[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, September 26, 1995
.1003 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: My name is Susan Baldwin. I'm the clerk of the committee. It is my duty this morning to conduct the election for a new chair. Then the chair-elect will conduct the elections for the two vice-chairs.
I see a quorum. Pursuant to Standing Orders 104.(1), 106.(1), 106.(2), and 116, the first order of business is to elect a chair. I am ready to receive motions to that effect.
Mr. Dromisky (Thunder Bay - Atikokan): I move that our former chairman, Eleni Bakopanos, who conducted the meetings of the past in such an effective manner, be honoured with the responsibility of continuing as chairman of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
The Clerk: It has been moved by Mr. Dromisky that Eleni Bakopanos do take the chair of this committee. Is it agreed?
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mrs. Bakopanos duly elected and invite her to take the chair.
The Chair: I'd like to thank and welcome also our new clerk, Susan.
Welcome to the committee.
The Clerk: Thank you.
The Chair: Of course Margaret is with us still. We're happy about that.
.1005
I want to thank all my colleagues for the support - and for the wonderful words, Stan. I really appreciate it. Thank you, and I look forward to chairing for the next year with all of you together.
We will continue. In accordance with Standing Order 106.(2), the committee shall proceed with the election of two vice-chairs, one of whom must be from the opposition and one from the government. I am ready to receive motions to elect the first vice-chair, the one from the government.
Mrs. Terrana (Vancouver East): I nominate the former vice-chair, Stan Dromisky.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. Bravo!
We will now proceed with the election of the other vice-chair, from the opposition. I recognize Mr. Duceppe.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie): I nominate Mr. Osvaldo Nunez as vice-chair of the committee for the official opposition.
[English]
An hon. member: I second that nomination.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
I'm sorry; did you have your hand up?
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Yes. I wanted to nominate Val Meredith. Also, I was asking for a recorded vote.
The Chair: To follow the rules, first we will take one motion at a time. We have a motion on the floor. Mr. Nunez was nominated as vice-chair by Mr. Duceppe.
I assume that you want a recorded vote on this?
Mr. Forseth: Yes.
The Chair: So we will proceed with a recorded vote.
The Clerk: The motion moved by Gilles Duceppe is that Mr. Nunez be the vice-chair from the opposition.
Motion agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, welcome to the vice-chairmanship.
[English]
We have another motion, which was proposed by -
The Clerk: It is now invalid, because we accepted this one. We would take it as notice.
The Chair: I look forward to working with Mr. Nunez.
[Translation]
Congratulations Mr. Dromisky.
[English]
The third order of business on the agenda is the appointment of a subcommittee on agenda and procedure. In the past session we had a subcommittee that was to report back to the full committee on Diminishing Returns: The Economics of Canada's Recent Immigration Policy. At the moment, the subcommittee is non-existent. From what I understand, we have to strike it again.
I will go back on agenda and procedure:
- That the Chair, the two Vice-chairs, Mary Clancy and Val Meredith do compose the
Sub-committee on Agenda and Procedure.
The Chair: I'm sorry; I skipped to item 4, which is a subcommittee on Diminishing Returns.
Just to repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Gar Knutson, who unfortunately is no longer a member of our committee, although he's an associate member, and who couldn't be here today, if I understood well, was chairing the subcommittee on Diminishing Returns: The Economics of Canada's Recent Immigration Policy. A first draft has been prepared by the subcommittee.
I would like to propose that Mr. Knutson continue, in order to finish the work of that subcommittee before the report comes to the full committee.
Is that agreed?
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): Yes, I agree.
.1010
The Chair: If you agree with everything that's under item 4, that the subcommittee be empowered to send for persons, papers, records, to sit while the House is sitting, to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned, to print from day to day such papers and evidence.... Anyway, I won't repeat it. You can read it.
It also says the membership of the subcommittee should be four government members, one member of the official opposition, and one member of the Reform Party, with the names to be filed with Susan after the usual consultation with the party whips.
That's procedure. Agreed? Thank you.
If there are no questions on the last four items, we'll proceed to item 5. We will continue with Standing Order 108.(2), a study on settlement renewal.
I will give a bit of background to the new members. We did begin with a study of settlement renewal in Canada, and this is the ongoing process with the witnesses.
We have with us today, from the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council, Mr. Martin Dolin, executive director. Welcome, Mr. Dolin.
Mr. Martin Dolin (Executive Director, Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council): Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the committee, for allowing us to present to you today.
I have distributed a summary document, which I would hope you would all have. My literacy is moderate. I assume yours is more than that, so I don't have to read it to you, but I will go through it.
I would like to make an introductory comment on a matter of concern. It's the euphemism of ``settlement renewal''.
``Renewal'' means something is tarnished; something is old and needs to be renewed. The settlement system in this country I think is excellent, and I think the government recognizes its excellence. I think the idea of calling it ``renewal'' is leading people down some wrong paths. I think what the government is doing is trying, as the minister said.... There was a direction from Paul Martin to cut $150 million from the budget. There was another direction, which the deputy minister stated before this committee, to cut $54 million from the annual allocation in 1997-98.
If the idea is to do more with less and to diminish the amount of direct responsibility of the federal government, and if that is the plan, that is what should have been stated. ``Renewal'' misleads people that there is something wrong with the system and it has to be corrected.
That introductory concern being given, I would like to make a few statements about what I think is good about the system and what could be made better. I would also like to clarify that when I speak of system renewal and the cuts in funding, it does not necessarily mean this is a bad thing. That's a government policy decision. I think we can do more with less. As I get into my presentation, you will see what we have done in Winnipeg to combine services, to cut down administrative costs, to provide better services with less money by making arrangements with the federal government to contract some of the services being provided by the federal government to us in the private sector. I think that can be done effectively and closer to the clientele, with community involvement.
I've broken my brief into some basic principles. The first is settlement renewal and diminution, let's call it, of federal government responsibility. I think that is a clearer picture of what is going on. The diminution of the federal government responsibility should retain certain principles.
One of the principles is that there should be an assurance that the existing quality of services does not erode. There should also be a concern that off-loading and memoranda of agreement with provincial governments do not allow the base of service to be Balkanized throughout the country. You see very serious differences in what different provincial governments see as their obligations and what the Canadian government and the Canadian people's obligations and responsibilities are for settling newcomers in Canada, be they immigrants or refugees.
We also think there should be better integration of the departments now involved. The departments now involved are Citizenship and Immigration, Heritage Canada, Human Resources Development. We think there are programs in those departments such that if you were going to look at diminishing financial responsibility, there may be some economies of scale and integration that could be achieved by putting programs in the various departments together.
The process. One of the things that have always concerned us about the process and I think should concern you as members of the committee is that the steamroller keeps going ahead and flattening everything in its path. The steamroller is the senior bureaucracy in the Department of Immigration.
.1015
One of the things we have noticed in the private sector - those who work with the senior bureaucracy and with the Government of Canada - is there has been a rather straight-line policy since about 1992. Even though the government has changed in that period, the policy has been to diminish the federal government's responsibility, both financially and in service delivery, and to limit services, and to have what I refer to as a much stronger policy of ``keep them out and kick them out'', and a much greater reliance on enforcement.
In 1990 Barbara McDougall came out with a five-year plan, which many of you will remember. Many of us in the private sector took the five-year plan as gospel and went and planned and invested on the basis of this.
In 1992 Mr. Valcourt came in and basically trashed that plan.
In 1993 a certain group of people were exempted from services and financing through the government when the LINC program came in. For example, Canadian citizens, particularly women and the elderly, who could not speak English were denied services under the federal government when they could not speak English because of the fact that they were Canadian citizens. Only non-citizens could get funding for LINC services.
When the government changed, this policy continued. What we see is a rather straight line of the continuance of the policy of a narrowing of service delivery to who gets service and a narrowing of funding for services that has continued from Mr. Valcourt through to the present day.
What we are hoping for is that this process of diminution of funding of federal responsibility will not diminish the adequacy and competency of services delivered. We think that can be done better through cooperation with the private sector than necessarily with the provinces. This may be true in some provinces; it may not be true in others.
We also think there's a need for national standards on what settlement is. If the federal government is going to be diminishing its direct input financially and its service delivery in settlement, then it should be able to monitor what national standards are kept, so there is no difference in the way somebody is treated when they require federal programs from Manitoba, Ontario, British Columbia, or Quebec.
Also, who should deliver services? One of the concerns we have is that there seems to be a somewhat flippant attitude towards the delivery and the professional quality of services delivered to clients - immigrants, refugees, refugee claimants, family-sponsored people, independent immigrants - by the settlement agencies. We think it's time there was some recognition of the expertise of the people who deliver these services.
For example, I have a master's degree in social work. That does not mean I have any specific experience or skills in cross-cultural consultation, in cross-cultural understanding, in dealing with torture victims, in dealing with post-trauma stress syndrome. There are specialized skills that have developed.
One of the examples we see both here and in Winnipeg - and particularly in Winnipeg - is the current group of Bosnians; people who are fleeing that conflict, arriving in Canada, and bringing that baggage with them. We have been getting people...and our Bosnian workers, the people who speak Serbo-Croatian and who work in my organization, the settlement workers, have been getting people from mixed marriages, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Serbs, a few Bosnian Croats, Jews, etc.
The fact is that we are integrating these people and helping them adapt before integration into the Canadian system. Even with the violence and the hatred and the ethnic cleansing, we have been relatively free of any incidents of violence in Winnipeg, and I think that is reasonably true in Canada. I think basically that is because of the specific expertise of the social workers, who specifically have the experience and training in working in settlement.
This is true of many other communities. The violence that went on in their homelands does not carry over to Canada. I think a lot of that is because of the specific skills these people have.
It should also be recognized that these people delivering services know what they're doing and have specialized skills. One of the problems we recently came across is that the new arrangement with the master agreement holders has three months of government sponsorship and nine months for the church or the ethnocultural group that is sponsoring refugees. The first three months it says the church or the sponsoring group shall take responsibility for the orientation and integration of the sponsored refugee. It makes no clarification or understanding that some specialized skills are required here.
.1020
In Winnipeg we have a group of master agreement holders representing all the faith groups and the ethnocultural groups who sponsor refugees, and we have said that the initial orientations will be done by my staff, and they have all agreed. So you have the people with professional skills.
Once they have done the initial adaptation interviews, we are also doing training for the church volunteers so they will have some understanding of dos and don'ts.
We think that this is the correct way to go, but also that it's indicative of the fact that there are specialized skills in settlement.
I think you have before you different models of how settlement services are delivered. What we have done in Manitoba is integrate the two major agencies, which are the Interfaith Immigration Council and the Citizenship Council of Manitoba. Basically, we have integrated the administrations and we have jointly contracted for various programs, such as reception. You've looked at the plethora of programs we have delivered; it's basically under a single cooperative administration, which somewhere down the road, through evolution, will totally integrate the two agencies.
We think this is a saving, we think it's a greater efficiency in delivery of services, and we also have some concerns about specific ethnocultural service deliveries that we think are divisive rather than integrating people in the Canadian hyphenated milieu, in what our multiculturalism is, rather than the ghettoized interpretation of multiculturalism that you see south of the border.
The other thing we would like to ask is, who should receive services? If you take a look and there are any questions, then I'll get back to you.
We believe that, under the Charter of Rights, anybody who comes to this country has the same right to services. At the moment, certain groups are excluded from certain services. As I pointed out, particularly women who do not speak English and who have become Canadian citizens when their husbands did, the elderly, etc., are denied services under LINC, which is Language Instruction for Newcomers...and whatever the ``C'' stands for.
There are other people. Refugee claimants who are in the country until their claim has been settled are denied many services and rights, such as the right to appeal under the Immigration and Refugee Board. You get one kick at the cat, and then basically you can appeal only on legal matters. You can't appeal on new evidence, which is very different from the way in which the regular court system operates.
We think these people deserve services too, and we do serve them. We are not going to throw people who are arriving in Canada out; we are not going to deny them services.
We have, for example, an immigrant assistance service, where refugee claimants arrive at the airport in Winnipeg or across the border from North Dakota or Minnesota and claim refugee status. We will assist them in preparing their submission before the Immigration and Refugee Board in order to make sure the facts are correct and the board gets a clear understanding of what the situation is in a particular case.
There's no funding for that. There's no support for these people. We are doing it with church funds and with Mennonite volunteers, etc. We think it's an important service and that these are legitimate people who belong in the settlement system.
As people are aware, well over 60% to 70% of them are admitted to Canada. We think that if those odds, 7 out of 10, are going to be in the system, then we might as well start them early and then help them.
Also, we have the evaluation of the system. You have another document that I have given you, which is our way of keeping track of settlement services. For myself as the executive director, it's a management tool. I have eliminated the names of the staff people, but it tells you the kind of work they are doing, who they are doing it for, how much of it they're doing, what kinds of services, etc.
I would like to point out that this costs us, in software and computer, the munificent and magnificent sum of $400. We walk into a computer store and we buy a copy of off-the-shelf software for $400 and we adapt it to our needs.
The government, in its wisdom, came up with a system called Settlement Management Information System, at a cost of $2.9 million, which provides me with no information that I need in order to manage my staff, to find out what they are doing. It provides the government with what we think is minimal and misleading information, and certainly inaccurate information.
.1025
We think one of the things that should be done is to look very carefully at systems like this and how they develop. If you want to save $54 million and something in 1997-98, don't spend another $3 million, almost, on something like this.
I see no reason why the Government of Canada and its staff in the Department of Immigration should be trying to outdo Bill Gates in developing software. He's pretty good at what he does and has made some pretty good money. We can buy Paradox for $400 and develop a system, which we have also copyrighted and which three years ago we said we were happy to share with the government...and they decided to develop their own system.
Two things. First, the government should be evaluated in the same way as we are in its delivery of services and whether these systems are effective. Second, we think we should be evaluated based on real data. The kind of data I need to evaluate my staff on whether they're doing the job is the same kind of evaluation the government needs. Who are they doing it for, and so on.
That information given, and a bit of diatribe, I appreciate your listening to me. If there are any questions, I would be happy to try to respond as best I can. I would like to warn you that English is my second language, because I'm originally from New York. I have a very moderate command of some Spanish and minimal to no command of French. I'm sorry about that.
The Chair: Mr. Dolin, thank you very much.
We will proceed with ten-minute rounds.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez, you can start.
Mr. Nunez: Madam Chair, I wish to congratulate you on your election as well as our colleague, Stan Dromisky, and I thank you for the support you have given me for the third time.
Mr. Dolin, thank you for your presentation. It was particularly interesting, as well as your document. This being said, I see that page 5 is missing. Ah, I see that you have it!
Could you tell us more about your organization, the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council? Which church are you affiliated to, where's the financing coming from, what proportion of the financing comes from the government and what are your objectives?
[English]
Mr. Dolin: Sure, I would be happy to, as best I can off the top of my head.
The Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council has each faith group appoint two members to the board. Some faith groups elect people. With some the bishop or whoever appoints them.
The representatives on the board are from most of the major Christian faiths: the Mennonites, the Catholics, the Anglicans, the United Church, the Baptists, the Baha'i. We also have the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Sikhs, the Jews, the Muslims. Any other recognized faith group that wishes can make application.
What's interesting is that everybody on the board, including the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, and the Sikhs, seems to get along very well. They all have the same goal, which they all consider - and it is part of our mandate - the basis of all religions, and that is welcoming the stranger. They see that as their mission.
The majority of our funding comes through government contracts for our reception -
Mr. Nunez: The federal?
Mr. Dolin: Yes, the federal. We get no money directly in operating funding from the provincial government in Manitoba. This is very different from in other provinces; Alberta.... We do get certain grant moneys for specific programs. We get money for the language bank, which provides translation services to the police and so on from the City of Winnipeg. We get some money from Manitoba Public Insurance on a fee-for-service basis.
We also get money from churches, and we own a large building housing refugees that is indirectly under CMHC. That generates revenue for some of the programs. We also hold what we call ``cultural celebration dinners'' at two different churches in Winnipeg about twice a month, one at each church. About 200 people attend and we generate revenues from there.
.1030
One of the things, for example, is that the host program that we run has had its budget frozen for the past four years. We have managed to increase the program by deriving funds from other revenue-producing sources: bake sales, cultural celebration dinners, etc.
The program is increasing. What has happened, really, is that the federal share of the program - the host program being a federal program - is now approaching less than 50%. By next year it will be less than 50%. So, in reality, the federal share of programming is declining while the program is increasing.
I don't know whether this can be expected everywhere.
What we seem to see very often is that sometimes when you encourage and have cost savings to federal programs, you don't get encouragement for this; you get a pat on the back and further cuts. Somehow we think that there should be some incentive for us to save money, rather than punishment.
I hope that answers your question.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: Judging by the make-up of your organization, one would think that you have solved many problems among the Bosnian refugees. It's quite extraordinary, but there has been no incidents, no violence.
Given the number of francophones in Manitoba, do you offer any services in French? Do you get immigrants from francophone countries? In what languages do you offer services?
[English]
Mr. Dolin: You can see in this document the languages in which we primarily offer services: Amharic, Arabic, Croatian, which is really Serbo-Croatian, English, French, Khmer, Kurdish, Persian, Polish, Pashto, Russian, Spanish, Tigrinya, and Vietnamese. We have access through the language bank to other services, for example, if we need them in other languages.
Mr. Nunez: But in French only 0.03? Is that correct?
Mr. Dolin: Yes, that's right. The reason for that is we don't get many French-speaking refugees. We get the odd person from, maybe, Chad, basically the old French West Africa, refugees from that area who would be French-speaking. We don't see very many of them in Winnipeg. We have the capacity to deal with French-speaking refugees, but we don't get very many in Winnipeg.
For example, we have very few Haitians. I assume that they gravitate towards Quebec. We see the odd French-speaking West African, but not very often.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: What kind of role would you see the federal, provincial and municipal governments play in an organization such as yours and in the NGOs, what kind of role would they play while the settlement serivces are being restructured?
[English]
Mr. Dolin: The role of the federal government that I see, as I stated, is to set basic standards and to ensure that they are met, that the quality of service we now have in this country will not be eroded. That's the first priority, and it does not vary from province to province. That is number one in the federal role.
The provincial role is anywhere within the range of service delivery that the province wishes to contract with the federal government or with the NGOs. That is open to negotiation.
I also think the NGOs should be allowed the same ability as the provinces to negotiate directly with the federal government to contract for services that the federal government wants to pay for but no longer delivers directly. We've already been doing this.
For example, until recently federal employees picked up the refugees at the airport and then delivered them to our reception centre. Within the last few months, since the federal government has said, ``We no longer want to do that. Can you do this for us?'', basically we have tendered for it and received a contract. We now pick up...
We think we provide better service, because we provide first-language service. The person who is going to be doing the work with that particular refugee family is the person who takes them from the airport to the reception centre and works with them continuously for as long as they need it, over the next number of years. So it establishes immediate contact - and at less cost, I might add, than what the government spent last year.
So that option should be open.
.1035
In some cases municipalities are involved. In Edmonton and Calgary they are more involved. To some extent the City of Winnipeg is more involved than the provincial government in Manitoba is.
So people have to be careful, and certainly I would encourage you, as the federal government, to be careful, about treating all provinces equally, because some provinces have more commitment to providing services to refugees than others. The federal government should ensure that there is a basic standard of service delivery that is at least what is happening today and that is not eroded.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dromisky): Val Meredith, please.
Ms Meredith (Surrey - White Rock - South Langley): Thank you, and welcome.
Are your two agencies the only two in Winnipeg that provide these services, or are there a number of smaller agencies?
Mr. Dolin: There are very few. Winnipeg is an interesting city. There are two major agencies. We are the two major agencies.
Our annual budget runs to about $2 million. Our assets are buildings, student residences, as you can see from here.
There are other services: the Immigrant Women's Association, the Immigrant Women's Employment Counselling Service, which provide a very good service to a specific community. For example, there is the Lao association, which provides services to people in the Lao community. There is the Free Vietnamese Association, which provides certain services.
We cover most of the spectrum. We cooperate with these other agencies too, and work with them.
Ms Meredith: So if the federal government were to have contracts directly with the service delivery, non-government agencies, would these other agencies be left out of the process?
Mr. Dolin: I would hope not.
Ms Meredith: Would the larger agencies end up with the bulk of the dollars?
Mr. Dolin: It depends. Let me explain to you how this came about.
Last year the federal government came to us and said because of the declining number of refugees - and it has continued to decline - neither Winnipeg nor the federal government can continue to support two separate reception houses. They said they would provide one contract.
What we could have done is competed against each other. Both agencies provide unique services. For example, we have a cooperative farm for refugees. We also have a large residential block for refugees with special services. The citizenship council, the other agency, had the language bank, the employment training program. Had we competed against each other and bid on the contract, one agency would have been out of business and the unique services of that agency would have gone out of business.
What the two boards, and Mr. Tom Denton and myself as administrators, decided to do was to joint-contract for this service and see what we could do to integrate and cut costs and be able to provide a better service without having to get rid of one agency or another and all the attendant services that agency delivers.
My line has always been that it is amazing what you can do with a gun to your head.
Ms Clancy (Halifax): An unfortunate simile, perhaps, Mr. Dolin.
Mr. Dolin: We were given the choice of either you get together or one of us dies. We said we would get together and make it work, and make it work better.
One of the things I mentioned in my brief was that in Winnipeg it seems to be working. Whether or not this could be transferred to other parts of the country, I don't know. But it is certainly worth looking at.
I understand the reception houses in Toronto have been given the same ultimatums. There are four in Toronto and they have been told the government will fund only three. The reality is that each one of those has unique services that could be lost, along with an erosion of services. Somehow there should be ways of assisting them at least with some short-term help to integrate the services to ensure that any current services are not lost just because of funding cuts.
Ms Meredith: If you leave the provinces out of the equation, are you then forcing the non-governmental agencies to do precisely what you did successfully? Others may not be as successful in trying to meld it, and then you have this competition developing. If you don't have the provincial government, a little closer to the scene, to determine where the money -
Mr. Dolin: I mentioned that an example of good tripartite cooperation is what happens in Alberta, where you have biannual meetings between the provincial government, the municipal government, the NGOs, and the federal government to determine priorities for settlement and refugee and immigrant services for the province of Alberta. To me that is very positive.
.1040
I wasn't suggesting cutting provincial governments out of the equation. What I was saying is some provincial governments are more enthusiastic than others. Some are more informed than others. I don't want to mention any particular names. We happen to live in one that probably falls in the lower end of the enthusiasm category when it comes to refugees.
Ms Meredith: So you're saying the provincial government should be working with the federal government and the non-governmental agencies to determine priorities and that sort of thing, and then leave the actual contract for delivering the services to the agencies that are there delivering the services.
Mr. Dolin: Or, where there is mutual agreement, the provincial government or the federal government can deliver it... If they feel that is the most efficient and effective way to deliver services, they can do that.
What I'm suggesting is all the players should be party to the consultations. With the kinds of consultations that have taken place in the past between the NGOs and the federal government, particularly with CEIC and this settlement management information system, somebody in the senior bureaucracy decides: this is what we want to do; we'll ask you what you think about it; whether you say it's wonderful or it stinks, we will go ahead and do it. I don't consider that consultation. With consultation, if somebody tells you it stinks you say, well, what can we do together to make it better?
That's not the kind of consultation we've been getting. The kind of consultation here is that it is written in stone. You can spray-paint on top of it, but it's still written in stone, and that's still what's going to happen. I think that kind of consultation has to stop if you really want to make the system better.
Listen to each other. That's what we've been suggesting. We're the foot soldiers. We're the ones who actually deliver the services. We're saying, pay some attention to what... I pay attention to what my line staff are telling me about what's going on. I think in the same way the people above me, the funders, the federal government and provincial governments, should be paying some attention to what I'm telling them. Then maybe we could get better services at better cost, and maybe have a more efficient system.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dromisky): Anna Terrana.
Mrs. Terrana: Thank you for your presentation. I want to thank you for calling a spade a spade. But about the semantics of ``renewal'', I don't think it means what you said it means. It means much more than that. It's reviewing and looking at... Unless you look at the process once in a while, you don't get anywhere and you can't improve on it.
Now, Winnipeg is a good city. I've been involved in multiculturalism for twenty years, so I know that Winnipeg is a good example of getting people together, getting them to work together. I don't know what it is in Winnipeg. It must be the cold. But surely in Vancouver we have a different sort of experience.
You made several comments. First of all, I agree with you. I'm a little concerned if the province is getting the action. But how are we going to go, then? What kinds of groups should be put together in order to ensure that refugees and immigrants are served? Do you have an idea you would like to suggest?
Mr. Dolin: Very simply, there is the old expression, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it''. Right? Do not destroy the agencies that have the experience, that have been in the field. We have been around since 1948 as a voluntary organization of church groups helping newcomers: DPs after the war, then the Hungarians, the Czechs, the Vietnamese, and now anyone else. The fact is there are people who have experience, who have enthusiasm. Don't start looking for new things before you look at what exists.
That is the first thing. The other thing is what I said before. Consultation should be real consultation, with a sharing of information and a mutual willingness to accept change of the players in the business.
I also have some concern that I hear people saying, oh, settlement renewal means money that existing agencies have is floating around and maybe we can get our hands on it - ``we'' being other groups, other NGOs, other government departments, etc. Very extreme caution should be exercised in cutting out the existing players, unless they're totally incompetent and unless you can show that, for new players who are untested and unknown. So one of the things is let's keep the consultation going, but let's be very careful about cutting out anybody who's been in the business for some time.
.1045
Mrs. Terrana: So you would suggest that the organizations already there should be the ones that deal with the whole situation.
We are looking to see what kind of a group we should put together. Consultation is all right, but you can't consult constantly. Also, services have to be provided, and sometimes you spend too much time in consultation.
Remember that Winnipeg is a very specific place; you can't get that kind of cooperation everywhere in Canada. How do you ensure that all of the immigrants and the refugees have the same access to services at the same time, and should we establish any national standards to serve these refugees and immigrants in the same manner? It's a big country with different ideas.
Mr. Dolin: For example, in Vancouver, you probably have the two largest agencies in the country, ISS and MOSAIC. What I'm suggesting is that any discussions going on for British Columbia should be...
Number one, the federal government should be setting base standards, saying, ``Here are the basic services that are now being delivered that should not be eroded, and we expect everybody to comply with them''. Then it should be sitting down with the Government of British Columbia and those major agencies. There is a province-wide organization of all settlement agencies, AMSSA, that should be part of the equation. These should mutually sit down and decide how best to ensure that services are provided, given the equation. The equation is a $150-million cut and a $54-million cut in 1997-98. If that is the equation the government has laid down, then those are the ground rules we have to play under.
I think it's wrong; I don't agree that those cuts should be made, but I have to play within the playing field that I'm given.
I'm suggesting that those players should be there and be equal. We should not just have the senior bureaucrats saying, ``Here's the way you're going to play under the system''. ISS and MOSAIC should be in there, along with AMSSA, to have their say, and attention should be paid to them because they're the ones who are delivering the services, not the federal government...and, to a lesser extent, the provincial governments.
Mrs. Terrana: But who would do that?
Mr. Dolin: I'm sure AMSSA would do it.
Mrs. Terrana: You're talking about not wanting bureaucrats in the picture, so who would be the catalyst of all of that?
Mr. Dolin: I'm sure that AMSSA would be happy to do it; the NGO sector, I'm sure - although I can't speak for them.
That's what has happened in Alberta. The three levels of government and the NGOs meet biannually to do this. I understand that it works reasonably well and has for a number of years.
In Manitoba we meet regularly with the federal government and with the civic government, and at odd times we meet separately with the provincial government.
I gather that in Ontario there have been joint meetings with OCASI, the provincial government, and the federal government that have been reasonably successful.
I don't think it would be difficult to ask the provincial NGO organizations, in provinces such as British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec, and Ontario and in the Maritimes, to invite people to come to a conference where minutes would be taken, motions would be made, and in an equal partnership decisions could be taken as to where the settlement program is going to go and how we can ensure that Canada will continue to settle refugees and immigrants properly so they can become participating and fully cognizant members of Canadian society. That's the goal.
So far it has been working reasonably well, and I'm saying, ``If it ain't broke, don't fix it''.
Ms Clancy: I'm fascinated by the model of the international centre.
Mr. Dolin: We refer to it as Spaceship International.
Ms Clancy: It's quite wonderful. It's probably no coincidence that one of the co-directors is a Nova Scotia native and the other has had long exposure to the province of Nova Scotia. Obviously, the ``fish or cut bait'' syndrome in Nova Scotia served you both well.
You're probably aware that in June this committee travelled across the country. It was interesting. The Winnipeg international centre might well be a model, to a degree, for other areas. The Alberta situation is very encouraging, as well.
A number of us who sat in on all of the hearings heard different things. This is a very diverse country, as you are well aware.
The whole first session in Toronto was spent in reassuring the NGOs there that we hadn't come to hit them on the head with an axe, that indeed they might get hit on the head with an axe but that we weren't wielding it at that particular moment.
.1050
I think your comments are very well taken about the kinds of consultation and the ongoing.... Also, the national standards comments are very well taken.
In your experience in this field and in the general field of social activism.... Toronto - and obviously I come at this from a maritime perspective, but I also come at it from a bit of a national perspective.... Do you think, for example, the four groups in Toronto you were talking about, the various groups, could come together in the way the international centre in Winnipeg has come together, or is Toronto just too big, too unwieldy, and it has too big a population?
Mr. Dolin: It's an interesting question. I think the answer to the question, in a word, is yes, they can. I know most of the people. I am treasurer of the Canadian Council for Refugees. I go to the meetings and I see the people from the rest of the country. It seems they are looking at the idea of cooperation and working out some arrangements.
This is hearsay - it has to be confirmed - but my understanding is they were told there would be a 30% cut in reception funding for the city of Toronto, which means one of the four major centres will have to close, because there's only so much money. My understanding is that they are discussing the possibility of integrating the services and working that out as we did, joint-contracting, rather than doing that. What's happened I don't know.
But yes, it is possible to have these models, and yes, it is possible to work things out in a cooperative manner rather than a competitive manner. I think it bodes well for the system.
I also think one of the things the rest of us, from the Maritimes or the prairies or from the west, recognize is that Torontonians, as wonderful people as they are, sometimes think they're the centre of the universe. Sometimes government policy seems to be driven by this black hole syndrome. The kinds of things that happen in Toronto with the delivery of settlement services are assumed to happen in the rest of the country.
A study was done, for example, about family sponsorships in Peel. It said family sponsorships were breaking down because people were not taking financial responsibility for their relatives. Therefore government policies were put in place to control this. Now they're talking about bonds, etc.
I checked with Russ Simmonds, who at that time was director of welfare for the city of Winnipeg, to find out whether or not this was the case in Winnipeg. What he told me was that out of 13,900 people on social assistance in the city of Winnipeg, 12 had been family sponsorship breakdowns.
Ms Clancy: Say it again!
Mr. Dolin: Only 12.
Further to that, when I asked him what the reason was for those 12 - were these people unwilling to take on their responsibility - he said in all cases they had lost their jobs. They still wanted to sponsor their relatives but couldn't do it.
The reality is it is time that Mr. Marchi, the senior officials...if you do a study in Toronto, do a study in Halifax, do a study in Edmonton or Vancouver or Winnipeg, before you make general policies for the country.
Another issue that really has bothered me in the six years I've been in the business is we settle all refugees and immigrants and family sponsors in major urban centres. We have been trying, you'll notice.... If we're doing anything about settlement renewal, we should be looking at settling people in smaller communities, in rural Canada, and in the north.
For example, we have many immigrant doctors who cannot practise their profession in this country because of restrictions. In Manitoba, for example, we're looking at special licences to allow them to practise in rural areas and the north. They have no family ties to be attracted to the major urban centres.
We should be looking at new ways of involving people in our rural communities, our northern communities, and the provinces, aside from Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.
Ms Clancy: I want to say two things. I couldn't agree with you more. May I say, to defend my minister who is not here to defend himself, he has many times made the point you made about the percentage of immigrants on the welfare rolls. But I'm glad you made it. We are extremely well aware of the problems, particularly about professional qualifications, which - not to pass the buck - lead us into a constitutional question, both on the question of the freedom of movement and on the question of provincial qualifications. But we're aware of those problems.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dromisky): Thank you very much, Mr. Dolin. We have to leave the room. Another committee is going to be entering immediately. We could continue for another hour or two, I'm sure, because it has been an exciting morning.
.1055
Mr. Dolin: We appreciate the committee's attendance, attention, interest, and enthusiasm. I wish you well. I hope that the committee's deliberations will be listened to before the bureaucrats' steamroller runs away with ``settlement renewal''.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Dromisky): The meeting stands adjourned.