[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, September 28, 1995

.0905

[English]

The Chair: Good morning, everyone.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

We're continuing with our study on settlement renewal. We have with us today the Canadian Council for Refugees. We have Mr. John Borst, executive director, Immigrant Services Society of B.C.; Lucya Spencer, National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada; and Nancy Worsfold, from the Canadian Council for Refugees.

Welcome. Who would like to begin?

Ms Nancy Worsfold (Executive Director, Montreal Office, Canadian Council for Refugees): I want to introduce people. Then John is going to do the brief.

But first, just for our knowledge, we've recognized Val Meredith and Osvaldo Nunez....

The Chair: Rosemary, would you like...?

Mrs. Ur (Lambton - Middlesex): I'm Rose-Marie Ur, Lambton - Middlesex, Ontario.

The Chair: A new member of our committee.

And Mr. Assadourian, of course.

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): I'm Sarkis Assadourian, Don Valley North, Ontario.

Ms Worsfold: Thank you very much.

I'd like to say a few words about the Canadian Council for Refugees. We're a coalition of 140 groups from across Canada that work with refugees and immigrants. Our membership consists of a large portion of settlement agencies but also church groups, lawyer groups, solidarity associations, and ethnocultural associations. We function as an information network and advocacy group for our membership.

The council has three main committees. One of them is the working group on settlement, of which John Borst is co-chair. John has been working with immigrants and refugees for twenty years now. Before that he worked for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Cambodia.

John is the executive director of the Immigrant Services Society of B.C., which is the largest settlement agency in British Columbia and the second-largest settlement agency in Canada. He's also on the executive committee of AMSSA, which is the Affiliation of Multicultural and Service Societies of British Columbia.

Lucya has been working with immigrants and refugees, but specifically specializing in working with women, for the last thirteen years. She sits on our settlement working group, but she is also a vice-president of OCASI and has been on the board of OCASI for now six years, OCASI being the Ontario Coalition of Agencies Serving Immigrants. She is also president of the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada. When she has time, her paid job is that she's the executive director of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women Against Abuse, which is a service agency here in Ottawa.

Mr. John Borst (Canadian Council for Refugees): You have the brief in front of you, and I just thought I would go through it. Lucya would like to add a few things when we get about halfway through. I'll start after the introduction to the Canadian Council.

The CCR interest in settlement renewal is to ensure that in the process and in the final product settlement services offered to immigrants and refugees across Canada are maintained at the same level or, preferably, improved. Settlement, the transition from one country and culture to another, is part of a longer process of integration. Integration is as yet undefined and could be a multi-generation process.

Refugees and immigrants generally need assistance in overcoming the barriers to full participation in Canadian society. Settlement services designed to address these barriers offer assistance in the first instance with finding such basics as housing, clothing, food, and information; secondly, with language training; and thirdly, with employment search. The process of integration continues long after these more immediate needs have been met.

There is no generally agreed-upon definition of settlement. The CCR is interested in working towards one, and we believe such a definition is crucial for the settlement renewal process. A common understanding of what we mean by ``settlement'' is necessary to talk meaningfully about national standards and principles, accountability, etc., as well as the role of settlement agencies and the skills needed by mainstream agencies in order to assist newcomers.

However settlement may be defined, we believe it calls for highly specialized services requiring considerable expertise, services that are directed towards assisting the newcomer in the settlement process. Settlement services should never be interpreted to mean general services provided to newcomers. Lack of clarity in this area could result in the resources for settlement services being diverted to other services that are of higher priority locally, such as primary education, but that do not necessarily meet the needs of the immigrants as well as can be done by specialized services.

.0910

In Canada, expertise for settlement has historically been developed within the non-governmental organizations. We believe that we need to build on that strength in the settlement renewal process, recognizing the years of experience that NGOs and their staff have accumulated.

Lucya would like to add some information about the non-profit organizations.

Ms Lucya Spencer (Canadian Council for Refugees): We've heard about NGOs and the work they have been doing to date in the provision of services. However, as NGOs, we recognize that we are living in a time of change - a change to government policies. We see them happening just about every day. We also see changes around spending cuts at all levels. In fact, we know what happened just yesterday in Ontario.

We recognize the need for the development of innovative plans to ensure the best use of our existing sources. I think it's with all of these in mind that the government has decided to develop what is now known as the settlement renewal program. However, this particular program has raised a number of questions in the minds of SPOs, or service-providing organizations.

I suppose you have heard many of these before, but I would still like to share with you some of the issues and some of the concerns that have been raised by these groups.

One of them is around unified funding mechanisms. We have heard a lot about that. However, we are very much concerned that with the pooling of funding resources, many SPOs could be short-changed. This is a word that was used to me.

We also recognize that the implementation of such an idea could become a nightmare for the government, and also a nightmare to a member of these settlement agencies. It might just force many of these agencies to close their services.

A second issue that has been presented is that the government seems to be focusing more on cost-saving measures and very little thought is actually given to the quality of services that are currently being provided by SPOs and that will definitely be needed in the future.

I know you've heard a lot about the consultation process, but people are still talking about these. The consultation process needs to be looked at carefully. A lot of expertise is outside in the community. Yes, you are having these consultations, but not everybody is having the opportunity to share with you their views and their ideas about their vision of a settlement renewal process.

We've also heard that in this particular package there will be the establishment of advisory boards. But a number of questions have also been raised in people's minds. How do you propose to establish these boards? Can we expect to see equitable representation on them? Will women be asked to participate on them?

One of the fears that is lurking in the minds of many people is that there will be tokenism on these particular boards. We want to ensure that there will be equitable representation on them and that women - not one or two here and there, but women - will be given an opportunity to participate in the decision-making at this particular level.

Yes, government is talking about devolving its responsibilities of settlement services, but SPOs are still not clear on this particular process. We need some clarity. What is the government's commitment to the support of the settlement process?

A concern has also been raised about government making its plans on one hand and the community making its plans on the other. Will these two groups be able to come together to ensure that whatever is being developed is developed in the best interests of the client group that we have to serve?

Last, there is also a fear of the government devolving its responsibilities, which could lead to the erosion of settlement services in the country. We question what type of accountability standards the government hopes to put in place to ensure the provision of services that are effective, that are efficient, and that there is quality to the services provided to these individuals.

.0915

We recognize that the mandate of SPOs is to facilitate the full participation of newcomers into the social, economic, and political life of Canada. Without the financial resources necessary for SPOs to do this, it's quite likely newcomers will be falling through the cracks. We ask that the government recognize the experience, the expertise, and the knowledge that have been developed over a number of years among SPOs. We think it is important that these skills be utilized and the expertise of these individuals be used in the overall process and outcome of the settlement renewal.

Mr. Borst: From the CCR perspective, two themes require emphasis. One is the need for a national working group to provide the forum through which settlement service providers and immigrants and refugees who use those services can give input and advice on the overall process and product of settlement renewal.

Second is the need for national standards and principles to be developed through a credible process, which Lucya just talked about, in order to ensure that resources remain committed to settlement services and equivalent levels of service are provided in all parts of the country.

First, the national working group. We are calling for a national working group because the settlement renewal process will be crucial for the future of settlement services to refugees and immigrants and hence deserves the best possible process. We believe this is most likely to be achieved by involving stakeholders in planning, analysis, and decision-making. The national working group should provide a national overview, input into the process of settlement renewal over the next couple of years, information exchange between government and NGO stakeholders, continuity of membership to allow proper understanding of the whole, input into the conclusions drawn from comments received in consultation, and input into the decisions to be taken. Those are the functions of the national working group.

We also want to be sure there are good national standards and principles. We are calling for a process for developing standards and principles involving those with expertise locally, regionally, and nationally. The Canadian Council for Refugees is planning a national forum on this subject in November.

Other points are as follows.

Accountability for funds needs to be assured. This should not be through SMIS, the settlement management information system, or any other system involving breach of agency or client confidentiality.

Second, we need to take the opportunity presented by settlement renewal to recognize settlement services as a social service with Human Resources Development standards of work, pay, and administration. At the current time they don't receive that kind of support.

Third, Immigration's ten-year plan, announced last November, contained a commitment to work to increase employment assessibility for newcomers. It is important that this priority not be lost in the shuffle of settlement renewal and the overhaul of HRD. There is a danger of immigrants and refugees falling through the cracks. One of the points of the ten-year plan is that the skills of immigrants be increased - that we look for really skilled immigrants - and there's no way for them to find work in Canada.

The last one is that the present practice of contribution funding for certain programs, ISAP and LINC, should be replaced with full funding. Settlement agencies cannot be expected to do effective settlement work if they are constantly under-funded and asked for greater and greater accountability without being able to have the administration structure to be able to assure it.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Nunez, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you for your presentation, Nancy, John and Lucya. I want to congratulate you because of the extraordinary work of the Canadian Council for Refugees and also because of your very courageous positions. I also want to commend you on the work that each of you does.

You have presented many points.

.0920

You are recommending that there be a national working group. I find that an interesting idea. We have already travelled to a number of cities in various provinces. You should have come here at the beginning, but I would like to know whether it is possible to set up such a group. Have you already had some contact with departmental officials or with the minister? Who do you think should be included in the group?

You are a national organization. Who will pay the cost of these consultations? Could you give me a few more details about this idea, which I find interesting?

Ms Worsfold: First, Mr. Nunez, I would like to mention, as I usually do, that we are one of the few pan-Canadian organizations located in Montreal. We hope to be able to stay there.

Mr. Nunez: Why not?

Ms Worsfold: Why not... As to your question about a national group that would study the process as a whole, we have raised this issue in a number of occasions with officials who work in this area. They sent us a letter saying that they were not interested in such a group; however, two weeks ago, Sharmini Peries, from OCASI, and myself attended a meeting about defining the settlement renewal process. I got the impression that officials were beginning to see that if they want a genuine process in which the federal government gives some power to other authorities which make decisions about the way money is spent, they should be giving up a little of the federal government's control over the process.

We cannot negotiate with a province or a municipality, reach a decision, and then be told by the minister that he doesn't like the decision and plans to change it. That must be clearly understood. If we really want communities to have some power and some responsibility, the federal government cannot control all of this. After the meeting, it was my feeling that Mr. Neuman was somewhat receptive to our approach.

You spoke about funding, cost, and so on. I don't think groups of this type need necessarily be very expensive. The Canadian Council for Refugees manages to hold national meetings twice a year and to have committee meetings on a very small budget. There are ways of twining meetings and reducing travel costs. As an NGO, we always insist that our meetings be held so that we can travel far more cheaply on Saturday evening. It might be too radical for the government to behave in this way, but it is an idea.

There are ways of keeping costs down, and I don't think a working group of this type should be terribly expensive. The important thing about a national group can be drawn from the agreement that was entered into with Quebec. The federal government talks a great deal about money in Quebec, but it has no say over the way services are administered and funded.

The NGOs have lost a lot of power with their funding sources. In the past, we had some latitude, when there were two sources of funding. Now, there is only one source of funding in Quebec, and it is no longer accountable to anyone, including the NGOs.

.0925

With a national working group, there could be accountability on both sides: for the funds spent and also for the policies put in place by senior government officials.

Mr. Nunez: Your organization is recognized as doing a good job in providing refugees with information and defending their rights. Could you tell us more about your expertise in reception, establishment and integration services for immigrants and refugees, and about the measures introduced by the Council?

[English]

The Chair: I have to say the names for the....

Ms Worsfold: Oh, sorry.

The Chair: That's okay.

Mr. Borst, do you want to take it?

Mr. Borst: I'd like to answer that partly, but maybe Nancy could also answer it.

There is a whole section of the Canadian Council for Refugees that is composed of settlement organizations from all across the country. OCASI is a member, and AMSSA, which is from B.C., is a member, as are many of the different settlement organizations themselves. For the last four or five years, we've been working as a group of people examining and looking at how to serve refugees in particular, and immigrants as well, as a part of the Canadian Council for Refugees. At our twice-yearly consultation we have a whole section set up just for talking about the services to refugees and immigrants.

It has been a process in which we have done a lot of work to look at how we work in different provinces and what the main themes are, the themes across the country that are the same, the current concerns that are the same, and we have developed a fairly.... You can see the result: this short document represents a lot of work that has gone into positions that we have though about and talked about. So a fair amount of expertise has been developed across the country in this area.

Ms Worsfold: I will share with you later. I didn't bring all of the materials; I forgot them in my office.

There was a big debate in the Canadian Council for Refugees on what our role was with regard to immigration policy, now three or four years ago. Our mission statement says that we work on refugee policy and settlement policy with regard to immigrants and refugees. I'll share our mission statement with you.

We do not consider pure immigration questions to be within our purview. We wouldn't necessarily intervene with business immigrants, for instance. But settlement of both immigrants and refugees we consider to be our mandate. The settlement needs of immigrants and refugees are both similar and different, and we consider that we do both with regard to settlement.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Since your head office is in Montreal, you will know that Quebec and Canada signed an agreement and that Quebec controls the immigration process. Other provinces would like to have more authority over immigration. Apparently some agreements have already been negotiated, and others will be negotiated shortly. The other provinces will probably imitate the Quebec model.

What role do you see the provincial governments playing in the new immigrant reception and integration process?

[English]

Mr. Borst: I shall be pleased to answer that from the point of view of B.C., and maybe Nancy or Lucya can talk about other parts of the country.

B.C. has already started a settlement renewal process. It has been under way for almost a year. There have been consultations with the community and the province to try to work out what the roles of the province and the communities are.

The settlement organizations have recommended that the province should play a very strong role in settlement renewal in the future, and I understand that settlement renewal will be a part of the process of reaching agreement between the province and the federal government.

.0930

The province has indicated that what it wants to see is a role of the community in consultations to determine what the needs are for immigrants and for B.C. At present the process is working quite well. The federal government and the province are working...they have consulted with the communities at least once now. They have another consultation set up for November, I think, and the decisions on a model will be made some time in the new year.

The consultation that will happen in November will actually be with immigrants and refugees themselves to find out what their needs are. The consultation with community groups was this past spring.

So we're moving ahead quite well and the province has been playing a very strong and important role in this.

Ms Worsfold: There is a significant variance in the involvement of different provinces in settlement. For instance, in Ontario more money is spent by the Ontario government than by the federal government on settlement services. So in Ontario there's an enormous investment on the part of the provincial government. Our members are very concerned that the settlement renewal process and the negotiation of an Ontario-federal government deal go together and that those two things not be separate, which would be just an impossible policy situation for the NGOs to be in.

But there are other provinces, notably in the Atlantic area, in which the provincial governments simply are not involved at all. So there's a wide variance. Although Quebec has the most far-reaching agreement, there are other agreements. For instance, an agreement between Alberta and the federal government has been in place for many years. There have been joint funding mechanisms between the province and the federal government for many years - much to the satisfaction of our membership.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I am just becoming familiar with your organization. In your comments you acknowledge that the federal government is trying to remove itself from the settlement process. I'm hearing two messages. I'm hearing that you don't want the provincial governments to be given the responsibility, yet many provinces are already part of the process that is a logical step to take in allowing them to take over responsibility for this program. Do you support the provincial governments being given the responsibility of being in charge of resettlement, or do you feel it should go directly to the agencies providing the services?

Mr. Borst: From B.C.'s point of view, and I believe for all the NGOs in the country, we support the involvement of the province. We would like to ensure there is consultation with the agencies and with the clients, with the immigrants themselves, to determine the needs. We want to ensure there is a local process, as defined by the brief, by the consultations for the ten-year plan, and we want to be sure there is effective delivery of services to the immigrants themselves.

We're concerned that funding pressures within provinces might divert funds into areas and organizations that do not have the expertise to deliver effective services to immigrants. We're concerned about that, so we'd like to be involved in the consultation process with the provinces to ensure effective delivery of services.

Ms Meredith: When you say ``we'', you mean the agencies delivering the services should be part of the group that will determine priorities. The resources are dwindling. Somebody is going to have to set priorities. Who is most in need of this resettlement money? What I'm hearing from you is that the people who are providing the services are going to have to make those kinds of determinations.

.0935

Mr. Borst: No, we're not asking for that. What we're asking for is that there be a consultation process that involves the NGO community, the immigrants themselves, the province, and of course the federal government as well.

Ms Spencer: That's one of the discussions that has taken place in Toronto, because many of the agencies would see themselves as being in a conflict of interest if they're sitting around the table deciding how the package should be divvied up and also being part of the disbursements of the funds. They would like to make sure they will exist afterwards too, and obviously they will want to ensure that their particular agencies will be getting the funds. So we see that as clearly being a conflict of interest.

What we're saying is that prior to all of this, the agencies within the local regions would like to be part of that consultative process.

Ms Meredith: So the consultative process needs to be -

Ms Spencer: Broadened.

Ms Meredith: Is that not what your agency is all about, consulting with all the agencies that are delivering programs?

Ms Worsfold: Do you mean the CCR?

Ms Meredith: Yes.

Ms Worsfold: We are planning a national seminar or symposium, or whatever you want to call it, on national standards and so on.

We cannot replace the government process. Hopefully, through this day in November, we will come out with a document that will be proposed principles from which we shall develop standards that will be the CCR's position. However, the Canadian Council for Refugees is a coalition. Membership in it is totally voluntary, and organizations pay to be a member and so on. Unfortunately, not every organization in Canada is a member, although our market penetration is fairly good.

The Chair: You're on the air waves, of course, Nancy.

Ms Worsfold: To clarify your question about who is going to make these decisions, our sense at the Canadian Council for Refugees working group on settlement is that who makes those decisions will end up being different in different places. The B.C. experience seems to be lending itself towards the province. The Ontario experience doesn't. I don't think it's a question of which is better; it's a question of which fits the area best.

The Chair: At this point I'm going to interrupt just to add, because we did a cross-country consultation. You weren't a member of the committee at that time, Val, but we did get exactly what Ms Worsfold was talking about, across the country. In each province there was a different way of viewing settlement and a different way of establishing a process in the long run.

So it's very true along the lines of what you've mentioned today.

Mr. Borst: What we want to have is a mechanism for having input so that there will be a continuing process to be able to talk about concerns and needs as they change and develop. That's really important. That's why on the one hand we want a national working group. Currently there's an advisory committee that has been set up, and we have two representatives on that, about which we're really pleased.

At the provincial level we want to be sure that we can ensure some sort of input. We don't want to get into the area of making decisions about what we should be receiving. It's really important that we not do that. But we want to have a process, because we've been working in the field for a long time. We'd like to be able to have a recognized process that recognizes our expertise and our understanding.

Ms Meredith: You talk about how you're hoping to establish this national working group, which would have to take into consideration all the different regions and provinces and how they perceive settlement to work. Then you talk about national standards. When you talk about national standards, are you talking about establishing who should be accessing settlement dollars? Are you talking about the difference between refugees and sponsored immigrants and working, independent immigrant classes? Are you going to establish a priority list of who should first be in line for settlement dollars, and then, if the dollars are there to include other groups, who is next in line? Is that what you see as being national standards, establishing the parameters of those most in need who should be first in line for these dollars and then a progressive list?

.0940

Mr. Borst: I would like to answer that partially, and maybe I can have some support.

We're looking not so much at defining those groups as at defining a principle that, for example, all immigrants should have access to learning English or French up to a certain level, so they can participate in society. I think that's really important as being a national standard all across the country. Those kinds of things which provide support for people, for immigrants, to get involved in our national framework are what we're looking for, not for us to specify particular groups. That's not my concern.

Ms Spencer: I think John said it quite nicely. We are not in the business of determining how it should operate. We're there to set the broad objectives for how it is, the principles, as John as has just mentioned.

Ms Worsfold: I think the way community organizations work is if somebody comes in and is in need, community agencies serve them, and should serve them, and that should be their mandate. I know there has been discussion of the different immigration statuses of people and whether or not they should be eligible for service. We would much rather see that defined in terms of need, not in terms of an individual's immigration status. So current rules such as that a citizen may not access language classes, a refugee claimant may not access service settlement counselling, we would see as inappropriate. As community agencies, we serve the community, and the community consists of those who are there. It seems to us as service providers inappropriate to be turning people away on bureaucratic bases rather than on the basis of need.

Ms Meredith: I think the point I'm trying to make is that we're talking about accessing dollars and there is a different requirement of financial responsibility with an independent immigrant. They are supposed to be able to have the financial resources to help in that process of resettling in a new country. A refugee, on the other hand, has no resources. If they're a genuine refugee they are somebody who needs the access to other financial resources in order to get those services. So it is important that those people who do not have the financial resources are the ones who should have first access, I would suggest.

If it's a sponsored immigrant, then the responsibility of the cost of that - I'm not saying turn them away - the spending of federal dollars, should perhaps be addressed to those who have the need for federal dollars. The sponsored immigrants perhaps should be relying on the commitment of the sponsorship to help in the resettlement.

That's what I'm suggesting needs to be addressed: not that you turn them away, but that the obligation that is part of the contract under which they have immigrated to this country...if they come from the business class or the investment class, then they are in a position where they should be paying their way, not necessarily being denied the access...but certainly the first access should be for those people who do not have the financial resources, who are genuine refugees. They need the support and the help, not the people who can provide that for themselves through some other means.

Mr. Borst: I think one of the things we're concerned about is to be sure there is a definition of national standards that doesn't look at the financial support, necessarily, but establishing something that is really good for the country and is good for the immigrants and the refugees. The financial support is a different kind of a question, and it's a really important question. It's obviously one we're all discussing and talking about.

I can see in some of the work I've done in B.C. that one of the things we wanted to have put on, and it is not something that would be mandated from federal dollars, is to have a workshop for landlords who come and have the money to purchase a building and do not understand the laws of Canada, in order to help them to understand what the rights of the tenants are, what the law and the procedure are. That's a very important thing.

.0945

It doesn't mean that it's going to be funded or supported by the government. It should be supported by the people who have purchased the building. As you say, we have refugees who have no experience with western society at all and have a tremendous need to have a lot of support of services while they go through the process of adjusting not only to what has happened to them but also to the whole new society.

There are people who come as refugees who have really good educations, and they probably don't need as much in the way of settlement services as someone who comes from a rice paddy in Asia. There are also people who come as sponsored family members of successful groups - for example, women and children - who don't have access to the family money yet really need the support.

So there's a whole variety of different kinds of needs here that need to be taken into account by establishing national standards, all across the board, about what should be available to people and what we're trying to achieve, what the goal of the programs is. I think we are all talking about how they are actually paid for by the different groups.

Mr. Assadourian: In your report you mentioned that you represent 140 organizations across the country. Can you tell me if these organizations receive federal or provincial funding, or both?

Ms Worsfold: Do you mean the CCR?

Mr. Assadourian: Yes.

Ms Worsfold: We receive no program money from the Canadian government or any provincial governments. We do direct mail, fund-raising dinners, and so on. I call people and ask them for money. We charge for our conferences and we charge membership fees. We have about 75% private funding, which allows us a great deal of independence in terms of our policy positions, and we believe that therefore we serve our members better.

We get small amounts of government money. This year we will be getting $2,500 for translation from Official Languages. We do some small contracts for Citizenship and Immigration, such as we contracted to do the gender consultations a number of years ago and we will contract to do some work on various things.

We get small grants from provincial governments for our conferences. We have conferences every six months; the last one was in B.C. We received some money from the provincial government.

Mr. Assadourian: What is your budget?

Ms Worsfold: Just under $200,000. But I underline that our budget pays for the staff and the office and the mechanics of the organization. The organization is a coalition of 140 organizations and very committed, involved volunteers. Our strength is in our volunteers, not in our -

Mr. Assadourian: On average, how are the 140 other organizations funded?

Ms Worsfold: The Conference of Catholic Bishops is a member, and I think it's funded privately. The ISS is funded largely through government money. It varies enormously.

Mr. Assadourian: I want to know if there is a ratio, a breakdown of federal and provincial participation in the funding of these 140 organizations.

Ms Worsfold: It would be very different from province to province.

OCASI has done some interesting work on that in Ontario. In Ontario it's about 50-50, but also there's United Way money and municipal money. To my knowledge, in the Atlantic no provincial or municipal money is spent on settlement. I'm not quite sure of the ratio in B.C. It varies enormously.

.0950

From the point of view of the Canadian Council of Refugees, not all settlement work is done through classic settlement services. Many church groups do welcoming work that is not professional settlement work but is also part of the settlement process.

Mr. Assadourian: The point I want to make is if the federal government is giving money to these organizations, maybe it's easy to have standards nationwide. But if you're getting funding from municipalities and provincial governments - Six months ago the Ontario government was different from the government today, obviously. You saw the TV clips yesterday. That policy change affects the standards in that particular province too. So how can you ask for national standards when the provincial government, in the case of Ontario, is giving you 50% of the funding?

Ms Worsfold: That's a really good question you ask. The same question gets asked about the Canada Health Act. How does -

Mr. Assadourian: That's exactly the point I'm trying to make.

Ms Worsfold: We have not done extensive research on this yet, but it has to be done by common consent, because if we are going to have funding mechanisms that are not top-down but community based, it's in within those that there would be an agreement within the community of those who are serving newcomers that this is what we're doing, this is what settlement means. Right now nobody can define for you what settlement is. The NGOs will tell you settlement is a long process. The ISAP program will tell you it takes one year to eighteen months.

Mr. Assadourian: Would it not be better if your forty or so organizations came together to define the word ``settlement'' first, and then carried the ball from there on? Approach the federal government, provincial governments, saying, this is what we want; we feel, as organizations delivering services, this should be the definition...and we could start the ball rolling from this point on.

Ms Worsfold: We hope to do that in November; define principles and standards. Yes.

Mr. Borst: I'd like to add a couple of things to that. One is that I would hope national standards would be something people could agree upon as best for the society and for the immigrants themselves. It would be something, it seems to me, that could be discussed in an agreement with the province about how to meet that. It doesn't necessarily say that's the way they're going to do it, but that could be part of the discussion between the province and the federal government as this process of settlement renewal takes place. That's certainly one of the things happening in B.C.

Mrs. Ur: I have just a comment first. Being a newcomer to this committee, I'm abbreviation challenged. I would appreciate documentation on what some of these terminologies mean. I don't want to sit here ignorant about them.

It's certainly is interesting, to say the least. I appreciate your presentation.

Some of my questions may have been addressed several months earlier, but could you tell me what percentage of the volume of immigrants or refugees coming to Canada your services would really address? What would be the flow of people through your services?

Mr. Borst: As for settlement concerns, the immigration process is dealt with in a variety of different ways. There is no consistent way in which it's done. There's no referral system. We've tried to ask Immigration for a referral system for who comes into the country so we can let them know what's available to them. But that's not a part of the process. So the services we deliver are those the community is aware of.

They are met in different ways. For example, LINC - that is ``language instruction for newcomers''; it's basic communication skills in English or French - is a process funded by the federal government. It requires somebody to go and register. So they need to find out about those classes before they can register. It's delivered not only through settlement organizations but also through community colleges.

.0955

So it's not something such that we have a good grasp of the information. I would guess probably between 40% and 50% of the immigrants go through a settlement process that uses some of the services that are provided through federal money. That's just a guess, because we don't have any way of getting those figures at present.

Mrs. Ur: As for national standards, I believe in your documentation the basics you have outlined - your first, second, and third basics - would certainly be a standard, a starting point to work with. Would that not be really a format with which to set national standards for housing, language training, employment? That would be something that's already there. It's not as if you have to reinvent the wheel, forming national standards throughout the provinces.

Mr. Borst: The process of settlement renewal is to redefine the standards so the federal government is no longer delivering the services. At present, with the federal government delivering the services and providing the funding for the organizations, they include in their contracts quite a few different things that we have to meet as people who deliver those services.

This process would be one where the national standards would set up guidelines we would hope would be recognized by the provinces. I would hope in making decisions on which province gets how much money some of these national standards are insisted on and they are negotiated as part of how the money is delivered to each province. But that is something that still hasn't worked out. That's not a mechanism I understand is in place.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: You are an expert in refugee matters. Do you think that in the settlement renewal, special provisions should be made for welcoming refugees? What would be the impact of cuts in legal aid in Ontario and other provinces? Do you know if the $975 immigration fee has had an impact on the process? Has there been any negative impact or obstacle to integration? For instance, are there any refugees who have been recognized as such who cannot bring their families, wives and children? Is it an obstacle to integration?

Mrs. Worsfold: Yes, it is.

[English]

I think there are two different effects. One we have no idea about is the overseas selection. The government would have figures on it. I would be very interested to know how the head tax is affecting applications overseas.

The Chair: It's not a head tax, Ms Worsfold. Please correct your terminology.

Ms Worsfold: Well, we will agree to disagree.

The Chair: No, I'm sorry, that isn't the term used for that tax, so I would appreciate it if you stuck to the terminology that is used for that tax.

Mr. Nunez: But I agree with you.

Ms Worsfold: We don't know the overseas effect of the charge of $975. What is happening inland is a bit different, in that we certainly know numbers of accepted refugee claimants are being put into extremely difficult situations. Either they're borrowing money in questionable circumstances and putting themselves into rather unfortunate arrangements or they are not able to proceed to land, which means they lose the provision to land their family at the same time as they are landing, and that means family reunification is delayed by many years, which is a human tragedy. I don't think children and parents should be kept apart for years.

Mr. Nunez: And legal aid?

Ms Worsfold: That's another kettle of fish, isn't it?

.1000

We're not clear on what's going to happen with legal aid. There are provinces in which already there is not legal aid. Quebec said that it was going to cut legal aid to refugee claimants, but it hasn't. Ontario is saying that it is going to, and probably it will. It is of grave concern.

Ms Spencer: If I may add a few things to that, it's already beginning to have an impact on a number of clients that some of our agencies in Ontario are serving. As I was told yesterday, the non-existence of legal aid funds means that women and other refugees who really need that particular service are denied it, because they do not have the financial resources to pay for it. So it is beginning to create an impact on women in the Ontario community.

[Translation]

The Chair: Mr. Nunez, I would appreciate it if you could stick to the topic we're discussing today, because we only have five minutes left for our witnesses.

Mr. Nunez: Very well.

I want to deal with the role played by refugee sponsors. The government tends to favour sponsoring groups and I think it's a very good idea. What role would they play in the welcoming and settlement of these refugees?

Ms Worsfold: It varies tremendously depending on the sponsor group. The typical sponsor, such as the parish who decides to sponsor a family, plays a very informal and welcoming role, and is probably the best settlement service for a refugee family that does not have major problems. In that process, there is a problem when the refugee was victim of torture and has spent long periods in refugee camps. The refugee then needs somewhat more professional services such as those offerred by the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture.

We believe that it is important that refugees sponsored by the private sector be welcomed mostly by a sponsor group but in certain special cases, for example when there are mental problems arising from torture, it is important for refugees to have access to professional services and to language classes if necessary .

[English]

Ms Meredith: I want to go back to who's going to make the decision as to the priorities for the dollars. We've just heard that the Province of Ontario is cutting back. There will be a change in the B.C. government. There might be a change in policy. Somebody is going to have to decide who is first on the list for receiving the services, who is most in need.

It's going to be either the provinces or an organization, a group of the NGOs.

Who do you feel should be making those kinds of decisions? Should it be the provinces who establish the priorities of where the funds go? Somebody has to be in control of the dollars. If there are going to be provincial dollars and federal dollars, then there's going to have to be some involvement of the provincial government. One agency is going to have to have the authority to say: this group of people is the priority; this group of people is second in line; this group of people is third in line. This is because the dollars are limited. Who do you feel should have the authority?

Mr. Borst: That's a very important question, but it's one on which we don't have any clear position at present.

It's very important that there should be feedback from the communities about what's going on. For example, at ISS we are the official receiver of all government-sponsored refugees for B.C. They come and stay at our facilities for the first 19 days while we find a place for them to live in, and they receive an orientation as to how things in the kitchen work and that kind of thing. They also get money to be able to go out and do shopping, and they go out and buy food and prepare it by themselves - those kinds of thing.

.1005

In working with the Bosnian refugees, we're facing tremendous emotional problems that they're bringing with them. In the middle of our English classes they'll break down and start crying. We had to call emergency services the other day about somebody who passed out in the middle of our class, and she had to be taken home. She was going through post-traumatic stress.

That kind of information is really important. Whoever makes the decisions should hear about those needs. If a process is set up whereby it's either a government body or some other body that does not have direct access to what's happening for refugees and immigrants, then there's not a way of dealing with those needs.

I think each province will have a different way of deciding who's going to be responsible for making the decisions. Right now what we're asking for in B.C. is that the NGO community should have access to a three-member committee for presenting the information, not for making the decision. There will be the federal government, the provincial government, and the community. They will be involved in listening to the information, and the decisions will then be made by someone who is not delivering the direct services.

That probably will have a community member as well. That's what we would like to see.

We haven't finalized how we ourselves would like to see that decision-making process. I don't know whether OCASI and the people outside of B.C. would see it differently. I imagine they would have a different idea about how it would work, depending on the provincial or regional concerns.

Ms Spencer: Some of the concerns you have listed are similar to those in Ontario. We have not yet decided on a formula for the disbursement of the funds, but what we want to ensure is that the community will be part of the discussions that will be taking place; that is, the community with the federal government, the provincial government, and probably the municipal government.

Ms Meredith: May I ask a very short question?

The Chair: Do any government members wish to speak? No?

Then I'll let you go for one minute.

Ms Meredith: For clarity, is that not what the settlement hearings that went across the country were for, to get input from the community level?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms Meredith: Am I hearing from you that the process didn't work?

Ms Spencer: We have moved to another step in the process. You went around the country and listened to what the community had to say. Now we are told that the government will be devolving its responsibilities of settlement service. We are going to another step in the entire process.

What we are saying is we did something there. Don't isolate us now because you've got to this level. Bring us in; let us continue the discussion to ensure that the services that will be provided in the long run will be effective services and that NGOs or SPOs that have developed the skills in the provision of services will be given the opportunity to continue.

Let's face it - as we have said before, the dollars are shrinking and the competition outside is great. A number of agencies today are beginning to say, oh, we can provide the service. But we have problems with that. Because they have the additional resources, the know-how and the power to go forward and say, we are it, that quite likely will exclude the agencies that have built the expertise before.

We're saying, bring us around the table. Let us be there in the discussions that are taking place on the development of standards and the development of principles that will help to improve the services to those who are most needy around the country.

The Chair: If you want to make a closing statement, Nancy, then I'll let you go.

Ms Worsfold: I just want to mention briefly that there are two levels to what you're asking. The community should be involved in the setting of priorities, but we are very uncomfortable with the idea of conflict of interest in the actual attribution of funds. We would see those as scinded.

With regard to your question of how you've already gone around the country, there is, as always, a fairly separate and parallel discussion. Both the standing committee and the civil service are doing consultations separately, which are much more advanced in B.C. than anywhere else.

.1010

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Worsfold: Thank you.

The Chair: We look forward to having you before this committee again.

On behalf of the members of the committee, I welcome our next witnesses. We have with us, on behalf of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, Mr. Tom Norton, president; andMr. Bill Conrod, vice-president of continuing education at Algonquin College.

I think there's a third gentleman with you.

Would you like to introduce yourself?

Mr. Pierre Killeen (Government Relations Officer, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Good morning. My name is Pierre Killeen. I am a government relations officer at the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. I'm here in a support role today.

The Chair: Welcome.

Please begin.

Mr. Tom Norton (President, Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Thank you very much.

He certainly is here in a support role. His main function is to nudge me when I get off the stream.

My name is Tom Norton. I'm the president of the Association of Canadian Community Colleges. I'd like to speak for a very few minutes, then introduce my colleague, Bill Conrod, who will speak, and then leave the majority of time, we hope, for some questions.

The Chair: We have to adopt a resolution at the end of this session. We have a written brief, and I don't think it's necessary to repeat what you've already said in it. Could we limit your presentation to about five minutes? That will allow enough time for the members to ask questions.

Mr. Norton: Absolutely.

Very quickly, then, our system of colleges is spread across Canada. We have 175 institutions in 900 different geographies, so it's hard to escape us in even the most remote communities across the country in all provinces.

Our colleges are able to deliver programs nationally, are able to come up with national standards and to deliver them. We have done that on several occasions, working directly with different branches of the federal government, and we're able to represent an effective accountability base for government.

We know that one of the concerns in settlement services, especially in the language area, is a sense of accountability, a sense of national standards, an ability to be assured that the resources are being committed effectively and monitored effectively. We would like to propose that that is an area in which we have demonstrated our competence.

The second thing I would like to say is that our basis is the communities of Canada. We draw all of our inspiration, if you want, from that. We are the host to communities. In many communities we're the largest employer. We represent a hub in most communities where many of the services that are required by immigrants can be readily available through the college, as they must be for our students in any case.

Across the country we have about 500,000 full-time students and 1.5 million part-time students. Many of those part-time students are those who were immigrants and are now engaged in the process of learning because they first came to the understanding of the importance of that learning in our society through touching the college in the first place.

That, then, is the third part of our concern, that the language training and other settlement services are just the beginning of a process. Unless Canadians generally, and certainly immigrants specifically, become engaged in learning as a lifelong endeavour, they very quickly become disengaged from the economy; the type of work that's there disappears from them because of their own skills. Language is a shoehorn into learning; it's not an end.

.1015

What we're trying to do with students when they come in as adult learners and immigrants is to ensure that the learning process is the beginning for them of a lifelong engagement with developing skills for the economy, not an end-product of mastering French or English.

Again, we would like to posit that there is an alternative and that colleges are creatures of provincial governments. They're mandated by provincial governments, they're able to work nationally, and they have a demonstrated record of being able to deliver accountability and consistency in curriculum and performance.

May I introduce Bill Conrod, the vice-president at Algonquin College.

Mr. Bill Conrod (Association of Canadian Community Colleges): Thank you. Bonjour.

I want to speak from the perspective of a person who has spent the last 25 years of his life working in a college. Many of you probably don't realize it, but this institution called the community college in Canada is really only about 25 to 27 years old. There were preceding institutions, but the movement that Tom is representing in the association is something I know very well, because I've worked in these places in Quebec, in British Columbia, and now in Ontario.

When these places were first developed, they were principally an option for high school graduates other than university or, in some cases, university transfer and career training, but they have become - and this is important - centres of adult education and retraining in our communities right across the country. They are the places where you go when you are concerned about improving your skills and your employability; they are the hub that Mr. Norton mentioned, the places where adults gather to learn new skills, new attitudes, and perhaps lots of new knowledge, to become more employable.

This was true in my life in Prince George, British Columbia, where I had a very wide territory; I think it was from about Burns Lake over to Valemount, and there were a number of small communities where the college had small satellite operations.

In all of these colleges I've worked in, including Dawson College in Montreal, the college of New Caledonia in British Columbia, and now Algonquin College, I have touched both the upgrading programs and the English-as-a-second-language programs and, in some cases, a small amount of French as a second language.

You have to be there to see what this is, in terms of a new Canadian arriving at one of these institutions. Around them are other adults who are pursuing their lives and learning as well. Even with very broken English, very quickly linkages are made among these people.

This is a strength of this utility called the community college: adults are improving themselves, and whether it be with language training, upgrading, or sophisticated computer technology, the principle is, I want to become more employable and I'm doing it at a college.

Around this curriculum come services such as health services, cafeteria, library, bookstore, athletics, and fitness, which we build into our colleges. We're proud of our colleges and what we have there. Those services are there.

The other thing I want to mention is that the network Tom talks about exists. I've been in three provinces, in three different places, and in each one there was a network directly to our association and its standards-setting ability.

Thank you.

The Chair: Did you want to add anything?

Mr. Killeen: No, thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

We will start with Mr. Nunez.

Mr. Nunez: Thank you for your presentation. I think your organization, community colleges, cegeps and technical institutes are very important integration tools.

Twenty-one years ago, I attended a COFI in Quebec to learn a language. That was crucial because I made contacts and was able to find a job, etc.

Could you tell us how many immigrants are in your courses? You gave overall figures. What is your budget? How many thousands of dollars per year? Are you funded by the federal or the provincial government? Could you provide us with some information on that?

.1020

[English]

The Chair: You forgot to bring your financial statements.

Mr. Norton: Aggregating that kind of data from across Canada is one of life's most exciting challenges.

Let me very quickly address the financial issue generally, and I'll try to get specifically to this issue.

When our colleges started about thirty years ago, about 90% of our funding came from provincial governments. Some of that would have come from the federal government to the province first, but it was about 90% from the provincial government. Today, colleges typically get 55% to 60% of their funding from grants and the rest is earned income. So if we talk about colleges as such, we have colleges earning as much as 60% of their income by selling their services in the marketplace and student fees, that combination - basically fees for services.

Of course, over the years within our colleges there has been a massive shrinkage of English and French as a second language. The purchasers are smaller now than they used to be. I'm sorry; I cannot give you the numbers right now. What might be interesting, though, would be a relative figure in one college of where it was and where it is now.

Perhaps Bill could help us with that.

Mr. Conrod: Where it was and where it is now. I would say that in my tenure at Algonquin College we've been as high as $4.5 million of language training six years ago, and between LMLT and LINC - you now know what they represent; I had the same problem with alphabet soup - we're slightly over $1 million of language training at this point. There has been that kind of reduction.

Ms Meredith asked a question about the other immigrants. We have a number of different types of learners in our classes. Some are fee payers who are sponsored, and others are sponsored by the Canadian government. But they often end up in the same classroom with the same learning going on.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: You are speaking about language training. Should we not rather be speaking of English learning in English-speaking provinces? It seems to me that you do not give classes of French. Do you provide French classes in provinces where there is an important number of francophones and where you sometimes find francophones from abroad who probably would like to take French classes? Do you offer French classes?

[English]

Mr. Norton: Yes, indeed, we do offer French. For instance, in Ottawa itself la Cité collégiale offers French. In Acadie le Collège de l'Acadie, really all over Nova Scotia, is offering French. In Manitoba our college in Winnipeg is actively offering French.

When I say ``offering French'', I mean that they teach in French; those are francophone colleges in different parts of Canada. There are four such colleges in Ontario, as an example.

However, many of the anglophone colleges also offer French as a language. I'm sure that's not what you were asking, but we do.

In New Brunswick about half of the community colleges are purely francophone, and they offer French as a second language for immigrants to those communities.

Of course I haven't discussed the CEGEPs in Quebec.

Indeed, we are very active in French.

Mr. Nunez: And how many immigrants are attending the French courses? I think you are offering general French courses for the whole population, not only for immigrants. Is that correct?

[Translation]

Mr. Norton: Yes, it is true. Unfortunately, I do not know the answer to your question.

[English]

Mr. Conrod: This might help. In the last survey, close to 23% of the people attending my continuing education - and there are some 55,000 every year - did not indicate English or French as the language of origin. So we offer French as a second language. I would imagine that if there are immigrants that require deux langues, they would be pursuing that probably in our place because it is a place they know better than the French college, but they could go to la Cité as well if they want to do it at college. I know the English CEGEPs in Montreal - I worked at Dawson College - had a fairly large program of French as a second language, and many allophones attended that because they identified with the English college for the French training.

.1025

Mr. Nunez: And also McGill and Concordia.

Mr. Conrod: La même chose.

Mr. Nunez: Could you send us some figures?

Mr. Norton: We will do our very best. It is tough getting that kind of data, but we will work on it.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am a great supporter of community colleges. I spent 15 years in northern Alberta, where the native people - aboriginals - were being integrated into an urban society, and the community college was very much part of that whole process. It originated with the community, by the way.

I am curious. How do you see your role when we start talking - Do you see community colleges replacing the non-governmental organizations who provide settlement services, or complementing them? How do you see your role in that regard?

Mr. Norton: We see our role as very much complementing them. From our standpoint it would be self-destructive to try to replace them. First of all, the overall cost structure would not work. Secondly, our whole success is based on bringing community groups and NGOs in the community in to work with us.

So our hope here would be not to take over the language training or the whole settlement issue in the colleges but to host it through the colleges and in effect to provide secretariat services to community committees. Our strength is built really on engaging those NGOs and doing what we do best and allowing them to do what they do best.

Ms Meredith: You're saying not to take over the language training component, but if that is the most efficient way of delivering language training in resettlement, why would you not consider that?

Mr. Norton: We would consider it, but we would not consider it at the price of driving the NGOs out. Remember, we are creatures of each province. Kwantlen College works directly through the Government of British Columbia. If there was a provincial policy that said, look, we'd like about half to go to colleges and half to go to NGOs, that would be the guideline we would use.

If there was no provincial policy - in one national program we manage, it is by competitive bidding and the colleges have to bid on the service within the specified standard that is laid out, or the terms of reference. Sometimes the colleges win and sometimes they don't. We are able to manage that kind of process.

Ms Meredith: I guess I want to come back -

The Chair: Mr. Conrod, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Conrod: I think I have an addition that may be helpful to your question. I sit on some such structures right here in Ottawa, where there are federal dollars that come to our community. Community groups have been gathered to help HRD in this case determine how the training money should be spent. I represent the community college when I am sitting there.

There is a pretty clear understanding of how committees should be formed, how the representation should take place, who is the chair and what they are about to do. It could even rotate, for that matter.

So I am there as a community adviser, but at the same time, when we decide what it is we are going to buy in our community - my college could be bidding for that training contract. We don't see that as a conflict of interest because we are there to provide the community input about needs and training capability. Then we separate it. On the other side there is this open tendering process that the college will bid. The college is known as a competent trainer so it bids just like anybody else does.

The Chair: Thank you. Ms Meredith, you still have a few minutes.

Ms Meredith: Thank you.

If this process is going to work, then, you need to have some organization that receives the bid, some organization that determines that the community colleges are better able to deliver the language training services than some other organization. Who do you see fulfilling that function?

.1030

Mr. Norton: Our notion is to develop community committees or to take ones that already exist. They might, within a community, for instance, represent some NGO trainers. They would certainly represent representatives of the different hyphenated Canadian committees that exist in communities. They could well represent people from both labour and the industrial sector. I think it would be quite different in each community. In some communities, these already exist. Essentially we'd be the secretariat for those. We'd be providing, if you want, the banking support. We'd be providing the enforcement, if you want, or reminding the committee of the terms of reference with regard to training, of ensuring there's a consistent process in place.

So each community - and indeed provinces, and I don't have to go through that; you know that - is quite different one from the other and there'd be quite different committees.

We would try to provide consistency of quality of training and consistency of criteria in an environment of tremendous variability of committee make-up. So the consistency would be there but also the community sensitivity through the structure of those committees, which could be quite different. British Columbia is very close to having some of this in place now. Other provinces are light years away.

We try to bring all of the provinces up very quickly, and all of the communities in the provinces where this is an issue, to get that kind of consistency.

Ms Meredith: So you see yourselves as helping to develop these community committees. What you're telling me, or what I think I'm hearing from you, is that in many places of the country these are already in existence, that they're ready to almost take over the responsibility for being the people to determine priorities for resettlement dollars. You see yourself as a facilitator, as a player at that level.

Mr. Norton: As a catalyst where they're not there and as the secretariat once they're there. That is the consistent program manager, that's correct. So there'd be a consistency this way across Canada, but tremendous variability based on the communities.

We mentioned the Alberta Vocational College, the one in Calgary. Nancy Lynch, who's president of that college, has that committee with community groups in effect existing now. It would very easy to move that into a substance to look after this.

The Chair: Mr. Collins.

Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I certainly want to welcome you, having been an educator for 30-some years, having been involved with community colleges, and having offered some courses through the community college on behalf of colleges.

I think your outline is one that really needs to be addressed. I think you can go across the provinces of Canada and if you can get anything that's unified, you're going to be lucky. In Ontario, you take 13 years and in Saskatchewan you take 12 years of education to get to a post-secondary level.

So I do think the community colleges have taken on a big responsibility. Certainly from our perspective, I think you've done a tremendous job of coordinating a lot of difficult things in provinces, such as the province I come from.

I'm interested in knowing, as you go through the process, what is your success in tracking these individuals as they move through so that someone down the line says, how did you make out; where did Johnny go from here? A lot of times we have them come through and then we say he's gone, she's gone, and nobody follows them along the line.

Second, what kind of success ratio do you set for yourself, or is that a criterion that you know you want to look at?

Third - I know in Saskatchewan we do this, and I'm sure you do it - there's a pool of talent in retired teachers who get involved in the post-secondary ESL program. I think community colleges do access that. On a national level I would like to know whether you do it.

Because of the mandate you have, I think if there's any one group that sets up consistency of quality of training, you people have a leg up on a lot of us. I think if we would take your mandate and do a lot of things that way, the efficiency would come through even with reduced dollars.

I know I've covered quite a few - I'd be interested in getting some response.

The Chair: Mr. Norton, do you want to begin?

.1035

Mr. Norton: Thank you very much. I will speak very quickly, but I must let my colleague answer that in detail.

Let me give a good example here. For instance, Southeast Regional College in Saskatchewan not only offers its own programs to people in that community, but it is able to host programs from a number of other institutions. SIAST has programs it can draw in, or the University of Saskatchewan. That's really part of the demonstration of what we are talking about. We are able, as community-based organizations, to bring in all kinds of people, who don't report to us but on behalf of the community, to host that kind of activity.

Let me move quickly to Bill for the substance of your question.

Mr. Conrod: I think you have put your finger right on the kind of accountability.... We are all asking ourselves how good we are in achieving what we set out to do. When you have the direct relationship with the provision...i.e., when you can actually register these people in your own fairly elaborate computer-assisted systems, tracking becomes much easier. We have some very good data in a college system - I think that is pretty true right across the country - about the success rates of our graduates, whether that be admission to university or, in our case in Ontario, jobs.

There is an excellent OISE study that we are very proud of as far as the colleges in Ontario are concerned, because we are placing over 80% of our graduates into employment of their choice. That is a track record that we are very proud of. That is why we are getting university graduates coming to colleges now - can you imagine that? - so they can get work or train for work.

The arm's length distance...if, for example, we were in a steering relationship with a provider that wasn't the college, then I would suggest that the arrangement we would have with them is one where they have to tell us over a period of six months and a year and maybe a year and a half where their graduates are, or we could do that in collaboration with a college's tracking ability, because we do have those capabilities.

The other thing is in terms of quality training and standards, which you mentioned. The best example I can give is something that already has been worked out with the federal government, and that is the FITT program. That is the program for international trade training. We now collectively, through the community colleges and universities, offer these courses at just about every college and university in Canada, so that people who want to learn more about foreign trade can follow this same program. That was built from the grassroots up with good help from External. They set those wheels in motion and we all climbed aboard. It was through agencies like ACCC that made that happen.

The last thing you talk about is a retired pool of people. You know that some of the issues related to language training have been related to those who are unionized providers and those who are not. I don't want to revisit the kinds of things that you probably found in your study, but there are sensitivities related to the institutions that are unionized about using non-unionized people.

On the other hand, more and more there are links in our communities with people who have time and capacity to share that time and capacity with the existing institutions. We will often have team teaching, friends tutoring, extra help done by volunteers in our community, and we encourage that.

Mr. Collins: Just one thing. I am glad you mentioned Southeast Regional College because that is where I was involved.

The Chair: Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I will read carefully your document which seems fairly complete. I would like to ask you a question about the role that you see for federal, provincial and municipal governments in that field. You know that education is a provincial jurisdiction. What role do you see for the federal government in particular, but also for provincial and municipal governments?

[English]

Mr. Norton: We see a very strong role for both provincial and federal governments. First let me say again that our institutions are provincially based institutions and reflect the Constitution of Canada, clearly. We would hope, because of that, they would represent a logical place for provincial funds to come in, for federal funds to come in, and to engage municipal governments.

.1040

On many of our boards of directors we have the municipal governments actively participating now, and the notion is that they're the one learning site in a community where not only the four funding bodies can come together - the individual students are funders as well - but where the volunteer part of the learning community can come in and be part of the function as well. We would see that role continuing, very clearly.

We're proposing that the federal government, as an option - and we're not proposing this as the only option but simply as one national option that could be considered - could simply contract with the association to look after its concerns in the whole settlement program, in the training part, and within a contract, within those terms of reference, subcontract the individual colleges to provide their part. Individual colleges - provincial organizations would bring in the provincial resources there - being community-based would bring in the community resources as well.

It would be, in our mind, the one best chance to find a catalyst place in communities where those resources could come in. That is what we are proposing.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: About the national standards, since education is a provincial jurisdiction, can we have national standards and, if yes, what would be these national standards for the learning of a second language?

[English]

Mr. Norton: We believe, actually, sir, that provincial or national standards are in many ways irrelevant. We are working on international standards. In the long run, a big part of the reason for teaching language is so these people, our new Canadians, can engage themselves in the economy and become productive citizens.

From our standpoint, there is no British Columbia standard or Quebec standard or even a Canadian standard. There is only a world standard of performance. That's what we do in all of our technologies: determine a world standard where Canadians individually have to participate. To do that their language skills must be at whatever standard is required to do that.

So our experience is that we are able to have institutions in the ten provinces and two territories target on a world standard or an international standard, whereas asking them to give up a piece of their provincial autonomy to develop a single Canadian standard is more difficult.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Does this mean that there are things to improve in that field and, if yes, which ones? For instance, I don't know if you have any number of ``standard'' hours for a new Canadian. What is the minimum number of hours that you need to learn a second language?

[English]

Mr. Conrod: It's changed certainly from a time when there were many more resources available to colleges than there are now. From the point of view of 30 hours of instruction, it is now down to around 22 hours a week for a program with the same name. But while that may have happened to face restraint in the whole public sector, other things have improved, things such as the learning materials that are available, the technologies that are now related to learning - the whole business of the availability of interactive learning materials is just booming and will get better - and the whole idea of the cooperative relationships, with part of the learning being done in institutions. I know that in the language training you even have opportunities to go and visit different parts.

There are differences, but I think there are more similarities than there are differences, and a lot of that is because when we gather our advisers, they tend to be workers in their communities who have their own links nationally. So if you're going to be talking about welding, you're going to get a message that welding that's done in Nova Scotia is quite similar to the welding that's going to be done in Prince George. Mind you, they might be doing more pipeline welding in one place over another, so there would be nuances that would be important. But these are the things I find, that there are more similarities than there are differences.

.1045

Mr. Norton: One of the key areas of improvement we like to see is that the logical outcome of training in the college should be a job or readiness for a job. When we have new Canadians coming in for language training, we'd also like to engage them in the process of thinking about a job outcome and not just a language outcome. For some that won't be relevant. They will already be in jobs or their families will have jobs available. But for many, if they move simply from those who don't speak English or French but are unemployed to those who do speak English or French but are unemployed, we haven't been successful.

So our target is employment for those language graduates. That would be, I think, quite a unique service that would happen in the colleges because that's what we do with our students. We feel that would be a value-added.

The Chair: Ms Meredith.

Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am going to follow up on that because I find it very interesting. Right now when you have a new immigrant or a refugee who is taking language training and goes into job training, is that funded through CEC?

Mr. Conrod: Very often.

Ms Meredith: Is there some way we could get rid of the duplication there and have that come directly through the colleges? What I'm trying to do - the dollars are limited - is to get the biggest bang out of the dollar. Are we duplicating services by funnelling individuals through Canada Employment Centres and then into the colleges? Could the colleges, as with language training, take right over? Could it go directly into the colleges?

Mr. Norton: It could in a sense. First of all, there are private sector trainers and a number of them are excellent. There are some who aren't excellent, but there are some who are excellent. There's a place for all of us in that training community.

Secondly, having a seamless move between language training and skills training we think would be very desirable. Having that community orientation around the decision at the skills levels as well as the language level makes sense to us. Frankly, Canada's future is communities designing their own futures that way. So the answer is yes.

Ms Meredith: How do we get into that process of evaluation of the new immigrant or the refugee? Who sits down with them and says, this is a program that we feel would be good for you; are you interested in it? Language training, job training, and job - this is what resettlement is all about. Can the colleges fulfil that function?

Mr. Conrod: The difficulty for us is we can answer that question in two ways. If you're just focusing on the colleges, the colleges have the capability of doing that. But my sense of where language training is in this nation - the politics of language training - is that there are other people who want to be involved in the provision of it, and they're very good at it. In some communities maybe the college's track record has not been as great as another provider.

We're suggesting that we understand that scenario. What we're prepared to offer you here is a structure whereby you get what you're looking for, and that's quality language training in the community, with community participation. It may be by the college and it may be by someone else.

If I were to paint this world in a better way, I would say, of course, use the community colleges - they're here and they've been here for 27 years - for job training, for job retraining, for a number of services that we're providing from the federal government to the provinces. Use that - a partner not only in language training but in other things: skill development, retraining; there are a number of things.

The Chair: Mr. Norton, did you want to add anything?

Mr. Norton: No, that's a delightful answer.

Ms Meredith: I guess I'm still a little concerned about the assessment aspect of taking the new immigrants and making the assessment of what's best for them and are they prepared to do it. But I'll talk to you later about that.

.1050

When you were answering Mr. Collins' initial question about language and voluntarism and you brought up the concept of some union organizations not liking volunteers, do you see from your experience some way of dividing...if you're prioritizing those that are going to be supported by federal government dollars in language training, to gear them to the college level, and for those for whom it would become something they might need to be responsible for, to gear them to the community groups that provide that kind of training?

I'm thinking of the success in Vancouver. When I was there I met a retired doctor who was giving up his time to teach senior citizens who were paying out of their own pockets to learn English as a second language. It was a retired community that was providing that kind of training.

Is this one way of prioritizing where the government dollars would go and allowing these other community organizations to pick up the other...? Is that unfair?

Mr. Norton: Of course, it's an unfair question, which we're here to answer.

If there were a first priority for the colleges, it would seem to me one of the questions that people would ask is, what is the value-added of sending a student to a college for language training when we could send them several other places? One of the criteria might be if the issue in the long run is the skills of that student, in order for them to get a job, it would seem to us engaging them in the process of language training, which leads seamlessly into their skills development or skills training, would make sense. I think that would be a very useful criterion.

If on the other hand the purpose of the language training is not to lead with direct employment but to enrich their ability to work in a community and other things, then that's when we can bring all of the other kinds of folks who should be involved, because that's part of the process of bonding in the community as well. We'd really like to strengthen that part.

Mr. Conrod: If the buyer of services makes these kinds of things conditions of the service...for example, right now you have conditions of service in child care and some support transportation, and that happens. If it becomes part of the tendering process that volunteers be solicited to participate, then I'm sure that any agency that wanted to do the work could do it. As a matter of fact, putting it in the specifications might make it easier to negotiate with unions. Unions do not want to block activity. Our unions are partners with us to help colleges through what we would call the restraints that we're facing. That would be my answer to that.

The Chair: I would like to thank our witnesses. We hope to see you back here in the future. Thank you also for your written brief; we appreciate it.

Mr. Norton: Thank you.

Mr. Conrod: Thank you.

The Chair: Would Mrs. Ur like to raise the resolution on the agenda?

Mrs. Ur: I move that Diminishing Returns, studied by the Sub-committee on Immigration Consultants and Diminishing Returns (C.D. Howe/Laurier Institution Report) be referred to the new Sub-committee on Diminishing Returns.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Nunez. Agreed?

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Mrs. Ur, would you like to continue?

Mrs. Ur: I move that the proceedings and evidence on immigration consultants be retained by the main committee.

The Chair: Seconded by Mr. Nunez. Any objections?

Motion agreed to

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Assadourian: I want to make one point.

The Chair: Are you raising a point of order, Mr. Assadourian?

Mr. Assadourian: Yes.

The Chair: Based on what?

Mr. Assadourian: Based on the press release I was told about yesterday. I just got a copy of it.

The Chair: I don't think this is the appropriate forum, Mr. Assadourian.

.1055

There will not be a meeting next week, just for your information.

I would like the Liberal members to stay for five minutes, please.

Thank you very much. We'll see you in two weeks' time.