CIMM Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

¹

1540

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ))

Mr. Réjean Touchette (President, Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT))

Mr. Jim Facette (Executive Director and CEO, Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT))

¹

1545

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Hemchand Ramlall (President, International Medical Association)

¹

1550

¹

1555

º

1600

º

1605

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

º

1610

Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Facette

Hon. Hedy Fry

Mr. Jim Facette

º

1615

º

1620

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Réjean Touchette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jim Facette

º

1625

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jim Facette

Mr. Réjean Touchette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Hon. Hedy Fry

º

1630

Mr. Hemchand Ramlall

º

1635

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

Mr. Jim Facette

The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral)

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

---

NUMBER 008

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)): Welcome everyone.

[English]

    Dr. Fry and Andrew, thank you for being here.

[Translation]

    We will now hear from our witnesses. I'm delighted to see that we're only running 10 minutes' late. Our first witnesses are Mr. Touchette and Mr. Facette from the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists. Go ahead, gentlemen.

    Mr. Réjean Touchette (President, Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT)): Good afternoon. The Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists welcomes the opportunity to discuss the important issue of foreign credential recognition.

    My name is Réjean Touchette and I am the elected President. Joining me today is our Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer, Jim Facette.

    In the time available to us this afternoon, we will outline the role of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists and tell you who we represent, and address our interests in the recognition of international credentials. To maximize our opportunity for open discussion, our formal presentation will be brief.

    Through our 10 provincial members associations, the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists is a nationally incorporated not-for-profit association representing Canada's 42,000 certified technicians and technologists. Individuals who are professionally certified by one of our 10 provincial associations are done so in one or more following classifications: as a certified technician using the designation C. Tech.; as a certified engineering technologist using the designation CET; as an applied science technologist using the designation AScT; in Quebec, a technologist is certified as a technologue professionnel, using the designation TP; in Alberta, a technologist can also be certified as a registered engineering technologist using the designation RET.

    In each provincial jurisdiction, our profession has a process for certification that includes standards for educational training, experience and a practice exam before certification. We also have a code of ethics, discipline models and a national accreditation system for college level programs.

    Our certified professionals work in one or more of the following disciplines: bioscience, building, which includes architecture, chemical, civil, electrical, electronics, forestry, geomatics , industrial, information technology, mechanical, mining and petroleum. Using what is known as Canadian Technology Standards developed by our profession with the assistance of other stakeholders, our national accreditation system of college level programs is an outcome-based measurement that ensures employers have well trained people.

    Madam Chair and committee members, our profession does all this in an unregulated environment. Unlike professions that require a license to practice, such as medicine or engineering, an individual does not have to be certified to work as a technician or a technologist. Despite being unregulated, professionally certified technicians and technologists protect public safety each and every day. The men and women who have earned the right to use our designations make public safety decisions that impact the lives of Canadians.

    Madam Chair, committee members, I will now turn the remainder of our presentation over to our Executive Director, Mr. Facette, who will explain how we continue to make our vocation a profession of choice and more specifically what we do to recognize the credentials of foreign trained professionals.

[English]

    Mr. Jim Facette (Executive Director and CEO, Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists (CCTT)): Thank you, committee members, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here. I know some of your colleagues aren't, who perhaps ought to be here.

    The Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists is no stranger to the issue of foreign credential recognition. In fact, until the changes to the immigration system that took effect in June 2002 our foreign credential assessment process was an important tool to help potential new Canadians enter Canada. The Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists is a member of the Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators, an organization that earlier made a presentation to this committee. We support its mandate to encourage the understanding of self-regulation of professions and occupations.

    You have heard from the Council of Ministers of Education and the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials concerning this topic. The Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists is listed on the centre's website under unregulated professions.

    So what do we do with regard to foreign credential recognition? We have developed a database of international education agencies, complete with their respective technology programs, and rate them at the technician or technologist level. Internationally trained workers can voluntarily avail themselves of our informal assessment of their education and training. We will assess their education according to the Canadian technician or technologist training equivalency. After the individual has arrived in Canada, he or she can use this information in a formal certification process undertaken by one of our provincial member associations. In addition, two of our provincial member associations have programs in place that assist internationally trained workers to find work and language and communication training. Known as “Options” in Ontario, this program is aimed at providing new immigrants with the right tools to be certified.

    Moreover, as a profession, we are signatory to five international agreements that address the recognition of international credentials. These agreements have been negotiated between the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists and our counterparts in different parts of the world. They provide for a substantial equivalent recognition of educational systems.

    In 2002 we signed what is known as the Dublin accord. The signatories, Ireland, Canada, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, recognize the criteria, policies, and procedures in the engineering technician academic programs undertaken within the jurisdictional boundaries of the signatories. This agreement has improved the mobility of engineering technicians between the signatory countries by enabling the regulatory authorities, in our case provincial members, to easily determine that a consistent academic standard has been met.

    In 2001 we, along with Australia, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom signed the Sydney accord. This agreement recognizes the equivalency of accredited engineering technology education programs at the technologist level.

    With our largest trading partner, the United States, our council has an agreement of reciprocity for technologists with the National Institute for Certification in Engineering Technologies. This reciprocal agreement, signed in 1995, has facilitated workforce mobility between Canada and the United States by providing a means of recognizing credentials. This recognition has enabled certified technologists to assume local professional designations.

    Where do we go next? How can this government and provincial governments assist in dealing with the challenges that lie ahead? The short answer is that the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists will work with governments. We will do our part to assist immigrants and ensure a steady supply of technicians and technologists to meet future needs.

    We were very pleased that the recent federal budget allocated money to foreign credential recognition projects. In anticipation of this, together with the Canadian Technology Human Resource Board, a sector council, we have submitted a proposal for a project that would improve the way internationally trained technicians and technologists are certified and enter the profession. Our project remains with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and we hope it will proceed. In a way similar to that of the professional engineering project “From Consideration to Integration”, which you heard something about earlier this week, we believe foreign-trained technicians and technologists will help to attract, develop, and maintain a world-class labour force in Canada.

¹  (1545)  

    Similar to what was said by the Canadian Network of National Associations of Regulators and the Council of Ministers of Education, we share the view that efforts to assist immigrants must involve ensuring academic credential assessment takes place as early as possible, ensuring fairness and access to credential requirements, ensuring the strengthening of language training, and ensuring an ongoing working relationship with professional organizations such as the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists.

    Just like the Council of Ministers of Education, we believe it is important to establish codes of practice and common assessment principles within the processes for recognizing foreign credentials. Our foreign credential assessment process was built around the model and standards developed by the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials.

    Madam Chair and committee members, the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists is here to help. We agree that as a profession we can play a strong role in improving the professional recognition of internationally trained technicians and technologists in Canada.

    We thank you for your time and interest today. Mr. Touchette and I would be happy to answer any and all of your questions later.

    Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you very much, gentlemen.

    I now call upon Mr. Ramlall to make his presentation. After that, we will go to the round of questions.

[English]

    Mr. Hemchand Ramlall (President, International Medical Association): Merci, Madame Chair.

    This afternoon I am very thankful that I can present on behalf of the International Medical Association the problems faced by international medical graduates. These were formerly called foreign-trained doctors.

    I'm sorry about the exhibits, but the text was submitted for translation but the exhibits were not translated and I could not distribute them in time. Whoever needs exhibits, the copies are available after the session. I understand, as per the motion, that I cannot distribute them right now because there is no French translation. If I can follow the schematics, they outline the text.

    In the big picture in the medical field, as the honourable member, Dr. Hedy Fry, knows, we have Canadian medical graduates, CMGs. They go through medical school and then automatically get post-graduate medical training. After post-graduate medical training, they write their licensure exams and become family physicians, or they become specialists after three to five years.

    The international medical graduates, on the other hand, pass their exams, but there is a barrier. They cannot proceed automatically to post-graduate training and toward licensure, and herein lies the problem. There are some issues related to this problem and how to solve them. In the ten minutes that I'm given, I'll try to elucidate them as best I can.

    In schematic B, we have the exams issue. Canadian medical graduates pass qualifying exams 1 and 2 and then go on to the exam of the College of Family Physicians of Canada, or if they want to be specialists they take the exam of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, and they get their licensure. This is in exhibit A—which you can get afterwards.

    However, the international medical graduates first have to take the evaluating exam. Prior to 1991, international doctors were not allowed to take the QE exam; they first had to take the evaluating exam. If they passed that, then they had to go through post-graduate training, subsequent to which they were allowed into the qualifying exam.

    However, in 1991 this was changed, and international medical graduates were allowed to pass the evaluating exam, then take the QE1 and the QE2. The problem is that the EE and the QE1 are the same, except for their cost. The EE costs $1,100 and the QE costs $650. So international doctors now have to take the EE, which is the same as the QE1, and then take the QE1, which is a redundancy. That's one issue.

    Schematic C shows the money issues, which are the Achilles heel. Governments, agencies, everybody is complaining that there's no money. The Canadian medical graduates go through a matching by CaRMS and they get hospital training or jobs, and then they go for independent practice.

    The international medical graduates, however, are subjected to studies upon studies, such as the Fraser Institute study and the Canadian task force study. After these studies, they are assessed by agencies, like the Ontario international medical graduate program. This is in Ontario, but serves as an example of what happens in other provinces. In Alberta there's a similar agency assessing IMGs. In Manitoba they just started another assessment program. They had an assessment program in the 1980s, but they discontinued that. Now in the past year, they've started a new one. In Newfoundland there's an assessment agency. It costs $3,500 to sit their exams.

    All of these are for pre-screening IMGs, who then go into pre-training, which is like a pre-residency. Then after successful pre-training, they join the Canadian medical graduates in residency training, and then go into independent practice. There is a redundancy here, and I'll get to that later.

¹  (1550)  

    In schematic B, there's a flux in the standards. The colleges that regulate, the regulators, the gatekeepers, are all complaining: “We cannot accept IMGs because the standards would be lower. They do not know Canadian medicine”—even though IMGs pass the same exam as Canadian medical graduates. The only difference is IMGs studied medicine in schools outside North America.

    IMGs used to be able to pass the evaluating exam, pass the qualifying exams one and two, and then pass the licensure exams. In the past year or two, the colleges now receive money from the government, so they're bypassing all these exams. The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons now have a new assessment program and are saying, “We're going to bypass all of these exams. We're going to select IMGs on an ad hoc basis. We're going to give these IMGs licence permits, albeit on a temporary basis, and then we're going to send them out there, let them loose on an unsuspecting public. Then we'll give them three years to pass their exams.”

    I disagree with this also, because experience has shown in Saskatchewan and elsewhere that once these IMGs get their permits, they do not study to pass their exams. They just renew the permit every few years—every five years in Saskatchewan, for instance.

    We need to have a uniform system. We need to have one system that applies to everybody. Before, we were asked to pass the exams: no matter who you are, no matter what you did before, no matter where you came from, we don't care; we want you to pass the Canadian exams. Show us that you know Canadian medicine.

    Now we've passed all these exams; we're waiting for the post-graduate medical training—which never came, because of all the barriers and obstacles—and now, lo and behold, they're saying, forget about the exams. Now experience is what matters. Now if you come with experience, we'll give you a licence right away. You don't have to take the exam.

    What happens with a bunch of cohorts who studied for the exams all these years and couldn't get the opportunity for training? We're left out in the cold, because now they're turning around and saying, “Well, you've been out of practice for more than two years. You've forgotten your clinical medicine. We do not need you. We'll take in fresh graduates.” Therein lies another problem.

    On page 2 is a kind of solution to the problems in the foregoing page. I proposed in 1991 an “under-serviced” proposal, which is to take IMGs who are jobless; if they pass the exams, it means they know Canadian medicine. Then they have the rural under-serviced communities that are dying for doctors. The government should spend the money, train these IMGs—residency training or whatever, short-term or long-term assessment—and give them a licence if they want to serve the rural communities for at least five years.

    This was my proposal in a nutshell. The proposal was calling for a removal of barriers. Why put barriers on IMGs when Canada needs doctors? Quebec right now needs 1,000 doctors. Ontario needs at least 1,500.

    I have been saying these things since 1991, but nobody listened. They commissioned McKendry; they commissioned Peter George; they commissioned all these studies that cost millions of dollars and came up with the same thing that the proposal I submitted in 1991 to the NDP and subsequently to the Progressive Conservative governments stated.

    All the money these studies cost could have been invested in creating more residency positions to train IMGs—and they're still studying people as we speak. All these agencies are not needed—for example, the Ontario international medical graduate program. After the Fraser report came out in the 1990s, there was a 10% reduction in medical school enrolment because of the Fraser report, which misleadingly stated that doctors are going to face a surplus in the 1980s and 1990s. I was saying the opposite, but nobody listened to me.

    The Fraser report caused a 10% reduction in medical school enrolment. Also it caused the OIMGP to make rules to limit IMGs like myself in the program. We are only allowed to apply four times, so 500 people would try to get into the OIMGP, which takes only 24. How can 500 people squeeze into 24 slots?

¹  (1555)  

    After four tries, four strikes, you're out. Get out of here. Go to the U.S., or go back to your home country. This was the agency, and this agency was paid $2 million a year to do that. That $2 million could have financed a lot of residency positions.

    There are other barriers. When I was rejected after four tries at the OIMGP, my colleagues went to the U.S. They wrote the U.S. exam and become successful doctors. That is proof positive that if the OIMGP rejects you, it does not mean you're a bad doctor; it just means you were not lucky enough to be one of the 24. But I decided to stay in Canada. I'm patriotic, or so I thought, and I didn't want to go elsewhere. I applied through CaRMS, but they also have restrictions, if you see exhibit C. They restrict people like me from applying in Ontario. I could only apply through the OIMGP, which had already rejected me after four tries. So where could I turn? These guys wouldn't take me.

    I wrote directly to the universities. Through CaRMS, I paid $20 per program to apply to each of the universities in Ontario. Dean Herbert wrote to me--that's in exhibit B. She wrote to the president of the university, to whom I appealed to accept my application for matching, because at the time UWO had 28 positions open in family medicine. I was paying year after year to get matched by CaRMS and I couldn't get a position. So I figured they had vacancies and I didn't have a job. Why wouldn't they take me? They needed someone.

    When I applied, Dean Herbert wrote back to the president of the university saying it sounded like an IMG--I think that was a very powerful statement--so we won't bother with him. Whatever he does, that's it. Then I wrote to the director of the rural medical program in Ontario, Dr. James Rourke. He wrote back--it's in exhibit B also--“Why are you writing to me”? He was the director of the rural program. Rural communities needed doctors and I needed a job. Since 1991, I passed the qualifying exams when they were all in one exam, not qualifying one, qualifying two. It was a two- or three-day exam. So since then I've passed all these exams, and these guys are saying they can't do anything for me.

    My suggestion is all the money that's being spent in all these programs could be invested in creating residency positions. Stop the studying. Peter George and McKendry have done enough studying. The government is giving the task force $28 million. We don't need that. We already know the position. The Medical Council of Canada receives $554,000. Why? They only administer the exams. They charge $1,100 for the evaluating and $650 for the qualifying. Why is the government giving them money? What are they going to do with it? They have money. Create more residency positions.

    The federal government is also giving $3 million to expand assessment programs. It's the same with the OIMGP. Now they've closed the OIMGP and they're opening the OIMGC, which is the Ontario International Medical Graduate Clearinghouse, and similar programs throughout Canada. IMGs who were rejected by OIMGP went to the U.S. and got into residency programs successfully. If it's proven that these guys know their stuff once they pass the Medical Council of Canada exams, why subject them to assessment by all this various people?

    I also suggest that you stop or close these assessment agencies. For example, when I couldn't into OIMGP or CaRMS and I didn't want to go to the States I went to another agency, Skills for Change/Jewish Vocational Services. I said, “Look, you're helping my colleagues get jobs in research and all of that. I need a job.” I went there the first time and they turned me away. I went there a second time and they turned me away.

    The third time I went there they gave me some registration forms to fill out. In one form it asked me to sign a contract that every time I went to that agency, if I wanted to use the computer I had to pay $1 for a one-time 4- or 5-megabyte disc. If I wanted to download any information from the Internet I would have to buy 20 discs to download one picture. That would have cost me $20. I refused and they threw me out.

º  (1600)  

    All these agencies, all they do is help themselves, they don't help the people. And this also is in exhibit H, the form they gave me to fill in, the contract, etc. In the form they asked for my social insurance number, which I thought was invasive, and they asked me for all this stuff. And the agency that contracted with HRDC to provide services to the public refused service to me. All this is a waste of money.

    Then the OIMGP is being paid $2 million a year and they refused one fellow, who was Dr. Khan. Dr. Khan was refused by the OIMGP because he only passed the evaluating exam, and then he got into a residency program in 1992 at Sick Kids Hospital, with only the evaluating exam not the QE exam, and he is now a successful licensed doctor. So this is also proof positive that you don't need all these extra assessment programs in order to have IMGs do the job.

    If all this does not explain that IMGs are going through barriers, let's look at the situation in the U.S.A. We can compare this with the U.S.A., where IMGs and American graduates go through one exam, with no agencies, and then they go through one matching, with no agencies. From there they go straight to the hospital and they get licensed and we hear no complaints about that. There is no OIMGP, there is no McKendry and Peter George, no studies in the U.S.A. IMGs just like me go over there, they pass the exams, and they do well.

    So Canada also has to look at that and even the playing field. IMGs and CMGs must be treated equally once IMGs pass the same exam as CMGs. Canadian medical graduates pass qualifying exams, Canadian family service exams, specialty exams. They're allowed to go through the system. IMGs are blocked. Recall that in these exams they use simulated patients, and once you pass the exam it means that you know how to deal with the patients. Simulated patients, if they don't understand your English or your French, the official languages, they will fail you, because simulated patients, once they are examined by the doctors, they give your evaluation. So if you do not understand, or the patient doesn't understand you, in these exams you fail, you don't pass.

    My suggestion is that if IMGs pass these exams, treat them the same as CMGs who have received a licence. If the IMGs fail the exam and you still need IMGs, then we should train them.

    In conclusion, I would say that you should remove the barriers; don't allow the situation to spiral out of control; save the money; and stop giving agencies financial support to screen IMGs, because screening is not needed, the same as screening is not needed in the U.S.A. and it has worked for years. Once they pass the exams they should be treated equally. If you have a problem with that then change the exams. Go to the exam format and see what is needed to make sure that when these guys come through the exams they know Canadian medicine or else they will not pass. If they don't know Canadian medicine then they should not pass the exam, but you have to change the format of the exam to ensure that result, that outcome.

    And don't poach doctors. The medical situation as it is is not only an isolated one here in Canada, it's a global problem. Doctors are in short supply all over the world. Health care workers, nurses, they are in short supply all over the world. If a third world country spends scarce resources training doctors only to have these poached by the G-8 countries, it's not good. Canada must be held accountable and responsible. What you have to do is train your own IMGs, who are sitting here jobless and idle and you open new positions in medical schools. Reverse the Fraser report.

    Thank you very much.

º  (1605)  

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Thank you, sir, for your presentation. It wasn't easy to follow your chart, but it was helpful nonetheless.

    Go ahead, Mr. Telegdi.

[English]

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Merci, Madam la présidente.

    Mr. Facette, Mr. Touchette, I found your report very refreshing and I look forward to receiving it. I think, in many ways, you really point to the way we have to get to with other associations and other disciplines, particularly the one that was addressed by Dr. Ramlall.

    I come from the community of Waterloo. I'm sure you know about it. It's a region of 450,000 people. We're 100 kilometres west of Toronto. We're the home of two excellent universities, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University, and Conestoga College. We're a hub for high tech. You no doubt are aware of the BlackBerry and many other high-tech companies. Our unemployment rate is 2% below the national rate, at about 5.5%.

    One of the biggest barriers we have for finding employees is the fact that we are short by a minimum of 50 family physicians. It becomes difficult for companies to attract people when their personnel cannot get family physicians. I, as a member of Parliament, have had people break down and cry in my office because they could not access a physician. When a new physician comes and sets up practice, people are lining up overnight. At one point, the lineup was going around the block. It really is high time that something was done about this.

    I know that Dr. Fry is incredibly knowledgeable about this area, and I expect her to be doing most of the talking. But even when I look at the physicians we have in our community, and look at the numbers practising now who are internationally trained, it's a very sizeable chunk. Having this problem with physicians is not only a tragedy for the people who don't have physicians, but it's a tragedy for people like Dr. Ramlall.

    I expect my colleague to carry on the conversation. I think there's a real push that we want to see things resolved, given the government structure that we have at provincial-federal jurisdictions.

    I will stop there and let my colleague pick up on this.

º  (1610)  

    Hon. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Thank you very much.

    I think all of your presentations were very clear. I think by now all of us recognize the barriers.

    What I would like to hear are some really clear solutions, given some of the concerns, one of them being federal-provincial jurisdiction and one of them being, as Dr. Ramlall said, the whole concept of different bodies doing very different assessments. Especially in different provinces, there are many different assessments.

    How do you see us developing not only in medicine, but in all of the groups, including the non-regulated professions such as construction workers? We have a shortage of construction workers now, especially skilled construction workers. How do you see us developing some sort of pan-Canadian assessment? That's the first question I'd like to ask.

    The second question I'd like to ask is this. Obviously, in many instances the biggest barrier that we have is the concept of a Canadian experience. In the case of doctors, nurses, teachers, and others, where the provinces are the employers, it's easy to find employment with provinces because provinces are facing the same kinds of problems with shortages. Where the private sector is the employer, for instance, with engineers, pharmacists, and others, how do you see us finding a way to create an incentive for private employers to employ foreign graduates, international graduates, or internationally trained and skilled workers, so they could get the Canadian experience while doing an apprenticeship and at the same time get whatever language proficiency they need to upgrade?

    Obviously, as we all know, active training and having someone in an apprenticeship means that you cut back, if you're the trainer, on the amount of work that you do. Many employers say that they will suffer as a consequence. What incentives do you think we need to give them to be able to help to make that happen?

    My question has to do, one, with a pan-assessment program across Canada. How can the federal government, not having specific jurisdiction, be a facilitator to that?

    Secondly, how do we encourage private employers to give the Canadian experience that is necessary for apprenticeship or preceptorship programs?

    Mr. Jim Facette: If I may, Madam Chair, on behalf of the Canadian Council of Technicians and Technologists, I'll do my best to answer the two questions.

    I think, Dr. Fry, you've asked excellent questions, questions I've asked myself in the office and have asked my colleagues across Canada.

    On the pan-Canadian assessments, I look at what our ten provincial certifying bodies do today. The first thing is that there is a degree of responsibility on the profession. Looking strictly at CCTT, the acronym we use, we have a mobility agreement where the certification that you received as an applied science technologist in British Columbia is accepted if you move to Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta, or wherever else. That's one thing. You have to get that mobility, that acceptance of credentials across Canada. Currently, while we suffer from the same disease that the federal government does--that is, in any one given day, I have a province mad at me--because we're a federation as well, it isn't to say there aren't differences, but we do have that agreement in place.

    The next thing is the sharing of information among the profession. I think it is becoming very clear, in our community anyway, that what happens in British Columbia affects Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Alberta equally. Workers today are moving between provinces and they're talking to each other within this country, so there is some degree of responsibility in the profession. So our provincial registrars--and every profession has them, be it medical or otherwise--have to get together and say, okay, fine, the process that you do in your backyard is equivalent or just as good as what we would do here. There has to be an acceptance in the profession that what's being done in one jurisdiction is as good as another jurisdiction. We tend to be very territorial in this country, and that's no secret to anybody, but with the advent of travel today and the Internet, those barriers are gone. Business knows no boundaries. Investment doesn't know any boundaries.

    That feeds into your second question, about getting the Canadian experience. Currently, to be certified as a technologist or a technician in Canada, generally you have to have two years of Canadian experience. It has come back to me oftentimes, where someone will say, “Jim, I was a technologist involved in building a building in Dubai. If I can do a building in Dubai, I can build one in Canada.” There's probably a lot of truth to that.

    I think the professional engineers, in their project, are probably going to move, from what I understand, to a model that says if you're trained internationally, you only need one year of Canadian experience. They're moving in that direction, if I'm not mistaken. I think that's probably where the technicians and technologists will go.

    At the end of the day, there has to be a recognition of that international work, that for the technologist who worked in India, the United States, England, or wherever, that work experience must be, first of all, verifiable, like my references would be in applying for a job, or any of us here, but also we have to recognize that experience, the same way we recognize a young graduate.

    To be quite frank with you, a 26-year-old individual as a technologist, a CET who works in construction.... And by the way, Dr. Fry, it's interesting you should say that about construction, because 47% of the certified technicians and technologists in Canada work in a construction-related activity. Mechanical, electrical, civil, building...they're there. Many of our individual members are in those areas, so we know it well. There has to be a recognition that the 35- or 40-year-old person who is coming to Canada with his or her family and is practised as a technologist in somewhere like Spain, or wherever, probably has a little bit more knowledge than that 26-year-old who is fresh out of school and has very little experience. That person has to have some degree of recognition.

    So I think we're probably going to move in a direction where, if we're going to be part of the solution as a profession, we have to be seen as saying okay, fine, we're going to give that degree of experience so much recognition in Canada, be it a year, six months.... I don't know what the number is, but I know my president, Mr. Touchette, really wants to take CCTT and the profession as leaders and work with people to solve the problem.

    So I guess those would be the two quick and dirty answers to your very excellent questions.

    Hon. Hedy Fry: You didn't answer me about apprenticeships, incentives for employers.

    Mr. Jim Facette: Apprenticeships and incentives for employers...sorry.

º  (1615)  

    With the employers I've talked to, the best way to appeal to them is through their bottom line, and that is through tax incentives. In my opinion, if you can convince an employer there's a tax advantage to hiring an international person who is in the system to be certified--especially since you're non-regulated--if there's a tax incentive to it, they'll do it.

    The evidence I've read, particularly in manufacturing, is that technically speaking the people are very good; the technical skills are not lacking. It is the language training, which is why I highlighted work our member in Ontario is doing with the Ontario government, work on that language training. That's where they need the most help.

    My experience with business people is that if you appeal to their bottom line, you'll get their attention. I don't think they need direct subsidies; I don't think business is looking for that, not in my experience. It's appealing to their bottom line: if there's a tax incentive in it for them, if it can give them a competitive advantage at the end of the day through their hiring someone who's been trained and can do the job, that's all they care about.

    What employers care about the most is can this person do the job? I really don't care where he or she comes from; can they do the job? In this case, in construction, if the person is an engineering technologist or an architectural technologist like Monsieur Touchette, can he or she draw the diagrams and pass them on to the architect before the stamp goes on so you can do the takeoffs properly and all the rest of it?

    I think using the tax system is probably one of your better ways of appealing to business.

º  (1620)  

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): I'd like to ask a question, if I may.

    After listening to both of your presentations, I sense that you have managed to smooth out some problems through reciprocity agreements such as the Dublin Accord. Canada needs immigrants because of the shortage of skilled labour and the problem will only escalate in several years' time. Are you able at this time to adequately meet the needs expressed by businesses and groups that use your services?

    Mr. Réjean Touchette: According to our data, over the next two years, we would need an additional 17,000 technologists to meet the demand in Canada. Canadian colleges are not turning out enough program graduates to keep pace. Many technologists are retiring or leaving the work force and schools are not turning out enough new workers to replace those who are leaving. Immigration satisfies the demand in part, but it's not enough. The shortage of workers is critical, particularly in technology fields. In some areas, in particular building, the shortage of technologists is greater. Other fields are facing similar problems. Chemical workers are currently in short supply.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): In your opinion, how can this problem be resolved? Is your organization doing any lobbying in developed countries that might be able to supply some skilled workers?

    Mr. Jim Facette: It is difficult to do any lobbying in other countries when money is in short supply.

º  (1625)  

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): You say you need money! I don't understand that.

    Mr. Jim Facette: We're not asking you for money, we're merely saying that travel abroad is costly. Despite that fact, we do maintain contacts with other countries. As a general rule, we make presentations on the qualifications needed to work as a technician or technologist in Canada. It's not easy for parents and students in Canada, any more so than it is for foreigners. We try to give them some idea of what's required in order to become a technician or technologist. Last year, for example, we launched Technologists' Week, which runs from November 1 to November 7. This event gives our members and our association an opportunity to organize activities in primary and secondary schools and to discuss the type of work that technologists like Mr. Touchette do. If you were to ask someone to describe what a technologist, for example, a CET, does, often you'll not get an answer. People are familiar with the work of a professional engineer, a doctor or other professional, but have no idea of the work done by a C.E.T., a T.Sc.A. or a T.P. These professions are not well known because they are not regulated by governments. That's the problem we face. That's a discussion for another day, but for now, we simply want to get our message out.

    Mr. Réjean Touchette: I'm a professional technologist working in the field. At present, a technician's or technologist's job is not valued enough, so that many Canadian parents tend to undervalue the profession and counsel their children to attend university. Many students also choose to attend university.

    I'm more familiar with the situation in Quebec where many applied sciences students go on to attend the École de technologie supérieure and become university engineering students. Today's market is teeming with university graduates whereas there is a shortage of college level graduates.

    This situation impacts our global competitiveness, because we're not recruiting workers with the needed skills and we cannot pay them the wages they should be receiving. The fact that the profession of technologist is undervalued is also felt internationally. It is difficult to promote the profession of technologist in Canada and to claim that technologists have a future in this country. Technologists can earn a very good living and make a valuable contribution to Canadian society. It's not necessary to have a university degree to contribute to society. From an immigration perspective, technologists have a tougher time selling themselves than university graduates.

    I pointed out in my statement that unlike doctors or engineers who must belong to a professional association and adhere to a code of ethics in order to practise medicine or engineering, technologists voluntarily adhere to such principles. They have to believe in their profession. To lend value to their work and to show society that they do an important, useful job, they voluntarily join a professional order or association.

    To my way of thinking, a technologist can have as much impact on health and safety as a doctor or engineer. I know of someone who died last week as a result of a accident in the workplace. Various professionals, whether technicians, technologists or engineers, are called upon to make decisions that can affect people's health and safety. In my view, our system is flawed in that it fails to value the work of technicians and technologist by requiring them to adhere to a code of ethics. The public should also have the opportunity to institute proceedings against a technician or technologist who makes a mistake or to file a report with the latter's professional association, which will investigate the incident.

    To answer your question, I would have to say that I have witnessed first hand since the start of my career how the work of technologists is undervalued.

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Ms. Fry.

[English]

    Hon. Hedy Fry: I just wanted to ask a question of Dr. Ramlall.

    You were talking about one of the biggest barriers being the ability to find a residency or an internship-type program, and I think we all have to agree that it's a physical and not only a financial barrier, because you need to find the actual spaces, the actual hospitals for people to go into.

    Currently in Canada, as you well know, the reasons a lot of people stay in the cities is because all of the tertiary care units are in the cities surrounding where the universities are. For every patient you have three students, one intern, and four residents all trying to look after the one patient, trying to learn by practising on that patient. But would you see many international medical graduates willing to go for out-of-city training? That's the first question.

    Second, what do you think the cost of training physicians in those regions would be? The physicians there are practising physicians, not training physicians. They don't have the ability to evaluate and assess and to teach, so how much do you think it would cost to train them, to set up the beds, and to ensure that there would be the required quality controls in the training out there in the apprenticeship programs? What do you think the average cost per physician would be if you were to get them into apprenticeship training programs? This assumes that some may need one year, some may need two, and some may need three, obviously depending on what their assessment is, how much extra work is needed, and how long they've been away from practice.

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Hemchand Ramlall: There are programs in Ontario right now that address the issue of finding physicians for underserviced areas. The Internet is a great discovery. You do not need to have physical training facilities in rural areas. Besides the new medical schools they're opening up in northern Ontario, one at Lakehead University and one at Laurentian University, family physician offices are set up so that McMaster University, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Western Ontario can project training programs on to computer or television screens. We don't have to have facilities in the rural areas. We can just have the central facilities, which can then project programs to the rural community. The doctors who are attached to these facilities in the rural areas will gain the same knowledge as medical students located at the university campus, because the training is the same. It's just that the mode used is the Internet or a computer, while the other one is done live.

    The cost to train a resident is $40,000 a year. This would be the cost of the teaching hospitals. Once all these assessment programs have been curtailed, the money that was used toward that end can be used to open up these training positions. The teaching hospitals are there. They have the facilities. But instead of having 20 residents, you have 30 or 40 residents. You need more money for tutors and to pay more residents. So it's $40,000 per year times 10 residents for teaching facilities. You can calculate that. The 10 new residents in each facility would require maybe two more tutors, and for each tutor you pro-rate the salary according to that.

    I'm not an administrator. I'm just an unemployed IMG. So from the administrative point of view, I will not be able to give you an exact cost. All I can say is there is money. The federal government is dishing out the money to the provinces, but it's not overseeing how the money is being spent. Even though medical care is a provincial responsibility, the federal government should appoint a commissioner or overseer to ensure that the money it gives out to the provinces is used for certain purposes, such as alleviating the health care deficits.

    The federal government can also follow what Ontario did under the previous government. The Liberals brought forward Bill 189, which is an anti-discrimination bill for all foreign-trained professionals. It received second reading, but it was killed when the PCs closed the session. The federal government can bring in a similar bill to ensure that no matter where you come from, if you have the equivalent qualifications, you will be treated in the same way.

    The second part of your question has to do with the rate for each tutor and resident. Things are getting easier as far as training residents is concerned because of the Internet and satellites. In Newfoundland and Nova Scotia there are family physicians in rural areas, and they can connect to rounds held at Memorial University. Every day they give out a leaflet that says “Today rounds will be at 10 o'clock. Watch your satellite TV.” So an IMG in a remote area can see on television the same thing they're teaching the medical students at Memorial University. That's not costly. It's not like having a building and a teacher to teach live. So the cost in the future will be reduced. The exact amount needs further research.

º  (1635)  

    Thank you, Madam Chair. That's all I can think of right now.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): Are there any further questions or comments?

[English]

    Mr. Jim Facette: I would just say, Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity. We hope this issue doesn't lose any of the enthusiasm in the coming weeks and months, given what may or may not happen. We hope that the issue moves forward and we can begin to find solutions, as Dr. Fry said, rather than just identifying the problem. We're certainly on board with that.

    So thank you again. Merci.

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral): I would like to thank all three of our witnesses for taking part in this meeting. I'm disappointed by the low turnout, but the quality of the exchanges made up for that fact, so it's all right.

    The meeting is adjourned.