Evidence of meeting #6 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 guide.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You're right, it doesn't really matter, but she had them in the motion.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
Is that a big deal? Does it have to be “the Minister”? It doesn't have to be, because—
3:55 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Well, I just want to clarify that. The minister has to approve it, and I thought the original version from the department had gay history in it. It was taken out.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I've lost complete control here. We've got five conversations going on.
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
I was on the list.
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
I just want to get on the list, Chair.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON
So you have the changed motion, right, with the friendly amendment?
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm going to ask the clerk to read it so we're all clear.
Ms. Chow has not indicated whether she agrees or not.
April 1st, 2010 / 3:55 p.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Chaplin
That, in the opinion of this Committee, the Minister and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration should, in its next update of the citizenship guide, include references to gay rights and gay history; that the Committee adopt this recommendation as a report to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1), the Chair present it to the House.
3:55 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
3:55 p.m.
An hon. member
[Inaudible--Editor]
3:55 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Yes. Okay, fine; I withdraw the fact that I may be a little bit longer than not so long.
We did take a break. We did have a good discussion. I actually want to compliment Mr. Bevilacqua. The intent of what he was trying to do was come to some sort of a compromise that would have all of us supporting it. During that break, we did find a motion that certainly the Liberals and the Conservatives could support, and I believe that the Bloc would have supported as well.
Ms. Chow doesn't accept that, so somehow one person on a 12-person committee is able to direct how a motion should be followed.
We have an agreed motion that we would support. If the committee is prepared to defeat this motion, I can assure Mr. Bevilacqua that we will support the agreed-upon new motion that he and I had worked on, and have agreement on from Mr. St-Cyr.
We cannot support the motion as it sits. I understand the point that the opposition is trying to make. I could spend a long time defending exactly the procedure that we used to go through the creation of this document, how many thousands of people have a copy of this thing, and how many organizations and individuals have complimented how good this document really is. And thanks to Mr. Bevilacqua; he actually did comment on that. At any rate, I want to reiterate that.
I don't think it's within our purview, within our responsibility, to dictate to some future government 20 years down the road--that won't be NDP--what you should or shouldn't have concretely in a document. I believe we could provide some guidance by this committee to move in that direction, but I think guidance includes the word “consider”. It doesn't say “must”.
That's where I find fault, and I think that's where the members on this committee on the Conservative side find fault with the motion. We will be voting against it.
Because we cannot attach a minority report to a motion introduced in the House, Mr. Chair, I will ask for a recorded vote.
