Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of March 13, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 13, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met today at 10:45 a.m. to examine and report on the impact of the multiple factors and conditions that contribute to the health of Canada's population — known collectively as the social determinants of health — and on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. Today we will be examining poverty, immigrants and refugees.
[English]
Our committee has two subcommittees, one on population health and the other on the major challenges facing our cities. As poverty, housing and homelessness are issues common to both subcommittees, we have decided to meet as the full committee in that respect. We are also building upon some previous work done in the Senate on issues of poverty. The 1971 report headed by Senator David Croll comes to mind, as well as the 1997 report by Senator Cohen. She wrote a book entitled Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada.
At the same time, our study is complementary to the work being done by the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry which is chaired by Senator Fairbairn, and at the request of Senator Segal, they are dealing with the issue of rural poverty. We are trying to pull these components together.
Today, from all across the country, we have four panellists to assist us with much expertise and experience in this as we deal with refugees and immigrants. We have David Ley from the department of geography at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Ley's recent work was focused on immigration and housing, urban integration and settlement, and the concentration of immigration and poverty in Canada's largest cities, with a special focus on Vancouver.
We also have Sarah Wayland, a research associate with the Ontario Metropolis Centre, is an independent consultant whose work on immigration issues spans more than a decade. There are many publications listed here. In the past two years, she has written two reports of direct relevance to this committee's work. The first was written in 2006 and called Unsettled: Legal and Policy Barriers for Newcomers to Canada; the second was written in 2007 and called The Housing Needs of Immigrants and Refugees in Canada.
Jean-Claude Icart is an associate professor in the department of sociology at the University of Quebec at Montreal and is representing Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes, TCRI. This organization's goals include defending the rights of refugees, encouraging greater collaboration among service providers and government, and improving services to immigrants and refugees.
Avvy Go, a human rights and immigration lawyer, is the director of the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, and I know she has been doing good work for many years in Toronto. She is the spokesperson for the Colour of Poverty Campaign. In September 2007, an organization called the Colour of Justice Network announced the launching of this Colour of Poverty Campaign, which is a province-wide, community-based effort to help raise public awareness about the serious problem of poverty within the racial minority communities in Ontario.
David Ley, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia: I have often been an honorary Jew in Canada. In the few minutes I have here, rather than repeat the notes circulated to you, I will speak briefly about the immigration-integration experiences of two groups of people whom we would expect to be doing quite well in Canada in terms of the capital that they bring with them. I will then speak about business immigrants in Vancouver and Filipino immigrants in Toronto.
These are both significant national groups. Of course, the business immigration program, though it is not as strong today, has been very important in the past and has been mainly taken up by ethnic Chinese.
First, I will share a few words about Filipinos in Toronto, and I am drawing here upon research by Philip Kelly, a geographer at York University. In 2001, 57 per cent of adult Filipinos in Toronto had a university education, which makes them a highly educated group in comparison with 35 per cent of the Toronto population. The education in the Philippines was typically in English and often used American university curriculum. This population arrives in Canada well-prepared in terms of their human capital. Of this population, 80 per cent speak English at home as their first language.
The men, however, are strongly concentrated in blue collar jobs and the women in child care and as aides in health care occupations. Male Filipino incomes in Toronto are two-thirds of the Toronto average, and female incomes are three-quarters of the Toronto average. In a large survey, Philip Kelly discovered that half of the population surveyed claimed to have suffered job discrimination in the previous five years. That is one vignette.
The second vignette involves business immigrants in Vancouver who have arrived since the mid-1980s. Large numbers came in the 1980s and 1990s. They are particularly of Hong Kong and Taiwanese origin. They are a group I call "millionaire migrants" because they have been able to show personal worth of over $1 million to immigration officers in Hong Kong or Taiwan. They come with considerable financial capital, but also, in terms of the business program, they come with a good deal of business experience, on average 10 or 12 years as successful businesspersons. They live in million-dollar homes in Vancouver, but in these districts of million-dollar homes, the 2001 census showed that half the population had household incomes below the poverty line.
What lies behind the stories in these two vignettes? The Filipino population in Toronto has suffered considerable deskilling and de-professionalization. The credentials they secured in the Philippines are not recognized in Canada. This is a much larger story than the Filipino population. When they go for job interviews, the fact they do not have Canadian experience in their professions tells against them. They experience, they say — and I have no reason to challenge this — discrimination from employers.
As a fourth factor, they are part and parcel of information flows within the Filipino ethnic community that do not break out of that community to give them access to better employment opportunities.
With the population of Hong Kong and Taiwanese business immigrants, language is a significant problem. Especially the Taiwanese, but also amongst the Hong Kong population, very few speak English, and in interviews it has become clear that this has impeded their business success in Canada.
They also talk about aspects for which I am not sure the Senate has an immediate answer. They talk about the nature of the economic environment in Canada, that it is a highly regulated environment in a way that they are not used to in Hong Kong or Taiwan. Labour, environmental and licensing laws all provide serious problems for them. They are also unhappy about taxation levels. Compared to a flat rate of 15 per cent income tax in Hong Kong, the taxation levels here appear punitive.
To conclude, there is no such person as the average immigrant. I have drawn these two examples to try to make this case. These two groups are, by far, far from being the most disadvantaged of immigrants who come to Canada. If I talked about refugee claimants from Africa, for example, the disadvantages they face are much more substantial. We would expect these two groups to be doing well. Clearly, they are running into a series of barriers.
Just to end, the barriers that I would underscore here are the issues that I talk about more in the circulated speaking notes of credential recognition in Canada; the issue of Canadian experience in the workforce and the need to be sure that that is not, in fact, a subtle form of discrimination against immigrants; and the question of language. Of the immigrants to Canada, 40 per cent do not speak English or French. This is a serious impediment in the job market. We need to be offering language services, either in English or in French, as appropriate, that will carry this population to the position of job readiness.
Sarah V. Wayland, Research Associate, Ontario Metropolis Centre: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about poverty among immigrants and refugees as part of the study you are doing. I came to Canada in 1993 as an immigrant from the United States. I am tickled to be here; I feel I finally made it as a Canadian to be invited to speak before a Canadian Senate committee.
You mentioned some of the recent projects on which I have worked. The report Unsettled: Legal and Policy Barriers for Newcomers to Canada highlighted the disconnect between the great need that Canada has for immigrants and the barriers that we erect against them after arrival. My remarks this morning will be more general than those of Professor Ley.
These barriers that immigrants face impede their accession to being full and equal members of Canadian society. The barriers are costly, not only to newcomers themselves but also to the broader communities in which they live. Immigration has been and will continue to be a key component to the development of Canadian economic, social and political fabric. We are increasingly aware of the problems that newcomers face in this country, and these are documented in excruciating detail in the report. However, beyond the details, my point is these problems and barriers must be recognized as Canadian problems rather than immigrant problems. It is in our own interests that newcomers be able to utilize their skills and resources.
It is helpful to think of settlement as being broken down into a three-stage process: first, newcomers face immediate needs for assistance and reception services, including basic language instruction; second, intermediate needs such as access to the labour market, housing, health service, upgrades to education and such; and, third, long-term needs to become equal participants in Canadian economy and society, including civic engagement at equal levels with the rest of the population and representation in Canadian political institutions.
I would say that Canada has done well through Citizenship and Immigration Canada focusing on the first stage of immediate needs. However, there is increasing recognition that our problems are in the second stage, particularly around access to employment. This is not simply any employment, but appropriate employment commensurate with the skills that immigrants have.
The settlement services that this country provides, which are funded by the federal government to a certain extent and also through provincial governments, are pushing the limits of their mandate in this area. They have been designed to focus on the first stage of settlement, but we see the problems at the second stage and need to push into that area.
The main problem in the second stage of settlement is employment. This is a complex area without a quick fix. Why are newcomers facing barriers to accessing quality employment? We can look at a couple of different reasons.
First, we can consider human capital. Immigrants are highly educated and, on the whole, much better educated than the Canadian-born population. Canadians are increasingly well-educated as well, and this makes it more difficult for immigrants. The vast majority of immigrants coming to this country are admitted outside the points system. Knowledge of English and French is very helpful to their settlement in this country.
Second, we can look at readiness of the labour mark to accept newcomers. As Professor Ley mentioned, there are a number of issues: a focus on credentials; the need for employers and others to be able to assess foreign credentials; insistence on Canadian experience sometimes may be thinly veiled discrimination; and there may be outright discrimination. We can also look at the broader restructuring of the Canadian economy, including the rise of the knowledge economy and decline of well-paying blue collar jobs.
In Hamilton, Ontario, where I live, historically newcomers could arrive in the city and find great, often unionized, jobs in manufacturing. They could settle and make a good income. Their children could be educated in Canada and become successful within a generation.
We all know those high-paying manufacturing jobs are now few and far between. There is much competition among the Canadian-born population for those as well. We have to consider broader trends within the Canadian economy as well as specific cases such as demands for Canadian experience and outright discrimination.
Those doing the best in this country are probably the 20 per cent to 25 per cent of newcomers that are assessed under the point system as skilled workers, the principal applicants and who have the capacity in an official language. However, Canada is not just about economics. Our immigration policy has several priorities, including reunification of families and humanitarian needs. Therefore, we cannot forget and leave those populations behind.
The federal government can look at action in a number of different areas to ameliorate the situation and to reduce barriers to newcomers: first and foremost, employment, which I will come back to later; second, facilitate acquisition of language and communication skills among newcomers; third, help families stay together and improve processing times and family reunification processes; and, fourth, improve social programs for all low-income Canadians. The decline of the welfare state impacts all low-income persons, but newcomers are disproportionately impacted because they are overrepresented among the poor in Canada.
The Chair: Under questioning, you will get a chance to talk more about those measures, particularly for the federal government.
[Translation]
Jean-Claude Icart, Representative, Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes: Two series of studies prepared by Statistics Canada and the Canadian Council on Social Development have come to the clear conclusion that immigrants are subject to the same forces as the rest of society. Nevertheless, for immigrants, these problems are amplified by various factors, including their precarious status, unionization, language skills and labour standards.
All the studies between 1980 and 2000 revealed, for one thing, that the number of low-income immigrants has risen over the past 25 years. Immigrants remain poor for longer and longer periods. The catch-up period, that is, the time needed for an immigrant professional to reach the same salary level as his or her Canadian counterparts, was 16 years then and is 19 to 20 years now. The catch-up period is lengthening and the proportion of low-income immigrants is increasing. During the same period, we have observed increased polarization in incomes and social inequalities in our society.
The first factor I considered was the trend in the Canadian labour market over the last 25 years, showing a strong increase in more unstable work and part-time work, and an increase in the new category called the working poor. Twenty-five or 30 years ago, the fact of having a steady income was enough to keep a person above the poverty line. This is no longer the case. The working poor are found in all provinces.
There are many practical, structural causes. Various working groups on poverty have made many recommendations over the years. The problem is likely to get worse because any increase in the labour force will depend largely on immigration — perhaps two-thirds of the workforce.
The second factor we looked at is what has changed, over the past 20 or 30 years, with respect to immigrants. The high level of qualification is one element. Immigrants are more and more qualified.
Since 1993, Canada has used more selective immigration criteria. The basic premise at the time was that the most qualified immigrants would adjust more easily to labour market fluctuations and the knowledge-based economy.
Aside from the question of recognizing professional qualifications and experience, is it true to say that a qualified person is always more flexible? In my opinion, overqualified people are not necessarily flexible. There is still a need for qualified trades people and middle managers.
There is still a need for qualified trades people and middle managers, and there has been growth in the "temporary visa" category, that is, hiring people with temporary work permits. Thus, the trend has been to offer ad hoc responses to problems of a structural nature.
Immigration Canada never started down that path, having seen the problems it caused elsewhere, particularly in Europe, where this system is now being abandoned. In fact, we are taking up a system that everyone else has given up.
Not all inequality is necessarily the result of discrimination. Still, we fear that significant and persistent socio-economic inequality among various groups may still offer fertile ground for facile explanations, providing an ideological justification for the superiority of some and the inferiority of others. There is a growing tendency to rationalize poverty.
To conclude these brief remarks, I would like to recall the metaphor of the "caravan of the desert" that is sometimes used to represent social inclusion. Social inclusion is often touted as one way to fight poverty.
The metaphor illustrates that poverty also entails breaking the links and represents a threat to social cohesion. If the distance between those at the back and the rest of the convoy keeps growing, there comes a point at which it breaks up.
Speaking of inclusion, integration into a new society is also a process of inclusion, a multi-dimensional process that takes place at a number of levels. While the rate of integration varies at each level, economic disparities usually set the tone and influence all the others. Without recognizing this, fanaticism and hatred appear to be the only explanation for real adaptation problems, and the real obstacles to integration will be overlooked, providing fertile ground for withdrawal and isolation. You can clearly see that I come from Quebec, where there has been so much debate over reasonable accommodation.
Last year the Canadian Council on Social Development published a study on urban poverty in Canada from 1990 to 2000 entitled A Lost Decade, because in 1989 it was decided that child poverty would be eliminated in Canada by the year 2000.
Thank you for taking this initiative; let us hope that no more decades are lost.
[English]
Avvy Go, Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic: I am the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. I am also here on behalf of the Colour of Poverty Campaign, of which our clinic is a founding member.
I have submitted to the committee three sets of documents that will form the basis of my presentation this morning: A set of very colourful fact sheets from the campaign, a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Professor Grace-Edward Galabuzi of the Ryerson University and a written submission that we have prepared for this particular hearing.
I invite the senators to review those documents in greater detail. In my five minutes, I will give highlights based on those documents.
When I refer to the term "racialization of poverty," I refer to the disproportionate exposure to low income as experienced by people from racialized or racial minority communities. For these communities, poverty is very much about social exclusion and unequal citizenship arising from social inequality.
The evidence confirming that racialized communities are experiencing a disproportionate level of poverty is evermore overwhelming and incontrovertible. Between 1980 and 2000, in Toronto, while the poverty rate for non- racialized groups fell by 28 per cent, the poverty rate among racialized families during that same time period rose by 361 per cent. Toronto's racialized community members are three times more likely to be poor than others.
Racialized poverty is not a Toronto phenomenon. On a Canada-wide basis, the rising percentage of people from racialized communities living in poverty is disconcerting.
The 2001 census shows that 39 per cent of adults and 47 per cent of children in the African community live in poverty. Likewise, 36 per cent of adults and 40 per cent of children of the Arab community also live in poverty. Contrast that with 15 per cent of adults and 18 per cent of children among the total Canadian population living in poverty in that same year.
As Professor Icart mentioned, the rising incidence of poverty among immigrants is also alarming. In 1980, for instance, 24.5 per cent of immigrants who had arrived during the previous five-year period were below the poverty line. By 1990, the low-income rate among recent immigrants had increased to 31.3 per cent. In 2000, the figure was 35.8 per cent.
The purpose of the Colour of Poverty Campaign, launched in September, 2007, is to raise public awareness about the increasing racialization of poverty in Canada. We believe it is crucial to understand the connection between race and poverty if we are to launch a comprehensive strategy to reduce poverty in this country.
We have met with many community groups and individuals in the last few months. Many of them have identified a number of issues and challenges facing racialized communities that contribute to the condition of poverty. Unanimously, the number one cause of racialized poverty that has been identified is systemic racism and its manifestation in various forms. The examples people gave were, for instance, the lack of employment equity at the provincial level, the limited employment equity program at the federal level, racial profiling by police and others in the justice system and bilingualism as job requirement at the federal level.
Of course, barriers to accreditation, as others have mentioned, are also named as key obstacles to economic integration by immigrants, in general, and immigrants of colour, in particular. Additionally, lack of adequate funding support for culturally appropriate services is also a problem for integration by immigrants and refugees alike.
The communities we have talked to are also very concerned about the lack of political leadership needed to address the issues. There is a sense that politicians and bureaucrats at all levels of government lack the necessary awareness and understanding of the issues of racism and other systemic issues faced by racialized communities.
These communities have come up with a number of recommendations to address these fundamental problems. These recommendations speak to the need for targeted measures that are systemic in nature and sustainable in the long run.
In the interests of time, I will highlight a few of them that are relevant to the federal level. First, they mentioned that we need to reform the Employment Insurance benefits program to make it accessible to those who are paying into the system but are denied benefits due to the changing nature of their jobs — as others have mentioned, that is becoming more contingent and temporary in nature.
Second, use the Employment Insurance training fund to provide training toward recognition of international credentials. Third, collect and track this aggregated data across all ministries, departments and relevant institutions in order to identify racialized and other structural and systemic disadvantages. Fourth, identify clear goals, specific benchmarks and indicators to monitor the progress of any poverty-reduction plan as it relates to racialized and other historically disadvantaged and marginalized communities.
Fifth, develop a comprehensive, inclusive national child care strategy. Sixth, allow free access to post-secondary education. Seventh, reform immigration policies to reflect the labour market reality and establish a program to regularize the status of non-status immigrants in Canada.
Eighth, reinstate funding to the Court Challenges Program of Canada; and finally, implement a comprehensive housing strategy to address the issues of homelessness, as well as the inadequate and substandard housing conditions in which members of racialized communities are living.
I invite to you read some of the fact sheets, which are relevant to the issues that you are discussing today. Fact sheet number 4 is on health and well-being; number 5 is on employment; number 8 is on immigration and settlement for newcomers; and number 9 is on housing and homelessness.
I would also encourage you to look at the report that was done by the Canadian Labour Congress in 2005 on racial status and employment outcomes, which is based on the 2001 census.
In closing, I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak about the critical issues that affect many Canadians. The dialogue on racialization of poverty has only just begun, but it must be continued if we are to find sustainable and workable solutions to achieve our goal.
The Chair: Thank you all for your presentations. You have given us much to dialogue with you on and ask questions.
Ms. Go, in your presentation, you gave some very alarming statistics on racial minorities — or racialized groups, as you refer to them. You have also given us a clear set of recommendations at the end — quite a number of them.
I would like to give the others the opportunity to talk a little bit about what they see the federal government role being in these matters of immigration and refugees. A few years ago, as I understand, the federal government began a process of block funding to the provinces, putting much of the burden for dealing with immigrant integration at the provincial or local levels of government, while the federal government continues to be the gatekeeper.
You have cited a number of areas. The ones that came out strongest were credential recognition, Canadian experience, language difficulties and discrimination — either veiled or outright, as one of you put it.
Is the federal government continuing in that role of block funding? Is that a fair characterization of where we are at the moment; and what do you feel should be the federal role in this matter, recognizing that it does involve other levels of government?
Ms. Go, you gave a very precise set of recommendations. You can add to this later, but let me start with Dr. Ley.
Mr. Ley: You are quite correct; there is a significant transfer of funds to the provinces for settlement services. Different provinces have made different decisions as to how to spend those funds.
The issue that is of most concern to us, and that has come up in several presentations here, is the issue of language and language instruction. Here, unfortunately, there are different standards across the country in terms of the level of teaching of English as a second language to immigrants.
The highest standards, I believe, are in the Prairies. Ontario does almost as well, and I believe B.C. has the lowest level. This is a matter of provincial decision making, and it is very unfortunate that there is such a differential.
A criticism I hear frequently from non-governmental organizations, NGOs in British Columbia is that the level of English language instruction, which is on offer and is funded by the transfer payments from the federal government, is not sufficient for job readiness. It is primarily taking people up to the conversational level.
However, an issue that is important today is that in a post-industrial economy, it is not enough to have basic English. Some sophistication in communication is significant. Even accented English is a disadvantage in the job market. The gap between the English standard that is taught through these block-funded programs and the level that is necessary for job readiness is a particular difficulty.
Ms. Wayland: I would support what Mr. Ley has just said. To supplement his remarks with a few more particular points, it is my understanding from reading about these issues within the last two years that, as part of that devolution to the provinces, there were different negotiations with each province. The way that it unfolded in British Columbia, and also in Quebec, is that more than half of the money that is transferred from the federal government to the provinces for the purposes of settlement just goes into the general revenues of those provinces. Less than half the money goes into specifically earmarked settlement programs.
It is my understanding that, within the last two years, when Ontario was negotiating its own agreement with the federal government over settlement services, it has been done a bit differently. In Ontario, we now have more money. Immigrants in Ontario were historically underserved, but now they are doing much better than immigrants in British Columbia in terms of the money that goes into the settlement programs. It is very uneven.
It is also worth mentioning that the programs offered across the country do not necessarily directly correlate with the funding for each province. Manitoba offers the highest level of language instruction funded by the province, up to level 8, I believe, compared to British Columbia, which as Professor Ley mentioned, is only up to level 3. There is much variability across the country, and it is a complicated issue.
Did you want me to answer anything else about employment issues?
The Chair: Thus far, what I hear is that the federal government has become too disengaged, and we do not get even standards across the country. Immigrant settlement is happening differently in different parts of the country, and there needs to be more of an engagement by the federal level in setting some standards. Is that what you are saying?
Ms. Wayland: Yes, or at least an oversight to enure that the money that is designated for settlement programs goes into settlement programs. It is what happens at the provincial level in Ontario with English as a second language programming. The money is given to school boards to use, but they do not have to use it for ESL programming.
[Translation]
Mr. Icart: I want to go back to questions of status. In Montreal at one time the Immigration and Refugee Board had 60 or 70 commissioners, while there are only 25 today; this has created a new backlog. And the longer that people are kept in a state of uncertainty, the more difficult it is for them to integrate.
A large part of Canada's national image is based on its welcome for refugees.
For both the refugees selected abroad and those determined by the IRB right here, the family dislocation caused by waiting times becomes a handicap to successful integration. Even though it is not an economic measure and not directly related to poverty, I am persuaded that this problem is a fundamental factor in the problems of integration we observe. That is one thing.
The second thing is that, yes, there are a number of delicate issues that are subject to federal-provincial negotiation; we agree on that.
In particular, there is the question of recognition of skills and knowledge, on which not only each province but each professional corporation must make a decision. These are extremely complicated issues.
Still, there are important factors in other aspects. Some 80 per cent to 90 per cent of immigrants settle in large urban centres. For the last 20 or 25 years, the major factor in urban poverty has been housing — the policy of social housing. That affects many immigrants because they are in the big cities, but it affects everyone as well. Social housing is the number one factor behind urban poverty in Canada.
Provinces set the minimum wage. However, in theory, it should be $10.50 today in order to keep pace with inflation. I support the comments made by Ms. Avvy Go with regard to the employment insurance plan and a child care strategy. These are important and structural components. Poverty does not affect immigrants alone; it affects society as a whole. I believe the federal government has the authority to take steps with respect to employment insurance and child care.
I agree that there are other factors such accreditation. This is a problem, but let us say that it would take much longer. The federal government must prioritize certain actions.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Icart, I have a question concerning these alarming statistics that you cited and attributed to systemic racism. Do any other factors result in these statistics being so different? You said that the 28 per cent poverty rate fell in terms of people of European heritage, whereas families of racialized communities rose 361 per cent. Are there any other factors?
Ms. Go: First of all, that statistic came from a report prepared by United Way called, Poverty by Postal Code. They look at the different neighbourhoods, and there is a link between the concentration of where immigrants and racial minorities live and poverty. I mentioned also the Canadian Labour Congress report because it is interesting that they also look at Canadian-born people of colour, workers of colour compared to immigrants of colour. In some instances, they found that Canadian-born workers of colour are doing more poorly than immigrants of colour. The issues around the lack of accreditation of foreign-trained professionals, et cetera, do not apply to people born in Canada. However, there is nothing else to explain why there is a difference. They are as highly educated as the immigrant population, more so than non-Canadians of colour, and they do not have the foreign credential issue.
That report suggests that perhaps the other factor that needs to be addressed is race. Based on the number of statistics we see, and we are not saying that there is intentionally some scheme to discriminate; there are many systemic issues in the system that result in certain people not getting ahead in the job environment.
To come back to the question you raised, the issue around the devolution and downloading mentioned by others is not just about downloading of immigration services. As Professor Icart has pointed out, we are talking about a whole host of issues and factors that contribute to people living in poverty, such as lack of child care, housing and employment. These are the issues that keep people poor or lead them to a condition of poverty. We should not be limited to looking only at the immigrant settlement dollar but more broadly at how much investment the federal government is putting into health care, the type of national standards applied to health-care funding and the fact that in some provinces, such as Ontario, a newcomer is not entitled to provincial health benefits for the first three months.
There are similar restrictions on other types of immigrants and refugees that contribute to their lack of well-being. I also hear from people in the community that it is a problem that the Canadian government considers settlement services only during the first year or two after arrival when integration is a long, ongoing process. People do not stop needing help after the first or second year. In addition, it is a very individualized process because there are unique needs for people who come as refugees rather than as immigrants, for example. Service providers provide one-size-fits-all type of services because that is the funding they receive from the government, and they will only do it for the first two years after arrival because there is no funding after that. All those issues need to be addressed as well.
Senator Keon: The documents you have provided and your statements raise so many issues that it becomes difficult to deal with this panacea of issues.
On credentialing, the issue that Mr. Icart raised, it would seem that if people could be credentialed when they arrive and their location in Canada be coupled with that, they could be directed to a path of ongoing development that would help them to become productive and self-sustaining citizens quickly and then to continue to improve.
They could take advantage of either official language to get them what they need in the chosen location. If they want to become a deputy minister in the federal government later, they will have to learn the other official language as well. At the beginning, if they have fluency in one of the official languages, depending on their geographic location, it would be a tremendous help to them.
What recommendations can we make for credentialing of immigrants that would open career pathways for them in Canada when they arrive?
[Translation]
Mr. Icart: In Quebec and Ontario, a great deal of effort has been put forward in that regard. Last year, Ontario appointed a Fairness Commissioner to ensure fair accreditation and the program in Quebec is just as vigorous.
In terms of language, I will simply say that Quebec, because of its special situation, tries to recruit francophone immigrants as much as possible. I believe that approximately 60 per cent speak French upon their arrival. Naturally, there are French courses, but it is a criterion in Quebec's immigration selection process for historical and obvious reasons.
When I was speaking about the accreditation of the qualifications of skilled immigrants, I also wanted to question, and I will come back to this point, the preference for recruiting overqualified immigrants.
I also wanted to ask about the use of temporary permits again perhaps for technicians' jobs and also for the pool of labour that we need. I think this is an important element: is it possible to have national standards for accreditation? As I was saying, I did not wish to discuss this at length because we know that it is a responsibility not just of the provinces but also of professional bodies. Therefore, there is work to be done with the professional bodies of each province and then there is the issue of harmonization.
It is a relatively long process but, realistically, I believe that the provinces that accept immigrants have a good understanding of this and are starting to take steps in that direction. They should be encouraged to move more quickly.
As for what I said before, there are types of jobs that do not necessarily require very high qualifications and for which temporary permits are issued. I think we need to turn on the flashing lights at least to draw our attention to the problem.
[English]
Ms. Wayland: We need to improve access to credentials so employers and governments can better understand the qualifications of newcomers. This process has had a number of advances in the past several years. Newcomers can now take their transcripts to credentials assessment agencies, their foreign documentation, and then receive a report. The Ontario government uses World Education Services, but there are many of these credentialing services. A newcomer can take this document to an employer to say, "These are my credentials, and this is what they are worth." This is especially important for access to the regulated professions that are governed provincially not federally, but through the occupational regulatory bodies.
However, there has been such a focus on credentialing lately that it obscures other barriers that newcomers face. Credentialing does not guarantee someone a job. Just because an immigrant has a piece of paper that interprets their credentials does not mean an employer will hire them. This is the real issue. The federal government has standards for entry into this country, but the federal government, for the most part, has nothing to do with hiring immigrants. Access to the labour market is essentially through the private sector and the public sector. The federal government could lead by example in this. Credentialing is one small piece of it.
Progress has been made in the last several years, and that is good, but I do not want to focus unduly on credentials. It is one piece of the process. However, to get people hired, have them stay in the job and have opportunities for advancement once they find work that is in their field is the challenge we are talking about. Credentialing is one small piece of that puzzle.
Senator Keon: Is this not the beginning? At least it tells the individual what direction they might take to carve out a career in Canada if they know what basic qualifications they have and where they can go to improve them, whether it be from a linguistic, educational or technical training point of view. Just bringing people into the country and leaving them be puts them in an extremely difficult position to find their way.
Ms. Go: I absolutely agree with that. I echo Professor Icart's sentiment about the disconnect between immigration policy and economic reality. In a sense, we bring many highly educated people to Canada and then do not allow them to practice in their professional fields, whereas it may be necessary to assess the job market needs.
Having said that, there are highly skilled positions available in the health care field. I am more familiar with those because I am on a provincial adjudicative body that looks at access to positions for health care professionals; we oversee the regulated health professions. There is a need for certain health care professionals, yet we have these barriers set up for immigrants with international credentials.
The three barriers are mainly in how the profession looks at the prior learning assessment. First, the educational background that immigrants bring to Canada is sometimes not being given the weight it should because of the country of origin, for instance.
The second barrier is the accreditation, assessment and licensing requirements. For instance, many health care professionals require individuals to take a certain exam for entry into the field. Increasingly, agencies are set up to help individuals write exams. There are barriers to get the required marks to get into a profession, so there are agencies that are set up just to help people write exams. An agency called the CARE Centre for Internationally Educated Nurses, for instance, helps nurses write their nursing exams. Nurses tend to do better than other health care professionals as well.
The final barrier would be the job. We have heard that perhaps we should have bridging programs. We will provide funding or subsidies for employers to hire these individuals, who are already accredited yet lack the Canadian experience, then they would be able to at least enter the profession on that bridging program. Hopefully, they would gain the Canadian experience needed to further advance their career in that field. Perhaps the government could consider funding bridging programs for these professionals.
Mr. Ley: I agree with most of what I have heard. A huge mismatch exists, as you suggest, Senator Keon, between the admissions policy, or selection policy, in Canada and integration success. We have been extraordinarily successful in admitting highly skilled immigrants. There is a marketplace for such immigrants globally.
The point I want to add is that that is a crisis for immigrants. In research I have done, it is frequently a matter of anguish and, indeed, anger amongst immigrants that the terms under which they entered Canada, the valuing of their credentials during the admission process, are quite contrary to the devaluation of those credentials when they look for work. This is a source of much frustration.
The crisis for immigrants could become a crisis for Canada because word is getting around globally that skilled workers do not do very well here. There is now a significant return of migrants to their own countries, and particularly amongst the large movement of Chinese engineers who came to Canada in the last five or ten years. There is now a reverse flow back to China of people who have not been able to become successful professionals here. There are information flows, and word is getting out that in a competitive marketplace, it is much more difficult to be successful in Canada than it is in European countries or Australia or the U.S., countries that are also keen to recruit such immigrants.
We need to have an anxiety, not only for the immigrants, which we should have, but also for the continuing success of our admissions program.
The Chair: There is some very interesting information there.
[Translation]
Senator Pépin: Thank you very much for coming. Before asking my questions, I am wondering about one thing in reference to qualified immigrants. I come from an area in Quebec where we have taxi drivers who are highly qualified doctors. We know that students studying medicine receive bursaries and when they start working they are able to repay them. Would it be a good idea for the different governments to provide bursaries? We are always told that the problem in Canada lies in the accreditation of the doctor's degree obtained in their country. To go through the accreditation process, they could be given a bursary as is the case with students. They would study for the requisite number of years to obtain the accreditation and then they would work as physicians. They would easily be able to repay their loans. Would that not be one way of doing things?
Mr. Icart: No.
Senator Pépin: Why not?
Mr. Icart: I did not wish to discuss this in detail. However, in terms of accreditation and equivalencies, if we take the case of a doctor, recognition of credentials is not the issue. There are a certain number of exams to be taken and the individuals pass the exams. In the case of this profession, the bottleneck is the number of internships. You may have 600 or 700 doctors who have passed their exams; however, there are only 30 internships offered every year—sometimes 30 to 40. A bursary should be given to the doctors who supervise the students during the internship, because that is the real cause of the bottleneck.
It is a little more complicated than that because when we speak of accreditation, it is as though we do not recognize their credentials. That is not the case; they pass their exams and after one or two years we recognize their credentials. But as a speaker said earlier, it is one thing to be accredited and quite another to be hired.
This comes down to the profession's organization in Quebec, the example I am familiar with. But I am sure that in other provinces, or in the case of other professions, there are other barriers and systemic factors. It is not necessarily discrimination; it may be a form of control or other factors.
That is one example of a systemic factor that creates a bottleneck or is a barrier to integration.
Senator Pépin: It has been recognized that visible minorities, particularly Blacks, are at risk of having a low income no matter how long they have been in Canada. For first generation immigrants, that may be due to the language and cultural barriers; however, this does not apply to their children. Some believe that, in the case of a number of minorities, race may be the factor that prevents them from integrating fully. What do you think and what should be done to improve this situation?
[English]
Ms. Go: There was another recent study, but I cannot remember whether it was a Statistics Canada study or another, that shows that the children of the immigrant parents are, in some cases, worse off than their parents, particularly among men. If we accept the premise that it has something to do with the systemic discrimination they face, then there is a two-pronged approach.
One approach is employment equity. Mandate employers to make their hiring practices more equitable so that they cannot discriminate against women, people with disabilities, people of colour, and so on. That is happening to some extent at the federal level. However, from what we have heard, it is just not enough. At the provincial level, it is almost non-existent. Most of the workplace is governed by provincial legislation.
The second approach is to strengthen the human rights legislation, both the Canadian Human Rights Act and the provincial human rights code, so that when people are being discriminated against, they will have an effective mechanism to address the issues. As Dr. Ley has mentioned — and it is true with the Filipino community, but with many others as well — many immigrants have experienced or identified as having experienced discrimination in the workplace. Those are the two key measures that we can take, but the federal government will be restricted to those only at the federal level.
[Translation]
Mr. Icart: With regard to the children of visible minorities born in Canada, there are studies that show difficulties even in the case of children who have no problems in the school system. I am referring to a UQAM study that chose youth who had never had problems in the school system but who, nevertheless, had a certain number of difficulties on the job market.
They wanted to prove a point by reductio ad absurdum. However, I believe that in the case of these children, it is not an issue to be addressed primarily by the federal government but, in general terms, has to do with the situation in public schools. Inner city schools tend to become the schools of minorities and the quality of education is deteriorating in those schools. A great deal needs to be done in that area.
The neighbourhoods are an issue because there is a relationship between the school, the neighbourhood and future employment. When we say that a neighbourhood is poor, not only is it physically poor, but it also lacks the infrastructure for sports, culture, services and so forth. There are difficulties at that level. Employment equity programs would definitely help. Not just at the federal level but also at the provincial level.
In some areas, more and more visible minority families are poor. Recommendations regarding support for children, housing, raising the minimum wage and others have been made over the past 20 to 25 years. Measures have been proposed for a long time. Perhaps you may have the opportunity to show the urgency of this matter and the potential consequences of not taking action.
[English]
Senator Cordy: I would like to get back to the issue of employment, because if people do not have employment, then they will not have housing and will likely live in poverty and have all the other social problems.
When I grew up in Cape Breton — and, Dr. Wayland gave her example of Hamilton — many immigrants who came to Cape Breton in the 1940s and 1950s were able to get jobs in the coal mines and steel plant. They were hard, physical- labour jobs, but they provided good incomes. Immigrants were able to live in good neighbourhoods, and many of their children have gone on to post-secondary education — I am an example of that. Immigrants of today, however, have low-paying service jobs. They are living in poverty, working 80 hours a week and trying to feed their families.
Dr. Ley, you talked about the immigrants, the Filipinos for example, who have information flowing from within. I heard an interview on the radio with small business owners. The topic was getting immigrants into the workforce and, in particular, a professional workforce. They said that because they were small businesses, they relied on word of mouth. They would talk to their friends, who would then recommend someone.
That is human nature. However, it does exclude a huge portion. If White, Anglo-Saxon males are looking for someone, they will be talking in all likelihood to White, Anglo-Saxon males. That is not a criticism; that is just a reality.
How do we ensure that these circles are opened? How do we get immigrants to gain experience in the workforce? Ms. Go spoke about a bridging program. Nova Scotia tried a business program — it was not called a bridging program — where new immigrants to Nova Scotia paid astronomical amounts of money to supposedly get experience in their field that would help them. It was a disaster. It pillaged the new immigrants by charging them huge amounts of money and not giving them experience in their related fields. It gave them experience in low-end jobs where they were not using their credentials and skills. The government said that they were not complaining. The immigrants were afraid to complain because they were thought that if they complained, they would be sent out of Nova Scotia and back to their countries.
That program was absolutely awful. What do we do to ensure that the circles are open for new immigrants? In fact, it is not just new immigrants; you all made reference to the fact that we are not just concerned about the first couple of years but also as time progresses. How do we open those circles?
Ms. Go: Our clinic serves many low-income immigrants. From my experience, the low-wage jobs are not just restricted to the service area. Even in manufacturing, there are low-wage jobs. Many of the clients we see work in garment factories, or in the auto industry, manufacturing particular parts for automobiles. Those jobs are becoming more and more low-wage as well because most of them are non-unionized. To cut costs, employers first cut labour costs. From an hourly wage, many of them will go to piece rate, so workers will have to work faster or work longer hours just to get the same amount of money. Employment violation is very common.
It sounds as though I am repeating myself, but, ultimately, we need to have an employment equity program. It will go through what happens in the workforce and in the hiring practices as part of the employment equity assessment. To avoid employers hiring people simply on a word-of-mouth basis, we need to tell them that they have to hire people through a certain type of employment or hiring strategy that is accessible, equitable, open and transparent. That is part of what employment equity is about.
Of course, I am not preaching for a labour code or unionization; but to strengthen the bargaining power of the workers will also change the work environment. If it is not by unionization, then it is by changing the employment standards. However, that is provincial legislation.
The Chair: Do not worry about repeating yourself. That is the way matters get resolved around here.
Ms. Wayland: To add to what Ms. Go said, something that is maybe less institutional that could be effective, but I do not know exactly how go about it, is to educate employers about the quality of newcomers. Many small business owners and even larger corporations are unaware of the great skills coming into this country. They see foreign credentials and immediately dismiss them. We need a large public education campaign that can make the business case for hiring immigrants.
For example, many cities in Canada are facing what is called a looming skills shortage. It is already being felt in some provinces and regions around the country. People are becoming more and more desperate to hire talent. Sometimes the talent is not available.
We must direct business owners to look at the newcomer populations, so that if they are looking for someone with a particular set of skills, we suggest through some catch phrase that they consider hiring an immigrant. It sounds silly, but these types of campaigns are working to a certain extent. However, they have only been implemented on a small scale.
Access to training is being offered on more of a large scale. As Ms. Go said, newcomers generally do not have access to the training and skills development available through Employment Insurance, because they have not paid into EI. They are not eligible, and that is a huge problem.
The federal government could also lead by example by hiring more immigrants through mentorship programs, internships, et cetera, and showcase success stories. This may entail changing some requirements — for example, capacity in both official languages. However, there could be a trade-off in that there would be certain advantages to hiring people who can speak other languages spoken by increasing percentages of Canadians. I would encourage the federal government to lead by example.
Mr. Ley: I want to pick up on a point that was mentioned about the changing economy, which perhaps we have not given enough emphasis to yet. The economy that immigrants inherit at landing has much to do with their successful economic integration. You referred back to an earlier period when immigrants commonly moved into blue-collar, frequently unionized jobs — in British Columbia, for example, the forests or mines — but those jobs have been severely eroded in manufacturing, as well in Central Canada.
We are now moving into what we call an hourglass economy, where increasingly people are overwhelmingly in the service sector. However, there are two types of jobs in the service sector: the lower-level jobs, which are frequently minimum wage jobs, and the higher-level professional jobs. We find immigrants move into this lower tier.
In other words, the middle-income jobs in manufacturing and in the resource sector, which frequently require minimal linguistic skills historically, are simply now in very short supply. We are in a changing economy, which makes the situation much more difficult.
The importance of the business cycle is another issue. A decision was made by the federal government, around 1990, that, regardless of the state of the business cycle, we would have the same number of immigrants entering the country — around a quarter of a million a year. If we go back to the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, we will find immigration is cyclic. When jobs are scarce, more immigrants were permitted to enter the country. During recession, the numbers were run down. However, from 1990, or thereabouts, we decided that we would go for a quarter of a million immigrants a year whatever the state of the economy. Of course, in the early 1990s we had a very severe recession. The cohort of immigrants — over a million of them — who came into Canada in the first half of the 1990s inherited, through no fault of their own, a catastrophic employment situation. The 1996 census showed that they were, indeed, in dire straits.
In the 2006 census — and we do not have data yet on income and employment by immigrant status — it will be very important to see if an improvement that occurred from 1996 to 2001 in the economic condition of the most recent arrivals will be sustained or not because we have been in a much more positive economic environment in the last half a dozen years.
When we look at data and how well, for example, immigrants through the 1990s are doing, we have to take into account not only the changing economy but also the stage of the business cycle when they arrived.
A short-term analysis only looks at how they have done in five years or ten years. A longer term analysis, when we see the economy stronger, should give us a better idea.
The bottom line is that it was federal policy that determined 15 or 20 years ago that there be the same entry level regardless of the state of the economy, and that will obviously jeopardize immigrants who arrive during recessions.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I have been listening to and studying some of the statistics, and it seems that immigrant women are doing better than immigrant men. We do not like and do not condone the gap between earnings of women and men in this country. However, going down the list of all the immigrants, certainly, the immigrant women are doing better proportionately than the immigrant men.
I also note the outstanding performance of the Japanese community. Interestingly enough, the Jamaican women are doing well on these economic charts. I do not know if you have any comments on that. We can always learn from the Japanese immigrants and families.
I have a question about the chart with respect to racialized youth labour market participation, which I believe came from Ms. Go. Why is the 15 to 24 age group included in the youth labour market when they should be in school until they are 18 or 19 years of age? It seems to me that the chart is probably skewed. What struck me is that our Aboriginal youth are doing worse than our immigrant youth. That is probably the biggest scar from all of this.
Those are my observations, and anyone is welcome to comment on them.
You have made an important case and done an important analysis on the situation in regard to health care professionals, and we are concerned about that. We have heard about that from our various professional organizations, especially the Canadian Medical Association, in the past several weeks. We have to deal with that.
Mr. Icart and Ms. Go mentioned child care during the questions and answers, particularly. I wanted to focus on Quebec, Mr. Icart. In your opinion, and living in Quebec, do you see progress and good results on behalf of new Canadians and immigrant families in the Quebec system? Is it getting better with time? I visited a child care centre in Montreal and found a wonderful mix of nationalities and families, and I felt great hope there. Could you specifically comment on that, please?
Ms. Go: I would like clarify the chart that you were looking at with respect to poverty rates among racialized groups, which lists the Japanese and Jamaican communities. To clarify some distinctions between racialized communities and immigrants, racialized groups are not necessarily all immigrants. For instance, Japanese-Canadians are more likely to be Canadian-born than are other racialized groups because Japan is not one of the top source countries for Canada's immigration. It is important to distinguish the concept of racialized communities versus immigrant communities because not all immigrants are from racial minority groups, and not all racial minority group members are immigrants.
As to why racialized men, in particular, are doing worse than women, I do not know. I would like to think maybe women are more flexible, but it could be also because racialized men face a particular type of discrimination that women may not face in the workforce.
In fact, just from my work experience, when clients come to us with complaints about discrimination in the workforce, women tend to complain about sexual harassment; men tend to complain about racial harassment. I am not sure about the reason for that or whether women also face racial harassment, but their gender identity might compel them to focus on more of those issues than race. I do not know. It is true that when we get calls about racial discrimination in the workplace, they tend to come from men. Perhaps the other scholars would know the answer to that.
[Translation]
Mr. Icart: In Quebec, the universal child care program has certainly been one of the best things to happen in the past ten years. It is relatively new. The child care movement began in the early 1970s. It took 25 years to put in place a universal child care program. That has definitely been an important step forward.
The program is so successful that there are not enough spaces. That was the first measure to be announced as part of a family policy adopted by Quebec beginning in the 1990s. There are other pieces to be put in place: parental projects, which has already been put forward, and reconciliation of work and family life.
I believe strongly in a comprehensive program. And I believe that it is probably one of the best things to have happened in Quebec in the past 15 years. It may be early to evaluate them, but all the analyses and projects with regard to community child care projects indicated that that was the way to go. All the studies demonstrated that that was the direction to be taken. Yes, it starts with early childhood education. The first five years lay the foundation for a child's development and we must continue to expand the movement through the primary and secondary schools. One part of the foundation has been laid but we must not stop there.
[English]
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I did not see a 10-year comparison. People come here from around the world with hope. I would like to see the difference between year 1 and year 10 in regard to whether that hope is realized. Are the salaries and income levels closer? Are they doing relatively well? I do not know whether we have anything that tells us that.
[Translation]
Mr. Icart: We were speaking of studies carried out over a period of 20 years, from 1980 to 2000, with 2000 being the last year for which data is available. Over those 20 years there was an increase, for both for the general population as well as immigrants, in what I call the catch-up period. Poverty has increased among immigrant groups over the course of 20 years. Naturally, some individuals will realize their dreams. We are beginning to see different categories and, in general, some have adjusted better than others. In terms of specific categories, we can go into more detail and we will have some difficulties.
Overall, there is a general trend that applies to immigration as well and that reflects the economic difficulties. That is what the objective date collected over a period of 20 years indicates today. I think that is what we have to bear in mind. It has been 20 years nonetheless. That means it is a significant trend, both in terms of the restructuring of the labour market and the difficulties faced by immigrants. We should perhaps look at the immigration policy per se, the selection grid or standards, and also ask why these individuals work in certain job sectors? I wanted to ask the following question: what can be done to improve conditions in these sectors?
Especially since, when there is change, sectors with better conditions and where there is investment in innovation are the ones that fare the best in a global market.
Last week, a major Montreal company moved away. Another company is staying. Why? Because for ten years, it invested in employee training and in innovation. What lessons can we learn? Is it a question of individual responsibility or are there systemic factors to be considered. I think that all four of us basically agree that there are structural factors at play and that it is not just a matter of individual responsibility. It is not about the individual, the immigrant. There can be special categories for very specific groups. I am sorry that I did not speak about refugees living in the regions. We choose immigrants and we can send them to the regions. It is a way of deconcentrating immigration. But do the services follow? Are there services in the areas where they are sent? We are talking 10,000 or 12,000 people; that is not a large number, but they are people. It is an important consideration whether there are 10,000 or 2,000.
I think that we are insisting on the fact that there are systemic factors and structural problems that must be taken into consideration.
[English]
Senator Cook: Thank you for a very informative session. Much has been said about processes and how and why people come to this country. I would like to pursue this from another perspective. The decision to leave home must be a very traumatic one, and the circumstances vary depending on where people come from. Whether they come with a dream or with a large sum of money, it must be as traumatic as that decision to find that they have come to a completely different place than they expected.
It is awesome what new Canadians have to face be part of our society. I will confess that I know nothing about the immigration policy or the settlement services. However, from what I have heard this morning, they come to a mercantile society, perhaps an over-regulated society, in which they will work. They come with credentials that are not quite up to par or the same as ours, and they come with the inability to communicate effectively. When that is all said and done, there is an unfriendly labour market. They come as families with little ones and teenagers, the challenging parts of a family, or they may come alone.
In the midst of all of that, where are the weaknesses in our immigration policy and in how we care? I use the word "care," because if we do not care for a person, the person's spirit will be destroyed, and I believe that is where the systemic pieces are coming from.
We talk about social cohesion. They come to a climate that is probably very different. I come from Newfoundland, where the climate is very different, which my Canadian friends would not understand.
They bring a culture. Newfoundlanders comprise the most Canadian immigrants at the moment, due to the downturn of the fishery. When they relocate in this country, they immediately build a social club where they can eat their own foods. How real is the social cohesion that we hear about?
I will focus on Ms. Go's bridging programs. Is there a place for us to recommend bridging, apprenticeship and social programs and on-the-job training? Can we get linkages? Can we integrate, or will nothing work for the newcomers to our shores?
We can look at credentials and language. There are only 500,000 people in my province. Is there a bridging program through which we can filter all those needs?
Ms. Wayland: This may be a good time to talk about the importance of families. Mr. Ley said that Canada is in competition with many other countries to attract skilled newcomers. Word is getting out in some circles that it is very difficult here, and that is dissuading others from wanting to come. Social ties are a huge reason that people come to Canada. The only recent longitudinal study of newcomers to this country is the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada. It looked at a group of newcomers at increments of six months, one year and two years after their arrival, and asked them different questions about their experience. Some of this data has been released, because it focused on people who came around 2001.
Eighty-seven per cent of the people who participated in that study already had family and friends in Canada at the time they migrated here. This is, in large part, how people make their choices. Social ties bring people to this country.
However, we have lengthy processing times and other barriers that make it difficult for families to stay together. Often the principal applicant under the point system, the skilled worker, comes on his or her own to get established and then wants to bring the rest of the family.
Often when they come here, they have no idea how long it will take for that process to take place, to get established and to go through the paperwork to be reunited with their families. There are many stories of heartbreak, people growing apart and parents not knowing their children. Families being reunited in Canada need to be expedited. This would facilitate greatly with the settlement process as well. We focused on employment and language acquisition, which are extremely important, but the third area of focus should be to help families to stay together.
The longitudinal study of immigrants to Canada showed that the vast majority of people get their information about settlement in their orientation from family and friends; not from government agencies and not from settlement agencies. It is important to recognize the importance of those ties.
I do not know if that answers your question.
Ms. Go: I totally agree with Dr. Wayland's point about the family and the processing time. As an example, many of our clients are mainland Chinese, and, in general, the processing time for an independent immigrant from China is maybe four years. Once I had a client, a student from mainland China, who happened to be living in Germany at the time when he applied to immigrate to Canada. It took him 21 days to get his immigration visa. I suppose it really depends on where one lives. The processing time is totally different because of the resource allocation we have around the globe in the various visa offices.
Of course, it is also a reflection of where the immigrants come from. However, four years is a long time; changes happen in a person's life. It links to some of the other absurdities in our immigration system.
I will give you another example of how we are totally failing families. I have a client, a family, parents and two daughters from China, who came as independent immigrants, but they left one daughter behind because of the one- child policy. They never reported the second daughter to the Chinese authorities. Therefore, when they came to Canada, they were afraid to report that they actually had two children and only reported one of them. Only after they came to Canada did they then start to try to bring the second daughter to Canada. Because of the provision in the immigration act, they are forbidden forever to bring that second child. What happened? The father had to go back and forth to look after the child while trying to settle in Canada. How well do you expect this family to do?
There are many strange provisions in our immigration act such that when we are talking about unification of families, in fact, we do many things to break families apart. Increasingly, the numbers of people who come to Canada come as independent immigrants, but that does not mean they do not have families. Also, they have extended families, and we are breaking up the extended families as well. To bring a parent from China, we are looking at 10 years.
All these factors affect the immigration and settlement process in Canada, again causing the economic problems they have here.
Mr. Ley: Your question, Senator Cook, how do we care, is just a fundamental question. As we have heard, there is much self-help in these communities. That is not simply through families, but also through institutions, and we should not underestimate religious institutions within immigrant communities. Historically, of course, the Catholic Church has played a celebrated role here for European Catholics.
However, today there is a much more diverse array of religious institutions. I actually have done some research on these, and the range of services offered is quite astonishing. Slightly more formally, there are the NGOs, and Canada is fortunate to have a tremendous set of immigrant-serving NGOs — people who work under huge pressures for very little money.
I am most familiar with those in Vancouver, but I know a little of them elsewhere. They do a first-rate job in showing a caring face to often very highly stressed populations. A minimal argument could be put forth to ensure they are properly funded. In B.C., even the largest NGOs now have a precarious existence largely funded by the provincial government. However, they do a first-rate job — and I hear this repeatedly from immigrants themselves.
Senator Munson: My observation on immigrant women is that they will do the jobs others will not do. I bless the ones who work in my mother's seniors' home because 90 per cent of the women in there are caregivers. We will find that all across this country. They will do these jobs without a concern for the pay. They should be praised for that. Others will not take these jobs, which is not good.
My first question is on the conversation about the restrictions on health care with the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, OHIP, for the first three months. I believe that is the case in some other provinces as well. What bureaucrat or politician would think up that? What rationale was behind the piece of work to restrict health care for immigrants that puts them in a tougher economic situation and makes everything unsteady for them?
The second question is on oversight, dealing with transfer payments to provinces. I would like to hear from you how strong or how large an oversight is needed. The federal government is turning into a bank, but there must be some sort of national standard that has to be delivered.
Ms. Go: In relation to OHIP, the case was actually challenged in court. I do not remember what the rationale was, but the reason it was upheld was partly because of the downloading, cutbacks, inadequate funding from the federal government and the change in formula. The province is using the federal government as the basis for creating policies that have an impact negatively on the immigrant population.
Ms. Wayland: My understanding of that OHIP issue is that it was something that was originally intended to impact Canadians moving between provinces, and that is why a number of different provinces have the same issue. This is an example of a law created to impact Canadians that has an undue impact on immigrants.
Senator Munson: The similar situation happened to my mother at the age of 93; she had to wait for three months after coming from Quebec to Ontario.
Could you comment on the oversight business dealing with transfer payments?
Mr. Ley: I would have thought that, at the very least, accountability is a minimal expectation, and if funds are transferred for particular programs, there should be accountability to show they are being used in those programs. I do not want to identify just what type of oversight is palatable, but I believe there are times when feet must be held close to the fire if accountability is shown to be lacking.
Ms. Wayland: These have to be negotiated up front at the time of the agreement. I believe, as I said, Ontario learned from the example of British Columbia, unfortunately for British Columbia.
[Translation]
Mr. Icart: In Quebec, that was an important subject. The groups on the ground led Quebec authorities to be more transparent with regard to the use of these monies.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I certainly identify with many of the problems and concerns you are expressing here this morning, because I had the privilege three years ago to chair a committee that sponsored a family from Vietnam. In fact, I am still in very close contact with that family. Therefore, I understand much of what you say about settlement services.
My main question is on block funding, because there are problems here. As you talked about with the English- language training, some provinces are training people to carry on a conversation; other provinces are training them so that their English is adequate for a particular job. You mentioned half the money is not going into settlement services.
I know that Senator Munson has already asked this, but do you have anything else to add to that? As I say, there are problems here. Should the federal government be taking a stronger role than just to have accountability that they actually spend the money in these settlement services? I do not know what the criteria is now, if there is any, but I really would like to hear more comments on this.
Ms. Go: If they want a more important role then not only do they have to attach conditions, but they also have to give the money. Part of the difficulty is because transfer payments have been decreasing over the years, and the provinces are saying, "You are not even giving us enough money; why should we listen to you?" It comes in the same package. I believe there should be a national standard, but I also believe that the federal government is not investing enough money in all of these areas we have talked about today.
Until the federal government does so, it cannot really tell others that they have to listen and that they have all of these conditions attached. That is part of the difficulty, I believe.
The Chair: Dr. Ley, you mentioned the word getting around that Canada is not a good place for immigrants to come. You mentioned specifically engineers going back to China.
We have talked about reasons such as credential recognition, Canadian experience and language. Can you indicate, in some order, what the main reasons are — whether those or others — as to why these people are going back?
Mr. Ley: The primary reason is economic. They have come to Canada with economic expectations on the basis of the human capital they have.
I perhaps cannot do better than to repeat a quote from an immigrant that I included in my hand-out. A Chinese immigrant in Richmond, a Vancouver suburb, said, "I am a mechanical engineer with two university degrees; but here I am a card dealer in a casino. I need a break."
I feel it is that sort of experience that makes the return to China a consideration. Although it is not necessarily easy to re-enter the labour market there, the opportunities in a growing economy are substantial. That is the primary issue.
Why is that person a card dealer rather than an engineer in Canada? Credentials and language were the two key issues that come out of this community.
The Chair: We have reached the end of our time. It has been a very productive session. We have had a great deal of information, a wealth of information, from all of you. We very much appreciate you being here.
The committee continued in camera.