Debates of Oct. 28th, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question enumerated by the Secretary of State has been answered.

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Saint-Léonard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-36, an act respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land, be read the third time and passed.

Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-36, the Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act.

Before I start to speak about the quality of the bill, I want to make it clear that the government can take no credit for drafting the agreement. As much as it pains me, I have to acknowledge that the previous government and the people negotiating on its behalf did an excellent job on the agreement.

At the same time I will not hesitate to credit the present government for implementing this agreement by way of Bill C-36.

I am confused as to the display of schizophrenia on behalf of the government when back in June it introduced a couple of pieces of legislation dealing with aboriginal issues, namely Bills C-33 and C-34 which were terrible pieces of legislation and terrible agreements. Now in direct contrast it is introducing a bill that has a great deal of merit. I wonder how the present government can take such opposite views of agreements and still call it good legislation.

As an example, when we compare Bills C-33 and C-34 with the way Bill C-36 was introduced, on Bill C-36 there was plenty of time the analyse the legislation and the agreement to make reasoned, logical decisions. In contrast to that, Bills C-33 and C-34 were presented a very short time before debate. There was no time to analyse the two bills before they were debated in the House.

On Bill C-36, there was plenty of time to prepare a response to the bill and the agreement through a detailed analysis. On Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 as you know, Mr. Speaker, there was no time to prepare adequate responses. Once the bills were rammed through the House, we had time to come up with more reasons why those bills should not have gone through.

In contrast there was plenty of time to debate Bill C-36, which we really appreciated. Our party has debated it at length. It is good legislation. By contrast the Liberal government invoked closure on debate on Bill C-33 and Bill C-34. It devalued the democracy that was present in the House.

We appreciate the debate time we have had on Bill C-36. Bill C-36 is an excellent agreement, an excellent piece of legislation because there is finality to it. It actually reaches a conclusion. The amount of moneys payable under the agreement are set. They are predetermined. They will end at a particular date.

As opposed to that, in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 it is completely open-ended. It is a blank cheque piece of legislation. There is no finality to it. There are so many grey areas that we could be paying for the same thing over and over again for generations to come. We appreciate the finality that Bill C-36 has and we question the reasoning behind Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 that the government was so pleased about.

By contrast again, in Bill C-36 there was sound logical and reasonable solutions put into this agreement to solve the problem. Contrast in Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 there was no reason, no logic, no sound solutions to the problem, just vague statements that left the opportunity for abuse over and over again and the cost to rise upward and upward and the payments to go on for generations.

Now that I have drawn a comparison between a good piece of legislation and a great agreement that we have in the House today with some terrible legislation, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 that the Liberals rammed through the House in June in order that they could break early and have a holiday over the summer and the minister of Indian affairs could go to the Yukon and proudly proclaim this agreement, I want to talk about Bill C-36 and why our party would support it.

Problems in this region of Manitoba began in the 1940s with the Lake Winnipeg regulation and the Churchill River diversion projects. These were huge hydroelectric projects initiated by Manitoba Hydro that flooded almost 12,000 acres of reserve

lands that were the occupied lands of the different Cree groups there. This represented about 10 per cent of reserve lands among five Indian bands.

In 1975 the Northern Flood Committee was established with representation of all five bands which of course included the Split Lake Cree band.

This committee was established to determine exactly how the bands affected by this hydroelectric project were to be compensated for the flooding of their lands and the negative impact that this had on aboriginal fishing, hunting, gathering and trapping, traditional activities in that part of the area among the Cree bands.

The work of the committee eventually lead to the creation of an economic development agreement and the Northern Flood Agreement known as the NFA in 1977. That was not a good agreement. The NFA was vague in its terms. It was very open-ended. It presented all sorts of opportunities for abuse of the compensation. It has cost the government well over $100 million because of the disastrous formulating of that agreement.

Bill C-36 is a result of the many serious problems that were experienced under the NFA between the bands, Manitoba Hydro, the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, problems which began only a year after the signing of the NFA in 1978 and carried through to 1988.

In 1992 the Auditor General reviewed the operation of the NFA and found a huge number of problems. He found that the terms and conditions of the NFA were terribly unclear. This resulted over a period of time in a large number of arbitration applications being put forward by the signatories over the years.

Just after the NFA was signed the terms and conditions were so clouded that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development requested an extensive legal analysis of its obligations under the agreement. DIAND was very worried about this agreement and the implications it would cause for compensation and for provisions down the road. It requested this huge legal analysis so it could get its position a little bit clearer.

This resulted in a 72 page report being produced in 1983 and later a 200 page report being produced in 1987 outlining DIAND's obligations under the NFA.

One really has to wonder whether the people who put this NFA together were asleep at the switch when it was signed and what the government was doing when it was being put together. In 1983 and 1987 the government had to go into this huge legal process to find out exactly what its obligations were under the NFA. One wonders who the negotiators were representing. It also brings into question their competence.

By way of example of the obligations of the government that were unclear, the NFA appears to be definitive when it states that Canada is responsible to supply drinking water to the bands. Manitoba Hydro was supposed to pick up 50 per cent of the cost of doing this. It just so happens that to date Canada has spent $88 million on this obligation to supply pure drinking water and Manitoba Hydro has not picked up one cent of this cost. We are talking about $44 million here.

When this bill was before the committee on aboriginal affairs we discovered that an arbitrator was still trying to determine if Manitoba is responsible to pay 50 per cent of Canada's cost of supplying drinking water to the five bands. We have the Northern Flood Agreement that is or appears to be very definitive that there was a 50 per cent cost sharing between Canada and Manitoba Hydro. It ends up that Canada has paid the whole shot up to now, $88 million. There is an arbitrator still trying to determine if Manitoba Hydro was responsible to pick up 50 per cent of the cost. It gives an idea how unclear in many areas the NFA was. It was actually a very bad agreement for Canada to be involved in.

This example I just gave on the drinking water clearly highlights the uncertainty which exists in the terms and conditions of the NFA. That is why it is such a good thing that we are able to break out of it and sign this particular agreement with the Split Lake Cree Nation.

The Auditor General determined that the NFA was designed to be implemented through a co-operative approach. Instead, he found that the NFA was being implemented through an adversarial approach. This adversarial condition was brought about by the cloudiness of the agreement and people thinking that they could take advantage of this. In fact, there was every opportunity for them to take advantage of it.

As a matter of fact, as of November 1991 signatories to the NFA had filed a total of 150 claims for arbitration. At that time there were 32 outstanding claims where Canada was either the respondent or the claimant. This adversarial process is frustrating to the bands, it is frustrating to the government and it is frustrating to Manitoba Hydro.

It is a process which of course is expensive to the taxpayer because the taxpayers end up paying the shot for the legal costs on this.

Because the parties are retaining legal counsel to battle their claim before an arbitrator, the Canadian taxpayer ends up picking up the tab for the federal government's lawyers, the Manitoba Hydro lawyers, the province of Manitoba and the bands involved, the signators on the native side of it.

I can clearly say that the taxpayer may never know the true cost of the Northern Flood Agreement. It is that bad and it is that expensive.

The Auditor General estimated that the NFA had cost the federal government $115 million and up between the time it was signed in 1977 and March 31, 1991. This was an agreement that was supposed to solve the problems. It created problems and it created a huge obligation to the Canadian taxpayers. However, the Auditor General said that this was strictly an estimate because in fact-I love this statement-the Department of

Indian Affairs and Northern Development had not captured the entire cost.

Within his recommendations in the 1992 report, the Auditor General stated that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must capture all NFA associated costs, a huge obligation for the taxpayers of Canada for this disaster of an agreement, the Northern Flood Agreement.

In all, the NFA was not clear in its terms and conditions and this led to various claims being filed for arbitration between the parties which would sign the agreement. This led to an expensive and certainly unworkable agreement.

In 1989 negotiations began between the parties to address the severe difficulties found within the Northern Flood Agreement. The negotiators were seeking band specific agreements. I think that was a good first step.

Bill C-36 is just such an agreement reached with the Split Lake Cree band. I want to say that as a participant in the committee process on this bill, I had the opportunity to talk with many members of the Split Lake Cree band. I was very encouraged by their determination to resolve this thing and get it so that there is some definite finality to this bill in order that the vague, grey areas of the NFA can be put aside. They can get on with life and make some definite plans for the future well-being of their community.

I commend the Split Lake Cree band for having the courage to break away from the Manitoba flood committee and negotiate this final settlement with Manitoba Hydro and the provincial and federal governments. They faced a lot of adverse criticism from the other four bands that were the original signatories for breaking away and wanting to get the thing done. I commend them for what they did. It was a very courageous act.

Apparently work is currently under way with the four remaining bands to try to draft similar agreements to this in the coming year.

There is again a lot of resistance to it because of the blank cheque opportunities in the NFA. It is incumbent on the government that it pursue coming up with agreements for those four remaining bands as quickly as possible. It is going to solve the problems in that area and it will save the Canadian taxpayers a huge amount of money and problems.

I am not going to be as long as the former speaker but I want to talk briefly about some of the really good things in this bill. Specifically under this agreement, the Split Lake Cree will receive about $47 million over five years. They will receive some 34,000 acres of new reserve land and some 2,800 acres of fee simple land.

This is good because they will know what their land reserve will be. They will have this money for economic development in setting up infrastructures within their communities and they will be able to put a business plan together.

It is interesting to note also that the settlement moneys will be transferred to a trust fund in the name of the Split Lake Cree. These funds will be administered by a trust company in order to guarantee accountability. This is going to ensure that the band has the utmost flexibility in determining where and how the money will be spent within its community. In speaking with the Split Lake Cree I believe it is going to be spent with due diligence and accountability.

The 2,800 acres of fee simple lands will be subject to property taxation. Any business originating from those lands is also taxable. I like that. We have a form of taxation that is going to help the economic base.

I am also pleased to note that this agreement was put to a referendum in the band. Individuals in the band voted 93 per cent in favour of the agreement. I like that as well because that is the democratic process. It is important to utilize such a mechanism in order to allow the input of the rank and file band members since this settlement agreement has a direct effect upon their lives and the lives of their children.

Further Bill C-36 was examined by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which examination ended on October 6. This bill was reported back to the House without amendment. It was a good piece of legislation. It is a good agreement. Committee members found that the bill sufficiently addresses the problems found within the northern flood agreement. Members hope that Bill C-36 will adequately settle the grievances arising out of the flooding of reserve lands.

The Reform Party supports the settling of legitimate Indian grievances. This indeed is a legitimate grievance. I know this new agreement will work a lot better than the NFA. I hope that similar settlement legislation relating to other affected bands will be forthcoming.

I have no hesitation and the Reform Party has no hesitation in supporting Bill C-36.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)

The House resumed from October 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; of the amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the interest of the House I would like to provide the reasons for bringing forward the subamendment that was presented yesterday.

The issues in the reorganization of this department are complex. We are seeing five ministries becoming one. It consolidates several subcabinet departments: the Secretary of State; the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship; the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport; Parks Canada; components of Environment Canada; and the heritage component of the Department of Communications.

The government has talked a great deal about meeting its deficit target. I was really quite astounded to hear that this reorganization is going to save the huge figure of $7.3 million. Our debt today is over $536 billion. We have a deficit of $40 billion. Yet this reshuffling and this reorganization is going to save $7.3 million. Not a single person-year is lost; everybody has been reshuffled and moved off to other departments. Therefore I am not quite certain where the savings are.

The other side of the House, the government side, has often challenged the Reform Party MPs to come forward with some good ideas. We certainly want to ensure that the finance minister indeed does have access to this report by June 23, 1995 to help him with his short term deficit targets that he puts and that he wants to reach.

I also felt it was important to express one last time for the record and for Canadians generally exactly what we mean by special interest funding. This really is a ministry of special interest.

I have with me a number of items I would like to read into the record which come from a 703 page document listing all of the special interest funding that is available to Canadians today. It is important for us to look at these particular elements because they clearly describe special interests in Canada.

In the 1993-94 fiscal year $17,200 was given to something called "The Hidden Advantage". It was a series of round table discussions to be held in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Saskatoon on the relationship between diversity and international trade with a particular focus on the Pacific rim. Participants would include opinion leaders in the Asian Canadian community.

A staggering $85,000 was committed to the Canadian Advertising Foundation. It was for "Minorities in advertising; we are all Canadians". This is a communications outreach. It was for the dissemination of the findings of the research done by Goldfarb Consultants for the Race Relations Advisory Council on advertising and the provision of suggestions on how to include and portray visible minorities in advertising. Once again, $85,000 for that particular activity.

The 1993-94 program funding for the Canadian Council for Multicultural and Intercultural Education was $198,000. This was to provide program and project support for the following activities: operations of the national office, co-ordination of CCMIE activities, the board, executive, meetings, ECE and Race Relations Resource Advisory Committee workshops at the CCMIE national conference that is held every year. That was almost $200,000 to that group.

There is also the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, Culture, Community and Health Studies. It received $5,000 for a national symposium titled "Models of Health Care in a Pluralistic Canada". It was a two and a half day national symposium on models of health care appropriate for a pluralistic Canada, whatever that means. It was held in Toronto and was for research workers, health care providers, health educators, public health agency staff, policymakers and consumers.

The Conference Board of Canada received $86,635 on "Dimensions of Diversity in Canadian Business". This was a two-year research and information dissemination project on the importance of diversity to Canadian economic prosperity, with a particular focus on managing and valuing diversity in the Canadian private sector.

There was $15,000 committed to the public service announcement campaign on violence in society and the development of a public service announcement, a PSA. This campaign was going to focus on violence in the community and the media.

The Ethnocultural Business Advisory Committee of metro Toronto received $20,000 for its small business week on ethnocultural business activities. This is a co-ordination of events to be held during small business week by eight Ethnocultural Business Advisory Committees across Canada. These events include trade shows, workshops, business awards and networking events. This is part of an annual national event for small business.

The next thing I want to bring into focus is the $40,000 that was given to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Chief Administrative Officers department. It is for municipal procurement strategies and minority economic development. The municipal government will adjust its procedures for bidding on contracts to ensure they do not present barriers to minority owned businesses and it will train its managers on the implementation of those procedures.

Mr. Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that the National Association of Friendship Centres received $15,000 for phase three of its national race relations strategy. This project will develop resources and tools that will be used to train race relations workers from friendship centres across Canada.

The Steering Committee Forum for Central and Eastern European Canadians on Business Development in 1993 received $10,000. This was a forum for central and eastern European Canadians on business development. This two-day national forum was to be held in Toronto. It was on how the Ukrainians, German and Polish Canadian communities in Canada could utilize the business expertise within their respective communities to become more involved in business activity.

The next one I want to raise is on drama and education to foster understanding. Easin Productions received $10,000. This project will introduce students and community groups to race relations and cross-cultural issues through the medium of live theatre and workshops. There will be at least 174 presentations in schools and community groups.

I really wonder how unifying all of these different activities are in Canada today. We are seeing so many of these projects and workshops unfolding that highlight more and more of our differences. They are not bringing us together or unifying us on how we are the same.

The Black Educators Association of Nova Scotia received $34,442. This was for program funding to address educational concerns and deliver workshops in black communities to increase parental involvement in education issues.

The Dartmouth Police Department received $3,526 for a 14-week employment project for two visible minority students.

The Eye Level Gallery received $1,507 for workshops presented on key video works by a black artist and a cultural skill development workshop.

The International Education Centre received $34,160 to conduct a series of multicultural and race relations programs for teachers, education administrators, students and community groups.

The Parents for a Model School Committee of the St. Joseph A. McKay Home and School Association received $11,970. This was for a proposal for phase one of a model school project for this particular association. It was for the development of the infrastructure and support system for an anti-racism and anti-poverty project for an inner city school in Halifax.

Shelburne County Cultural Awareness Society received $25,645. This project is researching data and conducting an archaeological survey on a site of historic significance to the Nova Scotia black community which has been selected for a regional landfill.

In closing I want to state for the record once again that the reorganization of the Department of Canadian Heritage is really a ministry of special interests. The government is creating a new superministry of cultural identity that will legislatively entrench grants to feminist, multicultural, linguistic and environmental groups. I submit that it denies us an opportunity to define ourselves as Canadians.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much thank the previous speaker for taking the time to review some of those issues because they underline one of the things I want to talk about in addressing this reorganization. Frankly I am a little astounded that when reading through the list of grants the member did not understand what people were attempting to do. People in business and in government throughout the country from coast to coast have recognized that we in Canada have built something profound, wonderful and strong. It gives us strength internationally that no other country in the world has.

We have recognized that in our diversity there is strength. I as an English Canadian married to a Polish Ukrainian person can celebrate what we bring to the country. At a time of globalism, at a time when we are reaching out to the entire world, we can build upon those strengths.

Professor Neil McDonald who lives in my riding is renowned throughout North America as an expert on the question of diversity. He points out that at a time when we are reaching across the ocean, when we are reaching into other countries of the world to build markets and build relationships, we have in Canada a vast resource of people who can work with us.

What is the member concerned about? Is it a $17,000 grant to talk about diversity and international trade to help build our balance of payments and support exports in the country? That does not sound terribly subversive to me.

Let me respond to a couple of points the member highlighted. Referring to models of health care, at a time when we are working so hard to strengthen our health care system and are supporting research into some models of health care it strikes me as something we should be celebrating, not criticizing.

Turning to violence in society, is the member saying she is afraid to look at it or that the government should not be taking action on such a critical social issue?

Referring to drama and education to foster understanding for students, as members and as a government we have a role to educate people, to help people from all parts of the country to understand what the country is really about. By fostering understanding of other groups we reduce tensions and reduce some of the violence in communities. Is this what the party opposite is opposed to?

Then parents for a model school. I did not select these things. This is what the member read into the record as examples of abuse. We are funding parents to help them look at building a model school promoting anti-racism and anti-poverty. Is that

what the party opposite says it is opposed to? Frankly I am a little astounded.

I suspect the majority of the House supports the reorganization the government has begun. As we promised we have worked to reduce the size of cabinet, to streamline operations and to bring together like departments. We have had many debates in the House about a number of departments and the department of heritage is one which I support very strongly.

The proposed legislation combines sectors that share the following responsibilities: the promotion of Canadian identity, cultural development and heritage, and the maintenance of our national parks.

I want to describe in some detail the different sectors and how they relate to fostering Canadian values and Canadian identity. The sector of citizenship and Canadian identity promotes the use of official languages. I have heard much talk from members opposite about the evils of promoting official languages. They should stop and reflect upon what we have built in the country, how we have managed in very difficult times and with very extreme tensions by promoting understanding, acceptance, introduction and inclusion rather than rejection.

The federal government is the government of all Canadians. Therefore its policies must serve a diverse population of some 27 million people. Actually Statistics Canada says it will soon be 29 million.

The department believes that official bilingualism allows for services in the official language of the citizen's choice and reflects a simple commitment to understand and to be understood by the public in English or in French.

Lester B. Pearson put it very eloquently when he said:

In a diverse federal state such as Canada, it is important that all citizens should have a fair and equal opportunity to participate in the national administration and to identify themselves with and feel at home in their own national capital.

In addition to official languages, the citizenship and Canadian identity sector is also responsible for the Multiculturalism Act. It is apparent that Canada's increasingly diverse population provides a unique resource base for the successful development and expansion of our economy.

This is something that multinationals have recognized. This is something that the business community in Canada has recognized. This is something that the Liberal government has recognized for several decades, and that is why we have built the multiculturalism process. It is passing strange to me that members opposite have not recognized this point.

A diverse society is one which ensures a continuous and dynamic interplay of better ideas and experiences which are essential for a growing, competitive, global economy. By working with various ethnocultural and mainstream organizations the Department of Canadian Heritage is effecting real change to make Canada a better place and the envy of every nation.

That is what we are. I really support and applaud the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism for the work she is doing as she goes across the country supporting and promoting diversity. In that diversity is our strength as a country.

Amateur sports and related events like the Canadian games also fall under this department. These events are an important part of how the department fosters a positive Canadian identity and pursues the values of excellence that Canadians hold true. The sector of cultural development is also an essential, integral part of the department. This sector develops policies and programs to promote artistic expression and the preservation of Canada's heritage.

The economic impact of the arts community on the Canadian economy cannot be understated. In 1992 the cultural sector accounted for 3.7 per cent of GDP, or roughly $22 billion. In addition the sector employed almost 500,000 people, a relatively large bang for the buck.

The Government of Canada recognizes the importance of Canada's cultural sector. That is why under the auspices of the Department of Canadian Heritage it rigorously promotes the interest of Canada's cultural community on the international scene.

Finally I would like to refer to the integral part the parks sector fills in the Department of Canadian Heritage. This sector fulfils national and international responsibilities in mandated areas of heritage recognition and conservation. Our rich natural and historic heritage incudes 36 national parks, 750 historic sites, 9 historic canals and 4 marine areas located throughout Canada. They include some of the gems of the world's heritage. Parks Canada commemorates, protects and presents these national treasures. Parks Canada ensures public understanding, appreciation and enjoyment of this heritage while at the same time ensures long term, ecological and commemorative integrity.

In short, what we are on about today is simply bringing together elements in government that speak to every person in the country and to the world about what we are as Canadians. We should all celebrate and enjoy the fruits of the work of the department. It is at the foundation of what makes us the best country in the world.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will not speak for a long time on Bill C-53 because we have spent several hours dealing with the bill. We have proposed an amendment to the amendment calling for the committee to have a deadline to review the entire focus and purpose of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I would like to respond to some of the comments made by the member for Winnipeg South in his response to my colleague, the member for Calgary Southeast. The member for Calgary Southeast was reading and referring to some grants made by the department under the banner of multiculturalism.

I share the concerns of the hon. member for Winnipeg South regarding racial discrimination, the importance of education and the importance of health.

I would like to remind the House that we have a justice department which should adequately be able to protect our citizens from discrimination and should be able to undertake any necessary action to guard the rights of all Canadian citizens.

We have a Department of Health that is supposed to be concerned with the health of Canadians. Why is the Department of Canadian Heritage, under the banner of multiculturalism, messing around with Canadian health issues? It does not make sense. What about education? Education is a provincial responsibility. The federal government has some responsibility for funding, particularly for higher education, but why is the Department of Canadian Heritage under the banner of multiculturalism offering grants regarding education programs?

It does not make sense. It costs a lot of money. What is the whole premise of the Department of Canadian Heritage, why it exists? Why do things like multiculturalism and Canada Council grants flow from that department or why do they need to be reviewed?

I state my case. I think I have the support of my colleague from Calgary Southeast in saying that we are not against the fundamental principles that Canadians support, but we are against the foolish administration from the federal perspective as it relates to those important elements Canadians so much enjoy.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on second reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

The bill will give the new department a mandate to assume its rightful share of responsibility in administering the legislative responsibilities of the heritage department. As everyone in the House is aware, the new department came into being in 1993 with the amalgamation of several departments.

The legislation creates a department that will have responsibility in the areas of national parks, historic sites, cultural development, amateur sports, multiculturalism and official languages. All these areas were previously in five separate ministries and are now combined into one. That in itself is a very significant cost saving measure. All these areas have clear links to our identity as Canadians.

I found it very disconcerting yesterday to listen to every member of the Reform Party and how they spoke against Bill C-53. I did not hear one positive comment from that side of the House with regard to Canada's heritage. One after another they stood in their places in the House and spoke about each of the main aspects of the heritage department.

I would like to quote only one member. I am sorry the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who just spoke had to leave. He mentioned what the new ministry was responsible for, as reported in yesterday's Hansard :

-an unruly collection of agencies which has been lumped together arbitrarily. It truly is the ministry of lost souls, a ministry put together consisting of many irrelevant and outdated agencies with nowhere else to go.

Let me mention a couple of the so-called unruly irrelevant areas the member was talking about. He was talking about the Museum of Civilization, the Museum of Nature, the National Archives, the National Arts Centre, the National Battlefields Commission, the National Film Board, the National Gallery, the National Library, the Museum of Science and Technology, Parks Canada, Heritage Sites, and on and on.

If anything shows our Canadian identity, it is those particular national agencies that we happen to be very fortunate to have in the country.

The institutions I have mentioned are some of the cultural heritage institutions of Canada. Not that many years ago I chaired for several years in the region of Ottawa-Carleton the advisory committee on the arts. I would like to explain my connection between a local regional advisory committee on the arts and the heritage department. They are very different. One is huge and one is small.

Their roles are the same, to retain the heritage of our country and to promote the language and the culture.

Without the help of a major department like the department of heritage or without the advisory committee on the arts which I just spoke of, one requires the assistance of municipal governments, regional governments, provincial and federal governments.

Without those four levels of government, culture would not survive in the country because of its size. Whether it is film, music, radio, television, archives, museums, our rivers, lakes and mountains, we as legislators have a responsibility to promote and protect.

Most of the Reform Party people come from the province of Alberta. I happened to be in Alberta two weeks ago and spent a week in the beautiful Banff resort area in the Banff National Park. What a jewel in the crown of Canada is the Banff National

Park with national funding going into that park. I am proud that all Canadians recognize the importance of not only this national park but many national parks in this country.

I mentioned the commemorative war memorial. Soldiers from every province in the country died in Europe during the wars. Have you ever gone to those cemeteries? Have you ever visited them? I did this past-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I know that members feel very strongly about issues. It is the place of vigorous debate but I would call on each and every member to please direct their interventions through the Chair.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you get quite emotionally wound up in these things and you go off track every now and then.

There are gravesites of Canadian soldiers in Europe. Our tax dollars maintain those graveyards in France, Holland and Belgium. There is even a Canadian gravesite just over the border in Germany.

They are beautifully maintained. It makes us realize how lucky we are to be Canadians. Canadians died so that you and I can sit in the House of Commons, be free and be free to speak. It is part of our history and it is something that we must not lose.

Would we have a national orchestra or a national film library, and I could go on and on, without federal assistance? Of course not. They could not possibly operate without financial assistance from the federal government.

It is our responsibility to encourage artists, whether music, sports or whatever. They need to have the opportunity to develop their talents so that you and I and future generations have the opportunity to dwell on the importance to this nation of the contributions of those people who have gone before us.

In my riding of Nepean we have the Centrepointe Theatre which is a 1,000 seat theatre comparable in size to the National Arts Centre theatre. I look at the operation of that theatre. It is operated by volunteers.

The Centrepointe Theatre is not any different than any other organization. The National Arts Centre has volunteers, as does the National Museum. People in this country give their hearts and souls and their time to contribute to these institutions.

Has anyone been to Washington or a state capital recently? Do members know how Americans promote their heritage? It is front and centre every day of the week in school. They are constantly there with buildings and monuments to retain their heritage. I did not hear one positive statement from the Reform Party on heritage.

The government appreciates that there are some concerns about the decision to divide responsibility for broadcasting and telecommunications between Canadian Heritage and Industry Canada. The inclusion of telecommunications in the department's industry portfolio recognizes the increasing role of telecommunications.

On the other hand, broadcasting fits more closely with the identity of culture and the Canadian content mandate of the Canadian heritage. Canadians know that the government is committed to fiscal responsibility in all areas of federal endeavour. Bill C-53 is a prime example of that.

By putting these five ministries into one, we are looking at the bottom line. The Reform Party can take comfort in the knowledge that for the upcoming year the Canadian heritage portfolio is saving $76.1 million. That is a significant amount of money.

In addition to these actual savings of money there will be other longer term efficiencies realized through the regrouping of the areas of responsibility from various departments. Broadly speaking, the Canadian heritage minister will work for the betterment of our country in matters relating to Canadian identity and values, cultural development, heritage and areas of natural or historical significance to this nation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, October 27, 1994 the division stands deferred until Tuesday, November 1, 1994, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-54, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.