Evidence of meeting #64 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Okay, Mr. Dhaliwal, but I have to give my ruling first. Then I will come to you.
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
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
3:45 p.m.
Liberal
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.
3:45 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Madam Chair, I'm just wondering about this procedurally. My understanding is that when a breach of privilege has been found, as you've just ruled, typically the order of business that happens in committee is that a motion is then moved to remedy the breach of privilege. I'm just not sure if the order is appropriate.
That said, I don't think my colleague will find any argument with his particular motion. I'm just wondering if perhaps the better approach is for the motion regarding privilege to be moved, and perhaps we could include his request therein.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Rempel Garner.
I have given my decision and now, as a committee, we have to go to the next step. Mr. Dhaliwal has moved a motion that also relates to the ruling I have given. It relates to privilege.
As the chair of the committee, I do not have the power to make a decision. I have given my ruling.
We have a motion before the committee. Let's deal with it and then we will go to the next steps.
Is there any debate?
Yes, Mr. Dhaliwal.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
3:50 p.m.
NDP
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.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Ms. Kwan.
Before I go to Mr. Redekopp, I have some answers to a few things Ms. Kwan has raised.
First, you mentioned, when you started, the ruling I have given. Just to make it clear to all the members of the committee, I will read a paragraph from page 1,060 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice,, third edition, so that everyone is clear about the power I have and what I can and cannot do. It says:
The Chair of a committee does not have the power to rule on questions of privilege; only the Speaker has that power. If a member wishes to raise a question of privilege during a committee meeting, or an incident arises in connection with the committee's proceedings that may constitute a breach of privilege, the committee Chair allows the member to explain the situation. The Chair then determines whether the question raised in fact relates to parliamentary privilege.
That's what I did, and that's the power I have. I wanted to read that paragraph so everyone is clear.
You have raised another issue in regard to the email that Mr. Kmiec handed over to me. Mr. Kmiec did not table that email in the committee proceedings. That's why it was not circulated to all the members. He just handed that to me.
If any document has to be circulated to all members of the committee, it has to be tabled. That's why the clerk has not circulated that email to all the members.
These were some of your questions.
Next on the list is Mr. Redekopp.
4 p.m.
Conservative
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.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.
Just one second, please. I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe on the list, but before I recognize him, I want to check with the clerk to see if he has received the text.
Okay. He will circulate this amendment to all members.
I have Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and then Ms. Kwan.
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
I didn't hear clarification from you, Madam Chair, on the appearance of Randall Emery. It's for him to come before committee to address the question of privilege only. Am I correct in understanding that?
4 p.m.
Liberal
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.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Just briefly, before we proceed, I want to clarify.
You will have received an email. It has my amendment. If you delete the word “that” and add the words “following which”, that would be my amendment, which you should have seen in that email.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Chair, I want to thank Mr. Redekopp for bringing this forward. Earlier, I mentioned that the report is going to Parliament anyway. This witness will help. The intent was there.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal.
The clerk is working on getting it circulated.
Okay. The clerk has circulated the amendment moved by Mr. Redekopp to all the members, in both languages.
I have Ms. Kayabaga.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Arielle Kayabaga Liberal London West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Could we suspend for just a minute to look over the amendment and then get back to you?
