I am going to put the ball back into your court.
The key is to reach a critical mass of immigrants from the same ethnic or religious group. And yet, if this is your premise, I would like to be sure that the challenge for integration is not to set up ghettos or ensure that there is some place where 200 Congolese can set up their own institutions. The purpose of integration should be to enable these people to become full citizens. Based on your example, I do not get the impression that this is the case.
We are increasing the number of immigrants, but are we increasing the resources that will be needed for cultural purposes? Is the community making more efforts to assume responsibility for these individuals? I do not know.
Are you aware of programs that worked well? For example, in Sherbrooke or, more recently, in Saint-Hyacinthe, immigrants were retained because of work. Your document does not mention work whatsoever. When we talk about it, it is all very interesting and lots of things are discussed. There is this action plan and what is really happening, which perhaps explains why it is as though this was well done in a vacuum. I get the impression that this action plan was put together very quickly in order to satisfy I do not know what need, but it does not reflect reality. That is too bad.
I have the impression, when I read this action plan, that people are not aware of the work that you are doing and of all the efforts made.
You said that the local coordinating structures will emerge from the communities. You also talked about networks. You said that you have been given funding. However, these groups have just had their funding cut off.
How can we, as a state, as a government, base our objectives on groups when we know that they do not have the means to do this work?