Evidence of meeting #65 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 amendments.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
This meeting...?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
This was just.... I don't remember.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
You don't remember. Do you want to take a moment to look through your calendar for when this happened?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
No. I don't recall.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Okay.
During this meeting, this information was shared that there were going to be three subamendments. Did you get it, at any point, in writing that there would be a series of subamendments to the NDP amendment?
4:45 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
I'd like to stop right there.
Again, this is.... I did not have knowledge of three subamendments.
4:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Then how is it possible that you could have written:
they will offer sub amendments to the NDP.amendments
-to increase the connection test to 1095 days, only for parents, and by right vs. grant.
Those are three distinct ideas that were then done at this committee to one of the NDP amendments. It was debated. The officials had come here to inform the committee on what the impact would be of each amendment.
That's when I raised a point of privilege. I understand that sometimes stakeholders discuss things and may come to an understanding, but you had the numbers, which we now understand came from Michèle Vallée. Then you basically described what would happen at committee. Your sense of divination is expert if you were able to guesswork.
I'm just wondering. At this meeting with the NDP, did they communicate to you in writing? Were they very specific on what they had been told by other members and what happened?
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I'm sorry for interrupting, Mr. Kmiec. Your time is up. I gave you an extra few seconds for the time in which you had to repeat your question.
We will now proceed to Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal, you will have six minutes. You can begin, please.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, first of all, I would like to thank Mr. Emery for joining us here today, especially on short notice.
On behalf of my colleagues on this side, I want to thank you, Mr. Emery. However, on the other hand, we want to make sure that you tell the committee the whole story, because you are a very key witness to this. Hopefully, you will be able to answer the questions that I and other colleagues on both sides have.
In your email that you sent on April 28 to staff in the office of Mr. Kmiec, you specifically referenced:
sets of amendments to Bill S-245 related to the after-first generation exceptions in the Citizenship Act: NDP-1, NDP-3, NDP-5, NDP-8, NDP-12 G-2, G-6, G-7, G-8, and G-9
How did you come to know about the specific content of the amendments that you listed in your email to Mr. Kmiec's office? Further, how did you come to learn which numbers had been attributed to this content?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
It's as I just indicated.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
I'm sorry...?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
You said that you had a meeting with Madam Kwan. Is that correct?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
No. I'm sorry. That was.... No, no, no. Please let me be clear.
As I said, no member of this committee shared amendments with numbers with me, numbered amendments.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
Yes. That's correct.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
How do you know...? I mean, do you trust that Michèle Vallée was telling you the truth that this came from the Bloc?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
That's just what was said. I don't know. I can't say what's true and what's not. That's just what I was told.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
The information that you put in your letter is not the first-hand information that you had, to particularly say what it is.
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
Are you referencing the numbers?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
The numbers were in the document.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Surrey—Newton, BC
In the correspondence that you sent to Mr. Kmiec's office on April 28, you referenced that, “There is no question in my mind that the Liberals will amend this bill. There are both external and internal reasons.”
Could you please speak about what you meant by that language? What external and internal factors were you referring to?
4:50 p.m.
Executive Director, Canadian Citizens Rights Council, As an Individual
That was an assertion on my part. With regard to internal reasons, very simply, I know that there are members of the Liberal Party, who have been on record publicly, who support this. Those are the internal reasons.
The external reasons were that there are folks who have been talking to members of the Liberal Party, and I believed, when I wrote that.... I felt confident that the Liberal Party would amend this for those reasons.