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.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Perhaps the Assistant Deputy Minister could answer your question more clearly.
Les Linklater Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
In the current immigration process, the provisions concerning consultants begin to apply as soon as an official application has been submitted to the minister. Under the proposed amendment to the legislation, our department would begin looking into the communication between applicants and consultants even before an official application is submitted to the federal government. This implies that, at any time during the immigration process, any contact with a consultant would be covered by the bill's provisions.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
There we go. So, when people go to a consultant's office and hire the consultant to help them immigrate to Quebec and apply for a CSQ, the legislation applies immediately. Is that right? That is also how I interpret the change.
So, from now on, the government will not only have a say in which consultants are allowed to represent clients in their dealings with the federal government, but it will effectively regulate the actual interaction between the applicant and the consultant. Is that what will happen? This will be done in an effort to, among other things, protect clients from unscrupulous consultants, right?
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
So, the bill's first and foremost objective is to protect the public?
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
However, as I said earlier, protecting the public is tied in with the integrity of this system. The two are interrelated.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
...is the responsibility of the federal government or the provincial government?
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
I would say that the matter is the responsibility of all levels of government. Protecting the public implies being mindful of the broader public interest. Accordingly, all levels of government must protect consumers' interests.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
Thank you, Minister.
One of the aspects that's been brought up by the CBA this afternoon, and also obviously by the opposition in terms of the perspective on a statutory body, is the example of what happened in Australia.
I think it needs to be clarified, though, that the mistake the Australian government acknowledges they made—and it's clear in the report that the CBA submitted today—is that the Australian government did not actually maintain control of the regulatory body; they in fact made it independent. It's pretty significant--and it hasn't been brought up here--that upon review of the decision they made, it was obvious that the ministry and the government should have maintained control of the regulatory body.
I'm wondering if you can you describe a little more clearly how that control is going to be maintained by the ministry and by the minister.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Thank you, Mr. Dykstra, for raising that question, because it is probably the most important issue with respect to the notion of creating a so-called statutory body. If we were to create a statutory body and that body were to relive the same kind of problematic issues that CSIC has, there would be no ability for the government to de-recognize that body.
This is a sector that has clearly had some challenges. The previous government, I think in good faith, created the structure in 2003 for the minister to designate a body. Serious concerns have been raised.
The government, upon the advice of this committee, has been able to act on those serious concerns by opening up the process for designation. If it were a statutory body and there were to be problems in terms of accountability either to its members or the general public, guess what? We would be out of luck. The organization would just continue to churn away, run by its executive.
I think that because this is an industry that does not have anything like the capacity of the law society in terms of experience, of funding, it is very important that we ensure in the public interest that if things go off the rails, the government can intervene and de-designate the body. That's what the model we propose in Bill C-35 allows for. It is the emergency escape hatch.
If the organization becomes guilty of self-dealing, of a failure to properly prosecute immigration crimes committed by its members, if it becomes unaccountable and ineffective, we can pull the plug on it under Bill C-35. In fact, in the bill, there are enhanced or clarified powers to do so. That is a fundamental advantage we have in this model as opposed to the so-called statutory body.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you for that answer. That's extremely helpful.
There's one other issue that I thought was pertinent from the CBA's perspective--and they're not the only ones. A number of organizations and/or folks who have come to witness have shown some concern that we actually haven't implemented enough power or authority for the minister to be able to take action.
Some of that issue relates to the wording in the bill itself, but some of it relates to the information-gathering that the ministry or the minister would want to go through in terms of process, and in fact that the bill doesn't give the minister enough authority to get the statements and/or material that would provide the minister with I guess the knowledge and jurisprudence to be able to take action.
Could you clarify that in your response, aside from the fact that I'm sure you'd like to have some more authority?
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Well, look, one of the problems we've had with CSIC, frankly, has been a lack of information on certain aspects of the governance within the organization. We have looked more closely at this issue from a legal point of view since introducing the bill and have realized that we do have the constitutional authority to require that the organization provide more robust information on, among other things, financial and human resource information, the body's constitution, bylaws, and articles of incorporation, and any and all updates to those documents.
So again, that is something we would lose if we went to the statutory body where it's just out there on its own and if it goes bad there's nothing we can do about it. This ensures that there is accountability to the government, through the government to Parliament, and through Parliament to Canadians. I think that model of accountability is preferable.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.
Mr. Minister, thank you for coming this afternoon with your staff and colleagues and for making your remarks.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Thank you very much, Chairman, to you and to the committee for its serious consideration of this bill.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Thank you.
Before I adjourn the meeting, I just want to remind the subcommittee members that we will have an in camera subcommittee meeting immediately following this meeting.
This meeting is—
Yes, Monsieur St-Cyr.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, I have spoken to other representatives, and we have agreed to reschedule the subcommittee's meeting to Wednesday. So, if everyone is agreed, that meeting could be held on Wednesday.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Monsieur St-Cyr has said there's an agreement among the members that the subcommittee meeting would be adjourned until Wednesday at 5:30. So be it.
This meeting is adjourned.