Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 3rd, 2023

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I think this is a good question, but I'm going to put it a different way.

Can I ask my colleague Ms. Lalonde, as amended, what it is her intent for it to do? I ask that. As amended, what is the actual mechanism trying to do?

I think it's important to get this on the record. Sometimes, when there are legal interpretation matters, they occasionally look back at committee testimony. I want to get on the record what the intent is as amended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Lalonde.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you.

To the officials, based on your understanding of the amendment as amended, does it do what Ms. Lalonde said it was going to do? Is there any potential ambiguity in the intent that we should be rectifying with further subamendments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Girard.

[Nicole Girard]

Thank you.

There are no issues with the motion as subamended. It's clear and drafted in a way, as read by the clerk, that will enable the implementation as intended and as outlined by the member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I like the subamendments that have been made to the amendment. I want to be clear that because the substantial connection test isn't as substantial as I would like, I still intend to vote against the amendment, despite liking all the subamendments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

There are no further questions.

We will vote on NDP-3 as amended. Is everyone clear?

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On a question of privilege, Madam Chair, I've been waiting to confirm that this information I received from an outside party was correct.

This is a question of privilege. I believe some of the amendments and subamendments from this committee were shared with a stakeholder. That goes to the point that my colleague from the Bloc was making, that people have been talking to outside groups, including two political parties here.

I have an email that I am going to read. I also have a French translation that was kindly provided my friend Alexis from the Bloc.

I'm going to read this email that I received April 28, 2023, and then I'm going to go into the point of privilege and what I believe the role of the chair is. This is what I was told:

Following up on our conversation in committee, there are two sets of amendments to Bill S-245 related to the after-first generation exceptions in the Citizenship Act:

Here's where my concerns begin.

NDP-1, NDP-3, NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-12, G-2, G-6, G-7, G-8, and G-9.

Then it continues on:

From our perspective—

This is from the stakeholder group. I don't blame the stakeholder; this is not their fault. This is something that happened here at committee between parliamentarians. I was not included, and thankfully there are no CPC amendments affected by this.

From our perspective, the NDP amendments best address the issue of family separation/lost mobility for Canadians who work abroad because the connection test can be met by parent or grandparent and has a threshold that Canadians can meet naturally. One big problem with existing law is that it treats citizens so differently that nobody really understands it, so this last point is very important.

It goes on:

The Liberal amendments have the advantage of a grant that can be met at any point in time. If you miss the residency requirement before you have children, you can make it up. But the test is one that a great many people will miss even if they stay connected in Canada.

Here is the sentence in the next paragraph that's most important to me, because this is exactly what's happened here on amendment NDP-3, which is, I believe, a breach of the privileges of the committee:

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.

I asked the officials whether this was by right versus by grant.

The stakeholder group then goes into the details describing their preference.

I went back to Bosc and Gagnon. On page 1,062, it says:

Notices of motions normally remain confidential until they are moved during a meeting, although the sponsoring member may choose to make it public prior to doing so.

This would mean that any member controls their amendments. The government side and opposition side will control their amendments. We're allowed to give those out. I'm entirely okay with what people do.

It continues, in Bosc and Gagnon, on page 1,005:

When there is sufficient time, if the committee agrees, the package can be circulated in advance of the clause-by-clause consideration meeting, ensuring that all members of the committee may see the amendments that their colleagues wish to make to the bill.

That's the enumeration of the bills that we have. Those amendments can be shared amongst ourselves as parties meet confidentially.

Everybody has perked up. I'm glad I have everybody's attention.

We can meet. We get the numbering of all our amendments. It just makes it easier to work out which amendments we like and which amendments we don't like amongst parliamentarians on this committee. That's fine.

These practices combine such that the usual practice in committees of the House is that notices of amendments are treated as confidential when submitted to the clerk of the committee until the sponsoring member moves them during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

Now, I have an example of what happened at another committee, because I think it's very relevant to what's happened here. Occasionally, exceptions are made by committees and not by individual members. This is the example I have.

Last fall, there was a debate on Parliament Hill about the Liberal government's overreach with amendments G-4 and G-46 to Bill C-21, which is the firearms confiscation bill that the government has before the public safety committee. It's still before the public safety committee. That committee, while debating amendment G-4, also agreed to make public amendment G-46.

We have no such agreement here that I understand. Reading from this email, it's indicative that a person knew the numbering of our amendments and knew what subamendments were going to be made at committee at some point. I didn't know about any of this, and I believe that's a breach of the privileges of the committee.

Now, they agreed to that, and ahead of it being moved at the appropriate stage of clause-by-clause consideration, that agreement can be found. It's recorded at the beginning of the public safety committee's minutes for November 24, 2022. If the extra legislative clerk wants to go check, it's there.

Again, that said, it's acknowledged and common practice for members to engage with stakeholders in policy development which could extend to developing those policies in the expression of legislation, including amendments to bills.

It's not, however, appropriate to take the amendments that have been filed with the clerk, especially other parties' amendments, and share them with stakeholders or the public at large for comment. It's a protected document at the committee.

The approach of the public safety committee on releasing amendment G-46 to Bill C-21 shows, I think, the correct method of proceeding and the correct way of doing it. This stakeholder group did not have the right to know which amendments were which, or what subamendments would be moved, especially because they knew the strategy of when they would be moved.

Based on the communications I have received, we know he had possession of the committee's amendment package and not merely draft text yet to be finalized and filed. He cited amendments by their reference numbers, which are assigned to them by the clerk of the committee. There's no other way for him to know which ones are NDP-1, NDP-2, NDP-3, NDP-4 and the enumeration of which ones were in there.

It makes me glad that the Conservatives didn't submit any amendments despite, Madam Chair, my having moved an amendment when we were going into this, to give us extra time to submit them. I'm glad I didn't do that now, because I don't know if they would have been made public or given to the stakeholder group.

Because the draft amendment package has been shared with members of the public, a possible breach of privilege has occurred, and the committee must report the matter to the House for appropriate consideration. On the committee chair's role, this is from the online “Privileges and Immunities” chapter:

Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege. Should a Member wish to raise a question of privilege in committee, or should some event occur in committee which appears to be a breach of privilege or contempt, the Chair of the committee will recognize the Member and hear the question of privilege, or, in the case of some incident, suggest that the committee deal with the matter.

It goes on to say:

The Chair, however, has no authority to rule that a breach of privilege or contempt has occurred. The role of the Chair in such instances is to determine whether the matter raised does in fact touch on privilege and it's not a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate. If the Chair is of the opinion that the Member's interjection deals with a point of order, a grievance or a matter of debate, or that the incident is within the powers of the committee to deal with, the Chair will rule accordingly giving reasons. The committee cannot then consider the matter further as a question of privilege. Should a Member disagree with the Chair's decision, the Member can appeal the decision to the committee.... The committee may sustain or overturn the Chair's decision.

I have the motion ready and written out, Madam Chair, if you find that it was a breach of privilege. I can give you a copy, if you want to consider that.

I also have the email from the stakeholder who gave it to me. Madam Chair, I'm more than happy to give it to you so you can take a look at it. I think you will find it's egregious. It is a violation, I believe, of my privileges as a member and those of my colleagues who were not privy to any of these conversations.

Amendments are supposed to be confidential to the committee. We can share our own. I know that's a practice that is done regularly. There are sentences here that talk about subamendments that were just done in NDP-3.

I believe there was a breach of privileges of the committee, and my privileges as a member, because I was not party to any of this, and there is an outside member of the public who knew what the subamendment strategy was of certain members of this committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Ms. Lalonde and then Ms. Rempel Garner.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am very upset to hear that the amendments package was shared with anyone outside this committee. While I can say I have had conversations with all members about potential amendments and subamendments, I have never given these details to any stakeholders.

The conversation between a member of Parliament...is, I think, normal. I think my colleague has made reference to this as a process. However, it is unacceptable that anyone should share any details, especially in writing, with stakeholders.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel Garner and then Mr. El-Khoury.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.

Mr. El-Khoury, you have the floor.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

According to me, it's categorically unacceptable.

Through you, Madam Chair, is it possible to know which stakeholder?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I gave it to the chair, the direct email. It's my parliamentary email.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It is from Citizens Rights, that's the organization—the Canadian Citizens Rights Council, Randall Emery.

We have Mr. Redekopp and then Ms. Kwan.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be very brief. I appreciate the comments from everybody so far.

I want to remind everybody that this is exactly what Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe said earlier on about not having access to things and not being able to study things ahead of time. Now, here we are. It's almost a bit ironic. That's the whole gist of this. I won't prolong this unnecessarily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll also put myself on the record here to say that, in the development of proposed amendments, I certainly consulted with various stakeholders, including having conversations with the legislative counsel on proposed amendments; however, with respect to amendments that were submitted to the clerk afterwards, that documentation was definitely not released from my office.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Are there any other—

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

From me, I should say, very specifically, just in case the people are wondering.