Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2023

[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.

[J. Randall Emery, Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I accepted the committee's invitation to come today because it's important to set the record straight.

I've heard committee members say that the issue is privilege. With the greatest of respect, I say that the issue is the role of stakeholder consultation in a democracy.

Consultation with stakeholders is not just permitted and not just something that's tolerated. Stakeholder engagement is vital and necessary in a democracy. Stakeholder engagement means that decision-making gets to benefit from the widest possible range of perspectives and points of view. Stakeholder consultation exposes the implications and the effects of legislative proposals. Stakeholder engagement empowers Canadians. It gives voice to people and communities that might not otherwise be heard.

Politicians might not always like what stakeholders have to say. You won't always appreciate the feedback, but hearing from Canadians is the price of holding public office in a free and democratic society.

It's not just about listening to stakeholders. Engagement and dialogue run two ways. True dialogue means more than passively listening. It means talking to stakeholders, reaching out, bouncing ideas, exploring options, sharing alternatives, seeking input and gathering feedback.

I challenge the very notion that, in 2023, it is still appropriate to make laws in secret, to develop amendments behind closed doors and to purport to do the people's work without the people seeing or hearing or knowing. Government must be “open by default”. Who wrote that? It was Justin Trudeau.

“Secrecy. Censorship. Control...putting us in step with countries like China & North Korea.” Who wrote that? It was Pierre Poilievre.

“We want to see more transparency. We want to see people able to trust their institutions because they see the decisions being made in a transparent manner.” Who said that? It was Jagmeet Singh.

I urge the committee to remember that openness and transparency are vital to our democracy. What you want to call privilege is, in fact, the triumph of secrecy and opacity. This isn't about democracy. It's about protecting a closed system that shuts Canadians out.

This committee wants to hunt for the MP who allegedly consulted with stakeholders. This committee has interrupted its ordinary business to find out whether an MP did too much stakeholder engagement.

Too much stakeholder engagement...? Too much dialogue with the people affected by law-making...? This isn't Belarus. This isn't Bahrain. This is a democracy. This is Canada. It's not a crime for MPs to dialogue with Canadians.

Suppose an MP consulted with stakeholders. What's wrong with that? Suppose an MP tried to gather feedback on amendments to the bill. Does that not strengthen democracy? Suppose an MP said, “Instead of taking marching orders from the kids in the PMO or the minister's office or the OLO before voting, I want to hear what stakeholders have to say.” How is that a breach of privilege? Is that not the very essence of how honourable members are supposed to act?

Consulting with stakeholders, talking to stakeholders, sharing and listening should be routine. Those should be the ordinary functions, but after today, MPs will think twice before sharing with stakeholders. Today is going to have a chilling effect on stakeholder dialogue by members, and that's a shame.

To be clear, I did not receive numbered amendments from a member of Parliament or from a staff member. I did not.

If one of your committee members was behind this consultation with stakeholders, then I say, “Bravo.” To that unnamed MP, I say, “Thank you for challenging secret law-making. Thank you for upholding democracy. Thank you for respecting, not disrespecting, Canadians.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Before we get into rounds of questions, I just want to read some important information so that all members are aware of what we can do and what we cannot do.

Before we begin, I wish to make an important statement regarding today's meeting. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Monday, May 8, we will be studying the potential matter of privilege, originally raised on Wednesday, May 3, and hearing from a witness. Drawing on procedure, practice and precedent, I wish to make the following very clear to all the members.

The committee cannot decide whether this matter is a prima facie question of privilege. Only the Speaker has this authority once a matter is raised in the House. This is why we are referring to this as a potential matter of privilege. The committee cannot censor or punish the conduct of a member or another person. Only the House has this power.

The committee should not attempt to investigate the matter on the assumption that the matter is a prima facie question of privilege, because such a determination, which rests with the Speaker, has not been made.

As I already explained in my ruling on Monday, May 8, the committee's authority is limited to reporting a potential matter of privilege to the House. As explained on page 1060 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, such a report should:

clearly describe the situation;

summarize the facts;

provide the names of the people involved, if applicable;

state that there may be a breach of privilege; and

ask the House to take such measures as it deems appropriate.

Today the committee is hearing from the witness as a way of better understanding the facts related to this matter. I would then encourage the committee, if it indeed wishes for the matter to continue its course, to report the matter to the House as soon as possible.

As we have heard in many Speaker's rulings, including as recently as this week, questions of privilege should be brought to the Speaker's attention with the shortest possible delay. In order to do this, the committee must first report the matter to the House.

Thank you all for your attention.

With that, we will go into rounds of questioning. We will begin our six-minute round with Mr. Kmiec.

Mr. Kmiec, you may begin.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry for missing Monday. It was unavoidable on my part. I had a personal matter to attend to, and my daughter broke her finger too, as a bonus prize. I can provide evidence if you'd like the X-ray pictures.

Mr. Emery, thank you for for coming before the committee. As a quick question to you, how did you know the amendment numbers?

[J. Randall Emery]

I received that information.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

From whom did you receive the information?

[J. Randall Emery]

I'd like to just reiterate that this is about protecting a closed system that shuts Canadians out.

The answer to your question—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

From whom did you receive the amendment numbers?

[J. Randall Emery]

—is that I received it from another stakeholder.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

From another stakeholder? Which stakeholder was this?

[J. Randall Emery]

It was Michèle Vallée.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Is she with a particular organization, or is she just a member of the public in general?

[J. Randall Emery]

Just a member of the public.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

When Ms. Vallée communicated the enumeration of the amendments, did she provide it as a document, or did she refer to it in an email?

[J. Randall Emery]

As a document.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Would you have received these electronically?

[J. Randall Emery]

Yes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Do you still have that email, including the electronic document, in your Gmail or whatever email you use for work?

[J. Randall Emery]

I do not have an email.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Did you delete it?

[J. Randall Emery]

No, I did not receive it over email.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

She just handed you a paper copy at some point.

[J. Randall Emery]

No.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Was it over a phone call?

[J. Randall Emery]

No.