In the course of this study we learned how the refugees perceived their settlement experiences, not only in terms of the services provided, but also in regard to the openness of the communities to which they had been destined. Their views on factors that contribute to settlement and those which serve as barriers to integration are compared here with the views of the general public. Refugees’ knowledge of Canada and expectations prior to arrival will be discussed first, followed by their initial experiences in their communities and their perceptions of cultural diversity, community acceptance, and discrimination. The respondents’ opinions on issues that are important for living in Canada, including advice to other newcomers and to Canadians in general, will be reviewed, as will their attitudes towards taking Canadian citizenship.
All the individuals in this study have undergone a stressful experience in moving to Canada. They have left behind conditions that were considered to be threatening to their survival. For some, fleeing to Canada happened relatively quickly, but 32% of the adult interviewees spent time in refugee camps; 60% of these individuals were confined for over a year. In some instances the conditions within the camps were appalling, as is apparent in the following accounts: "Life in refugee camp in Turkey was very horrifying. Our food and water was poisoned. We were afraid to eat or drink too much. We are happy to be in Canada, but Canadians must realize we are stateless. The Iraqis tried to kill us. We need all the help we can get. People need to be patient and understanding" (respondent 0952). "I feel fortunate to come to Canada as I am from a war-torn country and have lived in horrifying conditions in refugee camps in Saudi Arabia" (0350). " I was in a refugee camp for six years. I was tired and needed to heal" (0020).
When the adult refugees were asked what their hopes and expectations were when they learned they were destined for Canada, approximately 8% said that they had none. "I was so depressed. I did not expect anything – just to live and work" (0422). The rest of the responses were very general in nature; very few people had specific notions of what awaited them. Twenty-one percent reported that they simply hoped for a better or more normal life for themselves or their children, free of war. "I did not expect to get rich; I expected to live quietly and to prevent my son from getting into some stupid war" (2251). "I wanted my children to get an education and have a better life" (1341). Some individuals had somewhat more defined expectations: 14% speculated that they would find a job; a subset of this group (3%) anticipated reentering their own profession. "My expectations were to find any type of job and the long term goal would be to get closer and closer to my profession" (2491). Another 3% hoped to become financially secure and 1% thought that they would have a higher standard of living than in their home country. Three percent of the individuals interviewed thought that they would have a difficult transition period.
When the participants were asked what they knew about Canada before coming, the majority indicated that they knew nothing or just a little; only 13% reported that they knew a lot (see Figure 7-1). In an open-ended question, however, some individuals discussed how Canada had been portrayed to them, either at an embassy or in refugee camps. They suggested that the information they received was either misleading or insufficient. "When they interview you in the refugee camps, they ask you about training and what would you do in Canada. I have agricultural experience and I thought I was going to find a job in that area. The immigration officers in Kenya made me feel I could get a job here. But now they are asking for Canadian experience" (1911). "Consulates should give truth about life in Canada" (1382). "The Canadian Embassy in Belgrade and the people who worked there did not make us sure about expectations and our future in Canada. They provided no useful information for us" (2991). "Advice to employees in Canadian Embassy abroad: They should make more contacts with people, explain to them how Canada is" (0101). "People working in Canadian Embassy should have provided us with more useful information, they should be more informative" (1802).
In order to come to Canada, the refugees in our sample required direct financial support in addition to settlement services. One quarter of the refugees were privately sponsored, either by church groups, ethno-cultural organizations, family members or other individuals. Another 3% took part in the 3-9 program, in which the federal government and private sponsors shared responsibility for the newcomers, and 72% of refugees were sponsored by the government. Of those who reported private sponsorship, 63% said that they continue to maintain contact with their sponsors. Thirty-two percent of the refugees participated in a host program; of those, 60% still have contact with their hosts.
The extent to which refugees accessed settlement services can be found in Chapter 6. To recapitulate the main findings, the most heavily used service was English language instruction, followed by help finding housing. A wide variety of settlement services are provided across the province, but the consensus of the refugees was that they were not supplied with sufficient language training and that they needed more support in obtaining good jobs. "Government should offer more opportunities to learn English as this is so important" (1090); "Give us language skills to be able to compete" (3042); "Refugees come here wanting to have a job. I think the government should have some kind of plan and agency to help those with skills to get jobs quickly, so they can contribute back to society" (0980).
The benefits of living in a particular city and how welcoming a community is to newcomers can be gauged both by the views elicited in the public opinion survey and in the reaction of the refugees to their new homes. (For a comparison of urban Albertans with national norms with regard to these issues, see Chapter 4). We asked the residents in the seven cities their views of Canadian Immigration Policy, that is, whether there are too many, too few, or about the right number of immigrants coming to Canada. As can be seen in Table 4-23 (Chapter 4), the respondents did not differ in their replies from one city to the next. Forty-four percent felt that the federal government is admitting the right number, while 39% felt that too many immigrants are entering the country each year. Two thirds of the public stated that there is a good balance of people from different races and cultures coming to Canada, and a large majority of respondents (79%) felt that immigrants and refugees should be allowed to sponsor immediate family members. When asked whether immigration should be restricted to those who can speak an official language, 76% said no; however, 42% thought that refugee and immigrant parents should pay for their own children’s ESL training, and another 16% thought they should pay if it was affordable.
The residents of the seven cities were also asked about their own knowledge of and personal contact with refugees and immigrants. The majority of respondents were aware that there are newcomers to Canada living in their respective cities, but only a minority were aware that there are refugees who were admitted because of life-threatening problems. There were significant differences among the respondents in the seven cities when we asked whether they personally knew any immigrants or refugees (results not shown in a table). People in Lethbridge (59%), Red Deer (55%), and Medicine Hat (55%) were less likely to be acquainted with a refugee or immigrant than the individuals interviewed in Fort McMurray (79%), Calgary (75%), Edmonton (70%) or Grande Prairie (67%). Among those in each city who know refugees or immigrants, approximately three quarters know 20 or fewer.
We also asked refugees about the degree of contact they had with Canadians and other people within their communities (See Table 7-2). Refugees living in Fort McMurray stood out in that 75% of them indicated that they spent time with "other Canadian friends" often or daily. In contrast, the average percentage of individuals from all the cities who reported spending time often/daily with Canadian friends was only 21%. Refugees in Fort McMurray also reported spending time with co-workers, other immigrants (from a different culture), and family and relatives outside their households significantly more often than did refugees in any other city. Finally, none of the Fort McMurray respondents spent any time with a sponsor family or Canadian host volunteer.
In Table 4-21 (Chapter 4) the public was asked to evaluate the openness of their respective communities in general. A number of significant differences emerge. One of the most notable contrasts is between Medicine Hat and Fort McMurray. Seventy-four percent of residents polled in Medicine Hat strongly agreed that their city is a good place to live, compared with Fort McMurray residents where only 54% strongly agreed with the same statement. Given that Medicine Hat residents are older and on average have lived longer in their city, this is not a surprising difference. When asked about jobs, residents of Calgary, Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray agreed or strongly agreed that their cities offered good employment opportunities (87%, 83% and 82% respectively). Only 60% of Edmontonians felt that job opportunities were good in that city, and southern Albertans were even less enthusiastic about employment prospects (51% in Lethbridge and 42% in Medicine Hat). When asked to rate the suitability of the cities for raising a family, a minority of Edmontonians and people in Fort McMurray strongly agreed that their cities were good in this respect. People from the other smaller centres were much more ardent about their communities. In terms of a welcoming attitude, residents of Calgary (49%), Fort McMurray (46%) and Medicine Hat (45%) were most likely to strongly agree that their communities were friendly; Lethbridge, Red Deer, Grande Prairie and Edmonton saw their communities as less welcoming (although a clear majority of residents in every city either agreed or strongly agreed that their cities are friendly). When asked about openness to newcomers, there were no significant differences across cities: in each case, between a quarter and a third of residents strongly agreed that their communities were welcoming to newcomers.
Another indicator of the openness of communities to refugees is the extent to which residents recognize the need for assistance programs to help newcomers adjust (see Table 4-24, Chapter 4 and Table 6-7, Chapter 6). When asked whether there is a need for special services, the public in Fort McMurray saw the least need (64%). There appears to be an assumption in Fort McMurray that people will manage relatively well without special services; in fact, for those refugees who have remained in the city, this is apparently the case. They have more ongoing contact with co-workers and other Canadian friends than do refugees in the other cities. Fort McMurray has also attracted a number of "movers" who were originally destined elsewhere. However, as noted in Chapter 5, the original retention rate in Fort McMurray is not high. The community seems to be open to newcomers, but it is best for immigrants who have a particular employment profile, and who are not in need of special assistance. Overall, residents of the seven host cities believed that refugees and immigrants were adjusting well in their communities. Four out of ten (39%) thought they were adjusting "very well" while 55% answered "reasonably well" to this question (Figure 7-3).