Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs,
Science and Technology
Issue 27 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 2, 1999
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:03 a.m. to consider the dimensions of social cohesion in Canada in the context of globalization and other economic and structural forces that influence trust and reciprocity among Canadians.
Senator Lowell Murray (Chairman) in the Chair.
[English]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, we have a quorum. We are continuing our study of social cohesion and, in that regard, we have three witnesses scheduled for this morning.
It is my pleasure to welcome and introduce to you a representative of COSTI, which is Canada's largest education and social services agency, with a specific mandate to provide services to newcomers and their families. The agency is a result of the amalgamation of the Italian Immigrant Aid Society, founded in 1952, and COSTI, which was founded in 1962. COSTI is represented here today by Mr. Mario J. Calla, its Executive Director, whom you see before you.
We also have a representative of SUCCESS, the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society, a non-profit social service agency. It has been incorporated since 1973 as a member organization of the United Way of the Lower Mainland in British Columbia. Their primary objective is to build bridges and to assist new Canadians and immigrants to overcome language and cultural barriers and to become participating and contributing members of the community. In 1994, SUCCESS received a citizenship award by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for outstanding achievements that have exemplified Canadian values and principles of Canadian citizenship.
Mr. Calla, I understand you have a very brief statement, following which Ms Lillian To will make a brief statement. Following that, we will open the floor for questions and discussion.
Please proceed, Mr. Calla.
Mr. Mario Calla, Executive Director, COSTI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a pleasure and an honour to be here today, distinguished senators, addressing your committee on issues about accessibility of employment and training in the workplace. I am also very pleased, as a citizen, to see that the government is setting, through your committee, ways of building a civic and healthy society.
Because COSTI's work is primarily working with immigrants, I will focus my remarks on what I believe to be some of the major barriers that new Canadians face in trying to establish themselves in Canadian society.
I have provided written copies of my presentation; however, given the five-minute limit, perhaps I will just highlight a few areas, and then we can flesh out some of the details.
Over the last several years, Canada has been receiving about 200,000 to 215,000 immigrants per year. One major trend is that the skilled and business-class component of these immigrants has been steadily increasing over the years, while there is a corresponding decrease in the family class. For us, what this means is that we are receiving many skilled newcomers to Canada. Given the trends in our economy, it is a good thing for Canada; that is where the jobs are.
However, when these people arrive here, they hit a wall, in terms of accessing jobs; and this wall has to do with two major issues. One is the need for Canadian experience in terms of accessing these skilled jobs; the second is that, for those who have professional degrees, their foreign credentials are not recognized here. So, what is happening in our society is that we have literally tens of thousands of people with professional degrees, but, to use a very true cliche, they are driving taxis, making pizzas, and doing menial jobs.
This group of people is much more difficult to settle than the people who had lower expectations. For example, if we had in the family class sponsored immigrants that come to Canada with less skills, their expectations would not be as high, and they would more readily integrate into our society. Let me tell you, by way of example, about one individual who arrived from the Middle East with an engineering degree. He had been here seven years doing menial jobs. He had sent out hundreds of resumes, but could not see the indicators in terms of why he was not getting a job. Finally, he entered one of our workshops for foreign-trained professionals, and was stunned to see what he was doing wrong. He said that, in his country, when you graduate with a professional degree, the university sends your degree to the department of labour, and that department finds you a job. So, there is not, as there is here from childhood, an inculturation that you have to sell yourself, put your best persona forward when looking for a job. After realizing that, he understood that there had to be a major attitudinal shift in his approach. As a result, after working at it, he managed to get a job with a telecommunications company.
Sometimes, it is as simple as that, providing the appropriate information. If people with these kinds of skills are left for long periods of time with no hope of opportunity, they become angry, dissent, and then it takes more time to help these people integrate into the social fabric of our society, because you have to deal with the emotional side first.
In Ontario, there are 34 regulated professions. In 1997, of the skilled immigrants that came to Ontario, just over 15,000 intended to practise in a regulated profession. The problem is that regulated professions are self-regulated under provincial statutes and, as such, they set criteria that are very difficult for foreign-trained professionals to practise in our province. Hence, we have a lot of skilled people whose skills are being squandered.
As to the solutions, I will give you a few examples. Our program for foreign-trained professionals, which we run jointly with Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology and which is funded by Human Resources Development Canada, has had great success. We are finding employment for about 70 per cent of the participants in their chosen field.
Recently, we did a calculation of the graduates from this program who have found employment, a sort of return-on-investment calculation. We found that when you take the costs of this program, an intensive five-week program, and subtract those costs from the savings in employment insurance that these people were receiving, and take into consideration the income tax they are contributing, given their new employment status, the return is more than $1 million.
Therefore, it is apparent that the investment is a wise one, when you look at programs such as this that teach people how to search for jobs in their field and to make a decision whether they want to pursue a career in their field or a related field.
Let me give you an example of how we can short-circuit the system. We found employment for about 15 engineers with de Havilland Canada, because they have a large engineering department. Certification was not needed because the chief engineer will oversee their work and will sign on their behalf. The result is that these engineers are employed in their chosen field.
Basically, what is required in Ontario is a centralized academic credential assessment service, which they are finally starting to move on, and strategies to get individuals experience on the job, either through volunteer activities or other strategies, such as the ones we are employing through this program.
I will stop here. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Ms Lillian To, Executive Director, SUCCESS: Honourable senators, I am very pleased to be here to make a presentation on social cohesion. Because of time constraints, I will focus only on a few points.
In terms of enhancing social cohesion, I will focus on three areas. The first area is immigrant settlement services; the second is employment services; and the third, I will talk briefly about multiculturalist program, how important it is to foster social cohesion.
Mr. Calla earlier talked about the demography of Canada. Canada is becoming very culturally diverse. Between 1991 and 1996, 80 per cent of the 1 million immigrants who landed spoke a language other than English or French, and in 1996 one-fifth of the population of Toronto and Vancouver consisted of immigrants who have arrived since 1981. So, some of the issues of diversity relate to how these immigrants are accepted in society.
Surveys on perception of immigrants have reflected how the recession in the early part of the decade has increased fears that immigration was exacerbating the scarcity of employment opportunities, and other studies have shown how the recent influx of Asian immigrants to Vancouver has strained social cohesion. So, the one point I would like to stress is how important it is for social policies not to cater to popular unfounded prejudices and sentiment. The government must enact policies and allocate resources aimed at breaking down barriers and fostering full access and integration of minority groups. It is important to balance the will of the majority with protection for the rights of minority groups.
Secondly, I would like to talk briefly about the importance of how immigrants really helped to build this country, and the importance of providing settlement services to ensure that they are fully integrated and able to participate in society. In terms of the recent settlement renewal process, where the federal government has shifted the responsibilities to the provinces, it is important that the government maintain an enduring role to ensure that funding is allocated, is transferred to the province, to continue the provision of immigrant settlement integration services. As well, the Government of Canada still has to set national principles and standards for the allocation of federal funds for settlement services.
The third point is about employment and job training needs. As economic climate and inclusion in society are very closely related, adverse economic climate will intensify the problem of non-inclusion. Getting a job is the major means of socialization and integration in society. Of course, company downsizing will also lead to marginalization and isolation of the people affected.
The situation is even worse for the more vulnerable groups, especially newcomers who lack social networking, who sometimes lack language skills and knowledge about labour markets, especially when you consider the fact that their education background often is not recognized in Canada.
Mr. Calla talked briefly about the difficulties facing new immigrants, the many barriers to becoming employed, and he touched briefly on some of the solutions. I just want to give you some statistics from a recent B.C. survey done in the Lower Mainland. The 1996 census shows that 21.5 per cent of the immigrants who arrived between 1991 and 1996 had a university degree, whereas, among Canadian-born citizens, only 13 per cent have a university degree. So, immigrants seem to be more highly educated.
The second issue is that, since 1996, it seems that the English-language proficiency of immigrants is improving. Sixty-seven per cent of the principal applicants in 1996 spoke English or French; in 1981, only 54 per cent of them spoke English or French. So, that has improved.
As for the immigrants who arrived between 1991-96, you would imagine, given their high level of education and language skills, that they would fare well in the job market. However, the statistics indicate that between 1991 and 1996 immigrants earned almost $10,000 less than their Canadian-born equivalents. As well, the report even suggested that 50 per cent of these families had incomes below the Statistics Canada low-income cut-off, although they received less government transfer payments than the Canadian born.
The statistics show how immigrant groups are faced with multiple barriers: lack of cultural knowledge; lack of a network and of local experience; and sometimes discrimination in employment. Some of the excuses given to immigrants are that they do not have local experience, that they speak with an accent, that their credentials are not recognized in Canada, and so on.
Not only does unemployment exist among immigrant groups, but underemployment is potentially a more serious problem. Many of these very highly skilled and trained professionals who immigrated here are not able to access jobs for which they are trained. Underemployment is something that the government should seriously look at. As Mr. Calla talked about, one solution lies in a number of organizations and agencies providing employment counselling and job training programs for immigrants, and many of them have proven to be very successful.
At SUCCESS, we provide a whole range of employment counselling and job training programs, including computerized accounting, electronics, and we achieve an 80 to 90 per cent success rate.
However, I want to bring to the Senate's attention that there are changes in the HRDC's policies. Many of the job training programs are open only to people who receive employment insurance or social assistance. Thus, many immigrants are excluded from job training programs. HRDC's plan to implement the Human Resources Investment Fund re-employment strategies for EI recipients has also cut out some of the previously funded programs, such as programs for the severely employment disadvantaged or language-based training and so on. Those are cut off because of the changes in policies. So, it is even harder for immigrants to access these job training programs.
We recommend that the government seriously look at the principle of immigrants' language and cultural barriers, and ensure that they have access to labour market training. We also recommend that the government reinstate the funding for project-based training and programs for severely employment disadvantaged adults and youth.
One of the last points I want to mention briefly is how important it is, in spite of the backlash against the whole issue of multiculturalism; that Canada, with its important and honourable legislation and policies on multiculturalism, continue its commitment to its policies and continue to bring about equity and fair treatment. It is also important for Canada to ensure that there is respect for cultural diversity and to address all discrimination for all newcomers to this society.
The Chairman: Thank you, Ms To.
With regard to the job training programs, you are talking about British Columbia specifically, I take it.
Ms To: Yes.
The Chairman: Has British Columbia not taken over the Manpower training from the federal government?
Ms To: It is in the transitional stage.
The Chairman: Where is your solution to the problem? It must lie with the province; does it?
Ms To: No. I think that the federal government still has a key role to play. When these programs are being transferred to the province, some of the funding and some of the policies go along.
The Chairman: The funding goes along with it; but eligibility, for example, must be a provincial matter. Perhaps not.
Ms To: Not according to my understanding. In many of these programs, eligibility is still confined to EI recipients; the provincial job training programs are confined more to people on welfare or social assistance. There is still not enough access for immigrants. As well, there have been changes to the project-based training programs as a result of legislation enacted in 1995, which transfers funding for that training from agencies to individuals. That poses a lot of difficulties for organizations who are running these programs. So, that is just another barrier they have.
The Chairman: Mr. Calla, let me see if I can understand better what you have been telling us about skilled and trained people coming here.
A person presents himself or herself to the Canadian immigration office abroad and says, "I am an electrical engineer," "a physician," or he or she mentions some other trade or skill that we know is in demand in Canada, and "I want to emigrate to Canada." The Immigration official says, "Good, we need people with those skills in Canada."
What happens then? Does Immigration Canada direct that person to the appropriate professional body or to the province where there is a greater need for those skills, or does Immigration Canada direct that person to the provincial government concerned? What happens in that case?
Mr. Calla: That kind of direction rarely happens. One of the major problems is the inconsistency of information available at Canadian offices around the world. This issue has been raised with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and they are well aware of it and have been taking steps. I understand that for someone who has a medical background and is applying to come to Canada, Immigration is asking these individuals to sign a paper that says, basically, "I understand that it would be very difficult for me to practice my profession in Canada." This is something new.
For the most part, all the other professions, for example, veterinarians, are listed on the HRDC rolls as occupations for which there are jobs in Canada; thus, , those people who have a degree in veterinary science get extra points. In other words, they would qualify to come to Canada because eligibility is based on a point system, whether you speak English or French, your skills, and so on. However, often they are not told that veterinary science is a regulated profession. So, there is inconsistency, which is a very major problem. People come with high expectations, having had the wrong information, for example, and then they basically hit this wall; it does not go anywhere for them.
The Chairman: I suppose people who do not go through that process, who come here as part of a family, family class, or refugees are in an even worse position. Immigration is in a concurring jurisdiction, federal-provincial, since 1867, albeit with federal primacy. Provinces are able to select their own immigrants abroad. Quebec does. What you are saying seems to speak to a need for perhaps more activity abroad by the provinces in helping to steer these people to the areas where their skills and training would be useful, would be in demand, or at least to explain to them what the rules are concerning their profession or trade in the province in which they are destined.
Mr. Calla: My understanding is that the federal government takes that responsibility, certainly as it relates to Ontario. I understand Quebec has offices overseas, but for Ontario, the federal government takes the overseas responsibility. But there is the major responsibility for accessibility to the regulated professions, not just to any job. In other words, the matter of the 34 regulated professions is a provincial one.
The Chairman: Is it your testimony that the system is working better for those provinces that have centralized bodies for the assessment of foreign credentials -- and you cite Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia.
Mr. Calla: Our understanding is that it is working much better, because employers have come to trust the information. Over the years, credibility has been built up because the data base is large and credible. It can tell you the Canadian equivalency to an MBA from the University of Santiago. Employers have come to trust it the data base.
Specifically, in Toronto, York University and the University of Toronto do academic credentials assessments, but they are very narrow in scope, and employers more often than not ignore them. That is why you need a large, centralized data base.
The Chairman: Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have centralized bodies for the assessment of foreign credentials. Do those include credentials in all fields -- physicians, engineers, dentists, the works?
Ms To: No. In British Columbia, the Open Learning Agency does some assessment of foreign credentials. However, it is limited to granting only certain degrees, and many of its professions are not recognized. However, some of the recognition comes from the professional associations, like medicine or engineering, and all of those are actually excluded.
I do not know if British Columbia is a lot better off than Ontario. Actually, it is the beginning, with the Open Learning Agency providing some kind of assessment for foreign credentials. Many of the so-called professionals are still excluded from practising. For example, for those in the medical profession, there is still a requirement to go through examination. The same is true for engineers. There are still many foreign qualifications that are not recognized. This is still a major problem in British Columbia, where so many professionals are underemployed.
The Chairman: Is that the case in Alberta and Quebec also?
Mr. Calla: The Quebec experience goes back many years, so it is better developed. British Columbia's system is more recent.
Senator Butts: What is it that you want the government to do? Do you want the government to pass regulations on these professional organizations to make it easier to get in? Or do you want them to do what I think they are doing now, and that is to provide organizations such as you represent with finances to get these people ready? To me, those are your options.
Mr. Calla: I see a two-pronged approach that parallels those options. Firsts, for the professions, there has to be some acceptance by regulatory bodies, some recognition that people coming with credentials from overseas have something to offer. It may be lower than our standard, it may be higher than our standard, but there has to be a way of assessing those credentials and then giving them accessibility to the profession. That is primarily under provincial jurisdiction, we have been finding. I think there are ways of doing that. It may be that, for a regulatory body to get its charter from the provincial government, it would have to demonstrate that they have criteria that are not discriminatory. Fundamentally, that would be the approach.
The other approach is to look at -- and this was part of my presentation that you are looking at -- how social cohesion takes place and how the vulnerable in society become empowered and access the institutions that we all have access to. To do this, you have to take a look at the not-for-profit sector, the volunteer sector, where in this specific area we have in Ontario over 250 agencies that are quietly going about the business of helping these individuals access jobs, attain their potential, and so on. This is an area that certainly the federal government can continue to support, through the kinds of programs that are available through HRDC, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and so on.
We keep hitting hurdles. The hurdle to which Ms To referred is certainly true in Ontario, with the devolution of training from the federal government to the provinces. There are serious issues in the transitional period, in that the funding strategy is such that money is given to the individuals looking for the training; there is no program funding. That means that large institutions that engage in traditional forms of training can successfully market themselves to attract these individuals to come to them and pay the tuition fees for the programs. But specialized programs, like those our organization is good at putting together, are very difficult to establish, given that you have to put a lot of money up front to establish the program. Following that, you have to hope that you will attract individuals to the program. So, this is where we are really losing ground in the training area. That is why I am saying that the second option is really important, to continue to support the volunteer sector.
Senator Butts: You says that newcomers cannot be licensed without work experience and that they cannot get work experience without a license.
Of course, that happens for all native Canadians as well. I know many who get a licence and then cannot get a job, and cannot get the job without the licence; so, that is par for the course.
Mr. Calla: But is that how we want it to be?
Senator Butts: We do not want it to be any harder for immigrants than for anybody else, but it is difficult for everybody.
Mr. Calla: There is no doubt about it. I just think that there are ways to make it easier for people.
Senator Butts: So, as long as we make it easier for everybody.
Mr. Calla: Yes.
The Chairman: Do those central agencies in those provinces have an overview of foreign credentials in areas like medicine and engineering and so forth?
Mr. Calla: They would develop that expertise.
The Chairman: Do you allow that it is still the right of a professional body to admit someone to practice or not? Do the central agencies have the right to pronounce on the credentials of an immigrant in such fields as medicine, engineering, law, et cetera?
Mr. Calla: Yes, they would say, "This is the Canadian equivalent. If you have four years of university in medicine, it is equivalent to, let us say, two years Canadian." So, they could say that. But then it is up to the professional body to accept that.
The Chairman: Right.
Mr. Calla: Right now, some professional bodies that are seeing a lot of immigrants in their fields, such as the Professional Engineers of Ontario, are developing their own data base specific to engineering degrees because of the lack of a centralized body.
The Chairman: But if the centralized body is effective and respected, surely it is then incumbent on the professional admitting body to explain why it cannot or will not admit that person to practise, if that is the case.
Mr. Calla: Right.
Senator Butts: I know in Ontario some years ago -- I do not know if it is the same now -- that immigrants wrote examinations set by a board. If they passed, they were okay with that group. That is how it worked in those days. HRDC supplied the funds for the teachers. I got my Ph.D. that way.
Ms To: In British Columbia, the accreditation body does not really assess professional qualification; it is left for the professional body. As the senator said earlier, professional bodies, be it engineering or medicine or teaching, have their own sort of assessment. Immigrants may have to take certain examinations, if their qualifications are recognized. So, it is very sporadic; it is not uniform, and many immigrants do face difficulties depending on where they come from.
Many immigrants also have to deal with the issue of language proficiency. Take, for example, somebody with a nursing degree who has 20 years of experience and is well qualified. That person may not be able to pass the English nursing exam because of difficulty with technical terms. There is a role for agencies in the non-profit sector, who cater to the needs of this group, to provide language-related training specific to a profession -- say, nursing -- which would assist people in accessing their profession. However, that kind of funding was cut, as I mentioned, because of the recent changes in the HRDC policies.
Senator Cohen: What are the most important factors, in the opinion of either of you, to successful integration of immigrants in Canada? My second question is: Are your organizations involved in creating partnerships or alliances with other groups in society to help fight exclusion, if that is what is happening in your area? And finally, how does it work, and what are the costs and benefits?
Ms To: Employment is certainly a key factor to successful integration. However, we believe in a more holistic approach. A social support system is also key, along with a network and a good understanding of both the opportunities and other issues in Canada. So, you have to combine all the service elements to provide holistic services for successful integration. Employment is only one key area, in terms of working with other groups to fight exclusion.
In British Columbia, we have an association similar to OCASI -- Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants -- where immigrant-serving groups are getting together to address some issues that we are faced with, such as lack of recognition for foreign credentials, among others. We have also participated in joint programs with institutions of higher learning, with local community centres, to name a few.
Senator Cohen: If I were an immigrant, I would be more comfortable associating with my own community. Is it your experience that after a certain period of time immigrants remain in that conclave, or do they go out into the community? I think that immigrants sometimes tend to create their own social exclusion. I would like to hear some comments on that.
Ms To: It is quite conspicuous in Vancouver. In Richmond, about 40 per cent of the population is of Chinese descent; they are mainly Chinese immigrants. They even have their own shopping malls. One of the myths is that because these immigrants tend to stay close to friends and relatives, for social network and support, they are therefore segregated from the rest of the community. In Richmond, for example, in spite of the Chinese malls and the density of Chinese in certain areas, about 90 per cent of them work in major Canadian institutions; they are not confined to working in Chinese businesses. And 95 per cent of the children attend Canadian schools, not private schools. There is only one so-called Chinese public school, and it is in Vancouver. So, on the whole, 95 per cent of Chinese students attend Canadian schools. Also, they all subscribe to Canadian values and to Canadian policies, the whole Canadian system.
There was a recent survey done on the Chinese immigrants in Vancouver. They discovered that 90 per cent of the Chinese immigrants who watch Chinese television also watch Canadian television, and about 70 per cent of them who read Chinese papers also read English papers. For instance, I shop in Chinese malls, but I also shop at Safeway. So it is not mutually exclusive.
There is a tendency, of course, for people who have difficulty with the language, like seniors, to stay with their own group. But the majority of them, while they may have their own circle of friends who are Chinese, participate in the larger Canadian society.
The Chairman: Mr. Calla, do you have something to add?
Mr. Calla: Yes. About a third of all immigrants to Canada settle in Toronto. Our experience is that obviously people will socialize with people who have similar backgrounds and will go to restaurants that have familiar food, but what really strikes me is how quickly these people take on the Canadian values and principles. I have had situations where there have been disputes around work, for example, where clients will telephone me and say, "I think your counsellor is favouring individuals from his background." This is Canada. People should stand in line, wait for their turn, and not get preferential treatment. They come to really appreciate a society that provides opportunity, that respects them and treats everybody as equal.
We have a refugee reception centre under contract with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, where we house up to 100 refugees as they arrive straight from Pearson airport. We have had Iraqis and Iranians in there at the same time, people who have historically been at each other. They quickly integrate Canadian values, because of the kinds of values they see in my staff, how they are treated and so on.
Senator Cohen: Has it been your experience that the immigrant community experiences a lot of discrimination, or pockets of discrimination? There can be no social cohesion if there is a rampant form of discrimination. What is your experience?
Mr. Calla: I believe that that is the case where employment is concerned. I was just looking at 1991 census data. At that time, the average unemployment rate in Canada was 10 per cent. For visible minorities, the unemployment rate ranged from 10 per cent for ethnic Chinese to 19 per cent for Latin Americans. Unemployment among Blacks, South Asians, West Asians, et cetera, ranged from 10 to 19 per cent. So, yes, discrimination exists.
In Toronto, visible minorities are expected to make up about 54 per cent of the population by next year. So, the minority is going to become the majority in Toronto. We are finding that some employers, because they are seeing so many visible minorities, are realizing that their stereotypes are being broken down. We are also finding that other stereotypes are developing. At COSTI, we sometimes get calls from employers who say, "Can we have a Vietnamese worker?"; Or, "Can we have a Portugese worker?"
There are factories where everyone is Vietnamese or Portugese, or some other ethnic background, because they are found to be very hard working by foremen. So, other stereotypes are developing, albeit a more positive form of discrimination, if you will, but discrimination nonetheless. However, the more serious form of discrimination exists also.
[Translation]
Senator Lavoie-Roux: In your presentation, you focused on the immigration of professionals, whether doctors or engineers. Am I correct in saying that you favour the immigration of highly qualified individuals? Basically, immigration is supposed to give everyone an opportunity, whether a person is a professional or just an ordinary citizen in his country. Do you think that one group should be favoured over another or that on the contrary, people with little training are the ones who need to immigrate the most?
[English]
Mr. Calla: That is really a public policy issue for the Canadian government. However, there are some considerations. First, I agree that certainly the family class needs to be maintained. You cannot go strictly on a point system and say you need to have this skill or that skill to come to Canada. Families deserve an opportunity to sponsor their relatives. At the same time, the economy has changed drastically in the last ten or so years and, as such, the economy demands people with skills, people with an education.
There was an excellent article recently in The Globe and Mail on the trends in education. Of the 300,000 jobs created in 1997, only 2,000 were for people with less than high school graduation. Today, the jobs that are being created are for skilled and educated people. Therefore, our immigration policy must find a balance between our economic needs and providing opportunity for people and the social aspects for family.
Ms To: Canadian immigration policy encourages more economic class immigrants. In British Columbia, 64 per cent of the new arrivals in 1996 were economic class. These are skilled workers, as well as business class immigrants. Only 27.7 per cent were family class, 4.5 per cent were refugees, and 3.8 per cent others.
The irony is that, in spite of many of these economic class immigrants who come in with higher education levels -- as I indicated earlier, more of the immigrants have university degrees than Canadian-born people; in fact more of them also speak English as well -- in spite of the education level, in spite of experience, in spite of the choice of recruiting these immigrants because of their skills and background, they are still not able to access jobs; also, many of them are not to get back into their own profession. As well, not only is unemployment a concern, but underemployment is a concern. Many of them may be able to get jobs, but at a much lower level.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: The Minister of Immigration is setting out new rules, including the requirement that immigrants will be required to know at least one of the two official languages. What is your feeling about this? Is it a good thing?
Ms To: There is always a requirement that skilled professionals, the independent class of immigrants, be able to speak English, and they receive x-number of points for this. There is no language requirement for family class, that is, spouses or parents or children under 21. There was a proposal last year that family class reunification have a requirement to speak English. That has been dropped.
What is new however is that business class people also be able to speak English. We have a problem with that. It is important that skilled workers be able to speak English, and that it has always been the case. But what about business class investors and entrepreneurs? Currently, two-thirds of them who are coming to this country do not speak English. More than one-half of the investors do not speak English. With the proposed changes in immigration policy, we will probably lose between half and two-thirds of all the business immigrants. The business immigrants come in with financial resources as well as background experience and an overseas business network. To impose a language requirement on business immigrants will deter many of them from coming to this country.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: You said that economic immigrants seem to be the choice of the government. Do you agree that it should be only this, to the detriment of immigration, people who are in greater need or in great need of a different life or a better life? You have spoken mostly of professionally trained people.
Ms To: Yes.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: To me, immigration is an open door to people who are in need of a better life.
Ms To: I think it has to be balanced. Canada needs immigration for people who have skills, who have resources, who can contribute to the country. But, of course, family reunification has always been the so-called cornerstone of the Canadian immigration policy.
The Chairman: It still is, Ms To.
Ms To: They maintain that it still is, but in terms of the immigration, they have tried to maintain a maximum 40 per cent family class. They have tried to increase the economic numbers.
The Chairman: But they have not changed the rules. It is an entitlement.
Ms To: Yes, in terms of proportion, they have put more emphasis on economics. Of course, the government still insists that it wants to maintain the humanitarian grounds for admitting refugees; that has not changed.
The Chairman: No.
Ms To: Although the number of refugees coming to this country has dropped significantly.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: Well, refugees is a different category altogether. There might be people from China or India, or wherever, who would like to improve their lot in life, and it seems that there is no room for them, from what I hear.
[Translation]
I understand that family reunification is an ongoing priority. Immigrants can make a contribution from an economic standpoint. Our country should be in a position to help those who are the most in need. If we gave ordinary people an opportunity to immigrate, they would have a chance for a better life and they could contribute something to their adoptive country.
[English]
The Chairman: Colleagues, as I told you before, I still several senators on my list -- Senator Ferretti Barth, Senator Wilson, and Senator Gill -- but our third witness has arrived.
I am pleased to welcome him. He is with the Center for Research-Action on Race Relations. Mr. Niemi is the Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations. He is fluent in French and English, and functional in Spanish. He is of Asia-Pacific descent. He graduated from McGill in Social Work, and has also studied at Concordia, specializing in constitutional rights and citizens lobby groups in the United States and Canada.
Mr. Niemi, we are here until 11:30. I have a list of senators who still want to ask questions of the previous witnesses. I would ask that, if you have an opening statement, you deliver it to us with all due haste. I am sorry that you were tied up in traffic and that you missed the first part of our meeting.
Please proceed.
Mr. Fo Niemi, Co-Founder and Executive Director, Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations: As the good Lord would say, it is an act of God. The weather was really bad to drive in today, and I would like to apologize.
On behalf of my colleagues here from Montreal and Toronto, I would like to thank you for inviting us.
[Translation]
We believe that this is a very important issue. With the new millennium fast approaching and with the changing demographics of Canadian and Quebec societies, social cohesion takes on even greater importance because it calls into question some of the traditional notions people have of modern Canadian society in the year 2000.
My colleagues and I have a number of questions concerning manpower development and employment equity. We are greatly concerned about the offloading of federal government responsibilities and resources to the provinces, particularly in the area of manpower development, and about how this transfer of powers will rattle existing mindsets and threaten the foundations of the social cohesion policy that the federal government wants to put forward. We would like to discuss this issue with you in further detail and share with you some of the experiences we have had in recent years.
[English]
On the issue of social cohesion, we have several observations to bring forward in terms of the fundamental concept of social cohesion as put forward by the various experts, including the federal government's committee. We are also concerned with the process that is being undertaken right now with regard to social cohesion. Our biggest concern is the fact that so far, the process is very driven by academia and think-tanks. This sector is very racially exclusionary, especially the way that the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and some other think-tanks are constituted.
Some of our members here, Dr. Lorna Roth, Dr. Wesley Crichlow and Mrs. Gail Grant, are experts in communication studies and education, as well as on employment equity. Perhaps they could exchange with you at a later date.
We would just like to say that this committee must exercise substantial scrutiny if we are going to consider employment, particularly employment equity, as a fundamental component of social cohesion. Because it is not only a matter of value because it is part of our Constitution -- it is Article 15.(2) of the Charter -- but it is also an issue of economic and social norm, and an economic and social standard of national scope. When we talk about employment equity within the context of federal-provincial relations, we have to ensure that everything that the federal government does promotes social cohesion; that the standard and the objective of employment equity not be forsaken, especially when we move towards a discussion of social union.
Coming from Quebec, we have seen how the devolution of employment -- particularly the Canada-Quebec Accord and Labour Market Agreement -- has resulted in the disappearance of the employment equity standard objective. Quebec received, I believe, two or three building zones of funding on labour force development. Ontario and Alberta also rejected the notion of employment equity when they entered into an agreement with Ottawa with regard to labour market devolution.
Lastly, we would just like to perhaps bring to your attention the fact that we need to look at all the sectors in society, particularly in the criminal justice system or in broadcasting. These issues have a direct impact on communities at both the local and the national levels, and they can influence the way that we conceptualize social cohesion in the multicultural, multiracial and bilingual environment.
[Translation]
Again, I apologize for being late and I hope to have an opportunity to discuss these issues further with you.
The Chairman: I would just like to point out to you that the whole issue of the devolution of powers in the area of manpower training was already raised this morning by your colleague, Ms To, in relation to British Columbia. It is very interesting to note that you have the same concerns.
Senator Ferretti Barth: Among the witnesses present, I recognize some acquaintances like Mr. Niemi. We worked together on the Montreal Urban Community advisory committee some 15 years ago.
Ms To, I listened carefully to your presentation and it touched me a great deal. Mr. Calla mentioned earlier that his organization receives many calls from companies asking whether any Vietnamese, Portuguese, Greek or other workers are available. Are these workers in demand because they are paid minimum wage, are hard workers and are accustomed to working faster than other immigrants, or are these workers in demand because they are qualified? In Canada, we promote multiculturalism, whereas in United States, the melting pot approach appears to be the norm.
However, we know that neither system works very well. How do you feel about this situation? What changes do you think are needed to facilitate the integration of new immigrants to Canada?
[English]
Ms To: In British Columbia, because of the large number of immigrants coming from Asia, so-called Asian banks have developed. They have tried to hire immigrants who speak Cantonese or Mandarin. That has been market driven. As Mario was saying earlier, garment factories, fisheries and canneries have tried to hire immigrants who are willing to work at minimum wage for long hours. That is the other phenomenon. Thirdly, I think that a number of these immigrants have been hired partly because of market. Shops have to hire people who speak the language if they want the Chinese customers, for example. Low wages and a willingness to work hard is another reason. But there is a glass ceiling. Many of them are still not able to get jobs or are not promoted partly due to discrimination. The B.C. government has employment equity policies, but it is still the policy. Employment equity legislation has not really worked effectively. Even the provincial government's employees do not reflect the diverse population of the province. There is still a way to go.
Mr. Calla: I wish to address your second question. I agree, by the way, that in terms of your first question it is a combination of the people being qualified to do the job, but that there is also exploitation in it; the long hours, minimum wage and so on.
As to your second question around the settlement and integration of immigrants, and how the Canadian approach compares to that of the Americans, studies have been done on that. The Canadian approach basically is one where Citizenship and Immigration Canada puts resources up front so that people can learn English or French, and so that organizations like ours can provide them with direction around getting jobs and basically becoming oriented to life in Canada. In the United States, it is more of a sink-or-swim approach. While it is more expensive for Canada to put resources up front, studies have demonstrated that in fact immigrants in Canada tend to integrate much more quickly, if you look at integration as stability in life, stability on the job, and being able to get the same services that are available to others. In fact in the United States, they have found that immigrants tend to be on the public purse often and tend to lose jobs more frequently. The up-front resources more than pay off in the long term, in terms of having productive, tax-paying citizens who are settled in their lives.
Senator Wilson: It has been pointed out that refugees are quite a different matter, but I want to raise a question that you will not be able to answer. I think that it is fair to say that many Canadians have a negative perception of refugees. They think of them as people who either abuse the system or who are criminals. They think that they should not be here. I am interested in hearing what you think of Canada's system for processing refugees in terms of social cohesion. Are there flaws in the system that discourage social cohesion?
Mr. Calla: Refugee claimants are more complicated because these are individuals that have come to Canada claiming to be refugees and who are in limbo. With refugees that have already been designated refugees, our experience is that the dynamics of settling these people are really quite different than for other immigrants. These individuals are here not necessarily by choice; they are here for shelter from their homeland.
One of my employees came here from Chile and basically lived out of her suitcase for about eight months before her husband said, "We have to make a decision, for our children's future and for schooling."
Her idea was that she was only here temporarily because she wanted to go back to her homeland. It was not until that crisis with her husband that she had to decide that she was here more or less permanently, and she was then freed up to plan for her future and her children's future. This kind of psychological dynamic is in play, and it requires work. But the refugees become the strongest citizens, because they really appreciate the freedoms that we have here.
In our refugee centre, they approach us initially with a good deal of caution. For example, some Cuban refugees arrived last year through our government's intervention. They stayed at our centre. We had difficulty working with them because when they were in prison, the social worker was the individual that brought what they called "the sweet death," information about their family.
The information would be things like, "Your children are doing quite well; they're in school. But your wife is seeing somebody." Then they would play these psychological games with them. They had difficulty connecting with us because of this experience. But once refugees like them come to trust us, it is incredible, in that they see that this is a different country and that there are freedoms here that one should never take for granted. They become the strongest citizens.
Senator Wilson: I would like to follow up. Could you address my question, which is whether the existing system contributes to or discourages social cohesion in Canada?
Mr. Calla: I think it encourages social cohesion in a number of ways. There are some excellent programs in place established by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, one of them being the host program that basically invites Canadian citizens to befriend a family. One of the biggest problems with refugees is that more often than not, they are here alone, very isolated. A Canadian family that befriends them basically becomes their support system. This has been tremendously successful. Most people who get involved in that program will tell you that they are the real beneficiaries, in terms of getting to know the refugees.
There are some programs available in Toronto at the Centre for Victims of Torture, for example. It provides interventions for some of these torture victims. I think there are some systems in place.
The real problem with the system is that I think there is a real ambivalence on the part of our government around refugees. As Lillian was saying, the numbers have been dropping. Five years ago, there were about 13,000 government-sponsored refugees. We are now down to 7,300, or about half of what we used to bring in. They are not big numbers, and yet I think there is a feeling out there that there are all these refugees in Canada. I think that the ambivalence is the problem. However, I think that these people can be integrated easily.
Senator Wilson: A woman had to wait eight months to decide to stay. Why? Is that a typical waiting period?
Mr. Calla: Your question concerns the psychology of individuals that have left their country. They haven't come to accept that perhaps the political powers-that-be in their country are there permanently, and they are not going to change their policies and give them freedoms. They arrive here, and they are still hanging on to the hope that they are going to return. For this woman, it took her eight months to come to the realization that she should plan for her future here, that she wasn't going to go back.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: Mr. Calla, you mentioned earlier, I believe in reference to Toronto, that the unemployment rate among immigrants was twice the average unemployment rate in Canada. I have no idea if the statistics are the same for Vancouver, Montreal and the like. Is the unemployment rate holding steady, or has it increased in the past few years and if so, has this been verified? In other words, have immigrants increased the unemployment rolls in the country or is the unemployment rate in fact lower for this group than for others?
[English]
Mr. Calla: Looking at employment rates, currently immigrants have the very same employment rates as Canadian-born people. For men, it is about 76 per cent in full-time employment, and for women it is around 63 per cent. You will find that those workforce participation rates are the same for immigrants as they are for Canadian-born people. At the beginning of our recession, back in 1991, the unemployment rate for visible minorities per se -- not just immigrants, because some of these visible minorities are Canadian-born, blacks, Asians and so on -- was almost twice the Canadian average.
Ms To: It was a similar situation in B.C. Many of these immigrants actually have higher education levels and come from a higher economic class. There is more underemployment of these immigrants, which is an issue that concerns us.
I want to address an earlier question from the senator on multiculturalism versus assimilation. I must emphasize that it is vital for Canada to keep a multicultural policy, because that is what fosters cohesion. I think that assimilation basically divides the country. Assimilation assumes that one culture is superior and that others are not up to standard or are second class. Multiculturalism promotes access. It gives people from different backgrounds the same opportunity. It also gives them respect, in spite of being from a different background. I think that these are really important qualities to ensure that the host society works with others, that no group is superior to another, and that any group can be part of the whole country, can help to build it. I think that is what keeps Canada together. Look at Bosnia, with groups fighting to win. I think multiculturalism is really important for cohesion in this country.
[Translation]
Senator Gill: I am not certain that I understood your answer, but what I wanted to know mainly was if the unemployment rate among visible minority groups in Canada was increasing or decreasing.
My other question is for Mr. Niemi and concerns segregation. Have you observed if the situation in so far as segregation is concerned is different in Montreal or in Toronto -- I would imagine that it is a little different because we are dealing with communities that are primarily francophone or anglophone? If you have noted some differences, can you give us the reasons for this?
Mr. Niemi: I do not yet have any comparative figures on the extent of racial discrimination in Toronto and Montreal, particularly in the area of employment. Some objective data could be useful. For instance, a recent report by the Quebec government and the Commission des droits de la personne et des droits à la jeunesse du Québec on the under representation of minorities within the public service showed that the number of Quebec government employees belonging to ethnocultural minorities had increased by 11 over a period of 12 to 13 years. What does this say about equal employment opportunities for minorities?
On the issue of social cohesion, I think we need to focus on eliminating barriers to integration and equal opportunities. This is essential. A case is currently before the federal Court of Appeal. Citizenship requirements as conditions of employment still exist in the federal public service and perhaps even in other sectors of economic activity. This is one way of excluding otherwise qualified individuals and of denying them for various reasons access to equal employment opportunities.
In terms of unemployment rates and lack of employment opportunities for visible minorities, we need to look at the different categories of visible minorities. Using the period between 1991 and 1996 as a reference point, our figures show that for some groups, the unemployment rate is often 200 or 300 per cent higher than the average unemployment rate in Montreal, particularly among blacks and middle eastern immigrants. When discussing these issues, we must remember that as a result of the McDougall, Gagnon-Tremblay accord, Ottawa transferred many responsibilities and resources for the integration of immigrants to Quebec. The dynamics are very different in other provinces and this whole question should be reviewed. In terms of values and social cohesion, evidence shows that when new immigrants attend COFI classes, they are taught little if anything about Canadian history. Therefore, right away, this poses a challenge in terms of establishing a Canadian identity.
I would like to come back to one question. I missed the discussion on multiculturalism and the melting pot. In a postmodern context, we need to be careful about this designation. People often refer to the United States has a melting pot. However, when we look at the situation in the South with its large Mexican or Latin American population and when we consider the African-American population, the theory of the melting pot does not stand up as well.
Perhaps we need to shake things up a little. In some parts of the United States, the dynamics of race relations or the integration of new immigrants are very different. We could say the same thing about the situation in our country because we have many regional differences and the dynamics of immigration are different for each region. When considering social cohesion, we must take into account these regional differences as well as ethnolinguistic differences.
Senator Lavoie-Roux: When you quoted some figures on the number of people belonging to visible minorities in the public service, you stated that over x number of years, 11 people from visible minority groups were hired. Has the anglophone community experienced a similar problem? Do you have any comparative figures? Perhaps this has nothing to do with being a member of a visible minority. Perhaps the real problem is the Quebec bureaucracy which is committed to hiring only francophones.
Mr. Niemi: With your permission, I would like to answer in English, because of the subleties involved. The fact is that anglophones and members of the ethnocultural minorities, that is all non French Canadian persons, are woefully under represented in the Quebec public service.
[English]
This is a Senate committee, therefore we have to look at all sorts of federal public services in terms of visible minority representation. The rate of representation of this group is only half what it should be. Part of the social cohesion strategy is to look at the federal government's role in articulating, refining and promoting Canada's values.
We would like to tell you as legislators and as senators that the government will have a serious credibility problem if it tries to promote Canadian values with respect to diversity and differences when its own civil service does not reflect what it is trying to tell the Canadian public. We believe that this is part of the reason why Canadians are very cynical, because members of racial minorities and aboriginal peoples look at the discourse and look at the action. In the case of the Quebec civil service, for example, they know that regardless of the laws and the policies of employment equity and the federal contractors program, these things do not work. People have been waiting for these programs to produce results.
We can produce some of the analyses. Annual employment equity reports hiring still for part-time and full-time positions. When you look at how many visible minorities and aboriginal people were hired between 1988-95, we have a serious problem. Both business and government did not live up to the kind of expectations they have set up for the nation with respect to employment equity.
The Chairman: We make progress slowly, Mr. Niemi. Forty years ago, a French-Canadian or a francophone Quebecer would see nothing to reflect himself or herself in the federal government. It was wall-to-wall English. I think that those problems have been, to a great extent, overcome, but there are a lot of other problems that we still have to address.
Colleagues, tomorrow, when the Senate rises, we are going to continue our study.
It remains now only for me to thank Ms To and Mr. Calla. Mr. Niemi, I am sorry you could not make it earlier. It has been a very interesting discussion, and we thank all of you.
The committee adjourned.