Human Resources Committee on June 10th, 2014

[Julie Drolet]

We did not focus on this aspect in the findings of the study or the literature review.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

If you did not consider it, that means that provincial accountability is not a problem. Is that what you are saying?

[Julie Drolet]

No.

It is just that, as concerns my presentation today and what we learned from the literature review, this topic did not come up as part of the project.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

All right.

I would like to discuss another aspect that gave rise to a situation that I personally experienced.

When I immigrated through regular immigration channels and dealt with the officials at Immigration Canada, I remember clearly that they told me in no uncertain terms to go to the offices of the department of Human Resources and Skills Development to get a social insurance number. Then they guided me toward the Canada Revenue Agency, where an official took the time to explain to me clearly that I had to fill out a tax return and how to go about doing so. It was very directive.

As concerns employment, I personally had no connection, that is, during the immigration process, I had the impression that it was considered very important that I receive my social insurance number and that I pay my taxes. However, I also had the impression that it was not very important for me to get work.

Is that an aspect that you studied? Should we grant the same kind of importance to that aspect as to explaining to an immigrant that he or she must pay his or her taxes?

[Julie Drolet]

I believe that services are slightly different, depending on which community people are in.

For example, it might be different if you are in a rural community or a small town as opposed to being in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal.

The important thing is to ensure that these services are all integrated as seamlessly as possible so that new arrivals can obtain all the information they need, including as concerns access to employment.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

It is true that newcomers have not paid into the employment insurance fund.

Nonetheless, would you recommend that new immigrants should be able to benefit from the employment insurance fund in order to obtain training that would allow them to enter the labour market? Or should this be a clearly separate thing?

[Julie Drolet]

I think that it should be a part of it.

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Perfect.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

Thank you so much.

Our last questioner will be Mrs. McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, also thank you to the witnesses.

I think I'm going to start, Mr. Contreras, and take this down to a really granular level, because I'm trying to get my head around how it mixes and matches.

I'm going to use Kamloops, British Columbia, as an example because it's the community I'm from, and there's an ASET holder, the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, there. There's Open Doors, which is busy delivering the programs through the provincial government, and there is another available opportunity through, for example, the B.C. AMTA strategic partnership fund.

Now as I understand it right now, a Métis person could enter through any of those doors.

[Guido Contreras]

Every agreement has a distinctive identifier and you have a specific contingency that you need to be eligible for as clientele, I guess. So you could provide something called minimum levels of services to absolutely anyone.

I'll give you an example. The centre in Calgary provides these types of services to first nation clients. In fact, there's a large non-Canadian or immigrant community coming in through the centres, but those are self-serve services that are open to everyone.

When it comes down to the point of targeted interventions, investment in skills resources, that is when those individuals need to go to their respective agreement holders in order to access the funding they need for their intervention.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

So if someone were eligible, had the number of hours and met the current eligibility criteria, they could currently go through Open Doors, or Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, and get the support they need, and it's a choice. Is that...?

[Guido Contreras]

If they are first nations, they will go to their respective first nations' agreement, and if they meet the conditions of the EI Act, they will have access to either part I or part II dollars, as long as they are within that particular jurisdiction.

But the Shuswap Nation, for example, will not provide investments of... [Inaudible-Editor] skills services, or pay for education training or whatever that is, to someone who is Métis, for example, because every constituency has a different agreement.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

So to take my example of the three groups, how are you actually recommending and feeling that we should change it? Should the money follow the person, or how are you seeing it? Again, we're really at a granular level, I know, but sometimes it helps to look at how these have worked on the ground, and then you can make some of those bigger decisions.

[Guido Contreras]

I propose to you that Canada has done really well since the devolution in delivering programs to the aboriginal community and their respective constitutional groups. So I think that should remain.

In terms of what happens at the ground level, I'll give you an example. In Calgary, there is a first nation and Métis centre, one in the north and one in the southern part of the city. They have these two entities that have an agreement where any aboriginal individual, absolutely anyone, can access services through either one of the two doors.

When funding is required for that particular individual, that is when the file is transferred to their respective organization. So if that individual is first nation, then that file will be transferred and the individual will be sponsored by a first nations' agreement.

The reason for this is that if, for example, a Métis centre were to fund a first nations' client, Canada would not recognize that. We would not be able to upload the investment and the result...because the particular identifier that the Métis agreement would have would not be meeting the conditions of the first nation individual.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

One of our earlier witnesses felt that we should have our ASEP program, and then take the LMDA, the LMA, and the targeted initiative for older workers, and really collapse them a little bit into one piece. To some degree, that makes some sense.

I have one concern. I had someone from my riding yesterday who was looking at the student job program, as an example. By not having anything set aside as a bit of a carve-out for youth with disabilities going to university, they found it was a real challenge for their particular group to actually access....

So I appreciate the thinking around collapsing and making some sense, but would we not lose that targeted, important work that we do, again, whether for older workers or those with disabilities...?

Does anyone care to comment on that piece?

[The Chair, Conservative, Phil McColeman]

We're really over time here, and I hesitate to continue it longer because of the amount of time I've given to Mrs. McLeod.

I will wrap up the meeting now. You should be aware, as I mentioned to the previous panel, that if you have further submissions to make or you wish to respond to any of the conversation and questions here today, you're welcome to submit those to our clerk at any time during the course of this study.

I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking the time to be with us here today in Ottawa.

With that, we will adjourn the meeting.