NDP immigration critic
Olivia Chow has attacked new immigration laws that
would fast-track doctors |
Controversial immigration law amendments
that would fast-track foreign-trained physicians and
other skilled professionals have received tentative
support from major national doctor groups.
The amendments have faced criticism,
however, both from within Parliament and from outside.
Two of the largest Canadian international medical graduate
(IMG) organizations — which represent the very
group the amendments purport to help — have expressed
serious concern about aspects of the proposed changes
in interviews with NRM.
BARRIERS
REMAIN
Two major national medical groups have both offered
endorsements, albeit lukewarm ones, to the amendments.
"Generally we would support anything
that facilitates qualified health-care professionals
being able to come to Canada," Dr Calvin Gutkin, College
of Family Physicians of Canada executive director, told
the Toronto Sun. Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons
of Canada CEO Dr Andrew Padmos was quoted as saying
that anything that would help recruiting is "clearly
welcome."
But both Dr Gutkin and Dr Padmos
also warned that simple changes in the way immigration
requests are prioritized, as the new amendments suggest,
would be insufficient to address the nation's physician
shortage. The hope is that immigration might help forestall
the worst side effects of our physician shortage, but
there have been suggestions that that might be chimerical
given the small number of IMGs who actually get licensed
to practise in Canada.
"Every time I ask a cabbie in Toronto
their profession," Naeem (Nick) Noorani, the publisher
of The Canadian Immigrant Magazine, wrote recently,
"most of them say they are international medical graduates.
Doctors. Driving cabs. We have them here — why
are we bringing in more? I know a cardiac surgeon who
washed dishes in Toronto before literally throwing in
the towel and returning to China!"
Dr Joshua Thambiraj, the president
of the Association of International Physicians and Surgeons
of Ontario, who worked in orthopedics in the UK, says
immigration isn't a viable solution to the health human
resources crunch. "If we bring in more doctors, we will
need to look at licensing." He'd rather see the federal
government put money towards funding extra residency
spots at universities, instead of trying to entice more
doctors to come to Canada, only to be stymied once they've
arrived. "We feel if there were a clear path to practice,
that would solve quite a bit of the problems in regard
to the shortage."
"The Canadian government has to
be honest�when taking applications from physicians and
tell them that their chances�of ever getting licensed
are close to none," says Brazilian-born nephrologist
Carla Fast, the president of the Association of International
Medical Doctors of British Columbia.
Mr Noorani, whose publication recently
featured several success stories about immigrant physicians
who managed to get licensed in BC and Ontario, agrees.
Licensure must be addressed before immigration fast-tracking,
he wrote. "Let's first fix this before we ruin more
lives of talented, trained professionals! And while
they are at it, scrutinize the old boy's clubs that
sets restrictive barriers for IMGs [to get] into the
professional arena."
PROMISES,
PROMISES
At the heart of this matter is the perpetual absence
of a workable strategy to solve immigrant physician
licensure problems in Canada. After the topic came up
during federal-provincial meetings on healthcare planning
in 2003 and 2004, the Physician Credentials Registry
of Canada was established. The idea was to create a
national centre that would simplify and speed up the
licensure process, but the registry has since become
little more than a centralized method to verify foreign
documents. Several provincial Colleges of Physicians
and Surgeons are so unimpressed they've elected not
to join the system at all. "It finally changed into
just a referral centre," says Dr Thambiraj. "That was
a sad thing."
Early last year, NDP immigration
critic Olivia Chow proposed a new federal agency, this
time with a clause requiring provinces to standardize
rules about recognizing credentials. Her proposal died
a quick death after the Conservative government turned
the issue into a jurisdictional blame game. The Tories'
own plans to create a more powerful national credentials
recognition agency have been tied up in not one but
two multi-million-dollar consultations after they were
first mentioned in 2006.
LEGAL
SHORTCUTS
Ms Chow has emerged as the current amendments' most
fervent critic in Parliament.
She claims the amendments give
the government too much power to circumvent immigration
guidelines. She has also argued, despite evidence to
the contrary, that the true purpose of the amendments
is not to bring in more skilled workers like physicians
but rather to allow the government to fast-track temporary
employees, including those sought out to work the Alberta
oil sands. But a spokesperson for Minister of Citizenship
and Immigration Diane Finley explained to NRM
that the bill would only mean a change in the way skilled
workers' applications are prioritized, and not a change
in the Ministry's "levels plan," which establishes immigration
goals for the different classes of immigrants.
The most frequently cited complaint
about the amendments in Parliament is essentially a
procedural one — that they are buried inside this
year's budget implementation bill. Ms Chow has called
the tactic "parliamentary trickery." Defeating a budget
implementation bill would mean toppling the government
— something the Liberals appear to be loath to
do at this point. The effect of burying the proposed
amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection
Act inside the budget bill has been to discourage
open debate and an open vote on the changes, and to
arouse suspicion among immigrant and labour groups.
The bill looks destined to pass,
but Ms Chow nevertheless introduced a motion on April
17 that would grant the finance committee, which is
currently reviewing the legislation, the power to remove
the immigration amendments from the bill. Her motion
hasn't yet gone to a vote.
|
