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
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
I'm sorry, Ms. Chow. You wanted to put something on the record. You go ahead.
November 15th, 2010 / 5:15 p.m.
Conservative
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Yes, because the minister said—I submitted this before he came to the committee—that anybody who wants to become independent and apply under the statute could do so anyway. So the intent is to eventually have a body that would be at arm's length, the way the bar association is operating. But until we get there, we have this recollection that the minister will be designating a certain body. So this is not necessary.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
It's withdrawn.
You're not proceeding with those two, are you, Mr. Dykstra?
We're moving to G-3 then.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Basically, the amendment provides broader authority to provide internal governance of finance, HR bylaws, constitutional issues, etc. This is something, actually, that was questioned by the opposition—and I think, rightfully so, by government members as well—that when we're working with the designated body, there should be an allowance or a broadening of the scope of what could be requested to ensure that the information required to do research or to question whether or not a particular organization or agency is deemed to be doing appropriate or inappropriate work...that there is allowance for further materials to be able to get that information or to be able to make a recommendation or to be able to determine whether they should have their licence revoked.
It was somewhat narrower in the original piece, and now we think with this amendment it will actually broaden and strengthen the ability to get information required.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
I absolutely approve, and I like the addition of “relating to its governance”. But I notice that in the modification we've also removed the last phrase around “and for any other purpose related to preserving the integrity and policies”, etc. I just wanted to know what the impact of removing that particular sentence was, and why. Perhaps asking legal that....
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Mr. Chair, that was simply removed because it was found by the drafters to be...not necessarily redundant but not adding anything to the provision.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Public interest, in our definition, would include professional and ethical representation advice. That would serve the public interest. Therefore, you don't need to put those words in there? Is that why?
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I think that's correct.
I'm just actually trying to find the amendment here.
Mr. Chair, the wording currently is, “that is in the public interest so that they provide professional and ethical representation and advice”. I believe something that followed was removed because it was thought to be basically the same.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
It said, “and for any other purpose related to preserving the integrity of policies and programs for which the Minister is responsible under this Act”.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes. It's just that the idea of preserving the integrity of programs was found to be rather vague compared to “public interest” and “professional and ethical representation and advice”.
Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's intended to provide the same sort of guarantee.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there further debate on amendment G-3? All those in favour?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Okay.
I am ruling amendment Liberal-2 inadmissible because it is beyond the scope of the bill.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
I understand, Chair. We understand. We're attempting to make sure that we don't fall into some of the same problems we've had with the current regulator in the next one, and we had wished to frame a little more rigour around governance, but we understand that's not what Bill C-35 is all about.
It sort of pulls into question the issue on the fact that we're doing the legislation that's governing the body at the same time as the bodies are applying to be the governor, the eventual regulator, and there's a little bit of a parallel track that causes some confusion. But we accept the decision of the chair on that and we'll move on.