Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2018

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

I just wanted to touch on the province of Ontario. One of the pieces of information we were given was in regard to an agreement between the federal government and the Province of Ontario in 2010, which allowed a joint approach, sharing of information, etc., but it said that a similar approach had not been taken in other provinces. Is that being dealt with at this point?

I can read it out to you, if you like. It says:

In 2010, the federal government and the Province of Ontario had co-funded a system that gave the Department, the Province, and service providers real-time information on language training services. This information included how many seats were available in classes and which service providers had wait-lists.

However, the department “had not implemented a similar approach in other provinces before Syrian refugees started to arrive.”

[Marta Morgan]

Yes, that is true.

One of the interesting things about the Government of Ontario is that the government itself invests significantly in settlement services and integration services for immigrants and refugees. We have a tailored approach depending on the province, in terms of how much we collaborate with it and what we need to do. That is the case in Ontario. We have a wait-list management system with them.

One thing we're looking at right now is whether it makes sense to have a more national approach, or perhaps a more tailored local approach, province by province, depending on who is offering what kinds of services.

[Alex Nuttall, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Thank you.

I'll switch gears again. In terms of the future of Syrian refugees, from the department's perspective, what is the objective? The situation there, obviously, hasn't gotten much better on the ground yet, but hopefully one day it will.

Significant investments have already taken place. There continue to be significant investments to ensure integration and giving back to society. What's the objective overall? Will we be doing anything to ensure that these people, who obviously have received a huge amount of investment from the government, as well as from not-for-profits and Canadian citizens across the country, stay here?

[Marta Morgan]

I think that the ultimate goal for the Syrian refugees is the same as it is for all refugees Canada welcomes every year, which is full integration into Canadian society for them and for their children. By our early indications, through our early impact assessments and the close working relationships we have with the organizations that are working with them, the Syrian refugees are on trend with other refugee populations that have come here in the past, in terms of their employment, earnings, and overall settlement journey, including their early attachment to Canada. Our objective would be to see that trend continue.

One thing we note is that the children of refugees in Canada do amazingly well. For example, we see that 30% of childhood refugees complete university, compared to 24% in the general population. We see high levels of educational attainment among refugees, high levels of attachment, and high levels of moving towards citizenship. That's where we would be aiming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Nuttall.

We'll now move to Mr. Chen, please.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking the Office of the Auditor General for its work on this report, and the IRCC for its tremendous undertaking in settling the Syrian refugees. I know it has been a tremendous task to settle 45,000 Syrian refugees over the past two years.

Having read the report from the Auditor General and having heard the testimony here today at committee, I can see that the early outcomes have been very good. Despite some challenges that we have identified today with the flow of funding and the management of language training and wait-lists, this is largely a success story.

It also remains a story that is unfolding. I have had the pleasure to welcome, as some of my other colleagues have, a number of Syrian refugee families, and even helped to pack some welcome kits for them upon their arrival. What struck me the most is that some of these families include many children. Having an educational background, and having spent nine years as a school board trustee in Toronto, I can tell you that educational outcomes are a crucial measurement of successful integration. We know that schools can play a very important role as the centres of community, not only for the children but for the families as well.

The data on how the children are doing should, in my mind, be readily available from the school boards, as well as through the coordination of ministries of education across the country. My question is, have we looked at that data in terms of the educational attainment of the Syrian refugee children? How does that information, or how can it, play a role in measuring the successful integration of the families? How do we plan to use that information to more effectively target resources and supports?

Given what we know about the importance of schools, particularly among immigrant families where there are large numbers of children, looking at their education is crucial to being able to measure the success of their integration.

[Marta Morgan]

I will let Mr. Kiziltan speak to the issue of data on education and educational outcomes, but I would just note that we do have a program called settlement workers in schools. This program also received increased resources in the Syrian initiative, given the large numbers of children who were coming with the Syrian families and the need to provide additional integration supports for them in the schools.

One thing we do is communicate very regularly with our settlement provider organizations, and through them with the settlement workers in schools, etc. We do not necessarily have data in all cases yet, but we have very good feedback loops in terms of how the refugees are doing and what kinds of issues are emerging on the ground, whether it be in schools or in other areas.

I'll turn the question on the data over to my colleague.

[Ümit Kiziltan]

From the very beginning, even before the first refugees arrived, the outcomes monitoring framework was set up. There was a ministerial meeting in Ottawa with all provinces, all ministers, and we tabled this joint framework. From that moment on, we knew that we needed provincial information, as is also mentioned in the report.

However, it takes time to build those information sharing agreements. This is all private, personal information. We are negotiating with all the provinces. With Ontario, we have made a lot of progress in terms of establishing this education-wise. As you already heard, we have health data linkages with two provinces already, British Columbia and Ontario. New Brunswick and Manitoba are going to come in very soon, before the end of March. These are all attempts to ensure that the relevant performance information from provinces is reaching us so that we can monitor health and education because they are closely linked.

Another initiative we have, as you heard, is with the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Right away, from the very beginning of the movement, we initiated a huge, rapid research initiative. Over 27 projects were started, and the results are coming in. These are top academics across Canada looking at the Syrian refugee population specifically, and some of them have been zeroing in on youth, education, and schools, their integration and their challenges. The insight they are generating is essential for us to understand how trauma is affecting youth, and how mental health issues are impacting their education and integration.

These results are just beginning to come out right now, and we have a range of observations, including using more cultural brokering, if you will, so people can build bridges between refugee communities and other, already established communities. The research, more data through the information sharing agreements, and, of course, our other linked data such as income and looking at the families, will all complement our understanding of how the integration process is moving forward for young Syrians.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Do you want to follow up?

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

I just have a quick comment. I'm very happy to hear that. I know that settlement workers in schools is a great program. Having opened a centre myself a few years ago, I know that the IRCC also sets up newcomer centres, and one is in partnership with the Toronto District School Board. They are working together at the local level with municipal governments.

This is wonderful, and I'm happy to hear about the culture-relevant lens that you are applying to this, and understanding the background of some of the children. They are coming from a war-torn country where they have experienced violence, and it is important to have the perspective. Sometimes the services we have set up are just not enough. There needs to be something a bit more specialized to support their integration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you for that summary, Mr. Chen.

We'll now move to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I quite enjoyed it, Mr. Chen.

I'd like to afford Madam Cheng an opportunity to respond to the question I asked a couple of rounds ago of the two of you. The deputy had a chance. If you could, Nancy, would you be good enough to respond to the question about the outcomes monitoring framework and how they could do better?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Cheng, go ahead.

[Nancy Cheng]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will take the opportunity to make a couple of contextual comments as well. I think it is important to note that this is a significant initiative, a major undertaking. In my opening statement, I said it is three times the normal volume since 1995. Being able to bring in the people under those circumstances is, I think, important to note.

The other important point I would like to make is in our conclusion. For every audit, the methodology requires that we make a conclusion, and the conclusion is that they have provided these selected programs. We didn't look at all services. The services we looked at were provided when they were needed. I think that's important to note. That's to the point that several members have spoken to.

What we've observed is really ways to see whether we can enhance things. Nothing is ever perfect. While we are doing well overall, there is a need to ask if there is room for improvement, and how that can be done so that we can further the programs in the future. A bit of it was about accountability, but I think a good part of it was looking forward, to see how this can benefit future refugee programs.

I have a couple of comments, if I may. First of all, just now, we talked a fair bit about working with service organizations and how, post-audit, there has been more information about how some of them weren't able to get the funding when the department was indeed in a position to give it to them.

It seems to me that it behooves us to help smaller organizations access that, because if they don't have the assurance that the funding is going to be there, it's very difficult for them to implement programs, especially when they are smaller organizations. There seems to be a bit more of a challenge for us, and it's a challenge that we need to rise to in order to help them get there, because ultimately, to do a lot of this work, we're relying on these 500 service organizations. That's the point I want to make.

To the point that was raised by the member about the outcome framework, it's absolutely essential that we have a framework like that. We're very happy that a framework has been laid out. They were looking at different steps, initially looking at some performance indicators for different periods, then having some rapid evaluation to see quickly on the ground whether things are going in the right direction, and doing some research. The overall framework is described in the report, and we're quite happy with that.

A member also pointed out that there was a lot of detail in the management action plan. We noted that too. We haven't audited the management action plan, but it looks quite comprehensive to us.

The important thing to do now is to make sure that all the steps in the management action plan get implemented. Especially for the outcome, knowing what's happening on the ground is quite significant in terms of knowing how to deploy resources if there are resources remaining to be deployed in this area. Also, in carrying out settlement services and programs in the future, it is important to understand whether there are things we can learn from this exercise. This is a big exercise, involving large numbers, and maybe there are more areas we can learn lessons from.

The linkages and the need to get information from the provinces are absolutely critical. Just now, members raised the question, “What's the ultimate purpose? What can we hope to accomplish?” We are a compassionate people. We are helping refugees and bringing them into the country, but we're also hoping they will contribute to the Canadian community.

There is a need for us to help them be capable so that they can contribute. The outcome discussion, in terms of education, is absolutely crucial, as is health care.

If people come from war-torn countries, there are mental health issues. Do we know whether they are supported? The indicators also speak to the fact that some of the children will have special needs. To what extent do we know about them, and to what extent are those needs being addressed? The broader Canadian population has learning deficiencies in our school system. How do we help our refugee population deal with that as well? The family members have a large population of school-age children, so we need to really look after them.

It's really trying to support the point that the management action plan is there. We have to make sure it gets implemented, and we need to get the information on how well they are ultimately integrating so that we can move forward.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Can I squeeze in a quick question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Please be very quick.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

At the risk of this becoming a love-in, I want to move to another subject.

I want to come back to the funding thing because it seems to me, and I could be wrong—

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

We're over our time, but go ahead. If we have time, we can come back to you.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—Saint-Lambert, QC]

Finish the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

With the patience of the rest, we will give Mr. Christopherson much extra time.

Go ahead.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. I will try to be very brief.

I think in my community there might have been at least one group impacted by that funding. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that there was at least one.

Here is the question I have. You approach NGOs, for the most part, and you say to them, “We're pretty sure that this money is going to be here and we want you to upfront it.” Now, clearly there was a gap of 12% at least, and that's where I want to focus, because for those 12% there was some harm done in some communities.

Here is what I don't get. If the government is saying to them, look, you're all but sure.... What percentage was the government telling these NGOs? Was it 98% guaranteed, in which case those who wouldn't take the risk look like they should be a little less cautious? However, if you said to them that there is a 70% to 80% chance they're going to get it, I can see board members, especially in this day and age, saying, “Wait a minute. Given the way politics goes in this country, I'm not going to justify our spending $200,000 that we may end up not having.”

How did that happen? How did we go so far?

I'll finish with this. I'm assuming that you couldn't give them a 100% commitment, because that would be a decision. It was something less than 100%, but how much? Where was the problem? Was it with these groups that should have taken signals that the money would be there? Was that the problem? Or did the government fail to signal sufficiently that it would not leave them high and dry, and they would be okay, like 99%?

Help me understand, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Ms. Morgan or Mr. Manicom, go ahead.

[David Manicom]

I'll do my best. We're getting into fairly technical territory here.

At the time, we were renewing our entire settlement programs funding arrangements, not just for Syrian refugees but for everyone. Those agreements had already been renewed for an additional year because of the election cycle, so we were in that process. Our increased, but not infinite, number of staff were renewing 700 agreements.

Then we received information that we would have supplemental funding re-profiled for Syria. That required the amendment of many of those 700 agreements, which we were in the process of renewing. We had to make a management decision as to whether or not to continue down the path and get the 700 renewals done, or interrupt it in order to do the amendments at the same time.

We took the management decision to not put the 700 renewals at any risk and to make sure we got them all done, with money in the organizations for the start of the fiscal year on April 1.

That meant that we had to say to many organizations, “You will receive additional Syria money. It will not be in your bank account on April 1, and we cannot tell you definitively how much or exactly on what date you will have it.”

This is my understanding. If we have to correct any details, we will correct them.

We made a management risk decision. Most organizations said, “We understand. We're going to get an additional x hundred thousand dollars, and it will come during the fiscal year. We will do the programming. We will spend the money.” A small number decided not to, and they waited until we could do formal financial initiation.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You explained it to me, but you still haven't closed the gap.