Thank you.
I appreciate my colleague Ms. Lalonde's comments on this question of privilege.
I didn't know my colleague was going to raise this today.
Again, we are going through very complicated technical amendments that will make.... I've heard one analogy, and I won't take credit for it. The Citizenship Act, in some ways, is more complicated than the Income Tax Act, and we're sitting here trying to make amendments without a lot of data that could impact operations. I'm just taking it on good faith that the information I'm receiving is right. This is not how the legislative process is supposed to work.
However, if I had, as a member of this committee, not been afforded the same opportunity to review legislation that a member of the public has been given in a breach of privilege, that's a big deal. It goes against the spirit of what we're supposed to be doing here.
I hope that you find, Chair, in favour of my colleague's point.
Building on the comments of Ms. Lalonde and my colleague, I want to proceed in good faith on this bill. I think that at its heart, it's an important issue that is meritorious and worthy of cross-partisan agreement, but this is a breach of privilege.
The other question I have is this: If this is in violation of the Lobbying Act, who was lobbying? What's going on here? How is this influence being put forth?
Anybody who is watching this committee today is now going to question the process that was undertaken here. It's highly problematic.
I take no pleasure in this. I think that, to protect the integrity of the committee, Chair, I would implore you to find in favour. I think my colleague has outlined this. Also, to acknowledge my colleague Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe's earlier comment, he was not afforded the opportunity to review these amendments as we were. Now we find out that there's a member of the public who did, and that's just wrong.
Thank you.