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, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

0815

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.))

Mr. Martin Dolin (Executive Director, Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council)

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

0820

0825

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

0830

The Chair

Ms. Meryle Lewis (Chairperson, Needs Centre for War-Affected Families)

Mr. Jim Wolf (Therapeutic Specialist, Needs Centre for War-Affected Families)

0835

0840

0845

The Chair

Ms. Monika Feist (Success Skills Centre)

0850

0855

0900

0905

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand (University of Manitoba)

0910

0915

0920

The Chair

Dr. Vedanand

0925

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Jim Wolf

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Jim Wolf

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Jim Wolf

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Jim Wolf

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Jim Wolf

0930

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji (Labour Market Specialist, Success Skills Centre)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

0935

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

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

0940

Mr. Dale Wilson (Member, Board of Directeur, Needs Centre for War-Affected Families)

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

0945

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

Ms. Monika Feist

The Chair

Ms. Monika Feist

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Ms. Monika Feist

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

Ms. Monika Feist

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

0950

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.)

Mr. Martin Dolin

Ms. Monika Feist

0955

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

Ms. Monika Feist

1000

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Ms. Monika Feist

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

1005

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

Ms. Monika Feist

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

Ms. Monika Feist

Mr. Tayeb Méridji

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Martin Dolin

1010

The Chair

1030

Ms. Magaly Diaz (Acting Executive Director, Employment Projects of Winnipeg Inc.)

1035

1040

The Chair

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen (Planning Director, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal)

The Chair

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

1045

Mr. Bob Silver (Chair, Grow Winnipeg Steering Committee, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Silver

1050

The Chair

Mr. Jim Carr (President, Manitoba Business Council)

1055

1100

The Chair

Mr. Bob Gabuna (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Bob Gabuna

The Chair

Mr. Bob Gabuna

1105

The Chair

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

The Chair

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

1110

Ms. Magaly Diaz

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Magaly Diaz

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Magaly Diaz

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Magaly Diaz

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Magaly Diaz

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Magaly Diaz

The Chair

Ms. Leslie Wilder (Vice President, Human Resources, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Leslie Wilder

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Leslie Wilder

Mr. Bob Silver

1115

The Chair

Mr. Jim Carr

1120

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Bob Silver

The Chair

Mr. Bob Silver

The Chair

1125

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

Mr. Jim Carr

Mr. Bob Gabuna

1130

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Jim Carr

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

1135

Mr. Bob Silver

The Chair

1140

Mr. Bob Silver

The Chair

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen

The Chair

Ms. Magaly Diaz

The Chair

1145

Mr. Jim Carr

Mr. Bob Silver

The Chair

1150

Mr. Bob Gabuna

The Chair

Mr. Jim Carr

The Chair

Mr. Jim Carr

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

Mrs. Lynne Yelich

The Chair

1155

Mr. Jim Carr

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Mr. Andrew Telegdi

The Chair

Ms. Leslie Wilder

Mr. Jim Carr

1200

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 026

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Wednesday, February 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¾ (0815)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)) Good morning. It's a nice crisp morning in Winnipeg. I just want to let you know that Ottawa is just as cold, so it's not as if we're doing any worse--or Toronto, or wherever.

Again this morning we're going to continue the discussions the committee wanted to have after the immigration and refugee bill we passed last June. We have travelled to some parts of the world to find out how we're doing in recruiting immigrants and how we can do a much better job--as well as with refugees. Now the committee wants to do a study on our settlement and integration programs in light of the new legislation, new requirements, and the needs of the country. We've begun that work.

We're also looking at Bill C-18, provincial nominee programs, and a new national ID card, which I may ask you about later. Just tell me what you think about it on the surface, even though we're just getting into that.

Because you're the people on the ground delivering some of the services, we'd like to hear how we can meet your needs and how you meet the needs of your clients. We're looking for a critique of how our programs are working, what new programs we need, and your ideas on how we can do a much better job.

I'd like to have each and every one of you give us about seven or so minutes--we have your briefs--to talk a little bit about your organizations, what you're doing, and what your impressions are. Then we'll have all kinds of time to ask you some questions.

I'm happy to welcome the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council. We have Martin Dolin here, who happens to be related to our researcher, but that won't influence us in any way--or maybe it will.

Martin, welcome.

Mr. Martin Dolin (Executive Director, Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council): Thank you very much.

I also want to compliment you on your courage in taking a cross-Canada tour in the middle of winter. You're pretty lucky to have come to Winnipeg during a chinook, because a couple of days ago it was really cold.

The Chair: I thank you for thinking it's courageous. I think it's stupid myself. We should have gone to other parts of the world that are probably much warmer in February.

Mr. Martin Dolin: Your timing is not great, but thank you for coming.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin Dolin: There's a major problem I have that I think the committee should be aware of. The two general themes both deal with the Department of Immigration. My agency contracts under the RAP program, which is the resettlement assistance program. It should probably be called the Canadian Resettlement Assistance Program, which would result in a better acronym.

I've been doing this since 1990. We handle all the government-sponsored refugees. We are a sponsorship agreement holder. We basically provide paralegal services for refugee claimants and services through the provincial government under what they refer to as the MIIP program, the Manitoba immigrant integration program. We're basically the all-in-one, one-stop-shop in Winnipeg.

We also sponsor more refugees. My agency is a sponsorship agreement holder in the whole city of Montreal and the whole city of Vancouver. So we're pretty busy with refugees at all levels.

I've been executive director since 1990 and there are two themes I've noticed in the Department of Immigration that have been consistent. One theme is to do as little work as possible and to off-load as much as possible on everybody else. I'll give you the history of that in a minute. The second theme is to keep refugees out of Canada, and if they get in here to get them out.

Let me give you the history of the first theme. In 1990, when I started, Barbara McDougall was the minister. She came up with a five-year plan that many of us bought into. We bought buildings and leased property because the five-year plan was supposed to have 13,000 government-sponsored refugees coming in every year for the next five years.

We started contracting with the government under the AAP program, the adjustment assistance program for the government-sponsored refugees, assuming that for the next five years there would be 13,000 government-sponsored refugees. In those days there were about 10,000 privately sponsored refugees. This was slowing down from the boat people, when we were bringing in 30,000 a year. The major influx we saw in the 1990s was from Bosnia. We were still seeing a lot from Central America and a lot of refugee claimants.

In 1992 Mr. Valcourt all of a sudden got rid of the five-year plan, cut the federal quota down to 7,300, and started boxing in the private sponsorships. Then came interdiction overseas to stop people from coming. Then came other ways of keeping refugees from coming into the country. Safe third country themes started coming up in the 1990s, where Canada would dump its spontaneous arrivals onto the U.S. and let the U.S. deal with them.

The other themes were to contract to us and to dump things. For example, the government settlement workers used to pick people up at the airport. They used to actually see clients. Now there are 1-800 numbers. They see clients once to threaten them if they get a job and don't report it, and give them their budget and tell them what to do with it. But basically they have off-loaded the work.

I would like to read you a section from the contract we sign with them, which they tell us is a take it or leave it contract. Nobody in their right mind who had a choice would sign a contract like this. It says:

Notwithstanding section 8.1, the Department may by written notice direct, as the need under this Agreement, including changes by way of the discontinuation of a service, the enhancement of a service, the addition of a new service, or all, where the Department is of the opinion that the eligible clients' resettlement and integration into the community would be better met by such changes.

Last year, when the department gave us the contract they said, “Oh, you will have to take the pictures of the clients now”. I pointed out that the Polaroid camera cost $1,700, plus the film was very expensive. They said, “Well, that's your problem. Read this section of your contract.” Basically the department is telling us to take it or leave it.

We are also getting the theme of keeping refugees out, and the department off-loading continues unabated. Since those in the department don't see clients any more, they monitor the private sector, those people they fund, and come up with more and more data collection. I would like to give you a little history of the department's data collection.

In the mid-nineties the department hired a bunch of consultants and went out and started what they called an assembly management information system. They were going to develop their own software, hardware, etc. We sort of suggested that was probably not a good idea. My computer and data collection people pointed out that you could go to Future Shop and buy Paradox or Microsoft programs off the shelf that could be standardized and used to compare data around the country.

But they said they wanted to do it, and $3 million later, when their system crashed the person who was responsible was gone. Now they have a new system. It's called iCAM. I have no idea what it stands for, but let me give you our first results with iCAM. This is once again a non-standard piece of software that I'm sure cost a great deal of money

¾ (0820)

We sent in data and were curious what was happening nationally. The first aggregate data we got back showed that the length of stay in temporary accommodations was minus 2.5 days, which meant that our clients left two and a half days before they arrived. We pointed this out to the department, and what they have done by way of solving this problem is not to send us any more aggregate data. I think once again we're in this boondoggle.

The other thing is, I think the department has its little pet projects. One of the pet projects we're in the middle of now--which has been off-loaded--is smart cards to replace the IMM 1000.

This came up during Eleanor Caplan's era. I remember meeting with senior officials in the department then and they wanted to do this, long before 9/11. They wanted to have smart cards people could carry that would have pictures, etc. And later I can explain to you why it's not going to work to solve the problem they want to solve, by the way. The American green cards don't work and this won't work either.

What happened then is that I asked the question in a meeting of senior officials of how much it was going to cost. Some of Ms. Caplan's staff were there, and they said $5 million. What I find interesting post-9/11 is that the last figure I heard was $17.3 million--and that's without the biometrics. Okay. It seems like the department is getting their toys, and they've used 9/11 to give them the justification for getting them.

Another thing, it's my understanding that the settlement budget for the last number of years has been $44 million and odd change. I understand that's the same. Now, where that other $17 million for the smart cards came from is beyond me.

One of the problems we have is when the department wants to push people across the border into the U.S.--and these are human beings, most of whom are refugees, which means persecuted people, by definition--58% of these people, who are inland arrivals, would have been approved by the IRB. These are real people who would be real refugees.

I'm probably going over seven minutes. One of the things I'd like to explain a little about is why the smart cards won't work, so if one of you wants to ask about that I'll explain to you what's wrong with the American green cards, and it's what's going to happen with our cards.

The major theme I'm trying to express is that the department now does less work; to justify its existence, it is doing more monitoring. Its monitoring is inadequate, dysfunctional, it hampers our abilities to do settlement work with clients because we are spending more and more time on more and more forms that are totally irrelevant to the work we do.

Thank you.

¾ (0825)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin Dolin: I appreciate the theme music for the last--

The Chair: It's not as if we don't have a little bit of time, so if you have some other points, I know we'll ask you something, but you might want to....

Mr. Martin Dolin: Okay. I'm also on the voluntary sector initiative board for Manitoba, and I just recently had a meeting with the immigration people, who wanted to get something done regarding the settlement sector and the voluntary sector initiatives. It is totally a master-slave relationship, as you can see by this contract.

When this RAP contract was negotiated, they called all the settlement agencies from around Canada--there were meetings in Toronto, there were meetings in Ottawa--and basically we were told all the people-integrating services we are supposed to provide have to be done within a fixed period of time: at one time it was 10 days, now it's 20 days--plus, they will pay us for 13 hours of orientation work.

Now, everybody said this was insane. You can't teach people things like the Canadian banking system, getting their kids registered in schools, getting into the health care system, etc., in 13 hours. And basically what we were told was, “That's all we're going to pay you for”.

I know every settlement agency in this country is doing at least 30 hours. Why? Because we're committed to what we do. And the fact that we're only being paid for 13 means we will somehow make it up someplace else.

What you learn if you're going around the country is that Manitoba and B.C. are unique. Their host programs and the immigrant settlement assistance programs are now run provincially.

In closing, I want to say that in the four years since this has happened, one of the things I've noticed while actually dealing with the province is that--in spite of the old saw that the big lie is “I'm from the government and I'm here to help you”--in fact we find the provincial government being very helpful. They're closer to the scene. They help us with material. They don't just look over our shoulder, evaluate us, come up with new forms, create ways of deterring us from doing our job, interfere with our operations, interfere with our clients. The provincial government seems to be onside and helping. I don't know whether that's still true in B.C.

This was another way the federal governent wanted to off-load. They tried to off-load on all the provinces. Most of the provinces resisted. I'm glad Manitoba got into it, because I think it makes our job a little easier--at least on that level with the longer-term refugees and immigrants--being able to deal with the province, who seems to want to help us, rather than just look over our shoulder and interfere with us.

I can get into more of this theme, but I think there are other people who would like to say a few things.

Thank you very much for your indulgence.

What you learn if you're going around the country is that Manitoba and B.C. are unique. Their host programs and the immigrant settlement assistance programs are now run provincially.

I can get into more of this theme, but I think there are other people who would like to say a few things.

Thank you very much for your indulgence.

¾ (0830)

The Chair: Thank you, Martin.

From the NEEDS Centre for War-Affected Families, we have Jim Wolf, Meryle Lewis, and Dale Wilson here joining us.

Ms. Meryle Lewis (Chairperson, Needs Centre for War-Affected Families): I'd like to thank you very much for allowing us to be here today and for your panel to actually take the time to do this and to be here.

I would like to introduce Jim. He is going to speak. He is on staff at the NEEDS Centre. I have just recently become involved with the NEEDS Centre as the new president of the board of directors, and with me is Dale Wilson, who is also on the board of directors.

Mr. Jim Wolf (Therapeutic Specialist, Needs Centre for War-Affected Families): I think I have the job because I'm the second-longest-standing employee at NEEDS. I actually chaired the committee that hired Marty, so blame me.

I was on the board of Interfaith. Our agency was spawned by Interfaith at a time when it was at a critical juncture, looking at longer-term settlement needs. That has been the focus of NEEDS for about a decade now.

I've been involved with refugee-related work, as I said in the handout, for about two decades, with the Anglican Church. I've been hands-on with sponsored families since I began this work.

One of the transitions we made as a board with Interfaith was from the time when there was only one full-time paid staff person there, and that was the executive director. In a commitment to serving refugees with the best quality possible, the board clearly made the decision that we needed to go to a much larger staff. We needed to go to a paid staff to replace people who'd been doing the settlement work as volunteers. We're probably at the same point at NEEDS, and I can think of two or three other refugee-serving agencies with the same issues.

Although it was recommended by a study that we look primarily to volunteers to meet the needs of newcomers, clearly this is not acceptable. You need people with foreign language capacity, and you simply cannot ask a volunteer to give the kind of commitment and time necessary when you also have need of language and cultural background and awareness. There's a very specialized multicultural awareness that is a part of this job.

You need a lot of volunteers, to be sure, and Interfaith I think has more than ever, but you need a core paid staff in order to make this efficient and effective. NEEDS has one full-time paid staff person. That's the executive director. I'm half-time. I work full-time. I still work as a volunteer and in addition to that donation I pay out of my own pocket for a great number of other things that happen at the centre.

It seems to me that we've reached the point where that is no longer effective in looking at long-term settlement needs. As an organization, we're rethinking that. We're doing what we can, but we need the cooperation of the federal government.

One of the realities in terms of longer-term settlement needs is that it's not just immigration funding we're looking for. We have many issues that have to do with health and education. We are not funded through health and education provincially, and yet at this time my work almost totally focuses on working with schools. I'm the person the child guidance clinic in Winnipeg phones when they have a war-affected student and they don't know what to do with him.

I'm the person who develops the materials to hand out. I pay for them out of my own pocket. I'm happy in many ways to be able to do that, but my finances just don't extend to funding the agency for half of my time.

I think that is characteristic of everybody who is on staff at the NEEDS Centre. There's a very high commitment to being there for newcomers. Most of the people there have been newcomers themselves and have experienced the things we are addressing. But they're there largely in a part-time and volunteer capacity.

My first association with the NEEDS Centre was as the bus driver. We have a church ministry bus. I met children and youth, and I have driven them to their events and what have you. We did this as a cost-saving measure.

So this has really been my focus for quite some time.

A couple of years ago, in cooperation with all the refugee-serving agencies in Winnipeg, we developed a program whereby we brought in speakers who gave conferences and workshops to address the needs of children and youth. This was clearly identified as a number one priority. What we found was that if you actually have programs with children and youth, you also get their parents. A whole family approach is needed.

As we have met in formal and informal ways, we have found that often the real issues emerge. It takes time.

We struggle with the language issue. One of the huge needs we have as a group in our counselling program is to look at competent translators who will work in a therapeutic mode with our clients. At times I have had to take whoever we could get. Often that's why we have such a wide variety of people as volunteer staff. Clearly, they are not trained and do not have a focus in terms of therapeutic issues. That's a major problem.

Other major problems have to do with the sheer number of people who are clearly identified as having post-traumatic-stress issues. The reality is that if we do not begin to deal with these issues in a creative way with the resources in place, they will accumulate. I tried to come up with some very conservative statistics in terms of if there were only 1,000 people coming to Manitoba per year. In the trauma recovery literature it says that between 25% and 35% of refugee newcomers are already exhibiting post-traumatic-stress symptoms when they arrive. Everyone who is a refugee has some sort of traumatic stress by definition. So realistically that is a very conservative and low number.

If you look at the total number of people served by all of the refugee-serving agencies in Winnipeg that do counselling of any sort, you'll see that we are simply not covered for the numbers who are here. At the NEEDS Centre we have as paid staff the equivalent of one counsellor position. I find this somewhat embarrassing when I go to agencies in the province, such as income assistance. One worker there asked me, could you do this, this, and this? I said I can't do that because I only work 20 hours a week. He said “Is there another staff person?” I said “We have the equivalent of one staff person to deal with all the post-traumatic-stress referrals that come from all of the schools in Winnipeg. We deal with the child guidance clinic and the teaching staff and principals in trying to interpret what is happening with their students. I work half-time.” He said “How could that be? That's not a serious focus.”

I'm trying to answer questions from people as to why we are so under-resourced.

I wrote about some of the things that have happened in the last little while. I printed these things on my computer. This is the first time I have had ink in my computer for two months. I supplied my own computer.

It seems to me that this is a pilot project, underfunded reality we must deal with. But we've already demonstrated the need. We've long since come to the point of realizing that we need to move to a more professional staff.

¾ (0835)

We have no psychologists on staff, other than in a very part-time and volunteer role, so I wind up doing a fair bit of the training myself. I'm not funded for any of it.

I taught four days of a university course, which was the first course at the University of Manitoba to deal with the issues of war-affected peoples. That was the first time we've had something at a university professional level--a post-graduate course.

There is no other centre of excellence already developed other than our program. I hope I've made my point.

In terms of the work of trauma recovery, I believe for most people who deal with or specialize in the issues of trauma recovery--without being necessarily focused in terms of newcomers or refugees or having an immigration connection--there's a paradigm shift happening. The shift is away from a purely medical, symptom-focused understanding of what trauma is to understanding that it's primarily community and families that help heal trauma. So what I'm doing in terms of the orientation of child guidance workers, those in the schools and others, is helping them to become more like a family grouping.

To give an example of a practical way this shows up, we had a high school student from a particular school who was presenting with his school guidance personnel as being suicidal. When we began to open up the issue, we found that he had two brothers still in some form of detention in Africa, one of whom was his twin. He was depressed because he wanted to drop out of high school to earn enough money to be able to sponsor his brother to come here, because the immigration door had shut firmly in the middle of this person's family.

In order for him to find help so that he could go back and complete his education, we had to find a sponsor to bring the family here, and they had to assume total responsibility for it. We were able to go through all of the agencies, and Jim Mair's agency--I believe he spoke with you before--eventually did sponsor. We got one brother here. The other brother is still left behind in Kenya. This person went through a tailspin in terms of his mental health before his brother arrived. Now that his brother is here, he is doing much better.

He was involved with the courts because of a huge misunderstanding, which we were able to address. But many hours were spent with his mental health issues and with his family, because the immigration door had been shut on part of the family, and that, generally speaking, has shown up as an issue many times.

What we find is that they're looking for people who can help, who will take a personal interest and be like a brother or sister or uncle for them in terms of finding the appropriate sponsorship assistance as needed.

The work it needs is in a new area of expertise. We find there are some people who are dealing with very similar issues and have pioneered different approaches. They all have to do with the creative-expressive arts programs as a way of dealing with long-term settlement needs for people who don't understand what counselling is, who don't understand the professional counselling hour, and whose post-traumatic-stress symptoms are writ fairly large.

I'll just give an example of how this has worked out. We found funding through the environmental partners fund in a project with Manitoba Interfaith about 12 years ago. It was demonstrated on the CBC national news. One of our workers, in the context of agricultural cooperative development, tripped into her trauma of seeing her family killed with a particular knife that we were using to dress chickens that particular day. Our staff were able to surround her and assist her in terms of the abreactive experience she was going through. We were funded through the environmental partners fund to do this.

Those kinds of experiences have led me to believe that we need to develop a whole new approach for dealing with trauma.

¾ (0840)

If there is a positive thing people would be working for as a whole community—and often in the context of positive goals being worked on, whether for employment, recreation, schoolwork, or what have you—it's in the context of those activities that community develops, and it's in fact community that helps heal trauma.

It's necessary to help bring people who are new to Canada on board by developing new ways of responding to trauma within each language and ethnic group. It's also necessary to train mainstream counsellors how to do this work, in terms not only of trauma recovery but of how to do it multiculturally. That is the task that falls upon our agency to do. We run in-house programming for the downtown area. We simply have no budget for transportation to bring anyone from anywhere else in the city, so we have to put kids at night on the city bus.

We need to take a look at funding. We need to look at the issues of mental health—even agriculture funding for some of the work that we do, or recreational funding, and on and on. It's not just the purview of one federal or provincial department. Some sort of cooperative effort that will assist all of the agencies that do this work in Winnipeg, it seems to me, is pretty critical.

I think perhaps I have said enough. Please read all the things we have put forward. I would be very happy to answer questions.

¾ (0845)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jim, Meryle, and Dale. I'm sure we do have a lot of questions for you.

Success Skills Centre, welcome.

Ms. Monika Feist (Success Skills Centre): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

I have a handout on the Manitoba advantage. We have these brochure covers free—if you want to call them free—from the Government of Manitoba, which we use as a marketing tool with employers our centre visits.

This is Success Skills Centre's seventeenth year of operation as a community-based, not-for-profit organization working with underemployed and unemployed immigrant professionals—and refugees; I want to emphasize that as well.

Over the years, efforts have been focused on those who have had education and experience from outside of Canada, with a view to helping remove some of the barriers clients encounter on returning to their occupations or related fields. Applications are taken at our centre year-round. From 1985 to 1990 only one program per year was funded by the federal government, for 15 clients—at that time, all immigrant women professionals. This we were then able to expand in the early 1990s to 45-plus men and women, because we were serving both anyway, and then in 1997 to 100-plus, and in the last three years to 300-plus. I use the word plus because we are contracted for 300, but we get many more coming in, along with the individual who walks in our door who we end up serving as well.

Our success rate for clients returning to their occupations and related field has ranged from the low of 70% to 96%, depending on the labour market needs, the economic conditions, employer acceptability, client readiness, social and cultural issues, and individual situations. This result is based on a simple formula, which seems to have held true for us, that a third of our clients are ready to be marketed, the second third are almost ready and need a bit of help from us, and the final third need some career advice and encouragement to return to classes, use some other agencies as an interim measure, complete paperwork and courses to get themselves on the way, and then return to us for further assistance.

To date, this year—that is, the fiscal year—170 clients of what we have are back to their occupations or working in related occupations.

We are a small operation, with five and a half person-years to carry out all the functions, from monthly orientation, workshops, marketing, placements, monitoring, and employment maintenance to advocacy and administration. Our staff are paid for seven hours a day but often put in two to three hours of unpaid work per day because we need to respond to the clients' needs, especially if they are working in the daytime or doing shift work or labour survival jobs, and the needs of employers, who may only have time prior to eight o'clock in the morning or after five o'clock.

Our staff and those of other immigrant-serving agencies are a very special group of people who are at the front line to meet, identify, and challenge the barriers our clients encounter.

We work in tandem with our sister organizations--the International Centre, Employment Projects of Winnipeg, Welcome Place, and the Jewish Child and Family Service, among others--and we encourage our clients to continue those and other relationships with other like agencies, because our clients need to have all kinds of networks of people working on their behalf. Our clients do not necessarily have friends or relatives who can give them that long-time influential contact for a job like a Canadian who has grown up here.

So what are the specific settlement needs of the immigrant professional? As was said to you already last night, employment is the one specific area where, if all works out, the immigrant can settle in and get on with life in Canada. When clients expect to work in their occupations in Canada, it's because they understand their occupations are in demand in Canada. Even the websites and the literature say so. Then, on arrival, they are told their education and training is not recognized here. Anger, frustration, despair, and depression often set in.

We often first meet our clients at that stage. They have used up the savings they brought here, because of the length of time it takes for English-language training, anywhere from four to ten months; certification issues, such as lack of recognition of prior learning and credits; courses, exams, and assessments held only at certain times of the year; and rejection by employers due to lack of Canadian work experience.

On average, it may take us from three months up to more than a year to help them return to their occupation. Some of that is also due to the limitations of the staffing resources to do some of the more direct marketing.

In point, the issues can be elaborated as follows:

Regarding the information on the real picture of Canada and accreditation, clients are not told abroad how long it really takes to settle in Canada and how long it will take to get their credentials recognized. Many an independent immigrant has told us that had they known it would take anywhere from four to seven years to rewrite what they already know and knew in order to work in their field, they would not have come. Maybe that's why we're not telling them abroad.

The assessing associations, in dealing with some of our clients, in our opinion have shown themselves to be arrogant and ignorant of what goes on in the rest of the world. There are excellent models of accreditation in Europe, Britain, New Zealand, and Australia, just to name a few, which should have been implemented in Canada a long time ago. Just look at the European common market and see what they have done recently. Canada is also a signatory to international conventions that deal with the professions. But to date, the shameful way immigrant professionals are treated in this country has not reached the world stage; it's now just a matter of time.

Is accreditation a national or provincial jurisdiction, you ask? Several years ago, at the first conference on accreditation in Kingston, Ontario, I told Minister Jane Stewart that it's in both camps. On the national end, it's often the national organization that does the evaluation--for example, in medicine, nursing, law, and medical laboratory, to name a few--and then the provincial organizations follow through on a local level for the courses and testing, and again, for some, to a national standard, and for some to a provincial standard.

For a thinly populated country, there is over-duplication of accreditation bodies, to start with, and immigrants, especially, are taken for a ride all the way. As a result of the experience we've had over so many years, education and accreditation is a business in this country, and not honest, in order to make money and create jobs for the self-protecting incumbents.

Protecting the public is raised, but if that were the case, appropriate competency-based systems would have been put in place a long time ago. If the federal government and the provincial government would put the dollars forward so that these systems can be developed, then fairness in assessment will bring on immigrants who can help build and increase our economic well-being, and maybe there would be more investment into expanding Canadian businesses by the new Canadians.

So somebody has to take the bull by the horns, and stop the bull. The question is, do you have the guts to do it, or will you too pass the buck?

¾ (0850)

Regarding timing of entry into Canada, a civil engineer--and you are feeling the effects--landing in Winnipeg in August or September, just before winter, has minimal to no opportunity of getting employed in his or her area of expertise, aside from the need, as the job ads advertise, to be eligible for registration with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba, which may take them another two to four years before they can even start to practise.

Because of the slow processing of applications, you have already heard yesterday that immigrants are arriving after the fact, when the occupation is no longer in demand--and we're at the front line to say that. So what do they do? The reality doesn't dawn on them until they've made an exhaustive search, and then it's too late to go back home where they gave up everything.

Independent immigrant professionals need to be told that they will not be working in or near their profession for years, and that they will be most likely working at places like Palliser's, in labouring or manufacturing occupations, low-paying service occupations, and the like. As one of our staff has said, and now echoed by a lot of the immigrant service providers, immigrant professionals are lured, seduced, and abandoned by Canada.

Recently we have seen more immigrant professionals leave and return to their home countries following a disappointing job search here. They're carrying the message back, too, and the seduction and abandonment messages are travelling even faster by the Internet.

Labour market information is very poor and unreliable. Personally, I think we could do without all those government economists at the high salaries, because they are always out of kilter with your forecasting and statistics--and I can speak for the last 30-plus years.

Let me elaborate. That stable Manitoba unemployment statistic is misleading. Many people, for instance, are not included as unemployed because they may be treading water at an educational institute, because they can't find a related job and are retaking their area of expertise for a Canadian certificate and come out still unemployed and no further ahead, due to bad advice, or they've given up and go on social assistance, or end up so frustrated with the system that they need psychological assistance, or they may commit suicide. I've gone to a number of funerals now in the last number of years.

Predictably, every year the Business Council of Manitoba laments the fact that Manitoba needs more skilled immigrants. Every year, I ask the head of the organization to just give me the list of the companies and what they need, and I know I or one of my sister organizations could fill their need. Every year, they can't come up with that list. It's a bit of a laugh for us now, but it is so sad and we should cry about it.

Maybe, just maybe, the skilled workers they are talking about are not the skilled workers that governments are talking about, and it's embarrassing for them--that is, the council--to be specific and say really what they want are skilled production workers to do jobs that Canadians don't want to do. Maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to stop the charade and stop the pain.

On English as a second language, even though many immigrant professionals are now coming with more highly developed language skills, occupational language-specific programs are just in their infancies and have a long way to go to be specific enough for workplace usage. Language benchmarks at level six or seven are not good enough to take the exams they have to take, and thus require a minimum of three to four months of full-time study, and up to ten months, at times, to be able to perform well in exams.

The English language pronunciation courses taught do not relate well to those of non-European-based languages, and more particularly, for many from China and area. The one-on-one pathologies, as I call it, for lack of a better term, that need to be dealt with by specialized help are not available, nor are the dollars for that. This inhibits this specific group from progressing fairly into the labour market. They are rejected and discriminated against in the workplace at a level of human rights violations, and we have many examples. We encounter more difficulties in marketing this group than any other singular group. The wasted human brain power lost to Canada and the world as a result is tragic, and again, shameful.

On employers' reticence, sometimes, due to past experience, myths, and misinformation, or lack of understanding of international training and educational systems, employers are reluctant to hire immigrant professionals.

¾ (0855)

We believe that through the model we follow whereby our staff tackle in our workshops various cultural, social, and behavioural issues related to the Canadian workplace, along with other job search and job maintenance training and followed by internships, we are able to convince the employers that our clients are the ones they should hire.

Nine out of ten end up with the jobs they were placed in following their six-week internship program. If we had more staff we could place more. In many cases, our employers create new jobs for our clients, jobs that did not exist previously. This is in spite of the fact that most of our clients are still working at their accreditation.

A number of years ago now, when our centre was under HRDC, we were able to place with employers for up to 12 weeks clients whose English level was a lot lower than that of many of our present clients. At that time, clients received a training allowance through what was called then the Canada Manpower training program--they did change the name later--or UIC. That allowed the clients to pay for their transportation and to survive while learning to gain future earning with the employer.

Presently our clients have to volunteer their time at their own cost full-time for six weeks with the employers. I think this is unfair to the clients, but there is no other stick we can offer to the employer.

Also, we used to get $500 per client to access jobs, specific courses, training, and a special needs amount of $1,500, for instance, for steel-toed boots, lab coats, eyeglasses, hearing aids, and speech therapy. We don't get that any more. In the changeover from the federal government to the province, that funding did not come along to the province.

In our opinion, the labour market and immigration agreements have shortchanged the province in providing for some very important necessities to help our clients gain appropriate employment. This funding needs to be restored.

Now to mythologies. I'm almost done.

All of our clients have post-secondary education, up to double PhDs. Often they are told by Canadians, friends, family, educational and other institutions and organizations, and counsellors that they need to have a Canadian certificate to work in their occupation in Canada.

While it may be true in some cases, in most instances what they might need is what we call gap training. That might mean, for example, computer exposure where the engineer might need AutoCad, although a lot of them are coming with that now, Word, and Excel. An accountant might need Simply Accounting, Word, and Excel, and so on.

Recently, due to some slippage, we were able to again introduce these courses to our clients in a partnership with Employment Projects of Winnipeg and Manitoba Labour and Immigration. In the past, during HRDC days, we had an almost 100% job placement rate with these clients. We expect a similar result in this round. The present courses are already oversubscribed, and we hope we'll be able to continue with the courses if more dollars are forthcoming.

Our experience has been that the most important things that get an individual back to their occupation in Canada are their attitude, self-esteem, and confidence in their abilities. If they are prepared to work steadily in their job search with us, more often than not they will get back. If not, there are usually other personal adaptation issues or barriers that need to be dealt with, using the credentials issue.

We tell clients not to redo their degrees here, to enhance what they already have, and to market, market, market. Although the job search may take a while, and we suggest that they take survival jobs at nights and weekends, preferably in light physical areas so they don't get injured and can handle a daytime internship, they can get eventually a job related to their home country experience.

For those who come to Canada or to Manitoba with qualifications not relevant to our local market, you can blame us for sending them away to the appropriate provinces after researching those scenarios. We have found jobs with and for individuals out of province, even negotiating their salaries long-distance with employers. If there isn't a match in Canada, we will tell them to rethink things, change, return home, or go to the United States.

¿ (0900)

We have sent a number of doctors to the United States who are now practising, versus their counterparts here who have to go through incredible odds and who will likely not have much of a chance to work here because of the incredible restrictions.

Even the new licensure changes announced by the province and the College of Physicians and Surgeons last week need to be challenged again through the Human Rights Commission. I can talk about that if you wish.

In closing, clients we have worked with have salaries ranging anywhere from mid-$20,000 to $80,000-plus. We tell each one of them that they did it. It was they who got the job, who had to do the work, the interview, the convincing. We are just the facilitators.

Our clients have ranged from space NASA scientists to teachers--these are NASA scientists from countries other than the United States--to professors, lawyers, accountants, physicians, specialists. Some are easier to place and some are not for the foregoing reasons.

I have not mentioned the issues of visible minorities. I just want to briefly mention that, again, second to the previous group I mentioned, visible minorities are having still a very difficult time in placement activity. There needs to be something done in terms of our media or our Canadian population.

Also, and in tandem with what Jim Wolf was saying, we feel that specialized counselling--psychological counselling services--needs to be available to immigrants going through the trauma of trying to find a job in Canada because of the stress involved. It is not only needed there, but also for the staff in terms of the amount of pressure and stress they have.

Thank you.

¿ (0905)

The Chair: Well, I have an awful lot of questions for you. I don't know about everybody else, but I want to talk to you about some of the things you said when we get to that stage.

Right now, Dr. Vedanand, welcome again. We know you were with us last night. You should have stayed over, slept over and--

Dr. Vedanand (University of Manitoba): I stayed in the lounge.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you again.

I will restrict myself, again, to some larger issues related to settlement. I'm not talking about just refugees, but settlement of the whole immigration population that comes into Canada. Therefore, the terms that have been used for integration or assimilation have often been misleading. They're very loose terms.

Those who come from abroad, particularly coming from developing countries to Canada, and also those who welcome them are at the crossroads of an issue that is the real crisis between tradition and modernity. Most third world developing countries' immigrants come with a world view that is vastly different from the world view of the rest of the world.

That's a critical issue to begin with in the settlement process. The settlement process is much more than just receiving them, giving a visa at the country of origin and letting them in, particularly for those who come under the independent category or Islamic immigrants, as they are called.

The terms used in the literature are adaptation, acculturation, assimilation. There are all kinds of terms that have been used. The director general of the CIC told me, no, we don't have assimilation here, we have integration; our metaphor is not the melting pot but something different. That's very good. But what do you see with these people when they come? They become not permanent residents but permanent outsiders.

When you talk about integration, the literature in the common terms is always economic integration. If you have a job, whatever job it is, you are integrated. What happens to the great goal and ideal of inclusive society? If you do manage to get an apartment or you do manage to get a house, your neighbours don't talk to you. You don't have a neighbour.

All the settlement agencies could do is just help you get a job. But the real integration is beyond that, and that's why the social integration aspect, even the research, has been neglected. Economists will come out churning out all kinds of Stats Canada data and they'll say here are the earnings, this is the mean income, this is where they stand, etc. That's not really looking at the real issue of inclusiveness of the society. That's actually why Canada has to be much better than it is at the moment, and why, as compared to other countries that are faced with this problem, it could become a leader.

Ladies and gentleman, I'd like you to take a quick look at one of the handouts I have given on a piece called “The Ethnic Miracle”. If you have not read it, I'd just like you to take a quick look.

The neighbourhood is ten square blocks with almost 14,000 people, an average of 39.8 inhabitants per acre--three times that of the most crowded portions of Tokyo, Calcutta, and many other Asian cities. One block contains 1,349 children. A third of the neighbourhood's 771 buildings are divided into 2,796 apartments, with a ratio of 3.7 rooms per apartment. More than three quarters of the apartments have less than 400 square feet. Tenants of the 556 basement apartments stand knee-deep in human excrement when even moderate rainstorms cause plumbing breakdowns. Garbage disposal is a chronic problem--usually trash is simply dumped in the narrow passageways between buildings. Nine thousand of the neighbourhood's inhabitants use outdoor plumbing. The death rate is 37.2 per thousand per year.

These are the poorest of the poor, making less than three quarters of the income of non-minority-group members in the same jobs. The rates of desertion, juvenile delinquency, mental disorders, and prostitution are the highest in the city here. Social disorganization in this neighbourhood, according to all outside observers, even the sympathetic ones, is practically total and irredeemable

Who are these people? Blacks? Latinos? Inhabitants of some third world city? No. These are the Poles in Chicago in the 1920s.

The Dillingham commission on immigration in the United States assured Americans that “the Italians were inherently disposed to criminal behaviour and that the Polish family lacked family stability--both groups were racially and culturally inferior”. Large-scale Americanization campaigns were begun to teach these illiterate peasants the virtues of good Americans.

If we take a look at the whole process in the ethnic miracle, the same people who were considered so undesirable, within the next two generations made it up. This is a very good example for the rest of Chicago.

The reason I brought this out is that if we take a look at the integration process, the new metaphor is that it took three to four generations: from the poor Italian to plumber to professional. That has been the experience in the United States, and perhaps this could have been the type of thing here as well. But in Canada, I will look at some of the problems that have not been catalogued. I don't want to repeat the same things again.

What I would like to dwell upon is the issue of immigrant poverty. If the economic integration that has been catalogued is doing so well, why is there no focus on poverty among immigrants?

Number one, much of the research has been focused on adult immigrants. The second generation immigrants who were born abroad but came to Canada at the ages of 13 to 19 are the really critical area. I'll give more details on this, but let me just give the background.

¿ (0910)

I've called this “Colour of Immigrant Poverty”. In Canada, blacks among all the visible minorities are the poorest. Even if you control for country of origin, language skills, and other social variables, even then, their incomes are the lowest, followed by the Chinese. South Asians are much better, but compared to native Canadians, their incomes are also low. So obviously what I call the “permanent outsiders” are still being treated as outsiders.

Economists, in their studies, all try to demonstrate the issue from different perspectives. The Economic Council of Canada did a study at one time that said there's no income gap; they're doing very well. Later on, it was found that the Economic Council of Canada study had major flaws in its analysis and its data set.

The fact is, using the Canadian census database, new studies that are coming up are demonstrating that in general, immigrants who are visible minorities and even some who are non-visible minorities are doing worse than they were earlier. That's the most disturbing thing. In this last decade--the data from 1990 to 2000--it will be the same.

I don't know if I will be able to finish in the seven to eight minutes. The public education gap and many other issues that have been catalogued are very long.

Recently CBC went to India and interviewed people at all the top institutes of information technology. Most of them were very bright students. There's a company called Infosys, whose stocks are listed in New York--it's very well known in the information technology sector. The president of the company was interviewed and he said his son could not get into one of those institutes of technology in India--he's one of the main founders of that company--but he was very easily admitted into Cornell. I wish I'd brought it for the members, because you could have taken a look at it. Some of them you would turn away, and they would not get a job in Canada. So obviously there are some serious problems.

Looking at this poverty phenomenon, I would like to move on to the issue where I find the real problem with second-generation immigrants. The second generation are children who were born abroad, as I said, in the age group 13 to 19 years. The common perception is that if they come at that age they can cope better, they can handle issues, most of them perhaps speak English, or if not, they can learn easily. And there's a great deal of pressure for them to do much better than their parents.

This belief or perception is very widespread, that the new-generation children who are being brought up in Canada, from age zero to 19, will certainly do much better than their parents. What is happening is they're not doing better. They're doing worse. Second-generation immigrants of the 13 to 19 age group are the worst. Their incomes are lower than that of their own parents. This is a very disturbing finding, and it's coming up not only in Canada and the United States, but also in the other developed countries--in Europe, etc.

¿ (0915)

On some of the things I have seen and been involved in, the second generation in Canada is a real problem, in the sense that if it they do not get proper jobs and they find upward mobility blocked, what are they going to do?

One issue that has come up in discussions and also in research in the United States is that a large number of low-esteem immigrants who are coming into Canada legally or illegally are creating a permanent underclass. They are the ones who go into ghettos and get into this circle-of-poverty trap. So if the youth who are brought up here find these kinds of situations that challenge their self-esteem and dignity, not only are they going to be an underclass, they're going to be the cause of major rebellion.

This phenomenon is now being looked into by people in a number of places, but unfortunately this issue has not really even slipped into the psyche of the policy-makers. I have talked to some people looking at this whole issue of integration and what can be done about it. They say, “Show me the data. Where's the data?” That's what one of the ministers told me.

It's not an anecdotal perspective that I'm presenting. There are statistics for all Canada, just like the Poles of Chicago. Most of the immigrants go to major cities like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. That's where the poverty is that we have.

Now, this information does not go.... The high commissions, etc., either don't know or don't care. Nobody tells them not to go there, to go somewhere else. So the issues have become much more compounded by certain elements in the policy. The poor historically have been voiceless, faceless, and powerless. An American scholar has suggested that a change is coming where there will be an ethnic resilience that will come as a contervailing social mechanism to handle the problem itself. I don't think it will happen here, but certainly if nothing is done we'd better be prepared.

Another scholar, by the name of Borjas, has done a lot of work in this area in the United States. He has said that the children are hungry and have the drive and ambition that ensure economic success for them. Nevertheless, something else needs to be recognized here.

In the United States, the overall historical experience of the 1940-1998 period does not seem to indicate that the second generation experiences exceptional economic progress. Look at that: it's more than fifty years. Then, even though the children of highly successful parents are themselves likely to be successful, it is unlikely that the children will be as successful as their parents.

¿ (0920)

The Chair: Doctor, can I ask you to wind it up? We have a lot of questions and about 30 to 45 minutes left. We have your brief.

Dr. Vedanand: Okay.

It's a waste of human capital if 200 doctors in Toronto or wherever are driving taxis and delivering pizza. Billions of dollars are actually being lost.

In summing up, I would like to say that this is an area of serious concern and should be given proper attention for solving the issues by the policy-maker. It seems those who come from a higher socio-economic class manage to move up more easily and their children might do well, but these are speculative statements. The issues are very complex. They need your attention. They need your input in the policy-making apparatus and I think something will happen with encouragement and the political will.

Thank you.

¿ (0925)

The Chair: Thank you, Doctor. That's exactly what we're trying to do.

I know we have an awful lot of questions. I don't know if a lot of you have had the opportunity to read today's Globe & Mail, but it just goes to show you why this kind of debate may be important. The lead article says “Immigrants to Canada are increasingly taking high-skill positions”. The whole article seems to reflect something a lot different from what some of you have talked about today.

I'm happy that we're engaging in this discussion, because this is exactly what we need to find out, what's on the ground.

Let's start with some questions. Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): Yes, thank you.

Thank you very much, all of you, for your submissions.

I particularly wanted to mention something on the comments you made about getting departments like Environment and Agriculture involved. What would you think about involving, let's say, the Department of Canadian Heritage?

I'm sure you watch the news and you see Sheila Copps doling out money to cultural communities much after the fact; they've been developed. But wouldn't it be better for her money for culture to come at the onset for immigrants? Or let's say maybe some of the money for official bilingualism should go into language classes.

I'm just wondering. You talked about environment and agriculture funds. Why not target ones that also work very well with other departments?

I want all of you to answer what you could advise other provincial governments who are going to be signing agreements with the feds. Saskatchewan has just done so. You've had a lot of experience. Obviously these are some of the most informative presentations we've had, because you are working in the field and have seen all the ways in which the federal government is failing us. It looks like they have all the money and you're doing all the work. Somewhere in between, lots of funds are missing.

I don't want to miss the smart card comments, so I'm not going to stay on very long.

Monika, you said there are many good models of credential authorizations or accreditations around the world. You said you can just see what they are. I would like to know if you have any samples of those models that you could forward to us. You named some countries specifically that have good models for accrediting. I would like you to forward some examples to us. I don't think you'll be able to tell us during this presentation.

That's it. I just want to know about those questions. I'll let you answer them however you want.

Mr. Jim Wolf: Clearly, no provincial education funding is poured into the programs we do, although a great deal of my focus is in the schools.

Part of the issue is that refugee newcomers bring recent trauma. This is a somewhat different trend, certainly since the people have arrived from Kosovo. The time between war trauma and arrival has been very short, so it has been necessary to become more expert in terms of how to deal with trauma in an immediate way, but there's no expertise within the child guidance clinic for dealing with this.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Maybe you should be working with a department like National Defence, because they are facing the same thing with their soldiers.

Mr. Jim Wolf: Exactly. We're intending to do so.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's what I mean by maybe there should be more work with the departments when you meet with them.

Mr. Jim Wolf: Absolutely.

Generally speaking, we're in the middle of a paradigm shift in understanding trauma better, what helps, what works, and what is less helpful--and certainly in dealing with newcomers, what works better and what is less effective.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: How could you get this approach to work with these departments? What would your message be?

Mr. Jim Wolf: That was my question of you.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: What do you declare right now to the ministers?

Mr. Jim Wolf: Part of the problem is that each department sees the issue from only one perspective, but an overview perspective is needed. I think the same could be said provincially as well as federally, as well as for other funding agencies.

We're looking at arts funding programs that deal with refugees, and we find we're competing with all of the other arts communities. But we have our particular funding approaches that are needed. This needs to be understood somehow and better taken into account.

Another example from a decade ago would be when we were looking at rural settlement of newcomers. Many people come from rural areas in their country of origin and would like to be able to settle in a rural manner here.

We had to find agricultural funding to help in the training of an agriculture cooperative, which has existed for a decade now with the help of Interfaith as well as others. It feeds roughly 400 families every year with organic produce.

We couldn't get any kind of help from any agricultural department, because finding niche marketing for poor people certainly was not a priority. The advice was contrary to that. The example of these people having produced for 10 years and feeding families stands as its own record, but we had to go through some peculiar ways of funding such a program.

¿ (0930)

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Then--

The Chair: Hang on a second, Lynne. Other people want to respond.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji (Labour Market Specialist, Success Skills Centre): I would like to add something about working with a government department. For two years I tried to open doors. The doors are closed. And the people from the government side, federal, provincial, and municipal, are closed.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That's why, if you send the message back with us--

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: We have sent messages. I have sent messages to Mrs. Sheila Copps, to Mr. Coderre, even to the Prime Minister. The truth is, the doors are closed.

From April 2002 to January 2003, we placed 166 people in workplaces with related, unrelated, and other employment. We placed only three people with government, provincial government.

Everything is closed with you guys, everything.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin Dolin: If I can just comment on that, my understanding is that about three or four years ago the Canadian Human Rights Commission did a pilot study of employment equity in the immigration department. I have been trying to get my hands on it and I suspect you might have better luck doing that.

It has always been my impression with the immigration department that I have never seen people of colour in that department. I have sometimes seen an Asian person. The Immigration and Refugee Board is a veritable rainbow compared with the immigration department, both inland and overseas. I would hope this committee might be able to get their hands on that study.

I haven't been able to get it from the Human Rights Commission. They say I have to go to Immigration. I called Immigration. They admitted such a study had been done and said they would get me a copy. I have asked three or four times. I have never seen it yet. Maybe you will have better luck.

I think we are beating around this issue. I think there was a certain element of either overt, covert, planned or unplanned racism, and ethnocentrism and xenophobia in the department. I have seen that, and historically we have seen that. We have seen that with the Chinese head tax, with the “none is too many” with the Jews.

This tradition, this corporate mentality in that department, seems to continue. Maybe this committee can take a role in changing that corporate mentality to being more what the minister wants--humanitarian, open, fair.

When I go to hearings with senior staff and I look around that building, I just see white faces. I have never seen anything else.

The Chair: This is a second question, but surely you don't have to be one to represent one. I know it's important to have employment equity, but the underlying thing you are suggesting is that because we don't have representation of different immigrants within the immigration department, for some reason, it means we are shutting down the system in terms of support.

Mr. Martin Dolin: No, I wasn't suggesting that. I was suggesting that when the department is pure white, it's an indication of some sort of problem there because it's not representative of the multicultural society we live in. It's certainly not representative of urban Canada, of Winnipeg, Toronto, etc.

In this country, you look at any employer who does not employ a percentage of people of colour and you wonder why that employer is not doing so. I would say the immigration department fits that criterion.

I'm not giving you the answer. I am saying I think the Human Rights Commission has looked into this and I would suggest that maybe they have some recommendations or some responses to exactly what you are saying. It may or may not be the case; but personally, from what I have heard here today from my colleagues, I would be very suspicious of what's going on in that department.

¿ (0935)

The Chair: The second question Lynne had was with regard to the maple leaf card. You said you had some information as to why it won't work and--

Mr. Martin Dolin: Just to give you an anecdote, I was in a town called La Penita in Mexico about two years ago. A woman came up to me and said in Spanish that she wanted me to give her some training in basic English for such phrases as “Como está?”, “Dónde está?”, and “Cuanto?”

The Chair: Even I understand that.

Mr. Martin Dolin: So I gave her the English expressions. When I asked her where she was going, she said she was going to Yakima, Washington. I asked her if she had a green card. “Yes, I do,” she said, and showed me the green card. I looked at the picture on it and said, “That's not you.” She said, “No, it's not. It's my cousin. But I know all the data on the card. My cousin is in Yakima. She mails me her card. I come to the border. I look at the officials, none of whom are from a Latino background. They look at the picture. I look like the picture. East Indians look like East Indians, and Africans look like Africans. They ask me a few questions about my background. I go, and then I mail it to another cousin.”

So I can't see that the current smart card is going to be any different unless the government is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on biometrics, which I think is insane. What are we proving with this card, and what are we trying to do? Are we trying to keep terrorists out of Canada? Will this do it? No, I don't think it will. Are we trying to keep illegals out? It won't do that. It doesn't work for the Americans. There are 8 million illegals in that country. How did they get there?

To me, this is the problem with the smart card; I think it's another one of those fads. Five years ago the department wanted to do it for $5 million. Now they're going to do it for $17.3 million. I think that's something you should keep in mind.

I want to answer Lynne's question about the Manitoba agreement. I think the good thing about the provincial agreement is that they're much closer to the kinds of employment needs we have. They don't micromanage. They work with us. They're much more cooperative. They are not as isolated. They do not put us on line-by-line budgeting. The negative is that they are taking the federal money and not putting in one dime of their own. The money is just transferred to the province. But one of the things it shows me is that the province is at least using the same money that was coming from the federal government before, but they're using it much more effectively and wisely....

Monika disagrees. Okay, in some cases. They have picked and chosen.

In my area, the settlement area, they've been doing very well. They've helped us create new programs. We have medical advocacy programs, child care programs, and volunteer programs, which we didn't have before. Under the federal line-by-line budgeting, if you ask them if you could get a volunteer coordinator to round up volunteers to assist your clients, such as professional people and counsellors, they say, it's not in your budget, so you can't do it. The provinces are much more flexible.

I'm just saying that there are pros and cons here.

The Chair: I'd like to get on to a couple of other questions.

There is a universal debate going on about whether or not provincial governments are using the money the federal government transfers to them. I could talk ad nauseam about health care, labour, and so on and so forth. We transfer the money to the province, but do we know that the province is transferring it to the people or service providers who actually need it?

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I think that's a good place to start. It's hard to get into a discussion about how the provinces are using the transfer money when we're looking at something like $300 million for settlement services for the entire country. I think what the witnesses are reflecting today is the fact that the federal government has basically abandoned this area of settlement.

Whatever the Globe and Mail says, I think it simply shows that the “survival of the fittest” philosophy is still alive and well in this country. When you deal with the best of the skilled labour force around the world, they're going to find a way to settle and make their way into our labour force. But it's not dealing with the vast issues that folks here are dealing with on a day-to-day basis.

I think what we're hearing today is look at what Manitoba can do without any help from the federal government. In terms of the immigration criteria and our overall act, there's no benefit because our immigration comes from the provincial nominee program and private sponsorship of refugees. When you look at the actual settlement arrangements, it seems that the federal government is more of a hindrance than a help.

My question is, can the problem be fixed? Or is the situation so dysfunctional—and I raise this more rhetorically than in real terms—that we should be looking at a complete revamping of powers on this issue and a devolution to the provinces, if in fact the federal government can't play a meaningful role and is going to be more about seduction and abandonment than building a country based on our traditions and our history?

If it can be fixed, what are the first steps we should take? We've heard a lot about accreditation. How do we get someone to take responsibility? How do we get the federal government to stop dumping it or leaving it up to federal-provincial conferences and take the bull by the horns and do it? Give me some advice on that.

¿ (0940)

Mr. Dale Wilson (Member, Board of Directeur, Needs Centre for War-Affected Families): My comments and observations are slightly different, although I was in Nigeria just after the Biafran war, so I've seen that firsthand. I've just started with the NEEDS program, so I'm a little more objective, or hopefully I can be.

I've seen two things. You have three different areas of presentations in what happened to you today: employment, because yes, there are many people who are educated and who are underemployed; resettlement, because yes, a lot of the people we bring in need to be resettled; plus counselling, for people who have been traumatized.

What I'm seeing is that there are different needs in different areas, and the answer to your question regarding whether you can bring in defence, bring in agriculture, is, yes, I think they should be brought in, and I don't necessarily see them being integrated today. My observation is that this needs to be looked at.

I'll give you an example respecting funding, if I can, Judy, although I'm sorry, it's on the provincial side. We've actually been told our funding might be cut. I'm two months into this, and what I'm finding is that this needs to be addressed as well. Each province, each area needs to take a look at the three different areas that are being looked at and the three different needs that are there, as opposed to developing overlapping agencies, which we see all the time everywhere. I think what we need is to take a look at the “let's fund this” reaction. We'd love to have extra funding from the federal government so that we can do trauma programs. Are we an employment agency? No, but that lady's doing a fine job of that. Should we be bringing immigrants in? I think that Interfaith does a great job of that. But once they're here, how do you deal with them?

That's basically what I've seen.

The Chair: Are there some newer funding models? [Inaudible—Editor]...for ideas as opposed to bitching and complaining.

Mr. Martin Dolin: Okay. Let me go back historically. Back in the 1990s, when we were getting funding we used to go, interestingly enough, to Supply and Services on a tender basis and we would bid against the hotels for temporary residents. Now, of course none of the hotels wanted to be in this business anyway, because they had to provide services in another language, etc.

But when we negotiated a contract with Supply and Services on a Canada-wide basis, we had deliverables. We'd deliver them: we'd provide the services, we'd provide the rooms, etc. It was like any private contract; it was not a line-by-line thing with somebody looking over our shoulder asking, “Why is this person here over 30 days?”

I have a letter here from the department, and they want, line by line, an explanation for every client who's been in the place over 30 days. They want a written explanation as to why.... The vacancy rate in this town is 1.2%. The rates that RAP pays are equivalent to welfare rates. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to....

I don't have to give an individual report on every client. The fact is, when you have cut....

Whoever came up with this contract, this “contribution agreement”.... I would say the first step is to get rid of the contribution agreements and basically contract with agencies like War-Affected, or ourselves, to provide certain deliverables of a certain quality and just monitor the outcomes, instead of monitoring what I do day to day and driving my bookkeeper nuts with auditors, and having some person who has a BA in home economics coming in and talking to my accountant about why....

To give you a real example, two months ago they withheld a dollar. My monthly budget is $77,000 and change. They withheld a dollar because there was not a receipt for it. One of our staff people had taken somebody to a doctor's appointment and put a loonie in the meter, and of course meters don't give receipts, so he wrote a paper receipt, which my bookkeeper had.

Can you imagine how much cost and effort it took to have Finance Canada in Ottawa withhold $1 out of $77,000 and then to pay us back because somebody doesn't understand, and they are on line by line?

So my suggestion would be get rid of the contribution agreement, deal with us the same way you would deal with any business: we supply a service or a product, we agree on a price, and we do it. I think this would be a very good start. It used to work very nicely when we dealt with Supply and Services.

¿ (0945)

The Chair: But are the programs right? I know I have heard about the resources, and Judy mentioned this. Judy asked a very fundamental question. I know that you are hung up on this darn contract, and the accountability and transparency, line by line. I can understand that, but what Judy is asking, and what this committee wants to know, is are the programs that we have in place, the system we have in place, working or not working? And is it only a question of resources or do we need to do new programming based on your experiences of the people you are serving?

Mr. Martin Dolin: I would say no. My answer would be, no, we don't need new programming, we need funding for the existing program we are trying to build.

Ms. Monika Feist: I think I have already identified that I felt the province has been shortchanged. That's number one, particularly in the area of employment, and I'm only focusing on employment.

The Chair: We are not the HRDC committee. I'm interested in the immigration part of it.

Ms. Monika Feist: There's an immigration part too, because we had received funding from Immigration in earlier years on this whole issue as well, in terms of employment. At one time that was part and parcel of our funding.

The Chair: But answer the question, though. Within your skill centre, because we have one in London too, are you telling me that to serve the immigrant population--because you are--it's not in HRDC...? I mean, that's been transferred to the province. I don't know what your province is doing. That's not my business. My business is, of the clients you are serving, 300 or 500 people a year, how many are immigrants who come to you who need your services, and where should that funding come from?

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: Oh, how many immigrants? Every day they come.

The Chair: Well, no, I'm asking you.

Ms. Monika Feist: We work together.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: Yes, we work together.

Every day new people knock on the door and say, we hope to get a job. And then we ask them if they could, for example, get to work to do six weeks of volunteer work with the private sector. As volunteers for six weeks, it means they are not going to be paid. And they have to pay the bus. They have to go to work for free during six weeks without a guarantee of getting a job.

Ms. Monika Feist: There is no money available to actually even provide them with a bus pass and with other things, as I have indicated earlier in my presentation, that we need.

The other aspect is, yes, we do need psychological counselling services available for immigrants. It's not there. If you try to move them through the system it takes forever and a day. We need them right on site or at least moving around to our various centres where we maybe can share some of those services.

The Chair: Judy, do you have another question?

Mr. Martin Dolin: If you're looking for a number, we handle over a thousand refugees a year, including privately sponsored, inland, and government sponsored--590 government sponsored.

I think one of the things we see is that we are looked on as cheap labour. On my staff I have a single mom with a child who doesn't meet the LICO so she can sponsor her parents and yet the clients we have who have equivalent family size have 50% less than that.

This makes no sense to me. You are talking about refugees coming into the country; what has happened is they have lowered the amount they are giving refugees.

You are asking about money. Under the RAP program it is grossly underfunded, whether or not it continues as the same program. You are paying people, a family of four, for example, three adults and one child, which would be the same as her sponsoring her parents, 50% less than the LICO, and yet they are saying that she can't bring in her parents--

The Chair: I must tell you we changed that in the last bill. We spent a lot of time on refugee stuff, the model, because the administration wanted to say that you couldn't sponsor on the basis of the LICO standard and everything else.

And I think what the committee wanted--because we agree totally with what you're saying--is to make sure that families could be reunified regardless of the model.

¿ (0950)

Mr. Martin Dolin: But that's not the point I'm making. The point I'm making is my staff people are being paid too low. They're being paid minimal. The requirements on them, as the government continues to off-load more work on them, become greater. They must have multi-languages. I have 29 languages among my 14 settlement workers.

It's not only that, it's that the amounts they're paying to the people have been lowered from what used to be federal government rates down to the provincial welfare rates, which means that we are treating refugees, which we didn't do in the past...because under the RAP program the amount we're paying is equivalent to welfare clients.

Now, these are people we're taking into our country to protect them from persecution, and then we treat them at the lowest level possible with minimum.... We can't find them apartments. We look around now and we find garbage that I'm embarrassed to show people.

I think if you're looking at the existing programs at least the start should be to fund them appropriately and then look at better ways of dealing with this.

The Chair: Andrew. Then we'll come back.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I used to be executive director of a non-government organization called Youth in Conflict with the Law. I appreciate your problem of being micromanaged from the province and the federal. The micromanagement from the province was huge in Ontario, and it had different governments, Tories, NDP, and Liberal. And somehow the bureaucratic mindset looking at NGOs is really a problem.

This is more of a holistic thing, but it seems to me that some of the disconnect that's happening is you have ivory tower Ottawa. When we were dealing with employment equity I was on the human rights committee, and certainly the federal civil service was doing a lot worse than private business in reflecting the community out there. And it seemed ironic to me that we in the federal government were drafting legislation for the private sector when we should have been learning from them. But this is the reality, I guess.

What I wonder about is if on the ground--you are involved in this business of assisting settlement, and we had people here yesterday as well--it would seem like a much better model if you had a collective on the ground and you then went to the feds and said, these are the needs in our community, and this is how we can present a holistic approach. For instance, you need trauma counselling and you know that person's there. You need job search and that person's there. You need debtor settlement and that person's there. You have all these services. So setting the policy framework should really be coming from the ground up.

It would mean that when the government deals with, say, Manitoba or Winnipeg they would have to deal with an entity in Winnipeg and not all of a sudden put out a contract for the lowest bidder. Because when you look at the discrepancy between what the people on the ground get paid, and NGOs, and what the federal civil service gets paid, it's a huge disconnect. And I think the planning really has to come from the bottom up, because you're the best ones to respond to issues such as are we missing somebody, and are people falling through the cracks, versus having it come from Ottawa, which really doesn't know.

That's what I want to put out to all of you.

Mr. Martin Dolin: I've been involved with The Canadian Council for Refugees for years. You have the settlement working group, which is basically an umbrella group for all settlement agencies in Canada. When we were negotiating the resettlement assistance program, we said, what you are suggesting, immigration department people, will not work. It will not function properly. It will not provide the services. It will not provide the kind of holistic model we need to settle people appropriately. Basically they said, we don't care. This is what we intend to give you and this is what you're going to take.

Ms. Monika Feist: That's right.

¿ (0955)

Mr. Martin Dolin: We're going to pay for 13 hours. We're going to pay a maximum salary of x amount per hour. We're going to give you x amount per day, and you can take it or leave it. Then they give us these blackjack contracts and say, take it or leave it.

So the fact is I agree with you. There needs to be a holistic approach; it needs to come from the ground up. Somebody somewhere in Ottawa, either your committee, the minister, or somebody has to get these people to actually start listening to us. They need to start listening to what Monika's saying about recognition of credentials and foreign experience; what Jim is saying about counselling services for people who are by definition persecuted and stressed when they arrive in Canada; and settle people appropriately in this country so they become part of the mosaic.

The real problem I'm hearing across the table here is they're just bloody well not listening to us. We tell them and they say, we don't care because we have the money, we have the power, and we'll tell you what to do no matter what you say.

The Chair: The Canadian Council for Refugees, which we meet with all the time, has put forward recommendations on the holistic model based on the needs of the client; the client-based service with x number of dollars required to take him through the continuum of arrival, trauma, health, employment, and so on. You've developed a model to essentially help those people and it's up to us to find where that model is. So there is a recommendation out there that we can look at. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Martin Dolin: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: I sent a letter to Mr. Coderre two weeks ago.

The Chair: Just because you sent it to the minister doesn't mean we get it. You should send it to me and the committee.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: I could send it to you in French.

The Chair: That's okay.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: I sent a letter to the minister based exactly on our clients, the profile of employers, the profile we receive, and the plan. Our approach is based on the individual immigrant.

The Chair: We want to see that then.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: I will make photocopies and give you one.

I would like to add, you talked about fixing the system and Madame said we have to have issues. In the Immigration approach there is no tradition. These traditions are barriers for us. The traditional way of dealing with immigration came from a long time ago. We have highly skilled people. We have families with dreams to create something new for their families. We need to innovate the system instead of fixing it. We don't want to fix it. We want something new that is adaptable to the new immigrants now.

The Chair: Andrew, just a supplementary.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: To finish what I was saying, I came through the refugee system. I came as an immigrant to this country in 1957. From my studies of the department it's certainly not the most progressive one in the government, and it has to make some leaps and bounds.

To all the folks involved in these risk provisions, yes, the department can deal with you individually and then they can dictate. Have you ever thought about getting together to deal with the department as one unit instead of individually? You're the ones who are able to provide these services on the ground. If you withheld services, being in a way an advocacy group for what you're doing and also for changing department policy, and had the discipline to work together you could make this happen so the department would have to deal with you collectively.

Ms. Monika Feist: That sounds great. We could do that, but I've also seen it from the bureaucratic end. I have been inside the bureaucracy and external to the bureaucracy, and that includes Immigration and HRDC. If things don't go one way, it's quite easy to go around and play games with the organizations and solicit somebody else who will do it for less, or whatever.

À (1000)

The Chair: You've raised a good question. I'm thinking about an umbrella group of some sort that would deal with the total needs, and then that umbrella group would give it to you as opposed to a government having to deal individually with you and you and you.

I'll tell you right now, MPs are lobbying for each individual member in our own constituencies to get you the money that you need to do the work. Sometimes it's very hard for us to pick and choose whether or not to give $5,000 or $10,000 to your group or $10,000 to this other group, because you're all trying to provide the service. I guess what we're asking is whether there's a better coordination model--between governments, too. Let's face it, it's not only the service providers; it's also about the federal, provincial, and municipal governments and the communities themselves, working together--interdepartmentally, too; horizontally as opposed to vertically.

Can I just ask a few questions that I need answers for?

There's a total disconnect between last night and tonight, and I'll tell you why. The message we got last night was that Manitoba wants more refugees. Manitoba wants more immigrants. Manitoba is doing a great job. In fact, Manitoba's got tens of thousands of applications out there in the world, and the department is not processing enough.

And I would agree, so far, because that's the message we heard from Manitoba years ago, even one year ago. That's why we wrote the program, saying more immigrants, more provincial nominees, and so on.

Now, I'm a little troubled, and I must tell you, Monika, when I hear somebody say.... We travelled around the world, and I don't know who you think is luring, seducing, and then abandoning, giving a fraudulent dream, to these immigrants. I'm not sure the people I saw who wanted to come to Manitoba, by virtue of interviews and everything else, felt that they were being lured or seduced by this country, and then abandoned when they come.

That's pretty strong language, and I don't understand where it comes from. Nobody's marketing. You know the only people who are marketing out there? It's not even the provincial nominee agreements. It's not the governments. It's consultants who are out there trying to attract people to Canada. As a federal government, we don't attract.

So when I hear that we're fraudulently taking advantage of people who come to this country, let's face it, the great majority of immigrants do rather well in this country, and they have for the past 50 years. I'd like to think I'm an example of that.

Yes, we have some problems.

In your brochure you criticized credentials recognition, which we have talked about in four reports. Now, you claim to be an expert in credentials recognition. That's what you say, that one of your services is expertise in credentials recognition. So let me ask you a specific question.

If an immigrant came to you a week after he arrived here with his educational credentials, say he's a pipefitter, a plumber, even an engineer, what would you do with that person to convince him that the credentials he has...? Because we've already accepted this person on the basis of his credentials. Someone has said, yes, you have these things. They're bona fide; they're not bogus.

When they come to you and say, “I have this expertise”, what do you do with that information? Who do you give it to, the provincial association or provinces, because they control the credentials accreditation program? We don't. Maybe we ought to take it over, but I'm saying right now, somebody else does.

You're an expert. Tell me what you do with those credentials.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: I taught with a teacher. Teachers were recognized by the labour department as teachers with bachelor's degrees in education. I sent the same file to Russell, to the education department. It's the same government. They--

The Chair: That's the provinces, though.

Ms. Monika Feist: They're the ones who accredit.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: Then Russell responded, you need two years' training. You do not have your bachelor's degree. You need two years to get your certification.

The Chair: So then what do you do? Do you tell that person he has to go to school for two years?

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, so what do you do to help that person now?

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: I try to make sure she'll make her own decision--correctly. Then I place her in school for work experience, to see the reality of the workplace, to exchange ideas with teachers. I would send her or him to the library to see that education in Canada is different.

Then the question comes from these foreign teachers, why do I have to go back for two years when the labour department says that I am a teacher? I have my degree. Russell says, no, you are not a teacher. Then I say, this country has rules and regulations. We work with the law in this country. I was a trustee. I was a teacher. Then you should go back because--

À (1005)

The Chair: What's wrong, then? Is it because the provincial education or accreditation department is saying they don't believe that paperwork? They don't believe--

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: They don't believe it. What the labour department gives us, we send to the private sector in every city. I come from Quebec. I have a master's degree. I went to the University of Manitoba. They said, you do not have your master's degree. You need three more courses.

The Chair: This committee understands. We are sick and tired of everybody talking about it. I know that the ministers of immigration have met and that there is a plan of action with regard to accepting certain credentials. We're looking for doctors, as is Lynne, and we're looking for engineers and teachers. We have shortages of skilled workers, mechanics, and so on. What is it going to take to move these immigrants into the very jobs they're trained for?

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: Take doctors, for example. I have a doctor. She came from Iraq. Thompson was looking for doctors. I sent her to Dr. Bourgeois-Law, dean of the University of Manitoba. She told her, if you get the job, I will accelerate the system to certify you. Then we found out that Thompson did not want to hire her. She was ready to go to Thompson with her family and everything. But Thompson said, no, we cannot hire you because we hired someone from France.

Ms. Monika Feist: And that person was already here. Give us a break.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: There are problems between immigration and needs. We need doctors. We have many doctors--

Ms. Monika Feist: We have specialists with fantastic backgrounds, who were certified in Britain in the English language.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: We work 10 hours a day.

The Chair: You seem to know what you're talking about with regard to accreditation, so what I would like you to do, although not today, obviously, is write a note to the committee telling us what you think is the answer. I think we have a pretty good idea of where we would like to go. But perhaps you could give us some personal examples of how this system isn't working to assist the committee when we're making recommendations to the department and the minister. If you could do that for us, that would be great.

Mr. Tayeb Méridji: Okay.

The Chair: I'd like to ask one last question on refugees.

Martin, you started to talk a little bit about the break of faith between our government and the refugee service providers. We're bringing in 25,000 refugees a year. In fact, our numbers are going up. This committee, because of the safe third country agreement, which I don't want to get into--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Let's get into it.

The Chair: Wait a minute, let me finish my point of view.

The thing is, we're bringing 25,000 refugees a year into this country....

I'm sorry, Martin, but that's the number. Let me finish.

Of those, 7,000 are government-sponsored refugees. This committee is already on record as saying that we would like the government to sponsor a lot more. Whether it's within that 25,000 or even more than the 25,000, my point is, based on your experience with refugees--because there are privately sponsored refugees and there are government-sponsored refugees, and this committee is very supportive--in your opinion should we be doing more in terms of government-sponsored refugees, in terms of privately sponsored refugees, or in terms of both categories?

Mr. Martin Dolin: First, let me just clarify the numbers. I think your total numbers are correct. The reality is that 7,500 are government sponsored. That's the quota. There is an estimate, which I want to get into, of about 3,700 privately sponsored. The rest are inland claimants who were successful in Canada. So the majority are inland claimants. The safe third country agreement will probably change that number significantly, but we don't know how.

The answer to your question is, yes, you want to do both private and public. But I want to point out what has happened here in Winnipeg.

We have the mayor here who has put up $250,000 to allow us to provide an insurance fund to sponsor more people privately. We are coordinating this, and what we are trying to do is get more faith groups, more groups of five, to sponsor more refugees.

There has never been, to my knowledge, any one private-sponsored refugee—and Jim's been involved in this for a number of years—who's ended up on welfare, because the private sponsors take responsibility. Very rarely is there any case where there's not some linkage with family or community helping them find jobs, etc.

What has happened with the mayor's $500,000? The mayor, in his naiveté, decided he wanted to get the federal and provincial governments involved and wanted a memorandum of agreement among the three levels of government. So Denis Coderre, Becky Barrett, and Glen Murray all met and had a big announcement here about this funding.

What has happened is that we have started the program. As a matter of fact, this evening—I know you guys are on your way to another town—we're meeting with a whole bunch of private sponsors, church groups that are potential private sponsors. Do you know what the federal government has done to hold up the appendix to the agreement? They have developed a form, which I will pass on to you, asking all sorts of questions from the private sponsors: did you explain to the refugees how to divide up their monthly allowance? Did you provide basic orientation to the refugees?

What I'm saying is that when the private sponsors want to do more, the federal government—and I will leave this with you—is not helping; they're hindering. They're not encouraging the private sector. And also, they have put limits in place, which never happened before. There used to be targets for private sponsorships. All of a sudden, now private sponsors are getting letters saying: “You are only being allowed 115 sponsorships this year”; “You are being only allowed 110.” Now the fact is, there are no fall-throughs; there is no cost to the government. These are the faith groups of Manitoba that are sponsoring.

Why in God's name would the immigration department go out of its way to start setting limits on private sponsors? To me, it is basically going back to my original philosophical statement that they don't want refugees in this country. Although the private sponsors have never had limits and have been able to bring in people and settle them here in Canada—most of whom settled very successfully because they have faith-group sponsors, families—all of a sudden the bureaucracy in the immigration department sees this as a negative. I would hope this committee agrees with the minister that it is not a negative; it is a positive to meet our humanitarian goals.

As well, I'd like to just say, what you heard last night is no different from what you're hearing today. The fact is, we want more people in Manitoba. The premier has come out announcing we want to increase the number from about 4,000-something to 10,000 refugees, immigrants, provincial nominees, family-sponsored, etc. We need the population on the prairies. It is important. I'm sure you heard that last night.

The reality is, and what I'm telling you here is that the provincial government is helping us with federal money, which is kind of sleazy of them, but that's what they're doing. The city is trying to get into the game. The federal government, instead of at least making an effort to help, seems to be trying to throw up roadblocks and hindrances to our ability to get those 10,000 people.

I would hope, if nothing else, this committee goes away with the idea—I see you'll be meeting with Jim Carr—that the business community, the labour community, the private sector, the faith community, the government all want more people in this province, and we'd like some cooperation from CIC, not hindrances.

À (1010)

The Chair: On that note, I think that's perfect. That's exactly what we want to hear.

Thank you so much, all of you, for participating. If I have been a little too harsh, I apologize, but obviously this kind of interchange is important. If you could provide us with some of the models that are working, or some of the ideas you've put forward, we'd very much like to have them.

Thank you so much.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Well, if you were never asked a question, I'm sorry, Doctor. We wanted to ask other people questions. I can't direct it.

À (1013)

À (1029)

The Chair: Order.

Good morning, and I apologize for being a little late starting here. Some of you, I'm sure, heard the discussion before. Perhaps we should have had everybody around the table at one time, but it was a very lively discussion. I know the committee had an awful lot of questions.

With you this morning we want to talk a little bit about the provincial and territorial nominee program, which really is a model for the rest of the country. We were very impressed when we visited Winnipeg over a year ago. We were reviewing our immigration bill. We travelled around the world to find out if it was working or not and how we can make it work a heck of a lot better. We wanted to return to the communities that in fact were very involved in immigration, specifically through the provincial nominee programs, to see how in fact we can ensure that they can work a lot better. And we wanted to come to Winnipeg to talk to the very people who are on the front lines of dealing with this program.

We know that Manitoba wants more immigrants and more refugees. We had that discussion last night and this morning. So why don't you take about five to seven minutes--I know in some cases you've submitted your brief--to tell us a little bit about what you're doing and some ideas as to what we can do much better with the provincial nominee program or immigration in general. Then we have some questions for you.

I wonder if we could start with the Employment Projects of Winnipeg, with Magaly Diaz. Welcome.

À (1030)

Ms. Magaly Diaz (Acting Executive Director, Employment Projects of Winnipeg Inc.): Thank you.

I strongly believe things happen for a reason. As of last week, I am the acting executive director for Employment Projects of Winnipeg, Inc., well known as EPW. Because of that, I have this opportunity to participate at one of the hearings taking place across Canada. My presentation is going to be on the provincial nominee program.

I came to Canada on the provincial nominee program. Consequently, I have a firsthand understanding of what it's like. I think this hearing is a chance for me to share my experience and to give my comments and insights in order to build a win-win relationship between the immigrants under the provincial nominee program and the Government of Canada.

Some facts of my journey to Canada. It took me almost two years to get my visa from the date I submitted my application. I am from Venezuela. All the paperwork had to be addressed to the Canadian embassy in Colombia, another country in South America. The Canadian embassy in Venezuela did not have a record of my files and was not able to give me any updated information about my case.

I landed at the Winnipeg airport on August 11, 2000, at 11 p.m. The immigration officer took our visas, asked me if we had any belongings coming later. We answered that we did not have that, and that was it. There was no one there to ask what to do or where to go to start our new life in Canada. We did not know anyone here in Winnipeg, but the Yellow Pages are anywhere in the world. We are a Catholic family, so we searched for Catholic churches in the Yellow Pages. We found out that there was a church giving a Spanish mass on Sundays. The church is Saint Ignatius of Loyola. We still go there.

On Monday a new friend from church took us to the social insurance office to get our cards. I was delighted, as there was not a long line to get my social insurance card. In my country you have to be in line at 5 o'clock in order to get a number and wait until 10 o'clock, when the office starts working.

The same Monday morning we went to another office funded by the government. We did appreciate that the officer met with us without an appointment. But that first interview was something I do not want any newcomer under the provincial nominee program to experience.

According to my understanding, coming to Canada under the nominee program basically means that you are a professional with a college degree and with a good level of the English language. At that office I was told that I should be aware that sometimes you have to start cleaning floors. I have nothing against janitorial work, but I felt insulted and humiliated since my application was approved because accounting--my field--was rated at number one priority on the needed jobs list in Manitoba at that moment.

To make a long story short, I mailed out my resume on many occasions without any answer. The only response I got was from a golf centre, where I ended up working while attending seminars and workshops at the Success Skills Centre. After four months I found a job as an accounting assistant with the help of the Success Skills Centre in conjunction with the subsidy given by the government. Now I am working at Employment Projects of Winnipeg Inc., where I started one year ago as administrative coordinator.

I came to Canada two and a half years ago with my husband and three children. I am a certified public accountant, graduated from a Venezuelan university. I also have an MBA from an American university. To get my degree recognized in Canada after five years at my Venezuelan university, 20 years of work experience, and two years in the States pursuing my MBA, my choices were this. To become a CGA I needed to take night courses. CGA could allow me seven years to take them, and it could cost around $10,000. The only extensive courses were from my U.S. MBA. None, and I repeat none, of them were from my Venezuelan university. To become a certified CMA I was allowed to take the one-year accelerated program, which cost $5,000. After that I had to take the national entrance exam that had to be approved in order to take a two-year leadership program that cost another $5,000. At the end of it I will become a CMA. After this I did not even want to know about the CA program.

What would I do to improve the provincial nominee program? Right now I see the program has many loose pieces where the candidate has some pieces of the puzzle, the government the rest, and no one is responsible for putting together all the pieces to have at the end the best possible outcome for both parts. In order to smooth the transition and the journey, we need to build a bridge between the two parts, and that bridge should be built in the home country.

À (1035)

Major league baseball teams send coaches cultures to search for the best players around the world. So should Canada. Canada is a well-developed country where many professionals want to immigrate. The coach could reach those people, hold a meeting with them in the home country telling and showing them through videos, brochures, etc. in the home country's language the pros and the cons of coming to Canada.

That coach would be the contact person for the candidate, and after the candidate's application is approved under the provincial nominee program, that coach would lead and guide the candidate from the home country to Canada. The candidate should be allowed to come to Canada for a visit to know the place, meet people from her land, and meet potential employers.

I could not apply for a tourist visa to visit Canada while I was applying for a permanent resident visa, under the nominee program.

Finally, I must tell you that I do not regret my choice of Canada to start a new life for my family, and I must say thank you to the Government of Canada for allowing us to come here. However, the provincial nominee program as it now exists is in need of a number of improvements to decrease the amount of stress and hardship encountered by the professional immigrants coming to Canada. I think communication, information, and more communication are the keys to improve this program.

Thank you.

À (1040)

The Chair: Well, thank you. We're happy that you came to Canada too, and I'm sure Winnipeg is happy to have you. I would very much like to have that piece of paper you just read from, because I think it's an excellent testimony of what we need to learn from in order to do a better job. Thank you very much.

For the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg, Faye and Bob and Leslie, you're all here. We were very impressed the last time with the great community model you put forward, that in fact we tried to incorporate into our point system, so that if there was a community out there supporting immigrants, it should give them some positive discretion and some additional points for those who want to come. I want to congratulate you on some of the innovative stuff you've been doing. I look forward to hearing your submission this morning.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen (Planning Director, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal): Thank you for coming to Winnipeg today. Despite the cold weather, we're feeling warm in here.

The Chair: It's no warmer anywhere else.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: We're glad you came to visit us this time, and thank you for hearing us last year.

This is Bob Silver, who is now chair of our Grow Winnipeg initiative, and Leslie Wilder, who is chair of our immigration subcommittee and whom you met last year as well. We did leave you a copy, but if you'll forgive me I'll just read the very short brief.

Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal, the central community organization for Winnipeg Jewry, is the central address for the Jewish communities of Winnipeg. It raises and distributes funds within the community for Jewish communal services; it engages in broad-based community planning; and it represents the Jewish community to the general community, governments, and other ethnocultural groups.

Winnipeg has a Jewish community of about 14,000 individuals, although we're waiting with bated breath for the census data to be released, because we think the numbers may be a little higher now. While the community numbered more than 19,000 at the time of the 1961 census, the number declined in the following decades and then stabilized for the last ten to fifteen years. After a most successful revitalization of our facilities several years ago, Jewish community leadership decided it was time to plan for the long-term revitalization of the community.

Winnipeg is a thriving city with safe neighbourhoods, a high quality of life, extraordinarily diverse and vibrant cultural life, with Venezuelans and others from all over the world. We think we have a wonderful cultural mix. And we have a bright future.

The Jewish community sees an equally bright future as a strong part of the ethnocultural fabric of Winnipeg. Building on our past successes, the Jewish Federation just over a year ago set a population target of 18,000 in ten years. The effort to increase population is complemented by efforts to identify employment opportunities for young people, the renewal of ethnocultural programming, and other long-term initiatives. We believe our efforts will provide a model for other ethnic communities to become involved in the future of Winnipeg and Manitoba.

We now work very closely with Manitoba Labour and Immigration. We provide the community support that gives Manitoba the confidence that a family that moves to Manitoba is likely to stay in Manitoba.

We hope we do greet people at the airport, Magaly, and that things have changed a little bit since you first arrived, hopefully. We are engaged in providing pre-migration assistance to dozens of prospective skilled immigrants.

We offer information about our community, make connections with potential business and employment contacts, and arrange exploratory visits. When immigrants arrive, they receive a warm welcome and services that help them find their first place to live, locate employment opportunities, get health insurance coverage and their social insurance card, obtain memberships in synagogues and the community centre at reduced rates, and much more. The Jewish Federation works with its beneficiary agencies, other Jewish organizations, and many public services to smooth the transition to a new home.

The Jewish community in Winnipeg has a longstanding history of welcoming and resettling families in our community. We have welcomed immigrants from around the world since the early 20th century. Over the last 20 years the greatest number of new immigrants to our community have come from the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe. The flow from that part of the world continues, with many more recent applicants being even more highly skilled than the applicants of two decades ago.

Our strategic plan for growth includes continuing our relationship with the province to promote Manitoba as a destination for prospective immigrants. In 2002 we opened 310 files for families, with whom we have ongoing communication about our community. We welcomed 115 families on exploratory visits. Of the 181 Manitoba applicants who have come through our office in the last two years, 28 have landed, 124 have received nomination certificates from Manitoba, and 76 of those are awaiting processing through a Canadian embassy.

Each week we hear from those who got their Manitoba or federal file number, those who have been called by the embassy to have medical forms completed, those who have received permanent resident visas, and those who have a definite arrival date. We received another dozen e-mails last week, and we are now expecting 23 more families in the next four months. They e-mailed us to tell us the date they are arriving.

We're here today to tell you that the Manitoba PNP is an exemplary model for other provinces that wish to increase population through immigration. The policies are well founded, the staff provide professional and compassionate service, the community partners are supportive and well served, and the program grows and develops thoughtfully. Manitobans will reap the benefits for generations of a process that today finds and invites immigrants who want to re-establish their families in our communities.

A nomination certificate indicates a match to the local job market at the time of application. But economics and markets change. We ask that you support the provincial nominee program with processing at the posts that is fast enough to allow the applicant to arrive in a timely fashion. Two years is too long in the up-and-coming markets, such as IT specialities, bioengineering, scientific research, and even the construction trades. A commitment to processing applications in weeks rather than years empowers the Manitoba and other nominee programs, and it establishes their value to local businesses.

I thank you for your attention, and again, thank you for coming to Winnipeg.

À (1045)

Mr. Bob Silver (Chair, Grow Winnipeg Steering Committee, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal): Perhaps I could summarize.

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Bob Silver: I am reminded of the question that was asked of a Chinese ruler: When is the best time to plant a tree? The answer: Twenty years ago. What's the best thing Canada can do for Manitoba? Give us the same dispensation as Quebec vis-à-vis immigration.

The Chinese ruler was asked: What's the second-best time to plant a tree? Right now, he said. So what's the second-best thing we can do for Manitoba? Support the provincial nominee program to a greater degree than we are today.

We are thankful to the Government of Canada for recognizing the needs of Manitoba and increasing the numbers. The numbers need to be increased further. There should be no limit to the nominee program if the matches are proper between the job, the applicant, the community, and the needs of Manitoba.

As Leslie was saying, the second most important part, aside from the limit, is timing. I have sponsored a number of provincial nominees. The longer you wait, the more difficult it is to guarantee a job. As an employer in Manitoba, I can't take job applications from people for two years from today. I employ over 2,000 people through all of the businesses I operate in my spare time. Where years ago business planning looked at five-year planning, now we look at five months. It is too long. The matches sometimes disappear if the timeframe is extended.

I urge you to look at prioritization of Manitoba nominees in the Canadian system.

Thank you.

À (1050)

The Chair: Those are good points, Bob.

We will go now to the Manitoba Business Council. Jim.

Mr. Jim Carr (President, Manitoba Business Council): Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome back to Manitoba. And a special hello to my former benchmate in the Manitoba legislature, Judy Wasylycia-Leis. We were on different sides of some issues but on the same side of many. I think on these issues too there is a multi-partisan approach to what's in the national interest, and we need more of that.

When we spoke a couple of years ago, the issue was increasing the numbers, because Manitoba needs more population. Why? Because we have chronic shortages in the workplace and because we need a population policy that will be able to maximize the economic potential of a diverse economy that has a tradition of welcoming immigrants from all over the world. We think that kind of thinking and that sort of tolerance, which really was the history of how we developed as a society, will be no less important as we move forward into the century.

Let me say that there has been an acknowledgement of that. When we held our conference in May of 2000 called Pioneers 2000 we sought to answer the question, How do you write national policy in a country as diverse as Canada while factoring in regional difference? In a way, I suppose that might be, Mr. Chairman, the conundrum of Canadian federalism: how do you do that?

Well, the answer in part, at least in this narrow slice of public policy, is the provincial nominee program, when you are able to say that these are the particular conditions that face a region or face a province and here is a way we can handle them without compromising the integrity of the Government of Canada to write national policy. That's precisely what we have done.

We should pause to congratulate Minister Barrett of the province of Manitoba and Minister Coderre and his predecessors in the Government of Canada for recognizing that it is possible to take into account particularly what Manitoba needs and to write a bilateral agreement between the province and the Government of Canada to satisfy the needs that are local to this community. That has been done.

When we first started on this file, the number of provincial nominees was 200 a year. Now it's 1,500 a year plus families. I hope we will begin to approach a total that makes a lot of sense, and that is 10,000 immigrants and refugees a year, because that is roughly our proportion of the Canadian population. We now get 2% of the immigrant flow and have 3.7% or 3.8% of the population, so a doubling of the number of immigrants would take us to where we believe we ought to be.

I thought maybe the best thing I could do with you this morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is review some of the recommendations contained within this report that I circulated to all of you called “People: Manitoba's Future”.

It might interest you that when we did a major survey of our CEOs at the Business Council—we are a group of 55 CEOs of Manitoba's leading companies—we posed the question: What are the greatest strengths and challenges facing the Manitoba economy?

If you had posed that question to a group of CEOs in British Columbia, the answer would have been resource sector issues--forestry, fish, mining, etc. If you had asked in Alberta, it would have been obvious: energy, oil; in Saskatchewan, agricultural industries. Well, what was the answer in Manitoba? People—our greatest strength and our greatest challenge.

Building on what we believe to be the public policy advances of our Pioneers 2000 conference, we asked university presidents, CEOs, NGO leaders, and others to spend a day and a half debating the question how we in Manitoba can develop a set of policies that will give us the human capital, the human resources we need to take full advantage of economic opportunity. The result is contained within this document that I commended to you.

Specifically on the question of immigration and the provincial nominee program, we note that the Government of Manitoba announced in its throne speech of a few months ago that it will create the Manitoba immigration council. The mandate of that council and what it seeks to accomplish will really form the heart of Manitoba's capacity to build population through immigration sources.

We say the first thing we need to do is devise a recruitment strategy that is really based on a couple of simple notions. One is that the people most likely to succeed who come here are those with a skill set that will lead to permanent employment. The other is that if they are welcomed and embraced by the local community, the chances that they stay are much greater than if they're not.

There ought to be somebody at the airport. The chances are greater that they will stay here if there is a community of people who speak the same language, who worship in a like way, etc. That's not exclusively how you do it, but we think you have a better chance of retaining those who come here if some of those basic similarities and commonalities are recognized.

Quebec does it extremely well. In Quebec they determine from what regions of the world they will recruit. They do it on the basis of language, although I'm interested to note that now Quebec is not only recruiting those who speak French as a first language, but also those who are most likely to embrace French as a second language—which I think, by the way, is a very interesting shift in public policy that may have more impact and more significance, not only for immigration but for a certain mindset. But that's another story.

We think that's an important way of looking at those who are most likely to succeed. Also, there's been too much reliance, we think, on specific matches between a job and an individual. We think a skill set making people likely to succeed and a willingness to work in a community such as this are also important to consider. So we think the definition ought to be broadened. It shouldn't be so rigid and so inflexible as to only match one person to one job that is available today, which plays to the timeline that's been well covered by the Jewish Federation. We support the notion of a much more collapsed frame within which this can happen.

Also, we think it would be very important to position Manitoba as a leader—a leader, for example, in recognition of skills that come from other places. There has been a lot of debate about how one does that. Different professions do it in different ways. Certainly we don't do it quickly enough. We think that if Manitoba can develop a competitive advantage over other Canadian provinces and over other jurisdictions—because after all, we are really in an international competition for skilled people—we would have a better chance of enticing and then retaining those we want.

The federal government has been playing with the notion of encouraging temporary workers to live in regions where their skills are required. We think that has potential. There are issues that have to be debated about the appropriateness of that policy. We think it ought to be looked at carefully, and we would support in principle the Government of Canada moving forward with that issue.

Also, on the question of ethnic communities, the Business Council of Manitoba was a part of a mission that went to Buenos Aires to encourage Argentinians of Jewish background to come to Manitoba, because they were the sort of profile that made sense for us. Also, there was a community to welcome them here.

May I also say, Mr. Chairman, that there are, I'm sure, millions of Italians in Argentina, and we want them here, Mr. Chairman.

A voice: There are Italians in Italy too.

Mr. Jim Carr: Yes, they're in Italy too, and we're fighting with the Italians for Italians. I'm not sure we're winning that battle. That would be a subject that might be beyond our capacity, that has to do with climate and other issues. But poco a poco....

But let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, we have a vibrant, dynamic Italian community here that thrives in tolerance and understanding of the importance of ethnic diversity, and we want more Italians in Manitoba. If the Business Council can help in the efforts within the Italian community here to go to places such as Buenos Aires to make the pitch, as we did to the Jewish population, that there is a society here that can be embraced by those who are escaping political and economic chaos as modern-day versions of Bob's ancestors and mine, and Faye's and Leslie's, who were escaping religious persecution and found in the roots of the Manitoba soil the liberty and the capacity to be who you could be without the yoke of repression—and there is a yoke of repression in Argentina—we say let's give Argentinians of any ethnic origin a chance for their capacity to take root in the liberty of the Canadian soil.

Well, I could go on, and we will have a chance to have a question and answer period. I guess my simple message is we have developed here in Manitoba, in its relationship with Canada, a model through the provincial nominee program that is to be envied because of the bilateral cooperation, because of the sensitivity to the local particulars of the Manitoba society, a tolerant society that's prepared to welcome people from all over the world, as we have in the past.

À (1055)

Looking forward, we ought to streamline the process, we ought to allow ourselves more flexibility, and we should collapse the timeframes so that this can happen more quickly than it has to date.

Again, welcome to this very special place. I look forward to exchanging views with you, Mr. Chairman.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Thank you. I'm sure you've just raised the temperature by at least three or four degrees with all your excitement and that sort of stuff. Thank you.

Before we go to you, Faye, I have to go to Bob. Then we'll come back.

Bob, it's nice to see you again.

Mr. Bob Gabuna (As Individual): Thank you.

Could I just make two acknowledgements, Mr. Chairman?

The Chair: Of course.

Mr. Bob Gabuna: First, I would like to acknowledge my MP—I live in an area where Judy is the sitting MP—and Bob Silver. He employs a lot of my people, and my people have been giving me good feedback about how Bob will treat them. In fact, his latest act is that Bob has encouraged the Philippine workers to contribute funds for the Philippine centre we are about to put up. Thank you, Bob.

And of course last night when I spoke about the settlement program I cited Abraham, the immigrant. He emigrated from Mesopotamia, and that has been the model I took when I emigrated from the Philippines to Canada.

And now my presentation—

The Chair: You had to walk a long, long way for many, many years to become finally settled.

Mr. Bob Gabuna: Yes, that's right. But I took a plane; I took a 747.

Gleaned from the website created by the Province of Manitoba, the mandate of the provincial nominee program is:

...an immigration program established under the Canada-Manitoba Immigration Agreement in recognition of the fact that the province is in the best position to determine its specific economic needs in terms of immigration. The program allows the province... to recruit and assess immigrants who are best suited to contribute to the province's economy and who intend to live and work in Manitoba.

The nominee program no doubt is a special dispensation conditionally granted by the federal government, provided the statutory requirements outlined by Immigration Canada are met, namely medical exams and security and criminal checks. The program, no doubt, is an arrangement that we Manitobans ought to view with appreciation and nurture to the hilt.

In my coming and listening to the varied views from business and community leaders, the program is admittedly second to none after Quebec. While the stakeholders consider the program is great, somehow there are areas that need to be improved and recurring questions that need to be addressed and settled. Because of time constraints, let me cite three identified questions.

Question number one concerns the retention issue. While it is true the planners have done their best to ensure the integrity of the program, there are still leakages that need to be resolved. There were applicants who abused and misused the program merely as a vehicle to enter Canada, and within a year they moved out from the province of Manitoba. Worse, some crossed south of the border.

Question number two concerns recognition of credentials. The nominee program is partial to highly educated applicants and discourages semi-skilled applicants. But on the other hand, there is no assurance that the credentials of highly educated applicants would be recognized upon their landing in Manitoba.

Question number three is who decides for Manitoba? As a Manitoban, I wish a broader base of participation in the decision-making process. Personally, l wish to see an inclusive model wherein a wider perspective in both planning and execution of the program is introduced.

I propose identified solutions be designed on a long-term plan rather than treating the proposal on an interim basis. Incentives should be in place in order for all players to collaborate in the design and delivery of effective programs and services. All too often key players are not at the table, or if they are there are few.

I propose a one-stop reception centre be located on one site to reduce the time spent by newcomers and the general public traversing from one office to another for official transactions. The reception centre would operate under the supervision of the cabinet minister who would appoint the head of the proposed office. The office would be a composite agency. The centre would be mandated to respond to the magnitude of settlement issues and related concerns.

On the specifics of the retention issue, I have this concept that may sound crazy but it has been gleaned from the experience of other models. To discourage abusers of the program, I propose that an applicant admitted in Canada through the nominee program pay Manitoba back if they leave the province less than six months from the date of their arrival. The mechanism for executing the proposal would have to be agreed upon by the provinces and the federal government.

On credential recognition, while it is true that credential recognition does not automatically lead to landing a decent-paying job, nonetheless, in terms of positive impact, recognizing the applicant's credentials earned from offshore is a great boost to the newcomer's psyche. In other words, rather than de-skilling newly arrived immigrants and impelling them to start from scratch, the accreditation system ought to value their qualifications and focus on ways to fill identified gaps.

On who decides for Manitoba, each and every one in Manitoba is a stakeholder in this program; hence, to fairly represent the diverse views of the multiple stakeholders, I propose the creation of an immigration council. The proposed council would be a tangible way of bringing players together to provide long-term vision and leadership to nurture the program, oversee its continuation, and perpetuate its viability.

The initial functions of the council could be to foster collaboration among the stakeholders, determine the selection process and guidelines, meet en banc to act as the appeal board, and identify evaluation priorities. Its membership would be composite in scope. Besides the automatic inclusion of federal and provincial immigration officers, the council would include representatives from all parties--i.e., the labour, business, and immigrant communities.

Thank you.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Bob. It was a fine submission last night and an equally good one today.

We'll get to questions, but before that, Faye, do you have something?

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: I have one little bit of good news. Last week the Argentinian-Manitoban Association opened an office in the Caboto Centre, along with a coalition of Italian community groups, to begin a process of inviting immigration from Argentina. So it's just beginning.

The Chair: Caboto was supposed to have been here last night, but I understand they were just having too much fun with those Argentinians--wine and so on. I can understand that. They're to be forgiven. I'm just ticked off you didn't invite me.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: They knew you were busy here.

The Chair: I'm sure.

Okay, let's go to questions. Lynne.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: I'd like to know what you think of Denis Coderre's proposal to introduce a process to compel immigrants to settle in smaller countries. I think Bob has already kind of alluded to that.

I also want to know if you felt you were deceived, Magaly. You thought you were coming to a wonderful country, but once you came here you found you couldn't use your career. Did you feel deceived?

I want to know what you meant when you said you'd like to have something similar to what they have in Quebec. I'd like more detail on that, because I haven't heard about any differences yet.

To all of you, many people say “We don't need immigrants. My husband doesn't have a job. He's a truck driver and can't find work. We don't need more truck drivers.” What do you say to these people? “We don't need more nurses, because my daughter wants to go in for nursing and she's being told there aren't any jobs there, only part-time jobs. In these provinces in particular, there really isn't any work, so why are you trying to have nurses come into the country?”

I want to know how all of you respond to that, if you have that situation. I'm sure you do, because your demographics are similar.

Did you feel deceived? You said that when you first found out about coming to Canada, you thought you were going to be able to work in your career.

Á (1110)

Ms. Magaly Diaz: Yes, that was my understanding. When I applied to come here, accounting was a number one job. I said, well, I could work over there. I know that I have some...for example, taxes are going to be different here, but overall, accounting should be more or less the same.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: So should we be advertising for people by saying they will not be working in their career, they probably will be washing walls, but they'll be living in this country? And, as you described, Winnipeg is a thriving city with safe neighbourhoods, a high quality of life, an extraordinarily diverse vibrant cultural life, and a bright future. Would it be better just to say that, but that you probably won't be working in your career?

Ms. Magaly Diaz: Well, at least I should have known when I was back in my country what the requirements were to be certified here. I didn't know until I got here.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: But now you're happy, because you can see a better life for your children. But for you...?

Ms. Magaly Diaz: At that moment I was making a good life in Venezuela, but I thought my children could do better here in Canada.

So I say I have no regrets.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: You don't have regrets.

Ms. Magaly Diaz: But it has been hard, harder than I thought it would be when I was in my country.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Would you do it again?

Ms. Magaly Diaz: Yes, because I know now.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: So you'll be our model for immigrants not knowing what they're coming to when they come to Canada.

Ms. Magaly Diaz: Yes.

The Chair: Could we have answers to those other questions with regard to the dispersion strategy, or what I like to call something to attract people to small-town Canada on an incentive-based system?

Ms. Leslie Wilder (Vice President, Human Resources, Jewish Federation of Winnipeg/Combined Jewish Appeal): I think small-town Canada would be best addressed by Jim. The strength of our program is with the Jewish community resettlement availability, and we are just not represented any more in small towns.

What I can do is clarify the Quebec issue. Mr. Fontana and others can tell you more about the technicalities, but I can tell you about the speed with which the Quebec system works. They are able to process their immigration applicants much more quickly. In my day job I spend a fair amount of time in Buenos Aires and in Santiago, at the Canadian embassies, and they have their own agents in the major centres.

As Jim said, they are now looking to attract people who will adapt well to their French culture. The Latin culture gives you a very easy adaptation. Their agent is there on a very regular basis.

A few months ago, when I was speaking with some people from the Jewish community in Argentina, they said the people I have been telling you about have chosen Quebec just because it's quicker. Within six months of application, you can be landed in Quebec, and the Jewish community in Quebec is working very closely to meet the resettlement needs. They did a joint trip with their provincial government a few months ago and will be going back again.

So with the type of agreement they have, it allows for very speedy processing of the applicant.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: That is because the province has more control, probably.

Ms. Leslie Wilder: They have a lot more control, and the--

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: You're in Winnipeg, as well.

Even though you're a step ahead of the rest of Canada, you still want more control, similar to Quebec's.

Ms. Leslie Wilder: Yes.

Mr. Bob Silver: I would like to touch on the idea of “we don't need more” for a second.

During the day I run a company called Western Glove Works, which makes apparel--it makes blue jeans under various names. And I can tell you that if it weren't for immigration, this company would not exist today.

We employ 1,000 people in Manitoba. Without immigration, without the dispensation of the federal government in 1973, 1971, and 1969 to allow the industry to bring in people from the Philippines, this industry would not exist. That might not be the same loss as what would happen in Winnipeg if this 50,000-person community did not exist. It's been an incredibly vibrant community and an incredible addition to our cultural mosaic here.

When these people were brought into Manitoba the hue and cry was “We don't need more”. I have fought that for the last twenty years. I've been almost the single idiot out there saying we need more people. I've been told we don't need them: we have unemployment; we have people who are looking for jobs.

The future of Canada, not just the future of Manitoba or the future of Winnipeg, is in jeopardy of reducing its importance, its size in the global community without immigration. It is a huge issue. Those who say we don't need it are living in a protectionist society that went the way of the dodo bird. We are into globalization. If we do not embrace it and use it to our benefit we will be net losers.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Jim.

Mr. Jim Carr: I see three questions. I'll pick them off one at a time, if that's okay.

First, we have built a consensus in the Manitoba community around enhanced immigration. If you spoke to any or all of the 57 members of the Manitoba legislature and asked them how many cards, letters, phone calls, and e-mail messages they get from their constituents who are arguing against enhanced immigration, there would be very few.

I speak on behalf of 50 chief executive officers. This is one of the most important issues we confront. Labour has passed resolutions on the importance of enhanced immigration to Manitoba. The Canadian Labour Congress in fact has passed resolutions. The official opposition in the Manitoba legislature, in its alternate throne speech delivered by the leader a month or six weeks ago, talked about enhanced immigration to Manitoba. So I don't know where these pockets of dissent are coming from. I don't think I've taken a single call in my office in the last five years--which is how long we've been promoting this notion--from a person who said they thought it was a bad idea.

However, the peculiar demographics in Manitoba are such that we have a large underskilled aboriginal population. So it is important when you talk about the issues of skills development and training to also talk about the importance of training and employing aboriginal youth in Manitoba. If you look at the census material that is being released now and the demographic projections for Manitoba over the next twenty years, it becomes clear that must be a leading priority for Manitoba decision-makers.

In answer to those who ask why we aren't doing more, we are. We're doing it at the business council through an awards program for bright aboriginal youth, to promote post-secondary education. You'll see recommendations in this report that confront the challenges of a lower drop-out rate for aboriginal youth, easing transition from reserve communities into urban centres, particularly Winnipeg, using immigration models as a basis of success. So in a province such as this it's important to maintain a community consensus and talk at the same time about the importance of enhanced immigration and better training and employing aboriginal youth.

The issue of Quebec has been well answered. I would add that they have nine embassies abroad that they run independently of the Government of Canada. The other issue is money and the transfer of funds from Canada to Quebec to help settle new immigrants. I think we'd be quite content in Manitoba to have the same proportion of money transferred from Ottawa as is transferred from Manitoba to Quebec.

On the issue of smaller communities, conceptually it's fine. In a way, it's the next question. After you talk about how to accommodate regional difference within Canadian federalism, it's time to ask how to accommodate size difference within Canadian provinces and how we can attract people to smaller communities where there is less critical mass, where ethnic communities are less well established in some places. But conceptually, I think it's a fine idea. There are details to work out, but we would be very interested in taking part in some of that thinking.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would like to thank everyone for their presentations today.

I think what we have learned late this morning and from earlier presentations is that Manitoba offers a model for the rest of the country.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Manitoba rocks!

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Absolutely, Manitoba rocks. And I think, whether you are looking at the nominee program, where in fact--what is it--80% of all skilled people brought into this country under nominee programs are here as a result of the Manitoba program, or whether you are looking at even the settlement issue, which we dealt with this morning, Manitoba by all accounts rates at the top in terms of providing such services.

So it seems to me there is a theme here: we are doing it despite the federal government, not because of the federal government.

The Chair: I was agreeing with you until you said that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My statement is, imagine what we could do if we had the federal government more involved in terms of supporting these initiatives. What message can we take back to the federal government to help Manitoba improve on its record and its model?

Get specific with this question. For example, in terms of the issue of matches you raised, Bob--you all had something to say about matches--I have constituents who are approved through the nominee program who are waiting a year, two years, because of the holdup with immigration in terms of health checks, security investigations, the whole bureaucracy.

What we need to hear from you is what we can do to improve things at that end. Give us some more insights in terms of this success. How did we build this consensus model in Manitoba, and how can the federal government help? How can we translate this across the country?

Anybody could answer.

Mr. Bob Silver: Judy, some of the things we need we have discussed. How the federal government can expedite the Manitoba provincial nominee is a very interesting question. I'm not sure how they can do it. But as far as I'm concerned, when a post abroad--whether it be in the Philippines or in Argentina--gets a Manitoba nominee, it should go to the top of the list, because it's generally a problem-free application, comparatively speaking.

Number two, I don't think the federal government goes anywhere where they don't, at the end of the day or during the day or at sometime, get asked for more money. Money for settlement issues would be a great help to Manitoba. Money in partnership with either a community or a group--never by itself, but in partnership--would go a long way to help Manitoba prove to the rest of Canada, not just for itself, how good this program can be.

My third point is on the numbers. As I stated earlier, the federal government needs to place some limits, but I think it has to look at the limits for Manitoba in a different manner.

Last, I would like to touch on the rural community base. The Mennonite community is a wonderful example of having done just that. But let's not take that success outside of the context of what was more important. They took people who were rural, who wanted to go to a rural community, and they matched them. They took them to a community that welcomed them with open arms, spoke their language, helped them settle.

When you look at community, it is not whether it is rural or urban, inside or outside a city. Communities are communities. The Philippine community is a very welcoming community for future Philippine immigrants, as the Jewish community is, as the Italian community will be, as the Venezuelan community of one, perhaps, will be as well.

The Chair: I have to mention my wife's community, the Polish, too, or else she'll--

Mr. Bob Silver: No, we can't do that.

The Chair: Did you want to answer the same question?

Á (1125)

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: I have one more issue on that list in terms of national encouragement to solve the credentials recognition programs. Because of free trade, we are solving some interprovincial credential recognition problems, which in turn are serving this need. But national associations need to be supported, as do provincial associations, and they need to be encouraged to solve the credentials recognition issue. And sometimes it's a case of having enough time to review all the issues and to review all the matches and actually be able to do the research to match up the education and say yes, this person's education does count in this country. So there's potentially a national influence there that could really support this movement forward on that issue as well.

Mr. Jim Carr: Predicting skills shortages in the workplace has proven to be an imperfect science. In fact, it's not science at all; it's guesswork, and it's very difficult to anticipate. If you look at the number of layoffs within the high-tech sectors, this would not have been anticipated.

Sometimes it's difficult to answer the question of what skills we will need in five years or in ten years, beyond the obvious ones of literacy and numeracy and the power skills of being able to make an argument. There is insufficient data and research on the subject of emerging demands in the workforce, and the Government of Canada has a role to play in giving us a database that's more useful than the one we have now.

Secondly, we know that it's not only skilled workers we need in Canada, but it's all sorts of workers, including semi-skilled ones. We ought to expand our sense of who it is we need and want in Manitoba and in Canada, and the Immigration Act puts a premium on hard skills, on university graduates, master's degrees. I think some of that is misplaced and there is too heavy an emphasis on those post-graduate skills and we sometimes lose sight of the fact that, man, can we use plumbers, pipe fitters, and others.

Now, the whole question of skills recognition and the attitude towards employers to immigrants is worthy of some discussion and debate. We don't have time to do it here. And we can't assume that we always adopt the kind of tolerance that we think of, because there are cases still where accent and where colour are issues. We have to come to terms with that on the basis of us as a society and as individuals and employers. But it can't be discounted. We cannot assume that it doesn't exist. It does exist. And that's the kind of thing we have to search our own souls and hearts to achieve.

However, as you know, every once in a while in opposition you have to say that the government has done something more or less right. In the case of the provincial nominee program, the Government of Canada has got it more or less right vis-à-vis Manitoba.

Mr. Bob Gabuna: I would like to cite an experience I had in this rural thing.

I don't know if you have heard of St. Laurent. It's a Métis community. The reeve invited me to do a scan of what I could do for the community. And I learned from the fishermen that they have to discard the fish, that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation won't buy from them. I told them that Filipinos have a way of solving that: we eat dried fish. And of course the officials were very encouraged that you can do something to help the fishermen with these discarded fish. The unfortunate thing is that they're looking for a guy who has adequately owned fisheries.

My post-graduate training is in entrepreneurship, and I told the Montreal persons that I just need a drying facility and we have a market. As of now, you just have a federal licence to make Filipino sausage--they call it longaniza. We operate an oriental store. We employee 20 people, and our longaniza business is making headway and we will be introducing them into the mainstream. And I'm looking at putting up a facility outside Winnipeg so that we could avail ourselves of financial grants and all that. So what I'm saying is the opportunity is there.

What we did for St. Laurent is we made up an experiment. We put a family there who are raising goats, because Filipinos love to eat a special kind of meat preparation. So during the summertime Filipinos go over to the farm, slaughter a goat, and feast on it.

Mr. Chair, you mentioned business opportunities. There are a number of business opportunities for immigrants coming from the orient. I was in a superstore on McPhillips Street, and their lead department is the oriental department. Their daily sales of oriental food are $50,000.

Á (1130)

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Just on Jim's last point, my point isn't to underestimate or downplay the role of the federal government in the provincial nominee program, but to emphasize that we're talking about a side deal to the immigration system.

No one here is talking about the possibilities for a province like Manitoba with the new Immigration Act and the new point system, or holding out any expectations that will open the door and get us to the 3.7% we feel we are entitled to.

So is there a way to take the lessons of this provincial nominee program and apply them in a broader way so the program becomes the mainstay of the system, as opposed to an end run? I think the provincial nominee program is successful, but it is an end run. It's a way of getting around a system that isn't working for a province like Manitoba.

The Chair: On a supplementary to that, I don't want anybody to get the impression that the only way you can get into Manitoba is through the provincial nominee program. Let me clarify it. There are 1,500 people, but you can get in under the Canada immigration policy on family reunification, temporary workers, visiting students, and so on.

So maybe, within the context of getting to 3.7% or even moving that provincial nominee, you can give us some figures over and above the provincial nominee programs on how many people you've been able to attract outside the provincial nominee program, because they are in partnership together. It is wrong to suggest that the only way you get into Manitoba is through the provincial nominee program.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My statement is based on previous testimony that has shown that Manitoba has increased its numbers because of the provincial nominee program and private sponsorships.

The Chair: But that doesn't get you anywhere near the 3.7%. I'm talking about the global number of immigrants Manitoba is able to attract, within that context.

Mr. Jim Carr: The ceiling last year under the provincial nominee program wasn't achieved, as far as I know. That's because of lack of resources in the system. It had to do with bottlenecks in the embassy system abroad and the inability of Manitoba to keep up with the demand.

If you ask public servants in Manitoba in the Department of Immigration how many applications they're getting a day, it's overwhelming them. It was 100 a day, but even if it's 60, multiply that by 365. Then you have to ask whether these people would qualify.

Are we inhibited from welcoming more because they don't qualify as what we consider to be suitable candidates, or because of the inability of the system to accommodate them? Plenty of qualified people aren't getting in, and that's a resource problem.

The Chair: Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Thank you.

Lynne raised a point on attitudes toward immigration. Irving Abella, in a foreword to the book Whence They Came, wrote something to the effect that even though Canada is a nation built on immigrants, we hate immigrants.

So there is this attitude out there. I deal with it all the time. I'll get a phone call in my office and somebody will go nuts on refugees. I'll listen to them for a while and then say I was a refugee. That stops them. I spent time in a Jewish refugee camp in Austria. It was our first port of call.

So there are those attitudes--and about truck drivers and nurses. My daughter wants to be a nurse. I hate to say it, but I asked an immigration minister why we didn't do something to facilitate accrediting all these internationally trained doctors in my community. We have a shortage of doctors in my community. And then the comment came back, “We want our kids to be able to go to medical school”, like that had something to do with it.

All I'm saying is we have a lot of policies, and it goes from the person who is very intolerant to the other end of the extreme, where somebody is just uninformed. I think it is a continuous educational process we have to go through.

I'm glad you raised the point, because I actually had that down as a question. I often wonder if we are getting the right skills in, because I come from a high-tech community in Waterloo, and the IT sector is not doing the greatest right now. It will, but right now it's not. From observation, I think the people who succeed the most coming into this country are the ones who are willing to grab those jobs that are always lacking people. The biggest hassle I get is from restaurants or the auto plants that make parts for the auto industry; they simply cannot get any people.

I guess if you get somebody who comes in and really wants to work at any job.... And that's harder to find if it's somebody who comes here with a PhD. You're not going to get them working in restaurants, and they'll resist driving a cab. I know when my father came he was an architect and town planner, but he took whatever job he had to, and so did my mother. But they came from different circumstances. They came as refugees who were looking for security.

But if you get somebody over here who has a PhD in India, you know, with the expectations, coming from the middle class expecting to come here at almost the same status, it might be more difficult. So I think we have to be careful we don't give wrong information out, and try to match them as much as possible.

Coming back to my point about getting people in the building trades, if you are a plumber you can do something else in the building trade; if you are carpenter you can do all sorts of other stuff in the building trade. These are the people who really have trouble coming in. That's what the chair has been working on for a fair amount of time--getting the people in the skilled trades, because it seems to be easier in terms of locating them in jobs. So the skill set is very important.

Do you want to expand on that a little more, Bob?

Á (1135)

Mr. Bob Silver: I think one of the most interesting differences between now and twenty years ago is just what you said, Andrew: the public perception in Manitoba toward immigration. The problem we have as a country is that Manitoba is rather unique in its desire to open its arms to the world. In many other places in Canada, specifically Toronto and Vancouver, that isn't the attitude.

I don't know why it changed in Manitoba, but it did over the course of the last twenty years. Perhaps it's a bit of desperation, perhaps it's a bit of waking up and being sensible, but for whatever reason, it has changed. And as Jim was saying, whatever party is in power, the opposition agrees with the need for immigration.

In the studies I have looked at going back to 1986, which Barbara McDougall did, there was only one negative to immigration: public perception. There was no economic downside at all.

As Canadians, we have to do what Manitoba has done, which is convince Canadians that our gross national product will not go up without immigration, and that immigrants create jobs; they don't take jobs. Check my parking lot. It's full of cars, bought here in Winnipeg by members of the Filipino community. Now, those cars would not have been bought, would not have been sold, without it.

Somewhere down the line, Manitoba got it right. We figured out that if we don't have more people to buy cars, we won't sell more cars--because we're not birthing them. I don't know when the rest of Canada is going to catch up to this. I don't know if they're going to.

One of the major problems with immigration today is the difference from the turn of the century, when we were rather invisible. I looked like you. They couldn't tell that you were from someplace different from me, until we talked. The problem today is that immigrants are visible. Nobody wants to deal with that issue, but it is one.

The Chair: Bob, I want to tell you something, though. One of the things this committee found out when we travelled around the country is that there wasn't any place in the country that didn't appreciate and/or want more immigration.

Á (1140)

Mr. Bob Silver: Wonderful.

The Chair: So I think the psyche is there, save and except for two or three people in Vancouver who may have had a problem. We won't mention what party they belong to. But for the most part we were very impressed with the fact that Canada appreciates and understands. Sometimes, because of a lack of communication and ignorance, there may not be a true understanding of what really is going on there. But I think we're getting there, and perhaps it's because Manitoba took the lead.

Faye, you had an answer to the other question.

Ms. Faye Rosenberg-Cohen: In response to Judy's question, I'd like to reinforce what Bob said about not being afraid to take skilled people and not focusing so much on specific skill matches. In the current federal system there is that real focus on very high levels of education and specific skill matches. I think we shouldn't be afraid to broaden it even further and say skilled people or people who have the desire to work are going to contribute to the community. I think that when we see the credentials recognition issues that happen, you also find that people find other things to do, because they're motivated to do that, and they're contributors to the community in a very short time.

The Chair: I think we have moved to an occupation-specific model, which may not have served Magaly very well because the time was too short, to a human capital model of looking at the person, because people are going to change their career. Even our own kids, for God's sake, are going to change careers five or six times in their lifetime. It's not as if someone is going to work at one place for 30 years any more. That's not the way the economy is going. So we're looking at the whole person and their ability to work in whatever field, but hopefully the one they've been educated in.

I'd like to ask some specific questions to round out the discussion.

We have to make sure that the information is at our embassies so that when potential immigrants visit them they can get the information with regard to the profession they're in and the accreditation that's required. All of these associations we talked to said to us that they're providing all that information, so there should be no surprises as to whether or not their credentials are going to be accepted in Canada.

There is a responsibility on the part of the immigrant to get as much information as possible. Along with the Internet, I think it's essential that we have the information that immigrants need at our centres so that you can make a good judgment on the expectations you have.

The other thing that bothers me, which I think we've changed, is that we want people to visit Canada first before they make a commitment. We've said in part of our point system that if you've visited Canada first to check out Bob and Leslie and things in Winnipeg or other places, you shouldn't be penalized for doing that. In fact, you should get more points. There's this dual-intent idea. If you want to come as a visitor but you have already applied and we can't get you an answer for two years, why shouldn't you come and do some of that preparatory work or even visit a community and a family? Why should we hold that against you? I'm just wondering whether or not that is a problem.

Ms. Magaly Diaz: When I went to the Venezuelan embassy and said I wanted a tourist visa to go to Canada, they said no, you cannot apply because you are also applying for a permanent resident visa. I don't know why.

The Chair: This refers to your community. It's about the provincial nominee agreements. When we travelled around the country, what we heard is that under these agreements the provinces weren't doing much more than applying their point system and processing their stuff. There wasn't an awful lot of marketing about Manitoba or all the other provinces we have. There weren't universities, business groups, or community groups going out and being very strategic as to where you want them to come to and trying to attract the people.

Now Quebec does that because it has its own immigration department. But the provincial nominee agreements don't preclude--Manitoba as an example--being very proactive where you are and where you want to be.

Perhaps it may be that the provincial government and the community look at assisting us in terms of resources, and I'll tell you why. It's unacceptable that it would take us two years or three years to process papers.

Bob, you said put Manitoba at the top of the list. Well, I'll give you an idea. Do you know what's on the top of the list for our immigration officers? Families. We want to process family reunification within six months, and I think we're doing a good job. Do you know what the next on the list is--what it's supposed to be? Skilled workers for the whole of Canada. Then they have to worry about student visas. And by the way, one great way of attracting people to Manitoba is to go out and attract an awful lot of students and temporary workers, because that's the fast way into the system.

Provincial nominees are the fourth priority down the list. It's taken them two years to do everything else, but you said put them at the top of the list. Well, guess what? They have other priorities.

My point is that perhaps a further refinement of the program is to find and provide the resources at our embassies, such as a designated person for Manitoba in specific areas where you should be, so they can process your application a lot more quickly. I'm just wondering whether or not that's a model that might work for you, or whether you can let the business people do it.

Á (1145)

Mr. Jim Carr: Well, the Business Council was part of the mission to Buenos Aires. I was part of the interviewing process, knowing a little bit about what skills were required in the workforce and which occupations had been identified as in demand, along with the provincial government.

The success rate has been very high, as I'm sure Faye will agree. The number of Argentinians who have applied for a nominee certificate versus the number who have been given one is quite impressive. This is one example that exactly demonstrates your point.

Another example we were just discussing a minute ago relates to Manitoba's significant Ukrainian population. And there is a real willingness to go to the Ukraine on missions to entice people to come here, persuade them to come here through family class, skilled immigrant programs, the provincial nominee program--all programs. Again, it has to be strategic and focused and we ought to be putting more resources behind it.

Mr. Bob Silver: I agree with you wholeheartedly, Joe, whether or not you put Manitoba at the top of the list. It may not be the right mechanics to get the job done, but the issue is timing.

If I don't have the right solution, fine. I do think the one you put forth would be viable for this problem, but I'm not the solution giver; I'm the person who comes to you with the problem.

The Chair: There are two other things I need to ask. One is on the accreditation thing, which continues to be our biggest frustration. Everybody talks about it, and hopefully it will get solved. But I'll tell you, I think there's a lot more to it than this.

A teacher in Ontario, as an example, can't teach in B.C. There are more interprovincial barriers in this country than we now have external barriers. And when we talk about accepting each other's credentials, I find it incredible that last night we heard that there were so many people with medical experience here who in fact were probably being diverted to the United States because it was prepared to accept those credentials a lot more quickly.

And you have Lynne here saying bring them over to Saskatchewan--or to my community of London, Ontario. In my fairly well-off city, 20,000 people can't find a doctor. And yet, even within our midst, we have people who can probably work in the medical profession as we wait to fill the gap.

I like your idea, Bob, that somewhere between final acceptance of their accreditation and where they are, somebody should be able to fill in the gap until such time as we work out these internal barriers.

I don't know, Jim, if you can tell me, but the Business Council must be totally exercised about this, because underemployment is a very big problem here. How is it that we can't convince the feds and the provinces?

I'll tell you what the committee heard. The committee heard that Australia had exactly the same problems Canada is having. It has provincial issues. It has a constitution. At the end of the day, they turned around and said we should have a national council for accreditation and therefore have one national group be the accreditation body to solve all of this, because there are too many internal barriers, and surely the expertise is around the table to determine whether or not a person is a doctor or not a doctor, whether or not an engineer is an engineer.

Sure the language might be different, but a CA in Venezuela is no different from a CA in Winnipeg. You have a balance sheet, you have assets, you have liabilities. Surely to God, you might do it in a different language, but it's the same thing, same principles. So you have to give us some solutions as to how in heck we can solve this problem, which is causing us nothing but aggravation and probably big economic problems in this country.

Á (1150)

Mr. Bob Gabuna: There was a mention of nurses. I have to admit that I was involved in the recruitment of Filipino nurses from the Phillippines, and of course the issue of credentials really prompted a very close debate. So I proposed that they should bring the nurses in for testing for licensing and they were flown to Manilla. The nurses who were selected by employers were given two sets of tests. The first one was the English proficiency test, and those who passed the language exams were able to take the licensure exams. Of the first batch, 100% passed. Two of them got a perfect score.

It has personally affected me also because it was charged that I was fleecing the nurses, something like 300,000 pesos per applicant, but I would like to tell the committee I never earned a cent. In fact, I advanced my own money.

I just want to prove the point that even professionals coming from third world countries can get par to those who were trained in modern countries like Canada.

The last batch of nurses who arrived in September were under work temporary visas and they were given two years to pass their RN exams. So in a sense, as long as foreign-trained workers are given a chance, I think we could make it.

Thank you.

The Chair: Jim.

Mr. Jim Carr: Mr. Chair, you open up an area here to which great hyperbole and rhetoric could be attached. For example, some would say--this is the great eraser theory of Canadian federalism--that you should just wipe away the provincial borders. That would have a great deal of appeal to many.

Could you get a consensus in the House of Commons to make education a federal responsibility, do you think?

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jim Carr: You have to deal with the problem of two levels. One is what do you think it ought to look like and the other is what is it likely to look like. There has been some progress made. The lawyers have done it. There's now a mobility agreement among lawyers that will transfer credentials from one province to another.

The statutes that control accreditation are primarily provincial, and you have all kinds of problems of status quo and entrenched interests within the professions and within the trades. So you have to pick them off one at a time.

I would argue that it's in the interests of the professions to have a more progressive, liberal approach to accreditation. Again, there's the competitive advantage position, an issue we talked about a little while ago, so that if you have a province that is on the leading edge of this, and if you are sitting somewhere in the Ukraine, and you know that in Manitoba there is a path to full accreditation that is a year and a half faster than what exists in Ontario, now you're getting there.

So we have to wake up to that. We're doing more of it. The Business Council intends to become more active in the whole field over the next year or so, and we'll be working with Monika and others to try to fast-track some of this stuff for Manitoba's sake. But I think we'd have to look at it within the context of what is possible.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of clarification. You said that when you travelled, there were three people who were against immigration and they were from a political party. I'm certain that I don't know anybody from a political party--

The Chair: I knew them. You might not know them--

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: Yes, but they didn't belong to a political party....

I needed clarification, because--

The Chair: Some people are so sensitive. I never mentioned a political party.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: But your point was not taken well.

The Chair: They were independents.

I have one final question.

In the previous panel on settlement issues, there was a real disconnect at times. There is a crying need, obviously, to make sure that when immigrants and refugees come to this country there is a support network that can help people like Magaly. This is obviously something your organizations assume. But you have a whole bunch of people in your community working toward that end. It would seem to me that the model they're looking for, not only for funding their organizations, but for really helping people integrate and be comfortable when they first arrive, involves a lot more than just the federal and provincial governments. It includes municipal governments, community groups, and business.

Can I ask you, Jim, whether the immigration council will be discussing those settlement issues, which I think are just as important as all those other issues?

Á (1155)

Mr. Jim Carr: I hope so, Mr. Chairman. And if you were to have a conversation with Minister Barrett while you are here, they have not yet drafted the terms of reference for that council. The legislation, I'm told, will be introduced in the upcoming session of the legislature. So this is all yet to be written. Perhaps Ms. Wasylycia-Leis will have conversations with her colleagues on Broadway in Winnipeg. It ought to be a part of their mandate, but it's fluid right now.

The Chair: Right.

Andrew.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Just to throw one thing out there on this whole thing with the doctors, I have been looking at it for a long time. People write the medical exams, so they are qualified. It doesn't lower the standards or anything. What deters them is the interning position that they must be offered provincially.

I really suspect the provincial governments are thinking that every time they qualify a doctor or give them a billing number, the billing goes up. I think they are behind the fact that we are not getting these folks accredited, because they don't want the medical bills to go up. That's a reality. So perhaps if at some point people went to some different kind of funding model in medicine, that might be dealt with.

You know, the solution seems so obvious, but I think it really is the inertia coming from the provincial government.

The Chair: Is there a question, Andrew?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: I wanted to throw that in there, because I think it's important. Some of the stuff is not quite so obvious.

Lastly, you heard the discussion we had with the other group about whether they could get together as a local community and say this is what we need and these are the holes we have, and deal collectively with the department up in Ottawa instead of each agency dealing individually and not having a very satisfactory relationship.

The Chair: Do you have any comments?

Ms. Leslie Wilder: I know in Manitoba it's not the immigration council that Jim described, which is about to come, but there are certainly NGO groups that have been in existence for many years, and they meet on a regular basis. It covers all the faith groups, the ethnic groups--those providing services. They have been meeting on a regular basis for many years. I think the key for the Manitoba immigration council will be to ensure that it is as inclusive a group as possible, because the groups that exist now are really the front-line people charged with delivering services with limited resources.

So I think kicking it up a notch, to the council that's about to be formed, and working together....

Mr. Jim Carr: While there is obvious advantage in a number of community groups speaking with one voice, there is also an advantage when the same message is delivered by a plethora of voices. I wouldn't want the Business Council's voice, for example, to be lost or muted in some attempt for Manitoba to speak with one voice on these issues. I'm sure the CEOs to whom I report would want the Business Council still to have a clear voice on these issues, which may, every now and again, if not be dissident, then be slightly at odds with other voices. So there's a value there as well.

Â (1200)

The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

When I came to Winnipeg before, we said we were impressed, and we're leaving equally so again. Keep up the great work and keep blazing the trail.

Thank you very much.

The committee is adjourned.