Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're not....

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to let Mr. St-Cyr go.

You're on the floor, sir.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I understand what Ms. Ménard is saying. Unlike the Chair, I see no contradiction between what Ms. Ménard just said and the amendment that is before us. Ms. Ménard is saying that, in accordance with the Supreme Court's decision, the government can impose its policy across the country.

Even if that is so, there is nothing preventing the federal government from doing things intelligently. In Quebec, there are supplementary requirements that apply in addition to those in place at the federal level, which require that a person be a member of an association recognized by the federal government. There are two additional requirements in Quebec. It would be inconsistent and injurious to the clients of immigration consultants in Quebec to be able to deal with a consultant who does not have the right to provide advice on immigration policy as a whole.

The Canada-Quebec Immigration Agreement recognizes that, under the Constitution, immigration is, first and foremost, a federal responsibility, but that there are special characteristics in Quebec which must be taken into account. It seems perfectly logical to do the same with respect to consultants. There is no contradiction here; it is simply the right thing to do.

For weeks now, we have been working to ensure that people do not deal with consultants who are incapable of providing appropriate advice. That is what we have been doing in this Committee for weeks—indeed, for years, as Ms. Chow pointed out. We conducted a study on this in 2008. Now we are going to allow consultants in Quebec to operate even though they can only give half of the appropriate advice to their clients, since they're only entitled to provide such advice at the federal level, and not at the provincial level. That makes absolutely no sense.

The government is very concerned about the inordinately high number of illegitimate asylum seekers. But what is going to happen if consultants in Montreal have the right to tell someone to apply as a refugee, to advise that person, fill out all the forms and support him throughout the process, when that person may in fact be eligible for a Quebec Selection Certificate? That would be harmful to the system.

It's simply a question of consistency. When this was drafted, everything was done to ensure that the Government of Quebec would not be required to establish a new structure. Everything is already in the regulations; there are no amendments to be made in Quebec. The Quebec Minister clearly stated in the National Assembly that, in her opinion, Quebec should have control over immigration consultants. It seems to me that is the logical conclusion of our Committee work and that, in the interests of people who will be dealing with immigration consultants, we should ensure that there is only one category of consultants in Quebec. Consultants have to meet all the requirements, both the federal requirements and the ones in place in Quebec.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have Mr. Oliphant, Mr. Dykstra, and then Mr. Trudeau.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

My question is for our legislative lawyer, as opposed to the departmental lawyer. It is on Mr. Dykstra's comment that this amendment would take away the minister's authority to appoint a regulatory body. That says to me that the amendment is outside the scope of the act and would have been disallowed as an amendment, because the act is principally about the minister establishing a regulatory body. We're not doing it through legislation; we're giving that minister powers, so I just wanted to check. If the government side is right, the minister then loses.... It does relate to the other comments, but I'm confused.

If the minster doesn't have the power, it should not be allowed. If it is allowed, that means the minister still has the power; therefore it makes it a more interesting discussion.

You may want time to think about that, but you've obviously ruled that it's admissible, so that would then nullify the government's argument on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I've listened to Ms. Ménard. You're almost raising the issue again that you actually supported the chair on.

I have ruled that the motion was in order. I'm not going to rule on it again. The majority of the committee has upheld that ruling. Ms. Ménard has talked about the paramountcy principle and other such things.

I don't think I'm going to allow another question here, but if Ms. Ménard has any comments on that, you might need to ask your question again.

Do you have a position on this, Ms. Ménard?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I think I need to clarify my question. It wasn't about your ruling, which was on the conflation of the two amendments. The support I gave was on your ruling that those two could be amended—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

—and that we could fold the government's into this.

My question doesn't at all imply that I don't support the ruling. I do support that ruling. It's really about the ruling on the original amendment, which has now been conflated legally into this one.

But I just want it to be clarified that the legislative clerk has indeed examined this issue. If he hasn't, he may want to take the time to do that, because it's been raised here, and I know that things fly through very quickly. I want to make sure he has really examined the amendment to ensure that the government's concern is not valid, because if the government's concern is valid, it's my concern too. That is my concern, because it would mean that we have amended the bill beyond the scope of the legislation. But quite possibly they're wrong. It's happened once before, I'm sure.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It is in order. Why are we debating it?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

The conflation is in order.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

No, no, the motion is in order. Why else are we debating it?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Hold it. I'm going to suspend for a couple of seconds here. Could we have some order?

I'm going to let the administrative clerk comment on your observation, Mr. Oliphant.

[Wayne Cole, Procedural Clerk]

My view was that the BQ amendment was simply an attempt to clarify the content of clause 2, or proposed subsection 91(2). It's a question of clarification, not a question of expansion.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have Mr. Dykstra, and then Mr. Trudeau.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I just want to pursue that a little further and get the legal counsel's perspective, because I know it is a significant concern from a ministry perspective that the amendment as currently drafted would remove the minister's authority to actually designate the body.

[A voice]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, and I have a question for you after that.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

And I have a couple.

[Elaine Ménard]

Could I have a moment to think about this?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Of course you can. We'll suspend for a minute.

[Elaine Ménard]

Thank you.

It's just the wording. I know what the intention is, but I just want to have a moment to look at the wording.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to suspend so you can discuss it with your colleagues or create your own thoughts.