickly with the regulations.
January 25, 1988


Fernand Robichaud: Madam Speaker, I only want to direct a question to the hon. Minister. Why should it take a few more weeks as he say? Another few weeks and we will adjourn for one week, which means some more delay. So, why wait since we, in the opposition, are prepared to go ahead with that bill right now, when every French organizations, Francophones outside Quebec, Alliance-Quebec and Canadian Parents for French want the Government to go ahead with that piece of legislation as soon as possible? Why wait then? Why make us wait some more for a legislation that everybody wants?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I have no problem with that piece of legislation. I have one with other laws. It is a matter of organizing all the legislation. But that one is not a problem. You should see our schedule.

-what we have passed and what we have in front of us, the Hon. Member will see that we are proceeding apace, as 1 indicated earlier, faster than the previous Parliament. When one reviews the record one will see that we are proceeding faster than have previous Parliaments as well. We have no problems whatsoever with our record.
I assure the Hon. Member that within the next weeks we will bring this forward for second reading. We will put it into committee. Hopefully, with his co-operation, we will be able to get it out of committee, through report stage and on to third reading.
The Government does not put items on the Order Paper to let them fall off it. Look at the record. Prior to No. 72 there were only nine that we have not passed. Three of those are the only ones that we have not got out of second reading. I am not going to apologize for a thing. We have passed everything up to No. 72 except for nine Bills, and three of those are in committee or at third reading stage. Look at our record. Do not worry, it will come.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have one comment on the last statement of the Minister. It is, indeed, because the Opposition has been very co-operative that this Government has been able to pass its legislation. I would like to remind Members that on Friday we passed four pieces of legislation which are very important Bills. They were passed because we were in agreement with the Government on the purpose and objectives. That is the point of this debate. We think that the principle of this Bill is excellent. We agree with the Government. We said to the Government it has been three and a half years, what is it waiting for? The Government said that it would table the Bill.
I have a record of the questions that I have put to the Government over the last three and a half years. I could read them, but we would be here until midnight tonight. There have been 18 questions put in the House asking the Government to
Supply
move on this subject. Finally, on June 25, 1987 the Government moved.
The Minister snaps his suspenders and says, "Aren't we good?" 1 say, "Yes, because we co-operated with the Government". We will co-operate with the Government at any time to pass good legislation, just don't try and pass bad legislation because we will not agree with that. We are saying to the Government now that this is good legislation, come across. We are offering co-operation, support, and our help. What else does the Government need?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: 1 heard my hon. friend count the number of times he asked the Government to pass this legislation. I wonder if he would be good enough to tell the House how many times, while he was here from 1972, he asked his Party to pass legislation. I wonder if he would make us privy to the number of times that he failed to get the Liberal Party to bring forward this progressive legislation. That we do not hear. That we do not want trotted out, do we, my friend from Ottawa- Vanier?
We remember his annoyance with the Liberal Government of the day that it would not move on progressive legislation. Tomorrow he will have an opportunity to deal with another piece of legislation. I challenge my hon. friend to give us that same co-operation tomorrow that he suggested he is prepared to give today.
All of our legislation has been good legislation. That is why it is passed so quickly.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I just remind the Minister, in a very friendly way and co-operatively, that between 1982 and 1983 we actually passed in this House a constitutional amendment. It talked about what I called in my speech this morning "administrative bilingualism". It talked about parliamentary, judicial, and school bilingualism. Now it is all in the Constitution. That was a reaction to much pressure by some people in this country on the Government of the day. I agree with the Hon. Minister that sometimes one has to push and push hard to get majorities to move.
I am very happy to tell him today that, with the help of members of his caucus in the Official Languages Committee, we succeeded in getting the numerous reports of that committee. I think there are in total 17 or 18 reports that have been tabled over the years by the committee. Most of them were accepted by the Government, both the Government of Mr. Trudeau and the present Government.
That was a result of consensus, and because of that consensus we now have a Bill which is a good Bill. I am offering the Minister my full co-operation. But I do not think that it is proper for him to impose his iron fist and say that "no one speaks except those I decide". I say that everybody has the right to speak. That is democracy.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry).

January 25, 1988
Supply


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, 1 welcome this opportunity today, as New Democratic Party spokesman on the Official Languages Committee, to rise in the House and offer my comments on the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). As the Minister of State indicated earlier, I am sure that one of the Hon. Member's motives in moving this motion was his frustration at not, at least not yet being able to determine the Government's legislative agenda. Nevertheless, Madam Speaker, it is a sign of the Hon. Member's continuing dedication to the issue of official languages that he felt he had to present the motion before the House today.
Madam Speaker, I see the former Joint Chairman of the Official Languages Committee is waiting his turn, and 1 don't deprive him of this opportunity to comment on the motion. The fact that this motion is before us today may also be partly due to an article that appeared in Le Devoir on Saturday which stated that the Prime Minister had decided to move quickly on the issue of official languages. According to reporter Michel Vastel, the Prime Minister's principal collaborator had indicated the Bill would be passed in a matter of weeks. I was surprised that Mr. Vastel reported this phrase Government spokesmen are very fond of using in referring to the Government's legislative agenda, especially since he went on to say that Francophone associations outside Quebec and the Commissioner of Official Languages were afraid the Official Languages Bill would die with the Government.
Madam Speaker, I have no reason to doubt the Minister of State's assurances that the Bill will be tabled in the House for second reading in a matter of weeks. However, ever since I became a Member of this House, 1 have seen weeks turn into months and months into years. I would rest a lot easier if the Government were to set a deadline for tabling this Bill.
Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, as a Member of his Government's caucus and in the present caucus of the Official Opposition in recent years, has worked to promote the cause of bilingualism in Canada. The preamble to the present Bill also contains many proposals that we in the New Democratic Party would have no trouble supporting. For instance, the federal Government undertook to achieve, with due regard to the principle of selection of personnel according to merit, full participation of English-speaking Canadians and French-speaking Canadians in its institutions. Also in the preamble, the government recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages. I will return to this point later.
The Government is also committed to cooperating with provincial governments and their institutions to support the development of English and French linguistic minority communities, to provide services in both English and French, to respect the constitutional guarantees of minority language
educational rights and to enhance opportunities for all to learn both English and French.
Madam Speaker, these are objectives which are no different from those of the NDP and the Governement, and I am sure the Official Opposition agrees to them. The problem of, course, is to start from these principles to come up in concrete terms to a bill that will be acceptable to this Chamber. I will not add my own suspicions, but the reporter that I quoted earlier says that a fraction of the Conservative caucus does not want the government to proceed with this Bill.
Madam Speaker, the specific question of course is: When will this Bill be studied at second reading and sent to committee? I and my Party cannot agree to a short Friday afternoon debate. The matter is important enough to justify a serious examination both in the House and in committee.
Madam Speaker, I wish at this point to briefly examine the history of official bilingualism in Canada. Everyone knows, everyone remembers, those who lived in Canada at the time, that there was some degree of political unrest, let us say, in our country and specially in the province of Quebec, with regard to society, culture and language and that all conclusions are not to be dismissed and that the issues raised are not all resolved yet.
We have had difficulty in the past to recognize what is now described as the French fact in Canada. Looking back on the work done some 30 years ago by the Tremblay commission in Quebec, we can recall that what was put to the test at the time was the province of Quebec's primary responsibility with regard to cultural and social policy and the survival of the francophone community in Quebec.
I will recall, if I may, a few experiences which occurred to me when 1 came to Canada almost 18 years ago. I came to Canada with the idea, the impression that 1 was coming to a bilingual country where I would discover that most people- most Canadians were bilingual. Obviously, I was therefore slightly disappointed and quickly lost any illusions 1 had in that regard. Once in Montreal, at Dorval airport as a new immigrant, I attempted to answer the immigration officer in French. After a brief exchange, he asked for my passport and as I handed it to him, he flattered me to some degree perhaps, madam Speaker, by commenting that he had thought I was a Belgian, whereas I was merely an English immigrant doing his very best to answer in French when questions were asked in French.
Having spent two years in Montreal, 1 have had the opportunity of course to develop an awareness of the true nature of things and 1 remain, to this day, somewhat astounded by the degree of solitude, as it is described, which I have encountered in that great city where I received such a warm welcome to Canada. Indeed, in the two years I spent in Montreal I did not meet more than a few Anglophones who, in my opinion, spoke French better than I. I was then struck by the fact that in that not exactly bilingual society, in that community where the two languages co-exist, Francophones
January 25, 1988

have and have had to make greater efforts than Anglophones to make themselves understood.
I am speaking, Madam Speaker, of a psychological situation in which an individual finds himself when he realizes he has to learn and use a second language in most of his dealings with others, and realizes at the same time that someone else considers the knowledge of a second language as an option which he may accept or reject. If, Madam Speaker, there are people in our country who admit the existence of bilingualism gives Francophones a competitive edge in getting a job with the federal government or any other business, it is not up to us to conclude that advantage exists because French-speaking Canadians, Francophones, have been more or less forced in the past to make greater efforts than their English-speaking fellow citizens.
That need to make a much bigger effort is twice as great in communities where Francophones are a minority such as the Franco-Ontarian and Franco-Albertan, to name only those.
Madam Speaker, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism recommended that Canada become officially bilingual, and for some twenty years now we have been working at improving the situation without getting to the level of improvement that would satisfy everybody. Presumably we will never be able to satisfy everybody in that context. However, 1 think we have come to a point where the reality of a bicultural, bilingual country is accepted and it is only as to the degree, the extent of that acceptance that we have major differences.
Madam Speaker, I would like to briefly return to the matter of other languages, which is referred to in the legislation. I have in my constituency a good 30 per cent of people whose mother tongue is neither French nor English. Most of them, perhaps 25 per cent, have a native mother tongue. I would like to ask Hon. Members and all Canadians to consider the situation of those who have a native mother tongue. We boast too much of being a bilingual country. Of course we are a multilingual country, but officially we are bilingual, it is not good enough for our natives to hear that myth of the two founding peoples which oftentimes is linked to bilingualism, because basically this is still a myth and a legend, an accepted story that is just the same offensive to some extent for members of the first nations in our great country.
Madam Speaker, my colleague for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) referred this morning to the situation, the inertia among institutions. This is a fact. 1 believe that inertia is very hard to overcome-it will always be a struggle to ensure the principle that services in the official language of one's choice should be available throughout the country. I am convinced we are grateful that in some areas of the country, there are only very small minorities whose mother tongue is the other official language and it is often very difficult, even among civil servants who want to serve the minority language community. Even for those civil servants this is often difficult in view of the volume of demand and the urge to maintain one's own
Supply
strength, especially when they are of the other mother tongue and they were trained in the second language in that area.
Madam Speaker, we have institutions whose goal is to support and develop bilingualism in Canada, mainly of course the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Joint Committee. This is the only Joint Committee on which I sat and of which I wanted to be a part, in view of my own views on the Senate, but at any rate it is a Committee that did a very needed and demanding job, especially in the area of official bilingualism.
Madam Speaker, my colleagues and I have often noticed, during sittings of the committee, that there were shortcomings as far as bilingualism is concerned. In some Government or semi-Government institutions there is a mentality which tends to negate the equality of both official languages.
We have also to consider and correct the situation which exists in certain parts of the country, where it is extremely difficult for someone born outside the majority group, the dominant linguistic group, to find employment in the federal or provincial Public Service.
To conclude, Madam Speaker, I wish to emphasize the point I was making earlier. Bill C-72 is too important to be passed expeditiously by the House, following some kind of agreement, it is too important to be treated like that, but I would like the Government to react to the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and present its Bill to the House for second reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions and comments. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) has the floor.


Mr. Charles Hamelin (Charlevoix):: Madam Speaker, each time I rise to speak about linguistic issues, and especially the linguistic duality of Canada, I feel that I am touching on the very fabric of this country, on the best of what makes Canada what it is. It is Canada in its Sunday best. Today I would like to speak about Bill C-72. Naturally, I agree with my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), who praised this Bill with some reluctance earlier, but whose feelings I share to a very large extent. I believe that the Hon. Member would probably deserve the title of "First Defender of the Canadian Linguistic Duality", and I seriously believe that we should consider putting up a monument to him now rather than later, as, with the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), and many others from all political parties, especially the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier has shown constant determination to bring out the best in Canada make this country what all Canadians would like it to be.
I am therefore rather surprised at the position taken today by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier. I understand that he belongs to an Opposition party and that it is traditional for the Opposition to move motions that condemn the Government and to use terms such as inaction, lack of political will and

January 25, 1988
Supply
hesitation. In this case the motion gives the impression of cowardice on the part of the Government by accusing it threatening the national unity because Bill C-72 has not yet been debated at the second reading stage.
Hon. Members will know that the fabric of this country is a very sensitive issue. It was not so long ago that this Government asked the Canadian provinces and federal parliamentarians to have a debate on our Constitution and to discuss the Meech Lake Accord. This was of critical importance. It also gave rise to major hesitations, even among the Liberals opposite, and to deep rifts and resignations. This is a sensitive issue, but what is surprising about the Meech Lake Accord is that, apart from recognizing the Canadian linguistic duality, it also recognized that we have concentrated but not limited French and English-speaking communities, and so on. What Bill C-72 proposes is an even greater commitment on the part of the federal Government. It takes political courage for a national party, a party which is represented throughout the country, in all provinces and all regions, to deal with these sensitive issues which become even more important, more real and more restricting at the political level. It is easy enough for anyone who belongs to a regional Party and who puts all or nearly all his eggs in the same basket to be unconcerned about the political reactions and feelings of people in the west, in the east or in the centre.
I think my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier could very well have introduced a much more positive motion, appealing to the better sentiments of Hon. Members and urging the Government to introduce the bill which has gained support from both the anglophone and francophone linguistic communities in this country. And as he said himself about his long struggle of almost 20 years, and I quote him textually: "It has not always been easy, but we did make some progress." Sad to say, Madam Speaker, when it comes to these questions we do have here in Parliament and elsewhere in this country certain people who have a somewhat dinosaurian mentality. I have no idea which planet these people inhabit, but they do have a dinosaurian approach. The blue dinosaurs are not alone, there are red dinosaurs as well, and probably a new kind of NDP dinosaurs, green, I believe-


An Hon. Member:: Orange.


Charles-André Hamelin: Orange. More subtle, particularly in Manitoba. We have to live with that. As Cicero put it: Quo usque tandem-How much longer?-abutere nostra potential How much longer will these dinosaurs try our patience? True enough. And instead of putting the question with a somewhat partisan approach as you did-be careful my dear colleague, this is a very sensitive issue. So many people are searching for platforms, the kind of carriages with which they can so easily find themselves in the ditch. That is what we saw in a recent provincial election. Some people are prepared to stand on platforms which rest on rather shaky foundations, the platform soon becomes a sled which hurtles down the slope, and someone gets hurt. That happens often in the case of cultural
and linguistic issues. You may have noticed that every time someone endorses sensitive issues and tries to get people upset and to spread fear with scarecrows, of course, there are dinosaurs and the odd prehistoric monster on his tail for a while, but all such efforts lead to political failure because Canadians are more mature than we give them credit for. True enough, it is easy-
-with these questions to play games, to play politics-
[Translation\
It is so easy to play petty politics, to blame all our economic, social, political and even religious woes on Anglophones or Francophones. Go ahead! And it is so easy to play this game when an election is forthcoming, as it is now. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by telling all sorts of stories to the Canadian people. Let me say it once more: there are, unfortunately, in every political party people who adhere to this pre-historic approach. They stir controversies and raise false issues. They start campaining with that, with the hope of attracting as many followers as possible by imputing ill intentions or designs to our community or another. Imagine that! There is something of which I should remind the enormous Anglophone community in North America: we are in Canada, and especially in Quebec, a small community of 8 millions lost in an ocean of over 250 million Anglophones. Are we as threatening as all that? There are two possibilities:

We are very strong and you are so weak.

People are not aware of their force? As a French-speaking nation in America, are we as threatening as that? It is unbelievable! We are a very small group of people and we can frighten 250 million people! It does not make sense. Really, it does not make sense. Yet, there are dynosaures who are travelling all around frightening people. If these Francophones were going to take away-

-our jobs, those bastards.
[ Translation]
If these Francophones were going to deprive us of our economic security and jobs? That is frightening! They are threatening. What is this? They are disturbing people.

-annoying people, disturbing people.

I know that this attitude is disappearing slowly in this country, because we are developing more equality, more mutual respect and understanding with the Constitution and this legislation. It is true. This bill has been favourably

received by both communities. Alliance Quebec, the Francophones outside Quebec, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the people interested in this issue have all said:

It is a step forward.

-towards national unity, a better understanding between the two solitudes which are trying to get together through Constitutional acts and legislations which are coherent, significant, inspired by justice, fairness and a desire to make Canada a country where two nations can live side by side and prosper.
Madam Speaker, I wish my colleagues who moved this negative motion could nevertheless transform it in an appeal to all the best elements in this country to get together in an act of faith and understanding in this country and its linguistic duality which makes us different and is responsible for Canada being what it is.

Linguistic duality means Canada, a real Canada, different from the American people, a country in itself. That is what dualistic reality means. We must believe in that. We must open our minds and our ears to other people, to other sensibilities. We need that piece of legislation for Canada, for the unity of Canada, for a better understanding between Canadians. We need that piece of legislation. Instead of blaming the Government-

1 would rather call upon the Government and the Ministers, both English and French-speaking, to find the time as soon as possible for this Bill-which is a step forward for our country-to be debated in a dignified, clean and honest manner, in the presence of all Members and of all parties.
I call upon my French and English-speaking colleagues to support the Standing Joint Committee on official languages and all interested Members in asking the Prime Minister and all responsible Ministers to proceed as soon as possible with Bill C-72 which will provide for a better Canada.


Mr. Lanthier:: Madam Speaker, my colleague has a reputation for eloquence and I thank him for it as well as for his colourful and sometimes forthright language.
However, as he mentioned Meech Lake at the beginning of his speech, I would like, with your permission, to take up and comment a point he has made and then ask for his opinion. Last Saturday, in a riding close to mine, that of Saint-Henri- Westmount, a mock Parliament meeting was held for all English-speaking school children of the region. It was a sorry state of affairs that they had to ask for help from the next riding because the representative for Saint-Henri-West-mount never showed up, and he is not likely to do so, as things stand now, even in his own riding. There is little danger, of course, that he would show up in the Saint-Henri part of the
Supply
Saint-Henri-Westmount riding, since he voted against Meech Lake, which means that he voted against a united Canada.
On his home ground, however, in the English-speaking part-
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question, make a comment. An English-speaking girl of 18, from Westmount, asked me the following question. Just imagine the kind of education she received from her federal Member:

"Are you allowed to speak French in the House of Commons?"

That happened Saturday, in the riding of Westmount. As a Quebecer, I always thought that people from Westmount did not want to be Quebecers, but by God, the truth is they don't want to be Canadians. I answered to her in French: "Yes, not only is it tolerated that we speak French, but we feel right at home in the House of Commons which belongs to us as much as it belongs to English-speaking Canadians."
The time has come to pass that Bill with all the seriousness it requires. I would like to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke what he would have answered to that girl who asked me Saturday:
Are you allowed to speak French in the House of Commons?


Charles-André Hamelin: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment which shows, once again, how constant progress and greater interrelation between communities must take place. I think the slogan we should make ours and that probably underlies Bill C-72 is greater tolerance with respect for differences. We know things are quite different in Saint-Henri-Westmount. Through you and others, perhaps that young person should also learn greater tolerance with respect for differences. And to respect our differences, we must learn what they are, which is probably what she will do from now on.
Madam Speaker, with the permission of my colleagues, I would like to yield the floor for the few minutes remaining to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme.)


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I see that the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) is seeking the floor. There is still a period of time for questions or comments. On the other hand, the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) had been trying to give the floor to the

January 25, 1988
Supply
Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), so I am in the hands of the House.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Madam Speaker, I will respect the desire of the Hon. Member, which is also my desire, to hear from my friend across the floor. I rise briefly to pay a tribute to the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) for raising the debate up to a level above the immediately and merely partisan. I think he has given us all in this Chamber a vision of the Canada not only of tomorrow but, I am glad to say, of today.
I say that for this reason. We deal here with the principles of Bills. We may have.our ideas about this or that clause which could be approved in committee, but we deal with the principle of a Bill, its aspirations and objectives. 1 come from a city where, 20 years ago, a bilingual street sign was erected by the Province of Ontario. It was a Conservative Government, I might add. Someone took a shotgun and fired at the sign. The sign understandably was taken down and there was no repetition. That was 20 years ago.
In that same city today we have public schools which are not only devoted to including French as a serious part of the curriculum, but three public schools which offer their entire curriculum in the French language. There is a line-up of parents who want their children enrolled. Not only is that true of young people, but in that same community only last week 1 visited a senior citizens' centre and what should I find but a language class engaged in French studies. That is the Canada of today and tomorrow.
I am very glad to have heard the Hon. Member for Charlevoix rise to that level in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming the debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) has the floor.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, 1 believe 1 shall not disappoint the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) by lowering this debate to the level of petty politics, for when my country is concerned, I have always claimed that we should, as he suggests, raise the level of the debate.
Rapidly, since I do not have much time, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) for the speech he delivered in the House. I would have liked to pay tribute again, as 1 did briefly this morning, to the Hon. Member who raised today's issue, my colleague for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). However, I shall not repeat the views I have already expressed. 1 also would have liked to pay tribute to d'Iberville Fortier and his predecessors. I would have liked to speak again about the precursors of this great Canadian debate, from Maurice Lamontagne to Lester B. Pearson, who launched the issue in the past and brought about the evidence contained in this volume of the Royal Inquiry Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
Indeed, I must say that I do dislike pessimists.

I do not think we should be pessimists. Great progress has been made in this country. Each Government has the obligation to take a step forward.
I do not intend to blame the past. I will not even blame the Government for not doing anything. We are just trying to be like the Hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin) said. He made a special call to his own Government.

The Hon. Member called a few moments ago upon his Government and members of the Cabinet, hoping that they would find enough time in the agenda. Such is somewhat the aim of today's motion. We certainly intend to cooperate with the Government. However, let us not fear, as the Hon. Member for Charlevoix rightly said, a few opponents who might appear stronger than the vast majority in the House and the Canadian population. There is more generosity in this country, in each of its provinces . . .

There are more generous and understanding Canadians in this country than some Members of Parliament sometimes would like us to believe. They are more understanding of what Canada is all about than when I came in here 25 years ago. At that time we loved les Canadiens Frangais, as they used to say.
[ Translation]
-the "little French Canadians", as we used to say! They loved us, and there are still some who love us, but crawling on our knees if possible. Well, it is not possible. As far as I am concern, I do respect my fellow citizens from English Canada. I expect them to stand for their rights. But in return, I expect also that they do understand that for me, for my fellow citizens from Quebec and for the Francophones outside Quebec, to have a country means to be able to identify themselves with that country, to feel comfortable in Canada, and they cannot have that kind of feeling if they are crawling before anybody. Never will my friends from Charlevoix (Mr. Hamelin), from Duvernay (Mr. Della Noce), from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), from Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) and my other colleagues whom 1 heard in this debate, never will they crawl on their knees in Ottawa.


M. Della Noce:: Never!


Marcel Prud'homme: My friend from Duvernay (M. Della Noce) is as straighforward as I. We are not here to beg. We have been told that Ottawa was the capital of our country. So, we must feel confortable here.

1 always say , in the committee I have the honour to chair, try to be us for a week. Try to understand what it is to go through the process of functioning very often in someone else's mentality, in someone else's language, and to be on an equal
January 25, 1988

footing with you, the rest of Canada, you, hon. colleagues who happen to speak the language that I am using now. It is only a question of understanding.
There will always be politicians of all kinds, I am ready to concede to the Elon. Member for Charlevoix, who will try to play to the division, who will scare the people: Could you imagine, Madam So-and-So or Mr. So-and-So, what would happen? Then it seems they are speaking for the majority of the Canadian people.

I think that when we appeal to their understanding and generosity, the people are willing to follow us. All we wanted to do today, Madam Speaker, in the minute I have left, all we wanted to do in our motion was to tell the government to go ahead. As you have heard today, you have support in your own party. Introduce this resolution, introduce this Bill C-72, and we will respond in a responsible manner. We will review it. We would like to make some excellent amendments at the committee stage, without changing the Bill too much. But I will now bring my comments to a close because the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (M. Gauthier) cares so much about this Bill, probably a lot more that many Hon. Members. He cares so much about it that he will certainly not allow its referral to committee and third reading to be blocked. But to say that only two or three Hon. Members could speak on it would show, Madam Speaker, a lack of patience and of responsibility. Why? Because speeches also trigger an educational process.
Every time I speak about Canada I receive telephone calls immediately from people who say that there should be more people speaking like this because it is educational and helps them to understand better what Canada is all about. If we have only one speech on a major piece of legislation we will not be able to help the process of education for Canadians. I hope we have achieved that today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As deeply as I regret it I must cut short the remarks of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.
Adjournment Debate
REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION-NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-GOVERNMENT POLICY/CONSULTATION PROCESS
['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).']
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, in my short time in this House 1 have taken a keen interest in economic development programs, particularly programs under the auspices of the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Ministry of State for Small Business, which is responsible for economic development programs for aboriginal people in Canada.
As a result, in August and again on September 25 I asked questions. I directed two specific questions on September 25 to the Government with regard to Department of Regional Industrial Expansion programs above the 60th parallel and the native economic development programs for aboriginal people throughout Canada.
In the first instance I asked the Government what the plans were, in view of the western diversification initiative and the Atlantic initiative, for the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion programs north of the 60th parallel. We were assured at that time that there would be special consideration given to northern programs and that they would not be subsumed under the western diversification initiative but that some other arrangements would be made.
At that time I was asking the Minister what the plans were. There were many rumours north of 60 about what would be proposed, and at that time I asked what the consultation process would be and what the specific programs proposed were. There were questions at the time as to whether the programs north of 60 would be treated by the one window concept as is being proposed under the western diversification fund, or whether it would continue to be dealt with separately.
It may not have seemed like a very large issue, but one must realize that in the North we are attempting to develop independence and self-sufficiency. Both administratively and in a policy sense, regional industrial programs are extremely crucial to the development of the North, not only in my riding of Yukon but in the Northwest Territories as well. I asked at that time what process was intended. To date there has not been definite clarity on that issue.
The second related issue about which I asked at that time was related to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion consultation process proposed in July by the Minister. This was a six-month process. We are now getting near to the end of that six months.
At the time, the Assembly of First Nations made a decision not to participate in that process because it had received information which indicated to them that many of the decisions had already been made and the process would not be meaningful. Since then, I understand the Assembly of First Nations has been able to successfully address this issue with the Government and will be participating in the latter stage of

January 25, 1988
Adjournment Debate
this consultation process. That is a very positive step and I am glad that with the intervention of many people, the Assembly of First Nations will be able to participate in this process and be given due credence by the Government.
However, I believe my questions are still outstanding, the first of which deals with the DR1E funding and whether there will be the co-ordinated delivery agency. There are economic development agreements in the Yukon and Northwest Territories which are being renegotiated at this time. They have been of great assistance to the territories. In March, 1989, those programs will require renewal or revision.
I believe we have seen with the tourism subagreement and the various programs under the economic development agreement some real economic development possibilities in tourism and particularly small business which has been very favourable in my constituency.
It is no secret that aboriginal communities suffer from a high rate of unemployment. Therefore, programs such as the special ARDA and the Native Economic Development Program are especially important to ensure not just short term, band-aid programs but long term fundamental economic development programs that will create some economic stability in that community and enhance not only the economic life but the social fabric of aboriginal communities.
1 am pleased to be able to report, after working with the Minister responsible for several months, that one of our large projects for the Yukon has received, a favourable consideration. 1 hope this will continue throughout the rest of Canada.
I call on the Ministers to clarify these two issues so that northerners and aboriginal people can go ahead with strong economic development.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the Government's position with respect to ongoing DRIE programs. She will be aware that the consultative process is taking place and it would seem to be somewhat premature for us to attempt to prejudge the outcome of consultations before they are completed.
It is an important initiative about which the Government is very concerned. Indeed, it is an issue with which all Members of the House should take interest and indeed support.
As the Hon Member mentioned, many of these programs expire at the end of March, 1989. Therefore, we do have some time. The federal Government is most anxious to continue the support of these activities and to encourage even more native activity in these fields.
It is essential, however, to have the considered opinions of those groups involved so that they may be analysed and evaluated before we take decisions. The opinions of the aboriginal peoples in these areas are most important to the Government and, I am sure, all Members of the House.
Let me emphasize again that these consultations are taking place in a very open, frank and, above all, honest manner. The suggestion that AFN did not participate because it believed or had information that the Government had already taken decisions about the form or the nature of the ongoing programs is quite incorrect. No such decisions had been taken and no such decisions will be taken until the Government has fully evaluated the result of the consultations.
We are all pleased that there is so much interest on the part of native peoples in this government program. The Assembly of First Nations has recently, and very thankfully, agreed to participate fully and has joined with other organizations representing the Metis, the Inuit, the status and the non-status Indian communities that have been involved since the process was launched last summer.
DRIE's native economic programs are well known to the aboriginal communities. They have been utilized to a great advantage in all parts of the country. For example, until the end of January, 1988, five major projects totalling $6.7 million have been approved for the Yukon under the Native Economic Development Program. Indeed, throughout Canada under the NEDP over 386 projects have been approved, representing a total commitment by the federal Government of some $183.6 million.
We are delighted by the interest in these programs. We are delighted that the consultation process is ongoing. We are looking forward to the very real and meaningful suggestions of the native peoples as to just how these programs can best be changed to adapt to the future.



William (Bill) Gottselig: Madam Speaker, I am very happy tonight to further raise some concerns I had, as I indicated in my question on November 26, 1987, regarding the Special Canadian Grains Program. At that time the concern had been expressed to me by many of my constituents that the irrigation farmers were not receiving recognition for the increased costs in increased yields unless they were in a specified irrigation district.
As a result of representations I made, and as a result of representations by many other Members of Parliament who had constituents in this same position, I am happy to report that the Government has recognized irrigation farmers, if they fall within certain criteria. That is to say that they must pay either a water tax or a water licence each year. Based on that recognition and the additional yields they produce that are recognized by irrigation districts as well as other irrigation associations and, in fact, crop insurance in Saskatchewan which provides additional coverage for irrigation farmers, they would receive additional payouts under the Special Canadian Grains Program.
January 25, 1988

I also want to indicate to the House that there were some other very important changes made to the Special Canadian Grains Program. We have included pulse crops so people who have diversified their production will not be penalized as they are in fact helping with the overproduction of wheat.
We have also included the honey producers in northeastern Saskatchewan, largely as a result of representations made by the Hon. Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Scowen) and other Members in northern Alberta who have honey producers in their constituencies.
Another major benefit was the recognition of summer fallow. That is particularly true in the south central portion of Saskatchewan, the area which 1 represent, where producers tend to summer fallow half and crop half of their cultivated land each year. The recognition of summer fallow will no longer encourage people to seed additional acres simply to trigger a payout under the Special Canadian Grains Program.
1 would like to read into the record the necessity for continuing the Special Canadian Grains Program. If we examine the record of both initial and final prices paid in previous crop years, we see a tremendous shortfall in income for our producers. For example, I would like to quote from the 1983-84 crop year. In that year the initial price for No. 1 hard wheat was $4.33 a bushel. The final payment that year, which was not received until January, 1985, was 73 cents a bushel. That payment, which totals $5.06 a bushel, is considerably more than producers are getting today. That year under the Western Grain Stabilization payment there was also a payment of approximately $5,500 to producers who had contributed the maximum.
If we follow the price along each year, we see that grain prices have declined considerably. In 1984-85 the initial price was $4.27 a bushel. The final payment was 58 cents a bushel. That year we also triggered a pay-out of $9,800 under the Western Grain Stabilization. That continued on until in the 1986-87 crop year, which is the crop year which ended July 31, 1987, when the initial price of wheat was $3.22 a bushel. The final payment which was recently announced on No. 1 hard high protein wheat was 4 cents a bushel. This indicates that prices are starting to strengthen, but very little as yet.
In the last crop year the Western Grain Stabilization Fund paid out a record payment of approximately $28,000 for a producer. Last year the Special Canadian Grains Program paid out approximately 40 cents a bushel to producers in my area of Saskatchewan.
In the 1987-88 crop year the initial price of wheat declined by 65 cents a bushel. In spite of the fact that we are making record pay-outs under the Western Grain Stabilization as well as the Special Canadian Grains Program, the Special Canadian Grains Program did not pick up the shortfall on the initial price drop.
Adjournment Debate
The reason I am quoting these figures is that I wish the people of Canada generally, and particularly those people who may not be familiar with the plight of agriculture today, to realize how essential it is that we continue to make these payouts. In fact, under the Special Canadian Grains Program we may, as a result of shrinking dollars be forced to apply that subsidy only to that grain which goes into the international market-place. That idea has also been put forward.
I think it is safe to say that the consultation process does work when representations made by myself and other Members from western Canada to make changes in the Special Canadian Grains Program from year to year have been listened to. These changes have been made. I am very happy to report to my constituents that the input that I have made has been listened to.
I see you are signalling that my time is up, Madam Speaker.
I will be pleased to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary.


J. Michael Forrestall: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister I want to briefly respond. I feel somewhat inadequate among those in this Chamber, particularly those distinguished Members from western Canada. The Hon. Member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Gottselig) stands out in our minds as not only a champion but as a Member of Parliament who thoroughly understands the difficulties faced by agriculture, particularly western grain growers. Indeed, the Hon. Member is very modest. In large measure the changes are as a result of the input that he has made.
As the Member has noted, both last year's program, and under the 1987 extension to that program, supplemental payments are being paid to irrigators. It is particularly with respect to irrigators that this House, and indeed western people owe some considerable depth of appreciation to the Hon. Member for Moose Jaw.
Irrigators have substantially higher yields than "dryland" producers and therefore experience greater revenue loss as the dollar value and prices decline. The point made by the distinguished Hon. Member is of course well recognized and one of some continuing concern to the Government.
Under last year's program only irrigators within provincially defined districts in Alberta and Saskatchewan were eligible for the supplementary payments. Because of the Hon. Member's intervention and that of others, it was decided to expand eligibility for the supplemental irrigation payment to all provincially licensed irrigators and to those irrigators on Prairie Farm Rehabilitation projects. The only exception would be backflood irrigators.
It is believed that this modification to the program will make it fairer and more adequately reflect the reality of the

January 25, 1988
Adjournment Debate
irrigation system in western Canada. As usual the Hon. Member's comments were pertinent and knowledgeable.


VISIBLE MINORITIES-CITIZENS OF CHINESE ORIGIN-PAST INJUSTICES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, on November 26 I reminded Parliament that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) had said recently on television that he wanted to be remembered for his tolerance and justice toward minorities. In view of this commitment and past promises, 1 asked why his Cabinet has prohibited the Minister responsible for multiculturalism from meeting with representatives of the Chinese Canadian National Council concerning past injustices against elderly citizens of Chinese origin who were subjected to legislated racial discrimination under the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) defended the Prime Minister but admitted that he had no knowledge of the matter. He had forgotten the following Conservative election pledge:
A Progressive Conservative Government would look forward to having
discussions with representatives of the Chinese Canadian community
regarding appropriate remedial action and the specific matter of financial
compensation.
I first became aware of the Chinese head tax in 1983, when an elderly constituent brought his head tax receipt for $500 to my office and asked that Prime Minister Trudeau reimburse him since this discriminatory tax was contrary to the new Charter of Rights. 1 subsequently raised the issue in the House of Commons several times with several Liberal Ministers. The Minister of Justice finally acknowledged that there had been an injustice and that, although there was no legal obligation, he would look into the matter. He never did.
Meanwhile, news spread and over 1,000 head tax receipts were brought to my office. I eventually presented these to the newly formed Chinese Canadian National Council. The Council has Chapters in many cities, has received many more receipts, and is acting on behalf of approximately 700 surviving head tax payers now in their eighties and nineties.
The Chinese Immigration Act of 1885 imposed a head tax on all Chinese seeking to enter Canada. By 1903 it was increased to $500, the price of a home in those days. It was a debt that many immigrants worked all their lives to repay. The Canadian Government netted over $23 million from this discriminatory policy.
In 1923 the head tax was replaced by the Chinese Exclusion Act, which deliberately ended immigration from China until it was repealed in 1947. Many lonely men were never reunited with their wives and children who had to remain in China.
As a Canadian I abhor the early injustices that were imposed on Chinese immigrants, those who worked for a pittance and in many cases died to build our railroads. I am deeply ashamed of early British Columbians who referred to the "yellow peril" in posters, who practised racism and limited the place where Chinese Canadians could live and work. I find
it hard to believe that it was not until 1947 that Canadians of Asian origin finally were given the right to vote in Canada.
Today Vancouver is thriving because of the Chinese community which contributes highly trained professionals and leaders in all aspects of life, with the unfortunate exception of politics. Our mainstream community is enriched in many ways by contributions from Chinese culture, technology, business, and family life. However, the present is marred by memories of our disgraceful past.
I ask that the all-Party parliamentary committee which was approved by the Government begin meetings with the CCNC immediately to discuss the head tax issue and to recommend government action which should include, first, formal acknowledgement of the injustices of the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act; second, compensation to individual survivors who are now in their eighties and nineties and, third, recognition of the community suffering by the establishment of a community fund.
I ask that the Government representing all Canadians take steps immediately to fulfil its 1984 campaign promise and acknowledge and compensate past injustices so that our children of all races will know that we really believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights. It is urgent the Government act now since fewer and fewer survivors remain.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, I too would like to respond to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-East who, on November 26, has shared with us her concern for the head tax that was levied on immigrants of Chinese origin at the turn of the century.
I fully understand the deep concern of the Hon. Member for that important question. I am not very proud either of that chapter in the history of our country and I am pleased that the federal gouvernment has already indicated its intention to find a means to express the deep regrets of Canadians and their government relatively to the injustices of the past.
I would simply like to tell my Hon. colleague that injustices have been done not only to Canadians of Chinese and Japanese origin, but also to Canadians of Italian origin. I will not go into details, but there were also injustices done to the Ukrainians and others that have not yet been revealed.
The contribution of all those Canadians, be they of Chinese or other origin, has nevertheless been fantastic. The contribution of Canadians of Chinese origin to the building of this country for 125 years has been invaluable in all sectors. This government recognizes the key role that community has played and continues to play in the economical, social and cultural growth of this country.
Madam Speaker, it was with pride that I joined the Secretary of State when, on December the 1st, he introduced
January 25, 1988

Bill C-93, on multiculturalism in Canada, saying that this Bill is in itself a new commitment on the part of the Government of Canada. Its objective is to help our Canadian nation create a kind of society where discrimination, as in the case of Canadians of Chinese or some other origin, will no longer be tolerated. Those shameful incidents which regretfully were part of our history should never ever occur again. Once passed, this legislation on multiculturalism in Canada will guarantee racial and cultural equality. Moreover, this new legislation will allow us to face today's realities and tomorrow's needs.
Madam Speaker, in the brochure entitled Multiculturalism-to be a Canadian, which was circulated when the Bill was introduced, we namely find sentences which speak for themselves:
By chosing to turn towards the future, the Government does not try to hide the painfull injustices of the past, to erase the shame nor to minimize the feeling of frustration, of humiliation or of indignation felt by the members of different minorities. They do not claim that any trace of cultural, racial or religious discrimination will disappear from Canadian society overnight. No, their intention is to appeal to moral values and generosity, considering that the
Adjournment Debate
vast majority of Canadians, both from today and tomorrow, will not settle for
anything less.
We also have an obligation towards the past, Madam Speaker. In this regard, the Government is quite prepared to deal with injustice against minorities. We should recognize, however, that the search for solutions is not an easy task, since the incidents we are talking about today happened at different stages of our history to various degrees. This is why we must examine the matter very carefully.
Still I can assure the Hon. Member that the Government will indeed give very special and very particular consideration to the question of the Chinese head tax.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, January 26, 1988
[Stage Direction]
Prayers