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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 7, 2002

0915

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.))

Mr. Howard Greenberg (Founding Member, Canadian Immigration Policy Council)

0920

0925

0930

0935

0940

0945

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

0950

Mr. Howard Greenberg

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

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

0955

Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Howard Greenberg

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

1000

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mr. Howard Greenberg

1005

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Howard Greenberg

1010

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Ms. Neville

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Ms. Anita Neville

Mr. Howard Greenberg

1015

Ms. Neville

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR)

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Howard Greenberg

Mr. Inky Mark

Mr. Howard Greenberg

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

1020

Mr. Howard Greenberg

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mr. Howard Greenberg

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Ms. Marie Lemay (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers; Coalition of Regulatory-related Agencies)

1030

1035

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi (Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators; Coalition of Regulatory-related Agencies)

1040

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Ms. Liisa Cormode (President, L. Cormode & Associates Research Services)

1045

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1050

Ms. Marie Lemay

Ms. Liisa Cormode

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard):

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

1055

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

1100

Ms. Anita Neville

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

Ms. Anita Neville

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Liisa Cormode

1105

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1110

Ms. Marie Lemay

1115

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Marie Lemay

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

1120

Ms. Liisa Cormode

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Liisa Cormode

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mrs. Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Marie Lemay

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Marie Lemay

1125

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi

Ms. Liisa Cormode

1130

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Liisa Cormode

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 046

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 7, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0915)

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I will now call the meeting to order.

We have with us this morning, to start off, Mr. Howard Greenberg, founding member of the Canadian Immigration Policy Council.

Howard, I can tell you that we've been listening very carefully to people coming forward with concerns about the regulations, and we certainly look forward to your input.

You have the floor. Please go ahead.

Mr. Howard Greenberg (Founding Member, Canadian Immigration Policy Council): Thank you. I'm sorry that Professor DeVoretz couldn't make it from Vancouver--he sends his regrets--but I think our views are incorporated in the paper that's been filed with you.

The Canadian Immigration Policy Council is made up of a group of individuals who come from different walks of life--academics, including professors DeVoretz and Reitz from the University of Toronto, who are probably the leading researchers in immigration in this country; Mr. Swinwood, president of the Software Human Resource Council, which involves IT workers coming to this country; and other lawyers, who have been past chairs, like myself, of the Canadian Bar Association, immigration section. I am also currently vice-chair of the International Bar Association's immigration section. It's the worldwide group at the higher level.

It's a very interesting discussion these regulations have encouraged. I think my objective here today is not to reiterate the views of all my colleagues over the last couple of days. I have had a chance to see the e-mails and to hear the positions of various lawyers, and I didn't come here today to do that with you. I actually came here today on another perspective. I think you will see, when I go through this, that this exercise is going to be considerably more challenging than it initially appears.

Here is the dilemma. The former Minister of Immigration tabled levels at the end of October, levels that show a reduced number over the actual number even processed in 2001. In other words, I understand that landings exceeded 255,000, yet a minister comes in at 235,000 as the level for 2002.

Why would a minister who understands that there is a backlog of half a million applicants as of December 31, 2001, who understands that this backlog is building, and who understands that they already are processing more than the immigration plan provides for 2001 then come through with a lower number in 2002? A lower number, a bigger backlog.

Let me try to say that to you in a different way. Immigrants are water flowing into a bathtub. The level is the drain at the bottom. If you have a large drain, the bathtub clears quickly of water, and it doesn't back up. If you have a narrow drain, it starts overflowing. If you see that the bathtub is filling up, why would you narrow the drain?

I guess one possible answer is that you know you are going to bail out the water from the bathtub at some point. You know that you are going to do something to remove the backlog, and you probably know it earlier rather than later. So that's an important point.

If that's the case, what is our new minister faced with? Our new minister is faced with levels of, I believe, at the upper end, 235,000, and a backlog of at least half a million. And now we're discussing selection criteria in which people are coming around the table saying, let's open up this factor of selection, let's open up that factor of selection, let's make age higher, to increase the amount of water in the bathtub. But the level is set at a low level. So how are you going to have these competing interests reconciled? How are you going to select more people while there is a cap on the number of people that should be processed?

On the threshold question, which I have not seen discussed in this committee before, I think the minister has to agree, and direct the department, to increase the levels. What's tabled before Parliament is a recommendation of sorts. There's no legal restriction on the issuance of visas beyond the level. In fact in the last two years the levels have been exceeded.

¿ (0920)

If you don't start out with the premise that you're going to increase the drain in the bathtub and issue more visas, it's a lose-lose situation. It's impossible to get out of this quandary unless you're going to fail the backlog, unless you're going to take 50% or 75% of these people and fail them.

Clearly, I don't think that's the direction we're going, so the only other way you can take the stress out of the system is to issue visas, and issue a lot of visas. I think that's where the minister has to start. If the minister was faced with an understanding that we're going to start moving towards the immigration levels that this government has been discussing over the years, he should be able to turn around and say to his department “Within the confines of our resources, why don't we start targeting up to 275,000 to 300,000, and then tell me what that does to the backlog and what's left?”

That has to be the first point of consideration of this minister. Once the minister sets a level that's higher--and it's not an official level, it's already been tabled, so it's a direction to the department that would arise by virtue of your report--then the next step is, okay, now how many on our backlog could and should be processed?

That's the point, I think, at which all your other witnesses have jumped in. They all want to tell you which factors they like the best, and which ones they don't, and what the pass mark should be. But I'm going to give you another way of looking at that.

As a first approach to this issue, it doesn't matter what the pass mark is, and I'll tell you why. If you're constructing an appropriate system for selection, you first of all determine what your factors should be and what the mix should be, what the waiting should be between each of the factors. Then you go out and sample a pool of individuals who you think should qualify against those factors, and figure out what they would score, those people you want to succeed.

Then you're starting to formulate a pass rate. It's not an arbitrary amount of 82 or 95. It's an amount that will bring in a pool of people who you want to come in.

That pass rate would then also play another very important role. I am at a loss, in seeing the discussion before this committee, to understand why there's no discussion about who we don't want. Everybody who comes before you tells you who we do want. If you gave everybody their wish, you would be considerably oversubscribed.

Could you imagine a system that, for example, brought the level of qualification down, generally speaking, to a carpenter? Could you imagine what would happen worldwide if two years of high school and some ability in English was a threshold? If you dilute all the factors, do you understand the implications, how many applications would be filed worldwide, with resources that could not possibly process them? How would you develop with integrity an immigration system with a backlog of 800,000 people who wouldn't come for four or five or six years?

Hard decisions have to be made about who comes and who doesn't, and I think it's as important to decide this issue, to fix the pool of people who should come in and determine the backlog, as it is to determine who shouldn't come in. The time has come to turn our minds to who shouldn't be coming in the first wave. That discussion I haven't seen developed anywhere, but it's an appropriate discussion. In a selection system, some people win, and, by definition, some people lose. It's important to understand why it is people win, and that's what we've been doing here. It's also important to understand why people lose.

¿ (0925)

I'd like to make a comment about the factors. I know the issue of consultation has come up over the last couple of days in terms of the department and how much they've actually been accessing outside sources. I can tell you that I have been involved in discussions with the department on selection criteria for at least two years. This department has consulted extensively and widely, and I don't think that consultation process was a gesture towards stakeholders to make them feel involved. I actually was at the table in many of those sessions, and I think the department was struggling to figure out which factors were the important ones and which ones weren't.

The task is an impossible one in some respects. For example, quite apart from the data...which I personally have no confidence in whatsoever. The data was not collected for this purpose, and therefore, as much as you think it says one thing, it also says another thing. So imagine the merits of a discussion as to whether not age 44 or 45 should be the cut-off, or 48 or 49. We could debate those types of things for a whole day and I would be neither right nor wrong. These are policy decisions that are made by a government.

The degree of language? Well, I could argue that two generations ago people came with no language and did quite well, and I could also argue that you couldn't step into a place of employment in this day and age without being able to communicate. We could argue both of those positions day and night.

I guess a government is entrusted to make some hard decisions that are not good decisions for everybody. Nevertheless, decisions have to be made. Therefore, I'm not sure how effective this committee can be in helping the government micromanage in terms of which factor they should change and which one they shouldn't. I'm not quite sure whether this committee can, within the scope of its mandate here, effectively guide the department at that level. But I do think the committee can play an important role at another level. I think its report at the end could, for example, indicate some guiding principles that should govern the department and how they finally formulate the selection criteria.

For example, in the realm of education, I don't think higher education is better than lower education. Let's take the example of an apprentice who graduates from a German school with the equivalent of high school, plus three years, as compared with someone who has a PhD in history. If I brought both of those people to the labour market, turned them loose, and started a stopwatch, I have a feeling that the tool and dye maker would get a job faster than the person with the PhD in history. But if you stand back and look at their educational qualifications, one of them looks enormously qualified and gifted and the other one looks more like a blue-collar worker.

So I think the illusion is rewarding the points purely on the basis of academic achievement, and it's fundamentally wrong. I think what happens in these cases is that you have to look at the factors in relation to one another.

For example, we have made a suggestion here, for the purposes of encouraging your discussion, of having education and work experience work somewhat hand in hand. If I got off the plane with education in a certain field, and with work experience in that same field, and I was sitting in the lobby of an employer for a job interview, and the person sitting beside me had good education but unrelated to the job, I would think that I would have a better chance than the person beside me. Why? Because an employer would recognize that the education and the work experience, if they work hand in hand, means he's probably getting a better-quality employee.

If that's right, then there might be an additional bonus or increase in points for a person who can demonstrate that the qualities they have together make them more marketable.

¿ (0930)

Let's not forget that the act and regulations develop selection criteria that measure a person's ability to “economically establish”. That's what this whole thing is all about. When you step back from the criteria, you should appreciate that, at the end of the day, these are people who are supposed to be able to get jobs and feed their families and contribute to the economy. By paying too much attention to particular factors and trying to weight them unreasonably--for example, education--I think you do a disservice to a selection system. I think guiding principles in this regard should probably be something along the lines of, for instance, these selection factors shouldn't compete with one another but work together, hand in hand, to select a well-rounded individual who can economically establish.

Another guiding principle should be that the criteria should not inherently discriminate against certain regions of the world. For example, if you create a cap on the number of years of education someone should have--that is, they should have a certain number of years of education in total in order to achieve a certain number of points--you have to presume that in some region of the world they don't have that number of years of education because they don't do it our way. And what you'll find five years down the line is that your flow has stopped from that area; they couldn't achieve the points under a valuable factor, education, to achieve success.

Now, because you were so caught up in selecting the best and the brightest, you didn't see it on day one. You didn't understand that your selection criteria could inherently discriminate against certain groups that come from around the world, and you lose the population from those regions.

So a guiding principle should be that when you finish with selection criteria, and you're trying to evaluate whether or not it works, whether or not it gets in the group you want, and it excludes the group you don't want, look at whether it has any inherent discriminatory aspects to it that you didn't intend at the outset. I think the committee has to consider that as well.

Our paper goes on to try to put this into a larger context: How do you deal with these issues? We're proposing that we go back to a five-year immigration plan. We think that's an appropriate recommendation to this minister.

We can't reconcile the plan that was filed or put before Parliament by the minister in October. On the one hand, it seems to suggest that there's a multiple or two-year plan. On the other hand, the planning levels are for a one-year period only. I don't know how you can properly plan for resourcing, how you can manage a backlog and then develop a future pool of applicants, if you're not looking forward a number of years. I don't know how you can do this on a year-by-year basis. All you end up doing is reacting to a huge influx of people who all of a sudden appear at your door, and who you didn't expect. Then you have to use drastic measures, like retroactivity, to see if you can get rid of them, because the system can't sustain those numbers. The system can't sustain those numbers because you didn't plan for them, or you didn't plan for them in a meaningful way.

I think this minister, as a first step when looking at what to do about levels for 2002 and what kind of informal direction to give his department, must start looking beyond 2002. They have to do it now to make some sense.

Another concern we raise in our paper, and which we would like to bring to your attention today, is the preoccupation that witnesses and the committee may have had with this retroactivity and selection issue. By no means am I suggesting that it's not an important issue; I think it's a fundamental issue. It's a drastic step in a direction that needs careful consideration. But these regulations are fairly lengthy, and a lot of other information in these regulations is worthy of this committee's examination.

¿ (0935)

We point out just a few in the appendix to the paper. First, central to the selection of skilled workers is something called a “validated” job offer of employment. I don't know to what extent that's been discussed with you, or explained, but that's a role involving Human Resources and Development Canada to make some sort of determination.

That's a very important determination, because it has two implications in this process. One, it gives potentially ten units of assessment in the selection system, the immigration system. And given how you need every point to pass, from what we've already seen, ten units of assessment are a lot. Two, it supports in some cases the granting of a work permit to individuals who otherwise don't meet certain exemptions or treaty provisions, such as NAFTA. So a test is articulated in the regulations, in section 194, which is used for both purposes.

The test makes no sense at all. The test indicates that the validation shall be given by an HRDC officer if he or she determines that the foreign national is likely to result in a neutral or positive economic benefit or effect in Canada, or the employment is. What they're saying is that if this foreign worker or immigrant will make a positive economic contribution, or a neutral contribution.... And by “neutral” contribution, I guess it means they don't take someone's job away. We award points to somebody who doesn't create jobs, we give him points if he doesn't take someone's job away, and we say there's somehow an economic benefit tied to that.

If you look over the fence on the HRDC side, they have a new policy in place called the “net benefit” test. What they say is, you weigh up all the factors in terms of what this individual has to offer--it could be technology transfer, training inside a company, skills training, or allowing the company to access foreign markets and increase their sales--and then you look on the other side, the negative. For instance, maybe there's a Canadian who might be losing a job and who could be trained in six months to do that job.

You weigh them, and if this one weighs a little bit better than this one, if the net benefit's in favour of the person's employment, you give them the validation even though it could have a labour market impact.

That's how HRDC does it now, and that's what their new policy is. But that policy is inconsistent with these regulations. Therefore, either the regulations have to be rewritten or HRDC has to change their policy. They just can't both sit together the day these regulations come into effect.

There are other little quirks in the system. At the time the act was developed, reintroduced, and promoted, I imagine there was a very strong control mentality being espoused by the department. The department wanted to control the front door and also control the back door. I mean, we've heard all the clichés. That control mentality seeps into the regulations in a very unseeming way. You have to pay attention to it.

Section 202 of the regulations prohibits the issuance of a work permit to a foreign national who is engaged in unauthorized study or employment, unless one year has elapsed from the date of the contravention. Imagine the vice-president of a multinational corporation who, through some error, failed to renew his or her work permit, and realized it two days late. Could this department really have intended that he or she leave for a year? As it now reads, the provision is mandatory. There's no discretion by an officer. Officers wouldn't want to exercise negative discretion in appropriate cases. They would want to assist an individual who legitimately erred and didn't try to abuse the system. This provision doesn't permit them to do so.

¿ (0940)

You probably have already heard about the reinstatement rule, that you have 30 days in which to acquire your status back if you go out of status in Canada. Well, I guess to the casual reader it sounds reasonable; you have 30 days to rectify your situation. On the other hand, if, for whatever reason, you are outside of the 30 days--let's say you're at 32 days--and you can't rectify your status or come back in the status inside Canada, normally you'd go out to a Canadian visa office in the United States, unless the department defines your place of making application as where you're habitually resident. Do you remember that other section, where you make an application, that no one has talked about, the brand new section that says you'll make your application where you're habitually resident, to be determined by the department? You might have to go back to India to get your work permit to come back to your job, because you're outside the 30 days.

I'd like to think that wasn't intended. I think the committee has to put some time aside to start looking at this legislation other than the retroactivity and the selection.

I should tell you that the exact same provision now exists for student authorizations, student permits, in that if there was a mistake in judgment about how you acquired your last permit, or whether you needed it or not, that's going to affect your ability to get your next one and, in turn, extend it.

Forcing students to go back to Hong Kong? I can't see the policy objectives in that. Even the Americans allow many situations where status could be adjusted in the United States. One would think that they epitomize the most control-oriented immigration system in the world, and still they have processes that address difficult issues.

There's not enough discretion in these regulations. Words that read “shall” should read “may”. The department should, in its guidelines, indicate the appropriate circumstances when an officer should feel comfortable in permitting someone to rectify slippage or a mistake. In circumstances where there's clear abuse, I think we're all together in believing a person should exit the country immediately.

The committee is well into these discussions and hasn't really had that kind of level of analysis. I don't know how that should be addressed at this time, but I think it's worthy of some discussion as to whether a day or two should be set aside to discuss, in a clause-by-clause fashion.... I'm not sure what format this report takes, since it's rather unique. I can't recall a committee ever being asked to report on regulations before in a formal process, but it's worthy of this committee's discussion.

If you really want to understand how regulations will be used and whether or not they're properly crafted, wouldn't you want to see the draft policy manual the department has prepared on how to implement these regulations? I know I haven't seen it. I know it exists. If you want to find out whether or not some of these sections could have a very harsh reality or unintended result, wouldn't you be interested in seeing what the department has told its officials in the field to do in certain circumstances in applying these regulations?

I would think there's probably good reason to have that manual circulated now, if for no other reason than to help the department in unintended results, to assist them in understanding that the directions they give out to an officer in New Delhi could be interpreted inappropriately. I think this committee should probably have an opportunity to flip through the manual and then think about the regulations once they see what the department is going to do.

¿ (0945)

While we're free-thinking for a moment.... The legislation is rather unique. We know, because of a series of cases, that you can't fetter the decision-making authority of a visa officer. This simply means that if this person has been entrusted to make a decision, a program manager in a visa office or the minister can't call up that officer and say, “This is how we want you to make that decision”. The law has entrusted the officer to use judgment.

We also know, in the act that's already been passed, the minister can provide written instructions to an officer as to how they should make their decisions. There's a power that's now been built into the act to direct down to that officer, “This is how you'll make your decision”. I think it's probably a valuable exercise as well to see some indication from the department as to how that power is going to be used and to what extent that power could be shaped by regulation. Is the power in the minister too strong? Is the direction that could be given to visa officers too strong? These are issues as well.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. I think we are breaking new ground here, and I certainly appreciate your view of where we're going, helping to direct the committee into areas we possibly haven't delved into.

You're right; this is the first committee to have access to the regulations and deal in this. We saw that the framework of the legislation was not answering the questions that needed to be answered. That's why the committee is dealing with regulations. Certainly there have been at least references to policy and how the policy would affect the regulations as well. I think we did get into that in the last couple of days, on various issues.

I would now go to my colleagues. I think you've raised a lot of points, ones we need to consider carefully, and I do appreciate that, but I think I'm going to ask my colleagues to try to keep the questions direct. We'll try to get in as many as we can.

If I might, I'll start with Lynne and we'll go through the colleagues.

Lynne, if you have a couple of questions, perhaps you can put them on the table for Mr. Greenberg to respond to. That would probably give us an opportunity to go to everyone once or twice, or three times if required.

Ms. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Greenberg. You've touched on something that really interests me--that is, numbers, and what our mission statement should be for immigration.

So I'm going to ask you, who do we want to come into Canada, and how can you have a nice balance between the economic and skilled workers we're trying to get--the highly educated, the brightest and the best, as you said--and still keep up with our humanitarian obligations? I'd like you to tell me, who do we want to come in?

I just need a short answer here. If you could see a chart on immigration in front of you, just how would that chart look? What kind of percentage would it be? You said 500,000. I thought it was kind of interesting that you wanted to make it over a five-year period. I thought that was a very good point, because within one year.... The year goes by quickly, and to think that we have a backlog of 500,000.... How would you fix this backlog?

Those are my questions.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Howard Greenberg: You've touched on a number of points. The first point that must be addressed is the level itself. You can't deal with the composition of the flow to Canada, and you can't know to what extent you have flexibility for humanitarian purposes, how many slots you have for humanitarian as opposed to economic as opposed to family reunification. Until you know how many people can flow through the system, the first thing I would probably do is recognize that this department has had a strong immigration-slant policy perspective. I would embrace that at the outset and indicate that the levels were too low.

In year one, I think it would not be unreasonable to be at a level of 300,000, and then decide within that 300,000 how you want to pick and choose in the backlog to see who comes first.

I'll be brief with this, but there's a really interesting question that's never talked about--namely, what's the priority system in our system? For example, should that humanitarian applicant come first, before the economic applicant, or does the economic applicant make a contribution to the economy that's so sudden and drastic and pervasive that you really want to deliver them quickly to create jobs?

Once you know you have a 300,000 limit, then you embark on a different exercise of prioritizing people in the lineup. That's not the same as failing them. It's not retroactivity in the traditional sense. What it simply says is “Some people who have been in the lineup, you might be in the lineup a little longer”.

The answer to your question is, the days of “first come, first served” might be over. We're going to target certain groups in the pool and bring them forward. Other groups in the pool are going to be in the second wave. But why is that any different from selecting people to go to law school, or medical school, where a core group gets in at first admission? The second group sits on a waiting list, and a third group fails because they don't meet the mark. That's the way business operates, the way society operates. Why wouldn't immigration operate that way?

So once you know how many students you're taking in your first-year class, then you can determine what you can do with the backlog of people who have made application to your school. I think that's the answer.

Then again, I wouldn't want to presume to step in the shoes of the department in terms of telling them how they should do that. The only thing I'd like to see is a rationale as to why they do what they do.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

¿ (0955)

Thank you for your extremely lucid presentation. I would, however, like to focus on several areas, for example, the issue of whom we would like to welcome as new Canadian citizens. This is a direct reflection of our values, the same values that set Canada apart from the United States.We talk a great deal about our values, but the fact is, very little mention is made of values in the regulations.

I was also surprised to hear you talk about a selection or classification grid and to say that in the final analysis, the number of points received is not important. I taught school for many years and let me tell you that a student who receives a failing grade of 59 per cent may be considerably more intelligent that the student with a passing grade of 61 per cent. However, our system attaches considerable importance to a passing grade. If it's not important, what alternative would you suggest? Again, it comes down to values. I'd very much like to hear your views on the subject. Basically, our perception of a document like these regulations is influenced by our fundamental beliefs.

[English]

Mr. Howard Greenberg: You raised two points. The first point, on the value system, I can simply address by going back to my previous comments.

Your value system is articulated in your regulation policy by determining who comes first. If you determine that in a movement of 300,000 people the first 50,000 people would be refugees, that is a reflection of your value system. If you determine, for example, that family-class reunification, parents, were the last 50,000, this government would also have made a determination at that point, and expressed by way of a priority system.

So I would suggest to you that you do really see a value system in terms of, first of all, how many people you let into the country--the more you let in, the more you're going to have of each group of refugees--and second, if you prioritize the groups, one against another, that's how you articulate a value system. And I think it's incumbent on this department to at some point in time aggressively adopt a value system.

On your second point, the concept I threw out is kind of a difficult one to address. The point system is important, obviously, because it determines who's in and who's not. But starting off with what the pass rate is depends on who would pass at that rate. That was the point I was trying to make.

A pass rate of 70 or 71 points in this new system may be appropriate. If you look at the composition, the characteristics, under the selection criteria, and you say “I like a person who has a Bachelor's degree with four years of work experience and who speaks English competently”, and those factors add up to 71, and you think that profile is an appropriate one to come to Canada and become economically established, then you've figured out your pass rate. It's not going to be more than 71; that's my point. If you decide that somebody with a profile of 74 would be good, you don't set the pass rate at 76.

So as you can see, I think the setting of the pass rate follows the consideration of the pool of potential applicants you want. Then you set a pass rate to pass that pool that you want. It thus doesn't matter to me if it's 80, or 85, or 90.

I would make one final comment concerning that. An interesting discussion occurs amongst lawyers and others as to what they should do in individual factors--you know, give five more points for this, or give ten more points for that. Everyone has a constituency that they want to add more points to. But when you start adding points in a system that's going to have constraints to it, all you do is move the pass mark up.

So go ahead and give another ten points for language and another fifteen points for experience, because your pass mark's going to be a hundred now. If you increase the points dramatically in each factor without adjusting the pass mark, the pool of people who qualify grows exponentially, and the system is either incapable of delivering them or it's going to be far beyond the levels announced by the government. So there has to be some rationale to what you do in selection criteria.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Merci.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much for your answer.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, this witness has clearly given us a great deal to think about, namely the various aspects of this issue. At the outset, he described very well the impasse toward which the previous minister was leading us by proposing to limit target levels for immigrants at a time when a great many people are waiting to immigrate and no solutions are in the offing. However, it's clear from these regulations that a number of measures are being proposed to reduce the backlog. With retroactivity and very rigid, stringent criteria, a temporary solution has been found, albeit not necessarily the best one for the country.

The witness wants the Committee to recommend to the minister that a five-year plan be developed and that an annual target level of 300,000 immigrants be set. I think committee members will need time to assess this proposal as a group.

At the same time, the witness also wants us to ask the minister to assign a certain number of priorities. Of the 1.5 million immigrants he would like Canada to take in over the next five years, he wants to know what our priorities are for certain major categories. We're getting some very important messages. The witness told us that his organization has enjoyed a rather unique dialogue with Citizenship and Immigration and that the department had conducted extensive consultations. He also stated that Citizenship and Immigration did not retain many of his organization's suggestions respecting immigration levels and special measures. He cited sections 194, 176 and 202 as examples of areas in which their message had not gotten through.

Can you tell us why you have such high regard for the consultation process initiated by Immigration Canada, given that you and the department are so far apart on certain issues?

À (1000)

[English]

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Well, number one, I wasn't elected to Parliament, and I'm not the minister of the day, unfortunately; otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Two, the department, I guess, is in charge of formulating policy. In some respects they have regard to information that is provided; in other respects, they don't see it the same way.

I don't want this to turn into a political science class, but they are also subject to the minister of the day, and the ministerial agenda. So the best I can hope for is that someone's listening. The fact that no one will adopt my ideas doesn't discourage me. It just means that we have to keep at this process to the very end, and then be prepared to say “I told you so”.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Therefore, let's keep the faith and keep pushing the message if we think it's good.

Continuing on, departmental officials have often been heard to say that according to Human Resources Development statistics, over the next few years, 70 per cent of the new jobs created will require advanced technological training.This implies that 30 per cent of all new jobs created will require other kinds of skilled labour. Are you familiar with these statistics? In your opinion, are they accurate?

In any case, what's this means is that 30 per cent of jobs require fewer education credentials, but nonetheless do require skills that are still extremely useful. It's important to a society to have skilled plumbers, carpenters and tradespeople. Under the proposed new selection model - and you were quite right to draw our attention to this matter - I think it will be hard to find people to fill jobs in certain fields over the next few years if the criteria are too stringent.

[English]

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Mr. Greenberg.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with that statistic. I can only respond to you in a general way.

I know, for example, that there are groups meeting out west, presidents of companies, trying to tap human resource pools of people to meet their needs in the future. I think it's probably accepted that we're going to have labour market shortages in many different occupations. The department should be congratulated in the sense that they've removed the occupational barrier to making an application. You're not making an application based on a specific occupation any more, based on specific work experience in that occupation. What they've said is they've opened it up to a whole pool of people to come and bring their talents to Canada.

Actually, at the end of the day I really think the key to this whole exercise lies in increasing the levels.

I don't think we're really concerned about whether or not we're going to get 200 engineers. There are provincial nominee programs and other mechanisms that may target particular groups. At a national level, if you open up the level and you make sure that the people who come in can feed themselves and their families and make a longer-term contribution, I think you've achieved success. If you look at any more than that, I don't think you'll be satisfied with your answer.

À (1005)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): You've commented that the shift in the point system, with the elimination on the focus on occupation, to a broader set of traits is a positive thing. I'm really questioning that. Are we any further ahead? Aren't we in the same dilemma, which you hinted at, in terms of the whole issue of a longer-term plan and looking at the issues of settlement and integration? What's the difference, if we have a doctor coming from a third world country or a person with a PhD in medicine, if that person can't practice their profession and follow their dreams in this country?

So I'd really like to pursue this whole point system issue and question how we can actually revamp it so that we open the door to the broadest range of folks and not just look at strict academics, at strict achievements, which I think is what the government is doing. There is a plan here. It's to get the best and the brightest from around the world, to be able to be competitive for highly skilled, high-tech scientific jobs. And we're closing the door to everyone else who may be able to make a contribution but who won't get a chance.

So it's a wide open question on the whole point system and how we shift it and deal with it.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: We could debate this day and night. It's impossible for me to respond to you in a meaningful way, other than to tell you this. What we've learned over the last 15 to 20 years is that using any particular factors to micro-manage a flow of people when you're talking about volumes in the hundreds of thousands is a futile exercise. It's has unintended consequences; it's particularly harsh to some people as opposed to others.

It's been known on the street for at least five to ten years that this concept in the current law of matching people to their intended occupation has been an inadequate tool. How can you say, look, you're coming as an engineer on the occupation list? He or she might be coming three years from now. Everyone recognizes that it was really being used as an instrument to control flows.

So all I'm suggesting is criteria developed by the department should not be used simply to control flows but to identify economic contribution. You control flows by the immigration plan, by opening the door for application processing and by closing the door for application processing. That's how you control flows. But you don't do it in the guise of selection criteria. You don't do it by suggesting that you're really getting a better applicant that way and you're eliminating a whole bunch of others, unless you actually believe there is an economic rationale to that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Would you agree then that the proposed point system and the shift in the criteria still constitute an instrument to control flows?

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Yes, yes, yes. Among other things...but yes. Inherently, by saying who comes, you say who doesn't. It's a selection policy; it's not an admissions policy. The family class movement is an admissions policy. Are you his or her mother? Are you healthy? Here's you visa. That is an admissions policy. A selection policy says you have to meet a certain grid. And you're selected in.

That's the best I can do.

À (1010)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I think you addressed some of my comments or concerns in your response to Judy, but I'm having a really hard time following you.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: You're not the first.

Ms. Anita Neville: What I heard from you just now is open the doors, let everybody in, have no criteria. If they have a mother or a father, if they can work, whatever, they should be allowed in. I don't disagree with you on the matter of increasing the numbers, but the system has to have the capabilities to support them, and that would be my concern.

I heard you in your earlier comments talk about values, and I don't disagree with you. Then I heard you say measuring refugees as opposed to economic class, as opposed to family class...and that determines your values, whether you prioritize one or the other. I have some concerns with that.

Then you talk about identifying who you don't want rather than who you do want, and I have some problems with that. I see a lot of pitting groups against one another in a different manner than by having selection criteria. Whether you agree with them or don't, at least there's some objectivity to them.

So I really have had a very difficult time following and understanding your presentation today, because you said the department has had broad consultation, but basically, they've done it incorrectly because they didn't do it your way--and perhaps this is the issue.

So help me out a little, because what you're proposing seems to me more negative than positive.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Okay. I think you've articulated four points for me to address.

Number one, I have not suggested that we open the doors and let everybody in. I've suggested that if we have a backlog of people who are capable of being passed under the selection criteria, which is now in place, but they're not going to be passed because the minister has set a level that's too low--and you can't bring them in under these current levels--then you either fail them or you increase the immigration levels to accommodate them. So my comment was that we propose that the immigration levels be increased to accommodate qualified applicants.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay, under the criteria as they currently exist...?

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Right.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay. I didn't hear that from you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: They have some proposed.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Look, there are a couple of decisions that have to be made by this department. Number one, do you decide that you're going to forget about retroactivity and let these people who made application under our system continue through it to conclusion? Number two, do you subject them to a modified selection system of 75 points and then slice off the bottom 30% of it? These are decisions that have to be made by the department.

Ms. Anita Neville: What I'm hearing you say is that if we open it up and let everybody who meets the criteria under the economic class, as they currently exist, whether it is 250,000 or 300,000, or 350,000...swish them all in in one year and then....

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Not just one year. You might spread them over.... If you say to somebody, “Would you wait another year and a half for your visa, or you fail?”, they'll say, “I'll wait a year and a half”.

And if the government is satisfied that this pool of people are not people who are going to achieve economically, that this criteria is so flawed that we don't want the people in the pool--not just to get rid of them, but we really don't want them--then they can modify the current selection criteria without going to the new ones very easily.

Ms. Anita Neville: But you'll be back here in two weeks to tell us that they're not modified appropriately.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: Actually I won't. There are certain policy decisions that the government makes that you could agree or disagree with, but they're empowered to make that decision. We're here to talk about mechanisms and how you do something fairly, how you do it uniformly, and how you do it transparently. A government's going to make a decision about who comes and who doesn't. At the end of the day it's their decision.

And that actually goes to your third and fourth points. This hasn't been a negative presentation by me--I hope it hasn't. I'm pointing out a reality to you that not everybody can come.

Ms. Anita Neville: I know that.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: And if not everybody can come, I think it's incumbent on us, intellectually, if not in what we're doing in our job, to decide who shouldn't come, and then make sure that those people are the people who are not coming, as much as wanting to make sure that the people who should come do come.

À (1015)

Ms. Anita Neville: How do we do that?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Anita.

I do think the department is moving to a trend of increasing numbers as well--50,000 I think was the goal this year, with the ultimate goal of 300,000-plus at 1% of the population. So some of it is very similar, but maybe not as quickly as you're suggesting, though.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin--Swan River, PC/DR): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's an interesting question you raise, as well as your statement that perhaps we need to define who we don't want. Unfortunately, the government wouldn't accept the bill even on the definition of who a terrorist is, so that would be a difficult thing to do in terms of changes.

Because the regulations, in many respects, don't reflect what the bill is about, I would certainly support the clause-by-clause approach. It probably would be a good exercise. At least then we'd know whether the bill really does reflect the regulations.

On the issue of the grid, you indicated we've made a big change to take a look at the broad definition of who we should get, but maybe it's too broad, because it appears that if we're looking for the brightest and the best...then on the other hand, we want the money, because under the business class, 35 is the pass mark. Maybe that's all we want--their money or their brains, and nothing in between. How do you bridge that gap?

Do we need to go back to more specifics--academic, blue collar trades, and so forth?

Mr. Howard Greenberg: I'm repeating myself at this point, because I would simply say, stepping back from the specific qualifications and whether they're an entrepreneur or a skilled worker, you make a decision as to what someone's profile should be, who's going to make an economic contribution, and then you devise criteria around that profile to deliver them.

Mr. Inky Mark: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Howard Greenberg: That's not what you're hearing now. You should have heard from other witnesses that if you ran certain people through that profile, certain tool and die makers.... I can tell you that a person in Canada, educated in Canada, working for a Canadian company for two years of experience, and with a bachelor's degree fails.

So I would say, did you intend for that person to fail? If you didn't, then either the criteria need to be changed in terms of their weighting or you're going to have to adjust the levels, because you've set them too high and he can't meet them. That's the exercise I'm suggesting.

Mr. Inky Mark: The problem is, if you just leave it open to adjustment, you're going to have claims that the system is not fair, it's too subjective.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: If you're micro-selecting 100,000 or 150,000 people out of the immigration levels, it's not going to be fair, by definition. You want to be like Australia. You want to select 62,000--or I think they're up to 72,000. You want to call everyone in for a micro-interview and look them over really carefully. Then you might be able to select at a more sophisticated level. But with the volume of people you have coming through the system, and with the resources capable of processing them, it's going to be a difficult exercise to do any more than what they're doing now.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Could I just query you on one point in the selection process that's very interesting?

Are you suggesting that for these pools of groups you have talked of we have a mechanism by which someone determines from time to time...it could be over a long-term, five-year plan, and within that five-year plan every few months there would be adjustments to who comes?

So you'd have a pool of tool and die people, general workforce, who may be required at that specific time. Another time it may be medical professionals, lawyers, whatever. Another time it could be construction workers. But there would be a continuum of decision-making to set the pool groups' acceptability. They would have the higher priority in the entire waiting list.

Now beyond that, to make up the final numbers--the 300,000 or whatever--you would go to a standard form, and others would follow, but you'd be doing a lot of targeting as you move.

À (1020)

Mr. Howard Greenberg: I agree you could do it that way, or you could decide you want to determine priorities between various classes--for example, entrepreneurs as opposed to these skilled workers. How would that be done? The more resources you put toward interviewing entrepreneurs, the more entrepreneurs are processed and given visas. It's simply an issue of how you allocate your resources. If you only have one officer interviewing a backlog of 1,000 entrepreneurs, how many entrepreneur visas do you think will be issued?

However the government decides they want to create this priority system, I'm just suggesting they allocate resources, create a transparent system, and indicate that it's not going to be first come, first served.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Lynn, you're okay.

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: No.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I have to say, Mr. Greenberg, you have given us a lot to think about. We very much appreciate your candidness. I think we all have possibly different things to look at. You've raised the committee's interest in some of your suggested direction. That's going to be very helpful for us in making a final analysis.

So I want to say thank you very much for coming, and we appreciate your candidness.

Mr. Howard Greenberg: If I can just have a parting comment, June 28 is not a reasonable date to aim for in getting this legislation enacted. This needs a much more thoughtful exercise. The minister should be encouraged, at the earliest possible time, to slow down this process and possibly even extend the mandate of this committee to look more carefully...so he gets a full report that reflects all the concerns about this legislation.

Many of us who have been talking about it believe there's no useful purpose in rushing at this point. This legislation has been 20-odd years in coming; it certainly can take another four or five more months to get it right.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): In response to that, I believe when the minister was here he suggested that everything was not carved in stone. So without a commitment on what is happening, he's asked for input from this committee to examine that, as well as all other questions. I believe the minister will be listening, looking, and trying to make the most appropriate decision, with regard to that date.

Thank you.

À (1024)

À (1028)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ladies and gentlemen, we have the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers here, represented by Susan Glover Takahashi and Marie Lemay. I'm not sure who will be leading off, but I will leave it to you. Try to get the sense of the important points.

Ms. Marie Lemay (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Council of Professional Engineers; Coalition of Regulatory-related Agencies): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Before we start, I'd just like to say we represent the Coalition of Regulatory-related Agencies, so we are representing a number of professions, not only the engineers.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Ms. Marie Lemay: Thank you very much for inviting us back to speak with the committee. My name is Marie Lemay and I am the chief executive officer of the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers. I have with me Susan Glover Takahashi, the executive director of the Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators.

First let me congratulate the committee on holding hearings on the regulations. We see that you are committed to making sure the new regulations will serve everyone well. Let me assure you, that is our goal too.

We are here today on behalf of CORA, the Coalition of Regulatory-related Agencies, and as our name implies, we are regulators. Just like you, we serve the Canadian public. It's our job to make sure that competent, qualified people practise those professions that are regulated in Canada.

Over half a million professionals work in this country. As a group, the regulators have never before come together to knock on government's door to speak together on an issue, as we have on the issue of immigration. This is to show how important we feel this issue is.

Let me state up front that CORA supports the government's strong immigration policy. We realize its important role in making our country economically strong and internationally competitive. We believe that the new selection model, with some minor changes, is key in achieving these goals.

We know that under the old system people were given mixed messages about the nature and availability of work in Canada. This time around we'd like to help get it right, because we would like to avoid thousands of people arriving at our offices, and then yours, with unmet expectations about employability in this country.

As you have seen in our brief, CORA makes six recommendations that we believe will allow Canada to select the highly qualified, highly skilled workers we need. At the same time, it will also do something that is very important: it will smooth the integration process for them. Our first recommendation can do both these things.

We ran the numbers and were very surprised to find out that a large portion of the foreign-trained professionals would not qualify for immigration to Canada under the new proposed selection model. Even with full points on experience, age, and language, a person with a bachelor's degree in engineering, without any points for adaptability, would not be selected to immigrate to Canada.

Let me show what this means in real numbers, and I'll take an engineering example. Last year, out of the 19,000 foreign-trained applicants that were positively evaluated by the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, only 3,000 had master's or PhD degrees. So unless the other 16,000 we saw had a lot going for them in the adaptability section, they wouldn't be coming to Canada.

We believe this is a real loss for our country, especially when you consider that only 25% of the engineers in Canada have a higher degree than a bachelor's degree. What the majority of them have--and this is what links the CORA members--is a need for licences to practise their professions legally in Canada.

If our economic performance and quality of life depend on attracting qualified architects, technologists, nurses, pharmacists, and a host of professionals, it is then essential to recognize there is a link between the licensure, the ability to practise, and the ability to work in Canada.

CORA therefore recommends that the likelihood of licensure in the regulated profession be added as a factor under the adaptability section. Remember that the adaptability section has a menu approach. It allows the applicant to choose from a combination of factors to get a maximum of ten points. So by adding the likelihood of licensure in that section, you're giving flexibility and additional choice to the immigrant. It's being responsive on the issue of employability.

À (1030)

[Translation]

Licensure: CORA's second recommendation concerns education credentials. The regulations define “educational credentials” as any diploma, degree or trade recognized by responsible authorities in the country of issue.

This issue is of serious concern to us. CORA believes that the best way to ensure uniformity and objectivity is to assess educational credentials to determine Canadian equivalency. In the case of foreign-trained professionals, diplomas are critically important because they represent the first step on the road to becoming licensed to practice in Canada.

Therefore, we recommend that the regulations include a stipulation that educational credentials must be assessed for the purpose of determining Canadian equivalency.

À (1035)

[English]

I would now ask my colleague to present CORA's remaining recommendations.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi (Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators; Coalition of Regulatory-related Agencies): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

In the remaining few minutes, I want to highlight the four CORA recommendations that are aimed at improving the transparency of the regulations.

Prospective immigrants need some changes to the proposed regulations to allow them to make informed choices. Informed choices will allow immigrants to come to Canada with both enthusiasm and accurate expectations about their new country and their new life.

One rationale that has been expressed for eliminating the general occupations list is that the list sent a mixed message to immigrants about their employability in their occupation as defined in their home country. We at CORA believe there's still a mixed message for the immigrants because in essence occupation is still the first cut for immigrants. If you're not experienced in one of the occupations in the top three levels of the NOC, it says right in the proposed regulations that no further assessment is required.

CORA's analysis is that the proposed regulations likely broaden the number of professionals who will be subject to this mixed message. The regulations do not distinguish the fact that there is a difference, or a potential difference, between the applicant's occupation as defined in their country of education and their occupation as defined in Canada.

I'm going to use an example that for me is close to home. There's a wide variation in the education and practice internationally among practitioners, all of whom use the title “physiotherapist”, using “physiotherapist” in their country of education. This lack of standardization internationally is very problematic, but it is the reality we have to deal with.

In the field of physiotherapy, how each country has chosen their model for health and education does vary. For example, some physiotherapists in their home country have 12 years of schooling, with the highest level being a specialized high school. Other countries, like Canada, have a baccalaureate degree. Other countries have a master's or a PhD as the entry-level physiotherapist requirement, and then others have medical doctors who have post-graduate training in physiotherapy. All these people use the occupational title “physiotherapist”, yet they may or may not meet Canada's national occupational classification as prepared by HRDC.

To avoid the perception that the immigrant is being accepted based on their occupation as defined in the country of education, CORA's recommendation 5 provides wording that would have the immigrant's documents specify only the class of immigrant and not the name of the occupation.

From CORA's perspective, it's regrettable that the regulations waive the immigrant's need to meet the occupation's Canadian educational requirements as listed in the national occupational classification for purposes of selection. The view of CORA's members is that the regulations need to explicitly inform applicants that the Canadian educational requirements may be required for actual employment.

Three of CORA's recommendations support these notions of transparency, clarity, and informed immigrant choice. To improve the transparency to prospective immigrants, recommendation 3 explicitly clarifies that the waiving of educational requirements is for immigration purposes only.

Recommendation 4 outlines wording for the regulations that facilitates informed immigrants by including a formal acknowledgment that selection to immigrate into Canada as a skilled worker does not necessarily result directly in employment opportunities in specific occupations.

Recommendation 6 provides wording that would make information about labour market entry requirements a requisite of the immigrant's application.

À (1040)

Every day of my work life I work with people educated as physiotherapists in their home country. Rubbing points arise when we forward educational results to applicants for physiotherapy equivalency who are surprised that there are differences between the Canadian education and that of their home country. This surprise is followed by anger when the person perceives they're inadvertently misled, often indicating that they didn't have the information before they came. Sometimes they didn't look it up. Sometimes they know the immigration officer knew full well that their education as a physiotherapist was at the high school level.

Immigrants' expectations need to be realistic and achievable. With the inclusion of the recommendations related to clarity and transparency, the regulations will allow professionals to come to Canada and have their dreams and expectations fully realized.

In conclusion, thank you for this opportunity to share CORA's perspective. We support a strong immigration policy, and we support the new selection system, with some modifications to improve consistency and transparency and that support an immigrant's informed choice.

Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Susan.

We also have Liisa Cormode with us, from Cormode & Associates. Liisa, would you like to give us a bit of an initial presentation and then I'll go to my committee members?

Ms. Liisa Cormode (President, L. Cormode & Associates Research Services): Okay, sounds good.

First I want to apologize to the committee for not having submitted a brief in advance. I do have a copy here that is only in English, but I'd be pleased to give this to you.

I want to say something very quickly about my background. I'm an adjunct professor at the University of Saskatchewan. I'm also a research affiliate of the Metropolis Project. I'm presently doing academic research related to religious worker immigration, and also to international students and regional immigration policy--how it is that we get any immigrants to go anywhere other than greater Toronto, greater Vancouver, and greater Montreal.

Also, my business is presently doing a study on the potential of temporary residents who can work under certain conditions as a means of addressing local labour market shortages in Saskatoon. This is the first project of its kind in Canada.

What I want to do now is draw on some insights and experiences from my research to comment on selected regulations pertaining to international students, temporary foreign workers, and the skilled worker class.

I'm really concerned that some of the objectives that are laid out in terms of the present regulations pertaining to study permits are not likely to be met with the present regulations.

First of all, I think the committee should seriously consider adding a new regulation that would require all holders of a study permit to inform either their institution or CIC of any change to their program or to their address. Quite simply, this statement in the opening pages, that, oh well, we'll just have people apply for a study permit and we can then verify if there are any implications for national security of an individual study program, is not realistic, because students can change their program, and they do.

Secondly, I want to make the point that, in terms of the deterrence factor, we need to recognize that there is at least one institution of higher learning in Canada that has a formal policy, a university-wide policy, of not reporting to CIC students who they know to be working illegally, who they suspect to be working illegally, or students who register but don't attend classes, or students who register and then demand their tuition fees back after they get a student authorization.

I believe it would be appropriate to add a new regulation that would compel institutions of higher learning to report to CIC known or suspected infractions. Furthermore, I believe section 217 should be expanded to make provision of false information on an application for a study permit grounds for not renewing the study permit.

One of the things that has been highlighted in my research is that, at the two universities where I'm doing my study on international students, there's a very high level of interest in applying for permanent resident status. In some cases, students who are applying for permanent residence have signed a legal agreement to return home, or their own government has borrowed money from the World Bank or other organizations to pay for their studies in Canada.

I believe Canada should reflect its commitment to international development by enacting a regulation that would prohibit international students sponsored by their government or by CIDA, or who have signed a legal agreement to go home and work at home for a specified period, from applying for permanent residence to their host government until they've met these conditions.

I also want to indicate my opposition to extending off-campus work rights to international students. Having taught at the university level for three and a half years, I can tell you unequivocally that this will have a very negative impact on job opportunities for Canadians and also on the ability of Canadian students to earn money to avoid either taking out a student loan or increasing their student loan.

À (1045)

Furthermore, I want to signal that I believe we need to recognize that Canada's attractiveness to international students goes significantly beyond CIC's regulations. I believe we need to be holding academic institutions publicly accountable for their own policies. At present we're not doing that.

Quickly, in terms of the skilled worker class, it's not appropriate to award points for offers of employment that have not been validated by HRDC. In my opinion, this can easily be subject to fraud.

In terms of temporary foreign workers, I want to express some serious reservations about paragraph 198(d), which says that an officer shall issue a work permit further to an application under Division 2 if the work is of a religious or charitable nature. This is in addition to provisions that allow people performing spiritual duties to be working in Canada without a work permit.

As someone who's doing research on religious worker immigrants, I'm really pleased that we're recognizing the importance of religious work. At the same time, we need to recognize that there are some fairly serious issues associated with this group, including in some cases national security concerns, defining religious work, validating job offers in this area, and the use in some cases of religious worker provisions as a back door on the immigration system.

To give you an example of how we define work of a religious nature, a real case that people at CIC have cited to me is a basketball coach at a religion-based school. Is this person a basketball coach, or are they in fact a religious worker?

It seems to me that at minimum, paragraph 198(d) needs a definition of religious work, and I believe it may be appropriate to actually delete this section.

Thanks very much. I'm sorry I went through this very quickly.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): That is fine, and it helps us gather a perception of where you're coming from. Now we can go to committee members to try to delve into some of the areas they're concerned with.

Lynne, did you have a question?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the presentations. I think the groups that are here today have the most vested interest in the point system, the selection, and this election process. As you said, immigrants are being misinformed, or they feel they're being misinformed. The people on the selection committee are having quite a time right now with how to make a very good grid.

You kind of indicated what you would do, but I'm wondering what you would do with a pass mark. Do you think it should all go into careers? You don't seem to want them to specify nurses or engineers. You want them to come in with a pass mark. We've had witnesses say they could come in with an archeology degree. What are they going to do with it? They would qualify to come in, but they couldn't be an engineer. So I kind of wonder what you would do with the pass mark.

À (1050)

Ms. Marie Lemay: Thank you for the question.

We believe that instead of looking at the pass mark, you should leave the pass mark where it is and focus on adding flexibility to the system. That's why our recommendation about adding a factor in the adaptability gives additional flexibility. It gives a choice to the immigrant, because in that section they can pull out a menu and they can pick some of the factors to meet the points. Adding this flexibility, in the case of the likelihood of licensure, also brings it back to the possibility of eventually integrating more easily in our Canadian society, i.e. working, employing, and economic success. But it would render the system more flexible, so working with the adaptability section, in our mind, would be a key area.

Ms. Liisa Cormode: I want to say further that I think the proposed provision that would give points to people, whether they themselves or their spouse have studied in Canada for two years or more at the post-secondary level or have worked in Canada legally for a year or more, is a really important provision.

Another selection model--I can think of one in particular that would be quite radical--might be the provincial nominee programs. So we have a provincial nominee class set out in the regulations. The ability to practise in a specific occupation is one of the conditions of being accepted as a provincial nominee.

I suppose another approach could be perhaps to expand the number of provincial nominees through agreements with provinces.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Liisa.

Anything further, Lynne?

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'll let others ask questions.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Good day, everyone.

Ms. Lemay and Ms. Takahashi, you represent a very important group of people who perform an invaluable function in our society as we know it. The selection criteria set out in the regulations are clearly elitist. It is designed to set part candidates who have received, in their country of origin, training which could, theoretically, result in them being licensed to practice in this country.

It's a well-known fact that for many professionals, particular those in the health field which is experiencing major shortages, equivalencies are difficult to obtain. I would imagine that Europe has looked at how equivalencies could be awarded, given that a great many people have the option of moving and of practising their profession elsewhere.This isn't necessarily connected with the regulations, but it's nonetheless and important issue.

Have you begun to look at possible solutions to the equivalency problem? It's extremely difficult to see truly qualified individuals... If I were to travel to France, Germany or Vienna and suddenly get sick, I have to say that I wouldn't be the least bit worried. I'm confident that the right diagnosis would be made and that I would receive quality care.

What are your feelings on the subject?

[English]

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: Merci. Thank you for the question.

The issue of whether the grid is elitist is really not the regulators' issue. The issue for the regulators is the selection of workers, professionals, based on the Canadian educational standard. The education practice model is an integrated piece.

I believe you're well-founded to believe that your health in Germany would be well taken care of because it isn't education outside of the sphere of practice. They're integrated. So while, for example, in Germany physiotherapists are done at a specialist high school level, that's where their education happens. They work without the authority to diagnose their physiotherapy patients because the physicians do that.

So they're integrated: the worker, the practice, the education. Any system within itself works for itself, I would suggest. But to transpose one piece of a worker into our system is the issue at point here.

I believe the professions have, over the last five-year exercise under an agreement on internal trade, developed an exceedingly great ability to establish equivalence and to equivocate systems between provinces. Right now all of the members of CORA in fact do evaluate the equivalencies of internationally educated against the Canadian education. I believe that around the CORA table the professions have expressed a keen interest to do that work within the regulatory framework, so that the professions would in fact work as part of the integration and evaluation of equivalency systems.

I think I will stop there.

À (1055)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you both for your presentations. I have questions for both presenters.

Picking up on my colleague's question about equivalencies...I'm moving a bit away from the regulations specifically. What responsibility do the regulatory organizations take in trying to work with new immigrants who have the training--however it's defined in their country of origin--but do not meet the standards as determined by the regulating agency here? Have some of your agencies implemented prior learning assessment? Have you created residency opportunities, upgrading opportunities?

I don't think it's an exaggeration for me to say I probably have anywhere between four and eight different situations come to my office every month. One quite remarkable one was where an individual was denied certification--after doing all kinds of internships--by the regulating body, only to be called upon by them to undertake a special project because he had the skills that nobody else in the province had.

So I have some real issues, over a long history, with the regulating body. That's my question there.

My question to Ms. Cormode--and I find your work very interesting, particularly as it relates to the dispersal of immigrants across the country. You're from Saskatchewan; I'm from Manitoba. We would like many, many more immigrants to come to Manitoba, and to overcome the myths of the difficulty of living in a cold climate.

I'm interested in your work. I'm also interested in your comment about employment for students who are immigrants. We have heard over and over again that it's an important aspect for them, that many are operating at a survival point. Do you have documentation or numbers that say they will take away jobs from Canadians? My understanding is there are lots of jobs; they may not all be the kind we would line up for, but there are lots of jobs.

So your comments on that, and then I'm going to have to excuse myself. I have another committee.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: With regard to your question about whether some of the regulatory organizations have implemented innovative strategies, I would say the answer is yes. On page 5 of the brief we give a short list of some of the projects and initiatives that have been undertaken. Is there more work to be done? Absolutely.

I would just highlight a small project that the Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators have. It's a system of prior learning assessment and remediation. If it's equivalent, it's easy; it's a match. If the gaps are relatively small--and for our purposes, relatively small is...if you meet a marker of about 80% of the education in your home country, then we let you do upgrading, or if you demonstrate post-original education, you've gained those competencies.

Our prior learning assessment and remediation program can either be done in Canada--and we have agreements with Athabasca University, the Open Learning Agency, as well as a variety of universities that have bricks and mortar, so there is flexibility about doing that both within Canada and in their home country prior to coming to Canada.

So I do believe the regulators are increasingly responsive to the expectation that not only do we determine equivalency but we facilitate scaffolds to allow people to become more and more equivalent.

I, too, at times shake my--

Á (1100)

Ms. Anita Neville: Can I interrupt you? Is that a relatively recent phenomenon?

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: It is. With regard to our program, it was initiated in 1998, so it's a relatively new program. But it has meant that thousands of applicants from key source countries, where there are high-volume potential physiotherapists, are now equivalent where previously they never were.

Our next equivalency project will be to find a mechanism in physiotherapy to scaffold what we perceive as the technologist-type training of the German physiotherapist to the independent, autonomous practitioner of the Canadian. That is our 2002 project.

So, yes, things are being done. Are we doing enough? No. Are we working hard? I believe the answer to that is yes.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ms. Cormode.

Ms. Liisa Cormode: I don't know if it would be helpful for me to add this. Certainly one of the things that's been talked about in Metropolis by the NGOs is this perception that there's actually quite a range in terms of regulatory bodies. We were told, and I can't confirm this first hand, that apparently in Ontario there have been regulatory bodies that are now saying things semi-officially, like: “We're really innovative. We're so sick and tired of everyone assuming that we're as bad as the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons. We've just had enough.”

There are some regulatory bodies that have been lobbying for professional bodies to put on their website information on how many people apply and what the success rate is. There is the argument that there are really good regulatory bodies, but they don't get good press because some of them are quite small.

I thought I'd say that's what people are saying in Metropolis.

In answer to your question, yes, in terms of regional immigration, as you correctly identified, this is a really key issue. I think one very interesting feature of the proposed regulations is this. Having the low-income cut-off as the financial standard and allowing people who say “I'm going to this small community” to use this lower-income cut-off for the smaller community may actually encourage some immigrants to look beyond greater Toronto, greater Vancouver, and greater Montreal. I personally think that's a positive thing.

At the same time, one of the reasons why Metropolis funded my project on international students and regional immigration policy was that there have been people at CIC who think international students are the one group of potential immigrants who would go to a place like Saskatoon and actually stay there. With the much higher financial requirements under the proposed regulations, the reality is that many international students will not be eligible, either during their studies or possibly afterwards, because they won't have the money to apply.

On your question on the students working, one of the reasons why this is such an absolutely key issue for AUCC, CBIE, and universities is in terms of Canada's ability to compete with Australia, because Australia does give work rights to students and also to spouses, although Canada's provisions for spouses are much more generous than Australia's.

I would certainly agree that there are students at their survival point. My response to that is this. To be really blunt, one of the things I found in my study, through a variety of sources, is that there's a certain percentage of students in Canada whose evidence of funds is actually fraudulent when they apply for what would be a study permit. This has come up in a number of contexts.

So my response would be, yes, those students may be at their survival point in Canada, but (a) those students are at their survival point because some of them didn't have the funds to begin with; and (b), under existing regulations we do make provisions for destitute students to apply to work off-campus.

Getting back to what Susan said in terms of being functional in their own system, Australia has a system of income-contingent student loans. So if after graduation you're not making a lot of money, you just don't pay back your student loan. There are not the kinds of pressures we have in Canada.

In terms of documentation, I don't have formal documentation because this is not the primary focus of my research, so I don't have numbers. However, local HRDC people in the cities where I'm doing my research have said off the record that this has been their experience. They've encountered cases where students have worked for a year after graduation and employers have submitted a temporary foreign worker request, and the salary and working conditions are considerably below the Canadian average. They believe international students in some cases are being used to lower wages and working conditions for Canadians. Also, I know at least one of the international student offices that I deal with in my project has told me off the record that yes, they believe this would have a negative impact on job opportunities.

Á (1105)

I think we need to consider that yes, in some cities there may be a lot of jobs, but in other cities such as Saskatoon there are both a fairly large number of not terribly affluent students as well as a fairly large number of international students and really not that many jobs available.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, CORA brings to this committee the combined expertise of a vast number of professions. It would certainly be to our advantage to scrutinize its recommendations very thoroughly, particularly recommendations 2, 3 and 5, to ensure that immigration candidates are well informed and acknowledge that just because they practise a certain profession in their country of origin, this is no guarantee that they will be able to practise here in Canada without first having to undergo certain formalities. This should always be the case.

CORA also recommends that there be more flexibility and that five points be awarded for the adaptability factor. If we must have a points system for which the pass mark is very high, then the system should at least provide for some flexibility. That would make sense to me.

Now then, I'd appreciate more information about two points. You mentioned that the new regulations might lead to a lack of requisite contact. What exactly do you mean by “requisite contact”, or “lack of requisite contact”? Are you referring to a past practice that would disappear as a result of the new regulations?

Secondly, you also refer to the human capital model and express some reservations about its adoption. What do you mean by “human capital model”and how is it different from other models? Most likely these are issues that date back to the time of Bill C-11. I don't really know, but in any case, could you explain these expressions to me?

Thirdly, on page 5 of your brief, you list a dozen or so professions that have endeavoured to facilitate processes. You mention technicians, technologists, veterinarians, pharmacists, engineers, chiropractors, architects and certain medical professions. As far as the licensing of medical practitioners and specialists is concerned, as a Quebecker, I know this area is more a provincial than a federal area of jurisdiction, but some cases have come to my attention in my capacity of MP. It is common knowledge in Quebec that foreign -born doctors have difficulty obtaining their license to practise here in Canada.

Of course, we don't dispute the examination and assessment process, but the process is everything. Examiners may ask questions in such a way that a foreign-trained person will be more uncomfortable answering, despite his or her qualifications.

Foreign-born medical doctors with excellent credentials have filed complaints, briefs and petitions. They have shown ad nauseam just how difficult Quebec's professional medical associations have made their lives.One case brought to my attention involved a person who had trained as a specialist in the field of obstetrics. Unfortunately for this person, he had completed his first year of medical school abroad. He had an extremely hard time of it for years and had to train all over again.

I would have liked to see you acknowledge the efforts of members of the medical professions to meet certain needs. We need doctors. Many regions are facing a shortage of doctors. However, the licensing process is so complicated that foreign-born doctors become discouraged. That's what I've observed.

Á (1110)

Ms. Marie Lemay: I'll attempt to answer your first, and possibly your second, question, and let Susan answer the third, if that's all right with you.

As for the lack of requisite contact, the proposed system eliminates any chance of the immigration applicant contacting members of his chosen profession here in Canada. As Susan explained so clearly earlier on, education is part of the system. In order to facilitate the integration process for immigration candidates, it's critically important that they have some contact with people here to help them understand how the system works. Through this contact, we can provide assistance and information and support them in the integration process.

The current system does make provision for a form of contact, in that reference is made to a person's employability, that is

[English]

the likelihood of licensure

[Translation]

And it's an indirect reference at that, because one section of the NOC, the National Occupational Classification, has been overlooked in the new system. Under the former system, we could, albeit somewhat indirectly, contact the immigrant with regard to his qualifications.

Á (1115)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Contact was established between...

Ms. Marie Lemay: Between the applicant and members of certain professions in a position to assess that individual's qualifications , determine professional equivalencies and so forth. Members of the profession could reassure the applicant that everything was fine and that he could immigrate because certain equivalency requirements had been met, or advise him that he would have to take a course or that he would be helped to find an internship. This type of approach wasn't uncommon, although I have to admit that the professions have learned a great deal in recent years.

When persons come knocking on your door, you have to understand that they've knocked on our door first. We're in this together. It's not a question of us, you and them. We're not any more interested than you are in reading the headlines or in having them bother you. We've worked hard to improve this aspect of the system, but at least we had an opportunity to establish contact with them under the old system and we collaborated on the development of the integration mechanisms Ms. Neville spoke of earlier.

Let me give you the example of engineers in British Columbia. A program is currently in place to help newly-arrived immigrants find employment and to integrate more easily. The program was introduced just in the past few years. Just when we think that we are starting to make some headway, we have to contend with a new system that cuts off all contact. It's important that we not lose this contact right when things were beginning to go smoothly.

To answer your second question concerning the human capital model, the system has evolved from one model to the next. Our concern with the new model continues to be the lack of connection between educational equivalencies and the possibility of integrating the profession.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What is the other model?

Ms. Marie Lemay: The new model is skills-based.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And you refer to it as the human capital model?

Ms. Marie Lemay: No. The former model went by that name, whereas if I'm not mistaken, the new one is skills-based. I hope I haven't misled you.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: The following is noted on page 2: “From the outset, CORA has expressed its concerns...”

Ms. Marie Lemay: You are correct. I apologize. The new model is referred to as the human capital model.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: And the former model was known as...?

Ms. Marie Lemay: You're referring to the former system.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: What name did it go by?

Ms. Marie Lemay: I don't have that information at my fingertips.

[English]

I'll consult my colleagues. It's the occupation-based model.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: In any case, medical professions come under provincial jurisdiction.

Ms. Marie Lemay: No, but it's important. I think Susan has some interesting information to share with you.

Before I conclude, I want you to ask yourself one thing. When we have dissatisfied immigrants arriving at our offices - and I can understand their frustration - the first question we need to ask ourselves is whether they were able to make an enlightened, informed choice. Our objective is to give them the opportunity to do just that.

[English]

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: I spoke before of the Immigration Act. My interest in the notion of human capital and my concern about the notion of human capital remain that people don't see themselves as capital, they see themselves as people with professions. Many of the professionals do not see themselves as generic skills they can repackage.

While we see them that way and we see that potential, we should at least tell them we see them that way, and that's what the contact could afford them: an informed choice for them, knowing whether it is going to take a couple of courses they should do at home before they immigrate, whether it is going to be a year's education, and whether they want to do it in Canada because they want to come sooner instead of later. Those should be the choices of the immigrant around expectations.

With regard, monsieur, to your challenge about where the physician examples are, I think that's really a fair challenge. I'm not speaking directly on behalf of the physician regulators, but my colleague, in describing to me the issues around physician recognition, has illustrated to me that many of the hurdles around physician recognition turn on money. There is a limited amount of money presently available flowing to the notion of recognition of physicians. But as I understand it, the numbers of envelopes of money that have been made available for recognition of foreign physicians have changed over the last year.

For example, there's been a doubling of the size of the moneys available in Ontario to provide residency opportunities for physicians. The metaphor that it's easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle, etc., sometimes appears to apply to this physician recognition situation. But I do understand that one of the key hurdles is the one year's residency and the method of ensuring that there are residency positions for the Canadian-educated, so it's a funding-positional availability.

I don't know, Liisa; you're nodding your head.

Á (1120)

Ms. Liisa Cormode: Yes, and it's also for Canadian citizens and permanent residents, because international students wouldn't qualify for those residencies.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: Right.

Anyway, I believe that more can be done there, but it is my understanding that this presently is one of the key hurdles, although additional funds had been made available.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

Do you have anything to add to that, Liisa?

Ms. Liisa Cormode: Yes. I just wanted to add that I know in Saskatchewan there's also a further issue, that there's a very small number of residencies available to foreign-trained physicians, but they're very often in family medicine. That's really great for people who want to be in family medicine, but it can be very frustrating for people who have qualified in other practices and who really don't want to be in family medicine. If they want to be in a Canadian residency, that's what their choice is limited to. It's just unfortunate.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'm interested in what your comments are about the grid, about it being elitist, because that's what we're hearing so much about. When I see “elite”, I think of it being above the rest. I think of it being very difficult to get into an elite club, so it's difficult to get on this grid. People are very concerned about the marks being so high, so where is the room for tradespeople? I think we touch a bit on that with equivalencies. That's one question.

The second question for you is...I had some group approach me and say that many international students come in and then don't show up at the universities. They never do pursue that, and that's an abuse of using the student visa to get into our country. I want to know what you think of that.

I also want to know what you think of them coming into the country and applying as students; in particular, they're going to be able to apply for landed immigrant status even though they've come in as students. They're going to have more opportunity to remain in Canada even though they've come in as students.

I guess those are some of the things I'm wondering about. Overall, what do you think of our elitist grid?

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Lynne.

I'll start off with Marie.

Ms. Marie Lemay: What I would say to that is that obviously the government has made a choice and has stated very clearly that right now, 70% of the growth of our workforce is being filled by foreign-trained skilled workers. By 2010 or 2011, I believe, it's going to be 100%. So there is a need for these people. There is a need for skilled people to come into this country. But the government has decided where they set the bar.

Our concern is about making sure that once these people come here, they can integrate. That's where our concern lies. As Susan well pointed out, we can make all the portions of the system fit so that they can integrate properly. We just want to make sure they know all that before they leave.

As far as setting the bar....

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Do you think there is a real need? In your field, engineers, do we have that real need? As Liisa said, they do come into just the three areas.

Ms. Marie Lemay: There is definitely a need. This government has also said that we're now 14th in the world, I believe, in research and development. You've set the bar at being fifth or fourth by around the same time, 2010, I believe. This is not going to happen overnight. We will need the people. Research and development professionals are involved very intensively in those fields. So yes, there is a need.

That's why it's so difficult for us when we're perceived as putting up barriers, because that's not the case. We believe we need these people. We will need them to work with us.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'm kind of interested in the case of engineers, because I sponsored a civil engineer as a refugee and brought him in here. He is working himself up in a company, but he had a very difficult time being recognized. Again, I was interested in your equivalency. He's very bright, he's had a lot of experience, his language is good, but none of that worked with him. I suppose that's something you'd have to work out provincially, which makes another problem for you, I guess.

Ms. Marie Lemay: Yes. But again, I would ask whether he had the opportunity to make the informed choice. That is so crucial.

In evaluating the equivalency of education, we have a vast expertise here in the professions. I'll give you the engineering example again. We've evaluated over 3,000 schools around the world for Canadian equivalency. Out of those, 1,700 were Canadian equivalent. When I say they're equivalent, I'm not saying they're better or worse. That has to be clear. It's equivalent. Each country decides what their system is going to be like. Out of those, close to half were not equivalent. That's not to say that these people can't practice here, but they need to know, when they make that informed choice, that when they get here, they will have to do a few things.

The other thing we want them to know is that we'll be there to help them. I have to say that is something more recent. It's a phenomenon that the professions have realized. We need these people and we want to be there to help them integrate.

Á (1125)

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Susan or Liisa, do you have anything to add to that?

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: The issue of this elitist label on the score is truly not one that the CORA members have deliberated at this point. We are not in a position to say we think it should be 70 or we think it should be 90. It would take some informed consideration of the likelihood....

What we know is that we don't need fewer qualified professionals, particularly in health, the sector I come from. We need doctors, we need nurses, we need physiotherapists in remote, rural, and urban Canada.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I wonder how challenged you'd be on that. I think of my sister, who went in for nursing six years ago--maybe it's ten years ago now--and she was told there was no room for nurses. So we don't even know how to guide our children, because they'll say....

I think pretty soon you're competing with the immigrants in some of these fields. The immigrants are competing with our Canadians, and our Canadians don't know what fields to even go into. Nursing in particular is a touchy one.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: Yes. I do believe we have underinformed our children about the sorts of things we need skilled workers in. We know that even if we employed every potential student in Canada, there's not enough for their future retirement, regardless of where that is.

Ms. Liisa Cormode: I wanted to add to the comments about informed choice because I think it's important to recognize that informed choice also includes the choice of provinces; that in some occupations there really is a big difference and Ontario really is not the best province to go to. In some cases, Newfoundland is actually quite a good choice, especially for medical professionals.

In terms of the comments about the skilled worker selection system being elitist, I think another way of looking at this is that in a sense what we are selecting, or what we're trying to select, are skilled workers on the basis of their economic contribution. So I think you could argue that expectation is, in itself, elitist. It's something that I don't, personally, have a problem with. At the same time, I'm not sure I would necessarily qualify under the existing point system.

I think we also need to recognize that in addition to the skilled worker selection one we have family reunification programs that are fairly generous, when they include people being able to bring in their grandparents, whereas in countries like Australia or New Zealand the minute you are over the age of 45, they're not at all interested in you. In either country it's actually very hard to bring in elderly parents, whereas in Canada it's relatively easy if you qualify as a sponsor.

I think we also need to recognize that our skilled worker system is very open in terms of occupation. In comparison, in both Australia and New Zealand you have to be in very specific occupations and your credentials have to be recognized to practice in that country. If you don't qualify, then you have to upgrade at your own expense. It's your responsibility; the immigration system doesn't want to deal with you.

It seems to me that in looking at our system in an international context, an argument could be made that in some respects our system is not as elitist as other systems because of our openness to people from a whole range of occupations, including, under proposed regulations, physicians, for whom it is extremely difficult to qualify in Canada. Also, there is our openness in terms of age, which can be seen, arguably perhaps, as imposing a burden on the Canadian taxpayer

Á (1130)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: And what about using the student visa to get into Canada?

Ms. Liisa Cormode: I think it's important to recognize, with migration generally, and perhaps a little bit more with students, that the reality is that it is fairly difficult to move internationally. It is particularly difficult to go to another country and to be able to work there. I think the reality is--and I suspect people at the New Zealand High Commission and the Australian High Commission would tell you this--that there is always going to be a certain percentage of students whose interest is in working illegally or entering into a marriage of convenience. How do we regulate this effectively?

In terms of your question about people who come to Canada as students and then apply for permanent residence, at one of the universities where I study, somewhere between 8% and 10% of their international students each year are getting permanent residence. I've been hearing story after story of how some students are applying for permanent residence status shortly after they arrive. Obviously, for universities this is quite problematic, because international students becoming permanent residents means lost university revenue, and quite a significant loss of university revenue.

From the point of view of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, in that in a sense we are getting access to quite highly qualified permanent residents. We have access to this pool that has a Canadian credential, which has been living in Canada and has some familiarity with the Canadian way of life.

Some people would argue that by allowing students to become permanent residents during their studies--which Australia, for example, does not allow--we are kind of getting immigration on the cheap, perhaps, at the same time as there is a real financial burden for universities.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I would like to thank you for your recommendations. I really agree, particularly the one on flexibility. I think that is really where we have to work, and that should be almost a little bit of the determining mark. Liisa, I think you have made some worthwhile recommendations, and I am pleased you were here today.

The Acting Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ladies, thank you very much for your presentations. I think you have enlightened us in several different respects. The information is very important to us. I'm sure that as we deliberate we will be able to better understand some of the elitist questions, some of the professional concerns, and student concerns.

We do appreciate the time you've taken and the testimony you've given. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.