CIMM Committee Meeting

    Good afternoon. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting 6, on Thursday, April 1, 2010.

    Today we are considering committee business. We appear to have one motion before us, the notice of motion served on us by Ms. Chow.

    Ms. Chow, would you like to move the motion?

    Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you.

    I will read the motion:

    Mr. Chair, we had this discussion when the minister was with us two weeks ago, and at that time the minister didn't precisely say whether it was an oversight or not. That's neither here nor there at this point. The citizenship guide is done. I know there will need to be a second or third edition soon, so this motion requests the government and the department to do an updated version so that various aspects of gay history, whether equal marriage or the protection of human rights, including sexual orientation as a ground for non-discrimination, are included in the citizenship guide. I think new citizens coming to this country should know this history.

    Debate?

    Dr. Wong.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I have some reservations about at least two words in this motion. I hope it's at least going to be amended. My concern is about the words “removed references”. When you say “removed”, it means that it was originally there, but right now we have two published guides for citizenship. The first one was done by the Liberals way back, and now we have the newly published one.

    So when you say “removed”, you are probably referencing the original one, the Liberal one, saying that it was originally there and that now in the new one it was removed. I have trouble with that, if it doesn't tell the truth because of what's published.

    Then I also have a problem with the word “restored”, because if it was never in any of the guides before, we cannot say that it's been removed and cannot say it is to be restored. If we wanted to put this in the new one, then we can only say that we are adding something to it.

    So I have problems with those two terms.

    Just so that I'm clear about this, Dr. Wong, are you making an amendment to delete those two words, or are you simply speaking against the motion?

    Well, I want a clarification first, to state the truth, and then the actual references.

    It appears you're going to get one.

    Ms. Chow.

    I will amend my motion as follows:

    --I even took out the word “immediately”--

     Okay?

    You're just taking them out.

    I have no problem with.... Let's not debate the past. We know that while it actually occurred, there are different versions of it. I've seen those versions. This has been in the media.

    Is there further debate?

    Ms. Olivia Chow: This is not worth debating--

    Sorry, I just want to....

    Are you just changing the one sentence or do you want to remove everything thereafter?

    No, no, we need the rest of the sentence.

    She took the two words out.

    Is that correct?

    Ms. Olivia Chow: Yes.

    The Chair: Further debate, Mr. Calandra?

    No, I just want to hear what the new motion says.

    Okay, I'll read it again:

    I even took out the word “immediately”, because, you know, for the next issue....

    Mr. Young.

    I have a question, because I have concerns about this motion. It's really not a complete motion.

    Madam Chow, what “references” to gay rights in Canadian history do you want? Why don't you consider taking the time to put together a more fulsome motion that the committee can deal with? I mean, what references do you mean? It's so broad.

    That's my first—

    Do you want me to write it? I can certainly do that.

    Well, I would think so, yes.

    That's my primary concern. The second one is this. Do you have any concern with regard to the cost--this guide has just been redesigned after months and months of work, reissued at huge expense, and distributed widely in Canada--such that this couldn't wait until some future guide, until a normal decision is made to issue a new guide at some future date?

    Do you have any concerns with regard to those facts?

    Maybe you could deal with that question first, Ms. Chow, before I go on.

    Sure.

    Mr. Chair, every year we have a large number of immigrants becoming citizens. I understand that for the first batch of citizenship guides, which are already printed and distributed, it's too late. But there will be a second printing, a third printing, a fourth printing, etc.

    What I am putting in front of the committee is that we absolutely have a responsibility to be very clear about what democracy in Canada is about, and that this Parliament has adopted the rights of gays and lesbians under the law. I think that aspect of it must be written into the citizenship guide.

    As to what kind of details, I've already talked about those in terms of legislation. If the committee chooses to study this issue, I have no problem in doing that, but I think this motion is self-explanatory. I don't think we need to design the citizenship guide at this committee. I don't believe that's a wise decision.

    So I want this motion to stand today.

    Mr. Young.

    Well, I do know a little bit about the printing business. I've done business with people in the printing business, and represented a printing company over the years. You can't just do a second and third printing. The artwork is completely done. You're talking about redesigning the guide. The cost to that, and the time to do it, would be very high. So it's not just a matter of changing second and third printing.

    Also, with regard to your comments on gay history, it could be determined very broadly or it could be determined very narrowly. I don't think we're in a position to start talking about that today, either. For instance, you said “the rights of gays and lesbians”. They have the same rights as everybody else. It's in the guide. That's quite clear in the guide.

    So I couldn't support the motion for those reasons.

    Mr. Calandra.

    It's more of a point of order or clarification than debate; I'm not sure where we're at.

    We're in debate.

    I know, but whose motion are we dealing with? Who has amended what?

    We're dealing with Ms. Chow's motion.

    So we're dealing with the amended motion first, and not--

     Those words are gone, Mr. Calandra. The words “removed” and “restored” are gone.

    So before we get anywhere, then, we would deal with the amended motion and then get back to the motion—

    No, we have one motion on the floor.

    We do? We don't have two?

    No, we don't. We have one motion on the floor.

    We're not going to vote on the changes to the motion?

    Monsieur St-Cyr.

    An hon. member: I'm at a loss.

    The Chair: Can we have some order, please? Monsieur St-Cyr is speaking.

    I wanted to know if we could agree on wording that everyone finds acceptable. I do not think that is possible. I think Ms. Chow's amendments are worthwhile. We could move quickly on that.

    Monsieur Bevilacqua.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I first of all want to get a sense from the committee on where we're heading. This motion that Madam Chow has forwarded is actually a follow-up to a series of questions that I asked of the minister when he appeared in front of committee. Prior to pronouncing my decision on this particular motion, I'm still awaiting the response from the minister. Based on that, I will have the necessary material to basically state whether or not one can endorse this motion.

    I say this because I just sense that it's going to be a long conversation this afternoon. I tend to prescribe to a method of operation that speaks to efficiency of a committee rather than grandstanding.

    We know that gay rights and gay history were part of initial discussions that took place, and drafts that took place, that were produced, in the process of creating the guide. We all know that. It's been reported. People understand that it's a very unique feature of Canada as it relates to human rights. People understand that same-sex marriage is very much part of our essence as a country as it relates to human rights as well.

    We can go around and around, but we all understand what this motion is about.

    I would have been a lot happier if I'd received the answers to those questions. There were some interruptions, as you may recall, to the question that related specifically to gay rights and gay history.

    Now, I don't know, and I don't think anybody knows here, how many of these copies have been produced.

    An hon. member: Half a million copies.

    Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Half a million copies: I'm not putting a price on the protection of human rights, because really there is no price--human rights are very important--but it's also, in my view, with a sense of responsibility on our part that we also begin to understand that half a million copies of this have already been produced.

    There are ways of dealing with this in a production and procedural manner. That is, you can start talking about addendums to the actual document, which would mean the insertion of a page or a note that would include that. In fairness, though, that particular guide has already been criticized to the point that it requires revision anyway, not just on this issue but other issues.

    In fairness to the people who put the guide together, which was a prestigious group of individuals, this citizenship guide is also not a history book. It's a guide that gives you more or less a sense of country.

    Is it a political document? Some people have said it's political document. But my sense is that we have to find a middle ground that can address the concerns that I cited, and that now Olivia Chow, the member for Trinity—Spadina, has cited, and move forward on that. We have to take all things into consideration.

    If the minister had said to me that he would in fact consider the insertion of gay rights and gay history in the next edition, and that in essence he and his department would have considered it a serious omission, then I would be quite willing to accept the minister and his department at his word.

     Are we happy about the fact that no reference was made? Of course not. A lot of Canadians are not happy about that. But these things do occur. Edits in reports do occur. Unfortunately, this is a serious omission, but it is a revision that has occurred after many years of having the same document. Errors are going to occur.

    As a good Liberal, I'm kind of in the middle ground here. I do have a fiscally responsible attitude toward taxation and expenditure--which sometimes the NDP do not understand, unfortunately--but by the same token, I'm not happy about the fact that gay rights and gay history were omitted.

    So this is where I'm at. Since I kind of do hold the balance of power, both parties need to kind of come to me with a compromise. Otherwise, they won't get what either of them wants. Usually the Liberal position is the one that is the most moderate and centric, and this needs to be respected, because we are trying to bridge this obvious divide between the right and the left.

    Mr. Chairman, I wish I could conclude, but I do think that there has to be a way to address this.

    I understand what the member for Trinity—Spadina is attempting to do--a bit late, because I got to it earlier--but there's no question about the fact that we expressed concerns about that omission. We are on the record as expressing concern about that omission.

    We also want to give the opportunity, to whomever will revise this citizenship guide in the future, that he or she--or both, I'm sure—should actually begin to take note of the dissatisfaction expressed by various groups in reference to the production of what I think is a very good guide in many ways, but one that falls short in others.

     As I said, this is the first major revision made in a long time. The group of individuals, historians, and academics who worked on this should actually be thanked by all members of Parliament, on both sides of the House. But it is of concern.

    I don't know how you want to work this, Mr. Chairman. I am caught between two extreme points on the spectrum that have to find ways to compromise to bring a resolution to this issue. I have a feeling that we'll be talking about this until 5:30 p.m. If that happens, it will have to be brought to the next meeting.

    The point I am making is essentially the following: that we either clearly come up with a resolution to address this issue, or this meeting, as I can tell by the posturing that is already taking place, will go on for a long time. I certainly don't support that behaviour--

    An hon. member: That's what you're doing.

    Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: --because we've worked very hard as a committee to cooperate at this level.

    Mr. Bevilacqua, you still have the floor, but I just wanted to respond to you.

    I work at the direction of the committee. Now, we have an opportunity to continue debate here today--we can go until 5:30 p.m.--but if committee members wish to discuss this between themselves, mainly the critics and the...and Mr. Dykstra, either over the break or after the break, you could make a motion to adjourn the debate.

    Other than that, I'm at the direction of the committee. We can keep on debating; I have one more speaker here.

    But I don't make those decisions. I do what you tell me to do.

    Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we'd like to have a five-minute break to speak to a representative from all parties, or more than one, to resolve this matter.

    I think we're on the record. I feel that the Liberal Party position on this issue is clear. Everybody understands, of course, that we were here, in government, long before you were. It's a big difference, because you understand responsibility of government--

    You're requesting a pause...?

    Yes, Ms. Chow.

    On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I just want to clarify something.

    This motion had been in front of the committee the day before the committee struck. It was submitted to the clerk on March 10. It was in front of the committee on March 11, and in front of the subcommittee—

    I can assure you, Ms. Chow, that the motion is in order.

    Thank you. It didn't just spring up.

    Or did you want to talk about how long it's been around?

    No, no, it's just that I want people to know that it didn't just come out of thin air.

    The motion is in order, Ms. Chow.

    Mr. Bevilacqua.

    If it's okay with the rest of the committee to suspend for five or ten minutes....

    We will indeed do that.

    We're on again.

    Mr. Bevilacqua, you still have the floor.

    Can we have some order, please? Mr. Bevilacqua's speaking.

    How do you want to work this procedurally, Mr. Chairman? I have what I would say is a friendly amendment; is that fair?

    Well, let's try it and see how friendly it is.

    Okay:

    Mr. Chair, can I just clarify one thing?

    So the only wording change is “in its next update”.

    Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Yes.

    Ms. Olivia Chow: I'm fine with that. That's very friendly. That was what I was talking about anyway. That's why I took out the word “immediately”.

    As I said, the first edition is mostly out already. You're not pulling them back. So this is the next reprint. I have no problem with it being the next issue of the citizenship guide.

    I'm fine with that--if that's the only change.

    Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: Yes. That's perfect.

    We need to have a copy what you have written there.

    Sure.

    Remember, Ms. Chow says in her motion, “the Minister and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration”. She had added “the Minister”.

    Or are you taking that out?

    An hon. member: Did you want to leave it as “the Minister and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration”?

    Yes, even though....

    An hon. member: The department really includes the minister.

    Exactly.

    You're right, it doesn't really matter, but she had them in the motion.

    Is that a big deal? Does it have to be “the Minister”? It doesn't have to be, because—

    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.

    It's issued by the department.

    It doesn't matter, at the end of the day?

    No, it doesn't.

    I've lost complete control here. We've got five conversations going on.

    An hon. member: I was on the list.

    The Chair: Well, Mr. Bevilacqua still has the floor.

    An hon. member: I just want to get on the list, Chair.

    The Chair: Oh, of course, yes.

    So you have the changed motion, right, with the friendly amendment?

    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.

    Ms. Olivia Chow: It's friendly, Mr. Chairman.

    Okay.

    Mr. Bevilacqua, are you finished?

    What do you mean “finished”?

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: I'm not finished yet. Give me a few more months.

    I'd never suggest what you're suggesting.

    I know, I know, absolutely; I'm just kidding.

    Mr. Dykstra, and then Mr. Young.

    I'm not going to speak for very long--

    An hon. member: [Inaudible--Editor]

    Mr. Rick Dykstra: 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.

    Mr. Young.

    I agree with Mr. Dykstra.

    Thank you, Chair.

    Okay.

    Is there further debate?

    Ms. Chow.

    The wording really should be “in its next reprint”, not “in its next update”.

    You want “reprint”?

    Yes. I think that's Maurizio meant.

    Mr. Bevilacqua, you're okay with that?

    I'm not a printer--

    Well, I sure am not a printer.

    It doesn't matter. Next issue, next update--it's the same thing, I think. It means the same thing.

    What do you want?

    What is the actual wording now? Is it “update”?

    Yes.

    There's a big difference, actually. There's a difference between reprinting and updating.

    Mr. Chair, I will move the amendment to make it “reprint”, just to be very clear. I am amending Mr. Bevilacqua's motion--

    Excuse me, I want to consult with the clerk.

    Mr. Chair, apparently--my English being a second language--according to our Bloc friend, “update” makes more sense than “reprint”. His English is better than mine.

    So it's fine. Just leave it as “update”.

    Is there any further debate?

    Do we all understand the motion? Do you want me to read it?

    The clerk will read it.

    The amended motion is as follows:

    We will have a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk.

    (Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5)

    An hon. member: I move adjournment.

    The Chair: Well, Monsieur St-Cyr has asked that I raise the issue of travel. I will only allow that to be debated if there is unanimous consent.

    There is unanimous consent?

    An hon. member: Yes.

    The Chair: Now, the question as to how you're going to....

    Is there unanimous consent?

    An hon. member: I don't know if there should be.

    An hon. member: There is.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    I'm new to this committee, but that's news to me, Mr. Chair.

    Are you saying there is not unanimous consent?

    I'm just raising a hairy eyebrow is what I'm doing, Mr. Chair.

    An hon. member: We have unanimous consent, yes.

    Then the next question I have--Monsieur St-Cyr, we'll put it on the floor--is whether it would be appropriate to discuss it in camera.

    An hon. member:Oui.

    The Chair: We are going to go in camera.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]