EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, June 28, 1995

.0910

[English]

The Chair: Order. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, I would like to welcome you all and thank you very much for coming on such short notice. We are here to talk, of course, about settlement renewal and the process by which the federal government will withdraw administration of settlement programs over the next three years.

The structures and roles necessary for immigrant renewal have not yet been defined. This affords us, as members of Parliament, a chance to discuss with you, the service providers, some of the issues that arise as a result of the federal government's decision.

I should note at the beginning that the committee was in Vancouver on Monday and in Edmonton yesterday, and we will be in Halifax tomorrow.

You are the experts in immigrant integration. We are here to benefit from both your expertise and your counsel.

I would like to begin by having the members of the committee introduce themselves. I am Eleni Bakopanos, the chair.

Ms Clancy (Halifax): I'm Mary Clancy, the member of Parliament for Halifax and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Eleni is the member of Parliament for Saint-Denis, in Montreal.

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): I am Sarkis Assadourian, the member of Parliament for Don Valley North in the city of North York. I was first elected in 1993 under the Liberal Party platform.

Ms Minna (Beaches - Woodbine): I am Maria Minna, the vice-chair of the Human Resources Development committee and the member of Parliament for Beaches - Woodbine. I am here today because this is an issue that has been close to me for some time. I worked as a volunteer in immigrant services for about eighteen years or so. As most of you know, I was the volunteer president of the organization called COSTI in Metro for about eleven and half years. So I am here because of interest.

Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): I am Anna Terrana, the member of Parliament for Vancouver East and a member of the committee. I am pleased to meet you.

Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): I am Osvaldo Nunez, member of Parliament for Bourassa in Montreal north. I am the Official Opposition critic for citizenship and immigration. I am of Chilean origin. I am also the vice-chair of this committee.

The Clerk of the Committee: I am the clerk of the committee, Pat Steenberg.

Ms Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): I am Margaret Young, the researcher.

The Chair: Welcome again, as I have said.

I would like to begin by having everyone introduce themselves and their organization and take two minutes to give us some introductory remarks. Then I will inform you of some of the points of consensus that came up in both Vancouver and Edmonton and begin discussion. Let us begin with Mr. Calla.

Mr. Mario Calla (Executive Director, COSTI): Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

I am the executive director of COSTI. COSTI is a multi-service organization here in Toronto. We serve about 30,000 newcomers per year.

Our largest program is English as a second language, serving about 16,000 people a year in about 80 classes at any one time throughout the greater Toronto area. We also operate a refugee reception centre funded by the federal department, CEIC. We have a rehabilitation centre for injured workers, family counselling services, settlement services, of course; a broad variety of services. I guess the thing that keeps it all together is the fact that most of our clients are newcomers. Our staff speak over 30 different languages and we have about 150 staff.

I have given you our submission. I will just focus on the federal government's role as we would like to see it.

We think this is a good opportunity to have more local input into service provision, but we are concerned that certain benefits we currently have under the national program may be lost in the process.

.0915

We see a strong role for the federal government in setting national standards for settlement services. We're thinking in terms of standards such as the provision of child-minding, which goes along with the ESL programs - the LINC programs - that currently are in place, or the role of a not-for-profit delivery system.

We believe also that the federal government must play a strong role in ensuring that the funds transferred to local authorities are in turn flowed through to direct service provision and that the funds will be used for settlement programs. There's a danger of some of those dollars getting lost in administration and bureaucracy as new levels set in.

Federal-local agreements must include an understanding that federal dollars will not replace local dollars and that existing local funding commitments will be maintained.

Also, as the federal government devolves its responsibility to more local authorities, it must ensure that service delivery is not frustrated by new layers of bureaucracy. The service deliverer should be accountable to the local funder, with the federal government playing the more distant role of ensuring standards.

In terms of the distribution of settlement dollars, we believe the most appropriate and equitable way to do this is according to the proportionate settlement of immigrants and refugees in each region. For example, if Ontario receives 55% of Canada's immigrants, then it should also receive 55% of the settlement dollars.

One thing that hasn't been taken into consideration in the past and that I believe should be considered is the issue of secondary migration. Currently refugees are being diverted from larger centres like Toronto to smaller centres. While funding is being diverted to the smaller centres, what we're experiencing in Toronto is the relocation of many of these refugees back to Toronto. We're serving these people, but the dollars have been lost in terms of the service.

Those are some of my remarks. As I say, I have further remarks.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calla. We do have your written brief, too, which we appreciate.

Mr. Mwarigha.

Mr. M.S. Mwarigha (Program Director, Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto): We are mostly a research, planning and policy analysis organization. We have worked over the years with a number of community agencies to do research and needs assessment in newcomer communities or immigrant communities as well as on issues of settlement service modelling. So we have a particular interest in the area, although we do not provide a direct service ourselves.

In addition to that, I have worked within the African community for a long time on settlement-related issues, so it's something that is very close to me, as well as the fact that I am what you would consider a recent immigrant to Canada.

Very generally, in our view the settlement renewal proposal put forward represents certain opportunities, but it also carries with it certain threats. The opportunity for delivery to be brought to the grassroots level or to communities is a good opportunity and hopefully it will provide an avenue through which affected communities or new immigrant communities can make their input into the form of settlement services provided.

However, the opportunity comes with certain threats. In particular, when you look at the local advisory committees, there are going to be issues of make-up - of who sits at the table. It's very important, from our point of view, that newcomer communities have a very strong say.

.0920

After all, under this label of settlement renewal, we are largely talking about the immigration of newcomers who are not what I'd call made-to-measure western European products. They are mostly visible minorities from developing countries.

In addition there are issues around the economy and its implications for the kinds of opportunities it provided for newcomers in the past. All of these things have changed. The voices of newcomers and the creation of local bodies are very important in trying to figure out solutions within that context.

Staff Sergeant Brian Cryderman (Acting Inspector, Field Support Services, Peel Regional Police): Madam Chair and members of the committee, on behalf of Chief Robert F. Lunney, the Peel Regional Police are pleased to be represented at these discussions.

I am Staff Sergeant Brian Cryderman. I'm currently acting as officer in charge of field support services. My partner today is Detective Glynn Griffiths, our officer in charge of the race and ethnic relations bureau.

The multicultural and multiracial nature of the Peel community as well as the region's continued growth make our area an attractive place for new Canadians to settle. The Peel Regional Police strive to protect life and property under the law and, as a stated value, share responsibility with our community for improving the quality of life among our citizens, both settled and new.

The Peel Police fully support the notion of delivering services in support of newcomers. In particular our experience has shown the language instruction for newcomers to Canada, that is, the LINC program, with which our members have been involved, to be a most worthwhile forum for communicating information about the nature of police in Canada generally and our own regional service particularly.

At present our officers are enthusiastic about the contact opportunities given to them, but at approximately one hour per group, wish more time could be allocated to the police. We view most favourably the announcement of the intent to continue funding for LINC and other programs aimed at immigrant settlement.

Decentralizing the process of delivery of services to help newcomers would, from a police perspective, allow our interests to be better served.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much for being brief.

Would you like to add anything, Mr. Griffiths?

Detective Glynn Griffiths (Race and Ethnic Relations Bureau, Peel Regional Police): I have nothing to add.

The Chair: Ms Revilla.

Ms Anna-Maria Revilla (Multicultural Inter-Agency Group): My name is Anna Revilla and I represent MIAG, which is a coalition of agencies serving the immigrant community in Peel. We have around 100 members.

We are glad to be here, but one thing we would like to raise is that the notice gave us little time to prepare.

I can share with you a little bit of what our members have been telling us in regard to these new changes. We accept that there have to be changes, but the question is how to implement those changes, especially if we try to create partnerships.

In order to create partnerships, there have to be at least three basic conditions.

First you need the resources to facilitate that process. What this means is all the players need to have the opportunity to sit down at one table and share the variety of experiences they've had in the past, because the settlement program is not new. That's why we're talking about renewal.

All of them have a lot to contribute, but somebody has to provide that opportunity on an equal basis. There are mainstream organizations that play a great role in the community and there are small, community-based organizations that play a great role too. In order to create that partnership, we need to sit down and talk openly. We need to share our views and experiences and put forward our proposal, based on those social indicators we have raised here, such as fair share based on population, fair share based on experience, fair share for what new Canadians can contribute to this country.

.0925

One problem is that you have brought in a lot of new Canadians with a lot of experience who cannot exercise their profession here.

There are people who come to this country with money, but there are no programs in place to facilitate investing that money in this country. We have seen a lot of clients who come in and say, I brought a certain amount of money into this country but I didn't know that I had to do this or that and I lost money; now I'm here with empty pockets. We need something in place for them.

Another issue concerns when the settlement process starts. Should it start here at the airport, or should it start back home, providing the proper information for them about what they are going to find here? This is how it is in Toronto, Vancouver or Alberta, because when we think about Canada we have different profiles, different resources, and maybe people would like to know exactly what are the things that will help them to settle here.

.0930

My next point is that, again, we need to facilitate that process, but most of the people who are here are overworked and overloaded, and you have added to that another very important task. Therefore, we would like to ask the committee to create some kind of support in order to facilitate this process of coming up with a good proposal on what the settlement process should be in the future. However, we need support. Our members didn't have the time to discuss, analyse, and come forward with two or three proposals.

The last thing is that we have some questions - I should maybe say fears - among our members about what is going to happen to us, but, most important, what is going to happen to our communities. The communities are eager to contribute, to facilitate and to cooperate, but we need to provide them with the opportunity to come forward and present their ideas. That's it.

The Chair: Thank you very much. As I said in my opening remarks, I know it's very short notice, but just for those who don't know, you can submit a written brief at any time to the committee. We will not be drafting a report before the end of September or early October. That leaves you with two months. In fact, it might be easier to draft a report after these discussions than prior to them, because hopefully we will come to some focus during the discussions today.

I want everyone to feel free - and I encourage you - to submit a written brief through your members from the Toronto area or through the clerk of the standing committee.

The committee did invite all the MPs from both sides of the House to attend the hearings of the committee in whatever city we were and, as I said, from whatever political party they were. Today we have Maria and Sarkis. Sarkis is a member of the committee, in any case; however, Anna came all the way from Vancouver to be with us today.

The hearings were open to any member of the House of Commons who wanted to participate.

We shall continue with Ms Manesh.

Ms Mitra S. Manesh (Director, Settlement/Integration, Malton Neighbourhood Services): Good morning. My name is Mitra Manesh. I'm a board member of a multicultural inter-agency group. I am the director of the settlement/integration program at Malton Neighbourhood Services and, as of next week, I will be the executive director of the Peel Multicultural Council.

I'm a professional immigrant woman. I have been a professional immigrant person going from country to country, so I have firsthand experience.

I'll give you some information about my agency, Malton Neighbourhood Services. We are a very large multi-service, community-based organization. We provide settlement services. We have a LINC program. We have a reception and services at the airport. We are the only agency that receives the immigrants and refugees at the airport and provides information to them. We also have computer classes. We have an information centre and so on and so forth.

I will be very short. I came back yesterday from a course at York and I received this invitation, so I don't have anything in writing for you, but I do have three points that I would like to make.

First, it is very refreshing to see that the federal government has seen a need for change. One point is the accountability of our agencies to the community. I would like to share that accountability we have solely to our funders right now with the community members.

The second point is that now that you have decided to give some of the responsibilities and workload to the community organizations, it's a very important point to remember that authority should come with responsibility. You cannot just give responsibility to people and expect them to do good work. Accountability and responsibility should come with authority.

.0935

The third point is that from our experience of talking to immigrants, and being a professional immigrant myself, the information that is provided to us at overseas posts is actually wrong information. We all feel that we're coming to this promised heaven on earth, which to some extent could be true but it's not 100% true, and I believe that wrong information is more damaging than no information. If I did not have information I would come and seek it here. I thought I had information, but it was definitely the wrong information. So it's very important that the information staff provide at overseas posts is monitored and regulated. It is very easy to say they don't know if they don't know it. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Dick.

Mr. Emmanuel Dick (Vice-President, Canadian Ethnocultural Council): My name is Emmanuel Dick. My roots organization is the National Council of Trinidad and Tobago Organizations in Canada of which I am the president.

I am here today in the capacity of the vice-president of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. For many of you who are unaware of the council, it is a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of 38 national ethnocultural organizations, which in turn represents about 2,000 ethnic organizations across Canada. The CEC has been serving as a united voice for ethnic minorities nationwide, promoting a vision of multiculturalism that is based on respect for diversity and for ethnocultural groups in all aspects of Canadian life.

I have just about three or four statements to make. I look at the consultation process taking place today...and I observed during the national consultation that took place some time ago that there were two basic issues that were identified as being very important. One was integration and the other was selection and settlement.

The question of selection for the CEC presents some problems, because, as you know, with the recent introduction of a head tax that has been imposed by the government -

The Chair: Mr. Dick, I'm going to interrupt you because I know Ms Clancy will. It is called a landing fee and it is not a head tax. So please refer to it as a landing fee. Thank you.

Mr. Dick: Very well. The question of selection poses some issues for us. On the question of settlement, however, there is a number of issues that some people have already raised. But I want to focus perhaps on the question of youth.

We know that education is a provincial responsibility, but without a coordination between the province and the federal government, I think we'll have a great degree of difficulty in really providing the country with the skilled and trained people whom the labour force needs.

At a time when we know that we have a declining population among youth within Canada, we do not have a national apprenticeship program in place to meet the needs of this country. We know that the traditional sources of skilled tradespeople who had come from Europe and Britain over the last number of decades would no longer be available to us. Today, we know that in the government's paper and the manifesto they speak about the introduction of an apprenticeship program. We find that is moving much too slowly in order to meet the needs of the country.

I want to also address the issue of the training of youth in terms of language. Most of the money that is given by the federal government for language training, such as in the area of LINC and other programs, goes to post-secondary institutions and to non-profit agencies, but very little goes to the secondary schools themselves, where we have a number of young people coming into the country at various ages, and these young people are assessed in the secondary educational system. Many of them, particularly refugees, are coming into the system with tremendous deficits, but no special funding is being put into these programs in order to upgrade and to make these kids adaptable. Because of the lack of decent language training, many of these people end up dropping out and ultimately they become wards of society.

So we really need to have a greater coordination between the federal government and the provincial government in the delivery of programs, particularly for newcomers.

.0940

I would make my contribution on a later day, particularly with respect to training and retraining and the whole area of accreditation, credits for prior learning assessments, and national standards for language, apprenticeship, and training. So if the discussion comes up, I'll be able to make a contribution in those areas.

Mr. Tony da Silva (Coordinator, Community Education, Peel Board of Education): Good morning. My name is Tony da Silva. I am the coordinator of community education for the Peel Board of Education.

Not only am I here in the capacity of the coordinator of community education for the Peel Board of Education, but I should also let you know that I am also the chair of the Peel LINC Partnership, which is a partnership of the LINC-providing agencies in the region of Peel and Halton. They are also involved in our partnership. There are more than 50 agencies providing LINC service in the area of language training and settlement.

We also have our referral agencies, like Welcome House, Peel Social Services, and Canada employment centres. Of course, the funders, Citizenship and Immigration, are part of that partnership, as well as mainstream organizations, like educational institutions and many of the community agencies we've spoken of.

I'd like to make a few comments. Then, hopefully, a lot of my other material will come out in our discussion. The region of Peel, for those of you not familiar with it, is the fourth-largest immigrant-settlement area in Canada. In the last couple of years, we have received over 25,000 newcomers to the region of Peel.

I'll go back to the point about secondary migration being 20 minutes outside of Toronto. We get a lot of secondary migration and receive a good deal of the immigrants who come to this country. So we are very much involved in the settlement/integration process of new immigrants.

Of course, the board of education is involved not only with school-age people, but with adults. We have the largest public school board in Ontario, with nearly 100,000 children in our system. We serve over 100,000 adults, 30% to 40% of whom are second-language speakers and are involved in programs from skills training to language training. So we have a great deal of expertise, knowledge and interest in this area.

We believe that an effective settlement/integration process is extremely important. In light of this settlement renewal initiative being undertaken by the federal government, it is absolutely necessary for a collaborative and coordinated approach to settlement to be taken that involves all the key stakeholders in this process.

We believe that there is a very strong role for the federal government, certainly through CIC, Citizenship and Immigration, especially during this transitional period to settlement renewal. This is to ensure that there are universal standards of accountability and to establish and continue to provide policy direction, but to be flexible enough to adapt to local needs.

I think the whole direction of settlement renewal is something that communities welcome. As many of the individuals around this table have indicated so far, there should be a proportionate and appropriate share of funding based on population, including immigrant population, and the decisions should be made at the local level, with direction and accountability being established at the federal level.

We believe structures need to be in place that will assist us in validly measuring improvements in progress in settlement and integration, and that there are ways of determining how successfully immigrants are able to do that.

.0945

We believe that there needs to be a flexibility and a partnership in the coordination of settlement services. If the key stakeholders are not at the table, and if there is not an appropriate consultative process, then that process will not work. The process of settlement renewal will not be implemented in an appropriate way if the process that is in place does not involve a consultative process and does not allow the key stakeholders to be at the table.

That's all I have to say at this point.

Ms Magda Tarnowska (Settlement Counsellor, Polish Immigrant and Community Services): My name is Magda Tarnowska. I am from Polish Immigrant and Community Services. Our agency serves newcomers to Canada, and not only Polish immigrants. A majority of our clients are from the former Yugoslavia. We have some counsellors who are natives of Yugoslavia, and they speak those languages.

We deliver settlement services in the broad sense of the term, including LINC programs and some computer classes.

I'm replacing our executive director here. Our statement will be submitted later on in writing.

Ms Cecile Jacobs (Executive Director, CultureLink): I am Cecile Kemi Jacobs. I am the executive director of CultureLink. I am also the co-chair of the anti-racism committee of the Canadian Council for Refugees.

CultureLink, for those of you who don't know, is one of 30 host programs across Canada. Basically, we facilitate relationships and friendships between new Canadians and the host community. We see settlement as a two-way street. We feel it's really important for both the host community and the newcomers to adjust to each other.

We are members of OCASI, the CCR track. I think all these agencies will be making submissions, but we wanted to be here as well because we felt some particular concerns.

The process of navel gazing or self-analysis is always critical, and it's very refreshing to see that happen. However, in the context of all that is happening around us, it can be done in isolation. The entire community sector is really worried. When we see things such as the landing fee - the community has another name for this - DNA testing, ID documents, and all those things, we are nervous. I know that CIC is also nervous, because there is so much change. Change is always quite stressful.

But in the context of these things, when we hear about settlement renewal, we ask what is being renewed, and there is not a lot of trust. It's really critical for a process to be set up that establishes some really clear parameters so we all know how decisions are being made and what access each partner has to decision-making. We need input so that's up front and there are no surprises at the end.

As for our concerns around the whole process of settlement renewal, the process itself concerns us at CultureLink, as well as CCR and OCASI, because it was presented to us as a fait accompli. While we may have come to the same conclusion, we would like to have been part of the process of coming to the conclusion that renewal needs to happen.

There's also been a lack of information. It's as if we've been presented with settlement renewal, but with no parameters. It's just as if it's going to happen, but no one knows how, when, why, or anything. We're saying this is like a nightmare.

The Chair: Ms Jacobs, that's why we're here. Everything you've brought up is the reason we're here. You've submitted a written brief. I would appreciate it if you would limit your comments, because they're here in black and white. If we're going to get down to the crux of the matter, which is exactly the points you are raising, we're all going to have to limit our comments.

Ms Clancy: It's interesting that in different cities, you hear different things. I guess I first heard it from the gentleman from the Peel Board of Education. I'm hearing it from you, Ms Jacobs, as well.

.0950

There are many things about the federal government.... As I said yesterday, in quoting the almost late Kim Campbell, ``I'm from the federal government and I'm going to help you''; there's no more frightening phrase in Canadian parlance.

The parameters, however, are not yet set. It's good to know that settlement renewal is the area we're in. This is why we're coming to you as a committee. We're coming here, admittedly on short notice, to hear what you have to say about this. You have until September to submit a written brief.

I don't know what any of us can say to tell you that we're not planning, at least at this particular moment, to hit you on the head with an axe.

I understand questions of concern around trust and all that. The federal government said that the need for settlement renewal came out of the consult last year. There's nothing that any of us can say to tell you that we're not here to hurt you yet, at any rate, God help us. We want to hear.

I say to the gentleman from the Peel Board of Education, Ms Manesh, and all of you, what we want to hear are suggestions that you have around issues like accountability. We agree with you that accountability is important, and we agree with you that the set-up of how this is going to work is important. That's what we want to hear from you, either this morning or in your written briefs. I don't know what any of us can do to go further.

The question came out of a consult and this is a second round of consults.

I know I can't make you love us, but I'm trying to make you at least feel that you can get through this process without having your person or your theories attacked.

Ms Jacobs: I will close very briefly.

Yes, we're here to consult. I was trying to just state the frame, the context, in which we are consulting. I think I did it quite effectively. It wasn't an attempt to blame. It was just to say that this is the frame; this is why we are here.

We are here. We came at very short notice, so definitely we want to talk, and we have to talk. If we ignore the context in which we are operating, however, it would be doing all of us less than justice. I think we are committed to work together. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Jacobs. Ms Macdonald.

Ms Heather Macdonald (Refugees, Immigration and Race Relations, Inter-Church Committee for Refugees): I'm Heather Macdonald. I'm from an old immigrant community in Canada. I'm also here on behalf of the United Church of Canada and the Inter-Church Coalition for Refugees, which is a body of 10 national churches.

We've been involved in resettlement of immigrants before they were called refugees across the country. At one time there were reception centres that unfortunately tried to anglicize people. I'm not advocating a return to that.

After World War II we met the boat trains and tried to integrate people into communities. Out of that grew the inter-church councils. With the revised Immigration Act of 1967 and the private sponsorship role that opened up in 1979, our inter-church councils developed into multicultural settlement agencies, agents for social change in our communities. It's about those agencies and our church role that I want to talk today.

I'm really concerned basically about one thing, and that is access to services, the renewed settlement services for the church-sponsored refugees, the CR3s. I've been working with church-sponsored and government-sponsored refugees since 1981, and I know that a private sponsorship can lead to the best but also the worst settlement process in the country. The private program has also spawned what is now known as the host program to get that personal contact.

I want to use just one example that concerns me, and that is the ESL experience. Initially our churches were holding private classes in their basements to teach people English. We then got into more professional services with qualified certified teachers, thank goodness. However, our private-sponsored refugees were then put on waiting lists for programs. Preference was always given to the government-assisted refugees.

The next stage in that cycle was withdrawal of a training allowance or stipend, which made private sponsorship very difficult.

.0955

I wonder about the future. Will we have access to ESL programs? Will we be facing user fees, or are we returning to the church basement approach?

The rhetoric of voluntarism does concern me. I worry that it might just be offloading our public needs on a compassionate few. I said before that private sponsorship can be the worst and the best experience for a newcomer. What I try to advocate for all the churches I represent is that the sponsor works with a settlement NGO to get professional approach and service to the new immigrant, and then the sponsor is free to be an individual on an equal basis to help the newcomer to independence.

I travel across the country too and I have to sort of use that phrase that I'm here from the national church to help you. It is not appreciated at all. Our church spans the nation, so we know about regional differences. I'm even a product of it. I'm from western Canada and I'm still adapting to this great centre.

I worry about the stated purpose of renewal. I see that we can adapt and we can allow for regional strength, and we need to, but I worry about loss of consistency and about loss of national standards. I don't want us going to the lowest common denominator. I don't want an indiscriminate return to what used to happen to refugees in 1979 and 1980.

I hope we can, through this process, allow for a creative approach that will eliminate duplication of service and that will specialize. In the rush to efficiency, however, I want us to remember that effectiveness is the first rule for efficiency. We can't just cut money and streamline.

I worry about access when we contract out settlement service, as to whether we are going to lose the whole focus there.

It's strange for a church person to say, but I worry about the loss of the line workers in the settlement factors of the immigration department. I worry about settlement services being removed from immigration.

I know this process was budget driven. I know it was growing out of the internal review program. I also wonder about ROLF, the right of landing fee, which was supposed to help settlement costs.

There is a real fear for me of privatization and contracting out. I even see it expressed in a memorandum of understanding, where our sovereignty now could be handled by the United States. When I talk about contracting out and about access of appropriate services, I want to see that the ethnocultural, the multicultural, the small NGO that has developed expertise over the year and developed an integrated approach with the people, will have access to funding. When we go to some of the large very capable mainstream agencies that offer service, my point is that the same service is not equal service for individuals. The same is not equal.

I talk to the advisory committees about access of NGOs to the funding process, access of church-sponsored refugees to the programs, and access to this program that we're discussing today across the country.

I have colleagues in my own constituency asking me to look at a video hook-up link. You can't reach every community in our country, and they would like to present. It's basically access that concerns me.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

If you are with the same organization, I will come back. Thank you.

I'll continue with Elizabeth Taborek.

Ms Elizabeth Taborek (President, TESL Association of Ontario): Thank you very much for allowing me to address the committee today.

I'm the president of TESL Ontario, which is the Teachers of English as a Second Language across Ontario. We have teachers and instructors who are teaching pre-school children through to adults in elementary schools, secondary schools, continuing education, colleges, universities, and private institutions. With that breadth of perspective on education, we would like to bring that perspective to this committee.

Since settlement renewal will affect many of the adult learners in our programs, it's important for the standing committee to hear our views. We realize that settlement renewal, which I agree is budget driven in the background, is an opportunity to examine and review the kinds of delivery that have existed.

.1000

For example, I do know that there's a project called the Building Bridges Project, which involves social intervention for refugee children, It is sponsored by CIC, three Ontario school boards, and settlement agencies. This is an innovative project that is being looked at. The idea of joining or bridging people together is certainly a key concept in what I see and what TESL Ontario agrees with.

In the ideal world of immigrants settling in this country, we do have a vision from TESL Ontario. As a backdrop or background, I'd like to mention four points about that.

We would see partnerships of ESL deliverers with settlement agencies to provide wraparound settlement services, such as counselling, housing, and health care, so that immigrants, refugees and their families can receive this assistance along with learning the language.

Another point is coordination across all levels of government, which would result in a continuum of language and settlement services for refugees, immigrants and their children from the beginner level to the employment specifics support that they need. This would promote the transition of bridging programs to exist across institutional levels, which does not exist at this point.

We would also advocate for standards for quality programs for teachers and instructors, and for settlement and other services that immigrants receive.

We certainly are aware that the language benchmarks are being field tested, and we are also aware of test development as tools that we could use eventually to provide consistency. I think, however, that there are other tools that are going to be needed.

We would see that duplication of services would be avoided, thereby allowing funding for special needs for specific types of clients; for example, the learning disabled, literacy, employment specific, etc. These have already been mentioned around this table by colleagues.

This is our vision and I would like you to think about it as a backdrop for some of the other points I would like to make.

The Chair: Can I just interrupt you, because you have already submitted a written brief and all those points are in the written brief. Do you want to reiterate them?

Ms Taborek: I wasn't going to read it all.

The Chair: You have used up the two minutes but if you want to go on for a minute, I'll allow it.

Ms Taborek: I'm sorry. I misunderstood the rules. I thought I had five minutes.

The Chair: No. I gave five minutes to some because they were going on, but at the beginning I did say two minutes. If there is anything in particular you want to outline or stress in your written brief, we can proceed in that way if you like.

I am being very strict on the rules because we didn't have time, both in Vancouver and in Edmonton, to finish the discussion and get down to the nitty-gritty of what we are here for.

Ms Taborek: I think I would just like to mention my concerns then about the community decision-making question that was asked.

We do feel that if there are local community boards set up, they could foster competition instead of cooperation. There's a potential for conflict of interest in local community boards that would have to be addressed, and although there could be conflicts of interest, we don't wish to see that. We also want to see the best qualified people on those boards, and they may be in a local setting, the ones who are actually having the potential for conflict. I think that would have to be addressed.

I'm very concerned for TESL Ontario about fragmentation across the country and the delivery of language and settlement services. I am also concerned about the workload that might be put on volunteers, or whether these people on local boards would be seconded. That's a question we had.

We did have a list of people whom we thought could sit on local boards, which is in my brief. Generally speaking, again we advocate for clear standards of operation, open information on the funding, and for knowledgeable people understanding how delivery of language plus settlement services fit together very well. We would like knowledgeable people to be represented.

The Chair: I thank you very much, Ms Taborek.

I would like to repeat what I have said. If you have submitted a written brief, I don't think it's necessary to repeat what's in the written brief. Everybody can get a copy from the clerk at the door. You will have an opportunity during the next two hours to bring up points that you feel you want to stress.

Mr. Vezina, please.

Mr. Paul Vezina (Commissioner, Social Services, Regional Municipality of Peel): Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here. I am the Commissioner of Social Services for the region of Peel, and contrary to what you may have read in the press, the Peel region does not get joined to Metro-Toronto. We represent about 850,000 people to the west of Toronto, the cities of Brampton, Mississauga and Caledon.

In Peel we have a large multicultural servicing network of well over 25 agencies. I believe that settlement services need to be provided at the local level through NGOs. They have experience, they have history, and they are accessible.

I also believe and strongly recommend that there needs to be a regional planning process that looks at settlement services, to make sure that dollars are allocated in a planned and coordinated way.

If the federal government plans to decentralize its approach, whatever approach it takes must not result in a scattered or uncoordinated approach. That will not serve the people.

You've heard comments about fair share. That needs to be looked at. In other words, federal dollars should go where immigration need is the highest. I really believe that needs to be put in place.

I also believe that the funding process needs to be simplified. Too much energy time is spent by agencies chasing dollars, drafting proposals, and so on, when they should be serving people.

Likewise, I also believe that some form of outcome measurement needs to be built into the program, so that we can measure the value of the programs over time.

Those are my comments, Madam Chair. Two minutes.

The Chair: Merci, monsieur Vezina. I appreciate that.

Ms Jane Breitman.

Ms Jane Breitman (Area Manager, Regional Municipality of Peel): I will reserve for the round table discussions.

The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

Ms Ramwa.

.1005

Ms Andrea Ramwa (Executive Director, Inter-cultural Neighbourhood Social Services: My name is Andrea Ramwa.

Good morning, everyone. Today I could possibly wear a couple of hats this morning, because I am also part of the Multicultural Inter-Agency Group, and I do reinforce what Anna-Maria has said this morning.

I work very closely with Malton Neighbourhood Services and I also express the same sentiments.

We are also part of the Peel LINC Partnership and we are funded by the Regional Municipality of Peel. So we reinforce everything that has been said on behalf of all these organizations.

Today I want to talk about the Inter-cultural Neighbourhood Social Services and, in particular, about our model. Our model has, I believe, been very effective in delivering support services to the smaller NGOs, the smaller and the emerging groups, the ethno-cultural, ethno-specific groups who are actually the important people who deliver the settlement services to their communities.

I have prepared a very short statement. I will not read all of it. I will just be very brief on this. I have also prepared....

The Chair: We have a copy.

Ms Ramwa: Yes, that's right. I have also prepared a little profile of our organization, which you can read about -

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Ramwa: - since I want to talk about the model.

We believe that public education still remains a very important component of any planned program for integration of newcomers. These newcomers play a very important role in Canada's socio-economic development, and we will have to reinforce that fact and strive to send the correct messages out. If we don't, there will always be resentment and dissatisfaction about moneys being spent on settlement services.

Based on our experience both as a neighbourhood centre and as a resource centre on ethnicity in Mississauga, we believe that the most effective mechanism for delivery of settlement services will have to encompass several essentials.

We think that a degree of centralization would be necessary, as well as direct and firsthand experience of immigrants, commitment to community development, knowledge and expertise in relevant service delivery, appropriate accountability measures and evaluation process, realistic and equitable distribution of funds, and accurate assessment and determination of settlement needs.

Because we have functioned as an umbrella organization for many years, we provide this type of support, and we know that this sort of model will work.

The commitment of the minister to the program of settlement renewal in which they would hope to share the responsibility with local communities is applauded. We strongly believe that immigrants are best served in an environment in which they are most comfortable. They not only need to converse effectively with the settlement worker using a common language or dialect, but they need to be assured that their best interest is being considered.

Cultural interpretation is of absolute importance. The matter of the newcomer integrating into Canadian society becomes more complex than simply communicating to him or her in a familiar language.

Cultural responsiveness becomes a key factor in delivering settlement services in our community. Any program that is designed to cater to the needs of the newcomer to Canada will have to consider the ramifications of not catering to settlement needs in this way.

There must be local participation that will adequately and accurately represent settlement needs and recommend sound ways to address them. Local advisory committees must therefore consist of a cross-section of the community, including consumers and service providers.

I will participate later on and I will explain a bit more about the model. We look forward to discussions. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I am going to allow also some comments from the members of the committee. I will start with the opposition.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez, do you have any comments?

.1010

M. Nunez: Good morning everybody. I congratulate you for your presentations. I see that you have a lot of experience and expertise in the settlement of newcomers. You do provide lots of services.

I am quite pleased to be in Toronto because this is the community that welcomes the largest number of immigrants in Canada. As you know, I am the immigration and citizenship critic for the Official Opposition, and I must say that I enjoy criticizing. As a matter of fact, I don't think there were enough criticisms this morning, like yesterday, in Edmonton.

The Official Opposition shares some of your concerns. Someone referred to the head tax. I have nothing against this tax, even though some of my colleagues do not like the word. However, the tax is not only compulsory, it is also discriminatory, but this is not the time to talk about it.

Someone mentioned that the ultimate objective of transfering responsibilities to lawful organizations is to cut funding. In other words, there will be less money available. This will lead to service cuts, and I think it is a very serious matter.

This has already happened in other fields, such as social programs and unemployment insurance. Today, it is happening in the field of immigration, even though Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the department that collects the most money from users. More than half the budget of the department comes from users.

Someone refered to the $975 tax, on top of the $500 that has to be paid to open a file, but I would like to add that rates had also increased in everything dealing with citizenship. I think we should hear more users on those specific issues relating to immigration. If someone came here as a refugee without any money to pay the head tax, he will never become a permanent resident of this country. In that case, he will never be able to bring his family, his spouse and children, and he will never be integrated into our society. He will feel alone, isolated, which will lead to problems.

I would like to hear you speak about the role of the various levels of government. What do you think the appropriate role should be for the federal government and for the provincial governments? You know that we have faced a similar problem in Quebec. According to agreements signed between Quebec and Canada, the Quebec government is administering all the funds relating to the selection, welcoming and settlement of immigrants, but that is an exclusive responsibility of the province. Do you think all the provincial or municipal governments should play a similar role? Since the municipalities are very close to immigrants and newcomers, do you think they should have more responsibilities in this field or in the field of education?

In Vancouver, some representatives of the schoolboard told us that they were implementing specific programs because the children of immigrants face specific problems. There are schools where the majority of students are from other countries, which does sometimes cause some problems that have to be addressed.

.1015

We spoke about this problem in Vancouver and in Edmonton, and we would like to hear from you on this topic as well. Even if you make every effort to help immigrants and refugees integrate a bit more successfully, if society is becoming increasingly hostile towards them, they will not manage to integrate. In Canada today, we are witnessing a rising tide of resentment directed against immigrants and refugees. There is racism everywhere and in some cities it is worse than in others. What can we do to make people more welcoming, more tolerant?

Yesterday, it was with a great deal of interest and pleasure that I read a statement issued by several Churches on the need for tolerance towards refugees here in Canada, and I wholeheartedly subscribe to that objective.

I would also like to hear you say a few words about women, who face specific problems of their own. What efforts could be made to integrate those women, what special programs could be set up for them, especially when they are refugees and come from countries such as Bosnia, where they were subjected to torture or gangrape? These are matters that concern the official opposition greatly, and my other colleagues probably share those concerns as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez.

[English]

Ms Clancy, please.

Ms Clancy: Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I, too, thank you very much for your presentations. A couple of things, and these are to individuals around the table. We can either talk at the break or, if you want to make it part of the discussion, Ms Manesh, I was particularly interested in your comments about wrong information in legations world-wide, and I would be really appreciative if you could give me some examples of this, either during the break or you could write to me, because I'd very much like to deal with that.

Mr. Dick, I'm wondering if the ethnocultural council has ever met with Peter Dalglish, the head of Youth Services Canada, on the subject of new Canadian youth in the youth services project. If not, perhaps you and I could talk at the break as well to facilitate that meeting. I know Mr. Dalglish, who is the former head of Street Kids International, would be very interested to hear your views and maybe facilitate some of your concerns.

On the overall, Mr. Calla from COSTI, I presume that what you were talking about when you talked about federal funding would be the earmarking of federal funds. Am I right? When you talked about the accountability of federal funding and where the money is going, you're basically saying we need to earmark federal funds.

Mr. Calla: Yes.

Ms Clancy: I'd then like to throw out a couple of things to all of you. I want to reassure Ms Macdonald - first of all, I want to tell the chair that Ms Macdonald has a Scottish name, not an Irish name. Good grief, in Nova Scotia we don't make mistakes like that!

The Chair: I'll be careful in future.

Ms Clancy: With regard to the memorandum of understanding, let me reassure you that sovereignty is not an issue there at all. Indeed, in some of our dealings with the United States we're happy to say, particularly in the areas of gender sensitivity, the Americans have taken up the gauntlet from us and followed our lead. But I'd ask you, if you could, to deal in particular with the question of the maintenance of national standards and the balance between national standards and local expertise, because I think that's one of the things we want to grapple with.

I'd also ask you - and I almost hesitate because we've had different responses in different cities on this. Many of you are familiar with the benchmark program, the benchmark response. I always get this one wrong, SMIS.... we've been hearing about this in a most, shall we say, vociferous way from your colleagues nationwide, so I would hate to leave Toronto without hearing what the community here in Toronto has to say.

.1020

I have one other thing: the question of local authority. Somebody here - I forget who - brought up the idea of competition. I just throw this out and then I'll dive under the table. Do we have too many agencies maybe? Is that something we have to look at? Ms Revilla is telling me no, we don't, but I think we have to look at it.

Yesterday, we talked about gaps and duplication and maybe we have to look at that, too, and see where we can come together. Just a suggestion.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms Clancy. I also have other members.

Mrs. Terrana, then Mr. Assadourian and Maria, if she wants to add anything.

Mrs. Terrana: Thank you very much. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming and talking to us.

One thing I would like to bring up is that we are here to find alternatives, recommendations, ideas. We have several questions that have to be answered and it would be.... There are many things, such as the area of accountability. We want to know how settlement programs can be managed in a way that is fiscally responsible, etc. We want to know how the bodies we are putting together in the local communities can be effective, efficient and representative of their communities. We want to know what the presence of the federal government would be in all of this. Who would be the eligible clients? Who will the programs serve?

This is really what we need from you. I've been a multiculturalist for 20 years at various levels and I know what the problems are. I understand what you're saying and know there is a lot of concern. There is a lot of concern in many other areas in this country. If you take land claims, it is a big, big issue in British Columbia. We have the natives thinking one way and the rest of the people thinking another way. It is very difficult to put them together. I just met with them yesterday and I still have the scars.

It is very difficult to persuade people that we are not here to hurt anyone. I personally am not here to hurt anyone. I got into politics because I was hoping to help, and I think many of us do that. We are probably idealistic, but we need your help, we need your input. I keep telling everybody that unless I have people working with me, I cannot do anything. I am the channel to Ottawa. That's it. I am very prepared to work 24 hours a day, but we need your input.

I would like to ask you to concentrate on some of these answers rather than giving us what your concerns are, because we know the concerns and that's why we are doing this, too.

There are several problems that are dear to my heart, such as accreditation. And the information abroad - you are very, very correct. It was happening in 1966, when I came, and it is still happening. It is unfortunate and I know that unless you have gone through it, it is hard to understand. I have discussed that in every forum I found myself in, and we didn't get very far.

The orientation abroad is another very important issue that you brought up, Ms Revilla. I also say we should teach English wherever and whenever possible, at source, where the people are waiting to come to Canada, or French - sorry. Oh, he's gone.

Ms Clancy: No, no, it's not just him.

The Chair: Anna is bilingual, by the way.

Mrs. Terrana: From British Columbia. Everybody is surprised, but I don't come from British Columbia originally.

I would like to ask a few questions. Mr. Calla, you talked about the proportion of distribution of funds and I agree with you. In British Columbia, we get something like 30% of the immigrants and only about 9% of the funding. We also know that Quebec gets a good portion of that funding. How would you decide...how would you prove the numbers of people who come to our area? How would you prove numbers? I have an answer from British Columbia and I want to hear yours.

.1025

As for the Peel Police, Staff Sergeant Cryderman, thank you for saying you support renewal and that, apparently, it's going to be better for you. I would like to hear from you how it's going to be better.

I think that's about it. But again, since I am on the other side of the table this time, please cooperate and let's come up with some ideas so we can go forward. Toronto is the cradle of this nation, isn't it?

The Chair: Thank you, Anna.

Mrs. Terrana: Thank you.

The Chair: Sarkis, please.

Mr. Assadourian: Thank you.

First of all, I would like to welcome colleagues from Nova Scotia, B.C. and Quebec. I am sure my colleague from la belle province and the Bloc Québécois would enjoy his stay in the hub of Ontario, Toronto. It's too bad he's not here. But I am somehow disappointed that the other colleague from the Reform Party did not make it today. I don't know why. I think it would have been a real education for all the members, especially the opposition, to come to Toronto to listen to your wonderful presentations here.

I have three points to make. First, the Peel Police presentation. Could they tell this committee if they see any relationship between settlement programs and violence, or lack of settlement programs that would generate more violence, or the other way around? That's a concern to me, especially in light of the fact that some members of Parliament in Washington recently said that immigrants contribute greatly to crime in Canada.

The other point I want to get to, which my colleague already asked about, is Ms Manesh said no information is better than wrong information. Sometimes in overseas operations, we provide potential immigrants and refugees information that is not accurate. I am very concerned with that because, if that is the case, we should be notified and stop the process as soon as we can - not only stop the process, but give them better and accurate information.

Those are my concerns. If they could be addressed during this session, I would really appreciate it.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Last, but not least, Maria Minna.

Ms Minna: Thank you, Madam Chair.

What I want to talk about is how we might focus the discussion more from the point of view of what my concern is as someone who was involved in the field of settlement and the delivery and funding of settlement. I understand, and I have been on that side of the table many times, about the shortness of funds and the need for more of everything. I am not going to get into that because I could easily....

What I want to get into, and I really want us to focus on - some of you alluded to it, talking about local advisory boards. The questions in the press release talk about the government passing the responsibility of deciding who gets what to the local level. I have my biases about it, if you want to hear them. I have strong reservations about passing things down to local advisory boards.

I've seen what happened in Ontario with the OTAB, the Ontario Trade and Adjustment Board, with their local board. It's been a total mess, not because people are responsible, but because there are so many people involved in the issue and there's so much interplay that trying to break it down so there are no conflicts of interest, there are professionals, so that there is not another level of bureaucracy, I don't.... If I were now the head of an agency - this is my reaction, maybe some of you can convince me otherwise - I would not want to go through another level of bureaucracy, which is a local board, before I get to the municipality or the federal government, whoever else is ultimately responsible for the transfer of funds, for approval of whatever.

Maybe there's an alternative. Maybe you disagree with me. I really would like to address it because I think that's the crux of it. That's one of the things we're talking about, sending the responsibility to the local level, the local government, what have you, and I think that is something we need to deal with.

.1030

The other issue we need to address is the area of ESL and funding. Some of you have mentioned about where the money goes. There is also the question of access to it for immigrant women. In this country we've always had a huge problem with immigrant women having access to language training. We know that; it's not a big secret to anybody. First of all, most of the people sponsored are women and sponsored people do not have access to subsidized language training.

Number two, up until recently, unless you were destined for the labour force, you were still not eligible. I think that's now no longer the case but that's still an issue. How do we deal with the limited dollars of ESL and the partnerships that...? I know some of the agencies around this table have developed extensive partnerships with educational systems and local community delivery bodies and I think they've been extremely helpful that way. It saves a great deal of money.

The other thing around all of this is that settlement programs, ESL training, and all of this do not sit in isolation. The referral services, as someone mentioned earlier - what I like to refer to as the holistic approach. The reality is that there are people in your class who have other issues. They have problems of training, problems of employment. There may be problems of violence in the home, and there are the cultural and racial issues to deal with. There is the accreditation problem and other issues of counselling that come to bear. If you don't deal with those issues up front and early on in the settlement process, you pay for them later, whether you like it or not. These are issues and concerns that have to be addressed. How will they play out in the local responsibility, divesting of responsibility, the identification of the needs, the funding and so on? How does that play out?

As far as national standards, I don't have as much concern about that because I believe we can pull 50 people together from across the country, sit them in one room and they'll come up with national standards easy enough. The issue is then, how do you enforce them and how do you then make them not rigid and so on? But that is not as much of a concern to me as the first three, specifically the governance, the allocation, the identification, the streamlining, all of that. How does it play? Some of you said you loved the idea of local responsibility. Why? How do you see it work out? I suspect that every one of us has a totally different perception of how it's going to play out. Those are my comments.

The Chair: Thank you.

We will take a five-minute biological break, as I call it, but before we do, I'll give you some food for thought on some of the points of general consensus that were discussed both in Vancouver and in Edmonton. I'll just read them as they came up, without any order, really. They might be food for thought for the discussion when we come back.

Consultations surrounding settlement renewal are essential. Everyone said that in the two cities we visited. The government should ensure that the process is thorough and does not proceed unnecessarily fast in order to meet an arbitrary deadline.

Concern was expressed that communities should be ready to accept the responsibilities that the federal government will be passing along to them under settlement renewal.

The federal government should assume a leadership role in determining, with the settlement delivery community and its clients, the overarching principles and national standards that govern the immigrant settlement system. Such principles and standards should make provision for some degree of local flexibility and local needs.

A local settlement community should have input into the decisions about local settlement needs and priorities; however, the allocation or funding decisions should be made by a body that has no vested interest in their outcome.

It is essential that the particular needs of children and women be taken into account when determining immigrant settlement services. Local levels of government, municipalities and school boards should be at the table whenever settlement decisions are made. Federal funds destined for settlement programs should be earmarked for this purpose.

Employment and language training are essential components of successful integration.

We need better communication from region to region about successful innovations in settlement delivery.

We should reconsider the length of time during which settlement services, most importantly language training, are available to immigrants. Three years is often not sufficient, particularly for women.

Funding criteria should take into account the readiness of the client, regardless of the length of residency in the country.

Integration is a two-way street; the time needed to integrate depends, in part, on the willingness of the community to accept the newcomer. There should be a public information program about immigration to combat racism and any anti-immigrant backlash.

Some themes that came from the Edmonton consultation were the importance of ensuring that adequate information about settlement renewal is made available to all affected, the importance of involving the grassroots in the process of settlement renewal and proceeding at a measured pace - there might be repetition, of course, because we did this last night, at one o'clock in the morning; the importance of language training and its availability to people, regardless of the length of their residency or their current status as an immigrant - we've said that already; the need to avoid duplication in reporting requirements.

Settlement renewal should simplify and rationalize settlement delivery, not complicate it. One of the questions that may flow from that is, what types of duplication are we talking about? Is it duplication of services or duplication of administration? Do you feel, in this area, there is duplication of either kind or both, perhaps?

There is widespread dissatisfaction with the government's information management system, the SMIS. Groups claim that it is inflexible and costly, both in terms of administrative time and dollars.

In terms of accountability, the focus of accountability criteria should be qualitative, not merely quantitative. Accountability procedures should not increase the administrative burden of the service delivery agencies, and reporting requirements should be designed so as to avoid duplication.

Those are the main points of consensus. Actually, I think a lot of them were also brought up this morning.

I'd like to take a five-minute break and we'll be right back. Thank you.

.1034

PAUSE

.1051

The Chair: Order, please. I will take a speaker's list. Let's try to be brief, please, and to the point. I don't know if anybody here would like me to repeat what I said. I don't think so; I think it was pretty clear.

I want to make the point also that the minutes and the transcripts of these meetings are available to any member sitting around the table. They're also on the Internet if you do want to ``plug yourself in'' and get copies of them directly. That's possible too.

The report of the committee to the House, as I mentioned earlier, will also be made available to all the participants. I do encourage you, even after this meeting, to submit a written brief. Some of you have today but perhaps you'd like to add things, and any recommendations based on our discussion today are very welcome. They will help guide both the researcher and the members of the committee in drafting our final report, and I really would welcome your input.

I would like to say also that as Anna and others have said, if you look at the composition of the committee, with a Greek, some Italians, an Armenian and an Irish, I think we know where you're coming from. I have 15 years' experience in Quebec with cultural communities and immigration, and I assume that's one of the reasons I did get the chair of this committee, besides my facility in English and French. But what I'm saying is that a lot of what you've brought up we have personally dealt with. I've dealt with it 15 years in Quebec. Sarkis, Maria and Anna have dealt with it in their own communities.

I would like to focus the discussion today on the national standards, as Mary said, national principles, the accountability element, and what body are we looking at in terms of administering the programs in the future - let's try to focus on that. Critique is always important and necessary, but I think you've had your opportunity with the minister, who's done an extensive consultation across this country and continues to do so. You can have the opportunity to do it with me, withMr. Assadourian, with Maria Minna or with Anna at any time on any of the issues that you've raised that are not the focus of our discussion this morning.

Thank you. Those will be my opening remarks.

Mr. Calla.

Mr. Calla: I would just address a number of issues raised by the committee. First is Ms Terrana's question regarding how one determines settlement in each region. CIC each year publishes a very detailed report on immigration and breaks it down by country of origin, age, and gender. It's very specific and it breaks it down in terms of what cities people are settling in and then also what regions. We use that report to take a look at the immigration patterns for the Toronto area.

Mrs. Terrana: Can I just make a comment?

The Chair: I will come back to you. Do you want to finish, Mr. Calla?

Mr. Calla: I'd also like to address the issue of orientation overseas because the issue for us is that it affects the settlement of people here once they arrive. This has been of concern to us, to the extent that we've written to the minister of immigration with some ideas on this issue. If you have a refugee who arrives, as has happened at our reception centre, and they're expecting the Hilton and they refuse to come into the centre just because their idea of Canada is basically the Hollywood version, it makes it then very difficult for staff to reframe their whole expectations. So a lot of work then has to go into that.

What we've done, because of that, with the help of the local CIC staff, is have delegations of visa officers from overseas who come through our reception centre and talk to them.

.1055

We have a set of videos in 24 different languages that covers things like Canadian law, banking and finance, the education system, the transportation system and basic orientation. Visa offices in Bucharest, Athens and Rome have now requested copies of these to help, but it's such a huge problem that I think a more systemic approach needs to be taken overseas.

I think the SMIS system should be suspended until the renewal process is determined and we know what the new settlement model is going to look like. We have problems with it.

Some agencies are claiming that it's taking 15% of their time to complete those forms. We're a larger agency and somewhat computerized. It's not taking us as much time, but it is taking an inordinate amount of time.

We have a serious problem with the fact that clients need to give their immigration identification number and they're very reluctant to do so. We continue to serve them, of course, but there's a question: if we don't put in the numbers of people we're serving, then we don't get recognized financially.

So people are very suspicious when they have to sign anything. We're asking them to sign releases of information because basically we're giving this information to the federal government.

So there are some serious flaws with this SMIS system and we hope it will be revised. I think the information is important to the federal government, but not the way it's currently being collected.

There is one issue that hasn't been raised here. I guess COSTI is the only group around the table that is operating a reception house and the reception house basically is for government-sponsored refugees.

The issue is the adjustment assistance program with which the federal government basically funds the government-sponsored refugees. There has been some question that the settlement renewal will divest that program locally along with the other programs.

We're concerned that if that happens, one model could follow. Given that these people are getting allowances from the government for up to twelve months, they can easily be absorbed within the general welfare assistance programs at the local level. I think that would be a tragedy because there are very specific, very clear needs that refugees have that need to be attended to. That program needs to be distinct in terms of the funding but also the services for refugees. I would separate that out from the other immigrant programs being provided.

My last point has to do with the maintenance of national standards. One model that could be employed is the current model being phased out, the CAP transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces.

To give you one example, that program is how health standards are set across the country. Then the provinces deliver the services. That works fairly well. Where provinces have tried to corrupt those standards, as has happened in Alberta, then really the federal government holds the purse-strings. They refused to pay the Alberta government the health dollars unless they dropped the user-fee they were trying to impose at that time.

I would suggest a similar concept, a similar model, for settlement services that creates an arm's-length approach by the federal government. That is important when you look at a service delivery model.

Currently we have a service delivery model in Toronto, called Jobs Ontario Training. It has both provincial and municipal levels closely involved, and it's created a real mess in the delivery because there were mixed messages from both levels of government. There are problems in delivering it because of that, and people are tripping over each other.

So I would suggest that whoever gets it, whether it's the province or the local level, you have the standards, they're maintained through the purse-strings, but let the local people then provide the services freely.

.1100

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Calla. Did you want to respond to something, Anna?

Mrs. Terrana: Yes, please. I just wanted to say that you're talking about immigration, but we're also talking about migration. The big concern is that people do not stay where they go.

British Columbia is a good example, with people coming to it, not just Ontario. In British Columbia the suggestion would be to use the information the provincial government has that relates to people using medical services.

I don't know how practical it would be if it can't be done with the provinces, but that could be an alternative. What you're suggesting is not good enough, considering the migration.

Mr. Calla: For the secondary migration, yes, you're right about that.

Ms Anne Woolger (Inter-Church Committee for Refugees): I've also been working at a refugee reception centre since 1988, both with government-sponsored immigrants and refugee claimants.

I just wanted to follow up on a comment made by the gentleman from COSTI. I agree with his concern that the government-sponsored people should not be swallowed up by the welfare system. I feel this way partly because, having worked with refugee claimants whose only form of assistance is welfare, I really have a concern about access to service.

Perhaps my main comment would be concerning refugee claimants. They're always the last ones who are served. For instance, with respect to the LINC program, I don't believe they're eligible even now for English.

Just remember that many refugee claimants do end up being deemed as refugees and should be eligible for these kinds of services. There's just a real concern that they miss out.

Also there is the question of those who are deemed refugees, but now - and I don't know what is going to happen - with the landing fees coming up.... If there are some who, for whatever reasons, cannot afford landing fees, another category is being created. They are non-status people.

There are other types of people who are non-status for whatever reasons and there's just a real concern about those people. They don't have a voice or a label. They should not be forgotten in all of this process.

The Chair: I would like to just say something on the landing fees, because it's come up a number of times. I'm sorry Mary isn't here to specify, but the minister and this government are on record that no one will be refused based on the fact that they cannot meet the $975 payment. No one has been refused to date. Some of them are in limbo, as you said. We have to work that out.

There have been some recommendations made to do away with the fee for refugees. The Council for Refugees has made that recommendation to the minister. Unfortunately, we can't afford to do that.

He's on record as saying that. The reason the $975 landing fee was imposed was to cover the settlement costs. Now we're looking at another step. We're looking at a step where that responsibility will be given to another level, whether it's the provincial or municipal level or another body. We're looking for input in terms of that.

But that is a concern, and it is also a concern of a lot of members of Parliament, I can tell you.

Mr. Vezina, did you have your hand up?

Mr. Vezina: I just have a couple of comments. Representing the lowest level of government, the municipal government, I'm very suspicious of any federal initiative that might attempt to download services or responsibilities to us unless that downloading carries with it sufficient funds and flexibility to deliver services.

I would urge you to look at those issues when you look at your program. We are very interested in partnerships with you with regard to planning and managing services through the voluntary sector, but we need the funds to do that.

In my view - and I'm going to be a little controversial - we need more services, but not necessarily more agencies. In fact we probably have a few too many agencies and not enough dollars to service the people who really need the service.

.1105

The present funding system has encouraged the mushrooming of agencies rather than the planning of real services to people. Your process needs to begin with the needs of people in communities and to go from there, rather than to deal with the politics of agencies and inter-agency competition.

That's why I come back to a regional planning and coordination model where that exists. Setting up special-purpose bodies, such as OTAB and so on won't work. You have bodies already, regional planning bodies; use them.

Ms Manesh: I have three points. One is that I was glad to hear that my colleague, Mario Calla, said that the overseas posts have contacted their organization to receive information. That just shows you how desperate they are to get information.

During the break I was talking to Ms Clancy and she was saying that an issue such as getting assessment on your qualifications is not a federal issue. But the fact is that if the wrong information is given to them, once they come here and become landed immigrants or refugees, it becomes a federal issue. You have to pay for them to settle and integrate in the community.

I'll go further than that. Mario said that information is needed. I would say that training is needed for the overseas staff to provide information. They don't have to be responsible for the information they're providing, but they need to have the right information. That's one point.

The second point I have is about the duplication of services that was mentioned a couple of times around the table. Just because one service is provided at two different locations doesn't mean you are duplicating the service. It's like saying one post office is enough for the whole of Toronto. They're all selling stamps, right?

But the fact is that if there is a need for it, if there is a need for a certain service to be provided in a certain language in a certain area in two or three places, then it's not necessarily duplication. It could be in some cases, but it's not necessarily duplication of services.

I have a third point. I was just wondering how bureaucratic we will become. I'm referring to our community-based organizations once you download all these responsibilities to us. My fear is that we will become insufficient.

The Chair: Thank you for your comments.

Ms Revilla.

Ms Revilla: I want to address the issue of duplication of services. Mitra has talked about it, but I think it is very important to clarify that message. What is happening is that if you add up the numbers, the dollars and the population, there's no duplication. Duplication occurs when the offering of services is higher than the demand. That's not happening. All the agencies - small ones, medium-sized ones and those churches - can tell you that they have lines of people asking for assistance. Therefore the duplication is not in that sense.

Maybe duplication is when there is administration, as Mr. Vezina mentioned. There is so much paperwork and so many documents to fill in that at the end what could be the purpose of that? Those issues need to be properly addressed.

I agree with Mitra that whatever body you create - local, regional or municipal bodies - we have to be sure that you are not creating another bureaucracy that is going to eat the dollars. Maybe we need to establish a kind of standard, such as program audits.

We usually work with financial audits where you like to see how many dollars you have and how many you have spent, but you have to add another component: how were those dollars used in terms of quality? We are not doing that and it's another important element that needs to be put in place in this renewal process. It's not only a question of dollars; it's how those dollars are used and evaluated based on quality rather than quantity alone.

The Chair: Thank you. I'm hearing that you feel the settlement renewal is essential. That is what I heard in Vancouver and Edmonton.

I'm not hearing enough about national standards, which is one of our key reasons for being here.

.1110

I have Mr. da Silva next on the list.

Mr. da Silva: Thank you.

First, I agree with what Mr. Vezina was saying, that we do not need to necessarily create new structures, that in many ways we have structures in place, if we are going to devolve services to the local level.

Local providers and stakeholders want to ensure that they will have input into that process and that they will receive their proportionate fair share of funding. If that is in fact in place, then I believe there are structures currently in place that can administer these programs.

In terms of national standards and consistency, I feel very strongly about that. We need to have quality standards across the country. If the government is going to continue funding settlement and integration, as it has made a commitment to do and to continue to do even though it is devolving decision-making to the local level, then it also has a responsibility to ensure accountability through structures and processes that are in place to make sure those goals and objectives are met and are met in an equitable and appropriate way.

There are certain things in place. Ms Clancy was talking about some controversy involving two issues. One has to do with the national benchmarks project; there is some ambivalence in some centres. I generally believe that the objective of that project, having a common understanding of language across this country, is universally shared among language and service providers. Perhaps the way it's done currently - and it's now under review - needs to be examined more closely.

The national benchmarks project is a step in the right direction. It was an initiative that was taken by the federal government, and if the federal government had not been involved in that, then that would not have happened.

I know there have been a lot of discussions regarding the SMIS. To some degree in our region we've been able to facilitate the process and overcome some of the difficulties through technology, and I think that needs to be explored.

In the Peel region we have implemented an automated reservation system that has some advantages, where much of that information is centrally gathered at the point of assessment. That facilitates the process for many of the service providers that do not have the resources or staff to be able to do those things.

We've also been talking about the overseas component before immigrants arrive in this country. If we take a component such as language, for example, which is something that is very important - it's surely not the only component of settlement, but it is a very important one - there's a commonality in language that needs to be looked at.

Essentially most immigrants go through three processes. Not all do, but most do. There's the intake process when they come to this country; then there's the settlement process, and ultimately for many there is the citizenship process. Not all of them necessarily need to go through that last process, but it is there.

For all there have been and continue to be language requirements and language proficiencies, yet there are no commonalties or common understandings of what that means. What levels of language are required for us to be effective, participating individuals in this country, whether it be as citizens, immigrants or refugees? I think there has to be a common understanding and some common standards. Also, who is going to establish those universal standards but the federal government?

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dick.

Mr. Dick: I would just address a very narrow area with respect to the national standards and apprenticeship training.

The Canadian Labour Force Development Board, which was set up about four years ago to look at a number of issues of training and retraining, is a federally appointed body. There is also the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship who look after training in their provincial areas.

.1115

As the member from Vancouver said a moment ago, in terms of setting standards for mobility purposes, however, where one can move from Vancouver to various areas of this country, we have to begin to institute some occupational and training standards.

Perhaps the federal government has to take the initiative in getting together these two bodies - the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship and CLFDB - to begin to address some core body of knowledge and skills and some kind of certification and examination procedure whereby people can afford to be certified. That way they can afford to travel from the east to the west of this country.

At the same time I also want to talk about a prior learning assessment. A number of people come to this country with their prior learning and it's very difficult for them to get certification. It could be a very expensive process to set one bureaucracy on top of another to begin to look after this issue. How do these people become certified to practice their trades or professions?

Perhaps we could consider circumventing the the process whereby people have to begin to go to school from year one, but to do as is being done in some areas. This would be to set up a system whereby people can be invited to simply do a performance examination, whether it involves a skill or a performance examination in the case of knowledge. Based upon these two criteria people can be given access to practice their trade or profession.

The same is true for recognition of foreign credentials. Many people come here who can immediately be of benefit to society. But because of difficulty with trade associations and professional organizations, people find it very difficult to access these trades and professions. I think government, either provincially or federally, should be seeing how they can use moral suasion in order to make some of these associations become more inclusive, rather than exclusive.

The Chair: Mr. Dick, Ms Clancy wanted to intervene at this point.

Ms Clancy: Yes, I really did because I understand your frustration, but you have to understand ours too.

As I know you are aware, the question of certification in trades and professions is provincial. I cannot underline too strongly the division of powers. Again, I know you are aware of this, but let me tell you two things.

First, for us as federal members of Parliament to even muse about this will bring the wrath of the provincial governments on all our heads in such a way that...believe me, you wouldn't want that to happen to us either. Even if you don't like us, you wouldn't want that to happen to us.

Second, it does bring us into the whole area of the dreaded ``c'' word: constitutional reform. I can only say that my boss has said that Canadians would like to see it back-burnered for a while.

So I don't deny the relevance of what you have said, but when you're preaching to a committee of federal MPs, may I say that you have to speak to your provincially elected members, your provincial bodies.

And moral suasion from the federal government to provincial bodies is a nice theory, but it doesn't exist very much, I can tell you.

Mr. Dick: The reason I made mention of this is that this is already happening. The CLFDB is already in contact with the directors of apprenticeship. This is already happening through the provincial deputy ministers of training.

So I'm saying there needs to be a greater input to encourage this. At the moment it's just these two boards speaking to each other. They need a greater power to begin to make what they're doing really take root and bite.

Ms Clancy: That would be wonderful. I merely say to you that many a flower was born to blush unseen. What boards can do.... More power to them, and I hope they're successful. But elected politicians have more restrictions on what they can do, both publicly and privately.

.1120

And I just say to you that we are not unaware of this. Of course, we are aware. Let me assure you that the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers, something Mr. Manley, the Minister of Industry, has concerned himself with in all areas impacting on Canadian business in particular and also on the professions, is a very sensitive area.

I guess I'm saying to you that in the near future you should not expect elected politicians on either side to put their foot in someone else's bailiwick.

Just as many of you are very nervous and mistrustful of us as the representatives of the federal government, I can assure you that we as politicians have had very bad experiences related to mixing into levels of government. If you think we are unwelcome with you people, man, you want to see how the provinces feel about us.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We'll continue -

Ms Clancy: I don't disagree with you.

The Chair: - with Ms Taborek.

Ms Taborek: Thank you. You wanted to talk about standards. I was on the national working group for the language benchmark, so it's a project very dear to my heart. Having gone through that for two years - and it's being field-tested so it's certainly still in draft form - I wanted to say that I experienced and saw the need for the buy-in by the provinces for implementation.

I understand someone mentioned here today that you can have as many standards as you want, but if you don't get the buy-in from the provinces, we're not sure just how it's going to work. It'll work in a small sector, but not thoroughly.

Representing TESL Ontario, I have the desire to see this continuum of service. I see people moving through systems being able to go from beginners through to university or whatever with the help of both the federal and provincial governments.

I understand that in B.C. they are looking into the process of a process to set that up. I'd be interested in knowing how that's going and if there's anything we can do in Ontario to see.... By the way, I meant duplication of services in terms of ESL delivery, where there is duplication and now two tiers, a LINC tier and a school board and community tier, which is actually becoming the poor cousin.

So there are a lot of problems there. I would be interested in the B.C. model.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

I have Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I would like to make a few observations. I agree with my colleague Mary Clancy when she says that the recognition of credentials is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

[English]

An hon. member: It's a first.

Mr. Assadourian: [Inaudible - Editor]

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: But I sometimes see somewhat contradictory positions within the government party. Many meetings were held by this committee to examine the issue of immigration consultants. That also is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, and I have already said as much to the committee. That was my first observation.

[English]

Ms Clancy: That's the criminal law.

The Chair: Just for the information of all the other participants, there is a subcommittee of our committee that has been struck to make recommendations on immigrant consultants to the minister, but again that is provincial jurisdiction. That's the reference Mr. Nunez is making.

Ms Clancy, do you want to add...?

Ms Clancy: That's criminal law -

The Chair: That's what Ms Clancy had. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: My second observation concerns national standards. The trend in the current government is to withdraw, to privatize and to transfer the responsibilities to the provinces, but without the funding. We see this in social programs, post-secondary education and social welfare. How can we demand that things be controlled by means of national standards when we are told that there is no more money? That's what we call taking the government deficit and passing it on to the provinces. In my opinion, there is a certain contradiction there.

.1125

You know in Quebec, we have a special situation. We do not want to have national standards because we are a distinct society. We have had a lot of problems in this area. We also want Quebec to be able to provide services that are at least equal to and, if possible, better than what is required in the other provinces.

As far as labour is concerned, at the federal government level the minimum is $4 an hour. This is scandalous. Here, in Ontario, the wage is more than $7 an hour. In Quebec, this minimum wage is $7 as well. What kind of an example is being set? How can the federal government impose standards when it is far behind the provinces?

I didn't hear anyone talk a great deal about the duration of the settlement services to be provided to newcomers. We were told, in Vancouver and Edmonton, that a three-year period was not adequate.

Today, most of the immigrants are coming from developing countries. They are black, yellow or brown. They have other religions, cultures and customs. Sometimes they need more time to adapt to this new society. The three-year period does not make sense if you want newcomers to sucessfully integrate. With the feelings of hostilitiy that exist in this society, integration is made even more difficult and may take more time, particularly for certain sectors of the immigrant population.

Furthermore, language constitutes an essential factor for the successful integration of newcomers. However, we have learned, and you have criticized this somewhat, that refugees are not entitled to take language training, even if they have to wait one, two or three years before having their status confirmed. What are they going to do?

We, and I in particular, applauded the minister when he brought back work permits. This was a good step. We must now also give refugees who are waiting to have their status confirmed an opportunity to take courses, if they so desire, obviously, and if they are able to do so.

Why shouldn't homemakers be able to take language course just like everyone else? Although they may not be working today, they could very well be working now or the day after. This is a measure that would help them adapt. Why isolate them in the home?

There is also the matter of duplication of services. I have been in Ottawa for 20 months, and I have observed an incredible waste of money caused by a duplication of services.

In Quebec, a Liberal minister criticized the waste that went on in the area of occupational training. He told us that $250 million were wasted every year because both the federal government and the provincial government had occupational training programs. This was not a sovereignist member of Parliament speaking, but a Liberal member from Quebec. This is a problem.

.1130

If new structures are created how can we avoid creating another decision-making and bureaucracy level? One of you raised that question and it is very relevant.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. Simply to set the record straight, I will say that we are not here to discuss the details of the settlement programs.

[English]

I think I made that point about five times, if not more. I'll make it again. If we get into the details of the settlement programs, we're not going to achieve our goal today. I don't want to waste your time or the time of the committee.

What we would really like is to focus on the terms of reference. I know they were not as specific as they are today because we started off in Vancouver and ended up becoming more focused, but I would like to hear more, as I said, about accountability and about what type of body should be responsible - provincial, municipal or what. Let's look at the national standards again. I've heard some feedback on national standards. It was good. I'd like to hear a little bit more.

Ms Macdonald: For my own church, the United Church of Canada, I operate the master agreement for sponsorship across the country. I may be in a slightly anomalous situation here, but I refuse to give a letter to a congregation if they don't abide by settlement standards I've asked them to abide by.

I would hope that when we're devolving and moving into this settlement renewal program, there will be funding and there will be criteria that the federal government can insist must be delivered in the community.

I like the idea of program auditing, not just money auditing. The quality of service I find very important. When you get into the local advisory boards and the stakeholders there, I see the need for them. I certainly see the need for regional creativity and ownership, and I hope it wouldn't be so bureaucratic that some of that creativity would be strangled.

One of the regions I checked with before I came here today isn't being considered right now in your hearings. They have a medical clerkship program for refugee doctors that guarantees access to four per year in this area of the country.

There are very innovative programs that other regions don't know about. It's always very frustrating to try to share across the regions of this country about some of the wonderful programs that do exist. So certainly, as you go into this model, some inter-regional communication would be very important.

The other thing I guess I'll have to talk a little bit about is the migration question, because I come from a have-not area; I guess that's why I'm here. We need local development and community development so the people who are initially settled there have the chance to remain. Some of the people I've met in my work would really like to remain; it's the employment factors that aren't available for them.

In some smaller communities even the language they can't access. I'm dealing right now with a couple in B.C. who actually have been determined to be refugees and have been denied their loan application to land on the basis that they're currently enrolled in English as a second language. It's phenomenal what actually happens if we don't have that consistency.

I don't want the federal government to abandon the regions. I guess I'm a closet federalist. There has to be some criteria, maintenance of standards and accountability of the regions.

The Chair: Your point about the lack of communication in terms of the creative ideas and creative agencies that do exist across this country and are providing innovative services was also brought up in Edmonton and Vancouver. That will be part of our report, because it has come up before. Thank you for bringing it to our attention again.

Ms Minna: I have two points to make.

First of all, I don't want to leave our guests here today with the misunderstanding that I think was created by my colleague from Quebec. With respect, it is only the separatists in Quebec who do not want national standards.

I went across this country as a vice-chair, and I heard from Quebeckers in Quebec that the average person wants national standards.

A voice: Hear, hear!

Ms Minna: In fact, the other vice-chair, who was a separatist, Madame Francine Lalonde, said in Quebec they do not want national standards. Of course in Quebec they will have national standards; they just don't want to have them with the rest of Canada.

The issue is not that the members of the opposition do not want national standards; it's that they want them only for the nation of Quebec, which at the moment does not exist. Therefore we will talk about national standards for Canada. Thank you very much.

I will now go to my other point. I've not heard a great deal today - and I think I'm going back to what the chair said a few minutes ago - on the issue of devolving. I'm not sure whether the members around the table or the agencies represented here have assumed that devolving is going to take place, which is something we're still discussing.

And to whom? I haven't heard whether it would be to the province, the municipality or the local board. Or should it stay with the federal government? It's an area that I don't think I, as a member, have heard expressed yet.

I understand it's early and you may change your mind. In your briefs you may have something different when you think about it a bit more. But I'd like to hear your gut reaction at this point; even that would be helpful.

The Chair: Thank you, Maria.

That point was brought up both in Vancouver and in Edmonton. Perhaps I read it quickly and you didn't catch it, but most of the witnesses felt we should have some type of body that included both levels of government, municipalities, the school boards and the clients. That was the basic framework.

We don't have the details of that, but I don't think it will be decided by this committee as such. We may make a recommendation that the body be composed of different levels, but then it will be up to the local....

The clients are to be an important element of the body that would eventually evolve.

Ms Manesh: I just wanted to make a comment to the representative from Quebec, who said women might be going to work and hence they need language training.

.1135

Even if women don't do paid work, sir, we do need to know the language. It is also very important, even if we don't do paid work, for the mental health of the family and for integration into the new society. We definitely need language.

Some voices: Hear, hear!

Ms Manesh: Secondly - and this was mentioned - I would like to see the involvement of the consumers at the table. To answer your question, the local governments, with authority and enough funding, to back up Mr. Vezina's point....

The fear is you are going to give the work and expect accountability with no support as far as money, time and human resources are concerned.

We would like to see not only direct consumer input, but the right environment for consumer input. Using a lot of jargon, as has happened at committees and meetings I've been involved with, actually frightens the consumers. You have to have the right environment for them to be able to express themselves and say what they think and what they need.

So they need direct input, but not just at face value. They should have the opportunity, with their limited experience of the system in Canada and with their limited ability to express themselves in English, to have input.

My last point is on national standards. We have been criticizing the federal government. I have to be fair and criticize my colleagues and the agencies I have been involved with. One of the issues I've always had with the settlement-providing agencies I've been involved with is the nature of the service is too what I call lovey-dovey, as opposed to making them independent. It's very important that all the services are directed towards the independence of the clients.

What happens when clients come to our organization? It feels nice to be friendly with them and support them, which is very important in the initial stages, but we have to basically treat them as case work. We have to have a plan when we're consulting with them. A counsellor has the responsibility to have a plan for them and a system to develop and monitor that plan so they become contributing members of the society, as opposed to becoming a liability to the community.

Thank you.

Ms Jacobs: I think most newcomers want that themselves. I don't think we'd be pushing it on them. Basically we hear again and again that people want jobs and English language skills so they can become independent.

In the whole area of standards, I don't think we can decide what the standards are here, but what's critical in providing a frame for that is to decide who will decide what the standards are. The group that decides what those standards are should have representation from clients, from immigrant-serving agencies and from all three levels of government.

Once the standards are developed and created, it's really important that they be transparent so that we, the service providers, know what the standards are and what benchmark we're going to be evaluated against. Someone mentioned as well that we need to buy into the standards.

On the whole question of local adjustment boards, I think it's really important that we realize we have a tabula rasa - a very open slate. There are several examples of local advisory boards. How are they working? Let's really check out what's happening there before we rush into any one model; let's take the best from various models and develop something of our own. I think Metro needs a Metro-made approach to this whole question.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned - and here I'm going to deviate from the three areas - is the whole question of public education. I'd like to support what the person from COSTI spoke about, i.e., the need for reception centres and programs like HOST. I see all of that as public education.

For people coming to Canada, even if they have orientation overseas, there's a whole process. They need to know how to adjust, and the host community needs to know how to adjust to the newcomers as well. I see anti-racism education, both for newcomers and the host community.

.1140

At CultureLink, which is a settlement program, quite often we have all newcomers saying they want a real Canadian. There is a whole other side of education and we know we need to acknowledge it. We all come with baggage and we need to work at that if we're going to have a healthy community.

Finally, around SMIS, I'd like to underscore the community concern and say that there are lots of ethical problems and, as well, a lot of logistical problems. I think the operationalization of the local CICs...our local CICs have been very receptive to the fact that there are logistical problems. They have said they know that there are going to be problems, and they're not really going to stick to this.

I think, in recognition of that, there should be a moratorium while all of this is happening - just put it on hold - but realizing that we know there is a need to be accountable and we want to make sure that the services we are providing are meeting the needs of the clients.

The Chair: Sergeant Cryderman.

S/Sgt Cryderman: I would like to address two comments that were given to us by the board. One had to do with our general support for settlement renewal and the other had to do with the possibility of association of violence with newcomers.

In regard to the first, to put it in context, we've already heard from a great number of our partners in Peel. I think Peel is pretty well represented here at the table today.

The general context for my favourable comment for settlement renewal was that our reading of it is that through greater efficiency, the possibility of local control of these programs and of greater funding for these programs could become a reality. Through those means, Peel police would be allowed an increased chance to proactively interact with newcomers in our community. That's something in which we're deeply interested.

In regard to the second question, let me preface it by saying that this is one of the reasons why police don't really like getting involved in political forums. I'd like to put my comments in context, as well. I don't speak for all police services. I speak only on the basis of my experience within Peel, that is, the cities of Brampton and Mississauga, our policing jurisdiction, and on the basis of my own experience as a police officer.

I think it completely untenable to try to define criminality through race. I think it's perhaps arguable that criminality could have associations with certain cultures.

Having said that, again on the basis of my experience as a police officer, there's absolutely no reason to associate increased violence with the influx of newcomers in our community.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Terrana: The Laurier Institute in Vancouver has prepared a report to that effect. It is proven that it is not true that race and criminality go together. If you are interested, the Laurier Institute has a whole report on gangs that I think was prepared by them last year.

The Chair: Thank you. We'll go to Ms Ramwa.

Ms Ramwa: I wanted to say something about what Brian just mentioned regarding his experience in the Peel Regional Police and also what Ms Jacobs mentioned concerning racism and stereotyping of people, and so on.

I'm here today to represent ICNSS as an umbrella group, which actually provides the facility and support of smaller groups. These are the smaller groups that actually deliver the service. These are the smaller groups that actually look to have partnerships and relationships with people, like the police force of the region of Peel, the schools, and so on, in the area.

When you're talking about standards and national standards, it will be difficult if you do not actually look at the different regions, if in fact you will be transferring the funds by whatever mechanism you use to allocate the funds, whether it be to municipalities, regions, or provinces.

.1145

In terms of delivering the service, it is the smaller agencies, the very small emerging groups, the community groups that are already there but are very small, that will actually be using the funds to deliver the service.

One of the things we have found is that the immigrants, as we have talked about today, are being looked at by society in general as a liability. I mentioned in my opening statement that it is very important that we should spend more time and some more moneys on educating the public about the role the immigrant has played and will be playing. One of the reasons why they have actually come to Canada is to improve their lifestyle or to run away from persecution or whatever they've come from. Then there is the other side of it: why did Canada allow them in? Criteria have been met and so on and that's the reason why they're here.

The settlement program naturally is going to help them to settle and to integrate. I thinkMs Jacobs also mentioned the point about the host program and immigrants wanting to be paired off with a Canadian as such.

It is very important that there should be public education, too, so that you can have participation from the public sector and you can have meaningful partnerships from the people who are already settled, from the huge corporations that are employing the labourers and those people who are being kept down, people who have skills and abilities who have come to Canada with certification and everything else but cannot find the jobs and are therefore put to work in the warehouses, people who don't have an excellent command of English and who have to resort to that sort of mode of employment.

There are now many programs that address the needs of employees within organizations to improve their skills in English while they're on the job and so on, but our concern is that highly qualified immigrants are working in these areas. So the corporations, the huge private sector, can be made more aware of how they can assist a program or help on their own, because they are the ones who deal with those immigrants on a daily basis.

This whole matter of integrating the immigrant should not be the burden of the government or the social services.

The other point I wanted to make on evaluation is that Inter-cultural Neighbourhood Social Services is the umbrella group for five different organizations and we implement a process of evaluation that is standardized within that centre. So when we do the reporting to the funder, there is a uniformity there inasmuch as you have five different organizations meeting the needs of five individual communities. The reporting structure is uniform in the sense that there is one report and there is one method of evaluation.

I would certainly like to see that this sort of thing is available and that it is actually addressed in terms of the national standards. You could achieve it providing you have the different levels that will be stepped onto in order to reach that national standard. You will set the standards, but there must be the mechanism to be able to evaluate in a national way.

The Chair: I'm sorry. You've had five minutes.

Ms Ramwa: Yes. That's all I have to say.

The Chair: We'll come back if we have time left.

Ms Woolger.

Ms Woolger: I shall make just a quick comment regarding the whole question of the standards with the local advisory boards. Hopefully, the people represented on the boards would safeguard against any bias in any way, but I still have to ask if there would be perhaps some kind of provision for - and I'm using refugee terminology - a meaningful appeal process just in case, for some reason, certain local advisory boards just were not being neutral enough in certain areas.

The final thing I wanted to ask is perhaps a bit more specific to refugee programs. Over the last number of years the Inter-Church Committee for Refugees has seen a definite demise in the whole refugee program. Certainly the numbers of sponsored refugees are decreasing, as is funding.

.1150

It seems as if this whole renewal program is caused somewhat by budgetary concerns. There's a real concern about the future of settlement and...[Technical Difficulty - Editor]. We are hearing about only a three-year plan, and the concern is where we are going. Is this the beginning of the end in terms of settlement? Will it all fall on the private sector? How, for instance, as churches could we be preparing? Churches are looking at long-term programming. Where is it all leading and how much should we be considering?

I don't know if it is possible to answer that. It's just a summary question.

Ms Clancy: I want to respond to Ms Woolger on two points.

First - and it has been said before, but we'll say it again - insofar as you're asking if there would be an appeal process, I ask if you are recommending that there should be. We're here to hear what you have to recommend. We don't have a model. We're listening to you. Are you recommending an appeal process?

Ms Woolger: Yes.

Ms Clancy: That will be part of our report. I certainly agree with you that that's a built-in safeguard.

With regard to the three-year stable funding, that should be taken at face value. Among other things, we don't have a crystal ball, and to project beyond three years is not sensible or even possible.

You should not, however, take from that that there is some plan in the basement of the minds of various cabinet ministers to cut you off. Again, we're not here to hit you on the head with an axe - at least not today, and I hope not in the future.

A number of us around this table are extremely committed to not hitting anybody over the head with an axe. Well, some people.

I want to say that of course everything is budget driven. We have a difficulty to deal with in this country with regard to the lack of scope in spending, if I can use that euphemism. But, again, there are those of us who are firmly committed - and I suggest to you that there are more of us than not - to the kinds of programs that all of you represent, and while we want to streamline, we don't want to kill.

I think I can say to you that it does not stop with backbenchers or committee members or parliamentary secretaries. It goes right to ministers. We are all here to try to do the best we can, so please don't take from the three-year projection that there will be a precipice at the end of that three years. God knows, there might be, but we are working very hard to ensure that there isn't that - or even a slippery slope.

Mr. da Silva: I want to respond to an earlier question or a challenge by Ms Minna on our gut feeling about where we should be partnering or where the services should evolve to.

In Ontario, certainly our sense of it has been that the provincial government - and it is hard to speak for the current government since it is so new - has been somewhat reluctant to work in this area. Possibly this is because of the block funding approach to federal funding and the threat of being saddled with additional responsibilities but not the degree of funding that might be appropriate to meet them. This perhaps reflects that reluctance on their part.

It is difficult for us to say that we should work with provincial partners when we're not sure where they stand at the moment. Certainly it is very important for those of us who provide settlement services, language training, and so on to new immigrants.

A comment was made about seamless service, transparent services to clients. One needs to understand that certainly in Ontario, which may be very different from most other provinces, where a large part of language training for new immigrants is delivered through provincial funding there are different pools of funding. It's very difficult - Ms Taborek spoke about this earlier - where different programs are being funded federally or provincially and clients in one program are at a disadvantage because programs are not being funded at the same levels.

.1155

So there would be some advantage to pooling of funding for language training to immigrants so that once, for example, an individual immigrant goes beyond federally funded programs and is now eligible for provincially funded programs, the level of service will not suddenly decrease.

For example, in many provincially funded programs child-minding is not provided for. When an individual is in federal training, where there is child-minding support, and graduates to provincial programs, that support is no longer there.

So some pooling of funding, some seamless kind of service, is to the advantage of all, especially the clients. This needs to be considered.

The other issue I wanted to raise is that I believe regions are very concerned about the imposition of one model or a universal model on every community and that a ``made in Metro'' model, sort of to reverse the previous comment, does not necessarily work in Peel. We are concerned that if we are going to go to the municipal or regional level, then it should reflect the needs of that particular community. That's very important.

The other issue is having the stakeholders, including consumers, involved in the development of national standards. That is critical and important. It exists to some extent, and I raise the issue of the national benchmarks project. The national working group is in fact the group that reflects the various regions of Canada, the various stakeholders, various service providers in different levels. That kind of model certainly is important in any kind of discussion or implementation of structures.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I would like to make a first comment. When I talked about language training and the LINC program, I said that I would like all newcomers to have access to them, including homemakers; not only the women who work but also the women who are not presently on the labour market. Here is why. It's because it facilitates integration, communication with the neighbours, and so on.

My second remark is about national standards. I see that there is a majority feeling in English Canada in favour of such norms. I think it is a good thing and I agree on this. However, it is inapplicable to Quebec and the bad separatists are not the only ones who say so. I worked for nine years for the labour movement. It does not identify itself with those national standards.

We see a fundamental difference between English Canada and Quebec. In English Canada, you believe in national standards and in the importance of the federal government. In Quebec, not only the bad separatists but lots of other people denounce the federal interference in many areas, in particular in the area of...

[English]

The Chair: We are getting off the topic.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez, would you please come back to the subject? It is not the issue of Quebec independence or Quebec versus Canada which is on the agenda. I want you to stick to the subject. Do you have anything to add?

[English]

Mr. Nunez: I was answering my colleague Ms Minna, and you didn't stop her.

The Chair: Yes, I did. I did tell Maria not to continue.

Mr. Nunez: No, you didn't.

Mr. Assadourian: She did.

The Chair: I might not have said it publicly, but I looked at her to stop.

Please go ahead.

.1200

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: My third comment concerns clients participation in program evaluation. I think it is very important. There has not been a lot of discussion here on this issue and I do not see many people who have received services and who are participating in these consultations. There are not many immigrant organizations that come here to tell us: «I think that funds would be better spent on this or that. We have nothing to say on program evaluation. We receive the services available to us and then we leave».

Finally, I am not sure if you know how the committee works. There are three recognized parties in the House.

Finally, I am not sure if you know how the committee works. There are three recognized parties in the House. The committee always writes a report, but the opposition parties also have the right to produce minority reports. We exercised that right last week. We were not in total agreement with the majority position concerning refugee women. Therefore we wrote our own report.

Last year, we also wrote a minority report on citizenship. We will follow these consultations very closely and see what our colleagues opposite will want to include in this report, and we will then decide if it is appropriate to produce a minority report stating some of your concerns if they are not already included in the majority report.

[English]

The Chair: All right, Ms Clancy, but please avoid political debate.

Ms Clancy: Absolutely. I'm sure it comes as no surprise to the participants around the table that the separatist member would have a different view on citizenship. However, what I do want to say on behalf of the other people is that perhaps the expression ``English Canada'' is one that should also be avoided. In the area of settlement and the acceptance of the multicultural variety of this country, there are many francophones in this country who do not reside in the province of Quebec. I speak, of course, of Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans, and Acadians, to name just three, and there are many others. But I would also like to say to the people around this table that the dissenting views expressed by any political party in the House of Commons...are given free rein as to what they say, just as your views will be given free rein in any report we might....

The Chair: Mr. Assadourian, I'm going to continue with the list, because we don't have time.

Mr. Mwarigha: From what I see, at least from the service providers who are here, it appears a fourth issue has become very important in the work of this committee. It's not possible to look at the issues of accountability and the whole structure of how to deliver settlement services outside of looking at the nature of services that are being provided. Although it's not clearly stated in the terms of reference, it is apparent that it's a very big issue and it's important that it be reflected in the report or acknowledged in future meetings.

My comments are more specific. It looks to me as if we all need renewal. I'm saying this because I hear the question of national standards coming up, but most of what I hear - and Mr. Nunez is correct here - is in relation to national standards from the perspective of the service providers and how we can ensure we have the kind of program audits, etc., that allow us to be accountable to the funder, or in this case the federal government. I think that's valid, but we also, in this discussion of national standards, need to add a component that is not there, and that is what national standards mean to the clients, the users, the newcomers.

I said we need renewal because I think before we get to that level, even for those of us who have been working in this sector for twenty years or so, it's important to have the knowledge that we do have a definite change in the types of immigrants we're getting, by and large. All of us who have been in the area of immigration know exactly what we're talking about. Even within the African communities, for instance, where we have had a history of immigration since the Second World War, we know that after 1975 we have been dealing with a problem and type of immigration that is very different from before. Part of that renewal is to acknowledge that difference.

I will not go into all the kinds of details that needs assessments have brought forth about this issue. It's related to the issue of duplication here as well, because part of the issue of the development of, for instance, ethno-racial groups forming themselves into immigrant service agencies has to do with a feeling that they're not catered for sufficiently within the existing framework. So that duplication is also, in a way, a way of saying ``we're not getting what we need''.

Therefore when we talk about national standards, from a client's or user's perspective - and I have been a user of the service in the past - if I have eight barriers that are very definitely identifiable, that limit my integration into Canada, I would expect that if I go to one service provider or if I move from one province to the other, or from one region or locality to the other, these barriers will be addressed in a similar manner. That just doesn't exist today, and that's part of the problem underlying the whole issue of secondary migration.

.1205

We need to be very careful about the issue of national standards and also emphasize that part of what I said I saw as an opportunity in the suggestion for local advisory boards was an opportunity to improve this component, which does not exist in and is not catered for by existing regional bodies, the delivery of settlement services.

Ms Clancy: With the greatest of respect to Mr. Mwarigha, I want to remind him that African immigration to Canada didn't begin after the Second World War, it began in the 1800s, with a significant African migration to Nova Scotia, followed by the black United Empire Loyalists at the end of that century. Sometimes people forget.

Mr. Vezina: Madam Chair, I think some of our focus has tended to be somewhat negative. My sense is that when I look at inter-cultural neighbourhood services, you have, for example, an agency that brings together Muslims, East Indians, Caribbeans, English, French - different cultures - and they seem to get along better than the French and the English in this country.

It brings me to my point about how locally we have to be committed to public education, but also it seems to me the minister needs to consider a really active public education program that stresses the successes that have been achieved in human terms. LINC has reached many people, notwithstanding that it doesn't reach enough. So there is a need, but there is also a really good success story here. We're way ahead of many other places.

If you're talking about local standards, I would rather begin with local standards and work up than believe standards developed above will filter down. I really believe communities in the end have to deal with some of these issues and what we need from the federal government is a commitment to funding that will be enough to meet the needs.

The Chair: I think, Mr. Vezina, that point has been made here and in Vancouver and in Edmonton. I think Ms Clancy as parliamentary secretary did reiterate that we don't have a crystal ball but that we do want to maintain the level it is at now, and if things go well, who knows, it might be even higher.

Ms Taborek.

Ms Taborek: Yes, I'd like to talk very briefly about accountability. I understand, having been on the benchmarks team, that it's important to have Canadian input. But at that point we also looked at what existed in other countries. I would suggest that for accountability the federal government might like to look at what is happening in Britain with ALBSU, where they look at their programs, visit them, and provide them with assistance to reach certain standards, which are very transparent to whomever gets funding. So they are held accountable to standards, and this has been in practice for a couple of years now. This exists in Australia with the benchmarks that are occurring there.

So it might also require some research, certainly with Canadian input into it. We want it to be our own. But we might want to look at other accountability systems.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Ms Breitman.

Ms Breitman: It's been very interesting listening as we go around the table this morning.

I'm sorry I'm not familiar enough with what some of the current standards might be to make constructive comment on what they should be. I do know, though, there are timeframes in the existing programs and the three years we often refer to for the language training are clearly insufficient. In fact, three years would be unrealistic to plan for the successful settlement of any newcomer to Canada. If in the planning process we're looking at timeframes to be included, ten years is probably a more realistic standard to be looked at, and that is a timeframe for successful settlement and integration.

.1210

The point has been made several times that integration is a two-way street. Not nearly enough is done in host communities in our society, in our cultures, to help newcomers settle. We really need to strengthen that component.

I am very strongly in support of the refugee claimants and their needs. They are unique. They should not be downloaded to the welfare program. Since I administer welfare, I speak very strongly on that point.

I'll also speak just briefly on the question about who should be involved in the planning process. As Paul Vezina has said, we have the regional planning process; let's use it.

I see immigration as largely a federal program. Obviously we need the federal government involved in the planning and funding of the program. Too often at the local level we find ourselves reacting, and too seldom we do find ourselves being able to plan for and pro-act on what the needs are. We have to react to a need rather than plan for an emerging trend.

So I would like to see more involvement in helping the local municipalities plan for what the trends are; not the ones we had last year or two years ago but the ones coming in settlement: who is coming and from where and when can we expect them? I don't know how you work the secondary migration issue into that, but I see this very strongly as being a federal and municipal responsibility to be involved in, and much less so a provincial responsibility.

Mr. Calla: I could speak on Ms Breitman's point about the level of service delivery. My experience is that the provincial level has more experience in this area, rather than the local level here in Toronto, at least. The kinds of accountability systems Ms Taborek mentioned do exist at the provincial level.

I see a system - I am supporting what you heard in Vancouver - such that if you have national standards set by people who work in this field, who are regionally represented, and by consumers, then you set those standards and everybody buys into them because you do have regional representation. I would see the responsibility for flowing the dollars through the province. That way the province can negotiate any differences with local communities, because obviously, as has been said around the table, Metro has special needs, just as Peel has unique aspects to it, and smaller communities do around the province. The province is well aware of those unique differences, and I would see the delivery of it negotiated with the province rather than locally.

Mechanisms for accountability are in place now. Currently the kinds of accountability mechanisms that are utilized are the obvious ones, such as external audits, but also site visits by the civil servants, file audits of the clients we serve. In addition, the United Ways have broader criteria for accountability that include the general performance of an organization. They use criteria such as democratic governance processes within an organization, community representation at the board level, open membership for the organization to elect the board, sound business practices. They basically then rate the organization's membership according to those processes.

So I would say the mechanisms currently exist.

.1215

With respect to the local boards, as has been mentioned, I'm of the opinion that we may run the risk of establishing another tier of administration. Certainly it has also been mentioned that there are obvious conflicts of interest that may develop.

Our experience here with the local training adjustment boards has been that it has been very difficult to define representativeness, as to who should sit on those boards and also the question of whether they're actually representing the people they're supposed to be representing. It gets quite unwieldy.

I think there's a role for the professional civil servant in the process of overseeing and administering programs.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Speaking of civil servants, I'm sorry I didn't introduce these people at the beginning, but I will do it now. We've had with us this morning Ms Elizabeth Gryte, who is the manager, settlement programs, settlement directorate, Ontario region, for the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration. We also have a Mr. Paul Yee, policy analyst, policy services branch of the Ministry of Citizenship of Ontario. Thank you for being with us today.

I would like to say thank you to everyone who has been with us. Please take up the offer of sending us written briefs with your recommendations, detailing whatever you felt was positive, whatever you felt was negative, in terms of what this committee is looking for. We would appreciate it and we look forward to it.

I thank you very much and have a good day. We're back at 1:30 p.m.

Ms Macdonald: I want to thank you for hearing us today. As far as I can see, immigrant serving is the future of our country. Indeed it is an investment in our future. I think it's the most important thing we can be looking at.

The Chair: Thank you very much.