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.