[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 27, 1995
.1230 
[English]
The Chair: Order.
On behalf of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Citizenship and Immigration, I welcome you all.
I would like to begin by apologizing for giving you so little time to prepare for this consultation on settlement renewal. We appreciate any comments you have, and you are free to present written briefs to the committee. Our report will not be tabled in the House of Commons before October, so there is plenty of time if you wish to do so. I really encourage you to present a written brief with your recommendations to the committee. I would say to present it through either your local member - your local member being a member of this committee, Mr. John Loney, who will join us soon - or myself or through the clerk. The clerk will be distributing her business card so you'll have an address.
We are here, of course, to discuss settlement renewal and the process by which the federal government will withdraw from direct service delivery over the next three years. The structures and roles necessary for immigrant renewal have not yet been defined. That's why we are here today, because 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. We've really only had the first two sessions in Vancouver and one this morning in Edmonton.
You are the experts; we are not. We are here to benefit both from your expertise and from your counsel.
There are three main questions and each has others that come forward. I'd like to share these with you as perhaps an opening preparation for the consultation this afternoon.
The first concern is the process of decision-making. If the federal government will no longer decide what services will be delivered, then by whom and at what cost, how and where, in your opinion, 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 such as yourselves be involved in determining the policies, priorities, and strategies of the decision-making bodies?
The second question of course concerns accountability - accountability for results and accountability for the equitable management of public funds - keeping in mind that program evaluation should provide information on the continued relevance of programs, whether they are meeting stated objectives, whether they have unintended effects, and whether they are cost-effective. As service providers, how do you or should you measure the success of your program? What kinds of tools do you use to evaluate success? Are they satisfactory? Are there currently measurement criteria or 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?
Third, we want reviews on what role the federal government should continue to play in the immigrant integration process.
.1235
Those are basically the three areas in which we are looking for input from you this afternoon. I was hoping to introduce the members of the committee, but because we are running a tight schedule, they asked me to start without them. I'll have them say a few comments after I've had the chance.
Mary, I was going to you in a minute.
Ms Clancy (Halifax): I have no comments to make other than that I am Mary Clancy, member of Parliament for Halifax and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Chair: Thank you, Mary.
I will go round the table. You each will have five minutes to introduce yourselves and your organization and perhaps bring forward a few thoughts on what you've already received as information from the standing committee clerk. Then we will open it up to a free discussion. I will begin with Mr. Schafer.
Mr. Robert Schafer (Chairman of the Board of Directors, New Home Immigration and Settlement Centre): I am pleased to be here this afternoon. I am the chairperson of the New Home Immigration and Settlement Centre, and Elsa here is the director of our home.
Of course, coming here and not having too much information as to where we were going with this discussion, I brought together some thoughts that I'd like to present this afternoon.
The New Home Immigration and Settlement Centre, a non-profit corporation, has been operating for three years, at least with regard to government funding, but has been in operation since 1989. We have been fulfilling a mandate that was given to us to provide excellence in English as a second language and a number of support facilities such as a host and welcoming centre, settlement counselling, employment orientation, clothing and furniture banks, multicultural and social activities for newcomers.
As a centre that has established a strong training program for new settlers, and because we are a smaller player in this whole dialogue, we have some major concerns regarding the settlement renewal. We recognize that the federal government establishes and controls Canadian immigration policy and that the process of renewal will affect us, the service organizations and associate people, but our concern for this standing committee is that it does not lose sight of its focal point, and that is the immigrant. The most efficient use of total resources must be focused towards these people.
It is also our concern that as the structural framework for implementation of the new settlement renewal program is put in place, equitable representation on governing, service and advisory bodies be honoured and that politically strong organizations do not always supersede the small providers of these services.
It is important to assure all groups, communities and organizations that their stake in investments and commitments will be honoured and recognized in the development and the implementation of ongoing services to the Canadian newcomer.
In dealing with the federal authorities, we concur with the need for restructuring, but in restructuring there are a couple of factors that must remain constant. Funding must be provided from its present source, based on the federal immigration policies and the kind of people who are coming into this country. It must not be loaded down to the province or to the local community.
Also, a uniformity of policies and resources should be made available to all regions of Canada on a fair and equitable basis, and no entity should receive favoured status or resource advantage.
There are probably many other areas that we could talk about this afternoon, but I sense that we will have the opportunity to discuss them as we progress. So I would like to leave it there and finish by asking that we consider three basic key words: openness, fairness and accountability. I trust that as we continue that will be focused on.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Critchley.
Mr. Jim Critchley (Chairman, ESL Extensions Program, Alberta Vocational College, Edmonton): My name is Jim Critchley, and I am the chairman of the English as a second language extension program at the Alberta Vocational College. That is a provincially administered institution in Edmonton.
.1240
I'd like to make the following comments on settlement renewal. To begin with, I concur with a lot of the comments made by my colleagues from New Home. I'd like to add that the central issue, which I'm sure everybody is in agreement about, is the process by which funds are allocated to programs and decisions are made about which programs to offer.
Second, I think settlement is principally about language training. Without language training, integration is difficult, if not impossible.
Third, I would hope that a broadly based jurisdiction, within which the federal government would be represented, would take over responsibility for fund allocation. I say this because if settlement of immigrants is principally about language training, language training is also about work. Almost all the students, for example, who we have at AVC are most anxious to get into the workforce. Since the world of work crosses municipal and regional boundaries, it makes a lot of sense to me that allocation of resources not be too diversified.
Fourth, I think the province has the standards and the settlement know-how to deliver services, so from that point of view I would favour the province as a major player.
Further, this doesn't directly address your question, but I would favour the rejoining of the LINC and LMLT programming under one jurisdiction. The reason is to facilitate the move of students out of LINC into training or the workplace. At the present time there is a bit of gap. I think we made a major mistake by separating the two functions.
Fifth, I think a broadly based partnership, maybe within the province, will encourage partnerships. What I mean by partnerships might be two regions, two deliverers or, let's say, ESL training plus the workplace.
Sixth, addressing the issue of accountability, I think that's a very difficult one for ESL deliverers. Sometimes, yes, results can be clearly measured and clearly shown. I think we are doing that and we have done it in the past. But not everything can be measured, and the onus on ESL schools to provide proof of progress can sometimes overshadow everything else. Sometimes the best judge of programs are the students themselves, the fact that they are investing their time, their energy and their money - because they don't get training allowances - to enter these courses.
That's all I have to say for the first part.
The Chair: Thank you.
Before we continue, I'd like to ask Mr. Nunez to introduce himself please.
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): My name is Osvaldo Nunez. I am the member of Parliament for Bourassa, in Montreal north. I come from Chile. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for immigration and citizenship, and vice-chair of this committee.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll continue with Ms Bruk.
Ms Elza Bruk (Chairman, ESL, Alberta Vocational College, Calgary): Thank you.
For the record, I'd like to clarify that the Alberta Vocational College, Calgary, is a separate institution from Alberta Vocational College, Edmonton. One is not a campus of the other, although we are also provincially administered.
My name is Elza Bruk. I'm also the chair of the English as a second language department at AVC, Calgary. We are a large provider of language training and our jurisdiction extends from pre-literacy to workplace training.
I'd like to address myself to your question in terms of what we support in principle regarding settlement renewal. It would certainly be the effort to maximize the utilization of resources in order to meet local priorities. We also very much support the elimination of policy barriers that get in the way of programming delivery. That often comes across as a combination of what is LINC, what is LMLT, what is needed and in what amounts.
.1245
What we wish to introduce a cautionary note about would be, first, a strong desire to have a continued strong federal role, certainly in the policy setting for the programs but possibly in a more closely designed operational role as well. In Alberta we have a history of the federal government and the provincial government working effectively together and also of both of those governments working very effectively with the communities. It would be our hope that the principles of that would be preserved, but I can't emphasize enough the hope that the federal government does not simply withdraw from the issue of settlement.
The other cautionary note regards the infrastructure itself. I believe the delivery mechanism for training services and settlement services in general already exist in Alberta. There are a number of providers represented here - and I'm not just speaking of language provision - however, I believe the implementation of settlement renewal as outlined in the policy paper involves an establishment of a new infrastructure that actually would see allocation of funds taking place at a community level.
With that in mind, we want to caution that a creation of a community-based - however we define community - infrastructure will require both time and financial resources. What we need is something to support the development of this policy and practice of resource allocation at the community level.
What we hope to see also would be a continued emphasis on accountability, both program accountability and fiscal accountability. I think we have a responsibility to our clients as well as to the taxpayers of Canada, who expect us to maximize resources, and we would certainly applaud any effort in that direction. We consider ourselves to be supporting that.
We would also like to bring to the committee's attention the existence of a work in progress, which is the national language benchmarks. I think if the committee is looking for initiatives that might be used to address the issue of accountability, that is a tool, currently funded by the federal government, that would certainly merit close scrutiny. Attached to the national language benchmarks is an assessment tool that attempts to address progress of learners through language capabilities. The stakeholders are identified as learners, practitioners, employers and so on. That would be a tool that I would highly recommend to the committee's attention.
Finally, speaking more as a person from Calgary than a person from AVC, Calgary, I'd just like to bring to the committee's attention that there are already centres in Canada that have both a collaborative model and a collegial model of service provision. We have a number of such structures already established in Calgary in this field. It would be my hope that as we look for communities that require support or require some kind of acknowledgement in this area, you do look down south as well.
The Chair: Thank you, Elza.
I think Ms Clancy wanted to ask a question.
Ms Clancy: I remind all my colleagues from the House of Commons that they too can ask questions whenever they like.
I would just like to know this. You are the first person in two days to mention benchmarks in a positive light. I would just throw that out for the rest of you because we're very interested to hear. The people this morning didn't have a whole lot of positive things to say about benchmarks, nor did the stakeholders in Vancouver. I'm not suggesting you're giving it a holus-bolus endorsement, but you appear to be -
.1250
The Chair: On that point, I'd rather everybody make their opening remarks first and then we can -
Ms Clancy: I'll just throw that out for all of you.
The Chair: Yes, for everybody to comment on.
Mr. Ahmed Haymour (Office Coordinator, Canadian Arab Friendship Association): Good afternoon. My name is Ahmed Haymour. I am the office coordinator for the Canadian Arab Friendship Association. With me is Iman Abdou, our project coordinator.
The Canadian Arab Friendship Association is a non-profit organization dedicated to a better understanding of Arabs and non-Arabs alike. It takes a leading role in assisting new Canadians to integrate into the Canadian lifestyle while still appreciating and retaining their Arab heritage.
The issue of immigrant settlement and integration is one of great importance to the Canadian Arab Friendship Association. We would like to commend the Canadian government for its initiative in including organizations such as ours in the change that is currently being determined.
The role of the federal government in immigration integration should be a strong one. It should focus on overseeing the projects and programs made available to new immigrants. It should be responsible for setting national standards for basic services, such as ESL classes and studies concerning immigrant settlement.
The idea of priorities being set locally should be given serious consideration. Each area varies in the needs and resources available to immigrants. Ideally, a committee made up of local organizations and educational groups will assess the needs of the newcomers and pass its recommendations to the federal government. This committee would ensure there is no duplication of services and no development of unnecessary projects.
Regarding the measurement of the progress, it is very difficult to set a national guideline. Rather, at the beginning of a project the progress should be estimated to ensure a standard of local and realistic expectations. This guideline could be used in future efforts.
The resources of government should be used to assist local priorities, starting with an exchange of information, advice and experience, without actually being directly involved in the setting of priorities. Government would be there in more of a consultative capacity.
The government can best encourage innovation and creativity by allowing more flexibility and guidelines, and realizing that the local community knows what's needed at the grassroots level.
Communication lines must be kept open with the grassroots level. Those agencies that deal with immigrants on a day-to-day basis can assess the needs of newcomers with far more accuracy and detail than those at the administrative level.
In conclusion, it is the Canadian Arab Friendship Association's fondest wish to be included in the settlement renewal, as we can provide the information needed at that grassroots level.
Ms Marge Nainaar (General Manager and Program Coordinator, Prince Albert Multicultural Council; President, Saskatchewan Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies): We're very delighted to be here today because we were successful in railroading ourselves into this meeting.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Ms Nainaar: I am from Prince Albert. My organization is the Prince Albert Multicultural Council, which is very much a settlement agency for immigrants and refugees.
We have a population of 35,000 people in northern Saskatchewan. People might call us isolated, but we're a very unique community. We have two people on staff in our organization and over 250 volunteers.
.1255
For us, the essence of settlement is integration and adaptation. We do that very well, although we are a non-traditional centre. To us, adaptation and integration evolve. We don't strategize that we are going to do integration and adaptation and use various schemes and methods. It's an evolution from the time when the newcomer arrives into our community.
We treat the government-sponsored and the non-government-sponsored newcomers alike. There is no differentiation. From the initial welcoming into the community, we involve them in the community as part and parcel.
You'll be given a copy of our annual report and our leaflet and you will see the kinds of things we do.
Our main focus is Canadianization. You'll see that we are always proud to be Canadian. The newcomers look at that. We want community involvement right away.
We are a very strong part of the Indian and Métis friendship centre in our area. We work very closely with them. They are a member of our organization.
Something very wonderful happened last night at our annual meeting. We now have a soccer team composed of first nations and newcomers. The Indian and Métis friendship centre last night at our annual meeting presented our soccer team with uniforms and cleats. They paid for them.
We are partners with every organization in our city and there is no anti-refugee and anti-immigrant feeling. We don't give anybody a chance to feel that way in our community, because we think of everybody as people.
This morning I heard people referring to the newcomers as ``these people''. We don't. They are ``our people'' and they will always be our population.
From May last year to June, now, we have had 100% retention. Nobody left Prince Albert of the newcomers who came. Our organization has helped in the start of eight businesses. We're a very integral part of the community. We are part of the chamber of commerce. We are part of the economic development committee. You name it, we're members of every organization in our city. That's what makes it so successful.
Yes, we are also a satellite office for the CIC. We process all the citizenship papers because we are so isolated. We also have sponsorship forms, with which we help newcomers and other people who want to sponsor - the church groups and so on - and the passport forms, and so on. We process all that in our office.
Yes, we like accountability, for this reason: so the funders will know what we are doing. That's the main reason, and we want it that way. We don't believe that the funders must not interfere. We want them to be partners.
We don't want to be at arm's length from the federal government. They set us up and we work very well with them and we want that partnership to continue, but we want the partnership with the federal, provincial, and municipal governments to be stronger. We have a very good relationship with all three governments.
We have little funding, but we do a lot of fund-raising. Weyerhaeuser found out that we didn't get money for fireworks and last week they gave us $3,000 for fireworks for Canada Day. So we do Flag Day, Canada Day, March 21, and every day you can think of that makes Canada.
I'll stop there.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Before I continue, I'd like to ask one of my colleagues to introduce himself. Many of you may know him already.
Mr. Loney (Edmonton North): I am John Loney, member of Parliament for Edmonton North.
The Chair: And a member of this committee also.
I'll continue with Mr. Anchan.
.1300
Mr. John P. Anchan (Executive Director, Edmonton Immigrant Services Association): Thank you. My name is John Anchan. I am the executive director of the Edmonton Immigrant Services Association.
Our organization has been working for almost nineteen years as a registered non-profit organization, catering to the needs of newcomers, first-generation Canadians, and other Edmontonians. We provide services in education, integration, settlement and adaptation.
On behalf of the Edmonton Immigrant Services Association, I wish to express my appreciation to the minister and to this committee for their willingness to hear the voices of organizations such as ours in allowing us to speak out on this issue.
I wish to respond to the three issues presented under the terms of reference. First, I'd like to talk briefly about flexibility. It is commendable that there is a move towards more flexibility to accommodate various administrative styles since, in contrast to the provincial partner in the ISP program, accountability measures have never been very flexible with the federal government. This is a move in the right direction.
Second, the accountability measures concern me a little more. The idea of utilizing technology to measure outcomes is efficient and cost-effective. I believe the recent introduction of the SMIS - for lack of a better example - database seems to recognize this aspect of innovation and improvement. We welcome the government's move toward using technology to improve the way we do things.
Yet I am concerned with the method rather than with the mode, in that meaningful measurement of providing human services differs from a mere computerized keeping of tabs. By keeping track of how many minutes one spends on the phone or on a fax machine, or whether someone spends fourteen minutes or a given number of minutes or seconds, not only makes the exercise reductionist and quite wasteful but undermines the notion of measuring outcomes that should otherwise be meaningful.
The intensification of work by meaningless recording without meaningful evaluation of outcomes is definitely not productive. With this most recent experience I would like the committee to request the minister to further involve experts and various settlement service providers in defining the nature of measuring outcomes.
Third, the idea of involving local committees is appropriate and desirable but it raises a number of concerns. What criteria would be used to elect or to appoint members to such a committee? What neutrality can one expect from such a committee? What expertise will the members of this local advisory committee have in order for them to make informed decisions? Who would they be advising? Who are they accountable to?
In conclusion, we feel that the current ISP structure has a lot of qualified, expert, experienced, professional consultants who know what they're doing to give stability and coherence to the structure. If local involvement is what this is all about, it would be more efficient to allow continued collaboration of the federal and the provincial governments along with some limited role for local committees to provide a balance in the structure of immigrant settlement services.
In this period of limited resources and drastic restructuring, one cannot afford to conduct expensive experiments. We would be better off by not planning to reinvent the wheel. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Leung.
Ms Barbara Leung (Manager, Immigrant Settlement Services, Adult Development Branch, Department of Advanced Education and Career Development, Government of Alberta): Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this hearing. I am Barbara Leung and I'm with the Government of Alberta's department of advanced education and career development. I manage the immigrant settlement program.
I'm pleased and actually a bit surprised to hear John's comments. It's nice to know that one of the service providers does feel as supportive as we do about ISP. ISP is the acronym for the integrated service program, which is the joint delivery of the federal ISAP program and the provincial settlement services program in one program that we call the integrated services program. We've been doing that for ten years in Alberta. I understand it still is the only coordinated federal and provincial government settlement program in the country.
I want to begin by saying that one of my big concerns until now has been the lack of accurate and consistent communication about settlement renewal. Settlement renewal is a concept that has many features in it that perhaps are appealing, but the communication on it has not been very clear. Because of that, based on some initial information we received in the Alberta government, it appears that some misinformation or contradictory information has led to the concern that settlement renewal signals the withdrawal of federal funding and support for immigrant settlement -
.1305
The Chair: Mary, on a point of order.
Ms Clancy: Communication to whom? Do you mean generally, between levels of governments, or -
Ms Leung: Just generally, in terms of the information that has gone to the provincial government, between levels of government, I guess, and information that has gone to...I guess whoever you would consider to be the traditional stakeholders in the field, settlement service providers and language training providers.
The Chair: Thank you. Please continue.
Ms Leung: Because of that, I think that leads to some concerns about process, in that there are already misunderstandings about what settlement renewal means or what it is about. I think you do need to be really clear about what your objectives are and what your principles are. I don't want to minimize that there is some concern that it does signal federal movement out of this field, and in a field where constitutionally the federal government has paramountcy, it is imperative that the federal government continue to play a strong and leading role in the funding of immigrant settlement programs and in the development of policies.
Some of the other people around this table have already talked about the partnerships we have in Alberta. In the new world of settlement renewal, I think we need to acknowledge the kinds of partnerships and processes that have worked, and also acknowledge the kind of infrastructure that has been developed and is working quite effectively in terms of the immigrant settlement delivery providers and the language training providers that we have in Alberta in particular. The kinds of things that have worked in the past do have to be acknowledged and built on.
I'll just talk a little bit about the integrated service program with you, because I think in terms of my understanding of settlement renewal - I don't know whether it's an accurate understanding or not - there are many things that the integrated service program has done which have the same kinds of objectives as settlement renewal.
One of those is coordination of services. Another is minimizing and streamlining accountability requirements of contracted organizations. Those are statements that I've read in settlement renewal documents, and the notion of streamlining is very important. Although accountability is important, we don't want to burden organizations with filling out meaningless forms and statistics, which is, as John mentioned, one of the difficulties of the settlement management information system - how meaningful is the information going to be?
As governments are interested in getting the most value for our dollars, we need to make sure that accountability is there, that the dollars go toward direct delivery of services to people who need it rather than time spent filling out meaningless forms. I'm going to give the settlement management information system and use that as another example.
In the development of the integrated services program we were very conscious of ensuring that we, as federal and provincial governments delivering settlement in this province, minimize and streamline our requirements. Then, nationally, they came out with the settlement management information system. Even though three years ago we had discussions about how we could make this national requirement responsive to the different method of delivery we have in Alberta, three years of discussion later we ended up with a system that was not remotely responsive to our method of delivery in Alberta, because the settlement management information system had no ability to give me the reports I needed as a provincial government. There was no ability for them to generate Alberta reports.
Therefore, under ISP, organizations have to do federal reports for the federal government, settlement management information system, and provincial reports for the provincial government, which is something we wanted to avoid - duplicate reporting - simply because we had a national system and a national program that wasn't responsive to a particular method of delivery in a province.
That's a good lesson in terms of settlement renewal in the future, that if settlement renewal truly wants to pool funding from a variety of funding sources and be responsive to local delivery, then whatever national accountability requirements you have must be able to be flexible to respond to what those differences are.
.1310
There are another couple of partnership examples I want to highlight in Alberta, and I believe some people this morning talked about the Calgary Multifunders Group. Because we in Alberta believe strongly in coordination of service delivery, since 1991 we have had a group of 700 sit around a table and meet regularly in Calgary to talk about issues around services to people in Calgary who have cultural and linguistic barriers. I'm not using the term ``immigrants'' because at some point these people stop becoming immigrants and start becoming citizens.
Around that table, not only do we have the federal-provincial immigration and settlement programs and language training funders, we also have the City of Calgary, the Calgary United Way, Human Resources Development, and Canadian Heritage. We have been meeting very regularly to talk about how we assess needs in our community and how we ensure that the broad spectrum of services that are required to provide seamless delivery is available in Calgary.
I think the Calgary multifunders process also provides some interesting lessons to learn in terms of future settlement renewal, that it does take a lot of time and work to ensure that you have the same objectives and that you're trying to reach the same goals. So I have concerns about some of the time lines that are in place for settlement renewal. If you really want it to be effective, then you're going to have to take the time to ensure that good discussion and dialogue and the appropriate understanding occur.
The Chair: Could I ask you to be brief? It was supposed to be introductory remarks, and you've gone over the time. We have to finish by -
Ms Leung: I'll just conclude by saying that I think the process is going to be tremendously important from the aspect of where the Department of Citizenship and Immigration takes it from here. That process is going to be really critical.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm sorry to have to cut you off, but we are limited in terms of the amount of time we have.
Ms Borisenko.
Ms Laurel Borisenko (Executive Director, Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers): My name is Laurel Borisenko. I'm the executive director of the Edmonton Mennonite Centre for Newcomers, which is also an immigrant- and refugee-serving agency in this city. I'm also the chair of the Alberta Association of Immigrant-Serving Agencies and just wanted to highlight that we also have a body in Alberta that works together to coordinate the needs of immigrants and refugees in this province.
I'd like to take the lead from Barbara in just asking a few questions and making some comments about the parameters of settlement renewal, because I have a concern that some of the background documents are based on presuppositions that I have to question. If some of the presuppositions are not accurate, then maybe there's not a good foundation for what is being built.
I think the first presupposition is that settlement renewal came out of the national consultations last year. Many of us who were involved in those consultations looked at each other and said we had never heard anything like this coming out of those meetings. I think this idea comes much more out of the Marcel Massé program review than it does out of the national consultations. If that is correct, I think there are some implications to that in terms of what the goals and objectives are going to be vis-à-vis cost savings.
There's also reference made to the discontinuance of Canada Immigration Centres in the administration and delivery of settlement services. CIC doesn't deliver settlement services. Other than the adjustment assistance program and occasionally airport pick-up, it's very confusing to me to say exactly what services you are not going to deliver. The agencies have always been the delivery mechanism, so I'm curious about that.
I'm also curious about statements that refer -
Ms Clancy: I think the difficulty.... I'm not looking at what you're looking at, but I think what it's talking about is the theory of the community advisory in the allocation of funding as opposed to the direct delivery of services.
Ms Borisenko: It is the administrative aspect of it, then.
Ms Clancy: Later, when I have a chance to talk, I'll deal with settlement renewal, because your presupposition is incorrect on that, too.
Ms Borisenko: Well, I -
Ms Clancy: I know, from your point of view. But I was right across the country. That's the answer.
.1315
Ms Borisenko: Maybe, with that preamble, I will make some comments on the three points you have outlined.
The first one is in reference to accountability measures. You said we should identify some tools that work and also tools that have not worked. I would just add my comment to those of John and to Barbara, who said, please, God, get rid of SMIS. That is all I'll say on that. I won't waste more time. It simply doesn't work.
In terms of meaningful measures, I think it would be good to note that when we're talking about measuring outcomes in the human service area, we are moving onto new ground. Nobody has done it really well or accurately and I think it's good to note that if there is an enduring role for the federal government, perhaps research into this very difficult and complex question would be a good place to start, in terms of how we measure qualitative kinds of services in an efficient and meaningful way.
I have a couple of points on that. If you're asking us to measure these services, we need to have the human resources in order to do that. At this point in time, because of the cumbersome nature of SMIS, for one full-time position we now spend 30% of the time doing paperwork. So there are some real concerns about identifying something that would be useful to measure but then having the resources to be able to collect that information.
The second point was about the nature of local advisory committees and how that would be structured. One question I would like to ask is whether local advisory committee is the correct term for what is described.
The Chair: There's no term. We're looking for something.
Ms Borisenko: I have a fax from your office that uses the term ``local advisory committee''. It's in my background -
The Chair: Just to clarify that, I said at the beginning, in my introductory remarks, that nothing is fixed in stone. There is absolutely nothing - and I want to make that very, very clear. It was a terminology we adopted, but we can change that. We're looking at types of models that work and that's why we are here. We are looking for your expertise.
Ms Borisenko: In terms of types of models, then, that may or may not work, I think we need to address the issue of resource allocation again, which goes back to the assumptions about what would be done and by whom at the local level.
If we are talking about administering this program, whatever local model or committee would be responsible to identify needs in the community, find a method of delivering these services, do the administration of the program, monitor and evaluate the service, my concern is that this cannot be done by a local committee of volunteers. John has already made reference to the fact that it's very difficult to find both expertise and neutrality in a volunteer committee that has time to do that.
In Alberta we have the example of the capital health authority, which has been set up to function in that way, and I think there's some real nervousness about that model. So again resources need to be available to administer a program of this complexity and size.
I would also like to add my agreement with John's comments about building on the ISP model that we already have in place in Alberta. Is there a way we could use this model and increase the amount of local participation, in terms of the decision-making, but maintain the administrative structure as it is now? When I make that comment, I am questioning one of the parameters that has been set out in settlement renewal, which is that the federal immigration department will be out of any involvement in local service delivery within two to three years. So I have to question the wisdom of those parameters.
The third point is perhaps the most difficult. I haven't heard too many comments, except to say that we need to do something about the enduring role of the federal government and the need for minimum national standards. I don't have any great answers or ideas today, except that we will need to set up some kind of appropriate process by which that question could be looked at, which involves multi-stakeholders from across the country. I think we have a model in our health care, minimum national standards, and maybe there's something in there that can inform us in terms of trying to ensure access and equity in small and large centres across the country, and balancing that access and that equity with the particular needs of the local community.
.1320
Those are the points I would make right now. Again, thank you for coming out and listening. I hope we can work together in a meaningful way in terms of coming up with some answers that would recognize what is already in place.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Ms Negi.
Ms Jayanti Negi (Executive Director, Millwood Centre for Immigrants): My name is Jayanti Negi and I would like to introduce myself and our centre briefly.
As early as 1974, when I was a graduate student at the University of Alberta, I recognized the need - for even very highly educated immigrants - for information that I did not have that would lead to very serious consequences in my life.
I happened to get a job with the Company of Young Canadians, which was a federal agency in 1974, but unfortunately it was dismantled by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1976.
I was hired to help newcomers and I established a home called New Canadian Home Base Project, having acquired a house at $1 a year from the City of Edmonton. That enabled me to look at all kinds of immigrants who were then coming and settling in the Dickinsfield area of the city.
Later on I started teaching English as a second language, and for 14 years I must have taught thousands of new Canadians of all ethnic origins. It made my sense only stronger that settlement services and special services for new Canadians are needed in order to mainstream them, and language wasn't the only issue.
All my colleagues here have in one way or another addressed language. Of course I cannot ignore that; it's a very, very vital part of integration.
I have been studying this document that was faxed to me and I want to say, to begin with, that I agree with the vision for settlement renewal that I see here. I particularly like the words ``flexibility, community-based, accountability and accommodation'' at the same time. They seem to form the lead motive in this vision. However, I have some very cautionary things to say.
In Alberta we have seen restructuring that has demoralized a whole lot of Albertans, because it has been too fast, and in some cases it has been thoughtless. What I am saying here is that there is no crisis as yet. As my colleagues have pointed out, the ISP model in Alberta, which of course is unique to Alberta and all of Canada, has been working, I would say, fairly well.
When the government restructures and attempts to put settlement renewal in its place, the vision in its place, there has to be a transitional period. I personally would like the government to govern, but if devolution has to occur, a credible model has to be found. What is not broken should not be fixed. I know I don't decide these things, but if a hasty devolution, which means allocation of funding to community agencies, is implemented in a hurry, it might result in big fish eating the small fish.
.1325
However, I repeat that the government's desire to share the responsibility for the settlement services with local communities is laudable.
Now, directly to the points, some of which have been made by people in passing, I would like to say that when newcomers become Canadian citizens, they do not magically become integrated or fluent in English. They can become citizens and even MPs in some cases, but they do not magically become fluent in both -
The Chair: I'll ask you to be brief, please. You've gone over your time. Thank you.
Ms Negi: Yes. So the LINC program at the moment does not admit citizens. I would like to say that citizens in this case are discriminated against in favour of landed immigrants.
Most often some newcomers come and start gruelling and brutal shift work in the service industry right away.
The Chair: I am going to cut you off now because I feel you're getting off topic.
Ms Negi: I will complete, then. Since we have a mechanism in place that tracks the 800 hours of free instruction to Canadians, I think citizens should be allowed into those classes if they have not availed themselves of those 800 hours of language instruction.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'll come back after, but I'll give everybody their minute.
Ms Philips.
Ms Shirley Philips (Administrative Assistant, School of Continuing Education, Edmonton Catholic Schools): Thank you.
I'm Shirley Philips and I'm here with Ken Lesniak, the director of continuing education for Edmonton Catholic Schools. I think our role here today is primarily that of an observer, to hear a little bit more about what this thing is we've been reading about, settlement renewal. We're also here as a vital partner in the services that are offered to newcomers in Edmonton.
Our particular expertise is in the area of LINC delivery. We also run a settlement program in the schools for children and parents who have recently arrived in Canada.
Of course, whatever happens in Alberta, and in Edmonton particularly, will impact the clients we have because we use the settlement services that are offered to our clients for referral purposes and information purposes. We're interested to know where that's going to go, so we're interested to know how our partnership with the Canada Immigration Centres will continue in the future.
Unless Ken has more to add to that, I think that's how we see our role today.
The Chair: Thank you.
We'll go on to Mr. Hanna, who drove all the way from Saskatoon with two other members to be with us today. We appreciate that.
Mr. Michael Hanna (Executive Director, Saskatoon Open Door Society): Marge is Canadian and proud of it. I'm from Saskatchewan and proud of it.
I'm the executive director of the Saskatoon Open Door Society, which is of course in Saskatoon. We've been providing services to immigrants since 1980. We provide ISAP, HOST, LINC, citizenship committee participation, and some HRDC programming.
The staff come from 11 countries. We have 14 languages on staff and we have volunteers who cover another 21 languages. The board is elected.
To the best of my knowledge, given the size of the agency, we have a higher proportion of volunteers than any other agency of which I am aware. I think that says a lot about the receptivity of the communities in which we live, certainly in western Canada.
I think it probably speaks well for the intention of the five-year plan to begin destining people to ``non-traditional'' areas. There may be a higher receptivity to resettling people in western Canada and certainly in some of the smaller centres, and that's an initiative contained in the five-year plan that I think is very appropriate and very positive.
.1330
Last year, in addition to the activities carried out by 400 volunteers, we interacted with not less than 66 community agencies in Saskatoon. So as an agency, certainly we are well connected; and I don't think that is unique to us. That's probably true of immigrant settlement agencies in general.
Given the nature of settlement and integration processes, it does, of course, cut across all service boundaries that are contained within a community. In effect, a settlement agency will access the services that are available in the community at some point or another.
I think the committee members have a very difficult task, because the settlement renewal process is essentially, to my perception, anyway, an intention that is seeking some substance. The intention has been stated. The substance is yet to be defined.
That's probably going to be a large task for you, and it is also made more difficult by the fact that a lot of what you are doing is trying to amalgamate apparently mutually exclusive goals. How do you maintain services while at the same time attempting to reduce overall funding, which has been a stated intent? How do you localize services and maintain national standards? How do you maintain national services when the intent is to withdraw from those? How do you obtain measurable results when you're dealing with multifaceted human services, much of which, if not most of which, is not amenable to effective measurement?
So the task of the committee certainly is formidable.
It is interesting to note that on the fax we all received the questions are largely structural in nature. Very little is said about the function of settlement and integration. How should we structure this? What does it look like? Who are the players? What are the pieces? How do they relate to each other?
I would like to get back to the point Mr. Schafer made right off the top.
I agree with you, sir. Let's not lose sight of what it is that we do; why it is our various organizations exist; in fact, in large measure, why it is that the federal department exists, which is to make sure the people who come to this country get the services they need to allow them to become informed, independent, and effective.
With the announcement of the intention of settlement renewal and several millions of dollars involved in this discussion, there is the danger that you'll get political action. You'll get organizations starting to talk about their organizational integrity: but what about me; what about my organization? Let us not lose sight of what it is we're all doing here and the purpose of that money. The purpose of that money is not to give me a job. The purpose of the money is to make sure people are effective citizens of this country. I hope that is borne in mind.
Another dichotomy I think the committee faces is this. I've been involved in a number of these, and what happens is that you hear from service providers, the people who work on the street. Their perspective is driven by quality service, not surprisingly, because they work directly with people. As it goes through a process, however, it eventually lands in the laps of people whose primary concern is not direct service. They're driven by political motivations, by fiscal motivations, and so on.
I would like to see in settlement renewal some process by which people who are involved in direct services are also involved in the decision. Participation in a seminar like this is not being involved in making decisions. It is simply providing information. I think it would be valuable for all concerned if direct-service providers had some say in the decision-making process, not simply providing information to people to make decisions.
Jim Critchley made a point I would like to support. I didn't support all of what he said, but certainly this point. The attempt to look at settlement processes without reference to employment is a bird with one wing. It will fly around in circles but it will not get anywhere.
.1335
I think everyone recognizes the importance of language training as being absolutely central and key to the whole process. If you do that without any provision for integrating people into the Canadian workforce effectively, quickly and at the level to which they should be participating, it's a non-settlement process or a partial settlement process. Employment has to be addressed.
I don't know if any of you remember Barbara McDougall's five-year plan. Do you remember back in the days when employment and immigration were the same department? There was no provision in that plan for employment either. Now we have two separate departments.
Quite frankly, I'm a little cynical, despite the stated intent of cooperation and partnership, that in fact that's going to happen. I think without some provision for effective employment training, this is not going to work particularly well. That's a point that I think is absolutely critical to this whole settlement renewal process.
I have all sorts of ideas about structures of local advisory committees and so on, but I will pass on that.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hanna.
I'll go to the members of the committee and I'll start with the parliamentary secretary Ms Clancy, and then Mr. Nunez.
Ms Clancy: I just want to say, first of all, that of the four sessions over the last two days, this one has far and away been the most interesting.
I'm going to start and I'm going to be brief, but I want to address a couple of things that I can answer for some of you.
First, I am reminded of what the late - maybe she's not dead - Kim Campbell said about being from the federal government and being there to help people, and those being the most chilling words in Canadian parlance. That clearly is true for a number of you around the table.
Second, let me say that as a member of this committee, as a member of Parliament and as a parliamentary secretary, I think maybe to some degree what we have here is a combination of really high and really low expectations. On the one hand, I can see you are not happy with what's been done. On the other hand, I'm terrified about what you think we might be capable of doing. On the third hand - and I am feeling like somebody with three hands, with one sticking out of the top of my head - there are just a couple of things.
First of all, Ms Borisenko, you said you'd never heard anything on settlement renewal coming out of the consult last year. Let me say that the consult last year was the broadest consult that had probably ever been done.
For example, there were sixteen meetings in major cities, eight of which were attended by the minister and eight by me. There were literally hundreds of smaller meetings, departmental retreats in regional offices, letters sent out, just scads and scads of ways to gather information. It was all brought back to the policy shop and then put together into the result of this consult.
I didn't attend the meeting in Edmonton, but I can assure you that at every one of the meetings that I attended, settlement renewal came up. Settlement renewal definitely did come from many sources, just to reassure you.
Second, it's interesting about what you said, Mr. Anchan, about neutrality and how neutral a group will be. Yesterday in Vancouver we heard them saying to keep the stakeholders off the group because there'll be too much of a conflict of interest. You see, that's just one of the things we're going to have to grapple with when looking at the advice from two places.
I think it's safe to say that when the federal government commits any action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I think that's somewhat what we're seeing here.
Can I reiterate what the chair said, that at this point there is, for example, no intent on anybody's part to write in stone the memos that were sent to you. Those were meant to be guidelines, meant to be frameworks.
Let me say secondly that there is at this point - and I would hope it would continue - no intent to withdraw from national standards. This is something our government is committed to. How we get there is another point, and we want to listen to you. Then I am going to shut up.
I'm just going to say one further thing, and this is in relation to what was said by Mrs. Negi. While the Company of Young Canadians, of which I too was a part, may have been dismantled by Mr. Trudeau, it was also set up by him.
Thank you.
Mr. Nunez: Could I speak in French?
.1340
[Translation]
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: I would like to thank you all for your excellent presentation. The people are more critical this afternoon than they have been in the past. As the critic for the Official Opposition, I really appreciate criticism.
Last year, there was some consultations at the government level. Unfortunately, the Opposition was not associated with these consultations. Someone congratulated the government for these consultations. The government did not undertake these consultations, this was done by a House of Commons committee. This explains my presence. If these were undertaken by the government, I would not be present.
The Chair: I would like the minutes to reflect that it was the minister who asked to conduct these consultations.
Mr. Nunez: That is true.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez: Some people have said - and quite rightly so, if feel - that these consultations have been done too quickly. I raised this issue before the Committee; however, it is a democratic committee and the majority ruled. You know who is the majority.
At the start, these consultations were scheduled for next year. Consequently, we would have had a lot more time. I must tell you that the organizations in Montreal have refused to participate in these consultations because they were not given an adequate amount of time to prepare their briefs, etc.
You have, in my opinion, raised some very interesting points, such as, for example the question of overlap. This is a very serious problem throughout the entire federal Public Service, and if we were to create new organizations, even if they were committees at the local level, we must avoid doing the same thing. There is a great deal of duplication in the organizations that I saw yesterday and today. There are organizations that do precisely or almost the same thing as others. We would be wise to look into this.
An important aspect of integration is the learning of one of Canada's two official languages. I understand that this is still a problem area. Not enough money has been earmarked for the key program, and not everyone has access to this program. There are women in the home who cannot take the course. There are refugees or people who have applied for refugee status who are not entitled to take the course. Finally, some are not entitled to take the course because of the fact that they have become citizens. You raised a very important point on this issue and I will bear this in mind for my future work at the House of Commons.
However, I would have liked to have seen you go into more detail with respect to the duration of benefits and services. Is a three year period adequate, given all of the integration problems experienced by new immigrants who come from underdeveloped countries and who have other cultures and other religions? It is becoming increasingly more difficult to gain acceptance in Canada because of anti-immigrant and, more particularly, anti-refugee feelings. I would like you to go into a bit more detail about this.
The role played by the municipalities is, in my mind, very important, because they are much closer to the citizens, much more so than the federal or provincial governments. Yesterday, we heard from the Mayor of Vancouver. Everything he told us was very interesting, especially what he had to say about the amount of money earmarked for settlement and integration.
Someone mentioned the reduced amount of funding available for settlement and integration programs. In my opinion, this is one of most serious problems. With all this obsession about the deficit and cutbacks, and from what I can see at the House of Commons, in the future less money will be available to fund settlement and integration programs, despite the fact that today the clientele is paying more and more for the services received, and here I'm referring to the $975 immigration tax and cost of citizenship services.
All of the rates have increased tremendously over the past year.
.1345
The Official Opposition is deeply concerned about this. I would like to hear what you have to say about this as well.
There is one other point: the question of program assessment. Yesterday and this morning, we talked about the need to have the clientele participate. According to all of the testimony given, you will be the ones who will manage the programs, and not the users of your programs, your clientele. It would be good if you could talk to us a bit about how this clientele views the matter.
[English]
The Chair: At this point in time I'd like to share with you some of the points of general consensus that were brought forward both in the Vancouver and this morning's sessions. I think some of them came up as we were going around the table this afternoon.
First, the federal government should assume a leadership role in determining with the settlement delivery community and its clients the overarching principles and national standards that govern the immigrant settlement system. Such principles and standards should make provision for some degree of local flexibility and local needs.
The local settlement community should have input into the decisions about local settlement needs and priorities. However, the allocative or funding decisions should be made by a body that has no vested interest in their outcome.
It is essential that the particular needs of children and women be taken into account when determining immigrant settlement services.
Local levels of government, municipalities and school boards should be at the table whenever settlement decisions are made. Federal funds destined for settlement programs should be earmarked for this purpose.
It is importance to have employment and language training for successful integration.
There should be communication across different regions across Canada, in terms of projects. What works in one part of the country perhaps could be used as a model to work in the rest of the country.
We talked about the grassroots knowledge, your expertise, and having direct input into the renewal process.
We addressed the importance of avoiding duplication, of reporting requirements, which should flow from the fact of having it transferred to one body.
We also talked about the length of time during which settlement services should be available to immigrants. Funding criteria should take into account the readiness of the client, regardless of their length of residence in Canada.
There should be public information about immigration to combat racism and any anti-immigrant backlash that exists.
I'd like to thank you also for talking about the ISP model here in Alberta. You obviously have forged something unique in this country and it is the type of model that perhaps we should be looking at in terms of what we want to do with settlement renewal.
[Translation]
We will now proceed with the question and answer period. Everyone will have two minutes, and I'm going to be very strict because we do not have a great deal of time. We must conclude before 4.00 p.m.
[English]
Did everybody get that? I'll repeat it, if you like.
We'll begin with two minutes. We'll try to make it a free-flow type of conversation. I'll be flexible in terms of the time, but I will also be strict if we want to finish before 3.45 p.m.
The members of the committee can come forward with questions at any time.
Ms Borisenko.
Ms Borisenko: Thank you. I appreciate the points you made, Mr. Nunez.
We hope the issue of eligibility of people who have been here longer than three years will be on the table to be decided by local committees. That's a question we do have: what is actually on the table and what the federal government is going to maintain control of.
.1350
One concern I have is about the words ``partnership'' and ``duplication''. In our experience, we don't see a lot of duplication of services. We see more gaps in services to refugees and immigrants. My concern is that as other partners come in partnership to serve the needs of immigrants and refugees, two years down the road, will that be called duplication of services? That's one concern I have about how resources are used and how they are seen a little later down the road.
I have one last point. In the Alberta model we have here, there are some real strengths we want to build on, but I hope settlement renewal will perhaps provide the opportunity for more flexibility, because I think our experience here is that the federal government has not been flexible within this model.
This is not a result of the local level. In Edmonton and Calgary we have very good cooperation on a regional level, but the regulations that come from Ottawa are written in stone. There really has been very little flexibility. The comments Barbara has made and her experience of the provincial partner saying there was no room for negotiation on the settlement management information system...and the result has been a system that is absolutely unworkable. So my hope is that settlement renewal will actually provide an opportunity now to be flexible in action and not just in word.
The Chair: Ms Negi, I'll let you finish.
Ms Negi: Thank you. That's very kind.
I am very interested by what you said came up in Vancouver, about its being regardless of the length of time. I really have no hesitation -
The Chair: It also came up this morning from the other groups that were here.
Ms Negi: I really have no hesitation in advocating for those who miss out on these 800 hours of free English instruction.
I have some other serious concerns. They have to do with what is being generally taught now. We are encouraging the rich to come in. Right now our policy prefers the rich to come into this country. We advertise in the Middle East.
My information is from a magazine called India Today, which is a very prestigious magazine. Apparently the Government of Canada advertises in the Middle East. Under that program, under the investors clause, 700 families of Indian origin came into Canada last year. We also know a lot of very well-off people are coming from Hong Kong. If we are assuming those immigrants will be able to pay for their own settlement services, it may be true, because they may be able to pay. But we also must not forget those who cannot pay.
My second thought on this subject is that settlement is not the only issue here. It has already come up. Integration and empowerment are also issues. Race relations are also issues, because these newcomers must share our power tables, and for that empowerment is needed. Today they are recipients of services, but tomorrow they are taxpayers and make contributions in Canada in all walks of life.
In the last ten years we haven't seen an appreciable increase in numbers of immigrants. What we have seen, however, is that the face-scape is changing. I call them invisible immigrants and visible immigrants. Visible immigrants are the ones whose third generation gets asked where they are from and if they are Canadians, and they are still resented.
Obviously we need to understand the needs of those visible immigrants. Of course, visible immigrants also happen to have more difficulty with languages.
.1355
Finally, on the local communities' sharing and forming advisory committees, I think we have to be very careful here. In order to be equitable, we have to consider the non-profit organizations, because they are mostly headed by well-meaning volunteers whose only motive is to serve the community better. Also, we need to preserve the secular nature of allocating funding in order to avoid future demands on the part of various religious groups to access funding.
I think I'll give up a couple of points.
The Chair: I just have a question from Ms Clancy to you, Ms Negi.
Ms Clancy: I don't understand what you mean by the secular nature.
Ms Negi: Okay, I could spell it out.
Ms Clancy: That might be a good idea.
Ms Negi: I mean, for example, church-driven and a particular religion-driven delivery of settlement services.
Ms Clancy: I'm afraid you're going to have to be clearer than that. I don't know what you mean.
Ms Negi: For example, let's say we are funding the Hindu Society of Alberta or the Islamic Family and Social Services Association or, for that matter, Catholic Social Services. That opens the door to future demands of saying what about the needs of other particular religious groups of immigrants. We could say the Bosnian Muslims or Serbians and so on and so forth.
Ms Clancy: I'm sorry; I'm thick. Do you understand?
The Chair: I think we'll continue because I have quite a lot of speakers on the list. How about during the break?
Ms Clancy: I just think this is obviously something.... Clearly you're getting into some form of fear or prejudice.
Ms Negi: I'm thinking of Ontario, where -
The Chair: May I suggest that during the break we -
Ms Clancy: No, I think it should be on the record, Madam Chair. I want to know what it is. If it's a fear, it should be on the record.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Ms Negi: It's because if we are a secular country, then we have to take special care that this does not happen.
Ms Clancy: That what doesn't happen? That's what I don't understand. Are you talking about selection of immigrants?
The Chair: Selection or funding?
Ms Clancy: Or is funding separate? What are you talking about?
Ms Negi: These days there is a lot of -
Ms Clancy: Spell it out. I'm not going to hit you.
Ms Negi: I did; I did. I said services that are driven -
The Chair: Can I help? Are you referring to funding of certain groups that have religious connotations?
Ms Negi: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you.
That's what she's referring to.
Ms Clancy: But in what -
Ms Negi: Because that might have an effect on the future. Why such and such group and why not this group and why not that group?
The Chair: Ms Clancy, this is your last one.
Ms Clancy: All right, except I think it's important. The point is that this morning, someone from the Catholic Social Services spoke about non-denominational, and I stopped her and said, what do you mean? You're Catholic. She said, yes, but our services are open to all immigrants. So if you're talking about people with -
Ms Negi: That's what I'm talking about.
Ms Clancy: Well, you haven't put it on the table yet. You're saying people will only provide services to people of their own religious group?
Ms Negi: Or are seen to be doing that.
Ms Clancy: Okay. I would suggest to you that there are already safeguards in place to ensure that does not become.... I'm aware of what you're talking about, but I wouldn't overreact to that danger.
.1400
Ms Negi: I'm not overreacting either, but I'm saying the potential is there.
Ms Clancy: There's a lot of legislation to prevent it.
Mr. Ken Lesniak (Director, Continuing Education, School of Continuing Education, Edmonton Catholic Schools): In response to the comments that were just made, Edmonton Catholic Schools, for example, is very heavily involved in the delivery of language training to the greater Edmonton community. We certainly are not serving Catholics; we are serving the greater Edmonton community as one of the many players you see around the table. I don't think that is a concern at all.
However, I would just like to affirm and support some of the comments that were made concerning what seems to be developing as a pattern in your consultations held in Vancouver and here. I commend that school boards are part of the consultation and are at the table. They are very much affected by settlement and integration issues in Alberta and in this country. I think it's important that they have an opportunity to be heard.
I also would like to also commend that the funds that come from the federal government in this area have to be earmarked. The federal government has a tremendous track record of ensuring that their resources are actually spent on the clients and given to the clients, far more than many other areas and levels of government. I think that's very important and there should be protection so that occurs as we go through this transition.
Finally, I think it's imperative that the issue of employment be very much a part of not just language training and settlement but the goal of assisting our new Canadians to enter the labour force as rapidly as possible to become contributing, employed members of our society.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you for being brief and to the point.
Ms Bruk: I want to respond to a comment from Ms Clancy about the issue of benchmarks, just for the record. The benchmark document that's currently being circulated and is under discussion in the country is a draft document. The comments you're hearing from participants at these committees would be in reaction to the draft.
The field test that is proceeding has in fact been eliciting a lot of feedback around revisions that will be made. I think it's critical that the committee is aware it's hearing comments about a draft.
I'd also add that the field test contractor was in Alberta last week, so people have certainly had an opportunity to put that.
The other thing about benchmarks that I don't know has really been highlighted is they are actually meant not just for settlement providers such as language providers but also for stakeholders such as learners, employers and so on. So there is at least the intent to have those people very heavily involved in and served by the benchmarks.
Ms Iman Abdou (Program Coordinator, Canadian Arab Friendship Association): I have something to share with you. I have been here four years, so maybe I am from the newcomers. It took me a year and a half to know what services I could have in Canada, especially in this Edmonton society. This is the main issue I'm trying to convey to everybody: how immigrant people know about these services.
I was forced to sit in Edmonton because of the Gulf crisis, and Canada in general. I selected Edmonton because of many things, such as the Arabic community and the bilingual programs in the schools. So I came to Edmonton. But it took me a year and a half to know.
I was directed to go to religion centres, as she said. But on the other hand, it's too tight. They don't have the funds to inform the people about these services and how to deal with these services.
.1405
The main reason I'm here is to say you have to direct these people to these services and tell them after they know English - In my country I learned how to read and write English, but I can't express myself very easily. It took me time to know that. It took me time also to know about our community.
We have a very big association; it's now been working for 31 years. I've been working with them voluntarily since I came here. They don't have the funds to serve these people. They are serving the people voluntarily most of the time. Now we have a special project to welcome them, but it takes time to have these services.
I'm a computer programmer. When I came here I didn't need English and I didn't need any evaluation of my university certificates to work as a computer programmer, because it's the same. But until now I haven't found a job here. I applied everywhere.
This is the lack, I find. Nobody can tell people where to start and where to put their hands to integrate into the society. These are the main things I wanted to know about here.
She was talking about religious groups. In my understanding, she said from the names you feel it. If you say it's an Islamic centre, I feel it is only for Islamic people, so I can't target these people and ask them for service or to direct me. It's the same with the Catholic Social Services. Now that I'm working with the association, I know Catholic Social Services can provide services and help for everybody.
Immigrants don't know about these things. When they are here and they have the papers to go to Canada or anywhere, in my view the immigration department must have a way to tell these people where to start.
We need to know the English language. Maybe I have difficulty. Most of the people have difficulty with even the English accent. The society is different from that of our countries. We don't know what is provided here.
Thank you.
Ms Nainaar: I think more people should be sent to Saskatchewan. It's easier to integrate people there, because for us in Saskatchewan, integration and adaptation are lifelong processes.
The Chair: As the woman from Moose Jaw said this morning, we should all move to Saskatchewan.
Ms Nainaar: People are talking about racism and so on. I'd like to say that I also belong to the Saskatchewan Association of Immigrant Settlement and Integration Agencies, and we have designed a manual that has case studies and workshops to train people and to train trainers.
Another thing I want to say is that some incentive is necessary to prepare the host community to receive newcomers. I don't think we talked about that; it is very important. My organization has been in existence for 32 years - 20 years with no funding and the last 12 years with funding.
I want to make a point about your first question on decision-making: how and where decisions should be made, who should be involved and so on. As a person from Saskatchewan, I feel we are left out so much. Most of the federal people have not even visited; they tell us they just fly over Saskatchewan. I think it's necessary for the federal people to come to Saskatchewan and get firsthand information about what we really do there.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Just on that point alone, for us to travel we need the authorization of all the parties in the House of Commons. I will leave it at that for the moment.
I also want to put on the record, just for your information, that all members of Parliament were invited to our session no matter which party they belong to. Whatever city or province we were at, it was made known that we welcomed input from all political parties.
We had to make a choice on where to visit, and it's never easy to make the choice. People are feeling hurt in Winnipeg because we're not going to Winnipeg, and people are feeling hurt that we're not going to Hamilton.
.1410
Just to correct something that Mr. Nunez said, Montreal has been put on stand-by, Mr. Nunez, only because of the fact that it fell on a Friday just before Canada Day and a lot of the groups felt that they couldn't come because some of them took Friday off or Monday off of that week. So we are going to hold the Montreal session in the fall.
Ms Nainaar: And Saskatchewan in the spring.
The Chair: I won't say no, but as I said, we cannot travel without authorization from all the parties in the House of Commons.
We have Ms Leung and then Mr. Nunez.
Ms Leung: I just wanted to make two points, one of them is to reiterate a statement that was made earlier. There seems to be a lot of concern about overlap and duplication, which is probably the message that came out of the public consultations that got translated into settlement renewal. Mr. Nunez also talked about duplication.
Ms Clancy: No.
Ms Leung: No? Okay. I stand corrected there.
I think it's interesting that both in Calgary and Edmonton when the seven centres got together and did a huge spreadsheet to look at what we were funding that was at all related to individuals with cultural and linguistic barriers, there was very little overlap and very little duplication. I think because governments at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels, as well as United Way, are so concerned about that, instead we have gaps, as Laurel had mentioned. I think it's interesting that I'm not sure whether we have very much duplication and overlap in funding at all.
The other point I want to make, and it's one that hasn't been raised yet but that I have a lot of concern about, is that I understand that Citizenship and Immigration is also making very major changes to its refugee program. I have no idea; I tried many ways and many times to try to find out information on that. But settlement renewal will be a very fundamental change in terms of how services are provided. I think that a very large element of the current ISAP and AAP delivery is, of course, services to refugees. So I think it's very important that the changes occurring in refugee programs are running in sync or are coordinated in some way with what's happening with settlement renewal.
The Chair: Did you want to add anything, Ms Clancy?
Ms Clancy: It's your idea. I've certainly made no comments about either overlap or duplication in my comments.
Ms Leung: It's one of the objectives we continually -
Ms Clancy: Again, you may see that, but I just want to make it quite clear that I didn't make that comment.
Ms Leung: No, I didn't say you did.
Ms Clancy: I just wanted to make that very clear.
There is no question that we are talking much more about gaps than we are about overlap in certain parts of the country. But I think it is important to remember that there are different situations. The difference in the tenor of the meetings in Vancouver and Edmonton was absolutely amazing. Clearly, the difference between Saskatchewan and everywhere else in the country is absolutely -
Ms Leung: Stellar.
Ms Clancy: But we will also, I know, hear a different story again in Toronto and a different story in Halifax.
So I think it's important for all of you reading the backgrounder to know that we're pulling information from everywhere in the country, and this is one of the most difficult things, to try to help to forge a national policy that doesn't diminish anyone. It's kind of like toast and ice. But we are here to hear from you what you want, and a lot of the things in that backgrounder are to generate discussion and not to unduly frighten you or to suggest to you that we're taking a path that no decision has been made on yet. That includes refugees, I might add, Ms Leung.
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I want to talk about overlap and duplication. I realize every day, in Ottawa, that there is overlap and duplication in a lot of departments and also in the immigration field.
For instance, there is a Quebec Delegation. It is next to the Embassy. If an immigrant wants to come to the province of Quebec, he must go through the Quebec Delegation and the Canadian Embassy. If we could only eliminate this! The problem is that the province and the federal government share jurisdiction in the field of immigration and the province of Quebec keeps asking for more powers in this field. But, according to the Constitution, the federal government also has responsibilities in this field.
.1415
There was a lot of squabbling and, in part, the problem was settled through agreements signed over the years. But there is duplication. I don't know what the situation is like here, and that is why I'm asking the question. In the vocational training sector, it is simply unbelievable. A minister in Quebec told me that we spend $250 million more simply because of overlap and duplication.
There also is the issue of religious groups. I think Ms Negi made a very valid comment. We must be careful. In the old days, it was not very difficult because there were not that many religions in this country, but today, new immigrants bring new religions and we have to be very careful.
In Toronto - and we always congratulate them - there are inter-church committees for refugees. Ten churches work together. I think this is a remarkable example.
Today, you haven't mentioned children. There are no school boards represented. The issue was raised yesterday in Vancouver. Children's integration creates very specific problems in school. If 25 different nationalities are represented in one school, how can we deal with the children's integration?
I listened very closely to the comments made by a representative from Prince Albert. There's no problem in that city. There's no anti-immigrant or anti-refugees feelings. I don't know how this happened. I think you can tell us what the solution is because I have noticed in Canada more and more problems in all regions. No city is safe from discrimination, xenophobia or racism. It would be desirable for every province to have a human rights commission. I receive an always increasing number of complaints in that regard.
Then, there is the accountability issue. Some have said that their group spends 25% to 30% of its time dealing with administrative issues. I don't know if you have examples of accountability processes that would mean a lighter administrative burden? If the federal government is responsible for this situation, does it mean that, for example, its standards are higher than those of the provincial government or of the United Way? That is an issue that has been raised several times and I would like to know what you think about it.
That will be all for now.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Nunez.
[English]
I'll take one more speaker, Mr. Hanna, before we take a five-minute biological break.
Mr. Hanna: I'll try to keep this to two minutes.
First, in response to your concerns, sir, I never did suggest that there was no anti-immigration backlash in Saskatoon, or the existence of no racism at all. What I did suggest was that in Saskatoon, with which I am most familiar - and I'm certainly familiar with other western centres - I think the population as a whole is more receptive to immigration than may be case in the larger urban centres.
In terms of the public education initiatives that may be contained in a settlement renewal, that's an element that has to be addressed across the country and should continue to be addressed across the country. However, again, I think western Canada may be more receptive to that cultural variety than may be the case in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, based on my limited experience.
The Chair: I'm going to allow a comment from Ms Nainaar because it's on the same point, and then we'll go for a break.
Thank you, Mr. Hanna.
Ms Nainaar: First, I'm an ex-immigrant. I'm from South Africa and I came to Canada 26 years ago. I come from a very affluent city, one of the best holiday resorts in the world, Durban, with 2.5 million people. When my husband got a little job in a village of 350 people with dirt roads and no streetlights, I cried for six months and I said I'm not staying here. But the people opened their arms to us and we stayed there.
.1420
My point is that in a small place such as Saskatchewan people are more receptive to new people because our population is so low and we want to raise our population.
Members of all the settlement agencies in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, plus our provincial organization, make a point of being guest speakers on our own time, after our work hours, and we are constantly talking to organizations about what we do, who we are and so on.
After two years in that little town, I became an alderman. After four months, I became president for six years. So the little places are deceptive to newcomers, and that's why in Saskatchewan we don't have that. Newcomers like me - I was a newcomer and am very proud to be in Saskatchewan and Canada - are part of the community from day one.
All our settlement agencies in Saskatchewan make sure it's the method we use. There's no victimization, that I'm a victim of South Africa or that racism was a law in South Africa. This is Canada; I came to make my home here and I'll put my shoulder to the wheel. For most of the newcomers to Saskatchewan, that is what we give them.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Off the record, why do you vote Reform?
Ms Nainaar: Because I want to change their minds.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chair: I'm sorry. That's why I said ``off the record''.
We'll take a five-minute pause.
.1428
PAUSE
.1435
The Chair: Shall we continue? Before we do and before I take another speakers list, there were three people from the last speakers list who still haven't had their chance.
I would like to try to focus the discussion a little bit. I and other members of the committee are very interested in hearing from you about the national standards. What do you consider is the national standard? Should there always be a standard for language training in settlement programs?
Are there any other overarching principles that you think have to be part of any future agreement that the federal government may reach with whatever body is set up to distribute the funds that are available in the settlement programs?
I would like to focus on those questions because we only really have an hour left.
We will begin with Mr. Critchley.
Mr. Critchley: As a matter of fact, I wanted to talk a little bit about the accountability issue. As far as the benchmarks are concerned, I have seen a copy of the draft, and as far as I am concerned, I think it's a minor miracle that draft is actually in existence and that it is going forward as a process.
Whatever is produced for accountability of language training programs will never be good enough, because it's a soft science. But I think what we have at the moment is a pretty good base from which to go forward. Speaking for Alberta Vocational College, I'm in favour of the benchmarks.
Second, I should mention that the Province of Alberta also has a document called the Best Practice Guidelines for English as a Second Language, which was produced by the department of advanced education and career development. It's set up in a different way, but it also has produced standards by which deliverers are judged and I think that also has wide acceptance.
Those are my two comments on accountability.
The third comment I had, which isn't related to that, is that I'm a little unclear about the standing committee. As I understand it, this standing committee is one way of getting feedback into settlement renewal, and there is other consultation by the bureaucracy of CIC? Is that correct?
The Chair: Yes. We report directly to the House and then that report, of course, goes directly to the minister and the department.
Do you want to add anything, Mary, on this?
Ms Clancy: Just to say I report even more directly to the minister involved.
The Chair: Yes, and quicker.
Mr. Critchley: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you also.
Ms Borisenko, please.
Ms Borisenko: I just wanted to respond to the question asked by Mr. Nunez in which he asked for clarification or more information.
I had made reference to the fact that the reporting requirements we're now trying to meet - and this is as of April 1 this fiscal year - were taking up 25% to 30% of our staff time, and we are actually trying to record and keep track of this.
.1440
Yes, this is a national initiative. This is the initiative several of us have made reference to, the settlement management information system, which in the past we didn't have the flexibility to negotiate with the province, to say, ``Could we come up with a way to collect meaningful data that would tell us something about the value of the services that we are delivering and the number of people that we're serving? Can we collect this in a way that is meaningful to the province and to the federal government as well as to the agency?'' We simply failed. We did not come up with this. What we have is a system that forces us to measure volume of service.
John had made mention of recording the number of minutes on the phone, the number of minutes to send a fax on behalf of a client, and yet performance outcome is missing. There is no code for us to measure job placement, which we certainly would consider as being a mark of success of our employment programs - that we help someone to find a job.
We have, in so-called consultations with people from Ottawa, pointed these things out, and we found that really after three years there were just no changes made in this system. That is why I've referred to this as just a nightmare. I have a whole staff of settlement workers whom I beg every day not to quit because of the nightmare, and the system is forcing us into cost-ineffectiveness in terms of service delivery.
It's something we're all very emotional about and irritated with right now. I'm assuming that with settlement renewal this will have to come to an end, because if local committees are deciding on priorities and how to measure them, we cannot have a system imposed by Ottawa.
I brought this point up at the last consultation we had and said, look, if you're coming with this two- to three-year transition plan of settlement renewal, surely now is the excuse and appropriate time to give this up. And the answer that has come down from Ottawa is no, we're not yet ready to do that.
Perhaps that's a question that could go back to the minister's office. When will you be ready?
The Chair: Ms Abdou.
Ms Abdou: I want to speak about the youth integration, which was mentioned. In my view, to integrate the youth into society, the educators themselves must be educated about ethnic cultures.
This is a gap we find at the Canadian Arab Friendship Association. We have a youth project that is in its second year. We have been successful in this project in building a bridge between the school, the society and the community, and in putting aside what is called racism and these things between ``white'' Canadians and the other communities.
So this is the main point, that the federal government concentrates on how the youth can be integrated in the school, through our project, or through other integration projects. This is the point I wanted to clarify.
The Chair: Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Hanna: In terms of national standards there is, in my perception anyway, a problem. If the federal government is in fact attempting to disengage itself from a process and at the same time retain the ability to define and monitor national standards, I think that's contradictory. It is entirely possible for a federal government to establish, through such exercises as the benchmarks, national standards.
But if the intent is in fact to withdraw from the provision of services, by what possible means is the federal government going to monitor that? Is the federal government going to have any influence over local decision-makers regarding their application of national standards? It is contradictory.
National standards I think exist if there is a very strong central presence and authority. But if the purpose of the exercise - and I understand in part the purpose of the exercise - is to devolve authority to the local communities, you have lost the opportunity to have any national standards. You will de facto have local standards.
.1445
Ms Clancy: I disagree with that.
Mr. Hanna: Excellent.
Ms Clancy: I do this quite frequently.
The reason I disagree is that I think you can have national standards, broad-based, basic levels, below which we would never go. But the form of delivery, the manner of delivery, and the specifics do vary quite substantially from place to place. I've seen it already in the last two days. I know it's different in my home city of Halifax.
Different people come to different places for different reasons. There are different facilities. Language I think we all take as basic. That's the first.
Somebody said - I don't know if it was Mr. Critchley - we were talking just about language, and I disagree with that too. I think we're talking about more than language. If you don't have language, not much else matters. But along with language there are other facilities that are necessary, there are other services that are necessary, in particular - and I hate to keep beating the same horse; excuse the expression - for women and children. Those will vary depending on the city and the place. I think to a degree that's what we are talking about when we talk about the local committees or the local advisory boards, whatever you want to call them.
I hesitate to say anything, because I think I scare everybody whenever I say anything, but it's just sensible to think that in Saskatoon you're probably going to know more about what your clientele needs, and it may not be the same thing, or it may not need to be delivered in the same manner, as for somebody else living in downtown Vancouver or in Halifax or in Prince Albert.
That's where I think we can differ.
Mr. Hanna: The point I'm making is not on the establishment of national standards. The point I'm making is on how you enforce them in the absence of a federal presence.
Ms Clancy: Take away the money.
You're shaking your head, Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Hanna: Yes; and that is all that's left at that point in terms of national standards. Ultimately we've been talking about local allocation and the make-up of local committees, and it has to be neutral and so on. But ultimately the allocation is federal, and it's two regions or two local committees or whatever.
That is presumably the authority the federal government would retain: holding the purse-strings. If you do not adhere to these standards, then the money will be withdrawn; which I can see may bring you into some real problems if you start getting into federal-provincial disputes over what the standards may be or should be or must be. That may become very problematic in the administration of nationally equitable programs in the country if there is a disagreement, because the only authority the feds have at that point is withholding the resources necessary; and that -
Ms Clancy: That's the only authority we've ever had.
Mr. Hanna: Well -
Ms Clancy: Well, some power of appointment.
The other thing is that we would probably also retain a power of appointment. I'm free-associating here, but that's what we've asked you to do too.
Mr. Hanna: Yes, understood.
Ms Clancy: I can see in the city of Halifax...and again, nobody has addressed this except Mr. Anchan, very briefly: the question of who would be on these local authorities, if you will. I can see it might end up being appointments at all three levels of government. We have lots of boards and commissions that are in that capacity right now.
So between the purse-strings and power of appointment, maybe we would take control. Maybe we would have a five-person board and we would appoint three of them. I think any of these things are open for discussion.
But those are the two areas the federal government has always had, in a whole variety of areas. I don't think that's as difficult as you might be suggesting.
Mr. Hanna: I hope you're right.
Ms Clancy: I hope I'm right too.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, did you wish to add anything?
.1450
Mr. Nunez: I agree with you because there is, indeed, a contradiction. On the one hand, the federal government wants devolution, and on the other, it wants some control.
In another area, for example, labour, the federal mininum wage is $4. This is outrageous. At the provincial level, the minimum everywhere is $5, $6 or $7. What kind of example is the federal government giving us?
In Quebec, because we have a special situation and a distinct society, there is a lot of reluctance about national standards. Everyone is happy as long as they can do better than the federal government.
From what I've seen yesterday and today, there is quite a difference between the French and the English sides. The federal government plays a greater role here. You are more in favour of centralization. In Quebec, it is just the opposite, we prefer decentralization and we do not appreciate the interference of the federal government in a lot of areas. This is what I discovered and it is why I share your views.
[English]
Ms Nainaar: Mr. Nunez was asking about how we involve the children. Take Saskatchewan again; all of us work very closely with the schools. In October the Saskatchewan Association of Immigrant Settlement and Integration Agencies is having a conference in which we are making a presentation to the educators - it's a provincial conference - on settlement and on cross-cultural workshops that we do.
Mr. Nunez: Congratulations.
Ms Bruk: Speaking as an individual in Calgary, I am quite comfortable with the degree of intervention that the federal government has exercised with regard to national standards. I would certainly welcome a further role in that. That's my first point.
The second point is this. I'd just like to query the issue about authority and dollar allocation and so on. If in fact you would consider - Ms Clancy, I think this is directed at you - such a strong role of the federal government on these local or regional groups, how significantly different would that be from what you have now? Are you just thinking about eliminating the infrastructure of CIC, for example? Have I really missed something?
Ms Clancy: As I said to Mr. Hanna, I'm free-associating here. I was responding in that case to Mr. Hanna's concerns about the maintenance of national standards. I suggested that this is one way to maintain national standards; there may indeed be others.
The main reason we're here is to hear what you people think about just those very things. The floating of a trial balloon and the shooting down or implementation of it has been the hallmark of this government in the last year and a half. It's probably worrying a number of you to a degree.
This is not what this is. I'm purely free-associating. That's what I was doing. Whether it's status quo or whether it's a radical change, all of that is still in the future.
You tell us what you think. We'll take it back and make those recommendations. At this point, I have no strong opinion on the matter other than that I believe in the maintenance, as do all of you, clearly, of national standards.
.1455
Ms Bruk: So the status quo or some version of the status quo is still possible for administration. I don't feel frightened by that; I feel relieved. Thank you.
The Chair: I'd like to add a little about a number of things. I've spent fifteen years in Quebec dealing with immigration and cultural communities, and I was working at the ministry of culture, communities and immigration.
As you know, Quebec has special status - if you want to call it that - a special agreement with the federal government on immigration, and it works quite well. It fits the needs of the Quebec government and the Quebec population. At the same time the federal government hasn't totally washed its hands and said, we're not going to do anything, we'll let them do it all.
I think we're looking at something like that. Maybe that could be one model. As we said, we're all free-associating because there is nothing written down, despite the rumours that are circulating.
I'd like to throw down something else on the table. Would you feel comfortable if the various programs or moneys were all pooled together and then the local authorities decided how they wanted to spend the money? If they wanted to spend all the money, for instance, on language training, then they could. If they wanted to spend it on the LINC or HOST programs, then they could do that too.
Would this be a good idea? That is one possibility. The money is given down at the local level and the local level decides that language training is not one of their priorities. It is the HOST program and they spend all the money on the HOST program. Have you any comments, Ms Negi?
Ms Negi: It sound alarming. As I said, I'd prefer that the government govern. It sounds alarming and it's very dangerous to let the whole thing go into the hands of....
This integrated service plan seems to be work better than giving the whole thing to a provincial body and saying, do what you like with it. I don't think we would be very comfortable with that in Alberta.
Is that what you were -
The Chair: No, I'm not suggesting that at all.
Ms Negi: You were suggesting that -
The Chair: We have time for discussion, so -
Ms Negi: We know that Quebec has authority to spend settlement money the way it wants.
The Chair: That's right.
Ms Negi: But I don't know if that would be a feasible thing to do in Alberta. In Alberta a stronger role should be played by the federal government because of the climate of cuts and the climate of anti-immigrant feeling that exist here.
The truth is that here in Alberta we have never had more than 7.4% of the total immigrants, and still there is this anti-immigrant feeling, so it wouldn't be wise to leave it totally in the hands of the provincial government.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
Ms Borisenko.
Ms Borisenko: I think I agree with what Jay is saying. In principle the idea of local decision-making is very laudable and it's something we would support.
Maybe it is the nature of the structure of that decision-making. We have a lot of nervousness when we're presented with vague possibilities without some specific kind of structures.
When you say, well, would it be a good idea to just pool all the money and take this to a local level to decide, of course we're all asking: what local level, made up of what people, under what kind of parameters? The problem is that we're all feeling around in the dark on those questions.
So I don't think we can say yes or no to that kind of question without having some ideas. I myself have been thinking about the kind of structure that would be workable at the local level, I can't think of a good structure that has the neutrality.
Maybe that's why the combination of saying, could we have a broader kind of advisory committee that involves some immigrants and refugees themselves as well as a variety of stakeholders.... It would then provide the input to this administrative structure.
.1500
Now, our administrative structure involves the province and the federal CIC department. Maybe that's a more workable model because it's already in existence. It's something we can alter in a way that we decide in Alberta and at the local level.
Mr. Hanna: One element of a national standard is probably long overdue. That would be regardless of the ultimate structure, the agency that is providing the services and the eventual mix of services. A standard to which the federal government should adhere is multi-year funding agreements. It becomes very difficult to plan any kind of program or service when the operational year effectively is 10 months.
We in the immigrant settlement agency have been arguing for this as long as I've been around, which is a long time. With respect to responsible administration, be it federal, provincial or municipal, just to allow for the integration of services, effective planning and evaluation, which is a term that comes up over and over again, it's very difficult to design those sorts of programs and program elements when you're not really sure if you're going to be around in eight months.
Certainly at the delivery agencies, what tends to happen is that probably the most predictable and administratively the easiest thing to do is to do what you did last year because that's a known factor.
Given the existence of all of these one-year funding agreements, what surprises me more than anything is the degree of creativity and initiative that does exist despite this. The results in terms of new initiatives, creative ideas and creative solutions would be greatly enhanced by the degree of security that could be provided through multi-year funding agreements.
Now, that is a national standard that would have an immediate and beneficial impact.
Ms Clancy: I would like to come back to what Laurel said earlier. To reiterate what we have been saying, we're not necessarily expecting you to give us the perfect model today or indeed at some time in the future. But keep in mind that we would like to hear from you with any suggestions on this and on any of the areas we're talking about.
We didn't really expect that we'd come in and you'd say, here it is, I've just been waiting for you to come into the Hotel MacDonald and ask us. We do understand. We don't have all the answers either - trust me or not, as the case may be.
The Chair: Any other comments? Yes, Mr. Hanna.
Mr. Hanna: Just one more. That's it; I promise.
The Chair: No, no, please go ahead. We have time.
Mr. Hanna: Okay. This gets back again to the question of evaluability, program evaluation, and so on.
One thing frequently happens in human services that is problematic in the whole area regardless of the nature of the service. If an agency or an organization is involved in the design and delivery of preventive programs - and many of the immigrant settlement programs are in fact preventive types of programs - it's very difficult to go to a funder or to Treasury Board and say in effect, if you give me all this money, nothing is going to happen. That's a hard sell. It's also difficult to demonstrate.
When you're looking at evaluation, evaluability criteria, standards and measurements and all the rest of that, bear in mind that the nature of the services is largely preventive, and if they are effective, in fact nothing happens. That's a benefit.
Ms Borisenko: I hope this will be a last comment from me as well to provide other opportunities.... I have one comment and a question for the committee.
We are talking about doing some research into the issue of national standards and how we look at this model. I just wanted to make the point that we do have a national forum for this kind of discussion. The Canadian Council for Refugees already meets twice a year. I'm also on the national working group of CCR, and I'd like to point out again that we have a venue where this discussion can take place on a national level. I think you should use that vehicle.
.1505
All of us would be curious to know about the process this committee will go through. After four or five stops across the country, what is your time line, how will the topic of settlement renewal be formed, and what kind of input will be available in the next two years?
The Chair: Thank you very much for your question. I was going to address that at the end in any case.
In reference to the Council of Refugees, as a matter of fact one of their offices is in my riding. I have very good and direct relations with them. We're in constant communication. I speak at least once a week to Nancy Worsfold. They will be invited to come before the full committee to present their perspective and viewpoint. That leads into your second question on process.
As I said, we are visiting four cities this week, and we will travel to Montreal some time in August or September. We haven't yet established a date for the Montreal consultation. The full committee will start its deliberations again when the House reconvenes in September. September 18 is the date, if I'm not mistaken.
We will probably have two weeks to call witnesses. We may have more time, because we sometimes sit twice a day instead of once, depending on the number of witnesses. We're looking at early October as the deadline for a report to the House. We table our report to the House and then it is sent to the minister and to the ministry. I don't know if Mary wants to add anything on that based on her experience.
That is really our deadline or agenda. You are all welcome to submit anything in writing to the committee. I encourage you to do it through the offices of John Loney or Judy Bethel, who are the local members of Parliament, or directly to the clerk of the committee.
I would welcome more of your comments. I know it's very difficult because you had very short notice. We had a lot on the table for discussion today. I'm sure that once you go back you'll say, oh, I didn't say this, so write it down and send it to us.
Ms Negi: What will be the deadline?
The Chair: You have until the end of September. You have three months.
Ms Borisenko: Will people who have been witnesses receive a copy of this report?
The Chair: Yes. I'm sorry, I didn't mention that. You also have access to the minutes. By the way, if anybody wants to plug into it right away, it's on the Internet.
What's the address for Internet?
The Clerk of the Committee: I'm afraid I don't have it with me, but I'll get it for you.
The Chair: In any case, all the minutes and proceedings of the standing committee are available to any member. If you request it through the clerk, you will receive copies. The report itself will also be made available to all the groups who came before the committee. That's standard practice for the standing committees of the House of Commons.
Ms Bruk: I have another question on this issue of procedure. You'll have to excuse my lack of understanding of government process, but I've been given to understand that in Alberta an individual is ``responsible'' for settlement renewal. I'm not really sure what that means. I'm just wondering whether any kind of initiatives are going on while this committee is in process, and if so, what? Is there a coordinated effort?
The Chair: Ms Clancy, would you like to answer that?
Ms Clancy: There is an ongoing process within the Department of Citizenship and Immigration on settlement renewal. The minister asked this committee to look at settlement renewal across the country and in Ottawa, which we are doing.
This report will be tabled in the House of Commons after the process that Ms Bakopanos outlined. Obviously I'll be talking to the minister, as I do all the time on a variety of issues, and the departmental process will come back as well. Everything goes into the mix through the policy shop in the department, through ministerial advisors on the bureaucratic as well as political side.
.1510
The way it then works is that the minister crafts the policy, which goes to the social policy committee of cabinet, then to cabinet, and it comes back. That's effectively it. I mean, provided it passes all those stages, that's the general process.
This is one very important side of the consultation, because in a sense the parliamentary committee has the best access to stakeholders across the country and the relevant people to be consulted.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, do you have anything to add?
[English]
Mr. Nunez: You know, there are three recognized political parties in the House of Commons, and each party has a right to prepare its own report. We've used this right in the past. Last June the committee adopted a report on citizenship, but the opposition was not in agreement with this report and we prepared our own report. Until today we have not heard what the ministry is going to do with this report.
Last week we adopted another report on refugee women and at that time we prepared a minority report.
We invite you to send your briefs or presentations to the opposition parties, if necessary. We have the right to prepare our own minority report. Thanks.
The Chair: On that point, whatever you do submit to the committee goes to everyone. Mr. Nunez will also get a copy, but if you'd like to send him another copy, please feel free to do so. But to save paper and to save some trees in Canada, I would suggest you send one copy and we can pass it on to both of the opposition parties and anyone else who wants it in any of the political parties in the House.
Are there any other comments? No.
I'd like to thank you all very much. Thank you very much for spending the afternoon with us and for sharing your expertise with us. We really appreciate it. We look forward to coming back to Edmonton and perhaps even visiting Saskatchewan, for which we didn't have time, but we will keep it in mind for the next time.
I wish you all a good afternoon. Thank you very much.
This meeting is adjourned.