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.
November 15th, 2010 / 4:23 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Merci.
I don't have the wording available, but if the committee members wish to suggest any wording, I think the intention would be clear if you wish to have it apply just in the future to all future agreements or contracts with the VACs.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sitting here waiting for something to happen.
Monsieur St-Cyr still has the floor, Ms. Chow.
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Since she is the one that tabled the amendment, I'm encouraging her to suggest a subamendment that would set aside such cases.
4:23 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, our lawyer friend probably can provide better comment. If we say in all future contracts that every entity that is authorized to offer...so at the beginning of the paragraph you explicitly say, “all future contracts with every entity that will provide coverage for us”. We're not talking about those contracts that have already been signed.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Ms. Chow, are you making a further amendment to your subamendment?
4:52 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes. I am adding one word before the word “substantive”, so the motion is now going to read that Bill C-35, in clause 2, be amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:
(4.1) Every entity that is authorized to offer or provide services to assist persons with applications in accordance with subsection (4) is prohibited from providing heretofore substantive immigration advice or referring persons to specific consultants or lawyers for immigration advice. Every such entity shall ensure that every person it assists with an application is aware of that prohibition.
That is in all future...so apparently that would deal with--
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't want to debate. Have you finished with your amendment? Are you doing anything else? Let's finish that off before you--
4:52 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
I do not normally use interpretation. But, I think I heard the word
“heretofore”.
I have no idea what that means in French. I would like our interpreters to tell me what it means.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's not for me to tell you the meanings of words. I'm just here to keep order.
I don't think that's a point of order.
Do you have a point of order?
4:52 p.m.
An honourable member
No, I don't have a point of order.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
That may be fair for debate, but it's not a point of order.
Ms. Chow, you still have the floor.
4:52 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Thank you.
I'm done. The intention is very clear. I appreciate that the minister has given me a letter that will express prohibition, but that could be many years from now; some of those contracts are already signed. We don't want to damage the contract and we don't want to get into legal trouble. By inserting that word, it means that all new contracts.... By putting this into the act, it actually sends a signal to those with existing contracts that maybe they shouldn't do things that we'd rather they not do, even though it's not in the contract right now.
I think this is an elegant way of dealing with the future, but it is also sending a signal to those who are practising now.
4:52 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Well, we're going to find out.
Mr. St-Cyr, Mr. Dykstra, and then Mr. Trudeau.