[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, June 26, 1995
.1205 
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. I'd like to welcome everyone and thank you very much for coming, especially on the short notice we have given all the agencies, organizations, and everyone present today. I appreciate very much your presence and look forward to your comments.
We're here to talk about settlement renewal. Under Standing Order 108(2), the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has been mandated to study settlement renewal and the process by which the federal government will withdraw from direct service delivery over the next three years.
The structure that is necessary for immigrant renewal has 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 that the committee is at the beginning of the consultation process, and this is the first. It's such a beautiful place to be in to start.
You're the experts in immigrant integration. We are here to benefit from both your expertise and your counsel. As I said, I thank you very much for accepting our invitation.
I'd like to situate and give you the terms of reference of the committee. We are considering three questions. The first concerns positive decision-making. If the federal government will no longer decide what services will be delivered, in your opinion by whom and at what cost, how and where, should decisions affecting the immigrant settlement system be made? What are some of the considerations that must be taken into account in making decisions affecting the immigrant settlement system? To what extent and where in the process should the service agencies be involved in determining the policies, priorities, and strategies of the decision-making bodies?
The second question concerns accountability for results and for the equitable management of public funds. We need to keep in mind that program evaluation should provide information that continues to be relevant to the programs, whether they are meeting stated objectives, whether there are unintended effects, and whether they are cost-effective. As service providers, how do you or how should you measure the success of your programs? What kind of tools do you use to evaluate their success? Are they satisfactory? Are there currently measurement criteria processes that you think are of little use? What more would you like to see by way of measurement tools? Is this something you see the federal government providing some assistance on?
.1210
Third, we want your views on what role the federal government should continue to play in immigrant integration.
I would like to begin by having everyone introduce themselves. First, we have the honour of having with us today the mayor of Vancouver, Mr. Philip Owen. Welcome, Mr. Mayor. Considering the fact that the mayor has other responsibilities today, we'd like to begin with his opening statement. Please go ahead, Mr. Owen, and thank you for coming.
Mr. Philip Owen (Mayor of Vancouver): Thank you very much. Good morning. It is a pleasure to be here, and on behalf of the citizens, I want to welcome you to Vancouver. We have a very dynamic society, a changing cultural mix in this city, this region, and this province. I'm very pleased to be here this morning to make a few brief remarks.
You had asked, Madam Chair, about our new library. I just want to say that our new library opened on time and on budget on May 26. The old library received on an average day about 4,600 people. The new library is averaging 10,000 a day. I mention that because I think it's rather significant.
There is tremendous outreach into all our communities and all cultural communities. There's obviously a response of people going to a centre to learn, exchange ideas, see books in their own language, and find out what's going on. It's very significant that we're getting that kind of increase in that new building. I hope that before you leave you'll have a chance to look at it. It's on Georgia Street, not far from your hotel.
I'm pleased that Anna Terrana and various other people I recognize around the room, who are familiar with this whole issue in Vancouver, are here. We do have something unique in this city.
I'd like to start by referring to the brief that's before you. Perhaps with your indulgence, I'll quickly go through it.
On behalf of the Vancouver city council, I am pleased to have the opportunity to be involved in setting new directions for immigrant settlement services.
The City of Vancouver strongly supports having flexible funding priorities in order to better meet changing local and regional needs. As well, the city feels there's an equal need to establish a national standard to ensure guaranteed access to basic services. We would like to see core values and principles that apply nationally, with flexibility on regional and local service delivery models.
The city council staff would like to see a more inclusive consultation process right from the start. Today is a significant occasion as it marks the first time municipal governments have been invited to the table. Discussions that began last year did so without input from the local level of government. I am pleased that today our place at the table reflects the reality of the close working relationship the city has with all its residents.
Our services to residents include parks and recreation, engineering, police, library, social planning, and various other departments. We also fund and support non-government organizations that deliver services to assist newcomers to adapt and integrate.
Vancouver currently provides approximately $500,000 in community service grants. It's actually slightly over $500,000 this year. That's in cash dollars and cheques that we write out of the city budget, funding annually to non-governmental organizations. The city plays an important role through our many city services in welcoming new residents and assisting their settlement and adaptation.
I know that you will concur that the City of Vancouver should be an integral partner with the federal and provincial governments in the settlement renewal process. We need to participate in all the priority-setting and decision-making discussions.
May I respectfully suggest that this committee reconsider the timeframe that has been set regarding the goal for the decision on a new settlement services framework and a service delivery model by March 1996. I put forward this suggestion as I think that in order to have a more inclusive consultation with meaningful discussion involving all levels of government, service providers and consumers, more time than you have allotted will be required.
British Columbia has been receiving an average of 23% to 25% of the immigrants coming to Canada. However, we receive only 9% to 10% of the federal immigration budget. In addition, of the 80,000 people who are moving to British Columbia, half of them are Canadians moving from the prairies, central Canada, and the Maritimes. A lot of them are fairly recent immigrants, and of course there isn't an accurate tracking on that, so the number of immigrants coming here is probably in excess of 25%.
.1215
Clearly this situation is inequitable and inadequate. It needs to be reviewed. British Columbia should have a fair share of resources dedicated to assisting immigrants.
As you know, there has also been an influx of interprovincial migration to British Columbia, with a large percentage of new immigrants settling in the city of Vancouver. May I suggest that the federal government would be better served if it developed a better tracking system of where immigrants settle. An improved system will facilitate provincial and municipal governments in service planning and resource allocation.
At the municipal level, we would like to have assured dedicated funding for immigrant settlement services from both the federal and provincial governments. It will not come as a surprise to you that the city is very concerned about the downloading, also referred to as offloading, of a variety of services onto local government. Remember, we have only one source of funding at the local level, and that is property taxation. At present the city does not receive any settlement funding, but we do provide both human and financial resources to assist newcomers.
We are a civilized city. Our newcomers are at the doorstep and we cannot ignore their needs.
With me is Mrs. Wendy Au. I'm sorry I didn't introduce her; I should have done so at the beginning. Wendy Au, of the City of Vancouver, is going to be with you during the day. She is our multicultural committee planner.
The invitation for Wendy Au and myself to be present at this table allows me to assume that the city's role in servicing newcomers has been recognized. Again, thank you.
I'm hopeful that today's discussions will lead, among other enlightenments, to the recognition of the tremendous pressure to provide additional services to newcomers as experienced by our schools and health systems. Once again, the City of Vancouver needs to receive resources from the federal government.
Finally, I would like to mention two gaps within the settlement services that have not as yet been addressed.
First, the federal Canadian job strategy program, which provides job training opportunities, is shifting its focus to UI claimants. The provincial skills training program is focusing on social assistance recipients. These changes in direction may exclude new immigrants who could benefit from these job training opportunities.
Second, refugee claimants in Vancouver also require a great deal of assistance and services, yet the federal government still has not recognized their need, hence forfeiting responsibility for the original decisions that allowed these newcomers to become part of our city.
These latter two points conclude my brief remarks. Ms Au will be with you for the remainder of the day to expand upon the themes I have introduced. I have appreciated the opportunity to briefly outline the City of Vancouver's decision with regard to the settlement issue as it relates to citizenship and immigration.
Thank you very much and enjoy your stay in Vancouver. I'm sorry you have to leave on a 7:30 flight tonight.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Mrs. Au, we look forward to having you with us the whole day.
We will continue with opening remarks by everyone present. Would you introduce yourselves, please?
Mr. Aziz Khaki (President, Committee for Racial Justice): Perhaps we could have an introduction of the members, and also an introduction of those of us who are here so that when we speak, at least we can put a face to the name.
The Chair: That's exactly what I just said.
We will begin with my colleagues, and I apologize to my colleagues for not giving them the opportunity. We will begin with Val.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I'm Val Meredith, member of Parliament for Surrey - White Rock - South Langley, just south of the city here.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): I'm Osvaldo Nunez, member of Parliament for Bourassa, in north Montreal. Originally I came from Chile. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and citizenship and vice-chair of this committee.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): I'm Anna Terrana from Vancouver East.
Ms Clancy (Halifax): I am Mary Clancy, member of Parliament for Halifax and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Ms Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): I'm Margaret Young and I'm the researcher with the committee.
The Chair: Pat Steenberg is our clerk of the committee.
Ms Clancy: Who are you?
The Chair: I'm Eleni Bakopanos, chair of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. My riding is Saint-Denis, in Montreal.
.1220
You can be excused, Mr. Mayor, or if you'd like to stick around, that's fine. I want to thank you very much for your brief and for your written brief. We appreciate this very much.
We will continue.
[Translation]
Would you please simply give us your name and that of your organization and, very briefly, its objective?
[English]
Ms Esther Frid (Counsellor, Latin American Community Council): I work at Family Services, but here I represent the Latin American Community Council. That is a network of professional people and the grassroots people that represent the Latin American community. We discuss the needs of our community and we develop some services in a network format.
Mr. Bernardo Berdichewsky (National President, Canadian Hispanic Congress): I am the national president of the Canadian Hispanic Congress. We are here representing both the national and provincial offices.
Mr. Eyob Naizghi (Director, Settlement Services, MOSAIC): I'm representing MOSAIC, an immigration settlement agency in Vancouver.
Ms Susan French (Executive Director, Burnaby Multicultural Society): I am the executive director of the Burnaby Multicultural Society and the president of the Citizenship B.C. Society.
Mr. Khaki: I'm the president of the Committee for Racial Justice, which is an umbrella group made up of churches, community groups, service organizations and labour unions. I also happen to be the national vice-president of the Council of Muslim Communities of Canada.
Ms Wendy Au (Multicultural Planner, Social Planning Department, City of Vancouver): I'm from the City of Vancouver and am a multicultural community planner.
Ms Shashi Assanand (Executive Director, Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services): I'm the executive director of Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services. It's an organization that works with immigrant and visible minority women who [Inaudible - Editor] violence.
Ms Barbara Downs (Director, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House): I'm the director of South Vancouver Neighbourhood House, which is a community-based organization.
Mr. Sherman Chan (Director, Surrey Delta Immigrant Services Society): I'm the director of Settlement Programs with Surrey Delta Immigrant Services Society. Surrey is one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada.
Mr. Bill Annett (Executive Director, Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia): I'm executive director of the Immigrant Services Society of British Columbia.
Mr. Rod Santiago (Planning Consultant, United Way of the Lower Mainland): I'm from the United Way of the Lower Mainland.
The Chair: Welcome, everyone.
I'll begin by repeating what I said earlier in my opening remarks about the terms of reference. I believe you have received something on the terms of reference from our clerk, so you all have....
We will proceed in a very flexible way. If you'd like to raise your hand when you have a comment, we'll allow for discussions back and forth, a truly round-table discussion.
Does anybody have a short opening statement they would like to put on the record before we actually begin discussion?
Mr. Naizghi: I would like to read a very brief statement on what we reflect as an agency and on what we believe. I will be very quick.
As mentioned, I represent MOSAIC at this meeting. I've worked as director of settlement services and programs for MOSAIC for about three years. MOSAIC is one of the leading non-profit organizations providing settlement and adjustment services to new immigrants and refugees for over 23 years.
It's a great pleasure to be part of this historic process of consultation that will have a real impact on shaping the delivery of settlement and integration services to newcomers to this great nation of ours, Canada.
My background as a refugee immigrant helps me appreciate the necessity of effective settlement services for newcomers in order for them to become contributing members of their new home and country.
I would like to say that settlement renewal has to acknowledge the contributions made by immigrant-serving agencies in assisting the newcomers to adjust and settle in Canada. Settlement renewal should acknowledge the fact that this service is a long-term, cost-effective human investment for Canada and Canadians.
.1225
As a member of a team that is working hard to bring settlement services closer to the community with which we work, I should say that I appreciate the engagement of Citizenship and Immigration in a consultation process with stakeholder communities. We are encouraged to see other [Inaudible - Editor] involved in the regional consultation that is looking at the provincial settlement renewal process. Nevertheless, I need to reiterate the obvious fact that this process and consultation take time and endurance for the subject-matter to mature.
We are reminded at different meetings, workshops and conferences that settlement renewal will demonstrate the spirit of partnership of the government and the communities. However, the government's premises for settlement renewal, which are based on fiscal restraint, cost-effectiveness and accountability, do seem to negate the true spirit of partnership and cooperation. We have an honest concern that at the end of the day, the bottom-line approach of dollars and cents may dictate the renewal process. We sometimes fear that this is a done deal, and we wonder why officials have to bother meeting community people. We have a concern that settlement renewal will be a unilateral decision and that it may end up as downloading responsibility to the next in line, be it the province or the community.
We feel this consultation may heighten people's expectation, which the service-providing agencies will have to account for at the end of the day.
As it stands now, settlement renewal is about three services, namely ISAP, HOST and LINC programs. However, our 23 years of experience in this sector tell us that settlement services without employment training programs have very little impact on newcomers who are trying hard to settle and fully participate in the Canadian social system. We strongly believe that the settlement renewal should be multi-sectoral in approach, and above all, the renewal process should include the employment training programs for new immigrants and refugees.
Currently the human resources investment fund, HRIF, is focusing on a UI-based training program. The majority of our clients, being new with little or no work experience and a low English level, will not qualify for HRIF resources and will fall through the cracks.
I should say that the employment training programs currently run through MOSAIC have an 85% success rate where the graduates are placed in competitive employment. This is due to integrated services the agency provides to newcomers, and is partially due to the level of cooperation we have established with the private sector over the last 23 years. I should also say it will be the loss of a golden opportunity if this consultation process does not include this program in the current review of settlement services.
Another concern we as an agency have about this renewal process is that the consultation has focused on administrators. It would be our recommendation that for this consultation to be real and complete, the end user must be a stakeholder in the settlement renewal process.
In conclusion, we believe the enduring role of government should emphasize the continued support of basic settlement and integration services to newcomers. This should be part of the national standard that is required for newcomers to successfully settle and integrate. As an agency, we believe this process of settlement renewal must draw the needed commitment from the federal government to secure and enable newcomers to participate in Canadian social life.
On behalf of MOSAIC I would like to thank you for the opportunity of allowing our organization to make our input into this renewal process.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Naizghi.
We turn to Mr. Bernardo Berdichewsky.
Mr. Berdichewsky: I am from the Canadian Hispanic Congress. The Canadian Hispanic Congress is an umbrella organization that represents the Hispanic community in its relations with the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. It doesn't compete with any other organization of Hispanics. On the contrary, we promote. We're trying to cooperate and help.
.1230
We are a relatively young community here in this country, although a growing community. At a conservative estimate, we are more than 350,000 people. In B.C. we number around 20,000 - also from a conservative demographic point of view - and we are constantly growing.
We have a lot of problems, particularly in the resettlement of our immigrants. That's why we wanted to be present here. The problem with resettlement for the Hispanic immigrant is that first, there are a lot of unemployed people in the Hispanic community and a lot of people moving from job to job. So the employment issue is one of the most important ones for us, and that also particularly affects the newcomers.
Recently, over a period of less than a decade, a very interesting phenomenon has taken place: Latin American, Hispanic professionals have begun to develop and become part of other agencies that are providing services. These were able to organize themselves in a network, the Latin American Community Council, which is represented here. They are playing a very important role as a broker between the community and the agencies that provide service.
But the important thing for the Canadian Hispanic Congress is that we don't depend on anybody, we don't belong to any agencies, we don't belong to any government. We are an independent organization that is trying to put the interests of the Hispanic community up front.
In that sense, I want to state that although we approve this renewal effort for recapturing immigrant settlement services to make the settlement more effective, we would not like to see a reduction of services. Make it more effective, more workable, but do not reduce it.
The second aspect we are very adamant about is the decision-making process. Particularly as a young community, we want to be part of the decision-making process. I was very happy to read in the material Pat sent us that as part of this renewal there is the idea of incorporating communities in the decision-making process. I really would like to be part and have all ethnocultural communities be part of the decision-making process, particularly with regard to the settlement of immigrants.
Another important point we want to emphasize is that we agree on necessary modernization, employing the most advanced technology necessary to improve and reduce the cost of these services, but we don't want to see this modernization - using modern technology - increasing unemployment, particularly unemployment among the immigrant communities.
Finally, we see immigrant settlement services as one important form of social programs. In the framework of the crisis and attack from which the social security and welfare system of Canada has been suffering in the recent period, we would like to see these social programs, including immigrant settlement, continue, have all the support and funding necessary, and not be cut like the other social programs that are threatened.
That's our presentation.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Just to make a point, we are not talking about cutting funds. We're talking about keeping funds at the level they are right now. We're talking about the federal government withdrawing from the actual delivery of the services down to the local level. I wanted to put that on record to reassure you.
.1235
Mr. Berdichewsky: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Mr. Khaki, please.
Mr. Khaki: First of all, welcome to Vancouver. I must say on behalf of my organization - which, as I mentioned earlier, is an umbrella group - that we appreciate this exercise of consultation, especially in the format of a dialogue, that you have selected. I hope dialogue will lead to an exchange of ideas that eventually leads to the formation of new ideas in the process.
The Chair: Sorry to interrupt. At this point I would also put on the record that I'm very happy you appreciate the format we've chosen. I just want to make a point that the minister has used the same format for his other consultations. It is a format that the federal government is using in most of our consultations.
Secondly, you brought up the issue of what will happen. Perhaps it's early to say, but I'd like to put on the record at the beginning that this is a consultation that will continue in full committee in September. If even after this consultation anyone feels they have more to add, we will accept written briefs from any group. Even though you have appeared, we will still accept a written brief. We hope to come with a report to the House sometime in early October.
That was just to situate you. Please continue, Mr. Khaki.
Mr. Khaki: That's called progress, so I accept that.
Madam Chairperson, if my memory serves me right, a few years ago the now defunct Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council held a number of consultation meetings on this subject and also distributed a questionnaire. We took the time and energy to fill in that questionnaire and to come to the consultation. Unfortunately, I don't know what happened to that process. I don't know whether there has been any follow-up.
My reservation for consultations is that we come here, we are all volunteers, we give of our time, we give the benefit of our professional skill, and I do hope some of the things that are said are taken seriously. Our intention is to make sure that whatever system is put in place, it is fair and able to reach out to everyone, those who need that service.
I will not go into too much detail, but I want to raise one or two questions so that we can have some discussion on them.
I don't know, Madam Chairperson, but you and your members are probably aware that there are many church and religious organizations and community umbrella groups that are providing a number of settlement services at the grassroots level, although they may not be recipients of any government funding. In what way is their input solicited? I'm very interested to know that.
For myself - in another capacity - I would really like to see in what way the input of my own Council of Muslim Communities of Canada is solicited. What is done to improve their participation in the delivery of the service?
Madam Chairperson, in the document your committee has issued for discussion, I find that you have mentioned integration quite often. Now, integration to us is not a one-way street. It seems at present that all services are focused on helping newcomers to integrate. What steps have been taken to remove barriers and obstacles that these newcomers may be facing in integration? This raises issues of denial of basic human rights and racial or religious discrimination. What steps have been taken to better educate or sensitize businesses, employers, labour unions and other Canadian institutions to increase their efforts to help the newcomers to integrate? It's not a one-way street. While you are helping the newcomers to integrate, are you in any way educating those who are supposed to allow the immigrants to integrate?
.1240
We believe this exercise of educating the institutions, the employers and the labour unions forms an integral part, and very significant part, of the settlement renewal.
Madam Chairperson, as I said, I have a number of issues I'd like to raise and I will raise them as we go on, but these are my operating clauses in the sense of what I feel. I hear the term ``integrate'' many times. How do I integrate?
Ms Clancy: You referred to denial of basic human rights. I wonder if you could tell us what those are, because that....
Mr. Khaki: Yes, I was talking -
Ms Clancy: You referred to the denial of basic human rights and I wonder if you could enumerate what those are. That's something Max Yalden should be aware of instantly.
Mr. Khaki: That refers especially to issues of employment and housing. Many times you go to a place and you will be told, sorry, but -
Ms Clancy: Right now you're talking about something under the provincial aegis.
Mr. Khaki: I think there are also some institutions...for example, employment equity issues. Your Parliament has been dealing.... Since the last employment equity, which expired about three or four years ago, we are still struggling. Lloyd Axworthy has introduced the employment equity bill, but it has -
Ms Clancy: That was the president of the Treasury Board, but anyway.... It wasn't Mr. Axworthy.
Mr. Khaki: Okay, it was Mr. Art Eggleton. For your information, I was at the Treasury Board for six years dealing with employment of visible -
Ms Clancy: I'm really concerned about denial of basic human rights in the federal.... I'd like specifics. I'd very much like you to give me....
If I can just finish.... Perhaps afterwards you can give me specific instances, names, places, etc. I'd be happy to -
Mr. Khaki: I'll be more than happy. Not only that, I will give you my newsletters, which -
Ms Clancy: I don't want that. I want -
Mr. Khaki: - clearly...we talk from experience. We have lived in this area for 14 years, and madam, I can assure you that our experience -
Ms Clancy: No, no, I'm not at all denying your experience, but I want you to come to me afterwards so I can -
The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor]...Mr. Khaki, we'll stop the conversation. It is beyond the terms of reference we have for discussion today. If the two of you would like to continue the conversation afterwards, I have no problem.
If you want to submit a list to Ms Clancy, that's fine, but I will not recognize any more discussion along those lines. We are here to discuss settlement renewal and I would very much like everyone to stick to the subject at hand.
I have Mrs. -
Mr. Khaki: Madam Chairman, by settlement renewal, I meant a two-way street. I was not going into the integrating of human rights -
The Chair: I see.
Mr. Khaki: My road is a two-way street, and I wanted it to be understood.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms French.
Ms French: First, I'd like to speak on behalf of the Burnaby Multicultural Society. Burnaby is a city that now receives the third-largest number of immigrants to British Columbia. Recently the Burnaby Multicultural Society started delivering adaptation and integration services to immigrants. Prior to that, we were predominantly a multicultural society, and it's in that vein that I'd like to address the committee today.
First of all, we'd like to look at the purpose of delivering any kind of service to immigrants to assist them in settling. It's our view that in doing this, we're contributing to the social stability of our nation. We see that as an incredibly important aspect of settlement services because it leads in turn to economic benefits.
This is not altruism; this is pragmatism. We are very pleased to hear that there is no intention of cutting the funds for this, because we have been told that in fact this was a measure to save money and that there will be cost reductions and therefore reductions in services. This is a very prevalent rumour going around, that it in fact has nothing to do with reorganization. It has to do with saving money and with the fact that we are going to expect less money. So we're very pleased to hear that....
.1245
Because of the economic benefits, I'd like to endorse what MOSAIC said, and that is an increased emphasis on assistance in getting employment. I think that's very important.
Our primary concerns are that in tight economic times, leadership by the government is going to go by the way. Immigrant services would not have been established without the leadership and determination on behalf of some people that the least vocal of our communities and our societies have rights to assist them in settling and becoming Canadians. We need immigrants and there was the recognition of this.
It seems now that in tight economic times government would like to put the responsibility of deciding who should get services and what services they should get onto the community. Those of us who are working in the community know there is a very subtle but real resistance to accepting the fact that new Canadians deserve any kind of assistance. It is felt that they are coming to the land of milk and honey, that they should therefore be grateful and they do not need any special assistance and should have to struggle. We're nervous that under this kind of pressure and this kind of popular perception, the government will renege on its duty to provide leadership in this way and ensure that these services remain.
Secondly, from talking to Cam Dawson, who has just been seconded to British Columbia to help with the renewal process, it became evident that all funds for ISAP, HOST and LINC were going to be put into one pot along with the money earmarked for Canadian Heritage.
As a multicultural society - and this is what Mr. Khaki was also trying to get at - there are some very real issues that stand apart from immigrant settlement. Because of the language and employment needs of newcomers, it would be easy to direct the money in that way, without recognition that there are a whole host of other long-term and more social issues such as dealing with cross-cultural communication, conflict resolution, anti-racism, personal harassment, and all those kinds of things. Those are the kinds of programs that multicultural societies, and other societies that are not traditionally immigrant settlement and adaptation providers, have been dealing with. We're scared that the money traditionally earmarked for those programs will be swept away and put into adaptation programs.
Also, we know British Columbia does not get its share of money in relationship to the percentage of immigrants. Because of migration we think there needs to be a clearer definition of what we mean by ``immigrant''. Perhaps consideration should be given to earmarking a certain number of dollars per person that can follow them across the country as people find the places they're more comfortable living in as Canadian citizens.
It has also been stated that the consumer needs to be included in the consultation process. As we are just new providers to the community of settlement and adaptation services, it was a big shock to us when our community consultation committee went out and found about 25 newcomers, all from different backgrounds, who were settled in Canada and had used settlement services. We asked them to give us their opinion on how we should structure these new services. It was amazing to us that their concerns were quite different from those of the service providers. They really had a different outlook. They did not want ethnic-specific services. They wanted more cross-cultural services, they wanted to be integrated faster, and they needed more employment - that sort of thing.
So I think it's really important in the consultation process that this committee and others get beyond listening to us, the service providers. We ourselves can become very self-serving and just want to keep generating our own mandate.
.1250
In that light, we stated several times that there needs to be a national accreditation centre for Canada so that people considering coming to our nation can submit their credentials and have a clear understanding of what they will be required to do prior to their coming. So before they come to our nation, people will know the kind of investment, financial and time-wise, they're going to have to make to become more integrated in the field of their expertise.
Something that is also of great concern to us is the emphasis on groups. Canada has always had a commitment to the empowerment of the individual. Very often in the settlement process and in the way things are structured now, people are connected to their ethnic and cultural groups very quickly, but they're not often empowered to think and choose for themselves. We'd like to have more emphasis on programs that would see the empowerment of individuals, to make clearer personal choices in their lives and to become more integrated as Canadians.
Our last concern is about the criteria by which you look at effectiveness. It's very hard to measure outcomes in the settlement process. How do you measure the personal security of a person in making choices and finding their way around a community? I hope we would resist looking at the numbers and those sorts of things and look at more qualitative criteria. I know that's a challenge, but it needs to be studied. Of course, time needs to be made to do this.
That's from the Burnaby Multicultural Society.
From Citizenship B.C. Society we have a real concern. Right now, as things stand, there is no agency that has as its mandate to provide even seed money to assist in encouraging people to become Canadian citizens. This group of people fall between the gaps.
There is emphasis on integration and settlement, and there's recognition of the need for employment equity, anti-racism, programs to help with the long-term change of society and cultural norms. But from our experience there's a real need for some kind of emphasis on that transition period in becoming a Canadian citizen and making that commitment to Canada. We see it as the potential of bringing established Canadians together with newcomers. I think if there were more evidence that people who were choosing this country as their place to reside were becoming citizens, some of the backlash might be averted because they would see a commitment to our nation.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms French.
I'll allow Ms Clancy a few comments.
Ms Clancy: I think some of your comments help point out Mr. Khaki's comments. I understood Mr. Khaki to be claiming that there are basic human rights violations in settlement, and I was concerned about that.
Obviously, the difficulties of racism and backlash in immigration are pervasive across this country. I hope they are not as serious as sometimes we might think they are when we're working specifically in the field. I don't by any means underestimate the difficulties and problems relating to racism in this country.
In regard to some of your comments on what the federal government or any government does - not by way of excuse, but maybe by way of seeking pity - may I just remind you, Ms French, that there are strengths and weaknesses of the departmentalized government. The strength is that you have the focus of a minister and a department in a particular area. The weakness is that there is sometimes duplication, as between Immigration, Multiculturalism, Heritage Canada, or worse. The duplication may not be too bad in some ways, but what is worse is that these things sometimes fall between two stools.
.1255
There is frequent and almost daily back and forth, if you will, at the ministerial level, at the departmental level and at other levels as well. It is absolutely not that we are unaware of these...as Mr. Khaki talked about the two-way street - terribly important. The difficulty is, as you yourself noted, making the dollars fit the responses.
So I wanted to make it clear that I wasn't minimizing by any means the question of racism, or your question of one hand appearing not to know what the other one is doing.
The Chair: If you'll permit me, you raised a number of issues and it's exactly what we wanted to look at today. For instance, should the funds that are now available be earmarked for only this purpose? That's the type of feedback members of this committee are looking for.
What type of leadership, you asked, should the federal government play? That's exactly what we need some feedback on. Do you think they should be setting the national standards? Do you think they shouldn't be setting any standards? Should the standards be set perhaps at the local level? Which decision-making body should have the responsibility to set them - the provincial government, the municipal government, or perhaps a mixed group including the immigrants themselves, as you brought forward?
These are the types of issues I'd like us to have a chance to discuss.
Mr. Annett.
Ms French: Excuse me, just before Mr. Annett, one of the things I didn't bring up was the concern of relying too heavily on established bureaucracies. It's very easy for the federal government - and actually I'm in favour of their getting out of the administration of the fund - to say let's look at the city, let's look at the school boards as mechanisms. But those are bureaucracies in and of themselves, and they're expensive. Even now we're finding choices for program delivery where people will choose larger institutions of community groups, although there may be a $3 or $4 difference per student hour or whatever in terms of LINC, because it's easier, it's more manageable and those kinds of things.
It's a big concern from the community that you'll rely too heavily on established bureaucracies in the provincial domain to take over this process. I don't think that would be productive, economically or socially.
Mr. Annett: Thank you for the opportunity to address your community today. We really do appreciate the opportunity for consultation.
The whole subject of settlement renewal is very complex, and I think the complexity is increased by the increasingly controversial nature of the whole subject of immigration in Canada. As a result, I and my organization urge the federal government to take very careful consideration. Clear thinking is required, obviously, on these issues.
The first point I'd like to make basically is a recognition of the importance of settlement services now. The nationwide consultations last year certainly pointed that out, and I believe the minister and your government recognized this.
Just to underline it, we know that immigration brings a net economic benefit to Canada. I also think it's important to manage this resource because it is not an unlimited resource. Due to various factors - including things like world population growth, the nature of post-industrial society and fewer jobs probably existing in the future, NAFTA and free trade, which means the country will be relying on external markets rather than internal markets for its future growth, and also the growing public opposition to immigration that is standing at almost historic highs - immigration will diminish in the long run in this country.
I'm not saying I approve of that stance; in fact, I don't...but I believe it's a fact. I believe the current wave of immigration we are seeing is probably the second last we'll ever see in this country. From the immigration statistics and so on that you distributed under the settlement renewal document, I think you can already see that this particular wave of immigration crested several years ago and is now declining.
.1300
I believe that the last major wave of immigration we'll ever see in this country will come in about 15 years, when the baby boom generation starts retiring en masse and there will be a need for newer and younger workers in the country. It's dangerous to project beyond that, but I make that point to underline the need for managing properly this tremendous resource that we have from immigration.
I believe the best way of managing that resource is the whole settlement process. In other words, give the immigrants who come to the country the tools they require to settle so they can make a net economic contribution to the country as soon as possible. We know how to do that. There are no mysteries. There's been lots of research and there's a lot of experience around this table and across the country. We know how to integrate people. People need to speak the language, either English or French, they need to have jobs, and they need to integrate into the communities.
Unfortunately, there are inadequate funds for this task. We are not unrealistic; we don't expect any more money to be coming to us given the tight economic times. However, there are inconsistencies. For example, there is currently a federal mandate that says the vast majority of the people whom we, as service-providing organizations, serve should be settled within the first three years of their stay in Canada. Frankly, that's just not realistic. We are seeing people who have been here many years beyond that who still require settlement services.
With respect to the inconsistencies, I don't think anyone expects a field as vast and complex as this to be consistent, but I think it's important to look at some of the larger inconsistencies.
In addition, a number of people have pointed out that there is a catch-22 in the employment programs in this country. Most of the federally funded employment programs require people to have unemployment insurance before they can get on it. Many of the immigrants who come don't have the vocational skills to get a job, to get unemployment, to get the training they require. Consequently we are seeing an increasingly large group of people coming into the country who are unable to get work. That is a matter of serious concern.
I also point out, as others have before me, the serious inconsistency in federal funding. As the mayor pointed out, British Columbia gets 25% of the direct immigration to the country, and when you include interprovincial migration it's much higher. Under the management information system, which we used before the imposition of the new federal system, we were able to track that close to 50% of the people we served at the Immigrant Services Society actually landed somewhere else in Canada other than British Columbia. There are very large numbers coming from elsewhere. At any rate, we are getting at least 25%, probably 30% or even more, of the immigrants to the country in British Columbia. We're only getting a fraction of the dollars, between 8% and 11%, depending on what numbers you look at.
This means that my organization, and the others around the table that you see, are having a tremendously difficult time putting together the services that are required, and that are effective in settling immigrants.
I know we'll be discussing the issue of settlement renewal in more depth, but I just wanted to outline some of my concerns and some of the major topics that I see. Again, I have some real concerns about the settlement renewal process. I see it as having some major opportunities, but I have concerns.
For example, one of the possible inconsistencies I see is that one of the stated objectives of the settlement renewal process is to reduce duplication, but on the other hand there's a potential contemplation of setting up an entirely new locally based system. This would be again duplicating a provincial system.
Although overall I think the goals of settlement renewal are sensible - which are community input, avoiding duplication and increasing accountability - the key question is one of implementation. How are these principles going to be implemented? There again, common sense and clear thinking must prevail.
There are a couple of points on these. I will discuss this with the rest of the table in more detail as we cover them.
First of all, with respect to community input, local community decision-making is important, but it's something of the flavour of the month in Ottawa. I caution that there are some real dangers in community decision-making. Community input is very important. We really encourage that.
However, accountability for money and decision-making at local levels has many pitfalls, not the least of which are when you dangle money in front of community groups. It becomes a mad dash; it becomes a political process, people manoeuvring for those scarce dollars.
.1305
My organization, and I believe most of the organizations in the province, through our umbrella group AMSSA, is encouraging that in British Columbia at least the money be administered by the provincial government. We ask that the accountability for the money and service delivery go through the province - that there be a community advisory process going throughout the province, but that the actual decision-making and resource allocation and responsibility for the funds happen at the provincial level.
By the way, AMSSA will be presenting a brief to the committee, which our organization supports.
In terms of accountability, as I said, I think that using the provincial government infrastructure will ensure accountability.
In addition, just looking at reporting and evaluation, I have a couple of things to comment on. First off, there has been the federal imposition of the nationwide settlement management information system. I must emphasize that this system is a disaster at the implementation level, and this system must not be used for evaluation. I've talked until I'm blue in the face to the civil servants involved.
I regret having to bring it up to you, but you must realize that this system was implemented in our organization in April and it's highly inefficient. We are currently delivering one-third fewer services with the same dollars as a result of the imposition of this system. The system is much less effective in terms of reporting than the previous system we used, which was able to report on all sorts of axes, such as services delivered to immigrants based on their ethnicity, the kinds of services given to different ethnic groups, and so on. This reporting is not possible under SMIS.
In addition, it's a very unsophisticated program that does not allow for eliciting the kind of information that you require to properly evaluate programs. I have encouraged civil servants to dramatically redo, if not junk, the system. I am very concerned that in my organization - and from what I hear, from others - we are delivering approximately one-third fewer services today than we were in March as a result of SMIS, with the same dollars.
The point, apart from taking a swipe at SMIS, is basically to say that the evaluation of services shouldn't be through SMIS. There is a real need for evaluation of services. I'm a big believer in accounting to the public for taxpayer dollars spent, and I think the reporting has to be on two axes, both quantitative and qualitative. Certainly it's very important to know how many services have been delivered, how many clients have been served, how many people have learned English, and so on. Also, as Susan French pointed out, in the modern world it's quite possible to devise systems that evaluate on both quantitative and qualitative axes.
On the accountability issue, I'll just point out that AMSSA and the provincial government currently are working on a province-wide project for developing service delivery standards and evaluation standards on both quantitative and qualitative axes. I would encourage the federal government to get involved in that, and this study or others like it could form the basis for evaluation. Also, that evaluation should be based on objective principles, not just on subjective ones. Although those can be important, they have to based on objective principles.
This gets me to my final point, which is national standards. The objectives I refer to above should be nationwide and should be principle-centred - in other words, not just based on every different community having a different set of standards. There should be a national set of standards based on the objectives we have set nationally.
National standards are key. They should be based on research. As you may know, a great deal of research has been performed in Canada. Canada is one of the leading worldwide leaders in research on the effects of immigration on settlement. There's a great body of research there, which I know your staff has access to and is cognizant of. The national standards should be based on that. They should be, as I say, objective standards.
They should be based on things like outcome. Do the services we provide deliver what we say they are going to deliver?
.1310
For example, I've said for a long time that LINC, our language instruction for newcomers to Canada program, should measure outcome. At the current time, it doesn't. There's been work on that. There are benchmark studies going on, but that's a key factor. The federal government and the Canadian taxpayers are pouring tremendous amounts of money into teaching newcomers the two major languages. Are those effective programs? To be quite frank, nobody knows. When a client comes through a LINC program, although we in our organization do exit testing, that is not required by the federal government.
There should be a framework, nationwide, of standards. Local priorities, which are important, should be adjustments to or a changing of priorities within an overall federal framework.
Finally, there are just a couple of concerns about money. One of the fears, as has been expressed already, is that the federal money for immigrant settlement will be cut back. I understand there has been a commitment for the next three years that the federal settlement money will not be cut back. Beyond that, of course, nobody knows.
One of the real concerns is that once the services are downloaded to the provincial or local levels, three years from now, who knows what will happen to the money? It would be a real mistake to cut out immigrant settlement funding when you're having so many immigrants with such high needs for settlement services coming in. It's a recipe for disaster.
Secondly, there's also a fear that money might be redirected - it comes from the federal government at whatever level and is redirected. Whatever funds come from the federal government must be earmarked; they can only be used for settlement services.
Those, in a nutshell, are my comments. Thank you for the opportunity.
The Chair: Ms Clancy.
Ms Clancy: I'm very interested - and I guess I put this out around the table - the mayor, you yourself, and I believe Mr. Khaki and Ms French also mentioned the question of interprovincial migration. Again, we've heard from other groups in other fora relating to the question of the division of dollars among the provinces.
Do you, do your groups keep records that would be of use to the federal department in looking at where people come from? I see you nodding.
Second, I wonder if any of you can answer this: when people make the second migration, if you will, from the province of intake, is it usually between landing and taking up citizenship, or would most of the people who come here already have their citizenship?
Mr. Annett: I think we can answer some of those questions.
Our organization does keep those records, or we did under our former information system if we don't now. My understanding is that the provincial government has been doing a study. I think the best way to track is the medical services plan of the province. This has records of where everybody who is on the medical services plan originally lands in Canada, so that information is readily available.
Second, what we have seen is that most of the clients we serve who come from other provinces, which is a very high percentage of people we serve here in Vancouver, come here within the first three years, before they get their citizenship - in many cases within the first few months. If someone lands in Moose Jaw in January, the first thing they do is jump on a bus to Vancouver.
Ms Clancy: They have become landed immigrants. In other words, they are not waiting for landing. I think everybody understands what I'm getting at.
Mr. Annett: We see both. We do see refugee claimants who, as the mayor pointed out, we can't serve with federal dollars, but there are a large number of refugee claimants in Vancouver.
Ms Clancy: Coming from other provinces....
Mr. Annett: We do see that, although you may be aware that there are not as many refugee claimants or refugees coming to British Columbia as to Ontario or -
Ms Clancy: I'm very well aware. I'm asking you the question, though. You've seen them post-landed, as in landed immigrants, not just landing in the country?
.1315
Mr. Annett: Largely, although there are some refugee claimants as well.
Ms French: That's our experience too. The people we're seeing, perhaps 50%, the same as Mr. Annett's organization, are people who have landed from other provinces, have come as immigrants, not as refugees, and who then within a very short period make their way to British Columbia. That's probably recently, because our economy has resisted the downturn by comparison with some other provinces, but also our weather is so much nicer.
Ms Clancy: I was going to say, your climate is so much better than Moose Jaw's.
Ms French: Yes. If you have to be poor, it's a good place to be poor.
Ms Clancy: Do you keep the records still? I gather this gentleman is saying his group no longer keeps a record. We might have some problem as a federal government accessing medical records in the province.
Ms French: We have, but we've only been delivering these kinds of services for a year, so ours is only a year's worth. But we can have past records.
Mr. Naizghi: Yes, I think it might not be a complete record. However, talking to the staff who are delivering the services does give you a full picture. They keep landed records.
I was asked in the 1993-94 grant period by the original ISAP office to provide them with information about interprovincial migration for the Polish community. Despite the fact that we provided them with 30 pages of lists of people in that year who moved out - primarily from Ontario, if I remember my stats, over 50% - they still would not take our record, our stats, as evidence. They still wanted government stats. At least my project officer wanted to see government stats, which were non-existent.
The majority of them are within their first year of landing. The majority of them have families with children, and I can say the majority of them move after school closes and before school starts.
Ms Clancy: Summer migration.
Mr. Naizghi: Summer is the period of moving to British Columbia.
At the moment, we're seeing from the three prairie provinces, primarily the Winnipeg area, and -
Ms Clancy: Ontario?
Mr. Naizghi: Ontario too.
In fact, there was an attempt by settlement grant to look into using MSB to generate that information. This was about two years ago, from discussing it with our B.C. settlement grants officer. There was some action. I don't know where it went. I think it was a little complicated - they required more money, I don't know - but that's the best source we were ever to identify, about two years ago.
The Chair: Mr. Berdichewsky.
Mr. Berdichewsky: Regarding this issue, I may bring more intimate experience since I am the only representative of the only ethnocultural community present here, the only immigrant community present - most are agencies or organizations. Where are the immigrants? We represent the immigrants.
Our experience, and the record we are keeping at the Canadian Hispanic Congress, clearly indicate also a very strong inner migration to British Columbia, particularly to the lower mainland. This inner migration comes from all the other provinces, including Ontario and Quebec, but the majority are coming from the prairies. One reason is that they are running away from the Canadian Siberia to the nice weather of B.C. This is one reason.
.1320
The other more important reason is the employment issue. When there are so many unemployed in our community, when they lose their job there, they move here. Sometimes they move back there too, but it's a strong movement from the prairies - Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta - particularly from the two cities of Alberta, Calgary and Edmonton, coming to B.C. Most of them are landed immigrants, some are already citizens, and very few are refugees. But there are a few refugees who move also because they hope to have some income.
That is our presentation.
The Chair: Thank you. Ms Frid, please.
Ms Frid: Thank you. My presence here today has been improvised, and what I'm going to say today. I came just this morning. I wanted to make presence that we have a Latin American Community Council here in Vancouver that emerged in 1988.
The Chair: Is this on the same topic? If you're not on the same topic, then I'm going to go to Mr. Chan.
Ms Frid: All right.
The Chair: Mr. Chan, you were next.
Mr. Chan: Thank you. I'm not going to take too long. I wanted to be really brief and focused, especially after Bill's presentation. It's also because I have produced a report here that I want people to read, so I don't want to say too much.
First of all, I have two general comments about the settlement renewal. The first is that the settlement renewal process should not be rushed. We have to take time in attaining this.
Second, the goal of successful integration for newcomers should be emphasized. Myself, I came to Vancouver seven years ago, and sometimes I still consider myself an immigrant because I still have a lot of things to learn. I still have a lot of things I have to adjust to. Right now, with the ISAP program or with the program from CIC, they just cut off if you become a Canadian citizen. It doesn't make sense for me and for most of the clients we work with. So I would really want the standing committee to consider that we should emphasize the end results of successful integration, however long it takes. I think that is important.
Regarding who decides what services will be provided, we suggest that a settlement renewal policy framework should be developed. This framework can consist of ideas and action plans that will guide the government departments or community service agencies in establishing programs, policies and budgets. That policy framework could really set the fundamental frame of how we should do it.
Another point is that the make-up and structure of the future local advisory committees should be community-based. Whatever consultation process we are going to take, it has to be community-based, like having the Spanish-speaking community, like having the Chinese-speaking community, the Korean, the Polish, because they are service recipients. They know what they want and what they need. And this is together with our immigrant service agencies, because I see us as an expertise in this area. We can really form a good analogy of what we should deliver in our local communities.
We would want the provincial government as the body to receive funds for immigrant settlement services from the federal government. Our agency has a really good working relationship with them. We trust them and they have the credibility, and I feel that we should do it this way.
Regarding the role of the federal government, we see that it should be the coordination of the future local advisory committees, the provision of national standards, and the technical assistance in research and statistics. They are assisting us, but they are not dictating to us how it should be. For example, Bill talked about the [Inaudible - Editor] and I feel that they should assist us in something when that is the way or no way.
The last point about accountability is that the accountability for efficiency and results should be maintained by the future local advisory committees, whatever the mandate or structure will be. We don't know yet, but that is what we want.
Thank you.
.1325
The Chair: Are there any comments? Mr. Berdichewsky.
Mr. Berdichewsky: I want to comment, Madam Chairperson, on what the recent speaker spoke about. I think it's a very important thing.
You need to take into consideration that the immigrants need to be represented. How can the immigrants be represented, particularly those ethnocultural communities and their umbrella organizations, whatever the name? Ours is the Canadian Hispanic Congress, but all the ethnocultural organizations have their own congresses, and all these are organized in a national umbrella organization - the Canadian Ethnocultural Council. It would be good to somehow involve the Canadian Ethnocultural Council sitting in Ottawa with this discussion too. I will enlarge his suggestion that in other meetings, representatives of the organization of the ethnocultural community will be invited.
The Chair: Just for the record, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council will be meeting with the committee in Toronto. We already have them.
If there are any comments on Mr. Chan's comments, that's all I'm taking. Then I'm going on to the opening remarks by the other organizations.
Mr. Naizghi.
Mr. Naizghi: I have a comment on some of the existing networks for the ethnocultural communities. I don't know what phrase we'd like to use at this point.
There are a number of ethnocultural groupings like LACC, the Latin American Community Council; VAC, the Vietnamese Advisory Council, which is similar to LACC, a group of professionals, the majority of them working with settlement services; the African Settlement Network; the Persian-Speaking Settlement Network; and the names go on. Those are very visible, in our opinion, and could be quite instrumental in the community approach to this consultation.
The Chair: Anna, go ahead please.
Mrs. Terrana: Before we start...I think we're halfway already -
The Chair: Yes, I was saving you for the end. I was saving the best for the end, but go ahead.
Mrs. Terrana: I would like to welcome everybody. Most of these people I have worked with over the years. You see in front of you people who are very committed, who have a lot of philosophy and a lot of time.
I would like to tell Dr. Berdichewsky that we are all immigrants. How many of you are not immigrants in here? See! I know, they are the successful immigrants, and I know what you mean, but again....
I love these people and I could say things about each one of them individually because they have been very successful and very helpful.
Dr. Berdichewsky is a person who I think has more work in the area of multiculturalism. He has been writing books and has been studying multiculturalism since he came. He is an anthropologist and he taught at UBC. In fact, there is a book he just gave me; he keeps writing on ethnicity and multiculturalism.
Many of the issues I heard this morning have been repeated over the years. They are not new issues. We seem to always have to reach back and repeat ourselves and go back to square one. The migration issue, for instance - I've heard it before, but since the moment I was elected, I've heard it a lot. Two of the major groups here - actually three, as I discovered this morning - are in my riding: Immigrant Services Society, MOSAIC, and of course LACC. I discovered that LACC is in my riding as well. They have been reminding me of this migration problem, of the fact that we do not get enough funding in British Columbia. I have also been making federal requests, but of course it is something we have to settle.
Another issue that is very important, I think, and it has come up over the years and we have never done anything as government - and I am talking about the government right now - is the three year-cycle.
After three years you're not an immigrant any more. After three years you have no more rights as an immigrant. This has been very, very difficult to deal with for many people who come here, have to work, and have no time to go to school, have to....
.1330
Another issue that has been really traumatic is accreditation, the number of people who have had to go back to school. Credit would not be taken into consideration unless you came from a Commonwealth country.
I just wanted to make these introductory remarks because I want to really thank all of you for coming, and thank you for all the work you've done over the years and all the support we've been giving each other. We started organizations together and have been working hard, all of us.
That's all I want to say, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Thank you very much. And yes, if you look around the table, half the committee is....
Did you want to comment on Mrs. Terrana's comments, Ms French?
Ms French: Mrs. Terrana - Anna - the one concern we have about trying to put an emphasis on immigrants being immigrants longer than a period of time requiring citizenship is that if we do that, then we are excusing society from adapting to a multi-ethnic reality. By insisting that immigrant services and settlement and adaptation services continue beyond whatever the period of time is - and I would suggest maybe three is too few, but maybe four or five - we then excuse social services and hospitals and schools and all those other things from making available from existing money to assure that their service base is broad-based and inclusive of the multi-ethnic reality of society.
We find that transition very, very slow. If there is always a special pocket of money from which these organizations feel they can draw, and they see that as immigrant settlement, I think it excuses our nation from dealing with its reality.
I know it's a contentious and debatable thing, but I do think that in some way a government could put pressure on society to become more broad-based in their service reality rather than encourage them to go to the pot. We are finding right now that those agencies are taking money that we thought was earmarked specifically for the very special issues facing people at the beginning of their stay in Canada.
Maybe we are divided a bit on our perception of that, but I do think it is a danger if we try to extend the number of years that we call people immigrants. When do they then become Canadians?
Ms Clancy: I'd like to comment. I understand what you're saying in theory, but I am not quite sure if I understand what you're saying in practice. It seems to me that it's very similar to a reaction that a number of our caucus colleagues share on the whole question of multiculturalism and the question of hyphenated Canadians.
In answer to the question of how many around the table are not immigrants, I think we are all immigrants. The first immigrants in my family came here 370 years go, but I still am of an immigrant culture.
I understand what you mean by the sense of setting up a dependency - I think that's what you're probably concerned about - but I heard you say the broader-based service. I am not quite sure from the point of view of the federal government, or indeed any government that's in the business of funding, where....
It seems to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, what you are saying is that you must call yourself.... You've come to Canada. We want you to settle, we want you to feel Canadian, and we want... As Mr. Khaki would say, it's a two-way street. We need to make sure that those of us who are already here are assisting in making you feel a part of the society. But then you talk about a broader-based service. Are you talking about then going to a different pot if there's still a problem, or removing the pot altogether?
Ms French: I think that's the challenge -
.1335
Ms Clancy: A challenge? It's the burden of Sisyphus.
Ms French: The real needs are in the first years of settlement and then the other needs that come up - family problems, racism and all those things - are a broader, more general community responsibility. I think they ought to be pressured to respond to it.
Mr. Annett: I agree it is a serious problem. As I mentioned earlier, one of the concerns about throwing control over money and allocation of funding wide open is there will be a general scramble for funds.
I agree with Susan; our immigrant-serving agencies and service-providing organizations provide specific services that we have many years of expertise in providing, and the pool of funds we receive for those purposes shouldn't all of a sudden be divided among so-called mainstream agencies. I agree with Susan that the mainstream agencies should be reallocating their existing resources to serve the changing face of Canada.
It's the burden of Sisyphus, but it's something that has to be done.
The point overall is that the special expertise of the service-providing organizations that have been working in this field for many years must be recognized and that particular niche must be protected.
The Chair: I'm going to break here for five minutes and then we'll resume, if everybody's in agreement.
Mr. Khaki: Before you break, I'd like to know how long this process is going to continue.
The Chair: We're scheduled until noon, but we can go past noon. The next group is scheduled at 1:30, so we can technically go until 1:30, but I think some members, including myself, may want something to eat. We'll be flexible. I'm not going to say at noon we stop. If you feel you want to continue the discussion until 12:30, I'm flexible.
Mr. Khaki: I very much wanted to suggest that we go back to some of the pertinent issues. I recognize there are other issues, but the issue we are looking at is the issue of settlement and integration.
The Chair: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Khaki.
.1337
PAUSE
.1350
The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone. We'll continue with preliminary remarks, or as I said, if anybody wants to make any comments during any of the presentations, please indicate this to the chair and I will recognize you.
We'll start with Ms Frid.
Ms Frid: Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I am here representing the Latin American Community Council. Just to give you an introduction, we emerged as a community initiative in 1988, with the idea of being a network of community services and workers. We wanted to discuss the issues of immigrants and refugees. Basically, the majority of the Latin Americans in this country came as refugees.
What we wanted to do, at that time, was avoid duplication of the services and to be more effective in understanding the needs of the Latin Americans in order to provide better assistance.
The Latin American Community Council started to do this networking and designed workshops, and I think the idea of presenting workshops was to do orientation, education, and prevention. As an initiative, we gathered different members who worked for different agencies, using our extra time on a volunteer basis to decide what was the best workshop to deliver to the new immigrants and refugees.
At that time - and I'm talking about at the beginning stages - we considered that the educational part was important - the information on how to have access for children and adults. The other issue is employment. As I heard today, this is one of the main issues. We have a lot of employment barriers. We have professional people who come here, and they don't have access as professionals. We have to help them to understand the employment orientation and what the services are going to be.
We also consider the information about Canadian law, as a prevention, and the immigrant and refugee policies that have been changing over the years. We have to keep up to date for the people, because we have refugees waiting for hearings. That is the backlog we have in the process.
I can tell you that people who are waiting are in limbo. They don't know if they belong or if they're going to be expelled, and that affects the well-being of the people. We have a lot of barriers for them to access services because they are refugee claimants, so we have to really advocate. Another point is that we save the advocacy for the services provided for the refugees. We also talk about health services and access to health services.
One of the main issues we talk about is the process of immigration. We heard today that settlement is not necessary for the first two years. I consider, as a family counsellor, that my work during these years has been focused on better providing the services in the settlement of the adaptation process. We recognize that at the beginning, when immigrants and refugees come here, they have basic needs like first aid, and I can see that agencies like MOSAIC and the Immigrant Services Society are providing these kinds of services. But for the second stage in the adaptation, we need to provide services for family issues dealing with frustration and relocation. Again, this is part of the settlement.
.1355
The other thing we consider important to pass on as information is recreation. We want well-being in the old sense of the word. That means that well-being is also related to how these families do in recreation. We introduced to many immigrants the idea of recreation and community centres and the social services that we have in this country.
The other issue we have talked about also is the issue of family violence and its prevention. One of the things is when people have a lot of stress, the stresses of pre-immigration, during immigration and post-immigration. What we have been doing as a community council is having consultations regarding different kinds of services.
One of the main concerns at the present time is the youth. We really want to help the youth in their integration. We have been doing workshops in collaboration with the schools to understand the needs and facilitate the integration. We realize that it's discrimination. We realize that just the English as a second language program doesn't facilitate the integration of the youth into the new society. We see a lot of barriers. We wanted to prevent a lot of problems with them. You see, we are concerned about family issues. We want to really strengthen the family.
We especially realize that it's a lack of orientation pre-immigration. We want to see that happen, because the people come here with high expectations and the reality is different. We want to see them have these facilities before they come here and immediately they get here.
The idea of a reception centre today is important, because we can help people in the initial stages but at the same time provide them with services that are not provided to them.
We realize there are lots of gaps and barriers in the services. Not many people serve in the communities. There's a language barrier. There is cultural sensitivity, because not everybody can provide services with the cultural sensitivity and understanding of the process of immigration and adaptation that these people are going through.
One of the things I wanted to recommend is not to cut the services. In the last year I realize many agencies are cutting funds and services, and I want to see more implementation of services. The voices of the Latin American and other minority groups - they have a big demand. In my agency I can see we are one person serving a big demand of services that is impossible. Only one person can serve the need for one community.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms Frid. We'll proceed with Ms Assanand.
Ms Assanand: Thank you.
I work with an organization called Vancouver and Lower Mainland Multicultural Family Support Services. As I was saying earlier, it's an organization that specializes in working with women in visible minorities who may have experienced violence. I am also with an organization called Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of B.C. I have been a founding member and I am currently on the board as the treasurer.
I am a strong advocate of immigrant and visible minority women and their issues. I'm going to be talking from the perspective of women.
When it comes to services for women, we need to realize that immigrant and visible minority women are probably one of the groups of women that are most difficult to access. All the programs that need to be established have to be portrayed in such a way that they can really reach out to these women because of all the stresses that immigrants experience, and especially the women, that confine them to homes. That's really important.
I also want to say that the LINC program, which is for three years now, sometimes.... From my own experience of also becoming an immigrant woman, it took me quite a while before I even opened up my eyes and said, I want to go out and learn this; I want to get involved in that. Volunteerism was something that came much later, when I had taken care of all my duties at home and at work.
.1400
I think that putting the limit of three years for women is really very minimal, because in two years they may not even realize they have to go out and start taking English language classes. By then, their time would be up. So I want to emphasize that consideration be given to their need and their lack of knowledge of what is out there.
I have been working in this area with immigrants for the last 20 years and have worked extensively in the area of family violence. I have to say that until the federal government and then the provincial government took on the cause of family violence, really not much attention was paid to this particular area. I hope it doesn't come in as a fad and go away. It has stayed with us for generations, probably from the time of revolution. I think we have to look at that and realize this is going to take that much more time before women are going to be free of the fear of violence against them. So there have to be ongoing programs and ongoing support for that particular area.
Family violence is also an area where much of the assistance, I'm very pleased to say, has come from the provincial government and from the federal government in the form of funding for workshops and so on. I need to emphasize that this is one area that needs to be taken a very close look at and receive continuous support for a very, very long time, as much as it has taken for us to recognize the problem.
I also want to say that while we recognize all these problems, there is an urgent need and an essential need to look at the coordination of funding. Very often, whenever funding is provided by the federal government, the provincial government and at the local level at the city, funding bodies have not consulted with each other. So there is far more duplication in programming and how the services are provided at the grassroots level, at the agency level. That encourages competitiveness amongst agencies and territorialization.
So I think if coordination is at the level of funding, where funding players have talked to each other, and then it transfers down to the service level, it really prevents that. What I think is most needed in most services is collaboration. We need to work in collaboration so we can work with each other rather than having to talk about each other's programs when people are not there.
I also feel that very important consideration needs to be given to services and the design of services, whether they're ethno-specific or multicultural or are provided through the mainstream organizations that have been established for a long time. I feel that communities are at a different level. We need to be going toward integration, at the same time recognizing the needs of that particular time.
Again, at that time, the consultation of immigrants, the immigrant-serving agencies and also the funders and the consultants - I think that perhaps is the most crucial as to how we eventually look at integration. Again, that has to be done in a way that we would with one voice be able to say what we want, which would require lots of listening at the grassroots level.
I'm really very pleased that consultation is taking place. This is probably the third consultation I have been involved in. Time and again, it's important to be speaking about these issues.
But I also want to say that I hope that whatever consultations happen, and if it is going to be where a decision is going to made at the agency levels, at the community level, that we are not always put in a position where we have to.... I don't know how fairly and how selflessly we can say that this is required. I think that's a very important issue, that it does not come entirely to the....
I have in fact been involved in two such funding proposals where the community agencies had to decide who would get the funding. I must say it was a very, very difficult process. It was not only the process but the time involved. We had to end up spending so much time. There is no funding at all when it comes to the administration time involved in these meetings. I think that's something the funders really have to take into consideration as well.
.1405
Those are some of the points I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms Assanand.
Are there any comments? Dr. Berdichewsky.
Mr. Berdichewsky: The last two presentations really have rated. I think they are conveying a message to us in the sense that immigrant settlement issues are not isolated and are part of a wider frame. These two ladies presented issues such as the family problem, including family violence, particularly in the immigrant group, also the unemployment issue and so on.
Shashi mentioned at the end - and I think it's the key word - integration. We need to look at this process as part of the integration process of the immigrant. The integration process of the immigrant passes two stages. The first stage is a simple incorporation, a physical incorporation for getting a job in the labour market, something that is a very difficult thing for immigrants, so immigrants are missing or lacking employment.
We of the Canadian Hispanic Congress will present a big national conference by the end of October dealing with the process of integration of the Hispanic community, but concentrated in one particular issue: employment, the barriers to employment and how it affects women, youth, seniors and the community at large. The issue of employment is probably the core issue in relating to the settlement of immigrants.
The Chair: Did you want to comment, Mr. Annett, on previous speakers?
Mr. Annett: I just wanted to make the comment that in terms of employment, again we know how to get immigrants into jobs. As Eyob mentioned, MOSAIC programs have an 85% placement rate. Our programs have a similar rate. These are programs funded by the federal Department of Human Resources Development, and to some extent by the new provincial ministry dealing with skills, training and labour.
Certainly we have successful programs, but unfortunately the human resources development ministry is not involved in the discussions around renewal. Perhaps there could be some involvement of them. One of the key players in the provision of settlement services is the federal Department of Human Resources Development, and I would encourage them to continue funding.
In fact, I know in Vancouver and in British Columbia, the percentage of federal vocational programs that go to immigrants is far below the actual percentage of immigrants in the population. The city of Vancouver currently has a foreign-born population of about 40%. I've forgotten the figures, but less than 10% of the federal vocational dollars go to settlement. However, we would encourage more of those vocational dollars being allocated toward the immigrant-serving sector, and again congratulate the federal government for their continued support of the vocational programs that are effective in getting immigrants jobs.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: We have some rules in the House of Commons. Usually there is a better distribution of time between the parties. Only three Liberals have spoken until now, no opposition MPs. We have two members here, and I was told that each participant would use five minutes for their opening remarks, and after that MPs would ask questions. Why don't you follow the same procedure we have in the House of Commons?
.1410
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, we discussed this matter together at breakfast this morning. We said that this was more flexible than the House Standing Order.
I asked Ms Meredith about this and I glanced over at your side. I didn't see any hands up. However, if you wish to speak, there is no problem with that. I believe we can turn the floor over to you. As for the questions, I told everyone they were free to ask any questions they may have.
[English]
If you want to make any comments, please go ahead.
Mr. Nunez: You didn't ask me.
The Chair: I apologize for not asking you, but I did look in your direction for any comments.
Mr. Nunez: I am the vice-chair of this committee and this is a democratic presentation.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, would you like at this point to intervene? Please, go ahead.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: First of all, I would like to congratulate all of the participants. Your presentations were excellent and I would like to congratulate you on them.
As you know, I am the immigration critic for the Official Opposition and, like most of you, I'm an immigrant. I spent 21 years working for the union movement and I tried to ensure that it was more sensitive to the needs of newcomers.
You have made some excellent observations and you expressed certain concerns shared by the Official Opposition.
We don't want to see any cutbacks to the immigrant settlement and integration programs. Despite the assurances that my colleague, the Committee Chair, has been giving us until now, we have seen nothing but cutbacks to the social and unemployment insurance programs and we will probably see the same thing occur in the immigration sector.
Therefore, if you have any concerns about this, say so. Now is the time to do so because this government has a tendency to cutback more and more. Despite the $975 immigration tax imposed by the government, there will be cutbacks. I would like my colleagues from the Liberal Party to convince the government that it is time to put a stop to these cutbacks in the specific sector of immigration settlement and integration.
I would like you to elaborate on this government's efforts to decentralize settlement and integration services. These services have been completely decentralized in Quebec. That is, the Government of Quebec administers the funds in accordance with agreements struck with organizations such as yours. My hope is that one day you too, in British Columbia, will be able to have the provincial government administer funds earmarked for integration and settlement.
I would also like to hear what you have to say about the role you see the provincial government playing. Does the provincial government plan to assume control of settlement and integration services? Did you encourage it to move in this direction? Is the provincial government ready to sign an agreement with the federal government to obtain the funding required for immigration settlement and integration?
.1415
You also raised some concerns about matters such as racism, for example. Has enough money been set aside by both the federal and provincial governments to resolve the problem of racism in Canada, a problem which is growing today?
I would also like to hear what you have to say about the increased role that you see your organization playing. Are you able to assume new settlement and integration responsibilities? Have you got adequate resources to do this? What are your conditions for taking on these new responsibilities?
As for employment, learning one of Canada's two official languages poses a real challenge for newcomers. Today, language constitutes a major obstacle to integration. If immigrants do not learn English here and French in Quebec, they have a serious problem.
I would therefore encourage you to spend the few minutes that you have left to express yourselves very candidly and to make criticisms. If the Committee does not do this, I, personally, am ready to present a minority report in order to convey your criticisms. Rest assured that, as the immigration critic, I will listen to what you have to say with a great deal of interest. You have talked about real problems that can at times be dramatic. You are entitled to do this and I'd like to congratulate you for the work that you are doing.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez. I will repeat what I said earlier.
Anyone can comment on any of the presentation. Two people have not yet given their presentations. You can comment on what Mr. Nunez has said now, or you may wait until the two others have made their presentations before doing so. They haven't yet had an opportunity to use their five minutes. I would rather listen to the remaining presentations and then go back to the questions raised by both Mr. Nunez and myself.
[English]
Those are the terms of reference, in any case, and I brought them up at the beginning. We said we'd show much flexibility and much latitude in terms of the type of comments, because it is a round-table discussion and not a formal meeting of the committee.
I will go to Mrs. Downs, please, and then we will come back. Thank you.
Ms Downs: My comments are really very brief, because I tend to agree with many of the things the previous presenters said.
First, we want to ensure that there is no further erosion in the dollars that are earmarked for settlement services. This happened in the last couple of years, partially due to inflation.
With respect to the proposed framework in terms of the decision making, it's laudable that this decision-making process is being brought down to the communities, or where I call the action is. However, I want to be sure that this committee or decision-making process is free from any political or special interest groups and that it is seen as being fair, equitable and just.
In terms of the role of the federal government, again, I see it as being a useful role to play in terms of research and standards setting. I'd like to see some kind of national standard in terms of the kinds of quality of service that are expected and also in terms of the qualifications of workers. I would like to see some professionalism brought into the settlement worker area.
In terms of the research on who is coming to Canada, what kinds of qualifications they have and what kinds of needs they might have, it's good to have this information. One of the problems we had in the past is that there was a lot of lag time in getting this information. I want to make sure that this information is given, especially when we're moving to a local decision-making process. That information has to be available quickly to those groups so they can be responsive and flexible with respect to providing service.
.1420
In terms of the definition of ``settlement services'', everybody around this table talked about two, which I think are of primacy, and those are language and employment. Until those two areas are really examined and broadened, I think the settlement of immigrants will be slowed down. I know people who have been here for 10 or 15 years and who have not yet been able to acquire the language. As I say, settlement can be seen as a long-term process.
Lastly, we have spent a lot of time talking about the settlement and adaptation of the immigrant. In the process of settlement - and a couple of people here already mentioned this - we really have to look at the host community and the community of Canada...that those systemic or racist barriers are eliminated; otherwise, there will be no settlement of the immigrants.
The Chair: Ms Clancy, do you want to make any comments?
Ms Clancy: I want to comment with regard to what Ms Assanand said in the context of women not really coming through the fog in the sense of reorientation in terms of the 3 years and what you said about the people who've been here 10 to 15 years and still don't have the language. I realize there may be no single answer to that, but is this a reflection of the level of English or French as a second language training? Is it a reflection of the fact that at a certain stage in your life it becomes just too difficult to learn the second language? Is it a reflection that we're not doing enough and we could do more? Is it some combination of the three? There's no prize for the answer.
Ms Assanand: In my experience I don't think age is an issue. It's imperative that they learn the language because it's their door to integration and their door to go out.
What is lacking most of the time is the way the programs...the programs have to reach out to women, and I think immigrant services are doing a pretty good job of that. Most of the time the information is not available or it's too early for them to absorb the information. Very often, information is given at the time they come in, but if they don't know where they are at that particular time, they're not going to read this information. Therefore, we have to keep finding creative ways of reaching out to them.
A lot is being done in that area, but not enough. There are still so many pockets of women, and if we have a three-year limit, then we miss a lot of women who fall through the cracks.
Ms Downs: Part of it is a timing issue, too. It's been noted before that a lot of times when people come to Canada - I'm especially thinking in terms of women and seniors - they tend to be brought into the fold of their family, and that's their settlement process. Until such time as they recognize there's a need for them to learn the language...it's difficult in that they have the support from the family and the support from the community to learn the language, but it's often difficult for them to access.
The flexibility of the program is also important. It has to be near where they live. It has to be community based. It has to be in a place that is familiar to them and accessible.
Ms Clancy: Can I just follow up on this?
This really is not limited to any particular culture or ethnocultural background, is it? It is a problem peculiar to women.
Ms Assanand: Culture by culture, there are certain differences. That's why I'm saying there have to be creative ways to handle it.
Ms Clancy: But the overall problem is not limited to any one ethnocultural group?
Mr. Annett: There is a number of things on this ESL issue. Although it is true that it is not limited to any one culture, some cultures have it more than others. We have seen certain cultures, for example, that actively or inactively oppose or prevent the women in that culture from going to ESL classes. Agencies in town such as PIRS, Pacific Immigrant Resources Society, have been very creative in finding ways of going out and reaching into the community. Again, I echo that those creative efforts should continue, and I totally agree with what both Shashi and Barbara have said.
.1425
There are some issues around the LINC program. LINC is a wonderful program. It's well thought out and it's a good program. It does the job. The problem is that it doesn't go far enough. The government provides training up to what is called the LINC 3 level. The LINC 3 level, though, is sort of high beginning or low intermediate English and is not enough to get somebody a job except at a very basic level. Beyond that there is no training. There is what's called LMLT, or labour market language training programs. Those are at a higher level, but there is a big gap between LINC 3 and LMLT.
Secondly, a lot of the problems we see with people not speaking English have to do with lack of resources. There aren't enough LINC places. There are more people coming in, at least in Vancouver - I've heard this is not true in other places like the prairies, where they have more funds and fewer immigrants, but in Vancouver there are more people than there are places in LINC. There are people for whom, just because of funds, there is not enough money to give them language training.
Thirdly, it also relates to when they came in. There are people who came in before LINC or the prior programs happened and as a result did not get the English language training. Because of this problem we've discussed of only three years after arrival are people allowed into training...or until they become a Canadian citizen, you get people who came ten years ago who still don't speak English and probably never will, because they are not going to get the training.
For example, the Cambodian community here in Vancouver is a community that arrived fifteen or twenty years ago and never received language training except individually. As a result it has today, as a community, an extraordinarily high unemployment rate - the last I heard, well over 50% - and the vast majority of that community still doesn't speak English. So there are many variables in the equation.
Ms Au: I just have a comment in the area of integration. In the discussion of settlement renewal and the role of the federal government, there is an opportunity that we need to look at the role and mandate of settlement services, in particular the role of the immigration and citizenship department in facilitating the integration of immigrants. I felt that the department could take more of a leadership role in working with other ministries of the federal government as well as the provincial government.
In the area of what's going to happen, a transition period after settlement - and we talked about a three-year time limit and a five-year time limit - I agree with Susan's comment that the society at large should not be negating their responsibility to immigrants. The longer we extend the settlement period, the other ministries can say that any immigrants that come in go to settlement. However, in reality we know that most of the traditional services do not serve immigrants well at all.
The timeframe we put on top of immigrants seems like a time clock above everyone's head. After three years or five years they don't get any services, and there is no continuation of what is going to happen after the initial settlement period. Yet no one is really doing a lot of work in ensuring that the other ministries, whether provincial, federal or municipal, are doing their job in serving everyone.
Maybe that's an area the immigration and citizenship department could also look at as part of their role. When you get out of direct service delivery, what is the other thing you can do to assist integration? What is the leadership role that you could work with the other ministries of the government to ensure that it is being covered?
The Chair: Do you want to comment on this one, Ms Clancy?
Ms Clancy: I guess I want a clarification. If we're talking about getting out of service delivery...I think you're still talking about service delivery, just a different form of service delivery, are you not? What are you talking about?
Ms Au: I'm not talking about a direct service delivery but more [Inaudible - Editor] in the government, coordinating some kind of inter-minister committee -
Ms Clancy: The federal government doesn't deliver services except in very specific cases such as currently some settlement, some services through Northern Affairs.
.1430
We're not effectively a service provider, and indeed that's one of the reasons we're looking at settlement and at possible changes. I don't know who we coordinate with to solve the problem you're talking about, because there is no other federal government department that's in the area of service provision, unless I'm missing something.
Ms Au: Maybe in the negotiation with the provincial government that's one area you could also stress, and emphasize, and help. Otherwise, I'm just fearful that whatever timeframe would come in the end, whether it's 3 years or 5 years, after that period there is still that whole transition that is not happening, and people are still not getting the services. As Bill was relating, after 15 years the Cambodian community is still not -
Ms Clancy: The point I'm making is that given that most service delivery in the area of social services is done by the provinces - and I'm not by any means making a value judgment here; I'm just throwing this out - maybe the removal of the federal government from service delivery in this area and integrating these services at the provincial and municipal levels will be better and will address this. I don't know, but I think looking at that slant is perhaps more key in the current climate, given that service delivery is not a federal government thing in general.
The Chair: I'm going to stop the discussion here and hear Mr. Khaki. Then there is one last person who hasn't had his say this morning.
Mr. Khaki: I was hoping, Madam Chairman, that we would have a presentation and then a discussion; however, it has developed in a slightly different area.
For example, I have just heard MOSAIC and the Immigrant Services Society say that the employment program has been successful with 70% to 80%. My question would be, how many of those unemployed first find a place in this program so that they eventually can be employed?
The second thing is, what is the retention rate? Once they are sent to a group, how many of them stay there for how long?
What I would like to see towards the end of it.... Mr. Nunez raised certain issues. In my presentation I didn't mention much of what I had written, but I just wanted to state some very core issues.
The issue of integration is not a one-way process. I know there are human rights commissions, provincial and national, who do education programs, but where does the settlement program do their part in order to try to make it smooth for those people who want to integrate? I thought we could touch some of these core principles.
In your documentary, Madam Chairperson, you have raised some very pertinent issues of accountability. I also want to raise the issue of responsibility. Where is the responsibility of agencies, of community groups, when you test and talk about the question of accountability? Who are they responsible to? Why are our experiences sometimes denied in the name of saying they are a special interest group? We are not a special interest group; we are human beings. We have all of our experiences, and we want to relate those experiences to others. If that is sometimes not very pleasant, it doesn't mean it does not exist.
That's why I really would like to see if we can come back to some of the core issues. What is community? How do you define community? Where do you solicit community input?
This country has been very generous to me and has been generous to everybody else, but that doesn't mean there are no obstacles or barriers. There's a lot of good faith there. How do we connect with that? That's where the community....
My friend, Bernardo, raised the question of community. We represent the community. The community would like to know, is there responsibility attached to anything? If there is a responsibility, how is it accountable and to whom?
Many times the service agencies are saying they are an extension of bureaucracy. There are also those who come from other countries, and when we go into an immigrant services agency we feel they are the government. So do we have any input into the type of service we get or not? These are the issues. It doesn't necessarily mean the service is not there.
.1435
The question is, if you want to better the system, how do you better the system? You better the system by putting in responsibility and accountability, by respecting the experiences of others, and making some progress in that way.
The Chair: Thank you. I know there are a few other people who want to speak, but I want to go to Mr. Santiago, who so far hasn't had a chance to speak. Then I'll open it up.
Mr. Santiago: Thank you. I shall attempt not to repeat points that have already been said, although I do want to say that I support much of what has been identified.
I thank you for identifying that settlement renewal is an issue that the federal government needs to look at. More than that, I thank you for acknowledging that the whole area of service delivery to immigrants and newcomers is an area that requires partnership, not from one group but a partnership that is much broader than that. So with some trepidation, and certainly with many questions, I welcome the opportunity to be able to look through settlement renewal issues.
By way of background, I speak as a first-generation Canadian. Prior to working with the United Way, I was the director of settlement services for the Immigrant Services Society, but today I speak on behalf of the United Way of the Lower Mainland, which is an interesting organization. It is both a funder and a non-profit organization, so I feel that it can present perspectives or see issues while wearing two different hats.
We deal with 19 different municipalities in the lower mainland and so have an opportunity to hear from various groups in the community. What we do primarily is core funding to different agencies, including immigrant integration agencies and some of the multicultural societies in the community, to assist them in being able to provide necessary services to the community. For us, part of that is the recognition, when we look at the whole community and United Way's responsibility to assist the community to help itself, that community very much involves newcomers and very much involves immigrants, so our funding very much needs to involve agencies that provide those services.
Some of the other things we do as far as funding is concerned would be to provide specific envelopes that are earmarked and targeted towards assisting newcomers, because we have identified that as a key emphasis for the United Way, recognizing that there has not been enough done and United Way itself has not done enough on this issue.
I'd just like to identify one other piece we have done recently. It was a two-and-a-half-year process of assisting 50 of our member and affiliate agencies to go through an organizational change process to become more accessible to the whole community, including immigrants and newcomers, and including people from different ethnic backgrounds. So we have learned over the process both the strengths and weaknesses of things that can be done to assist.
The key point I'd like to talk about today is the whole area of partnership, because I feel that is an area on which we can speak as a United Way. As was identified earlier, we have learned about the importance of people working together, not only people at the service level but funders. So one of the things we believe in very strongly and on which we would encourage the federal government to do more and more of is to work together with other funders, not that we have the same mandate or the same pockets of money to go to the same pockets of individuals and groups, but certainly to recognize each other's mandates and to recognize what values we each work with, and to ensure that together we're providing the best service as a group.
Earlier, Ms Au raised the question or suggestion of other federal departments being involved as well in the process. I concur very much with that, and perhaps what I would refer to is, as you identified earlier, Ms Clancy, the strengths and the weaknesses of having separate departments and having a separate immigration department. Certainly there are strengths to that, but the weakness is that immigrants permeate all the other factors of Canada and all the other departments of the federal government. So in a similar sense, the other departments need also to be a part not only of the planning but also of the responsibility of assuring that services are available, some perhaps in an indirect or secondary way.
.1440
Thank you for the report. I have questions with regard to who would be defined as the regional partners, who would be defined as the local partners, and who have been identified already from the public and private sectors and have already been involved in developing the model.
Again, there's just a wealth of resources within this table and much more of a wealth beyond this table of people who need to be part of the process and have creative and flexible ways of being able to address issues we're talking about.
My request with regard to the community advisory body that will be developed for the process is for assurance that there is reflection on that body and an opportunity for people to get involved right from the beginning of the process, but ongoing beyond that point. Although we start with community consultation, beyond that point there needs to be community involvement and joint decision-making opportunities for the community as defined by different ethnic groups - different services that provide programs for the community and the different levels of government.
I feel that the key federal involvement should be an opportunity for there to be national goals, national values and an overall national set of principles in terms of the immigration process. Those principles should be followed regardless of which region it is. Certainly included in that, as identified earlier, would be national standards in terms of defining necessary services and accessible services to newcomers.
I'd certainly also like to identify that the federal government should continue to earmark dollars and ensure that those dollars continue to be earmarked for settlement issues, employment issues for newcomers, and the two-way integration and discrimination racism issues that have been identified earlier.
With regard to those earmarked dollars, I also want to raise a concern that the process go far beyond a two- or three-year period. The federal government should continue to have a role in the partnership, although it may not be in the direct delivery of services. There needs to be an ongoing role around the table in terms of ensuring that all the other partners are taking a look at the best interests of people.
There need to be measures, not only for the tools, of how effectively the services are being provided, but there also need to be measures of how well people are being received into the community and how well we, as Canadians, are ensuring that this is a multicultural community that celebrates diversity. So I recommend that there be tools, evaluation measures developed for that process as well and the evaluation not be a one-step process but an ongoing one.
In terms of whether the definition of an immigrant stops at three years, I believe there need to be general standards for how we would define an immigrant. I think there will always continue to be argument in terms of how much it should be lengthened. Regardless of what it is, I think the critical issue is not necessarily the number of years but that there's flexibility beyond that point. Flexibility was identified as one of the values of the process. We should be able to look at individual situations and say whether three years is realistic or not.
I support very much the values and principles that are listed, such as accessibility, partnership, flexibility, innovation, learning and change. I suggest that those values be clarified on paper and shared with people. Those values should be a part of what's used to come up with a provincial approach to assisting newcomers.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Santiago.
.1445
Ms Meredith: I have listened with interest to the contributions of all of you this morning. I don't have a lot of experience in immigration. My only experience in settlement has been with the aboriginal people in Canada, where isolated communities were being integrated into an urban society. I think their experiences, if not very similar, could probably be used as a comparison.
I don't want to underestimate the difficulties new immigrants face. I want to make a few general comments and then I'll get into some specifics about what we're here to do.
I have a couple of concerns about the timeframe that has been mentioned and the view that three years is not too much time. Again, I'm going back to the experiences of the aboriginal people. I think if we continue to look at settlement long-term and immigrants long-term, you remove the demand of society to accept new immigrants as mainstream Canadians. There's a real threat in that because you're always isolating yourselves; new immigrants will always be removed from the mainstream. If we want to make the settlement complete, at some point they're no longer immigrants; they are mainstream Canadians. I think if we continue to delay that process we are allowing them to be isolated. I don't think that is helpful in the overall growth of the nation.
The other concern I have is the reality that dollars are becoming more scarce and we continue to have high expectations of government and not make room, as was brought up earlier, for the role for churches, the United Way, and the communities themselves. If you want to describe a community as the place where we live, I think it's probably best, because that's where we have to get along with our neighbours, in our workplace, our schools, our hospitals and what not. So I like to use the community at the closest level to where we live. We have to include it. I heard that here as well.
Most of you feel this is only a first step. This communication must be ongoing and continuous; it can't just be this morning's meeting and then we say, ``It's very nice to have met you and included you in the process, but we don't expect to ever talk to you again''. I think I got the message from all of you that you expect more from us. You want a continuation of this process and you don't want to be excluded from it.
To get more to the question of why we are here today, I heard, and you may want to comment afterwards, that you would like to see the provincial government control the dollars; that the federal government is perhaps too removed, but you feel it would be too competitive if it were any lower at the community level. The provincial government is far enough away that there would be less competition or back-stabbing, if you will, in the attempt to get dollars away from each other. Perhaps you can comment on that.
I think I have addressed most aspects of the problem. I want to go back to the reality of the dollar and share with you what I hear. The Canadian taxpayers are not asking, they're demanding there be more accountability for the dollars. They want to know that the services are being provided in the most cost-effective way to the users of the service. They see that a lot of the agencies and programs in place, not only for immigration but in other areas of government, have become bureaucracies themselves. More of the dollars are spent protecting and creating these bureaucracies to hand the services down to the people, and they see that as robbing them of the expected service.
I think we have to be very cautious that whatever we are doing to provide service to the people who need these services, we're doing it in the most cost-effective way possible, so the money is truly getting to the people who need it. It should not be used to establish, maintain and defend bureaucracies at whatever level, whether it's at the organizational level; the municipal level, and cities are bad for that; the provincial level, and provinces are bad for that; or the federal level. So you don't have duplication, but four levels doing the same thing to provide the people with the service.
.1450
I caution all of us, myself included, to always keep in mind why we are here and that it's the people at the receiving end who we are trying to provide for. We should not get wrapped up in our own organizations, communities and levels of government.
The Chair: Ms Meredith, thank you very much.
Before I recognize anybody here today, I'd like to do a little wrap-up, because it's 11:45 a.m. We're supposed to be here until 12 p.m., but I'm willing to sit until 1 p.m., if all members are in agreement. I'd like to bring forth what I consider to be some points of general consensus, based of course on the terms of reference. I asked Margaret to put this down on paper for me to make sure I don't mislead any of you,
A voice: What about the comments she has offered to us?
The Chair: She's not going to leave right away. She's going at 1 p.m.
Ms Meredith: I'll have to go about 12:15 p.m.
The Chair: Okay.
Ms Clancy: A point of order. My point of order is not that I don't wish to sit, but we were given a certain timeframe and I've made another appointment that I would hate to miss. I can stay until about 12:15 p.m., but I don't think we should change the rules in midstream. Some of the committee members may have made other arrangements.
The Chair: We will begin with Dr. Berdichewsky. Please be very short and very quick.
Mr. Berdichewsky: I am very glad to finally listen to the opposition MPs. I think this is very important for the democratic process in Canada. It appeared that only the official members of the government were presenting everything.
The Chair: I'm not going to accept that. I will continue with Mrs. French if that's your point.
Mr. Nunez: No, no I have to protest, Madam Chair. You have no right to avoid Mr. Berdichewsky -
Mr. Berdichewsky: You are proving my point. If I talk again about the opposition you stop me. I must tell you that I have a tremendous respect for the minister Sergio Marchi.
The Chair: Mr. Berdichewsky, would you like to finish your point?
Ms French: Mr. Berdichewsky, if you have a point we only have 20 minutes.
Mr. Berdichewsky: But I think I need to respond.
The Chair: Excuse me, if you'll allow me, please, I am chairing at the moment. I said at the beginning -
Mr. Berdichewsky: You can shorten it but don't cut me.
The Chair: Doctor, I apologize, but you've had the floor a number of times during this session.
Mr. Berdichewsky: This thing that was unleashed by Mr. Nunez is a critical view of these things. Let me only summarize in these two areas. I think that -
The Chair: Could you permit me to speak for a minute, please? Thank you. I'll repeat myself. You've had the floor a number of times. Secondly, there's no such thing as no one having had the floor. I did allow everyone the same amount of time and I said the rules were flexible from the very beginning. Mr. Nunez showed no indication of wanting the floor from the very beginning.
Mr. Nunez: That's because we have different rules.
The Chair: We will discuss it after as a committee. Thank you, Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: But you have to have democracy here.
Mrs. Terrana: Let me just clarify. I spoke very little, as you know. I wanted to listen to you. But I want to say I noticed that the chair has several times looked around to see if people wanted to speak. This morning at breakfast it was discussed and it was decided that it was an open discussion, so everybody could jump in whenever they wanted. So I just wanted to finalize that because I do not accept the fact that we are the only ones speaking. We have a parliamentary secretary here who of course knows more than we do, so she tends to speak more. But again, Mr. Nunez and Ms Meredith this morning knew what the rules were and they -
Mr. Nunez: I didn't.
Mrs. Terrana: It was discussed at breakfast.
The Chair: In any case, I think we're wasting time. Thank you.
.1455
Doctor Berdichewsky, please go ahead and make your comments on what Ms Meredith said. Nothing else, please.
Mr. Berdichewsky: I have a very short comment.
Ms Meredith brought up a very important issue here, with her experience with the native people. It is the issue of community. I remember very clearly the history of the department and the division of Indian Affairs where for many years half of the budget of Indian Affairs went to pay for the bureaucracy. Now, the native people are fighting back against it and they want this funding to move.
This is in regard to funding for these issues, too. Why don't we really think about incorporating the community and particularly the immigrant communities, not only in the decision making, but also in the funding issue?
I suggest that we develop an advisory council from the community to look at these issues, including funding. That way, we could reduce the amount of money employed, and we could spend it in a much better way if we somehow involve the community in the funding.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms French.
Ms French: Every time there's a speaker, there's something else to respond to.
Mr. Berdichewsky, I challenge you. Legitimate, organized cultural communities in British Columbia are very often special interest and self-interest and have very little interest in the overall good of the nation.
Mr. Nunez, I'm encouraged that you, as a Bloc member, are concerned about a national standard, because I understood that representatives of your party did not want Canada to remain a nation.
Ms Clancy: Hear, hear!
Ms French: It's encouraging to me that you, as a member, are concerned about national standards and about continuing to be involved in Canada as a whole.
Ms Meredith, I'd like to point out to you that government is community. The money government distributes to settlement comes from the people who go to the churches and the people who are involved in community organizations.
Government has to stop looking at the resources as ``its'' resources. They are the resources of the people. In that regard, there is justification for more spending.
I share your concern for looking at evaluation and accountability. On the other hand, with things like the settlement services, justice, and the aboriginal examples you used, it's very difficult to show the results. What it is possible to show is the result of not doing them, which we see in the native population. I think if we look at the lack of involvement of aboriginal people in integrating themselves into a national life, we have a good example of the -
Mr. Berdichewsky: So are you blaming the native people?
Ms French: No, I'm not. It's the process. I'm saying the process is flawed. We can see the result of not having efficient and effective settlement services of some kind.
I didn't get a chance to respond to the language issue Shashi was talking about, but I do think we have to visit very carefully what the people's responsibility is for language acquisition for immigrants.
I understand that overseas, where the applications for immigration happen, there is a lot of very poor management and a lot of bribery and corruption.
I know Mr. Marchi suggested in his report that there be closer monitoring of language levels of potential immigrants. I think providing opportunities for people to acquire the language prior to coming to the nation is not a bad idea. It would provide good businesses for Canadians overseas and would alleviate some of the problems immigrants have here.
That's not to say we shouldn't continue to look for innovative ways of delivering language, but I don't think it's the responsibility of the people of Canada to ensure that people immigrating to Canada have an academic level of functioning. Of course, basic language acquisition is important, but otherwise I'm not sure that's where our money should be spent in terms of settlement.
.1500
For a solution for the time element, perhaps it would be helpful if we looked at identifying settlement services and, as I said before, considering some kind of an identification. It may be a credit card or something, so that a certain amount of money will follow an immigrant around. They could use services up to whatever level, as long as the services are identified as legitimate settlement services.
When they would access an agency, they would use their credit. That would be reimbursed to the province in which the credit was used. It might be a solution. It'd be great if people could finish using settlement services in three years. If ten or twelve years go by before they need to access some of those settlement services, that option would be there.
As far as the role of the government is concerned, I think we need a champion for immigration. We do not hear a lot about a positive stance for immigration, especially from the federal government. I'm talking about an overall perception, not about specific functions.
Mary, you've talked -
Ms Clancy: [Inaudible - Editor]...might I add.
Ms French: Right. I would like to think of national standards as something that the federal government can offer, such as research, international preparation and appeal for allocation, for example.
Mr. Nunez asked if our government is ready or if we are ready. We've already entered into an agreement with the federal government. The B.C. government has an agreement already signed. We're already working on a process of taking over the responsibility. Of course, we are ready. We do have the resources. We do have the expertise.
However, we would like to be sure that the money you say will be there for settlement is actually allocated. If we find it is not, what's our appeal system? How do we appeal to the national government and say, look, you're transferring this money but it's not being used in that way in the community?
Perhaps one idea is to designate some of that money specifically for core services. Right now we have an incredibly supportive government in terms of immigrant settlement and adaptation services. It has provided core funding for agencies, which allows them to cover a portion of their administration. But given the change of government and of perspective, it might be good for the federal government to earmark a certain amount of its allocation for settlement services for core, undesignated, administrative programming.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms French.
Mr. Khaki, you have the floor.
Mr. Khaki: First, I would like to thank Mr. Nunez for his intervention. I think he raised some very pertinent issues, which relate extremely well to the concerns of the ordinary, common person.
At the same time, I would like to recognize that the chairperson has done an extremely efficient job in giving us enough time to express ourselves. For that, I am also thankful to you.
I would like to deal with some of the concerns raised by Ms Meredith.
First, she talked about how long this whole process of settlement should continue. I agree with her to some extent. I think it should continue until the playing field is level. At present, the playing field is not level. Many people talk of all of us being as one, or of all of us being the same, but we are asking if the playing field is really level. Can you can tell us now so we can take some comfort in saying that there will be no obstacles or barriers?
Many times when people talk of multiculturalism they are talking of ownership. That's why they don't like multiculturalism. They feel their ownership is being taken away from them under the pretext of multiculturalism. For me, it is a question of the playing field being level.
I fully endorse the cost-effective way you mentioned, provided it is not used as a pretext for cuts. Cost efficiency is a good element. All of us want it. It is our money. It is not your money. It is not my money. It is not his money. It is our money and we would like to see cost efficiency.
.1505
My only concern is that this government, the previous one, and a few others are obsessed with the reduction of the deficit, and I hope they are not paralysed in that process and in that sense the people who will suffer will be the poor, persons with disabilities, and minorities, because everything will be done to say we want to reduce the deficit. We all want to reduce the deficit, but I don't want us to be paralysed by the process so that we as a nation, our generosity, our high levels of principle, are overlooked in the process of reducing the deficit.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Annett, you have the floor.
Mr. Annett: I have a couple of comments. As Ms Meredith has brought up in terms of the efficiency of using money, again I certainly agree that we in the NGO sector are extremely efficient users of money. We never have enough, and the salaries paid to our staffs, our overheads, and so on, are a fraction of what one would find in the private sector or in the government. So giving money to NGOs is a highly efficient use of it.
We certainly hope that through the settlement renewal process there will be a change and an economy, by instead of having several levels of administration, hopefully having only one. However, in terms of talking about churches and other organizations being involved, I want to stress that this is currently happening, and all the community resources we can possibly find are currently mobilized, at least in the Vancouver area, the lower mainland, toward the tremendous task of integrating the huge numbers of immigrants who are coming into Vancouver all the time.
Frankly, I can't foresee getting any more community involvement, church involvement, United Way money, all of these things. We're operating pretty much at maximum, I believe. I wish there were more - maybe there will be - but realistically I don't think there will.
Even given that situation happening, we are not serving all of the people who are coming. I want to make that really clear. Large numbers of people are falling between the cracks. Large numbers of people are not getting settlement services. They're not getting English-language training.
There are more people coming into this area than we can serve. The long-term implications of that in terms of ghettoization, in terms of creating an immigrant underclass, as it were, who do not have jobs, who are unemployable, who are on welfare, are really serious things I have a lot of concerns about. So if the implication is that we can do more with less, we're already doing as much as we can and we don't have enough.
There has been some discussion floated about a user-pay principle. I think we have to be careful about that, but it might be worth investigating.
I know, for example, in many of our vocational programs we're not allowed under the mandate of the program to do means testing. In the parking lot where I park there are at least two women who pull up, one in a BMW and one in a Mercedes, and they are going to subsidized vocational training programs. They don't pay anything for it. They're immigrants. They need the services. Both their husbands happen to be very well off.
Looking at language training or vocational training and a means test, I think as long as it's done carefully and doesn't cut people off might be worth taking a look at. So in terms of efficiency, that's one thing that might be looked at.
The second point, on Mr. Nunez's questions about the province, as has been said, I know the Province of British Columbia has been approached. AMSSA, our umbrella organization for the immigrant survey and multicultural agencies, has prepared a paper that I believe will be presented at this committee and has been presented already to the federal government and the provincial government. I know the provincial government is considering its position and I don't want to guess what that is going to be, but certainly the people in the field have encouraged the provincial government to take over this role.
Again, in terms of not wanting to duplicate, if the provincial government is already heavily involved in this province as they are in immigrant settlement, why create another whole infrastructure? Let's use the existing infrastructure they have and have communities involved in consultation rather than actual decision-making and accountability for the funds.
.1510
I believe, and again AMSSA believes, that the best and most efficient route is to have the provincial government responsible for the money, accountable for the money, in doing resource allocation with considerable consultation from the various communities involved. I believe this is the way in which it will work best. I understand that in Quebec this is the way in which it is operating at this time.
I have only one concern. I don't know, but I've heard rumours that in Quebec not all of the money that has gone to the province from the federal government for immigrant settlement has actually found its way into immigrant settlement. Again, I don't know if that's correct, but that's the rumour.
Certainly, we wouldn't want to see that happen here. We would want to see any money that comes from the federal government to the province for settlement services being earmarked only for settlement service.
Ms Clancy: I thank Mr. Annett for his comment, but I suggest to him, with the greatest of respect, that some gender sensitivity would not be amiss. A husband's wealth might not reflect a wife's status, and systemic discrimination against women in this country is such that, whether in immigration matters or others, the short-term custody of a BMW does not an emancipated woman make. You might have more friends at Harvard Business School than you think you do. That's something you have to be very, very careful about.
The Chair: If anybody agrees - and I am at your mercy, obviously - I'd like to make some points of general consensus. Are we agreed? Thank you.
Correct me if I am wrong, please.
There was some agreement that the federal government should continue to play a role in terms of setting standards and principles, with local flexibility. The feds should take a leadership role. Have you any comments on that first point? Thank you.
There is the importance of local input on priorities, but you are opposed, I believe - and this, again, we can discuss - to any advisory group actually making the funding decision.
Mr. Khaki: We are not opposed to the decision, but we were opposed to them intervening in the day-to-day workings. The whole question was that it's an over-role, with some sort of input from the advisory committee so there is sensitivity of the committee around. At least their point of view is taken into consideration.
Ms Assanand: That was the role of the advisory committee so that it will not become another bureaucracy for us to deal with.
The Chair: Yes. The point was made. Thank you.
The third point was the importance of employment integration and also language training. I bring that up because we talk about all the other issues you also brought up, but it seemed as if that was the predominant one in terms of making sure that, whatever the settlement programs are, those two areas will play a major role.
Reaching out to women of course was brought up.
Other issues were raised, but I didn't feel there was a consensus, and neither did our researcher: the issue of for how long settlement goes on - three, five, much longer. We heard thoughtful views on both sides of the issue.
One thing I didn't come away with. I don't think we are going to have time to do it, but I hope that we shall in the second group. There was no discussion, but there were some examples of what are national standards, what are national principles. I didn't feel that we had much discussion on that issue, and there is no time, as I was told by a number of people.
Perhaps, if you are in agreement - for the sake of democracy, which I always respect and have for the last 20 years of working in politics - some of you would like to put some of your thoughts down on paper and send them to the committee. I would appreciate it personally.
I felt that perhaps this morning's session was really the warm-up to this afternoon's session, and I am sure that we will have more to focus on in the next part.
I would appreciate having more input from the groups sitting around the table. It's an important issue. It is new ground that we are breaking, and we are breaking it together.
Mrs. Terrana: When you send in your advice, maybe we should proceed with having a series of recommendations on the three issues at the end of your presentation. We will probably be able to come to some consensus if we follow what the three elements are and if we have recommendations1, 2, 3.
.1515
The Chair: I'm going to do this right: Dr. Berdichewsky.
Mr. Berdichewsky: Right.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Berdichewsky: In your consensus summary, there is one issue missing that we talk about. That is more input, more involvement from the immigrant communities.
The Chair: Thank you. That could be part of your written presentations.
Mr. Berdichewsky: Okay.
The Chair: I'd like to thank every one of you for coming. I really very much appreciate your patience and input.
Hopefully we'll see you again, perhaps in front of the committee on another issue. Thank you.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.