Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 19 - Evidence - February 10, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:30 a.m. to study current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities (topic: social inclusion and cohesion).
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, we have quorum. I therefore call this meeting to order.
[Translation]
Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee of Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Before I have the honourable senators introduce themselves, I would like to go over the agenda with my colleagues and note that we have two panels. The first panel will end at 11:30 a.m., and the second panel will end at 12:30 p.m. Are colleagues in agreement with the agenda and the times?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: With that, I would like to have my colleagues introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Merchant: Welcome. I am Pana Merchant, and I am a senator from Saskatchewan.
Senator Callbeck: Catherine Callbeck from Prince Edward Island.
Senator Demers: Thank you for being here. Jacques Demers from Quebec.
Senator Seidman: Good morning. Judith Seidman from Montreal.
Senator Eaton: Good morning. Nicole Eaton from Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: I am Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia. I am the deputy chair of the committee, and I will be chairing this meeting.
We have two panels, and our first panel is dealing with economic integration overall. We have three groups presenting. One group will split their time.
Starting on my left, we have Mr. McLachlan and Mr. Garon. On my left are Mr. Bissett and Ms. Wilkinson, who is appearing as an individual. Mr. Garon, you have the floor.
Randy Garon, Provincial Manager, Skilled Trades Employment Program, British Columbia Construction Association: Our delivery here this morning is about an immigrant program that we have for inclusion. Our document today is on the Immigrant Skilled Trades Employment Program, ISTEP, that we operate.
ISTEP was originally created in June of 2006 through a partnership agreement between the Construction Sector Council, CSC; and the British Columbia Construction Association, BCCA. With funding through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, and their Foreign Credential Recognition program, FCR, the pilot program was implemented in a labour shortage environment and then later endured a full recession. The program targeted skilled landed immigrants in B.C. who could not connect with the job market. Landed immigrants were deemed to be an underutilized and under-represented labour pool that could help address the existing shortages in the construction industry.
ISTEP was a provincial initiative, but the CSC provided national awareness to the program. The design of the program delivery was through what we call the connector model, which is delivered from a demand-side agency, such as BCCA, and provided huge benefits to the potential employee.
The mechanics involved delivery through four job coaches, who we now call trades employment specialists, or TESs. They have previous background experience with the trades. Coming from the demand side and being mobile gave them the advantage of being connected to employers. They were able to create a trust relationship by understanding the specific needs of the employer and travelling to meet face to face in their own environment. The job coaches would find out exactly what the employers required and then work to locate pre-screened trade assessments on potential employees. Some potential employees were referred to other agencies for skills training prior to employment and some were job-ready once their skills were identified and introduced to the employer.
After the presentation of the employee to the employer, the job coach would sometimes participate in the interview again to help assess the individual to ensure he or she met the employer's needs. Once the person was hired by the employer, the job coach would continue the connector model and act as a liaison between the employer and the employee as required. This often meant meetings both on and off the work site and joint meetings on some occasions.
The ability to act as an intermediary between the two parties proved to be invaluable to the success of the relationship. If any issues developed along the employment journey, they were able to handle them immediately and put them to rest. The result was a successful, productive employee en route to a rewarding career in the construction industry and a satisfied employer.
ISTEP ran from June of 2006 to August of 2010 with great success. With four job coaches, we acquired 4,962 points of contact with employers to develop and maintain relationships, dealt with 2,402 immigrant individuals and placed 1,051 into construction-related employment.
The ISTEP pilot provided building blocks for the foundation that our current Skilled Trades Employment Program, STEP, is built upon. It identified a successful delivery model that produced employment results and identified the infrastructure required to operate an expanded version of the program.
Out of ISTEP, we also learned that challenges to employment often included a lack of short-term financial support. Barriers to work existed due to individuals' inability to fund such things as work boots; some had transportation issues or perhaps they needed some short-term specialized training. Because of this, STEP created an innovation fund that was built into the contracts that could be accessed via an internal application process that allowed the job coach to immediately address those barriers that would normally be a stumbling block to an employment opportunity. This had a large impact on the ability to access various positions for some individuals.
Our current STEP initiative employs 30 staff in 11 offices across the province of B.C. STEP is currently operating a provincial Labour Market Agreement program, LMA, for all eligible Canadians for employment in the construction- related trades. With that, there have been 3,789 employer points of contact, 1,322 complete assessments and 788 employment placements to date.
We also have an Industry Training Authority — ITA — LMA program for immigrants into the skilled trades, all of the 140 trades they handle, with 1,591 employer points of contact, 336 completed assessments and 185 employment placements. Also, there is an ITA LMA program for women in the skilled trades, again with 140 of the trades, with 1,079 employer points of contact, 297 completed assessments and 128 employment placements to date.
We have just contracted with go2, the resource people for Tourism British Columbia, to operate an 18-month pilot program to accelerate workforce inclusion of people with disabilities into B.C.'s tourism and hospitality industry. STEP was selected to pilot this program to evaluate the utilization of the connector model into other sectors to see if we can replicate the employment placement success we are demonstrating in the trades sector today.
Manley McLachlan, President, British Columbia Construction Association: STEP is a fully expandable model that can be expanded incrementally into existing infrastructure without duplicating overhead costs for expansion. The addition of staff and locations can greatly enhance the outreach not only to urban areas but also to remote rural areas where there can be a large contingent of immigrants that are disconnected from the existing services and job-market connections.
One of the largest obstacles that STEP faces is the restricted demographic targets through the predominant Labour Market Agreement funding that we operate with now. This limits our eligible clients to non-EI clients and limits the individuals who can create employment opportunities. Funding without these criteria would allow us to access all landed immigrants to take advantage of a larger number of individuals who have previous trades experience and those who would like to pursue a trade to further address the predicted labour shortages in B.C.
ISTEP demonstrates the benefit of having employers directly involved in human resource programming, and we have continued to grow that benefit through our STEP initiatives. Having BCCA, an employer representative organization, as the main driver of the ISTEP pilot ensured that employers accepted the program in its earliest stages and then viewed it as a credible source of much needed skilled labour.
ISTEP was the bridge between the supply side and the demand side of the employment program equation. This bridge, we humbly suggest, has been a missing ingredient in the vast majority of HR-related programs across the country.
There is a pressing need to continue this type of programming. A greater public good is derived from programs that assist employers in addressing the imminent shortage of skilled labour in Canada. ISTEP clearly demonstrated a process that contributed to the inclusion of immigrants into a sector of Canada's workforce. We have been reminded many times of the uniqueness of the construction sector providing the lead in this area.
While individuals and their families derive great benefit from the employment successes produced by ISTEP — and we have attached just a few of the stories in Appendix B — employers also benefited from the access to this very talented sector of our population. Given the imminent need for new workers to replace the nearly 30,000 people retiring from B.C.'s construction workforce, as well as the need to find nearly 28,000 new workers to satisfy the demands of nearly $190 billion in B.C. major projects on line in the next few years, B.C. and Canada would be well served if the federal government were to continue funding for this type of program.
In conclusion, there is a real irony in the fact that the current points system for immigration discriminates against all who have a construction, trades or management background, yet ISTEP was able to assist individuals with professional backgrounds into well-paying occupations in the construction sector.
James Bissett, Member of the Advisory Board, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform: My presentation will address three issues or concerns. The first issue is that our immigration levels are too high; the second issue concerns why the immigrants we are bringing to Canada now, and have been since 1990, are not doing as well as in previous years; and the third issue concerns why I think urgent reform of our immigration policy is needed.
We have one of the highest per capita intakes of any country in the world. Australia occasionally exceeds ours, but they are now cutting back on their immigration flow. We take in about a quarter of a million immigrants each year. In addition to that, for the last almost 10 years, we have been taking in large numbers of temporary foreign workers. In 2009, we admitted 178,000 temporary workers, which was in addition to the 226,000 who were already here. That is a total of about 400,000 temporary workers and a quarter of a million immigrants. In addition, another 30,000 to 40,000 asylum seekers walk into the country each year.
It is doubtful that many of these temporary workers will go home. There is no form of federal control over them. Many of them are allowed to come for four years. If they leave their employer, the employer does not have to report that. If they arrive in Winnipeg today, they can leave from Montreal tomorrow. There is no control over them.
In addition, large numbers of them are completely unskilled and going into ``soft'' jobs, such as McDonald's, Tim Hortons and so on. I feel that that is a program that must be watched and must come under greater federal control.
We were always able to control the number of temporary foreign workers coming into Canada in the past. We have seen what happened in Europe with the Gastarbeiter workers in the early 1960s and 1970s, when thousands of temporary workers poured into Germany, France and other European countries. When the jobs disappeared, the foreign workers remained. They are there now, and they have constituted a large underclass in many European cities and created serious problems.
I do not think we should be going down that road. I think this is a problem. There is no coordination or control over these numbers coming into Canada. When you consider, as well, that we have some 950,000 immigrants in the backlog waiting to come, whom we are obliged to take because they have met all the requirements, these are enormous numbers. In effect, we are taking in about half a million immigrants every year. The majority of them are going to three cities, and we could talk all day about how that is creating infrastructure and environmental problems. This is the major concern.
Moreover, there is no rational reason why we are taking so many people. All the economic studies — and I have attached a list of these studies to my presentation — show that immigration does not significantly contribute to the economy. Recent studies have shown — and these studies are also listed — that with a population of 34 million people, we should not have to rely on foreign labour. Very few other countries in the world do that. That is my major point; we are just taking too many people, too quickly. This has tremendous demographic implications in Canada, and no one is looking at that.
We are told by the government that we need immigrants for the economy, the labour force and because of our aging population — the latter is a total myth. No demographer in the world would say that immigration can help your aging problem. If you bring in half a million people of the same age structure of your population, it does not help the aging problem, and a large number of our immigrants are parents and grandparents. Recently, the C.D. Howe Institute did a study on this and concluded that you would have to bring in several million people each year to have any impact on aging, yet this myth keeps being perpetrated by the media and, indeed, by the government.
Another point is that people assume the immigrants we are selecting are chosen because they have skills, trades and occupations that are in demand in Canada. That is no longer true. In the 1990s, we stopped selecting occupations that were in demand in Canada and began to select immigrants with high educational qualifications. We now know that large numbers of those immigrants with high educational qualifications are not getting jobs in Canada. Their educational qualifications are not accepted.
Out of the quarter of a million immigrants arriving each year, 17 per cent, or roughly 40,000, are selected because they meet our selection criteria. That is the biggest problem.
Why are immigrants not doing well? It is because they are not being selected properly. Believe it or not, we are no longer even interviewing immigrants. There are so many coming and so many in the backlog that if you are an applicant from Bangladesh, the paper application is sent to London, where a junior officer reviews it on paper and makes the decision. Very few people are interviewed. Can you imagine any employer in Canada hiring someone whom they had not interviewed? What is the point of this? These are people we expect to become successful citizens, to fit into the Canadian way of life, and we do not even see them or interview them. It is a shocking situation.
At one time, all the immigrants were seen. They were not only seen, but they were counselled; they were told about job opportunities, where in Canada they might go and what they should do with their families. That has all gone by the board. There is no time for counselling or interviewing. It is a question of numbers. It is similar to an assembly line.
Why? I am afraid to say this, but it is because all the political parties support mass migration because they see these people as potential voters and people who, once they arrive here, can be manipulated. They treat them like pawns on a chessboard. This is not good for the immigrants or for Canada.
I very much welcome the Senate's decision to deal with this issue because you will never get the House of Commons to deal with it. For a politician, dealing with or talking about immigration is toxic. They do not want to deal with immigration. Perhaps the Senate will be able to do something about this, which is why I welcome the work of this committee.
In 2008, who brought the whole immigration scandal to the attention of the British people? It was the House of Lords, not the House of Commons. The House of Lords did a study that showed that the 190,000 people coming into Britain, with a population double ours, was too many people and that the government was wrong in misleading the British people about the need for migration, either for the economy or for the labour force. I believe this is one of the most critical issues facing Canada today.
This is an international problem. There are 3 billion people in the world who earn less than $2 a day. These people are on the move. If we do not control immigration or manage it well, we will find ourselves engulfed, as has the United States with 12 million illegal immigrants.
We are not managing immigration effectively. The federal government has given up on managing immigration and has handed it over to employers, to the provinces and to other people. It is time that the federal government do something. It is time that this issue was addressed, and I would welcome the Senate to do it, since you are the only institution in Canada that can address this critical issue.
Lori Wilkinson, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Manitoba, as an individual: I would like to thank the committee for inviting me today.
I would like to point out that my talk will be a bit more optimistic than that of my colleague beside me. I will first talk about the trials and tribulations of young people when they come to Canada in the short term but also talk a bit about their success rates in the long term.
Before I do so, it is important that we highlight a few facts before we introduce this topic. First, the migrant population is young. Internationally, over half of all the migrants worldwide cross borders before their thirtieth birthday. When we look at Canada's figures, 57 per cent of all people who come to Canada come here before their twenty-ninth birthday. For this reason, understanding the labour market entrance experiences of this group has significant repercussions for determining the economic integration of all immigrants.
A second issue is that the initial settlement experiences provide a foundation for healthy, long-term attachments, not only to the economy but to other facets of Canadian community life, politics, society and health. Those who have positive settlement experiences at arrival have higher satisfaction with their new lives. Today I will speak briefly about the trends in the initial years of labour market integration among the recently arrived immigrant youth to get a sense of the overall long-term health of immigrants today.
In research that I recently conducted with my colleagues, we examined the initial integration experiences of over 2,500 immigrant youth coming to Canada between the ages of 15 and 29 years, and we did this over a four-year period. This is what we call the short-term period of integration, and it refers to the economic, social and cultural adjustment occurring over the first three to four years of settlement. This is a time when new languages are acquired, social practices are learned, employment is located and a general sense of settlement is acquired. For many, the conclusion of this period is marked by the acquisition of Canadian citizenship.
Let us first examine immigrant youth's progression through the Canadian education system. Educational attainment is a good predictor of future labour market success, as research has indicated that those with educational credentials attained in Canada have much higher employment rates and are more likely to be working in the field in which they were trained.
I would like to turn your attention to Table 1 on page 2, which shows their transition through the school system four years after their arrival in Canada. I want you to note that the 15- to 19-year-olds in this table are now 19 to 23 years of age.
If they were progressing through the education system at the same rate as those born in Canada, over 80 per cent should have finished their high school diploma by this age. Our calculations indicate that only 18 per cent of these newcomers have completed high school and only 19 per cent are currently pursuing post-secondary education.
Among the older age groups, who are now between the ages of 24 and 34, we would expect their post-secondary training to be complete by this time. Instead, we find that four years later, only 14 per cent of those aged 24 to 28, and 17 per cent of those aged 29 to 34, have completed a college diploma or trade certificate, but a third have completed a university degree. Usually what happens is that the people who do not finish drop out of school.
How might these educational trends affect their job prospects? Our results in Table 2, on page 2, indicate that six months after arrival, 54 per cent of youth were working; but four years after arrival, 84 per cent of the sample is working. That is regardless of any of the problems that they might be experiencing in settling, including language difficulties.
What is their employment outlook four years after arrival? I would like to turn your attention to Table 3 at the bottom of the page. This shows some job shifting, with youth having, on average, about 2.4 different jobs over that four-year time period. The average number of jobless days is about three months for all three groups, while the full- time employment rate increases with age, with 75 per cent of the 25- to 29-year-old group, which is now 29 to 34 years of age, holding full-time jobs. There is, however, some dissatisfaction with work conditions, with nearly a third of all youth dissatisfied or looking for work at the time of the interview.
If we look at their unemployment experiences, youth — and this is regardless of whether or not they were born in Canada, so I am including Canadian-born youth in here as well — comprise almost a third of all unemployed persons in our country. That is a rate about 3.5 times that of adults.
In the United States and the United Kingdom, evidence suggests that immigrant youth were the most negatively affected by the recession. Recent research suggests that being an immigrant or a refugee has a significant effect on unemployment, with immigrants and refugees being twice as likely to be unemployed, and that the effect of recessions on immigrant youth is significant. A person who enters the labour market during a recession earns 8 per cent to 10 per cent less in their lifetime than someone who enters the labour market during a healthy economy.
I would like to talk for a moment about what happens to them in the long term, because a remarkable thing happens. Despite their trials and tribulations over their first four years in Canada, evidence suggests that in the long term there is substantial labour market success.
If we look at the medium-term integration, which is three to ten years after arrival, and the long-term integration, which is ten years after arrival, many of these young immigrants experience a high degree of success in the labour market as was mentioned in the testimony given by Garnett Picot last week to this committee. I firmly believe that the evidence suggests that, on the whole, immigrant youth experience successful integration in the labour market in the long term. When they are satisfied with their education and their jobs, their satisfaction tends to have a trickle-down effect in other aspects of their lives, including social, community, political and family. Those with jobs that are fulfilling and that recognize their skill set and experience tend to be happier, better adjusted and will become more engaged citizens in the long run than those who have problems in the short term.
Evidence suggests that a small number of immigrant youth experience extreme difficulty settling successfully into Canadian society. If we look at their profiles, the young people who are having trouble at school and in finding work are the ones who are most dissatisfied with their lives in Canada.
If we can identify their problems early and rectify them quickly, especially during those initial three to four years after arrival, they are more likely to feel committed to their new country. This is why I am a fervent supporter of our settlement and multiculturalism policies. They are not perfect, of course, and definitely could use some adjustment.
Just because a small number of newcomers experience dissatisfaction with their lives in Canada does not mean that we should discard our settlement strategies and our programs altogether. These policies have served Canada well. We have not witnessed the wide-scale discontent expressed by disenfranchised migrant youth in Britain, France, Germany and elsewhere, precisely because the way of life that we have in Canada is substantially more accepting toward cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic differences than other societies. This does not make us immune to the problems with respect to social cohesion, but to suggest that what we are currently doing is fundamentally wrong is short-sighted and certainly not backed by evidence. Canada remains a cohesive welcoming place for immigrants, and any fundamental shift in settlement and multiculturalism policy may threaten our peaceful coexistence.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all very much. I will open the floor now to my colleagues. We have a significant list. I will ask senators to be efficient in putting their questions and for the witnesses to respond directly if you would.
Senator Merchant: Welcome, witnesses. I would like to try to see what we can do to foster better integration of our immigrants into our economic life and life in Canada. We know that the system is not perfect. I would like to probe to see what some of the problems are.
The first two speakers talked about the ISTEP program. I am interested in knowing whether a discrepancy arises between recognition of credentials between provinces and the federal government. Do the provinces follow closely the criteria that the federal government uses to bring in immigrants? Is there a disconnect there?
Second, while you have trumpeted the success of the program, are the immigrants earning comparably the same as Canadian workers? How is that working? We know that often the immigrant earning level is below that of the Canadian level.
Mr. McLachlan: The accreditation piece is problematic. I would not identify it as being a problem between the province and the federal government. I think the issue is primarily the accreditation for individuals who are trained offshore and their recognition, whether it be provincial or federal. That is a significant problem. Let me give you an illustration of the problem and describe one of the ways we have been able to get around it.
A large number of engineers enter into Canada, and many of them are challenged in terms of getting their accreditation recognized. In our experience in the program, we actually advised individuals to take the word ``engineer'' off their resumé. If you are a mechanical contractor in British Columbia, or in Canada, very seldom will you hire an engineer.
We looked at the skill sets that individuals brought with them into Canada. In some instances, for example, we would find that they had been trained in computer-aided design skills. That is a skill that many contractors will use. We were able to place individuals with an engineering background into employment that recognized their skill set, but they were not hired because they were engineers. This ongoing challenge of getting the foreign credentials recognized, we believe, is significant and has not been tackled.
With respect to wages, we know they are being paid on par with Canadians. In the example of the engineer, for instance, that individual would go into employment being paid exactly the same as the person he or she either replaced or working beside. In our experience, there is no issue of people coming into employment and being paid $10 an hour while Canadians are being paid much more than that.
Mr. Garon: I concur.
Senator Merchant: Do you find that the employers do recognize the credentials of their employees and that they are fair in seeing where the employees fit in?
Mr. McLachlan: Yes. We are trying to match up the skills required to obtain that employment and separate that from accreditation. My example stands. Employers are looking for specific skills, and that is the essence of our program. Through the assessment process that Mr. Garon described, we are looking for what skills you bring with you.
In many ways, I think it is fair to say that the accreditation is set off to the side and we are promoting the individual and the skill set he or she brings. Employers recognize that, and the success of our program reflects the support from the employer community.
Senator Merchant: Do you find that, because most of our immigrants come from non-English-speaking or non- French-speaking countries, there is a problem with language? If so, what do you do for them?
Mr. Garon: Yes, we do find that. We try to put them into English as a second language courses. To get through straight trade integration, they first have to understand the English language and also the language of the trade, so we put them through prior training before we introduce them to and bring them further into the trade sector, when needed. We see a substantial amount of that issue occurring.
Senator Eaton: Mr. Bissett, we have too many immigrants coming in, according to your paper. We are not interviewing them. Most of them come in not because they have job skills but on the basis of family.
Politically, would you advocate that Canada announce that, say, as of 2017, we will be accepting 50,000 immigrants a year, and we intend to interview each and every one of them? Would you advocate that we look at the whole family or the spouse to see how prepared they are to adopt Canadian values, namely, gender equity, rule of law, paying taxes, voting and so forth? How do you feel about that?
Mr. Bissett: I would not put a specific number on that. In the past, we have always managed our immigration carefully, I think, and that is one of the reasons immigrants who have come to Canada have contributed so much.
However, in the 1990s, we swung away from that, and we did not control the numbers. The Immigration Act that was passed in 2002 said that anyone who met the selection criteria shall be accepted. That meant that all the people who were applying and who met the criteria had to be accepted. That is why we quickly had a backlog of 900,000 people. That situation was corrected by the government in 2008.
In the past, we controlled the numbers through occupational demand. If your occupation was in demand, we wanted you. If your occupation was not in demand, even though you scored high on the selection criteria, you got zero on occupational demand and were refused. This acted as the thermostat to adjust immigration flow to labour conditions.
That system was done away with, and the swing came over to the idea of human capital, in that as long as you bring in immigrants, who cares if the first generation has it rough; the second or third generation will be useful.
I do not think that system is working, and that is why only very few of the immigrants coming here are seen and are subject to any selection criteria. They are coming here as relatives, sponsored by provinces and refugee groups. That is part of the problem.
The real problem is control of numbers. A tradesperson has no hope of getting qualified in the selection criteria. A good cabinetmaker or mechanic cannot make it; he or she does not have the education. Therefore, the employer has no choice but to bring him in as a temporary worker. That is what is happening, and there is no control over numbers.
It is true that there are 500,000 new immigrants every year. The good thing about the Provincial Nomination Program, PNP, is that it is beginning to have some traction to get immigrants out of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Manitoba is now receiving about 10,000 or 12,000 immigrants every year, which is great. However, the major problem is that even if they go to Winnipeg, they can fly to Vancouver the next day. There is no control over that. In Quebec, we found that seven out of ten investors who got into Canada through the investment program because they met Quebec requirements did not go anywhere near Quebec. They are living elsewhere, mainly in Vancouver.
I think we have to get back to the question of why we have immigration at all. We are a wonderful country. Millions of people want to come here. Let us take the best.
For example, Australia does not have problems with provincial accreditation of professions. They do not let you into Australia until you meet the state requirements. If you meet the requirements, you can come in.
We let in thousands of professionals from Pakistan and Bangladesh. They receive high points on the educational scale of the selection criteria. They have gone to school for 12 years, so they receive 12 points. An Oxford graduate who has gone to school for 12 years receives the same number of points. However, the educational standards in Pakistan and in much of the developing world do not meet Canadian standards. The primary problem is that they do not meet the standards.
The Shanghai institute of education assesses universities. Of the top 500 universities in the world, Canada has 22 universities in that top 500, whereas the whole of the developing world has 23. That is the basis of the problem with the provincial accreditation. In 2028, if we need 50,000 immigrants, let us bring in 50,000; or if we need 150,000 or 200,000, let us bring them in. The key is that we should be bringing in immigrants who are able to successfully establish themselves in the first year.
I had a budget in 1985 of about $18 million to help immigrants who were having trouble in the first year. They expected to get going in the first year of arrival. The budget for the department for 2010-11 is $700 million to help new immigrants. Why are we setting aside almost a billion dollars? They should be helping us. That is why we are bringing them in.
Senator Demers: The figures are accurate, or hopefully they are. We are talking about 428,000 people. For what Canada is today, we owe much to the immigrants. They have made our country better and have helped us to have the country we have today. I believe in that.
However, if we lose control of 428,000 people a year — because you said that 178,000 temporary workers usually stay here — that is over 4 million people in 10 years. Ten years goes by fast. We are losing control. I have no problems with immigrants, as I said, but we have to have control. Today it is fine, but we will regret it 10 years from now. We have to think that there is a certain amount of priority for giving jobs to Canadians. I hope we think that way.
I live in the province of Quebec, and there is a lot of crime. These young kids cannot get jobs. Some kids go to university, to McGill, and get good jobs. We should be very proud of them. There are also some kids who do not want to work and want the easy way out in our country and are not respecting our laws. If we do not have control and do something about it, we will be in big trouble. I may not be around to see it, but I think of my four kids.
I do not want to be disrespectful to any immigrant whatsoever; I have been friends with immigrants for 25 years, and they are the most wonderful people in the world. If we do not control things, we are in big trouble.
Mr. Bissett: That was my main point; we are not controlling it. We are falling into the same mistake the Europeans did. None of the European countries had immigration programs. They kept saying, ``We are not immigrant-receiving countries.'' The closed their eyes to the fact that they were getting thousands upon thousands of immigrants, mainly from Turkey and North Africa and mainly Muslim people who came into Germany, France, Switzerland and Denmark for one reason or another, with no control over them, and they woke up to the problem they have today.
It is not by accident that Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, has said that multiculturalism in Germany has not worked. It is not by mistake that David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, has said that multiculturalism in England is not working. It is not working because they have thousands upon thousands of people who were brought into the country who could not get work, formed ghettos and did not want to integrate into the mainstream.
Denmark finally had to gain control over their program because one day in cabinet, the finance minister said to the immigration minister, ``Look, 90 per cent of our welfare budget is being spent on 2 per cent of the population. All of these Muslims that have come in as asylum seekers and temporary workers are on welfare living at a fairly high standard in Denmark, and we cannot carry on without cutting other vital programs.''
The Chair: I will have to move along, but I think we understood your point well, Mr. Bissett.
Ms. Wilkinson: Multiculturalism has not worked in countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom because they have a type of integration system that does not work very well. It does not mirror what we do in Canada. In Germany, for instance, until recently, you could not become a citizen until you were third generation, a grandchild. You are talking about groups of people who are disenfranchised for their entire lives. We do not have that here. That is why crime rates amongst immigrant youth are significantly lower than amongst Canadian-born youth.
There are some youth that have problems, and you hear about them in the news, but the magnitude of those problems are hugely overblown.
Senator Callbeck: Welcome to all of you. Mr. Garon and Mr. McLachlan, you talked about the ISTEP, the first program, which seems to be a win-win program. As I understand it, it started in June 2006 and ended in 2008. Then I thought you talked about future projects. Is the program still ongoing? The funding is finished, is it?
Mr. McLachlan: For clarification, ISTEP was a pilot project that was funded through HRSDC, through their Foreign Credential Recognition program. The funding for the original three-year project was extended for an additional 18 months with the challenge around sustainability.
We have been able to keep the concept, the idea, alive by securing funding through the Province of British Columbia, which is handling the LMA funds that were devolved to the province. However, it is now a component of a larger initiative that we simply call STEP.
One portion of that is geared to the integration, if you will, of immigrants. It is called the Immigrant Trades Training Initiative, ITTI. We have been able to keep the concept alive, but the sole focus for the overall program is not immigrants. As Mr. Garon said in his comments, our numbers are still very strong but have diminished from the original pilot.
Senator Callbeck: It sounds like a wonderful program. How much would the cost have been per person to assist someone to get into the construction industry? Do you have any idea on that?
Mr. Garon: I can speak to that. There are two aspects to that answer: the cost and the return on investment. The rolling average cost for an individual across programs is about $5,000 per individual. That will take someone through the initial assessment right through preliminary training, pre-screening and any additional skills upgrading needed to get into a successful job.
The return on investment from a business point of view is that we are taking someone in the current market who is non-EI eligible, who is not working and has not worked for the past three years. For a $5,000 investment, we are taking someone out of that stream and putting them into a successful career in the construction sector, and we follow them through.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you.
Mr. Bissett, you talked about one of the problems being that education, for example, in Pakistan does not meet our standards. What do we do about that?
Mr. Bissett: I would recommend that we do what Australia has done and simply say, ``If you are coming here as a professional engineer, architect or accountant, since the federal government does not have any real control over that, when you get to the province, you will find you cannot practice. Find out if your qualifications will meet provincial licensing requirements before you come, otherwise we will not take you.''
All these professionals who are coming are told that, by the way, or they were told that when they were being seen by visa officers. Whether they are still being told that or not, I do not know, but they are still coming.
It is a serious problem, and I admire the efforts to try to upgrade the qualifications of the immigrants who are coming, but it is costly. There are so many immigrants in China and India who can meet all of the requirements, but we are not necessarily getting them. The question is whether we really need them.
The construction industry is saying that they need carpenters, plumbers and electricians. However, they cannot get here because we are bringing in highly educated immigrants from the developing world who have no way of getting their qualifications accepted here or getting employed.
Mr. McLachlan: I wanted to back up that point. I think part of the solution is to review and revamp the whole points system. We went around to some of our job coaches, our staff, and ran them through that particular filter, if you will, and none of them would have qualified to come into Canada. That is a significant change that would have an impact on the whole accreditation and would be a solution.
Mr. Bissett: Under the old system, we were taking large numbers of skilled workers, and they were being employed immediately. The professions are a different case; that becomes more difficult because of the provinces' control over licensing requirements.
Senator Callbeck: They were being employed immediately.
We heard the other day that back in the 1960s and 1970s, when immigrants came over, they were paid for their experience. I know, in the project that you talked about, you are saying that they are earning the same as Canadians. However, one witness was saying that they are not. They did back in the 1960s and 1970s, but somewhere along the way that evaporated.
Mr. Bissett: I did not hear that testimony. He may have been talking about immigrants generally. All of the recent studies have shown that since 1990, newcomers are simply not earning the same amount as immigrants had previously earned and certainly not the same as Canadians. A recent study by Patrick Grady of Global Economics has shown that the same pattern has followed into second-generation immigrants who are not getting the wages they should be getting.
Part of it is because in the 1960s and 1970s, we were selecting immigrants who were being seen by our experienced officers abroad, who knew the Canadian economy and travelled back and forth talking to Canadian companies and construction industries and knew the type of workers that were needed. They counselled them and told them if they were an upholsterer, for example, that they should go to a region that had a shortage of upholsterers. That is all gone now. It is now a question of numbers. It is an assembly line; get the numbers.
Senator Callbeck: There are no one-on-one interviews now. Is that right?
Mr. Bissett: There are very few one-on-one interviews. As I said, if you are an immigrant from Bangladesh, your paper is sent to London to be reviewed. You can see the security implications of not interviewing people. You can see the assimilation problems of not interviewing people. At one time, our officers had the discretion to accept someone even if that person did not meet the points. In the interview, the officer could see that the applicant could go to Toronto and get a job tomorrow because, for example, he had initiative and drive and was the kind of person employers wanted.
That officer also had the power to say, ``This person with all his high qualifications will not get a job. No employer in Canada who would hire him.'' They would turn him down on discretion. That discretion has been taken away. The personal suitability that used to count so much in the selection criteria is gone, and the emphasis is now on education.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: I would like to get back to the topic of accreditation, which the four of you have touched upon. It's a decision that often belongs to the provincial government. I think it's one aspect we should try and facilitate. It saddens and angers me to take a taxi only to realize that the driver is an engineer or a doctor who must drive a taxi in order to feed his family.
We know that Quebec has a particularly acute shortage of doctors and nurses, in particular in family medicine. Why? Because our medicine faculties admit fewer and fewer students every year and very often those that are admitted choose a specialty and seem to somewhat snub family medicine. Nowadays, four or five out of ten Quebecers are desperately trying to find a family doctor.
Another problem is that there is very few GOFMS — graduates of foreign medical schools — admitted every year in our teaching hospitals. We have people who would probably be very happy to become family doctors with some experience, but these people must drive taxis in order to feed their families. I see that as a huge problem. Professional accreditation may be a problem in the construction sector, but it's also a problem in our health system.
Mr. Bissett, Ms. Wilkinson, you are probably more able than most to advise us; how can we encourage our provincial governments, and particularly the Quebec government — since it controls part of its immigration —, to be more generous towards foreign-trained doctors and allow them to fulfill the pressing needs of our hospitals and clinics?
[English]
Ms. Wilkinson: You raise a great point. I do not know if the committee has heard from the Foreign Credentials Referral Office. There are twelve professions this year and I think another nine in the coming year where they are working with the professional organizations to try to recognize the credentials coming from overseas; one of those professions is physicians.
The first step is to work with the professional associations but in a way that does not make newcomer professionals a threat to the people who are trained in Canada with job availability and wage rates. The fear is that if you train too many people, wage rates will go down. That might mean a bit more monetary investment from the provincial standpoint as well.
At the federal level, the provincial levels and certainly at the level of community organizations they recognize that this is a problem.
The other point is that perhaps we are not doing a good enough job to tell people it costs less to upgrade. A person coming from Pakistan may not have the same level of skills that we require here for a particular profession, but it takes less to upgrade them than it does to train a Canadian-born person. We know that education is subsidized to the tune of about 55 per cent. In other words, university students pay 45 per cent of what it really costs for them to train in any discipline. It would be a cost savings for us if we upgraded the skill set. Also, we would have the benefit of people feeling more integrated and happy in their lives in Canada instead of driving a taxi.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Canadians would not have to be put on a waiting list and wait until a family doctor calls them to say that he can now take them as patients; he will choose one person rather than another. We put our name on a waiting list to find a family doctor just as we do to get our children in day care.
[English]
Senator Martin: Thank you for this morning's most provocative and interesting discussion around the table.
I am reminded of February being Black History Month and the contributions that Black Canadians have made to Canada, of Chinese Canadians and how they helped build the railways, and even how Canadian-born people of Chinese descent were not given citizenship until they served in the wars and proved their loyalty to Canada. I am thinking of the many contributions of immigrants and the success of Canada's multiculturalism versus some of the other countries of which you spoke.
I do agree it is important to have the types of reforms that will strengthen our system and the control we need to have.
Does it have to do with principled policies, meaning we have to think about why we have immigration? Is immigration only a benefit to Canada, or is immigration a relationship, a two-way exchange, similar to in a classroom — I was a teacher for 21 years — where students who were disabled and autistic were integrated into the classroom. Yes, it was harder at times for me as a teacher, but the students benefited from the diversity in the classroom. It was a relationship through hard and better times.
I am wondering about, with the conversation we are having today, at the benefits and the challenges that come with immigration and the importance of really looking at focused reform that we can have.
Please feel free to speak to the specific reforms, some of which you have spoken to already, that we must look at together. There are many benefits as well as challenges. As a country, we need to look at our responsibility of inviting immigrants and sometimes taking their money, if they are investing, and their hard work. We also need to look at what we can do to work together in improving our system.
If any of you would like to speak to the specific recommendations, please do so.
Mr. McLachlan: From our experience, I could not agree more with you about the benefits to individuals going in different directions. We recognize that when we help one person, the family behind that person is also benefiting.
In order to make our mosaic work in this country, we have to figure these matters out, and I am sure there are a number of solutions.
Mr. Bissett: I agree with Senator Demers; we are sleepwalking into the 21st century. We have almost 1 million immigrants whom we have to take because they are in the backlog; we are bringing in 500,000 newcomers every year. There is no coordination with the provinces, no selection of the immigrants.
The demographic structure of Canada is changing almost overnight, and it is done without any discussion with the Canadian people or any discussion in our Parliament. The media will frame every immigration story as either you are for or against the immigrants, which is quite wrong.
The group that we have formed is not against immigrants; we are just saying that the system is out of control and that we better get it under control before it is too late.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all very much. This has been a very dynamic meeting, and you have addressed a number of important issues.
I would draw your attention to the issues that the government is dealing with in many of the points that you brought up. To my count, at least five bills are before the house as we speak dealing with a number of these aspects that you have outlined so well. Hopefully, we will move forward in a comprehensive way.
I would like to thank our witnesses: Mr. Bissett, from the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform; Mr. McLachlan and Mr. Garon, from the British Columbia Construction Association; and Dr. Wilkinson, who was here as an individual.
I would love to have pursued some of the questions about the union issues and others that you face in moving your interesting program forward, but unfortunately we are out of time. Thank you for appearing.
Colleagues, we will begin this second session with our next witnesses. From Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we have Ms. Corinne Prince-St-Amand, Director General, Foreign Credentials Referral Office; and from Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, Mr. Jean-François LaRue, Director General, Labour Market Integration.
We will be ending the session at 12:30. I will ask Ms. Prince-St-Amand if she would begin.
[Translation]
Corinne Prince-St-Amand, Director General, Foreign Credentials Referral Office, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to provide an overview of the Foreign Credentials Referral Office and the initiatives we currently have underway that are helping internationally-trained workers to better integrate into the Canadian labour market.
[English]
You all recognize that immigration has been, and continues to be, vital to Canada's growth and economic strength. In 2009 alone, Canada accepted 95,000 federal skilled workers. In addition, we welcomed more than 30,000 provincial nominees through our various provincial nominee programs.
The Foreign Credentials Referral Office, FCRO, that I manage was created in May 2007, with the mandate to provide internationally trained workers with the information, path-finding and referral services they need to have their credentials recognized at quickly as possible so that they can find work in their field of expertise more quickly. FCRO services are offered in Canada, as well as overseas prior to arrival. We work with federal partners, with the provinces and territories, with regulatory bodies, credential assessment agencies and industry associations as well as employers to ensure that foreign credential recognition efforts are complementary, avoid overlap where possible and build on existing services for internationally trained workers.
You heard earlier in your sessions from Ratna Omidvar from the Maytree Foundation. She is one of our partners currently working with us.
Many players are involved in foreign credential recognition, and you heard this morning again about the complexities of this field. In Canada, as you know, it is the provinces and territories that are responsible, through delegation to regulatory bodies, for assessing and recognizing credentials.
Over 440 regulatory bodies across Canada govern over 55 professions. More than 200 post-secondary educational institutions assess credentials for the purposes of academic placement, as well as the five provincially mandated assessment agencies that evaluate credentials for both academic placement and workplace entry. There are many players. When you add employers to that, we are into the thousands.
FCRO is actively working to address some of these complexities through a number of initiatives both in Canada and overseas, which include website development, getting information to individuals before they come to Canada, supporting innovative projects and partnerships and mentoring programs.
I would like to outline just a few of those to give you a sense of our mandate.
[Translation]
We are working with our federal partners at HRSDC and Health Canada and our provincial colleagues to implement the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications.
My colleague Jean-François LaRue, from HRSDC, will provide you with greater details about the Framework and its implementation.
[English]
Senator Martin, you were involved in the November 2009 launch of the framework from Vancouver, so you will be more familiar perhaps with the framework that Mr. LaRue will speak about shortly.
As we work with federal, provincial and territorial colleagues and a broad range of stakeholders to implement this framework, FCRO is taking an active leadership role in the pre-immigration and overseas initiatives, where we are providing a platform for governments, employers and licensing bodies to expedite the accreditation process and to contribute to quicker success for internationally trained workers entering the labour market.
Mr. Bissett indicated that newcomers do not receive any counselling. I would like to tell you about the FCRO- funded overseas services, where we are providing counselling services and information. We are linking individuals to employers, and they are getting jobs prior to leaving their home country.
This programming is delivered through the Canadian Immigration Integration Program, CIIP. It is managed through a contribution agreement with the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, ACCC. CIIP provides federal skilled workers and provincial nominees, their spouses and adult dependents with voluntary and free orientation sessions prior to arrival. The applicants can also attend individual planning sessions that provide customized advice and assistance with respect to credential assessment, skills and language upgrading, as well as job searches.
Through this project, in the past year, we have tested some regulatory exams in India for the law profession. This is really innovative in moving that pre-arrival assessment overseas so that individuals can land in Canada and begin work as quickly as possible.
We currently have those offices in China, India and the Philippines, and an office in the United Kingdom will open later this year. The London office will be offering itinerant services to the British Isles, the Middle East and Scandinavia. The reach of CIIP is fairly significant. The location of those four hubs and the model of delivering services to neighbouring countries give the project the potential to provide services in 25 countries now. In fact, under the program model, we have the opportunity to reach 44 per cent of all provincial nominees coming to Canada and 70 per cent of federal skilled workers worldwide.
The statistics on this program are very encouraging; 93 per cent of those individuals who went through this two-day session in their home country before coming found employment in Canada within six months of arrival. Better than that, 73 per cent of that 93 per cent found work within the first three months. I can tell you about some individual stories later in the question period. This shows that pre-arrival interventions work.
Domestically, FCRO is also offering some important services to the internationally trained workers to help them navigate this complex system. The services are offered in person to clients across Canada through 329 Service Canada centres and more than 245 outreach sites, as well as the toll-free telephone service through the Service Canada call centre. As of October 31, 2010, Service Canada received over 84,000 visits and 11,000 calls.
Information on foreign credential recognition is also available through our website. We gave you copies of The Employer's Roadmap: Hiring and Retaining Internationally Trained Workers, which is also on our site. This roadmap is to help employers navigate the complexities and figure out whether a temporary worker or a permanent worker would be the best way to go, how to help them get their credentials recognized and then how to retain them in their firm.
We have also handed out our workbook, Planning to Work in Canada? An Essential Workbook for Newcomers, which has been developed to assist individuals to navigate the system themselves. This one is for individuals, and the roadmap is for employers. The roadmap was developed in collaboration with The Alliance of Sector Councils, TASC.
What is the federal government doing to walk the talk? In October of last year, Minister Kenney launched the Federal Internship for Newcomers program. That program was started with HRSDC and Citizenship and Immigration Canada and now has been expanded to 11 federal departments. It allows newcomers to receive up to eight months of work experience in a federal department. There is a mentoring component. Last year we received 1,200 applications for this — a huge demand — for the 11 departments that are participating. We were able to extend 65 work opportunities to those interns.
It is demand-driven. A department has to say that they would like to take an intern. Then we assess the applications and match the intern to the federal employer.
Governments cannot address the challenge of foreign credential recognition alone. We need to work together to make progress, to develop initiatives that will play a crucial role in supporting our economic recovery and promoting future growth in our country, as well as providing immigrants with the tools and services needed to begin the assessment and accreditation process while they are still in their country of origin.
[Translation]
Jean-François LaRue, Director General, Labour Market Integration, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada: Mr. Chair, my name is Jean-François Larue and I am the Director General of the Labour Market Integration Directorate, at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
[English]
I would like to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity to contribute to your study on immigration integration, and specifically on the subject matter of credential recognition and bridging programs. My directorate is responsible for reducing labour mobility barriers faced by Canadians in regulated occupations as they move from province to province and also faced by internationally trained workers trying to integrate into the Canadian economy.
Today, I would like to provide the committee with an update on the important work that HRSDC has been doing to overcome systemic barriers — I emphasize ``systemic'' because our role is different than Citizenship and Immigration Canada's, in that they work with individuals while we work with systems — to immigrant labour market integration and explain how this work is distinct yet complementary to the role played by Citizenship and Immigration Canada through FCRO, and Health Canada through their Internationally Educated Health Professionals Initiative.
You have had FCRO work described by my colleague, Ms. Prince-St-Amand, and I will speak to the role of the Foreign Credential Recognition program, FCR.
HRSDC's FCR program promotes systemic change related to foreign credential recognition processes, which includes, among others, bridge training initiatives. This program works closely with and provides funding to partners and stakeholders such as provinces, territories, associations of regulatory bodies, employers' groups and others to develop fair, transparent, consistent and timely FCR practices across Canada.
Immigration flow is a critical source of skilled labour for Canada. Immigrants possess the essential skills for maintaining Canada's global competitive advantage. The reality is, however, that upon arrival, many immigrants experience a number of barriers to obtaining employment commensurate with their skills and education.
[Translation]
We have all heard the story of the taxi driver who has a degree in medicine or engineering but cannot use all his qualifications.
[English]
The barriers they face that make it difficult integrate are often limited language fluency and literacy skills — it is important to note that often technical language skills can be a barrier also — poor recognition of foreign qualifications, lack of Canadian work experience and financial barriers. It is a vicious circle: I do not have the credentials, so I cannot get a job; I cannot get a job because I do not have the job experience, so no one wants to hire me.
As a result, many newcomers are underemployed. You have received a lot of information about employment rates. When we talk of ``underemployment,'' it is people working in jobs for which they are way overqualified.
As I indicated last year to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, poor labour market outcomes of skilled immigrants cost the Canadian economy between $2 billion and $5 billion annually. That is an estimate. The underuse of the skills and employment potential of immigrants also results in unnecessary increases to social services costs, a decreased ability of employers to find employees with the required skills and loss of potential tax revenue. In addition, it reduces the chances of successful social integration of newcomers and their families.
For these reasons, the government is committed to ensuring that immigrants are able to fully utilize their skills and knowledge in the workplace. Not only is this good social and economic policy, it is the right thing to do. A condition to achieving this commitment is creating an environment that recognizes prior learning and encourages further training when necessary. Asking an immigrant to retrain him or herself from scratch is not a solution to the problem. Therefore, the efficient and timely assessment and recognition of international qualifications and accessible bridge training programs are integral to ensuring the effective integration of immigrants.
To address these issues immigrants face when arriving in Canada, first ministers, as Senator Martin would know, agreed to take concerted action to provide for the timely assessment and recognition of foreign credentials by tasking labour ministers to develop the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications. Launched in the fall of 2009, the framework articulates a new pan-Canadian vision for improving the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials based on principles of fairness, transparency, timeliness and consistency.
The federal government works in close partnership with provincial and territorial partners, which are primarily responsible for the regulation of occupations in their jurisdictions, to implement the framework. To facilitate its implementation, federal, provincial and territorial governments first worked with an initial group of eight target occupations to streamline their foreign credential recognition practices so that internationally trained professionals can have their qualifications assessed within one year anywhere in Canada. These professions include architects, engineers, financial auditors and accountants, medical laboratory technologists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, physiotherapists and registered nurses. As you can see from the list, many of those occupations are health-related. This is why we are working closely with Health Canada. This year we will start improving foreign credential recognition for six more target occupations: dentists, engineering technicians, licensed practical nurses, medical radiation technologists, physicians and kindergarten-to-grade-12 teachers.
In Budget 2009, Canada's Economic Action Plan provided $50 million to help governments support the implementation of the framework. That work is ongoing. As of December 31, 2010, with this funding, the FCR program concluded 66 agreements, of which 36 agreements are with regulated occupations; 23 of those agreements are with non-regulated occupations; and 7 agreements are with provinces and territories. HRSDC is supporting all of the 14 target occupations in the framework.
I am proud to say that our investments have led to the creation of numerous long-lasting partnerships — and I cannot emphasize enough how critical it is that we have those partnerships —increased awareness of FCR issues and altitudinal change, and finally, systemic change in FCR processes, as well as improve the domestic labour mobility.
Since its inception in 2003, HRSDC has invested in over 20 different regulated occupations, representing a significant share of the skilled immigrants landing in Canada. Additionally, there has been considerable engagement in the non-regulated sector, which represents about 85 per cent of the jobs in the Canadian economy. That is why employers are so important to the solution. For instance, HRSDC has supported FCR projects with 13 sector councils, as these crucial stakeholders provide an effective platform from which employers are able to access the tools they need to facilitate credential assessments. In addition, HRSDC supports the work of provinces and territories to address jurisdiction-specific gaps.
Overall, our funding has enabled organizations to develop preparation and pre-arrival online resources, FCR occupation-specific diagnostic studies, assessment tools, internship opportunities, bridge training projects and adaptation tools to the Canadian workforce.
[Translation]
Today, as mentioned by Ms. Prince-St-Amand, my colleague from Citizenship and Immigration Canada, I would also like to highlight the Working in Canada website, a tool developed by HRSDC.
[English]
It enhances the preparation and pre-arrival supports for newcomers by providing up-to-date and relevant labour market information to allow all users to make informed decisions about where to live and work in Canada. Its user- customized reports provide location and occupation-specific information on job descriptions, certification requirements, wages, skills, language training and job opportunities.
Additionally, we support a number of projects that address integration of immigrants into the workforce, such as the development of bridge training projects to prepare and facilitate individuals to enter professional-level employment. For example, currently, HRSDC is providing $500,000 to Bio Talent Canada for a two-year bridge training project that will develop a mechanism to allow internationally educated medical specialists who are in the process or have not been successful in obtaining certification or licensing by a regulatory body to transfer their skills into another health and medical field within the Canadian bio-sector.
As well, HRSDC has provided funding to develop tools that expedite the evaluation and licensing process for improving systems for internationally trained individuals in regulated occupations. For example, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada received $1.6 million to streamline architectural registration processes that will require applicants to undergo only one assessment of both their educational and professional work experience by one central organization.
Also, HRSDC investments are used to develop tools that help in the adaptation of internationally trained professionals to the Canadian workforce. For example, in 2007, HRSDC provided funding to Bio Talent Canada to develop curricula to help employers coach internationally trained professionals to integrate into the Canadian work environment.
In conclusion, I have mentioned only a few of our project activities. However, I am confident that in addition to Health Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada's work, HRSDC will continue to play a major role in government support to successful immigrant labour market integration and implementation of the pan-Canadian framework.
[Translation]
I also want to thank all the partners who contributed to this project, including provincial governments, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and Health Canada. It's truly the result of efforts by numerous partners, and this cooperation is critical for the success of the initiative.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both very much. It is clear in the two sessions today that it is very timely that you are here with respect to questions and interests of our senators and the earlier panel. We will now open it up for questions.
Senator Eaton: Ms. Prince-St-Amand, would you be in favour of extending what you do with credentials to all immigrants? In other words, do you think it is a good idea? I guess part of your consultation or dealing with skilled workers is that there is an interview. You meet them; they are assessed, and they are helped.
Do you think that would be a good idea to extend that to all people who would like to immigrate to Canada?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: It is a very good question, Senator Eaton. I will explain a little more about how this works.
I think the statistics that I raised earlier speak for themselves. When an individual applies to immigrate to Canada, they receive an initial approval to immigrate. In that letter from our missions overseas, they are asked to finalize their medical check before coming. In that correspondence to the individual, they are given information on CIIP, and they are offered an opportunity to attend these free two-day sessions, or they can telephone the offices to get further information, as well as go on to the various websites that Mr. LaRue and I have outlined.
For the individuals who are attending and bringing their families to the sessions, it is an eye opener. We have spoken with many of them, and it is unbelievable. I wanted to give you an example that I think will help you understand; it speaks for itself.
In the Philippines last year, Glen Mendoza was a banking industry professional with an MBA. He attended the two- day session; and in the session, his CV was shared with the five big banks that are partners with the project. He arrived in Canada, and within three weeks he received a call from the Bank of Montreal for an interview. After going through the interview process and a second interview, within six weeks he was working. Nine months after starting with the Bank of Montreal, he was promoted to a position that was two ranks higher than the initial starting position. That gave him the much needed job; it gave him the confidence and the knowledge.
It is very expensive. The project we are running in the countries with the reach that I explained is $15 million over three years.
Senator Eaton: I am not worried about the Glen Mendozas of this world because obviously he is a very motivated individual. He is educated; he will go. He will try to help himself and use every program he can.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: Right.
Senator Eaton: It is the other individuals who perhaps do not have the language skills or the confidence. Therefore, should we almost be making it mandatory for people to go through some kind of pre-consultation, pre-tutorial or pre- help before coming to the country?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: We are finding that the individuals who go through these sessions are better able to enter the labour market, whether they are in regulated or non-regulated occupations. They have a sense of what the Canadian economy is about.
Senator Eaton: I am not arguing about that. I agree with you completely. Do the people you send the letters to not phone you up or not get in contact with you?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: Absolutely.
Senator Eaton: Those are the people we should be worrying about.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: Yes, we should.
Senator Eaton: Is there a way of making your program almost mandatory before people come to the country? For example, if you want to come to Canada, you not only do a medical test but also see us for two or three days of tutorials.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: There are policy levers we could use to do that. We could link it to the point system and provide an incentive to individuals to get extra points for graduating from these programs. The minister could decide that this pre-arrival information session should be mandatory.
There are policy levers that the department could use to make it mandatory, yes.
Senator Martin: My question is related to that. You mentioned CIIP and that these pre-arrival interventions are very effective. I would absolutely support something done through policy to make it mandatory and have something built in as an incentive.
I am wondering about the Active Engagement and Integration Project, AEIP, that S.U.C.C.E.S.S. has done as a pilot project. I am familiar with it because I am from the Vancouver region. There is one in Seoul, Korea, near the Canadian embassy, and there are many referrals through that. It is tied in.
There are orientation sessions, language classes, different seminars about the education system in Canada, et cetera, and even individual counselling. It sounds like something we should be investing in. What better way to prepare people for Canada than to do so in their country, where they have support already and other resources are available to them. It seems like a logical fit.
You did not mention AEIP. Is that similar to CIIP?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: Senator Martin, you are right. S.U.C.C.E.S.S., an organization based in Vancouver, does offer similar sessions in Taiwan and Korea only. I did not bring the success rate statistics for integration into the labour market.
My understanding of S.U.C.C.E.S.S. is that it does not have as much of a link to employers in Canada in the systemic way that CIIP does. However, you are absolutely right. Overseas, those individuals in Taiwan and Korea are eligible for the counselling and information sessions that are critical to their quicker integration into the labour market once they arrive in Canada.
Senator Martin: On the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications, you spoke about the process that has been undertaken so far. I am curious about the actual progress that has been made with these professional bodies. Please speak to that, from the launch to today. You highlighted a few examples. However, in your opinion, has there been much more progress than expected? Would you evaluate where we are at this time?
Mr. LaRue: Foreign credential recognition is a complex environment. There are many players. The provinces are responsible for regulatory bodies. It is similar to partnership work that we are doing.
When we started to work on the first group of priority occupations, we did national consultations with everyone in the room, including provinces and regulatory bodies. We discussed at length their certification processes. We identified where there were difficulties and problems. We agreed and developed action plans, and we have been able to ascertain that all occupations are meeting the one-year service standard.
When we look at the work, we have done excellent progress. However, we still have work to do. I would say that the way to measure success in this business would not be about whether certain aspects of the certification process have improved but whether we have long-lasting partnerships.
It is important to remember that jobs are changing faster than we can imagine, through technology and through the shape of the economy. People have seen how the Internet has changed the labour market over just the last decade. The challenge will be to keep up with changes in every single regulation.
We are talking about the regulated businesses. Every day, new businesses are being invented and regulated. Keeping up with those numbers will be important.
Thus far to date, we have achieved the objective that we have set for ourselves, and now we are moving to the second group of priority occupations.
Mr. McLachlan: The framework is very important.
Senator Cordy: Mr. LaRue, I agree with your comments. Jobs have changed. Growing up in Cape Breton, in Nova Scotia, the immigrants who came in 1950s and 1960s were able to get jobs at the coal mines and at the steel plant, and they were reasonably high-paying jobs. However, in this day and age, you need a lot of education.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand, I would like to talk about the pre-arrival intervention program. I think you said that 93 per cent of people get jobs within six months and a high percentage within three months.
Going back to Senator Eaton's point, what percentage of people actually take advantage of the pre-arrival intervention? Those who will take advantage of it are likely the ones who have the language and many other factors.
What percentages of immigrants take the pre-arrival program?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: It is a good question. It is voluntary and not a requirement at present. The information is sent to them with an initial letter about their medical check. Whether the individual actually decides to attend these sessions or follow up on this opportunity is a personal decision.
This project was historically funded by HRSDC. As of last November, it has been taken over by my office.
In the past few years, we have had a total of 9,000 successful graduates from the program. I do not have the statistics. It was only available to federal skilled workers initially, but when we took it over, we expanded that to allow provincial nominees, who are increasing in numbers as you know. Therefore, the provinces are very happy.
I would have to look at what those numbers were over the past few years to give you a percentage of those that actually used the program. I do know that we have had 9,000 successful graduates, and that means they have completed the two-day program.
Senator Cordy: That would be quite a low percentage of people who are actually using the program when we look at the number of immigrants coming in.
The newcomer program that you talked about is a great idea: Give me a start; open the door; let me get into the work force; and I will go from there based on my skills.
Mr. LaRue, I would like to talk about the program that started in 2009 with the federal-provincial-territorial labour ministers getting together. Is it the federal labour minister? I agree that they are an equal partner. However, who would be the initiator of this group getting together; is it the labour minister?
Mr. LaRue: Are we talking about the Pan-Canadian framework?
Senator Cordy: Yes.
Mr. LaRue: For the pan-Canadian framework, HRSDC is accountable through the Forum of Labour Market Ministers, FLMM, and the representative on the committee implementing the framework. In the provinces, the responsibilities are sometimes joined for labour and immigration, depending on the size of the province. For some provinces, it is more the immigration side and for others, it is the labour department.
It varies across jurisdiction. I do not know if that answers your question.
Senator Cordy: It is under the umbrella of HRSDC.
Mr. LaRue: It is under the umbrella of FLMM, and it has been tasked by first ministers in the first ministers' conference.
Senator Cordy: Do they meet frequently?
Mr. LaRue: We meet on a regular basis. We meet quarterly at the working level that is ensuring the implementation. Senior officials and deputies have regular calls. Minister Finley actually had a labour ministers meeting last June, I believe, and Minister Kenney also had an immigration table just before that in May to discuss this.
Senator Cordy: When you look at the situation of credentials, it is a maze when credentialing involves post- secondary institutions, regulatory boards, provinces, territories, the federal government, HRSDC, Health Canada, Service Canada and Citizenship and Immigration Canada — I am sure there are more.
How does everyone stay in touch? We see the silos of government before this committee; we hear about it all the time and see it in action.
How does one actually get through the maze?
Mr. LaRue: It is an excellent question. This is a very complex environment because there are many players; there are many regulatory bodies, learning institutions and representatives.
When I said that we did national consultation and had everyone in the room, it was precisely for that reason, to ensure everyone heard the same story and agreed on the process that needed to take place, and also that everyone was conscious about what those action plans were that were being put in place with those regulatory bodies for ensuring we have an evergreen plan to address the issues on an ongoing basis. It is not to focus just on the short term but also to look at the long term.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: I think the framework Mr. LaRue explained is, for the first time, bringing together the key ministries — both federally and provincially — in an organized way at our level, our ADM level, our deputies' level and our ministers' level. Every week we are on conference calls, in addition to those quarterly face-to-face meetings with the provinces, Health Canada, Citizenship and Immigration Canada and HRSDC. That is required in this area to ensure the myriad of players are all working toward one solution in a similar, transparent and open way.
Senator Cordy: I wanted to comment that I know people have phoned the 1-800 number three or four times and received a different answer every time. That is not related to credentials but to the whole immigration file.
Senator Seidman: From these hearings, we have heard it is becoming more common to see an ever-increasing proportion of the immigrants whom we accept to be family members of the so-called principal applicants.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand, if I look on page 3 of your presentation at the numbers that you present for 2009, probably about one third more of the immigrants accepted are family members as opposed to principal applicants.
These people — the principal applicants, I presume — were settled within six months and many within three. I was wondering if you had any data about the how quickly the family members were settled in jobs.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: The data I provided does not differentiate between a family member and a principal applicant. In the program I mentioned, the dependents are eligible for the services as well. When I say 9,000 successful graduates, some would be spouses and some would be principal applicants.
I do not have a breakdown in those terms with me today. I would have to see if we have that captured in that way.
Senator Seidman: I would appreciate it. If you have the data, please send it to us at a later date.
The Chair: Before I go to Senator Callbeck, I wanted to pick up on your answer to Senator Cordy and the numbers. You talked about the 9,000 people who have gone through the program over the years. The question I think that the senator was getting at is what the percentage is of the total immigration group. Please provide that data to us, if you can.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. LaRue, you talked in your presentation about the barriers that immigrants have to finding jobs. One of the things you mentioned was limited language fluency. We had a witness who talked about the fact that the resources under the settlement services — that may not be the right term — are not adequate. The immigrants are not staying in training long enough to get a good grasp of the language.
I know that an evaluation was done on the Citizenship and Immigration language program in 2009. Could you tell us the results of that study?
Mr. LaRue: I will let Ms. Prince-St-Amand comment on the specific matter.
However, through the pan-Canadian framework, much of the work has been done on the issue of language fluency and the barriers that we have identified through various action plans. For example, for health occupations, one of the barriers is the level of technical language. People might speak well, in a fluent manner, but when they get into the operating room, the technical language can be a barrier. There are different barriers, and we are trying to lift those.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: In FCRO, foreign credentials are my specialty. I do not have the details of the language study. However, we can get them for the committee.
I do recall that the study found that only approximately 25 per cent of newcomers who were eligible for language training and assistance were actually taking advantage of our language programs.
Senator Callbeck: Only 25 per cent of those who were eligible.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: Minister Kenney has taken this seriously and is trying to ensure that this changes. Last year, with the ministerial instructions, a policy change was made so that there is now a requirement for certain categories to access language testing prior to being assessed. All federal skilled workers and Canadian Experience Class applicants are required to submit the results of an independent language test before they will be considered.
It is one policy reaction to this data.
Senator Callbeck: It would be great if you could get the evaluation for what was done, what recommendations were made back in 2009 and what the carry-through on these recommendations has been.
As I said, we heard it from a witness, but I have heard this time and time again. I would like to get to the bottom of it.
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: We will do that. My colleague, Deborah Tunis, appeared before this committee` a few days ago. She is the expert in that area, so we will certainly get the evaluation results for you.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you, and please provide information on what has been done since.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: Let me come back to the problem I mentioned earlier and to which Mr. LaRue has also alluded. We all know that Quebec has an immigration policy that differs from that of other provinces.
Is it the reason why it is more difficult to have one's degrees recognized in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada?
Mr. LaRue: I could not really give you an answer. I think that Quebec manages those files in its own way.
Senator Champagne: We never do anything like the rest of the country, we know that.
Mr. LaRue: I really couldn't tell you if they are better or worse than elsewhere. I would say that every player manages its occupation with great care. Through the pan-Canadian framework, Quebec weigh in regularly in most files related to occupations.
I must add that the regulating bodies in Quebec operate very differently than in the rest of Canada, and that those choices are made by the regulating bodies. Is it more difficult? I have seen very interesting developments on the Quebec side. We have created, amongst other things, an equity commissioner position to assess the thoroughness of each regulating institution, measure the adequacy of the process, and report to Parliament. And I would add that Quebec is breaking ground because the commissioner has lots of authority, lots of powers.
Senator Champagne: I want to get back to my question. With the shortage of family doctors that we have everywhere in Quebec, in large urban centres as well as in remote areas, I think that with all the GOFMS who come here, some would certainly be more than happy to work as family doctors and they would have the qualifications to do the job. You say it's not necessarily more difficult, but it's not easier either?
Mr. LaRue: The medical profession has its own idiosyncrasies. You know, I would say that in our regular discussions with the various players, examples are striking. Some representatives of the medical profession — dentists, for example — have given us examples of people coming to Canada with some basic training in dentistry, and it's very good. However, in some countries, the culture is such that all they will do in their practice is pull out teeth, but in the area of dental hygiene their training is lacking.
And when they arrive in Canada, they see that they cannot practice dentistry and only pull teeth out. They must apply other skills. We have a somewhat identical situation in medicine. In some ways, we must make sure that the public is protected, and it's part of it.
Having said that, within the pan-Canadian framework, the second group of priority occupations comprises dentists and family doctors. In this area, we work jointly with Health Canada, which has a specific program to better integrate people trained in the health sector, including doctors.
[English]
Senator Merchant: Regarding accreditation and given that professions are self-regulated, do you find that there is resistance among professions to have foreign immigrants join their groups and practise within their professions?
Mr. LaRue: Every regulatory body I have dealt with is extremely concerned about ensuring they protect the public interest. What you call ``resistance'' I would sometimes call the professional ethic of ensuring that the Canadian public is well protected.
You have to understand that, historically, professions have changed and evolved. Some of them have a lot of money and it is easy for them to put in place processes that are efficient. If you have 1,000 to 2,000 applicants per year, it is easy to collect fees and be able to put such things in place. However, there are other professions that have just started and are small. Economically, it is difficult for them to put a process in place. They start from different places. Also, they did not all start as national entities. You have five, six or ten provinces with different processes.
We have done a lot of work in recent years. The FCR program has tried to support occupations that are fairly advanced in an effort to harmonize standards across the country. We are a nation. Certainly, if you are certified in one part of the country, you would like to be certified in the other parts of the country. We are trying to achieve that through our projects and the funding we provide.
Institutional resistance exists. However, I was a witness to the process of consultation carried out last year with those regulated occupations, and their collaboration has been nothing but exemplary. I would underline the example of Engineers Canada. When I sat down at the table, I was amazed that they understood their problem so well. They did not have many examples, but they were precise in the examples they brought forward. They were extremely proactive. We started working with them in 2003, since the inception of this program. The more you work with them in collaboration, the more there is a culture shift.
Now that they see there are more engineers coming from abroad than those that graduate from Canadian universities, they have a huge interest in ensuring that these people are recognized accordingly. At the same time, they have a responsibility to ensure that the public interest is served by making sure the public is protected from malpractice.
It is a difficult struggle for many of them and it is the same for us, which is why this issue is complex. There are many players and this is why we put the pan-Canadian framework in place.
We all have a common vision of where we should go on a sustained basis. I insist again that the measure of success is not whether we meet this principle over another; it will be about whether we are able to establish sound partnerships between all the players in order to be informed regularly about the developments in a profession, such as an evergreen plan. We want to interact with them. When a problem arises, it should be immediately addressed. I think we are achieving that through the pan-Canadian framework, and it is quite an achievement.
Senator Merchant: You mentioned targeted occupations. I am wondering, Ms. Prince-St-Amand, whether the pilot projects you spoke of that you have in several countries are geared toward these targeted occupations?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: Our project is open to all occupations. However, due to the work and the projects that are happening through the framework, as well as some of the fast-tracking of immigration applications, those target occupations have been used in developing our ministerial instructions to fast-track a six-year waiting list to a six-month waiting list for processing. The FQR framework occupations have been taken into account in developing the list of ministerial instructions. Therefore, yes, there is close coordination to ensure that the policy responses are consistent and coherent for those individuals who are applying.
Mr. LaRue: On top of doing all we are doing, this framework focuses on partly regulated occupations but also on the non-regulated sector, which represents 85 per cent of jobs. For people with medical training coming to the country, many opportunities may not be in the regulated sector, such as working in the biotechnology sector.
We are trying to cover the full ground through the framework. Yes, we focus on target occupations, but the framework is not just about that; it is about the whole labour market and how we can connect these alternative pathways to certification for other types of jobs. For example, someone might come to Canada with a background as a technician. How do we channel them to the right job so that they can be employed rapidly and can integrate socially and economically in Canada?
The Deputy Chair: This has been an important discussion covering critical aspects of identifying and integrating immigrants into the life and economic opportunities in Canada.
There are a number of questions I would like to ask you but I cannot. However, you both referred at times to the issue of language training — the idea of testing to see that they meet a language skill. I would assume that the language test is a general test given to all individuals.
One of the things I think we experience is that someone who can say ``open the door and close the window'' might not have the linguistic skill required in the workplace. Perhaps you could disabuse me of that assumption, but I would hope that as we get a higher percentage of potential immigrants to be evaluated with regard to the credentials in the location they want to immigrate to, we could also deal with the issue of language skill. Does it meet the professional area they think they want to enter, or just the ability to walk down the street and buy a coffee?
Ms. Prince-St-Amand: That is an excellent question, senator. In fact, our department has a number of different types of language training available, including the kind to which you refer. We call that one the Enhanced Language Training Program, which was launched in January of 1994. It offers occupation-specific language training paired with the workplace component in order for newcomers to enter the labour market commensurate with their skills and qualifications.
You are right: Whether it is nursing or construction, individuals require proficiency in the use of occupation-specific terms in those sectors. The CIC's enhanced language training component addresses that issue.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much for being here. As I said a moment ago, it is very important. I thank my colleagues for helping us get through questions in time. With that, I declare the meeting adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)