Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're back.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm going to ask—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I seem to recall you just asked a question of Ms. Ménard, and we suspended so she could think about it.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We're actually making some progress.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

If you want to agree, we can suspend again.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Let's hear the answer first. I don't want to propose anything until I hear this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Ménard.

[Elaine Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to look at the wording. I believe I understand what the Bloc member is attempting to do or hopes to do. I just wanted to look at it again because you have different wording. You have proposed subsection 91(1) that says:

Subject to this section, 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.

But then it goes back to, under the proposed amendment, in (2.1), “In Quebec, subsection (1) does not apply to a person”, etc. But you have the reference to “Subject to this section” at the beginning of proposed subsection 91(1), so it may be problematic.

Be that as it may, the intention seems to be to remove the scope of this legislation from immigration consultants who are practising in Quebec. So it would be removing the national scope.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, you still have the floor.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

That gets at the root of the problem here, and while we were suspended, we started to move into a good discussion. What needs to remain within the scope of this legislation is that at the end of the day it's the federal ministry that makes the determination, not the provincial--and under a federally regulated body.

Maybe I can get some clarification from Ms. Ménard on this. This amendment actually gives responsibility to the Quebec government for the designation. As you can see within what our amendment would look like, we are prepared that the federal government would consider designating a body that's been approved by the Quebec government. That is the process upon which our Constitution works; that's the process that the model of government in this country falls under. Under federal legislation, the federal government has to maintain the highest order of standing.

While we did have a break over the last week, our pursuit was to determine, number one, how we could accommodate the recommendation that was made by this committee in 2008--albeit subject to some different membership--and to remain consistent with that recommendation. Even though we did write a minority report on it that didn't necessarily agree, we did want to remain consistent.

Our amendment does indeed remain consistent. At the end of the day, we cannot have a process that devolves authority to a provincial government for them to determine how the federal government is going to work in that particular province. That province can approve and do whatever they want in terms of what they subject immigration consultants to from a provincial perspective, but they cannot designate it federally. They have to submit that organization, that consultant, that individual, that company, for federal approval. The federal government has the final approval, or not, and that's the way it has to remain.

This amendment--and, please, Ms. Ménard, correct me if I'm wrong--does the reverse of what we're trying to accomplish in terms of federal designation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think that's a legal question.

Maybe you don't want to answer it. Do you want to think about that one, too?

Mr. Dykstra probably has some more questions. Do you want to just sit on that for a minute, Ms. Ménard?

This is an important issue, and if you--

[Elaine Ménard]

This is a terribly important issue, and I'm very aware of solicitor-client privilege and who my client is.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed.

[Elaine Ménard]

If we could take a little break, that would be very much appreciated.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chair, there are other motions that probably are not controversial. Do you want to do those?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I'm going to take a little break.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

All right.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Before you do, Chair, could we try to get at the substance of what we're trying to do and what we agree on? If we can agree that an immigration consultant in Quebec should be able to have knowledge of the Quebec immigration system and speak French, I think there might be a way to craft an acceptable compromise.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think it would be fruitful to have a small suspension--

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

That was the point I wanted to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Perhaps you can discuss that with other colleagues.

I'm going to suspend. Is five minutes enough, Ms. Ménard? We have lots of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're back on the floor.

Mr. Dykstra, you still have the floor.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, actually, for allowing us to suspend for a period of time to have some discussion.

What I think has happened--and I certainly look to my colleagues across the table here for concurrence--is that we have outlined what the difficulties are and why it is problematic to move forward with the legislation without coming up with some form of an adjustment that satisfies both the government and the opposition. We think we have a beginning sentence or two that may in fact do that.

What I'm asking you, sir, respectfully, is whether we could suspend our meeting until Wednesday. That would allow each of the parties to take back their perspectives on the potential resolution to this issue to ensure that they have the support of their parties and leadership on this matter, and we can attempt, over the next 48 hours, to come back to the table with something that would potentially work.