Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good afternoon.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 33, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, September 23, 2010, Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

This is a carry-over from the last session. We have Ms. MacNeil and Ms. Ménard with us from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Ms. Chow, I think we left off with you on NDP-8.

(On clause 2)

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move that clause 2 be amended by adding after line 11 on page 3 the following:

(9) Every foreign national who seeks to enter or remain in Canada must disclose the use of any entity, or person acting on its behalf, that has provided services to assist the foreign national in connection with an application under this Act.

This is a suggestion from some of the witnesses we've heard to make it clear that they have to be public and tell us on the application if they are using a paid service. If their daughter or a relative fills in the application, that's different. But they need to disclose the use of an entity. The same as we do on the income tax form, there's a box in the lower left-hand corner to say that you used someone to fill in the form. I think that would be a good approach.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if the staff can give us a perspective on what the current practice is within the ministry, and perhaps outline why this is more a regulation issue than an amendment to the legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. MacNeil.

[Brenna MacNeil, Director, Social Policy and Programs, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The authority presently exists under section 10 of the immigration and refugee protection regulations to return an application where a representative is not disclosed. It provides that if there is representation for a fee, an application shall include the name of the organization of which the person is a member and their membership number.

So this issue is currently dealt with under regulation. It gives the authority to return applications where the identified representative is not an authorized representative or if an application is suspected to have been submitted by a representative who is not an authorized representative or not disclosed.

There are provisions in the regulations. They'll certainly be amended should Bill C-35 come into effect. They can be strengthened at that time.

I would also like to point out that the amendment as proposed does not specify “for consideration”. That is an additional issue with it.

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

We certainly understand Ms. Chow's intent. The minister has done so in the letter that he sent to her indicating that the regulation will be strengthened by amending the regulations, as Ms. MacNeil mentioned, once Bill C-35 comes into force.

I understand the intent of the direction in which Ms. Chow would like to go, but I think it's important for the committee to understand and accept the fact that there are things that belong within the legislative framework of the bill and there are things that belong within the regulatory framework. I think there is agreement across the board that this should be strengthened, but it should be strengthened through regulation and not through legislation.

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

Can I just ask Ms. MacNeil and the staff how it would be strengthened? Would it be done in the regulation and not through the act? In what way would it be strengthened in terms of disclosure requirements?

[Brenna MacNeil]

As I say, we use it currently as an authority to return an application. It could be strengthened to achieve what you're seeking to achieve. The effect of what your amendment would do is create a situation of non-compliance with the act. So you could have some strengthening to that effect, basically to require disclosure.

What our current regulation does maybe doesn't go that far. It depends on how it would be interpreted. We currently interpret it as the authority to return an application. We do that because we're not looking to go after the individual applicant in most instances; we really just want to return the application to signal what our structure is. We don't want to punish the applicant, in most cases, unless there's something else to pursue the applicant with, such as misrepresentation or something to that effect.

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

So if this motion is withdrawn, it is your intention, through the regulation, given that the minister in his letter said to strengthen disclosure--it just wasn't clear as to what the strengthening means--to say that if you don't disclose, then you're not complying with the act? Is that how you would go about doing it?

[Brenna MacNeil]

We could go that far, but it remains to be seen as to how a regulation could be structured. But that's a question as to whether we go that far or whether we just create a stronger requirement to disclose.

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

Is there a problem putting it in the act versus putting it in the regulation, given that that's the intention anyway, if I'm hearing you right?

[Brenna MacNeil]

Well, it's more about the consistency. IRPA is meant to be framework legislation. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is really meant to be framework legislation, with the details contained in the regulations. That's the way it's structured. That's why we currently have such a provision in the regulations.

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

Mr. Chair, may I just ask, through you to the parliamentary secretary.... I think there is no debate as to why we want to strengthen this area. I have no problem withdrawing this as an amendment to the act, but I do want to see it in the regulations.

So if I'm hearing that it is the intention to strengthen the act to the extent that it would say that if you don't disclose, then you're not in compliance with the act.... It's a very serious warning that you have to disclose that someone is helping you put in this application. That would deal with the ghost consultants, in a way, especially overseas, where we really don't have a lot of control. But if we can control it through regulations, if that's the intention, then I have no problem withdrawing this.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra.

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

I think it is the intention to attempt to deal with that at the regulatory stage. It's pretty hard for me to sit here and commit to exactly what's going to be in those regs when we haven't actually even passed the bill yet. But I will say this: when this issue comes up, why don't I ensure that you and I have a chance to sit down with the folks at the ministry to have a look at it to make sure it attempts to address the significance you're suggesting?

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

Then it can be as strong as it can be.

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

Well, at least then you'll see and we can have some input into that process at the time.

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

All right, Mr. Chair. I don't mind not proceeding with this one and leaving it to the regulations.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Does she have unanimous consent to withdraw?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

Agreed, but I'd like to make a small comment just on the intent and on this issue around that before we do--not one that's going to get in the way of anything. We as well agree with the intent of encouraging compliance and the utilization of registered and qualified consultants. But I would hope that when it is figured out how to word this into the regulations, proper care is put to make sure that it doesn't render people even more vulnerable. You know, if they're told by a crooked consultant--who's not going to be compliant on all sorts of levels--to lie on their application and not say they're using that crooked consultant, that it then doesn't bounce back as something that's going to further penalize people who are in a vulnerable position.

I know there are ways around that and the intent is not there, but I just wanted to highlight that particular issue. I'm willing to grant unanimous consent to withdraw.

(Amendment withdrawn)

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

It's withdrawn.

Mr. Trudeau, are you proceeding with Lib-4?

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Papineau, QC]

I don't know, Chair. Am I proceeding with Lib-4?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think I advised you earlier that I was going to rule it inadmissible because it's beyond the scope of the bill, but....