[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 30, 1995
.1535 
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to members, colleagues and also our witnesses. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration is continuing its hearings on the study of settlement renewal, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). We welcome everyone today.
We had a consultation last June across the country and we are pleased to have with us today members of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. We have: Ms Ann Vanstone, chair; Mr. Donald McVicar, director and secretary-treasurer; and Mr. Lionel Feldman, external consultant.
Welcome. You may begin. So the rules are clear, I will give you 10 minutes to make introductory remarks. Then I will open it up to questions from the members.
Ms Ann Vanstone (Chair, Metropolitan Toronto School Board): Part of this presentation is a video. Will it be part of the 10 minutes?
The Chair: How long is it?
Ms Vanstone: The video is six and a half minutes, so I'll be very quick.
The Chair: Yes, okay. That is fine.
Ms Vanstone: All right.
My name is Ann Vanstone. I'm chair of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. I'm pleased to speak to you this afternoon on behalf of The Federation of Public School Boards of Metropolitan Toronto. There are eight public boards, one of which is a French school board servicing the whole Metropolitan Toronto area.
Our federation welcomes this opportunity to appear before you as you consider the very important matter of settlement renewal. The Metro public boards are major providers of settlement programs, primarily through the offering of language instruction for newcomers to Canada. This language instruction is known as the LINC program.
Joining me in this presentation are: Don McVicar, director of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board; Margaret Wolchak, assistant superintendent of school programs and services with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board; and Sheila Tait, principal of continuing education in the Etobicoke Board of Education. Lionel Feldman is a consultant to the school board.
We'll begin our presentation by showing you a five-minute video entitled LINC: In Our Own Words. The video features students and graduates from LINC programs offered in the Metro public school boards.
[Video Presentation]
.1544
Ms Vanstone: I should tell you that the impetus for this video came from conversations our staff had in September with Sarkis Assadourian, member of Parliament for Don Valley North and a member of this committee, of course. While visiting LINC programs in his riding, Sarkis said that he wished it was possible for all the members of the standing committee to hear directly from the students how important language training is to them. This video is our way of doing that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Ms Vanstone: As you can see from the video, the language training that we provide to newcomers is not simply a mechanical acquisition of words. Rather, language training is a highly powerful settlement tool. It is the most important factor for integration - academically, culturally, economically and socially.
.1545
I want to conclude my remarks by highlighting the brief that we have submitted to you and then reserving the rest of our time for questions and discussions.
Recently the United Nations identified Metropolitan Toronto as the most diverse multicultural city in the world. Citizenship and Immigration Canada statistics show that Toronto receives annually about 28% of all immigrants that come to Canada in a given year. About 40% of residents in Metropolitan Toronto were born outside Canada; for the rest of the country that figure is 16%.
Within this context of cultural and linguistic diversity, the Metro public boards began to deliver LINC in 1992. Collectively we are the largest providers of LINC programs in Canada. In 1994-95, for example, we provided 214 LINC classes for over 11,000 students in 32 locations across Metro. Our programs are of the highest quality and lowest cost. Our costs average $4.40 per instruction hour per student. The maximum guideline cost is $6.
The public school boards bring to their LINC programs highly qualified instructors, professional development activities and support services, and experienced and accountable administrators. Our understanding of settlement renewal is that there will be a continued but changed role for the government of Canada.
The emphasis will be on the delivery of settlement services in a more efficient and cost-effective way than in the past. To this end, we propose a new Ontario model that is community-driven and cost-effective.
Essentially our model envisages local priority-setting and decision-making, elimination of duplication, cost-effectiveness, program evaluation and accountability. The goal of our model is to ensure that, as quickly as possible, newcomers to our country become contributing members of Canadian society.
To achieve these objectives, the Metro public boards are prepared to assume greater responsibilities in LINC and other settlement programs.
Madam Chair and members of the standing committee, I'm pleased to have had this opportunity to address you today, and we're here to answer any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
We will begin with Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you for your presentation and congratulations on your video. You mentioned that your school boards are the major providers of educational programs in Canada. It is a fact that 28% of all new immigrants to this country arrive via Toronto.
I would like to begin by asking a general question. You are familiar with the new policies of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration which wants to transfer its powers in the area of settlement programs to non-governmental agencies and to the provinces. Do you agree with this principle in general and what is your perception of the situation?
.1550
[English]
Ms Vanstone: I'm sorry. The -
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I am referring to the new settlement policy of Minister Marchi. Do you agree with it and what is your take on the situation?
[English]
Mr. Donald McVicar (Director, Metropolitan Toronto School Board): The model that we're presenting for a new structure really reflects that direction. We believe the model we're presenting today - and we want it carried forward to your senior staff - reflects that philosophy, that we would be able to pick up and, with community consultations, bring about a model that's close to the students, close to the local environment. So we're really in agreement with that overall direction, that local community groups or school boards such as ours would receive the funding, really organize the program, and effectively work with federal officials to ensure that the program is not only cost effective but also very good.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: As you also know, cutbacks are probably in the offing. In my opinion, this is one of the reasons for the transfer of powers. Costs will rise if non-governmental organizations are the ones providing these services.
Could you tell me what proportion of your budget is funded by the federal government?
[English]
Ms Vanstone: A very small proportion. Our budget for the Metro public schools is about $2.1 billion, and the amount coming from the federal government for this at the moment is....
Mr. McVicar: It's $14 million for this, but this amount of money that comes from the federal government is money aside from our regular school budget. So this is flowed directly to this specific program. Even though we manage the program, we hire the instructors, and we acquire the space, it's a dollar-for-dollar expenditure of the money that comes from the federal government. It's not part of our overall $2.1 billion budget.
Ms Vanstone: You should be aware that as part of our $2.2-billion-and-change budget - we're cutting it this year, so we don't want to put a figure on it - we spend about $97 million on English as a second language for our children's programs. LINC is over and above everything else.
We understand budget cuts. We were told just yesterday that in Ontario we have $400 million of budget cuts in the education sector. Those cuts will not affect this program as long as we get federal funding for it. Those cuts will likely impact on the program for the children.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: How many students do you welcome each year and from which countries do they hail for the most part? For example, how many students do you have from Latin America?
[English]
Ms Vanstone: I don't know.
Will someone give us the data on that?
Mr. McVicar: I can't tell you specifically the number from individual countries, but I know that when you enter some of our schools you see maps of origin and sometimes you can count 56 different countries that send children to Canada and then on into our schools. That's not unusual throughout Metropolitan Toronto. It's common to see those maps with 62 countries.
We don't have the data with us on a specific breakdown of the countries of origin.
Ms Vanstone: You will understand that we have arrivals in Metropolitan Toronto from whatever country is having a lot of refugees at any given time. We can usually tell where civil wars are going to start before they in fact start, because we start getting the refugees before the wars or the revolutions actually break out.
The Chair: Please get those statistics to us later if you have them available. That will help.
Ms Vanstone: You'd like the total statistics, and we can certainly send you those.
The Chair: Whatever information you have, that's fine.
.1555
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: In light of this new settlement policy, how do you view the role of the Ontario provincial government or the city of Toronto? Do you feel that they should be playing a role in the integration of new immigrants?
[English]
Ms Vanstone: No, I don't. In Metropolitan Toronto at the moment, the property taxpayers pay the entire bill for educating the population of Metropolitan Toronto, both child and adult. This is probably something that can't go on much longer as the property tax base is disappearing. Provincial grants are not coming.
We cannot educate children in our schools who have arrived in this country and who do not have either official language as the language of instruction.
Of course, we have a full French-language school board in Metropolitan Toronto, so we can take children all the time who have either English or French. We have full programming. But the ESL programming or FSL, as the case may be, for children is over and above regular programming. As I said, we spend $97 million on that.
We do not see that the provincial government is interested in having a larger role in that, and certainly the municipal government feels that it already does its share in contributing to the cost of education for everybody in Metropolitan Toronto.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Do you offer...
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, I have to interrupt you because we have four groups scheduled for today.
[English]
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): In listening to your presentation and watching the video - which is very good, by the way - I am curious to know how adult education falls into the Metro Toronto School Board's purview.
I know that in the area I represent it's a junior college that teaches the LINC program. I believe we had a submission from a junior college or a college in the Toronto area that also is involved in the LINC program. Is this something you are contracting with other agencies in the area?
Ms Vanstone: We do contract with some agencies in some areas, and some community colleges pick up these programs.
The school boards in Metro probably have more expertise in this because of the number of students they have. So the school boards applied for LINC funding, and they're delivering those programs in many different locations. You walk into shopping centres, and you see the LINC program run by the Etobicoke Board of Education or the Scarborough Board of Education. The Toronto board runs it in conjunction with Settlement House and things like that.
But there are programs offered in some of the community colleges.
Ms Meredith: If the federal government removes itself from being the one deciding where the money is going to be divvied out to - and I get the impression from comments you've made that you don't want to see the provincial government or the municipal government step into that role -
Ms Vanstone: We doubt that either one will do it.
Ms Meredith: - then how would you suggest deciding the distribution of the resettlement dollars in the province of Ontario, including areas outside of Toronto? Metro Toronto may be the largest, but I'm sure it's not the only area that has to deal with new immigrants and refugees. So how do you perceive organizing a body to prioritize and distribute the dollars that are available?
Mr. Lionel D. Feldman (External Consultant, Metropolitan Toronto School Board): On page 7 of our brief we suggest a proposed model for Ontario, which we have put forward as an opening ground for discussion with all the agencies and other bodies that would be involved.
.1600
You're quite right, there are public school boards that border Metro - in Peel, York and Durham, for example - that have substantial numbers of immigrants. This is a model that is inclusive of all the agencies that are involved at the current time. It is simply a proposal as a starting point for discussion as to how we foresee the administration of funding and making the decisions about the allocation of money.
Ms Meredith: So looking at this chart and from your comments, what you foresee is a body made up of all the players in the game, and that's good. I think that's a necessary function, to get the people who are actually providing the services involved in prioritizing and establishing who can best do what services if we're starting to tighten up the dollars.
But somebody has to be the ultimate decision-maker, because otherwise what you're going to have is however many number of agencies that are represented fighting over the dollars that are available. As I perceive it, you're going to have a bit of a turf war going on as to whether it should be the school board or the community colleges that are providing the LINC program, whether it's community colleges or individual non-profit organizations that provide other kinds of skills training and this sort of thing. Somebody has to be in a position of making a decision that, yes, x number of dollars are going to go here and x number of dollars are going to go there.
Who do you feel is best able to make that decision?
Mr. Feldman: That is the function we would see of the settlement services council. We foresee the federal government making a block allocation, so to speak, of, let's say, LINC funding for Metropolitan Toronto, and then this body would make the decisions.
Now, with respect to the community colleges, at least within the Metropolitan Toronto area and the Greater Toronto area, the community colleges by and large are not major participants in LINC for whatever reasons. It has been basically the school boards and community agencies.
Ms Meredith: So how would one establish this settlement services council?
Mr. Feldman: We would propose to discuss this with the other agencies and bodies that are involved and to work out a mechanism, and we put forward simply a conceptual model as an alternative to what is now being operated and run. The details are certainly not fixed, but we felt it incumbent upon us at least to suggest to you that there might be an alternative. We certainly have not had time to go through the necessary discussions with the other agencies that are involved. That would come in the future.
Ms Meredith: But you're going into this project obviously with the belief that it can work, that you could establish a council made up of various components, however they're arrived at, of the agencies involved that could determine where the funds go and that that would be supported by all the players in the game.
Mr. Feldman: I think the evidence, so to speak, that the model might work is actually sketchy because the model is not in place. However, there are roughly 30 community agencies that contract with the public school boards to deliver the instructional part of the LINC program, which suggests to us at least a recognition on their part that there are some things we can do as public school boards and other things they can do as community agencies. That gives us some measure of hope that at least we could engage in discussions at the start.
.1605
Mr. McVicar: I'd like to add to that. In Metropolitan Toronto we have the experience of dealing with nine boards under one federation. We talk about our $2.1 billion budget, but that basically goes out to the eight area boards. It's not done just through legislation, it's done through cooperation and by dealing in an open fashion with all those other school boards and through the partnerships there. We've had that experience since 1954.
Ms Meredith: So the groundwork is laid for something of that nature.
Mr. McVicar: That's right.
The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Thank you, Madam Chair.
First of all, welcome to cold Ottawa; temperature-wise cold, of course, nothing else.
I have three questions. First of all, how do you network with other LINC programs in the province, if you ever do?
Ms Vanstone: I don't, but someone else can answer that.
Ms Sheila Tait (Principal of Continuing Education, Etobicoke Board of Education): I'm the principal of continuing education in the Etobicoke board.
We have had consultative sessions. In the west end, for instance, we bring together the LINC service providers once a month. So we do unite the school boards and all the service agencies. It has been done on a fairly informal basis.
The federal government, through a consultative process, has also brought together various service providers. We've talked about directions, professional development, and issues that affect all the service providers.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.
Secondly, when I visited the schools I also saw day care programs there. Is that unique to Metropolitan Toronto, or is that the way it is in other parts of the LINC schools?
Ms Vanstone: What you saw attached to the LINC programs was a child-minding service. That allows many of these people to come to the language programs.
We would really like to have the ability, I think, to try to integrate our non-English-speaking small children in a childcare and language development way rather than just a child-minding way. But that hasn't been possible under LINC.
What we find in school systems for children who arrive here as young children and whose parents do not have English or French is that if we can get the kids into school early in a language-enriched way we can give them a better shot at being fully integrated by the time they start junior kindergarten. But that hasn't been possible. The service attached to LINC is a child-minding service.
Mr. Assadourian: Are you considering submitting proposals to the government for that specific project?
Ms Vanstone: I would certainly be interested in submitting a proposal. In the province of Ontario at large we are trying to develop an early childhood education program within given communities. We could certainly develop a proposal for this. Nothing would please us more. With budget cuts and things in our schools a lot of our childcare will be disappearing from our schools. We're afraid a lot of these very children will not be getting the services they have been.
The Chair: Ms Tait, did you want to add anything on this question?
Ms Tait: I just wanted to add that there are child-minding programs across the country and that we have just contracted to do a child-minding manual which will meet the requirements of the various provinces and various organizations and will give some measure of standardization. This will be published for all the LINC providers. Actually, it's being distributed just about now.
The Chair: There is a program in Quebec. Although Quebec has a different administrative agreement with the federal government, a lot of its language-training programs also have a childcare or child-minding component.
Mr. Assadourian: From the federal government?
The Chair: The federal government transfers the funds, Mr. Assadourian, I guess.
.1610
Ms Vanstone: We have an enriched language program for those little ones rather than just a minding one.
The Chair: Well, it's mostly minding in Quebec. There may be some that do also have language training, but not to my knowledge.
Go ahead.
Mr. Assadourian: I have a final question. I assume most of the students we saw on the tape there are not citizens of the country yet.
Ms Vanstone: No, they wouldn't be citizens yet.
Mr. Assadourian: So more or less you are providing them with citizenship courses, so to speak. You teach them how to be a citizen, what kind of responsibility you have. I noticed one of them mentioned responsibilities and obligations of a citizen.
Ms Vanstone: Yes, I would gather that -
Mr. Assadourian: The question I want to ask is this. In what form do you discuss the citizenship aspect of it? Do they discuss the way Canada is, provincial government authorities, what happens in the country, who is what? Do you do that to promote Canadian citizenship?
Ms Vanstone: I would ask our program people for specifics, but yes, that's the type of program they would get.
Ms Tait: They are given formal lessons, and we will be having a citizenship award in the near future. In the month of February or March, we hope to have some people receiving their Canadian citizenship in a couple of our sites. So they are given formal instruction. We do have teachers who are qualified to do so, and we are doing it on a formal basis.
Mr. Assadourian: But you have discussions with them.
Ms Tait: Oh yes.
Mr. Assadourian: You talk about what Canada is all about, what the systems are all about, and how they can participate.
Ms Tait: Yes. It's also language-based, so they're learning the language as well as the rules of the land, the geography, the history, and the way governments work and function. All that is covered.
Mr. Assadourian: What's their approach to Canada and Canadian citizenship?
Ms Tait: Most of them want to be true-blue Canadians, and they're very excited about the citizenship classes. Their main aims are economic stability and to be Canadian citizens, as you can see in the video, when that couple is talking about becoming citizens, for instance.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.
The Chair: Mrs. Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): Good afternoon and thank you for coming. Unfortunately, I have to take a plane to Vancouver, so I will not be able to stay very long. I have my people from Vancouver here, in fact.
Congratulations on that video. I think it's interesting, because in 1970 it was one of those people in Vancouver who started ESL courses on a pilot project. It's gone a long way.
I would like to bring you back to the proposed Ontario model, which is a very interesting one. I think it's the only one we have received at this point that is on paper and gives us an idea of how it would be proposed. However, the concern we heard across the country was that there would be a conflict of interest, and I think Ms Meredith brought it up too.
This brings me to ask you whether you would consider a national agency instead to be the facilitator of these things, something like the United Way or the YMCA/YWCA. What are your thoughts about something like that? It's a good model, but I think it can create a lot of problems.
Mr. Feldman: I think part of our concern about national models is that unfortunately in a situation such as this, where there are basically three major centres or areas in the country where -
Mrs. Terrana: You misunderstood me. I am talking about a national agency that is represented in every province; for example, the United Way would have an agency in every province. I'm not saying there should be a national agency that does it all, but an agency that has quarters in every province of Canada.
Mr. Feldman: I think our preference is clearly for something that is, at least in the Metro Toronto area, more community and locally based than on a wider area. It's our belief that given the volume of immigrants who continually have been coming to the metropolitan area, there are some unique problems and opportunities, and we've had considerable experience in meeting those. I think anything raised to a much higher level than the regional one dealing with it might not be as responsible for those kinds of needs.
.1615
Ms Vanstone: One of the problems we have in Ontario, which of course is a problem in the rest of Canada too, is that Ontario is such a diverse province, from large, dense, urban areas such as ours to places even in the near north of Ontario or perhaps around Ottawa. Similar models just won't fit. A one-size-fits-all doesn't work in Ontario.
I believe that a regional model taking in the Greater Toronto area as well as Metropolitan Toronto is something that could work. It would be difficult to make it much broader than that. In education, we find that people really want things to be done differently when you get as far away as 50 kilometres outside of Hamilton, for example, which is near Metro.
Mrs. Terrana: You were probably given one of these documents. It is called ``Consultations on Settlement Renewal''. Don't you have it?
A voice: No.
Mrs. Terrana: Okay. This document has been prepared and there are questions in it.
You said earlier that you are prepared to write a report for us to look at the possibility of solving this problem, because we're really looking into the possibility of changing, as you have been saying. It would really be good if you could follow this document to some extent, so that you know exactly what we are looking at. We are looking at settlement renewal.
The Chair: I'm told by the clerk that you did in fact receive a copy of this during the consultations the ministry held.
They've already been consulted on that, Ms Terrana.
Ms Vanstone: We can certainly go through this and respond to the issue.
Mrs. Terrana: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Let me clarify. For the purposes of this committee's report, it will be too late. Today is our last day of hearings and on Tuesday we are going to be working on the first version of the draft report.
But for future consultations that the department or the minister may be holding, these are the guidelines they're following in terms of the questions and some of the answers they're looking forward to from organizations like your own.
Yes. Please identify yourself for the record.
Ms Margaret Wolchak (Assistant Superintendent, School Programs and Services, Metropolitan Toronto School Board): Chair, I'm Margaret Wolchak, from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. Last week we had Elizabeth Gryte out to visit with the LINC steering committee. We showed her the video and shared the brief with her. We're very committed to being part of the Ontario consultations and to hosting some of those consultations, so we will be working through the consultation paper.
Mrs. Terrana: It's very important because you surely have a lot of experience. When we were in Toronto we saw so many agencies that it all got lost.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much for being with us today. We look forward to your continued input.
I now invite the representatives of the Canadian School Boards Association and the Canadian Teachers' Federation to come forward, please.
We have with us today: Mr. John Cheng, trustee, the Vancouver School Board, the Canadian School Boards Association; Ms Sandra Bourque, trustee, the Richmond School Board, the Canadian School Boards Association; Catherine Eddy, supervisor, the Canadian School Boards Association; Marie Pierce, executive director of the Canadian School Boards Association; Mr. Harvey Weiner, deputy secretary general of the Canadian Teachers' Federation; and Mr. Damian Solomon, assistant director, professional development services, of the Canadian Teachers' Federation.
.1620
Welcome. You may begin.
Mr. Harvey Weiner (Deputy Secretary General, Canadian Teachers' Federation): Thank you, Chair. It is a pleasure for us to be here today to participate in these discussions regarding the new directions for newcomer integration.
As I'm sure members of the committee are aware, teachers and school board trustees have a primary interest in these issues, have done considerable work in this area, and will be more than pleased on a continuing basis to share information and provide expertise as this initiative develops.
The Canadian School Boards Association is the national voice of school boards and school trustees. It represents the local level of government. Over 500 school boards serve more than 3 million elementary and secondary students across Canada. The CSBA promotes educational excellence, giving leadership on issues with national implications, and fosters the maintenance of the principles of local autonomy in education.
[Translation]
The Canadian Teachers' Federation is the national umbrella organization of members of the teaching profession and works to promote quality education. The CTF coordinates and facilitates the exchange of ideas, knowledge and skills among the 13 provincial and territorial member organizations which together represent over 240,000 teachers.
[English]
I am going to ask John Cheng to talk briefly about why we have an interest in immigrant settlement issues.
Mr. John Cheng (Trustee, Vancouver School Board; Canadian School Boards Association): Although Canada's immigration policy is set at the federal level, the impact of these policies is felt by teachers and school boards on a daily basis.
In the Vancouver school district 48% of the student population is ESL. ESL populations are in excess of 70% in many of the elementary and secondary schools in Vancouver. The number of ESL registrations is increasing every year in many of the large urban centres across the country.
Although historically the focus for schools was to develop improved programs and strategies for language acquisition, now much has shifted to ensure the successful settlement of immigrants and refugees. We encounter some barriers in this successful integration, and I will briefly outline some of the concerns we have.
The ability of schools and school boards to respond appropriately and creatively to the challenges posed by immigrant and refugee students has been hampered by a number of factors. These are some of the examples: one, existing federal programs do not address the needs of children and youth, and they deal almost exclusively with basic language acquisition for adults; two, there is little or no funding or support for children and youth; three, jurisdictional issues often get in the way of providing programs; four, there is inadequate coordination among the federal, provincial and local governments; five, the arbitrary division between programs for children and youth and adults creates difficulties; six, the traditional distinction between education and settlement is artificial and inappropriate; and last but not least, there is a lack of continuity of funding provided to non-governmental agencies due to an overemphasis on short-term, project-based grants.
On all these points, you are quite welcome to raise some questions.
.1625
Now I'd like to ask Harvey to address the first section, the new directions.
Mr. Weiner: The barriers that John has outlined indicate certainly to both the school boards and teacher federations that some major reforms are required in the way in which support is provided to immigrants and refugees at the community level.
We are quite supportive of the government's desire to enhance the ability of communities to set priorities, to streamline funding, and to look at ways of eliminating duplication and increasing accountability, but we strongly believe that the federal government still must be there to take a leadership role in ensuring that there is consistency in settlement services across the country through the development of national principles. So we see a combination of a national role ensuring consistency, but providing some very considerable flexibility at the community level in order for the services to meet the needs of the immigrants and refugees whom we wish to serve better.
I will ask Damian Solomon to provide a little more perspective on the federal role that we foresee on settlement renewal.
Mr. Damian Solomon (Assistant Director, Professional Development Services, Canadian Teachers' Federation): While we believe that the design, provision, and management of immigrant settlement programs must be a community responsibility, we strongly believe that the federal government must play a leadership role in ensuring equal access to services across the country.
We believe that the federal government should consult with its partners across the country to develop national principles within which programs and services can be developed and funded. We therefore recommend that in order to ensure access to programs across the country, the federal government, in consultation with its partners, develop principles within which immigration settlement programs are provided and funded.
We have some suggestions about some of the guiding principles that would address some of the barriers that have been alluded to earlier on, which would help successful integration. These are equality of access to an established minimum standard of service across the country and a broadly based definition of settlement programs for children, youths, and adults that would address orientation issues, assessment, community development, family support, citizenship, cultural bridging, anti-racism, language, and vocational programs. These are all issues that play an important part in helping immigrants to become integrated.
There must also be a coordinated approach to service delivery. Without that coordination, there will be no effective success in any programs developed. These should overcome jurisdictional barriers, which we see as being one of the problems.
The federal government should establish a long-term sustainable funding system to make sure that these programs will continue. Short-term funding will not be successful in the long run.
Certainly, for the success of these programs, they must have locally determined service priorities, which the people in those communities must identify so that the programs will successfully address their needs.
We recognize that there is a financial responsibility to address the settlement needs of immigrants and refugees, which must include children and youth, on the part of the federal government. We know that we live in an age of severe financial and economic constraints, and all institutions and agencies are certainly feeling the restrictions of the economic and financial climate in which we live. However, we believe that the federal government should address the settlement needs of all refugees and immigrants by expanding its funding criteria to include programs for children and youth. When immigrants and refugees come, they come to a country, but they have their children with them and they should be included in any programs.
.1630
Accountability is an important aspect as well. When you design programs, you want to make sure the money you are providing for those programs is well spent, but more importantly, you want to ensure that the quality of the program delivered is consistent and of a high quality.
Therefore, we recommend that the federal government establish an advisory committee, with representation from the federal, provincial and local governments, to develop accountability measures for settlement programs.
CTF and CSBA, as partners in the educational process, are prepared to assist the government in developing broadly based accountability measures.
There are some additional federal responsibilities that we recognize or see. We recognize that there is a role the federal government can play by providing data as to where immigrants settle, where they are from, and what their needs are for developing a data bank. It can provide that information across the country.
As it happens with information gathering, the important aspect is to be able to determine measures or instruments for sharing that information in an effective manner. Also, in this aspect, we recognize the importance of continuing research.
I will now call upon our colleague from CSBA, Sandra Bourque, to discuss -
The Chair: I will have to stop you. We said a ten-minute presentation. You do have a written brief, which you did present. Most of what you've said so far, if I'm not mistaken, is in the brief.
Is there anything new you would like to add? You have one minute to add it, so I can give a chance to members. We also have two more witnesses coming before the committee before we adjourn at 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Weiner: I would like to mention, Chair, that about four or five publications have been provided to the clerk that have been produced in some cases by the school board association and in other cases by our federation. These all touch on the issues and concerns of immigrant and refugee children. Here are two. There are some additional ones as well. Additional copies can be made available.
These are, I think, some clear indications of how we are attempting at the moment to deal with a number of these issues. I'm sure these will be helpful in terms of future contact and communication as the process develops.
Ms Sandra Bourque (Trustee, Richmond School Board; Canadian School Boards Association): Sure. I'll just add one thing, since you do have this, although I did want to stress certain things and I have come all the way from Richmond.
It's important in all of this for there to be a broadening of the understanding of settlement beyond the notion of just one year of services. In reality, it takes anywhere from five to ten years for people to comfortably settle into this country and become, indeed, part of the community.
This broadening is not just something that immigrants need. Settlement services aren't something just for them. Indeed, settlement services are something we all need. There are modifications to the host community that must be undertaken in order for the comfortable settling of new immigrants and the bridging of cultural gaps and the moving forward of our society.
The Chair: Ms Bourque, I appreciate that you came all the way from Richmond, but you've had a twenty-minute presentation so far. I understood that most of it was in the written brief. As I said, if there is anything new that you would like to add that is not in the brief, we welcome it.
Also, I want to stress the fact that this is not the end today of the consultation, as far as the committee is concerned. There is an ongoing consultation that the department and the minister have undertaken.
You are welcome to continue to offer recommendations and any other perspectives on this issue that you would like to offer the minister. You could even offer it to the committee, and we would be more than happy to pass it on to the minister.
Ms Bourque: Okay.
The Chair: Unfortunately, there are time constraints, and the members do have other committees or responsibilities they have to get to.
I apologize if I did you cut you off. But it was a twenty-minute presentation so far.
Did you want to add anything, Ms Pierce?
Ms Marie Pierce (Executive Director, Canadian School Boards Association): No, not at this time.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
We'll start with Ms Meredith.
.1635
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the comments you made, but I see a little bit of conflict with the previous presentation by the Metro Toronto School Board. I got the impression they did not want the provincial government or the local governments involved, that they felt it should be this settlement services council.
I got the feeling, from what I heard from you, that you feel there should be an advisory council of the federal government, the provincial governments and the local governments.
Do you see that as what the Metro Toronto School Board feels is a settlement services council?
Mr. Weiner: Again, I wouldn't presume to speak for the Metro board. We have two national organizations here whose positions are effectively national positions. My understanding was that the LINC program was the program being referred to specifically in the Toronto board presentation.
From our perspective, we see a number of different possible models, but we do believe it's crucial that governments at all levels play a part in this. The specific model that's adopted, it seems to me, is less important than the full involvement and participation of everyone who has a role in this and of those receiving the services. We want to stress that very much. It's absolutely critical that there be very strong representation from the ethnic and multicultural racial communities in every stage of the development and delivery of these particular programs, or the programs will not work.
But we're quite flexible in terms of the kinds of approaches. We do not see that each province will necessarily in fact end up dealing with the situation in the same way, but we do see governments at every level as having an involvement in the process. That's the national position of the two organizations here today.
Ms Meredith: Unless I misunderstood the government's position, they will be involved in that. They will be transferring funds to somebody to distribute. I guess the big question is who is that somebody going to be?
I would assume - and my assumptions may be wrong - that as school boards, your priority would also be the LINC program or the ESL, perhaps skill training. But I cannot see a place - and I'm being honest with you - for the school boards to get involved in housing and those kinds of settlement issues. As I said, I may be wrong in my presumption.
Ms Bourque: I think there is a confusion perhaps in what the word ``settlement'' means to various agencies. The LINC program is offered, by school districts and many other organizations, to adults only. It is essentially outside our mandate, other than the fact that most of our school districts offer continuing education programs to adults and all kinds of vocational programs, after hours primarily or sometimes during the day. Because we are set up to do those, we've been doing LINC programs.
The settlement services we're talking about that are applicable to students include such things as multiculturalism programs and anti-racism programs. We have to be proactive in that if the influx of large numbers of students who are quite different from the host community is going to be successful. It means immigration considerations, including documentation checks, student visa processes, checking health documents, checking immunization records and counselling and settlement support during the initial reception process.
It means the use of cultural interpreters, translation services, school notices and district documents, interpretation between families and schools for a variety of purposes, establishing multicultural friendship clubs at elementary schools, new immigrant parent meetings with NGOs and welcoming teas. It means interpretations to immigrant parents to explain the school system, common teaching practices, education and school philosophy. It means student support groups and parent support groups for new immigrants.
Adult education, language and other interests are minor. It also includes things such as library resources and modification of curricula.
Those are all settlement services for which we are not funded. Those are outside the normal scope of our mandate, which is primarily education generally and then language training. But we need to do all these things in order for our mandate, which is education and language acquisition, to be successful. We're not funded and it's not recognized that we're doing that.
.1640
Ms Meredith: I guess I'm a little confused about where you draw the line as to what can be worked into an educational program, recognizing the student make-up, without expecting additional funding. Why can't it be worked into the curriculum? Why can't you use non-profit organizations or parents for support? Why do you feel you must have more federal dollars, or more dollars, in order to do that function?
Ms Bourque: We do all those things.
I don't think there's a comprehension of the absolutely overwhelming nature of this. It isn't a few students. It is, for many of us, half our population or 70% of our population. It isn't ``them''; it's ``us''.
Ms Meredith: But the people who support the school system, where you get your dollars from to provide the education and the programs, are the same people who provide the federal government with the dollars to send to you in that particular school area. So I'm confused as to why you can't incorporate the programs you have outlined in an existing school system.
Mr. Weiner: Let's try to pursue that a bit.
One of the barriers we mentioned before is the lack of coordination between the various levels of government. There's a very distinct lack of coordination, particularly in the area of immigration. As we know, it's predominantly within the federal domain, and there are no provisions at the moment when it comes to children who are within the elementary and secondary education school system.
Very often significant numbers of these students do arrive at the doorstep of the school board after budgets have been established provincially, locally, etc. These youngsters arrive carrying certain baggage or in the absence of certain baggage, which often includes the ability to communicate and also all the other factors that have been mentioned here.
We did a very comprehensive research study - and it is one of the documents you have - from the perspective of teachers on the kinds of issues they have to deal with on a day-to-day basis. So it's not that there isn't this kind of collaboration. It is taking place more or less, depending on the board, on an ad hoc basis, depending on the kinds of agencies and support available within a community.
So a lot of what you're suggesting could very well be part of a new and fresh look at this, just trying to integrate a lot of these things in a more effective way. But there is at the moment a total absence of resource or recognition from the federal level of the immigration policies and the impact they have on the school system.
We're constantly being told, ``That's a provincial or a local responsibility. It has nothing to do with us''. Yet on the other hand the provincial authorities often don't have much, if any, say on the numbers that come in and the number of youngsters in consequence. It's similar, even more so, at the local level in the school board situation.
The Chair: Mr. Cheng has been wanting to add something for the last few minutes.
Mr. Cheng: First of all I'd like to address the question.
Your question is basically why do we get the governments involved, federal, provincial and local? We want to start a dialogue to set up a process and build up a structure. In the future we'd like to see the funding coming from federal to local directly without involving too many government bureaucracies.
On the second issue regarding the parents helping out, we do have a lot of parents doing the translation for the students and doing their report cards. But there's only so much volunteering you can do; sometimes you have to rely on the professionals. Using this example here, it's the same as running the Parliament. Everybody is paying taxes. Why can't we get volunteers to do the thing?
There is a certain level where you have to say you need some professionals doing a proper job.
The Chair: Ms Eddy wanted to add something.
Ms Catherine Eddy (Supervisor, Canadian School Boards Association): Thank you.
I just wanted to make a comment referring to the ad hoc nature of the efforts that have been going on to date. Within the context of settlement renewal, part of the desire of the school boards across the country and the Teachers' Federation is to decrease the ad hoc nature of the activities in order to be in a position to provide greater consistency so that we can focus on providing greater equity and equality of access to resources. Not only do we have the families with whom we work arriving directly in our particular jurisdictions, we also have trans-provincial migration as a factor. As we continue to do things differently in two different degrees across the country, we inadvertently end up compounding several kinds of problem areas rather than resolving them.
.1645
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Meredith.
Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: Thank you very much for your presentation.
I have a question about recommendation 2, on page 4. It asks for expanded funding to include programs for children and youth. What kinds of programs are you proposing for children and youth? Can you be more specific? Is it similar to child-minding, which we discussed earlier with the other school board members?
Ms Bourque: When you get a student who comes into your district - and you don't usually get just one; in our district we get a hundred in a month - you have to assess their capabilities, you have to look at their documentation, you have to check their visas, you have to check their education levels.
Once they're in the school, you have to provide not just English-language training to the children, but information about the country as well. You have to familiarize them with the culture that they're entering into, and that takes a lot of time. Not only that, you have to get the culture that's accepting them familiarized with them, which takes a lot of day-to-day effort. It takes counselling and it takes proactive multicultural programs, but you have to develop those programs, which costs money because you have to have professionals doing this. It's not just hit or miss. You have to have anti-racism programs. You have to institute conflict resolution programs, because whenever you get large numbers of new people, there's resentment on both sides.
So you have to deal with those. Those are the kinds of settlement programs that we need, and I'm sure each person here can add to that.
Teachers have to be given professional development over and above their education role to deal with these things. If you have a regular population and all of a sudden your class is flipped to one in which half the kids are no longer speaking English, you have to modify your program immensely. It's not just language training that you have to modify, it's everything. That is not accounted for in the regular provincial funding, which is why that need has to be recognized. I'm sure other people here have other things they can add to that as well.
Mr. Cheng: I guess Richmond is a little lucky in that you only get a hundred a month. We get 400 a month.
I'd like to refer this question to our staff person, Catherine Eddy. She's the supervisor of the Oakridge Reception and Orientation Centre and she deals with all those children who come in.
Ms Eddy: When we look at newly arriving families, it is now fairly common for us to work with 4,600 students who arrive annually into our school system in Vancouver. Fewer than 2,000 of those individuals arrive at times consistent with the start of school, i.e., during the summer months of July, August, or early September. Not only do we need to do the kind of language evaluation thatMs Bourque has already identified, for a number of the students who are arriving we are also morally required - if not required by law - to include emotional evaluations, because a number of these families are coming in as part of immigration quotas related to government-sponsored refugees, or they are refugee claimants and receive landed status within the duration.
.1650
But a number of these families are coming in with backgrounds involving trauma and do need support counselling, not just for the aspects directly related to trauma but for indirect aspects related to never having been to a school before. There is a complete lack of knowledge on the part of the children and their families of what it means to be in this particular kind of learning environment. The students need to be worked with, the families need to be worked with, on all facets of information related to being socialized into our culture, what it means, what their duties and responsibilities are. In addition to factors that pertain to citizenship, these are all areas that go above the specific mandate of individual boards.
The Chair: Mr. Solomon, you wanted to add something.
Mr. Solomon: I think Ms Eddy quite accurately outlined some of the findings from our study. As my colleague Harvey Weiner alluded to, we carried out interviews with teachers across the country and they identified the need for them to be able to deal with these types of students.
It's not a question of just the students but of integrating the whole family. The parents have to interact with the school community as well. So we have to develop services to help the students and their parents integrate quite effectively and enjoy the experience of living in their new country.
Mr. Assadourian: I support the second recommendation. That's why I asked the question, by the way.
The Chair: Just for the record, Mr. Assadourian....
Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon (Brandon - Souris): Ladies and gentlemen, I spent my working career in education - not that I'm not working now, I would emphasize - and I certainly respect the efforts your groups are making in this area.
I come from a more rural setting. We have much the same kind of difficulties in rural Canada, but we don't have the resources or expertise as readily available. I wonder whether you're making efforts to assist, say, a school in rural British Columbia that may have a family move into that area...assist the school system or the community in integrating.
Ms Eddy: Yes, one of the kinds of activities definitely going on in British Columbia - we hope it will begin to go on more across the country - is looking at the trainer-of-trainers model, because that is probably the most efficient and effective kind of modelling we can do.
We would also suggest and encourage looking at a wider variety of training avenues, including telecommunications and teleconferencing avenues and using forms of technology that are currently available, and using them in a cost-efficient manner, rather than continually looking at face-to-face encounters, which are delightful but sometimes expensive.
The Chair: Ms Pierce.
Ms Pierce: One of the advantages of the Canadian School Boards Association and CTF is that we try to share information. That's one of our major roles. So when we do get information on good programs that are taking place in Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, or wherever, we try to ensure other boards, which may not have the kinds of resources you're talking about and have few immigrants but still are trying to ensure they're integrated in appropriate manners, can get access to those information programs, packages, and materials that are developed by some of the larger boards. We try to facilitate that information sharing either through technology or by means of providing workshops. We do try to address those issues.
The Chair: Just for the record also, if any of the members would like copies of the different reports that have been prepared by this group, just ask the clerk and we'll see what we can do.
.1655
Thank you very much for being with us today; we very much appreciate your comments and your written brief. That always helps the committee members. We look forward to your continuing input. As I said, the consultations will continue with the ministry up until spring, so if there's anything else you want to add, please send to us your further comments or recommendations, or send them directly to the minister. Thank you very much for being with us.
I'd like to welcome Mr. Leo Lynch from the Metropolitan Separate School Board, who is with us today. You have 10 minutes, gentlemen, for your opening remarks, and then we will have 10 minutes for the members.
Mr. Lynch.
Mr. Leo Lynch (Coordinator, Adult Basic Education, Metropolitan Separate School Board): First, may I thank the committee for the opportunity to address the issue of settlement and settlement renewal.
I would like to begin by providing a brief overview of the Metropolitan Separate School Board, the board that I am representing here today. First, we are the largest school board in Canada, with 104,000 elementary and secondary schools, and through our continuing education department we have been providing English as a second language to adults for the past 30 years. These classes have been very necessary to our taxpayers because of the very high percentage of newcomers who arrive in Metropolitan Toronto on an annual basis, more than 28% of whom settle in Canada.
During the last academic year our board, through our continuing education department, provided ESL and citizenship preparation classes to 41,000 adult learners. That includes the numbers that participated in our LINC programs. Our ESL classes are supported by qualified nursery staff. We have 125 trained volunteers who work with our instructors. Half of the 530 classes that we offer to adult newcomers are co-sponsored with community agencies, and this has lent itself very effectively to the model that we have employed in our LINC programs.
In terms of the LINC classes, we provide more than 100 classes in the contract year. We have two models, the preferred model being that of working with community agencies. Secondly, the Metropolitan Separate School Board has a contract directly with LINC, and we are very pleased to say that our rate per student hour is approximately $4, which we regard to be very cost-effective and I think the least expensive delivery model in the Metropolitan Toronto area.
.1700
I am going to attempt to give a brief overview on each of the issues you presented to us in the papers, and then summarize with what I would regard as a rationale as to why the Metropolitan Separate School Board is in fact the appropriate agency to coordinate and to broker the settlement programs that are under review at this time.
We are very pleased that cost-effectiveness is at the top of the agenda, because it is a matter that rings very true to the Metropolitan Separate School Board where, within Metro, we have a much smaller tax base than our coterminous boards. Consequently, that has forced us to develop a culture of cost-efficiency.
In terms of comparing our board with the coterminous Metropolitan Toronto School Board, we do administer our programs 30% more cost-efficiently than those provided by coterminous boards.
Secondly, we would like to say that our LINC classes are offered more cost-effectively and that each year we have been involved in the LINC programs we have reduced the hourly rate at which we are able to provide these programs.
Certainly, there are many aspects of the LINC program where we have seen that cost-effectiveness could be applied, and in every year that we have delivered a contract we have attempted to reflect those reductions in the programs we offer.
In terms of the role of the federal government, we have seen through the LINC programs in which we have been involved that the federal government has been instrumental in developing curriculum that could be applied nationally. They have language benchmarks as well as guidelines for child-minders.
We see this as one demonstration of a very strong reason for keeping a federal involvement, because there are many aspects of the settlement programs that will have national application. We feel that the most effective way of realizing that is to have the federal government continue to play an enduring role.
We would also see the federal government coordinating many of the initiatives that have this national application. Our vision is to see an advisory council within Metropolitan Toronto, and I'm sure within a number of other jurisdictions across Canada. In the model we would envisage, we would expect that there would be a federal presence to which the advisory councils could report.
Just the idea that there will be a change and the transition of transferring the responsibility for settlement programs to local bodies will assume that there will have to be a high level of federal involvement in that transition inasmuch as the expertise is presently with the federal government and we would not want to lose that expertise in any transfer of programs.
Accountability is another issue, and a very highly important issue. Our board has a budget of $700 million. We have a structure that allows us to be very accountable for all of those funds that are used to provide programs to our students.
Within that structure, there is a budget control and an accounting department, and our discussions with them indicate that they are very willing and very capable of extending the services that are provided to our existing population of learners to accommodate the renewal program.
We have also seen in the LINC programs that there is a high level of accountability in the way the programs are administered, and there is no doubt that we would be able to inherit a very significant number of the policies and practices that are in place there.
In terms of the actual coordination of the programs within Metropolitan Toronto, we would like to see a Metro advisory council, which would have the role of adapting the federal guidelines to reflect the local needs of a very large metropolis. We would also see a Metro advisory council with responsibility for coordinating the resources that are made available to it through the federal settlement funding.
.1705
In terms of the composition of such an advisory council, we would see the need for federal, provincial, and municipal representation. We would also involve academic institutions; church groups, which would represent refugees; community agencies, which would bring the perspective of the many communities that we have within Metropolitan Toronto; as well as a representative from a business association, recognizing that we do want to strengthen the ties between the academic programs that we provide and the business community. We would see that the chair of such a committee would be responsible for liaison with the federal department, which would continue to have a role in these programs.
In terms of a local council, we would see that they would be responsible for adhering to the guidelines established by the Metro advisory council. We would see this local council being responsible for reviewing and approving applications for the funding of settlement programs.
But I think key to all of that would be that members of such a local council would need to have expertise in the programs for which the settlement would provide. We would expect to see experts in applying programs that are presently related to the ISAP, the HOST, and the other range of settlement programs being provided. We would see once again a business association, and someone responsible for such matters as health and housing. The key is that they would be responsible not only in an administrative role; they would be expected to be out in the community observing the programs that are being provided, critiquing them, always with a mind toward quality and cost-effectiveness.
Finally, I'd like to indicate what I would regard as a rationale for the involvement of the Metropolitan Separate School Board to broker and to coordinate programs within the Metropolitan Toronto community. As I indicated earlier, we do co-sponsor our programs with more than 40 community agencies. That gives us tentacles in every sector of Metropolitan Toronto. We feel that we would be very effective in achieving at a collaborative model of providing settlement programs.
Cost-effectiveness is an issue that permeates every aspect of every operation that we have in fact conducted within continuing education and within the larger board. We feel that with 40% of the children that participate in our programs speaking neither French nor English, we have a very good sense of the needs of the newcomer community that settles in the Metropolitan Toronto area. We have had three decades of providing programs to adult newcomers and to the children of these adults who are both settling in Toronto and who are coming to Toronto as their second settlement point. We feel that we know the ingredients of a successful program that is cost-effective, and we would apply the same principles to settlement programs as have been applied to the programs with which we have had involvement.
Finally, within our board we have a community liaison department that is most effective in conveying to us the needs of those communities of newcomers within Metropolitan Toronto that we serve.
The Chair: Time is running out; if you could sum up right now it would be appreciated.
Mr. Lynch: Okay, I'm sorry.
What we at the separate school board bring is a Metropolitan Toronto perspective. I don't think that settlement programs should expand beyond the Metropolitan Toronto area, given that we represent 28% of the newcomers that do arrive in Canada. It is for that reason that I would see the Metro model being a very functional model and a responsive model for the newcomers to our Metropolitan Toronto area. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you Mr. Lynch.
Ms Meredith.
Ms Meredith: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm having a bit of difficulty in trying to sort out how you perceive the federal government's role, and whether you see the provincial government involved. I'm also quite concerned with what I hear you saying, that you feel the Metropolitan Separate School Board should be the broker and coordinator of the settlement dollars. Are you speaking specifically of the Toronto area?
.1710
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
Ms Meredith: If you feel the federal government should have a role, what role should it be if it's not to determine who should get the settlement dollars? If I heard you correctly, you feel the determination should be yours.
Mr. Lynch: I'm sorry. I would like to clarify that.
Ms Meredith: Please.
Mr. Lynch: I would certainly expect the role of the federal government would be to establish the dollars that would be available for settlement purposes across Canada. The amount that would be allocated for the Metropolitan Toronto area would be the responsibility of what we have termed the Metro advisory council. That council would then have responsibility for establishing the priorities within that Metropolitan Toronto area, and of determining the dollars that would be directed to each of the settlement programs that would be provided within that Metropolitan Toronto area.
Ms Meredith: So your model is really not a whole lot different from the model that was presented earlier by the federation of public school boards of metropolitan Toronto, where they saw a settlement services council made up of all the various groups that provide the services. That council would be the body, if you would, prioritizing the dollars in Toronto.
Mr. Lynch: I would say our formation of such a council would not differ very significantly from that. I have not had an opportunity actually to examine what has been provided by the Metropolitan Toronto board. Therefore I'm unable to establish clearly what the differences might be.
Ms Meredith: One of the concerns raised by me and by my colleague from Vancouver East was that if the decision on who is to get the money, and how much, is made by the people who are fighting to have a part of the dollars of the total dollar package, there really is a conflict of interest. How can you, when you want federal dollars for your own programming, make the decision on how much you're going to get out of the pot?
Mr. Lynch: I'm not sure I understand your question.
Ms Meredith: Is it not a conflict of interest for somebody who is going to be receiving dollars to be part of making the decision on where those dollars are going to go?
Mr. Lynch: But I would not see that there would be a conflict of interest, because the members of such an advisory council would not have the Metropolitan Separate School Board as a member of that council. Someone would represent education on that council, but it need not be a member of the Metropolitan Separate School Board. It could very well be a public school representative. It could very well be a community college representative. It would simply have to be an education person on such a committee.
Ms Meredith: Then what specifically did you mean when you said you felt the Metropolitan Toronto separate school division could broker and coordinate the settlement dollars? How do you see your role, if it's not in that council?
Mr. Lynch: I would see that our role would be more one of providing counsel and direction. Through the chair of such a council, we would see that the mandate and the directives of the federal government are being conducted openly and fairly on that council.
Ms Meredith: I'm trying to summarize what I'm hearing here. You feel the federal government provides dollars.
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
Ms Meredith: It would establish some national guidelines, if you will, on what settlement dollars are going to be used for.
Mr. Lynch: Correct.
Ms Meredith: Then they would pass over the responsibility not to a provincial government but to this advisory board, made up of the different players. This advisory board then would allocate the funds to the agencies.
.1715
Mr. Lynch: The advisory would not allocate the funds. They would simply adapt the federal guidelines to suit the needs of the Metropolitan Toronto community. They would be responsible for ensuring that a local council in fact carried out what has been outlined in those guidelines and principles, both from the federal government and the adapted guidelines the advisory council would work on, which would apply to the Metropolitan Toronto area. Under that council would be a local council that would receive, review and approve applications for different settlement programs within the Metropolitan Toronto area.
Ms Meredith: You're suggesting there are four levels of organizations before you have the dollars and distribute them. Do you feel that's the most efficient way of dealing with it?
Mr. Lynch: It is probably the most objective means of seeing that all the practitioners are given an opportunity to participate in the process, and that we get practitioners who are most qualified to provide a specific program involved in that.
The Chair: Mr. Assadourian.
Mr. Assadourian: I followed your presentation as carefully as I could, but I did not find anywhere the budget for the LINC program in the Metropolitan Separate School Board system. What's the budget? How many millions for the LINC program alone?
Mr. Lynch: We have two different models of LINC delivery. As I indicated in our report, our preferred model is one of co-sponsoring with community agencies. In that, we have approximately $2.7 million in instructional programs that we provide. In addition to that, the Metropolitan Separate School Board does have a contract directly with LINC of approximately $950,000.
Mr. Assadourian: You say $3.65 million approximately?
Mr. Lynch: Approximately, yes.
Mr. Assadourian: Is that over and above the $700 million budget you have?
Mr. Lynch: Yes. The $700 million budget we refer to is the budget available to provide elementary and secondary school programs to the children of the Metropolitan Separate School Board.
Mr. Assadourian: That's coming from approximately 621,000 individual separate school board ratepayers in Metro Toronto, right? Okay.
What do you mean by individual separate school board ratepayers? My family is me, my wife and four kids. Are we six individuals in the household?
Mr. Lynch: You would be regarded as one ratepayer, I believe.
Mr. Assadourian: So it's not individuals you're referring to, just families.
Mr. Lynch: Yes.
Mr. Assadourian: If that's the case, I did some calculation, with each family coming to an average of $1,135.40 tax for education and property tax. Is that in your figures, or is something wrong here?
Mr. Lynch: Within Metropolitan Toronto, you'll find there's quite a variance there. The funding for the separate school board is a rather complex issue to deal with because it isn't just the property tax that supports our elementary and secondary programs; it is also a provincial grant that tops up the property tax.
Mr. Assadourian: So if your income is lower than $1,135, you substitute with the provincial government contribution to participation?
Mr. Lynch: That is correct.
Mr. Assadourian: Do you work with the Metropolitan Toronto School Board with LINC? Do you exchange notes and participate in activities together?
Mr. Lynch: We are on committees together. We belong to common organizations. I would say that on a very regular basis, there is communication between and among members of separate and public school boards within Metropolitan Toronto.
.1720
Mr. Assadourian: Just in Metro, not in Hamilton, say, or St. Catharines?
Mr. Lynch: Yes, it does extend beyond that.
Mr. Assadourian: All right. Thanks.
The Chair: Are there any other questions?
Mr. McKinnon.
Mr. McKinnon: I'll pick up on the previous questioner. Does a ratepayer in Toronto or in Ontario have a choice of which school board his property tax dollars are directed to?
Mr. Lynch: One must be a Catholic to be a separate school ratepayer.
Mr. McKinnon: I, as a non-Catholic, couldn't send my kids to your schools if I paid my tax?
The Chair: Mr. McKinnon, considering the time, I have to rule that question out of order at the moment. Can we stick to the subject of settlement renewal, please? We only have five minutes and we have one more witness.
Mr. McKinnon: What I'm picking up on here is the fact that we were topping up the tax component, which the previous questioner mentioned.
The Chair: I allowed a little leeway to Mr. Assadourian on that question.
Mr. McKinnon: I'm sorry; I will withdraw my question.
The Chair: If you'd like to ask a question pertinent to settlement renewal, you're welcome.
Mr. McKinnon: The settlement renewal, of course, for his purposes, is his mechanism of service delivery to these clients. He's talking about a dollar value of about $4 per student -
Mr. Lynch: That is correct.
Mr. McKinnon: - which is funded from the property tax as well as what?
Mr. Lynch: These are funds that have been provided directly by LINC, and this applies specifically to the $950,000 contract that the Metropolitan Separate School Board does have with LINC.
The Chair: Thank you very much for clarifying that.
Thank you, Mr. Lynch, for being with us today. As I said to the other witnesses, you're welcome to continue to bring in comments and other recommendations to the ministry. They'll be continuing their consultations until springtime.
Mr. Lynch: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Our last witness today is Nandita Sharma from the National Action Committee on the Status of Women.
Welcome, Ms Sharma. You asked to come before this committee at the last minute, so I'm sorry, but we'll have to limit your comments to about five minutes and then allow five minutes for questions. Please go ahead.
Ms Nandita Sharma (Chair, Immigration and Refugee Committee, National Action Committee on the Status of Women): Yes, it's unfortunate that we are here on such short notice. It was only yesterday that we were made aware of today's consultations. Therefore, we're not fitting into the entire stream of the educational perspective that has been provided here today.
To remind the members of the standing committee, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women is the largest feminist organization in Canada. Founded in 1972, NAC represents over 600 member groups. NAC is known internationally as well as throughout Canada for its dedication to women's rights and its ability to shape public opinion.
NAC advocates for and mobilizes its membership and the public to bring about changes for women. The diversity of women across the country and the communities is well reflected in NAC's membership. There is a growing membership of immigrant women's groups, agencies serving immigrant and refugee women, refugee advocacy groups, and women's committees of church groups, unions, and major political parties. NAC therefore represents a constituency that will be immediately and very directly affected by the proposed changes to settlement renewal. We welcome the opportunity to make this presentation before the committee.
NAC is committed to a fair, equitable, and just immigration and refugee system. We look forward to working with the government on a coherent, long-term policy framework for our immigration and refugee system. It is in such spirit that we offer the following concerns on the intent of changes in settlement renewal.
.1725
You will have to excuse me, but it was only last night that I received your briefing notes regarding settlement renewal.
The Chair: Just for the record, this has been going on since springtime. This is not a new consultation we are doing. All the non-governmental organizations have been advised of the committee's hearings since last spring.
Ms Sharma: NAC was not advised.
The Chair: I am sorry, but it is public record. It's not a matter of your being advised specifically. A message goes out to the public that whoever wishes to present a brief is welcome to. So for the record, you were advised publicly.
Please go ahead.
Ms Sharma: It must be stated from the outset there can be no discussion of settlement renewal without placing it in its proper context. In light of this government's cuts to family-class sponsorships; the imposition of a $975 head tax; the proposal to make sponsors place a sponsorship bond, which is really another head tax; the changes of last week that make it virtually impossible for people who don't speak English or French to be selected as immigrants; the proposed deal between Canada and the U.S., euphemistically known as a safe third country deal, which calls into question Canada's commitment to both its own Charter of Rights and international agreements for the protection of refugees; as well as the laying off of thousands of departmental staff, it is apparent this government is intent on further placing the burden of the recession, the failed social and economic policies of the last decade, and its devastating and mean-spirited federal budget of 1995 squarely on the backs of immigrants and refugees -
The Chair: You have five minutes to discuss settlement renewal, not do a critique of the government's policy.
Do you have anything specific you want to say about settlement renewal? I'll remind you of the fact we've already run overtime in this committee. You are welcome to present a brief to the ministry because it will be continuing its consultations. I'd like you to stick to the subject at hand, which is settlement renewal and not the budget of this government. Thank you.
Ms Sharma: I would like to remind you once again that settlement renewal cannot be discussed without placing it in its proper context, so I'd like to continue. Given that you have allowed the other presenters to run over their time, I would appreciate it if you would provide me with the same courtesy.
The Chair: Ms Sharma, you were added to the list as a courtesy by this committee. I am really going to stick to my time because the members of this committee, including me, have other responsibilities. So you have to stick to the subject at hand, which is settlement renewal. You have three minutes left.
Ms Sharma: Let me begin again by stating that it is dishonest to call any discussion a consultation when, like this one, it starts with basic and far-reaching decisions being brought to the table as a done deal. Thus, the statements in your briefing notes that ``at the end of the next two to three years the federal government will have withdrawn from the direct administration of settlement contribution programs'' leads us to believe you have embarked on an undemocratic process of consulting those affected by your decisions.
In the spirit of democracy, therefore, I would like to take the opportunity to remind this committee that the government, in its pre-election red book, stated that this country is a place where ``generations of Canadians have dreamed of building together an independent country that is economically strong, socially just, proud of its diversity and characterized by integrity, compassion and competence.''
We are extremely disturbed by the fact that this government has failed to live up to its own principles. It has embarked on an immigration policy and strategy that, instead of eliminating barriers to full and equal participation - and this is where we're talking about settlement renewal - of immigrants and refugees from non-English and French-speaking countries, make their entry to Canada even more difficult, if not virtually impossible as landed immigrants.
At the same time, this government has stated that it plans to step up its non-immigrant employment authorization program - Canada's version of a guest worker scheme.
In terms of your discussion on settlement renewal, we want to make it clear that NAC supports a fair and just immigration policy that does not leave people vulnerable because of a lack of landed status.
NAC also supports the maintenance of national standards and principles, as well as a strong commitment to the fair, equitable and accessible provision of immigrant settlement services by the federal government.
We strongly oppose the devolution of power to the provinces or any other body. Responsibility for funding, funding decisions and administration of such funds and decisions must continue to be made by the federal agreement.
.1730
Input and consultation - real democratic consultation in which women's groups can fully and equally participate - must be an integral component. But in the name of consultation, the government cannot slip out of its responsibilities for maintaining national standards and ensuring the continuation of real funding for settlement renewal services.
Those of us living in Ontario know that any devolution of power to the provinces and further down means cuts. Cuts mean devastation to those immigrants and refugees who are already severely disadvantaged in this country. Devolution and cuts mean user fees will be implemented. We're already seeing this in Ontario. It is not an abstract concept to those of us who live there.
When the federal government talks about devolution of its responsibilities, it means they will be devolved right onto the backs of low-immigrant women who will face greater financial pressures to obtain essential services for themselves, their families and their children.
It will mean these women will also have to pick up the slack left in the wake of this government's abdication of its responsibility to these women. It is these women who will have to ensure that their children, parents and spouses obtain these services.
Because cuts also mean job losses, devolution of responsibility from the federal government will also mean that many of the women who are in the majority of service providers will be left jobless.
We would like to remind this committee that settlement renewal user fees will make it difficult for those most disadvantaged to be reunited with their families as well.
Furthermore, user fees for settlement services, the $975 head tax, and the proposed sponsorship bond fly in the face of evidence showing that immigrants and refugees already pay more in taxes than they receive in public services.
Indeed, as this committee itself has recognized - and I'm quoting you, Madam Chair - that the economic impact of immigration is positive, despite unemployment and the deficit. Thus you cannot use the deficit or the debt as an excuse to slash services to immigrants and refugees or abdicate federal responsibilities.
This committee is more than aware of other ways of reducing the cost to taxpayers, such as a fair and progressive tax policy. We don't need to remind you here once again. By devolving powers and eliminating national standards this government is ensuring the destruction of community and community values. It is also contributing significantly to the lack of unity in Canada.
Even while this government sets up a non-consultative unity committee, it is following through on policies that will Balkanize this country. These policies and the abdication of federal responsibilities will do more to create disunity than anything else.
The Chair: Your time is up. Thank you very much. We'll go on to questions.
Ms Maria Minna.
Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): I would like to ask one quick question. I just wanted to get your sense of the delivery mechanism with suggestions that are in the policy book about the new partners. How do you see that working out with your member organizations, and what difficulties or positives do you see specifically? I'm talking about the actual delivery system of service.
Ms Sharma: We're very concerned that the government, in terms of what we have understood from the briefing notes, is saying it will also download the responsibility for administration of settlement renewal programs to settlement service agencies. We're very concerned that if that is combined with the lack of increases in funding, those service agencies, if they also have to take on administrative capacities, are not going to be able to spend as much time, because of lack of resources, on actually providing settlement services. They'll be spending their time sitting on these bodies or having to do much of the administration of those grants and funding.
Ms Minna: So you would prefer to have the federal government maintain all administrative responsibility as it is now, without partnering with the local organizations.
Ms Sharma: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Sharma. I do want to repeat what I said earlier. You will have the opportunity, in the ongoing consultations with the ministry, to present a full written brief. We would be glad to forward it to the ministry officials.
We are sorry you didn't have prior notice, but as I said, the public has been informed of our hearings since last spring. Thank you very much just the same for taking the time to be with us today.
.1735
Thank you very much, members. We'll see you on Tuesday evening.
The meeting is adjourned to the call of the chair.