Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 21st, 2006

[Wai Young]

Certain initiatives have been undertaken in some areas that really outline that where a community is welcoming and provides some of the necessary things immigrants need, such as good jobs, immigrants are willing to move and settle. I'll give you an example. An organization in Vancouver called SUCCESS hosted a job fair on behalf of a large gas company in Fort St. John, which is in the northern part of B.C. It's a very small community. But because of the good job opportunities there, something like 1,200 people went to the job fair to apply for those jobs. People were willing to move to that community.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I entirely agree with you. We necessarily have doctors outside large centres as we want to attract them in areas where there is a lack of physicians. However, when someone from the north of the province must go for an interview to Gatineau because this is where services are offered, it raises a problem. When you have to travel long distances, you can see that Quebec is a big province. A doctor must lose several days of work and hospitals cannot afford that luxury. Furthermore, when the appointments are postponed, he must make one more trip. It is quite discouraging for our professionals or our technical specialists.

I have a last question. At the beginning of his mandate, the minister announced an $18 million investment to simplify the process for foreign credentials recognition.

What role do you play in that respect? Is that issue progressing satisfactorily?

[Wai Young]

We have actually had several meetings with the new Foreign Accreditation Agency. They have established it as primarily a referral agency to provincial organizations. A lot of the foreign accreditations happen at a provincial level.

We have been watching with great interest how they have been setting up the system in a very, very quick way. I think they plan to be operational by March of this year. To go from zero to operational is quite an impressive feat. We would of course be interested in playing a more active role in that.

At this point in time, it's very much been a department-driven initiative. However, we do believe their approach is very positive. It has great possibilities for success. Having said that, because this is a federal system where professional immigrants can start their accreditation process from abroad, there still needs to be much work done at a provincial level with those foreign accreditation bodies. They vary across Canada.

I think there still is a need for a great number of resources to assist and support and help those foreign accreditation bodies, as Fariborz was saying, become more welcoming. They need to look at their red tape, their bureaucracy, and their processes as well. In many of the different professions, there's a lot of red tape associated with becoming accredited. Some of that may be outdated.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

But, up to now, you haven't had any official meeting with the minister or the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have to pick it up, probably on the second round. We've gone over.

Mr. Siksay.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

It's good to see you folks again, and, Mr. Jafarpour, on your anniversary of arrival in Canada, no less. That's an exciting day to remember.

You mentioned the change in the kinds of refugees who are coming, and people with different needs. I wonder if you could expand on that. I know that has been a significant change recently, in terms of our refugee resettlement program.

[Morteza Jafarpour]

Historically, the process to determine who came to Canada as a government-assisted refugee was identical to the immigrant process. It was almost the same as a point system. The education or work experience people had, the level of their English or French, and how fast they would adapt to Canadian society were criteria to determine who would come to Canada, not their need for protection.

With the new legislation in 2003, I believe there were changes in that regard. Changes were requested with our international partners, such as IOM, International Organization for Migration, and UNHCR. It was a very positive step forward. One of the issues was that we needed to bring in people in most need of protection. In many cases, this means people who cannot return to the country or city where they are living. We end up with people who have lived in refugee camps for a long time.

We did a pilot project on 420 Somali refugees. Many of them lived in refugee camps for 15 to 20 years. Their children were born in refugee camps. In some cases, when they arrived at the refugee camps, they were two to three years old. They were even born there, and they had their own children in the refugee camp.

Living in those conditions definitely had a huge impact on their understanding of some issues, and also their skills. With every society you come to, you need to have a new set of skills. Living in refugee camp conditions, many of the children had never been to the regular school system. For many parents, it was just day-to-day survival.

We did a shorter study on the impact of culture shock. In fact, I did a presentation for the department. Many refugees arrived in Canada with information that wasn't accurate. We saw refugees who had culture shock, because their expectations were different. Again, not going into the details--the department has that--skills, setting new goals, or living in different conditions, from the weather climate to the cultural climate to the social interaction climate, all have an impact on how they perceive their new town and how they settle.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

My understanding is that there was a change, in that we were receiving more government-sponsored refugees who had health problems, disability problems we might not have seen in the past. Can you talk a bit about that?

[Morteza Jafarpour]

Definitely. Again, in the experience of our agency--and I think other organizations have identical experiences--for example, in Hamilton, 80% of government-assisted refugees are children. Eighty percent. I believe that's a great investment for Canada, by the way.

But at the same time, the parents or the children we have seen are coming with some health challenges, from nutrition and diet to other issues. Right now, you can come to Canada if you are HIV-positive. We have seen people who have come here. A specific case is a mother with ten children; the mother had cancer, and I think to bring them here is a great initiative. Part of the challenge always has been the current health system, but at the same time language barriers and other barriers make it more challenging. Some of the refugees we have seen have different levels of bridging health needs.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Are the organizations helping with the settlement of refugees getting the kind of information they need prior to the folks' arrival? I spoke with an agency once that said it can get a phone call from the airport telling them people are here, but they have no idea about their needs when they get there, even for things as basic as a wheelchair. So they haven't been able to arrange appropriate housing because wheelchair access is not usually accommodated in the kind of housing that refugees to Canada first find. Is that still a problem or an ongoing issue?

[Morteza Jafarpour]

This is part of the problem. I think any system goes through crisis. Any system you set up to deal in a proactive way has to have a component to deal with crisis. I always define the work we do in settlement as organized chaos, and that's very often the way you end up, especially when dealing with refugees. There is a system in place. Organizations are supposed to receive at least two weeks' notice of a family coming with children and all these things. It doesn't provide you with lots of information. It doesn't provide any information at all about their health. It doesn't provide any information about their immediate needs, but there are many factors, and very often, for example, they are moving the refugees from their primary camp to the secondary camp to the airport, and any issue may stop them from travelling.

That's why sometimes we expect 20 people and three people show up, or sometimes we don't expect people and suddenly they show up. It's not supposed to be a part of the process, but there is no choice and it happens.

With regard to health information, there is still a challenge. Apparently, refugees receive a package and need to share it and there is a combination of issues, from the refugees' understanding of the package and how they should deliver it, to the issue of the Privacy Act. Who should access that information? These are the challenges. I think that's a part of the ongoing work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

One fast question, then we'll move to Mr. Komarnicki. Just wrap up, Bill.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Is there an issue around interpretation and language services? My understanding from some agencies is that they're often dealing with language groups. There are no interpreters available in the communities folks are being settled in. Maybe that's not such a big issue in Toronto, which is our biggest city, but are you noticing in other areas of the country that that's a problem?

[Morteza Jafarpour]

We have a department that provides interpretation and that's not funded by any government department, provincial or federal. That's self-funded. I could say around 70% of all our requests are medical requests that are not covered by the medical community, and when you talk about government-assisted refugees with health issues, it becomes a serious barrier. The interpretation is, regardless of whether you're in Toronto or Calgary, any place, especially in the medical area, is a major issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.

I certainly appreciate the members appearing before this committee again. I think we all agree that the three areas of study you proposed certainly need to be undertaken and that we need to get the information.

I have several questions, three in particular. As I look at the various issues that are raised, we have the involvement of the provinces in provincial-federal agreements that affect the types of services that maybe are rendered, and so on. We have the provinces, which perhaps compete, or might compete, with one another for the purposes of attracting newcomers to their areas, and which may have some incentives separate and apart from federal funding and involvement. And you've got, of course, communities themselves, with some more proactive than others and interested in trying to attract newcomers. Of course, your umbrella groups are involved on the ground in day-to-day operations in the various provinces.

What would be your suggestion or proposal in terms of how the study in each of these areas should involve those particular elements and groups in a big picture way? How do you suggest they should be engaged in this process?

That's the first question, and I'll come back to the other two.

[Fariborz Birjandian]

Thank you.

In looking at influencing the regulatory bodies to respond to the need we have, I think there's another step before that, which is the type of selection we have. As you know, we're selecting based on human capital. So unless we address that issue, which is going to be very hard and not an easy thing to address, we have to recognize that if we are bringing in 35,000 engineers to this country and only have 5,000 engineering jobs, regardless of what we do, we're still going to have 30,000 or 27,000 foreign-trained engineers who can't go to work in a so-called professional engineering job. This is a challenge that every country has, including Canada. So if we want to address that, we have to go back to address the selection process.

If we cannot change that, then it comes down to an issue of really utilizing transferable skills, not focusing so much or only on accreditation. I was a ship captain. When I came to Canada, obviously there was no sea or boats on the prairies. I had to do something. Obviously, if I'd have been able to manage a ship with a crew of 300, I should be able to manage a restaurant or a small plant or a small organization. I think that is the shift in thinking we need to make and focus on how we are going to utilize the skills we have.

Also, we should really recognize that regulatory bodies have great roles to play. You can look at APEGGA in Alberta, which has done a great job. Part of that is because of the supply and demand we are facing in Calgary. So I think in going to the associations they really have to accredit these people. But you have to recognize they're representing their membership, so there are challenges we have. But we definitely, definitely have lots of room for improvement. I think they have to open their doors; there should be a lot of bridging of support for people to be able to access that. Some of that is happening. For instance, if you're a nurse overseas, you don't even have to come to Canada; you can even start your process before coming to Canada. These are very good, positive steps we have had in place now for the past few years. Also, we need to support these people; we expect people to come here and the next day to get a job and the next day to become a taxpayer. But it's not going to be easy for them, so we have to allow bridging programs.

The universities have to get involved. If you look at those partnerships, one piece that's missing is our training and educational institutions; they are not part of this. You can't find any university in Canada that will say, okay, if you're a doctor, now you have to do two years to become a doctor. That doesn't exist.

So expecting the regulatory bodies to do that is going to be challenging, but I think that with the new initiatives done in the past five years, obviously we're learning better and better how to utilize them.

[Wai Young]

Could I also respond?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Yes, sure.

[Wai Young]

I think one part of your question was also regarding the comparative services study, and that with the issue of the federal-provincial immigration agreements, how does one look at that or achieve that.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

With the other community groups and various organizations and the municipalities as well, how do you see them integrating in the study you propose?

[Wai Young]

The overall question the committee has to ask itself, or Canadians have to ask ourselves, is should we have national standards for some of these national programs. If the answer to that is yes, then is it acceptable to us as Canadians that regardless of which community or which province you immigrate to or choose to settle in, whether it's Regina or Windsor or Duncan, B.C., you can access English language training within a certain number of weeks and get comparable English language services up to certain levels of what you need in Canada?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

In terms of involving your umbrella groups, how do you see them being involved in the study? In the issue of the allocation of funding, where should those funds go and to which types of programs? How do you see that working? And if you have time, the other issue I was interested in is that refugees and newcomers have similarities, but there are also differences in some areas. In particular, you mentioned the area of culture shock and the effects of war and terror. Maybe we haven't addressed the differences and maybe some programming needs to be done there.

If you're able to get to that area, fine. Otherwise, I'll ask that question in the second round. But for the first round, how do you see your group interacting in the issue of the allocation of funding, where it should go, and in the study in general?

[Wai Young]

Currently we are not and the sector is not consulted in the area of funding or federal-provincial immigration agreements. These are all technical things that happen between the two departments, federal and provincial.

However, I believe there is a role for community groups and for groups such as ours, who have the expertise and knowledge in certain areas, to be included in that or at least to be considered. Some of the issues we raised here and have talked about are critical issues to settlement in Canada and how, as Fariborz was saying, we use our human capital we are bringing here through immigrants to Canada and how we capture that more effectively through better outcomes and also through national standards and better programs and services, that kind of thing.

I don't believe that is happening. I think if these agreements were more centred around client outcomes and in gathering the necessary expertise to be at the table to negotiate these agreements, that would be an important first step.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Mr. Karygiannis.