Debates of March 10th, 2005

Foreign Credential Recognition Program

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta, as well as the Conservative Party of Canada to participate in the debate on Motion No. 195 regarding the development of national qualification standards and the recognition of international credentials.

I congratulate the member for Brampton--Springdale for bringing forth this important motion. As she is relatively new to the chamber she may not realize that I was the first member ever to introduce a motion to develop national qualification standards and recognition of international credentials on the floor of the Canadian Parliament.

My Motion No. 232 was debated in 2001. I had tabled it two other times but I did not get the opportunity to debate it. It was the member's party that refused to support my motion. It was exactly the same motion but the Liberals refused to support it. I wish the hon. member better luck this time.

I have been talking about this issue since I first came to Canada in 1991. Like other newcomers I experienced firsthand the red tape and bureaucratic nonsense of my own degrees not being recognized. I have an honours B.Sc. degree in agriculture and an M.B.A., both from very reputable institutions, but I have suffered the fate which all newcomers face in Canada.

I have talked the ears off of everyone possible, including cabinet ministers. I tabled a private member's motion first in the 36th Parliament and then in the 37th Parliament, yet little has changed since then despite numerous promises by the Liberal government.

For years the government has been dithering on the recognition of international credentials. This has harmed our country and betrayed newcomers who offer skills that Canada needs. Year after year the Liberals promise action on the recognition of foreign credentials but they never do anything to fix the problem.

After defeating my motion, the Liberals realized their mistake. Then they included in their throne speeches that they would recognize foreign credentials. The 2001 throne speech stated:

These strategies commit the government to working in partnership with the provinces and territories and key stakeholders to develop fair, transparent and consistent processes to assess and recognize foreign qualifications before and after the immigrant's arrival.

In the 2002 throne speech there was another promise:

The government will work with its partners to break down the barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials and will fast-track skilled workers entering Canada with jobs already waiting for them.

Then there was another promise. Last October in the Speech from the Throne the government again voiced its intention to implement a program to recognize the international academic credentials of immigrant workers. It stated:

We will also deepen the pool of Canada's talent and skills by ensuring more successful integration of new immigrants into the economy and into communities.... The government will do its part to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience.

This follows a long line of unfulfilled promises. The Liberals are starting to sound like a broken record. This begs the question, how many times can they make the same promise without doing anything about it?

Canadians know the government is very good at paying lip service to problems, but it is terrible at delivering the goods. Promises made but never kept. New Canadians are not interested in more empty promises. They want jobs in their chosen professions, professions for which they are qualified, trained and experienced.

I remember one time in my constituency office there were six persons with Ph.D.s sitting together. They had come to lobby on this issue. All of them were underemployed and were doing menial jobs.

I remember one person in particular who had two doctorate degrees in environmental sciences, one from Germany and one from India. He had over 20 years of experience as a professor and scientist and he had written 43 research papers in reputable international journals.

He attended promotional seminars put on by CIC and HRDC in India to lure professionals to come to Canada. He applied under the “independent” category. His degrees fetched him the required points and he was granted immigration very quickly. He resigned from his prestigious job. However, once he arrived in Canada he felt that he had been duped. His degrees had already been recognized by Citizenship and Immigration Canada but they were not recognized in Canada, even by HRDC, Agriculture Canada, Health Canada and Environment Canada, because there is no coordination in different departments of the government.

He almost went crazy while working to support his family by, guess what, pumping gas at a gas station. This is a person with two Ph.D.s and so much experience and great repute. Other frustrated professionals told similar stories. Some are driving cabs and others are doing clerical work or even janitorial jobs.

When arguing that foreign credentials should be recognized, we are not talking about lowering standards in Canada. We are talking about some common sense.

The portability and recognition of skills and credentials are being addressed on a global basis. The governments of European states are already introducing mechanisms to make it easier for professionals to move from one country to another. The Canadian government should take this work seriously, assume leadership in this important area and keep up with the rest of the world so that we are not left behind.

More than 60% of new immigrants to Canada have earned post-secondary degrees in their native countries. Nearly half are trained in regulated industries, such as medicine, engineering and so on.

According to a study conducted by the Conference Board of Canada, more than 500,000 immigrants are working at jobs beneath their education levels because Canadian institutions and corporations will not recognize their degrees from foreign universities. It found that 23% of immigrants could not practise their profession and 49%, almost half of them, found that their foreign credentials affected their ability to get a better job for which they were professionally qualified.

Improved recognition of credentials could add 83,000 post-secondary degree holders to the existing talent pool. Allowing these skilled immigrants to participate fully in the workforce could improve Canada's performance on innovation and productivity.

Canada must consider creating a common framework for valuing, learning, establishing national standards, improving transfer mechanisms and institutional linkages, both in Canada and internationally

If people do not hold degrees from Canadian institutions, I think they cannot become members of Canadian professional groups. They are denied jobs in their field of expertise.

We know that four million people in this country do not have a family doctor. Meanwhile, foreign trained doctors are forced to sit idle. This is outrageous.

Prominent countries are competing for skilled workers, IT workers, for example. However, when those professionally qualified people arrive in Canada, we do not take care of them. What will happen is they will go to other countries.

There are certain countries in the world that do not have the natural resources that Canada is blessed with. They do not have many other things. What they simply have is a skilful pool of human beings. In countries like Taiwan, people are highly skilled. Those countries do not have natural resources, but they are dominating in many areas.

Similarly, there is a need for us to address the situation of coordinating the standards in Canada. If someone has a diploma in dental surgery from one province, the person cannot practise in the other provinces. It is similar for real estate agents.

In a nutshell, the Conservative Party of Canada believes in providing new immigrants with the best possible opportunity to use their education and experience here in Canada so that they can integrate better into Canadian society. We see this as a matter of fairness to newcomers and their families and a means of ensuring that Canada receives the full benefit of immigration.

Currently, federal government efforts on the issue of foreign credentials are too vague and superficial, just empty promises. The interdepartmental working group encompasses 14 departments but they are not working in coordination.

Therefore, Conservative proposals in this area will require a centralized structure to ensure their proper and efficient implementation. Motion No. 195 is worthy of our support. I encourage all members to support this motion and pray that the government will finally get its priorities in order and take immediate steps to facilitate the recognition of foreign academic credentials.

[Roger Clavet, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Motion M-195. Basically, this is a motion to establish a secretariat responsible for overseeing the foreign credential recognition program.

In immigration matters, some files are simple, while others are complex; some are a little obscure, while others are more transparent. Motion No. 195 is one of the latter. The situation could hardly be clearer. In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, Ottawa simply does not have jurisdiction on such a motion. This is not a fabrication of mine.

In fact, in a recent conversation with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, on which I have the pleasure of sitting, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre clearly recognized it. Allow me to quote her:

Credential recognition largely falls under provincial jurisdiction, a responsibility which has in the legislation been delegated to the regulatory bodies

We must understand—there are members in this House who do not seem to understand—that, in matters of immigration, the distribution of powers between Ottawa on the one hand, and Quebec and the provinces on the other hand, is very clear. It could not be any clearer, particularly for all matters pertaining to Quebec. We have the Canada-Quebec accord, which did not appear out of thin air, out of the blue. It was signed back in 1991 and is very comprehensive.

On the topic of foreign credential recognition, this accord is unequivocal: it is the responsibility of Quebec, not that of planet Mars. Section 25 of the accord is disconcertingly simple. It states, “Canada undertakes to withdraw from specialized economic integration services to beprovided by Québec to permanent residents in Québec”.

It cannot get much more transparent than that. However, there are cases where this agreement can be waived. For example, this is true for standards applicable to all of Canada. But, there can be no question of that here. In fact, it is not possible to have Canadian standards applicable to all professions, just as there simply are not standards applicable to all professional associations. This same logic applies to various regulatory bodies or educational institutions. Each one is free to create its own. It is certainly not up to the Canadian government to define the standards.

All the stakeholders involved in the foreign credential recognition process agree at least on one thing: it is extremely difficult to reach agreement with the professional associations—true—because each one, out of professionalism, has its own requirements. There has to be some consistency, and that is logical. The various stakeholders also agree that it is not possible, here, to have a package deal. The notion of standards cannot apply to the field, simply because one cannot be compared to another. This is a simple truth.

Everyone agrees too that it is essential to reach agreement with the professional associations and no one else—not with a new player joining those already in place. I do not want to give a lesson or a demonstration in this House on federalism. I will leave that to those who are still interested in it. However, it is important to remember that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over professional associations.

The debate could even conclude here, because it simply is irrelevant in this Parliament.

What is the meaning of this Liberal motion? I can see only one: it is yet another attempt to interfere in a discussion in which the federal government clearly has no place. This is not the first time and I imagine that it will not be the last. This happened with regard to parental leave. It also happened with regard to the famous millennium scholarships—yet another intrusion.

Canada's immigration system—even the last immigration minister recognized it—is not in good shape. We are in agreement. There are considerable delays. Here is yet another reason to address these delays and finally examine the issues so as to refocus. There is enough to do here before it pokes its nose where it does not belong.

It would be possible, anyway, for the federal government to find a solution to the problem of recognizing foreign credentials, because this is something we are already working on in Quebec. We have been focussing efforts on it for a number of years. It is a lengthy process, with all manner of difficulties. How then can the federal government claim—I find this rather amusing—to go still further than Quebec, when it has to deal with more parties than Quebec does? That claim does not hold up to scrutiny.

In fact, all that this interventionist approach will lead to is headaches, court challenges and disputes, more delays, lost time and energy, and wasted resources as well. Can we afford such wasteful systems?

If, with all the parties around the table and with the involvement of the all the professional accreditation bodies, Quebec is making only slow progress, no one can expect Ottawa will find it easier. Moreover, at this point in time, the mere act of initiating discussions with the professional associations, with whom Ottawa has no right to be dealing, runs the risk of compromising the progress Quebec has already made and the discussions it has already held. Ottawa is liable to slow down the process already under way and the final outcome will be a realization that they have reached a stalemate and so it will be back to square one.

Why insist on sabotaging a process that is already a difficult and laborious one, when there are so many other problems to be solved. Moreover, there are other issues to be solved that do fall under federal jurisdiction, so they could focus on them. They could start attacking them seriously right now. This very morning in committee—this happened in the immigration committee with my colleague—they were discussing the refugee appeal division. There are considerable delays. When will they start processing immigration files faster? All these delays poison the system. This is where the federal government could get involved. This is where they can play a role in moving things ahead. But no. Instead of putting a proper refugee appeal division in place, they again start interfering in others' jurisdiction and start talking about a national secretariat. Everyone is already saying there are too many structures, too many procedures, too much bureaucracy, and yet they would like to have one more thing: a national secretariat.

In my opinion, Ottawa must resolve the issue of partisan appointments once and for all. Why go to Quebec and see what is already being done and try to correct it? The delays—I already mentioned this—are still very long. In terms of the problems reuniting families, all the riding offices are inundated with requests to do so. There are considerable delays. There is a lot of work to be done and Quebec cannot resolve all this at once. However, we are working on it. What is Ottawa doing in the meantime? I wonder.

I would say Ottawa is trying to confuse the issue. We cannot say it enough in this House; the recognition of foreign credentials is not a federal jurisdiction.

I would like someone to explain to me, since no one was able to earlier, why there should be a secretariat to coordinate activities for which money has already been paid. The money in question exceeds what is needed for setting up the refugee appeal section people want.

How can we make Citizenship and Immigration understand this? There are so many problems. Why was money allocated to the foreign credential recognition initiative before any guidelines were drafted?

It is very clear that the recognition of foreign credentials is a provincial jurisdiction. In my opinion, this has been made abundantly clear by the Bloc Québécois over the years. What was true at the time is still true now. Parliament has no business discussing this motion. The Bloc Québécois will vote against Motion No. 195. I call on all hon. members of this House to respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in support of this motion and to further discuss the principles outlined in Motion No. 195.

This motion calls on the government to create a secretariat responsible for overseeing a foreign credential recognition program. It calls on the involvement of all those levels of government and various representatives who have a share or interest in this program. They would work together to implement national standards to recognize foreign credentials in Canada. We are well aware of the fact that employment is a key element of successful immigrant settlement and successful involvement in the Canadian way of life and economy.

When people apply to immigrate to Canada as economic immigrants, they submit their education and professional or trade credentials which are then judged on the point system. The points given to these are crucial to the success of their applications. Because they are so crucial to the application process, the expectation is clearly raised that people with these skills and abilities are needed and wanted in Canada.

However, sadly, many of these people arrive here to find that they cannot practice their professions or trades in Canada. There is a huge disconnect between the success of their immigration applications and their inability to work in Canada. This is unfair and unjust. It causes huge disappointment and frustration for these new immigrants.

Programs that facilitate their access to employment in their fields must be an integral part of Canada's immigrant settlement policies. We have all heard stories about physicians driving taxis, engineering professionals cleaning hotel rooms, and highly skilled people working in jobs that do not put to use their specific skills. I call to mind an oncology nurse in my own riding who, after a couple of years, was finally able to work in her profession, a highly skilled, highly trained individual.

We must ensure that people are able to fulfill their professional callings here in Canada. We must work out a way to let them contribute to their new home. In my riding and in ridings across the country this is something that happens to new Canadians, but there is a difference between being underemployed as a temporary measure when one first arrives and being forced long term to throw away one's particular talents and skills, and perhaps even to deny one's calling to a profession.

Being chronically underemployed is deeply damaging to the self-esteem of new immigrants. It hurts them spiritually and represents a waste of potential and resource to our country. New Canadians should be able to use their skills and talents here in Canada, so our country can benefit from their experiences and skill sets.

We need to create an infrastructure that allows immigrants access to do the meaningful work that they were trained to do. A coordinated infrastructure would expedite this process and allow for pan-Canadian standards which would make it easier and more accessible both for employers and new Canadians.

There is no doubt that this is a complicated matter here in Canada. There are many levels of government, many government departments, educational institutions, professional associations, licensing bodies and trade unions, all of which have an interest and a jurisdiction in the issue. Adding new levels of bureaucracy is clearly not always the best way of solving a problem, but the reality is that this problem has not been solved even though the seriousness of it has been recognized for so many years.

We need to take all measures to address this problem and be seen to be actively addressing this problem. Establishing a group of dedicated public servants with a specific mandate to find and implement solutions is a necessary step in the right direction.

Consecutive throne speeches have made the issue of foreign credentials a government priority. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has recommended that the federal government work toward developing a nationwide system for assessing international credentials. The committee is working on the issue of international credentials and I understand that it will soon be holding hearings across Canada. I hope it hears from Canadians about how to solve this problem and about how a secretariat might be of assistance in that solution.

I am aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been given a mandate from the Prime Minister to work on this issue. Citizenship and Immigration has a key role in this matter. Human Resources and Skills Development is also a key player, but there are at least 10 or 12 other federal departments involved. It speaks to the challenges of getting to a solution.

How do we best ensure that this situation receives the attention it deserves? How do we ensure that the issue of foreign credentials is resolved and that a system is in place that gets new immigrants to work using their overseas training?

We must ensure that this task is not something done off the side of the desks of many busy people with complex mandates. We must ensure that a branch of our government has a mandate for action on this issue, that it is that branch's priority, its full time endeavour.

I think the best way to accomplish this is to establish a secretariat for overseeing foreign credential recognition. This step would prove in a tangible systematic way that the federal government is serious about its leadership in this area.

Currently there is an enormous variation in the way that employers deal with the evaluation of foreign credentials. Some of them take them at face value and some use informal networks of friends or associates who may know more about the institution or standards in the potential employee's country of origin. Others use provincial or institutional assessment services.

We need to bring these methods together in a comprehensive system so that both employers and potential employees are not operating under a whole variety of conditions.

A secretariat would work to make employers comfortable with the skills of new Canadians. Many employers are hesitant to provide job opportunities to people about whose qualifications they are unsure. The federal government must step up to the plate and show ongoing leadership to help these employers, provinces and educational institutions with the task of putting new immigrants to work using their training and professional qualifications.

The federal government must show leadership on developing standards and appropriate process. It must not impose standards, but it must make available resources to ensure their development and their ongoing implementation. A secretariat would be a helpful tool in moving toward this goal.

It is not just the employers who should be comfortable with and informed of these standards for foreign credentials. The potential immigrants themselves should be given relevant information about certification processes in Canada so they would know what to expect. That would help them make a choice about coming to Canada.

I do caution that we need to think about regional strategies, as needs vary with geography. Immigrants tend to settle in cities, but all federal programs need to take into consideration the unique needs of the individual communities across Canada. We can achieve this with a consultative process championed by a secretariat with a mandate for consultation and the fostering of cooperation among all the players on this issue.

In an increasingly global world, Canada is competing for immigrants. Canada must be positioned as a destination of choice in order to attract the highest calibre of skilled workers.

We rely on immigration for growth in our economy. By 2015 all new job growth in Canada will come from immigration. By the mid-2020s, all new population growth will come from immigration. The ongoing viability of our social programs is also linked to population growth.

We cannot afford a bad reputation among potential immigrants. Canada must not be known as a place where highly trained, highly motivated professionals and skilled workers are not allowed to use their training and their skills. Nothing will limit our ability to attract immigrants more than that kind of bad reputation.

The Australian immigration department has centralized their skills recognition. The Australians have a dedicated area that deals only with this issue. Perhaps there is instructive experience in their model which will be helpful to Canada. This system allows a more accurate assessment of potential immigrants' skills before they apply for permanent residency. Australia is also one of Canada's only significant competitors for immigrants and it is recognized that Australia does a far better job in putting new immigrants to work after recognizing their credentials.

Perhaps even more worrisome is the fact that some research has begun to show that this situation is so frustrating for some new immigrants that they are now considering leaving Canada and returning to their country of origin or to some other country that actually will recognize their credentials. We cannot afford to lose people who at great personal sacrifice and with incredible hope for a better future for themselves and their families have chosen to come to Canada.

I realize that a long term systematic approach to bring together all levels of government, regulatory bodies, NGOs and so on is no small feat. The Conference Board of Canada calculates that the impact to Canada's economy of recognizing the skills of immigrants to be valued at $3 billion to almost $5 billion annually. This is a significant impact on our economy.

More than just the economic value, we must ensure that those people who choose Canada as their new home feel that their gifts and talents are recognized and appreciated and that they can take their place in making their communities and our country a better place to live.

These skilled workers are a vast untapped resource. At present they represent a huge brain drain to our country. Let us work together to make sure that Canada is an attractive place for skilled workers. I believe there is merit in this proposal and recommend that we continue the debate and interest in it.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The member for Thornhill has asked for unanimous consent to split her time, which requires consent of the House. Does she have consent of the House to split her time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for Brampton—Springdale for her passion, determination and efforts to create a more inclusive, stronger Canada. With consent of the mover and the seconder, I move:

That the motion be amended by:

(a) deleting the words “create a secretariat responsible for overseeing the Foreign Credential Recognition Program, which would work with all stakeholders and provincial representatives” and substituting the following: “direct Ministers responsible for overseeing the Foreign Credential Recognition Programs, to work expeditiously with all stakeholders and provincial and territorial governments”;

(b) deleting the word “national”;

(c) deleting the words “that recognize” and substituting the following: “to recognize”;

(d) deleting the words “foreign-training” and substituting the following: “foreign” and

(e) adding after the word “Canada” the following: “and produce a report within six months for the House”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before we can accept that amendment on the floor, we have to make sure that it has the consent of the mover of the motion.

Does the member for Brampton—Springdale give her consent?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Exploits, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the motion by my colleague from Brampton—Springdale. Her compassion on this issue has inspired many here today and hopefully will inspire all as we resume this debate.

The member is well known for her commitment to ensuring that foreign trained professionals and new immigrants can fully participate in the Canadian labour market and more broadly in our society. I want her to know that I too share this commitment.

I too am of the opinion that one of the conditions for Canada's prosperity and future competitiveness is to allow skilled immigrant workers and foreign trained Canadians to contribute to the socio-economic development of Canada.

In my rural riding, one of the prime concerns came from primary health care and the fact that providing health care providers for many of the smaller communities in my riding has become troublesome and very difficult.

This is one of the ways to combat that: by recognizing health care professionals from abroad. By doing that we can provide a better health care service to our smaller communities in rural Canada. This is one of the big reasons why I support this bill.

Despite the fact that more skilled immigrants and foreign trained professionals are coming to Canada, too many cannot get a job in their field and it is taking much longer for them to catch up to Canadians with similar levels of education and expertise, resulting in comparatively low income levels.

It is against this background of common concern for the better integration of immigrants into Canada's labour market that I am pleased to support the member's motion regarding the government's foreign credential recognition program. The policy objective has been clearly set out, and I support this bill and the efforts of my hon. colleague from Brampton—Springdale.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like some clarification. There are some things I have missed, even though I have been very attentive.

My colleague split her time, ten minutes, in two. She introduced an amendment. My colleague spoke and we were never asked if we were in favour of this amendment and whether we could debate it.

Can you explain what is going on in terms of procedure?

[The Deputy Speaker]

What happened procedurally was a little unusual. The member for Thornhill asked for permission to split her time with the member from Gander. That permission was given.

During the time available to the member for Thornhill, she moved an amendment to the original motion that changed the motion considerably. When the member from Gander had the floor, he spoke for four or five minutes and sat down.

If no one else rises to debate, then we will put the question on the amendment. If someone rises to debate, we will continue with debate. I did not see anyone rise, so therefore the question will be on the amendment.

[Susan Kadis, Liberal, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to call the question on the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on the amendment. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 23, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, usually the parties agree on presenting amendments to bills and motions.

First, we were not aware that this amendment was going to be introduced. Second, you read it aloud. Even though you read it slowly, even though we have good translators, there was a problem with the translation and I missed a part. It was not a big part, but still. I would have liked to have seen this amendment in writing. Third, there are members on the other side who were not in their places when they shouted out their agreement.

In the face of all this, to be fair, I would ask you, if it is possible, to delay this vote to another day, perhaps in the week we come back to the House.