Evidence of meeting #33 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 consultants.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I move that Bill C-35 in clause 5 be amended by replacing lines 37 to 39 on page 3 with the following:
ing that conduct, for the purposes of ensuring that persons referred to in those paragraphs offer and provide professional and ethical representation and advice to persons in connection with such proceedings and applications.
Basically it makes for the provision of information to governing bodies so that they have to disclose their information properly. I just wanted to clarify to make sure that would be the case.
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)
(On clause 6--Persons authorized to represent, advise or consult)
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Same thing. So moved.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I move that Bill C-35 in clause 6 be amended by replacing line 18 on page 4 with the following:
connection with a proceeding--other than a proceeding before a superior court--or application
(Amendment agreed to)
(Clause 6 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 7 agreed to)
(On clause 8--Order in council)
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Mr. Chair, the Bloc Québécois is quite concerned about what happened after the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was passed some time ago, especially with regard to the Refugee Appeal Division. We are concerned about the coming into force of bills. We want to be sure that parliamentarians are able to do their work, that the spirit of compromise at the committee is respected and the will of Parliament is fully respected as well.
The intent of this amendment is simply to make sure that the entire bill will come into force at the same time. We also want to avoid a situation where a government could decide to exclude one of the provisions that the committee has passed just because it does not suit its purpose any more. I think that we have to make sure that the spirit of the bill is observed in its entirety. I did not want to specify the date on which the bill would come into force, but, if this amendment is passed, the government is going to have to put all of it into effect.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
We actually understand Mr. St-Cyr's reason for the amendment, I think based on a private member's bill that he put forward a little while ago, and this would see that this wouldn't happen with this bill. The government certainly supports all of the bill, and its intent to implement it at the same time is well thought out and we support it.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 8 as amended agreed to)
Bloc
Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC
Right, Mr. Chair.
I mentioned this briefly during the consultations, and even in the House. So it will not come as a surprise.
As I understand it, our procedures do not allow us to amend the short title, but they do allow us to defeat it. So I am suggesting that this committee defeat it, for several reasons.
First, I think that we have to make it clear to the government that it must stop using the short titles of bills as vehicles for its political marketing. Nowhere else in the bill is any kind of opinion expressed. The focus is on the legal aspects of the matter. The title is different; it talks about cracking down on crooked consultants. That is clearly expressing an opinion. Members may vote for the bill and agree on the principle, but that kind of language should not pass into law. All the more so in this case, because it could get ridiculous. Imagine a consultant telling his clients that he is accredited under the “crooked consultants act“. That is quite pathetic and, more importantly, it does not provide much credibility. I feel we must make sure to get rid of all wording like that.
For all those reasons, I recommend that members of the committee vote against the short title.
November 22nd, 2010 / 4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Justin Trudeau Liberal Papineau, QC
Yes, I agree entirely with Monsieur St-Cyr. I would add that a number of witnesses brought forward this particular issue and were, quite frankly, insulted to be regulated by a bill that talked about “crooked consultants” and not about honourable consultants or legitimate consultants, not to mention the argument that this bill is not about cracking down on crooked or ghost consultants; it's about setting up a regulator for good consultants. In terms of the ghost consultants, one of the criticisms of this whole issue is that they are not necessarily going to be gone after by the eventual regulator but by the Canadian border services and the Mounties. So it's a title that is both unfortunate and not entirely applicable.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
I would simply say it got us this far, and everyone understands exactly what this bill is about.
Anyway, I would just like to get some clarification from the clerk--I'm not sure which clerk--on what happens when there's no agreement on a title.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
An act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
In answer to your question, that would be the title of the bill.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Well, you know, it's disappointing. We've gotten this far.