EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 13, 1995

.0907

[English]

The Chair: Good morning and welcome, everyone. We'll begin, since we have a quorum.

I'd like to welcome the representatives of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.Mr. George Tsaï is the assistant deputy minister of the national service sector; Ms Midgley is the director general of the settlement branch; Mr. David Neuman is the project manager of settlement renewal; and Agnès Jaouich is the director of federal-provincial relations.

We're here today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), to study settlement renewal.

Begin when you're ready, Mr. Tsaï.

Mr. George Tsaï (Assistant Deputy Minister, National Service Sector, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[Translation]

As usual, we are very happy to be here before your committee and, on behalf of the Minister, I would like to thank you for reacting so quickly to his invitation to look into the matter of settlement renewal.

[English]

I would like to suggest to the committee that we structure the meeting in a certain fashion. I would like to start with a few introductory comments. Then I'll be inviting Ms Ann Midgley to describe the existing programs and some documentation will be made available to the members of the committee. Then we will discuss the issue of the renewal itself; Mr. Neuman, who is the leader of the settlement renewal team, will present a progress report on the initiative.

The settlement renewal itself, as indicated in Mr. Marchi's letter, will result in a significant change in the way the federal government facilitates settlement and integration for newcomers. The minister identified some key issues that will have to be resolved or at least addressed in the context of the renewal initiative.

The first one is the issue of public accountability requirements to ensure we manage the program in a responsible way from a fiscal perspective. The second issue is the make-up of the local committees, i.e., the representative community bodies that will eventually be involved in the delivery of the settlement program. A third important issue identified in the minister's letter is what will be the enduring role of the federal government in the settlement area.

.0910

I add two other issues to that list that will be the subjects of discussion during our consultations. The first one is what services will be eligible under the new mode of delivery for the program, and the second one is what clients will be eligible.

[Translation]

I would now like to try to answer the question: why did we decide there should be a renewal of this program? I will then try to describe what this initiative is all about.

[English]

Why settlement renewal? There are two events that resulted in the decision to go ahead with a renewal of the program. The first one was the public consultations the minister conducted in 1994, which resulted in the tabling of a report of November 1994, and the second one was the program review.

With respect to the public consultations, the message we got from the various groups and individuals who were consulted was that, generally speaking, the settlement program was functioning well, but there were some specific problems, such as too much duplication. Just to give you an example, we were told that in Ontario there are more than twenty possible sources of funds for immigrant integration activities.

The second comment we heard was that there was not enough room for local flexibility. Of course, it was a national program with national standards, and while through national standards you ensure that there is a high degree of consistency, you lose in terms of flexibility and how you respond to local needs.

With respect to the program review - and I think our program review was really a key factor in the decision to go ahead with the settlement renewal initiative - you will remember that all departments were asked to answer a certain number of questions on the program review tests. These are also referred to as Mr. Marcel Massé's tests.

Each program had to pass a certain number of tests: the public interest test, the role of government test, the federalism test, the partnership test, the efficiency test and the affordability test. When the settlement renewal program was assessed under these six tests, it was determined that the program obviously met the public interest test, that there was a role for the federal government in the settlement area, but that the federal government was not necessarily the most appropriate agency to directly deliver a contribution program in the area of integration and settlement.

Of course the program met the partnership test. This is the kind of program that lends itself very well to partnerships and to team effort between various levels of government.

What is settlement renewal? Let me start by saying that settlement renewal is not a top-down exercise based on a policy developed in an ivory tower, for which you go out and pretend to have some consultations just to confirm what has been developed through the policy development process.

This is an exercise that will allow our partners - other levels of government - to be part of the definition of the renewal process itself. It's a new way of reinventing government. To a large degree, we are maybe in unchartered waters, but it is quite an exciting perspective. The results we hope will be extremely positive.

.0915

The settlement renewal is a two- to three-year project, which will see the federal government withdrawing from the direct delivery of a contribution program in the administration of settlement programs. It is also going to be an initiative with a goal of regional and local partners, including provinces, disbursing CIC's settlement funding according to local priorities.

This is a partnership initiative, where there is a place for partners and stakeholders to help do a certain number of things, such as define desirable accountability and measure results; expand relevant information-sharing activity; shift program delivery capacity and transfer skills from the federal government to the local bodies; develop a common evaluation framework; develop regional local representative priority-setting capacity; involve employees, stakeholders, service providers and clients in the process of change; and determine the enduring federal role.

In terms of the various inputs and the groups that are going to contribute to the process, of course your committee is going to play a very important key role.

I refer to uncharted waters.

[Translation]

It is true that this process forces us also to look into some concerns and some problems which are always inherent to such a change.

Right now, there are, maybe, three concerns which are on the forefront. First of all, we have to develop the renewal process and at the same time continue to deliver the existing program in its present form. While change is underway, we will have to ensure that the integrity of the program delivery is protected.

Our second challenge will be to initiate that very change and to be as creative as possible, with the help of those groups which are going to be consulted and which are going to co-operate in this exercise, to put in place a system which will be better compared to the existing program delivery.

Obviously, the first challenge has to do with the clients: we have to ensure that services continue to be delivered. The third challenge has to do with our employees; they are the ones who will have to participate in a creative exercise which obviously is going to have direct impact on their status and their jobs. In this particular instance, we'll have to develop human relations policies and strategies to really take this concern into account.

[English]

In a few moments, Mr. Neuman will describe the process itself, the mechanism in place, the team we have in place, and what has been accomplished so far, in terms of the initial stages of a settlement renewal.

Unless there are some questions at this stage, I could invite Ms Ann Midgley to give a description of the components of the existing program as it is delivered right now.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tsaï, first of all.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): I would like to ask one question for clarification. The whole process of change is taking place right now, as far as the settlement review program is concerned. Is this a result of the consultations that were held over the last year across the country?

.0920

Mr. Tsaï: I think the consultations were part of the answer, but equally important was the program review exercise.

Mr. Hanger: Which had been going on for -

Mr. Tsaï: The program review exercise actually started after we started the consultations. The consultations allowed us to identify some problem areas with respect to the delivery of the program. But the program review forced us, as it forced other departments, to answer some very specific questions about whether or not this program is in the public interest; whether or not it should be delivered by the government, and if so what level of government; and whether or not it is a program that could be delivered on a partnership basis with other levels, other governments, the private sector and NGOs. So I think it was the marriage of these two events that really prompted the government to announce a fundamental renewal of the program, in the context of the last budget.

Ms Ann M. Midgley (Director General, Settlement Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): I would like to give you a description of the current settlement programs and how they are delivered, to give you the background for your deliberations.

The current settlement programs are designed to provide an initial bridging service to assist newcomers to become participating and contributing members of Canadian society as soon as possible after their arrival in Canada. These programs are meant to facilitate immigrants in accessing mainstream services available to all Canadians. They're not meant to provide parallel or duplicate services, so that's why we're calling them bridging programs.

At the same time, settlement programs are meant to promote understanding and acceptance of immigrants by Canadians. It's a two-way street concept, so the programs are not always primarily targeted at newcomers, although they are in some senses.

The current settlement programs are delivered by Citizenship and Immigration offices in four regions, covering nine provinces except Quebec. In Quebec, immigrant integration is the responsibility of the province under the terms of the Canada-Quebec accord.

I would now like to give you a short description of each of the four programs. I believe you have on your tables fact sheets of the four programs, which you can take away with you. They're not in the order of how I'm going to address them and not necessarily in any order of importance.

The first one is the immigrant settlement and adaptation program, or ISAP. That's one of our oldest programs. The ISAP provides funds through non-profit organizations and educational institutions at the community level to deliver direct, essential services to newcomers. These services could include reception, orientation, translation and interpretation, referral to community resources, para-professional counselling, general information and employment-related services to help newcomers find jobs.

Another program is language instruction for newcomers to Canada, or LINC. It provides basic integration-purposes language training in one of Canada's official languages to adult immigrants to facilitate their integration and full participation.

The difference in the LINC program is that it's open to all eligible participants regardless of their labour market intent. Some of you may recall that the former language program was only for those who intended to participate in the labour market. So this is generally open to all adult newcomers who need language training.

The LINC program provides funding for training to educational institutions; community-based organizations; businesses; provincial, territorial, or municipal governments; individuals; and in fact, pretty well everybody.

.0925

Another aspect of LINC is a community consultation process involving the local and regional partners who are interested in language training to identify needs and strategy. Under LINC the difference is also that we try to gear the training to the needs of the newcomers because previous language training programs were pretty well ``one type of training fits all''. So we're trying to tailor the LINC program to those who would prefer different situations or need longer training and so on.

LINC also has an overseas component to deliver pre-departure language training and orientation to visa-ready immigrants. Currently they are in the six source countries of Vietnam, Greece, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Slovenia and Serbia. These sites move according to the need, so we close down in areas when there is no longer a demand for the training.

The host program funds not-for-profit organizations and educational institutions to recruit, train and monitor volunteers. They could be individuals or groups that help newcomers adapt and integrate into Canadian society. We often talk about matching volunteers to newcomers, either families or individuals.

We feel that individual help provides more personal assistance in helping newcomers access available services and learn how to use them, learn English or French, and find jobs. We have found that the personal touch makes quite a lot of difference. The other benefit is it helps Canadians learn about other cultures through working with newcomers. That reflects our objective of trying to ensure that Canadians also find out about the newcomers, where they come from, and strengthen their community bonds.

The last program is the adjustment assistance program. This one is somewhat different. The AAP provides financial assistance to indigent government-assisted refugees. The other programs I have described are not limited to refugees, but the AAP program is limited to government-assisted refugees. The assistance provided under the AAP includes income support, the cost of accommodation, clothing and basic household articles. There's a time limit to this one and it's provided for up to one year after arrival, or until the refugee becomes self-sufficient or self-supporting, whichever comes first.

This program also provides special counselling and reception services. When refugees arrive they are met at the ports of entry and provided with assistance in accessing medical insurance, arranging transportation, and all the hand-holding that many of us take for granted having lived in Canada for a long time. The AAP counsellor would also refer newcomers to the other settlement programs such as language training, ISAP and other training as necessary.

Those are the four programs that are in existence. I'm just going to take a few minutes to talk about how these programs are delivered by CIC officials. These are what we call contributions programs and they operate under terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board that specify who's eligible, the various payments, and so on. Some of the complaints about the rigidity or lack of flexibility are due to the fact that we are constrained by terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board, as well as rules under the Financial Administration Act.

These programs are delivered through a decentralized system in the four regions of British Columbia, the prairies, Ontario and the Atlantic. The settlement branch headquarters in Ottawa is responsible for the provision of functional and procedural direction and ensuring all operational policies, procedures and work instruments are in place for their delivery by regional and local staff.

.0930

Under this program, when we say a decentralized network, we also obviously allow local and regional flexibility because they're right on the ground and working with clients, so they should be the ones who know their needs best. But as Mr. Tsaï has mentioned, they are overall because they're national programs, overall guidelines and national policies that provide a framework for these programs.

The funding is provided to what we call service providers through contributions contracts or agreements. The service providers are the ones who provide direct services to immigrants, such as language training, counselling or referral. In other words, those services are provided to people called service providers but the service providers are funded by us.

In headquarters, we are also responsible for the allocation of funds to each of the four regions on a national basis. The regional and local settlement offices are responsible for allocating the funds amongst the programs within their own communities.

Normally, the delivery procedures for each of the programs, with the exception of AAP, involves the activities for the settlement officers, including identifying the needs in the community, through whatever way suits a local situation. They could have consultation processes or they could have local community review boards, and they will use these mechanisms to determine what services and what level of services are required for which immigrant groups, which newcomer groups. They would then ask for applications for the services to be provided, and the officers would then assess and approve the applications. This is fairly detailed, but they would negotiate terms of each agreement based on how much would be funded and what services would be provided. These agreements would then be signed.

Because the nature of the contributions program is a reimbursement for service, they would have to submit bills for approved services so that we could reimburse them. Obviously, we would then monitor and support these agreements to make sure the services are provided. Because they have a determined period, the agreements have to be closed out when they end. These are all administrative activities that our officers perform in the region.

At present, ISAP funds about 160 SPOs - service providers - LINC funds some 300 service providers, and there are about 30 service providers under the host program. Most of the ISAP and host agreements are signed at the beginning of the fiscal year and usually last for a year; they do not go for more than a year. The majority of the LINC agreements are signed in September, generally corresponding with the school year because in the summer there tends to be less activity.

The adjustment assistance program is the only exception because they are now provided under contributions agreements. The payments are made to individuals because it's client-based; the income support is provided to the clients directly and the counselling is provided to the clients directly.

In a nutshell, this is what the program is about, how it is delivered at the present time. I'd be happy to answer any questions if you have them.

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

Mr. Tsaï: I would like to invite Mr. Neuman to make a presentation on the current initiative, what we have been able to accomplish so far, and how we are organizing ourselves to be able to deliver the initiative.

Mr. David Neuman (Project Manager, Settlement Renewal, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you, Mr. Tsaï.

[Translation]

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here having a discussion with you on that topic. We are at the beginning of a process that can last, as Mr. Tsaï said, two or three years. That is the new approach for the delivery of the government's programs.

.0935

[English]

This is a new focus. It's a focus on partnership with other interested groups in the area of immigrant settlement.

What I'd like to do is give you a brief status report on where we are in the various parts of the country. What I can then do is briefly tell you what our approach is in terms of what has already been determined. We are really at the beginning of a process, however, and are really quite interested in what the committee can give us in terms of enlightenment on some of these areas that I think will be difficult to resolve.

We began this renewal initiative by informing the interested stakeholders and by getting a handle on what the preliminary concerns were. We've now begun a process of engagement where we're going across the country and having people in the regions talk to these groups to see what their views are on the subject. We've put together a first draft of a hand-out - which was given to you - because we feel it's important to get as much information out to the interested parties as we could as soon as possible. We hope to have this thing finalized and make it an official publication within weeks.

We're also in the process of talking to some of our colleagues in other federal departments, particularly the Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Canadian Heritage, with a view to pooling the moneys that they currently have allocated for immigrant settlement. There are related issues. There are some moneys that Heritage have in their multiculturalism side, and Human Resources Development still has some language training money left over from the split between Employment and Immigration and this department. So we're talking about rationalizing some of that money.

I'll turn now to what we've done so far. In British Columbia, the minister has made an announcement of an agreement to work together with the British Columbia government to undertake a consultation exercise in that province, and that will take us into the fall. In fact, the consultations begin tomorrow. They're designed to allow us to hear how the various immigrant settlement groups in British Columbia feel about this initiative of getting the governments and community groups to pool their resources and to focus all immigrant activities in that way.

Briefings have taken place for all interested parties and, as I said, the consultations are starting tomorrow. We hope to have an outcome of those consultations by the fall. We'll then start thinking about a plan to implement this thing, hopefully by the end of the year.

In the prairies, the provincial governments have all been briefed. I was in Winnipeg last weekend to meet with the western association of immigrant settlement associations, which was having its convention in Winnipeg. We talked about this and many of them expressed their views, which we've noted.

We're going to set up a settlement renewal team. There will be a plan developed for each of the western provinces, but again, we will start off by talking to the interested parties, the groups and the interested governments, in order to see how they would like to handle it because the situations with respect to immigration in the three prairie provinces are really quite different. They each have unique situations.

In Ontario, we have talked initially to the provincial government and they've expressed the same concerns about fair share to us that they seem to have expressed to all federal departments. These concerns will affect our dealings with the provincial government.

We've also talked to the Metro Toronto government, and I'm going to Toronto on Wednesday to meet with them about an initial consultation process in the Metro area. They seem to be quite interested in following up with us and with the new provincial government as soon as they're ready. So over the next few months, we'll be exploring what we can do in Ontario.

The Atlantic provinces have also been briefed. We've had an indication from an organization called ARISA - which is an Atlantic region umbrella group for immigrant settlement - that they would be interested in helping us coordinate the development of this plan for the four Atlantic provinces together. The number of immigrants in the Atlantic provinces being what it is, it would probably be most efficient to have the settlement services delivery centralized, with one group delivering through the Atlantic group that has contacts in all the provinces.

We're also talking about a multilateral process with the various interest groups, all the immigrant associations that have an interest in this thing. The provinces have said they would be interested in working with us, both bilaterally and multilaterally, and, together with the national organizations and some of the regional organizations, interested in immigrant settlement. We have indicated to them that we're open to suggestions on any ways in which we could do this and in which we could work together on a national level.

.0940

So that's basically where we are with the various interested parties.

I've been around for a very short time, but within the department itself we're in the process of setting up a settlement team that will be made up of people from within the department who will be devoting some of their time - and it will be more time than in their previous functions in some cases - to the development and implementation of this initiative. We've just completed a two-day workshop with staff on how we're going to get our plan together. We have a cross-sectoral, cross-interdisciplinary team of people with various backgrounds who are going to be doing this.

One of the first things we'll be doing is to develop a communications strategy to make sure the interested parties across the country are getting information. I noted that there's a lot of apprehension out there among immigrant groups with respect to this initiative, a lot of which is misplaced. We're going to try to keep people as informed as possible so that they don't have any more worries than they absolutely need to have.

In the letter the minister wrote to the chair of the committee, he indicated an interest in having you look at three specific questions. I would like to repeat that we are very interested in what the committee can contribute in this respect.

The first one is to define what will endure as a federal role and responsibility in the area of immigrant settlement. As Mr. Tsaï indicated earlier, in the program review the government concluded that the federal government continues to have an important role in assisting the integration of immigrants in Canada. The question now becomes one about what that role should be.

It was also felt that in the delivery of these programs, the federal government may not be the best instrument to deliver these things directly. It may be that it could be done better if the delivery was linked more closely to local delivery mechanisms and was directed by people who have the greatest stake in the successful integration of immigrants in their community.

So what are good, local priority-setting or decision-making mechanisms that would support this type of activity and that would be effective, efficient, and representative of the various communities that are interested, and are independent and objective in the allocation and utilization of the federal moneys that are involved?

The third question is, when the federal government is spending money at the local level through third parties, what are the most appropriate mechanisms that will provide Parliament with satisfactory accountability, that would continue to enable us to ensure that this money is being wisely and effectively spent on immigrant integration?

The program review that was conducted, together with the consultation, suggests to us that we should make these changes, but, as I said, it raises some of these important questions. We've talked to stakeholders and there's a lot of interest in the enduring federal role. Certainly when you talk to immigrant groups, they would like the federal government to continue to have a very strong role in all areas around immigrant settlement, and we're going to be talking to them. I'm sure they will give you their views. We've heard quite a range of views already. However, our interest is in moving as much of the decision-making and power over these programs as possible out of Ottawa and into the communities where the immigrants are actually being established.

We'd like to see a consultative process or a decision-making, priority-setting process that will provide for meaningful local or provincial stakeholder involvement in defining this thing and then ultimately in delivering it. Most provinces, and certainly a lot of NGOs, are quite optimistic about this initiative. They think conceptually it's the right thing to do. There are skeptics, there are people who still have concerns, but I think everybody is willing to work with us to try to resolve some of these issues.

.0945

We prepared a lot of notes, but the one thing I've found is there really is a lot less that's decided than a lot of people suspected. We're at the stage now where we're seeking out views more than we are conveying to people what we've already decided, because there hasn't been that much that has been decided.

One key issue we're going to have to wrestle with and in which I think Parliament has a particular interest is the question of public accountability for the moneys that are going to be spent on immigrant settlement.

Whenever the federal government goes to a third party to deliver programming or services on its behalf, accountability is a major issue. It's particularly important in the settlement renewal initiative as we move to new partnership arrangements. The challenge is to strike a balance between full and complete reporting to Parliament at one end, and the unfettering, the establishment of a flexible delivery structure in the partnership agreement at the other.

We heard a lot of comments and complaints about the straitjacket that the existing programming represents. An example that was given to me that makes a lot of sense is that there's an area in Toronto around Dixon Road where there are large numbers of Somalis who have settled in recent years and there are a number of problems in that community that stem from that. The people in the community would like to use more of the settlement money on tolerance education and anti-racism activities, helping the neighbours understand more about these Somalis to help their integration. However, the programming we have now focuses 85% of the money on language training. While that's important, what the community needs is the flexibility to use the available money on other things that would contribute more to the integration and deal with that particular situation.

So we need more flexibility in the way we spend the money and this is what we're looking to do. This means a move away from the traditional accounting for expenditure approach that's been associated with the programming that the federal government's been involved in over the last while. We'd like to focus on results to pay for results, results that are relevant and measurable and that allow for full accountability to Parliament. This is a radical change in delivery for a government department. It has risks and it has problems, but we still feel the best decisions can be made at the local level by the people who have the greatest stake in this activity and those who are closest to the clients who receive the service. So the potential gains from local decision-making, in our view, outweigh the risks.

The exact legal arrangement between the federal government and whatever the local decision-making bodies are remains to be determined. There could be different legal arrangements in different areas, depending on the involvement of a government, whether it's a provincial or local government or whether it's a third-party community group that we're contracting with.

These legal arrangements could involve a grant, a contribution, a contract for services, or some other form of transfer. That remains to be determined. We'd be most interested in what your views are on that.

I have some specific questions. What relevant measurable results of integration expenditures would you expect? What financial tool would make the most sense - a contribution, a contract - and in what circumstances? How do we get the federal government to get their partners - whoever the partners are, whether it's a provincial government or a local group - to accept their share of the accountability role, and how do we divide that up?

What will our information needs be? Right now we ask for fairly detailed information on who gets the service, where they live, how old they are, where they come from, how long they have been in Canada, and a whole range of questions. What would be a reasonable expectation in terms of the information we want, and what level of detail?

What type of financial auditing, reviews and monitoring would be appropriate to this type of arrangement to allow it to be unfettered?

This is a new way of doing business and we think the direction is consistent with the federal government's objective of establishing partnerships with interested parties and moving the decision-making process as far down the line as possible to the most appropriate delivery mechanism, whether it's federal, provincial, municipal, or something else.

.0950

In order to get this process going successfully, we have to engage the people who are going to be our partners in this and have as wide a consultative process as possible. These are issues that members of Parliament bring a unique perspective to, and your views on this would be most appreciated.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Neuman.

Mr. Tsaï: One thing we would like to add, Madam Chair, is that when Mr. Neuman said he joined the department recently, it was the understatement of the year, since he has been with us for two weeks. But it seems as if he has been handling settlement renewal for years.

Madam Chair, we are at your disposal for questions, unless there is a need to expand on some of the presentation made so far.

The Chair: I have just two little questions. You talked about the consultation already beginning in B.C. You are aware we will begin at the end of this month with Vancouver as our first stop for the committee if we get approval of our budget this week. Would we have access to those groups you are consulting with at present and the briefing notes you've already prepared? Could we have those in advance for the committee?

Mr. Neuman: Absolutely.

The Chair: Eventually we may want to meet as a full committee with the settlement team in charge, as you mentioned earlier.

Mr. Neuman: Sure.

The Chair: Thank you.

We begin now with Mr. Nunez.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you for your presentation. I must confess of being somewhat surprised by the Minister's letter asking us to proceed with these consultations. According to the committee's workplan, this was not scheduled until next year. I was especially surprized to hear that the committee will be going to Montreal. You are aware of the unique situation that exists in Quebec today. We are in a pre-referendum period and we are very sensitive to federal government meddling.

The issue of policy and integration comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Quebec Government. Moreover, these policies must be improved for the rest of Canada and we must consider regional needs. I hope that the provinces will sign agreements with the federal government, as was done by Quebec. Change is needed.

Why the rush? We are at the end of the session. Why not give ourselves more time so that we can conduct more in-depth consultation? What are you going to do to prevent the federal government from meddling in a matter that comes under Quebec exclusive jurisdiction?

Mr. Tsaï: I will try to answer Mr. Nunez' two questions. As for the first question, this is clearly an invitation extended by the Minister and I would imagine that the committee is master of its own destiny.

Is there some urgency to this? Objectively speaking, I do feel that there is some urgency because the renewal process has already begun and consultations are now under way. On the assumption that it is appropriate for the Standing Committee to join in this debate, an assumption that I am not questioning, it seems to me that the committee should now participate and give its opinion to the department to guide it as it develops this renewal process.

When the Minister appeared before your committee to discuss his three-year planning, you saw that there were budget deadlines that had to be met. We must therefore prepare ourselves to make these changes and to proceed with the renewal within two to three years, and so we must begin the work now.

.0955

As for the second question, Mr. Neuman's group has been given a mandate to develop a renewal program in the nine provinces outside of Quebec. We have not been given a mandate to concern ourselves with the immigration matters that fall under the Canada-Quebec Agreement. This is a completely separate issue, if you like, and in due course, the government may very well make some decisions with respect to this agreement. The objective of the renewal exercise is to change the way we deliver the settlement program in the nine provinces that do not have the type of agreement that we have with Quebec.

Mrs. Debien (Laval East): Mr. Neuman, you talked about your task force which will be travelling to all of the Canadian provinces to define objectives or new criteria for the settlement program.

I find it hard to understand the link between your task force and the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration which, it would appear, is going to be doing the same thing. During its peregrinations across Canada, will your task force be asking the same questions that you very well may want us to put to the same groups? I have difficulty understanding the link between the Standing Committee and your task force.

You can appreciate that if we travel to four or five Canadian cities between June 26th and July 1st, in order to ask questions you have already put to these same groups or which you intend to ask a short while later once we have concluded our consultation... We are especially concerned about duplication. This is my question.

Mr. Tsaï: I will leave it up to Mr. Neuman to answer Mrs. Debien's question. I do not think that we are talking about duplication here. Instead, I think that this will complement our exercise. Indeed, Mr. Neuman's task force is not involved in peregrinations. This group will be consulting and discussing.

Mrs. Debien: A literary saying, Mr. Tsaï.

Mr. Tsaï: A large group will not be travelling and there is no doubt they will not be asking the same questions. I think that we can make a basic distinction between, on the one hand, a department which, for many years, has been delivering a program and which is now trying to rethink the way that it delivers this program with the assistance of its partners and, on the other hand, a committee, such as yours, which is discussing perspectives that are not only different but much broader. That is how I see it, but I would now like to turn the floor over to Mr. Neuman.

Mr. Neuman: I think that we wanted to obtain the standpoint of a parliamentary committee, we wanted to understand how members of Parliament saw this issue of accountability as it related to federal funds used for immigrant integration. It is true that immigrant groups have opinions on the role that the federal government should play, however, the opinion of members of Parliament is also important in this process. Your perspectives are quite different.

The Chair: This is not unusual. There are other committees and other departments that work together in parallel, where the public officials undertake a study at the same time as the Standing House Committee on the same subject.

.1000

Mr. Nunez: When attempts are made to restructure within this government, we are always given the impression that you have to cut employees, cut the budget, save some money for the State.

You're getting no revenue because the immigration tax is generating more than $100 million for you. Are you planning to save more money by transferring certain federal responsibilities to local groups, to community organizations?

Will there be cutbacks in staff?

Mr. Tsaï: The issue of departmental budget planning was already addressed during the discussions that we had when we appeared before this committee to discuss the budget, and, more recently, when we appeared before you to discuss our three-year plan. Given the current fiscal context, it is obvious that this government and our governments are trying to deliver programs as cost effectively as possible. These are changes that our department will continue to make in order to serve the taxpayer as cost effectively as possible. We must have respect for the taxpayer.

Given this new climate of controlling government spending, we're fully aware of the fact that we cannot obtain new sources of funding for this current project. We no longer have the reserves that we had before. Accordingly, every time that there is a new initiative or that there are new needs, we have to meet these needs through internal reallocation. Renewal programs and changes such as those that we are planning for the establishment renewal program will enable us to achieve greater flexibility so that we can obtain these reallocations.

I would like to point out, and this is very important, that this is not the only program within the department that is under review like this. The minister and the deputy minister recently embarked upon something we refer to as business process reengineering, and this will have an impact on every aspect of our departmental activities and will pretty well enable us, I believe, to rationalize the way that we deliver services.

[English]

Mr. Hanger: I'm pleased that you're here to enlighten us about some of the new ideas that the department has chosen to take, especially the minister. I assume that's under his direction.

I'm also interested in consultation. There has been so much consultation going on over the last year and a half, and so many reports have been generated as a result of that consultation - and there's no question in my mind that there's some good information that has come out of those consultations, especially from within the department itself.

I'm in possession here of a copy of staff consultations. It's the B.C.-Yukon region report. The staff out there - I think something like 80-some people were interviewed - had expressed some very deep concerns in all areas of immigration, including settlement and the handling of funds. It appears that the overview went far beyond just settlement costs. If you looked at the whole process, there would be opportunity to make some major adjustments that probably would impact on settlement if those adjustments were made efficiently, because that is all dealing with language selection, adaptability, and all of that.

You asked for input from the committee, and I think your words were ``the accountability factor for federal funds''. You want the opinion of MPs on that. Well, in my opinion, at this stage of the game, I cannot see how this committee could offer you that by going around ourselves, after your consultations have taken place in British Columbia and across the country, from one region to the other in a day and just talking to a handful of people to determine the specifics of settlement.

.1005

I would think that a considerable amount of background would be required to build on what we know already to be able to effectively offer that, especially on a new program. As you say yourself, you cannot even come to a clear conclusion of this new ground you've been breaking on distribution of funds, so how can you expect this committee to do the same?

Mr. Tsaï: On the document you referred to, I am not really able to comment on that because I have not seen it. I don't know what document....

The Chair: For your information, Mr. Tsaï, that request has been made to the minister, because Mr. Hanger has brought up this issue more than once. So I have made a request, as chair, to the minister to provide those reports, if in fact those reports do exist.

Mr. Tsaï: We are conducting external and internal consultations. If we are referring to the same document, that was in the context of the initial consultation, the public consultations, and we also wanted to involve our staff in the process.

Again, to what extent a committee like yours can contribute to an initiative such as settlement and renewal is a matter of perspective. We are here to provide you with the background you need in order to develop your views, to provide some advice - and we would be very happy to provide as much as we can, in terms of the background information you need, to avoid any duplication of work and to maximize your input and your role. But I don't see why a committee like yours could not make a very significant contribution to this debate.

Mr. Hanger: It could. I say our committee could, but I don't see how we can do what we're doing almost at the same time that your consultation process is taking place across the country, given the information we have. I say that in all sincerity, because I believe that to get a grasp on this whole area of settlement - and I've been to a lot of different non-governmental organizations as well as departmental ones - one would have to spend some time, and you're asking us for suggestions on accountability of federal funds.

The Chair: Mr. Hanger, I'll just remind you that it isn't the department that's asking us; it's the minister.

Mr. Hanger: No, I'm very much aware that the minister is asking us for that kind of a statement, as well as yourself, Mr. Neuman.

Mr. Neuman: I can tell you that we have departmental officials looking, from a technical perspective, at what would be an acceptable form of accountability in terms of these same questions.

I believe what the minister would like the committee to look at is from the perspective of Parliament - what would be an acceptable form of reporting to Parliament on this money.

Traditionally, with programs we have terms and conditions that go into a fair level of detail. We ask recipients of the money to provide us with a fair level of detail as to how this money is being spent. There's an audit process, there's an overview process, monitoring, etc.

What we're talking about here is an unfettering of the process, perhaps similar to what's going on in Quebec, where there's a block of money that is given to the province and we say, ``You provide settlement services, satisfy us you are providing them, and we won't ask you what services you are giving to whom, etc.; we trust you.''

What is acceptable to Parliament along those lines? That type of an arrangement, but perhaps with the province, perhaps with the municipal order of government, perhaps with an association of immigrant groups who are serving a geographic area. From a parliamentary perspective, what would be an acceptable form of accountability for that type of thing?

Mr. Hanger: I'm interested in the fact that you did mention Quebec, because they certainly have a different arrangement with the federal government -

The Chair: I would like to remind you we did pass the sheet around on the Canada-Quebec accord, just for your information.

Excuse me, Mr. Hanger. Go ahead.

Mr. Hanger: The arrangement actually would be rather attractive, if you will, if it was applied in the rest of Canada. But I don't see it going that way from the way you're talking. The money goes to the province itself and they administer it, as you point out, and they show you the bottom line.

.1010

What you're talking about is broadening that to arrangements with local municipalities, as well as non-governmental organizations, and also the province.

Mr. Neuman: Perhaps. We haven't defined what it could be. It could be what the Quebec agreement was, if other provinces were interested in a similar arrangement. We haven't really had that indication. So we're looking at a range of possibilities.

Mr. Tsaï: We are not going to have a ``one size fits all'' approach. It will depend on the needs, the wishes of the provincial or local governments, and there is going to be an interactive process.

To take the example of B.C., the province has indicated very clearly that it wants to be very much a part of the process, the discussions, the consultations, in the development of the new program. But we don't have any preconceived agenda. We don't know what the final outcome of the discussions and agenda and consultations will be. Are we going to have a kind of community-based, local group? Are we going to have very heavy involvement on the part of the provinces? These issues remain to be discussed and resolved.

Mr. Hanger: Will you administer it? Is part of the intent to administer it on the same basis as Quebec is receiving federal funds, I think averaging about $3,000 per immigrant? Can this country afford to supply settlement services at about $3,000 per immigrant, right across the country?

Mr. Tsaï: The arrangements that will be negotiated and developed will be arrangements developed in a very specific context, on an ad hoc basis, for the purposes of the specific province or region or local community. If the Canada-Quebec accord works in one area, this doesn't mean it would have to be applied to all other areas.

We're going to have a series of bilateral processes, and in each case the final outcome, for sure, will be that the federal government will withdraw from the direct delivery of the contribution programs, as we are doing in Quebec.

Mr. Hanger: But can this country afford to fund immigrant settlement costs to the tune of $3,000 per immigrant, as Quebec is presently receiving? Ontario, which takes in approximately 60% to 65% of immigrants, receives only $1,000 as settlement recovery.

The Chair: Mr. Tsaï, just for the record - this has come up before - is the figure thatMr. Hanger is presenting to the committee a true figure of the actual cost?

Mr. Tsaï: Is the figure...?

The Chair: Is $3,000 the actual cost per immigrant? I'm asking if that is a fact.

Mr. Tsaï: I'm going to ask Ms Jaouich to discuss the Canada-Quebec accord.

I would just like to say that of course the federal government will have arrangements in place that will at the same time be affordable and sustainable. We can't go beyond that.

[Translation]

Ms Agnès Jaouich (Director, Federal-Provincial Relations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): For your information, let me give you a bit of background on the Canada-Quebec Accord. The monies transferred to Quebec do not cover integration services only. They also go to the selection process that Quebec handles overseas. So it is not only for integration and settlement as we are discussing today.

With your permission, I would like to give you a brief overview.

The Canada-Quebec Accord was signed in February 1991 following a number of previous agreements. Quebec is the only province to have an immigration department. It has 25 years of experience in this area.

The Canada-Quebec Accord is the fifth of its kind signed with the province so that the expertise and the infrastructure have been built up progressively over the years to enable the province to carry out the selection process and offer settlement services. Therefore, the situation is different from what we have in other provinces and Quebec has been offering those services.

.1015

The accord contains the terms and conditions of implementation and various addenda specifying the process, whether it is for financial compensation, the presence of officers overseas or the investor's program. The preamble to the accord recognizes the distinct character of the Quebec society, takes into account the federal and bilingual nature of Canada and stresses the importance of family reunification as well as Canada's responsibilities towards humanitarian cases.

I will not go into every chapter, but rather I will discuss the question of reception and integration which we are dealing with today. Canada has withdrawn from services delivered by Quebec as described in articles 24 and 25. Quebec looks after reception and integration services. Canada pays to Quebec a financial compensation for those services.

If you need more details, I will be glad to provide them.

The Chair: Thank you very much. We can now go to questions.

[English]

Mr. Culbert.

Mr. Culbert (Carleton - Charlotte): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Tsaï and your colleagues. I must admit I'm just filling in this morning for the parliamentary secretary on this committee. So you'll have to bear with me and guide me somewhat, from the point of view of both the chair and the presenters.

What you're telling me is exciting. I've been out there all across my constituency and in many places in the country, saying the same thing: what goes around comes around. It's back to the community upward, and back to partnershipping. When I hear you talk about partnershipping with the community, with the provinces, this is exciting news for me. So I'm on your side. I'm all ears, as the saying goes.

Just to follow up on Mr. Hanger's comments, sometimes we don't give ourselves enough credit - committees like this. In fact, we can make a difference. We can provide input, though not particularly to the department, because I don't think that's what we're talking about, or not what I would be talking about. I'm talking about input directly to Parliament, not to your department or particularly to the minister, so to speak. I think we have an obligation as a committee to advise, to recommend to the minister and to the government and to Parliament, from the perspective of this committee, how things should be changed for the benefit....

One of the things I wanted to touch on is the fact that when you use these committees out there in the past, or, as you perceive it, for the future, do you use previous immigrants who have settled into the community, a mix of born Canadians in that community, so we get that diversification?

I'll tell you why I ask that, just to give you a little background. We are, as you would know, a gigantic country geographically. We're very, very diversified in economies. We're very diversified in our ancestry and our immigration habits. Being from Atlantic Canada, as I am - you mentioned it a few moments ago - one of the things I notice quite often is especially immigrants from the Asian countries seem to tend to move to the urban centres: Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver. That suggests to me we really haven't done a very good job in the integration program in our communities, in that there is a comfort level in going more where there are perhaps not family members but friends or former immigrants.

I would like you to comment on that aspect and maybe on the fact that, as I understand it, with our requirements in this country in the future, economically, without the immigration component and that infrastructure and working it into our communities, we would be in some difficulties some time after the turn of the century, because we certainly need immigration and we have been a country of immigration for many, many years.

Perhaps you could comment on those two points first.

Mr. Tsaï: On the general thrust of how we consult, yes, of course, we try to diversify the groups, to have a good representation of the various groups involved in the country. We have immigrant organizations, refugee groups, service providers, all sorts of NGOs who have been involved in the consultations and who are involved in our discussions with respect to the settlement renewal initiative.

.1020

The public consultations conducted by the minister involved a very broad range of groups and interests: people who had more interest and were really concerned about enforcement issues; groups that were really interested in the integration and settlement issues.

I'm sure Mr. Neuman would be able to confirm that, in the context of the current exercise, we are going to have the same kind of approach.

With respect to the overall role and contribution of immigrants, of course, settlement renewal is only one element of what the minister has announced in terms of an overall renewal for this department. We are working on the mix of immigrants. We are trying to strengthen the economic contribution of immigrants to the country. We are renewing the way we are doing enforcement. So we have really a multifaceted approach to all these issues.

I think Mr. Culbert is right. It's an exciting approach. I think it's exciting for the government. It's also exciting for public servants who deliver the programs to embark on a project that will allow us to restructure fundamentally the way programs are delivered and to empower groups that are really, in the final analysis, the beneficiaries of these services.

The Chair: Mr. Culbert, do you have any more questions?

Mr. Culbert: Yes, Madam Chair. I just wanted to follow up on the community accountability aspect. I guess that's one of your question marks with this whole process.

Having spent 15 years in municipal government in a previous life, I can tell you that I'm a strong believer, having known both sides of it. From a political point of view, you had access to your constituents at the post office, at your place of business, at home, on the sidewalk, wherever, on a continuous basis. This is a little more removed. But when you get that community involvement or an organization from the community involved, I really sincerely believe your community part of the immigration aspect is going to be much more advanced.

Just looking at that, quite obviously there is in the back of minds, through program review, a savings. There is a savings to the taxpayers of Canada by involving the community. That has to be a component, in addition to, as Mr. Hanger or perhaps Mr. Nunez mentioned, the revenue component that is there for immigrants now coming into Canada, which would certainly pay, maybe not all, but a portion of the settlement cost in this program. No matter how we do it, there's going to be a major cost factor to it. This would only be a small percentage perhaps of that total cost, or would reduce the total cost.

So I'm just wondering what type of community accountability you're really looking for in that regard. As we know, we have many programs in other departments where the community is actually in charge and they're involved. There's an accountability process that's set up both during the program and, let's say, at year end, or a quarter or half a year, whatever the requirement is. I'm just wondering what type of accountability you're thinking of. Program accountability? Financial accountability?

Mr. Tsaï: As we said, it is, of course, quite early in the game and we can't define in very precise terms the exact accountability rules that will emerge from the consultations and discussions. But at the very least we will want to have a level of accountability that will satisfy the public in general and Parliament, to ensure that we maintain the basic integrity of the program.

.1025

We have, of course, first to agree with our partners about the types of services that will be included with the settlement activity, to agree on who are the clients, what is the array of activities that will be considered as contributing to the integration of immigrants, and maximizing as much as possible the flexibility provided to the local bodies that will be involved in the delivery of the funding - make sure that really the dollars spent on settlement are really spent for the purposes for which there has been an agreement.

What kind of reporting mechanisms will that require? That remains to be seen. But I'm sure that one way or the other the department will want to be reassured that there are some very basic fundamental rules and accountability beacons in place to make sure the public and the taxpayer have the appropriate level of confidence in the program.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Dromisky, you have one question. I'll come back to you later.

Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Many of my questions have already been addressed by my colleague as they relate to community involvement. But I would like to carry it a little bit further.

This is a great country in which we live. I have just spent a weekend in the beautiful city of Calgary. When you're there, it's as though you're in a different country. I've been to Halifax, Thunder Bay, Nepean and Geraldton. No matter where I go it's a a different type of community with different types of problems.

One of the great weaknesses of this government, and all governments in this country, is that we always try to equalize everything and treat everybody equally. In trying to treat everybody equally, there's a great injustice to the people of this country because we cannot, in other words, recognize the various needs that are absolutely different from area to area.

Now, as far as immigration is concerned, a tremendous amount of money is coming from the federal level into the provincial level, wherever the immigrants may be settled for resettlement and so forth. I like your model. I like the model of involving a great number of other partners in the delivery of services. But I'd like to carry it a little bit further to the whole question of accountability.

Instead of the federal government giving out all the cash, how about the provinces also contributing? How about communities contributing? Also, let the communities have a little bit more freedom. Maybe Jim could come up with a multitude of programs that would attract a great number of immigrants to settle in that community. Right now, under our program, we have no control over where immigrants may settle. But I think there can be incentive introduced at a local level if we permit that to happen, providing they also have a responsibility; that is, financially in producing some type of incentive programs or whatever it might be.

Mr. Tsaï: Yes, and actually what we would like to do is encourage other levels of government to also be part of that effort.

Mr. Neuman referred to some other federal departments where there is also money spent to buy provincial and local communities, and maybe if we could pool all these resources we could really maximize the impact on the integration process.

Mr. Neuman: I'd just like to clarify that this is part of the mandate of this scheme, as I understand it. What we're really talking about is a pooling of all integration money from the federal government to other levels of government and community groups.

When I was out in Winnipeg on the weekend, a number of people from communities in Prince Albert and elsewhere in Manitoba came and indicated a concern about the small numbers of immigrants who are going to small communities. The minister has indicated that it is part of the government's policy to look at how we can get more immigrants to go to the non-traditional source cities like Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.

One of the things that needs to be done is if immigrants were more easily integrated into these communities then they would come. Quite frankly, what seems to be happening in a lot of them is the people are coming and they're not staying; they're going from these cities to the large centres.

So I think part of what we'd like to do is pool the resources, take away the constraints of the existing programs so that the community can say, well, this is how much we get from the feds, this is what we get from the province, the municipality and from other community groups; let's pool this money and see how we can get the biggest bang for the buck by putting it all together and placing it where it would have the best impact. The feds pay for language training whether you need it or not. The province provides welfare whether that's the solution or not. So let's see how we can pool whatever money is in there. That's one of the things we're going to try to do.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: Ms Jaouich mentioned the Canada-Quebec accord on immigration.

.1030

Obviously it is more expensive to integrate immigrants in Quebec because it is a small society in North America. It is much more difficult to integrate them in a French culture than it would be in English, which happens almost naturally in North America. In Quebec it is much more difficult.

Unfortunately, although naturally, some immigrants to Quebec prefer English over French. So if we want to preserve this French society in North America it will be more expensive, obviously.

Ms Jaouich, are you familiar with Quebec's immigrants integration program?

Do you sometimes meet within the joint committee? What is your sense of it?

Ms Jaouich: As I was saying earlier the federal government has withdrawn from the delivery of services. So we meet within the joint committee, one of the two committees emanating from the Canada-Quebec Accord. We meet once a year to exchange information on services, but strictly on an ad hoc basis because we do not really contribute in this area. We meet to exchange information simply within the joint committee.

Mr. Nunez: So you have no criticism to express? You find it neither good nor bad? You have not opinion on the matter?

Ms Jaouich: My opinion might be different, but in our experience with Quebec, integration services are being offered to those who request them. The accord does not call for an analysis of the manner in which they are being delivered.

Mr. Nunez: You are even more of a diplomat than I thought.

Ms Jaouich: I don't know if I should take it as a compliment.

Mr. Nunez: It is a compliment.

How many immigrants come each year to the Atlantic provinces? What specific problems are there in that region compared to the rest of Canada and what do those programs cost?

Mr. Neuman: On average 5,000 people a year immigrate to the Atlantic provinces. Most of them settle in the Halifax area, very few go to Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Three thousand to 3,500 choose Nova Scotia and 1,500 to 2,000 go to New Brunswick. They are fairly disseminated. And that is the reason why for the future we are looking at a different system for the delivery of settlement services in the Atlantic region. There is an umbrella organization in that region of groups involved in the reception and integration of immigrants. We plan to set up with that organization a more efficient system to facilitate the integration of immigrants in those provinces taken into account the fact of their great dissemination. The numbers are very low, much lower than in the other provinces.

Mr. Nunez: What percentage of immigrants participate in the English-language training?

Mr. Tsaï: Generally speaking, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, I would say about 40% to 45%.

Mr. Nunez: And how many people participate in the other programs?

Mr. Tsaï: Mrs. Midgley might be able to inform us.

[English]

Ms Midgley: Madam Chair, unfortunately, we do not at this time have the precision of numbers Mr. Nunez is looking for. But we have introduced a data module of the settlement management information system that does tell us which clients are receiving our services. That is whatMr. Neuman was referring to. It was one of our reporting requirements under the current program. That module was implemented on April 1 of this year, so we may be able to give you that information later.

.1035

Also, it's been difficult in the other program to determine exactly the percentage of the clients, because they are generally provided to anyone who comes in, or families, etc. It's different from the language training, which is more individual-based, because you know who is receiving it. Therefore, we have a better sense of the proportion. Also, the language training programs are based on the needs for language training. We only have funds, and they are allocated in the proportion to which Mr. Tsaï was referring. We have enough federal funds for only about 40% to 45% of those who need it.

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): It's good to see you here again. It's becoming a big family here.

My question was partly answered by previous questions. It has to do with partnership.

You mentioned on page 5 of this document the change in the management settlement program. Three federal departments - Citizenship and Immigration, Heritage, and Human Resour- ces - along with NGOs and other government departments, work to administer the program.

What about partnership between federal, provincial and municipal governments in a way similar to such a program?

I ask this because when immigrants come here, they buy property and for their house they pay property taxes. That goes toward the education services and so on. One of the services they do not pay for is the one the federal government provides to them, yet they get the benefit of it. If they do business, then they pay a business tax to municipalities, and what have you. I think we should find a formula.

I'd like to have your feeling about this. How can you make a fair distribution of the services we provide that will draw money from municipalities toward this fund so we can administer and give them good services as a federal government, rather than bypassing them, going with the NGOs and giving them money?

Don't give money to the NGOs, but give it to municipalities in return for a credit. So therewill be a three-legged approach - municipalities, provincial government and the federal government - to put all their resources in, as we said earlier, so we can provide better service more cheaply, and more responsibility.

The municipalities provide the front-line service to the citizens, then the provincial government, and then us.

It seems to me as if we're paying for everybody but they're getting the benefits. After all, if the immigrant is educated, the municipalities often benefit from that. The provincial government benefits from that too. But we pay for their training, language and everything else.

How would you react to that?

Mr. Tsaï: A general answer is that we are open to all forms of partnerships in the context of this renewal. The model you are proposing is a good one, but it's only one model among others. I don't think we should exclude at the outset the NGOs and service providers themselves and some of the organizations that are very actively involved in the settlement program.

Mr. Assadourian: I did not say ``exclude them''. You would include them also.

Mr. Tsaï: Yes. Well, I think this is the direction we are taking.

Mr. Neuman: As I indicated earlier, I'm going to meet with the Metro Toronto government on Wednesday to discuss bringing the NGOs in. As I tried to indicate, we're trying to pool the money from the federal, provincial and municipal governments and the NGOs and create a body that would oversee the expenditure of this money at the local level. This is where the accountability question comes in, because each level of government has its own accountability concerns. When you're pooling federal, provincial and municipal money, along with NGO money, how do you satisfy the various accountability concerns? But that is definitely the approach that we would like to try.

Looking across the country, different municipal levels of government operate differently. In Ontario, the Ontario government actually spends a lot of money on immigrant settlement in various ways, as do municipal governments. In other jurisdictions, municipalities have responsibilities in delivering welfare services and other services that might apply to immigrants, whereas in other parts of the country they have virtually no involvement.

.1040

That's why we have to be flexible. We can't have one approach that would be applied everywhere.

But your model would certainly apply in a number of jurisdictions. We would like to explore that.

The Chair: Mrs. Fry.

Ms Fry (Vancouver Centre): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I originally came to represent the parliamentary secretary, as did Mr. Culbert.

The Chair: It takes two to represent him, as we all know.

Ms Fry: Intellectually, anyway.

I think I'm representing Ms Gaffney now.

Like Mr. Culbert, I have not been to this committee before. Some of the things you have talked about I may be naïve about or ask some rather foolish questions about.

One of the things I think important in what I heard you talk about is evaluation and accountability. When people talk about accountability, my question always is how do you know if you're getting there if you don't know where you're going first?

What I would like to know is what the objectives are. Do you have any measurable objectives for immigrant settlement? I'm talking not only about fiscal accountability but about clear measurable goals, because I think it's important to have measurable goals; and not only measurable goals, but ones that include demographic settlement, and not only demographic in terms of how you settle children but in how you settle seniors, because it is my understanding from many of the people in the communities that seniors don't get a lot of settlement benefits at all. In fact, many of them are quite isolated and become very lost in the system. They tend to become almost glorified babysitters who sit at home and tend to get quite depressed and quite lost.

First, are your objectives measurable, and second, do you consider demographics, such as age and place? I have heard a lot of people talk about rural settlement, and I think it's important that we factor into your measurable objectives or goals rural settlement issues. Then I think you can evaluate it clearly, both fiscally and in the objectives for where you are going.

That's something I wanted to put in about looking at accountability.

The second thing I wanted to put to you is the fact that we have increased the number of people who will be coming into the country and who will come from the professional and investor classes. My big question about the professional classes is this. Is there any way of standardizing and looking at acceptance of different licensing bodies and different training modules that people come here with?

Sometimes we have very well trained people, physicians, teachers, nurses, and they come here and they do work that is below the level of their education because we don't look clearly at some kind of acceptance or way of incorporating an extra training module for them so they can eventually get into their profession and work here in Canada.

I know governments can't do that, but I'm talking about partnerships with licensing bodies, whether they be teaching, nursing, or medical bodies. I think that's a path in partnership that needs to be considered.

I don't know what you think about both those points. I would like to hear your comments.

Mr. Tsaï: Madam Chair, I think the member's point is very well taken. Of course we have to put the horse before the cart in terms of identifying the objectives and what we want to achieve through the various settlement programs, and then identify how we're going to evaluate the achievement of the objectives, etc.

This is, of course, something we are doing and will be doing in the context of this discussion about what the benchmarks are - the linguistic benchmarks, for example - what results are to be achieved in the various integration processes. If we are dealing with, for example, racial tensions, is a program really contributing to the decrease of those tensions?

Mr. Neuman may elaborate on some of the approaches we intend to address.

On the second issue, the licensing bodies, I would ask Ms Midgley to answer your question.

But maybe first, Mr. Neuman, you would like to add a few comments on the accountability versus objectives issue.

Mr. Neuman: I think the member has made a very good point. I'm just looking at the pamphlet we're putting together. We talk about the goals of the settlement renewal exercise itself. I think it would be useful to include some objectives specifically, as are indicated, of settlement services generally. We're really talking about a rapid integration of immigrants into Canadian society in order to minimize the costs down the road and to make them as independent and as self-sufficient as possible, as quickly as possible. We need to define that. I think it's a very good point, and I think it's something we would want to incorporate into the document that we're going to prepare on this.

.1045

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms Midgley: On the whole issue of accreditation and recognition of foreign qualification, we certainly already know this is an issue that is of very primary importance and that is very long-standing. If I may go back into my history, my first job in immigration research was looking at the whole issue of recognition of foreign qualification. It's also an issue that has come up in many of the consultations around the table because it has tremendous economic implications on the integration issue.

The department is working with our former partner from what was the employment and immigration department, the human resources development department, on this. Together, we are looking at the whole accreditation issue. There is an ongoing project on this, but it is not an easy issue to resolve because it is a partnership issue, as you have pointed out. The whole of accreditation is not only just the licensing body, it's also provincial responsibility.

Over the years, I think there has been a general acceptance that this is an issue, that enough talking is going on and that something has to happen. I'm quite excited that under the settlement renewal project, for instance, if the local and provincial partners recognize this as an area in which we need to make progress - and everybody does - I believe there will be the will to move this file along.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Mr. Mayfield, five minutes.

Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): I appreciated your analogy, Ms Fry, and I would like to perhaps just use that for a little bit. I'm interested in a kind of general understanding of the relationship. We've used words like ``partnership'' and ``pooling of money''. We've also talked about accountability - financial accountability, program accountability - but I'm really interested in your conceptualization of the relationship between the federal government, the provincial governments, the NGOs - all the stakeholders.

What would be the nature of the relationship, not only in terms of where we're going and how we're getting there, but in terms of what kind of a vehicle we are going in? Are we going to go in a bus, with the federal government sitting at the steering wheel, or are we going to be going in a whole bunch of little cars that are following each other along the route?

I'm interested in the power lines or the flow chart of how this might go. I'm also interested in how much the federal government wants to save out of its budget in this process. Do you have some benchmarks in mind? Would you be interested in giving up some other areas of responsibility, for example, the determination of how many immigrants come into the country and whether certain regions of the country will have something to say about how many immigrants are settled in their locality, how many they can provide services for?

These are the kinds of questions that are in my mind as I try to sort out what kind of a relationship you're striving for.

Mr. Tsaï: In terms of the conceptualization, what I can visualize in place of a bus or a car is really a boat that everybody is rowing. This is how I would like to see this project and this initiative.

Mr. Mayfield: Is the federal government going to be sitting in the back, at the tiller, though?

Mr. Tsaï: It will probably be one of the rowers.

But yes, we have to identify with those departments you have identified and that we have tried to identify. We have to determine together the objectives of the various activities that will be eligible under the program - and when I say ``will be eligible'', I mean that we would like to achieve as much flexibility as possible to allow local groups to identify their objectives very clearly.

.1050

In terms of whether or not there will be some specific savings at the end of the day, that will be determined by the nature of the agreements and the arrangements that are in place at the end of the process. I think it's really too early for us to tell this committee today that at the end of the process, we'll be able to save 10% or 15% of the resources currently assigned to the settlement function in the department.

You also raised, Mr. Mayfield, the issue of extending the partnership to other aspects of our activities. You referred, if I remember correctly, to the levels and the determination of levels. I think we are doing that. We have proposals before the minister that will establish levels. There were consultations done across the country with all the provincial governments, so this is something that is done.

Conceptualization is.... At this stage, we have to achieve that balance between a picture that is as firm as possible and one not really saying that this is exactly what's going to happen. We would defeat the whole idea of the process of developing something, of defining, with the help of others, even the enduring federal role in the settlement area. We can't just arrive with some kind of blueprint and say what will happen. We have to identify orientations, potential developments, and things that can be done, but we have to really engage our partners in a very open and frank manner.

Mr. Mayfield: Along the same lines, if the federal government wants other people to put money into it - and it seems that when we talk about pooling, there is some expectation of that - it would seem that the federal government will have to give something in return. If you expect me to contribute my money, I want a proportioned amount of input into how that money is going to be spent. I am wondering how much of this is going to be a federal government program and how much is going to turn out to be a community program.

We look at the problem in the Department of Health, for example, where the federal government has cut back the amount it is spending in that area. We're now having a lot of difficulty with provinces saying they're putting enough money into this and they're going to decide how it's going to be run. Is this the direction this program is going to be headed in?

The Chair: I think Mr. Neuman wanted to add something earlier.

Mr. Mayfield: I'm sorry, I missed that.

Mr. Neuman: You are making a very important point, which is why we are asking questions about accountability. When you do pool, you do give up some of the control over your money as you pool it with others. You share the control with others, and that's a relatively new concept.

Mr. Mayfield: That's right.

Mr. Neuman: When I was out west, a number of the people from western Canada who represent smaller communities that have less immigrants indicated a concern about this. They felt that in any such arrangement, the federal government's presence, participation and share of the funding would be so overwhelming that the term ``partnership'' is not a fair term. The federal government would be too dominant if we had all that money.

They actually suggested another term, ``alliance'', to use in place of ``partnership''. The concept is fine, and you could look at what we're talking about in that way. We're trying to get together with the various other groups and work out some kind of arrangement, one that is going to be different depending on the area. We're trying to work out an alliance in which we say what the federal government will do, what the NGO will do, what the provinces will do, and what all of the players will do. We will try to agree amongst ourselves as to what this role would be.

A partnership implies that everybody's got an equity interest. Some people are not putting money in. We are also dealing with a lot of voluntary groups that don't have a lot of money to put in, yet they do have a very important stake. We have to work through all these things, and we can use the term ``partnership'', but we should use other terms as well.

Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): I'm sorry I wasn't here for your presentation. I had another meeting.

.1055

You talked about a council. When you talk about a council that will oversee these alliances, as you may call them, how is the council formed?

Mr. Tsaï: The council? We're talking about community groups.

We haven't got a model. The minister has asked the committee to come up with some ideas as to how this might work. How do we determine who should be on this group? What criteria should be used? Should they be province-wide? What would define a community? What would be an appropriate arrangement? We are actually looking for advice on this.

Mrs. Terrana: So it's actually up to us to suggest.

Mr. Neuman: We would like very much to hear what the committee has to suggest in that regard.

The Chair: Dr. Fry, did you want to add anything more?

Ms Fry: I just wanted to add what I had originally talked about, when I was talking about objectives. I read the objectives at the front of the thing here.... These things always tend to be warm fuzzies, and I feel the time has come now when we can measure many of these issues, and it's clear that we should measure them so that we know and we can assess as we go along whether we're getting there and whether our strategies are appropriate or whether we should shift gears and change strategies, because they don't seem to be getting to the goal.

The State of Oregon now has a clear set of measurable benchmarks for every singlething: economic benchmarks, educational benchmarks, health benchmarks, immigration benchmarks - all of these kinds of benchmarks. They have them and they are quite clear and quite measurable.

If we are going to talk about evaluation, about meaningful evaluation, the only way we can do it is to have absolutely measurable, clear benchmarks.

[Translation]

Mr. Nunez: I had asked a question about government cuts in general, and more specifically, concerning the staff of your department in charge of these programs. Will some of them be cut?

Mr. Tsaï: We have already talked about this matter in a different context. The Committee was told that there would be no cuts in 1995-1996, but that cuts were unavoidable, one way or the other, during the third year of our work plan, our business plan, that is, in 1997-1998.

What will be the precise impact? The cuts that we will have to handle will not only be determined by the new establishment program but also by other renewal exercises within the department including a restructuration of all our procedures concerning enforcement, settlement, as well as other departmental programs. So I cannot tell you today whether, following our consultation process, within one or two years, there will be a 20% reduction of our human resources in the settlement area.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hanger has one short question and then we are going to adjourn.

Mr. Hanger: In your negotiations with the province, one province would come to you and say they want the number of immigrants cut down in their province so they can accommodate those they have already. Is that going to be part of the negotiations and settlement procedures or, going beyond that, the immigration agreement?

Mr. Tsaï: In terms of the levels, which are established every year, these levels are established on the basis of consultations with the provinces. I would not characterize them as negotiations, but Mrs. Jaouich is much closer to this discussion so I am going to ask her.

Ms Jaouich: If I may, with all the provinces with whom we are negotiating agreements at the present time, we have put down one of the elements as being immigration planning. We have sought advice from the provinces on levels and mix on the numbers and the make-up of the numbers. So with the provinces that we are negotiating agreements with, this is one of the elements we have put on the table.

Mr. Hanger: That will coincide with the settlement dollars that flow back and forth and the total commitment that a province would have.

Ms Jaouich: Possibly.

Mr. Hanger: Possibly?

Ms Jaouich: Depending on what agreements we come to.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hanger.

.1100

Mr. Tsaï, before I give you the last word, I'd like to ask your department if they could provide us with the groups you're consulting with across the country, with the dates you're doing the consultations on, and with the agenda, perhaps, of some of the issues you'll be dealing with. If there are minutes or transcripts, it would be very useful for this committee to have copies of those. We will be inviting you back, of course, to report on those consultations.

It would also be interesting to have the questions you brought up re accountability,Mr. Neuman. And if there are any other questions that you feel this committee should be dealing with when it's doing its consultation across the country, it would be very useful to have them.

Mr. Tsaï: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. We'd be very happy to follow up on these requests.

Mr. Assadourian referred to a family, and I would like to mention that we are going to lose a member of the family. Mrs. Midgley is about to retire. So she has been with us for.... Ms Jaouich has accepted to take responsibility for the delivery of the settlement program during this transition phase, which is going to be quite a challenge.

The Chair: On behalf of the members of the committee, I would like to wish Ms Midgley a good retirement. Are you retiring from the department or the public service?

Ms Midgley: The public service.

The Chair: Then I wish you a good and happy retirement.

I thank you very much, Mr. Tsaï and your team, for coming before us again. We look forward to your coming back.

Mr. Tsaï: Thank you.

The Chair: This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.