In the fall of 1998, another questionnaire was developed for CIC personnel. Names of six individuals (responsible for Lethbridge/Medicine Hat, Red Deer, Calgary and Edmonton) were provided to us through the Edmonton CIC office. Each of the designated persons was subsequently interviewed by telephone (see Appendix III B, Volume 3 for interview protocol). The results of these interviews appear in Tables 9-16. Again, we were primarily interested in issues around destining of refugees, level of support in each community and factors which might affect a refugee’s decision to stay or leave a given community.
As can be seen in Table 9, it is the consensus that most refugees stay in the place where they were destined; however, if do they leave, it is generally fairly quickly after arrival. Each respondent felt that her own community was capable of doubling the number of refugees currently destined there (as long as the funding increased as well) (see Table 10). The respondents from the smaller communities were asked to comment on the level of support available to their clients. Their contrasting replies can be found in Table 11.
When asked about the advantages of destining all refugees to Calgary and Edmonton, the interviewees from the smaller centres saw none. All respondents felt that there were disadvantages to limiting the destining to the two larger centres (see Table 12). The respondents were also asked to comment on the pros and cons of destining refugees to their own communities; in each case they identified more advantages than disadvantages (see Table 13). The CIC personnel were queried about secondary migration, but they were only able to talk about individuals who had arrived within their first year and were thus still eligible for federal funding; individuals who arrived after their first year in Canada, or who found a job right away, would not be in contact with CIC (see Table 14).
We asked CIC staff to comment on the criteria that are currently being used to destine refugees to their communities. All suggested some factors that they believe are taken into consideration overseas (see Table 15), but some noted that a better policy should be put in place to make realistic matches (see Table 16).
Table
9
Number of people who leave in a year and length of stay before they leave:
CIC respondents
|
|
||
| City | Number of people | Length of stay |
|
|
||
| Calgary | Most stay (two left recently) | Within the first few weeks |
| Edmonton | 50 have transferred out mostly to BC, Ontario and southern Alberta More people come than leave | Usually go right away if they are going to go, they know they are going to leave before they arriveSome go to Cargill foods after 7-8 months |
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat | Never a large number, 5-6 families per year | Leave within two months, if not then they stay until their language training is complete |
| Red Deer | Depends on group- Ethiopians/Polish/ Vietnamese stayed- Serbs left because of hostilities with Bosnians | Before the year is up |
|
| ||
Table
10
Community’s capacity for refugees: CIC respondents
|
|
|
| City | Capacity |
|
|
|
| Calgary | Double (if there is an increase in funding) |
| Edmonton | Double (if there is an increase in funding) Funding is crucial, because the number one priority is quality of service |
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat | Double, if we have the funding (there was a 26% decrease in provincial funding to settlement agencies in small centres and a 1% decrease in large centres) |
| Red Deer | We could deal with double the number very well, if we have the funding |
|
|
|
Table
11
The level of settlement support in smaller centres compared to other communities:
CIC respondents
|
|
|
| City | Support |
|
|
|
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat | More mainstream services in Lethbridge that in Medicine HatLethbridge has comparable services to Calgary or Edmonton, but there are substantial barriers to access of mainstream servicesMore opportunities to meet Canadians (the ethnic communities are smaller)Edmonton and Calgary are overwhelming to people from smaller centres. |
| Red Deer | Community works together, Edmonton and Calgary are still small enough to do that,People in the community get involved,work closely with the City council. |
|
|
|
Table
12
The pros and cons of destining all refugees to Edmonton and Calgary: CIC respondents
|
|
||
| City | Pros | Cons |
|
|
||
| Calgary |
- Easier for CIC - Problems between ethnic groups in small centres (because they have greater contact with each other) |
- Small centres have a lot to offer |
| Edmonton |
- More employment opportunities in large centres - Refugees don’t want to stay in Fort McMurray and Grande Prairie, because they aren’t cosmopolitan enough - Accommodation and cost of living issues in Grande Prairie and Fort McMurray - Travel to larger centres is difficult |
- Would not have diversity throughout the province |
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat | - None |
- Lethbridge would lose diversity and growth potential - Big cities are isolating and have a cattle feedlot approach |
| Red Deer | - None |
- All Canada needs to be populated not just large centres - Small centres offer more personal approach |
|
|
||
Table
13
The pros and cons of destining refugees to own community: CIC respondents
|
|
||
| City | Pros | Cons |
|
|
||
| Calgary |
- Jobs - Large ethnic communities |
- Lack of housing - Cost of living too high |
| Edmonton |
- Low cost of living Jobs available - Very good services (NGO’s excellent) - Good community support |
- Ethnic communities are not as large as Toronto - Expensive housing |
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat |
- Breathing space, place to take stock - Opportunities to meet Canadians |
- None |
| Red Deer | - Jobs and support (work quickly to alleviate problems) | - New groups stand out |
|
|
||
Table
14
Number of individuals who come to community as secondary migrants: CIC respondents
|
|
|
| City | Number of refugees |
|
|
|
| Calgary | 130 transfers this year from Ontariojobs and people from the same culture draw them |
| Edmonton | 92 transfers this year, mostly from BC and Ontariothey come to join family and friends and for jobs |
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat | Don’t know. The people who come to work don’t receive government assistance, so we don’t hear about them |
| Red Deer | Somethey come to join family and friends and for jobs |
|
|
|
Table
15
Criteria CIC respondents believe are currently being used for destining policy
|
|
|
| City | Criteria |
|
|
|
| Calgary | Don’t know. They need to know what the communities have to offer. We give them feedback on which groups aren’t settling well |
| Edmonton | Where their family members are, where an ethnic community exists, target numbers |
| Lethbridge/Medicine Hat | Education, occupation, availability of work, wishes of refugee, where their family and friends are |
| Red Deer | The support systems in the community. We used to send information to the regional and national offices |
|
|
|
Table
16
Criteria that CIC respondents believe should be considered when destining refugees
|
|
|
| City | Criteria |
|
|
|
| Calgary | The cost of living |
| Edmonton | Location of family and friends, available services, ethnic community support, unemployment rates |
| Lethbridge/ Medicine Hat | Overseas staff need more information about Canada and employment information |
| Red Deer | Newcomers need counseling overseas to promote realistic expectations, there also need to be supports in place; they should take into consideration what people will be doing when they arrive (i.e., employment) |
|
|
|