CIMM Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 13, 2003
| ¾ | 0835 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)) |
| ¾ | 0840 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode (President, L.Cormode & Associates Research Services) |
| ¾ | 0845 |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 0850 |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| ¾ | 0855 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance) |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| ¿ | 0900 |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.) |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| ¿ | 0905 |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| ¿ | 0910 |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0915 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| ¿ | 0920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| ¿ | 0925 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 0930 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| ¿ | 0935 |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| ¿ | 0940 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace ( As Individual) |
| ¿ | 0945 |
| ¿ | 0955 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| À | 1000 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
| À | 1005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| À | 1010 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| À | 1015 |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
| À | 1020 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1025 |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
| À | 1030 |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
| À | 1035 |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
| À | 1040 |
|
The Chair |
|
Dr. Liisa Cormode |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Norm Wallace |
| À | 1045 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1100 |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot (President, Eritrean Community of Saskatchewan Inc.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Á | 1105 |
| Á | 1110 |
| Á | 1115 |
| Á | 1120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Á | 1125 |
|
The Chair |
| Á | 1130 |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Chair |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
| Á | 1135 |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Á | 1140 |
|
Mrs. Lynne Yelich |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
| Á | 1145 |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Á | 1150 |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Á | 1155 |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Â | 1200 |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
|
Mr. David Price |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
|
Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
| Â | 1205 |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
|
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot |
|
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich) |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Thursday, February 13, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¾ 
(0835)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)) Good morning, colleagues. Good morning, guests and witnesses. It's nice to be finally in--where are we--Regina?
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: We took the scenic tour to get here last night.
I want to start by introducing L. Cormode & Associates Research Services.
We're going to start our first half hour to 45 minutes speaking about Bill C-18, an act respecting Canadian citizenship. As you know, today we'll be speaking about the Citizenship Act primarily, also the provincial nominee agreement and settlement programs, as well as the debate on a proposed national ID, whether or not we should embark on a national ID.
Without any further ado, Liisa, welcome. We look forward to your presentation. I know that you've submitted one. If you could take about eight or ten minutes to go through it and summarize it, I'm sure we'll have all kinds of questions for you.
¾ 
(0840)
Dr. Liisa Cormode (President, L.Cormode & Associates Research Services): Thank you, Joe.
To clarify, I'm Liisa Cormode and I'm presenting on behalf of my research assistant, Maria-Laura Basualdo, who unfortunately is quite ill today.
First of all, I want to say something about Maria's background so you'll understand the context for this brief. Maria and I have both worked extensively with international students and their spouses as well as with temporary foreign workers and their spouses. We've been involved in projects related to this group, one funded by Metropolis and the other by a provincial government agency.
Maria herself came to Canada as the spouse of an international student. She later became the spouse of a temporary foreign worker, then an international student before becoming a permanent resident, and in the fall a Canadian citizen after six years of being in Canada.
Maria's brief addresses two issues: first of all, the question of residency; and second, the issue of knowledge of an official language and knowledge of Canada. Her focus is on issues for people who have come to Canada initially as international students' spouses, foreign workers, and foreign workers' spouses and on what she sees as the issues related to these groups that need to be addressed in Bill C-18.
We want to make very clear one interesting issue in Saskatoon and in some other smaller cities in Canada, which is that international students, foreign workers, and the spouses actually account, we think, for a somewhat large share of all immigration. In Saskatoon we think at least 10% and maybe as high as 20% of all immigrants each year come here initially as temporary residents. We're not sure because Citizenship and Immigration Canada has not yet released data, but they promise it's coming.
Obviously, this phenomenon is going to be increasing as more and more provinces and the federal government target international students and foreign workers as immigrants. Of course, on the skilled workers selection grid some provincial nominee programs give points for having studied in Canada and having worked in Canada.
Now, what we really want to stress is that one issue that came up again and again and again in our research was that especially with international students, many seem to be coming to particularly the University of Saskatchewan with the following agenda: come as students; apply for permanent residence, including two weeks after they come; get permanent residence; then apply for Canadian citizenship the minute they can; and then, studies done, head off to the U.S. on a NAFTA visa, having gotten Canadian citizenship.
What we kept hearing over and over again from university faculty, people who work with international students, some of the students, and people who would call us up asking for advice was that in effect a Canadian passport was a passport of convenience, that there was basically no intention of staying permanently in Canada. The goal was for a Canadian passport as a route into the U.S.
Let me also say that when I talked to Citizenship and Immigration Canada's research group about a workshop I wanted to organize on temporary residents as immigrants, I told them about this, and their response was yes, we've heard this too. So there are people at CIC that seem well aware of this issue.
Maria really believes that in the wake of what happened on September 11, Canadian citizens by naturalization are not treated equally with native-born Canadians at the U.S. border. The reason is of course that there's a perception among some people that the U.S. sees Canadian passports as being passports of convenience. Maria's thinking is that if we had appropriate mechanisms in place, if it were harder to become a Canadian citizen, then in effect all Canadian citizens would be first-class, equal citizens at the U.S. border.
Maria's recommendations for Bill C-18 are twofold. The first, in terms of residency, is that the 1,095 days should be counted from the day permanent resident status is received, with no time granted for having been in Canada as a student or foreign worker. We see this as really important, because our experience, certainly Maria's experience, is that mentally it's very, very different when you're in Canada as a temporary resident, not knowing how much longer you're going to be here, as opposed to when you're a permanent resident. Put quite bluntly, the reality is that when there's a possibility of counting time people spend as students towards the residency requirement, this creates an opportunity to get permanent residence and Canadian citizenship sooner, so the minute you graduate you can take off to the U.S. on a NAFTA visa.
Second, in terms of the issue of knowledge of an official language, Maria wants to stress that knowledge of Canada as well as knowledge of one of the official languages facilitates the integration of the citizenship applicant. Maria wants to comment that even though the booklet “A Look at Canada” covers almost every aspect of life in Canada, the citizenship test itself, with multiple-choice questions, is very easy. It took her four minutes and her husband three minutes. She timed it.
Maria wants to stress that a tougher test, perhaps one with essay questions, would help to test knowledge of Canada as well as language ability. It would take more time to write the test, but there would also be more responsibility for writing the test. If anything, this would give greater weight to the value of Canadian citizenship. Rather than having a Mickey Mouse citizenship test, we would have something that would really test people's knowledge in some kind of meaningful way.
As harsh as these recommendations may seem, they would be one way to give Canadian citizenship a more valuable meaning rather than just being a form to fill out, fees to pay, or some sort of entrance route to the U.S. It is important for newcomers to understand the implications as well as the responsibilities of having Canadian citizenship. Putting mechanisms in place to reduce this passports-of-convenience issue would, she believes, result in more equal treatment between naturalized Canadians and native-born Canadians.
¾ (0845)
The Chair: On citizenship, I know that you will be talking about provincial nominee agreements and a national ID card in a moment, and I know that Norm will also do that. But let's get to some of the questions with regard to citizenship.
Andrew.
¾ (0850)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I'm quite impressed with Maria's take on citizenship, particularly about having one class of Canadians. It says in the act that once you become a citizen, you have the same responsibilities and rights as every other Canadian.
If you look at clause 16, it deals with revocation of citizenship. You might want to refer her to clauses 16, 17, and 18.
What happens when citizenship is revoked from “citizens by choice”--as I like to call those six million of us who came here to Canada--is we don't have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, either section 7, which is the legal rights, or section 15, which is equality rights. Our citizenship can be revoked in a very unfair--what I consider to be fraudulent--process contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Now, Maria's not here. My take is if you're going to revoke citizenship because the minister and the department allege that you've committed fraud coming into the country--and I have no qualms about people who come in by fraud being removable--the due process that applies to every other Canadian who is charged with fraud should be followed.
I don't know if you've thought about that.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: That's certainly something we've been thinking about. I can't speak for Maria. She has a political science training, so she has more background in this particular issue than I have as a geographer.
I can say in terms of the issue of fraud--and it pains me to say this--it's another issue that has come up in our research, another story we've heard time and time again, especially under the old rules in terms of the amount of money one had to have in one's bank account to apply for permanent residence. Particularly among some groups of students, there was some rotating money that went from bank account to bank account, and in some cases money was borrowed from professors and that sort of thing.
I'm aware of a case in my own family in which a member of my family lent $5,000 to a friend to put in the friend's bank account. My relative didn't find that at all problematic, and I haven't reported that relative to CIC.
One of the things I've struggled with is how they've heard about the fraud, having been contacted by people who seem absolutely bound and determined to commit fraud, people who call me up and ask for information about marriages of convenience and things.
I guess at the same time, personally speaking--I can't speak on behalf of Maria--I really share your concerns about the need for due process for naturalized citizens.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: But in clause 18 there is no judicial determination at all. It's a declaration by the department and the minister that you came here fraudulently. You've lost your case. You don't get any kind of hearing. You just get the minister. And that seems to me a hallmark of totalitarian regimes when a bureaucrat can decide that you're out of here.
Once you get your citizenship.... And I agree with Maria on the question of whether it's too easy to get or whether it should be a little harder. It's better to settle the question at the front end than to all of a sudden come along and do things to the individual that contravene the charter, or certainly contravene the spirit of the charter.
It's equality before the charter that makes all Canadians equal. You can't change the fact that you weren't born here, but you can get equal treatment before the courts.
¾ (0855)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes.
I will just add very quickly that if you look at Mary Jo Leddy's book on her experiences at Romero House in Toronto and dealing with refugee claimants, she was particularly critical of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. She basically said she dealt with a number of bureaucrats who were absolutely incredibly helpful, and she named them specifically. But she also said she felt that in some cases she was dealing with illegal actions on the part of the department, which took significant intervention from MPs and other parties to actually resolve.
So without giving you my opinion on Citizenship and Immigration Canada, I think you can also make a case that some people in the immigrant and refugee communities will raise particular issues about due process within Citizenship and Immigration Canada, based on their previous experiences.
I'm not commenting on any of mine.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: You mentioned Mary Jo Leddy. Could you give me the title of her book and the spelling of her name?
The Chair: I have it. I will send it to you.
Lynne.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you.
Thank you, Liisa.
On citizenship and having a test, we talked about that, and most people thought that most Canadians could not pass that test. You said your friend was a political academic. But I have about 70,000 constituents, and some of them still don't know if I'm an MLA or not. They still phone my office to see what party I belong to. I think we had better not go there as being the only way to become a citizen.
However, it was mentioned in Winnipeg by one of the witnesses that we should tie residency to our taxation. Are there any thoughts on that?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Well, this is an extremely interesting issue and something I find fascinating. I've met people who are Canadian citizens who were born in Canada, left at six months, and are now coming back at the age of 18 to attend university at the Canadian rate. In contrast, in the U.K. and in Australia your ability to get the cheaper home student rate is linked to having paid into the tax system. When I was studying in the U.K. there were university students whose mommies and daddies were big-shot corporate executives somewhere other than in the European Union, and they were actually paying the international student fees and complaining very loudly.
Personally speaking, that is something I would strongly support. I was an expatriate in the U.K. and moved back to Toronto. There were Canadian citizens in the U.K. whom Revenue Canada had declared as being non-residents for tax purposes, but they still had their provincial health cards. They would come back to get medical tests and things. So on the question of government debt reduction and the whole issue of the growing Canadian expatriate population, I would strongly support linking access to some services to either residency or participation in the tax system. If people want to be resident outside of Canada but still pay into the tax system, I would be okay with that.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Obviously you know lots about students. When you talk about passports of convenience being an easy route into the United States, do you have any statistics on that? I know that's your background and you know how many students are coming in.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: I don't have anything at this point. I actually contacted a research group at Citizenship and Immigration Canada and said “Look, we need to have a workshop on international students and foreign workers as a source of immigrants. You have the stats, what are you doing?” The response was “Great. We are looking at the stats too.” And I said “Well, have you considered looking at the population that goes to the U.S.? We know that about 30% of immigrants are leaving within five years of arrival.”
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Okay.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: But I haven't seen any statistics breaking that down by country of origin, by citizenship class. At the moment it's not broken down into those people who come here directly versus those people who are here in Canada as temporary residents and then become permanent residents and citizens. But I was told by Elizabeth Ruddick and her group that they were thinking of looking at this. So hopefully—
¿ (0900)
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: And do you see the highest abuse with students or with temporary workers? To me, they're two different classes. Is it students, basically?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: That would be my impression, and I guess, to be fair to students, in particular from certain countries—from China, India, Pakistan, which are also groups of students that it's thought are particularly likely to be applying for permanent residence, whereas it's thought, for example, that people from western Europe and people from the U.S. don't tend to apply so much for permanent residence.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Why do you suppose that is? I would think those people, when they came to study in Canada and realized what a beautiful country it is.... I would be surprised that people from those countries would prefer to go to the States. Why do you think that is?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Because in China there's a whole network. What I've heard time and time again is that students, for example, would come to certain universities knowing what the strengths of that university are, knowing what the tuition rate is for international students—
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: So you think that has a great deal to do with it—tuition and...?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes, in terms of a destination: why pay more if you don't have to?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Okay.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: What I've heard is that in China there's a tremendous desire to emigrate. There's the idea of the U.S. being a country of tremendous opportunity, and people are well aware that you can come to Canada as a student and apply for permanent residence right away, and are aware how quickly you can get citizenship, and then how with the Canadian passport you can apply to go to the U.S. and then apply for a T-1 visa if you meet the qualifications.
The Chair: David?
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you for being here this morning.
I gather, looking at this, that most of your background information and your recommendations are based on what's happening in the local region here.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes.
Mr. David Price: I'm coming to that because if I look regionally across the country it's quite different.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes.
Mr. David Price: The problem we're stuck with is—take, for instance, Quebec, which is where I come from—we don't have that problem in Quebec of people trying to get across to the U.S. It's a very small percentage.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: I would disagree with that, actually.
Mr. David Price: Well, this is so in what I have seen of it, in particular because what happens to most immigrants coming into Quebec is that they have to learn French and also have to take courses on culture. Even though we encourage very strongly that they keep their culture, we still want them to be integrated into the Quebec culture.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes.
Mr. David Price: But we find, at least in my particular area—and I live right on the border—they stay. I rarely see families come in that end up heading in particular to the States. They usually end up bringing more and more family members in and don't—different there again from the large cities—build large cultural communities, let's say. They really integrate but still keep their cultural background.
So you seem to have different information. But my thought is, here we are trying to set up something that is pan-Canadian, yet there are very major regional differences.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: One thing I should clarify about this research is that both of the research projects this presentation is based on are actually the first projects of their kind in Canada.
The project we've done on international students as a potential solution to the racial immigration question, and thus international students as a source of immigrants for prairie cities, is the first study of its kind in Canada.
And our second project, on the potential to address skill shortages by letting employers know that the spouses of international students and spouses of foreign workers—these groups—can actually work legally under certain conditions, is also the first of its kind.
I think the people at Citizenship and Immigration Canada's economic policy and programs and also the strategic policy planning and research would tell you that we're studying some very under-studied topics. Again, it reflects my own training. So I totally agree with what you're saying about the importance of looking at regional processes. At the same time, I think it's important to recognize that these studies are the first of their kind in Canada.
We've spent quite a lot of on-the-ground time especially dealing with phone calls and e-mail requesting immigration advice, the invitations to the one-on-one meetings.
If anything, one the universities we're studying I think is a bit at the forefront of the trend of international students getting permanent residence, for a number of reasons. My own personal belief is that where this university is at now I suspect many universities are going to be at in five years' time. My hope is that my research will send signals to CIC about some of the measures that absolutely have to be in place to deal with some of the fraud issues and to deal with some of the issues around the passports of convenience.
So I don't think my particular findings are as regionally based as they might appear. In talking informally with a few other researchers who haven't studied this as much as I have, and in talking informally with some CIC people, I suspect quite strongly that there are similar processes, and also, if you talk with the students, what they have their pals studying at the University of Victoria, sometimes in Quebec or at different Ontario universities. There really are quite a lot of flows of information.
¿ (0905)
Mr. David Price: If I go back to one of your recommendations here, the knowledge, the famous test that, as Len said, most of us probably couldn't pass, but in Quebec in particular, the courses they have to take go much deeper into Canada, and the tests are much more difficult, and they do pass them.
I'd be scared to death to take one myself, because I know I'd be in deep trouble. But by the time they're finished, by the time they apply for citizenship, they're really ready for it, and they're encouraged to apply for citizenship.
That also may be a question I'd like to ask you. What would be your thought on inviting people to become citizens after a certain amount of time? That's something we don't do, and we know there are a lot of dormant people out there who never apply--it's too much trouble, or they don't need to; they say they're not leaving and will never need a passport.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes, I think that's a really interesting question.
Another real issue related to that is we know there's a very great variation in the taking up of Canadian citizenship by country of passport. We know people from the U.S. and some western European countries are right at the bottom, with incredibly low rates. There are other countries that have an extremely high take-up rate.
My only concern about the issue of inviting people to apply for citizenship is that the reality is--and I think it's easy to forget this as Canadians--there are still many countries in the world that don't recognize dual citizenship, in which your option is, well, if you become a Canadian, you're going to be losing your other nationality. Not everyone realizes that.
My concern would be dealing with people who, for a variety of reasons, have chosen permanent residence--and I could tell you some stories about that, with the temporary foreign worker and the foreign worker spouse population--but don't want citizenship, including the dual nationality, people who don't have any intention of staying in Canada. They don't want citizenship; they just want to have permanent residence.
So that would be my real caveat. How do we respect these very, very real sensitivities of people for whom getting a letter in the mail saying why don't you apply for citizenship wouldn't necessarily be received very favourably, not as a reflection on Canada but as a reflection of their own circumstances?
I also want to get back to this issue about the citizenship test. Having taught at the university level, having tried to teach the geography of Canada, yes, it's absolutely true that many native-born Canadians have a thoroughly abysmal understanding of Canadian history, geography, government, etc.
My response to that is yes, that's absolutely terrible, but I think it is absolutely essential that we not have this as the standard. It's beyond me why we don't have public education courses so that people can be learning more about our country, about Canadian history, other parts of Canada.
I think in Canada there's so often this tendency to go with the lowest common denominator. And in this case I think absolutely, totally, no way. Just because parts of our educational system, including the post-secondary level, are doing such an abysmal job of citizenship education doesn't mean that we should be lowering the barrier. If anything, we need to be focusing our attention on actually increasing citizenship education for everybody.
¿ (0910)
Mr. David Price: Can I have just one more question, Mr. Chair?
The Chair: I might have some questions.
Mr. David Price: Okay. I'll try to take some time away from you.
I'll go in completely the other direction. What are your thoughts, then, on having a national educational standard? We're getting a little off the subject, yet in general it does go, I think, a little in the direction you're going.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: I'm extremely sympathetic to that, having grown up in a number of different provinces and territories. I think a national education system would do wonders for increasing mobility within Canada.
Mr. David Price: Thank you.
The Chair: Well, Liisa, I'm dying to see this report research, because it flies in the face of everything we know of. It may very well be. And I'm going to challenge a few things, because I don't believe them.
First of all, our new immigration bill talks about bringing in more students, more temporary workers, more immigrants--not fewer.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Exactly, yes.
The Chair: And therefore your research that says that an awful lot of people want to get to this country because they want to get to the United States is not factually correct. In fact, we've travelled around the world. You make the linkage, which I find incredible because I'm not sure it's there. In fact, post-September 11 nobody wants to go to the United States.
The dynamics are changing. The linkage between coming to this country because you eventually want to get to the United States is a bunch of hogwash, because it's not so easy to go and work in the United States under your premise of a NAFTA visa. That is absolutely ridiculous. If that were the case, forget about the immigrants who want to come to this country. Why wouldn't a whole bunch of Canadians...? This is about the brain drain. There's a big difference.
So I challenge this idea that there are an awful lot of people out there who are trying to get Canadian passports because they're passports of convenience. I don't buy that at all. And I'm dying to see the research.
Now, let me ask you a few things with regard to this residency concern. Most or all of the witnesses we've heard from have said that we should be flexible in terms of residency, because we're moving from residency, which is a fairly broad definition, to a physical residency, so that one can have an attachment to this country.
In fact, one of the reasons we attract immigrants is because we do give citizenship. You can go to Germany, you can work there for twenty years, and you'll never get citizenship. That's why people don't want to go there any more.
In our country we're trying to determine whether or not when you want to come here and you spend at least 1,090 days in six years.... A lot of people are saying that sometimes people have to be mobile in the global economy. You have to go and study. You have to go and look after your mother-in-law perhaps. So you may have to take three or four months within this six-year period to achieve 1,095 days.
So most witnesses we've talked to around the country are saying the opposite of what you're saying. You're saying tighten it up to the point that you have to prove that 1,095 days from the time you become a permanent resident.... And yes, we'd give half-day credits if you were a student before.
Would you suggest we do that for refugees too? Refugees who come to this country under your scenario would technically have to wait even longer and longer to get citizenship.
Secondly, with regard to the language requirement being tougher, in fact most witnesses now are saying our new immigration bill, which requires even more language—both French and English—is making it tougher for people to come to this country. In fact, to tell you the truth, a lot of us—my father and me included—probably wouldn't have been able to get into this country if we had had the same test before that we have today. A lot of immigrants unfortunately don't have and didn't have the language, but they acquire it. One of the things we are going to talk about later is how we can make sure people can settle properly—and that means English as a second language, and all that stuff.
As far as knowledge of Canada is concerned, I think you underestimate Canadians. Yes, we probably need to know more about our country, but I can tell you we probably know more about our country than Americans know about theirs. At the end of the day, we can't know everything, but after three years or four years I think there is a basic knowledge we expect people to have about our country, and I think you underestimate by talking about the lowest common denominator. I'm not sure that's what this country is all about. In fact, if you look at our system of education, our system of health care, our bar is pretty high compared with other countries of the world.
So you are going to have to give me a lot more information on this survey, because it doesn't meet the test of everything we have heard and everything we know about why immigrants want to come here, why they want to become citizens, and why they want to stay in Canada and not go to the United States.
¿ (0915)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: First of all, I want to make one comment about some of the other witnesses. What I would challenge you with is the question, who are many of these other witnesses? I think the reality is—
The Chair: But there is—
Dr. Liisa Cormode: No, but I'm talking about the immigration lawyers, the immigration consultants. The reality is—
The Chair: We are talking about citizens. We are—
Dr. Liisa Cormode: —that's a whole industry—
The Chair: Are you suggesting that everybody is wrong and you as a researcher are right?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: What I'm saying is that this issue has come up time and time again. I'd like to think I may be one person who is willing to speak about it because I don't have some of the same financial interests as some of the immigration lawyers and consultants, and maybe because I feel it's more important to be speaking the truth because I really value my Canadian citizenship.
And let me be very clear. I'm not saying every student who comes here is—
The Chair: Liisa, Liisa. First of all, be careful about suggesting the only people we listen to are consultants.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: No—
The Chair: We are listening to business, to labour, to exporters, to university presidents. We have listened to everybody. So before you start saying the only people we are listening to and who are giving us this information are people with vested interests.... That would be incorrect.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Well, okay, but my response, also having studied international students, is I think the reality is there are many vested interests around the immigration issue. I think it's unfortunate that there hasn't maybe been a discussion in Canadian society generally in the context of immigration debate about what these vested interests are. And from my research I can also tell you about some of the interests of universities and others.
I want to make very clear that I do not mean to say that every international student comes to Canada with the intention of getting permanent residence or going to the U.S. I mean, that's simply not true. There are many students who come with the intention that they are here to study and they are going home—and they go home. There are also people who stay here who when they came here didn't think they were staying.
At the same time, believe me, if you were to talk to some of the people I have talked to, they would tell you there are many students who come here with the intention of getting permanent residence, and they get it. And it's not any sort of secret that the longer-term ambition is to be in the U.S. When you think about why that would be, in part it's because it's so difficult to get into the U.S.—because, arguably, of some of the real weaknesses in their immigration selection system.
In terms of residency, the reality is people do need to be mobile in a global economy. Countries like Germany, as you said quite correctly, in which it's hard to get citizenship, are now having some difficulties attracting the immigrants they want under their new green card system. But at the same time, I guess the question I want to raise....
I have lived as a Canadian expatriate in the U.K. and have been part of that experience. How do we recognize the need for mobility, at the same time reducing opportunities for fraud and saying things like yes, you do need to be in Canada; yes, you do need to have some kind of commitment to this country?
For me, I don't feel that 1,095-day residency provision is in any way unrealistic. My concern, if anything, has been about the lobbying on the part of immigration consultants and lawyers. My own assessment is that they feed the passport-of-convenience thing because they have vested interests in doing that. I as a citizen don't find that acceptable.
¿ (0920)
The Chair: Excuse me, but what do you think these permanent residents are doing when they get their permanent residency card? Lynne asked you about attachments. When you go before a citizenship judge, when you go before the administration and you apply for citizenship, you have to show not only that you've been here for 1,095 days but that you have family, that you have a residence, that you have bank accounts, that you're paying taxes, and all that sort of stuff. Shouldn't that matter?
You make it seem as if people all of a sudden are coming here, spending the 1,095 days, and then hightailing it out of here. That's not what the statistics point to.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: No. Actually, as I pointed out and as we've heard at Metropolis conferences, what we know is that within five years of arrival, 30% of immigrants have left. Obviously, some of that is due to the real challenges, I think we would all agree, some immigrants have to find work in Canada. I think that's widely acknowledged.
At the same time, I would have no hesitation in saying that for some people there are other issues involved. You can read this in the Globe and Mail in some of their features on people with Canadian passports abroad and the perception that people came to Canada for a specific length of time and then went back, having received a Canadian passport.
Do you want me to finish addressing some of your other points? What's your preference?
The Chair: I thought you had.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: You've raised quite a number.
In terms of your point about how, if we had had the same language test, it would have been harder to come in for a lot of people who came post-1945, in the fifties and the sixties, yes, that's right. But I think we need to recognize that the nature of the Canadian labour market has fundamentally changed. Think of those wonderful or somewhat wonderful jobs at Stelco and in the mining industry that were available back in the fifties and sixties, where you could go and in some cases actually do really well if you didn't speak English well. There are a lot fewer of them now.
What the Canadian labour market is now demanding is a higher level of education as well as a higher need for language skills. My response is, it's really wonderful, the contribution immigrants who didn't speak English or French well made in the fifties and sixties. That's great, but our labour market has changed fundamentally, and I think we need to respond to labour market realities.
Also, as to the U.S. and geographical knowledge, what we know from international comparisons is that the U.S. is consistently the lowest of the low in terms of citizens' geographical knowledge, both knowledge of their own country and knowledge of the world. It seems to me that comparing ourselves to the U.S. gives us nothing to aspire to. Rather, if anything we should be aspiring to what's happening in Quebec in terms of knowledge of Quebec society and their very diligent effort to teach and to integrate immigrants. We should be aspiring to what's happening in Sweden. We should fix our eyes on a much higher standard.
The Chair: Andrew.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I think this is important. We should probably be using these forums to inform those Canadians who have not taken out Canadian citizenship....
Let me give you a scenario. If somebody comes to this country from another country.... Actually, one of my former colleagues had two constituents who were Canadian soldiers, a married couple, working in Germany for the armed forces. They adopted a German child, they came back to Canada, and 20 years later this kid got into trouble with the law. So what ended up happening was that this person, for not having citizenship, ended up getting deported.
The point I'm coming to is that I have difficulty where somebody lives in this country for twenty years, and because of failure to obtain citizenship they get deported back to a country where they don't speak the language. We do a fair amount of this, and it's kind of problematic.
This can also happen with people coming over from Portugal, where, for some reason, the kids don't get citizenship; the parents get citizenship. Then the kids are getting deported back again, having lived virtually all their lives in Canada, ending up in trouble with the law. It's almost like we're taking our problems and dumping those someplace else.
The morality of it bothers me, but that's one of the reasons it's very important for people to get their citizenship, because Lord knows what can happen. I find this situation very unfair. I wonder if you have a comment on it.
¿ (0925)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes, and I think what we also need to recognize is, in the case of Jamaica, this practice of deporting people born in Jamaica who became permanent residents but not citizens has actually become a diplomatic issue between Canada and Jamaica.
Yes, I would agree that it is a real concern, that the general public needs to be aware that this is a reality, not just a theoretical issue but that these sorts of deportations of people with permanent residence who've not become citizens are happening on a regular basis, that it is something to be concerned about.
Actually, I just want to add something further to your comment, Joe, about how post-September 11 we were seeing students coming to Canada.
As I outlined in my presentation to this committee last year, quite bluntly, one of the reasons--and again, this has come up in my research--is that the reality is that at least some Canadian universities, and some of my CIC sources tell me many Canadian universities, do not report students who are not attending classes, students who they know or suspect are working illegally, or students who are engaged in other sorts of things. This is again certainly not one of the better-kept secrets in at least the international student community.
In what I found in my own research, students are aware of this. So yes, some of the post-September 11 move to Canada is indeed motivated by security concerns. That's obviously quite real.
At the same time, we've been seeing more of a crackdown on international students in the U.S. If anything, our regulations in Canada are actually behind those in the U.S.
I'm personally convinced we need to be looking at some of the agenda of the university community in calling up the Globe and Mail and having that in there, because I certainly don't think the motives are entirely innocent. That's not what my research would suggest.
The Chair: Good.
We're going to move on to talk a little bit about the provincial nominee program, and I think, Liisa, you're going to do that as well as Norm. Norm has stepped away for a moment, so why don't you start with the provincial nominee stuff.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: If I could clarify, do you want me to present my brief, then, on the provincial nominee?
The Chair: Yes, if you could.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Okay. Has everyone received a copy of my brief?
The Chair: Yes.
¿ (0930)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Okay. I want to say something about my own personal background. Regionalization is actually my area of expertise, rather than citizenship.
I've done a research project on the Saskatchewan provincial nominee program. I've also done some research on measures to increase immigrant settlement in small- and medium-sized cities. I've also organized conference sessions on regionalization. I established and managed the Metropolis project list-serve on regionalization, and I will be participating in the Metropolis conversation on the regionalization of immigration.
I want to raise a number of issues concerning provincial nominee programs, what I see as their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss some of my recommendations.
With Norm, I've also been involved in the local committee to encourage immigration to Saskatoon. I've also been involved in a number of other employment immigrant groups.
If we look at some of the very clear benefits of provincial nominee programs, we see expedited processing, and for some countries that's a huge difference. Also, the assistance for employers who want to recruit abroad is a huge benefit, as is the ability of provinces to nominate some immigrants who they feel may be more likely to settle successfully.
I want to highlight a number of issues. First of all, it seems to me that the provincial and territorial nominee programs have an important place in the immigration system precisely because they link employers and people with skills and credentials that are recognized in that province.
The reality is, with our skilled worker selection system, we don't select on the basis of recognized credentials, we don't select on the basis of occupational demand or skill shortages. So I think there's a real place for the provincial-territorial nominee programs in addressing skill shortages. They're also very useful potentially in terms of regional economic development. I think the reality is that employers in some rural areas and small communities do face particular issues in trying to attract skilled workers and immigrants.
I want to share my observations when interviewing employers, when dealing with the students and others who want advice on getting permanent residence status, and I want to share my own interactions with provincial governments.
I think the first thing we need to recognize is that provincial-territorial nominee programs increase the complexity of the immigration system. This drives some employers batty. It's the CIC, the provincial nominee program, HRDC, the terrible help.
I see this as the reality, but I think we need to address a number of issues. I think the term “provincial nominee program” needs the word “immigrant” in it somewhere to make it clear who's being nominated for what.
I think there are also issues because the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has a policy of not listing their local phone number or their address in the phone book, which again drives employers batty.
Secondly, we need to recognize that in some cases provincial nominee programs do not necessarily save much time. I think a really interesting example is the farmer owner-operators coming from the U.K. to Saskatchewan. It's a group that already has fairly expedited processing. While it's great that we have them in the provincial nominee program, how much time is this really saving from a more complex immigration system?
Third, I think there are huge issues around marketing efforts in the provincial nominee programs. For example, you will find in Saskatchewan that employer awareness is extremely low. There are a number of issues we need to think through. At the moment, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has links to and a bit of information about PNPs on their website, but if you got to the local office there is no information. When they give their talks to students or to my research subjects, they won't talk about provincial nominee programs, no matter how much you beg them.
On the one hand, yes, this is completely understandable, but I really think it could be helpful to at least talk about CIC maybe having brochures for these programs in their offices, so that employers and people are aware. I think it would especially help poorer provinces like Saskatchewan who just don't have the same level of resources to be devoting to their PNPs.
Fourth, it seems to me that it's very difficult to measure the benefits of PNPs. I know, Joe, that you will think this is probably very controversial, but I would argue—
¿ (0935)
The Chair: I agree with you on all of these points.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Okay.
I just want to make the point that I believe that low numbers of provincial nominees do not necessarily mean the program is ineffective. Based on some of the employer interviews I have done, you have a small program that's incredibly effective for a small number of employers, giving them great benefits. If more employers knew this, maybe we would have absolutely superlative benefits from the program.
But it seems to me this whole issue of how we quantify the benefits is a very important, albeit extremely difficult, issue. I think we need to move away from strictly numbers.
Also, I have observed there is a tendency for some provinces to cherry-pick applicants and applicant categories, to increase numbers so that it looks good while not necessarily increasing the program's effectiveness.
Fifth, I think we need to recognize that some employers who use the provincial nominee program may see it as being less effective than the temporary foreign worker system, because provincial nominees are free to migrate to another province paying higher wages, whereas for temporary foreign workers, it's possible, but you have to talk to HRDC and it requires a lot more effort.
Sixth, it seems to me that provincial nominee programs do not address the needs of some prospective immigrants who want to settle in places like Saskatchewan and who have Canadian credentials or work experience. I am thinking especially of international students and some of their partners, who don't qualify under the provincial nominee program because their occupation isn't in short supply, or they haven't been working in that occupation because they have been studying or been at home. But it seems to me this is one group that CIC could usefully consider making provisions for.
It might be useful to copy what Australia does and have a separate regional class for international students who have studied at a Canadian university or a technical college and who are willing to work in regional Canada—in other words, outside of greater Toronto, greater Vancouver, or greater Montreal. I will be the first to recognize that this would make the immigration system even more complex, but I do think this is one group of potential immigrants who could help to address the regionalization issue, who are really not being provided for because they don't fit into our nice neat little categories.
At the same time, I want to make very clear that I understand why CIC requires a year of work experience. I strongly support that. At the same time, I do think international students graduating from Canadian universities have some advantages in the labour market that could compensate for lack of work experience.
I guess my controversial point, something I've become aware of just in a business context from the people with whom I interact.... It seems to me that in some cases the involvement of ethnic groups and municipalities in provincial nominee programs is not necessarily unproblematic.
I'm aware of a case--I was approached--in which it seemed the idea was that we need more people of our ethnic background in our community, and if they would replace people from certain ethnic backgrounds, that would be desirable.
I personally think it would be very useful to have a larger discussion about what the role of ethnic groups and municipalities in provincial nominee programs should be.
I want to add that it came out in one of the workshops I organized at the 2001 National Metropolis Conference that apparently my experience is not unique in meeting with people who have an agenda that might be considered racist by some people.
Very quickly, turning to recommendations, I think there's a whole issue about addressing employer perceptions that recruiting the employees they need is challenging because the immigration system is so complex. I think it could be useful to talk about how we might make the overall immigration system less complex.
Secondly, I think it would be very, very useful for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to make information available from their offices, even brochures, about provincial nominee programs, and also to even mention in the presentations they give to the wider community that provincial nominee programs exist. I think that would increase awareness, because what I've seen time and time again in my own research is that most prospective immigrants I deal with, and the students, the foreign workers, the foreign worker spouses, don't have any idea of the options available to them. Sending the message that, yes, there is a provincial nominee program--here's the brochure, go to that website--would be really useful.
Thirdly, I think there are issues about program effectiveness that need to be further discussed.
Fourthly, I think we need to communicate to employers of the post-graduation international students, the foreign worker spouses, that you can use provincial nominee programs to hire someone on a work permit who's already here in Canada. My experience is that the employers just have no idea. I'm not even sure why that is. They just don't know.
As I said, I think it would be useful to have a new regional immigration class for international students who have studied in Canada.
Lastly, I think we need to have a debate about the role municipalities and ethnic groups should be playing in nominee programs, to ensure that there are not outcomes that might be considered by some to be socially undesirable.
Those are my reflections on provincial nominee programs.
¿ (0940)
The Chair: Great. Thank you.
Norm, welcome. I gather that you want to speak on the provincial nominee program also.
Mr. Norm Wallace ( As Individual): Thank you.
I think Liisa covered most of the items. I'm probably going to come from a different direction, as a business owner. I might add that I am an immigrant; 40 years ago I moved into Regina, across the road here. I live in Saskatoon.
I'm a little more concerned about how we treat immigrants. While a PNP program is probably a bit of a pain in the neck for some people, it has worked for others. Our problem probably isn't PNP or whatever program you're talking about; our problem is more jobs.
Maybe today I should talk about my experiences. I've travelled around the world. I've travelled through Britain and Germany.
I was thinking here this morning, when Liisa was speaking about the immigrants, and some of your families are from wherever, but we're all a family in Canada.... It's interesting that when I left Ireland, we had the breakup of Hungary. The last summer I was in Austria, I crossed that bridge where those immigrants walked across, thousands of them, to get into Austria. Some of them ended up in Ireland, and I can recall the Irish commenting about these bad Hungarians getting drunk and they're no good. But I do want to tell you that those immigrants from Ireland ended up in Saskatchewan, and most of the ones I know, in construction, are millionaires.
My experience with immigrants is they are very successful. In my case I have a construction company, probably one of the biggest in our field in western Canada, and I do business all over Canada. I'm a bit concerned about where we're going with these immigrants. One of my partners has just opened a branch in Beijing—it's a couple who graduated in Saskatoon—and they're very successful. We're selling planeloads of breed pigs from Regina's Genex to Beijing and we're selling seed from Nipawin.
This couple is very successful. She was back here last week. I'm a partner in that operation in Beijing. We opened Wallace Construction Specialties there, and I'm supplying building products. I'm very comfortable with working around the world, and I consider these people family.
I asked her the other day, “What's your relationship with Saskatoon?” “Well,” she said, “we took our degrees here, and I came and bought my mom and dad a home, and my sister lectures....” And that's the way I see these people, as tremendous assets to Canada.
Don't worry about them taking their citizenship out. If we do a job and look after them, they'll stay here. You don't have to beg them. Just give them opportunities.
The biggest problem we have is that we don't have jobs for them. So where are you going to go? You go to the States. Can you blame them?
But we should remember too that every time you get a guy like me or some such immigrant—somebody in this room—you have a million-dollar gift; that's what you have. We're educated and brought up; we're trained. And people like me—I've worked in business, I have grade 8 education, I quit school at 15—I've never found a handicap. I went up to the university and said “I can take those classes that you give in business administration”, and I did; I got it at night, as the first mature student. On the weekend I was farming and I was washing floors. So don't tell me we don't work hard. That's who we are.
Today I'm getting beaten up by immigrants, and God bless them. The East Indians are beating me up: they're working 16 hours a day, and I used to work 12. Should I complain? I've done well at it. It's their turn.
But one of my big concerns is Saskatchewan: we're a basket case. I want to tell you, as an economy we're not different from that rock on the east coast called Newfoundland. We should be dealing with our problems. We're so content to be on welfare and beggars, and those of you who are in power in Ottawa should straighten this up, because in actual fact we have more resources than Alberta.
I was going to give a chat there about the picture of Walter Scott, who settled this province a hundred years ago. His picture was a big land for big people and big ideas. That was his vision for the 20th century.
Our vision today, from Saskatchewan, is we want to double the population in the 21st century. It's an ambitious target, but common sense tells us that is the logical trajectory.
Do you want me to go into this now, or finish that?
We need a master plan for growth in the province that extends 30 to 50 years, like the vision of the pioneers who settled this place a hundred years ago. We're re-settling Saskatchewan. I'm saying “doubling the population” will be a theme we're going to put on in Saskatoon this summer in a conference. We've commissioned some preliminary studies to investigate the strategies required to achieve this goal.
Initial work indicates that agriculture could be the primary driver of growth. If so, there are three major components to achieve this target. The first is a macro plan for the development of water, including irrigation. We could probably multiply the irrigation we have today by ten times and still be comfortable.
Saskatchewan requires a disproportionate share of immigrants for the next 10 to 15 years. I want you to pay attention to that one item. And if there's one group I respect here, it's Quebec. These guys figured it out. We're scrambling with all these decisions, but Quebec has done it right.
Third, we need the investment capital, and we'll talk to that a little later. We believe this will come from the waves of immigrants we've secured from the macro plan and from the value-added basis of water and gold for the 21st century.
¿ (0945)
Alberta doubled its population from 1971 to 2001—with many of our kids, I might add. Most important is where the growth took place. In 1971, the combined population of Edmonton and Calgary was 50% of the provincial population. In 2001, these two cities were still 50%. Other rural communities shared in the growth, without a concentration in the large urban centres. This did not happen by accident. Alberta had a vision and a plan.
Saskatchewan has huge natural resource advantages. The most underutilized item is water. Saskatchewan could increase its current irrigation acres from 250,000 to over a million. Water resources will help drought-proof the province and ensure the supply of higher-value crops. And most importantly, quality water supplies in municipalities are a key for increased value-added processing.
We produce on 17% of the agricultural land in Canada. We process only 2%. I might add we have 47% of all arable land in Canada. So we need a master plan to utilize our substantial water resources in a substantial way.
There have been some 40,000 immigrant farmers come to western Canada in the last four years, according to HRDC, but only 3% have settled in Saskatchewan. Why so few?
We have many older farmers looking to retire. These gentlemen want an income plan. The creative ideas of immigrants have been a large part of the success of agri-value expansion in other provinces, particularly in Alberta, Ontario, and Manitoba. Saskatchewan needs a plan to attract more of these new pioneers to the province. As for the investment capital, if we can achieve a plan for expanding value-added based on improved water utilization and gain the creative ideas and skills that come from immigration, the investment capital will follow.
It's a big idea. It's exciting. We can make it work.
I would continue on from there and tell you that we are seriously looking at getting into the generation of power from uranium. We don't have any choice. We have to generate power and sell it to that big monster south of the border. They have a demand, and the guys in Quebec learned that too.
One of our mines in north Saskatchewan produces 7% of all the power in North America. Sixteen percent of the power in North America comes out of Saskatchewan. And we have some stupid idea that these reactors are going to kill us, and we should have three or four of them in Saskatchewan. We are starting a think tank to deal with this, to promote the idea, because we have these loonies who go around telling us that it's going to kill us.
In Ontario, my son is an engineer with SNC-Lavalin, and they are involved with uranium reactors--rebuilding and privatizing. When I go to Europe, I hear all these stories about Germany bailing out of uranium, but it's far from the truth. They're rebuilding them. They're saying that's destined to be closed down in ten years, but those politicians are gone by then.
So the truth is France has 70% uranium, Germany has 40%--and I've seen them along the Rhine. They're cleaning these plants, and we're supplying them from here.
So probably the waste uranium should go into the north. The processing should have come here, except that some people north of Saskatoon said it wasn't safe. I think the deal was already made, but that's history.
Regarding the construction industry, we talked yesterday in Saskatoon about a report we did that said the oldest tradesmen in Canada are in Saskatchewan, and that's because our kids are working in Alberta and Ontario. But our problem is that the average age of our bricklayer is 47 years. And those of you who come from the construction industry know the age of a bricklayer is probably 50 when we burn them out. So we have a requirement for the next few years of 502 bricklayers. Within four years, we'll need 1,500.
I know in Ontario you have a tremendous number of Russian tradesmen, and they're very good. And despite worrying about people saying they don't want this or that ethnic background, the truth is the Slavic people settle in Saskatchewan and they'll stay here. It's fine to bring some of the others in, and God bless them, let them come, but in many cases they want to be with their own.
Saskatchewan is 35% German descent, and it's probably the strong German hard-working people who are the ones we see in our province. What they are really saying to Liisa is they are most likely the ones who will settle and stay.
I hope when you guys went through Manitoba yesterday you listened to the story from Winkler, Manitoba. Did anybody make a presentation?
¿ (0955)
The Chair: No, but I can tell you we were all very impressed with Manitoba.
Mr. Norm Wallace: You should be.
The Chair: Yes. They're on a roll.
Mr. Norm Wallace: You bet. They can show the rest of Canada how....
There's a gentleman Liisa and I heard in Saskatoon, and you should invite him here. His name's Walter Siemens, and he brought 500 Mennonite families to Winkler.
The Chair: We've heard of that one.
Mr. Norm Wallace: Okay. If they want a million dollars it takes seven minutes. In six years not one of those immigrants has failed to pay their loan back. It all has to do with how they treat them with respect and make them feel at home. If a child is sick they take him to the hospital. He explained that to us.
Manitoba is also ten years ahead of Saskatchewan on bringing people in to buy farms. I've been all around Europe, and there were some nasty comments about Saskatchewan. “You don't want to go there. If you lose your dog, you'll see him running for three days.” On the other hand, the other question was whether Saskatchewan was part of Manitoba.
I want to tell you that I paid my own way on those trips. I don't need government money; I feel better without it. We travelled the British Isles several times in 13 cities, into Germany and through Holland. The biggest thing for us was to explain that Saskatchewan was a good place to be and that 47% of it was arable land. However, the reason our land in Saskatchewan is $300 an acre when land in Alberta is $3,000 an acre and in Manitoba it's $1,500 is that we don't want you foreigners in Saskatchewan. You guys are foreigners, in case you didn't know it. Allan Blakeney legislated in 1979 to keep anybody outside the province from buying land. We just changed it a month ago. To bring the immigrants in, it's a similar problem.
I just drove down this morning from Saskatoon, and all that land is for sale. We have 65- to 70-year-old depressed farmers who don't know what to do and are trying to find jobs. Nobody wants to farm. I'm going to predict you won't know this whole scene in Saskatchewan in ten years. They will all be, whether you like it or not, large corporate farms. The farms will be run by professional farm managers.
There are 200 of them available to come to Canada. It's not hard to get them in. We've brought five in already. They don't own the land or the machinery; they rent it. They run 10,000 acres. I don't want to bore you, but in a day those guys in east Germany with a big tractor with tracks on it and a 60-foot seeder go for 24 hours and seed 1,000 acres. That's farming of the future. They don't own the farm and they rent that machinery by the hour. So we have to open our minds.
The politicians are having a problem with this because, first of all, our aboriginals don't want these foreigners. They're quite against immigrants. I'm involved on their boards, so I can say that. The farmers don't necessarily want immigrants because they might try out the farmland next door. They'd like them to go broke so they can steal it. The politicians know this, and they're not about to push for change, but they'd open it up for Canadians.
We recently turned down Dr. Siemens from Calgary, who wanted to buy $2.5 million worth of land and have the largest Angus farm in Saskatchewan. We turned him down. Even though he was born here, he's a foreigner.
So with these things, when you're listening in Ottawa just don't listen to these whiners coming looking for handouts. Just tell them to get on with opening up the borders and letting immigrants in.
I'm talking too much.
The Chair: Well, we had a great history lesson on Saskatchewan. We appreciated that.
Mr. Norm Wallace: I thought you would.
The Chair: We really do.
I think we're going to have some questions for both of you on immigration, provincial nominee agreements, and what we need to do to help Saskatchewan achieve its objectives that you both talked about.
Lynne, why don't you start?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I think we have two of the most well-educated people here, as far as looking into the history of Saskatchewan, what immigration can do for Saskatchewan, regionalization, and probably how bureaucracy is a problem.
Yesterday in Winnipeg it sounded like the only problem they really had with their program was bureaucracy. Do either of you have anything to say about bureaucracy or how you would see this model?
Do you know where our provincial nomination program is right now? Do we have a board? I know that the announcement was made. It looks really nice. This afternoon we're going to meet with Mr. Osika, so he might even enlighten us on where our program is. I've been out of this loop to know at this level what's happening.
I'd like to hear from you both about where we're at with our program here. And have we been visiting Manitoba and finding out what we can learn from them?
Liisa, you've made mention of the Jewish international community. They met yesterday. They were part of the hearings. The representatives there were absolutely excellent.
Norm, I'd also like you to tell us, for the record, where you are coming from, because you have one heck of a background in manufacturing. As you said, you've been around the globe. I was surprised to hear that you sit on the aboriginal board. So nobody can call you anything but somebody who really cares.
So I would like you both to comment on the program, where you see it's at, where you see the problems are, and where the bureaucracy is hurting us.
À (1000)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Another very interesting difference between Manitoba and Saskatchewan is that the Government of Manitoba has had a philosophy of trying not to involve immigration consultants and immigration lawyers with the PNP. Their approach is to go out and deal with people directly, whereas in Saskatchewan it's quite interesting: their approach is increasingly to focus their attention on developing relationships with immigration consultants, who in turn will go out and find immigrants. It is a very different kind of approach. I confess I'm very sympathetic to the Manitoba approach.
In terms of bureaucracy, we've been seeing with the Saskatchewan program the expansion of numbers, to some extent the expansion of marketing. I see a number of issues with the Saskatchewan program. I think a key weakness is on the marketing side.
It seems to me that the time has not been spent in terms of developing relationships with the REDAs, the regional economic development authorities, such as the one we're connected with in Saskatoon. I believe I may be one of the larger sources of referrals to the program, through the people who contact me.
Again, what you also see in Saskatchewan, and we've been hearing this for years, is yes, we'll partner with the regional economic development authorities. There's been some movement, but it seems to me that the marketing efforts really fall short of what's needed. That was reflected in the employer survey that I cited in which only 8.1% of all private sector employers in Saskatoon who responded to one survey were aware of the provincial nominee program. That's really quite abysmal. And it would be a lot higher in Manitoba.
In terms of bureaucracy, that would depend on who you asked. I would see that as being an issue. I know of people who would say things like my e-mail was never replied to, that sort of thing. You'll also find, though, if you talk to employers and people who have used the program, that they really praise the Saskatchewan program as having a very high level of personal service. Whether this will continue with the greater use of immigration consultants I think is debatable.
Certainly I've heard time and time again, even from employers who weren't exactly government-friendly, about how dealing with the Saskatchewan program, once things started to get going, was a relatively pain-free process. I think this is saying something.
In terms of direction, such as targeting international students, Saskatchewan is way behind what's happening in other provinces. I think overall I'd say yes, Saskatchewan is in many respects way behind in terms of our provincial nominee program. I see that as being a real challenge for the province, with Manitoba and their really excellent job being right next door and then again with Alberta finally getting the PNP off the ground.
Does that answer your question?
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes.
Mr. Norm Wallace: Really, we have only had a handful of people come through the PNP. What is it? It's twenty people in two years?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: God, no. There were 43 people in the first year of the program, and I'm not sure of the latest statistics, but it's increased a fair bit.
Mr. Norm Wallace: As an employer, we would be looking at why it costs $20,000 for me to come to Canada and bring my family. When I came, it cost me a ticket at about $60. Why is the bureaucracy making money off the backs of the immigrants? We need those people here, and we could get a lot more people in if it weren't so punitive.
I want to address the problems that Liisa touched on about the bureaucracy. I'm not so sure you shouldn't bring down a suggestion to get free enterprise to deal with this, because the bureaucrats can't seem to handle it. There are a million people in Europe who want to come to Canada. They don't really know where Saskatchewan is. They don't have a clue. The people in Canada say it's a cold place, but if the Europeans were able to get in here, they'd gladly settle in Saskatchewan. The problem they have is that when they dial in Germany or in England, they get this answering machine that says to push 1, and they can never get an answer. They never get in personal contact with a Canadian with a name. They get brushed off. They're absolutely ignorant in the way they handle them.
We've sold 40 farms in the last couple of years, and there's a family that has been waiting over a year to get approval. They've put their money down, and everything is in place. If the bureaucrats are not capable of handling it, then threaten that you're going to privatize them. That may be a dirty word, but, by God, it will get it done. And fire a bunch of them.
I'm not too sure that you're sending the right people overseas. Perhaps we should have a phone and a desk in Regina. When they dial out in London, they will answer in Regina. It's a small world today. We can answer in whatever language we want. It is a very diversified province.
Recently a veterinarian from South Africa visited my family. This lady is a vet for large animals. She looks after all the national parks, and she's an extremely hard worker. My son spent ten years over there. She thought she might want to move to Saskatchewan. She checked the school of veterinary medicine at the University of Saskatchewan. She was told, sorry, but you missed taking the exam by two weeks. Big deal. Sit her down and give her the exam, for God's sake. She's here.
The guys in Saskatchewan are burned out, so we're looking for vets for large animals. There are lots of vets for dogs and small pets but not for large animals. In the meantime, they're complaining that they can't get them. Now she has gone back, and she just bought a 24-person practice outside of Johannesburg. It is stupid to lose a person over something like that. Why don't we use our heads on this thing? That's the type of thing I find frustrating.
When I was travelling through Europe, I visited this big estate in Argyle. The guy running it asked me, “Where are you from?” “Saskatchewan”, I said.“I'm from East Germany”, he said. “You're from the East Germany of North America, aren't you? It's a communist state.” That's our reputation. I don't know whether you guys told them that, but I got that handed to me all over the place, our state control.
À (1005)
The Chair: It's a new marketing strategy, Norm.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Norm Wallace: I think we need to do something else.
With 85 crown corporations, it doesn't lend itself to free enterprise. If you're coming to Saskatchewan, what do we have for jobs? Let's not kid ourselves. Look at North and South Dakota. Ask yourselves why those states failed. It was because they never kept up with the times and they had a narrow-minded attitude. If we are not careful, we're looking at a North Dakota here, and I'm concerned about that.
I now want to take you over to China. They said to me, “You're from Saskatchewan. You're a bunch of crooks. You ripped us off.” Look at the hotel you're in. Isn't this beautiful? This was paid for by the Chinese immigrants that got screwed. That's what put that up there. It involved $30 million. They rubbed that in my face. This is run by the Government of Saskatchewan. It's called the Saskatchewan Government Growth Fund. They were putting money into a shopping centre, and it turned into a gold mine. They didn't plan on that. That's our reputation.
Then we got a five-year contract with them. We changed the rates. Some guy called Gary Benson screwed up. They just hate us in China. We have a terrible reputation. I've been there, and I've been told that.
If Osika were here, I'd like him to hear this, because you're trying to create--
The Chair: You're on the record, and I'm sure that when he arrives here at one o'clock, we'll have the blues ready so that he can read them.
Dr. Liisa Cormode I have a number of other points about the Saskatchewan program. There have been some interesting issues in terms of the occupations that are and aren't listed. One employer criticism that you will hear is the perception that the Government of Saskatchewan has been quite slow to add new occupations to the skill shortages list. There are also issues about how you define a skill shortage when in some cases there is enough of this occupation in the cities but there are not enough people in the rural areas and whether this should count as a skill shortage.
I should also clarify one thing you said about immigration consultants. My understanding is that this is included using immigration consultants in the U.K. and in western Europe, so what in theory should be more a culturally familiar market, in some cases with a shared language.
If we talk about Saskatchewan versus Manitoba, I think it might not be unfair to categorize Manitoba as having a much broader approach, like targeting the larger ethnic communities, whereas in Saskatchewan it's been more that there is this employer, there is this worker, that sort of thing. It's more like one worker or several workers to meet one particular area of skill shortages, as opposed to a more systemic, larger strategy to bring over more people from a broader range of countries.
À (1010)
The Chair: Anybody? Andrew?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll let you know I came over in 1957, and I'm still not a millionaire. But I do have a wife who has Irish background, but she was born here.
One of the things I thought about while you were talking is how we target people. Recently an incident I mentioned in caucus is related to two Mikes. They both happen to be Greeks. They came in the mid-sixties. One Mike had a primary school education and the other Mike was a young boy who came over with his father who was an apprentice tradesperson. Anyway, the Prime Minister sent a citation to Mike number one, who only had a grade 6 education, for having the best restaurant in the Waterloo region and employing well over a hundred people.
That Mike came to Canada with $5 U.S. in his pocket, and $5 U.S. in his pocket at that time was worth less than $5 Canadian. And when he arrived at the country he started by washing dishes, living at the restaurant, making it go.
The father of the other Mike was an apprentice tradesman, and Mike was a 6-year-old boy when he came here. Anyway, this Mike turned out to be Mike Lazaridis, the founder of Research in Motion, which employs 2,000 people. He's donated well over $100 million to good causes across the country.
The thing that struck me about those two folks when they came is that they were coming for opportunity.
The family of the second Mike, whose father was a tradesperson, were actually Greek refugees from Turkey.
It seems to me that if people come with the expectation that they are going to work hard they are going to do well. My father, when he came to this country, was an architect, a town planner, and my mother was a draftswoman. But when they came here, my mother worked at cleaning houses, my father worked at construction, and they did this and then they eventually got into their fields. But they were determined to succeed.
If you go out and you market somebody who is a professional someplace in the world and you raise the expectation that you are going to come to Canada and you are going to do the same thing in Canada and that thing falls apart, they are not so likely to go and clean houses or do whatever menial jobs to get themselves established. There is no place really in terms of the way we define independent immigrants. A lot of people who would do very well in this country don't get the chance, don't get the chance to come here.
There is something else I'm wondering about. We were in Manitoba yesterday, and there are all sorts of Ukrainians in Manitoba, and a huge population in Alberta. A lot of those people would like to get their relatives over, but we have policies that make it very difficult to get people in from the Ukraine. The advantage of getting somebody in from the Ukraine is they are driven to get out of there because the situation is not good, the opportunities are not good. And if they came here with their relatives, these people would receive settlement services from the Ukrainian community. Here you could do it with the Germans. I think you have less likelihood of getting Germans now, because the situation isn't as bad. But the more desperate the situation is, the more the people are willing to be adaptable and do what it takes to succeed.
If I showed up in Hungary now--let's say I was going the other way--and I had to go and start digging ditches, I wouldn't be too impressed. I wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't go.
The point I'm getting at is are we cutting off a whole group of people who could very well come to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, all sorts of places, and are we making enough use of Canadians who are now Canadians but have the same ethnic backgrounds to help those people come over?
À (1015)
Mr. Norm Wallace: What we did in Saskatoon is I formed a group called Provincial Exporters Association, and we told the government we did not want them to come near us. We had about 300 members. I spent six months in Manitoba, and it taught me free enterprise. Those guys in Winnipeg, they'll lay a licking on you, and they're good. You come out of Winnipeg and you have some.... And I want to share this with you.
A guy said to me in Winnipeg, “Norm, you're going to open a branch in Saskatoon.” And I said “No, I'm not. I'm not ready for that. I'm only six months in Canada.” And he said “We have a system in Canada that's not like Ireland. We tell you to go to Saskatoon, you have enough rope and you're either going to hang yourself or make it. What do you want to do?” I said “I'm going to Saskatoon.”
The reason your folks left Hungary was they were not settled and established, and there were some things irritating them, and they saw Canada as an opportunity. Nothing gets in your way.
The reason I left Ireland is we had religious problems and we were Protestant, the 2%. We had our day when we were running it, and we were getting picked on. The priest wouldn't let us buy land, so I thought it's best to get out of here. Probably half of that was in our minds. It's probably all nonsense, but it's one of the things that got me upset, and I thought I had an opportunity in Canada. I did the right thing. It's a marvelous country. Nobody holds you back in Canada except yourself.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I'd like to address another point you mentioned. When I first started fighting this thing on the citizenship revocation I found so unjust, and I challenged my own government on it--maybe I'll be judged some day for having been prematurely correct--the first group that came to assist me was the Aboriginal People's Commission of British Columbia. They said “We were the first immigration officers letting in the people, ancestors of those who are in our land now. We have suffered injustice, and we want to make sure that you Canadians, Canadians by choice or naturalized Canadians, do not suffer injustice.”
I put the comment in there because we have problems in different groups, different people in every group, across the country. So I just wanted to let you know that.
If you go on my website you will see there--
Mr. Norm Wallace: We don't have that problem in Saskatchewan. You have problems in Toronto with certain ethnic groups. We don't have a problem out here because most of the people who come here are professionally educated. There is no friction in the immigration communities I've ever seen, and I've been involved--
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: No, you just mentioned the first nations didn't like immigrants. I'm just saying my experience was different, so I put that in.
Mr. Norm Wallace: I have a love-hate relationship with the aboriginals. We get along very well, but it's just that they feel that it's their country. I'm on the economic board in Saskatoon, and they come and say “We don't want any of those immigrants”. But you also have the farmers telling us the same thing. We need to educate them that these people are the ones who are going to pull the wagon and create the wealth, and these immigrants work.
In fairness, we're doing a good job in Saskatoon. We've started a good program to put the aboriginals to work. We have about ten companies now doing very well. They are getting into the industry I'm in, construction.
À (1020)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: If you'll permit me to say something about your first point, Andrew, I think you've identified a really important issue, namely the demand for family reunification, both generally and also in smaller centres. Because it seems to me that one way to encourage a more equal regional dispersion of immigrants would be perhaps for Citizenship and Immigration Canada to even be having regular monthly, quarterly, or annual meetings in which the general public can come and actually interact with a live CIC human being to get information on how do you bring over your family members and the friends.
Certainly what I've seen in Saskatoon is that it's a smaller office, their workload isn't as heavy. So you can call them up and say please come and speak at this event, or whatever. And that happens. But even in a place like Calgary there simply aren't the resources to do that sort of thing. I do think this could make a big difference to the number of immigrants applying, to the number of immigrants who are interested in coming to places like Calgary, Winnipeg, and St. John's.
The Chair: I understand you. There's no doubt that we probably have to do a better job of informing Saskatchewan and the people of Saskatchewan of how to access the various immigration programs that we have. The provincial nominee program is one. It's specifically directed at specific job occupational classes. But the other way you get into this country is through the Canadian, not the provincial, nominee. And you just mentioned family reunification. There are temporary workers. There are temporary students and everything else.
Have you tracked how many people Saskatchewan is attracting a year through the various programs? Do you have that kind of information? Because the other thing I'm going to talk about is that when this committee travelled around the world to find out how well we were doing, we found that we have no shortage of people who want to come to this country. We have over a half a million applications each and every year, at least.
We're not processing them as quickly as possible. The biggest problem is it's taken us two years to process paper, even in Europe. It's five years in China, and seven years in Delhi. That's one of the issues we need to deal with, because no one's going to put their life on hold for two years while we try to process the paperwork and so on. I understand that. And since September 11 it's even gotten worse.
Part of what we've learned is that Manitoba, for example, or even Ontario--even though we don't have a provincial nominee agreement with it, it's the only province we don't have one with--a lot of provinces were in fact sending delegations, business delegations, people to targeted countries where they wanted to attract some of the people. And in fact they had been using good bona fide consultants, not the bad ones we hear about, in terms of promoting Saskatchewan.
So the whole marketing strategy is not to market inside of Saskatchewan, but also to market Saskatchewan to our various embassies, be it in South America, Europe, China, India, you name it. The successful ones have done that proactive marketing, which, I agree with you, needs to be done. We need to do it too as a federal government, because we obviously need to be in partnership with Saskatchewan.
I'm wondering whether or not you've been able to track how many people you get, where they are coming from, and specifically to meet the needs of the employers and some of the stuff Norm was talking to us about.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: It's actually less than 1% of all immigrants to Canada who come to Saskatchewan--
The Chair: And you have about 2% of the population. Or is it 1.5% or 3%?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes. And the proportion of immigrants coming to Saskatchewan as a proportion of all immigrants has actually been declining. And Saskatchewan overall has a unique profile in the government-sponsored refugees account for a disproportionate share of all immigrants here.
The Chair: More or less?
Dr. Liisa Cormode: More.
And when we get the data from Citizenship and Immigration Canada I suspect too that the conversion from temporary resident to permanent resident status will also show up as being important in Saskatchewan as compared to some other provinces.
The Chair: Well, the other thing—and maybe you can address it, because you haven't done it much—is Manitoba has indicated they want to be proactive and to essentially attract more refugees, because they feel they may be a source of certain semi-skilled work. Then, of course, comes family reunificaiton, the friends, the entrepeneurship, the business investment, and so on.
À (1025)
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes.
The Chair: But again, I would very much like to see that profile of what Saskatchewan is doing.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Yes, and you put forward a really important point about refugees. As you've probably heard, Winnipeg has also been very innovative in setting up financial arrangements so that refugees can bring over their family members.
I'm trying to think of the numbers of immigrants to Saskatchewan. I got very little sleep last night, so I'm trying to think of the—
The Chair: So did we, but we—
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Okay. I think it's about 1,600 or 1,700; I'm not sure. I can get it for you; it's publicly available. The temporary resident numbers you can also get.
On the refugee side, though, interestingly there has been a debate in this province about whether we should be encouraging rural refugee sponsorship. The context at the time was the Kosovo Albanians. I guess there were a number of people in rural areas who were calling the CIC and saying “We want Kosovo Albanians to come to our community”, and Citizenship and Immigration Canada was saying “No, with this group we are aiming to settle them in cities. Too bad.”
I guess some people didn't take that lying down and actually did a very interesting research study. The conclusion of that study was that they thought there was significant potential for settling refugees in rural areas; that especially on the employer side there was a willingness to work with people, to train people—because there are very real labour shortages in some parts of Saskatchewan.
The Chair: Well, lastly—maybe this also links up, and then I will go to David—as part of the immigration strategy we passed last year, or at least that the committee recommended, and as the census data shows, small-town Canada outside the major centres of Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto, which get about 70% of all immigrants, and Toronto probably has the lion's share there..... How is it possible or how can we as the federal government make it possible for people to locate other than to those three centres?
Of course the minister started to talk—and I know there have been discussions even here, as well as in Manitoba and elsewhere—about the regional dispersion strategy. Is there a way of enticing immigrants with incentives to come to places like Saskatchewan, as opposed to...? Whether or not you do it by special contract—and the moment you start to use the word “contract” people get a little antsy about it, because you are then taking away their mobility rights—is there a way, maybe using the temporary worker program a lot more, or the provincial nominee program, to tell people around the world that there are other places than Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal, and probably very good places: Saskatoon, Regina, and elsewhere in Saskatchewan?
I think, Norm, you were talking about that too.
Mr. Norm Wallace: You should be aware that—this is a touchy area—the reason Manitoba was ten years ahead of us is they had a different outlook. We are run with a socialist government that is funded by labour. And labour doesn't want immigrants in; let me tell you that.
That's the reason Saskatchewan never pursued it—besides, as I mentioned, the number of people who said they don't want immigrants. But when you are feeding us money out of Ottawa, you had better tell them to grow up.
The second thing I want to say to you is go on the website and look. If I were in Manitoba and wanted to knock Saskatchewan out of the game, I would just tell them: “Go on the website. Look up 'NDP Saskatchewan'. Look up 'history' and read the Regina Manifesto.” And I am dead in Saskatchewan, because it says there we will do everything in our power to take over free enterprise and undermine it and run it with the government.
As we speak here today, it's a shame, because these immigrants come in, they own companies, and they pay taxes. We in Saskatchewan now have 85 crown corporations—I think we have one a month coming up. They don't contribute. Besides, we are doing work all over the world.
I'm not going to get into that. But those are some of our major problems—some of the attitudes in Saskatchewan and why they are the way they are. I'm telling you about how we can put another million people in here in the next fifty years or sooner, and if we want to pursue that, you have to go back to Ottawa and when they come looking for handouts say, “You change these rules.”
The Chair: David.
À (1030)
Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Norm, for being here. It's important that we have people with your background. I can certainly sympathize with your frustrations. I was an electrical contractor for 40 years, plus I had a manufacturing company with over a hundred employees. I know what you're going through. I went through it myself.
Now, you say Quebec has come along. Yes, we have, but we suffer a lot of the same problems. You mentioned that labour doesn't want it. Well, I go a little further. If we say “labour”, we're talking about unions. It's been one of the biggest blocks that we've had in Quebec too.
If I talk just about my own industry, let's say, you can take an electrician's licence and go out of Quebec and go anywhere in the world and be accepted just like that. We can work anywhere. But try to reverse that. Bring anybody in from anywhere in the world, no matter how qualified, and try to get them qualified. That's the problem we really live with.
And the worse problem is we can't even get them qualified across this country, from province to province. That's another whole headache we have to live with, and as Canadians we can't even deal with it. But that's an interprovincial problem. We have to be able to solve that problem before we can solve the international problem. That's very unfortunate.
There again I speak from experience. I was actually the president of the Corporation of Master Electricians of Québec for a period of time, the only anglophone they ever had there.
That's an interesting thing too. You mentioned the Irish background. You know that 40% of Quebeckers have Irish blood.
Mr. Norm Wallace: The biggest group, yes.
Mr. David Price: But I don't have any. I'm Welsh and Scotch. I'm a rarity myself.
That's one of the frustrations I saw. I don't know what we're going to do about that. The unions have been very strong. I don't know what the situation is here as compared to Quebec. In Quebec, there's no question.
I took over a family business, but in order to start into that business I had to take out my apprenticeship. To take my apprenticeship--my father owned the company--I still had to belong to the union. I had to become a union member, even though I owned the company to that point until I actually took it over completely. That's how tightly tied up we are. That is the blockage we have.
Now, in my other companies I was able to hire people with a lot of skills where there was no union involved, at a management level. But they were never able to get into the situation where they could actually use those skills at a physical level, I guess you might say. They were always frustrated at that end.
Mr. Norm Wallace: I should tell you a story about Quebec and electricians and unions and working. In Saskatoon, I got on this industrial board and of course they didn't want a redneck like me on there. But the mayor got me on and it was just war from both. I got on and I wanted to give the taxpayers their money back. This committee was just a waste of time. And since then, we now have it funded by free enterprise. It's the only one in Canada. That's the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority.
We were getting unionized on a group that was going to open in Regina and Moose Jaw--the telephones--and they phoned me and said “Norm, we're leaving.” It's 400 jobs, so we had to get in there and speak to the people and try to keep the union out. We got hold of the guy in Quebec and he came in and spoke to us. They wouldn't let the Quebeckers work in their own homes unless they were in the union. He gave this talk. So he wanted--typically like the Irish--to go on a starvation diet and die. The judge says “You ain't going to do that under my court.” But he gave a tremendous speech and it told us how tough Quebec was.
We won the battle at that time, and the union sued me and I sued them back. But I will tell you, if it's comfort to you, we've just started the first “right to work” group in Canada in Saskatchewan. This means the union is pretty wired up about it.
In Saskatchewan, the labour is not that different. You have to raise your hand in the town hall, and there's a tremendous intimidation on the contractors. It's not a level playing field. It's absolutely tilted towards labour.
We learned to live with it, but we could get a lot more done, and with better relationships.
I think somewhere along the way it would be nice if our government had the courage to look at that subject.
À (1035)
Mr. David Price: In my own area, I have at any one time never fewer than 300 job openings--all the time--and we can't fill them. The municipalities offer subsidies to help people with their housing if they'll come and live there, but the problem is to get skilled.... Some of them are just manual labour, but others are skilled. But we're a hundred miles south of Montreal; we're a little too far from the cultural groups. We have a hard time attracting--
Mr. Norm Wallace: What area are you in?
Mr. David Price: I'm right down on the Vermont and New Hampshire border.
The Chair: Just for the record, you should know, Norm, that at least at the national level, the Canadian Labour Congress as well as the Canadian Auto Workers have come out in favour of more immigration.
You talked about labour in Saskatchewan, and I must admit I don't know the labour makeup. I'm just saying that national organizations, the largest unions, just like the largest businesses--and small businesses--have all come out in favour of Canada's need to attract more and more immigrants.
Mr. Norm Wallace: I think we're unique there; it's kind of protecting your own turf. It's a bit like a farmer not wanting to sell to an immigrant. It's childish, but it's there.
The Chair: Okay.
Well, I know you had two answers, and I want to move on and ask you questions on national identity before I have to move--
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Do you want to hear my response in terms of ways to get more immigrants--
The Chair: Yes, that's what I said.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Oh, okay.
I think we need to keep in mind that there are actually two issues. One is attraction and the other is retention. Retention has been a huge issue for Saskatchewan.
According to some data, 50% of immigrants to Saskatchewan actually left during a census period. Now, I think it's better than it sounds, because I suspect some of the people leaving were international students who got permanent residence and went to other places, including Toronto.
I think you had a really important point on the potential for refugees to provide semi-skilled labour, because I think it's recognized that the need for semi-skilled labour is currently not met that well by the temporary foreign worker system or by the immigration system, certainly the skilled worker part of it.
I think there are a number of measures. I think a key one is going to be encouraging refugee settlement both in very small cities, like Moose Jaw, and in rural areas. I think also we need to look at providing better employment services.
There are definitely issues around the need for core funding for immigrant-serving agencies--the people could even come to present to your committee instead of being bogged down with their proposals.
The Chair: The next witness is going to talk about settlement issues.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: Okay.
Australia has a database in which employers in rural areas can post their job postings, and people who want to settle in regional Australia can then look at the database, apply online, and through that, actually get accepted into a regional immigration program. I understand from the Australian high commission that this works reasonably well.
I think provincial nominee programs, territorial nominee programs, definitely have their place, as well as assisting employers with recruitment practices. I expect actually that increasing farmer immigration could possibly make some rural areas and smaller towns more immigrant friendly. I have friends who are immigrants who have highlighted that as an issue.
Also, it seems to me that legislative moves to encourage and make it easier for international students and temporary foreign workers to apply for permanent residence would also increase the regional dispersion of immigration. I know from my own research that many students are interested in staying in the same city they studied in.
Based on research I have done, if employers were treating temporary foreign workers better, including telling the spouses that they could work, and if CIC did a better job of doing that, I think some of those temporary foreign workers would stay longer, decide they want to become permanent residents.
There are also really huge issues around better training programs. In some cases, because Saskatchewan's population is so dispersed, immigrants just can't get some kinds of training here. My friends who are accountants need training in how to use computerized accounting packages. They know the accounting principles, but they need the computer training, and they're not finding it easy to get.
On my last point, it's interesting we don't have a comprehensive urban system strategy in Canada to encourage the growth of smaller centres. What we have is very ad hoc. CIC has an immigration processing centre in Vegreville, which is great for Vegreville's development, but on a much larger level we need to be thinking about whether Canada needs to have an urban system strategy. I believe that once we do it's going to sort out a few of the regionalization issues, because there will be more economic growth in smaller centres, in other words going beyond the regional development programs.
À (1040)
The Chair: As you both know, there's another thing this committee wants to do. The minister talked last week about whether or not we ought to implement a national identity card system of some sort. More and more Canadians are hearing about it, and we are in the process of studying this issue, its purpose, how it would work, and so on.
I don't know if either of you has any particular thoughts on the idea. You might give us your initial thoughts and then write to us and let us know what you think about it. In fact, as we speak today one of our own committee members, Libby Davies from the NDP, is unfortunately putting forward a motion in the House of Commons that we should not go ahead with the national identity card. That's something we haven't even started to hear.
While we all have some questions about the purpose of it, that's what debate in Canada is all about. Democracy is all about talking to Canadians to find out the pros and cons, the pitfalls, the privacy issues, and the security issues. So I'm curious if you have any particular comments on that. Then we'll need to move on to our next guest.
Liisa.
Dr. Liisa Cormode: I think I'd be the first to say there are some very serious privacy issues. At the same time, the issue of fraud has unfortunately come up in my studies. I've heard about some of the means that international students use to work off-campus. I'm certainly aware of issues around illegal employment and that sort of thing. As much as I hate to say this, I see national identity cards as being potentially useful in reducing certain kinds of immigration-related fraud. I also suspect they would make it easier for Canadians to go to the U.S.
I'll freely admit I'm really bad about showing up at the airport with my University of Saskatchewan faculty card. They let me on the plane and I don't think they should. I see the value in having some kind of standard ID.
The Chair: On whether it's driven because the United States might feel a lot better about Canada having a national identity card, I should tell you that the Americans don't want one, but they may want everybody else in the world to have one.
The fact that they even question our passport is incredible. I understand we live in entirely different times these days where everybody is a little suspicious of everybody else. Perhaps we ought to look at that issue. But I guess the issues are why do we need one, what purpose will it have, and who will be in the database created because of it, if in fact there will be a database?
Norm.
Mr. Norm Wallace: It's a tough issue, because when you go to Europe the borders are rolling back, and it's beautiful. When we went from Austria into Germany we only got hung up because my wife's from Czechoslovakia and they wouldn't let her in. I travelled on a European passport, so she was furious.
I was in Belgium years ago, and a farmer couldn't go out on the highway without having his passport. Maybe it's something you should think about. It was really tightly controlled. I don't know if that has all died out, but you also have to respect what's going on in North America.
The Americans are our biggest neighbour and probably our biggest customer. Today it's not that difficult to get in there if you have your driver's licence. They'll accept that with your photograph. Most of us today have a driver's licence with a photograph on it, which should give them some identity. But I would think the Canadians would be uptight about this one. I really would. I think it won't go down well with the public.
À (1045)
The Chair: Well, we're going to find out what Canadians think about it. In the poll, 59% of them indicated they liked the idea because it was based on security, and so on. When you start asking the questions, “What would you like on the card? Do you want your fingerprints? Are you prepared to be fingerprinted? Are you prepared to have your iris put on it? Are you prepared to put some information on it, which could be shared on-line or off-line in a database?” and you start to get into all of these issues, then people start to say, “Well, wait a minute. Who's going to use this information, and for what purpose, and so on?”
That's why we've started the debate, and we'll see what Canadians actually start thinking about it, as they start getting more and more engaged.
Thank you so much, both of you, for an absolutely fantastic glimpse of the vision you have for your province. We can appreciate it. As your partners, we want to help you to achieve your objectives, along with the federal government working with the province, municipalities, and community groups. We're an immigration committee. As you know, there are an awful lot of other issues on which I'm sure the federal government could be assisting you.
I'm sure my colleagues could learn a lot by coming out here and finding out about Saskatchewan. I know that our minister keeps at least our party informed about what's happening in Saskatchewan. I'm sure we could use a lot more members on the government side, but I won't get into politics.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Thank you very much.
We're going to take about a five-minute break.
À (1043)
À (1050)
The Chair: Order.
Colleagues, we're going to talk a little about settlement programs now as part of our study with regard to not only, as we've learned, how do we attract refugees and immigrants here, but also what happens to them once they get here, and when they've been here long enough, how do they qualify to become citizens?
On behalf of the committee I'd like to welcome Kebrom Haimanot. I understand that you want to talk to us about the settlement issue, with which you're involved. We look forward to your comments.
Á (1100)
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot (President, Eritrean Community of Saskatchewan Inc.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Members of the citizenship and immigration committee of the House of Commons, thank you very much for inviting us to appear as a witness.
Our organization is ten years old. It's a member of the Multicultural Council of Saskatchewan, which I've served on in the past as a board member, and the Saskatchewan Organization of Heritage Languages. We teach the Eritrean language, which is call Tigrigna, on the weekends. Right now we are in a fund-raising mode for the starving Eritreans.
The topic, which we are very familiar with, is settlement and integration. We'll be discussing pre-arrival counselling. I'm following your guidelines. There are four topics you want us to address. We'll mention the others a little bit, but this is the key one. At pre-arrival, what happens? What are the people telling us who have gone through that?
We have sponsored three people: one from South Africa, one from Kenya, and one from the Sudan. Also, historically, I sponsored my family members, who are in Canada working as nurses and medical doctors and in related fields.
The other topics you want us to comment on are LINC and the host program, the issue of discrimination toward new immigrants and how we view them, the education of immigrants' children, and mental health. We will also comment on those. But the key ones I want to look at critically are the education of immigrants' children, pre-arrival counselling, and the recognition of foreign credentials. These three deeply affect immigrants.
On pre-arrival counselling, we did a survey, and recent newcomers told us that this is working really well and that they are grateful for the orientation they get from the counsellors, in particular when it comes to the laws and customs of the country, because totally different things take place in their countries. However, when it comes to an explanation of the country, they cannot imagine what snow looks like. We know hail in Africa, but we don't know snow in Africa. The hail stays for a day, and then it disappears. But here it stays for the whole winter, as we can see around us.
The Chair: Maybe we should ship some over there. That would be helpful.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: My brother, who lives in the States, came here in the winter, and he saw that his face was blotched and all that. He seems to come here when it's really cold. In August, when it was really muggy and hot here, he said, “Brother, can I send you some heat from the United States?” He lives in the south. Those kinds of comments are made.
These counsellors are well intentioned and very good, according to what they tell us. They know the country to a degree, but they don't have a feeling for those people, such as when it comes to the snow and hail situation or to explain the temperature, plus there's also an accent issue there. When I first came, I worked with English people and other nationalities at the United Nations, and I couldn't understand some things because I wasn't familiar with the culture behind what they were talking about. When my friends were laughing, I couldn't laugh; I didn't know what they were laughing about.
A typical case was the situation when Reagan and Ford were running—I was in the States, by the way, my first orientation was in the States—and Reagan commented, “When I played football, I had my helmet.” It didn't make any difference to me, but my friend who was sitting next to me was laughing quite a bit. I said “What's wrong? Putting on a helmet is nothing new.” Apparently Ford claimed to play without a helmet, and they were running for an election; that's why he was laughing when he said “I kept my head intact by putting on my helmet.”
Anyhow, there are cultural and other things behind a language. A combination of African Canadians with Canadian-born nationals might better serve and could complement each other in those orientation sessions. It's very hard for them to imagine a car being “plugged in”. You know: you turn on the electricity; then do you go on fire? Or don't you get electrocuted? It's hard to imagine, for those people, or to have all this winter gear we wear. It's very hard to understand those kinds of things.
But the biggest complaint we hear is about the process. For example, after the medical examination is done, why are people made to wait for about a year? We have cases like that. Because we like to talk to you guys on a concrete basis, we have files we can refer to about people. After they have done their medical examinations—security and everything is passed, the medical examination is passed—why are they waiting for a year? Further, why does the process take over two to three years in most cases?
If the committee cares to have examples on a confidential basis, we can give you file numbers and dates to look at.
In Africa, the worst one is in the Sudan, out of all those things I was mentioning. For Sudan, the person has to go from Egypt, and the frequency of his going there is not that much, it turns out.
We are told the Australian process is efficient and effective. It takes top place on those matters, and we think it's worth exploring why the Australians are doing better in the eyes of new immigrants.
That's on pre-arrival counselling. As I say, it has a mixed review, but the process itself is cumbersome and frustrating to many. Plus, when people send letters to the officials there—I guess probably now that e-mails are there, people send them too many letters—they don't even respond. In my time, when I used a sponsor—I paid nothing, by the way, in those days—when I wrote a letter or something, I used to get a response. But not nowadays.
Recognition of foreign experience and accreditation is the second part I wanted you to notice, ladies and gentlemen. The obstacles to integration are generally related to the recognition of foreign experiences and accreditation. Some of the recent new immigrants tell us they are very happy to be in Canada. The efficiency in processing matters so quickly impresses them most. When they get their social insurance number, health card, and all sorts of things, they are amazed how efficiently it is done, and they don't have to bribe anybody. Everything is done on the up and up; they really praise us for that.
However, they are disappointed that their many years of experience, which is badly needed in Canada, could not be used. We will give an example of this. Factual things is what I'm trying to give you, so that you understand clearly. I could philosophize things, but it wouldn't be right. As an example, and we have given you names here, Samuel Kahsai Ghidey is a new immigrant from Sudan—he's one of the immigrants I told you about—where he was a semi-truck driver, class 1A, licensed for ten years.
Á (1105)
In Canada, more specifically in Saskatoon—that's where I took him personally—just as an example, Kindersley Transport Limited is desperate for semi-truck drivers. How we know they are desperate is that when you come to the headquarters of the Kindersley trucking company, they have a big posted sign that says they will give $1,000 to anyone who brings them a truck driver. And not only that, the sign says they have so far paid out $76,000.
However, employees such as Samuel and the employer, the Kindersley truck driving company, cannot come together, because the Saskatchewan Government Insurance that licenses and gives all these things wants Samuel to pass rigorous written exams in English from class 7 learner to class 1A. That is about five written exams in English, with no interpreter assistance. All this is before he goes for a road test with the truck.
This frustrates Samuel, who is a family man and who doesn't want to live off of anybody's handouts. His English is classified as group two by the immigration department. To improve his English he wanted to go to school for English as a second language, but the LINC program and the Open Door Society tell him he will be on a waiting list for at least six months. The community has no funding to hire a teacher who could help him, either. In short, it is frustrating to him in a big way and frustrating to those who are trying to remove the barriers this person has encountered.
Another case we know of is a problem between immigrants, which is another very strong one. By the way, I belong to the Saskatchewan board through the naturalized Canadians.... He says that's where we had a discussion with the provincial government about two weeks ago. The director who was handling that portion was giving out his research background and all that. And the strongest that all the level four development board people were saying was that there is a problem between the immigrant and the professional organizations. I am talking about the medical professional organizations.
The professional organizations have power given to them by legislation, which in some cases appears to us as discriminatory. For example, the medical profession recognizes doctors educated in England or in South Africa, but not from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Croatia, or whatever. Other doctors' credentials are not being recognized. They are left to live on welfare or wash dishes. Those are the jobs where they have to be. Nobody gives a doctor a chance to prove his or her worth.
We agree that no one wants to be taken care of by incompetent doctors. But just because your training is located in a different country is not a good reason for somebody to get a green light while another gets a red light. It is a travesty of justice and appears discriminatory.
Common sense tells us that not all doctors are bad and not all doctors are good. Therefore, the professional organizations should have a challenging written and/or practical exam for all doctors, regardless of where they got their education, and accept all those who meet the minimum requirements.
To give an example--this is a very interesting one--we have firsthand knowledge of a doctor designated by the Government of Canada, by Health Canada, to examine immigrants overseas when they come to Canada. So this doctor examines these people and he sends out hundreds of them. My wife happened to be one of these patients--well, not a patient, but a person who was examined by this doctor. And this doctor recently immigrated to Canada. But because of the location of his educational institute, the professional organizations would not license him to practise medicine in Canada.
Á (1110)
Canada has a shortage of doctors, mainly in rural areas. Yet qualified doctors with many years experience and recognized by Health Canada when they were overseas are denied a licence to practise. Is this fair?
As the old saying goes, if you abuse it, you lose it. By the same token, the excessive power of the professional organizations like the medical associations, who inherit their power through federal or provincial legislation, should be trimmed to the goals and objectives of the country. We have nominees and all that through the provincial nominees program and what have you. You are short of doctors. Bring doctors. You have a shortage of truck drivers. Bring truck drivers. You have a shortage of bricklayers. Let's bring them. We bring them here for no good. What are we doing? We might as well examine them before they come when they are coming as professionals. Then, they don't have to sell their semi--it happened, this guy, he had to sell his semi to come here, and the medical doctor, hoping that Canada knows him, recognizes him, he came. In those other countries, there are no professional organizations as such, and that's what they do. So I think inadvertently, we are doing a disservice to ourselves and creating a burden to society.
Just to make sure of my time, I will be going on to the education of immigrants' children. Education of immigrants' children has mixed success. By the way, I have a teaching certificate in heritage language from the University of Saskatchewan. By profession I'm a soil scientist, and I have a masters degree and have done my PhD work except my thesis. When the child is under 16 years of age and starts school below or at grade 10, he or she seems to do well in regular school. But when the child is beyond grade 10, they just go through the grades with no foundation, to become a grade 12 dropout.
A typical example is a brother of mine. It happened once. After that we learned. We put them in grade 10, and this seems to work. We have nurses and doctors after that. No problem. But that seems to be the scenario.
The reason is that grade 11 subjects are demanding, need a good foundation, and require a good command of the English language as well. We have several examples of this in our community. Children of immigrants above the age of 21 are not allowed to go to regular schools due to provincial law. Provincial law prevents you once you are 21.
I have five children. Two are in the university. One is in high school. One is in elementary school. One is a baby. And if you do that with my children, who are born and raised in this country, it makes sense if you tell them, “I've given you enough. After 21, go to a different school.”
But in the case of a refugee, if he is 12 years old and has waited 10 years in a refugee camp for other countries to pick him as a refugee, he is now 22. Sorry, he does not qualify anywhere now to go to school. And if he has to take a subject--I did recently check with the school board--he is supposed to pay $350 per subject.
Now, these people want to go to school to excel in this country and compete equally as other Canadians, but these are excessive amounts--$350 per subject. So either the provincial law has to be changed for the refugee, or the federal government should fund them for the seven courses, or seven subjects, that would allow them to go to university or community colleges.
Á (1115)
If current practices continue, it will create immigrant children with low educational levels. In our opinion, it is as important that we nurture the young mind with education as it is important to care about their health. We talk a lot about health care, but their minds are also important.
If both the federal and provincial governments are not willing to assist, at least offer a slim hope of success through funding to the communities to assist them on the weekends or at night by tutoring them as they study on their own at home so they can challenge the departmental exam. The ones we have now are doing that. They are studying at home. Some of them have a lot at stake. They are in the LINC program and they are trying to challenge the government. We are trying to create a weekend class so we can assist them with those things.
Another one is in the area of discrimination. Again, the community has a big role in combatting discrimination and making newcomers and other Canadians aware of the fact that we all might look different.... By the way, I'd like you to correct this on page 3. It should say “we all might look different and sound different...”. But like a symphony orchestra, the way we perceive things, each instrument might look different--the piano, the guitar--and they sound different, but we are all as beautiful as those different instruments. That's how we see ourselves.
If we were harmonized through community organizations, we could even be complements to each other and build a beautiful, prosperous, and harmonious Canadian society.
In our opinion, racism is nothing but ignorance and childhood bias that can be gradually weeded out.
So we have first to agitate about those things, and we have to do something.
Turning to the LINC and host programs, are communities aware of the host program? I assume the host program means the open door society program. At present, we don't know about the RAP or ISAP. I've never even heard of them, to be honest with you. They have no presence or service in our community.
The LINC program is successful, as is the open door society program. For new refugees and immigrants, they sporadically give families some funding allowances, which help them with transportation and babysitting expenses, through CIC. The waiting period for these programs should be shortened, because as I said in the case of Samuel, he has to wait now for six months doing nothing--just being frustrated.
The waiting period for these programs should be shortened and expanded. The stipend for newcomers should not be on and off. It is hard for the new immigrant, or refugee in this case, to work and go to school at the same time. He's going to school in the day. But at least the transportation and the babysitting costs, those kinds of things, help. It is better if we invest a little bit more now; we'll gain in the long term.
Our community also endorses funding at the community level, for the communities are the first contact and are a phone call away in answer to problems or to give information to newcomers. It's mainly communities like ours, made up of new immigrants--it's a young community--who have gone through the process that can help them with their experience and in their own first language. In short, community involvement is crucial.
To us, the best delivery model is through community involvement, with the open door and LINC programs each doing their part. That's the model we see. Communities, besides serving the individual in his or her language, give direction and try to cut red tape.
Á (1120)
That's how we were involved in SGI. Why are they are doing these kinds of things? We're trying to show them what's happening...and other professional organizations. But the tough one is the medical group; it's a tough nut to crack, because one has to come from South Africa or England to be recognized.
Also, communities could give English as a second language or assisting their children who want to complete grade 12 properly.
Provinces like Saskatchewan talk about attracting immigrants and retaining them. I have had several discussions--as Lynne knows--with the justice minister and the intergovernmental affairs minister. We had several discussions with Chris Axworthy, and he tried to help, but the bureaucracy was too thick to crack the way he thought, although he was the minister.
The Chair: It's no different in Ottawa.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: So he had the intent, but he couldn't help very much, in spite of the fact that their own study, the study by the immigration branch of the provincial government--they spent $36,000, by the way--indicates that they had to do something with the communities and all that.
It is our view that new immigrants establish ties with their communities before they come. In fact, when they are overseas, if brochures from the communities could go to these places, then they would know a little bit. They would have some kind of an orientation manual there that they could understand in their own language, because what they do is, when they fill out the form, they ask somebody, would you please fill out the form for me this way? But if they have something in their own language, the moment they read it, they understand exactly where you are coming from, through a brochure, because there is a cultural bias there.
Once they arrive in Canada, as stated previously, connecting them with the community would be the best way to retain them here in Saskatchewan. You were asking how we could retain them. Their study shows the best way is to tie them to their community. Then they have a framework there of people who could tell them and share their experiences, become very hospitable, not bureaucratic and what have you.
It reminded me of one case. I was promoted to regional manager for Yorkton. I worked for the Saskatchewan Assessment Management Association, which is in charge of assessing every property in Saskatchewan--farmland, industrial, what have you. I travelled quite a bit, in different places, but I was promoted to regional manager in Yorkton for that whole area, and after a year of work, my wife had to say “No, you had better come home. There are not very many Tigrigna-speaking”--which is our language--“people there, and I am not going.” So I had a choice. There was my wife, and I could get my $15,000 increment or go with the family. I chose to go with the family because family is very important to me.
In the area of mental health, what I'm trying to show is that the community is there. Even after my wife had been here for ten years, the community was so important to her.
Mental health is generally good, but some depression and stress is noted as a result of false hope created by the Canadian image abroad. The image they have is that you come here, you start to work, you do things, that kind of thing, and when they get trapped in that situation--the doctors' situation that I was just telling you about, the bricklayers' situation--they become discouraged. Some of them take the failure of the system as their personal failure, and it starts to depress them, stress them.
Again, community involvement in the lives of new immigrants is imperative. These community members have gone through this process, so instead of reinventing the wheel again and again, the wheel is already invented; just show them the road.
I want to stress that community involvement is crucial for the successful settlement and integration of our newcomers.
Thank you very much for listening.
Á (1125)
The Chair: Kebrom, thank you so much for an excellent brief, and also for putting a face to some of the examples you talked about. I think it gives the committee a better indication of these things.
For your information, and I think this will fit your organization perfectly and some others, I want to tell you a little bit about the ISAP program that you said you didn't know much about, because I think it's something not only your community but other immigrant communities can make use of.
If you don't know about it, I don't know why—obviously, we'd want to ask some questions—but it's for reception, orientation services, translation, interpretation services, para-professional counselling, referral to mainstream services, and employment-related activities such as job-finding clubs. That's the ISAP program. If you're not using it now, you should be.
And the RAP program perhaps is just as important. It's called the resettlement assistance program and is meant to provide temporary accommodation as well as funds to cover the basic necessities.
I was a little startled when you said you didn't know about those. Obviously that means we need to do a lot more work with groups—be proactive, as opposed to assuming everybody knows about all our programs. I can tell you, there are hundreds and hundreds of programs out there, and we should know them all, but let's face it, we can't know them all.
But I think these two programs are something you should look into, and I'm sure some of our people at CIC would be more than happy to meet with your community and other communities to talk about these programs.
Á (1130)
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: I'll try to get that, now that you have translated what the abbreviations mean. The resettlement assistance program--is this for government-sponsored...?
The Chair: It's for both immigrants and, in some cases, for refugees, yes.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: But are they government-sponsored, or through groups or churches, or...?
The Chair: Well, the government will sponsor a group to do such a thing, or we'll do direct funding.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: Oh no, we didn't know about this.
The Chair: Anyway, I think you should go and find out about them. I think they'd be most useful.
Okay. Lynne.
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Thank you, Kebrom. It's very good to have you here today. Your presentation was absolutely thorough and excellent, and I'm very proud to say that you're one of my constituents. You did an excellent job. I told Joe I would have some fine witnesses for him in Saskatchewan, and we've had some very good ones.
I liked every topic you covered: discrimination—your analogy there is really very nice, and I like the point that racism is nothing but ignorance and childhood bias that can be weeded out, and I agree with you.
And education—that's really interesting. I think we have to do something about it. I mentioned it in other hearings. We have so much infrastructure in education throughout Saskatchewan, and schools that are half empty. We have teachers who are there. I think we could go into adult education during the school year. Perhaps our federal government should only be supporting it financially and we should be delivering it on the provincial level. I'm anxious to get my teeth into that, because I think it's something where we could do very well.
When we had immigrants in Kenaston, we had them attend our classroom with their children, and just because it was a small town, they were welcomed and did very well and consequently have gone on to get very good jobs.
My question is.... Because I come from rural Saskatchewan, this is what I see. I see all the things that are lacking in cities like Toronto, Vancouver, and maybe in Montreal. Maybe I can't say they're lacking, but I'm pretty sure they are, because they will talk about the poverty in these cities, and the unhappiness, and people not working in their careers.
Do you think there's a place for rural Saskatchewan to help, for example with mental health, which I thought was very interesting? I know we helped a great number of people who had come from war-torn countries and were very depressed. I know what a difference it made to them just knowing that we were an extended family.
The minister has suggested compelling people to move into the rural areas. I don't think we can go quite that far, but is there some way we could make pilot projects so that people would come into the rural areas? Do you think your people coming into this country...? As you say, there are some false hopes too: they're given some sort of picture of how beautiful it is here, or how they're going to get into their careers right away, and when they get here they find out, no, it's not about that. They find out it's cold and it's lonely, and that sort of thing.
What do you think when the minister suggests that perhaps there is a way of having immigrants go into smaller centres and smaller areas? Can you see that being a possibility and how we can sell that idea?
I think it's a very good idea. I think we need incentives. I don't know what the incentives would be, except to offer them the community you're asking us for.
I don't think it's always good to go into their own cultural community, because I find that they stay locked in their language and culture and don't integrate into communities well. However, they do need their community, I realize that.
What do you think? How do you think that would be accepted by your people?
Á (1135)
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: For the refugees, they want to exit from the traps that are out there, be it political, social, or whatever. They just want to get out of there. One of these refugees came to me and said “Do you mean to say that now nobody is going to check on me everywhere and ask me, do you have ID?” I said “No, you are free now. No one is going to ask you that.” He was so grateful about that aspect of this country.
In rural Saskatchewan I was in charge of your area, including Keneston and Hanley. All that area was my area, and I know those communities. In rural Saskatchewan it's like a family. Everybody is your best friend, everybody knows what everybody is doing, and everybody helps everybody. You are right, those places are a hospitable environment, as opposed to the cities, where you see somebody there, and it's like, okay, here you are. For a person who never swam before and just heard of swimming, you throw him in there and say sink or swim. That's what we are doing to them in the cities. That's why you hear about a lot of mental health situations and people getting frustrated. That happened even at the early stage, by the way. I was the first Eritrean person to come to Saskatchewan, and that was 30 years ago. People were killing themselves. A lot of people died.
I remember when my brother came. He had his master's degree from Russia. The States took him, and now he's a top scientist on breast cancer and what have you. When he came, I was so scared that, believe it or not, I had to buy life insurance on him. Then if he died somehow, from frustration or whatever, his mom and his brother would at least get something. Life is short in third world countries. Death is always in the picture. It was very hard, but I had to do that.
I'd also like to comment on a couple of other things if it's okay. I found Bill C-18 to be very interesting. I think the country has to be protected. I've never seen a policeman treat a refugee in the same way as he has been hurt and badly affected in the old country. When they come here, they still have that paranoia, which nobody can see. I remember a guy who went to school with me and his reaction when he saw a police car. I never think about them because they have been hospitable, friendly, and all that, which doesn't happen in other places. They treated me with dignity, and I never took them as an enemy. I took them as a friend. But this guy was jailed without doing anything, and every time he saw a police car, he was paranoid about it. But now he is okay.
A bill to protect us as citizens is important and to tell us that you have nothing to fear but fear itself.
I like the pledge of allegiance. That new modification is a reflection of a mature Canada. We are going away from being British subjects. We are Canadians now. I don't mind that. That's my personal opinion. It's not sanctioned by the organization.
On the concern that was mentioned earlier about Canada being a stepping stone to the United States, I lived in the United States. I never paid a penny to go to all the universities. The United Nations paid when I did my master's degree in the States. Here the University of Saskatchewan was paying me as a research assistant, and I was teaching third-year university students when I was doing my PhD work.
In those times, if you had to ask me the toughest place to get in, believe it or not, it was Canada. I'm telling you as a person who has tried both places. One thing I love about the States is either you are in or you are out; there's none of this stretching out. And Canada can't make a decision, for heaven's sake. I don't know what's going on there.
Á (1140)
Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's going to be quotable.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: Seriously, it was... And somebody says if I love the United States, I have not stayed there. There was war in Eritrea; there was everything going on. I could have been a refugee. But the black Americans that I knew there—it was a ghetto factor, I must tell you—were telling me how great Canada is. That is the impression I had, and that's exactly what led me to come to this country. Otherwise—I was accepted here, I was accepted in other universities as well—I could have continued in other universities.
So it is not easy. Anybody who says to come to Canada is easy, that everything is hunky-dory.... That's not the case.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I very much enjoyed your presentation. Just to let you know, 50% of the committee here—of the four members of Parliament—weren't born in Canada. Mr. Fontana came from Italy back in 1954, and I came from Hungary as a refugee in 1957. When I look at your brief it brings back many memories.
We Hungarian refugees were very fortunate because we got to Canada very quickly. We got all sorts of assistance. Probably it was Canada at its best up to that point in trying to assist refugees. There have been other cases since where the same kind of effort was made.
The time it takes.... It has to be so frustrating, and I think of it often: sitting in a refugee camp with your life on hold, with a high level of anxiety. It really feeds the psychosis of the people, because here they are: they escaped a place that is totally intolerable, and they do not know what the future holds for them. I think it's harmful to their mental health and their anxiety levels and everything else.
The other thing is, of course, it's a wasted opportunity. One thing I saw when I visited a refugee camp in Hungary—which was quite interesting—once communism fell was that in the camps they brought people destined to come to Canada to English classes; they were getting an education; they were getting acclimatized as to what was going to happen, which is really good. But the whole process of waiting is sad.
I appreciate your commentary on discrimination, because discrimination in many cases goes both ways. I know some ethnic groups don't like other ethnic groups, so it's important for the communities to work on that and work with the larger community, because there are going to be cases where we can deal with people on both sides and make our community a better place and celebrate our diversity. You put it very well that different instruments make a symphony.
The toughest place to get into is Canada. Yes, that is something we don't truly appreciate. Americans certainly don't appreciate it either, because they think we are a haven for terrorists and our borders leak like a sieve. I can tell you I'm much more terrified about whatever might come across from south of the border than I am from the other borders, with all the problems we have.
It was interesting that you mentioned the issue of community ghettos. If Joe were here I could talk about Toronto.
When the Italians came they settled in a certain area because they saw other people like them. And as the community matures and evolves then those ghettos disappear. And I don't say ghetto in the derogatory sense. There's a ghetto up in suburbia where I live because everybody has the same-priced houses and that kind of stuff.
Then the new movement comes in, the new group of people, and they stay a while. They stay together and then they move out. So it's almost like a safety thing whereby when you get someplace you want to have something close to you that's familiar and that tends to be your community. Some communities have different religious groups. But if you get a community that has the same language, same religion, it's much more likely that they're going to be much more cohesive as communities and it will take a little longer to assimilate.
One thing I know about Saskatchewan, which has to be so great in terms of marketing, is that if I were marketing Saskatchewan.... I don't know what your housing prices are, but I bet compared to Toronto they're a heck of a lot lower. So those are real advantages, where people can come and buy a house.
I remember when we went to Vancouver with my family. In 1957 we arrived. By 1959 my father was working as a draftsman, and with $300 a month was able to buy a house. But there's no way you're going to go into Vancouver nowadays, make that kind of money comparatively beefed up, and be able to buy a house. But you can do it in places like Saskatchewan. So it's easier to become established.
And in terms of getting people to their potential, it costs the government money. If somebody's on social assistance it costs us money. So it would make sense to get people off assistance as quickly as possible and get them on their feet as quickly as possible. But it's also good for their head space, because most people do not come here to go on welfare or to get assistance. They come here to be in the land of opportunity.
You heard us talk about the national identity card, and I guess we should also mention that it's a smart card, with biometrics and all sorts of goodies attached to it. This is something we're now talking about, and given your background it would be good to get your feedback on it. This would be an identity card for everybody in Canada, a national identity card, and it would be a smart card, meaning that it would contain vital information; as I've said before, it could be fingerprints or your iris.
I come from a similar background where if you saw a police officer go by you didn't feel very good about it, and then you had to show ID to everybody. Maybe we have something to teach our people born in Canada what that means, the freedom not to be under that kind of surveillance.
Á (1145)
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: I came from a different background. I lived in Ethiopia. I lived in United States. I lived in Canada. I lived in Eritrea. And I visited many countries as well. I was in Greece for months, in England, in France, and just touring or whatever in other parts.
But it could be perceived as harassment when somebody just.... I'll tell you something before I go into that. I was coming from England one time and all the passengers were white. They had British passports from what I could see, the ones around me. But the immigration officer isolated me and I had a Canadian citizenship passport. I was the only guy who was rigorously investigated.
After this, when I was coming from the United States, I also saw them do this to a white lady. They were just digging into her stuff. And this lady was upset and all that. And I asked the guy, “Do you guys do that all the time?” “Yes, to the habitual committers.” That's what he said.
He caught her cheating, because around Christmas time she was coming from the United States and had.... “Oh,” she said, “this is new. I always fold them like that. This is my perfume.” These were the words she was saying, and she put in the price tag.... You can cut it here but it leaves something in the back. He said “Did you wash it?” Yes, she said. He said “I would not wash this.” He said “No, you have to pay for this.”
So there were cases like that where I really felt bad. I really felt bad when, out of all those people, I was the only one isolated when I was coming from England and the other way around from the United States.
Anyhow, what I say is if it is meant in good faith, just to try to separate the crook from the peace-loving people, I don't mind it. I have nothing to hide personally. That's how I feel. If you have something to hide, yes, but if you have nothing to hide and it means global security for all of us.... It's like seeing the policeman in the street, if I'm with a group who have not done anything. And as long as the law of the land is not like what we hear in the media--which is right or wrong--about the United States where now some people are guilty until proven innocent, but the other way round, you are innocent until proven guilty, then it's appropriate.
But you hear through CBC cases where there are professionals who are affected by these things, like somebody was in jail for four months. Witness was showing it and things like that.
Á (1150)
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Let me just finish off, because it certainly leads well into my next topic, where you said you're innocent until you're proven guilty.
You and I are among nearly six million Canadians who are naturalized. We were not born here. I'd like to call ourselves the citizens by choice.
Under the Citizenship Act, there are sections 16, 17, and 18, and one gets more draconian than the other. But in the case that our citizenship is challenged, the government is essentially saying we have committed fraud.
Normally, if you look at the charter, if you are charged with fraud you have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The government has to prove its case to a court where you have the right to appeal, and what have you, all the way to the Supreme Court if needed. But in the case of citizenship revocation you don't have the presumption of innocence. You don't have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You can be subjected to a charge for which you don't know the source. You don't know the exact nature of evidence and the decision is made. It can be made in secret hearings that you know nothing about, and not only are you not allowed to be present but neither is your lawyer.
In regard to this issue, I believe very strongly, and so do a lot of Canadians, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should apply to all Canadians. If the government makes an accusation that you committed a crime, you committed fraud, you should have the benefit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, just like a Canadian born in Canada.
That's an issue I hope you will check out--that is, sections 16, 17, and 18.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: I'll check out 16, 17, and 18, the sections you are referring to.
If we fall into that kind of trap, it is no different from a dictatorial government out there. That's what dictatorial governments tell you. You are supposed to be loyal and all that. You are guilty until proven innocent. That's what most citizens go through in those countries, and that's why people fear the Saddam Husseins of the world and the others, because that's their rule: you have to show obedience; you have to show whatever they tell you. If not, for reasons you don't know, you'll be jailed, imprisoned, or whatever could happen to you. So we are going backwards to square one in our principles.
We can't even call this country a democratic country any more, because democracy is where the people's interest is served, not where individuals' or politicians' or somebody's interest is served. In my opinion, that presumption of innocence until proven guilty should be there for everybody.
There is no second-class citizen. When they gave me my citizenship card, they never said “Mr. Haimanot, you were born in another country, so now we are going to give you a second-class citizenship.” No, no, no. They told me you have equal rights to anybody--as much as my children who were born and raised here or anybody who was born and raised here. It will create a lot of chaos if that is the case. It will be totally wrong. It misses the whole Charter of Rights, the whole thing. People should be innocent, as the Constitution and the rest of the acts say. In fact, it may be unconstitutional to call somebody guilty until I tell you they are innocent. That is a fundamental erosion to the rights of Canadians in this country.
Á (1155)
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): David, would you...?
Mr. David Price: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry I missed the beginning of your presentation. We are still running back and forth on these little telephones. We can't seem to get away totally from them.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: It's written there anyhow.
Mr. David Price: But I was very interested in the section you were talking about--the problems of documents, skills, trades, and professionalism. When I came in, you were talking about the truck drivers. Of course, the way I see it is, if you are driving a large truck anywhere in the world today, the skill is pretty well there. You mentioned also the medical profession, doctors. We understand there are some different levels there.
You mentioned the possibility of examining before. I'm wondering how that could really be done, because I have travelled through some of the African countries, for instance, where we have people either applying for immigration to Canada or where there is even choosing, I guess you might say, of refugees, which is an unfortunate thing, but something we have to do. In all of those cases we are looking at skills that we don't have. How could they be possibly examined in place? I don't see how we could do it. Granted, it would be the ideal situation. I agree with you there. But I don't see it physically.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: In that case I was actually talking about a medical doctor. Otherwise, for a truck driver what I'm saying is English is his second language, and we have not provided him a means to upgrade himself for the six months waiting period. This Canadian is in this situation for six months plus the exam time that he has to study. For a year or two this guy.... It just kind of makes him a basket case--stuck there with no job, nothing. If you are like these individuals I see, they are used to working. They are not used to sitting at home. It is unknown in some countries. There is no welfare there. If you are out of work tomorrow, you are starving. You are out in the street. You are begging.
But here probably it could be said that me--I'm not talking about other people--probably I'm abusing it. Now, I know I'm a capable person, but I am not working, I'm on welfare or whatever, somebody could say. But over there, there's nothing, no means. If you don't have work, if you don't have the means, you are dead.
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): It's easier to get in the United States. What about for our English lists? What about something like that? What about being in the United States? Would it be easier that way? Would they have gotten their truck driver's licence right away, or...?
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: To be honest with you, I don't know how they treat these professionals. I was just mainly talking about my personal experience.
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): I don't either. That was just a comment.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: I know my brother sponsored a person with grade 12. That one is working now as a pharmacist in the United States. What they did was put him one grade behind. But there are community colleges that will look at you, upgrade you, and take you from there. And there is funding for English classes in those places too.
 (1200)
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): Thank you.
David, do you have any...?
Mr. David Price: I have just a comment. I find it strange that we get both refugees and immigrants coming to Canada who seem to have no trouble getting jobs as taxi drivers. It's funny how they get a job like that—I mean, in the large cities. Yes, they have PhDs, many of them.
That's so unfortunate. And we see the demand. I mean, a taxi driver: there's a skill to it; there's no question about that. It's not just anybody who can drive taxis. I would not want to do it myself. It is a skilled profession in its own sense.
But I feel that anybody who has the skill to drive a taxi more than likely has the skill to drive a large truck. I'm not going away from the fact, of course, that some of these taxi drivers definitely shouldn't be doing any of that; they should be out doing the job they were trained to do. But there's such a demand for drivers of large trucks right across this country. You mentioned what they're doing down the road here. Well, the same thing happens in every province. I've seen it in my own community—signs up there; they're looking for truck drivers all the time. There are skills of people out there.
Do you think maybe part of the problem is that it comes under provincial jurisdiction and we should maybe have a national norm on that type of trade in particular—truck drivers—since many of them aren't totally interprovincial; they run back and forth between...?
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: Actually, I couldn't say. The biggest problem seems to be there are three levels of government. The federal is one thing. Certainly things are left in education.... If the federal government finances to a degree, the provincial government controls it, and when you are trying to work, the professional organizations tell you yes, you can practise, or no, you can't. There are three people who really should get together and get their act straight.
Here are you guys with a good intent. You can see the big picture country-wide: we need doctors; we need truck drivers; we need this—we just said it. That's on the one hand. On the other hand, the guy in the province says yes, but you have to pass my five exams.
I am a strong believer that education is good. Everything is good; I have no problem with that. But think of it this way: I could learn how to swim in the classroom and get 100 out of 100; if you put me in that water, can I drive? Can I swim? These are people who are the swimmers with the record—Olympic swimmers—and we are saying “Oh, no, no; he didn't take that class on how to move your arm and your leg.” And the guy's a winner already! Why are we putting up all these roadblocks against our interests?
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): We are now going to take our break. This part of the session is over. We'll return here at one o'clock and meet Mr. Ron Osika, from the Saskatchewan legislature.
Yes...?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi: This whole issue of accreditation is a horrific problem. It contributes greatly to the brain waste. I know in the province of Ontario very recently a friend of mine went through and got an early childhood education degree from Wilfrid Laurier University. But if you want to actually work in the field, you need some practical experience. So she went to community college, Conestoga College. The college would not give her any credits for what she took at university, and it went vice-versa. This is a real problem, and it's something we as a country cannot afford, because it's hard on people and it wastes resources.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: There's one thing I just want to mention quickly. I'm sorry about that. The office location of CIC where you do the processing used to be easy. We used to have it in Saskatoon, and things were processed. They either could check with the people you know, or you brought them, and all that. It was not an abstract office—somewhere in Vegreville, I hear, or somewhere in Nova Scotia. You phone, and everything is just abstract. It's almost like a virtual thing to deal with, and you don't get an answer very quickly. That's becoming a problem.
When I sponsored my family about 16 or 20 years ago I didn't pay a penny. Now one of my sisters is in Hamburg. Her husband is a medical doctor there and she's a nurse. They are very productive citizens right now. One is at the university hospital, things like that. We are losing there.
On top of that, now we pay a hefty amount of money and the service has deteriorated because it's away from the people. So I would like you to know that.
 (1205)
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): Those are very good points. We see those terrible shortcomings.
Thanks, Kebrom, for coming down from Saskatoon today. It's good to have you here.
Mr. Kebrom Haimanot: Thank you very much.
The Acting Chair (Mrs. Lynne Yelich): The meeting is adjourned.