Jan Brown

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 6th, 1995]

For 1992 and 1993 what were the car leases for the CBC, who had a lease, what were the make, model, year and detailed costs of each lease?

[Petitions, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise today, as I will every day until April 11, 1995 to present petitions. This date is set for the scheduled parole hearing of Robert Paul Thompson seeking his early release.

The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the full extent of their sentences.

The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for law-abiding citizens and their families of the victims of convicted murderers.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak at third reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I must say it has been a unique experience to participate in the process of presenting this bill to the House, to hear the responses of so many of my colleagues at second reading, to acknowledge the efforts of all of us in committee and now finally to speak once again at this next step in its passage. In my view this represents the best of what democracy has to offer us: freedom of speech and the opportunity to disagree and present alternative points of view. Having said that, will we be left yet again with the status quo?

Speaking from this side of the House I believe that our point of view has enriched the debate as the government has continued its creation of a superministry of cultural identity. We have presented many arguments to challenge the new ministry. As I have said before, it denies us an opportunity to define ourselves as Canadians despite the insistence of some that it provides and promotes greater understanding and a greater sense of intercultural endeavour.

What is occurring is the legislative entrenchment of grants to a host of special interest groups. The total of all special interest group funding throughout all government departments is rumoured to be approximately $500 million. The government has not been specific in terms of the cuts it plans to make to special interest groups. Responses have ranged from the preparation of guidelines to the anticipation of reduced funding. There is nothing explicit in that regard but to wait until the February 1995 budget.

It is obvious the government is not comfortable discussing expenditure reduction. This is odd especially at a time when Canadians are seeking a more open approach to governance. It is also odd at a time when the opportunity to present a model for change, as has been presented in the creation of the Department of Canadian Heritage, has not been seized. The circle of virtue is reduced to a vicious circle and the status quo remains.

The ministry 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. I will focus further on a number of these departments in this presentation.

Given the unacceptable, incomprehensible and contemptuous personal attack made yesterday by my colleague from Carleton-Gloucester with no regard or relationship to Bill C-53, I will clarify for the member the Reform Party's position on languages. I hope he will be able to understand this clear policy.

The Reform Party supports the promotion of language policy centred on the following:

first, freedom of expression; second, recognition of the French language in Quebec and of the English language in other provinces; third, recognition of bilingualism in important federal institutions, including the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court; and finally, recognition of bilingualism wherever the number of people warrants the presence of services in both official languages.

Explaining further so as to be perfectly clear, let me quote the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan. He explained during second reading of the bill that the official languages policy is divisive. For proof of this, one need only to be reminded of the pejorative, anti-women comments that were hurled my way yesterday by the member for Carleton-Gloucester.

My hon. colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan stated that "the mandate calls for the advancement of the equality of status and the use of English and French. Under this mandate the ministry will spend $24 million this year on official languages in education. The Constitutions of 1867 and 1982 clearly state that education is a provincial responsibility. Why then is this ministry spending a quarter of a billion dollars in this area of provincial jurisdiction?"

We oppose this bill for a number of reasons, only one of which is our opposition to the government's official languages policy. I would like to quote the profound words of my colleague from Surrey North when she questioned the need for this department.

The hon. member stated: "Webster's dictionary defines heritage as something that we inherit at birth; in other words it is like a legacy. It is something or anything that is derived from the past or from tradition. By definition then, heritage of an individual or a group or a country is what we actually inherit at birth, that which was created and moulded by the actions of those who preceded us just as what we do now in our lifetime will become the heritage or the mould of the lifestyle for those who come after us".

She went on to say: "Those in the present inherit a base from the past to build on for those in the future. Instead of there being a specific Department of Canadian Heritage, all departments or ministries should be responsible through the legislation they propose for the development and maintenance of everything we do, of the heritage for those who are to follow, not just a single department".

Let me share with the House a story about a man by the name of Glenn Bradley. I found his story in the book Worlds Apart: New Immigrant Voices written by Milly Charon. His story is titled ``The Dilemma of Multiculturalism''. This is Glenn's story and it constitutes the bulk of my remarks today. There is a poignancy to this story that I will leave with the House.

Language and nationality are current issues in today's society. In view of the laws and general social outlook in Quebec, one has to realize that to survive here, one must become French. Many of the language problems exist today because the younger generation did not want to learn to speak French, perhaps because of their parents who may have been immigrants and wished to keep the old ways and mother tongue dominant.

I grew up under the new age of political reform in Quebec. The social phenomenon of the quiet revolution and le Front de Libération du Québec were part of my childhood surroundings. These events played a part in the rise of the supremacy of the French language in Quebec.

My parents witnessed these social reforms and decided that if I was to have a future in Quebec I would have to learn to speak French.

They could have rebelled in their own way. They could have brought me up with all the Scottish traditions they had been raised with. However, teatime, the clans, and Robert Burns were not to play a part in my childhood education.

My family roots are deep in Scottish soil. My parents and all my ancestors were born in Scotland. My parents decided to leave their homeland in the late 1950s. At that time, Quebec was looking for skilled workers.

My father, who had been an engineer on merchant ships sailing out of Scottish ports, decided that Quebec would be the ideal place in Canada where his skills would land him a job without too much difficulty.

Quebec City was my parents' first stop, but when they realized that Montreal was the industrial centre of the province, they moved to St. Michel, a suburb.

My father worked in the oil refineries in the east end of Montreal and continued to do so even after the family moved to Duvernay, a predominantly French Canadian sector of the city of Laval. They chose Duvernay deliberately because they realized that the children they were planning to have one day would be able to learn French by association with the other people in the area.

During my early school days in the late 1960s, my father had decided that the shift work in the refineries would interfere with his responsibilities as a parent. Education was booming in Quebec, and the need for technical teachers was great. My father capitalized on this and easily landed a job with the Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal as a metalwork teacher for Monklands High School in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. At the time, my mother was the vice-principal of Laval Highcliff Elementary School which I would attend.

Because both my parents were involved in education at different levels, it made them realize that if their offspring were to flourish in this country, they would need a good education.

In the late sixties and seventies the Laval school started testing its program with bilingual classes for elementary school children. Highcliff was chosen as the test school, and a group of students who were considered above average would take their classes in French. I was lucky to participate in that program.

My interest in the French language actually had started almost from the moment I could talk coherently. Living in a French neighbourhood meant that whenever you went out into the street, nine times out of ten the other children were speaking what I thought was a strange language. Little did I know that "ballon-chasseur" was dodgeball and that "cache-cache" meant hide and go seek. From then on I was determined to learn what they were saying so that I would not be at a disadvantage when playing with them. Oddly enough, this decision made when I was five years old would dominate the rest of my life.

Since English instruction in the French school system left much to be desired and I was already starting to learn French, I decided I would play ambassador. Just as an ambassador is a liaison in another country, my role would be liaison between the two languages. Imagine my surprise when I confronted the children in the street with my first garbled speech in French, my strained "bonjour, je m'appelle" was returned with "maudite bloke" a reference to the somewhat square-headedness of the English population. Chalk up one for French Canadian nationalism, I guess.

Good old Scottish stubbornness, or whatever you want to call it, made me decide to beat them at their own game. I excelled in my French studies through bilingual and immersion programs to a degree where my knowledge of the language and grammar was perhaps better than that of the French children themselves.

Unfortunately, the responses I received had gone from one extreme to another. Although I got along with the other children, I was never really accepted by them. I finally discovered the reason why. French Canadians hated the French from France almost as much as the English. My French accent was almost like that of the people French Canadians called "les snobbes".

By the time I was 13 I realized that French Canadian was a proper language and a culture all of its own. I decided to treat what I had already learned as a separate language and discover exactly what French Canadian was and is.

In my final years of high school I delved into dozens of written novels, the works of Savard, Thériault and Vallieres, the plays of Tremblay and Gélinas and the poetry of Vigneault and Nelligan. From these pieces written by prominent French Canadian authors I was able to obtain a good grasp of the emergence of the French Canadian culture in Quebec.

It was interesting to witness the transition in myself. I was so involved with these studies that a few of my high school buddies started calling me Frenchie. I graduated from high school feeling very comfortable with my knowledge of French Canadians. As strange as it may sound, perhaps I had too much knowledge.

Just before heading off to Carleton University to study communications, something in my brain snapped. I began thinking I was French Canadian. I did everything to convince myself that I was. I had become a staunch Parti Quebecois supporter. I even cried when René Lévesque lost the sovereignty association vote. I defended everything that was considered French Canadian.

At Carleton I was elected president of the Francophone Club. My plan for assimilation might have worked except for two things: my name and my ancestors. Once again my wise parents from the old country came to my rescue. They were able to grind into my thick skull that should the situation in Quebec worsen, my name alone would make me stand out like a sore thumb.

For most people it might have been too late to change, but at 18 I began learning about my own cultural history, the glory of the Scottish clans and all the benefits that Quebec and Canada enjoy today because of Scottish immigrants. Robert Bruce, Mary Queen of Scots and the poet Robert Burns are well-known names in Scottish history, but what of those who immigrated to Canada and gave so much of their time and efforts to build this country?

Lord Selkirk, a Scottish philanthropist and colonizer was responsible for bringing immigrants to Prince Edward Island. They later spread to Nova Scotia and established a colony there. Selkirk opened the west with his settlements in the Red River Valley in Manitoba.

Scottish immigrants were instrumental in the establishment of the fur trade in Canada and played the greatest part in the foundations of education in this country.

Early Scottish settlers placed top priority on education. The first non-sectarian school for higher education in Nova Scotia, Pictou Academy, was founded by a Scot. Dalhousie University, McGill University in Montreal, the University of Toronto, Queen's, St. Francis Xavier and the University of New Brunswick all owe their establishment to Scots.

Sir Alexander Mackenzie, trader and explorer, discovered the Mackenzie River and was the first white man to cross the northern part of the American continent to the Pacific Ocean. Simpson and MacTavish are other names synonymous with the building of our country. Alexander Mackenzie, a Scot, was Prime Minister of Canada between 1873 and 1878.

In addition, Scotsmen and Canadians of Scottish origin have played formidable roles in communications and journalism. There has been George Brown, founder of the Globe ; William Lyon Mackenzie, founder and editor of the Colonial Advocate and one of the leaders of the 1837 rebellion; John Nielson, editor of the Quebec Gazette ; John Dougall, both father and son, of the Montreal Witness ; and Hugh Graham, Lord Atholstan of the Montreal Star .

Suddenly a new dimension was added to my research for cultural identity. I realized that I was neither Scottish nor French Canadian. Talk about an identity crisis! Because Canada is not the melting pot that characterizes the United States, there is really no distinct Canadian culture. Therefore, I didn't consider myself to be a Canadian. I was a mixture, a part of three great nationalities.

After much deliberation I decided that the only way out of this dilemma was to combine the best parts of all three nations. To become a part of the French Canadian culture, to be accepted as an equal, I needed more of the expressions in daily use.

To accomplish this I spent the summer of 1981 working in a French children's camp. That summer was the turning point in my life. I not only picked up the oral requirements but also a large group of French Canadian friends.

I learned more about Scottish culture by reading books and poetry by Scottish authors, as well as the stories of the clans. I joined a curling club to get a taste of a Scottish sport and social gathering.

In order to become more of a Canadian, I relaxed my hard line views on independence for Quebec. I now try to picture Canada as a whole and am more sympathetic to the feelings of the people in other provinces.

I thought I was all set-I had satisfied my goals and those of my parents. The one thing I had forgotten to consider was my friends.

Each group of friends I had made in the past few years had accepted me in the way I related to them. I was the one who had adjusted easily to each group by simply changing my frame of mind and attitude to what each group was interested in and expected of me.

I went partying with my French Canadian friends, bar hopping with my anglophone high school buddies and was involved in intellectual stimulation with my university associates. Each world was different, yet I fitted easily into each one. What I had failed to consider was the interaction between the groups.

I soon discovered through trial and error that my old high school friends would not be accepted by my university buddies; nor would my English friends be accepted by my French Canadian friends and vice versa.

This created a situation which is similar to the problems of Quebec society today. Because of my personal experience, I feel French Canadians and English Canadians will never associate unless some concessions are made by both sides. We will always run into people of both cultures who will refuse to speak the other's language. There is animosity even within each cultural group-animosity caused by intellectual, social and economic differences.

If only we could learn from one another, if we would be willing to mingle, we could absorb a great deal by association. With understanding comes acceptance. Unfortunately the situation may not be resolved in my lifetime. To keep the peace, the cultures may have to remain apart.

I don't favour apartheid in the South African sense, where one culture is discriminated against on economic, social, political and colour levels. I do believe, however, that many cultures can coexist in one province as long as there is agreement on the equal value of each.

My plight is understandable. I enjoy the knowledge of many worlds, yet to keep harmony among them, I have to keep them separate. Therefore, in a sense, I am trapped in the middle of all three groups.

Because I can't combine all these worlds, despite the fact that each has so much to offer, I have to spend an equal amount of time in all of them.

Although it is satisfying to experience the diversity, you can't give 100 per cent of what we have to share and at the same time receive 100 per cent of what everyone else has to offer. The basic explanation for someone in this dilemma is that you can be acquainted with many, but totally involved with none.

It is another way of explaining and learning to live with loneliness.

That is the end of Glenn's story in The Dilemma of Multiculturalism . We will notice in all the text there is no mention of dollars spent but one man's effort to become more familiar with his own identity, his own cultural roots, and to try to find a way in which he could fit into a culture in Quebec and still remain associated with the rest of Canada.

I leave the story with the House without further analysis. I think it is worthy as a reflection on what it means to be a Canadian living in this country of ours today.

I am going to move now to an experience I had as a member of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage when we had one of our witnesses come to speak to us about the issue of multiculturalism. His name is Dr. Rais Khan and he addressed the issue, stating that both the act and the department were evidently intended to facilitate integration of the different cultural groups into the Canadian society. But the policy of multiculturalism has become subverted in this noble intent. It has encouraged ethnic and cultural groups to perpetuate their distinctiveness and has thus prevented them, even though inadvertently, from integrating into the mainstream of society. Official bilingualism has erected cultural barriers and gender discrimination and encouraged social ghettoization.

Let me give an example of how multiculturalism goes wrong, an example with which my Liberal colleagues will most certainly agree, as did the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Multiculturalism gets twisted to such an extent that groups of individuals believe that by virtue of being a member of some identifiable group they deserve special funding and privileges. This is clear as was the case with the Writing Thru Race conference which was hosted in Vancouver by the Writers Union of Canada. This conference refused to allow anyone of non-colour to attend, that is to say whites were barred from attending a conference which received funding from the Canada Council. Thankfully the minister heeded my advice and took away part of their funding.

Dr. Khan, as he continued in his presentation to our committee, explained:

The exotic multicultural concept of the everlasting immigrant has come to function as an institutional system for the marginalization of the individual. While this is not hopefully the intent of official multiculturalism, it certainly is its consequence. Culture is not only a selective demonstration of exotic events; it is how people live and interact with one another in their daily lives. Canada in the next century will not even have a dominant plurality. What is especially puzzling is why the advocates of multiculturalism, many of whom are so-called leaders of ethnic communities, have embraced such a discriminatory label. The misdirected and shortsighted actions and propositions in the name of official multiculturalism have generated mounting criticism of both its intent and direction. The voices of criticism come from both old Canadians and new ones, from intellectuals and ivory tower academics, from writers of colour and those who lack colour, from respondents to several recent public opinion polls and from government appointed commissions.

Dr. Khan also drew our attention to the Keith Spicer citizens' forum which, in recognition of the inherent deficiencies and drawbacks of official multiculturalism, called upon the Government of Canada to eliminate funding for multicultural activities except those serving immigration orientation, reduction of racial discrimination and promotion of equality.

I believe this is the crux of the problem. Even the proponents of multiculturalism support the policy because in their view it contributes to immigration orientation, reduction of racial discrimination and promotion of equality.

It is a curious situation of people from opposing spectrums-those who oppose multiculturalism as well as those who support it-agreeing to a common set of objectives.

It is not just the Reform Party that has expressed what so many other voices are saying. The objectives that multiculturalism seek to promote are immigration, orientation, reduction of racial discrimination, enhanced participation and promotion of equality.

These can be just as effectively achieved through the implementation of the provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms supporting the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the acknowledgement of the opportunities offered through the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Special treatment to some at the expense of others is discriminatory in and of itself. No one is saying that ethnic groups should be suppressed in the Canadian context. Rather, our vision of Canada should be committed to the goal of social and personal well-being that values individuality while emphasizing themes like family, community assumption of responsibility, problem solving and communicating these value sets to a means of better group life. However at no time should the rights of a group supersede the rights of individuals unless the group happens to consist of a majority within Canada.

As I said earlier, I have concentrated most of this presentation on multiculturalism because it is something about which all of us in the House feel deeply. I also have to say that I am looking forward to 1995. We definitely have challenges lying before us in the new year. My wish for all of us, as we enter the new year, is that we use our collective wisdom in the decision days of 1995 that lie ahead of us.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-53 be amended by adding after new Clause 8.4 the following new Clause:

"8.5 The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department for that fiscal year."

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting Clause 33.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.3.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.4.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.1.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-53 be amended by deleting new Clause 8.2.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-53, in Clause 7, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 13, on page 3.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak at report stage to Bill C-53. I have proposed 14 amendments and present these as common sense changes. We are told the bill is a simple housekeeping matter, but I suggest this is not the case. The bill should not be passed in its present form and the amendments suggested will improve it.

The first glaring omission is the requirement by the department to submit an annual report. We have heard all the rhetoric from the Liberal side of the House on how accountable it is to Canadians, yet despite this it has neglected to include a clause requiring the department to explain its actions to Canadians.

The Auditor General has made it clear that Canadians and members of Parliament require more access to information about the operations of government than what was presently received. In light of this it is hard to understand why the government has chosen to move in a direction away from reporting of this kind.

We have heard in response to our concerns on this issue that information on the departments may be included in the estimates. However, this is unacceptable for a number of reasons. First, the estimates are prepared to outline in general terms the proposed spending priorities of the department, whereas an annual report provides information about how the money was spent. This is an important difference.

Second, an annual report will include a description of the plans and priorities for the future and an evaluation of whether former plans and priorities have been met. Such information is not contained in the estimates.

Third, the only assurance the House has that information which was formerly contained in the annual reports will be included in the estimates is a promise from the government-cold comfort indeed.

The bill is meant to streamline government and to get rid of bureaucratic redundancies. However consider the following. The inclusion of parks, natural marine conservation areas, historic canals and copyright create an array of confusion and wasted money.

During the review of the bill at committee we heard testimony regarding parks. The managing director of the association for mountain parks protection and enjoyment provided for the committee a balanced review of parks. His presentation did not promote a vision from either of the extremes on the issue. He did not promote a tree hugger approach to parks, which advocates a zero usage mandate for parks. Nor did he promote an industrialist approach, which advocates unsustainable parks use. The position suggested was one of compromise between industry and sustainability. He said: "Many Canadians have questioned why the government moved Parks Canada from the Department

of the Environment to a new and seemingly unfocused Department of Canadian Heritage. Over the previous 14 years Parks Canada had established a firm position within the DOE as the leader and innovator in matters affecting the environment. I have proposed an amendment which will delete from the bill all references to Parks Canada. This will allow us to move it to DOE where it belongs".

The same arguments can be made for natural marine conservation areas. Why should the Department of Canadian Heritage be responsible for natural marine conservation areas? It makes no sense. Presently transport looks after historic canals. I fail to understand why we are going to pass a bill that will add jurisdictional headaches, in this case specifically to canals. Again this is needless, wasteful duplication.

I have also proposed amendments which would have the effect of deleting from the bill the references to copyright which it now contains. As the American model demonstrates, the last thing that artists need is a bloated bureaucracy which fights over jurisdiction for copyright responsibilities. The most effective assistance to artists is to take the responsibility for copyright and to lay it squarely within one department. In this instance I believe that department to be industry.

Bill C-53 gives the minister jurisdictional powers over the promotion of greater understanding of human rights, fundamental freedoms, related values and multiculturalism. No one would disagree with the nobility of the intent behind these statements, just as no one would disagree with the statement that racism is bad.

However, our concern remains with the number of ministers responsible for these programs. Presently they are covered by immigration, justice, health, heritage and who knows how many others. This kind of administrative overlap is wasteful and needless.

We have proposed an amendment which would transfer to the regions responsibility for national languages. When reviewing the bill at committee we heard a number of witnesses who criticized the federal government's language policy. The Liberals did not call a single witness to defend the policy. This can only be because it is so hard to find someone to defend it.

Regarding language policy, we recommend the bill include a clause which would read the minister has jurisdiction over the promotion of language policies centred first on freedom of speech, second on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in other provinces; third on recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada; and fourth, on recognition of bilingualism where the number of citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision of services in both official languages.

The Prime Minister has stated that in order to help bring the deficit down he wishes to replace duplication within the provinces. The amendment will do just that. It recognizes that the primary responsibility for languages should remain in the regions and the provinces.

Members of my party have been pointing out the wasteful spending of special interest grants since we arrived in this House and for seven years before our arrival. Clause 7(a) of the bill gives the minister the authority to issue grants, contributions and endowments.

The amendment I present finally puts an end to the special interest funding that Canadians have come to resent. The only people who defend these grants are those who receive them. Surely their opinions should be questionable because of an obvious conflict of interest. When we ask Canadians who do not receive these grants how they feel about them their answers are always the same. They do not understand why their tax dollars should be spent on small groups of people with narrow agendas, especially when that money could be spent in better ways like reducing the deficit and debt and to help protect programs such as health care.

Finally, the government has put in the bill clause 8 which will give the Minister of Canadian Heritage the unilateral authority to raise revenues by arbitrarily raising fees for services or facilities. According to the Financial Administration Act, the minister must take such decisions to cabinet. Such a requirement is the minimal process to be followed for the accountability and transparency of fee increases. Now with clause 8 of the bill, the minister will be able to raise any fees he chooses. He must only consult with the relevant party. What does that mean?

Our amendments bring a nominal level of accountability to government. I seek the support of the House to the changes we recommend.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-53, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8, on page 8.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended replacing lines 16 to 18, on page 2, with the following: e ) national historic sites, national battlefields, heritage''.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended replacing lines 23 to 27, on page 2, with the following: g ) the promotion of language policies centred

(i) on freedom of speech,

(ii) on recognition of the French language in Quebec and the English language in the other provinces,

(iii) on recognition of bilingualism in key federal institutions, such as the Parliament of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada, and

(iv) on recognition of bilingualism where the number of citizens is sufficient to warrant the provision to them of services in both official languages;".

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-53, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing new paragraph (2)( j ), with the following: j ) the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment;''.