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.