There has been progress on systemic barriers, but the accreditation process, you know.... There were so many different accreditation bodies across the country. They're all provincially regulated. They're not federally regulated. Some are not regulated, so it was such a difficult process.
One of the things that were identified to the pan-Canadian framework was that processes need to be simplified. They need to be streamlined, and there needs to be a one-portal system or one-portal entry where an immigrant could apply to be accredited. It fits with our mobility. As a country, Canada, we want people to be able to be mobile from one province to another, so try to simplify the processes of accreditation and look at whether people could start the process before arriving in Canada.
One of the things they found in looking at the research is that the earlier people start their accreditation journey, they more likely they are to be successful. The less time they spend out of school or out of the field, the more likely they are to be successful. They looked at processes of how we can simplify it.
We saw that what brought about change was when the pan-Canadian framework was developed and you had federal government, provinces, and regulatory bodies committing to that, to the action plan and the framework, and setting something that we wanted to be happening in a more timely manner. Previously, you could have someone submit their documents just to be evaluated, and it would take over a year just for them to look at transcripts and to decide if they were equivalent. That amount of time was just interfering with the process, but having this sort of working together and setting in place that we want it to be equitable, we want it to be fair, we want it to be transparent, and we want it to be timely, addressed some of the issues that immigrants were saying were in the way.
On the other hand, in trying to—and I want to just share this quick example—make the process one national portal, you see some organizations that have actually taken steps backwards.
For instance, registered and licensed nurses in Canada now have to apply to a national body to get their credentials looked at before they can apply provincially. That national body, because maybe things happen too fast, has turned around and contracted an organization in the States to do that for them. Immigrants who live in Canada, who are RNs or LPNs, have to get their credentialling documents sent to an organization in the States from the source. Employers in their home country, the universities and the registration bodies, are required to send all those documents to this organization in the States, in either English or French. If they're not sent in those languages, then the organization is happy to charge the applicant $85 U.S. per page for translation. We have an applicant we are aware of who applied to have their transcripts, their university transcripts and employment, assessed in August of last year, and it's February. They've gone nowhere, and they've already spent $2,000.
The next step of the journey, as they are living in Alberta, would be to apply to CARNA, the regulatory body here. CARNA will not assess them in Alberta. They have to be sent to B.C. or Saskatchewan for the clinical assessment and that could take up to five days, so there is the cost of the assessment, plus the accommodation and other costs, and this person has a five-year-old at home. Then from that, they're then informed about how much of a bridging program they need to take. They might need to take a full year of bridging. When you just add up in terms of how much it costs and the length of time it takes, what should have become a simpler process has actually somehow gone off the rails.
I think that's why I was talking about accountability and measurement. We need to track the progress that's being made. Are the processes that have been put in place actually making a difference?