Bill C-37 (Historical)

Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act

An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act

This enactment amends the Citizenship Act to
(a) allow certain persons who would be citizens but for the death of a parent to become citizens;
(b) allow the grandchildren of Canadians who have served abroad in or with the Canadian armed forces, the federal public administration or the public service of a province, otherwise than as a locally engaged person, to be citizens by descent or, if the grandchildren are adopted, to be eligible for citizenship under section 5.1;
(c) clarify the rule that citizenship may not be acquired after the first generation either by descent or, in the case of an adopted person, by way of a grant under section 5.1;
(d) clarify that, in most cases, applicants for citizenship must be physically present in Canada for a specified period immediately before their application;
(e) provide for a new judicial process to revoke the citizenship of a person who has obtained, retained, renounced or resumed citizenship by false representation or fraud or by knowingly concealing material circumstances;
(f) provide for the opportunity to seek, in the context of the new judicial process, a declaration of inadmissibility leading to the deportation of the person whose citizenship is revoked;
(g) provide for the regulation of third-party involvement in the citizenship process;
(h) expand the prohibitions with respect to grants of citizenship to include convictions for and ongoing criminal proceedings with respect to foreign offences, as well as sentences served outside Canada; and
(i) provide for new offences, increase penalties and amend the limitation period.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

My question is simply one of procedure. Is it something we have to do now—to designate that the witnesses we hear on this bill will be applied to Bill C-37—or is it something that we do retroactively once we start studying Bill C-37?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 35, on Wednesday, December 1, 2010. The orders of the day are, pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 28, 2010, the examination of Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (children born abroad).

Before we begin, it's the chair's understanding that witnesses for this bill will be treated the same as those for Bill C-37, even though Bill C-37 hasn't gone through the House—hasn't even been debated yet—and that we might even continue on another day, namely December 8, on other witnesses.

The only caucus that has given the clerk names of witnesses is the government. So if members of the opposition have any names of witnesses on Bill C-467 or Bill C-37, they should give them to the clerk by the end of tomorrow.

Mr. Trudeau.

[Elspeth Ross]

Three minutes is enough.

I have the same recommendations as the Adoption Council of Canada because of the lack of information: stats, publishing, and what not. But I have some new recommendations for you.

One is that the government support or preferably adopt Bill C-569 of MP John Rafferty, calling for a national strategy for FASD to commit the government to develop a national plan for treatment and prevention, which we don't have at the moment.

On citizenship, Bill C-14, from 2007, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, was applauded for bringing equality to adopted children. It did the opposite. Lawyers from the Canadian Bar Association recommended that adoptive parents use the permanent residency route instead of the direct citizenship route because the new faster route has no appeal. Now adoption advocates are recommending the permanent residency route again because the other creates a two-tier system. Now I have the same recommendation that the Adoption Council of Canada had: to amend the regulations accompanying Bill C-37 so internationally adopted children have the same legal status as children born in Canada and are permitted to transmit their citizenship by descent to children born abroad.

One thing that Bill C-14 did right was to ensure that adopted children can no longer be deported for criminality if their parents did not obtain their citizenship. Before the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in June 2006, an official from CIC said "...to respond to charter concerns, all adopted persons would no longer be prevented from acquiring citizenship for any criminality...”. She said it was an equity matter.

In June 2008, the first of a number of adoptees who were under threat of deportation received their Canadian citizenship. A few of us protected Gilberto Currie, adopted from Brazil. We protected him for five years and kept him from being deported to Brazil until the bill was passed. We do not know how many adoptees could have been in the same position.

The fact that people are still choosing to adopt internationally by the permanent residency route leaves the possibility that parents may not obtain citizenship for their children, which can create great hardships if the adoption fails. Children who come to Canada to be adopted and whose adoptions break down before they obtain citizenship are still under threat of deportation today. This must be stopped. Canada must not bring children here in inter-country adoption only to send them back to a country they have not seen since childhood, where they know no one and do not speak the language.

Mario Perez came to Canada from Mexico to be adopted at the age of five and was deported to Mexico in 2006 at the age of 22. Efforts to prevent this failed, and he still wants to come back. We are now supporting Tina Desrosiers, who came to Canada—

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, we are in a bit of a grey area here.

We know there is a greenbelt. I remember discussing it with Ms. Lemay. The boundaries, the perimeter, of Gatineau Park were described in detail for the first time ever here, in this very committee, about one year ago, precisely for the purpose of including them in the bill. That never happened. We were able to ask questions about it. Some cities are located within Gatineau Park, such as Chelsea. Other cities, such as Gatineau and La Pêche, are located only partly within Gatineau Park. It is crystal clear. We brought that forward, and we even asked some mayors to come and meet with us. Mr. Perras accepted our invitation. He made a presentation. We asked him questions to make sure the information we had was accurate. We had a document that served as a basis for further discussion.

But the Greenbelt was not included in either Bill C-37 or Bill C-20. The people at the NCC, who support this bill because it affects them, did not see fit to include it at the time. Was there a reason for that? Did it have to do with the fact that the boundaries had not yet been established? Whatever the reason, the outcome was that we could not invite mayors, council or interested parties in the municipality of Ottawa or municipalities surrounding the Greenbelt to appear and give us assurance that we had the right definition.

The newspaper Le Droit recently published a series of articles on the Gréber plan, which was developed some 50 years ago and which mentioned the Greenbelt. The article said that the surface area of the Greenbelt had shrunk slightly as compared with the initial plan. It would have been a good idea, at the time, to talk to people living in the city of Ottawa region. They could have given their opinions on how large the Greenbelt was, which would have helped us determine whether our boundary description was accurate or not. We did not do that. The issue was not referred to the committee. The committee cannot study a document that it does not have and that does not exist. As lawmakers, we cannot study an issue that was not referred to us through the appropriate legal channels and determine whether we agree or disagree with the boundary description in question. We could have done it by consulting those who are very knowledgeable about the area where they live and which they manage in conjunction with the NCC. I am talking about the Greenbelt, specifically. No Ontario stakeholders affected by this situation, whether at the municipal or provincial level, appeared before the committee on the matter.

I am extremely uncomfortable talking about the Greenbelt as a principle, given that it is not even defined and no one ever saw fit to include it in Bill C-37. Everyone was set on passing the bill swiftly and picking up right where we left off on December 9. Everyone wanted to continue the debate and present the bill in the House of Commons so that it would become law.

I think we are going to have to do our homework. The issue of the Greenbelt should be the subject of another study, and the legislation should be amended to allow us to speak with the stakeholders, at the right time, and include this element in the bill and eventually the act if the bill is passed.

You will understand that I am going to vote against this amendment, precisely for this reason.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I think Mr. Jean doesn't understand what we're talking about.

Just in case, the Gatineau Park is on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River. It's a free-standing park—fantastic. You told us before that you've been in the park. Good for you. The greenbelt is an assembly of land on the Ontario side of the Ottawa River that forms a U around the city of Ottawa, starting in the east end. It's an assembly of land that has been identified. It goes through the south. The Ottawa International Airport is part of the greenbelt. It ends up on the west side of Ottawa at the Ottawa River also. So it has nothing to do with the Gatineau Park.

The reason why we brought this into the debate is that we had witnesses who came in front of us for Bill C-37, asking us to have the same environmental consideration for the greenbelt that we were having for the Gatineau Park.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you.

We have to take for granted that since the study of Bill C-37 prior to prorogation until now, there have not been any major changes, whether it be the evidence that was given to us by different witnesses or whether it be changes brought on in the daily operation of the National Capital Commission.

I see you have a witness this morning. I don't know exactly what the witness will tell us or what we're driving at, but I simply want to make sure that there is no knowledge of major changes in any of the testimony or any of the evidence that was tabled or brought to the table under Bill C-37.

If there happen to have been any major changes or if amendments were made by the National Capital Commission, perhaps we should have that information, Mr. Chair. I will trust my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, to keep us up-to-date on the matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Merv Tweed]

Welcome back. Thank you to Mr. McCallum and the committee for helping me with my bill.

I have two things to raise before we start on the bill. It was discussed at our last meeting that we would consider all the evidence that had been brought before the committee on Bill C-37 as part of our study on Bill C-20, so I would ask for a motion for that information to be brought forward and included with the deliberations that we're continuing with today.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jean invited us to share our comments and I thank him for the invitation. But I would like to tell him that I would have still done so.

Mr. Chair, you took the words right out of my mouth, which is not very hygienic on your part. Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), this motion is actually out of order. But I would still like to hear what Transport Canada thinks about the differences between Bill C-20 and Bill C-37. That would make things easier.

I cannot support Mr. Jean's motion because, first of all, it is out of order, and second, we don't have a choice. I could quote Audrey O'Brien and Marc Bosc, but if we agree unanimously that Mr. Jean should withdraw his motion, it would be a lot easier. However, I want to add that the Bloc Québécois does not intend to reinvent the wheel. We have already heard from witnesses on this bill, which seems quite similar. It is not necessary to go through the process and hear from the same witnesses once again. This committee should try to be efficient. I feel we could proceed very quickly with the clause-by-clause study of this new bill.

As to my not wishing to hear from the same witnesses again, I would need to check some things with my colleague Mr. Nadeau, the member for Gatineau, who is directly involved. Whatever he has to say, I will defer to his arguments on the issue. My main request is not to hear from the witnesses again. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes. I have that in my notes, although it hasn't been dealt with in the House. So really, we've got enough work until Christmas, in my opinion. But you're absolutely right, if Bill C-37 comes to fruition at second reading, we will deal with it.

Is everybody else happy?

This meeting is adjourned until Wednesday, October 6, at 3:30 p.m.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

There have been discussions that the government bill, I believe it is Bill C-37, on citizenship consultants is coming down the pipe. Perhaps at the steering committee meeting there could be a discussion around what--

Citizenship Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on Bill C-467, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (children born abroad), a private member's bill tabled by the member for Vancouver South.

The bill would amend the Citizenship Act to provide that a child born abroad to or adopted abroad by a citizen employed outside Canada, in or with the Canadian armed forces, the federal public administration or the public services of a provinces be considered like a child born in Canada.

I should say at the outset that New Democrats support the bill. We hope it passes this stage and we look forward to discussing it further at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

In recent years, Parliament has spent some time on trying to fix the provisions of the Citizenship Act. We have seen great concern about this law over the years. Problems with the 1947 Citizenship Act in particular led to many Canadians, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians, losing their citizenship. These lost Canadians, as they are called, were and are folks who, any reasonable person would agree, are indeed fully Canadian but because of the peculiarities of the law were excluded from citizenship.

Bill C-37, debated and passed in the previous Parliament, went some way to correcting these problems. However, some problems still exist, as the subject matter of the bill before us today attests.

The Lost Canadians Organization, headed very ably by Don Chapman over very many years, has done incredible work on these issues. They describe the current situation this way:

While Bill C-37 solved the citizenship problems of hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose citizenship had been taken away from them by the arcane provisions of the 1947 Citizenship Act, it also created a new problem of statelessness in children who are born abroad after April 19, 2009, to Canadians who themselves were born abroad.

What this means is that Canadian citizens who were born abroad, called the first generation born abroad, cannot pass on their citizenship to their children if those children are also born abroad. Hence, the second generation born abroad rule, which came into effect in April 2009, has already started to create serious problems for Canadian citizens who do not realize that their children do not qualify for Canadian citizenship.

New Democrats, while supporting the bill before us, believe that it does not go far enough. It is clear that Canadians working in some capacity for the government, in the armed forces or the diplomatic core for example, should be able to ensure that Canadian citizenship is passed to their children, born while they are working overseas, in exactly the same way it would be if that child had been born here in Canada.

There should be no discrimination against children of Canadians who are serving our country overseas, but why the limitation imposed in this bill? Why does this bill not apply to the children of Canadians studying overseas or to those of Canadian journalists working in another country or to those Canadians who work in international aid and development.

What about the children of Canadians working for a Canadian company offshore? Surely these Canadians continue to make a significant contribution to our country by their overseas service. Why should their children and grandchildren be subject to different criteria for maintaining Canadian citizenship than children born here in Canada or than children born to folks serving the government or the armed forces.

This is especially true of children born to Canadians overseas who risk statelessness. This can arise due to the laws of some countries which do not confer citizenship status on children born in that country as we do here in Canada. We must always ensure that no one is at risk of being stateless and our laws must never contribute to someone being or becoming stateless, but we also risk creating statelessness by not allowing a child born to Canadians overseas the ability to pass on their citizenship to one of their children who was also born outside Canada. This must be fixed.

My colleague, the member for Trinity—Spadina and the New Democratic citizenship and immigration critic, has identified this problem. That is why she has also tabled a private member's bill, Bill C-397, to resolve this problem. Her bill would end the second generation citizenship cutoff for all children born abroad to Canadian parents.

These changes are crucial in today's world, a world that, thanks to the ease of travel and globalization, is much smaller than it once was, and a world where it is increasingly common and even necessary to work in a foreign country.

Canada is strengthened by the experience gained and the work performed by Canadians overseas. We should be encouraging such activity, not putting in place barriers to it. Ensuring that the children born to Canadians working overseas have Canadian citizenship in exactly the same way that children born here would address one such barrier.

The member for Trinity—Spadina pointed out an interesting aspect of this situation when she spoke to the bill. She noted that in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, and perhaps other provinces, pregnant women have sometimes been sent to U.S. hospitals to give birth because of the lack of space in Canadian neo-natal care units. She wondered if these families knew that because their child was born outside Canada, that there would be a limitation on their child's ability to pass on Canadian citizenship to his or her child if that child were also born outside Canada. She wondered if people knew that their grandchild could potentially be stateless given this situation. Surely this is not an acceptable risk in these particular circumstances.

Some people would doubt the attachment to Canada of Canadians who live and work overseas. While there may be some who find Canadian citizenship convenient, we would be wrong to assume that is true of the vast majority of those who are affected by these circumstances.

We must also ensure that we do not enshrine different classes of citizenship in our laws. Canadians must not be punished because they chose to work overseas and their children and grandchildren must not be punished because they happen to be born outside Canada. There must not be two types of Canadian citizenship: one for those of us born here and one for those of us born elsewhere.

It may be necessary to consider ways to ensure attachment to Canada for individuals who spend considerable time away from home but that is a far different project than putting arbitrary limits on citizenship.

The NDP has made it clear that we will seek amendments to this bill at committee that would ensure it addresses the situation of all children born outside Canada to Canadian parents, not just those born to members of the Canadian armed forces or who are directly working for the Canadian or provincial governments.

To paraphrase what the member for Trinity—Spadina said in her speech, no child should be left stateless because his or her father or mother, or grandfather or grandmother, chose to become an aid or development worker and do good work outside Canada. No child should be left stateless because his or her parents or grandparents decided to work as journalists overseas. No Canadian mother working overseas should be forced to travel home to Canada, interrupting her family and career just to have her baby in Canada to preserve that child's full citizenship rights.

This bill is a start and it provides an opportunity, which is why I will support it. I hope other members will do the same.

Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to speak to Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act.

I would like to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois will vote to send Bill C-35 to committee for further study. Our party has decided to give the bill a chance, to see if we can improve it in committee. Those watching us at home are trying to understand how the House of Commons and its committees work. We now have the opportunity to explain that the bills introduced here can always be improved in committee. After we hear from witnesses and examine the evidence they have given, we can propose amendments to the bill, which are voted on by the committee members and then reported back to the House of Commons.

We have noted that too many immigration consultants have been acting fraudulently and getting away with it. After all these years, the federal government still has not managed to effectively regulate this area. The failure of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is irrefutable proof of that.

We believe that the committee should examine the issue to determine whether a new regulatory body is needed, one that is better monitored and can crack down harder on corrupt consultants who provide services related to federal immigration programs.

Since the regulating of professions falls under Quebec and provincial jurisdictions, the Bloc Québécois is worried that a federal act to create and establish an organization to regulate immigration consultants will interfere in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. This is important. Every day, Bloc Québécois members, who have been elected by the people of Quebec, proudly stand up in this House to defend the interests and values of Quebeckers. An example of those values is respect for our jurisdictions. How professions are regulated is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. The Bloc Québécois will make sure that the government understands this in committee.

The Quebec government demonstrated its jurisdictional authority by passing a regulation concerning immigration consultants. This regulation will come into effect on November 4, 2010. Quebec is often at the forefront of numerous initiatives that are then borrowed by other Canadian provinces. We have always said that when Quebec is its own country—and we hope that will happen sooner rather than later—it will have good neighbours and good relationships with those neighbours. It will continue to create exemplary legislation, as it is doing now, that can be emulated by Canada.

We hope that the Government of Canada will learn from the Government of Quebec. To do this, the federal government must recognize Quebec's jurisdiction as well as that of the provinces so that it is clear that crooked immigration consultants will be replaced by a professional body. This body will then be regulated by Quebec since this falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

On June 9, 2008, the Bloc Québécois convinced the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to pass a recommendation that Quebec immigration consultants be officially recognized under Quebec laws instead of being forced to join the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

The Bloc Québécois is always true to itself. Our excellent critic, the member for Jeanne-Le Ber, did a wonderful job making the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration understand that it is important that the Canadian government officially recognize Quebec's immigration consultants, who will be governed by a regulation as of November 4, 2010.

Even though Bill C-35 would better regulate consultants who deal with immigration matters that come under federal jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois has serious concerns about the power the minister is giving himself to be able to designate a regulatory body in federal legislation. Overlapping jurisdictions never works well, needless to say.

This was particularly evident in recent months, even for over a year. The federal government decided to interfere in the securities market by establishing a national securities commission. And yet Quebec has its own securities commission as do the other provinces. The Canadian system was recognized for having weathered the recent economic crisis—a financial crisis that hit stock exchanges around the world— better than others.

Naturally, it is still rather difficult to understand that, once again, the federal government wants to replace something that works with a centralized, national body even though the effectiveness of the Canadian system has been acknowledged internationally. The passport system allowed every province, Quebec as well as the other provinces, to have their own securities commissions. This provided security during the stock exchange crisis.

Even though the Minister of Finance is practically hoarse from ranting that it is a voluntary system, he knows very well that corporations will be encouraged directly to join the Canada-wide system.

The federal government is always trying to chip away at the powers of Quebec and the provinces. That is fine if it does not bother the provinces; however, we notice that Alberta also has a great deal of difficulty with this. It seems to want to stand its ground, which seldom happens. It usually bows down to the federal government. However, in this case, Alberta seems to want to oppose the national securities commission.

Once again the Bloc Québécois will be vigilant. Above all it does not want Bill C-35, the so-called Cracking Down on Crooked Consultants Act, to infringe on provincial jurisdictions. In fact, as I was saying earlier, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants is a dismal failure. Clearly, Quebec and the provinces should be allowed to provide good, effective oversight of immigration consultants.

What is more, our party is of the opinion that there should be closer consideration of the committee aspect. Our concern is that Bill C-35 would require information to be communicated between members of the Barreau du Québec or the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the federal government. We have to take a closer look at this aspect of the bill in order to ensure that it does not conflict with Quebec's laws and to maintain the integrity of the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec.

As a notary by training, I can provide a little lesson in law. As hon. members know, in Quebec notaries are jurists who specialize in the contractual aspect of business and individual relationships. That is the objective. The Civil Code of Quebec is based on the Napoleonic code. That is a particularity of Quebec. I am always surprised to see colleagues who are notaries with a federalist bent, when the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the notary profession are a true reflection of this diversity, this difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. We are the only province to have a chamber of notaries and notarial training. This training is obviously French-based. Notaries are highly respected professionals in France. Again, because the Civil Code of Quebec stems from the Napoleonic code, the notary profession is a direct link to these ancestral laws that Quebec held onto, which is not what happened in the rest of Canada. The rest of Canada has the common law, while Quebec has the civil code.

If it is decided that the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec are to report to the federal government, we must ensure that Quebec's rights and jurisdictions are respected. That is the objective. As for the Chambre des notaires du Québec, we all agree that the federal government has no knowledge of or jurisdiction in the matter.

In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is opposed to the federal government encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction in any way. It will ensure that Bill C-35 does not give the minister any power he is not entitled to.

We are talking about immigration consultants. One interesting way of reducing the number of crooked consultants would be to transfer part of these powers to Quebec lawyers or notaries or to lawyers in the rest of Canada who are regulated by professional codes.

If we consider what is happening the field of law, there are a few lawyers and notaries who have been caught. However, since there is a process to follow and an established structure, they were disbarred and can no longer practice. That is not the case with the federal structure, which is why the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, which was somewhat regulated, was a failure. It was not a recognized profession.

There needs to be a new way of training consultants. They should report to the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Barreau du Québec or other provincial bars. It would be an interesting path to take.

These professions are governed by Quebec's professional code. Members of the Chambre des notaires du Québec and the Barreau du Québec are governed by Quebec's professional code. We have to make sure that any new power granted to a professional association respects Quebec's jurisdiction and that of the provinces.

I would like to go over some background to Bill C-35. On June 8, 2010, the government introduced Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will give an overview of the bill now.

The minister will be able to designate a governing body to regulate and oversee consultants' activities; this organization will replace the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

Only consultants approved by this body or members of a provincial bar or the Chambre des notaires du Québec will be allowed to charge fees for immigration advice, with some exceptions: students-at-law acting under the supervision of a member and entities and persons acting on their own behalf in accordance with an agreement with the government, such as visa application centres and other service providers.

All individuals who “knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration—or offer to do so—in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act” are guilty of a criminal offence punishable by two years in prison, a $50,000 fine or both. This offence already exists in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Consultants have to be recognized by an organization. If they knowingly advise people, they will be committing a criminal offence.

The law provides for information exchange between different levels of government. The designated organization will have to supply information set out in regulations to allow the minister to determine whether the organization governs its members in the public interest.

Regulations will govern information sharing by enabling the department to disclose professional or ethical information about members of provincial bar associations to the designated organization or to the person responsible for investigating a consultant's conduct.

We must ensure that discussions between the federal government and the members of the Barreau du Québec and the Chambre des notaires du Québec respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces at all times.

On August 30, 2010, the government published a call for submissions from applicants interested in becoming the regulatory body for immigration consultants.

I should point out that in this bill to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the provisions apply to persons who are the subject of proceedings or applications pertaining to immigration and refugee matters, not citizenship matters. The Citizenship Act does not provide for the same regulatory powers as the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, Bill C-37, introduced last spring, would provide regulations, in particular, by increasing penalties for consultants who fraudulently help individuals obtain citizenship.

Bill C-35 and Bill C-37 amend different acts.

In short, Bill-35 expands the range of activities governed by the act. In current federal regulations, the government can only take action when the application is submitted or at the beginning of a proceeding. Under Bill-35, the authorized representative commits an offence if he represents or advises a person for consideration in connection with a proceeding or application under that act, or offers to do so. This addition would make it possible to regulate—and punish, if an offence occurs—all forms of representation and advice at any stage, including that provided by unauthorized consultants, who might be involved before an immigration application is submitted.

All those who solicit work, that is crooked consultants, ask for payment in return for helping people with immigration proceedings.

We have seen some abuses—and the media have certainly jumped on them. Some people have been swindled out of a lot of money, sometimes the only savings they had, when seeking permission to immigrate to Quebec and Canada. I believe we must intervene.

The Bloc Quebecois wants to point out that Quebec also has powers in the area of immigration. All we want is for Quebec and provincial jurisdictions to be respected. Earlier I gave the example of securities commissions. The government wants to centralize exclusively provincial powers into a Canada-wide federal organization. That is what is going on with securities. Yet that system is what got us through the crisis. The Prime Minister keeps telling us over and over again that Canada has come out of the crisis exceptionally well, better than any other country in the world, as we heard again today in question period. It is not necessarily thanks to the Conservatives. It was a financial crisis, primarily a stock market crisis. It was thanks to our financial system and the fact that our banks were not allowed to merge.

I was one of those who opposed the Canadian bank mergers, so that they could not turn around and acquire American banks and contaminate all of the investments made by our citizens. That is one of the reasons we were able to get through this crisis relatively well. Furthermore, the stock market system allowed each province to have its own securities commission. When we have 10 such bodies, we can monitor things better than if we have only one. However, it is difficult, because the federal government is always trying to take powers away from the provinces. We will ensure that Bill C-35 does not have this unfortunate tendency to take power from Quebec and the provinces, in this case concerning immigration, and in particular, power over crooked consultants. Quebec is ready to take charge in this important area, since we already have legislation that is about to come into force on November 4, 2010. If all other Canadian provinces were to do the same, all of our immigrants would be better protected.

Strengthening the Value of Canadian Citizenship Act

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)