[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 28, 1995
.0915 
[English]
The Chair: The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will begin with a reduced quorum. We may as well put it on the record.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing with our study on settlement renewal, which we began last spring.
.0920
We have the pleasure of having with us today from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Georges Tsaï, assistant deputy minister, partnerships; Agnès Jaouich, director general, integration; and David Neuman, national director, settlement renewal. Welcome.
Mr. Tsaï has offered to give us a small briefing on the changes in the department before we actually get into the settlement. If I have no objections from the members present, we will begin with that. Thank you.
Good morning. Please proceed.
Mr. Georges Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, Partnerships, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
Last June, we had the opportunity to appear before this committee to tell you about the renewal of the settlement program that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration had initiated. We're happy to be here today to give you a progress report.
[English]
With your permission, Madam Chair, and as indicated, I would like to start with a few comments and a very brief description of the recent changes introduced in our department. Since yesterday we have a new deputy minister. Her name is Janice Cochrane. She used to be associate deputy minister in Environment Canada. As you probably all know, our former deputy minister,Mr. Peter Harder, is now secretary of the Treasury Board.
Two weeks ago on November 15, Mr. Harder released the new management structure of the department. There are some significant changes, and without taking too much of your time, we'd like to try to capture the essence of the changes.
The important aspect of the change is that we are going to introduce the service line management concept in our organization, which will support a delivery network composed of three regions. This would include the five regional offices that already existed, an international region and a departmental delivery network, which will be in charge of the case processing centres and other units that provide a service to our customers in a centralized fashion from a certain number of limited offices.
This first line of units that will provide the services to the clients will be supported by four service lines. The four service lines we have retained are: selection, integration - and we haveMrs. Agnès Jaouich with us, who is the new DG for integration - enforcement and refugees. The four selection lines will provide to the field the necessary functional direction to allow them to provide the services.
What we are also trying to achieve through this organization is to have a better integration of policy and operations by equipping the service line units with the necessary resources to develop the operational policies that are necessary to the conduct of our business.
Then at another layer, in order to support both the delivery network and the service lines, we have the corporate support. There we have units in addition to, of course, human resources, finance, IT, public affairs, ministerial and executive services. We also have case management, which will be situated there, and also strategic policy and planning, which will deal with the big-ticket items in terms of policy. That group will support the rest of the organization.
.0925
I will say just a quick word about the ADMs. There have been some changes. We used to have four ADMs. That has been reduced to two assistant deputy ministers. They are not line any more. They don't have line authority within the organization, but they'll be expected to play a leadership role in terms of promoting the internal coherence on the one hand. The assistant deputy minister for operations is my colleague Raphael Girard.
On the other hand, I am the ADM for partnerships and I will ensure that the department is relevant to the outside world and that the views of the outside world are really taken into account in how we do our business.
These are some fundamental changes in terms of the way we'll be conducting our business in the future. Of course, the challenge will be to ensure that there is a very solid teamwork approach and that the larger management group with all of the DGs, who will be at the management committee table, integrates all the views and interests in a unified fashion.
We are all quite excited about the new model. That model will also allow the department to meet some of its financial and budgetary commitments. As the committee knows very well, for 1997-98, as result of program review, in phase one the department has committed itself to a $54 million reduction. The the most recent headquarters reconfiguration/renewal will generate a reduction in savings of approximately $23 million.
If there are any questions or comments later on we would be very happy to discuss this new organization, but we are here to discuss settlement renewal. Since our meeting in June, work has been done and you have today on your desks a document produced as a result of the initial series of consultations in cooperation with the provinces. It will be used for broader consultations.
An important element in the documentation is that it identifies very clearly the five issues to be discussed with the various groups that will be consulted. If you remember, in June we mostly discussed three issues. We had the accountability issue, which was clearly on the table. We had the issue of the enduring federal role. We also had the issue of how the settlement programs will be administered and delivered in the future.
We have identified two additional issues that are part of the package. The first one is the issue of national principles, with a possibility down the road of discussing national standards. The second is the issue of the refugee obligations and the humanitarian commitments.
There are some new members on your committee. Last time we described our programs, but even within the confines of this room - or outside - we are available to brief the committee or any members of the committee on our programs. I'm sure that Madame Agnès Jaouich will be very happy to do that.
Maybe Mr. David Neuman could now tell us how busy he has been since June -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Tsaï: - and what the results of his work are.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Neuman.
Mr. David Neuman (National Director, Settlement Renewal, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much. I'd like to thank you for having us here to provide this update. I understand that you'll be continuing your hearings shortly. Hopefully this will be useful to you.
I'll give you a reminder of what we're talking about here. As described in the materials you've received, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has decided to withdraw from the direct administration of settlement services and funds. What that means is the federal government will continue to provide funding for immigrant settlement services, but it will no longer be directly involved in the administration of those funds or in the delivery of those services.
.0930
Since we met you've had some hearings, and I've been travelling across the country meeting with many of the people and groups involved in newcomer settlement and integration. They have clearly expressed a desire to have more opportunity to talk about this aspect of the immigration program and they seek the opportunity to influence what will happen. Our minister has made a commitment to them that, as is the case with the rest of the immigration program, we will consult on the impact of any changes to the program and on how they can best be implemented.
What we're looking for now - and we've had discussions with all jurisdictions - is to develop a new administrative system - which may not be new. We'd hopefully like to piggyback onto existing administrative systems that exist in provinces or with large umbrella organizations or organizations involved. We would like to see communities more involved in the decision-making process and the priority-setting process around the integration services available in those communities.
We want to have more flexibility in the services that are provided. We'd like to move away from the existing federal program parameters that say this is the only thing you can do, it doesn't matter that it's not what's needed. We don't think the decisions on how much money should be spent on each of these elements should be decided here in Ottawa. Each community should determine how much of the money should go for whatever services would be most suitable in their community.
We hope this will demonstrate clearly to the taxpayer that these moneys are being well spent. We'll do that at the same time as we introduce simpler accountability requirements and more meaningful performance measures so we can ensure the results we want, which are the rapid integration of newcomers to Canada, are achieved.
What we're doing now is we're into a three-stage process that involves a consultation phase, followed by negotiations and implementation. Our direction is that we are to have this process completed completely by April 1, 1998.
We're in the consultation process right now. We've issued this document. We were asked to provide more specific guidance and to foster discussion around these issues. We prepared these documents with that in mind.
In each province except Quebec, where this does not apply, consultations have been set up with groups. In some provinces the provincial governments are taking an active role. In others it is less so. I'll give you a province-by-province rundown in a few minutes. Our timeframes are very tight, but in order to achieve this objective, we'd like to have the consultations concluded before the summer, so we can develop some proposals and negotiating parameters to begin negotiating with our potential partners.
We are taking steps to involve a very broad cross-section of society: all the groups we think have an interest in this, not only those who receive money from the program. We'd like to involve other groups - and we've succeeded so far - in including school boards, the police, libraries, all groups in society that provide services to newcomers.
We're looking forward to receiving your report. We're looking forward to getting some guidance, as we said last time we were here, on what would be acceptable, from Parliament's perspective, in accountability for the federal money that's being spent and the role we expect to play in communities. In either late spring or early summer we'll share with you the results of the extensive discussions we're holding with these groups across the country.
.0935
As for where we are across the country, in Atlantic Canada the provincial governments are really not in a position to take an active role in this, or so they relate to us, but they're all interested in the process and they will all be participating in the consultations, in essence as observers. So they'll be sitting in. We're scheduling our activities so the provinces can participate in that way.
In Ontario the provincial government has not indicated they are ready at this time, given everything else that's on their agenda, to take an active role in this process, but we have structured the process in Ontario to allow provincial officials to participate in consultations being held across the province. They've indicated they want to do so, but they're not in a position to make any sort of commitment as to provincial participation in the process. We are encouraging them to do so, because we think it's in the interest of taxpayers for the two levels of government to work together on this so we don't have duplicate systems for a whole range of things we're involved in.
In the meantime we're moving ahead. A number of other organizations in Ontario have expressed an interest in working with us, including municipal levels of government and others. We are working with them so that if we can't have the provincial system do this, then perhaps other levels of government will.
So far the province has not indicated they're opposed to this. We're hoping we can do this in a way that we'll have provincial support and cooperation throughout the process.
In Manitoba we do have a partnership with the province, and the consultation process is a joint one. The provincial government is quite interested in entering into arrangements with us so we can do immigrant settlement programs jointly with them.
The same applies in B.C. The consultation process in B.C. is also a joint one, and we're hopeful that we will be able to have agreements with those two provinces.
In Alberta and Saskatchewan the provinces are involved fairly actively in the consultations with us, although they're not indicating at this point whether they'll want to be involved later on in jointly administering this. We're looking at other intermediaries in those provinces who would be prepared to be involved in the administration of these programs.
The five issues we structured for these consultations are based on discussions we've had with the major national immigration groups, including the Canadian Council for Refugees and the largest immigrant organization in Canada, which is the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, OCASI. We've talked to some others that specialize in this area, such as the YMCA. We've broken it down into five areas.
With respect to national principles, a number of organizations are seeking from the federal government a declaration of national principles that should govern the use of this money. So we're asking whether there should be national principles, how much of a consensus there is, and if there is, what they should be. If there are national principles, we will then, as Georges indicated, seek to see whether those national principles suggest we should have national standards as well.
We're asking people to give us advice on the question of accountability. We're trying to sensitize these groups to the fact that if we are going to be spending a fair amount of money, then Parliament wants to know what this money is being spent on and what the results are to ensure that this money is being put to effective use. So we're asking how we can learn more about the results of our investments in settlement and ensure that there is effective, efficient and responsible use of public funds in this regard, especially if we do away with the current delivery system, which has a large number of audits and visits to projects, etc.
We're also looking at the question of service delivery for refugees. A large segment of the federal spending in this area goes towards refugees. We've always felt we have a greater obligation towards government-sponsored refugees.
Among the things we offer them are things such as income support for the first year they're in Canada. We're looking at how the income support and some of the other services offered to these people can be better coordinated or delivered with existing services, perhaps those offered by provinces, and how services to refugees we resettle here can be improved. In the longer term, how should Canada's refugee programs be managed, given the changes we're implementing to our own delivery system?
.0940
We're looking at the enduring federal role. What's clear is that the nature of the services that will be available across the country is unlikely to be the same. The numbers of immigrants in communities, the mix of immigrants and their needs are really quite different. The infrastructures available across the country are quite different. So we're asking whether the federal role can be different in different areas. Beyond providing money, how can the Canada Immigration Centres and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration be involved in newcomer integration in communities across the country?
Finally, given the fact that we will conceivably have different arrangements across the country, what types of arrangements would be most suitable in different areas? We've done and circulated a study that contains information on models for delivery of social types of services that involve community decision-making or priority-setting, models from around the world - from Europe, Australia, New Zealand and the United States - and from across Canada. Hopefully communities, as they have these discussions, will look at these things to see what they can learn and what might apply in their own communities that will help them to make better decisions about the types of arrangements that would work best in their own communities.
These are complex issues that require a lot of thought and discussion. A number of people have told us they think we're moving too quickly. We think we're moving at a reasonable pace and that unless we do maintain some kind of pace, it will be more difficult to resolve the issue.
We're counting on the participation of all of our partners as we try to build partnerships. We're confident we will have that participation, and we look forward to continuing this process and to concluding it.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Neuman.
Just for the record, we do have a quorum now. It's a little delayed, but I did say it earlier.
Did you want to add anything, Mrs. Jaouich?
Ms Agnès Jaouich (Director General, Integration, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): If it would be of use to the members, I can describe the programs as they exist now.
The Chair: Certainly. I think it's necessary. Go ahead.
[Translation]
Ms Jaouich: As my colleague David Neuman was saying, the settlement programs are meant to facilitate the initial transition period by helping immigrants access services provided to all Canadians, contribute fully to the Canadian society and follow the law.
Moreover, settlement programs and services help Canadians accept immigrants more readily. My responsibility right now is to manage those programs. There are four in this transition stage. As long as the renewal is not completed, we will provide thoses services to every immigrant and refugee arriving in Canada.
[English]
The current settlement programs are delivered by Citizenship and Immigration in four regions, covering nine provinces, except Quebec. As David Neuman also indicated earlier, in Quebec the programs are covered under the Canada-Quebec accord.
The four programs are as follows.
First is the immigrant settlement adaptation program. Through 160 SPOs, special program organizations, we are providing funds to non-profit organizations and educational institutions at the community level to deliver essential services directly to newcomers. This is done through a negotiation of agreements with different organizations. These services include reception, orientation, translation, interpretation, referral to other community resources, professional counselling, general information and employment-related services such as job-finding help.
Second is the language instruction for newcomers to Canada. Through about 300 SPOs across the country, we provide basic language training in one of Canada's official languages to adult immigrants to facilitate their social, cultural, economic and political integration into Canada as quickly as possible. LINC funds educational institutions, community-based organizations, businesses and provincial, territorial or municipal governments that provide the service. There are also individuals who provide some components of LINC.
.0945
One of the key aspects of LINC is a consultation process to involve local and regional stakeholders in the development of language training strategies.
The third program is called HOST. It's one of our smaller programs. Through about 30 SPOs, we fund not-for-profit organizations and educational institutions to recruit, train and monitor volunteers, both individuals and groups, who help newcomers adapt, settle and integrate into Canadian society.
The adjustment assistance program provides financial assistance to government-assisted refugees. This assistance includes the cost of accommodation, living expenses, necessary clothing and basic household articles, and is provided for up to one year after arrival or until the refugee becomes self-supporting, whichever comes first.
Government-assisted refugees are met at ports of entry, provided with applications for medical insurance, assistance in arranging for onward transportation, transfer, interpretation of employment records, and so on, and referred to some of the other programs that I described earlier.
This gives you a bit of an overview on the four programs we now administer, which means that through our regional offices we sit down with each one of those organizations to negotiate contracts, which is what we're trying to get out of.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Tsaï, do you want to add anything? No.
Thank you very much, and without any delay I'll begin with Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): It's difficult to find any questions to ask on this.
Regarding these brochures with the information that you have provided, where are you going to circulate them? How are you going to make them available and to whom?
Mr. Neuman: We have formal immigration staff in all of the regions set up settlement renewal teams. In most provinces, it's one person and they're part of the national settlement renewal team.
In planning these consultations, we have identified organizations we think should be involved. That includes everybody who is currently receiving funding through the programs. We're doing it by sector, and we've identified sectors that are currently not funded but we think have an interest and have expressed an interest in this area - things like social planning councils, police, and other areas. I think there's a list in there of the types of organizations we are consulting. We have also noted where in travelling out around the country there is interest.
So we have a list, and based on that list there are about 20,000 people and organizations who are interested. I'm quite surprised at the large numbers of people who are interested.
I went last week and spoke to an organization called TESL, Teachers of English as a Second Language. There were hundreds of language teachers who teach immigrants and who are interested in what's going to happen here. All of these people would like to know something about it, which is why we prepared the material. Because of the broad cross-section, we tried to make it as understandable as possible. It's not thick. It's not wordy. We tried to make it as explicit and as clear as possible because of the broad interest that seems to be out there on this issue.
Ms Meredith: In your discussions with the provinces, do you find that one of the reasons they might be resistant to getting involved in the resettlement programs or taking more control over them is a fear that the dollars are going to be removed and that they're going to be left not only having to run the programs but having to fund them as well? Do you find that might be one of the reasons?
Mr. Neuman: A number of people have expressed that view. But we counter with the fact that the government or our minister has made a commitment to maintain stable funding at least for three years from the last budget. When you look at what's going on everywhere else, that's a fairly unique commitment. We reiterate this commitment and the government's commitment to support newcomers who come to Canada, especially government-sponsored and refugees. When you look at what other governments are doing, we are probably the most stable funders, and the reception that we have had has actually been quite good.
.0950
I think a lot of immigrant groups are feeling abandoned by others who are supporting, or are feeling threatened because other sources of money are drying up and it's harder to raise money from the general public. Those agencies that are funded by the United Way are facing cuts. Certainly in some provinces, and most notably in Ontario, a large chunk of the money that the provincial government was providing for immigrant services has been withdrawn, and that's where the largest number of immigrants are. So those groups are even more dependent on those remaining sources of funding.
We're trying to make people recognize that no money from governments is guaranteed or stable for any lengthy period of time, but there's more stability here than there is in other areas. We hope people will appreciate that.
Ms Meredith: For the provinces that are reluctant to get into an official partnership type of agreement, do you foresee bypassing them to place the funding in the hands of organizations without provincial involvement?
Mr. Neuman: Outside of Ontario, the provinces have not been willing to focus on this right now because they have other priorities. While they have not made a commitment to enter into any agreements, all of the other provinces are interested in working with us.
We've been focusing on the common interests that we have in this area. For instance, we have a system in place that provides income support cheques to government-sponsored refugees. They amount to about $45 million a year, and those cheques go out in amounts of a few hundred dollars a cheque. They're all done manually. Why couldn't we tap into either provincial or municipal welfare systems that have systems in place, ones that are automated and that are much more cost-effective, to provide that support? We would be prepared to enter into agreements to provide guarantees that we would reimburse or cover the costs of doing these types of things. We think it's in the taxpayers' interest to do that kind of thing.
When we get into the negotiating phase in discussing this with provinces, I think we will probably have to satisfy these people that there are some guarantees. We are, however, satisfied that we will be able to demonstrate that it's in everybody's interest that things be done this way, that we eliminate whatever duplication exists and piggyback onto these things. We think it's in everybody's interest for this to happen.
Ms Meredith: Is this an area where eventually it should be phased out? I would suggest the federal government really has an obligation to financially support refugees who are sponsored by the federal government. Perhaps the obligation or responsibility for those government-sponsored refugees will be more intense and longer-term as the time goes on. Do you not feel it's perhaps time to start looking at downsizing some of the costs of resettlement to the sponsors who have, in sponsoring either the immigrant or the refugee, made a commitment to take on some of these obligations, these resettlement issues?
Mr. Tsaï: If I may add something on that last issue, Madam Chair, there are several types of arrangements for refugee sponsorship. In some cases, as Mr. Neuman has indicated, we have government-sponsored refugees, but we also have refugees who are sponsored by private citizens or groups.
In the context of the situation of the former Yugoslavia, we have developed a partnership with various groups whereby the sponsorship is shared between the private groups and the government on a 3:9 basis, with the private groups sponsoring part of the commitment. So there are various ways of handling that situation.
With respect to the settlement services, we are open. What we said in June was that we wouldn't have the one-size-fits-everybody approach. We therefore have to really determine, with each of the jurisdictions and with each of the partners, how we will be able to develop sustainable and affordable mechanisms. There is no intent to bypass provinces. It's just a matter of discussing those things with those provinces that are prepared to discuss with us. And if we discuss this with other groups, the provinces will of course be in the picture.
Ms Meredith: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Clancy.
.0955
Ms Clancy (Halifax): I wanted to ask a question about settlement of government-sponsored refugees, the pre-arrival settlement costs, certain settlement projects that are undertaken overseas. This doesn't come under what we're looking at here, does it?
Mr. Neuman: It does in that it's the same money. It's part of the package.
In looking at the enduring federal role and national principles, we will be looking at the extent to which we should, or could, provide some of this assistance before people come here. We do purchase language training abroad and we do spend money...we have a contract with the IOM, which is the International Organization for Migration, to provide travel and transportation assistance and make arrangements for people before they come here.
Agnès knows more about this.
Ms Jaouich: To some extent.
There is, as you say, a program. Because refugees' needs are a little more unique, we're looking at that.
Ms Clancy: I visited one of our projects like this in Pakistan and I was really impressed. I saw young refugee women who had been illiterate in their own language and who were reading and writing and extremely articulate in English after.... How long is the course?
Ms Jaouich: It depends.
Mr. Neuman: It varies by the individual.
Ms Clancy: But certainly it was no more than nine months. I was absolutely blown away by the kind of value we're getting for our dollars.
I'm hoping this will continue to be.... I'm so keen on this project in Rawalpindi that you might see me moving there. I doubt it. I just think this is really something that works incredibly well.
How many of these projects would there be?
Ms Jaouich: I wouldn't be able to describe them. I'm sorry. I can provide you the information. But this is one of the elements that will be looked at as part of the federal enduring role.
Ms Clancy: That's the answer I was looking for.
Ms Jaouich: This is something the federal government does. It's something that should continue to be done at the central level, because it deals with overseas contracts. As we are going through the consultations and the development of settlement renewal, this is very much an element we have to consider.
Ms Clancy: It would also seem to me those refugees that have the benefit of this kind of program clearly are going to integrate a lot more quickly when they get here. That may be so self-evident it doesn't bear repeating, but I find very few things don't bear repeating.
Ms Jaouich: There's also an element of cost, because sometimes it costs less to train abroad.
Ms Clancy: I actually was almost embarrassed when I found out exactly what it did cost over there, as compared with what it costs here. It's certainly cost-effective from our point of view.
The Chair: Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): Good morning. Thank you for coming.
I just want to continue on this line of thought, because I spent twenty years in this field with multicultural groups, and I have been advocating for twenty years. We told the minister, when he asked us to give him some advice, that we should in fact have programs abroad that impose the learning of the language whenever and wherever possible. It's so much easier. They have to wait for a visa anyway, they have to wait to come over, so why not get them...?
I remember when I came over in 1966, I already had English and French. If I had not had it, it would have been dreadful. It would have been terrible. It was difficult enough to integrate with the language. It would have been terrible if I did not have the language.
It would be very helpful for people to be able to come and already understand what's going on in the country.
I want to say this looks good. Thank you. It's impressive.
You are consulting across the country, are you?
Mr. Neuman: Yes.
.1000
Mrs. Terrana: I have AMSSA in in my riding of Vancouver, British Columbia. I was also on its board at one point, so its officials, of course, keep coming back to me. I met with some of them the other day and there is a lot of concern and skepticism about what's going to happen. There is also fear, of course.
The major concern they have is what to put in place. They want the consultation at the community level, at the grassroots level. They feel there's always a conflict of interest no matter who is on that committee to consult.
When we were going across the country I recommended looking at an organization with a national flavour, such as the United Way or the YMCA, that does that work and is already doing other work. This is just an idea, but have you ever thought of that?
Mr. Neuman: We've talked to the YMCA and I've met with the representatives of the United Way and other organizations as well. I think one organization that made a brief to you was the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. We'll look at that and we'll be looking at advice from you.
Some people have said replacing the federal government in Ottawa with another national organization will not resolve the issue of local communities making decisions on local concerns.
We're looking to give them flexibility. The concerns that have been raised by AMSSA - and in fact I met with John Borst two weeks ago - are quite valid. Those are the ones we're consulting on. How do you reconcile competing interests and competing views at the local level when you're making decisions on funding?
I've talked to colleagues in Quebec where this program has already been decentralized. We're looking at other areas and there are models where this does work and where structures are in place to reconcile competing priorities and interests.
We also hope that in the parameters involved in the transfer of this money to whoever the new agent is, we would establish conditions to ensure certain things. We could say, conceivably, that refugees will get first priority for the money that's available, and there has to be a reception service at the airport for newcomers when they arrive in the country. We could establish priorities for the use of this.
There are ways of doing this, and we're consulting on what the best ways would be. The key is to ensure that those services are geared to the local requirements. In a city like Vancouver or Toronto, there has to be a reception service at the airport. In Regina that may not be a requirement.
The Chair: Mr. Tsaï, do you wish to add anything?
Mr. Tsaï: Yes, I would just like to comment on the issue of possible conflicts of interest arising from the new way of delivering this.
This is an issue we have identified very clearly that is included in the documentation. People will be consulted. I think there are ways of addressing this issue in a very satisfactory manner by being transparent, by having some sound principles, and also by using some of the usual techniques of people withdrawing from some discussions or declaring an interest, and establishing the necessary Chinese walls around certain people when there are decisions to be made.
That's an important issue if we want to maintain the credibility of the new system.
Mrs. Terrana: At the same time, they have a lot of concern about giving everything to the provincial governments. There have been some problems in the area of education, and the accountability comes into being.
The idea of national standards is very good. I don't know to what extent we can implement it if we give out our responsibilities, but if there is a way we should definitely do it to make sure that -
Mr. Neuman: We had federal-provincial meetings on November 7 and November 8, and the provinces are quite supportive of national principles in this area.
Mrs. Terrana: The last question has to do with British Columbia. At what stage are you? I know there have been a lot of discussions with British Columbia to come to some undertaking and understanding.
Mr. Neuman: We're probably more advanced with British Columbia than with any other province. The province is interested, and we've organized the consultations jointly with it.
.1005
The first report came out of the first round of consultations. I think the province was attempting to gauge the interest these groups would have in the province in taking a greater role. The province is wrestling right now with what that role might be.
We're now into a second round of consultations in British Columbia. Based on the outcome of these consultations, the province wants to see what the national principles will be, whether it will be able to live with them, and to what extent. What type of accountability will the federal government be asking for?
The B.C. government, I think, is ready to take a very active role, but it's waiting until we tell it what our bottom lines are going to be. So it's continuing the consultations with the groups.
I think the consultations in B.C. are now trying to achieve an element of consensus among the groups that will be affected, as to what a useful role for the federal government would be, and what a useful role for the provincial government might be.
Mrs. Terrana: Is it consulting with those groups now?
Mr. Neuman: Yes, it is.
Mrs. Terrana: Which department are you dealing with in British Columbia?
Mr. Neuman: Citizenship.
Mrs. Terrana: It doesn't have a department....
Mr. Neuman: There's a minister responsible for citizenship in B.C.
The Chair: You can come back for the information, Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana: About the last thing you said, Mary suggested asking the YWCA, which in Vancouver is stronger and much more powerful - sorry - than the YMCA.
Ms Clancy: That's true.
Mrs. Terrana: It has done an incredible amount of very good work for women. So from a feminist point of view we want to add the YWCA, especially because we know the majority of refugees are women and children.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Neuman: I believe it's involved in the language training.
Ms Clancy: It is. If I could just jump in, I meant to say this before and I'm so glad Mrs. Terrana brought it up. In the whole area of partnerships, the YWCA has a long history in related areas - education, advocacy, settlement, etc. The fact that my best friend in the whole world is the past president of the national YWCA has nothing to do with this.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Clancy: But I know it's a good organization.
Mrs. Terrana: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I'm very pleased with the kind of philosophy that's emerging in your proposals. A gentle breeze of change is being presented instead of a hurricane. I'm so pleased you're taking time, it's going to be extended over a period of years, and the change is going to be initiated and directed by the needs of each and every community, and groups within the communities. To me this is truly democracy in action.
Of course, controls will be imposed upon whatever is going to emerge, simply because of the holy dollar - how many dollars will be available for the kind of things that are emerging from communities in terms of needs that are identified and services that must be provided.
I have no problem with your model, except the whole area of accountability. That is the question of who's going to become involved, which we are talking about already, and whether it should be profit groups or non-profit groups. Since companies are going to have control over the dollars, can they set up a national system of franchised service agencies or whatever? There is the whole question of evaluation and accountability.
I'm worried that eventually, over a period of time, the variables that are going to be looked at for making decisions will be so rigid - as they usually are with government bureaucracies - that we will lose a great number of people, and many people will no longer have access to the services simply because of the variables involved.
Will you be considering regional needs, individual needs, and all the different variables that come into the picture when making a decision regarding accountability? I can think of communities that have a certain personality, and as a result the variables that are going to be used for evaluating in that community might be contrary to the ones you, in Ottawa, might consider to be valid and acceptable. There are so many problems here. This whole area of accountability is fraught with problems.
.1010
Mr. Tsaï: Madam Chair, the member is raising some very interesting issues. Consider the fact that we are not going ahead with a hurricane, but there is a gentle breeze. I think we indicated very clearly in June that we didn't have a preconceived agenda. We really wanted to consult to see how this renewal initiative could develop in the interests of the client and the persons involved, and in the interests of the country.
The issue of accountability is very difficult. In the future, when this government or other governments and other public services will start with enhanced partnerships, this is an issue we will have to address in a very careful manner. We don't want to have a universal straitjacket, but on the other hand, I'm sure Parliament will want to make sure the moneys that have been earmarked and approved for a specific purpose really do produce the expected results.
I think you will see more and more accountability based more on the results achieved than on how many people have really gone through a specific program. That's an important piece of information, but not as important as whether or not these people have really achieved a certain level of integration or knowledge.
Our hope is that through the last stages of this consultation process we'll be able to identify the proper accountability tools we need. To tell you the truth, Madam Chair, we also rely on this committee to guide us in this area because of your unique experience in that field.
We don't want to have a very fuzzy accountability that, at the end of the day, could really go against the interests of the program, because people would lose confidence. On the other hand, we don't want to impose rules that are too detailed such that they would paralyse people and make the delivery of the program very difficult.
Mr. Neuman: I agree with everything you said. We're looking for new ways of accountability here.
At the present time, just to give you some examples, we check all the bills on which people claim they spent money in seeking reimbursement from us. For example, if they spent $5 for photocopying, it has to be there. If they took a taxi somewhere, it has to be there in receipts, and this type of thing.
Most of the organization we deal with, such as the Y, community organizations and cultural associations, are audited by certified accountants. We deal with provincial governments and school boards. These are public institutions responsible to their taxpayers, yet we do our own audits of these organizations. We send in officials to look at their books and talk to them about how they're keeping their records, etc.
I'm not sure this is necessary. It is a form of duplication. Some see it as a form of harassment.
So we're looking at a new system that will do away with this. If we're transferring money to a provincial government, why would we ask them to send us bills? If we're asking them what they can do for these people and if they show us they've done that, then it's money well spent. We'll have standards in terms of how much it should cost to do this, or this is a reasonable amount of money for us to spend on it.
We're looking at that type of arrangement. We had, as a matter of fact, been trying to develop an automated system to provide us with all kinds of information. It was very difficult and unpopular. It wasn't working properly. As a sign of good faith to the community, we put it on hold. We said we should stop for now.
We're looking at new ways of accountability. Let's hear what the standing committee reports to us. Let's hear what we get in terms of ideas from these consultations. Then we'll implement a new system that is considerably less burdensome than the one we have now.
Mr. Dromisky: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Thank you very much.
I'd like to comment that there's no opposition at this meeting, so we can be free to defend the government.
.1015
Three months ago, toward the end of the summer, I had the pleasure of going to a few LINC centres in North York. They were quite concerned with the cutbacks and what will happen to their programs and what have you. I tried to explain to them that the $975 landing fee will take a big portion of our settlement program.
Still, they were concerned with the cutbacks, and they weren't sure what the future holds for them. They were not only concerned for the services they provide, but also for the staff who work there.
Can you elaborate on that? Maybe you did that in the past, but I wasn't here.
Mr. Neuman: Having read the transcripts of your hearings and having met with a lot of these groups over the summer and fall, I'm sure there is a lot of fear out there. There is a perception of cutbacks when in fact there have not been cutbacks. We have not reduced and we are not planning to reduce the amount of money we're spending either on language training or on other immigrant settlement services.
The cutbacks they are talking about in Ontario are cutbacks that the provincial government has made. Perhaps other agencies or organizations have made cutbacks. We have not cut back.
What they're probably worried about is what is going to happen. Right now they are getting their money through the Canadian immigration centres. They have settlement officers who come to meet with them and look at their books.
On the one hand, they complain about these people who come to look at their books. On the other hand, they are complaining now about what happens if these guys don't come to look at their books. Does this mean they won't get any money?
We are looking at new arrangements, but we're not really talking about cutbacks here.
Mr. Assadourian: There no cutbacks for sure?
Mr. Neuman: There are no cutbacks. In fact, in Ontario, with any money that is freed up, we're trying to move into Toronto, where there are large numbers of immigrants.
Mr. Assadourian: I have another question. I don't know if you have the answer. How many people overall work in the settlement program in this country?
Mr. Neuman: There are about 250 in the nine provinces and the territories.
Ms Jaouich: Yes, it's between 250 and 300, depending on how you count.
Mr. Neuman: It's how you count.
Mr. Assadourian: They are paid by the federal government.
Mr. Neuman: They are employees of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Collins.
Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Thank you very much. I am pleased to have you here this morning.
When you went through your presentation, you were going pretty fast. I apologize. I kind of missed some of the details, particularly when you talked about funds and services. I wasn't too sure what you said after that.
In reference to funds and services, what were you identifying there? It was early on in your presentation.
Mr. Neuman: Settlement renewal implies that the federal government is withdrawing from the direct delivery of services to immigrants, but we are not withdrawing funding. We will continue to fund these activities and services, but we will not provide the services directly.
I'll give you an example. At the present time, we receive applications from organizations that wish to provide counselling services for immigrants, reception services for newcomers to Canada at the airport, or language training to newcomers. They provide their applications to us. We have project officers who go out to meet with them and negotiate the terms of these various agreements. Then, on an ongoing basis, they visit projects, give out cheques, and check out things to make sure everything is working fine, etc. These same organizations are often, as I said, visited, funded and audited by other organizations.
We have a system now whereby budgets for these four programs that Agnès described are established in Ottawa. Those budgets are divided up among the four programs in Ottawa and transferred out to our regional offices, which then divide up the money. In some instances they divide it up by geographic areas. Some are administered in a regional office for the province.
They get applications, which are vetted at the local level. They go up, but the funding decisions and decisions on how much money gets spent on training and counselling are all done centrally.
We're proposing to put this money into a block and transfer it to a jurisdiction on the basis of a formula that takes into account immigrant flows, the nature of the immigration to a community, how many of them already have a language, how many are refugees, etc. A local body would get that money. It could be a local body administered by the province or it could be a community organization.
That body would determine what services are required in that community. It could include those things that we are doing now, but it could conceivably, as a result of these consultations perhaps, include other things that we don't currently fund, but which the community thinks would be useful in helping immigrants to get integrated better.
.1020
Mr. Collins: Excuse me; I have a number of questions and I won't get to them all.
What Mr. Dromisky said gets to the key issue. There has to be some accountability. I notice that you have it on your list that there should be some assurance that the funds are being spent in hopefully a very wise and judicious manner. Coming from the background that I come from, over the years I've seen people who have developed things in theory. They look like a million bucks, but in practice they aren't worth 50¢. People sit in ivory towers and the program may look tickity-boo.
I hope to God that some national concept is going to evolve from this thing so that we won't be all over the ballpark, so that Matilda, in wherever she is, has a hell of an idea and away we go.
For instance, there is a very talented lady from my area who has gone to India on her own and spent time there. She could be a valuable asset for us if that was a resource we were looking for. She's having trouble finding where she may challenge and channel her talents.
A lot of retired teachers I know are a very capable resource.
I don't think we've tapped in.
Have you contacted CTF and FCM? CTF is the Canadian Teachers' Federation; what role do you see them playing? And the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, from the larger-centre concept? Are the kids it's going to impact on in some of these centres in the mix, along with - I agree - the YWCA and YMCA?
In that, how do we encourage people? This lady came to me and said, ``How do I let people know that I have these talents? I would like to...'' - without pay. She did it on her own. Now she's going to South America. So there are people out there. It doesn't always have to be somebody who's going to get paid for it, because a lot of them do it voluntarily.
Is that in the process?
Mr. Neuman: Hopefully, with these community organizations that are going to operate at the local level, we will have a reasonable amount of visibility and people who want to get involved in this area will do so.
What I've noted across the country is the extremely high number of volunteers who operate in these agencies. In fact, most of the people who are involved in these agencies are volunteers. The paid staff are really in the minority.
A lot of the organizations and programs we fund are volunteer programs. The HOST program is essentially a volunteer program. It matches newcomers with Canadians. It's not an expensive program. It's a very successful one, but it's not very costly. An agency - it could be an ethic agency or an immigrant serving agency - keeps a register of Canadian volunteers who just want to be linked with a newcomer. They do whatever. They have them over to their house. It's like a Big Brothers for immigrants. We do a lot of that.
In terms of the organizations you mentioned, we have been talking, as I indicated earlier, to a lot of organizations across the country. We've talked to the Ys and to the Canadian school boards' association. A lot of the organizations that have met with you, after meeting with you, came to us for more information. This is why, in enlisting the people, as I mentioned earlier, we will be consulting with, we have broadened the consultations to allow people who have an interest to get involved if that's what they want to do.
I encourage people to do that. All they have to do is get in touch with their local immigration office. They all have this material, and they can let them know where they can get involved in the consultation. It's going to be going on at least until May.
Mr. Collins: I have two quick questions. As you go through it, in your concept do you have a rural-urban split? Coming from a rural part of Canada, I'm very concerned that we need to have the opportunity to ensure that those folks who would like to locate there do.
.1025
Second, what are both your short- and long-term goals for this? You have the project in mind. At what point in time do you say all right, let's take a look at what we've done in the short term and what are our long-term expectations, whether that be vis-à-vis funding or whatever in the programs? At some point in time, whether it be ourselves or yourselves, we want somebody to come back and say that was the target we had, these are the people we've contacted.
I'm a little frustrated about Saskatchewan not moving a little faster with you, but maybe they have their problems too.
Mr. Neuman: In terms of the urban-rural issue, yes, we've talked about that with the provinces. In fact, when we met with provincial officials and immigrant organizations in Saskatchewan, there was a concern about attracting and keeping immigrants who do go to rural areas. They are concerned that they're losing them, and the question is how much infrastructure we can have. If we can't keep the immigrants we're getting now in Moose Jaw and Prince Albert, what can we do?
Right now, we're sending immigrants to four communities in Saskatchewan, and the question is whether we should send them just to Saskatoon and Regina so that subsequently, once they're settled in Canada and they have the language, they can go out to the smaller communities. This is a question that can best be answered in the communities.
Manitoba has a concern about the numbers of immigrants who are coming, which they think is too low. We would like to work with the provinces. Through this process, they will determine where we should have the immigrant receiving infrastructure to make sure that immigrants come to the places we want them to come to and stay in the places we want them to stay in. That's how we're dealing with it, and we think those decisions are best made at that level.
In terms of the short- and long-term goals, our goal is fairly clear in that we will be withdrawing from the direct administration of these things. By April 1, 1998 we will not be delivering any of these programs. We will have other agents in place by then who will be delivering them. We will have systems in place to monitor what goes on and to assure Parliament and the taxpayers that this money is being spent for the purpose intended and is achieving the objectives intended. This is where we're seeking advice on what would be a satisfactory measure of that.
Mr. Tsaï: I have just two brief comments. Of course, we didn't want to have the ivory tower approach in this exercise, hence all these consultations. That was a well-understood principle for us at the outset.
On the funding issue, of course, it is obvious that for 1995-96 we had to absorb some cuts in our operating budgets, but we didn't cut the grants and contributions. All things being equal, we would like to maintain that level of funding, but of course we have to keep in the back of our minds exercises like program reviews and what can happen in the months to come in the next fiscal cycle.
The Chair: Ms Jaouich.
Ms Jaouich: I also want to add to Mr. Collins's comment about destined immigration and refugee arrivals.
We work very closely with the provinces in destining government-assisted refugees. When we know the numbers that go to Saskatchewan, we work with the provincial government to identify in which locations they would like them to arrive, at least. If they stay, that's another challenge, but at least we've destined them there.
Mr. Collins: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: As you know, the minister made an announcement two or three weeks ago about new immigrants coming in with the point system. They have to have working knowledge of French or English. Would that affect the value of your work with the settlement programs?
Mr. Tsaï: Of course we now have the proposed regulations around the new selection criteria. They have been prepublished, and there are going to be discussions about them.
Of course, knowledge of French or English before coming to Canada will become an important factor and it might very well have an impact on the level of second-language training that will be provided down the road. However, it is too early to identify that impact with any degree of certainty.
.1030
We'll see what the reactions or comments are to these regulations in our discussions in the days and weeks to come, but I think the new selection criteria are consistent with the results of the consultation process, which was started at the end of 1993 and the beginning of 1994, especially with respect to the independent immigrants and their contribution to the economy of Canada.
The Chair: Madame Jaouich.
Ms Jaouich: Settlement renewal will be more flexible. For example, should we require less funding for language training and other programs are identified, the flexibility to move from providing language training to providing another program is there. It will provide that sort of response. This is what this new way of doing business will help.
Mr. Assadourian: In cases like this in the past, was there a chance that you would cut the funding because...? Or did you just spread again in a different direction within the -
Ms Jaouich: The overall budget was not cut. The way it was distributed was based on the different areas of the country.
Mr. Assadourian: Okay. Thanks.
The Chair: I have a couple of questions, if I may be permitted and if there are no more questions from -
I would like to have copies of the organizational chart of the ministry for all the members of the committee.
Mr. Tsaï: Sure.
The Chair: I'd also like to have the timetable on which you have sent these documents to the organizations, because, as you well know, all of this week we are seeing witnesses, most of whom are from non-governmental agencies. This afternoon we have witnesses from Montreal, and I will distribute some copies because it would be a good basis for some of the discussion we're going to have as a round table. Often you ask a lot of the questions we have been asking as we've been going across the country.
I want to say, whether it's appropriate or not, the fact that we're doing consultation is not mentioned at all in the documents. It would have been interesting if you had mentioned that the committee is also doing consultation. I didn't see it. I apologize if it is there. I don't know if it's appropriate or not, but -
Ms Clancy: My own comment is that it would not be appropriate.
The Chair: Fine.
I have two questions. On the regionalization of immigration, I'm not sure if that's what you meant earlier, Mr. Neuman, but perhaps you'd like to clarify.
Is it also appropriate to view this process of reallocating funds for settlement as a way of looking at the regionalization of immigration in this country? In other words, it means moving out of the large urban centres into the rural areas in terms of immigration. If you bring it down to the level of the municipalities.... For instance, you said earlier that Manitoba would like to see more immigrants. Would that also be a way of regionalizing immigration by going through this process?
Mr. Neuman: We're telling provinces that if they wish to influence where immigrants settle within the province, this is a means for them to ensure that the infrastructure money goes to those areas where they think they need more and better infrastructure to integrate immigrants. Again, this is a decision that we think should be made at the local level. In that regard maybe it is a form of devolution.
The Chair: Perhaps Madame Jaouich could answer my next question. Do you think the role of the federal government will be - I don't want to say be undermined - weakened for government-assisted refugees if we, in fact, do go down to the local level, if that is one model that will be used? I'm not saying that's the only model. But if we do end up going down to the municipal level, let's say, or the non-governmental agency level, is our role diminished in terms of the government-assisted refugees?
Ms Jaouich: In fact, the minister made the statement that we are very clearly committed to the refugee program. In fact, in our settlement renewal exercise, how we're going to support refugee arrivers is handled separately because we have acknowledged that their needs are different. There could also be a possibility for some standards vis-à-vis refugees through the exercise. Maybe David can elaborate on that. In fact, we have a commitment, we know they're arriving here and we have to settle them. Their needs are not the same as those of others. I would say that we will only reinforce that commitment through this process.
The Chair: Then can we see the possibility of that particular group being a part of the whole process we're going through? In other words, the federal government keeps a responsibility for the government-assisted refugees, yet the rest of the programs are devolved to the municipal - or other - bodies depending on where we come out.
Mr. Neuman: We have to make it clear that the government maintains its responsibility in this regard. We're maintaining our level of funding. We're maintaining the principle of responsibility for this area.
.1035
What we're saying is the way we're currently delivering these programs and carrying out this responsibility is not the most efficient way to do it. That's really all that's changed. The responsibility will remain. The whole question of accountability...we want to ensure that. This new system continues to allow us to carry out this responsibility.
For instance, government-assisted refugees are entitled to income support. In the case of Quebec they're getting it. We transfer money to the province for that purpose, among other things. In all other jurisdictions we will insist, whatever happens, whatever the arrangement is, that government-sponsored refugees continue to get income support as a priority. The question is, how do we do that?
But this is not the federal government saying.... This is what we're telling people. We are not backing away from our responsibilities here. We're reaffirming our responsibilities. It's a question of how we carry them out.
The Chair: Thank you for reconfirming that. I just wanted to put in on the record.
Thank you very much this morning. We look forward to having you back at a future date.
Thank you, members.
We are adjourned.