Citizenship and Immigration committee  Could I have a moment to think about this?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you. It's just the wording. I know what the intention is, but I just want to have a moment to look at the wording.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes, that is my reading of it.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have just a few more comments. I'm not sure if I'll be addressing Ms. Chow's comments. I will just point out that under the Constitution Act, 1867, there are two provisions that deal with immigration. One is section 91.25. “Naturalization and Aliens”, w

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Merci. I don't have the wording available, but if the committee members wish to suggest any wording, I think the intention would be clear if you wish to have it apply just in the future to all future agreements or contracts with the VACs.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. Going back to my previous statement about the doctrine of paramountcy, the amendments that are currently proposed would have the federal legislation prevail over the provincial legislation. So I would think that when you have an anglophone in Montreal who i

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I have a big book, Mr. Chair. I will refer the committee to a Supreme Court of Canada case by the name of Mangat. It was a 2001 case that dealt with immigration consultants and whether or not they fell within the provincial jurisdiction. The court held that with regard to immigr

Citizenship and Immigration committee  It would say, “No person shall knowingly, directly or indirectly, represent or advise a person”, and it would continue, “with the proceeding or application under this Act”.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Of course there's always the caveat that it's for the court to interpret the wording. But I think the intention seems to be that it would be when someone indirectly...as was mentioned, A says to B, “advise potential immigrant C of the following”, without the first person, A, bein

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Whether or not the legislation has the capacity to have you charged would be based upon the facts of the case, as to whether you “knowingly” advised. It is difficult to say that if you did it by some means of communication whether or not there would be enough evidence to substant

Citizenship and Immigration committee  I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you. Mr. Chair, I think with the inclusion of the words “directly” or “indirectly” the court would interpret the provision more broadly. If you do not have the word “indirectly”--and I think you asked whether it would be a crime--it may in fact not be a crime; I think the

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Sorry, Mr. Chair, it would not be amending section 127.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Yes. I only turned to that wording for guidance.

Citizenship and Immigration committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to point out that this is a mens rea offence. With the word “knowingly” it is a criminal offence, so the points raised are very valid indeed. I would also like to point out wording that we find in the act currently, and I hope it may be helpfu