Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

--but if you have any comment, that would be fine.

[Bridget Foster]

--that from my part of the world I'd have to say, because I deal mainly with people who come in as refugees, people who have been forced to leave their countries and have been selected for assistance by the government of Canada, can hardly wait for that four years to pass--and it is almost four years--to take out citizenship. I think it's one of the most encouraging signs I see for the future, that they're there, that they are absolutely committed to make Canada their future, and I don't see any problems. But I'm only dealing with a very small number of people. The situation on the west coast might be entirely different. But citizenship is what everybody aims for.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

My question is how do you feel about dual citizenship?

[Bridget Foster]

It doesn't give me any problem.

[Stephan Reichhold]

I can answer that. For my part, I’m a German citizen and I have been living in Canada for 17 years. Unfortunately, Germany does not recognize dual citizenship, so I never obtained Canadian citizenship, because I wanted to preserve my German citizenship, for my children etc. I am therefore in a very difficult position, because of German law. So, if Canada adds a second law, I will be in a even tighter spot.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You do have two and a half minutes.

[Fariborz Birjandian]

I think dual citizenship has its advantages as well. I know with this particular incident, when you look at the numbers--and I think it was in the news--that obviously there is a question in Canada whether we did the right thing, or, if the incident were to happen again, should we spend that money and effort to bring people here only to learn that they will be going back. That is a question that needs to be debated, and I think that's a good experience. But at the same time, I think dual citizenship creates a lot of advantages for Canada. I don't know how we deal with the taxation. I think we need to look at the taxation. I think we have people who came here from Hong Kong, for instance, who have gone back. Or people come here and they go to their country of origin to do work.

I think if we take care of the taxation, we are going to cover the costs that from time to time we have to undertake because of incidents like the Lebanon situation. But overall, I think it would give a leading advantage to Canada to attract people to come here, if those people could also keep their other nationality.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If I were to seek a consensus, I would say that your organization supports dual citizenship and the trial balloon that the minister is sending up is not something that is appreciated by your members.

[Fariborz Birjandian]

Overall, I think dual citizenship has a lot of advantages. I think we should not rush into this. We should have more community debate. We should learn about what happens in other countries. Germany is an example; it's not working for Germany. In the end, perhaps it wouldn't work for Canada. An international discussion needs to take place, but locally we have to have a better understanding of the impact if we want to remove dual citizenship. But I personally think there are advantages for Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you. Forty-five seconds, if anyone else wishes to respond. If not, we will move to Nina Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for your time and your presentations.

My question is directed to Chris. You mentioned resettlement funding in your presentation. Could you please make the comparison of all the provinces, how much funding each province receives and why it is different in each province?

[Chris Friesen]

It's a complex question that is primarily guided by what's called the settlement allocation model that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has created. That's one of the accompanying documents in our written submission to the standing committee today.

What essentially happens is that the federal government has a sum of funding and then allocates that to the various regions based on the number of immigrants that land in that region, taking into consideration refugee population, official language capacity, and there is a rolling average over three years. It's quite a complex formula that tries to ensure that provinces with fewer numbers of immigrants still have the capacity and infrastructure to continue to provide services but at the same time recognizes--and we could argue whether or not it's adequate--provinces like Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia, and increasingly Alberta, all of which have been receiving higher numbers of immigrants in the last five years.

Again, the issue is that the formula has been in place for many years and has been redividing the same sum of money and hasn't been working effectively. This is the point we want to make, that the infrastructure is being stretched considerably across the country. Given the immigrant settlement outcomes that we're seeing, there are alarm bells we should all be aware of. Part of that is how to provide adequate supports at the very beginning, to make sure that immigrants have the best possible start when they come to this country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madame Deschamps.

[Johanne Deschamps, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, mister Chair.

Thank you for your presentation today. It’s very gratifying to hear organizations such as yours talking about your concerns. You are often at the very heart of the problem, very close to what is happening in the field. It must be even more difficult, for organizations as your own, to take action in the present political context, that is in the context of a minority government. That must really burden and slow down your structures and interventions.

During your presentation, you mentioned that you recently met the Minister. I’d like to know how the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration reacted to your concerns and needs. Did he show that he was open to these problems? Is he ready to take measures that will enable you to respond to emergency situations? Did he propose an action plan? Have you set a date for future meetings with the Minister to take legislative measures or to respond to your requests in a short period of time?

[Reza Shahbazi]

I can characterize the meeting we had yesterday as being very fruitful. We understand that some of the agencies involved in our membership have 40 or 50 years of history, but CISSA was formally formed about six or seven months ago. We are there to just promote ideas that go beyond the different political parties' mandates and ideology. We talk about issues related to immigrants and refugees, and the settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees.

The meeting we had yesterday with the minister was fruitful, in the sense that at least we were able to bring to his attention some of the pressing issues that we feel have to be addressed. The minister listened and made some responses. We felt that the meeting was very positive in terms of some of the action. Ultimately we know that things take time, and we will definitely monitor the progress.

On communications, we feel that we have not only opened communications with the minister and his department, but with this group and other groups.

On the outcome, we will have to see. We are very hopeful and positive. That comes from our approach too. We think we are bringing some solutions to issues. I do not believe that when people hear solutions they run away from them. We can bring in more and more people and get results. So we are very positive about the meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Jaffer, please.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Okay, thanks, Chair.

Thanks to all our guests here today. I appreciate some of the feedback.

Obviously, we've been hearing similar stuff over the last little while. Recently, being from Edmonton, I had the minister visit over the summer, and we had the chance to travel and see some of the settlement groups and really understand the challenges they're having. Of course they appreciated the new money, but want to make sure it gets down to where it needs to get. How the money's going to flow--they were sharing a lot of details with us.

Very innovative--I admire you guys, because on your limited resources, all your organizations.... I'm amazed at some of the work that's being done, especially in Edmonton with the Mennonite Centre, for instance, and the work they do.

You mentioned, Bridget, the idea of having the Metropolis project look at more effective ways to do research to link up with the settlement groups. I know that's happening in Edmonton, and I'll talk to the director there and see if there's a way they can spread that with the other Metropolis groups, so there is a way they can collaborate more effectively with the settlement, because some of the outcomes there could be very useful for us, but also, obviously, for you.

Chris, you raised some interesting points: the issue of national standards, when immigrants come, whether they be refugees or immigrants, the challenges they face in different provinces. One of the questions I had—I want to play the devil's advocate, because it's an interesting challenge we've been grappling with—how can we spread potential immigrants or refugees to different parts of the country, given that, generally, as you know, they tend to settle in the major centres?

If you look at other areas, whether it's Atlantic Canada or other areas, they're really calling out to get some attention for these immigrants, so I was going to ask, do you see this as potentially a positive thing or a negative thing? If there is healthy competition for certain provinces that want to try to attract immigrants, if they do have lower fees or if they do have better services, is that a way that, in the end, can create the ability for immigrants to look at other options? As you know, the idea was floated a while ago about tying citizenship to certain regions. There are problems with that. There's a host of other issues. So what would your suggestion be?

I understand the concern that can raise if you have those discrepancies, but could there not be a positive outcome in that capacity for those provinces who want to try to attract people, if they're willing to offer better services? I don't know what your thoughts are on that.

[Chris Friesen]

Some of the discussions we've had within CISSA speak to the issue of capacity. Going back to Ms. Grewal's question around how funding gets dispersed, right now it's linked to landings, immigrant landings, by and large. But the issue is.... And we face this throughout the country—it's not just Atlantic Canada, it's the smaller centres in the prairie provinces, it's the smaller centres in British Columbia, and it's about looking at how we can take taxpayers' money and have smart money around investing in capacity-building local communities.

Our fear through the competition.... And there are mobility rights under the charter; immigrants can go anywhere. The bottom line, though—and this is the big picture around social cohesion and citizenship—is if one province is offering a higher level of service and support versus another province, what's the end result? On the one hand, competition and quality services, and we can compete with one another, but, ultimately, what's the end result in that process? Is that process going to get us to our collective vision, nation-building of Canadian citizenship?

That's one of the issues we've been grappling with, that there is tremendous innovation going on with the agencies across the country, but again, it's about how we find smart money to enhance what we're doing well, what's working well, create opportunities.

As Reza pointed out, we've only been in existence seven months, but we're already seeing the impact of our work: the ability to come together nationally to look at promising practices, look at things that are working, and so forth. That's the benefit we're seeing in this regard.

This is one of the areas we're seeing. I'm not sure if my colleague from Atlantic Canada--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, that pretty well completes—

[Bridget Foster]

May I just respond?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We've got about 45 seconds here, so go ahead, Bridget, please.

[Bridget Foster]

Although we've only been in existence six or seven months, we've actually been talking about this organization for 15, 20 years. We're formal now, but we've existed for a very long time.

One point I would like to raise about the population and trying to get people to more rural areas is that it's quite encouraging that the Federation of Municipalities is really buying into this now. Just as Europe wrestled with this a good few years ago, there's a recognition you have to get a buy-in from the community. You can't just put people in a place. You have to let the community think, “This is going to work and this is what we want.” Things are beginning to move.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have three more questioners. That will take us up to 10:45.

Mr. Siksay is next.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you.

I want to go back to the question of infrastructure around settlement issues. I know that in my home community of Burnaby we've seen a significant change, I think, in where refugees settle in British Columbia. Now the city of Burnaby is getting a significant number of those folks; it's stretching the resources of the community, and it happened without warning. Partly it's related to the cost of housing in the greater Vancouver area and the fact that whereas immigrant communities may have settled closer to the urban core in the past, now it's happening in the suburbs, and Burnaby has certainly felt the pinch.

It has meant that a new health region, for instance, is involved in a lot of the health issues, and that a new school board is involved in a lot of the issues around young people and their education. There's a different city, a different municipal infrastructure, so it's tough right now in Burnaby, certainly, for refugees who are arriving.

Could you comment on suburban centres, the kind of change that seems to have happened, and the kinds of infrastructure problems that have been created? I suspect it's happening in other cities as well.

[Reza Shahbazi]

In terms of some of the problems, I have to say that we kind of joke about this. We used to say that most of the immigrants and refugees are going to MTV--Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver. Now it's CTV--Calgary, Toronto, Vancouver--and the larger cities have at least some kind of infrastructure that can take the sudden movement of immigrants and refugees.

By the way, these groups have different needs. We kind of lump all immigrants and refugees together, but each refugee group has a different need; immigrants of different categories have different needs.

The problem becomes much bigger for smaller communities. I come from Windsor, for example. Every time there is a sudden movement, even if you get just 200 or 300 extra refugees or immigrants coming to Windsor, it taxes the whole system--taxes it from the schools, which don't have room, to the hospitals. We do not have the infrastructure to be able to absorb high numbers.

It is not only settlement services. There is a Canadian saying that it takes a village to raise a child; it takes a community, as Bridget said, to settle a newcomer. It's not only the settlement services.

When we are talking about building infrastructure, that would be at least the capacity of the settlement services to work with other groups within the municipality and the community to also help them in terms of the settlement integration.

I believe the shock and the stress taxing our systems in smaller communities is much higher than in the bigger communities, even though they get a larger number of people going to those communities.