Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Ménard, if you're able.

I see you have a big book there.

[Elaine Ménard]

I have a big book, Mr. Chair.

I will refer the committee to a Supreme Court of Canada case by the name of Mangat. It was a 2001 case that dealt with immigration consultants and whether or not they fell within the provincial jurisdiction. The court held that with regard to immigration consultants, while it did recognize that the regulation of professions is a provincial matter, when it comes to immigration consultants, that can and does fall within the federal jurisdiction. Be that as it may, if you have provincial legislation and federal legislation, the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of paramountcy would apply and the federal legislation would prevail.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I have a few more points to make.

The amendment, at least the way it's drafted, would also remove the minister's authority to designate a body. We would actually have to move an amendment to this to allow the minister the ability to revoke a designation.

I do have an alternative approach to this. I understand where Mr. St-Cyr is coming from. He may not be satisfied with the alternative approach, but I think it is one that is reasonable and that certainly gets to the intent of his amendment. It also has stronger support from the Government of Quebec. They have informed us that they do not see the need for such an amendment, that it's actually not necessary.

The minister mentioned at his appearance here a couple of weeks ago that the intention of Bill C-35 was to designate one body. Nothing in the bill limits designation to only one governing body, so it does allow for that provision.

I can't stress strongly enough that it's the federal government—and Ms. Ménard laid out a Supreme Court decision on this—that maintains responsibility for its legislation. If we were to pass this amendment we would be relinquishing that responsibility.

We have worked extremely well together on bills like Bill C-11 and we want to try to find a way to compromise and meet the objectives of the bill while still having a bill that meets federal requirements. This amendment simply shoots a hole in that strategy, and in fact it is the one amendment that would obviously have to go back to cabinet for approval. This is one area around where there is a huge question mark as to whether it would survive that.

So, Mr. St-Cyr, if it is the intention of the Bloc to pass this amendment and if it is the will of the committee, we're going to need the support of somebody on the other side of the table, as we only have five votes on this side. I can tell you that it is not going to meet with the approval of the government.

I'm asking the committee to consider an alternative amendment that would get at what Mr. St-Cyr is presenting but do so in a way that actually allows us, as the federal government and legislators, to maintain our federal responsibility for legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

The government member made two clear objections: indeed, the Supreme Court ruling showing that federal legislation should and must prevail in matters of immigration consultants, and a concern that we are removing authority from the minister around designation or revocation of authority by giving that power to Quebec with this amendment.

I have spoken with the minister's office in Quebec City. I have heard from the federal minister himself with some concerns that Mr. Dykstra has indicated around it. I'm just not entirely sure that this amendment as proposed by the Bloc has the negative consequences the government is attributing to it.

On the face of it, the Bloc amendment asks simply that any immigration consultant who operates in Quebec be recognized under the Quebec act respecting immigration to Quebec, which could raise some eyebrows, except that if you take the actual legislation of the act respecting immigration to Quebec in chapter I-0.2, they basically have three criteria.

The first one is that for someone to be recognized as an immigration consultant by the Government of Quebec, they have to be a member in good standing of whatever body the federal government designates as being the regulator for immigration consultants--so CSIC in this case. They don't mention CSIC by name, but if there is another body eventually, that is the body that Quebec will demand that an immigration consultant operating in Quebec would be a member of. So that is not at all subverting the power of the federal government to control immigration consultants. However, what it does go on to say is that it adds two criteria to immigration consultants in Quebec.

The first is that someone operating as an immigration consultant in Quebec and member of CSIC, or whatever governing body, would need to have a working knowledge of French. This is simply because any interactions with the Quebec government must happen in French. If someone is going to represent a client on immigration in Quebec, they're going to need to have a working knowledge of French to be able to deal with the Quebec government.

The other one is that they have to pass an exam put forward by the ministry of immigration in Quebec regarding and demonstrating knowledge of the particulars of our immigration system in Quebec and the different stream that the Quebec-Canada accords on immigration represent.

So these are not taking away from the federal power to regulate immigration consultants; it's just adding details to the requirements in Quebec.

Now, there is a concern that I have with this; that is, someone who would choose to operate in downtown Montreal, let's suppose, in English, as an immigration consultant and member of CSIC, and not give any recommendations around Quebec, would not be allowed to operate as an immigration consultant in Quebec if this amendment passes. But for me, if one is to operate as an immigration consultant in Quebec and not be able to advise on or even offer the Quebec immigration stream as an option to one's client, I don't think the client is being well served.

I understand the concerns that the ministry of immigration in Quebec shared with me when I spoke with them. They said, “We don't want to have to set up our own regulatory body by any amendments pushing us to do that.” I think that's perfectly reasonable. We're talking about approximately 200 to 250 immigration consultants in Quebec, and having a regulatory body for them just wouldn't make any sense. As we've seen, 1,800 with CSIC is pretty difficult as it is.

So the concern is that to be an immigration consultant in Quebec you end up having to pay $500 more a year to the ministry to be registered on the Quebec lists and pass the Quebec knowledge exams. But this in no way, to my mind, either removes authority from the federal Minister of Immigration or interferes with the federal government's authority to establish a regulatory body.

That is my reading of it. I'm open to having legal explain to me where my logic is weak or my understanding isn't as strong as it could be. But for now, if the only concern is that someone can set up as a member of CSIC but not speak French and not deliver recommendations around Quebec, I don't think that's a strong enough recommendation to vote against this Bloc amendment.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Chow is next, and then Mr. Dykstra.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I had a reference to legal.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Are you okay? Perfect.

[Elaine Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Going back to my previous statement about the doctrine of paramountcy, the amendments that are currently proposed would have the federal legislation prevail over the provincial legislation. So I would think that when you have an anglophone in Montreal who is not able to comply with the Quebec legislation, he or she would still be able to comply with the federal legislation.

However, the amendment being proposed by the Bloc would be such that the federal government would willingly cede its jurisdiction, if I can put it that way, because you would have it saying quite specifically that subsection (1) does not apply in Quebec. In that sense, the doctrine of paramountcy is no longer an issue, because the federal government is saying that in their own legislation they are recognizing that in Quebec, the Quebec government would determine the regulation of immigration consultants with regard to an act respecting immigration in Quebec, and by the fact that in Quebec, subsection (1) would not apply to a member of the bar--would not be a chambre des notaires.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Allow me to ask for clarification. The concern is that if we pass this amendment as is and tomorrow Quebec modifies their law, removes the fact that one has to be a member of the federal regulatory body and says something entirely different, we will effectively remove federal jurisdiction from immigration consultants in Quebec.

Is that your reading on it?

[Elaine Ménard]

Yes, that is my reading of it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

We debated this issue fairly extensively when the immigration committee was dealing with the study. That was about two or two and a half years ago. We said at the time that Quebec had a special agreement with the federal government on immigration. It has the power to determine its immigration policy, unlike all the other provinces and territories. Also, unlike all the other provinces and territories, there's already a pattern set that there is a direct transfer of funding for immigration and adaptation programs, and that transfer goes into the general revenues of the Quebec government. It is not set aside specifically for immigration adaptation programs or for counselling programs of any sort. And Quebec is not required to submit reports or explain how it spends its money or does not spend its money. There are already many examples in the area of immigration where Quebec has been exempt on both the funding side and the policy application side.

In the 2008 report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, “Regulating Immigration Consultants”, the first recommendation was very clear. What we recommended was that Quebec would be exempt on this. There was extensive discussion, and, from this committee anyway, there was clear direction, and that's what I followed. I recall that debate, which was fairly substantial.

I'm just being consistent, and that's why I'm supporting what is in front of me.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good for you.

Do you recall whether you had any legal comments at that time?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

There was quite a lot of discussion. The wording was drafted....

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sure there was a lot of discussion.

We've had a legal opinion provided here to the committee, which sort of contradicts what you're saying.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I don't recall that there was.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No. The answer is no.

Are you finished, Ms. Chow?

We'll have Mr. Dykstra.

I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have interjected there, but I did.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It was a good question.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Ms. Ménard, I wanted to give you the opportunity to follow up on a comment you wanted to make, and I have some questions.

[Elaine Ménard]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have just a few more comments. I'm not sure if I'll be addressing Ms. Chow's comments.

I will just point out that under the Constitution Act, 1867, there are two provisions that deal with immigration. One is section 91.25. “Naturalization and Aliens”, which is the federal power, but there's also section 95, which recognizes a joint federal-provincial responsibility with regard to agriculture and immigration. So in that sense, it is a bit confusing as to which constitutional provision may apply.

I just wanted to make a few comments regarding the Quebec-Canada accord. Unfortunately, I don't have it with me. The certificat de sélection du Québec refers to economic immigrants, people who are selected by Quebec to come to Quebec, to move to Quebec. They are skilled workers, people who fall within the definition of the economic class.

However, with regard to family class, that's a different matter. There's an undertaking Quebec is involved in to make sure that the sponsor signs an undertaking should the member of the family class go onto social assistance. But that's different.

I also wish to point out that with regard to inadmissibility, that remains within federal jurisdiction.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I have more questions. Sorry, I was getting some advice.