Evidence of meeting #26 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was csic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes. So the one you're looking for, that you're interested in, is the current one.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
And the reason why you want to do that is that you want to ascertain what occurred, because there was a CP story as to whether it was originally in or whether it wasn't, whether it was pulled or was just an oversight?
October 18th, 2010 / 3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Based on the answer Mr. Trudeau just gave to Ms. Chow, that the purpose is to find out whether there was an oversight as to why it was left out, there's been an ATIP on this issue. The minister spoke about this issue on a number of occasions, and I'm sure he'd be happy to speak to it when he comes here with respect to this bill later in November.
It's unnecessary. We've already indicated there are going to be updates to the guide on a regular basis. This is an area where there will indeed be an update. There's no need to retrace steps here and try to dig up dirt where there isn't any and try to bring forward an issue that is going to be addressed in the next issue. This isn't one that we need to readdress. It's been addressed and will be addressed.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
My concern.... I have no desire to dig up dirt. I'll support this motion because I come from a community that felt left out of the guide. That community may not have been fully addressed. It is still asking questions. Whether the minister has given some answers is not the issue. It's helpful for the committee to know the process that went into such a guide, and what was said when, because some misrepresentation happened during some of those discussions. I've read all those news articles as well, and I would like to know. I very truly don't understand what happened, and as a member of Parliament I have the right to know what happened.
3:35 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, you know that quite a few months ago we had this issue in front of us when I moved a motion asking for the restoration of gay rights and gay history in the citizenship guide at the next printing. I want to thank the committee for supporting the recommendations.
It then went to Parliament. We had a three-hour debate in the House of Commons on this. I was assured at that time that if I truly wanted to see this restoration in the next printing and if we wanted unanimous consent, which is what we had.... If you note the vote, it went on division, that we would leave the matter of what occurred in the past, whether it was an oversight or whether it was the minister or his staff who instructed people to pull this out.
At this point I'm more interested in seeing the wording restored. At that time I said I would support going forward. If that was the case it would not create division in the House of Commons. I was assured gay rights and gay history would be in the new edition. I'm going to honour that agreement, because we had a debate and at that time I was pushing my Conservative colleagues to say if we are continually divided on this matter it doesn't set a good example. What are new citizens supposed to do with a divided House of Commons? I was pleased that the vote was on division and it passed and that the new edition will have gay rights in there.
Through ATI requests from various journalists, I don't think it was an oversight. EGALE interpreted it as an oversight within the gay and lesbian community. Others said that it was a deliberate attempt to delete part of the history. Whichever way it is, it seems to me the ATI request from CP, I believe, shows there was some kind of intervention from the political staff. I'm not sure that we need to push this issue further, because if the minister ends up not giving us the information in ten days this will probably end up in the House of Commons, where we're going to have another debate on it, which I'm not sure is helpful.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Ms. Chow.
There are two more people who wish to speak. I'm not going to let them speak. We're either going to vote now or it will be put over to another day. Which shall it be?
3:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Vote.
3:40 p.m.
An hon. member
No.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm not going to allow you to debate. If you wish to debate, it will have to come on another day.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right, this matter will be put over to another day.
We will now proceed to item number 2, the study of Bill C-35.
We have two guests with us today.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
On a point of order on the adoption of the agenda today, my concern is that we have a number of the most critical witnesses for this study being packed into a very short time today. So I'm looking for some assurance.
As it is laid out, we will not get full rounds of questioning of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, a key player in this. We will not get a full round with respect to the professional association either. So I am very concerned that we have the key witnesses packed into one day in which we will not have adequate time to ask questions. I'm concerned about the agenda for today.
3:40 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I think that we often have two panellists in one hour, but I suggest that we add 15 minutes to our meeting in order to have two one-hour panels. I assume that my colleagues will agree with this.
3:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Agreed. We'll have an extra 15 minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
On a point of order, Chair, in regard to the same point—
