September 29, 1988

PC

John Allen Fraser (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

1 have a ruling to render regarding Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages

Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act

Institute. There are six notices of motion in amendment on the notice paper for the report stage of Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. I am prepared to rule on those motions.

Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in order. They will be debated and voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 5 and 6 deal with reports by the Minister. They will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

I will now call Motion No. 1 in the name of the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi).

The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis is moving the motion. I understand there is unanimous consent.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Marcel Prud'homme

Liberal

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) (for Mr. Marchi) moved:

Motion no. 1

That Bill C-152 be amended in Clause 4 by striking out line 3 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:

"retention and use of languages, including native and aboriginal languages, other than".

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Marcel Prud'homme

Liberal

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to my colleague who, I think, will speak after me . ..

He will be following but will allow me to say a few words on this Motion No. 1.

It is a very plain, simple motion, and I would very much appreciate it if the Minister would reconsider and accept the amendment. We could do it here. The rules are flexible. After listening to the few remarks I would like to make and the remarks of my hon. colleague who put this amendment, if the Minister sees fit, perhaps we will not have to vote and the Minister would gladly accept this amendment.

Why do we ask to put in the purpose of Bill C-152, an Act to establish the Canadian Heritage Languages Institute, the words "native and aboriginal languages"? The Minister knows how strongly 1 feel about these matters. It all goes back to what Canada is all about. Long before my esteemed colleague from Toronto who put the motion came to this country, and this is the history of Canada, the ancestors of the Hon. Minister were probably in this country, and long before the Hon. Minister's ancestors were in this country, my ancestors were in this country, in the 1600s.

September 29, 1988

Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act

It is all very well to talk about the two founding races, the two official languages, but I have always made sure to remind Canadians that long before my French ancestors came to this land, there were people living in this land. These people were the native people. Why would it not be possible, I kindly ask the Minister, to make an addition to the Bill to recognize in concrete terms the contribution of these people, to make them a little different, to give them something more than all the rest? After all, as 1 said, this was the harmonious development of our country.

There were in Canada aboriginal people and natives. Then my ancestors came to this country in the 1600s. They did not discover this land. "Discover" is a word that I do not like very much. It is like discovering something. They happened to come to a place that was in existence where there was already an organized society. They took the land and later on, though we do not need to explain the history of Canada, the British came by and fought with the French in the St. Lawrence River and everywhere else in that part of Canada and they took the land. They made it a British colony and then gradually it became semi-autonomous and then autonomous.

Then we had the Canadian flag. On February 15, 1965, we proclaimed the flag. Then we had a national anthem. O Canada became the national anthem. I was a member of the committee which studied that. We told the House, under Mr. Pearson, that O Canada should be the national anthem and it was only proclaimed on July 1, 1980, event though les Canadiens fran^ais, which I say because there is no translation for that, had been singing it since July 1880. It took 100 years before we got together in Canada to proclaim it.

All that, in a nutshell, explains the harmonious development of our country, the harmonious constitutional development of our country with repatriation of the Constitution under Mr. Trudeau and with the Charter of Human Rights under Mr. Trudeau, incomplete as it may be, not to start a debate with Meech Lake.

I say to the Minister, why not? He is an honourable person.

I have known him for quite some time now in Montreal. What would this amendment do? It would make people happy. It would make people feel that they are recognized.

We should never hesitate in this country. Every day, every week, every month, every year, we should not hesitate to recognize that long before all of us, you, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, 1 and my esteemed colleague from York West who put this motion, were here in Canada, there were some people here and they were the native people and the aboriginal people.

Will this motion be abusing anything? No. I checked very carefully to see if there was a good reason not to accept this. The Minister is now a full Minister. He does not need to consult with Cabinet. He is well respected. The Minister could say: "On second thought, it makes sense, it does not take anything away from the Bill". We are not trying to lower the standards of the Minister's Bill, we are just trying to add something. Is that not really the spirit of the McGrath reform?

I have been here close to 25 years. I am not one who disagrees because we have to disagree. I have my own style, my own approach, to the political process. But if there is to be a true spirit of the McGrath report. . .

[ Translation]

... if the parliamentary reform that was advocated by a highly esteemed Member of the House, Mr. McGrath ...

. . . who is now the Lieutenant Governor. If the McGrath report on the reform of the parliamentary system is to mean something, would it not be a good example to accept this amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For fear of being accused of saying somewhat surprising things only in English, I must also ... for men and women of Canada, of Quebec .. . because 1 know Quebecers. I am one of them. I am a Quebecer. And 1 know that Quebecers who are, as we say, of old stock . .. right now, nobody knows what collective name to give us. The Minister is also a Quebecer, as the Speaker is.

I say Quebec men and women know very well the history of Canada. They know their ancestors came here, to a country already inhabited by people, Indians, Eskimos. There were people living on this land. The land was not created out of nothing, uninhabited. It had its first citizens. The best way to achieve what I call social peace, harmony in a good society is to make sure everyone feels comfortable in this country, in this province or part of the country, knowing he is recognized. People want their dignity. That is true everywhere, in all parts of the world. People want to have their dignity recognized.

Well, if the Minister accepted this well-thought-out amendment which is not a controversial one, we would not have to vote on it!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I leave the matter in the hands of the Minister.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, I and all members of the New Democratic Party support the idea and proposal that there be established a Canadian Heritage Languages Institute. It is not surprising we do that. I was born in Canada but both my parents came here as immigrants from eastern Europe. They came because they thought, and they were correct in their thinking, that Canada would be a good country for them, for their children and for their grandchildren. They realized that in the part of Canada to which they immigrated, English was the language of business and English was the language spoken in most homes. They accepted that and learned to speak the English language.

They believed, and I think history has proven them to be correct, that they could be better Canadians if they helped to maintain and foster the language they brought with them. I

September 29, 1988

have some knowledge of the culture and history of their ethnic group. They were right, as are all the one-third of Canadians who are neither of Anglosaxon or French origin who believe, and have believed, and have at least verbal acceptance of their belief, in the desirability of fostering and supporting the language, culture and history they brought with them. That was first accepted when the Bilingualism and Biculturalism Commission brought down its report and particularly when Dr. Rudnyckyj, of the City of Winnipeg, who was one of the members, added to that report his own recommendation that favourable consideration be given by Governments to support the language and culture of the one-third of Canadians who are neither Anglosaxon nor of French origin.

That concept was not always accepted by the majority of people in Canada. In my Province of Manitoba there came a time when a directive came down from the Government of Manitoba to the Department of Education that it was not only improper but illegal to conduct classes in our schools in the French language. There was a time when a similar dictate came down in reference to the teaching in the schools of the Ukrainian language. I am happy to say that that view has long ago disappeared in the Province of Manitoba.

In my city it is now possible, if parents wish, for students to have one-half of the curriculum taught in English and the other half taught in one of three different languages, German, Hebrew or Ukrainian. There is a very extensive program for fostering and supporting heritage languages after the regular school hours. Students have the opportunity to be educated in 12 or 14 different languages, depending on the ethnic group from which they come. 1 think that is a tremendous achievement and one which could be well matched by other provinces. We support in principle the establishment of this Heritage Languages Institute.

But I must say I am shocked and amazed that the Minister for Multiculturalism (Mr. Weiner) would not accept the amendment contained in Motion No. 1. Who has more right to have their language recognized and supported than the native people of this country? With the exception of one or two Members of Parliament and perhaps one or two Members of the Senate, the rest of us are either immigrants or the sons, daughters or grandsons or granddaughters of people who came here as immigrants. So while this institute will foster the knowledge of all the languages of people who have come to this country over the last 100 years or so, the Government is not prepared to accept an amendment which would include the languages spoken by our native communities.

I find that very strange. First, I think it is unfair. Second, I consider it to be completely unrealistic. Does the Government not know what is going on in many cities in this country? Does the Government not realize that in cities like Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, probably Edmonton, and Vancouver, there is a flood of native people, including many young people, moving into the core areas of these cities? I have not been able to get a number which is accepted by Statistic Canada or by other federal or provincial government Departments, but it has been

Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act

estimated that the native population in the City of Winnipeg is somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 people. One need only drive around Winnipeg any day of the week to see how the areas in which they live in Winnipeg have gradually extended geographically. I am sure the same is true in the other cities I have mentioned, and maybe others as well.

One need only talk to teachers in the City of Winnipeg, or in some other towns in Manitoba, to get a horrifying picture of what is happening. There are native students who move in and out of the city and in and out of the schools. A native student in elementary grades can attend anywhere from eight to ten schools in one year.

The native people of this country need all the support they can get. They have been mistreated ever since the white man came to this country. It is going to take generations to right the wrongs which have been created. The problems are accelerating in our schools, in our welfare system, and in our jails and penitentiaries. The number of natives involved in all of these is growing at an increasingly escalating rate. We need to deal with these problems. One of the small ways in which we could deal with the problem is by including native people as one of the groups that can get direct help and benefit from this new institute.

I appeal to the Minister. Will he not be realistic? Will he not accept the fact that this Bill is not cast in stone the way it is at this time? It is not perfect. Will he not at least give serious consideration to a proposed amendment which makes sense and which would help improve the lot, not only of this institute but of the people who have been excluded from deriving benefits from this institute as the Bill is drafted at the present time? '

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
LIB

Sergio Marchi

Liberal

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):

Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank once again my colleague the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) who has a lot of experience in his riding, in the country, with minority and multicultural groups, and with this program. I am grateful to him for having started the report stage debate while I was busy on some other business.

It is with pleasure that I participate at report stage because it is important. It is important because it gives us an opportunity, as Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, at perhaps the eleventh hour, to ask the Government to consider a number of changes that would not diminish the Bill in stature, substance, delivery, or nuance, but would in fact strengthen, enrich, and improve a Bill which at some point in time will become the law of this country. While the principle of this legislation is certainly one that needs to be supported from all sides of this House, this piece of legislation has various gaps and holes that could be corrected in this place.

September 29, 1988

Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act

It is also important because of the way this Bill was treated. Notwithstanding the fact that there is, in principle, agreement from all sides on this Bill, at the first organizing meeting of the legislative committee, which is normally intended to sketch out the business agenda for the committee vis-a-vis the Bill, the Government tried to proceed into a clause by clause deliberation.

The Government wanted to get this Bill back in the House and approved without giving the public the assurance that the policy of multiculturalism that we embrace, federally speaking, as a Parliament, is going to be lived out on the streets of this country day in and day out. I find it offensive that the government Members pushed this Bill from start to finish during the course of that one day proceeding. I find it offensive that government Members embrace the theory that they know it all, that they know what changes should be made, that they do not have to go to the public or to another meeting. That is simply not good enough.

The fact is that at those very deliberations government Members said that the reason we could not go to the public to get their input is because we were going to run out of time because of the impending national election campaign. That may have more to do with this Bill than the words that have been uttered up to now. That is offensive because it speaks of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. 1 take offence to that kind of tactic.

The Minister is present and I commend him for that. He said at his appearance before the committee that he is prepared to consult and co-operate with Canadians. We then proceeded to the shambles that we witnessed. I am hopeful that the Minister will take under serious consideration the changes that we are asking him and his Government to make.

The first motion, as was elaborated on by a number of colleagues before me, is very straightforward and very simple. When we talk about the Heritage Languages Institute I want to be very precise and very open. Therefore, in Motion No. 1, I include the words "native and aboriginal languages" because nowhere in the Bill does it suggest or state that our aboriginal languages are going to be included as heritage languages for the purpose of this Bill.

The impression is left that the two official languages, which get support from other programs and other Departments, are not included but there is a grey area with respect to the aboriginal languages which belong to our aboriginal peoples. The aboriginal people wish to be reassured that their languages, too, may be considered as heritage languages for the purpose of this Bill, that those languages, too, may receive the support that we are prepared, through this Bill, through this institute, to grant to other languages.

The Minister might say that he does not have to put it in the Bill to support native languages. While that may be true, the other side of the argument can also be easily put forward, that is how do you hurt the Bill by being as specific as you can?

In various journals it is not clearly understood whether heritage languages does or does not include our aboriginal languages. For example, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, the leading national umbrella group, if you will, of the various cultural communities across this country, put out a document in March of 1988 entitled "The Other Canadian Languages; A Report on the Status of Heritage Languages Across Canada". It was very interesting to note that on page 4 of this report submitted to Members of Parliament it said:

Heritage Languages in Canada are generally considered to be those languages other than the Official Languages and Aboriginal Languages which have their origins the world over.

In the Canadian Ethnocultural Council's report of March, 1988, they are essentially concluding that when we speak of heritage languages in this country we are not referring to either English or French and the aboriginal languages. It was with this intention that I put forward Motion No. 1. It would amend Clause 4, which now states that the purpose of the institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages other than the official languages of Canada. My motion would change the clause to read: "-the acquisition, retention and use of languages, including native and aboriginal languages-".

I raised this issue in the little time that we had at the first and only meeting of the committee following the organizational meeting. There was then a subsequent meeting of the committee which studied the Bill clause by clause. 1 raised it at a time when the Minister was present. I believe he took in the various arguments that were put forward.

He informed the committee after other thoughts and testimony was outlined that he would somehow take the matter back to his government shop in order to take a serious look at it. I am hoping that the Minister will respond to this one amendment which would clearly not abrogate the intention of the Bill. It would not weaken it. I think it is a small and minimum price to pay to reassure our native communities that the languages which they speak other than our official languages will for the purpose of definition be included in the Bill which will set up the heritage languages institute.

Native groups did not have a chance to come before the committee, as would have been their legitimate right, to make the point themselves because the Government saw fit to rush the Bill back into the House in somewhat of an unprecedented move as far as other Bills are concerned. Because of those reasons and the arguments that we have put forward, I am hopeful that the Minister will see fit to make this very slight yet important amendment to the Bill. In this way it will be a much more healthy Bill. It will eliminate the questions with respect to whether or not aboriginal languages are in or outside the legislation. I look forward to a response by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).

September 29, 1988

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Cyril Keeper

New Democratic Party

Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that the Minister did not stand up to respond to the very pointed and good questions of the Hon. Member as to why aboriginal and native languages are not included by way of direct reference in this legislation. I saw that the Minister was hinting that he might get up. 1 hope he intends to get up to say that he will include such a provision. I hope that that is his intention. 1 must say that while it is against the rules of the House to mention the presence or absence of particular Members, 1 am glad that the Minister is here in order to hear this debate today.

I think this is a matter upon which he can move to make changes now. 1 am sorry I do not have unlimited time in which to speak. If I did I would stay on my feet until the Minister made the change. It is a simple and ordinary change. It is abysmal, shameful and dreadful that this legislation on heritage languages should have been dealt with before the committee to the exclusion of aboriginal people. There was no opportunity for groups to say how they felt about it. I am sure that was as a result of inadvertence on the part of the Government. It was because of the headlong rush toward an election that this happened. However, the Minister can still correct the oversight.

1 must say that I am glad as an aboriginal person, as a native person, that I have the opportunity to express my point of view with regard to this matter. It is shameful that the elected representatives of aboriginal people across the country did not have a chance to comment on the Bill. I want to comment briefly on it since I have but a little bit of time here.

The legislation simply states that the purpose of the institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages other than the official languages of Canada that contribute to the country's multicultural heritage.

I must say that we are all Canadians. There is only one Canada. It is because we are confident in our citizenship that we are able to tolerate the cultural differences that exist in our country and, in fact, that we are able to celebrate them. Therefore we are able to recognize as this Bill does that multicultural heritage. We can also recognize the official languages. But this Bill fails to recognize the existence of aboriginal people in Canada. That is what the amendment seeks to change. The amendment seeks to include in the wording of the clause the words "native and aboriginal languages".

The fundamental point is that the legislation here is going to create an institute that will make resources available for the preservation of languages. That is important. It is important that aboriginal people have a part of those resources. But it is not enough to be able to stand up and say: "Okay, under this legislation we could make the money available anyway".

Why do half a job? Why have half a loaf when a specific reference can be made? Aboriginal people do not fit under official languages. Cree is not an official language of Canada. It does not fit there. Aboriginal languages do not fit under multicultural heritage. Native people are aboriginal people. They are the first people of this land. They do not fit under an ethnic group. They do not fit under multicultural.

Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act

The Bill should be drafted so as to fit the social, the political and economic reality of the country. It can be done. It will not hurt to accept the amendment which my colleague has put before the House. The Government should agree to the amendment. The Bill will be the better for it. There may be other amendments on which the Minister might want to reflect more in depth before he accepts them, or perhaps he might feel that they would have to go to committee for study. Perhaps that will be the case. However, this amendment is a simple one. What it does is recognize the reality of Canada. It recognizes the fact that aboriginal people are a part of the country. At the same time that official languages are recognized multicultural heritage is recognized. What is unacceptable is recognizing the multicultural nature of the country and the official languages of the country while ignoring the aboriginal people.

Mr. Minister, the time for that is gone. The time in which aboriginal people will silently be ignored is passed. I must conclude that the Bill came before the House in this form out of a sense of haste because of the results of the polls that came out this morning. The Reid poll indicates that the Conservatives are ahead and that the NDP are hot on their tail with the Liberals lagging behind. Of course, the Reid poll tends to favour the Conservative Party I must say more than does the Gallup poll. Given the results of that poll, the Conservatives are in a big rush to go to an election and in so rushing forget to do a decent job on legislation.

Let us slow down. Let us take a deep breath. Read the amendment and accept it.

The Government should listen to groups and reflect upon the reality of the country. The time is long past when native people will accept half measures. It is time to recognize that aboriginal people and native people are a legitimate and fundamental part of the country. Just saying that they can be fitted in under the umbrella of multicultural heritage is not going to be well received in native communities across the country. Native people are aboriginal people. They certainly do not fit under official languages.

I ask the Minister to accept the amendment rather than trying to skate around with some sort of explanation.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. Orlikow:

He has no explanation.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Cyril Keeper

New Democratic Party

Mr. Keeper:

My colleague says that he has no explanation. I give the Minister the benefit of the doubt. I assume that he will get up and respond to the comments that have been made by Members on this side of the House. I hope his response will be adequate to the situation. I hope that he takes the initiative in his own hands and says: "Yes, this makes a great deal of sense". If we are going to preserve languages in this country, then we ought to preserve not only the languages of multicultural groups, Polish, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Filipino, et cetera. They are legitimate. Not only should we preserve the languages of the French and of the English but we ought to preserve and promote the languages of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I ask the Minister to rise to the challenge, to indicate that he is accepting this amendment and that he is going to do a full job rather than half the job.

September 29, 1988

Canadian Heritage Languages Institute Act

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Gérard (Gerry) Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship))

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Weiner:

Mr. Speaker, I find the motion unnecessary.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Cyril Keeper

New Democratic Party

Mr. Keeper:

Insensitive.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Gérard (Gerry) Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship))

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Weiner:

The preamble does not exclude native and aboriginal languages.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Cyril Keeper

New Democratic Party

Mr. Keeper:

It does not include them either.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Gérard (Gerry) Weiner (Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship))

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Weiner:

Just to remind the Member, it reads:

4. The purpose of the institute is to facilitate throughout Canada the acquisition, retention and use of languages, other than the official languages of Canada,...

The only languages, therefore, that are excluded are the official languages.

Some Members may have missed the point, but clearly, it is within the parameter of this very important heritage languages institute to make sure that there is a sharing of the knowledge and the expertise and the experience, and all that would take place under this Canadian Heritage Languages Institute.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
NDP

Cyril Keeper

New Democratic Party

Mr. Keeper:

Why are you afraid to mention aboriginal people?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Marcel Danis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Is the House ready for the question?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
PC

Marcel Danis (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

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

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

No.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN HERITAGE LANGUAGES INSTITUTE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ENACT
Permalink

September 29, 1988