[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, April 30, 1996
.1537 
[English]
The Chair: I call to order the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study on settlement renewal, we welcome from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Laura Chapman, director general, strategic policy, planning and research; and David Neuman, national director, settlement renewal.
Mr. David Neuman (National Director, Settlement Renewal, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): Thank you. My understanding is that you were asking for an update and an explanation of the process for those members who had not been involved in the earlier briefings we did.
The Chair: I should give a little bit of background. I apologize. For the new members and for the old members too, we do want an update on what is happening with settlement renewal.
Just to situate everyone, in June 1995, responding to a request by the then minister, Hon. Sergio Marchi, the committee undertook a consultation on settlement renewal. Following initial briefings and hearings in Ottawa the committee travelled to Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto and Halifax for round-table discussions with stakeholders in the settlement process: service provider organizations, immigrant and ethnocultural organizations, municipal governments, school boards, community colleges, teachers and other interested parties. Hearings were concluded in Ottawa in September and November, and the committee was working on the draft report before the House recessed in December. That's where we are at the moment.
The witnesses who appeared before the committee stressed the need for the government to continue to play a leadership role in maintaining national standards in the delivery of settlement services. There were also many witnesses who emphasized the need for local decision-making structures that would emerge from a more decentralized structure. The committee views the government's attempt at settlement renewal to be in line with the overall restructuring activity that is taking place in many aspects of government activity.
We have requested, as I said, not only on behalf of the new members of our committee but also on behalf of the other members who were here, an update and any other relevant information you can provide on settlement renewal. We welcome you again.
Mr. Neuman: Let me start with a very brief description of what the department currently does in the areas of settlement programming.
We fund four programs in all provinces except Quebec. Quebec has already undertaken, under the Canada-Québec Accord, to administer settlement services. So we're talking about the nine other provinces and the two territories.
.1540
We operate four programs. We have LINC, which is Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada, where we fund organizations to provide language training for immigrants. We fund settlement counselling and referral services to help newcomers to Canada get oriented to the country and get settled. We have a HOST program, which matches new immigrants with Canadian families so immigrants can more easily integrate into the communities to which they're moving. And we have the adjustment assistance program for government-sponsored refugees, which provides them with income support and funds activities that support their integration; it basically completes their migration from overseas to Canada and looks after them until they're settled.
Under these four programs we currently have about 600 individual agreements with non-profit organizations, school boards, private businesses and other types of community organizations. The staff in the department headquarters who run these programs design the programs and allocate the funding across the country. They allocate it to the four programs and they allocate it by region. They manage the national operations.
At the regional level, in our local offices we have staff involved in reviewing the hundreds of applications we receive for funding under these programs. They write up and administer the agreements. They monitor the projects for financial compliance and for compliance with the contracts they write up.
The staff in the Canada Immigration Centres provide government-assisted refugees with their income support cheques for the first twelve months they're in Canada, if they need it, but otherwise all of the direct delivery of these services is done by third parties funded by the federal government. The staff of the department do not provide direct services to individuals, as a general rule.
These programs represent a total expenditure of about $164 million outside of Quebec, and there's about a $13 million overhead within the department for the administration of these programs.
In 1994 the immigration minister conducted extensive national consultations, and one of the things he heard at that time was a concern about overlap and duplication among the settlement programs administered by the various levels of government.
In essence, most of the organizations funded under these programs are funded for similar activities by other levels of government and others. So the people we fund are applying for money from the federal government, they are often applying to the provincial government and community organizations, and in many areas where there are large numbers of immigrants they apply to municipal governments and other funders such as the United Way.
The program review that was undertaken at about the same time asked all federal departments to subject all of their activities to tests to see whether they continued to be appropriate areas of activity for the government. We did that to our settlement programs. We asked some questions about these programs, and in doing so we concluded that some changes were in order.
We felt the programs and activities continued to serve the public interest. There is a public interest in immigrants integrating and getting support to integrate as quickly as possible. It was clear that there is a legitimate role for government in this area in that most newcomers are not really in a position to fend for themselves, and it's in the interests of everybody in the country that they do so as quickly as possible.
But when we were asked to look at whether the current role of the federal government continues to be the appropriate one, the answer was no. We were asked to assess whether the program would be a candidate for realignment with the provinces. In view of the fact that we were aware that most provinces that have large numbers of immigrants fund the same types of organizations for the same activities, we concluded it would be worth looking at whether we could better coordinate these activities with the provinces.
We looked at what activities or programs could be transferred in whole or in part, and we felt that while the federal government should continue to fund integration activities to facilitate integration - and especially where it is clearly advantageous and cost-effective to do so in a national system, we should maintain a national system - generally we found it might be preferable not to be involved directly in the administration of this. There are other levels of government and other organizations providing similar or complementary services, and service providers are faced with a complex and multi-level funding system. This wasn't necessarily the best way to do it.
.1545
It was felt that the provinces and these other organizations might be better placed to identify and respond to integration needs and priorities in their own jurisdiction. It was also felt that there might be advantages if we could transfer responsibility to a province or some other entity, but especially to provinces where resources could be pooled and you could get a bigger bang for your dollar.
In essence, we undertook this initiative in order to look at how this might be done. As we were doing it, the federal government was looking in other areas at how they might devolve and decentralize. Settlement renewal turns out to be in line with the basic approach in many other areas where the federal government is looking to eliminate overlap and duplication, especially with the provinces, and to place decision-making closer to the community level by developing effective partnerships with others. Given that we are already fairly advanced with this initiative, settlement renewal can be seen as a pilot for many of these initiatives.
The objective of this settlement renewal is that by April 1998, we would like to have transferred the block of funding that we have to the provinces preferably. That would be the program funds and the overhead funds that we currently have. The federal programs that currently exist would disappear, and our new partners would have the flexibility to direct those funds to a range of programs and settlement activities for essentially the same clientele and essentially the same types of activities to help immigrants get oriented.
Since we last met with the committee we've completed a fairly extensive round of consultations. We met with over 3,000 people working in the immigrant settlement area or with an interest in immigrant settlement. We did that partly as an education, because as the committee heard when it held its hearings, there was a lot of anxiety about this. We felt it would be useful at least to do some education as to what was involved. I think a lot of the anxiety was misplaced. So we did that. We have also held discussions with provinces to clarify our intentions and what we were really talking about.
We have now concluded those consultations and are in the process of putting together a report, which we hope to issue shortly. It will describe what we heard on the five issues that are in the consultation document we prepared and will suggest some approaches we might take to deal with those issues. We will conduct a second round of consultations in June to hear from people, to seek reaction to what was heard, reaction to the suggested approaches to refine them where necessary, to make sure that nothing important was omitted, and to get advice on what we should keep in mind during any subsequent negotiations and implementations. That will be followed by negotiations with provinces and then an implementation to allow us to finalize the transfers by April 1998.
That in essence is where we are. I hope it gives you an indication of what we've done so far.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Neuman. Did Ms Chapman want to add anything?
Ms Laura Chapman (Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Research, Department of Citizenship and Immigration): No, but I would be glad to respond to any questions.
[Translation]
The Chair: We will begin with you, Mr. Nunez. While you are getting ready, I would like to ask just one question.
[English]
Will your report be prepared by the end of this month?
Mr. Neuman: That's what we're hoping for.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Thank you, Mr. Neuman. I would like to ask you a few basic questions.
How many immigrants did Canada accept in 1995?
Mr. Neuman: How many immigrants did we accept?
.1550
Mr. Nunez: All these settlement services are intended for individuals. How many people use them?
Mr. Neuman: Last year, Canada took in 220,000 immigrants.
Mr. Nunez: Is that the exact figure or an approximate figure?
Mr. Neuman: Approximately 220,000. The exact figure has not yet been determined for the last fiscal year.
Mr. Nunez: For 1995.
Mr. Neuman: The figure is approximately 220,000.
Mr. Nunez: You said that the budget amounted to $164 million. Is that for settlement as a whole?
Mr. Neuman: That is the federal budget for the four settlement programs in nine provinces and the two territories.
Mr. Nunez: Could you tell me what is the budget for each program?
Mr. Neuman: I do not have the exact figure. I can give you an approximate figure for the money spent on each program.
The Chair: Is that not contained in the document which you distributed to us?
Mr. Neuman: Yes.
The Chair: I do not have that document in front of me, but I think that two were distributed to us. Are the figures not contained therein? I may be mistaken since it was a year ago that we studied the document.
Mr. Nunez: We began in June 1995 and it is now the end of April 1996. There have probably been changes in the interim.
Mr. Neuman: There have not been many. The programs have not changed much since they are about to be terminated. Pending the transfer of these programs, it was decided not to make too many changes. However, I have the approximate figures for the budgets on the four programs. Would you like to have them?
Mr. Nunez: Yes.
Mr. Neuman: Approximately $100 million was spent on language training; about $14 million went to counselling services for community organizations helping immigrants. Two million dollars went to the Family Reunification Program; and $45 million went to assisting government-sponsored refugees.
Mr. Nunez: What year does that refer to?
Mr. Neuman: Last year. The budget has been more or less the same for the past three years.
Mr. Nunez: You say that you consulted the provinces?
Mr. Neuman: We discussed the initiative with all the provinces.
Mr. Nunez: Did the provinces express some interest? Are they interested in sharing this power with the federal department?
Mr. Neuman: A few provinces are interested in doing so immediately, and a few indicated their interest in sharing responsibility. All the provinces are ready to discuss the issue.
Mr. Nunez: Which ones?
Mr. Neuman: British Columbia has already announced a joint initiative.
Mr. Nunez: Is that the only province?
Mr. Neuman: It's the only province which has publicly announced such a decision, but during consultations managers from all the provinces in western Canada indicated an interest.
Mr. Nunez: What is the position of Ontario, which receives the largest number of immigrants?
Mr. Neuman: Ontario is interested, but it wants a more equal sharing of budgets.
Mr. Nunez: It wants more money.
Mr. Neuman: It wants more money.
Mr. Nunez: Have agreements been signed, or are the parties just at the discussion stage?
Mr. Neuman: British Columbia has signed an agreement for joint consultation.
Mr. Nunez: But not on the issue of money?
Mr. Neuman: Not on the money. Negotiations have not yet begun because we haven't yet finished our consultation. We don't know yet what type of arrangement we should favour.
.1555
Mr. Nunez: Have the Atlantic provinces shown some interest?
Mr. Neuman: They have not yet stated their position, but the process is still ongoing. They all take part in consultations and we haven't yet reached the stage of discussing... Let us say that no offer has been made to the provinces. We're not yet at that stage.
Mr. Nunez: How do you spend the $45 million allocated to the refugee programs?
Mr. Neuman: This is a social welfare program to help refugees during their first year of settlement. During their first year in Canada, if they do not find a job they are given the equivalent of welfare, at the rate in effect in the province where they are living.
Mr. Nunez: Quebec has expressed some concerns about these programs because it takes in over half of all refugees, and that costs the province a lot of money.
Mr. Neuman: Are you talking about refugees or claimants?
Mr. Nunez: Refugee status claimants.
Mr. Neuman: Refugee claimants are not covered by this initiative. They are not eligible for these programs. They are not even covered by the Canada-Quebec agreement.
Mr. Nunez: That is precisely the problem. Because they are not covered by the agreement, the government of Quebec says that it is costing the province too much money. Refugee programs are a federal responsibility, but Quebec has to assume higher costs than any other Canadian province. Is there a way of resolving this problem? Are there discussions going on about this or will there be?
Mr. Neuman: I did not participate in those discussions. The joint committee provided for under the Canada-Quebec agreement meets periodically, at which time the federal and provincial officials discuss these problems.
Mr. Nunez: Ms Chapman, are you better informed on this issue?
Ms Chapman: Mr. Nunez, this is being the subject of frequent discussions because it is very important for us and for Quebec. We are currently discussing this.
Mr. Nunez: You are very sparing in your comments. Why do these refugee programs last only one year?
Mr. Neuman: We are allocated a certain amount of money which is sufficient to cover the cost of the first year. We also expect a refugee to be able to integrate within a one year period. Most refugees find a job within about one year. They then become independent.
The Chair: We will come back to you later, Mr. Nunez. Ms Meredith.
[English]
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): I am a bit curious. Some of the documentation brings this settlement program 1990.... Is that when it started?
Ms Chapman: To clarify, the immigration programs that were created in that period were the new language training programs. Those were the labour market language training and the language instruction for newcomers to Canada. Those two programs were created in 1990, yes. The actual proposal to go to settlement renewal was something that came out of the consultations in 1994.
Ms Meredith: So these programs are really quite new. What happened before that?
Mr. Neuman: The names change and the criteria change, but federal support for immigrant language training goes back many years.
Ms Meredith: To this degree?
Mr. Neuman: Actually, to a greater degree.
Ms Chapman: This might be more than you want to know, but I'll start and you can stop me.
The history of language training and language instruction for immigrants is a long-standing one. You will remember that originally under the arrangements immigration was part of the Department of Employment and Immigration. Negotiations under what was known then as the National Training Act and also under the Canadian jobs strategy of the day were such that we negotiated with each province bilaterally on how much funding would go to that province for all forms of training, including immigrant language training.
Subsequent to that, there would be a discussion with the province on how they would distribute those funds within their own jurisdiction. Generally speaking, some provinces decided to expend a significant amount of money on language training and other provinces decided that they would spend a modest share of funding on language training. That was the basis on which the budgets were established in each province.
.1600
When in 1990 the minister of the day decided to amalgamate all of the resources for immigrant language training under one budget initially, the decision was taken that we would amalgamate the resources and take them out of what was then the Canadian jobs strategy. We would take those funds and create an immigrant language training budget.
The outcome of that was that the funds that were distributed across the country were distributed on the basis of what had last been negotiated with the provinces of the day. That meant that in some provinces there was a significant share of funds devoted to language training per capita; in others, there was a much smaller amount.
In 1990 additional funds were allocated to language training and other immigrant services. Those funds have been used to top up. The goal has been to move towards a more equitable distribution of resources across the country, and we've moved to that over the last period. We're not yet there, but where we get into a problem is that, as resources have now been stabilized overall, we're in a position where we have to start moving the resources from province X to province Y in order to get the distribution to be equitable, rather than simply topping up.
Ms Meredith: So when you talk about equitable distribution, are you talking about the number of immigrants and refugees who are locating there, or are you talking about each province getting the same amount of money whether or not they have the same demand? Is it based on need?
Ms Chapman: What we're looking at is trying to establish allocations based on need, and the criteria we use include the number of immigrants destined to that province over the course of the last three years and their various needs.
We know, for example, that refugees tend to have a greater need for language training, whereas skilled workers have less need. So we take that into account in trying to calculate the amount of funding destined to that particular province.
Ms Meredith: When you talk in these numbers, you're talking about individuals who have less need, who are the independent economic immigrants. Then you talk about others.
As I understand it, there's $45 million for the nine provinces and two territories for the refugees that Canada is supporting and sponsoring. The refugees are not the balance.... I understand that 14% are economic immigrants who come in, who are chosen for their ability to speak the language, training, education. That means that the balance of individuals have been sponsored by somebody. Somebody has taken on a financial obligation for those individuals.
Is that not true?
Ms Chapman: Virtually all of those, yes.
Ms Meredith: If somebody has taken on the financial obligations and responsibilities for those individuals, why is the Canadian government paying for services for them?
Ms Chapman: Under the previous structure of funding, resources were provided to individuals not only for the training but also for income support during the time when they were on training. What we have moved to over the course of several years is a situation wherein now an individual other than a refugee - in other words, anybody who is supported by somebody else - is expected to bear the cost of their own maintenance during the training.
We're in the process of evaluating what kind of impact this has on access to training.
One of our concerns has been the equitable access between men and women and between different ethnic groups and social groups. As we do that kind of assessment, we can determine whether or not we think that will continue to meet Canada's goal, which is the rapid integration of immigrants.
Ms Meredith: When an individual applies for these programs, is there a timeframe or is it open? Can I be a new immigrant this past year, or can I be a somewhat recent immigrant of ten years and apply for these programs? If the purpose of it is fast integration, then why is there not a window that applies to the first three years? If that's the goal of the program, then why isn't there a cap on the years?
Ms Chapman: There's certainly an emphasis on the first three years. We don't exclude other cases explicitly, but we emphasize that new arrivals and those in the first three years should have first access, and others depending on their need.
You could see circumstances where, for example, a family comes into the country. The woman might have very young children, stay at home with them, and then find that she needs language skills in order to deal effectively with the hospitals, schools, and other things. She may have been in the country for some years. We don't want to exclude her. We don't want to be in the circumstance of saying this person can't have access to training. Rather, we look at the fact that most people apply for citizenship within three years. Once they have citizenship our programs are not available to them. The assumption is that they have met -
.1605
Ms Meredith: I don't think it's a question of access to the training. It's a question of whose responsibility it is to pay for that training. If the government's responsibility is to the refugees who come to this country, should not the resources be covering those costs? And if somebody has sponsored an individual, be it a church group or an individual, should it not be the responsibility of those individuals to pay for the training, the language training particularly?
Ms Chapman: As I mentioned, we are working towards a situation.... Having taken the opportunity away for the training allowances, we are now looking at what the impact is. But we've also introduced another arrangement.
You mentioned sponsored refugees. That's an interesting experience we've just gone through. In the case of refugees from the former Yugoslavia and also in the case of Ismaili refugees a few years ago, we've gone into an arrangement that I believe was mentioned to you before. We call it ``3-9''. We provide support for the first three months and provide additional support, sort of moral support, and the private groups take over the remaining nine months. We found that very profitable in the sense that immigrants are more readily integrated through a private group than they are simply through government support. We're trying to take the best of both and stretch our dollars so that we can benefit as many refugees as possible.
I'd like to emphasize, though, that the bulk of the $45,000 or thereabouts that we use for adjustment assistance is exclusively for refugees. The HOST program that pairs families is predominantly refugee, although we have used it and do use it for other groups. The rest of the money is also accessed by refugees, clearly on the basis of those who have the greatest need. A very significant share of that goes to the refugees. Where people can support themselves and have the ability to take training themselves, we are finding that they do so, except where they just don't have the ability to do it, don't have the funds to do it.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen (Etobicoke North): Thank you for the overview, Mr. Neuman, and for going over some things twice for the benefit of people like me and others.
Refugees, then, clearly fall within the settlement services we're talking about today. I have a question that may have a little too much detail for this session. In my riding there is a large Somali community. It would help to put settlement services in some context to get more information on how it works in that particular context, which may be of little use or interest to this group here.
In the heat of the election campaign many stories were thrown out about this particular Somali community. One was that they were largely private citizens, supporting themselves. The other extreme was that they were all brought over by the government, that the condos, apartments, services, food, etc., were supported and paid largely by the federal government. In the heat of an election campaign you're going to hear everything, and you never have a chance to find out what the truth really is.
With the Somali community on Dixon Road, we have a fairly defined and discrete group of refugees. Is there is a way to describe the arrangements under which the refugees came over? I looked at the material and there is a government-assisted refugee initiative, which I guess would provide a different level of support, and a private sponsorship initiative, which the hon. member was touching on in her comments earlier. Could you help me through how that works, not in total detail today but maybe as a follow-up later? In concept, how does it work?
.1610
Ms Chapman: Maybe I can give you a little bit of information.
Most of the Somalis who have come to Canada are individuals seeking refugee status. The Immigration and Refugee Board has found they warrant the protection of Canada and therefore have the right to stay and be protected within Canada.
What is interesting about immigration and really shouldn't be surprising to any of us is that people are attracted to those areas where others of their community have established. We found that in Dixon Road - and you know better than we do, I guess - once a nucleus of Somalis moved into that area, then others who arrived came to the same area. Individuals arriving from that country had virtually no knowledge of Canada, but they knew to say ``Toronto'' and they knew to say ``Dixon''. Therefore that's where they ended up.
The same kind of experience has occurred in Montreal and Ottawa to a lesser extent, but it is essentially the same thing. Similar kinds of experiences are found with almost all groups that come in and seek refugee status.
Mr. Cullen: Yes, I understand that generally. I'm more interested in the level of support the federal government provided, provides and will provide.
It's a fairly discrete community. As you say, it's become - and I use the term advisedly - sort of ghettoized on Dixon Road in my riding. Can you help clarify what sorts of services are provided or were provided to these Somali refugees in the form of settlement services, in broad terms? I'm perhaps coming back to my general question. Did most of them come over as private citizens, looking after themselves largely, or were most of them government-assisted refugees? Please help me through that.
Mr. Neuman: Generally Somalis are not government-sponsored refugees. As Laura said, they come over on their own and make a claim for refugee status.
During the period they are refugee claimants, as I indicated to the member earlier, they are not entitled to services under these programs. These programs are for Canadian landed immigrants, essentially until they become citizens. They're not available to people who don't have permanent status in Canada.
Many refugee claimants get welfare if they're not working. They have the right to work, but if they're not working, they get welfare from the provincial government and they may be entitled to other services that provincial or municipal governments offer, depending on where they live.
Mr. Cullen: So they wouldn't have services available through the settlement services program. Are you also saying they wouldn't have access to services under any federal program?
Mr. Neuman: None of these programs, generally.
Ms Chapman: They would not have access to federal services. They would be a provincial responsibility under the welfare system until such time as they were found to be refugees.
Once they've been approved as refugees - and many of the people now in Dixon in fact have been approved - they can access language training and any of the other services we have. But until they're recognized as refugees, while they're still claiming that status and no decision has been taken, we don't provide services, because we don't prejudge the outcome of the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Mr. Cullen: You describe very generally the kinds of services available to them once they have been determined to be political refugees, such as language training, etc., but could you be more specific? What types of services would they be eligible for?
Mr. Neuman: We have four programs.
Convention refugees - people who are determined to be refugees - for the first twelve months in Canada are entitled to income support, if they need it, at the same level as the provincial welfare rates.
For government-assisted refugees, we look after getting them here, with transportation and that type of thing. Once they get here, if they arrive in the winter we provide them with warm clothing at the airport. We set them up temporarily in what we call reception houses until we find them accommodation. That's for government-assisted refugees.
Are you only interested in the refugee claimants?
Mr. Cullen: This is more specific to my riding, but I'm also trying to understand how the programs work generally.
.1615
Mr. Neuman: We fund community organizations to provide services to immigrants; we don't provide them out of our own offices. Many of those organizations are ethno-specific: they provide services to particular ethnic communities. Others are more general; they're multicultural agencies that provide services generally to immigrants and newcomers when they arrive in a community and go through their initial orientation.
We're talking primarily about refugees who come here with nobody. If they're sponsored by family, then the family will look after getting them somewhere and do their orientation. If they're coming in as businessmen, then they have means. So we're talking primarily about refugees. We have these agencies that provide counselling and initial orientation and help them make the link to the community organizations. For instance, they'll provide people who will take them to the hospital and act as interpreters and do those types of things.
So we fund these agencies. Nationally we spend about $14 million on it. In the grand scheme of things it's not a lot of money, but it does help these people make an integration and start learning how to use Canadian institutions.
We also provide funds for language training. There is language training that's provided by schools across the country. Many of the people who take the language training that we offer are government-assisted refugees, and that doesn't come out of the $45 million that they get in income support. Essentially, we provide language training for people who don't have means. When they first come here, they get their orientation in Canada, and part of it is this language training.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you. That's useful.
You said that in general terms the Somali community on Dixon Road largely were not government-assisted refugees. Did you say that categorically?
Mr. Neuman: I believe we didn't recruit refugees from Somalia.
Mr. Cullen: So they came from private initiatives?
Mr. Neuman: They came on their own and made refugee claims when they landed in Canada.
Mr. Cullen: So the notion that these individuals would have been provided with condominiums and apartments is a total falsehood?
Mr. Neuman: If they were, it wasn't by us.
Mr. Cullen: I'm pleased to hear that.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez, you have five minutes.
Mr. Nunez: The NGOs were probably concerned about the fact that their budget was going to be reduced. What do you plan for the future?
Mr. Neuman: When the former minister announced this initiative, he undertook to do his utmost to ensure that the budget would not be reduced for at least three years. In the last budget, funding for settlement programs was not reduced.
Mr. Nunez: Has the number of NGOs increased or decreased?
Mr. Neuman: The number of organizations funded by the government has not changed greatly since this initiative began.
Mr. Nunez: They expressed concern about accountability. They said that the process took too long, that they sometimes have to hire accounting specialists because the standards imposed were too demanding, that they spent 10% of their time filling out forms, etc.
Mr. Neuman: When we began, I went around the country. There were meetings almost everywhere, and I met most agencies. It is true that there was a computerized system requiring that organizations provide us with all sorts of information. Unfortunately, the system did not work well and many complaints were received. People spent too much time on the system. When studying accountability, we looked at ways of making the system less cumbersome for organizations. Finally, we decided to abandon the existing system.
Mr. Nunez: So will it be simpler?
Mr. Neuman: Much simpler.
Mr. Nunez: That is good news. How many people are there working in your branch?
Mr. Neuman: There about 250 people working in the area of settlement programs for the nine provinces.
Mr. Nunez: How many of them are here, and how many in the provinces?
.1620
Mr. Neuman: At headquarters, there are six people working in the settlement section. The staff has been greatly reduced, because we do not intend to develop new programs. There is no plan to change manuals for current programs before 1998. Therefore, we do not need as many employees.
Mr. Nunez: There are six employees?
Mr. Neuman: There are only six employees left in the settlement unit in Ottawa.
Mr. Nunez: Does that include you?
Mr. Neuman: No, I do not deal with program administration. In headquarters, there is a team of four people dealing with that.
Mr. Nunez: But what is the total number of managerial staff and employees?
Mr. Neuman: There are four in my team and six in headquarters. All the others are in the regions, particularly in immigration centres.
Mr. Nunez: In future, are you going to keep the same number of employees?
Mr. Neuman: I don't think so, because the plan is to eliminate the programs. If an agreement could be reached with a particular province, we would be ready to transfer employees together with the funding. Those employees would then become provincial program administrators and become part of the provincial public service.
That's what happened in the case of Quebec. Quebec hired about 65% of our employees working in the Quebec settlement unit.
Mr. Nunez: Those 250 employees will be either absorbed by the provinces or laid off, won't they?
Mr. Neuman: Or absorbed elsewhere, within the federal public service.
Mr. Nunez: How long will that take?
Mr. Neuman: Our objective is to complete the exercise by April 1998.
Mr. Nunez: As regards the LINC program to help newcomers to Canada learn one of the official languages, are French courses offered outside Quebec?
Mr. Neuman: Yes.
Mr. Nunez: Where?
Mr. Neuman: Here in Ottawa.
Mr. Nunez: How many?
Mr. Neuman: I can't tell you how many, but I know they're available because I visited them. There are some in New Brunswick and in Ontario. I don't know if there are any outside New Brunswick and Ontario?
Mr. Nunez: Could you provide me with figures?
Mr. Neuman: Yes. We have those figures.
Mr. Nunez: How many newcomers to Canada follow such courses?
Mr. Neuman: Are you referring to French-language courses?
Mr. Nunez: Yes.
Mr. Neuman: Outside Quebec?
Mr. Nunez: Yes.
Mr. Neuman: I could try to obtain that information.
The Chair: Thank you. Mr. Peric.
[English]
Mr. Peric (Cambridge): Madam Chair, thank you.
Madame Chapman, you mentioned before that you were accepting refugees from Yugoslavia. Could you be more specific on how many have come from Yugoslavia, how many from Croatia and how many from Bosnia?
Ms Chapman: I don't have those figures with me, and I'm not sure we have a complete breakdown, but I would be pleased to provide them to the committee.
Mr. Peric: But we accepted them from Yugoslavia for what reason?
Ms Chapman: We accepted them from the former Yugoslavia -
Mr. Peric: Oh, the former Yugoslavia. Hold it. The former Yugoslavia - and I'm confused there - includes Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro and the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia. We specifically accepted them from each country?
Ms Chapman: We accepted those people who were recommended to us by the UNHCR as requiring resettlement to a country like Canada.
Mr. Peric: Which countries?
Ms Chapman: I don't have the information here. I can provide it to the committee.
Mr. Peric: Probably from Bosnia and Croatia.
Mr. Neuman: Large numbers, certainly.
Mr. Peric: I would appreciate it if in the future you used that expression, Bosnia and Croatia, because they are recognized countries - not former Yugoslavia or former Austro-Hungarian Empire or former Soviet Union. That's nonsense.
The Chair: Thank you for a lesson in history and language, Mr. Peric, but please continue on the settlement renewal.
Mr. Peric: That was my comment.
Mr. Neuman, could you define to me ``ethnic community''? What does that mean, ``ethnic'', and who is included in that?
.1625
Mr. Neuman: I refer to ethnic communities in that there are organizations serving particular ethnic communities that receive funding for settlement services. For instance, I was in Calgary a while ago and there is a group there that looks after people from the former Yugoslavia. They formed a community and that's what they call them. That's what they told me they were.
Mr. Peric: What is ethnic? What does that mean? I don't know.
Mr. Neuman: I believe it refers to individuals who come from a particular ethnic community.
Mr. Peric: What is ethnic?
Mr. Neuman: Again, national -
The Chair: Mr. Peric, I'm sorry but I'd like to know where you are going with this questioning. Today we are studying settlement renewal -
Mr. Peric: I just need an explanation. Ethnic in Canada -
The Chair: If you would permit me to finish, please, we are studying settlement renewal. The question should be addressed in terms of specifics to these witnesses who are here to give us information on the process that is in place towards arriving at the handing over of responsibility to another body.
Mr. Peric: Madam Chair, I appreciate your comment and concern, but I am confused because I hear some expressions and comments that I don't understand. If we go any further without an explanation, then I'm going to be confused in the future as well.
The Chair: Would you like to enlighten the rest of us in the committee on how the definition of ethnicity has anything to do with the settlement renewal process?
If you'd like to answer, Mr. Neuman, go ahead.
Mr. Neuman: We fund ethnic groups. For instance we fund JIAS, the Jewish Immigrant Aid Services, which helps Jewish immigrants to come here. That's who brought me to Canada. We fund Chinese groups in Vancouver that serve the Chinese community. In fact, in Vancouver there's a Chinese immigrant-serving agency that is now the largest in the city and provides services to the broader community. JIAS, with its experience with Jewish immigrants over the years, is still an ethnic organization, but it does provide services to immigrants from a broad range of communities.
So we fund organizations that are founded in particular ethnic or national communities. Some of them are religion-based, some are based on what countries people used to come from. As I said, there are some multicultural organizations that serve a range of communities.
Mr. Peric: You're talking about multicultural, okay. That's fine, thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Dhaliwal.
Mr. Dhaliwal (Vancouver South): I am quite familiar with the success of all the settlement groups. In fact, I was at a success dinner recognizing the volunteers, as well as with MOSAIC and other groups. I must say that some of these settlement programs are excellent, LINC and all the other ones.
I have a question on the fees. Is there a connection between the $975 fee the government put on all immigrants and the settlement? I was told that the $975 would go directly toward the settlement program. Is there a connection between the fee and the settlement program?
Ms Chapman: There is a link but it's an indirect link. The arrangement is that we, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, have a budget. That budget is established as part of an overall process. The funds come from, as we call it, the centre. As it happens, all of the $975 fees that are collected also go to the centre. We take a share of that money. Some share of it comes back to us, the department. That was the arrangement that was made -
Mr. Dhaliwal: It's not all of the $975, you're saying. Only part of the $975 goes toward settlement that was levied against -
Ms Chapman: It's even more complicated than that, I'm afraid. We have a budget. Approximately one-third of the total budget of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is funded by fees. Those fees include the $975, the right-of-landing fee, the right-of-citizenship fee, the cost-recovery fees associated with landing, the cost-recovery fees associated with citizenship, and the cost-recovery fees associated with changes of status, student status and so on. The amount we raise through fees is equal to approximately one-third of our total program.
But the way it actually works is not that we, the department, get the money, but rather that the money goes into the consolidated revenue fund, which then funds the department. So there is no direct link between this dollar and this program.
Mr. Dhaliwal: You said your budget was $164 million and I believe the fees add up to almost the same.
.1630
Ms Chapman: They're very close.
Mr. Dhaliwal: I think they are $160 million to $170 million.
Ms Chapman: The budget that was mentioned is only the budget for settlement in the nine provinces and two territories. It does not include all the settlement programs, which is including the funds that were transferred to Quebec under the Canada-Quebec Accord; it does not include the operation of the department in Canada or abroad; and it does not include, for example, the activities that we have in respect of enforcement, our relationships at the border and the police, those kinds of activities.
Ms Meredith: I'm going to be the devil's advocate here. Nobody has mentioned how much money is transferred to Quebec for their share under the Canada-Quebec Accord and nobody has talked about the numbers of refugees or immigrants who stay in Quebec who would benefit from those dollars.
How many dollars go to the Province of Quebec for it to fund settlement programs, and what numbers of immigrants and refugee claimants stay in the province of Quebec who would use those funds?
Ms Chapman: Under the terms of the Canada-Québec Accord there was a formula, which provided for an increasing amount of money until the past year, at which point it levelled off at $90 million. Then the formula would be an adjustment based on immigrants and refugees destined to the province. It takes into account their language skills on entry. I could provide you with the details of the formula.
The numbers of immigrants and refugees destined to the province of Quebec have been decreasing in recent years. I couldn't give you an exact number. The estimate we have is around.... I believe that about 13% of immigrants to Canada are currently destined to Quebec.
The number who actually stay in Quebec or the number who actually stay in any province we can't tell you, because we don't keep track of that. The mobility rights under the charter mean that people can move freely, and we don't constrain them in any way.
Ms Meredith: I ask this because I attended the one hearing that was held in Vancouver. From all the different groups that were providing the settlement services there - and I hit only the morning session - I think 25 agencies were represented. A goodly number of them expressed a concern that although people may not have landed or made their claims in British Columbia, they ended up by having to service them through settlement dollars in British Columbia, and that a goodly number of them seemed to be coming from the province of Quebec. They were making their claims or landing in Quebec and then, within three months, moving to Vancouver. They were putting pressure on the settlement services in British Columbia.
If these funds are not for refugee claimants but for people who get refugee status and for people who get landed status, is there not some follow-up to see if individuals who represent these numbers actually stay in the provinces where the dollars are going to service those numbers of individuals?
Ms Chapman: One of the challenges we face is an ability to track people effectively. One of the things Mr. Neuman mentioned is that we did have processes and so on to try to keep count. They were quite ineffective and were very burdensome to the groups that were involved.
Our hope is that over the next while, as part of the settlement renewal process, we will be able to keep better track of those kinds of things.
The Province of Ontario has also expressed considerable concern about the number of people who arrive in that province from other provinces.
We find that the Provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have the reverse difficulty. They would like very much to know how many people are actually moving out, because their feeling is that they would like more immigrants and they would like to be able to keep track of the immigrants with a view to seeking to put in place programs and services to encourage them to stay.
So, yes, it's an important question and it's one we're aware of and we need to follow up on.
Mr. Neuman: We were also discussing on a multilateral basis with the provinces a formula that could be used to allocate money that would be fairer in terms of who actually is in a province. So it would reflect how many people are there and what their needs are.
.1635
Mr. Dhaliwal: I'd just like to say I'd be very interested in getting more information on your HOST program. I've always thought that would be an excellent program, and I hadn't been aware there was such a thing. I'd like to know how my own office can participate in that program, because I think it would be very good.
The other point I want to make is that in my own riding we had a service organization serving the Indo-Canadian community, and it no longer is in service. There's now a huge gap in my riding to service that community. I hope we can get something done in terms of providing that community with the service they had for many years.
I would like to say I think settlement is one of the best programs we have in terms of making sure people start to participate in Canadian society. I think the fundamental language link is very important before they go on to other job training programs and all that.
But I think the point to be made...because my colleague was making the point as to the sponsorship. Now immigrants are paying for the settlement through their fees of $975. The sponsorship agreement is more toward their collecting welfare and other areas, which I guess is a 10-year contract now. I think the settlement program is very good.
I also agree with the fact that when we're using outside agencies they can provide the service at a much lower cost. It's much more efficient and much more cost-effective. But I think we have to look at some gaps that exist. I know in my own riding there's a huge gap right now. It's a real problem.
I just wanted to make those comments.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal. Mr. Dromisky is next.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson.
Going back to the immigrant integration programs, is there a common core in these programs? Are they comparable from province to province - excluding Quebec, of course - even though they're under the jurisdiction of ministers and provincial governments and school boards and other groups?
Mr. Neuman: What I can say about comparability is that there is a clause in the Quebec accord that obliges Quebec to offer services to newcomers that are comparable to those being offered in the rest of the country, and that is the case. In essence, Quebec has the same language-training programs. It supports community agencies that do counselling for immigrants and it provides income support and reception services to government-assisted refugees.
The federal programs are virtually identical across the country. The provincial programs do vary. Our experience is that in those provinces where there are large numbers of immigrants coming in - essentially Ontario, B.C. and Alberta - there are comparable programs, almost identical, on the provincial side.
In Alberta, for instance, we have an arrangement with the provincial government where we sit down at a round table with community groups and try to divide it up so that we don't go out and duplicate each other. That seems to be working quite well.
But we think there are efficiencies to be had if the two levels of government could pool their money and have one body that gets maximum use of the dollars available.
Mr. Dromisky: I think that's a wise move. However, the whole question of accountability emerges there. Is there any evaluation or assessment of any of these programs by federal personnel?
Mr. Neuman: At the present time?
Mr. Dromisky: Yes.
Mr. Neuman: Our staff members who work on these programs monitor the projects funded by federal dollars. They monitor them for compliance with the terms of the contract.
Mr. Dromisky: So a federal agent could go anywhere in the country - or are they stuck in one area or region trying to maintain the status quo? I'm trying to find out whether or not there is a flexibility in the whole operation of evaluating and making assessments.
Ms Chapman: If I could, I'll respond to you on two levels. First of all, in terms of the evaluation of the program, an evaluation was done last year of the LINC program. The results of that are just being completed now. I'm sure they will be made public in the near future.
Mr. Dromisky: Okay.
Ms Chapman: Essentially, this demonstrated that the program was reasonably effective at doing what it did.
The down side, or the negative aspect, of all these programs from our point of view is that what we seem to be evaluating, what we seem to be measuring, is activity, and that's not really what's relevant. What's relevant is results.
So one of the things Mr. Neuman and his group is working on is trying to ensure, when we do get into a position where we turn over the money to another organization or province, or to others, to administer, that we establish a firm accountability, and that we do so in a way that is based on results.
.1640
So the point in question is not going to be ``Did you have 100 people in a classroom?'' It will be ``We gave you this amount of money. You said you were going to train a certain group of people. Were they indeed trained when they came out? Were they able to do the things they wanted to do with the language skills they acquired?'' So we will try to turn it around and make it a more productive evaluation in the future.
Mr. Dromisky: My last question is a very simple one, but I know it's a very complex issue.
A school board, for instance, will perhaps provide space in a school, and they don't charge for that space, possibly. There are many ways of handling this cost question. Are there any school boards or municipalities covering any portion of the programs? Are any of them offering the programs without asking for federal assistance? Do you know of any?
Mr. Neuman: They're covering costs, but they're asking for federal assistance too.
The school boards do provide ESL, or English as a second language, training for the children in the primary system. Many of them are providing part-time classes in language training of various sorts that are not necessarily directed at immigrants or new immigrants. We're focusing on immigrants essentially in their first three years, but there are people who've been here for many years who still don't speak the language. And yes, school boards are offering and in many cases are charging for those services.
For the first three years they're here, the immigrants don't pay for the courses that are funded by these settlement dollars. But in later years school boards do offer them, and many of the contracts we have are with school boards. They already have the facilities, the teachers and the expertise.
Mr. Dromisky: Very good. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: There are a lot of references to the $90 million given to the Quebec government. But you should also explain the work done by Quebec in selecting immigrants, through its host and integration programs, through its orientation and training centres for immigrants and its offices abroad. These responsibilities are not assumed by other provinces.
Mr. Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier): I think they recently closed.
Mr. Nunez: No, that concerns international relations. Instead of criticizing Quebec, you should urge the other provinces to negotiate, as Quebec has done, agreements with the federal government. That is the answer.
As regards Canadian embassies abroad, do you have any observations on what I said regarding Quebec?
Mr. Neuman: The amount of $90 million is supposed to be used for immigrant settlement programs. As regards other activities covered by the agreement, selection is indeed covered. Under the agreement, Quebec selects its own immigrants abroad, the business people who will settle in Quebec.
But that power is not linked to the $90 million. The agreement with Quebec concerning immigration goes back 25 years, and it has evolved.
Mr. Nunez: And it will continue to evolve, if necessary.
Does your department have a reception service in Canadian embassies abroad?
Mr. Neuman: There are officers in our embassies who select immigrants.
Mr. Nunez: How many of your department's officers are abroad?
Mr. Neuman: I don't have the figures with me, but I could get them for you.
Mr. Nunez: What do they do?
Mr. Neuman: The immigration officers abroad? I don't have those details here, but I'm sure we can find that information for you.
The Chair: In two weeks, we will study the department's estimates. We will be able to ask those questions and receive answers at that time.
Mr. Nunez: It's important to have that information.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Neuman: Rest assure that you will receive that information within two weeks.
.1645
Mr. Nunez: Fine. You also mentioned 600 agreements which were signed. Was it really 600?
Mr. Neuman: We have about 600 contracts with community organizations, school boards and other non governmental organizations.
Mr. Nunez: What kind of businesses?
Mr. Neuman: There are very few private businesses.
Mr. Nunez: What kind of agreements?
Mr. Neuman: Agreements regarding the provision of clothes for refugees - we buy clothes for the Vancouver and Toronto airports - and regarding language training. These are the only agreements we have with private firms.
Mr. Nunez: Why is the private sector involved? Why aren't you dealing with other specialized organizations?
Mr. Neuman: We also subsidize public non-profit organizations which do the same thing, but not on an exclusive basis. The money is there for whomever can provide courses. We receive requests, we assess them, and chose the best ones.
Mr. Nunez: At the lowest cost?
Mr. Neuman: Often at the lowest cost.
The Chair: Mr. Bélanger.
Mr. Bélanger: Can you tell us exactly how many people go to Quebec? What percentage of the $90 million is spent on anglophones, for people who would like to take courses in English?
Can you also give us the same information as it applies to Ontario, in terms of its francophone population? Perhaps you could also give us the figures for all of Canada, so we can compare apples with apples and understand what the situation is.
I would now like to ask a question on another subject. Is there a relationship between the percentage of people who come to Canada from a specific country and the amount of money which is spent to help them integrate into Canadian society?
I want to know if, at a certain point, the government believes that a certain community is integrated enough to stand on its own, without any direct government help. If that's the case, does the government gradually withdraw its support from this community in order to help another community which has arrived more recently? Take, for instance, Somalian refugees. For the last while, there was a great influx of Somalian refugees. How does the government withdraw its support from one community to help another?
Mr. Neuman: As regards your first question, that is to say the number of people who receive English-language training in Quebec, I don't have an answer. We don't have those figures. We transfer money to the government of Quebec and it provides language training for refugees or immigrants arriving in Quebec.
Mr. Bélanger: If we ask the government of Quebec, would we receive an answer?
Mr. Neuman: I have no idea.
The Chair: Are you finished, Mr. Bélanger?
Mr. Bélanger: I'm waiting for the answer to my question.
Mr. Neuman: Regarding Ontario, we are committed to providing you with answers. We can provide the committee with information regarding the number of people who receive French-language training in Ontario and in New Brunswick.
As regards the relationship between the amount of money spent and the country of origin of immigrants, we have a formula, based on a number of factors, to determine how much money is allocated to each province. One of these factors is the number of immigrants taken in by the province. It is the main factor, it spans a period of three years and is called a three-year moving average.
The second factor is the language skills of the immigrants upon arrival. The greater number of immigrants who speak neither English nor French when they arrive, the more money is allocated to the province. The country of origin does not enter into this formula, but the formula could take into account the number of refugees, considering that it is more costly to integrate a refugee than a business immigrant.
.1650
Mr. Bélanger: This applies to the ten provinces?
Mr. Neuman: To nine of them. The formula is different for Quebec.
As to the third factor, the department is presently considering a number of selection criteria for immigrants in order to ensure that the immigrants who are selected abroad are those who have the best chances of being integrated at a reasonable cost.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Cullen.
Mr. Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Coming back to this question of Quebec, am I understanding you correctly, inferring from what's been said, that it is in your mandate to actually evaluate the performance of settlement services programs in the province of Quebec? That is within your scope and mandate?
Ms Chapman: The arrangement under the terms of the Canada-Quebec Accord is that the province is responsible for the evaluation of its own programs. It is responsible for running them and evaluating them.
There is a requirement that they offer services approximately comparable to the services offered elsewhere in the country. We have the opportunity, through a group that is established - a formal committee called un comité mixte - for a discussion of issues.
We have recently had such a discussion in that committee. We've raised with the Province of Quebec what kinds of services they offer, what kinds of documents they offer and so on. We have exchanged with them those kinds of services and materials so we have a shared understanding of each other's approach.
As to the specific figures on how many people have been served those kinds of things, we have not traditionally asked Quebec for that information. The use of the money is at their discretion.
Mr. Cullen: But it is a continuing grant. It was not a one-time transfer of funds.
Mr. Neuman: That's right.
Ms Chapman: That's correct. It's a continuing grant.
Mr. Cullen: There are certain benchmarks and ways you could evaluate the performance of the programs, but you haven't asked for that yet. Do you intend to, do you think, in time?
Mr. Neuman: Quebec publishes data with respect to their activities in that area and shares it with us and with the other provinces.
Mr. Cullen: I'd like to have one more question picking up on the earlier discussion.
As to the right-of-landing fee, the $975 fee - and this may be better discussed during the general estimates, but maybe you could help me, Ms Chapman, in particular - what if I were to say to the Somalis and South Asians in my riding that the $975 fee was going to give them better service?
Better service can be viewed in a couple of contexts. One is better service than they would get, because the programs and services are going to be cut, and the other is better service in the sense of an improved capacity to deal with the processing of immigrants and the provision of services.
Would I be wildly off, or would that be close to the truth?
Ms Chapman: If I were asked in a public setting what the $975 does in terms of service, I would explain that all government programs are in the process of being evaluated and assessed with an effort to making them as cost-effective as possible.
The $975 fee, which is established, was intended to assist in partially funding the program, and we believe it results in an improvement over the service that would have been received otherwise. But frankly I don't think you're in a position to say it has augmented the service.
Mr. Cullen: No? Okay. So it's not taken the service levels to a new plateau of performance. It's keeping up, given the restraint we're in, and I understand that. Given the other alternatives, it's keeping the service at a safe level.
Ms Chapman: If I could clarify, it's keeping the level of funding for the program at a more stable level. However - and this will come out more in the estimates - we have undertaken a number of initiatives that we think will improve the service to the public considerably.
.1655
We've gone to a mail-in process. Coming from the Toronto area, you will remember the days when we had people literally lined up around the block in order to get in, people standing there at2 a.m. We no longer have that. We have a system now that is much more efficient, where people mail their material in and they're processed on that basis.
At one stage we were not well located. We had people located in parts of the world with the result that we weren't getting the service in all of the areas where we could have got it. So some posts were getting very rapid service while other posts were getting slower service. We've now found ways of equalizing that. Our delivery system is more effective.
Our in-Canada delivery system also is now more effective.
So, yes, there are a number of service improvements, but I would not link them to the $975. I would rather say that the department, in using its overall budget, is attempting to do so in a more effective way.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Nunez.
Mr. Nunez: I would think that language training is longer and more costly in Quebec. It takes longer to learn French and, relatively speaking, there are fewer francophones in Quebec than they are anglophones in English Canada.
This committee did not travel to Quebec, precisely because Quebec has its own program. The committee and the federal government have nothing to do with what is being done in Quebec.
Concerning the third of the budget financed by CIC, can you give us an idea of the total revenues generated from the $975 immigration fees and $500 charged for opening a file? Do you have these figures?
[English]
Ms Chapman: I don't have the exact numbers. As I mentioned earlier, approximately one-third of the total budget of the department is indirectly funded through those fees. We can provide you, in the context of the estimates, with information on a detailed breakdown of the fee structure and a detailed breakdown of the amounts that we are obtaining from each of those.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: When you say "total", that would be how many million dollars?
Mr. Neuman: For the total budget of the department?
Mr. Nunez: A third of it.
The Chair: As I said, we will have an opportunity to get this information when our witnesses are back before the committee.
Mr. Nunez: When?
The Chair: When this report is completed. Our deadline will take us to the end of the month. I hope that within a week we will be able to finish what we are doing today, and then, we can deal with the estimates. We have no choice.
May I make a suggestion? Questions such as these could be entrusted to our clerk who will pass them on to the officials, who will provide us with the answers when they come back before the committee.
Mr. Nunez: They are keeping quiet.
The Chair: We cannot stay on the same subject. We have to go on to a different one.
Mr. Nunez: My friend Dhaliwal was the first one to ask questions concerning this.
The Chair: In any case, we do not want to get into a debate. Proceed.
Mr. Nunez: What services are you offering business immigrants? Has the policy changed? What are you planning to do in the future? There have been a lot of failures in that place.
Mr. Neuman: In principle, they have access the same programs as everybody else, but they seldom take advantage of them.
Mr. Nunez: I have heard that there are people from Hong Kong who cannot utter a word of either French or English. Wouldn't they be well advised to receive language training?
Mr. Neuman: Yes, but very often, when they can afford it, they do it on their own. They do not want to wait. We often have a waiting list to register for those language classes and they do not want to wait for two or three months. They can afford private classes that are readily available. They're not interested in sitting in a classroom with a bunch of refugees.
Mr. Nunez: If this were true, I wouldn't have a problem. But it seems that some of them are still unable to speak either of the official languages after five or six years.
Mr. Neuman: They do not have to take advantage of those programs to learn a language.
Mr. Nunez: Then, how will they be able to become Canadian citizens?
.1700
Mr. Neuman: We are offering language training. We cannot force people to learn a language. It is up to each individual to decide whether they want to learn and how much effort they are willing to put into it.
Mr. Nunez: You are saying that there are no special programs for these business immigrants because they are not interested?
Mr. Neuman: If they are interested, they have access to these programs. If they wish to, they can also get private language instruction. In that case, they have to pay for it. If, for any reason, they decide that they do not need to learn the language right away, it is up to them. They are not being forced to take language training.
Mr. Nunez: I see.
[English]
The Chair: You mentioned that consultations were concluded with the different groups, not only the NGOs, if I understood properly. Was there one central theme that you came away with, perhaps? I know I'm presupposing what you're going to write in your report, but was there one central theme?
I'm asking the question because when we did our consultations across Canada the main issue was to which body we should divest that responsibility. Should it be a mixed formula? Should it be to the provinces? Should it be to the municipalities? We didn't come up with a conclusion. We're still in the process of writing a report.
I'm wondering if you had some consensus.
Mr. Neuman: We consulted in five areas. I think fairly strong views were expressed in each of them.
In respect of the question of principles, there certainly was a strong feeling on the part of the organizations that deliver the services that there should be some principles, and we received -
The Chair: Or national standards? Is that what we're talking about?
Mr. Neuman: First we talked about principles. We received well over 100 proposed principles, many of which overlapped. Not everybody agreed on what was a principle and what wasn't a principle. A lot of the principles would be described by others as eligibility criteria or rights. Some people said that every immigrant who comes should have a right to language training and a right to this and a right to that. There was a lot of debate in the discussions about how, if you're giving somebody a right, then the government is obligated to do something, and you can't give them more rights than you can afford to cover. So there was discussion, and we got agreement on a number of principles and those would appear in the report.
Following that, many people said that, based on that, there should be national standards to define what those principles are. But there wasn't necessarily agreement as to how you would achieve national standards. There certainly was a desire for the federal government to continue to play a role in encouraging the establishment of national principles or national standards.
With respect to the questions we had on the enduring federal role, there certainly was a desire for the federal government to continue to be involved and to continue to be visible in its involvement, especially with respect to refugees, especially government-sponsored ones. It was felt that the government had a special responsibility to that group.
The Chair: Even after April 1998?
Mr. Neuman: Even after April 1998.
We didn't hear a lot about accountability, except that there was a lot of criticism of the old system. So we acted fairly quickly and put it aside, saying that there was no point in spending more work on this and that we'd have something coming out of the settlement renewal initiative.
On accountability, there was a strong desire to keep whatever system we have simple.
One of the reasons why people ultimately favoured giving it to provinces as the responsible body was that provinces already have a means of providing grants to people and a means of auditing, controlling, monitoring projects, evaluating projects, and getting cheques out. So if it's not going to be the federal government, you had might as well have one government that does it. And if it's a government, then it has all of these systems in place, so you don't have to pay for it twice. So there's an advantage there.
In our discussions with the provinces, including Quebec, I think there's general agreement that the focus should be on results. So we've agreed, on a multilateral basis, that we will be working over the next little while at the federal-provincial table on developing results indicators for integration.
As I said, the main point we got on refugees is that the federal government has a special role, and always will have, with respect to them.
.1705
On the last issue of new ways to deliver service, we had encouraged community involvement in decision-making processes or priority-setting processes. These groups across the country made the point to us that we have to separate the priority-setting processes from the decision-making process. You can't have a local decision-making process that involves the people who also get the money because they're in a conflict of interest. They thought they could work together as groups in the community to set priorities, but the decision of who gets the money is ultimately, and I think many of them concluded this reluctantly, best done by government, which is seen as impartial. If it's not going to be the federal government, it should be the provincial government. It is a senior government and it already has the mechanisms in place.
If there was another theme, a lot of the initial fears around the devolution to the provinces were because many of them saw provincial governments as either not having much interest in immigration or as being more apt to cut than the federal government. So it was suggested to us that when you have this transfer, don't have it with no strings attached. In other words, if you're going to transfer the money, if Parliament votes the money to be spent on new immigrants for integration services, there must be strings to ensure that the money gets spent for that purpose. That's in essence what we heard.
The Chair: Thank you for that.
There was talk of a pilot project in British Columbia. Are there any developments?
Mr. Neuman: The term ``pilot'' was probably optimistic. The province is no more ready to launch a pilot. What was unique in British Columbia was that the consultation process was joint, and it was sort of formally joint. In other provinces it was joint as well, but we took the lead.
In all provinces they participated. In all of the western provinces it was co-managed with the four provincial governments. In Ontario, because of the election, it took a while for the provincial bureaucracy to get involved, but I would say from Christmas on, the consultations that took place in January, there was very heavy provincial involvement in all of the sessions.
We encourage provincial involvement everywhere. In the Atlantic, given the number of immigrants that go there, there's naturally less interest on the part of the provincial governments in getting involved, but they were involved in all sessions. It was the same thing in the territories, although I think half of the people who came were territorial officials.
So there have been varying degrees of involvement, but in terms of pilot projects we're really not ready. It was agreed that until we resolve some of these issues, like what the federal government does for refugees versus everybody else....
One of the main advantages of this, I think, it that many of the provinces have come to realize that it is in their interest to take a greater interest in immigrants who come here. Whether they admit it or not, immigrants are using provincial programs for settlement. They are using provincial services, agencies, hospitals, and there are probably advantages to eliminating the two bureaucracies that are involved. The chances of people getting their act together might be better if there were just one bureaucracy, and the chances of getting a better bang for the buck for the very limited dollars that government has would be better if there were one group of people.
If you could get this decision-making, priority-setting process to establish priorities that are based on local needs, that have more flexibility, instead of having people in Ottawa say, this is how much we put into language training and this is how much we put into counselling services, and if in one area you don't get as many people who don't speak the language, it would make it easier to switch the money into areas where the need exists.
We think there is an advantage in doing this relatively slowly. I know some immigrant groups think we're doing it fast, but we are doing it slowly. I think people are coming to realize that there are real advantages to the various players getting their acts together.
The Chair: I would like to thank Mr. Neuman and Ms Chapman for coming before this committee and enlightening us on where you are. We look forward to having a copy of your report, and at the same time we hope you'll look forward to receiving our recommendations and suggestions, through the minister of course, and the House. Thank you.
Members, you all received a copy of the draft report at the stage it's at. I hope you will take notice of it and read it for the next meeting.
Mr. Cullen, you haven't received it? We'll clear that up.
We'll be dealing with the report in draft stage on Thursday at 3:30 p.m., and there's a steering committee tomorrow after the vote.
Thank you very much. We're adjourned.