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.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Well, Chair, as I understand it, you had asked me to stand down--
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether a new amendment has been distributed, but I did provide it to the clerk. There is no surprise here; this is simply an amendment that combines the ones tabled previously—amendment BQ-1 and amendment G-2.
These two amendments deal with the same parts of the bill, so that it would have been difficult to deal with them separately. By voting for one of the amendments first, the other would automatically not have worked, and vice versa.
Therefore, I suggest that we examine this blended amendment that I have just tabled. If it were to pass, logically, the other two would have to be withdrawn.
Would that be an appropriate way to proceed?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Give me a moment. This is kind of....
I think Mr. Dykstra thinks that by his amendment....
BQ-1 and G-2 are quite conflicting.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's the reason why we have distributed an amendment that blends the two proposals.
Even though there may be a conflict in terms of the wording, there is no such conflict with respect to the philosophy underlying those two amendments. It is exclusive. One part is from the Bloc Québécois, to ensure that Quebec immigration consultants are subject to the Quebec statute. The other part of the amendment is intended to allow paralegals in Ontario to be authorized to practice.
I suggest that we deal first with this amendment. If it passes, the other ones will no longer be needed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We probably have to have a debate as to whether the committee agrees that BQ-1 and G-2 have been amalgamated.
You made that statement, and the question is whether the committee agrees with you.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'd just like some clarification.
Although I'm vehemently opposed to amendment BQ-1 and will not be supporting it, I do understand what Mr. St-Cyr is trying to do in terms of combining these two. It makes it a little more convenient if his amendment carries.
But I would like some clarification, because he has actually incorporated my amendments into his amendment. Although I've never seen how this could actually work before, is it technically allowable for someone to take someone else's amendment and move it into their own amendment...without me approving my amendments moving into someone else's amendment?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Just give me a moment, please.
You know what? I don't think anybody up here has heard of that not being done, so we're going to allow it. There doesn't seem to be any rule.
Sorry, did you challenge that?
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
For the record, I actually have the floor, I think. Don't I, sir?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You do have the floor. I guess someone asked for a ruling as to whether there was anything....
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'm responding to that ruling by saying that I'm actually going to challenge the chair on that one.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. We haven't had one of those for a long time.
Is there debate?
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
I don't even understand the ruling that's going on right now.
If I might, please, Chair, I think there are two different amendments here: BQ-1, which talks about something related to Quebec consultants, and G-2, which talks about paralegals. Now, they're very separate issues, and for technical, written-out reasons, they've been combined for ease. But I think that's something we do anyway in this committee.
I think it might be worthwhile for us to discuss BQ-1 and G-2 separately and to then see if we can merge them afterwards rather than doing them first. That way we can keep discussing one thing, not spend all our time talking about technicalities, and actually talk about the issue.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
His motion is already on the floor. You know, procedurally, I think it's in order. But then the question is whether it is appropriate to carry. That's up to the committee to decide. I mean, is it conflicting? Is it not conflicting? That's something you all need to think about.
Do you still have the floor, Mr. Dykstra?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
You challenged the ruling, so there's no debate.
The ruling has been challenged.
(Ruling of the chair sustained [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That's an interesting development.
Mr. Trudeau.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Could we possibly go back to the heart of the matter, which is whether we can discuss the substance of the amendments in question separately and then vote on them together, as we've upheld the ruling of the chair that they are combined? Or can we at least discuss the amendments, please?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
We have a motion on the floor, which is under debate.
We'll go to Monsieur St-Cyr.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
In the absence of a point of order, I would like to talk about the part of the amendment that concerns me in particular. Then the parliamentary secretary will probably want to give his rationale for the part that concerns him. In any case, he will make his comments at that point.
There is no surprise here. At meetings of this Committee, I have spoken at length about the issue of immigration consultants in Quebec. I raised a number of concerns with respect to jurisdiction. There was a great deal of discussion about this issue but, in any case, it seems to me that, whatever decision we arrive at, there are a number of very practical points that should convince us of the need to support this. In my opinion, if members do not support this amendment, there will be two categories of immigration consultants in Quebec. Perhaps I could explain.
The federal legislation forces people to be members of the organization that will be designated to handle any applications made under the procedures laid out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In Quebec, however, regulations governing immigration consultants are already in effect. They require that these individuals be monitored and regulated by the Government of Quebec under the Act respecting immigration to Quebec. The net result is that any actions undertaken within the Quebec framework end up falling within federal jurisdiction, but not the opposite.
Exactly what will happen if this amendment is not passed? Well, this would mean that there could be immigration consultants—and there surely are—who are members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, or whatever body succeeds it, who will therefore be entitled to act for someone under federal legislation. Here we are talking about applications for refugee status, family reunification, federal immigrant investors, and so on.
What happens if these people do not meet the additional criteria in effect in Quebec? In its legislation, Quebec states that these individuals must be members of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. Furthermore, the Government of Quebec has additional rules in place—the first being knowledge of the Quebec immigration system, which is the very least that could be expected. There is also an immigration agreement between Canada and Quebec which provides for a certain asymmetry, Quebec being a special case. Therefore, Quebec consultants have to be aware of that reality. There is also an examen. And an additional requirement in Quebec is proficiency in French, obviously. When you're representing a client, you must be able to properly perform the work and deal with the Quebec government, which works in French. There are other rules as well and minimum fees to be paid to register, including no violations of Quebec laws, and so on.
Consumer protection is a major focus of this bill. It is possible that a client would approach a consultant in Quebec and that this particular consultant might be authorized to provide advice on everything relating to federal legislation, but not on the Quebec statute. A concern is that such a consultant might tend to unduly encourage his or her client to follow the federal process—for example, with respect to refugee status, rather than the Quebec process—for instance, the Quebec Selection Certificate. If that consultant were to follow only the Quebec process, he would be losing business and would not be allowed to give advice.
I think this is in the interests of anyone who may be dealing with immigration consultants. I also know that the Quebec Minister took a position on this last Friday. I have the transcript somewhere.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
I have the English version. Anyone interested in hearing the French will have to rely on interpretation. This will be an opportunity for you to hear my excellent English. This is a quote from Minister Kathleen Weil.
She says obviously it's important that Quebec maintain control, that the individual in question be a member in good standing of an association, and that full control over both quality and consultant membership criteria genuinely be the responsibility of the Quebec government. Punitive measures, so to speak, monitoring and protecting the public, must also truly fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.
That was what the Minister said at the National Assembly last Friday. For all those reasons, and because this was a Committee recommendation as early as 2008, I encourage you to support this amendment.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you, Chair.
The one thing I agree with Mr. St-Cyr on and appreciate is that this is something he brought to the attention of the committee, and certainly to my attention, when we began to deal with Bill C-35. The difficulty, and where we disagree, is that his amendment actually significantly deflates the ability of the federal government to control its own federal legislation. It would actually pass on some federal responsibilities to the provincial government, which is not acceptable when taking on accountability and responsibility for legislation.
I have further comments to make, but I would like Ms. Ménard to lay out, from a legal perspective, the difficulties we would face if in fact this amendment were carried.