Evidence of meeting #32 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 amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Based on the amendment as it was read, I'd like to get some clarification from both Ms. Ménard and Ms. MacNeil on how this stands and whether or not this is acceptable from a ministry perspective.
November 15th, 2010 / 4:52 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I'll let Ms. Ménard speak to the proposal on the table, but I do want to raise a couple of issues. I do want to flag that this is a very broad provision, in that it's agreements with the government writ large. I started my comments by saying that in practice this is visa application centres, and that's currently the case. Anything we do here, as proposed in the amendment, would really tie the hands of any future arrangement that the government may need to enter into with another organization.
I should flag that this may capture some work that the UNHCR also does for the department. I understand they may do some pre-screening for us, and in doing so they may provide some advice with respect to immigration matters. So this may, again, capture that activity. This may capture a broader range of activity than just the visa application centres.
I'll defer to Ms. Ménard on some other matters.
4:52 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with the assessment of Ms. MacNeil. I just wish to say that I don't think the use of that word, even though we're trying to have it apply in the future, would deal with all of the other problems that we see with regard to this proposed amendment. In particular, you have “every entity”. We still continue to have contracts with the existing VACs, and some of the older contracts do not have the limitations that we have been inserting in the newer contracts.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Based on advice from our staff and on the fact that we understand the intention and feel that we can drive that intention through ministry implementation and regulation versus having to incorporate such a broad amendment into the legislation, the government will not be supporting putting an amendment like this into the legislation. The government certainly understands the intent, and in fact supports the intent, but the amendment is too broad and this is not the place for it.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's the whole amendment. Okay. Thank you, sir.
Is there anything else?
4:52 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
I'm asking for a clarification from Ms. Chow.
I'm not sure that adding the word “heretofore” beside “substantive” actually gets to what you're trying to do.
I believe it should be “with subsection (4) is prohibited heretofore from providing substantive immigration advice”. If it's “prohibited heretofore”, it means “prohibited from this moment forward” from providing substantive advice, which I believe should be the logical grammatical reading of the intent.
4:52 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
It's the same thing, whether it's “prohibited heretofore” or “heretofore prohibited”.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
4:52 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Is the suggestion from Mr. Trudeau that “heretofore” be moved so that it reads “prohibited heretofore”?
4:52 p.m.
Liberal
4:52 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:52 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
It would say, “is heretofore prohibited from providing substantive immigration advice”.
4:52 p.m.
NDP
