Evidence of meeting #30 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consultants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
I understand the desire to be efficient with taxpayers' dollars in setting up this process. However, I'm concerned that the stated goal of this bill, which is cracking down on crooked immigration consultants, is not going to be achieved without giving more resources to the Canada Border Services Agency and the RCMP. They are actually the ones--not whatever regulator exists--that are going after the crooked consultants.
I'd like you to comment on that, please.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Thank you.
I agree entirely that enforcement laws are meaningless if we don't have the capacity to enforce them.
I would underscore that since coming to office in 2006 our government has provided an additional 800 agents to the Canada Border Services Agency, and the proportionate operating budget to support that enhanced level of enforcement activity, so they do have additional resources. I have asked the president of the CBSA to prioritize investigations, prosecutions, and enforcement of crimes committed by unregistered or unscrupulous immigration consultants, as well as to prioritize those who facilitate or commit marriage fraud, which is a significant problem.
We've given them a significant boost in resources--I don't have the exact figure, but the additional budget is certainly in the hundreds of millions of dollars---and 800 additional officers, so we expect them to enforce the law. That's their mandate.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Minister, in your presentation, as well as in response to my Liberal colleague's questions, you referred to the report prepared by the committee in 2008.
The committee's first recommendation in that report was that the Quebec government should be responsible for regulating and recognizing immigration consultants practising in Quebec. That would not prevent provincial governments in the rest of Canada from choosing the same body as the federal government, which, by the way, is currently the case under Quebec's regulations.
Are you willing to study the amendments needed to implement that recommendation and possibly to support them?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Just to make sure I express myself clearly, I will read my answer, since I was expecting the committee to ask that question.
I do not think such amendments would be necessary to achieve that objective. Even if I intended to designate just one national body, there is nothing in the legislation stipulating that only one body can be designated.
Quebec's recent amendments to its regulations not only refer to the body designated under federal regulations, but also demonstrate a willingness to work closely with the federal government in the regulation of immigration consultants.
Prior to introducing Bill C-35, we shared our proposed legislative changes with Quebec during federal-provincial consultations. I had many discussions with Quebec's Minister James, and I spoke with Minister Weil on Saturday. They did not raise any objections to our approach.
However, if Quebec wishes to regulate immigration consultants, the federal government will, when designating a body, take into consideration any regulator designated by a provincial government to oversee immigration consultants.
So we are open to Quebec designating such a body. We believe the legislation already sets out that power clearly. And, of course, nothing in Bill C-35 prevents the federal minister from recognizing a body designated by Quebec.
4:50 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
So you are saying that, through regulations, the federal government could recognize the body potentially chosen by Quebec because Quebec and the federal government have a cooperative relationship. That may very well be true, but you have to admit that the opposite may be just as true. If the committee decided instead to extend this privilege or right to the Quebec government, nothing would prevent the federal and Quebec governments from agreeing on a body, since, according to you, they work together quite well.
The way I see it, the committee's recommendation is just as applicable and relevant now as it was originally. The only difference is that, at the end of the day, the federal government needs to recognize that Quebec would have the final say, because its immigration system is quite different.
I would like to bring something else to your attention. You mentioned a regulation that the Quebec government made in the spring, one that was more or less related to the federal legislation. I believe it had the support of all sides. It is pretty clear that the bill before us sets out a major change. It is no longer just the relationship between the consultant and the government being overseen, but also the relationship between the consultant and the claimant. This definitely involves protecting the public interest—governing an individual's ability to practise a profession, in other words, to receive compensation for services.
Would it not be better to acknowledge that this is a matter of regulating a profession, an activity that is traditionally the domain of Quebec and the provinces, and to reach a compromise? It does not have to spark a constitutional debate. It would simply mean recognizing under the law that the Quebec government is responsible for designating consultants within its borders, which would not prevent the Quebec and federal governments from working together.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Yes. Obviously, Mr. St-Cyr, we are talking about a cooperative relationship. We have not seen any problems so far.
If Quebec wants to recognize its own body to regulate the relationship between consultants and the province, when it comes to the whole selection process and Quebec's selection certificate, we are open to recognizing that same body. However, you must recognize that the federal government is still in charge of certain stages in the immigration process: the determination of eligibility, health and so forth.
4:55 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Lawyers who advise clients will, at some point, deal with the federal government, which is responsible for conducting the security and health checks. That does not mean that lawyers are not under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, the reason being that laws were put in place to regulate lawyers in order to protect the public interest.
Right now, we want to pass a bill that clearly seeks to protect the public interest. Furthermore, your opening statement, not to mention the title of the bill, plainly reflect that intention. So it seems to me that we are talking about something other than what is currently in the bill. We are talking about regulating a profession, an area that traditionally comes under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. And the best way to deal with that, in my view, would be to recognize it in the bill by adding an amendment that is in line with the committee's recommendation. Since both governments work together so well, this approach will work just as well, whether or not the amendment is adopted. If, at some point, however, that cooperation is not quite so strong, at the end of the day, it is the Quebec government that will have the final say.
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Mr. St-Cyr, if you have any amendments to suggest regarding the bill's objectives, we are prepared to consider them. We feel that the power is already there. If you were the immigration minister under a PQ government, I have no doubt that you would work very well with the federal government, would you not?
4:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We will stop there and move to Ms. Chow.
You're on, Ms. Chow. Just ignore these two.
4:55 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I have four questions. Maybe I should just give them all to you. You can pick and choose and emphasize whichever one you like.
These employment recruiters help people find jobs, so technically they're not immigration consultants, but they find jobs for the purpose of coming to Canada. Right now, because they're employment recruiters, they get referred to HRSDC, right? It's not under Immigration. But they wouldn't be recruiting if the person's not immigrating. Is there any chance that we could include them in this bill? That's number one.
5 p.m.
NDP
5 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You may not have time for all of those questions, so let's take them one at a time.
5 p.m.
Conservative