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.
Liberal
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
So you've made a decision without having the facts and without knowing. You stated here when you used the example of Australia that $20 million would be the cost and you've said that would be exorbitant because you don't know the size of the industry. During our hearings, we have heard that the industry might in fact be worth close to a quarter of a billion dollars per year. This $20 million you cite in your opening statement is less than one per cent per year of that potential quarter of a billion dollars.
What's interesting is that you came up with this number of $20 million, yet your departmental officials—in fact, the acting director general of immigration, Sandra Harder—said at that time, on October 6, “I am probably not in a position to give you an exact number...”. So you've obviously done your homework on this.
I'd like a different number from you. Your parliamentary secretary during those same hearings said that the way you envision this body, this organization is going to need assistance, that the “actual costs or assistance”—and these are direct quotes from your parliamentary secretary—“that will be provided through the young life of the organization, certainly in the first two, three, four, or whatever number of years will be necessary to get it up and fully functioning and running”.
Ms. Catrina Tapley, your official, the associate assistant deputy minister, went on to say that “what's proposed for funding for that interim period, I think we've left it pretty open at this point.”
Ms. Harder then again went on to say, “At this point even saying that it may only be two or three years may be a shorter timeframe than we might be thinking of”.
Those are direct quotes. They're all saying that under the way you've envisioned this body and from what you've written in this legislation, they have no idea as to how many years it's going to need assistance from the government—two, three, four, five years.
Can you provide us a number now? You've provided us a number from Australia on the statutory body. What kind of interim funding have you budgeted for under the way you've envisioned the legislation? Do you have a number?
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
We don't have a number because it's dependent on the applications we receive and ultimately the one we approve. The range of financial assistance requested could be quite significant. It's possible that someone will propose a business model wherein there will be no or minimal federal support required. We can't guess what it might be.
I will give you, however, a useful reference point. In 2003, when the previous Liberal government designated CSIC as a result of amendments, it gave CSIC a $700,000 grant and, as well, a $500,000 repayable contribution, which would be repayable upon the organization's arriving at 3,000 members. It still hasn't, eight years later. That gives you a sense, first, of the financial capacity of the industry, and second, of the quantum we're talking about in general terms for the lengthy upstart of—
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
Minister, your previous answer was much clearer: you don't know.
Conservative
Liberal
Borys Wrzesnewskyj Liberal Etobicoke Centre, ON
I'd like to go on to something else that was said that was troublesome. In that same meeting, I asked about the financial viability and whether a comparable financial viability study of a regulatory board was done to see what it will cost the taxpayer. The acting director general for immigration answered that no study had been done. It was the same thing when I asked the associate assistant deputy minister whether these numbers had been looked at. Her answer was, “The answer is no”.
We just heard from the Canadian Bar Association. In your statement, you said you tremendously respect their professionalism, their well-developed expertise—your words—and their professional education in this area, yet we heard from their representative that he personally is skeptical and the vast majority of their membership is extremely skeptical.
How do you respond to that?
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
That the bar association is skeptical about the ability of the consultants regulation...?
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Well, let's be clear. The bar association has taken the legal position that the government should not be allowing people outside the law societies to perform immigration functions, and they lost that at court. They've consistently been in favour of avoiding competition, shall I say, from immigration consultants.
I understand why they've taken that position. I think they generally support what the government has proposed, but in terms of doing a viability study, as you've mentioned, it's difficult for us to do a viability study on something that doesn't exist.
I will say that a small industry of 1,600 members—
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
—I don't think can really be compared to the law society and its critical mass and ability to govern itself.
Conservative
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a few technical questions to ask either you, Minister, or one of your representatives.
Bill C-35, now before the committee, states the following:[...] no person shall knowingly represent or advise a person for consideration—or offer to do so—in connection with a proceeding or application under this act.
The act this provision refers to is clearly the IRPA. Will an application to the Government of Quebec for a CSQ, and then for permanent residence, be covered under this provision, or would it be considered as outside the scope of the IRPA?
Conservative
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
In the English version of the bill, the following is said about the prohibition to represent or advise a person for consideration:
“in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act”.
The act referred to is the IRPA.
Will people applying to the Government of Quebec for a CSQ be affected by this provision?
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
Eventually, yes, since a CSQ alone does not enable an individual to immigrate to Canada. A visa is necessary. We at CIC are the ones who issue visas. So, your question is misleading because...
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
It is a technical and not a trick question. That's how I interpreted the provision, as well, but I wanted to confirm with you.
Conservative
Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB
The same question could be asked about the Provincial Nominee Program. If an issue concerns activities covered by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, it must be handled by a consultant who is recognized by the regulatory body.
Applicants dealing directly with the Government of Quebec to obtain a CSQ will eventually have to go through CIC and, as a result, will have to comply with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. As I said, the question is misleading.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I simply asked you to confirm my interpretation. I believe that this is indeed the case, but some may be led to believe that, since the application is submitted to the Government of Quebec, the consultants involved will be unaffected. However, we are in agreement over the fact that all consultants are covered by the legislation, since the matter is referred to the IRPA at some point in the process. Even the CSQ issued by the Government of Quebec is processed because the IRPA provides for this processing.
