Yes.
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.
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.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
It is moved by me that Bill C-35 in clause 2 be amended by adding after line 3 on page 3 the following:
(7.1) For greater certainty, An Act respecting immigration to Québec, R.S.Q., c. I-.0.2 applies to, among other persons, every person who, in Quebec, represents or advises a person for consideration--or offers to do so--in connection with a proceeding or application under this Act and
(a) is authorized to do so under regulations made under paragraph (7)(b); or
(b) is a member of a body designated under subsection (5).
5:05 p.m.
A voice
He's read it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
He's read it.
Your amendment.... It's not really that bad; everything's cool.
We are at amendment BQ-1.1.
5:05 p.m.
A voice
He's tabled it.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
He has indeed.
Your amendment is, under the order, G-3.1, which is way down the list. I'm sorry to be picky, but I'm told we need unanimous consent.
5:05 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Everybody agrees? There you go.
Carry on, Mr. Dykstra. You have the floor.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
That is the amendment.
In addition, there is going to be a letter that is going to be here in very short order that is addressed to you, Mr. Chairman. The letter reads as follows, and this comes from the minister:
I am writing to provide a statement of intent to you with respect to the direction that will be provided to any potential governing body for immigration consultants designated by the Minister.
No body will be designated as a governing body for immigration consultants unless they agree to the following.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I'm sorry. It reads:
With respect to members of a designated body practicing in the province of Quebec, where that member is to have any immigration dealings with the Government of Quebec, adherence to An Act respecting immigration to Quebec shall be adhered to, including French language requirements and knowledge of Quebec law. The governing body of immigration consultants shall ensure that any violation of the Quebec immigration laws constitutes a violation of the governing body's code of conduct.
Paragraph 2 reads as follows:
Where a member of a designated body operates in federal proceedings only, professional rules of conduct should include that...such members should appropriately direct clients to seek advice and/or representation from another member or authorized practitioner that can meet the requirements of the Quebec...legislation. In particular, members not qualified in Quebec must advise clients to seek advice with respect to Quebec programs from those qualified to give advice under relevant Quebec immigration regulations. While the immigration consultant would be otherwise authorized to represent or advise for federal immigration purposes...no applicant should be adversely affected by the fact that the immigration consultant in Quebec does not meet the requirements of the Quebec legislation.
That's the end of the letter. It will be signed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
It will go to you, Mr. Chair, and then obviously will be redrafted and sent directly to the potential new governing body that is identified under this piece of legislation.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay.
We are debating G-3.1. Is there debate?
I see none. We will....
Monsieur St-Cyr, I'm sorry. I thought maybe you'd have a few words to say.
5:05 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chairman, as I'm sure you can understand, we have just received this wording, and a letter has just been read that we have yet to see. Could you give us five minutes to have a look at it?
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
All right. We're in the process of debating G-3.1.
I believe, Monsieur St-Cyr, we'll give the floor to you.
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
We'll see how the votes go. I would have preferred, and I still prefer, that we continue along the lines of the recommendation passed by the Committee in 2008—in other words, a formal transfer of this responsibility to the Quebec government, so that we can ensure that all the requirements with respect to Quebec consultants are met.
That said, I understand that the intent behind this amendment, combined with the Minister's amendment, is to ensure harmony. But I don't think that is enough. The intention is certainly completely legitimate, but I think this could have been more clearly expressed in the legislation, particularly with respect to the obligation to inform people that you are not accredited by the Quebec government. That could have been specifically stated in the legislation, rather than leaving it to the Minister.
I am very much aware of the fact that I probably do not have majority support around this table, so I see no point in unduly prolonging the debate.
4:23 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will speak on both motions. I know BQ-1 is not on the floor at this point, but rather than making two speeches, I thought I would just make one. It's about the same subject anyway.
4:23 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I think so.
I appreciate the attempt to accommodate the consultants who operate in Quebec. If you look at it from the consumers' point of view, if I'm a temporary foreign worker, I would likely be coming in under the federal law and then I would have a consultant working with me. But this consultant probably is not familiar with the Quebec law, and therefore I will then have to migrate to the provincial Quebec consultant. It is confusing. I'd much rather have one consultant who is familiar with the Quebec law and regulations, because in Quebec they have their own immigration rules, their language is different, and the law is different. I would not say that to any other province with the exception of Quebec, which is why I've supported BQ-1 right from the start. I believe from the consumers' point of view, it's much simpler if there's one type of consultant who is familiar with both laws and can speak and write fluent French and be able to serve the people and be regulated.
I'd much prefer to go the route of BQ-1, rather than what the government is proposing. However, I appreciate the attempt.
4:23 p.m.
Conservative
4:23 p.m.
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
On division.
(Amendment agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings]
