Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 15th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Great. I'm here to serve.

The meeting is suspended until Wednesday.

[Proceedings suspended on November 15, 2010, at 17:08]

[Proceedings resumed on November 17, 2010, at 15:58]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the resumption of meeting number 32. We're a little late starting, and I hope the discussions were fruitful—I'm sure they were.

In proceeding with our clause-by-clause discussions, I'll remind members of the committee that we still have with us, somewhere, Brenna MacNeil, who is the director of social policy and programs, and Elaine Ménard, legal counsel, legal services, who will be sitting at the table if questions are required of them.

I'm not sure who has the floor. We are on Bloc-1.1.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Mr. Chairman, at the last meeting, we adjourned our work in order to hold discussions, in particular on a proposal from an official representative of the government. According to that person, the amendment could be worded differently to meet the same objective in the legislation, but without this being specifically removed from federal jurisdiction. Something would simply have to be added.

That's why I agreed to suspend our work. I said that I was open to the idea of working on specific wording. I told both my Liberal and Conservative colleagues that I was ready and available. I followed up with them a few times in the last 48 hours to make them aware of my desire to work towards a solution. Yet I was unable to determine what progress had been accomplished. As a result, I am unable to propose new wording.

Before we continue our work, I would like to know what colleagues agreed to, without my participation. I would like to hear what they have to suggest.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do agree there was consensus at the end of our last meeting in an attempt to try to work toward a compromise that would satisfy all parties sitting at the table here. Certainly over the last 48 hours there was a strong attempt to do that--in fact a number of attempts to do that. I think we have come a significant way with regard to finding a compromise regarding this amendment, albeit of the three parties that were discussing a potential compromise, the result is that only two of the parties in those discussions were able to come to a compromise.

I certainly want to thank Mr. St-Cyr for his thoughtfulness on this in terms of trying to find a way to come to a conclusion that would see us in the same position as Bill C-11. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to move that far. The government does have to draw the line on how far it can go, at least with respect to this amendment.

I think we have come to a very reasonable approach and compromise on this, and if this amendment is defeated, I will be introducing a government amendment. In addition, I'll be reading into the record a letter that the minister will be sending to the chair of the regulatory board in terms of direction with respect to the issue we have discussed in amendment G-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Trudeau.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

The concern of the Liberal Party around this issue of consultants in Quebec centres around the fact that for a consultant to operate in the province of Quebec, and be effective and a quality consultant, they should be able to recommend to clients all the options, including the options touching on the provincial stream of immigration. The concern is that there may be an infringement of people's rights to practise certain types of immigration consultancy that don't require any provincial input, such as the refugee stream, which wouldn't need to conform to the Quebec code.

Now, this is a small issue, but it is one that I think represents a rare enough case that in this situation, as with much of what we're doing on Bill C-35, we're going to have to have faith that the eventual regulator will be strong enough to ensure the quality of advice and representation that is given to all its clients. Therefore, the amendment that the government is putting forward seems reasonable to us, as long as the government also commits—as it has indicated it will—to instruct the future regulator to ensure that anyone applying to a Quebec immigration consultant who is not conforming to the rules of the Quebec system must advise any client that there are Quebec options that they cannot sell them on and that they therefore should seek advice from a different consultant who is qualified in Quebec.

This a middling compromise that satisfies none of the parties around the table, to be entirely honest—not entirely. It requires us to have faith that an eventual regulator will be able to ensure that the immigration consultants operating in Quebec and across the country are of top quality. Because of this, we are not going to be supportive of the BQ-1.1 amendment and will be supporting the government amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

I am aware of the fact that the Bloc amendment is currently on the table. However, before we vote, it seems to me we should have an opportunity to hear the official amendment being proposed by the government, as well as the letter that has been referred to but which has yet to be tabled.

Furthermore, Mr. Trudeau stated that there could be a rule requiring that consultants practising in Quebec, but not accreditated by the Quebec government, make their clients aware of the fact that they are not fully qualified to provide advice on Quebec options. Is that only an intention expressed in a letter or does the government amendment provide for such an obligation under the Act?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me, aren't we debating amendment BQ-1.1?

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

Yes, but before--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr, aren't we starting to debate something that hasn't happened yet?

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

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, out of concern for procedure, we may want to form a committee of the whole. It seems to me we can hardly vote in favour or against an amendment if we don't know what other amendment is on the table.

In a number of places, we will be required to choose between one amendment or the other. We know what those amendments are. So, we can make that choice. Now we're being told that there is an agreement--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Monsieur St-Cyr, I only hear amendment BQ-1.1. I don't hear any other amendments. In fact, I haven't even seen any other amendments.

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

A member of the Official Opposition has just said he will be voting against the Bloc amendment because he prefers the government amendment. However, if Committee members want to properly exercise their right to vote, they should officially be made aware of content of that other amendment. I understand that an agreement has been reached behind closed doors, but the proper approach would be to tell us what that agreement involves.

Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I believe the majority of Committee members would agree that the amendment be tabled, so that we can look at it before voting on the Bloc amendment.

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

Withdraw the amendment and then I'll introduce mine.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a speaking order—

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a speaking order, and we're still debating BQ-1.1.

Are you finished, sir?

Ms. Chow, and then Mr. Trudeau.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to table the Bloc motion until we see the motion that Mr. Trudeau was talking about. He certainly referred to some motion that I have not seen. He referred to a letter I've not read.

So I'm moving to table BQ-1 so that we can allow the committee to see Mr. Dykstra's motion. He promised that he has one.

I think it just makes it a lot easier for all of us to work together, so we know what we're talking about. There are two parties, two members of Parliament, who have seen this; the rest of us have not seen this. I don't know what motion he's talking about. I haven't seen the letter, and I have to be able to, in order to make a decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay.

Is there unanimous consent that we table this to hear another amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Unanimous? It's done. There you go.

It's tabled, so you're on the floor, Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Currently, on what's being provided to all members for their review, a number of the members of this committee have seen this amendment.

I'll read it, if you'd like me to, Mr. Chair.