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.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
4:23 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
In my opinion, we are voting on the principle. The Committee has already expressed its opinion. I believe that this amendment is necessary to ensure consistency with Quebec's policy.
I would like to give you a concrete example of the consequences of not passing this amendment. Both at the federal level and in Quebec, there is an immigrant investor program. Even though there is generally extensive cooperation between the two levels of government, the fact is that these two programs compete with each other. The federal government and the Quebec government try to encourage immigrant investors to take part in their program, because it brings in money. In Quebec, the immigrant investors program brings in up to $50 million a year, which is distributed in the form of grants to Quebec companies.
If the amendment currently under consideration is not passed, that will mean that some immigration consultants in Quebec will be authorized to recommend the federal program, but will not be authorized to recommend the Quebec program.
Of course, the government is saying, through the letter and spirit of its proposal, that people will be required to state that they are not authorized under the Quebec program. My respectful submission is that this will simply create confusion. The evidence needed to monitor the veracity of such claims will be extremely difficult to collect, and a great many immigration consultants in Quebec will recommend to investors that they go through the federal program, not necessarily because it is advantageous for them, but simply because it is the only program they are able to recommend.
That confusion could result in a loss of investors for the Quebec Business Immigrant Investor Program and, as a result, a loss of funding for our Quebec SMEs, as well as lost job opportunities or even jobs.
In spite of the government's good intentions, which are completely inadequate, this amendment is needed and continues to be needed in the interests, not only of Quebec, but of all consumers.
I think it's important to point out to Committee members that this is something we have been examining for more than two years. We began by looking at bogus consultants. We were told that it was very complicated and difficult to ensure that people deal with accredited consultants who are able to provide advice.
We should be advertising on our website and on government websites. Bill C-35 will be implemented, and yet we will leave a gaping hole and create even more confusion because, in Quebec, when people go and see an immigration consultant, they will have to know in advance whether that person is able to apply at a single level, as opposed to both levels.
Outside of any considerations with respect to the separation of powers between the different levels of government, on which we do not agree, it is clear that this is in the interests of consumers and that the Committee's work thus far supports passing this amendment. I encourage you to do that.
4:23 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I certainly understand the example cited by my Bloc colleague. At our last meeting, the government drew our attention to the fact that the Supreme Court has resolved this issue and has clearly stated that the regulation of immigrant consultants is a federal responsibility. Because the Bloc amendment eliminates the federal government's supremacy in that area, it is my view that the amendment is not acceptable.
However, I know that many of the things we are trying to do here depend on the ability of the immigration consultant regulator chosen by this government to do a thorough and appropriate job. In light of the assurances given in this letter and the motion that has just passed, it has an opportunity to ensure that all consultants who provide advice on immigration matters in Quebec have the right to do so, by proving that they have the necessary qualifications to practise their profession in Quebec. That is why the Liberal Party has made this choice.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there further debate?
We're going to vote on amendment BQ-1.1
(Amendment negatived)
We're moving right along. We're now on amendment G-2.
Go ahead, Mr. Dykstra.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
We still have three parts of amendment G-1 to complete.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Okay, understood. We will come back to them when he deems it appropriate.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Is there debate?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We will move on to amendment G-2.1.
Go ahead, Mr. Dykstra.
Where is it? It's gone.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
November 15th, 2010 / 4:23 p.m.
Procedural Clerk
Would you like me to read the amendment so that everyone is clear on what they're voting on?
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
No, but as I understand it, we are on item (b) of amendment G-1. Is that correct?