Well, I see the concern, but I'm not sure I share it.
What I keep thinking to myself is, would this clause be supportable if we replaced “Quebec” with any other province? I wonder if Mr. Ste-Marie would be okay if we replaced Quebec with “Saskatchewan” or “Alberta”. I think when you do that it illustrates to me the fundamental problem with using that as a benchmark, although I understand the problem he's raising.
The way I read the act, the testimony that was given and the section, it's that people who are certified or practise counselling in a provincially regulated way will qualify for the exemption. The concern arises only when you have someone providing the same services in a province that is not regulated. On the issue there, when I read the CRA's notice 335, giving instruction on how to deal with that situation, they say that if you're providing those services in a province that is not regulated and if you have the equivalent qualifications of someone certified in another regulated province, you could qualify for the GST exemption.
To me, it all makes sense. It holds together. It's a bit unwieldy, but in lieu of every province regulating every profession the same way, that strikes me as a workable solution. If Quebec is regulating these counselling provisions, I would think that they would automatically qualify for the GST exemption, because they're practising in Quebec in a regulated profession. That's where I'm not seeing the concern for the Quebec professionals. I think they're covered, because they're regulated.
We're trying to deal with the situation of people who are practising and doing the exact same services in a province that's not regulated. To me, it makes sense just to say that their qualifications are equivalent to any other province that does regulate. That gives more flexibility as well, because the different provinces may have slightly different regulatory standards. A person providing counselling services in an unregulated province can point to one of the various examples—I understand they're Nova Scotia, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec—and then say their qualifications are equivalent to one of them and, therefore, they would qualify for the GST exemption.
For all of those reasons, I don't think the section is wise or warranted, and I do think the Quebec professionals are probably well covered by the act as it's written.