Bill S-245

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to permit certain persons who lost their Canadian citizenship to regain it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 65 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today we will be dealing with the potential matter of privilege regarding Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act by granting citizenship to certain Canadians.

We are joined by Mr. Randall Emery, executive director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council.

Welcome. Thank you for appearing before the committee.

Mr. Emery, you will have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we will go into rounds of questioning. You can please begin.

[The Clerk]

My apologies. I missed the previous amendment.

I reads:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), at the next meeting.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Keelan Buck]

It reads as follows: That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you.

Thank you for that, but I have another tweak that I would like to make to this motion. It has to do with the part that refers to Bill S-245. We talked about that a bit. I believe we need to change it so that we are referring to the potential breach of privilege rather than to Bill S-245 so that we don't have any problems with.... We have to be careful with our motions, because privilege motions take precedence over this, and I want to make sure that is done.

My amendment would be as follows. Replace where it currently says “current study of” with the wording from my original motion, which is “potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to”, and then it carries on. It would read as follows: “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians)”. Then add my previous amendment, which I think was “by Wednesday” or “at the next meeting”.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As usual, Madam Chair, I'm going to play the role of Quebecois sovereignist trying to find a compromise between the federalist parties on Canadian citizenship legislation. Described that way, it may seem funny, but that is nonetheless the situation in which we find ourselves.

I'm trying to find the common sense in it all. I just want to make my colleagues aware that, if the witness does not appear quickly, as per the Conservatives' request, we're going to end up with a committee that doesn't function. If we don't consider their proposal, we're going to lose more time than we thought we could gain.

I suggest my Liberal and New Democrat friends agree with the Conservatives. Let's get the witness to appear. Afterwards, we can delve into the essence of the work we have to do as a committee, which means completing study of Bill S‑245.

As usual, my federalist friends, your good friend the sovereignist is trying to find a compromise for you.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My colleagues Ms. Rempel Garner and Mr. Genuis were talking about timeliness, essentially. That is the basis of what I am talking about in my amendment. I want to reiterate—it's what my colleague was just speaking about—that this is a very important, pertinent issue that we need to deal with as quickly as possible.

I'm concerned that the way the motion is written doesn't convey that. In fact, it doesn't even mention this issue. It mentions Bill S-245.

That's my concern. We need to do something to put a little more teeth, if you will, into this motion so that we make sure it's done in a timely manner and as quickly as possible. The next meeting would be the one to do it at. For all the reasons that have been stated already, we need to deal with this first, or as quickly as we possibly can. It does affect what we do in some other deliberations potentially.

We've had a lot of very good questions. Unfortunately, we didn't get a chance to discuss a lot of the NDP amendments with the NDP. That's partly why we ask a lot of questions of the department officials who are here and who are probably bored out of their minds at the moment.

We appreciate your being here and the answers you have given so far.

It's important that we ask those questions about the bill. However, we also have to be careful that there aren't improper influences happening to us as well. We've all had different people contacting us about this bill. It's one thing if somebody has an opinion and they share it with us or with our office, but if that person has been privy to very detailed information about amendments, it can change things. It can impact, in an unfavourable way, what we choose to do, potentially.

I know there are particular stakeholders who have been phoning us repeatedly, sometimes multiple times a day. That isn't necessarily helpful for us. Some of those things can be wrongly influenced by somebody having information that they shouldn't have.

That's the core issue, getting back to the privilege we're speaking of today. That's why I think it is important that we put a time condition on this. It's so that we don't end up at the end of June and find out that we don't have a chance to get the witness here.

That's why I want to see us have some kind of time limit so we get this done very quickly. My preference would be to do it right away, this week, and then we can dispose of it and, as we said, move on to the substance of the bill. As we all know, there is a deadline to get that done, which I believe is June 15. We still have some time and that's a good thing. However, we do need to get that done. That's the timeliness factor and why that needs to be done quickly.

I also want to address the question of whether there has been a breach.

Madam Chair, you rightly stated that you are not the arbiter of that. You do not decide whether there has been a breach, but you decide whether there is enough evidence to support an investigation into that. That's what you've done, and that's good.

There was some mention from Ms. Kwan about the document that was not tabled, and that was the choice of the person who had the document. From what I understand, in that document—I think Ms. Kwan alluded to some of this—there were very specific references to specific amendment numbers. Even if somebody generally understood that government amendments are typically numbered G-1, G-2, G-3 and so on—even if they understood that basic concept—they would have no way of knowing, for example, that G-3 is specifically about this versus G-5 being about that. They wouldn't know that. That level of information, which is what I recall seeing in the document, is very specific. To me, that is very indicative of a potential breach. Somebody, somehow, passed that information on to them. That's why I think it's important that this be reviewed in more detail.

The other thing that was in that document, as I recall, was a bit of a strategy: that A is going to happen and then B will happen, or there will be a motion for this and then an amendment for that. There was a bit of a plan, if you will, that had been created and devised.

That is essentially what was in this document, which, when it was received, seemed a bit interesting. Then, lo and behold, when we had our last meeting, the plan that was outlined in that document was in fact exactly what happened. Clearly this person not only had access to information they shouldn't have had, but also had access to the strategy, if you will, that was going to be used by the person moving that.

I'm not sure that was necessarily part of a breach. I don't know. That's what we'll have to study, because that part I'm not exactly clear about. Certainly having some of that information, I believe, was clearly a breach of privilege. However, as was said before, we around this table certainly reserve the right to agree or disagree that it was a breach, because at this point we haven't had the full disclosure. I also believe that's why it's so important to have this witness come, because they're the one who knows. They know the answers to these questions, and every one of us needs the opportunity to ask these questions to find out the truth about where this came from.

It's not so much about punishing somebody necessarily, because there could be legitimate faults in the way that some members run their offices. I don't mean that in a critical way. It could be an legitimate hole that needs to be plugged, if you will.

I love aviation, so I often watch—and some of you may have watched—shows in which there is a plane crash and they describe all the things that happened that led up to that plane crash. Often there are multiple things. It's not about assigning blame so much as it is about figuring out what went wrong and plugging the hole so that next time it doesn't happen.

That's kind of the same principle here. It's not so much about assigning blame to somebody. It's about figuring out why it happened and what flaws, if you will, there were in the system and then figuring out a way to plug those holes, to fix those flaws so that it doesn't happen again. I believe that's really important and a really important outcome of this.

That summarizes some of my thoughts for now. As I said, the main thing I want to do is make sure we have a timeliness associated with this so that we don't end up just delaying it and not dealing with it. I think that is very important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

The motion that Mr. Dhaliwal had put on notice, and the motion he moved, says:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the current study of Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

That's the motion that Mr. Dhaliwal has moved. Mr. Redekopp has moved an amendment. Now we have an amendment on the floor. We have to deal with the amendment and then proceed to the main motion.

I have Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your ruling.

As for the motion that's on the table, I think it makes sense that we would hear from him.

I just want to address quickly that Ms. Kwan mentioned a tactic—that this is a tactic, I think she's implying, to stall or something like that. This is not a tactic. This is a very serious potential breach of parliamentary practice and privilege. It's something that, regardless of what committee it happened in, is a very significant issue. It's also precedent-setting, and I think we need to deal with it accordingly. It doesn't matter what issue is before us today. I think it's incumbent on us as MPs to stop and deal with this issue.

I wanted to make sure that was that on the table.

I would like to propose an amendment to this motion. After what has been proposed by Mr. Dhaliwal, we would add the following:

, following which, the committee report to the House of Commons the potential breach of privilege resulting from the premature distribution of notices of amendments to Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians), to a member of the public before clause-by-clause consideration and amendments and subamendments were moved at committee.

I believe the clerk has this wording, not with Mr. Dhaliwal's piece but with this piece, so that can be sent around.

Essentially what we're doing is saying, yes, let's get Mr. Emery. Let's bring him to committee. Let's talk to him. Then, following that, we will write a report and report it to the House. That's essentially what my motion is saying.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before I speak to the motion, I want to first touch on an issue with your decision.

What you found is that the matter raised relates to a matter of privilege. However, it is my understanding, Madam Chair, that you have not found that privilege was violated at this committee. I just want to make sure that was the case.

With respect to the motion from Mr. Dhaliwal, I certainly support the motion to call the witness to come before the committee to provide clarity on the question of privilege. To be sure, if that motion passes, the motion is to call the witness to speak before the committee on the question around privilege and not to revisit, I assume, the issue around Bill S-245. If I'm incorrect, I would like to have some clarity on that. I think that's an important motion from this perspective.

I had the chance to review the Hansard from Mr. Kmiec that was made at the last committee meeting. He seemed to indicate that he believed a breach of the committee's privilege has occurred. I will quote from it:

What I have heard about the Liberal NDP compromise is that they will offer subamendments—

That has just happened.

—to the NDP amendments to increase the connection test to 1,095 days—

The subamendment made the reference back to the substantial connection test.

—only for parents—

We just removed grandparents.

—and by right vs. grant.

His comments appear to be outlining the process of how things occurred, and certainly that is how....

In my engagement with my stakeholder groups, I advised them that the NDP intends to move amendments to address the connections test issue and that there are a number of areas I would like to pursue. However, there was only agreement to move forward on the 1,095 days and the parents, not the grandparents. All of the stakeholder groups certainly knew that, and that is something I have informed them of all the way through. Most stakeholder groups were advised.

It is my view that it's highly likely that the individual may well have.... I'm assuming that this is a very sophisticated individual who actually talked to every single party, in all likelihood, and got information on what their intentions were.

My intentions have been open and on the public record from day one in terms of what I would like to do to amend Bill S-245 and bring forward amendments that are indeed out of scope to address the lost Canadian issue once and for all. Negotiations and discussions with the government side were something I started even before this year to see whether or not we could find a way to move forward on that. These discussions had been under way.

When it was clear that the government wasn't going to move on some of the items I would like to see go forward, I did inform the stakeholder groups I was connected with to let them know and to ascertain whether or not this was something we would still want to proceed with. That's as clear as day.

It is entirely possible that the individual in question may well have talked to a variety of people, gotten this information and been able to piece together what the procedure is. To me, that is not surprising at all, nor does it show that privilege has been breached.

What we are talking about here for privilege to have been breached is for the documents to have been shared. I can assure this committee once again, as I did in the last committee, that the documents the clerk sent to committee members were not shared by my office at any time—not by me or by my office at any time.

I don't mind bringing this individual forward. What I am concerned about, though, is this. I feel this is a tactic being exercised as an attempt to distract from the work we're doing and to delay the work we're doing. We're under a tight timeline, as all members know. We have to report back to the House on this work, and we have a 30-day limit set from previous committee meetings, by way of extension.

There's no surprise here. I know that some people at this committee meeting would not want to see the out-of-scope amendments dealt with. I'm disappointed about that, because it certainly seems to be a change of position, but that said, that's what they want to do. I think efforts are being made to prevent our being able to report to the House in a timely fashion. That's my greatest concern.

To get to the bottom of this issue, I think what would be required is for documentation to be provided to prove that in fact a breach has occurred. I do not believe it has.

Madam Chair, what I would also like for committee members to receive is the email that Mr. Kmiec provided to you at the last meeting. I requested that from the clerk, and I was advised that it was handed to you, Madam Chair, as a casual act, as opposed to it being tabled as a document. However, what I thought I saw at the committee was that the document was tabled. That seems not to be the case. I think it would be appropriate for that document to be shared with all committee members so that we can see exactly what the suggestions are in full.

Madam Chair, is a motion required for that document to be shared by the clerk with all committee members? If it is, I'll be happy to move it at the appropriate time.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, pursuing the same grounds you mentioned, Mr. Kmiec raised a matter last week that we should all take very seriously. It is, of course, a concern to all members here. That's why on Thursday I put in a notice of motion and moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite Randall Emery to appear on the current study of Bill S-245, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

It is very important to hear from the witness so that he can provide us with more information and context on this matter before the committee. Hearing from the witness first will better inform the drafting of the report, and I hope all my colleagues on both sides will be able to support this and understand the intent. Perhaps it's a misunderstanding, but we won't know until we get the witness in front of this committee.

With that, I would ask for the support of my honourable colleagues on both sides.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We'll pick up where we left it last week. I have to give my ruling, and then I'll acknowledge you.

Welcome to meeting number 64 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

Today, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, November 16, 2022, the committee will resume consideration of Bill S-245, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (granting citizenship to certain Canadians).

Before proceeding any further, I will return to the matter raised by Mr. Kmiec during the committee's last meeting on Wednesday, May 3. He described a situation in which a member of the public appears to have gained detailed knowledge of the package of potential amendments to Bill S-245, which was distributed to members of the committee and was understood to be confidential. He suggested that this matter relates to parliamentary privilege and asked the chair, in accordance with the usual practice for matters of privilege in committees, to decide whether the matter indeed relates to privilege.

Several other members have spoken to this. I asked the committee to allow me to consider the matter further with the understanding that we would get back to the matter at today's meeting. Thank you for giving me the time since the last meeting.

I would like to inform members of the committee that, based on the procedures and rules, the matter at hand pertains to potential amendments and subamendments to a bill that are understood to be confidential once they are distributed to the committee and until they are moved at the committee. Based on what the committee heard on Wednesday, May 3, it appears that such confidential information may have been shared with members of the public.

As such, I agree with Mr. Kmiec that the matter he raised indeed relates to parliamentary privilege. That's my ruling on that.

With that, I have a speaking list: Mr. Dhaliwal, Ms. Kwan and Mr. Redekopp.

Go ahead, Mr. Dhaliwal

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much to my colleague.

I'll be very brief, because I would love to think that we could end Bill S-245 today.

NDP-3, with that amendment, now describes who can meet the connection test. The person who can meet the connection test is a parent born any time, as long as their second-generation child is born after April 16, 2009.

[Philippe Méla, Legislative Clerk]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Hopefully, the attempt is successful.

The amendment would read, once amended three times over, like this:

That Bill S-245, in clause 1, be amended by adding after line 14 on page 1 the following:

(2.1) Paragraph 3(3)(a) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(a) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at the time of his or her birth, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c), (e), (g), (g.1), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs;

(a.01) if the person was born after April 16, 2009 and, at the time of his or her birth,

(i) only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under paragraph (1)(b), (c.1), (e), (g), (g.1), (h), (o), (p), (q) or (r) or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those paragraphs, and

(ii) neither of the person's parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada;

(A) had a substantial connection with Canada, or

(B) had a parent who was a citizen with a substantial connection with Canada.

(2.2) The portion of paragraph 3(3)(b) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(b) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at that time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions, or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:

(2.3) Subsection 3(3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph—

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Now I would like to move subamendment number 3.

I'd like to move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by adding the following after the proposed text:

(2.2) The portion of paragraph 3(3)(b) of the Act before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(b) if the person was born before April 17, 2009 and, at any time, only one of the person’s parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the following provisions, or both of the person’s parents were citizens under any of the following provisions:

(2.3) Subsection 3(3) of the Act is amended by striking out “or” at the end of paragraph (a.2), by adding “or” at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following after paragraph (b):

(c) if the person was born after April 16, 2009 and

(i) at any time, only one of the person's parents was a citizen and that parent was a citizen under any of the provisions referred to in subparagraphs (b)(i) to (viii), or both of the person's parents were citizens under any of those provisions, and

(ii) at the time of their birth, neither of the person's parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada.

Madam Chair, NDP-3 is proposing automatic citizenship by descent, beyond the first generation, for anyone who has a parent who meets the requirement of a substantial connection to Canada. However, as written, it would exclude someone who has a Canadian parent who was born before February 15, 1977, even if they meet the substantial connection requirement.

We believe that this is a simple oversight, and this subamendment fixes the oversight and allows the parent to meet the substantial connection requirements, regardless of when they were born.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move a second subamendment.

I move that NDP-3, proposing to amend clause 1 of Bill S-245 by adding text after line 14 on page 1, be amended by substituting the following for the text of the proposed subparagraph 3(3)(a.01)(ii):

(ii) neither of the person's parents was a citizen who had a substantial connection with Canada;

This makes a change to the list of people who can meet the substantial connection requirement introduced by NDP-1. NDP-3 proposes that it should be the parents or a grandparent, but this makes it so it can be only the parents.

Thank you, Madam Chair.