CIMM Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, February 10, 2003

1340

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.))

Ms. Claudette Legault (Executive Director, Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association)

1345

1350

1355

1400

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Claudette Legault

1405

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Claudette Legault

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Claudette Legault

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Rev. Gus Pendleton (Director of Mission, Brunswick Street United Church)

1410

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Paul O'Hara (Counsellor/Advocate, North End Community Health Centre)

1415

1420

1425

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

1430

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Claudette Legault

1435

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Rev. Gus Pendleton

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Paul O'Hara

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1440

Mr. Paul O'Hara

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.)

1445

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Claudette Legault

Ms. Mira Musanovic (Outreach and Crisis Worker, Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association)

1450

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Claudette Legault

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Rev. Gus Pendleton

1455

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ)

1500

Ms. Claudette Legault

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Rev. Gus Pendleton

1505

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP)

1510

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Anna Gregus (Manager, Settlement Unit, Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association)

Ms. Wendy Lill

Ms. Mira Musanovic

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1515

Ms. Anna Gregus

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Anna Gregus

Ms. Claudette Legault

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Mira Musanovic

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Sylvia Parris (President, Multicultural Association of Nova Scotia)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Sylvia Parris

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Sylvia Parris

1605

1610

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1615

Ms. Sylvia Parris

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sylvia Parris

1620

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sylvia Parris

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Sylvia Parris

1625

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Sylvia Parris

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Sylvia Parris

1630

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Sylvia Parris

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Sylvia Parris

1635

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Sylvia Parris

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Wendy Lill

1640

Ms. Sylvia Parris

1645

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1650

Ms. Sylvia Parris

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1655

Ms. Sylvia Parris

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 020

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, February 10, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

· (1340)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): May I first of all say to all of you, thank you very much for coming and bringing your thoughts and concerns with regard to the legislation we're dealing with.

We're dealing with Standing Order 108(2). The committee is undertaking a study of the settlement and integration programs, as well as the national identity card.

I understand you folks are coming forward with some concerns and issues around the settlement and integration programs, so we're pleased that you could come.

I think what I'll do is ask each of the witnesses to give a brief description of their concerns, then we will open the floor to questions and try to delve into the issues a little more through the questioning of my colleagues.

I'll go in the order of Claudette Legault, Mr. Pendleton, and Mr. O'Hara, if I may.

Ms. Legault.

Ms. Claudette Legault (Executive Director, Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association): Thank you.

My name is Claudette Legault, and I'm the executive director of MISA, the Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association.

I would in turn like to thank you for coming, and the members of the committee who are here. I know that we have both vice-chairs here, so it is a privilege. It's not very often that settlement organizations, not-for-profit organizations, have an opportunity to engage with parliamentary committees. I know that moving the committee about is not without some challenges, but I think it's very useful, and it's a real privilege for us to be here. I hope the comments we make will both support and affirm what you've heard from the centre and from other parts of Canada. I also hope that we can provide some optics that perhaps you haven't heard, being from a province that is not primarily an immigrant destination.

As well, we do have some comments on the big macro-policy issues, but another part that I think we can provide is on-the-street or day-to-day view that the settlement workers who deliver the settlement program have.

I've asked two other MISA staff to join me, although I'll be making the presentation. One is Anna Gregus. She is the manager of the settlement unit, the unit within MISA that provides the core of the settlement and orientation services, as well as all of the services for the government-sponsored refugees. As well, Mira Musanovic is a settlement worker. Since we're talking about settlement services, I thought she should be here. She's also temporarily on leave from the crisis worker position, so I think she certainly has an optic on what happens when the settlement doesn't go as smoothly as we plan.

They can provide the human stories and anecdotes about what we see, and some of the personal testimonies as well, so I would encourage members afterwards, if you have questions, to ask them to share some of those comments.

MISA is a community-based organization. Our job is basically to welcome newcomers to Nova Scotia. We provide a wide range of services for all categories of immigrants. We receive funding from Citizenship and Immigration Canada's four main funding programs: LINC, language instruction for newcomers; ISAP, the immigration and settlement and adaptation program; the HOST program; and RAP, the resettlement assistance program, for government-sponsored refugees.

In terms of the comments we'd like to offer today, we could go on and on now that we finally have the chance, but we'll try to keep our comments focused on the settlement allocation model. I know you've been hearing a lot about it, but perhaps you haven't heard as much from the smaller provinces about how we feel about that model. There's funding, of course; any opportunity to talk about funding. Under integration issues, well, there are quite a few, but the one we'd like to focus on is employment labour market attachment. There was some reference to that this morning during the presentation around the provincial nominee program.

Last, but certainly not least--in fact, the one that is of greatest concern--is the resettlement assistance program, the support for refugees.

In terms of the settlement allocation model, I guess for those of us who know, it is a model that allocates the settlement funds across the country based on, generally, a number of factors about which there was consensus, including the immigration trends in terms of general population, etc. The current model is being reviewed. We're well aware of that. Again, I'm using figures for my presentation that were part of Rosaline Frith's presentation to us last spring in terms of allocation models, amounts of money, and total immigration. At that time we were told, and were kind of aware, that although immigration has increased, the funding allowed for settlement in fact has not increased in that time period.

I guess we all know that most of the immigrants who come to Canada end up in Toronto, and other large percentages go to other large municipalities like Montreal and Vancouver. So in a way, it makes logical sense for those provinces that are receiving more and higher numbers of immigrants to ask for a higher percentage of the allocation model. While that is logical, I would argue that the reverse is not logical, that therefore those who receive fewer immigrants should receive less of the allocation model.

I mean, to a certain extent there is some truth beyond that, but at a certain point, when you keep reducing the amount, you're reducing the capacity of the province and settlement organizations to in fact respond, attract, settle and integrate the immigrants who do come. So we do require a critical mass beyond and below which it becomes impossible for us to try to reverse that trend.

· (1345)

The model tries to take into consideration a minimal amount of settlement services that are required. I guess I would argue that in the case of Nova Scotia, there was some.... Monsieur Charbonneau this morning asked how we could have dropped 50% in so few years, and I'd be happy to give you my opinion on that afterwards in the questions.

As a settlement sector we have received a 10% cut for the last three years, and 10% this year. When I was conferring with my CIC colleagues—and we have a very positive working relationship with our CIC colleagues—we couldn't remember if it was three years or four years, next year therefore being the fifth or the fourth. That is the kind of reality we have been living with. At a certain point what it means is that you have enough funding for half a person, or three-quarters of a person, or a full-time person but paid poorly.

If we're looking at comparable settlement services across the country, this does nothing to guarantee for those immigrants who come to Nova Scotia that they're going to be getting as good services as they would in other provinces.

The other thing the allocation model doesn't take into account, I think, is the additional services that are provided by some provinces, by other federal departments in different jurisdictions, and also by municipal governments. And it doesn't consider, I think, the fact that in those cities and provinces where there already is a substantial immigrant community, that community in turn provides settlement and orientation support through the faith communities and the ethnic communities that exist there.

In a province like Nova Scotia, where we don't have that critical mass, the responsibility for providing some of that would fall back onto the settlement organization.

So I guess I would argue that the funding formula—and I know you'll be involved and have been involved in deciding whatever that final formula will look like—should consider not just the total numbers, but some of the other factors I mentioned above. I think this is especially important given Minister Coderre's commitment—and we welcome it—to try to find ways to encourage immigration to some of the provinces that have traditionally not been immigrant destinations.

You heard this morning some things that made Nova Scotia sound not that aggressive in its pursuit of immigrants. I think we're on the cusp of a change, but I think we as a settlement sector will have to be very much a part of it, and being able to offer settlement services will be a key component of that.

If this province is committed to working with the minister on it, I hope there would be some consideration to not simply having the allocation model based on a three-year rolling number. I'd like to put an argument forward in support of that.

The special needs of settlement in areas that may be more difficult have already been recognized. That's with the Canada-Quebec Accord, which was signed in 1991. I know some provinces may have objected to the fact that Quebec is given a larger ratio of the settlement dollars based on total numbers of immigrants going there, but I support that. It was an acknowledgement of the fact that settling immigrants into a French culture in North America has its particular challenges and may require more additional support, and I would like to argue that this same “fair share” approach should be considered when you're looking at the maritime provinces.

A final point in terms of allocation of funds is about value added—the bang for the buck. The approximate budget for settlement services in Ontario was over $110 million. This would be in addition to any of the funding that's being provided in Ontario by the provincial budget. I'll just give one example. It touches on credentials that nationally we have all recognized as important and that I know some other people on the committee will address.

They receive $110 million. There has been $15.5 million committed over three years, announced in the 2001 Ontario budget, for bridge programs to help foreign-trained workers become employed. Those are big piles of money that are going into Ontario. Yes, they get a lot of immigrants and refugees, but there's a community—a critical mass—that can also provide some support in that.

· (1350)

By way of contrast, in Nova Scotia in 2004-2005, if we stick with the current allocation model, we will get $1.9 million in total, which is down from $3.2 million in 1999-2000. So I guess I would argue that adding another million here or there to Ontario probably won't have that significant an impact, whereas cutting $200,000 from Nova Scotia will have a greater impact than the benefit that will be accrued. The dream wish, of course, is that if you were to give us that $1 million--I'm just throwing this figure out, I don't expect it to come--it would help enhance Nova Scotia's attractiveness to immigrants.

There are three very quick recommendations here. The settlement funding allocation model should take into account some of the other factors. The future allocation model should give consideration to those provinces looking to work with the minister to get more immigrants settling in provinces that historically have not received immigrants. And I ask that you reconsider next year's 10% cut for the Atlantic region, given some of the factors I've mentioned.

In terms of funding, I won't go into too much detail here. I've provided a chart on the back that was taken from a book written by Peter Li from the Prairie Centre of Excellence. It was just a note I had made when I was looking at the background documents you presented. It explained how much settlement costs.

When we're looking at some of the debate around immigration, it's always, “How much benefit are we getting, and how much does it cost?” The total cost of these programs is often misrepresented and misunderstood in the media and by others who do not necessarily support a lot of funding going to settlement initiatives...and therefore those who spend the most maybe aren't as desirable as immigrants.

So when you use that chart I would also ask that you consider not only the total cost of those settlement services, but the fact there are some revenues that are also generated by the immigration process. In fact, in the chart it mentions that in the four years recorded there from 1997-98 to 2000-01, the actual revenues generated from immigration cost recovery fees, right of citizenship fees, etc., are greater than what the costs are.

Now, I know that some of the revenues generated go to offset the actual costs of that processing, but let's make sure we take this into account as well, because I think it puts the overall cost in a different context. It's a fact that in 2001 the federal government generated almost $1 million in interest from the various travel and immigration loans. There is some income coming back in.

In terms of immigration issues, the one I would like to talk about is labour market attachment. I know the committee has heard various presentations in relation to this issue. Settlement is a process that's happens along a continuum, and there are different supports needed along the way. As Citizenship and Immigration Canada says, the goal is to enable newcomers to become “self-reliant, participating members of Canadian society as quickly as possible”.

Many research studies and I think our own experiences indicate that integration happens. Timely access to the labour market and a stable income are probably among the most important factors facilitating integration. Any of us who have been between jobs or remember the time before we had stable jobs recognize how important having a job is to getting to know your community, making friends, feeling good about yourself, etc. So the sooner newcomers become employed, the sooner they become contributing members of the economy, thereby reducing dependency--at least perceived dependency--on the system. Unfortunately, under the current mandate of CIC's ISAP funding, job-finding clubs are the only employment-related service they are to provide.

At MISA, we've been able to receive the support of CIC. They've shown some flexibility in terms of understanding the challenges in Nova Scotia and we are running some limited employment-related programs, but it really is not the primary focus of settlement. I would ask that labour market attachment programs be included as an essential settlement service and that funding be allocated to these services.

· (1355)

I think that's the exciting part about this. While we've been saying it for awhile, there's been a national recognition in the last year that's been greater than it was in the past, certainly with the innovation strategy. It is very positive and it identifies a number of issues related to labour market attachment for immigrants and the census figures on skills shortages. So a lot of things are speaking to that.

If the federal government wishes to maximize the effectiveness of the settlement services that are currently funded under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, somehow the responsibility for those settlement services must go beyond the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. And here, specifically, I would like to refer to the mandate of HRDC.

I don't know what the EI budget surplus is at this point, but while there's an EI budget surplus there's a shortage of employment-related programs for immigrants, in large part, because they are not EI-eligible. In some provinces where the provincial governments have an accord with HRDC, I think there is some flexibility to provide employment-related services, although not to the degree to which I think most immigrant-serving agencies feel is appropriate to be able to integrate immigrants.

In fairness to the HRDC officials, certainly we all are aware of how they've worked hard to be more accountable, given what happened a few years back. I think when the bureaucrats who are trying to follow the HRDC mandate say no to immigrant labour market attachment programs, it's not because they don't want to, it's because they are respecting the mandate that they have at this point. Until there's a national directive that says HRDC can now fund immigrant-related programs, the regional bureaucrats aren't likely to go against that.

So in terms of recommendations, I would ask that the HRDC criteria be broadened to include immigrants; that a significant portion of the EI surplus, if there is any, be allocated to employment-related settlement services for immigrants; and that the innovation strategy, which I think has gathered national support and endorsement, be fast-tracked and money be allocated to implementing some of their programs. That's it for the big picture.

I'd like to now focus on some of the ongoing concerns that have emerged and that certainly seem to be more critical recently around the resettlement assistance program, RAP. That's the program that provides support for government-assisted refugees.

First of all, we applaud the government and the new IRPA direction in terms of deciding not to restrict the admission of government-sponsored refugees on the basis of selectivity. We wholeheartedly support that the refugee program is based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and that IRPA has opened up some of the terms and conditions under which we now accept refugees.

The concerns are basically that, while that is a new direction and the profile of some of the government-sponsored refugees whom we're receiving is changing, the policies that support them really haven't changed. They are putting government-assisted refugees who are already very vulnerable in an almost impossible position to settle and integrate within the first year.

Basically, it's already a vulnerable population and we're in fact trying to settle them at poverty levels.

For example, a family was supposed to arrive before Christmas, but the father in the household died. The mother and the son arrived on Thursday from the Sudan.

As a single mother, she'll receive a total this year of $12,539, and this is going to include $563 for shelter--for rent, heat, hydro, water, and telephone. Her basic allowance for food and other things for her and her son is $327. She'll have a bus pass at a cost of $57 a month. Twice a year she'll be given a clothing amount of $500, for an annual total of $1,000, and she'll be given a one-time staples start-up for $175.

¸ (1400)

The poverty line in Nova Scotia for a single mother is $20,209, which means a single refugee mother with one child will receive an income from the Canadian government under RAP that is 62% of the poverty line.

In addition, she is expected to purchase all her household needs to start her new life in Canada with a one-time allocation of $1,500, an amount that has not increased since 1992, or maybe earlier. With it she'll have to buy all her furniture, dishes, pots, linens, blankets, etc. Then within six weeks of settling into her new apartment, she will be asked to begin repaying her travel loan, right of landing fee, etc., at a minimum rate of $150 per month. And there are other examples.

Of course, when the refugees arrive they're happy to be here, they're grateful to be here, and they certainly have every intention of working hard and settling and making a better life for their children. But as one of the workers said, the refugees don't know what “$625 a month” is; it could be $6,000. Its value in terms of what they can buy with it isn't clear in the first week. When they ask, “Can I live on this?”, the staff person's answer is, “Yes, but it will be hard.” And I think that “Yes, but it will be hard” is getting very hard....

I don't think any of the refugees themselves, and certainly Canadians, expect us to resettle refugees at the high end, but I don't think the mainstream Canadian understands where we are settling government-sponsored refugees, and that is at the bottom of the bottom. We don't provide enough settlement support, and we become critical when they've not been able to integrate. And yet we make it almost impossible for them to achieve it.

There are other limitations within RAP that are more critical, because again, the refugee profile has changed. There are more special needs refugees, more singles and large families, fewer refugees coming from Europe and more from Africa and Asia. They are coming from further away, so they will have higher debt loads. Fewer will speak either official language, and fewer will have transferable skills.

This means a need for initial support, at least for the first little while, although I don't think this has necessarily been reflected in the allocation grants. For example, take the translation and interpretation budget. While this is on quite a micro level, the program allows thirteen hours per person, with an additional two hours for a special needs family. I think when we're receiving harder-to-settle refugees, this limitation makes it very difficult to provide services directly or to contract other service providers in the province to help us provide those services.

Under RAP, government-sponsored refugees have the interim federal health plan. I don't know if you've heard other testimony with regard to this. The program, according to its own guidelines, is not designed to replace provincial health plans and does not provide the same extent of coverage as for permanent residents. I know there are some who say that in Canada we've created a two-tier health system. In this case, there is a third tier, and that is the health care the government-sponsored refugees have when they first come. Basically the IFHP does not provide adequate access to health care, drug coverage, or dental coverage. In fact, in Nova Scotia the drug plan and dental plan do not provide even the minimum level of services that are afforded to social assistance recipients.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I know a lot of the information you're putting forward is important, but it's already been a 25-minute presentation. Could I kindly ask you to do more of a summary of the balance, so the other witnesses can provide some information, and then we'll go to questions.

Ms. Claudette Legault: I apologize to my colleagues.

The recommendations are there in terms of the interim federal health plan. I think it does become a challenge for the workers to help the refugees access health care when there are many health service providers who have a no-IFHP policy; they will not provide the services. So I would ask for your support on that.

In terms of communication, the 1-800 process and the call centre for getting information on citizenship and immigration is a challenge, in particular for government-assisted refugees. That has become more challenging recently, so I would ask that some special efforts be made by the government to respond to the inquiries of the government-sponsored refugees, because it's something we are not able to do.

I'm sorry I went over my time.

¸ (1405)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I think your information was very good. I saw that you still had a large amount left to present. I figured that, in fairness to all three witnesses, it would be important to give everyone a chance to have some of that time.

I really appreciate your presentation.

Ms. Claudette Legault: I hope that perhaps in the questions and answers we can cover some of the other areas.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Most certainly.

Ms. Claudette Legault: I thank you for your time.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

Reverend Pendleton.

Rev. Gus Pendleton (Director of Mission, Brunswick Street United Church): My name is Gus Pendleton. I'm minister of the United Church at Brunswick Street, called the Brunswick Street United Church and Mission.

We don't get government funds for our work. I will describe our work in this way. We are people who see refugee claimants primarily, and early in morning, as early as 6 or 6:30, when we are preparing breakfast for them and other homeless people. What happens to a refugee claimant in Halifax is that they are moved immediately into a shelter situation, if they're coming off boats, planes, or in any other way, and are claimants here.

In the work we do not only with refugees but also with people who are homeless and with other folk who just happen to be very poor and need various kinds of help, I think of it a little bit like a Malvina Reynolds song, God Bless the Grass, where she sings that they pour the concrete over it and try to push it back, but the grass basically comes back, you see. It's strong and individualistic. And the people we minister to are strong individuals, with very particular needs.

Refugees coming in this way don't even have some of the resources that you have just heard about.

I bring my wife's regrets. My wife is a disabled person. She had a flare-up today and couldn't be with us. I'm not the social worker at the church, as you can guess from my collar. She does most of the direct work and she wanted two concerns in particular raised with you.

One is that some of the individual blades of grass that we see are doctors, are engineers, and are other people with advanced education and highly technical skills. The process of moving them in, if they've come out of a container on a boat or off of an airplane, is very difficult.

They first of all go onto welfare here. It is a process that people who have that kind of education and those kinds of skills find kind of scary. They spend their first days with some people from this community who, frankly, you wouldn't want your children playing with and I honestly didn't want my children playing with. They see drugs and alcohol all around them. They see people who are scrambling for bucks.

Now, I don't have a problem with those things. I'm just saying, this is a different world for people.

They may have language problems as well. Some of them are coming to a Christian church for breakfast, and they're not sure what that means because they happen to be Muslim. They are fully welcomed. We make sure they don't get pork for breakfast and all of that.

The reality is that it's a different world, and it's really different if they have the kind of skills that I talked about. So one of the concerns is, how do we make sure that we're moving people in well? Because these are people who help Canada to be its best self. That's one concern.

The other one is something that we also see. It affects some of those folks and it affects a few people desperately--that is, various kinds of mental health problems. When we see doctors, engineers, and others who find that they can't provide food for themselves except by going to a food bank, they often end up depressed. Some of them literally don't know what to make of the experience. It is situational depression and in some cultures there's not much talk about that stuff.

There is a smaller group of people who come as refugee claimants and really can't even function within the process itself.

We ministered to one in particular quite closely. He failed at the refugee process. He needed to fail, but he frankly needed to never be in it. He's a young man coming out of Africa. He has serious mental health problems that aren't easily recognized by our mental health models. Frankly, it's hard enough for middle-class folks from Canada to get good mental health services; it's almost impossible for people from other cultures.

¸ (1410)

One of the really strong resources we have, by the way, is sitting next to me; at the North End clinic they have a psychiatrist who has some real sensitivity to cultural issues.

This is very difficult stuff. What I'm talking about are the cracks, the people who fall through them, the little individuals, and I think that just like the mental health survivors in Canada, these are still important people.

The reality is that some of them are coming out of childhoods in which they were tortured. Frankly, we're seeing more and more people under the age of 20, sometimes under the age of 18. Of course they lie when they come here, because they don't want to be seen as minors.

These are very serious issues. Sometimes we see the physical scars and sometimes we see the other kinds of scars. We simply want to keep showing those individual human faces and giving those stories before anyone who will listen, because this is a large part of the problem.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. Paul O'Hara (Counsellor/Advocate, North End Community Health Centre): Thank you. My name is Paul O'Hara, and I work at the North End Community Health Centre, a community health centre in the inner city area of Halifax. We're probably the only facility of its kind in Nova Scotia—that's funded the way we are, at least: there are other health centres, but they're much smaller. We service a low-income community with a high percentage of public housing. A lot of the services to Brunswick Street United Church and other homelessness-related organizations and agencies are in our community.

In preparing for our presentation today, I spoke with a number of other health care providers in the health centre to get a sense of what people perceive to be some of the issues of newcomers who would use our primary health care and mental health-related services through our health centre. I spoke with physicians and nurses, a dietician, a health interpreter, and I will talk a little bit about some of the work I do in the community as a social worker.

I think it's obvious to most of you that there's a need for ongoing education in diversity and diverse cultures that is specific to health, that we really don't have adequate funding for those kinds of educational programs in our community.

Again, the need for health interpreters couldn't be stronger. In primary health care services, if you don't have a health care interpreter, you're dead in the water.

The significance of racism, of poverty, and of class difference is really relevant in health care provision, and also the relationship between health care providers and outreach kinds of services of the various specific diverse cultures. The community organizations that work with diverse cultures are not really doing a good job there.

We need ongoing educational programs that are specific to health providers so as to train them, and also to be more engaged with people from different ethnic communities so that there is a relationship developed. A dietician at our health centre said that she did, through her training, receive some connection to diverse cultures, but there was no real relationship with an organization like MISA, for example. If that were supported—if there were an outreach person or somebody in MISA who was directly connected to the universities—we could do much better in terms of health education, particularly when dealing with things like malnutrition and poor sanitation, the kinds of issues that people from war-torn countries are coming to Canada with.

If we're going to deal with their issues from a nutritional perspective, we really need to know what we're dealing with. As well, cultural rules and norms about food—food-buying habits, how you store food, belief in nutritional care—all impact upon the way we try to deliver health care. Even simple things like how sometimes our advertising is very misleading--for instance, when it associates itself with nutritional value--can't be overlooked in the way we're trying to do educational work.

One of the physicians in the health centre talked a little bit about diagnosis, and how sometimes it is compromised because of particular cultures and people not being explicit about articulating information that's needed. An example is sexually transmitted diseases. When a newcomer with little English is unable to get the message across through subtle kinds of expression associated with their culture, you don't even get the opportunity to do the right diagnosis.

The visits between the health care provider and a newcomer take longer. Our conventional health care delivery doesn't allow for that. Seeing a newcomer's beliefs and cautions about illness and disease, we can't undermine their cultural beliefs, their health practices, their home remedies. If we want compliance with treatment, we really need to be conscious of those things. Religiously guided beliefs and practices are all very relevant.

Again, newcomers often depend on friends to interpret for them when they don't have access to a health care interpreter, which is a lot of the time. So when a friend is in doing the translation, it's interpretive, and it's not interpretive from a professional perspective. The diagnosis gets missed, and the real health care issues are masked. There are issues of confidentiality that are compromised when you are using a friend to do the interpretation for you. So a health care interpreter is very critical to providing competent health care delivery.

¸ (1415)

As well, when people live in poverty, their access to medication is a real concern for us at our health centre. It's simple things like health education around colder climates and the susceptibility to illnesses and how to maintain one's health, particularly for people from Asia and Africa. There are too many doctors' visits for common colds, too many visits to the out-patient department and to emergency because people really don't know what's going on.

So we can't assume that newcomers have familiarity and a comfort with our public health care delivery systems. The need is very high for psychiatric and related mental health services, particularly when you have people who have spent time in refugee camps in other communities and who've come from countries with significant problems.

So if people want expedient access to mental health and other social service programs, we really need to be on top of those issues and how to address them. The psychosomatic symptoms of refugees need to be dealt with at a primary health care level, and if we're not positioned properly to do that, we don't provide the right service.

I don't know if MISA has specific information, but we tend to think there are a lot of refugees and newcomers who are actually involved in suicide, homicide, and other tragic ends to their lives that are directly associated with our inability, as a health care delivery system, to deal with those issues.

Family violence is another example. We really don't have the proper outreach programs to deal with spousal abuse that is culturally specific and addresses the diversity of other cultures.

People are too afraid of being outcasts in their own communities to address those kinds of issues and family problems. They won't use the transition houses or spousal abuse facilities. Perhaps it might be as simple as their dietary concerns about what kind of food they're going to be fed. Or it might be their concern about racial discrimination. It's here. It hasn't gone away. We all know what it's about, and people are fearful so they won't use those programs. So we need to be really conscious of that and to become more inclusive in the way that we deal with other cultures and their specific values and customs. That needs to be encouraged. There needs to be an outreach.

We heard a little about the welfare system, and Claudette was talking about that program. Gus and I said to one another, “Gee, we wish our clients had access to some of that.”

So what happens to the newcomers and particularly to refugees? And my experience is mainly with single people. Once they move from refugee status to landed immigrant status, they lose all the access to those programs. Then they become part of the general welfare system, if they're not in a position to be independent.

We treat single people very poorly in Nova Scotia, and I assume across the country. We have this attitude towards single adults, in particular, of “Look after yourself. Get in with a friend. Find a place.” We really don't look at the reality.

I think a good example is the welfare rate for shelter. Once you move from refugee status to single employable person status in a welfare system, the amount of money that you're given for your housing goes from $535 a month, which isn't enough, to $235 a month.

I had a gentleman come in from eastern Europe. His English was bad. He had been a refugee. He was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. He was categorized as a single employable person and his landlord was putting his stuff on the steps. “If you can't pay the rent, get out. I've got other people who can.” This man didn't know where to go, what to do.

He had a student social worker working with him who was connected to MISA, and it was interesting; this young woman was saying to me, “Paul, I've looked at the newspaper. We've been doing this for three days now. We went through it every day. Look, you can't find a place for $235 a month. You can't do it.” My response was, “Well, come on, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that.”

¸ (1420)

A young and somewhat naive individual thought that the system would respond responsibly to someone in need. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. A more seasoned person like myself had a different approach. I have been at it for over 20 years.

A physician came to me and said, “Paul, I have these people in here taking up all my time, and I have other things to do. What am I going to do with this person? He's going to be on the street and he has all these issues.” Basically, the counselling I gave him was to give a note from the physician indicating some of what the problems were in relationship to post-traumatic stress disorder and other situations around his employability, and that did help this individual get an increase in the welfare rate.

Now, if you're looking at someone like me...and there are very few people who are able to engage with newcomers and refugees on these kinds of matters, because the resources are not accessible. Often people end up in crisis. They lose their housing. This gentleman could very well have ended up in a hospital in a mental health-related bed at a higher or more significant cost to our system than the welfare rate to pay for his rent.

I want to add just one more thing. I'm involved with the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative, which is a federally supported initiative around homelessness. Claudette Bradshaw, the Minister of Labour, is responsible through HRDC to administer that program.

We have an article in the Homeless Herald--there's the Halifax Herald, but we call this theHomeless Herald--and inside, on the first page, there is “New Canadians of Homelessness”. Actually, a social work student wrote that.

Again, this initiative, through SCPI, recognizes the need for social housing for newcomers who are single. MISA, through a lot of its connections with volunteers, has an initiative where they are going to purchase a building and house people in these situations and manage it through volunteers. Again, that's a great initiative and we're thankful that the federal government through the SCPI program is providing this type of assistance.

What we really believe is needed, however, is a national housing strategy so that these kinds of issues, amongst a whole bunch of other issues, get recognized. There is a real need for social housing in our community for all kinds of different people. If we're going to live in a community that is healthy and respectful to all of its citizens, we need to acknowledge that there are people whose incomes aren't going to be significant, who cannot compete for housing in urban areas.

When you see the growth in Halifax, it's amazing. We're really growing. We're doing quite well. The Chamber of Commerce recognizes that and they're feeling very good about it. We have Houston and Alberta and all kinds of other corporate interests now in Halifax that weren't here a few years ago. We have condos going up and high-end apartment buildings. So we're doing really well, but people are hurting really badly on the lower end.

Anyway, thank you very much for your time.

¸ (1425)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Mr. O'Hara.

I want to say thank you to all three witnesses. This is very important information for us to deal with.

I will go to Diane, who possibly can delve into some of the other issues we have or bring out some of the points in more detail.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for the presentations today. I'd like to make a couple of comments for your assistance. I don't usually do this, but I want you to know that contrary to some popular belief at times, our party is very supportive of immigration and of helping immigrants to succeed. Our party is also very supportive of maintaining our humanitarian tradition with respect to the acceptance of refugees.

I feel it necessary to say that because I know, having been an MP for nine years, that this is not always the perception of our party. I want you to know that all of us on this committee, who try to be very non-partisan in approaching these issues, are very open and very interested in what you have to say.

I also want to tell you that I have drafted what our party calls an “issue statement” on settlement issues, which I presented to the caucus for their approval and which will bring out a number of the issues you are discussing today. So this information is very helpful to me.

One of the questions I got, for example, and Claudette will be very interested in this, is: “Do we have enough resources to pay for the settlement programs that you, Diane”—that is, me—“are telling us as a caucus we need to support?” I told them yes, because there are the application fees that are paid and the landing fees that are paid, and these are specifically collected in order to provide these services. Yet very often the services are not there for an immigrant, and even for those coming from countries whose cultures are quite close to our own there's always a need for settlement issues. As many of you have pointed out, where cultures are quite diverse from ours the need is even greater.

Claudette, the figures you provided, on page 5 in your paper, I will circulate to my colleagues. This kind of information is very helpful. I'm quite new to the file, so I didn't have these figures. You've provided a real service to me in talking to my own caucus about these issues, and I know all members of the committee feel the same.

Now on to the issues you raised. There are so many; I hope we can cover them, but at least I'll start by raising a few.

I wanted your comments on the cuts to settlement services. I know from talking about this issue in various provinces that service providers have the continuing frustration that they can never make firm long-term plans, because they always either just got an allocation based on last year's activity, or they're in the process of doing all their paperwork to get their next allocation, which is a real frustration.

It's a little bit like the time in Canada when we had the number of doctors cut back because they were viewed as being a drain on the health care system, because doctors provided services that they billed for: they cost money, so let's cut back on the doctors. Then when we figured out that we didn't have enough doctors—and Nova Scotia is really hurting in that regard—then, yes, more positions were opened up in our universities. But how long does it take to train a doctor, 10 to 14 years? So there's always the catch-up.

My question to you is, how much lead time would you need in order to respond adequately to provide services to a changing situation, where numbers increase or different concerns come up? In other words, how serious is this yearly allocation process in terms of your being able to look ahead and do the medium- and long-term planning that would allow you to be prepared and responsive to the kinds of flux and change you find in provision of services?

¸ (1430)

Ms. Claudette Legault: That's a challenging question.

I think I did comment on the fact that the Auditor General, I guess in her last report, made a recommendation that multi-year contribution agreements should be signed with settlement organizations. Hopefully, there's an attempt to move that forward, which I think would get at that problem.

In terms of signing an agreement, this year we signed it before the end of the year. Last year we had staff who were working and trying to deliver programs into June that technically had ended March 31. I know that with CIDA, they do multi-year programming, but they still fall within some of the same limitations about how they would grow.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: What are you thinking, three years, five years?

Ms. Claudette Legault: Three years, I think, although some of it may have moved to five-year programming. Organizations like MISA and many of the settlement organizations have been around since 1980, so I think there's a proven track record although there's no core funding. I certainly think that anything more than one year....

There's going to be some flexibility, but I think having some core sense of what that is would provide us with greater capacity to retain some of the expertise currently within the staff, and also to be able to implement programs that sometimes you don't see the benefits of immediately.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, I can really see that.

Ms. Claudette Legault: So certainly a three-year arrangement would be very positive knowing that there will be movement.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I was surprised--I don't know if other members of the committee were--that the current settlement services mandate doesn't really have serious dedicated funding for ensuring job force, labour force, attachment, which, as you rightly point out, would surely be one of the very first things you would want to do, because how can people get established in a new country if they're not having an income? I certainly would be extremely supportive of that.

I wonder if you could advise us, if you had the money, if there was some funding, what would be the one, or two, or three most urgent things your organization and others would undertake in order to assist newcomers in establishing themselves in the job market?

Ms. Claudette Legault: I should have the employment person here. I think it's some of the work we're currently doing although the funding, again, we've been scrambling for; we've gotten a bit here and a bit there.

I think it's the very things that were mentioned in the innovation strategy, and things we're doing now. There is certainly the credentials issue, which is a big piece, that we allow people in and people do come in with credentials. When you say there's a labour shortage in Nova Scotia, I think we had 22 medical professionals looking for work through MISA last year.

I think on page 7 it says:

developing an integrated approach to the assessment and recognition of foreign credentials; providing better support for integration into the labour market through measures such as assistance in acquiring Canadian experience through internships

So this means a job placement where somebody actually gets some Canadian experience with an employer.

I think our experience has been that those programs have been some of the most successful in terms of getting the door open and getting people in the door even if it's just getting Canadian experience, knowing that, maybe, they have to do a bit of upgrading, and having a reference that they can call in Canada. And inevitably a lot of them do end up being hired, or when a job comes up in the sector, they'll get a call from the employer. I think that initial getting your foot in the door is the big piece, and then orientation to what work is in Canada.

¸ (1435)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): That's very good.

Could we have Gus and Paul respond to that as well?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, that would be great.

Rev. Gus Pendleton: Very simply, that's exactly right as far as I'm concerned, making that process smoother, making sure that there are internships, and not only for doctors. Certainly we've seen some movement in terms of medical professionals. But when you have an engineer who's bagging groceries, when you have folk who have other kinds of skills and they're really.... Some of these folk are just so darned hard-working, they'll work three or four jobs once they're landed. But this is not a particularly efficient way for us to think about our society. There are some talented people who have skills that are needed but they can't get any Canadian experience, beyond doctors I mean.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Paul.

Mr. Paul O'Hara: I would concur with what's being said. We had a physician recently who was Chinese. We have an electronic system now, which we're integrating into the way we deliver health care through a grant from the federal government. This physician was transcribing information from our charts into our electronic system, and we're short physicians in our health care facilities.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: It strikes me that with respect to refugees this would be particularly traumatic, because when you couple the lack of assistance in getting established in the workforce on a reasonable level--you don't want to waste human capital, human potential, surely--with the low level of financial support, it's surprising that people are able to handle that kind of load.

I must say, this is a surprise to me as a Canadian. I'm fairly new to this file, but I did not know that the support level for refugee claimants was so incredibly low. And we have a country that prides itself on its compassionate and humanitarian traditions, and in bringing people from desperate situations and giving them a new start in Canada. This could hardly qualify, I think, in the minds of any reasonable Canadian, as being an adequate sponsorship.

If you or I were sponsoring someone, we would do far more than what appears to be being done, from what Claudette and others of you have mentioned. Just bringing somebody into our country and then basically dropping them on their head does not seem to me to be what you would call a compassionate refugee program. So this is very good information for me.

I wanted to explore your recommendation--and I think others can comment as well--that refugee claimants not only get a basic level of support but also be permitted to earn income, at least for their early period of time, and not have it deducted from the support level.

Are there studies, or pilot projects, or any experience you can point to where that approach has been particularly helpful and positive in assisting in strong success down the road?

Ms. Claudette Legault: No, I'm not aware of any programs. I think that under the new RAP program there's been a change from what existed previously. I was not in the settlement sector so I was not aware of this at the time, but they were saying that under the old program they could earn more and under the new one that was discouraged.

But I'm afraid I don't know.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I think there was such a pilot project done in Europe. I think I studied it when I was on the HRDC file. Maybe I can dig it up. The committee might find it of help, because that would be a good approach, I think.

In a place like Halifax, would there be enough interpretation available that you could call on to actually meet the needs of a diverse group of people who are coming in? Of course, there are a lot of languages, so I'm curious about how that would be accessed. Would you have interpreters on call from all the language groups you would deal with, or what would you suggest there?

¸ (1440)

Mr. Paul O'Hara: I don't have accurate information on that. We have on staff a Vietnamese interpreter because we deal with a large Vietnamese community. We depend a little bit on connections through MISA. A lot of it is just friends coming in and helping out, so we don't have adequate interpretive services.

And because we're a community health centre and our focus is a little different from regular physicians' offices, we know how to access information, and through grants and through other means we do a lot of brochures and helpful information for people and that sort of thing. But it certainly is not adequate, there's no question.

There are people from Asia, from Africa, from eastern Europe, from South America, from the Caribbean. There are all kinds of cultures in Halifax, and we really don't have an expedient way of delivering the service.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: There's so much more I could ask, but maybe I should pass the torch to others and then perhaps if there's time I could come back.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Diane.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments of a general nature to make, along with several questions for Ms. Legault.

You underscore a situation that might not always seem logical, but that when we look more closely, makes perfect sense. Referring to page 2 of you submission, you state that the funds allocated to the various provinces should not be proportional to the number of new immigrants welcomed to those provinces, because provision must always be made to have some kind of basic infrastructure in place. Even though a province may not take in many immigrants, it must incur some basic expenses. We see this phenomenon in Quebec where regions outside the Montreal area are clearly under-funded. Yet, we're told that we should be making an effort to attract immigrants to non-urban centres. I think we need to take a closer look at this situation.

You also note that since immigrants contribute significantly to the economy, they should enjoy better services. You even maintain that they generate more, in economic terms, than the actual cost associated with providing these services.

Finally, you touch on a very real issue that we as MPs must address in our ridings, namely helping people find employment - the number one priority - and start up a business. On page 6 of your submission, you discuss this very issue:

[English]

“Finding a job or opening a business helps newcomers create new social support....”

[Translation]

The future already seems brighter when a person finds a job.

[English]

“The sooner a newcomer becomes employed, the sooner they become contributing members....”

[Translation]

Sometimes, however, weeks and even months can go by before they find a job. All the while, the individual, the couple and the family experience stress. Rarely is this stress mentioned in the various presentations given. Mention is made of the physical and mental problems experienced by some people. Couples and families experience their very own kind of problems.

For example, if one member of a couple has more training than the other and hence, has a better chance of getting a job, then some problems can arise. I'm talking here about the relationship between men and women, immigrants and refugees who, in some cases, come from countries where the rules are different when it comes to equality between men and women.

The family unit is also another consideration. When children attend school, they are exposed to various realities unique to the culture of the receiving country. Whey they come home and the parents find out what's gone on, they are sometimes outraged. Some type of support services would be needed to help school personnel, or mothers, who more often than not, are the first to inherit the problem, deal with the situation. Mothers and fathers see their children begin to ask for all kinds of things, because they were exposed to our “liberal” culture. These requests may not always be in keeping with their values. I'm not making a judgment here. These values are often very sound.

Would you care to comment on this? Could you also explain to me why, in the space of three years, the number of immigrants to Nova Scotia has declined from 3,200 to 1,600? Earlier, you hinted that you might have an explanation for this turn of events.

¸ (1445)

Ms. Claudette Legault: You've raised several points and I'm not sure where to begin. I've even forgotten your initial comment. I believe it had to do with the minimum...

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I merely wanted to highlight some portions of your presentation that impressed me. I wasn't necessarily asking you to comment further on them.

Ms. Claudette Legault: I understand.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: However, I am particularly interested in the last part, namely the impact on couples and families, and in hearing an explanation as to why the number of immigrants to Nova Scotia has declined sharply in three years.

Ms. Claudette Legault: I understand. I admit that family dynamics can get complicated and if you're around on Thursday evening, I invite you to attend a workshop for parents who are having problems with teenagers. Immigrants identified this as a problem area and asked me to organize a meeting. Last year, we met separately with parents and then with youths. Ultimately, we realized that if both sides met together, communication would improve. Needs have been identified. Through orientation programs, we try to discuss family dynamics, how these are changing and the impact this has on the family unit. Occasionally, all of these changes can lead to family violence. In such cases, we try to make prevention programs available.

I don't know whether I can ask Mira or Anna to talk briefly about the situations they encounter with families and about the kind of help they provide and other needs they have observed. Several other groups and organizations such as the North End Community Clinic and SOS operate in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Several groups are prepared to give courses to parents, but again, we need translators and volunteers to help us out. Translations are needed to facilitate the process.

[English]

Ms. Mira Musanovic (Outreach and Crisis Worker, Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association): Instead of answering your question, I'll actually give you an example of a family. It's a six-member family. They came from the former Yugoslavia a year and five months ago. They have been on the RAP program, the settlement assistance program, for a year. Now they're on social assistance.

There are four very young children in the family. The mother is extremely sick and has very serious medical issues. Both the mother and father worked in the country of origin. Right now, both of them are on social assistance.

The father was a sociology teacher in high school. I'm not really sure what the mother was doing. Currently, the father is the only one looking for a job, because the mother has to take care of her medical issues as well as take care of the children. Even if she looks for a job, she then has to find a day care. It's very costly for four children to be in day care while they're working.

I only wanted to give you an example of what some of the families are going through, and to comment that it's not months before they find jobs; sometimes it could be a year or a couple of years before they find jobs. I'm sure the father will, in the end, have to find a low-paying job.

As a sociology teacher, he worked in his former country for probably ten years. He has extensive experience. I can imagine it because I had a similar experience. Can you imagine going to a cleaning position and having to deal with a low-paid job when you have the capacity of a teacher?

They don't have the language capacity. They don't have enough support to attain the capacity and find adequate jobs.

It does take a tremendous toll on the whole family if the family has to rely on low-paid jobs, after having a certain status in the society from which they came. Now they have to find any work.

In Halifax, sometimes it is even difficult to find a cleaning job. For this professor--he calls himself professor, as that's what he would be called in the country of origin--it will be very difficult to find a low-paid job in a cleaning position. He would be considered overly qualified.

Those are some of the things that families are exposed to.

¸ (1450)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Okay, Madeleine--

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chair, with your permission, I didn't have any response to my last question.

Mrs. Legault offered us an explanation with regard to the dramatic decrease of the number of immigrants between 1996 and 1999, from 3,200 to 1,600. She suggested she might have an explanation for that.

Ms. Claudette Legault: Well, everyone in Nova Scotia has been asking ourselves that question. As to the blip or the increase in immigration to Nova Scotia, a lot of it happened after the Gulf War when a number of immigrants from the Middle East came here, many from the business class and the entrepreneur class. I think if you looked at the proportion of that particular category of immigrants who came in that period, Nova Scotia was very high per capita compared to the rest of the country.

So because of who knows what, perhaps certain challenges in terms of the realities of settling and establishing businesses, etc., people voted, as many Nova Scotians do, with their feet and went to where they had more opportunities. As well, at this point a newspaper published just last week that 230,000 immigrants said no to Nova Scotia. Or it's not that they said no to Nova Scotia; it's that they said yes to somewhere else.

I think it was mentioned this morning that we haven't done a very good job in promoting Nova Scotia as a province that might be ideal. Rather than looking at those who've left, we should look at those who've stayed and ask, “Why did they stay?” And those who stayed did so for the same reasons that we stay--we have a job, a way to support our families. Some of the things that appeal to Nova Scotians in terms of safe, small communities, traditional family values, good universities, and educational opportunities for their children, are what appeal to immigrants.

I think that's a channel we can go to try to get those numbers up. Nova Scotia and the Maritimes have consistently scored high on the Maclean's best universities in Canada list, yet it's not something we promote. And yet a main attraction is the educational opportunity for children; it rates very high for newcomers.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Gus, do you have anything to add to that?

Rev. Gus Pendleton: Actually, I'd like to say again that primarily we work with individuals, single men and single women, almost exclusively at the entry level, people who are coming out of shelters and have come down to see us or who have breakfast with us. So we see a lot of people leave the province, as they have the flexibility to do that.

On the other hand, it's delightful to me to find that some of my personal friends, for instance, people who have come in and who have so much to offer to Canada.... After 9/11 I had some Arabic friends who left, and most of them are now back. They found Toronto very intimidating. They had received some threats. Some very unfortunate things had happened here, but they found Toronto much less hospitable.

So I think that the folk who have stayed have stayed for these reasons. That's exactly right. It's a more fluid population, because we see them actually come in here, as opposed to sponsored refugees who are making a choice about what province to go to. These are folk who land here by the accident of, well, this is where the boat docked, and they called immigration and here they are. I think that gives us a little bit of understanding of what happens.

Some of the folk who have what look to us at the entry level like some potential serious mental health problems go away. They want flashier, glitzier, bigger, faster places and they end up in Montreal or Toronto. Within the refugee community I sometimes hear back from people, and my sense is that people who are having troubles are going to have troubles whether they're in Toronto or Montreal or Halifax.

But I certainly have the sense that some people choose to go away from here because either they have a community of their own ethnicity somewhere else and they're persuaded that it's the right place to be, or they really don't want this particular lifestyle, and there are not many jobs here. Jobs become a major factor at that point.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

¸ (1455)

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I listened closely to your three presentations and since the budget is now just about one week away, I'm wondering if you're optimistic, or concerned. For example, I'm hearing that despite the increase in the number of immigrants, no new funding is projected to help with immigrant settlement. That worries me, particularly since we have a rather sizeable surplus. As a society, we need to make some choices.

Ms. Legault, you refer in your submission to Human Resources Development Canada. Of course, the government can choose to allocate the surplus to debt reduction. Everyone wins when we pay down the debt. However, this choice presents a moral dilemma.

Canada wants to welcome more and more immigrants to the country and the refugee situation isn't about to get any better in the years to come. These persons are human beings who will make a contribution to the advancement of the society in which we all live. We have a moral obligation to offer them some basic services.

If I understood you correctly, you work involves dispensing essential services such as providing food and shelter and access to education and health services. That's what you said.

I'm wondering what we can do to make our Finance Minister aware of this situation. I've served on this committee since 2000. I'm beginning my third year as a member and I must say that very little funding is allocated to immigrant settlement.

New legislation has been enacted. We've observed the practices of other countries. Given current staffing levels, it's impossible to process all claims within a reasonable period of time. On the one hand, decisions are made, while on the other hand, there is inadequate funding to act on them.

I don't know if you have made representations to the Finance Minister. A round of pre-budget consultations has taken place. I would imagine talks were held in Halifax. Did you have an opportunity to make your views known and what, if anything, did you say you hoped to see in the budget?

¹ (1500)

Ms. Claudette Legault: We never made any kind of representations to that committee. This is our first-ever appearance before this kind of forum.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Sad to say, but these days, more money seems to be allocated to the war effort. Yet, as a society, it's important to define ourselves and to identify the values we want to defend.

Your voice at least deserves to be heard when we hold public hearings. You're directly concerned by Citizenship and Immigration. Clearly, though, the Finance Department wields a considerable amount of influence. It controls just about everything. As I see it, no one seated around this table will deny that fact.

We are all very mindful of your situation. We ask for more money, usually unsuccessfully, but we don't stop trying for all that.

If we also enjoyed the support of respected and well-structured organizations, that might change things a little.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, madam.

Go ahead, Gus.

Rev. Gus Pendleton: I ascribe that you identified this as a moral issue. That's exactly what it is. I'm not a bureaucrat. I'm not a politician. You know what I do. I wear it on my sleeve and my collar.

I was just on vacation. I came back and I had a call from Jeremy, and it was delightful to have the invitation. Thank you.

But during the time that we were away, we were in the United States and I heard George Bush's State of the Union address. A very interesting thing was said, because of the amount of money that he said he was going to commit to AIDS in Africa. It was that a member of the “compassionate conservative program”, which he had proposed in last year's and the year before's State of the Union address, he had never put in the budget.

So we have moved to a state sometimes where we make some commitments but we don't meet those commitments in dollars.

Now, the difficulty is, the church lives over its head. We have some fiscal difficulties. I understand that the government might have some difficulty, but although our government's living with a surplus, we're not. The reality is they're in our families, in our churches, in our community institutions, in our school boards, and in our governments, and we make decisions with money attached to them. And when a government makes a removal from what it says it wants to do, to what it's willing to fund, it's a kind of insulation.

That insulation, I think, is a psychological one that directly parallels one other kind of insulation that I think is the more important here--that this is a moral thing. We're talking about children who have been taught to be soldiers and children who are escaping from families where the home has been burned down. And we're talking about doctors, cab drivers, engineers, and typists, people who have had to run for their lives. And Canada, especially in the wake of September 11, merely has become less hospitable.

Remember that my work is almost entirely with the people who come to the door and knock, not the people in the refugee camps. The experience is they're frightened. They get a lot of sense of a runaround and of an unwillingness by Canada to look at them as one individual blade of grass, one individual scared to death, with certain skills and potentials, but all sorts of fears. And it will take the government putting the dollars next to the programs for us to become hooked together and whole. And I think that really is a question of morality.

So I thank you very much for raising it that way.

¹ (1505)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Wendy.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Thank you very much.

I'd like to continue along that line. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral and I sit together on the disability subcommittee in Ottawa, and we have for the last year really been sounding the drum about the disability tax credit, because the federal government has in fact been doing an incredible job of targeting and really making life much more difficult for persons with disabilities. We managed to secure quite a moral decision in the House of Commons: we got a unanimous decision of the MPs in the House to have the Department of Finance lighten up, or at least pull back on, a couple of post-amendments to the disability tax credit.

I mention that because here we are looking at another extremely vulnerable population. These are people who arrive.... Claudette, it's like your story about the woman from Somalia who has arrived in the wake of her husband's death with her child, and whatever grieving she has to go through has to take place at the same time as she has to start living in sub-poverty conditions in a country of which she has no understanding. It is just beyond belief.

I don't think anyone around this table has really considered these figures the way you have laid out what it means to arrive as a sponsored refugee and then have that year of so-called support from the government, to see what it actually looks like. You know, we do have surpluses in the government, in the unemployment insurance program, huge surpluses that have been built up by persons who have been paying into it.

Also, as you pointed out very dramatically, we have money—over $1 million in interest—from the travel loans from people coming into the country. So we are making money on immigrants and then are allowing them to sink and live in incredible poverty and misery.

I would like to suggest that this committee put forward a very strong recommendation to the Minister of Finance. I would recommend—I can do this as a New Democrat; I can try to lobby the members of the committee that we make a recommendation—that the settlement programs be better funded, that the amounts of money for basic assistance be upgraded so that people can, in fact, live in some kind of stability and pay for housing at the level it is available within their community, wherever that happens to be, whether in Halifax or Vancouver.

I'm also very concerned about persons with disabilities. You mentioned people with families arriving with special needs. I would like to ask someone to address the issue of special needs. How many people are you seeing, children and adults, with special needs—families that are struggling with the basic health issues and special needs, whether they be mental or physical disabilities—and what kinds of struggles are you dealing with there? Could you answer that?

Again, I just want to thank you so much for your presentation, because it's very powerful. What you're saying is absolutely critical for this committee to hear, and it gets on the record and is brought to the attention of the government.

Thank you.

¹ (1510)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Wendy.

Anna.

Ms. Anna Gregus (Manager, Settlement Unit, Metropolitan Immigrant Settlement Association): Can I comment very briefly on the special needs?

We have people coming with physical disabilities because they went through land mines and they have injuries. We have people with mental health disabilities because of post-traumatic stress disorder issues.

I would like to point out that we have a number of single parents coming here with their partners left behind. It's extremely difficult to address these issues, because it's called the “one-year window of opportunity” to get the family members here, but these people are coming with small children they have to take care of. They have language barriers, financial difficulties, and, at the same time, they are trying to approach the immigration department ,which is basically building a brick wall in front of them. So the only channel of communication the people have is voice mail and 1-800 numbers.

I thought I'd touch on it a little. It's getting extremely difficult for people to access the information that only the immigration department can provide. It's extremely frustrating and difficult for them to deal with this.

So on top of the finances, I would really appreciate it if it could be mentioned somewhere in the brief that the communication channels between the clients, the refugees, the refugee sponsors, and the sponsors for the Canadian government should be open.

Ms. Wendy Lill: On the issue of the one-year window, where the government does support people to whatever extent they do, is that a problem? Is that something you would like to see extended? Would you like to see the responsibility of the government continued for another length of time?

I guess there's also the issue of the head tax. We continue to see that head tax being applied. Would it be applied to the woman from Somalia? Would she, in fact, have to end up paying that back a couple of months down the road? Does she start paying back that $950, or whatever it is?

Ms. Mira Musanovic: The refugees who are sponsored by the government actually are exempt from the head tax as of 2002, I believe. However, they are not exempt from paying for their transportation loan.

Coming from Kenya, for instance, in this particular case, would probably cost this woman not less than $2,000 for transportation. So I'm not sure if that's compounded with her son's transportation. It could probably come up to $3,000 or $4,000 just for transportation and medical expenses overseas.

Perhaps I could comment on the one-year window of opportunity. I don't think it's just a matter of time, that the one-year window of opportunity is too short. I've been working recently with a lot of people who come to Canada. At visa posts overseas they're told, “Go to Canada and the immigration department will help you to bring your families, and you will have them there in two or three years.” This is a story that I hear every day in my work. Well, that is not true. Some of these people are not even counselled overseas about what the one-year window of opportunity really means. Sometimes they don't even advise the visa officer that they have a wife or a husband or even a couple of children left behind.

I'm not sure if the immigration department counsels them, I hope not, but members of their community counsel them not to even mention that they are married, because it is much easier to go to Canada, say they are single, and then once they are in Canada they will get their family over. So their actual opportunity to get their wives or husbands and children through a one-year window is gone, because one of the conditions of a one-year window of opportunity is that you have to inform these officers overseas, before you arrive in Canada, that you have these family members.

It is also limited only to spouses, common-law partners, and children. Well, common-law partners and spouses mean different things for many cultures compared to western cultures. Many of these clients are married, according to some of their traditions, but they are not able to prove that they are married. They have to sometimes undergo appalling interviews, revealing some of their intimate stories in trying to prove to immigration officers whether they are married or not.

So that is one of the biggest problems that I, as a worker, am currently encountering. They have no information at all, and they miss that opportunity.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I too share the concern about the inaccessibility of the department. Those of us who are MPs know the fun of trying to get a passport through for one of our constituents. There's a 1-800 number, but when you call it, you are told to leave your name and number and they'll call back, except that they don't call back. Sometimes, as you say, it's a desperate situation, and yet there's nobody home. So that is a real concern.

But I did want to follow up--I hope no one did while I was out--Mr. Chairman, with respect to settlement service for children.

This first came to our attention when the school boards of the lower Vancouver mainland wrote a joint letter saying that they are getting a lot of children into their system who not only need to be educated, which all children do, but who need to have ESL training; but even more than that, there are a lot of socialization problems. They noted that some of them, because of cultural differences, simply have a difficult time socializing with the community of children. And more than that, as Gus pointed out, some of these children have post-traumatic stress syndrome and they need some serious personal intervention in the form of counselling and other assistance.

We, at the school boards, get money to teach children; that's it. We do not have either the resources or the money to obtain the resources to provide these other services. And the province is saying, don't look at us. And the feds are saying, don't look at us. And it's a lot of buck-passing that happens.

I assume you've noticed the same difficulties with children, not just in the school setting but in the larger societal setting. I think it would be helpful to the committee if you could comment specifically on your considered opinion on whether additional, or special, services need to be considered for these children who are newcomers to Canada.

¹ (1515)

Ms. Anna Gregus: I think, not just commenting on this, that there is lots of talking on different levels; for instance, federal and provincial governments talking, everybody talking to service providers, because we are providing some services, as a settlement agency for the children. I know school boards are also funding some services to support the children. They have school support workers. But somehow we don't know who is doing what, and maybe we need the opportunity to sit together and compare and share the resources. We don't have to just ask for more money, but use the money more effectively, whatever we are getting right now.

So there is definitely a need for special services for the children, but I'm not necessarily saying we need more money there. Maybe we should just look at what's there and how we can use it.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Better coordination.

Ms. Anna Gregus: Exactly.

Ms. Claudette Legault: Tomorrow there will be a presentation here in Halifax by the YMCA Newcomers' Centre, which has done some excellent work in the schools with school support programs, and I think they'll be addressing that issue of supports directed for that target group.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Good, we'll look for that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, I--

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I think there's one more comment there.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Go ahead, Mira.

Ms. Mira Musanovic: My comment is related maybe to more training for the health care providers, probably the family doctors, who are the first ones to see these families. Maybe they should get specific training on post-traumatic stress, how to recognize it, and on some of the issues that refugees go through when they're in a refugee camp, because those will be the people who see our clients first. They would see the children and their parents as well. So if an assessment is not done there properly, they would probably fall through the cracks and not get appropriate attention.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Mira.

I believe all of you, including Paul, who had to leave early, have made a very good case for additional funding and for looking at the need for more work in resettlement; there's no question about that. We can also look at other social factors that fall into those categories.

The longer I'm around, the more I realize that we live in a less perfect world than we would like it to be. There are many things that happen that we could call “falling through the cracks”; we can call it anything you wish.

One of the difficulties I have found as an elected person for a fair amount of time, between my municipal and federal experience—30 years—is more and more need and more and more requests for further funding, and yet general society says don't increase the funding to do those types of things. If we look at health care and the issues surrounding it, or I look at immigration and the issues surrounding it, or demands to make sure our country is safe and the issues surrounding that, we're under constant pressure to meet all kinds of needs, and possibly we don't have the means to do so.

I wish I could say to you, yes, we could provide those means. As a former teacher who spent a good portion of 25 years with special programming, I understand what you're asking for, and I understand the entire goal in trying to make our children and new Canadians more socially connected or moving forward in this country. That really is important. We don't meet the needs of everyone as we should. At the same time, these kinds of hearings and these kinds of presentations open doors for us to look beyond, in hope that in some ways we can meet some of these challenges.

I want to say thank you very much for bringing forth the issues. I happen to think that people in government, even though they may not seem to be as receptive to all of the suggestions as we would like, have limited resources to deal with them as well. Even if we talk about surpluses, we have to remember the billions of dollars of debt we have in the country too. Some balances, priorities—all of those things—are critical in dealing with issues.

The stronger your case is made—and it was made strongly today—the more the hope that we can deal with at least some of those areas. I feel badly, as you point out, Claudette, that we're dealing at a 60% level of poverty in some of these families that are coming. How can they survive? Gus, when you say we wish some of our folks had that much support, obviously you're there doing a tremendous job on the ground.

Possibly we don't have the resources, and those resources should be there if we had a perfect world. I'm not sure how we do it, but many members on the committee will struggle to try to get resources and make the exercise as fair as possible. That's really one of our goals and the reason we're here listening to you today.

I guess our next witness is unable to be here—or she won't be here until four o'clock. So we have 35 minutes. If you would like to informally discuss any further issues with committee members, you're welcome to do that.

Committee members, I'll suspend until four o'clock.

Thank you very much.

¹ (1523)

º (1601)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Sylvia, how are you today?

Ms. Sylvia Parris (President, Multicultural Association of Nova Scotia): I'm fine, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much for coming, I think all of the committee has been anticipating your presentation. We're very pleased that you've been able to come in and help us understand better your problems, the things you're facing. We very much realize that your time is very pressed and we appreciate your coming in to help us better understand the situation you face here in Halifax.

So I'm going to ask if you wouldn't mind trying to keep your presentation to about ten minutes, if you could do that. Then we'll just open the floor to questions from each of my colleagues around the table.

The floor is yours.

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Thank you very much.

I have a written brief, and what we've tried to do is to capture within this brief presentation what we think are some of the important points. I hope those will provide jumping-off points for your questioning.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): You might want to not read your written brief. If you highlight or zero in on the important points, then we can get more into it by talking about it through questions, and question period should be just talking about some of those important issues.

Ms. Sylvia Parris: I'll try to do that. Maybe it's an opportunity for me to acknowledge the bit of nervousness I have here. I really don't want to miss points, so what I'll do is try to find a compromise and read as quickly as possible.

As an African Nova Scotian woman whose grandfather came here in the late 1800s and whose father was a member of the No. 2 Construction Battalion, a black battalion, I come with a legacy of family heritage rooted in Nova Scotia. Even though my family's coming here was due to forced immigration, they were indeed immigrants.

I'm pleased to bring representations on behalf of the Multicultural Association of Nova Scotia, MANS. MANS is a provincial organization recognized as a leader in multiculturalism for the province. It addresses policy development, advocacy, and education. It seeks to influence and/or initiate the development of all relevant legislation so that it reflects multiculturalism. We operate with limited office support and the energy of our board of directors.

MANS will be making a brief comment on Bill C-18, An Act respecting Canadian Citizenship, and more substantive comments on settlement and integration.

I wish to commend the government for hosting these consultations, but caution you on the need for government to have a heightened awareness to the barriers faced by non-profit organizations as we seek to contribute.

The voluntary sector initiative attempts to articulate recognition of the value of volunteer contributions and the supports required to make that contribution a reality. The voluntary sector accord between the Government of Canada and the voluntary sector asserts the following:

The Government of Canada is accountable to all Canadians for its actions and has a responsibility to identify issues of national concern and mobilize resources to address them, establish policies and make decisions in the best interests of all Canadians.

The voluntary sector is called to:

serve as a means for the voices and views of all parts of the voluntary sector to be represented to and heard by the Government of Canada, ensuring that the full depth and diversity of the sector is reached and engaged.

Things such as lack of resource support to carry out in-depth research, constricted participation time lines, and limited access to information influence and impact the quality and depth of input. However, I'm pleased that MANS was able to mobilize and bring points for consideration.

MANS is well situated to make comments on issues relating to immigrants as it serves as a “connect” between those immigrants who have newly arrived and those who have been here over a number of generations. The uniqueness and similarities across generational and ethnic communities will inform the context of these discussions.

Turning first to Bill C-18, a speaker in the House of Commons stated that “Canada's multicultural citizenship, our multicultural heritage, is unique and has become a defining characteristic of our nation in the eyes of the world.” In fact, I recently participated in an international conference held in Edmonton that identified Canada as a global model for the reality of a multicultural state.

The bill indicates a leaning towards categorizing who is worthy to remain Canadian. Just as the immigrant Canadian--which is everyone except the aboriginal person, and I refer to those who are here for generations in that comment--is Canadian no matter what he or she does, those who become Canadians should be confident that they can remain so. The person who is charged with any of the crimes pointed out in the bill should be dealt with in the same way as we treat the “Canadians” who existed prior to Bill C-18.

Clauses 16 and 17, which speak to the revocation of citizenship, should be reconsidered and allow a requirement for an adherence to technical and legal rules of evidence. As well, the lack of access to appeal processes should be reconsidered. Along with being firm when addressing false representations, practices must be in place to assist with attainment of necessary documents. As well, instruments need to be in place to assist with highlighting alternatives to data and information gathering.

It will be interesting to clearly articulate the “values” that are alluded to in clause 28 and to bring ways of measuring and weighing these values. Certainly, citizenship commissioners will need to be able to do so.

º (1605)

The new approach to residency requirements incorporates flexibility and is one that MANS can support

On settlement and integration, immigration has always been a defining characteristic of Canada, bringing together families that have been separated, providing a safe haven for refugees, and attracting skilled workers. Canada must acknowledge in a very tangible way the needs related to orientation and integration of immigrants in a holistic manner. On this aspect I emphasize the family. We need to keep in mind that families comprise adults as well as children who all require support and services that will support their integration into Canada.

As we were preparing for this presentation, it became apparent that there was little available data on how recent school-aged young immigrants were faring in their public school education and the kinds of programming and supports available. Thus opportunities to carry out more research are advisable. However, comments from many in the multicultural community indicate that all is not well with programming and supports designated to meet the needs of immigrant youth. A barrier analysis needs to be undertaken to assess the impact of policy and funding allocations on integration.

For many of the people who come to settle in Canada, life is a constant struggle riddled with obstacles relating to language, access to employment, cultural orientation, skills recognition, racism and discrimination, family reunification, immigration status, and the establishment of support networks. This comment comes from a national settlement conference held in 2001. This research implies a need to be proactive and extensive in programming delivery and access to programming.

Currently within Nova Scotia's letter of agreement with Canada, the opportunity exists to work collaboratively to support service and program delivery. The successful settlement and integration of immigrants and their families requires real access to second-language learning supports, cultural community supports, addressing systemic and overt discrimination, and adequate resourcing for delivery and implementation.

Research supports the fact that programs providing English as a second language are an effective way to integrate newcomers into Canadian society. This again comes from a research undertaking on immigrant youth delivered in 2000.

MANS is often called upon to provide contacts and specific information on ethnic cultural groups. It has found creative ways to meet the demands of providing education to combat discrimination and racism. Of course, integration requires a feeling of safeness, security, and respect. Settlement and integration programming must recognize that reality and provide appropriate resourcing.

Youth are noted as an at-risk population. Immigrant youth are doubly at risk. Park's interviews with youth found their advice was to have programming in place in the schools. Park notes that “participants felt that efforts to promote tolerance and understanding should be focused on schools and aimed at both teachers and students”.

More than half of the recent immigrant children and young adults are unable to speak either of Canada's official languages. The author of this study goes on to say that those under the age of 15 were least likely to know either official language. They agreed that ESL classes helped them to learn the language and integrate into the overall society more quickly.

We need skilled immigrants to help fuel the future growth of the economy, particularly in rural Nova Scotia. That comment comes from the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism here in Nova Scotia, the Honourable Cecil Clarke. If we wish to attract and keep those individuals, we must offer quality services such as ESL support for their children and programs that invite them to fully integrate into the community.

Canada understands that immigration has a role to play in addressing the shortage of skilled workers. The government is committed to making it easier to bring highly skilled foreign workers and their spouses to Canada. This implies a commitment to provide services for all who have been invited.

Research following the “Canada: We All Belong” campaign indicated that Canadians felt the Government of Canada should speak out against racism and promote diversity. Certainly this direction will foster a feeling of being understood and welcomed within our culturally diverse communities.

º (1610)

Nova Scotia has many unique qualities to offer immigrants. However, the capacity to receive and sustain is affected by the resources, institutions, and structures in place to respond to their needs. Federal and provincial governments need to work together to establish and maintain identified necessary support. Integration becomes a reality when the welcoming geographic community and the new arrivals adapt in a way in which they both grow and evolve.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Sylvia. We appreciate that.

Diane, are you ready?

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Sylvia, for coming to give us this information.

You've hit on a couple of my pet themes, so I'm already really happy about this, particularly with respect to clause 21, which talks about citizenship application being denied for flagrant disregard of values underlying a free and democratic society.

I share your concerns that these values are not defined and that there is no process in place for defining them. I think the concern you raised is very much along those lines, particularly for the thousands of new Canadians who apply for citizenship every year--not new Canadians, but newcomers to Canada. It must be troubling for them to be able to know which values they're supposed to be adopting in order to make sure they qualify for citizenship. Although officials have said, well, it's only flagrant disregard for those values that would lead to denial of citizenship, it still begs the question of what those values might be. I think it's important the committee consider how much anxiety this kind of provision will generate.

What I'd really like you to talk about is the need for programming and supports designated to meet the needs of immigrant youth. We talked earlier about the fact that immigrant youth are having difficulty not just with language but with socialization, knowing how to be accepted within their new culture. I was talking with one of the other witnesses about the terrible effects on youth when they don't feel accepted and some of the strategies they then employ in order to be noticed or accepted, including membership in gangs and some of these difficult things.

I wonder if you could expand on that a little bit. What programs and supports would you like to see--in a perfect world with tonnes of money--put into place for immigrant youth?

º (1615)

Ms. Sylvia Parris: I think addressing the language piece is really important and not to be missed. And of course there's a jurisdictional question there, we understand, in terms of who has a mandate for education. But I think it's really important. If you don't have an opportunity to gain a real functional grasp of the language, then you're going to have difficulties.

The other thing the multicultural association is looking at is going directly to the youth and talking to them about what it is they need and where it should happen. I think the programming should be informed by what the youth tell us is happening within the system. For example, we're looking at a round table that looks at racism in the schools and its effect, because a number of times, particularly if you're a visible minority and new to the province, you're a more visible target in terms of having to deal with being singled out and treated inappropriately.

The discussion we've had around the board with communities is how we get beyond this dilemma. If we want to institute programming that is meant to affect youth in the immigrant category, the response we get is, okay, that education is provincial jurisdiction, so we don't have anything to do with it. If we go to the province and ask the question, we hear that immigration is a federal issue, so they have nothing to do with it. I think we really need to encourage governments to have that conversation. We can ask groups to recognize what their needs are, but how can we partner with them, non-profit groups or whatever, because it seems it's almost like a “hot potato” kind of thing, right? It just keeps getting bounced around across jurisdictions when we try to address it.

So we have this group of people, youth, who are in this kind of space that no one seems to have taken ownership for, because it crosses jurisdictions--one in terms of education and one in terms of being an immigrant. I think to address the problem we need to be able to sit around the table--and I know we have a provincial-federal committee, so there is a place to do that--and say that our goal is to address the issues that are facing the youth, so how do we go about doing that, as opposed to saying it's someone else's responsibility.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This is a small matter, but on page 3 you talked about clauses 16 and 17. Of course, revocation of citizenship is a very serious matter, and you mentioned some of the safeguards or checks and balances you would like to see in the whole process leading up to revocation. I'm particularly interested in your suggestion that there needs to be alternatives to data and information gathering. I wonder if you could just expand on what you had in mind there.

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Lots of times now, when you look at these things, we have a set way of collecting information. We would ask the person if they have this, this, and this, even when we recognize that there are difficulties, for example because of a political situation, in gathering that information. I think if we recognize that, as the institution we may be able to suggest creative, alternative ways to get that information when we understand from the research we've done that it's going to be difficult for them to attain it. Rather than saying we need their birth certificate or whatever, are there other ways we can come up with that would address the proof that the birth certificate would give us, not necessarily that document.

I'm not sure how strong an example that is, but that's what I mean about trying to find different ways of gathering information.

º (1620)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: That makes sense. It's kind of like assistance in obtaining the right documents, but also some flexibility in the standard approved and the proof that would support a particular allegation.

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Yes, because if the question is, “What do I want to know from this document?” rather than “I want this document”, there may be other ways to find that out.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: We've heard from other witnesses on this matter, but I'd be interested in your opinion, Sylvia. You talk about the need for integration and for newcomers to become fully functioning members of society as quickly as possible. In your opinion, what are the greatest barriers to that happening?

Ms. Sylvia Parris: I guess it won't be a surprise to hear me say it goes back to language again, beyond basic, social, survival-type language. That's one. But there's also a kind of philosophical thing as well. One of the things we've been talking about around our board tables is how to really evidence what we say we are. We say we're multicultural, that we're going to have Canadian multicultural day, whatever. We say that quite proudly, but how do we evidence that when, any time something happens that seems to go against this preconceived norm that we have, we address it as the other, as different?

If we really value the fact that we're a multicultural and diverse society, then every policy and everything we do has to speak in that way. It has to have thought about how it's responsive in a broad kind of way. So in terms of how we go about doing any of our business, there's a challenge at the federal and provincial levels to have all our policies that guide what we do in terms of procedures truly represent that we are a country of cultural diversity.

That's kind of the big picture. We don't question that we need to have resources in place that support people who have cultural uniqueness or language challenges. We say that's part of being a country that is multicultural. So there needs to be a kind of philosophical foundation for what we do, and then policies and how we manage policies follow, because they set our direction. We don't think about adding on or how to deal with the other.

The frame within which we set things up changes. That's not something that will happen tomorrow, but it's a direction in which we need to go. It will influence how we go about planning things and resourcing for policies and programs we put in place.

The other thing comes back to this jurisdictional question I hear often. I guess it's pretty deep in my mind in terms of conversation. We need to think about collaborating in a way to meet what the identified issues are, as opposed to only going as far as what we think is within our jurisdiction. That comes back to changing the frame for how we go about looking at and addressing things.

When we work with systemic discrimination or any kind of systemic issue, there's always a challenge to us to look of that and see how it impacts on the communities in terms of culture, gender, or whatever. We need to look at that all the time as we write and draft. Then we wouldn't be talking about what we needed to inject or add to meet this issue; we would identify that as an issue that needed to be addressed at the core of whatever policy work we were doing.

º (1625)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: On page 4 of your comments you said in the second paragraph:

...it became apparent that there is little available data on how recent school-aged young immigrants are faring regarding their public school education and the kinds of programming and supports available.

What is the relationship or mechanism you have established with the school boards and the schools in general or the associations of teachers regarding these realities of better integration of newcomers, new immigrants?

Ms. Sylvia Parris: For us, as a non-profit organization, in the way we're structured, we're comprised of ethnocultural groups. We're able to get input on an organizational level. When we get advice as an organization through a board about concerns, the way we seek to approach them is to seek grants to put forth initiatives.

For example, the Multicultural Association operates an initiative called Youth Against Racism. It's something that came from a concern by our members that their children, who are students in the schools, were facing problems of discrimination and racism. That informed us. As I mentioned earlier, we are going to be hosting a round table talking about the state of racism in schools and doing an analysis of the program. It is about two to three years old in terms of being established. Is that having any kind of impact?

As I'm sure you've heard from other groups, non-profits find creative ways to be responsive to identifying needs in terms of who is part of our organization and how we interact within the community. We don't really have a way, other than making comments, to influence what happens at a provincial level in terms of education.

As I said, when you've had some time to be in consultations, or whatever, to talk about that, what we've been faced with is trying to respond to the comment that...of a jurisdictional issue. I think this committee has a chance to take that kind of comment and see if it's appropriate to ask that there be planned discussions between federal and provincial governments around many of the needs of school-age immigrants.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Don't you have any means to get in touch with the teacher associations and the school boards at the local level?

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Yes. We would have direct connections with school boards. We would have connections with some staff within the Department of Education. We would have connections with principals. These are all resources that we would use. If this is a population that we value and, in fact, that we court to come to our country, then we should think about weighing the response to their needs at a level that goes beyond people trying to find strategic ways to get into doors and at a level that makes it part of our policy and mandate, so that it really evidences our commitment.

Yes. We can do, if you will, soft-level things and side-door things. I think there are organizations within this province doing a good job of that.

I'm suggesting that it may be appropriate to take it to another policy level, where it really does speak to the government's commitment in relation to immigration. It will recognize that an immigrant adult, who comes here under whatever category, has family and may have children. If those children need support, then is there not an assumed responsibility, an implication, that we would take that on as well?

º (1630)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, Sylvia.

You note in your report, particularly on the subject of Bill C-18, that there are only a few categories of citizens. The committee has heard from a number of witnesses and many were quite concerned about the bill's provisions respecting citizenship revocation, especially on the grounds of national security. It seems to me that Canada, a country governed by the rule of law, is allowing for the possibility, through this bill, that the appeal process will be cast aside. I'd like to hear your views on the matter. Are you especially concerned about this part of the bill, or do you see other problem areas?

[English]

Ms. Sylvia Parris: We are still speaking in terms of what we saw was a need to keep the same standards. We're talking about someone who's become a Canadian. They've gone right through all of the process. So for now, it's a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.

So in terms of a response to someone who has been a Canadian for a number of generations, I guess we're suggesting that the same, then, would be applied to a person who has recently become a Canadian. So trying to say that we use our court system, the judicial system, in a way that we would for that other Canadian is really the part that we want to try to speak to, because as people are coming up to attaining the citizenship, it seems to me there are some other checks and balances in place to address that individual who has legal issues, who commits a crime, or whatever.

The part we chose to focus on was that once you're a Canadian.... It counteracts an interpretation of it that we have classes of Canadians or categories of Canadians rather than that you are a Canadian once you've been given that privilege.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: How do you feel about the fact that, in cases where an action for the revocation of citizenship has commenced, evidence which may in fact have been obtained illegally in certain countries, may be deemed admissible here? The bill even more or less stipulates at one point that evidence not clearly recognized as evidence may be considered admissible.

Are you concerned about this fact, particularly from a human rights standpoint?

[English]

Ms. Sylvia Parris: You're saying we would accept as evidence something that we couldn't verify, right? Had I said that out loud, yes, that would be a concern.

I guess in looking at that, we would hope that our judicial system and our court system would have a mechanism for addressing that and for being clear about the facts, that would be used in a legal way. Whatever they decided was the proof of evidence, they would go through a process to do it. The question might be that if we don't feel we can do a good job on that in terms of legal issues, then there's a question around how our legal system is operating, which is not necessarily something that can be taken care of in a clause in this bill.

º (1635)

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

With respect to young persons belonging to a visible minority, have you had the feeling since September 11 that it's harder for them to integrate into the community, particularly here in Halifax? Or has nothing really changed?

[English]

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Certainly there have been incidents and things have changed in terms of how people in general communities are treated, and certainly youth as a particular population, not so much in a policy process way and structures but more in things that may happen to them in public areas, for example, in the metropolitan area here, in the hallways in the schools. Institutions have been conscious that there might be some fallout, some backlash from that, and I think they've tried to be responsive. In terms of our organization, we were called upon to do presentations, to host events, to provide information about cultural communities, to co-host events.

So there was a recognition that something may come out of this, and I think people try to be very responsive. But specifically to your question, yes, there was a backlash.

Do you know what it made us start to ask ourselves, too, in terms of how we do things? I think it comes back to a point around needing to have things more entrenched in a way that is beyond a non-profit group trying to address this. We've been doing things. We've circulated materials from the Multicultural Association of Nova Scotia. We host a fantastic festival in June--June 20 to 22, if you happen to be in Halifax--on the waterfront. So we do some really exciting things, but when that incident happened, it seemed like people went back to almost a default base, where they began saying things and doing things that I don't think we would have even guessed they would have been doing the week before.

So we ask the question, too, how deeply are we getting in, in terms of really affecting people's perceptions, really addressing the tenets of racism and discrimination?

I think it was a really important point for us. Of course, as an organization, you're only going to do so much, but I think it is one of those things that make us start to ask ourselves, should we be doing things in a different way to have a really lasting impact in terms of change, not something that is just superficial? When you're put in a pressure point, you go to your comfort zone. We saw people go to a zone that was not very pleasant. I think it's that reaction kind of thing.

So it made us start to think, is there a way for us to find out what are the other ways--“best practices” is a nice, popular term--we should start to look at things that actually have an impact that is as lasting, even in that most tense moment, as it is when everything is easygoing?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

Thanks for coming in here, Sylvia.

I've been to the multicultural festival many years. This is a wonderful festival where there is the culture, the music, and the art of all the cultural groups, immigrant groups, in our community coming together. They interface, and it's a wonderful, happy event.

So juxtapose that against the comment you made, the quote from the National Settlement Conference:

For many of the people who come to settle in Canada, life is a constant struggle, riddled with obstacles relating to language, access to employment, cultural orientation, skills recognition, racism and discrimination, family reunification, immigration status...

That is certainly what we heard this morning, and we've heard over and over, about the experience of people coming to the country.

I think you make the point that multiculturalism has to be a philosophical foundation for a country. The foundation has been rocked. It was rocked by September 11, and there has been an increase--I've seen it in my office, and I think everyone around this table has seen it--in racially and religiously motivated hatred in this country. So we have to keep on working at it, obviously. That's just the way it is.

The question is, are there specific things that you think the federal government can do right now to be really attacking and tackling those flare-ups? What can we recommend to CIC, and what should we put forward ourselves as ways of cooling down fear and various kinds of negative, destructive behaviour in terms of our multicultural presence as a nation?

º (1640)

Ms. Sylvia Parris: This is certainly an opportunity for me to say once more that I think the language piece is really important, because we hear it here so much. Somehow finding ways to support ESL learning for youth is really important.

The whole idea of starting to look at what will change things in a deeper way is probably around not being reactive to things that happen, but trying to be proactive in types of programming. In the ethnocultural communities here, people talk about being Canadian or being Nova Scotian and say it means something and that it's real.

When you ask that question and talk about that, you get different responses across the generations. You get a different response from the grandmother than from the granddaughter--and not the stereotypical response all the time. The youth more likely want to talk about the fact that they are Canadian or Nova Scotian. So you start to ask what that means.

We've heard from some of the youth we've talked to that it comes down to not so much that they actually.... When I heard that at first, I thought, oh, that's great, that's exciting. But for them it was more around their survival, of having to say they were Canadian or Nova Scotian, not even knowing exactly what it might mean to say it, but to kind of get beyond.... The way we do things, our policies, and the way we demonstrate them doesn't match what we say about who we are. So we can talk about being multicultural, but you need to do these things a certain way.

Now, all of us recognize, as I tried to say in my closing statement, that there needs to be a meshing together and evolving that recognizes a community that is welcoming and adaptive to whoever comes, and the individual being adaptive to that community. So things like looking very specifically through institutions about how institutions do practice....

We have a process now, I think it is accurate to say, where we use the gender analysis across everything we do in the federal government. We're kind of a multicultural analysis across everything we do, and that affects all Canadians. So broadening that, work out a way to have an analysis across that looks at that; work out a way to be responsive to the language learning. If we're still going to do our work in partnership with volunteer organizations and non-profit organizations, then we need to have structures in place that make that as simplistic as possible in terms of how you apply for stuff. I think we need to, as a government, think about some of the questions we want answers to and give those questions to the groups so they can go out into the communities, ask them, and get the answers.

If we really want to know what needs to happen for people to feel they're integrated and have that feeling of safety in it, that their uniqueness is both valued and respected and that they understand the values of Canada and what they mean, then we need to get out there and ask those direct questions. So as a government, we either go there directly ourselves, tapping door to door and asking those questions, or we empower organizations that we think can do a good job of that to go out and do that--and we support that happening. Then we'll be prepared to utilize those responses in a way that affects policy by changing it.

I used to say when I used to go to work at different organizations, and not in a kind of.... My mother taught me to be proud of myself and have an appropriate amount of humility, I hope. But when you go to some place, there should be some recognition that you were there; there should be some kind of impact. So if we are really about changing things, then we should see something change. We shouldn't be going at it trying to find a way to make round pegs fit into square holes.

º (1645)

If we're talking about change, we have to be willing to really think about it and take all the stuff that comes along with it. If we're going to do that, then we want to do it in an informed way. We have to go to the population, talk about what they need, and set up a structure so people feel that what they say is going to have a potential for impact, and, at the end of that process, incorporate it into the new policy direction.

So just to squeeze it in again, I think it's really about language and getting into that business. It's about putting in place structures that have the voices of multicultural diversity, and all of that span--not just visible minorities but the ethnic diversity we have here. Let's find a way to get that all enveloped in and have a structure, or whatever, that looks at all the policy stuff we do and says, oh, this must be a multicultural place.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Wendy.

A multitude of difficulties always arise when we try to deal with issues that become threatening to people. Quite frankly, sometimes there's misdirection--I would put it that way--in a lot of issues. I know that if we come into a recession or things become very difficult in the economy, many folks will come out and say we don't need to bring immigrants into the country. They'll only take our jobs away. Misdirection is a problem we all face, and I guess September 11 was a misdirection in security, and at times the pointing at refugees and immigrants in this country was wrong. That in itself created at lot of concern for a lot of us in Canada.

All that being said, your presentation was very clear. There is not the best logical decision-making when it comes to some issues with regard to immigrants and refugees in Canada. I think you pointed that out very clearly. Racism, to a degree, does still exist, as well as other problems that you deal with on the front lines every day. This committee commends you for the work you do.

Some of our bureaucrats have looked at some issues, and I'm referring to your point on page 3, which I wish I had an easy answer for. Some Canadians would have different status from others, and that is the comment--who remains a Canadian citizen and who doesn't? Maybe I could try to give a bit of an example. It may be contrary to some of my colleagues.

If a person became a doctor in Canada and didn't do it through the normal means, used other means to become a doctor--cheated on the exam or whatever--once that information was identified, would you think that doctor's licence should be removed or should it remain? You could remove it by going through a very expensive court process. I think our bureaucrats might look at that in terms of resources they don't want to spend. Whether that's the most accurate way to handle it or not, in my opinion, it does bring into question some of the things that may be perceived as fair or unfair.

I guess a similar situation is someone receiving Canadian citizenship through means that were wrong, if they lied about background history and so on. If it were a real violation against what they consider democratic principles, some of our officials are suggesting that after a period of time, if this were discovered, there would be no way to rectify it outside of a million-dollar court case, and they feel that's not the direction to go. I don't think this affects many people. From what officials have said, it's a minimum number of people who could be affected. But that is very much a point of contest with a lot of people on the committee.

Some would very strongly oppose that and some would support it. It becomes an issue. I'm not sure in that light, if someone had received citizenship in an unfair way and the only way it could be removed is through a very expensive court case, would you want to see our resources for support programs and others go to court cases? Or would you think we were short-circuiting the system too much by being tougher in that particular case?

I think that's the crux of the issue. It's money, obviously, and the best use of resources. Some would argue that's not the case, but that's what a lot of others do argue. I believe that's what the department has argued.

I just wondered what your thought is on that.

º (1650)

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Certainly if you were asking me to weigh whether I want the money to go to a justice system process or to programs and services, I would have to say, based on six pages of comments here, the programs and services.

But I would like us maybe to think about this. If we step back a little bit and talk about whether there is anything we missed in the process along the way that can make us feel more secure that we've done a good job preparing for this person to have the privilege of being Canadian, if we think we've done a very good job on that and we think we're only going to have a tiny number who are going to be an issue, then we can easily flip the other way and read it to say we do have to go through a court process because we feel very confident that we've done our job before that very well. I can see where people would have discussion on it, but I would settle on the side of the discussion that says, let's really look at what we've done in terms of process along the way, see if we've done a really good job on that, and whatever, and put as many things in place as we can, so we feel very secure about that--so secure, in fact, that we can read the process to mean that if something goes astray it'll need to go through the court system, because we feel so good about what we've done before that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Yes. I do believe we're talking about a very good system in this regard, because we're not talking about a large number of cases. We are talking about a minimum number, but because the cost has become so great in the logistic society that we have today, oftentimes action is not taken because of resources. This is where part of that problem lies.

What is right or wrong is to be determined by everyone who's putting their input in. There is a balance that's required, and we're seeking the best solution. I was just looking for your thought on that.

Thank you very much. I really do appreciate what you presented. Everybody today has made a very good case for proceeding with more dollars to settlement, and to helping immigrants develop better opportunities here in Canada, and certainly making sure we meet those needs better than we do. I don't think anyone around the table believes we meet the needs as well as we should. There is a debate on several of the issues that we have, that obviously there are limitations to what we are doing.

And this process is helpful for us. When we're out looking at people like you and listening to your testimonies, it helps us better understand the impact of any decision we make on the lives of hundreds of people. We do appreciate your coming in and helping us with that direction.

So thank you very much, Sylvia. We do appreciate it. Your comments will certainly be considered very carefully when the committee sits down and looks at our final report.

º (1655)

Ms. Sylvia Parris: Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Is everybody else okay?

We are probably going to wrap. I was told earlier, before we started the afternoon session, that although all of us may not have weather reports about what is happening, it appears that Newfoundland may be coming under another snowstorm attack. That may affect our travel plans tomorrow. We don't know yet. We'll have to keep a close eye on where we are tomorrow. Hearings may have to be moved up a little bit, or we may have to stay here one extra night, or something. The staff is working on that to make sure things go as well as possible.

This meeting is adjourned.