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.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I don't see anyone who wants to talk about it.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we come to paragraph (c), Mr. Dykstra.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I so move. It is replacing, in the French version, line 9 on page 2.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Does everybody understand? Okay.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Chow, you have the floor. You have to move that.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You don't have to read the whole thing. You can just say that you move NDP-2.
4:23 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
No, I have a minor change. Just a second.
I'm just going to move a slight wording change.
I'm going to read the entire thing:
Every entity that is authorized to offer or provide services to assist persons with applications in accordance with subsection (4) is prohibited from providing substantive immigration advice or referring persons
etc.
I'm adding one extra word, “substantive”.
In Beijing, New Delhi, and Mexico City, an Indian company operates a service on behalf of CIC. They process visitor visas or temporary residence visas. The intention here is to make sure they do not give substantive advice. They assist in putting in the application, so it would put them in a conflict situation. We also want to make sure they do not refer people to a certain immigration consultant, because that is a direct conflict.
This is the recommendation in there. I know they don't have the intention to do so, but they could. This point was raised by a few of the witnesses, and they're worried about it. This would clarify it and make sure.... Advice is fine, but not substantive advice, as you're getting into IRPA.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is one of the issues we've spoken to Ms. Chow about from a government perspective. I assured her, through a letter to her from the minister, that under regulation we were going to address this issue, but I would like Ms. Ménard and Ms. MacNeil to have the opportunity to speak to it from a ministry perspective.
4:23 p.m.
Brenna MacNeil Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Thank you.
I'll just start by saying that we see this as being more of an administrative matter, because in practice it deals with our visa application centres. So moving forward, we will be dealing with this as an administrative matter. Any new agreements or renewed agreements with the visa application centres will contain an express provision to this effect. Where it has real significance, if this amendment were to pass, is with a few older contracts that still exist with the visa application centres. Since these existing contracts do not contain this limitation, it could become a contractual matter between the Government of Canada and the visa application centres under those existing contracts.
4:23 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
That was what worried me, because I've actually seen those contracts. Some of those contracts lock us in for a long period of time and there are some contracts that are brand new—with Mexico, for example. This means that between now and the time we sign a new contract, and that could be many years, the visa application centre staff could, and they may be doing it already, provide substantive immigration advice. On top of that, they may be referring people to specific consultants or lawyers for immigration advice.
November 15th, 2010 / 4:23 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I don't know about that.
When I was in Beijing, I saw that the visa application centre was upstairs, and downstairs there were all types of advertisements. That's not against the law, but sometimes it can get murky as to who is referring to whom. I want to be clear that they shouldn't be doing it, and if it requires opening a contract or adding a few words to a contract, I think we should do it now. If not, there's a loophole, and it could be easily exploited for many years.
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
In the NDP amendment, it refers to subsection (4). Am I to understand, based on Ms. Ménard's answer, that subsection (4) applies retroactively to agreements that have already been reached, and not only to agreements reached following Royal Assent? What changes could potentially be made to the NDP amendment to ensure that this prohibition applies only to new agreements?
4:23 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think we'll need some time to answer the second part of the question.
The answer to the first part of the question is that it applies to agreements that are in place at the time of coming into force of the bill. So it's not that it applies retroactively; it's that it applies when the bill comes into force. Any agreements that are in effect....
4:23 p.m.
Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
The second part of your question--
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Regarding the second part, that is what I was thinking as well. This reflects what Ms. Ménard was saying. Do you have something to suggest so that we can ensure that the new subsection (4.1) applies only to new agreements reached in future?