Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Griffith, I had a meeting with a couple of members of your organization, and I very much admire the proactive way in which you're seeking to improve the information flow and the workings of the credential system. As you know, for many years this has been a huge issue for newcomers. They come here as the proverbial stereotype of a Ph.D. driving a taxi, or an engineer driving a taxi.

As you know, the federal government doesn't control this issue; it's in provincial hands. How do you think new immigrants would be apprised of the system and know what they have to do prior to arriving in Canada?

[Gordon Griffith]

We have had a number of projects funded by the federal government over the years. The first one was the From Consideration to Integration project, which was initiated in 2002. It brought together the stakeholders from academia, employers, and immigrant-serving agencies to make changes that would help to ensure the timely licensure of international engineering graduates.

From that initiative, there have been a number of additional spinoff projects. Some are specific for use by our provincial regulators in the licensing process—for example, an international institutions and degrees database that helps the assessment agents review the academic qualifications of new immigrants. We also have our labour market study, as I mentioned previously.

As well, in January of this year we launched our international engineering graduate roadmap website, which we call a one-stop shop that provides information to people thinking of coming to Canada and working in the engineering profession.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. The time is up.

Now we're turning to Mr. Goldring for approximately five minutes.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Griffith, I'm rather new to this committee, but to lead from a comment made earlier, I find it rather notable that there's such a need for engineers. Coming from Edmonton myself, to hear that 1,500 engineers could be hired tomorrow strikes me as being rather dramatic. I would think of your earlier comment that there are some 60,000 engineering students in school at present. Have there been efforts made to ramp this up to let people in Canada know?

I'm thinking of my own children, who took a B.A. in history and couldn't get a job. Many other people are taking poli-sci courses, and where are they? In other words, if there's such a requirement for engineers, I would think that would be information that my children and other people's families and children would want to know about as a priority to look towards if they have an interest in getting employment after they finish university. That's one part to it.

The other part to it would be more in regard to the question of entertaining international credentials. Are you able to accept them at face value, or is there such a thing as degrees of acceptability of foreign credentials? The little I know about the engineering field is that many engineers have to certify plans, projects, and whatever, so you would certainly want somebody who has the full acceptability of credentials. So when you're looking at engineers...understandably, many engineering firms have minor areas of employment. It used to be that they would be the draftsperson on the table or whatever. Yes, they have an engineering degree, but they're not given the high-priority job or the job with a high level of expertise.

Are you entertaining them on degrees of acceptability or at face value on the certification from the foreign institution itself?

[Gordon Griffith]

I'll respond to the first part about the perceived shortage. The term “engineer” is a broad term, as you may well be aware. I think we have about 21 different recognized disciplines of engineering, so there are different types of engineers.

As our labour market study shows, it's very regional and very discipline-specific in regard to the types of engineers for which there will be shortages. So on the fact that in one location, in Edmonton or Alberta, they could hire 1,500 engineers, what types of engineers are they referring to? There are a lot of details there that we'd need in order to respond appropriately to those types of questions.

Our labour market study forecasts out until 2020. It highlights where the deficiencies or the shortages will be regionally in Canada, as well as in what disciplines. That would be a good guide for new students in choosing which program they would study in university.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

So there's an effort to ramp up this need, and obviously if you're seeking outside of the country, you have a need in this country.

[Gordon Griffith]

That's correct.

[Peter Goldring, Conservative, Edmonton East, AB]

So it's to ramp up the knowledge of that or advertise for more people to seek these types of engineering degrees.

[Gordon Griffith]

On your second question about the recognition of foreign credentials, there are various levels of acceptance that we currently have, and it's spawned from international agreements, as the top, I would say. There's an agreement that recognizes accreditation systems. The accreditation system that Canada has is equivalent to the accreditation systems in 14 other countries around the world, so graduates from those accredited programs in those other 14 countries would be accepted at almost face value to what a Canadian education would provide.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Griffith. I'm sorry, but the time has expired.

We now need to welcome our next group of witnesses, but once again, Mr. Griffith and Madam Anson-Cartwright, thank you very much for accepting our invitation today.

The meeting will be suspended for a minute to welcome our next witnesses.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

We will resume the committee's meeting with our third group of witnesses.

I would like to begin by welcoming Mr. Richard Kurland, policy analyst and lawyer, appearing as an individual. We also have with us

Merit Nova Scotia, Michael Kydd, president.

Thank you both for having accepted our invitation.

As agreed, you will each have six minutes for your opening statements. We will then move on to questions.

Mr. Kurland, you have the floor.

[Richard Kurland, Policy Analyst and Lawyer, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's always an honour and a pleasure to be here. Knowing time is short, I trust I won't use my entire six minutes.

This system is exciting in terms of potential. The creation of pools of applicants was a dream 10 to 15 years ago. Some improvements can be made at this stage, and I'll get to them, but in principle, an employer-driven, flexible selection system will work for Canada strategically in the long run. It may well be a model for other countries to adopt.

There are some technical issues that we should be aware of. First, I think we should seriously contemplate an upgrade within Canada. We need an explicit, regulatory umbilical cord to HRSDC to make this work properly.

The current information-sharing agreements between HRSDC and CIC are inadequate for the expression of interest program. An explicit statement allowing information sharing between HRSDC and CIC will facilitate implementation.

Along the same line, a limited information-sharing exchange with the Canada Revenue Agency is needed. Why burden Canadian employers with paperwork regarding their financial capability to hire someone when we already have a corporate tax return that can illustrate the health of the business?

Financial statements will require highly experienced, expensive public servants to make this determination. Do we really have to go there?

The last information exchange upgrade would be international. We ought to seriously contemplate an explicit regulatory information-sharing arrangement with our sister countries, such as New Zealand and Australia. Why not build a global pool of talent?

If Canada has a supply of skills, we have learned on the free trade side that free trade builds economies. The same principle applies equally to the free trade of skills internationally.

I will end my opening remarks.

In my view, there is a fundamental weakness in the design of the expression of interest system. I have an issue in that I'm challenged by the preamble of our Constitution that reflects fundamental Canadian values. The preamble of the charter makes reference to the rule of law.

The traditional Canadian oversight of our immigration system has taken a back seat to the expression of interest system, because, let's face it, we are creating a “wizard's curtain” around the selection of immigrants. People unseen, and frankly unaccountable, will make the selection of one out of every five immigrants coming to this country. It is a step back in time, decades, where discretion that's not supervised will select immigrants to this country. It is a marked step backwards from the 1976 objective point system where you knew in advance whether you were in or out, based on your skills.

Having said that, I'm okay with moving forward with an expression of interest system as long as we have our traditional Canadian safeguards and do it cost-effectively.

I would recommend independent oversight by a kind of data ombudsperson who would by regulation be allowed to access every facet of the expression of interest system, including real-time access to management reports. This would ensure that selection rules are applied fairly and consistently. Reporting on proposed systemic modifications to the standing committee should be done semi-annually. This might well address the criticisms directed at the expression of interest system by others who may appear before you. It's something that would protect the Canadian public and counterbalance the power of public servants.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kurland.

Mr. Kydd, you have the floor.

[Michael Kydd, President, Merit Nova Scotia]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. I bring greetings from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia as well as from Merit Canada's national president, Terrance Oakey.

Merit Canada was established in 2008 as a united national voice for eight provincial open-shop construction associations. Its 3,500 member companies directly employ over 60,000 Canadians, and its member organizations administer the largest multi-employer benefit program in Canada's construction industry.

Over the next decade, Canada's construction industry will have to attract at least 320,000 workers or face serious shortages in the labour supply. While the industry is dedicated to training and recruiting Canadians for the construction industry, it has become clear that this strategy itself will not suffice.

It will be necessary to augment the human resources of the construction industry by having immigrants with the required skills and experiences. However, current immigration regulations disproportionately favour immigrants with academic qualifications and give insufficient weight to professional skills and achievements. As a result, less than 0.2% of immigrants admitted each year into Canada are skilled construction workers or construction industry professionals, even though the construction industry employs more than 8% of Canada's labour force.

When I first heard Minister Kenney publicly comment on the expression of interest model adopted by Australia and New Zealand, I knew our industry was about to change for the better. While Merit supports more unemployed skilled Canadians filling jobs in high-demand sectors across the country, we recognize the importance of a more efficient and productive system that will better screen, process, and mobilize foreign workers who possess the skills Canadian companies require.

The fact is that jobs are available and employers cannot find skilled workers to fill these jobs. It is estimated that Alberta will need 115,000 additional workers in skilled trades over the next 10 years. In Nova Scotia—and while this may seem elementary compared with the aggregate data—we will need to fill 7,000 construction jobs over the next decade. In a declining population of fewer than one million people, you can imagine the Herculean effort it will take to fill this need, especially when we start building Canada's next fleet of naval ships.

Nova Scotia must accomplish this with the highest percentage of seniors in the country, 16.8%, and a net international migration of only 122 immigrants as of July 2013. Interprovincial net migration of people is also a concern. For 11 of the last 15 years, when net interprovincial migration has been negative, it has been negative for 14 years for the 15 to 19 age group, and it has always been negative for the 20 to 29 age group. We need to get younger, stronger, and better trained. The expression of interest model will help in that process.

For this reason, Merit Canada supports the expression of interest model. We believe the program will improve the quality of skilled workers through its pre-application stage followed by an application by invitation to the best candidates. These candidates will provide vital information about their skills and experience, and they will be ranked, sorted, searched, and processed in an expedited manner.

We know that the current criteria for assessing economic-class immigrants are heavily weighted towards managerial, professional, or entrepreneurial skills and education, as opposed to technical or trade-related skills and education that might be in greater demand. For example, to gain the maximum 25 points in the educational component of the point system requires a Ph.D. or master's degree and at least 17 years of full-time study. In comparison, an applicant with apprenticeship training and at least 12 years of full-time study would be awarded only 12 points.

We know applicants to the skilled trades program will not have to meet the criteria of the point system used for the rest of the federal skilled worker category. It is expected that the new program will instead give weight to applicants who have a job offer in Canada, can prove they recently worked in the trade, and can show that their occupation falls within the federal trade classification system.

The EOI model will do a much better job of involving employers in selecting the immigrants we need as permanent residents so they can come here with jobs prearranged.

We know that some prospective immigrants still living abroad might be intimidated by the idea of finding employment in Canada. The EOI model helps to take this element out of the equation, letting Canadian employers do the work of contacting candidates directly. This is an opportunity for employers and provinces to harness the skills and human resources they need to meet labour demands in all industries.

I have long been a strong advocate of encouraging employers in the private sector to be part of the solution. They must see this as an opportunity to work closely with their provincial partners to better access and employ the skilled workers in the pool. Working with the new expression of interest division will be paramount to the program's success. It is imperative we address these needs now. As Minister Kenney has said, this is the future as opposed to the past.

Of course, employers and provinces will have questions about how the program is deployed. They will ask how will an employer access the pool? What are the priority criteria for each respective province that has existing nominee programs in place? These are all great questions, and hopefully in the coming weeks and months they will be answered through the final rounds of consultation being prepared by government.

Members of the committee, again I thank you for taking the time to listen to my presentation. I proudly represent our association, and I'm happy to answer any of your questions.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Kydd. I guess the translator had a hard time, but you just made your six minutes. Thank you very much.

Now we go to our questions.

Mr. Weston, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Kurland, I am going to focus on your testimony for four reasons. This is not only because you come from the beautiful city of Vancouver, as I do, and because you are a lawyer, as I am, and that on your website

there is a very strong statement of integrity that I am going to read. This is a lawyer who makes his money from clients, he says on his website: “For individuals and families seeking to immigrate to Canada: We believe most applicants may not require legal assistance when there is no apparent medical, criminal, or security issue....” Then he tells people to go to the Immigration Canada website.

As a member of your profession, I thank you for that strong statement.

The fourth reason I want to focus, though, is because you've said some really interesting things. So did you, Mr. Kydd, but others will focus on you.

You have demonstrated a real enthusiasm about the program, both in print and today. You said it was a dream; it's employer-driven. In print in past months you've mentioned that persons now have a wider range than ever of categories within which to apply. You've even said those who will receive refunds and have their application sent back can still select from this broad selection of categories.

But what's really interesting for me are your comments about the rule of law. It seems to me that under the rule of law, discretion is limited by criteria. The criteria that have been introduced here are clear, shining examples of criteria that are in the interest of Canada and all Canadians. Surely there's no curtailment of the rule of law when the discretion that is to be applied is going to be applied based on these criteria that Canadians, employers, family members, and overseas immigrants have all pointed to as leading to an improved system, which you call a dream.

[Richard Kurland]

I would just like to point out that obviously the people of Vancouver are not solely anglophones.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Bravo.

[Richard Kurland]

The key here is that the rules are rolled out in the form of ministerial instruction. It's not regulation. It's not statute. After a dinner party, the ministerial instruction may be changed, and 12 hours later changed again. It's that absence of parliamentary protection that serves as my concern.

The institution protects the public. The protection of the institution is absent when the rules can be changed daily at the whim of a minister. However, in my view, it is perhaps reasonable and justifiable in a free and democratic society, as long as there's a counterbalance safeguard to ensure that our ministerial instruction system is not politicized. We have the right to know that one industry over another is not unduly favoured, one business over another, one family over another.

It's that absence of oversight, that causes me some concern that can be alleviated by an ombudsperson.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Okay, but just to pursue this, clearly the advantage of the system is its nimbleness, its flexibility, and its adaptability to Canada's economic needs at a time when the economy and job creation are clearly one of the key priorities, if not the number one priority, for most Canadians.

We've seen, regardless of what may be brought up in criticism of any government in this world, that this government has done a magnificent job in promoting job creation and the economy. We're number one in that.

We all know that ministerial discretion can't be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious way or it would be subject to mandamus and other Federal Court kinds of limitations. So I'm glad you think it's a dream.

I'm wondering if you have any other thoughts about this recruitment model and how we can make it the best program in the world, given that we're competing against others.

[Richard Kurland]

We have the best program in the world. This is an improvement on that. One can improve it depending on who we want in—that's a key question—and when.

For example, if in the construction industry we feel a need for a particular trade, we can act smartly by sending, proactively, information notices to the educational institution of the trade. Grab the young people. Or, for example, as we're already doing now in the construction industry, we can be sending notices under the young workers or the working holiday visa program in Germany, alerting the training institutes for certain trades that they can come to Canada for a year and function in their trade or occupation. It's that type of nimbleness that is worthwhile.

To conclude, the reason I am not dead set against the expression of interest system and I'm willing to defer, respectfully, to our public servants and their oversight masters is the track record of the improvements to this immigration program over the past half-decade and longer. I would never have done that years earlier. But having resolved backlogs, having taken other areas of the program, such as the refugee determination system, and made it into a functioning system—benefit of the doubt, from a jaded old fellow, for the new expression of interest system.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you, Mr. Weston. Your time is over.

Madam Sitsabaiesan, you have seven minutes.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I want to continue, if I may, Mr. Kurland, on the line of questioning Mr. Weston started. You spoke about the potential of unaccountability when it's somebody sitting behind a wizard's curtain, I think you said, picking one of five immigrants who will be allowed into this country based on this EOI system. But you also said that you remain open to this.

Can you explain, if it's further than what you've already explained, what you meant by accountability there? Could you also expand on your cost-effective oversight idea of ombudsman? Do you have any other ideas for oversight other than an ombudsman?

[Richard Kurland]

This “behind the wizard's curtain” aspect is the outcome of almost 25 years of internal CIC strategic planning. The terms were “streams” and “pools”, and it was Minister Robillard's public officials who came up with them. At this date, in 2013, we're finally delivering the end of that strategic plan.

The problem was one of political philosophy: we are government; we know what we are doing; trust us. And on the other hand: you are government; we don't trust you; show us what you're doing. It can't be resolved.

Case-specific oversight is too cumbersome and surely too expensive. What I had in mind is a safety valve. The mere presence of an ombudsperson may provide the required deterrence.

What I have in mind is not another Nortel disaster. Our immigration system overly focused on information technology people to the exclusion of many others. How did that decision get taken? We'll never know officially.

In terms of the ombudsperson, which is where I'm headed here, the mere presence of an individual who can access real-time management reports and every facet of this expression of interest system will provide a bureaucratic chill and keep things on the up and up—honest. Otherwise we will have an unguarded, politicized immigration selection system.

We don't want to go back there. It produces disasters.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

In your technical issues, you said that regulatory upgrade is needed to the information sharing between HRSDC and CIC. HRSDC is now called ESDC, I think. In what ways is the information sharing between ESDC and CIC inadequate?